DOJ will not turn over Biden's recorded interview with Special Counsel Hur, risking contempt of Congress

Valletta said:

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, have threatened to hold Garland in contempt of Congress over the Justice Department's failure to produce the records. Last month, they set Monday, April 8, as the deadline for Garland to comply.

DOJ will not turn over Biden's recorded interview with Special Counsel Hur, risking contempt of Congress

The Justice Department will not produce subpoenaed audio recordings of former special counsel Robert Hur's interview with President Biden to House Republicans, putting Attorney General Merrick Garland at risk of being held in contempt of Congress.

www.foxnews.com

Congress has a duty to oversee the Executive Branch.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link from a truthful news channel? Not a news channel, that allowed their employees to lie for months or longer.

Valletta said:

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, have threatened to hold Garland in contempt of Congress over the Justice Department's failure to produce the records. Last month, they set Monday, April 8, as the deadline for Garland to comply.

DOJ will not turn over Biden's recorded interview with Special Counsel Hur, risking contempt of Congress

The Justice Department will not produce subpoenaed audio recordings of former special counsel Robert Hur's interview with President Biden to House Republicans, putting Attorney General Merrick Garland at risk of being held in contempt of Congress.

www.foxnews.com

Congress has a duty to oversee the Executive Branch.

Click to expand...

The special counsel’s testimony didn’t get the goods so congress will have to fish for them instead?

“The Department is concerned that the Committees' particular focus on continuing to demand information that is cumulative of information we already gave you — what the President and Mr. Hur's team said in the interview indicates that the Committees' interests may not be in receiving information in service of legitimate oversight or investigatory functions, but to serve political purposes that should have no role in the treatment of law enforcement files," Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte wrote in a letter to Jordan and Comer Monday.
[emphasis mine]

Valletta said:

That's an old excuse against government transparency, that whoever gets the records might somehow misuse those records. A poor excuse for withholding government records. I've previously identified myself before as a promoter of government transparency and accountability. Make sure everyone has the information and then make sure all parties not be curtailed in debates and discussions of the material.

Click to expand...

The committee has all of the transcripts, everything that was said was transcribed and written down.
The raw “work-product” need not be released.

Pommer said:

The special counsel’s testimony didn’t get the goods so congress will have to fish for them instead?

Click to expand...

....and provide material for Valletta to post.

Seriously? Hur was the committee's "guy" and what he gave them wasn't enough? Now they need the raw footage? These guys are truly pathetic.

The IbanezerScrooge said:

Seriously? Hur was the committee's "guy" and what he gave them wasn't enough? Now they need the raw footage? These guys are truly pathetic.

Click to expand...

I suspect they want to use it to look for a point where Biden seems confused or stumbles over his words and then will play it constantly as "proof" that he's senile.

The IbanezerScrooge said:

Seriously? Hur was the committee's "guy" and what he gave them wasn't enough? Now they need the raw footage? These guys are truly pathetic.

Click to expand...

From what I’m given to understand, making a water-pistol smoke is well nigh impossible.

Arcangl86 said:

I suspect they want to use it to look for a point where Biden seems confused or stumbles over his words and then will play it constantly as "proof" that he's senile.

Click to expand...

Which would fall under the 25th Amendment, which isn’t in Congress’ purview, but rests in the Executive Branch, waiting to be invoked by a Vice-President and Cabinet*.
(Congress can only remove a criminal from an office, they cannot impeach due to a President’s incapacitation…which is why the 25th was passed.)
*these only would need to watch/listen to real actual recordings since (for Congress’ sake) “what was said” is more important that how it was said, with apologies to Emperor Claudius.

Pommer said:

Which would fall under the 25th Amendment, which isn’t in Congress’ purview, but rests in the Executive Branch, waiting to be invoked by a Vice-President and Cabinet*.
(Congress can only remove a criminal from an office, they cannot impeach due to a President’s incapacitation…which is why the 25th was passed.)
*these only would need to watch/listen to real actual recordings since (for Congress’ sake) “what was said” is more important that how it was said, with apologies to Emperor Claudius.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about using it to remove Biden? I expect them to try and use it to benefit them in the election.

House Republicans are ready to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt over Biden audio, despite existence of transcripts

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte, the department’s head of congressional affairs, said in the letter to Jordan and Comer last month that the committees’ interest in these records may not be “in service of legitimate oversight or investigatory functions, but to serve political purposes that should have no role in the treatment of law enforcement files.”


This is destined to be as consequential as the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas or eating salad slowly.

essentialsaltes said:

House Republicans are ready to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt over Biden audio, despite existence of transcripts

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte, the department’s head of congressional affairs, said in the letter to Jordan and Comer last month that the committees’ interest in these records may not be “in service of legitimate oversight or investigatory functions, but to serve political purposes that should have no role in the treatment of law enforcement files.”


This is destined to be as consequential as the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas or eating salad slowly.

Click to expand...

When is the house going to hold Jim Jordan in contempt for ignoring a subpoena to testify?

essentialsaltes said:

House Republicans are ready to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt over Biden audio, despite existence of transcripts

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte, the department’s head of congressional affairs, said in the letter to Jordan and Comer last month that the committees’ interest in these records may not be “in service of legitimate oversight or investigatory functions, but to serve political purposes that should have no role in the treatment of law enforcement files.”


