The Department of Justice (DOJ) has informed lawmakers that it will not pursue charges against Attorney General Merrick Garland after the House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

This decision, according to Justice Department officials, aligns with the agency's longstanding policy of not prosecuting officials who refuse to provide subpoenaed information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege, as the Washington Examiner reports.

DOJ's Stance on Contempt Charges

The notification from the DOJ was sent to lawmakers on Friday, just two days after the House voted to hold Garland in contempt. Carlos Uriarte, an assistant attorney general inside the agency, communicated this decision in a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), stating that Garland’s actions "did not constitute a crime."

Uriarte explained that the DOJ’s position is based on over seven decades of precedent. The House’s contempt vote was criticized by the DOJ as not being grounded in law and contrary to established norms.

The vote in the House was nearly along party lines, with all Democrats and one Republican opposing the measure. The contempt charge stemmed from Garland's refusal to provide the transcript of an interview conducted by former special counsel Robert Hur with President Joe Biden last year.

Investigation Into Biden's Handling of Documents

Hur’s investigation focused on Biden’s handling of classified documents during his tenure as vice president and senator. The investigation revealed that Biden had mishandled classified material and shared some of it with his ghostwriter.

Despite these findings, Hur decided not to prosecute Biden, citing the president's memory problems. Hur described Biden as a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," suggesting that this characterization could influence a jury's perception of his intent.

Impeachment Inquiry and Subpoena

House lawmakers, who are leading an impeachment inquiry into Biden, sought information from the DOJ related to Hur’s investigation.

They requested the transcript and audio of Biden’s interview. While the DOJ provided the transcript and other materials, it refused to release the audio, prompting the House to issue a subpoena for Garland.

In response to the contempt threat, President Biden, at Garland’s direction, asserted executive privilege over the recordings.

This move was said by the agency in line with the its policy of not prosecuting officials for contempt of Congress when executive privilege is invoked.

Historical Context of Contempt Charges

Garland is the third attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress.

His predecessors, Bill Barr and Eric Holder, faced similar contempt votes, and the DOJ also declined to prosecute them. Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, under Barr, had sent a similar letter to Congress regarding executive privilege.

Legal and Political Ramifications

Republicans still have the option to sue the DOJ to enforce their subpoena for the recordings. Additionally, several conservative groups, including Judicial Watch and the Heritage Foundation, as well as a media coalition led by CNN, have filed lawsuits against the DOJ to obtain the audio recordings. The DOJ is contesting these efforts.

Uriarte reiterated the DOJ’s stance, stating, "The longstanding position of the Department is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide subpoenaed information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege."

Conclusion

The DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress is allegedly based in the agency's historical stance on such matters.

The issue arose from Garland's refusal to release certain subpoenaed materials related to an investigation into President Biden's handling of classified documents.

Despite the House's vote and ongoing lawsuits from conservative groups, the DOJ remains firm in not prosecuting officials when executive privilege is asserted.

This controversy highlights the complex interplay between the executive branch's privilege assertions and Congress's oversight responsibilities, a dynamic that continues to shape the political landscape. The final outcome of the legal challenges may further clarify the limits and protections afforded by executive privilege in such contentious circumstances.