Connect with us

Politics

Inherently complicated: House Republicans consider another angle to take on Attorney General Garland

Published

on

Inherently complicated: House Republicans consider another angle to take on Attorney General Garland

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is on the clock.

Two House committees have voted to hold Garland in contempt of Congress. House Republicans aren’t pleased with Garland failing to cough up an audiotape of the transcribed interview Special Counsel Robert Hur conducted with President Biden in the classified documents case. Garland released a transcript of the interview. But Hur suggested that one of the reasons he didn’t charge Biden was because he thought a jury might view the president as an elderly forgetful man and take pity on him.

Advertisement

Many Republicans regularly claim the president isn’t altogether upstairs. The Wall Street Journal is now joining that chorus. GOPers are not so subtle as to their reasons for wanting the audiotape. They believe the recording could reveal a feeble chief executive who’s not fully in control of his faculties. As a result, Republicans could then use the tape to savage Biden and prove their thesis to voters ahead of the election.

PUPPIES AND RAINBOWS: HOW THE BIPARTISAN INVITATION TO THE LEADER OF ISRAEL THREATENS TO DIVIDE THE DEMOCRATS

“The transcript may be accurate. But you know what? The audio would tell us so much more,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., at Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing with Garland.

Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., told Garland the tape “reveals things about [the president’s] capacity.”

Garland won’t provide the tape. So the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

Advertisement

It’s not 100 percent certain the full House has the votes to hold Garland in contempt. Republicans now boast a 218 to 213 advantage in the House with the election of Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif. Fong succeeded former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who resigned.

But even if the House votes to hold Garland in contempt, it’s doubtful much comes of it.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.  (Getty Images)

Lawmakers may refer a contempt of Congress citation for noncompliance with subpoenas for documents or testimony to the Justice Department for prosecution. In short, the Justice Department run by Garland is not going to prosecute its own attorney general.

So, Republicans are stuck.

Advertisement

That’s where “inherent contempt” comes in.

Inherent contempt is an authority which Congress may deploy on its own without relying on another branch of government. In other words, Congress may vote to hold someone in contempt for failing to provide information — and inherently use its own powers to discipline, arrest or hold someone for running afoul of the House or Senate.

Lawmakers of both parties have spoken off and on for years about leaning on inherent contempt to get their way. But no one has really considered it as a legitimate option for the first time in nine decades until recently.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: THERE’S LITTLE CHANCE THAT LAWMAKERS WILL KISS — AND ‘MAKEUP’

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., says she will introduce a resolution of inherent contempt — 10 days after the House votes on “regular” contempt for Garland. The idea is that the Justice Department won’t prosecute Garland, so Congress will take matters into its own hands.

Advertisement

Of course, it’s impossible to know if the House would ever command the requisite votes for an inherent contempt resolution — especially since “customary” contempt is dicey, too. But let’s explore inherent contempt for a moment and examine how it works.

Congress formerly leaned on inherent contempt in the early days of the republic. In fact, Congress voted to hold various newspaper publishers in contempt in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In 1927, a Senate panel voted to approve a warrant for a witness who failed to comply with a subpoena. But a court ruled that the Senate overstepped its bounds in that case.

Congress last used inherent contempt in 1934. A Commerce Department official refused to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to an airmail scandal. So Congress held the official in contempt.

President Biden delivers remarks on an executive order limiting asylum in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., in Tuesday. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

What did that involve?

Advertisement

After the House voted, it dispatched its House Sergeant at Arms to arrest the official. The House then held the official at the Willard Hotel — a posh establishment in downtown Washington close to the White House — for a week and a half.

Inherent contempt is inherently intriguing — but also inherently chaotic. Could one imagine the scene if the House approved an inherent contempt resolution for Garland? Would House Sergeant at Arms Bill McFarland and a squadron of his deputies — or U.S. Capitol Police officers — just surface at Garland’s home one day or the Justice Department and demand that the attorney general come with them? How would Garland’s protective detail respond? Would this be a cursory visit, perhaps informing Garland that he’s been held in inherent contempt of Congress? Or does this devolve into a tense exchange between the legislative and executive branches?

And even if Garland does come with McFarland to Capitol Hill, does the House continue to hold him? Pray tell, where? Does Garland just come immediately to the Capitol for an appearance with the Oversight and Judiciary Committees?

No one is quite sure. Even Luna, the sponsor of the measure.

STATUESQUE REV. GRAHAM TRIBUTE COMES TO THE CAPITOL, BUT SHIES AWAY FROM THE LIMELIGHT

Advertisement

“Ideally, the attorney general would do the right thing and come present us representatives with information that we’ve been asking for. But that’s up to him to decide whether it’s above the law,” said Luna.

Yours truly asked what the plan was, since inherent contempt would represent such a significant escalation involving a potential standoff between two branches of government.

“I think it hasn’t been done in a while. So we’ll see how it unfolds,” said Luna.

I pressed Luna whether there might be a standoff between McFarland and Garland.

“I don’t think they ever anticipated that we would bring this forward,” replied Luna. “This is absolutely something that can be done.”

Advertisement

But no one knows how.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.  (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A senior House security official tells Fox there has been some mulling of this. But everyone is just waiting to see what unfolds.

However, two things must happen first. The House must vote to hold Garland in contempt. And it would then vote to hold him in inherent contempt. And so far, the House hasn’t demonstrated it has the votes for “regular” contempt.

“It would be extraordinary to have the Sergeant at Arms go to [Garland’s] office. His house,” I pointed out to Luna.

Advertisement

“We’re hoping that it doesn’t get to that,” answered the Florida Republican.

But as far as one can tell, there isn’t a plan. Inherent contempt is inherently complicated. Inherently messy. And inherently tumultuous.

Politics

Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump’s meetings with Zelenskyy, Netanyahu: ‘Can we just do America?’

Published

on

Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump’s meetings with Zelenskyy, Netanyahu: ‘Can we just do America?’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., on Sunday called for President Trump to only focus on America’s needs as the president meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The president has been heavily involved in the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts since returning to the White House.

Trump met with Zelenskyy on Sunday at Mar-a-Lago to discuss a peace plan aimed at ending the Russia-Ukraine war that began with an invasion by Moscow in February 2022.

Netanyahu arrived in Florida on Sunday ahead of their scheduled meeting on Monday at Trump’s estate to address Israel’s conflicts in the Middle East. It will be the sixth meeting of the year between the two leaders.

Advertisement

TRUMP ZELENSKYY SAY UKRAINE PEACE DEAL CLOSE BUT ‘THORNY ISSUES’ REMAIN AFTER FLORIDA TALKS

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized President Donald Trump’s meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Greene, responding to Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy and Netanyahu, said that the Trump administration should address the needs of Americans rather than becoming further involved in global conflicts.

“Zelensky today. Netanyahu tomorrow,” she wrote on X.

President Donald Trump welcomes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida. (Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

“Can we just do America?” the congresswoman continued.

The congresswoman has been a vocal critic of supplying U.S. military aid to foreign countries amid the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.

She has also referred to Zelenskyy as “a dictator who canceled elections” and labeled Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as a genocide and humanitarian crisis.

ZELENSKYY READY TO PRESENT NEW PEACE PROPOSALS TO US AND RUSSIA AFTER WORKING WITH EUROPEAN TALKS

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and President Donald Trump had a public feud in recent months. (Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

This comes after Taylor Greene, who is set to resign from the House in January, had a public spat with Trump over the past few months as Trump took issue with the Georgia Republican’s push to release documents related to the investigations into deceased sex predator Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump had withdrawn his endorsement of Greene and called her a “traitor” over the public feud.

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well

Published

on

Commentary: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well

Is there a dumpster somewhere to torch and bury this year of bedlam, 2025?

We near its end with equal amounts relief and trepidation. Surely we can’t be expected to endure another such tumultuous turn around the sun?

It was only January that Donald Trump moved back into the White House, apparently toting trunkloads of gilt for the walls. Within weeks, he’d declared an emergency at the border; set in motion plans to dismantle government agencies; fired masses of federal workers; and tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

Demonstrators at a No Kings rally in Washington, protesting actions by President Trump and Elon Musk.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Advertisement

By spring, the administration was attacking Harvard as a test case for strong-arming higher education. By June, Trump’s grotesquely misnamed Big Beautiful Bill had become law, giving $1 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires and funding a deportation effort (and armed force) that has fundamentally reshaped American immigration law and ended any pretense about targeting “the worst of the worst.”

Fall and winter have brought questionable bombings of boats in the Caribbean, a further backing away from Ukraine, a crackdown on opposition to Trump by classifying it as leftist terrorism and congressional inaction on healthcare that will leave many struggling to stay insured.

That’s the short list.

It was a year when America tried something new, and while adherents of the MAGA movement may celebrate much of it, our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak have a different perspective.

Advertisement

Here, they renew their annual tradition of looking at the year past and offering some thoughts on what the new year may bring.

Chabria: Welp, that was something. I can’t say 2025 was a stellar year for the American experiment, but it certainly will make the history books.

Before we dive into pure politics, I’ll start with something positive. I met a married couple at a No Kings rally in Sacramento who were dressed up as dinosaurs, inspired by the Portland Frog, an activist who wears an inflatable amphibian suit.

When I asked why, the husband told me, “If you don’t do something soon, you will have democracy be extinct.”

A woman standing before an American flag during an anti-Trump protest in downtown Los Angeles.

Crowds participate in No Kings Day in downtown Los Angeles in October.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

I loved that so many Americans were doing something by turning out to not just protest policies that hit personally, but to rally in support of democracy writ large. For many, it was their first time taking this kind of action, and they were doing it in a way that expressed optimism and possibility rather than giving in to anger or despair. Where there is humor, there is hope.

Barabak: As in, it only hurts when I laugh?

In 2024, a plurality of Americans voted to reinstall Trump in the White House — warts, felony conviction and all — mainly in the hope he would bring down the cost of living and make eggs and gasoline affordable again.

While eggs and gas are no longer exorbitant, the cost of just about everything else continues to climb. Or, in the case of beef, utility bills and insurance, skyrocket.

Advertisement
Workers adding Donald Trump's name to the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts

The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts is another of the long-standing institutions Trump has smeared his name across.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

Meantime, the president seems less concerned with improving voters’ lives than smearing his name on every object he lays his eyes on, one of the latest examples being the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

(The only place Trump doesn’t want to see his name is in those voluminous Epstein files.)

I wonder: Why stop there? Why not brand these the United States of Trump-erica, then boast we live in the “hottest” country on Planet Trump?

Advertisement

Chabria: Stop giving him ideas!

You and I agree that it’s been a difficult year full of absurdity, but we’ve disagreed on how seriously to take Trump as a threat to democracy. As the year closes, I am more concerned than ever.

It’s not the ugly antics of ego that alarm me, but the devastating policies that will be hard to undo — if we get the chance to undo them.

The race-based witch hunt of deportations is obviously at the top of that list, but the demolition of both K-12 and higher education; the dismantling of federal agencies, thereby cutting our scientific power as a nation; the increasing oligarchy of tech industrialists; the quiet placement of election deniers in key election posts — these are all hammers bashing away at our democracy.

Now, we are seeing overt antisemitism and racism on the MAGA right, with alarming acceptance from many. The far right has championed a debate as dumb as it is frightening, about “heritage” Americans being somehow a higher class of citizens than nonwhites.

Advertisement
Vice President JD Vance speaks at a college campus event in front of a poster reading "This Is the Turning Point."

Vice President JD Vance speaks at the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

(Gerald Herbert / Associated Press)

Recently, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech in which he announced, “In the United States of America, you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore,” and Trump has said he wants to start taking away citizenship from legal immigrants. Both men claim America is a Christian nation, and eschew diversity as a value.

Do you still think American democracy is secure, and this political moment will pass without lasting damage to our democratic norms?

Barabak: I’ll start with some differentiation.

Advertisement

I agree that Trump is sowing seeds or, more specifically, enacting policies and programs, that will germinate and do damage for many years to come.

Alienating our allies, terrorizing communities with his prejudicial anti-immigrant policies — which go far beyond a reasonable tightening of border security — starving science and other research programs. The list is a long and depressing one, as you suggest.

But I do believe — cue the trumpets and cherubs — there is nothing beyond the power of voters to fix.

To quote, well, me, there is no organism on the planet more sensitive to heat and light than a politician. We’ve already seen an anti-Trump backlash in a series of elections held this year, in red and blue state alike. A strong repudiation in the 2026 midterm election will do more than all the editorial tut-tutting and protest marches combined. (Not that either are bad things.)

A poll worker at Los Angeles' Union Station.

A stressed-out seeming poll worker in a polling station at Los Angeles’ Union Station.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The best way to preserve our democracy and uphold America’s values is for unhappy citizens to register their dissent via the ballot box. And to address at least one of your concerns, I’m not too worried about Trump somehow nullifying the results, given legal checks and the decentralization of our election system.

Installing lawmakers in Congress with a mandate to hold Trump to account would be a good start toward repairing at least some of the damage he’s wrought. And if it turns into a Republican rout, it’ll be quite something to watch the president’s onetime allies run for the hills as fast as their weak knees allow.

Chabria: OMG! It’s a holiday miracle. We agree!

I think the midterms will be messy, but I don’t think this will be an election where Trump, or anyone, outright tries to undo overall results.

Advertisement

Although I do think the groundwork will be laid to sow further doubt in our election integrity ahead of 2028, and we will see bogus claims of fraud and lawsuits.

So the midterms very well could be a reset if Democrats take control of something, anything. We would likely not see past damage repaired, but may see enough opposition to slow the pace of whatever is happening now, and offer transparency and oversight.

But the 2026 election only matters if people vote, which historically is not something a great number of people do in midterms. At this point, there are few people out there who haven’t heard about the stakes in November, but that still doesn’t translate to folks — lazy, busy, distracted — weighing in.

If proposed restrictions on mail-in ballots or voter identification take effect, even just in some states, that will also change the outcomes.

But there is hope, always hope.

Advertisement

Barabak: On that note, let’s recognize a few of the many good things that happened in 2025.

MacKenzie Scott donated $700 million to more than a dozen historically Black colleges and universities, showing that not all tech billionaires are selfish and venal.

The Dodgers won their second championship and, while this San Francisco Giants fan was not pleased, their seven-game thriller against the Toronto Blue Jays was a World Series for the ages.

And the strength and resilience shown by survivors of January’s SoCal firestorm has been something to behold.

Any others, beside your demonstrating dinos, who deserve commendation?

Advertisement
Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the annual Christmas blessing.

Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the Christmas Day blessing from the main balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

(Gregorio Borgia / Associated Press)

Chabria: Though I’m not Catholic, I have been surprisingly inspired by Pope Leo XIV.

So I’ll leave us with a bit of his advice for the future: “Be agents of communion, capable of breaking down the logic of division and polarization, of individualism and egocentrism.”

Many of us are tired, and suffering from Trump fatigue. Regardless, to put it in nonpapal terms, it may be a dumpster — but we’re all in it together.

Advertisement

Barabak: I’d like to end, as we do each year, with a thank you to our readers.

Anita and I wouldn’t be here — which would greatly please some folks — but for you. (And a special nod to the paid subscribers out there. You help keep the lights on.)

Here’s wishing each and all a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

We’ll see you again in 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

The biggest losers of 2025: Who fell flat as the year closed

Published

on

The biggest losers of 2025: Who fell flat as the year closed

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

2025 didn’t just expose Democratic divisions — it created a short list of political losers whose missteps are already shaping the battlefield for 2026. From establishment leaders squeezed by a restless progressive base to national figures who burned precious time, this past year has left behind a series of cautionary tales for a party out of power.

MODERATE DEMOCRATS PUSH BACK AS PROGRESSIVES MOVE TO OUST JEFFRIES, CLARK OVER TRUMP STRATEGY

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., right, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., walk speak to members of the media outside the West Wing at the White House in Washington, Monday, Sept. 29, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Establishment and old-school Democrats

The loudest, most visible Democratic figures haven’t just voiced opposition to the Trump administration — they’ve also made it clear they expect a new version of the party to emerge going forward. From Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani in New York City promising expansive government program increases to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s hint that she could beat Vice President J.D. Vance in a bid for the presidency, progressives can easily say they had some of the most visible momentum in 2025.

