"Typically, with contempt, you might refer that to the DOJ and then the DOJ never prosecutes itself, and then the problem goes away at the end of the Congress because it's contempt because they're not in compliance with the congressional subpoena which expires at the end of Congress. This law does not expire at the end of Congress and so they've got a real problem. The contempt that the Congress refers, they could be in jeopardy of that even after this Congress expires."
"If this were a private law firm with 5% of the resources of the DOJ, this would have been done by the deadline. They just missed another deadline to report all of the politicians in their files, and they're supposed to justify all of their redactions."
"So they're citing the Privacy Act and they're trying to pretend like that overrides a law that we just passed that says you can't withhold records to prevent embarrassment. They're also citing FOIA standards, which"
Trump administration officials face potential criminal prosecution for failing to produce all unredacted Jeffrey Epstein files. Contempt referrals normally go to the Department of Justice, which rarely prosecutes itself, allowing contempt to lapse at the end of a Congressional term. A recently enacted law prevents contempt consequences from expiring with Congress, creating ongoing legal exposure beyond the current term. Officials missed deadlines to report politicians contained in the files and must justify extensive redactions. Officials have invoked the Privacy Act and FOIA standards while being required to demonstrate that redactions do not merely prevent embarrassment. Resource and compliance shortfalls were noted in comparison to private firms.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]