Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 99 (Wednesday, June 12, 2024)

[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 99 (Wednesday, June 12, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3739-H3767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK B. GARLAND IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR REFUSAL
TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the
Judiciary, I call up the report (H. Rept. 118-527) and accompanying
resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find United
States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for
refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the
Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1287, the
report is considered read.
The text of the report is as follows:

The Committee on the Judiciary, having considered this
Report, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the
Report be approved.
The form of the Resolution that the Committee on the
Judiciary would recommend to the House of Representatives
citing Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S. Department
of Justice, for contempt of Congress pursuant to this Report
is as follows:
Resolved, That Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, shall be found to be in contempt of
Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, to produce documents, records, and
materials to the Committee on the Judiciary as directed by
subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia, to the end that Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.

Executive Summary

In the weeks following the February 5, 2024, release of
Special Counsel Robert K. Hur's report, the three House
Committees conducting an impeachment inquiry to determine
whether to draft articles of impeachment against President
Joseph R. Biden \1\ engaged with the Department of Justice to
obtain a limited set of documents and records related to the
report. After the Department declined to provide the
Committees with the relevant documents and records, the
Committee on the Judiciary (``Judiciary Committee'') and the
Committee on Oversight and Accountability (``Oversight
Committee'') issued identical subpoenas on February 27, 2024,
to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland compelling production
of four specific categories of documents and records,
including audio and video recordings of Special Counsel Hur's
interviews with President Biden and his ghostwriter, Mark
Zwonitzer.\2\ The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed these
materials for several reasons--including to determine whether
sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment
against President Biden for consideration by the full House
of Representatives and to determine if legislation is needed
to codify procedures governing the Department's special
counsel investigations or to strengthen the Department's
commitment to impartial justice. To date, the Department has
refused to produce the audio recordings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. Res. 918, 118th Cong. (2023).
\2\ Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman. H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, to Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (Feb. 27, 2024) (hereinafter
``Subpoena Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Special Counsel Hur's investigation, his team
uncovered evidence that President Biden ``willfully retained
and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency
when he was a private citizen.'' \3\ Special Counsel Hur
found that then-Vice President Biden had ``strong
motivations'' to flout the rules for properly handling
classified materials.\4\ In particular, Special Counsel Hur
observed that ``months before leaving office'' as vice
president, President Biden decided to write a book for ``an
advance of $8 million.'' \5\ The classified materials
retained by President Biden were an ``invaluable resource
that he consulted liberally'' while writing his book so that
he could give his ghostwriter ``raw material . . . detailing
meetings and events that would be of interest to prospective
readers and buyers of his book.'' \6\ Additionally, Special
Counsel Hur observed that President Biden viewed the
classified materials ``as an irreplaceable contemporaneous
record of some of the most important moments of his vice
presidency[,]'' which ``was valuable to him for many reasons,
including to help defend his record and buttress his legacy
as a world leader.'' \7\ Despite this evidence, Special
Counsel Hur ultimately concluded that no criminal charges
were warranted.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Report on the Investigation Into Unauthorized Removal,
Retention, and Disclosure of Classified Documents Discovered
at Locations Including the Penn Biden Center and the Delaware
Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Special
Counsel Robert K. Hur, U.S. Dep't of Justice at 1 (Feb. 2024)
(hereinafter ``Hur Report'').
\4\ Id. at 231.
\5\ Id. at 141, 231.
\6\ Id. at 231.
\7\ Id. at 231-32.
\8\ Id. at 345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Biden has vehemently denied the findings in
Special Counsel Hur's report and he and his legal team have
attempted to frame Special Counsel Hur's mention of President
Biden's poor memory as ``gratuitous.'' \9\ Yet during his
testimony before the Committee, Special Counsel Hur stated
that, ``[t]he evidence and the President himself put his
memory squarely at issue.'' \10\ In his

