House Republicans don’t love inherent contempt. They might vote for it anyway.
House Republicans are openly skeptical of holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in “inherent contempt.” But they just might vote to do it this week.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) is expected to trigger a vote Wednesday on her resolution, which would hold Garland in “inherent contempt” over the Justice Department’s refusal to hand over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur.
In a bid to assuage concerns from her GOP colleagues, Luna changed her resolution from allowing the House sergeant-at-arms to take Garland into custody to instead fining him $10,000 per day until he hands over the audio, which Biden has asserted executive privilege over.
The first draft of the resolution was expected to garner enough GOP opposition to tank it. But Republicans privately acknowledge there’s a chance Luna’s revised resolution could pass this week — not necessarily because GOP lawmakers enthusiastically support it, but because they won’t vote against it.
Speaker Mike Johnson, asked about Luna’s resolution, told reporters the resolution still gave him “pause” from a constitutional perspective, but he will support it if it comes to the floor. Because the resolution is privileged, Luna can force a vote without his support.
“If it’s brought to the floor, I will vote for it,” Johnson said.
Republicans can only lose a handful of members, given likely unanimous opposition from Democrats. So there's still a chance Luna’s resolution could fail when it comes to the floor this week.
Dozens of Republicans were expected to vote against the initial version of Luna’s resolution. And while there is expected to be at least one GOP “no” vote on the new version, the pool of potential opponents is shrinking after the revision to the resolution and amid concerns about Biden’s mental acuity after a shaky debate.
In addition to Luna’s resolution, House Republicans have already voted to hold Garland in contempt, though the DOJ quickly noted the attorney general wouldn’t be prosecuted because the audio fell under executive privilege. It’s similar to the stance taken around contempt for then-Attorney General Bill Barr.
House Republicans also filed a lawsuit to ask the courts to force Garland to hand over the tapes. And GOP leadership, as well as rank-and-file members, have been trying to make the case that that route represents their best shot, predicting their “inherent contempt” resolution would end up getting litigated in court anyways.
“I think it’s strategically bad. … I think we’re going to have to sue to enforce it, which means we’ll be suing on the same issue two different times. And I think this case is significantly worse than the other case,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.).