GOP Lawmaker Brings Up Watergate In Grilling With Garland About Refusal To Release Biden Audiotapes

6 months ago

At yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) questioned Attorney General Merrick Garland about the refusal of President Biden to release recordings with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:02 Attorney General, on May 15, 2024, you sent a letter to President Biden recommending he

00:07 invoke executive privilege on audio recordings of his interview with Special Counsel Robert

00:12 Herr.

00:13 In this letter, you claim the precise concern is that executive privilege protects materials

00:17 related to a closed criminal investigation where disclosure might hamper prosecutorial

00:22 efforts in future cases.

00:24 Is that correct?

00:25 I think you stated that earlier.

00:27 In this letter, you also wrote that you are concerned about the prospect of committees

00:31 of Congress obtaining confidential records from Justice Department of criminal investigative

00:35 files for the purpose of addressing highly politicized issues in public committee hearings.

00:40 Is that correct as well?

00:42 Are you citing my letter?

00:45 Yeah, in my letter, that's correct.

00:49 So let me go back.

00:50 In the United States v. Mitchell, during the Watergate District Court case, Judge Sirica

00:55 held that by releasing portions of a subpoenaed recording in transcript form for publication,

01:01 the President's claim of confidentiality and that privilege associated with it was no longer

01:06 valid since the conversations were no longer confidential.

01:10 You produced the transcripts to this committee, correct?

01:14 Yes.

01:15 And prior to producing the transcripts to the committee, they were leaked to the press.

01:18 So based on Mitchell, which is still good law, the recordings are, in fact, no longer

01:24 confidential, aren't they?

01:25 Can I respond?

01:27 I'm sorry, that's not what Mitchell was about at all.

01:30 Mitchell was, first of all, about transcripts created by President Nixon, for which there

01:36 was plenty of reason to believe that they were not accurate.

01:39 And secondly, it had to do with the confidentiality of communications between Nixon and his staff.

01:46 And once he provided the transcripts, the court said those communications were no longer

01:51 confidential.

01:52 That is not the allegation, that is not what we're asserting here.

01:56 Here we're asserting confidentiality over the audio, not confidentiality, but protection

02:03 of the audio in a criminal investigation, an interview, not a staff meeting.

02:08 Okay, thank you.

02:10 Let me move on.

02:11 Your May 15th letter also relies on the argument that producing the audio tapes would affect

02:15 the department's ability to obtain vital cooperation in high-profile criminal investigations,

02:20 in particular in investigations where the voluntary cooperation of White House officials

02:25 is exceedingly important.

02:28 Is it your testimony that a White House official would voluntarily cooperate in a criminal

02:32 investigation only if the Justice Department promises not to release the audio recordings?

02:38 That doesn't make any sense.

02:40 The longtime experience of the Justice Department is also reflected in the declaration that

02:45 was filed under oath, is that witnesses want to protect the confidentiality of their communications

02:52 with the prosecutors during these sensitive interviews.

02:57 In the Cheney case, the Justice Department made the same claim, even with respect to

03:02 FBI notes about interviews of Mr. Cheney and that special counsel.

03:08 It's our view that we need witnesses to be willing to be tape recorded, audio recorded,

03:17 and that they are going to be less willing to do that if they know it's going to be made

03:22 public.

03:23 In the declaration that was filed in court on Friday, the senior official stated that

03:29 he knew of cases right now where people are unwilling to provide audio because they are

03:35 worried about it becoming public.

03:37 So the answer is yes, that is our view.

03:40 Attorney General, have you listened to the audio recording?

03:42 I have not, because there's no reason for me to listen to it in order to make the determinations

03:48 that I had to make.

03:49 We had the special counsel describe in detail his explanations for his determinations.

03:54 So let me, I mean, I don't understand how you can kind of sit before the congressional

03:59 committee and kind of arbitrate what's indistinguishable from the transcripts if you're not even sure

04:06 what's on the tapes themselves.

04:08 I'm not doing it on my own.

04:09 I have...

04:10 So you're saying other people have listened to it within the department?

04:14 Within the department and the special counsel has listened to it and the special counsel

04:17 had every interest in ensuring that the transcript that he produced in order to do his investigation

04:22 would be accurate.

04:23 Yes, that's right.

04:24 Okay, so let's go back.

04:25 So in May 15th letter, you also attempt to distinguish the committee's reliance on the

04:29 United States versus Nixon.

04:31 Specifically, you claim that since President Nixon had released only edited transcripts

04:35 of a portion of the meetings covered by the audio recordings, the Nixon case does not

04:40 apply.

04:41 But that was not what the court held regarding the enforceability of the special prosecutor's

04:46 subpoena, was it?

04:47 I mean, that's not, that doesn't match up right now, that.

04:51 I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but Nixon, it was well known that Nixon had edited

04:56 the tapes, edited the transcripts, and he said he had edited the transcripts.

05:02 That is not what happened here.

05:03 The special counsel, the FBI agents in the room, and the senior career official said

05:08 that the transcripts matched the audio.

05:11 So the court reasoned that the audio recordings would be relevant to show, among other things,

05:15 a criminal conspiracy and for other valid potential evidentiary uses for the same material.

05:22 In the Nixon case, yes, because there were parts of the transcript in which the conspiracy

05:26 was disclosed of those communications, which he, parts of the audio in which were not in

05:31 the transcript.

05:32 That's not the situation here.

05:34 Here are the-

05:35 We don't know that, though, Attorney General.

05:36 We're unaware because we haven't heard the tapes.

05:38 We don't know if they match up.

05:39 Everyone had a genuine reason to believe that those transcripts were not accurate.

05:44 Here you have the special counsel, you have the FBI agents in the room, and you have the

05:50 senior career official in the department all comparing it and finding them to be accurate.

05:55 Time of the gentleman has expired.

05:56 The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes.

05:59 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

06:01 Most Americans have grown sick and tired of this do-nothing MAGA Republican House of Representatives

GOP Lawmaker Brings Up Watergate In Grilling With Garland About Refusal To Release Biden Audiotapes

Category

Transcript

Recommended