Advertisement

And that’s bad news for old-school Democrats. 

As recently as last month, both House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and House Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., faced primary challenges from their progressive base. These challengers cited dissatisfaction with their resistance against the administration. It’s unclear if those calls are disproportionately loud in a moment where Democrats find themselves out of power. But many moderate Democrats told Fox News Digital they don’t think it’s helping win over the electorate’s political middle.

Should progressives continue to crowd out the picture in 2026, more establishment Democrats may find it increasingly difficult to ignore pressure from their far-left flank as the nation heads into the midterms.

GOP SEIZES ON DEM CIVIL WAR AS PROGRESSIVES JUMP INTO KEY 2026 SENATE RACES: ‘THEY’RE IN SHAMBLES’

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a campaign event in support of Proposition 50 in San Francisco, Monday, Nov. 3, 2025.  (Gabrielle Lurie/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Gavin Newsom

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is running out of time to prove why he could be something more than a party messaging figure. In the past year, he’s pigeonholed himself into exactly that role. 

In 2025, Newsom cemented himself as one of the key Democratic foils to Trump’s agenda. And on that front, there’s little question he capitalized on the attention.

Most notably, Newsom pushed through a redistricting effort meant to squeeze five Republicans out of office after Texas advanced a similar plan earlier this year. While the plan received mixed reviews — even from Democrats in the state who were wary of fighting fire with fire — it has certainly advanced Newsom’s national status.

But like every would-be Trump foil, Newsom finds himself somewhat reliant on Trump for his next move. Should Newsom begin to position himself for a 2028 bid for the White House, he won’t have that luxury around forever, and he only has one more year as California’s governor. 

Newsom burned precious time in 2025 to show voters in California and across the country what kind of executive he could be. 

Advertisement

DEMOCRATIC HEAVYWEIGHTS HARRIS, NEWSOM TURN HEADS, FUEL 2028 SPECULATION

Former President Joe Biden talks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House, Monday, Sept. 2, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Joe Biden

On several key issues, former President Joe Biden’s legacy has already grown old in 2025. 

It took just weeks for the Trump administration to dismantle the claim that Biden was doing everything he could to stop illegal border crossings from pouring into the United States. With a few key executive orders, Trump brought the country to one of its lowest levels of border encounters ever.

And while that’s the most notable entry, the list of double-takes doesn’t end there.

Advertisement

An autopen investigation in the House of Representatives revealed Biden had delegated an unprecedented amount of authority to his aides. Moreover, a book put out by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson took a deep look at just how hard his inner circle had worked to maintain the president’s image amid concerns about his age and cognitive ability. 

Taken together, Biden’s administration just one year removed has plunged Democrats into questions of where to go next and provided Republicans with a wealth of evidence to make the case Democrats weren’t as transparent about the country’s problems as they could have been. 

‘ROCK STAR’ NEWSOM STEALS THE SHOW AT DNC SUMMIT AS DEMOCRATS HUNT FOR 2028 CONTENDER TO TAKE ON TRUMP

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer gives a thumbs up as he walks out of the Senate Chamber after speaking on the floor of the Senate on Dec. 20, 2024. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

Chuck Schumer

Few political figures have had as politically damaging a year in 2025 as the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Advertisement

He received most of the blame for a disastrous 43-day government shutdown that largely left Democrats empty-handed. While Schumer himself didn’t vote with the eight Democrats who eventually supported a Republican plan to end the shutdown, he received calls to step aside in the aftermath for failing to keep Senate Democrats on the same page.

According to many Republicans, the political calculus for Schumer during the shutdown was more about putting up a good enough fight to appease the progressive side of the Democratic base. 

But Schumer also failed to do that too.

During the shutdown, the New York City mayoral race had come to its final stretch with little word from the Senate Minority Leader. When it became clear the self-proclaimed socialist Zohran Mamdani would capture the party’s nomination, Schumer tried to dodge questions about whether he would support his bid. That reluctance never went away and questions about the relationship between the two Democrats only intensified. 

Just days removed from the election, Schumer continued to give non-answers about Mamdani. 

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Now at the close of 2025, Schumer has left questions unanswered about whether he can still effectively lead the party and whether he represents the party’s future. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending