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

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in American history, a Presidential administration is trying to jail its opponent, and not just any opponent, but a former President of the United States.

To pursue this objective, Mr. Biden's Attorney General approved an unprecedented armed raid on a former President's home, despite strenuous objections by career officials and the local field office that normally would have had jurisdiction.

He then created a new position without the constitutional requirement of congressional action or Senate confirmation. He filled that position with one Jack Smith, despite the central role Smith had played in the IRS scandal that targeted and harassed Tea Party volunteers and despite a long history of prosecutorial misconduct.

The cooked-up charge was the mishandling of classified documents.

Shortly thereafter, we discovered that as Vice President, Joe Biden had done the same thing, yet, as President, Mr. Trump had absolute authority to declassify materials at will, as Vice President Joe Biden did not.

As President, Mr. Trump had absolute authority to determine what records to keep upon leaving office. As Vice President, Joe Biden did not. Yet, the Biden administration's appointed special counsel in the Biden case concluded that although Biden had ``willfully retained and disclosed classified materials . . . when he was a private citizen,'' criminal charges were not warranted because he is ``a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.''

Well, the principal justification for this glaring double standard in the handling of these two cases was the interview with Mr. Biden, yet all we have is the unverified transcript to determine the validity of this otherwise inexplicable decision.

Mr. Biden cannot claim executive privilege. This was not a policy discussion, and he has already released the transcript. It is vital that our committee know if the transcript is complete and whether it accurately portrays the circumstances under which that decision was made.

Two Trump officials have been sentenced to prison for their failure to honor congressional subpoenas, and that case was far weaker than this one because at the time, Congress was not exercising oversight or considering legislation.

In this case, the Judiciary Committee is doing both. Yet once again, we have this glaring legal double standard at play.

I expect the Attorney General to thumb his nose at the citation. We have come to expect that of him. However, the House Judiciary Committee is charged with defending and upholding the rule of law and its fundamental principle of equal justice under the law. If we are going to restore them, this resolution is an indispensable step that we must take today.

Mr. Speaker, the American justice system is the pride of our Nation. It is the envy of the world. Its central principle is the equal application of justice under law.

This is why justice is depicted as blindfolded. It doesn't matter who comes before it; all are to be treated equally. It is this central principle that gives the law its legitimacy. Without it, the law becomes raw force devoid of legitimacy, and respect for the law gives way to the law of the jungle. This is the well-trodden path many nations before us have taken to despotism and ruin.

It is the responsibility of the House Judiciary Committee to protect the rule of law and its equal application. It is our responsibility to guard our Nation against the convulsions that have commonly afflicted banana republics whenever a ruling party tries to jail its opponents.

The radically different handling of the documents cases involving Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden should ring alarm bells in every corner of the land.

The principal justification for this radical, unequal application of law is the interview that the Judiciary Committee seeks through ancient constitutional prerogatives.

It is vital that we understand the whole context of this decision, to verify the accuracy of the transcript, and to determine the extent that this conversation informed the decision that strikes at the heart not only of our rule of law but the right of the American people to guide their own destiny through fair, free, and unfettered elections.

Congress has a constitutional right and a constitutional duty to seek this information, and the Attorney General has a legal obligation to provide it, an obligation he refuses to honor.

This Congress has enforced this prerogative in past cases under far less demanding circumstances than these.

In order to assure that we have discharged our responsibilities, we have to compel the Attorney General to discharge his, and that is what this citation seeks to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source