Do you know that the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, was being charged with contempt of congress by two different house committees? Do you know why?
If you rely on what passes for our mainstream media you probably have little or no idea of either. so let’s go to excerpts from Victor Nava’s article for the New York Post – one of the relatively few venues actually covering this major story, to get the answers:
The House Oversight Committee announced Monday it will move forward with contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Merrick Garland over his refusal to comply with a subpoena for audio recordings of President Biden’s interview with former Special Counsel Robert Hur.
Hur investigated the 81-year-old president’s handling of classified documents, and released transcripts of the pair’s interaction revealed the president confused key dates during the sitdowns.
The Justice Department has provided Congress with a transcript of Hur’s Oct. 8 and Oct. 9 interviews with Biden, which showed the president forgetting such things as the year his son Beau died of brain cancer and the year Donald Trump was elected president.
The attorney general has refused to provide lawmakers with audio tapes of the lengthy interviews, with the DOJ fearing that they will be used to score political points.
Interesting, to say the least
A quick review:
Hur’s report specifically charged Joe Biden with overtly illegal activity regarding classified documents. Its exact words:
“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.”
But Hur then let Biden off the hook with this frankly pathetic explanation of why, in his opinion, a jury would not convict him:
“Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory…someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.”
In other words, there is no doubt that he broke the law. But, in Hur’s opinion, a jury wouldn’t convict him. Why? Because Joe Biden is a doddering old guy with memory loss.
Let’s stop here for a moment so I can ask a question: would someone please explain to me how this “explanation” makes him a viable president? I’m not talking about for the next four years, I’m talking about right now.
When Donald Trump retained classified documents, he was President. A President can unilaterally unclassify documents. But that is conveniently forgotten by our current Democrat-weaponized “justice” system.
When Joe Biden retained classified documents he was Vice President – and, as I’ve read in several different accounts, he retained documents from when he was a Senator as well. A Vice President or Senator has no ability to unclassify anything. So he must be charged under the same laws as they’re trying to use against Donald Trump.
But….
…if the argument is that they shouldn’t do so because, while he broke the law, he would not be convicted due to his cognitive decline, what the EFF is he doing as President of the United States?
Now, taking all of the above into account, of course the house would want to hear those audio tapes. Without them, all we have is Robert Hur’s subjective judgment – not evidence, not proof, just his subjective evaluation – that Biden is too cognitively gone for a jury to convict him.
Does it not stand to reason that, given the gravity of the situation/the fact that it determines whether Biden should be charged with felonies, others should be able to make their own judgments as well?
But Attorney General, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden’s hand-picked Attorney General, is obviously trying to prevent them from doing so, even at risk of a contempt charge.
Now, why do you suppose?
