House Republicans on Monday filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Merrick Garland for the audio recording of President Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel in his classified documents case, asking the courts to enforce their subpoena and reject the White House’s effort to withhold the materials from Congress. The lawsuit filed by the House Judiciary Committee marks Republicans’ latest broadside against the Justice Department as partisan conflict over the rule of law animates the 2024 presidential campaign. The legal action comes weeks after the White House blocked Garland from releasing the audio recording to Congress by asserting executive privilege.
Quick Read
- House Republicans filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday to gain access to the audio recording of President Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel in his classified documents case.
- The House Judiciary Committee’s lawsuit seeks to enforce their subpoena and challenge the White House’s claim of executive privilege, which has blocked the release of the audio.
- This legal action marks the latest clash between Republicans and the Justice Department, heightening partisan tensions ahead of the 2024 presidential campaign.
- The lawsuit follows the House’s vote to hold Garland in contempt of Congress after the Justice Department refused to prosecute him, citing a longstanding policy regarding executive privilege.
- Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., attempted to resolve the issue with Garland without legal action, but was referred back to the White House, which dismissed the effort.
- The inquiry began with special counsel Robert Hur’s report in February, which found evidence that Biden willfully retained and shared highly classified information as a private citizen, but did not recommend criminal charges.
- Republicans subpoenaed audio of Hur’s interviews with Biden, but the Justice Department withheld the audio of the president’s interview, providing only some records.
- The lawsuit argues that the audio recordings are essential for assessing the special counsel’s characterization of Biden and his recommendation against prosecution.
- The White House invoked executive privilege on the last day to comply with the subpoena, arguing that Republicans intended to misuse the recordings for political purposes.
- Executive privilege allows presidents to withhold information to protect decision-making confidentiality, though it can be challenged in court.
- The Justice Department cited past instances where officials were not prosecuted for contempt of Congress due to executive privilege claims, referencing a 2008 decision involving President George W. Bush.
- Courts have generally preferred that the White House and Congress resolve disputes over executive privilege without judicial intervention, though notable exceptions include the 1974 Supreme Court ruling that forced President Richard Nixon to release Watergate tapes.
- The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain, as courts have rarely ruled on executive privilege, but past decisions suggest that compelling arguments for disclosure can override the privilege.
The Associated Press has the the story:
House Republicans sue AG Garland over access to Biden special counsel interview audio
Newslooks- WASHINGTON (AP) —
House Republicans on Monday filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Merrick Garland for the audio recording of President Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel in his classified documents case, asking the courts to enforce their subpoena and reject the White House’s effort to withhold the materials from Congress.
The lawsuit filed by the House Judiciary Committee marks Republicans’ latest broadside against the Justice Department as partisan conflict over the rule of law animates the 2024 presidential campaign. The legal action comes weeks after the White House blocked Garland from releasing the audio recording to Congress by asserting executive privilege.
Republicans in the House responded by voting to make Garland the third attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress. But the Justice Department refused to take up the contempt referral, citing the agency’s “longstanding position and uniform practice” to not prosecute officials who don’t comply with subpoenas because of a president’s claim of executive privilege.
The lawsuit states that Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., made a “last-ditch effort” last week to Garland to resolve the issue without taking legal action but the attorney general referred the Republicans to the White House, which rebuffed the “effort to find a solution to this impasse.”
The congressional inquiry began with the release of special counsel Robert Hur’s report in February, which found evidence that Biden, a Democrat, willfully retained and shared highly classified information when he was a private citizen. Yet Hur concluded that criminal charges were not warranted.
Republicans, incensed by Hur’s decision, issued a subpoena for audio of his interviews with Biden during the spring. But the Justice Department turned over only some of the records, leaving out audio of the interview with the president.
“The audio recordings, not the cold transcripts, are the best available evidence of how President Biden presented himself during the interview,” the lawsuit reads. “The Committee thus needs those recordings to assess the Special Counsel’s characterization of the President, which he and White House lawyers have forcefully disputed, and ultimate recommendation that President Biden should not be prosecuted.”
On the last day to comply with the Republicans’ subpoena for the audio, the White House blocked the release by invoking executive privilege. It said that Republicans in Congress only wanted the recordings “to chop them up” and use them for political purposes.
Executive privilege gives presidents the right to keep information from the courts, Congress and the public to protect the confidentiality of decision-making, though it can be challenged in court. Administrations of both major political parties have long held the position that officials who assert a president’s claim of executive privilege can’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress, a Justice Department official told Republicans last month.
Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte cited a committee’s decision in 2008 to back down from a contempt effort after President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege to keep Congress from getting records involving Vice President Dick Cheney.
It’s unclear how the lawsuit will play out. Courts have not had much to say about executive privilege. But in the 1974 case over President Richard Nixon’s refusal to release Oval Office recordings as part of the Watergate investigation, the Supreme Court held that the privilege is not absolute. In other words, the case for turning over documents or allowing testimony may be more compelling than arguments for withholding them. In that context, the court ruled 8-0 that Nixon had to turn over the tapes.
When it came to the Watergate tapes, the Supreme Court said it had the final word, and lower courts have occasionally weighed in to resolve other disputes. But courts also have made clear they prefer that the White House and Congress resolve their disagreements without judicial intervention, when possible.
