The congressional debate over the conclusions of the Mueller report is entangled in an equally fierce fight over access to the document and its witnesses. Attorney General William Barr has repeatedly declined Democrats’ requests to release the unredacted report and question key witnesses on the lawmakers’ terms. In return, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., launched a House Judiciary Committee vote on whether to hold Barr in contempt of Congress — a move that prompted the White House to invoke executive privilege over the entirety of the Mueller report. The House Judiciary Committee votes on whether to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress The House Judiciary Committee voted 24-16 on Wednesday to hold Barr in contempt of Congress. Now, the issue will go before the full House, where it will likely spark a torrent of legal debates about the balance of power. “The reality is that we’re in a space that no one really knows what the right answer is,” said Philip Hackney, professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. Here’s what we do know. What is contempt of Congress? The charge has existed since 1795, when the House of Representatives asserted that its power to legislate gave it the inherent ability to prosecute individuals for impeding Congress. It is a complicated piece of law, and can be used to pursue either a criminal or civil offense. The criminal offense, made law in the 1930s, is a misdemeanor, and happens when a witness or documents are requested but the person involved “willfully makes default, or … refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry.” What is the process? First, either the full House or Senate must pass a resolution naming the person(s) and charging them with contempt of Congress. Democrats seem to have enough House votes currently to do this. Next, the case moves to the local U.S. attorney, usually in Washington, D.C., to prosecute. Reminder: That U.S. attorney, like all U.S. attorneys, works for the Justice Department — and the attorney general. Would the Justice Department prosecute the attorney general? In a statement late Wednesday, the Department of Justice said that Barr “could not comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena without violating the law, court rules, and court orders, and without threatening the independence of the Department’s prosecutorial functions.” “No one, including Chairman Nadler and his Committee, will force the Department of Justice to break the law,” the department added. In recent years, the Justice Department has declined to move on contempt charges involving either the attorney general or any executive official. “It’s a fascinating situation in democracy,” Hackney said, pointing out that these cases very quickly go to court. “It is a strict separation of powers question.” In recent years, the Justice Department has declined to move on contempt charges involving either the attorney general or any executive official. So, what have courts said? The short answer is that courts have upheld Congress’ theoretical power in similar situations. The long answer? In reality, those same courts have refused to enforce that power, usually returning mixed decisions that accept and reject some arguments by both sides. What has happened in the past? The two most recent cases of this constitutional standoff involved former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012 and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in 2008. Both conflicts ended the same way: the contempt charge was stuck in a court battle for so long that a new president and Congress were elected. Those cases never made it to the Supreme Court because American voters elected new presidents (and new administration officials took office along with them). What could a contempt charge mean for Barr? Recent contempt of Congress charges against executive branch officials, including the attorney general, have not led to any consequences for those officials because courts are reluctant to enforce them. That has meant, for the past decade, Congress’ contempt power has effectively had no teeth.<doc-sep>The Department of Justice blasted House Democrats’ decision Wednesday to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress as “politically motivated and unnecessary.” “The only side who has made accommodations is the Attorney General, who made extraordinary efforts to provide Congress and the public with information about the Special Counsel’s work,” the DOJ noted in a press statement Wednesday. Barr is unable “to comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena without violating the law, court rules, and court orders,” the statement added. “It is deeply disappointing that elected representatives of the American people have chosen to engage in such inappropriate political theatrics,” the statement added. The House Judiciary Committee, led by New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, voted to hold Barr in contempt for not giving the committee special counsel Robert Mueller’s full, unredacted report. Nadler, a Democrat, scheduled the congressional contempt vote for Wednesday at 10 a.m., after which all Democrats present voted to advance a vote to hold Barr in contempt of Congress in the procedural vote. The vote to hold Barr in contempt occurred Wednesday afternoon. (RELATED: House Judiciary Committee Votes To Hold Barr In Contempt of Congress) House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, blasted Nadler in a statement Monday, saying the House Judiciary Committee chairman’s request would require Barr to break the law. Other Republicans shared similar sentiments. “Chairman Nadler knows full subpoena compliance requires Attorney General Barr to break the law. Yet, instead of introducing legislation allowing the attorney general to provide Congress grand jury material, Democrats move to hold him in contempt,” Collins said in the statement. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio joined his fellow Republican, telling House members Wednesday that “Democrats are nervous he’s gonna get to the bottom of everything.” Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.