Recommending That the House of Representatives Find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with A Subpoena Duly Issued By the Committee on the Judiciary

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleagues discussing the rule of law, I find it shocking because the average American is looking across their country wondering what happened to the rule of law.

I watch my fellow Texans getting destroyed by dangerous cartels and individuals being allowed into the United States who are terrorists and people moving fentanyl into the communities that killed six kids in the school district in which I live. That is happening every single day.

I watched a 75-year-old woman being put in prison by a politically motivated judge in the District of Columbia because she protested in front of an abortion clinic.

I want to say that again: This Department of Justice is putting a 75- year-old woman in jail for 2 years who is dealing with physical infirmities because she was praying and protesting in front of an abortion clinic.

That is astounding. That is what has happened to the rule of law. The American people are watching while statues are being defaced in the name of being pro-Palestinian, and people who are exercising their so- called free speech rights are advancing the cause of terrorism against our friends in Israel.

All this is happening right here, mere feet from the White House, and the American people are wondering how this world got turned upside down.

Here we sit, and we are debating the issue of the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, coming before the House Judiciary Committee just a little over 1 week ago. In that hearing, a number of questions were asked.

I engaged with the Attorney General. I asked the Attorney General if he did or did not claim privilege with respect to the transcripts of the audio recording in question when we were talking about Special Counsel Hur looking into the allegations of the abuse of classified materials by the President of the United States before he was President.

I asked him, and he said: No, no. We did not claim executive privilege with respect to the transcripts.

In a separate exchange involving the best evidence rule, the Attorney General was engaging with another colleague, a friend on the Judiciary Committee, about the best evidence rule and, in doing so, articulated and explained how the transcript was admissible under the best evidence rule, which is correct, but in doing so, he kind of gave up the game in which he described and said: They are the same.

He said to the committee: They are the same.

Now, he had just told me that they did not claim executive privilege with respect to the transcript. Then he said to all of us: They are the same. The audio recording and the transcript are the same.

Then he proceeds to say that he must, in defending the rule of law, claim executive privilege on the actual audio, and then he denied the Members of Congress the ability in the middle of an impeachment inquiry, duly constituted and voted on by this body on the House floor, an impeachment inquiry, to then deny us the ability to listen to the audio.

The fact of the matter is there is only one reason why the Attorney General would do that. He doesn't want us to hear it. That is why. There are really only two reasons why that would be the case. Either the transcript doesn't match the audio, or the audio is so bad that he doesn't want us to hear it because Special Counsel Hur put the entirety of his decision not to prosecute, not to pursue, and not to go after the President of the United States for abuse of classified materials entirely on the basis of what we perceive as the demeanor of the President. Only the audio can allow Congress the ability to determine the validity of that determination by the special counsel.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source