70
Republicans already have full transcripts of the conversations and now want the audio so they can pull out of context for political purposes. But, they now can't have them. Moving on...
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The House Oversight and Judiciary committees are scheduled to begin the process of holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with those subpoenas on Thursday.
The White House pointed out that the Department of Justice has already provided the transcripts of the special counsel’s interviews with Biden and his ghostwriter, and has complied with the other aspects of the initial subpoena from Republicans.
“With the information you now have, the Committees ought not proceed with contempt and should instead avoid unnecessary and unwarranted conflict,” Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs, Carlos Uriarte wrote.
Without the votes in their narrow majority or evidence of an impeachable offense, Republicans are now struggling with how to end their probe and are looking for ways to target other members of the Biden administration.
In their contempt reports, Republicans stated that the DOJ does not get to determine what information is useful to their investigation, and argued that the verbal nuances of an audio recording provide unique insight into a subject that are not reflected in a transcript.
Such pauses and inflections, Republicans claim, “can provide indications of a witness’s ability to recall events, or whether the individual is intentionally giving evasive or nonresponsive testimony to investigators.”
The original article contains 718 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
70 points (100.0% liked)
politics
18601 readers
5280 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS