Attorney General Cited for Contempt for Refusal to Turn Over Biden Tapes

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives created a huge problem for the Justice Department on Wednesday when it cited U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland for contempt.

The issue was Garland’s refusal to turn over recordings of President Joe Biden being interviewed by a Justice Department special counsel about classified documents found at his home in Delaware.

A contempt citation is the equivalent of a referral to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. Garland heads the Justice Department, which has given no indication it would be willing to prosecute him.

Garland is the third U.S. attorney general to be cited for contempt of Congress. None have ever been successfully prosecuted in U.S. history.

The audio recording came from an interview special counsel Robert Hur conducted with Biden last year about classified documents that appeared to be illegally stored in his garage. Garland has given Congress a transcript but not the recording.

Some Republicans are saying Biden’s mental decline indicates he is unfit to be president. They say the audio tapes could help prove it.

Hur’s written report after interviewing Biden said he found “evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.”

The report added that “no criminal charges are warranted” in this matter … “even if there was no policy against charging a sitting president.”

Hur wrote that Biden was unlikely to be found guilty at a trial because he “would likely present himself to a jury … as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Garland explained his refusal to release the audio tape by saying it was part of a Justice Department investigation that was exempted from public disclosure requirements. Allowing the release could inhibit the willingness of witnesses to speak with government attorneys if they believed audio tapes of interviews would become public, Garland said.

“I view contempt as a serious matter. But I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations. I will not be intimidated,” Garland said last week during a combative House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Garland’s explanation angered Republicans. They said it indicated the attorney general believed he was excluded from the accountability to Congress required of everyone else.

Their criticisms continued this week as they prepared for the contempt vote in the House.

Their report to the House recommending a contempt citation says the audio recordings “are of superior evidentiary value.”

“The verbal nuances in President Biden’s answer about his mishandling of classified information would assist the committee’s inquiry” into potential abuses of power, the Republican report says.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Congress Weighs Cryptocurrency Risks Against Benefits to U.S. Economy

Some of Washington’s financial experts told a congressional subcommittee last week that cryptocurrency is ready to be incorporated into traditional markets and industries through pending federal legislation.

If the proposals to expand use of cryptocurrency are approved by Congress, it could become a cornerstone of transactions for real estate, the stock market, international trade and other industries.

“We need to ensure our regulators are welcoming this kind of innovation to modernize our markets,” said Rep. French Hill, R-Ark.

Currently, the greatest use of Bitcoin, Ethereum and other cryptocurrency is for trading other cryptocurrency before finally converting it to cash.

Traditional currencies, such as American dollars, have value because they are backed up by the combined assets of the U.S. government.

Cryptocurrency has value only because persons who own and trade it agree it should have value. Ownership is recorded on databases known as blockchains.

“We already live in a digital world, so we should embrace blockchain as a tool to provide for more digital capabilities,” Lilya Tessler, an attorney for the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP who advises clients on cryptocurrency, said at the congressional hearing.

Proposals in Congress – such as the pending Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act – would allow payment of major transactions through cryptocurrency, thereby giving it some of the equity it lacks now. 

Equity refers to an ownership interest in property, which in the case of cryptocurrency transactions could refer to the property exchanged, just like with traditional currencies.

In addition, the cryptocurrency could be “tokenized,” which refers to assigning it value on digital ledgers of financial institutions. The value assignment would give it legitimacy similar to a traditional currency.

A primary concern during the House Financial Services subcommittee hearing was the lack of regulatory control that could disrupt markets and economies if cryptocurrency falls victim to fraud or money laundering.

The technology “suffers from significant governance and operational fragilities,” said Hilary Allen, an American University law professor.

Large cryptocurrency transactions reaching into millions of dollars could be done quickly between private entities while bypassing the need for fees and additional time to process them through banks. 

Although the transactions would be a more efficient way of doing business, they “also allow for anonymity that can facilitate money laundering and sanctions evasion,” Allen said.

In addition, the volatility of cryptocurrency markets would make it difficult to assess whether buyers and sellers are getting the proper value for their money. The result could be significant financial losses, the financial experts said.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Federal Trade Commission Plans Effort Against Drug Patent Abuses

Lawyers are being blamed as part of the problem in high drug prices as Congress considers proposals to give consumers a better deal.

Federal officials are discussing a strategy to block pharmaceutical companies from abusing patent rights that can keep drug prices high.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee met with the chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission last week on a plan to prevent drug companies from extending their patent rights beyond their normal expiration dates. 

When their patent rights are close to expiring, some companies are accused of filing for extensions based on false claims.