This is destined to be as consequential as the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas or eating salad slowly.

Click to expand...

“The White House didn’t give the Congress exactly what Congress wanted!”

This is one of the ways the Executive branch checks the Legislative branch.
Trying to make this into an “issue” is a time-honored tradition and only works about 3% of the time; still, the times being what they are…

White House says Hur tapes are privileged as Congress moves to hold Garland in contempt​

President Biden has asserted executive privilege over the audio and video recordings from the special counsel investigation into his handling of classified materials and will refuse congressional requests to hand them over, the White House and the Justice Department said in separate letters to House Republican leaders Thursday.

The letters were sent hours before the GOP-led House Oversight and Judiciary committees were scheduled to advance a contempt resolution against Attorney General Merrick Garland for defying a subpoena that demanded the recordings, which include hours of special counsel Robert K. Hur interviewing Biden.

--

In interviews with right-wing media outlets, Comer has indicated that his investigation will come to an end imminently but not without potential criminal referrals.

Jamie Raskin:

“The Attorney General gave Republicans the information they asked for, and it’s delightfully absurd to suggest that listening to the President’s words instead of just reading them will suddenly reveal the mystery high crime and misdemeanor the Republicans have been unable to identify since 2023”

essentialsaltes said:

White House says Hur tapes are privileged as Congress moves to hold Garland in contempt​

President Biden has asserted executive privilege

Click to expand...

DOJ memo says Garland cannot be prosecuted for contempt over Biden-Hur audio​

The 57-page memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), obtained by The Hill, lays out the case for Garland’s refusal to turn over the audio of Biden’s conversation with special counsel Robert Hur. The GOP already has a transcript of the interview.

“For nearly seven decades and across presidential administrations of both parties, the Executive Branch has taken the position that the criminal contempt of Congress statute … does not apply to Executive Branch officials who do not comply with a congressional subpoena based on a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” according to the memo.

“Because the committees have the transcripts of the special counsel’s interviews, the needs the committees have articulated for the recordings are plainly insufficient to overcome a privilege claim grounded in these important separation of powers concerns,” according to the memo.

“The audio recording will not reveal any information relevant to the committees’ stated needs that is not available in the transcripts.”

I can understand why the justice department (and other law enforcement agencies who operate under strict privacy and disclosure rules) would take issue disclosing information merely because a congressional member says "but I wanna see/hear it" without some sort of compelling reason for the request.

Especially considering that in the last 10 years, there have been incidents involving congressmen "letting things slip" in ways that make it back to the media and a wider audience.



But, I say there's a compromise here... Provide them with what they're asking for, under the premise and strict understanding that they're not to say a word about it, not hint about it, and never mention so much as a whisper about it to anyone, ever...full stop. Not the media, not their wives, not anyone. And if they do, harsh punishments.

Meaning, if one of them shows up on Fox News to say "It sounds like Joe was about to the fall asleep during the recording" for a cheap pop or makes implying remarks remarks in passing to some journalist like "well, based on what I heard, it seemed like he wasn't too sure of his answers, like he'd been coached, but that's all I'll say about that wink-wink"... Fines and jail time.

Then we'll see how bad they still want it. If their intentions are pure and it really is just about "getting to the bottom of something", they should have zero issues with those kinds of stipulations. The only reason they'd take issues with super-strict zero-disclosure (else legal punishment) rules is if they were actually wanting it to use for some sort of political fodder, right?



To the root of what I'm pretty sure they actually want to do, they want to get their hands on the recording so they can gather around like a bunch of schoolboys who found their dad's playboy stash, and look for some tiny, insignificant error in the transcribing ....like "oh, they left out one of the times Biden said Uhhhh..." or "they put "Uhhh" when he said he actually said "Ummm"), and then come out to their friends on Fox and say "well, I can tell you first hand there were inaccuracies in that transcript, but that's all I can say.... this is a weaponized justice department!".

essentialsaltes said:

DOJ memo says Garland cannot be prosecuted for contempt over Biden-Hur audio​

The 57-page memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), obtained by The Hill, lays out the case for Garland’s refusal to turn over the audio of Biden’s conversation with special counsel Robert Hur. The GOP already has a transcript of the interview.

“For nearly seven decades and across presidential administrations of both parties, the Executive Branch has taken the position that the criminal contempt of Congress statute … does not apply to Executive Branch officials who do not comply with a congressional subpoena based on a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” according to the memo.

“Because the committees have the transcripts of the special counsel’s interviews, the needs the committees have articulated for the recordings are plainly insufficient to overcome a privilege claim grounded in these important separation of powers concerns,” according to the memo.

“The audio recording will not reveal any information relevant to the committees’ stated needs that is not available in the transcripts.”

Click to expand...

The audio recording must not match the transcript or either it’s very embarrassing for Biden otherwise why not release it?

BPPLEE said:

The audio recording must not match the transcript or either it’s very embarrassing for Biden otherwise why not release it?

Click to expand...

DOJ says there's nothing that doesn't match the transcript. If it's embarrassing, then releasing it is not “in service of legitimate oversight or investigatory functions, but to serve political purposes that should have no role in the treatment of law enforcement files.”