<doc-sep>The House Judiciary Committee is voting to hold Attorney General William Barr Bill BarrWatchdog group suing for Trump obstruction memo blasts DOJ for trying to block release Biden DOJ to appeal court order to release Trump obstruction memo CNN reporter's phone and email records secretly obtained by Trump administration: report MORE in contempt of Congress and to secure a vote of the entire House of Representatives in order to send the matter to federal court. The problem is that the contempt action against Barr is long on action and short on contempt. Indeed, with a superficial charge, the House could seriously undermine its credibility in the ongoing conflicts with the White House. Congress is right on a number of complaints against the White House, including possible cases of contempt, but this is not one of them. As someone who has represented the House of Representatives, my concern is that this one violates a legal version of the Hippocratic oath to “first do no harm.” This could do great harm, not to Barr, but to the House. It is the weakest possible case to bring against the administration, and likely to be an example of a bad case making bad law for the House. House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler Jerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerMcGahn to testify next week before closed-door House panel over longtime subpoena fight McGahn to sit for closed-door interview with House Democrats House to consider anti-Asian hate crimes bill, protections for pregnant workers this month MORE laid out the case for contempt. He raised three often repeated complaints against Barr in that he failed to release an unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) MuellerSenate Democrats urge Garland not to fight court order to release Trump obstruction memo Why a special counsel is guaranteed if Biden chooses Yates, Cuomo or Jones as AG Barr taps attorney investigating Russia probe origins as special counsel MORE, allegedly lied twice to Congress, and refused to appear before the committee. Yet, notably, the only claim the committee seeks to put before a federal court is the redaction of the report. That seems rather curious since, if Barr lied or refused a subpoena as House leaders claim, it normally would be an easy case of contempt. The reason for this move is that House Democrats know both claims would not withstand even a cursory judicial review. False statements Democrats have struggled to focus attention on the summary Barr wrote rather than on the actual report. While Democrats claim the summary misrepresented the report, the report tracks the conclusions referenced in the letter Barr sent. Barr said Mueller did not find evidence of a crime linked to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians. That is true. He said Mueller did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. That is also true. ADVERTISEMENT Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded the evidence, particularly on the lack of a clear showing of corrupt intent here, did not support an obstruction charge. That is again true. Barr then added the most damaging line of the report, stating Mueller expressly did not exonerate Trump. Barr also gave Mueller an opportunity to review his letter, but Mueller chose to decline. However, his letter was not false. Democrats also have cited the exchange between Barr and Congressman Charlie Crist over a story about some “concerns” the letter raised among the members of the special counsel team. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiGOP leaders face new calls to boot Greene Biden, Bass press for police reform after meeting Floyd family Kinzinger calls for Greene to be removed from GOP conference after Holocaust remark MORE declared what Barr said was a “lie” and a “crime.” One would assume that Barr would then be referred for prosecution and subject to an immediate impeachment. At a minimum, it would seem such an allegation would be in the contempt sanction. The problem is that what Barr said was true. Crist noted unspecified news reports that members of the special counsel team are “frustrated at some level with the limited information” in the letter Barr sent and “that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray” the findings. Crist asked if Barr knew what they were referencing. Barr said no and said, “I suspect that they probably wanted more put out.” He added, “But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being underinclusive or overinclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out all at once.” Barr was being questioned about news reports citing unnamed members of the special counsel team and their being “frustrated” by the portrayal of the “findings.” He said he did not know but added that he assumed they “wanted more put out” and he rejected the idea of releasing additional summaries. That is true. The only thing Barr did not mention was the letter that Mueller sent to him, which had not been public at that point. Failure to appear Various Democrats have declared that Barr refusing to appear before the committee is clear contempt of Congress. It is a point endlessly raised by House members on television but conspicuously missing in the contempt sanction. The reason is that it is not true. Barr appeared before the Senate and answered detailed questions from members. He was prepared to do the same in the House when the committee inexplicably demanded that he be questioned not just by members but also by professional staffers. Democrats have tried to explain that the demand for questioning was due to the “complexity” of the record and issues of the special counsel report. That rationale is facially absurd. There is nothing overly complex about these issues, as shown in the Senate hearing. The committee wanted Barr examined by staff lawyers, including Norm Eisen, who handled ethics questions for President Obama. Eisen had declared months ago that the criminal case for collusion was devastating and that Trump was “colluding in plain sight,” a position expressly rejected by Mueller. The Democrats wanted to manufacture a conflict, and they have succeeded in doing so. Report redactions That leaves us with the only ground cited by the Democrats for