Dem
51
GOP
49
In a pre-emptive first strike, the Dept of Justice has sent House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) a letter that can be briefly summarized as:
Dear Chairman Jordan:
Kindly f*ck off.
Sincerely yours,
Merrick
OK, in actuality it was a bit longer and the wording was somewhat different, but the message was identical. Specifically, when an official request for all manner of information shows up, the DoJ will carefully weigh the request against department policy, the needs of ongoing investigations, precedent, and the principle of separation of powers, for however long that may take, then it will make a decision. The DoJ letter was full of legal boilerplate, but what it comes down to is: "We will determine what we feel is in the interest of the Executive Branch and take it from there." It didn't cite the "Meadows Rule" (Obeying a subpoena is a user option) but that will surely come up in future "negotiations."
To make the point that not cooperating with Congress is a long-standing principle, the letter quotes Ronald Reagan: "As President Reagan explained in his 1982 directive on responding to congressional requests for information, the 'tradition of accommodation' should be 'the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches." In other words, unless we agree to it, we don't have to give you anything, per St. Ronald of Reagan.
This will not make Jordan happy, but his options are limited. When someone refuses to obey a congressional subpoena, all Congress can do is ask the DoJ to indict the recipient of the subpoena for refusing to obey it. In this case, the person refusing to obey it will be—AG Merrick Garland. We don't have any inside dope here, but our educated guess is that Merrick Garland will not be in any hurry to indict Merrick Garland. However, his lack of interest in doing so might be a message to Congress that putting some teeth in congressional subpoenas might be a good idea. If the starting date for a new law about this was set to Jan. 3, 2025, members of both parties might be willing to get behind such a law. (V)