Sen. Ron Johnson wants Garland arrested for inherent contempt. Someone wake me up when he mentions the name Jim Jordan.

Here's RoJo on Newsmax TV this Monday, pushing their latest false equivalence that Merrick Garland refusing to release the audio tape, after previously releasing the transcript of the right wing hit job on Biden that they desperately want so they can make campaign ads out of it, is the same as Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon just completely snubbing their noses at their Congressional subpoenas, and demanding that he be arrested for inherent contempt:

SCHMITT: They went after Bannon and Navarro and their subpoenas for those two men came from a crooked committee, as we've said before, which should have never even had subpoena power to begin with. And Navarro's in jail right now.

JOHNSON: Well, let's face it, January 6th Committee was corrupt. It was highly partisan. But, you know, we've got a real problem here in terms of Congress's oversight capabilities. We are vested in the Constitution with the responsibility to conduct oversight, hold the administration accountable.

But unfortunately, Congress has allowed that power to atrophy over the decades. What Speaker Johnson now is pursuing is civil contempt. You know, so he'll go to court and try and get a court, you know, remember the third branch to enforce their subpoena.

There's actually a third type of contempt contempt that Congress has used in the past. It's called inherent contempt, and that is where you basically send the Sergeant at Arms to the individual who is holding Congress in contempt and you arrest that individual until they comply with your subpoena.

Now, it hasn't been used in the House since 1916. In the Senate, the last time to use was 1935, but I think the way this is going, the way that administrations just completely blow off Congress and its constitutional responsibility and authority to enforce these things at some point in time, some committee is going to have to start looking at inherent contempt as well.

SCHMITT: I just, I would love to hear Merrick Garland just explain why he won't release it. You know, if anything, just that. Just tell us as somebody that's not supposed to be partisan aligned, why it is that you're concealing the audio tapes of a special counsel interview with the president over his egregious behavior with classified documents.

What possible answer could he have that's not corrupt?

JOHNSON: He's doing it because he can do it. He's the law, and so he believes he's above the law, and by and large, again, the way Congress has allowed his oversight, responsibilities and authority to atrophy, they'll continue to get walked over by administrations from both parties.

So my suggestion for members of Congress is, yeah, pursue the civil route, but if that doesn't work, I would not rule out inherent contempt. Send the Sergeant at Arms to those to the homes of those individuals and arrest them until we want to comply with your lawful order.

Everything is projection with these people. The reason for not releasing it is because they don't normally do that when there are no changes involved, and they've already got the transcript.

This isn't going anywhere, but it won't stop them from screaming to the hills about it from now up until the election.