In response to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s refusal to turn over audio recordings from a special counsel probe into President Joe Biden, House Republicans paved the way for a floor vote on the matter as early as Wednesday.

“The Justice Department sent the president’s interview transcript to legislators, which featured former special counsel Robert K. Hur. However, in spite of subpoenas from the House Oversight and Accountability Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, the agency declined to make the tape available.”

“Invoking executive privilege over the tapes last month, Biden asserted his authority to withhold material in order to safeguard the executive branch’s capacity to consult and make choices away from the public eye.”
“Republicans on the House Rules Committee, which on Tuesday passed a closed rule pertaining to the contempt measure, stated that the contempt case is simple. Garland has refused to comply with Congress’ legitimate audio demands.

This is the query: What would happen if they were to win the vote and hold AG Garland accountable for violating Congress’s laws?

I believe we are all aware of the response to it. After all, it’s happened before.

Naturally, this is a beneficial step, but it is mainly symbolic. Garland’s Justice Department will not participate in any grand jury trials. Just as President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder was found guilty of contempt for Operation Fast and Furious in 2012, nothing will happen now. There isn’t enough time for the courts to consider the Justice Department’s long-standing argument that executive privilege cases are exempt from contempt laws.

“A report from the Congressional Research Service states that the Justice Department has determined time and again that an executive branch official “who is protecting the President’s claim of executive privilege” is exempt from the application of contempt legislation.”

Here are some key points to consider: We likely won’t pursue this issue excessively. The House is holding the AG responsible for his refusal to assist a congressional inquiry into serious concerns, which is a smart political move. But barring a miracle, Merrick Garland will be leaving the position in January to make room for a new attorney general. He’ll likely start a new job as a talking head for MSNBC or another left-leaning media organization. Without a doubt, Garland is the most politically motivated AG of our day, driven more by politics than by any sense of justice or morality. Nevertheless, he is, as we used to say in the Army, “so short he can limbo-dance under a door,” when someone’s time was running out of enlistment. He will still be subject to grand jury oversight as a private citizen, but it is quite doubtful that anything more will happen than this mainly symbolic vote.

Regarding Merrick Garland and his future endeavors, one thing seems definite, and we can attribute it to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY): Merrick Garland will not and will not serve on the Supreme Court. That’s sufficient for now.