contempt, which is Barr refusing to release the unredacted report. Senate Democrats attacked him at his at his confirmation hearing for refusing to guarantee public release of the report without redactions. As a witness, I testified that they were asking Barr to commit to a potential criminal act to secure his own confirmation. The report inevitably would contain some grand jury material, which under the law is information that cannot be publicly released without a court order. It is a crime to unveil such information. Barr promised to release as much of the report as possible, and he has delivered. Indeed, he is not expressly given the authority to release the confidential report. Yet, he not only released it but declared executive privilege waived on its content. The key obstruction portion of the report is virtually unredacted. Just 8 percent of the public report was redacted, largely to remove material that could undermine ongoing investigations. The sealed version of the report given to Congress only had 2 percent redacted. Democrats are therefore seeking a contempt sanction on a report that is 98 percent disclosed and only lacks grand jury material. Barr restricted access to the 98 percent disclosed report, as opposed to the 92 percent public report, due to the inclusion of evidence impacting ongoing prosecutions. He has offered to expand the number of members and staff to review that material but insists on it remaining protected. But this has nothing to do with the redactions. It is the 2 percent solution to a major political dilemma of the left. Faced with a report that rejected the collusion theories of their running narrative, Democrats want to focus on those 2 percent of redactions rather than over 400 pages of findings.<doc-sep>
Tensions between the legislative and executive branch have been simmering for weeks, but they reached a boiling point Wednesday. House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to provide the full version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the White House responded by invoking executive privilege over it. The immediate consequences will be mostly symbolic. About 10 percent of the Mueller report was redacted, at times clearly because it involved information relevant to the upcoming trial of longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone. The next step in the proceedings will be a vote on the House floor. Although it will likely pass since Democrats control the chamber, Barr will probably face few legal repercussions, as federal prosecutors are unlikely to pursue criminal penalties for a contempt of Congress charge against their own boss. But the speed with which Democrats took the nearly unprecedented measure — it is only the second time in U.S. history that the nation’s top law enforcement officer was held in contempt of Congress — and the surrounding cloud of suspicion and counter-charges reflected the unprecedented scope of conflict between the executive and legislative branches. In the 48 hours since the Judiciary Committee announced it would hold contempt proceedings on Monday, the Trump Administration issued a flurry of rejections for congressional requests, adding to an already deep pile. On Monday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced he would not turn over the President’s tax returns to the Ways and Means Committee; on Tuesday, the White House told former White House Counsel Don McGahn not to comply with a subpoena from the judiciary committee; and on Wednesday, after a day of futile negotiations between the committee and the Department of Justice, it invoked executive privilege over the redacted portions of the Mueller report. Democrats unsurprisingly used the high-profile proceedings on contempt to highlight what Nadler is deeming a constitutional crisis. As the markup stretched into the afternoon, the sentiments became less about Barr’s actions and more about about preserving the powers of the legislative branch. “This is unprecedented,” Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said in his opening statement after listing all the other ways the White House has stonewalled Congress. “If allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight. As a co-equal branch of government, we should not and cannot allow this to continue.” Every member of the committee was allotted a brief time to speak, and the tenor reflected the partisan tensions. Democrats’ comments largely echoed Nadler’s about the state of U.S. democracy. Republicans, by comparison, defended Barr, arguing that Democrats were on a “witch hunt,” and wanted Barr to break the law by handing over the un-redacted report. Several also pointed out Democrats moved much more quickly to hold Barr in contempt than Republicans on the oversight committee did with his Democratic predecessor Eric Holder in 2012 when they were seeking documents in the Fast and Furious case. “[Democrats] have moved from request to contempt vote in only 43 days, and yet the Justice Department is still at the negotiating table — waiting for Democrats to arrive in good faith,” said ranking member Doug Collins, adding that Democrats want to “sully Bill Barr’s good name and reputation.” Department of Justice spokesperson Kerri Kupec released a statement after the vote, calling it “politically motivated,” and “unnecessary.” “It is deeply disappointing that elected representatives of the American people have chosen to engage in such inappropriate political theatrics,” she said. There is undoubtedly some irony that Barr is the first administration official facing contempt proceedings when his department, unlike the White House counsel’s office, actually came to the table to negotiate. And it is also true that the vote to hold Holder in contempt was, like Barr, upheld along party lines. But veterans of Congressional oversight say that, more than anything, it is this partisanship that is the problem. Tom Davis, a former Republican Congressman who previously chaired the oversight committee, said the increased polarization of Congress dates back to the Bush era, and is contributing to the ability of the executive branch to tighten its grip on oversight. “Congress doesn’t operate as an independent branch,” he said.