...The Institutionalists!

I will let people better equipped to interpret such things provide a fuller interpretation, but if you read the Gaetz report (.pdf) starting at page 3 (as numbered) at Procedural History, it is the kind of Calvinball shit you would expect from the Trump DOJ but it was Garland.

Shortly after DOJ withdrew its deferral request and the Committee reauthorized its review, the Committee sent DOJ a request for information. After three months without a response despite repeated follow up, the Committee submitted FOIA requests to several relevant DOJ offices, which to date have not been adequately processed. The Committee continued to reach out to DOJ throughout 2023, having still not received a substantive response to its request for information. On January 12, 2024, the Committee received its first correspondence from DOJ on the matter. At that time, DOJ provided no substantive response or explanation for its delay; instead, DOJ simply stated that it “do[es] not provide non-public information about law enforcement investigations that do not result in charges.” This “policy” is, however, inconsistent with DOJ’s historical conduct with respect to the Committee and its unique role in upholding the integrity of the House.

Thereafter, the Committee determined to issue a subpoena to DOJ to obtain records relating to its investigation of Representative Gaetz. DOJ did not comply with the subpoena by the date required, but suggested it remained “committed to good-faith engagement with the Committee.” In the spirit of cooperation, the Committee provided a list of specific responsive documents, setting out particularized demands to the subpoena. Among the particularized demands was a request for any exculpatory evidence relating to Representative Gaetz. On March 13, 2024, Committee Members met with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of DOJ. The DOJ officials again cited no legal basis for failing to comply with the subpoena. DOJ subsequently requested additional context for the Committee’s demands, which the Committee provided. After further attempts at meaningful accommodation of DOJ’s concerns about the breadth of the Committee’s request, DOJ ultimately provided publicly reported information about the testimony of a deceased individual. To date, DOJ has provided no meaningful evidence or information to the Committee or cited any lawful basis for its responses. The Committee hopes to continue to engage with DOJ on the broader issues raised by its failure to recognize the Committee’s unique mandate. As the Committee has told DOJ, the Committee and DOJ should be partners in their shared mission of upholding the integrity of our government institutions.