A federal judge admonished the Department of Justice for its refusal to obey congressional subpoenas, highlighting a perceived hypocrisy given its legal actions against individuals for similar noncompliance.
By yourNEWS Media Staff
During a legal confrontation on April 5, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes openly rebuked attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for not adhering to congressional subpoenas, labeling the act as hypocritical. This critique emerged in the context of the DOJ prosecuting former presidential advisor Peter Navarro for failing to comply with a House subpoena, while simultaneously instructing its own prosecutors to ignore similar legal demands. This incident was prominently reported by Politico, shedding light on the growing tension between the executive branch and legislative oversight.
Judge Reyes specifically referenced the case of Peter Navarro, a former advisor to President Donald Trump, who commenced a prison sentence for defying a House subpoena, to underscore the DOJ’s inconsistent stance on subpoena compliance.
At the heart of the controversy are DOJ tax attorneys Mark Daly and Jack Morgan, whom the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee sought to question regarding their investigation into Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son. The DOJ declined these requests and subsequent subpoenas in both 2023 and 2024, advising the attorneys not to comply. This guidance was based on a 2019 opinion from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, which asserted that congressional subpoenas requiring agency employees to appear without agency counsel were legally invalid.
This stance led the House Judiciary Committee to file a lawsuit against Daly and Morgan for their noncompliance with the subpoenas. During a status conference, DOJ attorney James Gilligan attempted to differentiate this case from those of Navarro and Steve Bannon, another Trump advisor prosecuted for similar reasons, noting Daly and Morgan’s current positions as government employees. This defense, however, did not sway Judge Reyes, who also critiqued the DOJ’s reliance on the 2019 opinion, emphasizing that the Office of Legal Counsel does not supersede judicial authority, as reported by Courthouse News Service.
The judiciary’s skepticism extends beyond the legal arguments presented, questioning the practicality of forcibly compelling testimony from Daly and Morgan, especially when they could potentially invoke privilege to avoid answering substantive questions. Judge Reyes expressed frustration with what she perceives as a costly and futile standoff between the executive and legislative branches, according to NBC.
In an effort to bridge the impasse, Judge Reyes has directed legal representatives from both sides to seek a compromise, hinting at the possibility of deposing Daly and Morgan under oath to clarify the extent of the negotiations. This development reflects the ongoing struggle for accountability and transparency within the federal government, as legislative inquiries into the executive branch’s activities continue to face legal and procedural obstacles.