[[Page H3740]]

report, Special Counsel Hur noted that, during both his and
Zwonitzer's interviews with President Biden, the president's
``memory was significantly limited,'' and he ``struggle[ed]
to remember events and strain[ed] at times to read and relay
his own [handwriting].'' \11\ Special Counsel Hur also
observed that President Biden ``did not remember when he was
vice president,'' ``for[got] when his [vice presidential]
term ended,'' and ``did not remember, even within several
years, when his son Beau died.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Rebecca Beitsch, et al., Special counsel overstepped
mandate with `gratuitous' Biden slams, say ex-DOJ Dems, The
Hill (Feb. 12, 2024) (`` `When the inevitable conclusion is
that the facts and the evidence don't support any charges,'
said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House's special
counsel office, `you're left to wonder why this report spends
time making gratuitous and inappropriate criticisms of the
president.' ''); see Letter from Mr. Richard Sauber, Special
Counsel to the President, The White House, and Mr. Bob Bauer,
Personal Counsel to Joseph R. Biden. Jr., to Mr. Bradley
Weinsheimer, Assoc. Deputy Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice
at 2-3 (Feb. 12, 2024) (``This is the very definition of a
derogatory comment''. . . .).
\10\ Hearing on the Report of Special Counsel Robert Hur:
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 118th Cong. 17
(2024) (statement of Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, U.S.
Dep't of Justice) (hereinafter ``Hearing on Hur Report'').
\11\ Hur Report, supra note 3, at 207.
\12\ Id. at 207-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department continues to withhold key material
responsive to the subpoenas from the Judiciary and Oversight
Committees--specifically the audio recordings of Special
Counsel Hur's interviews with President Biden and Zwonitzer.
Its failure to fully comply with the Committees' subpoenas
has hindered the House's ability to adequately conduct
oversight over Special Counsel Hur regarding his
investigative findings and the President's retention and
disclosure of classified materials and impeded the
Committees' impeachment inquiry.

Authority and Purpose

The Constitution vests the House of Representatives with
the ``sole Power of Impeachment'' \13\ and provides that the
``President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' \14\ As the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit has stated, ``[t]o level
the grave accusation that a President may have committed
`Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'
U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4, the House must be appropriately
informed.'' \15\ Congress's authority to access information
during an impeachment investigation is broader in certain
instances than in a purely legislative investigation,\16\ a
fact that the executive branch traditionally has
recognized.\17\ Investigating and collecting all relevant
evidence is the traditional means by which the House begins
an impeachment inquiry.\18\ Indeed, conducting an impeachment
inquiry without all pertinent evidence would be an affront to
the Constitution and irreparably damage public faith in the
impeachment process.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5.
\14\ Id. art. II, Sec. 4.
\15\ Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v.
McGahn, 968 F.3d 755, 765 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).
\16\ Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv.: Legal Sidebar, LSB11083,
Impeachment Investigations, Part II: Access, at 1 (2023)
(``[T]here is reason to believe that invocation of the
impeachment power could improve the committees' legal claims
of access to certain types of evidence relevant to the
allegations of misconduct against President Biden.''). See
also In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. Supp. 3d
129, 176 (D.D.C. 2019) (``[D]enying [the House Judiciary
Committee] evidence relevant to an impeachment inquiry could
pose constitutional problems.''), aff'd, 951 F.3d 589 (D.C.
Cir. 2020), vacated and remanded sub nom. on other grounds,
DOJ v. House Comm. on the Judiciary, 142 S. Ct. 46 (2021); In
re Request for Access to Grand Jury Materials, 833 F.2d 1438,
1445 (11th Cir. 1987) (concluding that ``limit[ing] the
investigatory power of the House in impeachment proceedings .
. . would clearly violate separation of powers principles'').
\17\ See Garvey, supra note 16 (``As a historical matter, all
three branches have suggested that the House possesses a
robust right of access to information when it is
investigating for impeachment purposes.''); Jonathan David
Schaub, The Executive's Privilege, 70 Duke L.J. 1, 87 (2020)
(``[P]residents and others have recognized throughout the
history of the country that their ability to withhold
information from Congress disappears in the context of
impeachment.'').
\18\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 116-346, at 28 (2019) (``Here,
consistent with historical practice, the House divided its
impeachment inquiry into two phases, first collecting
evidence and then bringing that evidence before the Judiciary
Committee for its consideration of articles of
impeachment.''); H.R. Rep. No. 111-427, at 7 (2010) (``[T]he
impeachment inquiry was referred by the Committee on the
Judiciary to a Task Force on Judicial Impeachment . . .,
comprised of 12 Committee Members, to conduct the
investigation.''). See also Hearing on the Basis for the
Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph R. Biden: Before the
H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 118th Cong. (Sept.
28, 2023) (statement of Jonathan Turley, Professor, The
George Washington University Law School); Memorandum from
Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Rep.
James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability, and Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Ways & Means, to Members of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and H. Comm. on Ways &
Means (Sept. 27, 2023) (hereinafter ``Sept. 27 Memo'').
\19\ See In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F.
Supp. 3d at 176 (``Impeachment based on anything less than
all relevant evidence would compromise the public's faith in
the process.''); In re Request for Access to Grand Jury
Materials, 833 F.2d at 1445 (``Public confidence in a
procedure as political and public as impeachment is an
important consideration justifying disclosure.''); In re
Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F.
Supp. 1219, 1230 (D.D.C. 1974) (``It would be difficult to
conceive of a more compelling need than that of this country
for an unswervingly fair [impeachment] inquiry based on all
the pertinent information.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 27, 2023, pursuant to the directive of the
Speaker, the Chairs of three House Committees (the Judiciary,
Oversight, and Ways and Means Committees) released a
memorandum setting forth the justification for and scope of
the inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to draft
articles of impeachment against President Biden.\20\ On
December 13, 2023, the House of Representatives adopted House
Resolution 918, directing these three Committees to continue
the ongoing impeachment inquiry.\21\ By approving House
Resolution 918, the House also adopted House Resolution
917,\22\ which provided that ``[t]he authority provided by
clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives to the Chairs of the Committees . . .
included, from the beginning of the existing House of
Representatives impeachment inquiry . . . and continues to
include, so long as the impeachment inquiry is ongoing, the
authority to issue subpoenas on behalf of such Committees for
the purpose of furthering the impeachment inquiry.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 18.
\21\ H.R. Res. 918, 118th Cong. (2023).
\22\ H.R. Res. 917, 118th Cong. (2023).
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subpoenas issued to the Department by the Judiciary and
Oversight Committees are part of the House's impeachment
inquiry. As explained in detail below, the requested
documents and materials are necessary to determine whether
sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment
against President Biden.
However, the impeachment inquiry is not the only purpose
underlying the Committee's subpoena; it was also issued
pursuant to the Committee's authority to conduct legislative
oversight.\24\ Article I of the Constitution vests in
Congress a ``broad'' and ``indispensable'' power to conduct
oversight and investigations that ``encompasses inquiries
into the administration of existing laws, studies of proposed
laws, and surveys in our social, economic or political system
for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them.'' \25\
Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to conduct oversight
of the Department and of criminal justice matters in the
United States to inform potential legislative reforms.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, R. XI,
cl. 2(m)(1) (2023) (providing that ``a committee or
subcommittee is authorized . . . (B) to require, by subpoena
or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses
and the production of such books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers
necessary''); Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability, R. 12(g) (``The Chair of the Committee shall
. . . [a]uthorize and issue subpoenas as provided in House
Rule XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any investigation or
activity or series of investigations or activities within the
jurisdiction of the Committee.); Rules of the H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, R. IV(a) (``A subpoena may be authorized and
issued by the Chair, in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule
XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any
investigation or activity or series of investigations or
activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee,
following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.'').
\25\ Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187, 215 (1957).
\26\ Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, R. X, cl.
1(l) (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further the Committee's constitutionally mandated
oversight and legislative duties, the Committee must ensure
compliance with duly authorized congressional subpoenas. The
information that the Committee requires, and the Department
is in possession of, is necessary for the Committee to
consider potential legislative reforms to the Department and
its use of special counsels to conduct investigations of
current and former Presidents of the United States. These
potential legislative reforms may include, among other
things, codifying certain procedures governing the
Department's special counsel investigations to better ensure
that the Department pursues impartial justice. The
circumstances of Special Counsel Hur's investigative findings
and President Biden's public denial of these findings
demonstrate why such potential legislative reforms may be
necessary.

