The petitions raise thorny legal issues for a department that has historically defended the testimony of senior executives against congressional summonses.
This week, Parliament voted to hold Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt for defying the committee’s January 6 calls, as the committee becomes increasingly frustrated with the nearly four months since approving the referral. former White House Chief of Staff Mark Livadia.
When House voted to oust Steve Bannon from the DOJ last year for defying another select committee summons, federal prosecutors were quick to denounce congressional criminal defamation of Trump’s confidant and once White House general.
But references to Meadows, Navarro and Scavino may include harsher thoughts on the Justice Department, as their summonses cover their work as White House officials.
Neil Egleston, a former White House adviser and congressional investigator on the Iran-Contra House inquiry, said the rest of the case was more difficult than that of Bannon, who was well out of the White House at the time. period.
“For people who were senior White House officials at the time, there is another level of complexity that does not apply to a Bannon,” he said.
The Justice Department has historically argued in favor of shielding such officials from congressional inquiry, enacting legal positions that say the legislature has no avenue to force the testimony of presidential advisers.
“For decades, we have seen the Justice Department articulate this kind of authoritarian stance that the president’s close advisers are completely unharmed by congressional summonses,” said David Janovsky, an analyst at the non-partisan Project on Government Oversight.
“And it’s worth noting that the Department of Justice has invented this virtually everywhere, and it’s certainly not something that Congress agrees with, and it’s not something that any of the judges who had the opportunity to look at this argument agreed with. . . So they are more or less alone in this, but this is the line they had followed in the past. ”
The growing pile of criminal defamation allegations against Trump White House officials is now forcing the ministry to balance its institutional interest in retaining executive powers with the Biden administration backing the commission’s inquiry.
While Congress has the power to issue summonses and the courts have recognized the legal weight of these claims, the legislature has limited options for securing enforcement.
When someone defies a congressional summons, Congress usually either files a civil lawsuit asking the courts to enforce it, or despises the purpose of the summons, turning it into a criminal case to be pursued by the Department of Justice.
For Bannon, who refused to provide documents or testimony, he faces two counts of contempt, each of which carries the risk of one year in prison and up to $ 100,000 in fines.
According to the federal statute, the Department of Justice has a “duty” to file charges of contempt when it receives a criminal referral from Congress, but prosecutors have previously refused to follow the referrals of the legislature.
Amid frustration with the Ministry of Justice’s lack of action, some select members of the House committee called on the department, arguing that if the administration did not follow the referral, it would undermine the committee’s power and ability to seek accountability in January. 6.
“The Department of Justice has a duty to act on this referral and others we have sent,” said spokesman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) Last month, when the jury voted to send the Navarro and Scavino referrals to Parliament. . .
“Without the imposition of congressional summonses, there is no oversight, and without oversight, no responsibility – for the former president or any other president, past, present or future. “Without enforcing its legal process, Congress will cease to be an equal branch of government, and the balance of power would be forever altered to the detriment of the American people.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland declined to give any indication as to how the department could proceed with Meadows’ referral.
“We will follow the facts and the law wherever they lead. “We do not comment further on the investigation,” Garland told a news conference this week.
The Jan. 6 committee sought out Scavino, Trump’s deputy communications chief, after spending some time with the president on Jan. 6 helping to promote the rally.
Navarro, a former Trump trade adviser, has since revealed in his book that he was involved in plans to delay the certification of the presidential election. He also wrote a three-part series on his website that promotes Trump’s false allegations of widespread electoral fraud.
Neither man appeared for a pre-determined deposit nor did he provide any documents.
Engelston said the Justice Department would carefully read the advice from its Office of Legal Advisers (OLC), which has written memoranda to the department’s lawyers arguing that current White House officials do not need to attend committee meetings.
“The views of the OLC do not bind the courts, but bind the Ministry of Justice,” he said.
However, Engelston said Navarro could present an easier case for the Justice Department as his involvement in Trump’s efforts to stay in power was far beyond the scope of the executive branch.
“Navarro is not consulted on economic issues. He was consulted about the rally and the uprising. “And so I think there is a pretty strong argument that none of these doctrines apply.”
Jackson’s Confirmation Gives Biden’s Necessary Victory
The Biden government has largely supported the selection committee’s investigation so far, relinquishing executive privilege over files and officials, and assisting the committee in court on various legal challenges.
Janovsky said the urgency behind the selection committee’s inquiry should force the DOJ to pursue criminal referrals, even if it is not prepared to abandon its previous executive positions in the face of congressional oversight.
“Basically, we have to remember that Congress is investigating an uprising and an attempt to prevent the transfer of power,” Janovsky said. “Any move that makes it difficult for Congress to conduct this inquiry is detrimental. “It’s hard to imagine a more serious congressional investigation and they need all the tools at their disposal, including punishing those who do not want to cooperate.”
