"rank hypocrisy" is correct!

from
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/05/biden-appointed-judge-torches-doj-00150884

‘Are you kidding me?’: Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off
Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP
Judge Ana Reyes also dinged the House for seeking testimony that is
clearly privileged.

Ana Reyes sits at a table behind a microphone.
Judge Ana Reyes delivered a memorable tongue-lashing to both sides in a
hearing Friday over subpoenas to Justice Department lawyers who worked
on the Hunter Biden tax probe. | Senate Judiciary Committee

By JOSH GERSTEIN and KYLE CHENEY
04/05/2024 07:06 PM EDT

A federal judge tore into the Justice Department on Friday for blowing
off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas issued in the impeachment probe of
his father, President Joe Biden, pointing out that a former aide to
Donald Trump is sitting in prison for similar defiance of Congress.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee on the federal District
Court in Washington, spent nearly an hour accusing Justice Department
attorneys of rank hypocrisy for instructing two other lawyers in the DOJ
Tax Division not to comply with the House subpoenas.

“There’s a person in jail right now because you all brought a criminal
lawsuit against him because he did not appear for a House subpoena,”
Reyes said, referring to the recent imprisonment of Peter Navarro, a
former Trump trade adviser, for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6
select committee. “And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas. … And
you don’t have to show up?”

“I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put
people in jail for not showing up,” but then direct current executive
branch employees to take the same approach, the judge added. “You all
are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any
other litigant.”

It was a remarkable, frenetic thrashing in what was expected to be a
relatively routine, introductory status conference after the House
Judiciary Committee sued last month to enforce its subpoena of DOJ
attorneys Mark Daly and Jack Morgan over their involvement in the
investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.

Republicans are demanding the two attorneys testify and say it’s crucial
for their ongoing impeachment probe of the elder Biden. But the Justice
Department argues that subpoenaing two rank-and-file, or “line,”
attorneys to seek details about an ongoing investigation would be a
violation of the separation of powers.

Reyes has been on the bench for just over a year. Rarely seeming to stop
to catch her breath, she repeatedly dressed down DOJ attorney James
Gilligan as he sought to explain the department’s position, scolding him
at times for interrupting her before continuing a torrid tongue-lashing
that DOJ rarely receives from the bench. She delved into great detail
about the nuances of House procedure — like the chamber’s rule against
allowing executive branch lawyers to attend depositions — and even asked
whether the Judiciary Committee had followed internal rules requiring
that the ranking Democrat on the panel be notified of the subpoena to
the DOJ attorneys before it was issued.

Yet, perhaps even more remarkably, Reyes seemed inclined to support
DOJ’s central argument that the line attorneys cannot be compelled to
answer substantive questions from Congress. They just need to show up
and assert privileges on a question-by-question basis, she said — the
type of thing, she said, that DOJ demands from others “seven days a week
… and twice on Sunday.”

Indeed, while Reyes was withering in her attacks on the DOJ’s position,
she was similarly unflinching in her criticism of the House for its
stance in the dispute — particularly its claim that line lawyers working
on the Hunter Biden tax probe are not entitled to attorney-client
privilege. She also said she thought it absurd for the House to argue
that privilege was waived because it was obscuring some crime or fraud
within the executive branch.

“I don’t think you’re going to win that fight,” the judge told House
Counsel Matthew Berry, saying at one point that she “can’t imagine”
ruling for the House on that issue.

At bottom, Reyes said she viewed it as unlikely that the two DOJ
attorneys would ultimately be required to answer anything of substance
from Congress, but that the department’s effort to prevent them from
showing up at all was a brazen affront.

“I imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands of defense
attorneys … who would be happy to hear that DOJ’s position is, if you
don’t agree with a subpoena, if you believe it’s unconstitutional or
unlawful, you can unilaterally not show up,” the judge said.

Gilligan suggested that the employees subpoenaed in the dispute at issue
are current employees, while Navarro and another Trump adviser who was
convicted of similar charges, Steve Bannon, were no longer on the
government’s payroll when their testimony was demanded.

The judge didn’t seem impressed with that distinction and downplayed the
significance of a Trump-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion contending
that executive branch employees could defy such subpoenas if Justice
Department lawyers were not allowed to be present.

MOST READ
cannon-smith.jpg
Tensions flare between special counsel Jack Smith and Judge Aileen Cannon
What Liberals Get Wrong About ‘White Rural Rage’ — Almost Everything
‘Are you kidding me?’: Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off
Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP
The Freedom Caucus chair now wants the speaker’s help. Yes, you read
that right.
The Trump-ally plan to cut Omaha off for Biden is dead … for now
“Last time I checked, the Office of Legal Counsel was not the court,”
she said.

Reyes also sounded stunned when Gilligan refused to commit to
instructing the two subpoenaed lawyers to show up if the House dropped
its objection to allowing government counsel to sit in the room.

“It would be a different situation,” Gilligan said. “I cannot answer
that now.”

“Are you kidding me?” the judge responded.

Reyes ultimately ordered the Justice Department to send lawyers to the
Capitol next week to confer with Berry and attempt to hammer out a
workable agreement. And she said that if the two sides did not work out
a deal, she planned to require them to estimate the total cost to the
taxpayers of continuing the legal fight, which past precedent suggests
could drag out for years.

“I don’t think the taxpayers want to fund a grudge match between the
executive and the legislative,” she said. “Bad cases make bad law. …
This is a bad, bad case for both of you.”

FILED UNDER: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, HUNTER BIDEN,
LEGAL, STEPHEN BANNON,
POLITICO
Playbook