Background on the Investigation

According to the report of Special Counsel Robert K. Hur,
in November 2022, Patrick Moore, one of President Biden's
personal attorneys, discovered 44 pages of documents
``classified up to the Top Secret level'' stemming from his
tenure as Vice President at President Biden's office in
Washington, D.C., located at the Penn Biden Center.\27\ Moore
notified his colleague Bob Bauer, who then notified White
House Counsel Stuart Delery.\28\ The same day, the White
House Counsel's Office passed the information along to the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which
retrieved the documents, and referred the case to the
Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).\29\
Additionally, between December 2022 and January 2023, Bauer,
Moore, and another Biden personal counsel, Jennifer Miller,
discovered additional classified materials, also from his
tenure as Vice President, in the garage, basement den, and
office of President Biden's personal residence in Wilmington,
Delaware.\30\ Between January and June 2023, FBI agents
located additional materials with classification markings at
the Morris Library and Biden Institute at the University of
Delaware.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Hur Report, supra note 3, at 19 (The classification
marks on the documents ``dat[ed] back to [President Biden]'s
vice presidency'').
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id. at 24-25.
\31\ Id. at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After receiving notification from NARA of the discovery of
classified documents at the Penn Biden Center, on November
14, 2022, Attorney General Garland assigned John Lausch, then
the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, to
lead an investigation into President Biden's retention of
classified materials and ``assess whether

[[Page H3741]]

