What happens if the Dems lose control of Congress in the mid terms? Would the Trumpists get sufficient control to shut this investigation down? If so you can see why Trump would be creating as much delay as possible.
No. Congress doesn’t control the DOJ
But… what if they tried? The GOP are anti government saboteurs at this point.
Another possibility: From what I remember from my annual refresher on federal records, one of the important things when determining whether a record needs to be preserved is whether it is unique or just a copy… So if the letter was sent to the DOJ, then the DOJ has the official version of the letter which belongs to the government, and what Trump has is just a personal copy which can be returned to him to do with as he pleases.
My guess is that the number of things the Special Master of Trump out numbers what he asked of the DOJ by a factor of 10 to one. The DOJ has already decided what it thinks is or is not privileged in their initial screen. Still there might be a few things that Dearie had questions about and the DOJ hasn’t bothered getting back to him because they know that it will all become moot once the district court hears their appeal.
Budgetary measures? Legislation?
I don’t know anything about this really, but agree with @Euphonious_Polemic that all manners and rules are gone now and the GOP won’t hesitate to do anything at all to get what they want, no matter how corrosive, destructive or indecent.
The Republicans could threaten to force the US into default if the DOJ doesn’t shut down the investigation, I suppose. The mechanism would be to not allow the US to raise the debt ceiling.
I would like to think they wouldn’t go that far, but it’s a pretty nihilistic bunch that’s running the Republican madhouse these days.
Or they could just reduce the DOJ funding to starvation levels. That’s the traditional way of getting rid of government departments you don’t directly control, but want to limit.
Yes, but even the most uninformed voter might take notice if the “party of law and order” started literally “defunding the police”.
That’s certainly true. But, in their hearts, few in Congress really want to protect Trump. They want to appear to be protecting Trump. So, they can rail all they want against the DOJ, but actually doing something is unlikely. (IMO)
Especially since they can call it “Biden’s Justice Department.”
You’re kidding, right? These people can hold 7 contradictory ideas in their heads before breakfast. They’d have no problem at all with this.
I was talking about the “uninformed” voter i.e. the swing voter who voted for Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016, and Biden in 2020, not the “misinformed” MAGA voter who is unreachable.
The most likely way they will attempt to interfere with DOJ will be with endless investigations and hearings. Impeachment by the House of Merrick Garland is all but guaranteed. Distractions and attempting to keep resources tied up with nonsense like this will be the goal.
I wonder if they could be charged with obstruction of justice if they did that. Or wasting LEO time.
Witch Hunt!
Deep State!
Members of Congress have immunity under the Speech and Debate clause.
<slaps a tall, pointy black hat on her head>
You rang?
From being charged with slander/libel (I can never remember which is verbal and which written) or incitement. I think deliberately impeding the DOJ in the course of an active investigation would not be included in that little piece of immunity.
Slander starts with S, and think of Spoken or Statement.
Libel starts with L, and think of published Literature.
I don’t think so
The Supreme Court has described the Speech or Debate Clause as a provision that cannot be interpreted literally,1 but instead must be construed broadly in order to effectuate the Clause’s vital role in the constitutional separation of powers. 2 Deceptively simple3 phrases—such as shall not be questioned, Speech or Debate, and even Senators and Representatives—have therefore been accorded meanings that extend well beyond their literal constructions.4 Arguably, this purpose-driven interpretive approach has given rise to some ambiguity in the precise scope of the protections afforded by the Clause. Despite uncertainty at the margins, it is well established that the Clause serves to secure the independence of the federal legislature by providing Members of Congress and their aides with immunity from criminal prosecutions or civil suits that stem from acts taken within the legislative sphere.5 As succinctly described by the Court, the Clause’s immunity from liability applies even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes.6 This general immunity principle forms the core of the protections afforded by the Clause.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013300/