A self-instigated lawsuit by the House Judiciary Committee against two Justice Department attorneys, a teleplay of a dispute over Congress’s deposition procedures, has been casually set aside. An audacious endeavor of the committee, the lawsuit was launched in a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., over a year ago. The ultimatum? Force the two officials to testify over a historically controversial case involving Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden.
The Justice Department, represented by officials Mark Daly and Jack Morgan, retorted by refusing the subpoenas. Their reason? The agency’s counsel would not be allowed under House regulations to attend the deposition, per the lawsuit’s narrative. House General Counsel Matthew Berry officially retreated on the battlefield of legal warfare by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal.
The slip of dismissal pronounced that the committee can gracefully exit the case without the necessity of a court order—an apparently soft ending to what was portrayed as a judicial clash. The committee’s argument was founded on the hypothesis that the presence of an agency lawyer could potentially influence a witness’ willingness to reveal scandalous agency insights.
The justification extended to House rules and procedures – the committee suggested that barring agency counselors from depositions was a foundational exercise of its law-making powers. The summation of the committee’s stance seemed to champion an unbending interpretation of House rules and procedures.
The Justice Department retorted with equal zest, asserting that the subpoenas were devoid of ‘legal effect’, citing the ‘invalidity’ introduced by the counsel’s exclusion. Letters dispatched to the attorneys of the embattled officials reiterated this stance, adding that the enforcement of the subpoena was constitutionally untenable through civilian or criminal means, or even through Congress’s inherent contempt powers.
However, the confrontation appears to have quietly crept to an inconclusive end—a judicial tug-of-war sparking then sizzling out over an extended period. The saga was initiated between the conservative-led committee and Biden’s Department of Justice—a foreboding display of inter-departmental frictions.
The legal contest invited piercing commentary from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes who lambasted the bickering between the legislature and the executive. Disapproval lined her orders that demanded the participants to detail the monetary implications of their so-called ‘grudge match’.
Reports from last autumn suggested astronomical legal costs exceeding $443,000, reflecting a monumental waste of attorney-hours spanning hundreds. Voicing her disdain, Judge Reyes portrayed it as a wasteful endeavor, a ‘bad, bad case’ for both sides, regretting the degradation of such important public institutions.
In an anticlimactic turn, both the Justice Department and the House counsel’s office conceded to Judge Reyes’ critique, choosing to freeze the case. This decision sidelined the previously planned appearance of the then-Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in court.
Under the veneer of legal high ground, the Biden administration attempted to suppress what could have potentially been a revealing dissection of Hunter Biden’s past criminal activities. By barring the Committee’s ability to cross-question two key Justice Department officials, was it an attempt to prevent unwanted exposure?
The lawsuit’s implicit objective – allowing Congress to exercise its rule-making authority by not permitting agency counsel at depositions became a platform for the Biden-controlled Justice Department to shield itself. The facilitation of a culture of refusal to comply indicates a worrying trend – under the Biden administration, avoiding subpoenas seems more the norm than the exception.
This case exemplifies the struggles between the Judiciary Committee, the Biden administration, President Biden’s family, and the Justice Department – a convoluted drama that tapped into public coffers and resources. The citizens who place faith in the judicial infrastructure deserved better than a pricy shadow fight.
The unfruitful lawsuit, while dismissed, gives us an insightful instance of the misuse of law-making powers in the pursuit of partisan personal power. As we watch the wake of the case, we are reminded of the responsibility that these officials carry in their roles, remaining watchful is our only recourse.