Extensions to their rights can be granted by filing claims in the Federal Trade Commission’s “Orange Book.” It consists of a list of drug products approved as safe and effective that might be eligible for additional patent protection.

The Federal Trade Commission says there have been more than 400 drug products improperly listed in the Orange Book by drug companies. 

Pharmaceutical companies that file for the extensions typically say they have modified their drugs in a way that should merit additional time to recover their expenses.

The Federal Trade Commission accuses some of them of exaggerating their claims to prevent generic drug companies from producing similar drugs, thereby cutting into the profits of the original patent holders.

The result can be higher drug prices for consumers.

President Joe Biden pledged shortly after winning the 2020 election to crack down on big corporations that exploit consumers with their market dominance. He appointed Lina Khan, the current head of the Federal Trade Commission, to lead the effort.

Sen. Dick Durbin, R-Ill., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, met with Khan Thursday to discuss how they would proceed against the overpriced drugs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on high drug prices last month as it considers legislation to bring down costs for consumers.

The committee’s figures show that in 2022, pharmaceutical companies raised prices on more than 1,200 medications by an average of 32 percent, or four times the inflation rate.

“The pharmaceutical industry will tell you that the high prescription drug prices are the cost of innovation and point to billions of dollars they spend on research and development,” Durbin said at the hearing.

Rather than a result of big development costs for drug companies, the high prices consumers pay “are the result of skilled lawyers manipulating the patent system and skirting our nation’s competition laws,” Durbin said.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

FCC Wants Net Neutrality Case Transferred to D.C. Circuit

The Federal Communications Commission is trying to keep a pivotal net neutrality case in Washington, D.C., as the agency seeks to prevent internet companies from giving preference to favored customers.

Along with its motion to transfer the case to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, the FCC declined an industry petition last week to suspend its new net neutrality rules.

Internet service providers who sued to block the rules say they would cause them serious financial harm. The companies included AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

They also accuse the FCC of violating the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, a relatively new rule that requires the FCC to receive clear authorization from Congress to adopt regulations of great economic and political significance.

The Major Questions Doctrine is similar to the Administrative Procedures Act, which authorizes agencies to promulgate rules consistent with authorizations from Congress. For any new and substantive issues, only Congress is allowed to make the decisions.

The FCC approved its net neutrality rules in April. They are set to take effect July 22.

"I have full confidence in what this agency has developed with respect to net neutrality, and I believe our work will be upheld by the courts," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement.

Net neutrality means internet service providers are required to treat all data posted through their service equally.

The FCC’s new rules say internet service providers cannot restrict access, slow retrieval speeds or block content for certain users. They also forbid special arrangements in which the ISPs give improved network speeds or access to favored users, such as advertisers who provide them with the most money.

A lawsuit filed by industry groups is pending on appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Previous lawsuits and appeals on net neutrality were handled by federal courts in Washington.

The FCC argued in its motion that if the case stays in Cincinnati, the court would need to start afresh in acquiring evidence that already has been decided in the Washington courts, thereby slowing a judgment and possibly resulting in contradictions.

The lawsuit consolidates nearly a dozen cases nationwide by industry groups and public interest associations.

"If litigation were to proceed in this court, instead of the D.C. Circuit, the court and the parties would need to expend considerable effort to walk the same ground paved by the past 16 years of litigation," the agency said.

The lawsuits were filed against the FCC by the National Consumer Law Center, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, the Wireless Association and others.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Prince George’s County to Allow Curfew Zones for Businesses

Business owners in Prince George’s County can exclude minors from their property between 5 p.m. and 5 a.m. under new local legislation.

The Prince George’s County Council explained the ordinance as a crime-fighting measure.

The law gives business owners a right to ask their local police chiefs to designate areas as juvenile curfew zones.

Council members said they were trying to respond to a rise in carjackings, gun crimes and violence among teenagers. A large fight at the National Harbor shopping destination contributed to their outrage.

Juveniles who violate the curfew could be arrested. Their parents or guardians could be fined $50, $100 or $250 after first, second and third offenses.

The parents or guardians also would be required to repay the county for the time county employees need to remain with detained juveniles that violate curfews.

Police chiefs can designate what the law calls “reasonable geographic boundaries” for the curfew zones.

However, curfew zones will not be granted automatically on request. Business owners must demonstrate “the ability to provide notice to the public of the more restrictive juvenile or minor curfew zone.”

Moreover, they must give the police chiefs “a letter of support from at least one County Council member,” the law says.

The ordinance was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland. ACLU attorneys said it would fall most heavily on minority juveniles.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.