Gamifying Biden’s Alternative
Democratic strategist Leslie Marshall and Reason senior editor Robbie Soave join Howard Kurtz to discuss CNN’s presidential debate questions and who the Democratic Party would consider replacing President Biden if he leaves or is removed from office.
The House Judiciary Committee is suing Attorney General Merrick Garland to obtain recordings of meetings between President Biden and Special Counsel Robert Hur.
As part of its lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the committee stressed the importance of the “verbal and non-verbal context” of Biden’s answers, as provided by the audio recordings. Notably, one of the reasons Heo chose not to prosecute Biden after the interview was that Biden was viewed as a “caring, well-meaning older man with a limited memory.”
No contempt charges against Attorney General Garland for refusing to turn over audio of Justice Department, Biden, Harper interviews
The lawsuit comes as Democratic Party leaders consider whether Biden should continue his reelection campaign after he was widely panned in last week’s presidential debate.
In its lawsuit, the committee says the president’s claim of executive privilege over the documents is “without merit” and asks the court to dismiss the privilege claim.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (left) is investigating how grant money is being handled at a key office within Attorney General Merrick Garland’s (right) Department of Justice. (Getty Images)
“This dispute concerns a frivolous assertion of executive privilege,” the complaint states.
As part of the House impeachment investigation into the president, the committee subpoenaed Garland to obtain records related to Harr’s investigation into Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. The committee sought materials related to Harr’s interviews with Biden and Mark Zwonitzer, the ghostwriter for Biden’s 2017 memoir.
The Justice Department provided the committee with transcripts of those interviews, but Garland “refused to turn over audio recordings of the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer.”
“Instead, Attorney General Garland urged President Biden to assert executive privilege over those recordings, and President Biden complied with that request,” the complaint states.
The committee argues that the audio recordings are “superior evidence to the transcripts of what happened during the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer.”
“For example, these recordings contain verbal and non-verbal context that is not included in the cold transcripts,” the committee stated. “This verbal and non-verbal context is crucial here because the Special Counsel relied on the way President Biden presented himself during the interview as a ‘caring, well-meaning, elderly man with a limited memory’ in ultimately recommending that President Biden should not be indicted for unlawfully retaining and disclosing classified information.”
The Democratic National Committee paid a lawyer representing President Biden, who was under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Hur for allegedly possessing classified documents. (Getty Images)
The committee argued that the audio recording (not merely a transcript) was “the best evidence of how President Biden presented himself during the interview.”
Special counsel calls Biden a “caring, well-meaning, elderly man with a limited memory” and will not pursue charges
“The Committee needs these recordings to evaluate the Special Counsel’s opinions about the President, which are vigorously disputed by the Special Counsel and White House counsel, as well as his ultimate recommendation that President Biden should not be indicted,” the complaint states.
The committee said Biden’s “self-serving attempt” to hide the audio recording of the interview from the public was “a stunning attempt to expand the scope of executive privilege from a constitutional privilege protecting specific substantive communications to a vague privilege tailored to protect voice, intonation, tone and manner of delivery.”
The committee also noted that the release of the interview transcripts effectively “waived” executive privilege.
“Furthermore, the core of the privilege argument – that agency employees would be less likely to cooperate with a Department of Justice investigation if they knew that audio recordings of their interviews might be made available to Congress after the Department of Justice released those interviews – flies in the face of common sense,” the complaint says.
“If potential disclosure would prevent cooperation, it would be disclosure of records voluntarily released by the Department of Justice, not disclosure of audio recordings after the records became widely available,” the complaint states.
For this reason, the committee argued that Biden’s exercise of executive privilege was “without merit.”
“Accordingly, the Committee urges this Court to reject the executive privilege claim and order Attorney General Garland to turn over to the Committee the audio recording of the Special Counsel’s interview with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit was filed just weeks after the House of Representatives voted to hold Garland in contempt of Congress and file criminal charges against him for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena for audio recordings.
Attorney General Merrick Garland is being held in contempt of Congress for failing to provide lawmakers with audio of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s interview with President Joe Biden. (Getty Images)
But the Justice Department said it would not prosecute Garland.
“Consistent with this long-standing position and uniform practice, the Department of Justice has determined that Attorney General Garland’s responses to subpoenas issued by the Committee do not constitute criminal offenses, and therefore the Department will not present a contempt of Congress charge to a grand jury or take any other steps to indict the Attorney General,” Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte wrote in a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson last month.
Click here to get the FOX News app
Hmm, who? The report was released The report, released to the public in February after a months-long investigation, did not recommend criminal charges against Biden for improper handling or storage of classified documents and said charges would not be brought even if Biden was no longer in the Oval Office.
The records include classified documents on the military and foreign policies of Afghanistan and other countries, as well as other records related to national security and foreign policy, which Heo said involve “classified sources and methods.”
