Garland Asked If He Is The Arbiter On Whether Biden-Hur Audio Recordings Will Be Released By Bishop

3 months ago

At today's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) questioned Attorney General Merrick Garland about the refusal to release audio recordings of President Biden and 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

00:00Mr. Attorney General, you said earlier today you spoke to the committee's recommendation

00:07of the House to hold you in contempt.

00:09You said, but we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the

00:13transcripts that you already have were created.

00:17You went on to say that certain members of this committee and the Oversight Committee

00:23are seeking contempt.

00:24You're aware that a majority of this committee has marked up a contempt resolution, aren't

00:28you, sir?

00:30Certain members includes the majority, yes.

00:32It's a big difference, isn't it, sir?

00:34Isn't that significant?

00:35The fact that a majority of the committee charged by the Congress to inquire into the

00:39grounds for impeaching the President of the United States has issued a, has marked up

00:43a contempt resolution.

00:44That's more important than certain members, isn't it, sir?

00:47Majority.

00:48Institutionally, more important.

00:49A majority has sought contempt, yes.

00:52You said that you will not be intimidated.

00:55Are you the arbiter?

00:56I'm sorry?

00:57Are you the arbiter, the decider, of whether or not those tapes will be provided to this

01:03Congress at the instance, at the subpoena of its committee to investigate the President?

01:09Constitution requires me to protect the separation of powers and our ability to do investigations

01:14in the future.

01:15It requires me, and the court proceedings make that clear, to weigh whatever interests

01:22you have against the interests of law enforcement.

01:26The President has asserted executive privilege, and I have not heard a legitimate legislative

01:31reason why the audio is insufficient for any purpose, legitimate purpose.

01:36You know what demeanor evidence is, don't you, sir?

01:39I'm sorry?

01:40Demeanor evidence.

01:41You know what that is.

01:42You've sat on the bench for decades.

01:45You know what demeanor evidence is.

01:46I know what demeanor evidence is.

01:47Okay.

01:48I know what demeanor evidence is, and I've not been shown any reason why audio, evidence

01:53of demeanor, would make a difference in any legislative purpose.

01:56Well, that's exactly what demeanor evidence is, sir, witnessing and observing a witness

02:00as they testify.

02:01And what can be done by this committee is to observe the audio recording of the President

02:07testifying to see whether it comports with the transcript or whether it reveals things

02:12about his capacity or his veracity or anything else that comes from his demeanor as he is

02:21interviewed.

02:22Those things that you just mentioned are a legislative purpose.

02:25I don't have yet to suggest any law that you intend to pass or are thinking about in which

02:32the audio would make a difference over the transcript.

02:34If a future DOJ concludes, well, let me ask you this question.

02:38What happened to Pena Navarro and Steve Bannon when they decided to defy a subpoena of the

02:44Congress?

02:48We received four referrals, criminal referrals.

02:53Two were prosecuted.

02:54Two were not.

02:55The two that were prosecuted, as the published court opinions make clear...

03:01What will happen to you if your decision is based on...

03:03May I continue to answer?

03:04No.

03:05I know what happened.

03:06You know what happened, too.

03:08Mr. Navarro is in prison.

03:10What will happen to you if your sole determination that you're not going to cooperate with this

03:16committee's subpoena is contained?

03:18With respect to the two people you asked, the court made clear they did not comply in

03:22any way, did not even appear, and second, there was no executive privilege.

03:27Neither of those is true in my case.

03:29If a future DOJ follows the facts and the law, as you're fond of reciting, even to the

03:35point of prosecuting a former president, then if your decision is baseless, you should be

03:40prosecuted, right?

03:42If a future, and I hope it will be the case, a future Justice Department follows the law

03:47and the decisions of the Office of Legal Counsel since the Reagan administration, when there

03:54is an assertion of executive privilege, the contempt statute is inapplicable.

03:58That's been the rule through every administration, including the Reagan administration.

04:04It even reached back to the Eisenhower administration.

04:07I hope they will follow the law.

04:10Mr. Attorney General, you have resurrected the Foreign Influence Task Force, and there's

04:15an FBI spokesman who recently told media, according to reports, that FBI has returned

04:21to facilitating the sharing of information about foreign malign influence with social

04:25media companies in a way that reinforces that private companies are free to decide on their

04:30own whether and how to take action on that information.

04:33A district court has decided that you didn't do that before.

04:37How are you doing that?

04:38How are you reinforcing that private companies have their own capacity to decide?

04:43The case that you're talking about is now under advisement in the Supreme Court of the

04:47United States, and I'm not going to comment on any court matter which the court made.

04:51I didn't ask you to do that.

04:52I asked you how you're reinforcing it.

04:55That's what your spokesman said.

04:56You're reinforcing the private company's latitude.

04:58How are you doing that?

04:59I'm not going to comment on what the district court said.

05:01We have the authority, as the Supreme Court just held last week, to persuade.

05:06We can't coerce.

05:07So we can provide information that Russia or China or Iran or North Korea is operating

05:13on a social media platform.

05:15Why don't you do it in public?

05:16And then leave it to the social media to take it down.

05:19Why don't you do it in public?

05:20I'm sorry?

05:21Why don't you do that in public so the public can see what you're doing?

05:23Well, I'm not saying that we shouldn't also do it in public.

05:26I would hope everybody in this room would want to know if one of our adversaries is

05:33acting as if they were American citizens on a social media platform.

Garland Asked If He Is The Arbiter On Whether Biden-Hur Audio Recordings Will Be Released By Bishop

Category

Transcript

Recommended