The House Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio recordings of special counsel Robert K. Hur’s interviews with President Biden over his mishandling of classified documents.
The Republican-led panel voted 18-15 hours after the president sought to shield the attorney general. Mr. Biden asserted executive privilege over the audiotapes that Mr. Hur used during his two-day interview in October.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, said the president’s last-minute executive privilege assertion underscores the recordings’ “unique perspective” and that the panel wants to review them to determine whether Mr. Biden received favorable treatment by the Justice Department.
“This latest invocation does not change the fact that the attorney general has not complied with our subpoena,” Mr. Jordan said.
The measure now moves to a vote before the Republican-led House. If the House passes the resolution, the contempt charge will be referred to the Justice Department.
People prosecuted and convicted of a contempt citation face a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment “for not less than one month nor more than 12 months.” Mr. Garland, who oversees the department, is likely to ignore it.
In his interview with Mr. Hur, Mr. Biden revealed his mishandling of classified documents while vice president and dating back to his time as a senator.
Mr. Garland has also denied House lawmakers the audio recordings of Mr. Hur’s interview with Mark Zwonitzer, the ghostwriter for Mr. Biden’s 2017 memoir, “Promise Me, Dad.”
The Justice Department released redacted transcripts of the Hur interviews earlier this year, but lawmakers say they need the audiotapes to determine whether prosecutors are delivering impartial justice.
Mr. Biden’s Republican opponent in November, former President Donald Trump, is facing dozens of charges in Florida by special counsel Jack Smith over a stash of classified documents he took from the White House in January 2017 and stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Mr. Biden received an $8 million advance for his memoir, and Mr. Hur cited it as one of the president’s motivations for taking the classified documents.
“We have motive. We have the elements of the crime. But he doesn’t get charged, and yet President Trump does,” Mr. Jordan said. “Is this the impartial administration of justice by the Justice Department? That’s our objective. That’s our goal. And the best way to figure all that out is to get all the evidence.”
Mr. Jordan said lawmakers need the audiotapes because Mr. Hur’s transcript of the interviews is “not sufficient evidence of the state of the president’s memory, frankly because the White House has a track record of altering the transcripts.”
Mr. Biden, 81, has low approval ratings and poll numbers that show voters question whether he is too old for a second term. Mr. Hur reported that Mr. Biden had several memory lapses during the interviews and forgot when his son Beau Biden died from brain cancer.
Democrats seeking to shield Mr. Biden from the potentially embarrassing audio said the Hur transcripts are sufficient. They accused Republicans of seeking the audiotapes to distort them for political purposes.
“They want the video for Donald Trump’s campaign commercials,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, California Democrat.
Hours before the contempt vote, Justice Department attorneys wrote to Mr. Jordan and Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer, Kentucky Republican, informing them of the executive privilege assertion.
The letter said releasing the recordings would “damage future law enforcement efforts and that the committee’s continued demands raise serious separation of powers concerns.”
On Thursday, White House counsel Ed Siskel wrote a separate letter to House lawmakers saying the effort to obtain the recordings was a politically motivated effort to embarrass Mr. Biden. He said Republicans didn’t have a legitimate purpose for the materials beyond to “chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes.”
Republicans said the president waived executive privilege when the transcripts were released and that Congress needs the tapes to conduct legitimate oversight into Mr. Biden’s removal and improper storage of classified documents.
Mr. Hur, who has since resigned from the Justice Department, cited the audio recordings in his decision not to charge Mr. Biden with mishandling classified documents. In a final report, Mr. Hur wrote that the president came across as “a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”
Republican lawmakers said the audiotapes would help them determine whether Mr. Hur’s assessment of the president was accurate and whether he deserved to escape criminal charges.
“If our commander in chief is so incompetent that he cannot stand trial and he’s not fit to stand trial, then he’s too incompetent, for God’s sake, to be the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth,” said Rep. Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey Republican. “If President Biden is competent and special counsel Hur’s assessment was incorrect, then President Biden should face a jury for his crimes of mishandling classified materials.”
Mr. Hur’s report said Mr. Biden shared classified information with Mr. Zwonitzer. When Mr. Zwonitzer learned of Mr. Hur’s appointment in the case, he deleted some audio recordings of his interviews with Mr. Biden.
Mr. Hur testified in March that Mr. Biden revealed classified documents about the war in Afghanistan to Mr. Zwonitzer in February 2017 and “read classified information out loud” to him.
The author did not hold a security clearance.
Mr. Hur’s testimony undermined Mr. Biden’s argument that he did not willfully take or share boxes of classified information found in his Washington office and at his home in Wilmington, Delaware. Some of the material was left in a pile in his garage.
Mr. Biden’s book reached No. 1 on The New York Times bestseller list.
• Susan Ferrechio can be reached at sferrechio@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.