We may have a historic Constitutional battle in the next two weeks between congress and the regime

If you pay attention you may recall that weeks ago congress appointed a Special Counsel to "investigate" whether biden illegally took classified documents with him when he left the White House in 2017.

That Counsel, Robert Hur, concluded that biden had indeed done that, but that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case to trial because biden would be viewed as a senile old man with a poor memory.

Thus just as FBI director James Comey testified to congress when Hilliary Clinton was found to have over 35,000 classified emails stored on her unsecured, unencrytped personal email server in her home, "No U.S. attorney would prosecute" because she didn't intend to break the law."

Of course the laws on classified don't allow exceptions for "I didn't intend," but that didn't stop the FBI director from simply making shit up.

Similarly, Robert Hur's report admitted biden was guilty but unilaterally re-wrote the law to say "Eh, we'd never prosecute so you're good to go."

With that as background: Since congress appointed the Special Counsel, congress theoretically owned the work product.  Garland turned over what he claimed was a totally accurate transcript of the several hours of interviews Hur conducted.  But then a few members of the House said "Okay, but we want the audiotapes of the interview."

Garland refused.

Now: there is NO legal justification for Garland to withhold the audio.  None.  The regime cannot invoke "executive privilege" because the president was not asking Hur for advice.

The regime can't claim the "national security exemption," because IF the transcript is totally accurate--as Garland claims--then since he's released it without restriction, the transcript must not contain any national security information, meaning if the transcript is accurate, the audio wouldn't either, eh?

So why is Garland still refusing to give congress that which it lawfully has the right to have?  He refuses to say, leading rational adults to conclude that it's because biden's handlers believe if voters hears the audio it would damage biden's re-election chances.  Whoa, can't allow THAT, eh?

So earlier this month the House voted to hold the lawbreaking Garland in contempt of congress.

Garland probably laughed,.  And as you already guessed, the "justice department" he heads quickly decreed that they would not prosecute their boss--for anything.

Congress can't force the DOJ to prosecute, but if it wants to retain the Constitutional authority to ensure the president enforces the laws, it can--and must--demand the audio.  Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says she'll introduce a resolution directing the Sergeant at Arms of the House to arrest and detain Garland until he turns over the audio of the interview, but I doubt the resolution will be introduced, let alone approved.  FBI has too much dirt on GOP congressmen.

The House has had the power to arrest government officials for contempt but has not used it in almost 100 years.

So even though congress has this power, like all power struggles, if congress is too scared to use it, the power vanishes forever.

If congress is forced to depend on the Executive branch to enforce a contempt charge on an employee of the Executive branch, as has happened here, and the executive refuses to prosecute the party in contempt, then Congress doesn't really have any power to reign in a lawless president, short of impeachment.  

Frankly I don't believe Republicans will have enough votes to pass this.

Now: there's a reason the first article of our Constitution concerns the powers of congress. The idea was that the people were represented by those they elected, and while a single man--the president--might go rogue, it was far less likely for a majority of the 535 members of congress to go off the rails.  And obviously one avenue to compel a wayward president to obey the law was impeachment.

But congress also had the power to compel individual members of the Executive branch to obey the law, by means short of impeachment.  This is the power at stake in this fight.

It's a toss-up as to whether corrupt RINO Mike Johnson will allow Paulina Luna's resolution to come to the floor, and even more doubtful that if it does, the GOP will have the votes to pass.  Assuming the Democrats all vote for their preznit--as they almost always do--the GOP can only survive three defections.

This is one of the clearest examples of how, bit by bit, almost unnoticeably, the original brilliant balance envisioned by the Founders vanishes and one corrupt man--with the help of the permanent Deep State (life-long government employees who feel free to defy a president they don't want to obey, and free to break all laws for Dem presidents, like corrupt joe)--ends up running everything.

Of course to Democrats that's just fine--as long as the dictator is from their party.

Source.

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=410244