the Attorney General should appoint a special counsel to
investigate the matter.'' \32\ After further discoveries of
classified material at President Biden's home and the
University of Delaware, Lausch determined that the
appointment of a special counsel was necessary.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id. at 21.
\33\ Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, on January 12, 2023, Attorney General Garland
appointed Robert K. Hur to serve as special counsel to
investigate whether President Biden unlawfully retained
classified information when he left office after the vice
presidency.\34\ During his investigation, Special Counsel Hur
conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses, including
President Biden himself and his memoir ghostwriter, Mark
Zwonitzer.\35\ Special Counsel Hur collected over seven
million documents, including e-mails, text messages,
photographs, videos, toll records, and other materials from
both classified and unclassified sources.\36\ On February 8,
2024, Attorney General Garland released Special Counsel Hur's
375-page report, which concluded that although there was
evidence that President Biden had ``willfully retained and
disclosed classified materials'' as a private citizen,\37\
criminal charges were not warranted because, among other
things, President Biden is an ``elderly man with a poor
memory.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id.
\36\ Id. at 29.
\37\ Id. at 1.
\38\ Id. at 220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a part of the Committees' inquiry into whether
sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment
against President Biden, the Committees have sought
information regarding President Biden's mishandling of
classified information.\39\ The Committees have sought this
information to determine whether President Biden willfully
retained classified information and documents related to,
among other places, Ukraine to assist his family's business
dealings or to enrich his family.\40\ Doing so would be an
abuse of his office of public trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Subpoena Letter, supra note 2; Letter from Rep.
Jamie Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability; Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary; Jason Smith, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means,
to Merrick Garland, Att'y Gen., Dep't of Justice (Feb. 12,
2024) (hereinafter ``Feb. 12 Letter''); Letter from Rep.
Jamie Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability, to Robert K. Hur, Special Counsel, Dep't of
Justice (Oct. 16, 2023).
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence gathered during the Committees' impeachment
inquiry raises the prospect that President Biden willfully
retained classified information relating to his family's
business dealings in Ukraine. Then-Vice President Biden
served as the ``point man'' for the Obama Administration's
anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine at the same time that his
son, Hunter Biden, served on the board of a notoriously
corrupt Ukrainian energy company.\41\ By 2015, Ukrainian
prosecutors had opened an ``unlawful enrichment''
investigation into Burisma and its owner, Mykola
Zlochevsky.\42\ Shortly thereafter, Mr. Zlochevsky and other
Burisma executives approached Hunter Biden, informed him that
the investigations placed significant pressure on the
company, and asked Hunter Biden if he could help alleviate
such pressure.\43\ Testimony provided to the Committees shows
that Hunter Biden subsequently ``called D.C.'' \44\ After
this phone call, in November and December 2015, Vice
President Biden purportedly took official actions concerning
Ukraine--including meeting with Ukrainian Prime Minister
Arseniy Yatsenyuk--and conditioning the United States's $1
billion loan ``to fight corruption'' on the firing of
Prosecutor General Shokin.\45\ Withholding the loan guarantee
on this condition was contrary to the overwhelming consensus
of the Obama Administration.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Alan Cullison, Bidens in Ukraine: An Explainer, Wall St.
J. (Sept. 22, 2019).
\42\ Paul Sonne, et al., The gas tycoon and the vice
president's son: The story of Hunter Biden's foray into
Ukraine, Wash. Post (Sept. 28, 2019).
\43\ Transcribed Interview of Mr. Devon Archer at 33-34 (July
31, 2023) (on file with Committee).
\44\ Id. at 36.
\45\ Glenn Kessler, Inside VP Biden's linking of a loan to a
Ukraine prosecutor's ouster, Wash. Post (Sept. 15, 2023).
\46\ See id. (``On the plane, according to a person who
participated in the conversation, Biden `called an audible'--
he changed the plan.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Counsel Hur's report shows that at least two
documents, identified in the report as ``A9'' and ``A10,''
which were made available to the Committees in camera,
concerned President Biden's 2015 interactions with the
Ukrainian government.\47\ According to Special Counsel Hur,
document ``A9'' was ``a [t]elephone [c]all [s]heet setting
forth the purpose of and talking points for a call with
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk,'' and document ``A10''
was a ``document in the format of a transcript documenting
the substance of a December 11, 2015[,] call between [Vice
President] Biden and Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk.''
\48\ Given that Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine
were still active when Joe Biden left the vice presidency,
President Biden's retention of these classified documents
raises questions about whether he purposefully took them when
he left office in order to benefit his family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Hur Report, supra note 4, at A-2.
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also the prospect that President Biden in general
willfully retained classified documents in order to enrich
himself and his family. President Biden's 2017 memoir,
Promise Me, Dad, discussed, among other things, President
Biden's thoughts on foreign policy.\49\ While working with
Zwonitzer on his memoir, President Biden read from classified
materials ``verbatim,'' and such classified materials
included notes on matters of foreign policy, ``meeting notes
summariz[ing] the actions and views of U.S. military leaders
and CIA director relating to a foreign country,'' ``notebook
entries related to many classified meetings, including
National Security Council meetings, CIA briefings, Department
of Defense briefings, and other meetings and briefings with
foreign policy officials.'' \50\ Notably, Special Counsel
Hur's report found that President Biden received an advance
of $8 million to produce a memoir.\51\ To the extent that
President Biden willfully took classified information when he
left office in order to help him write a book and make a
large amount of money for himself and his family, that could
constitute an abuse of his office of public trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See, e.g., id. at 97.
\50\ Id. at 97-106.
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 12, 2024, approximately four days after the
release of Special Counsel Hur's report, the Chairs of the
Judiciary Committee, the Oversight Committee, and the
Committee on Ways and Means sent a letter to Attorney General
Garland requesting four categories of documents and records:
(1) all documents and communications, including audio and
video recordings, related to the Special Counsel's interview
of President Biden; (2) all documents and communications,
including audio and video recordings, relating to the Special
Counsel's interview of Zwonitzer; (3) the documents
identified as ``A9'' and ``A10'' in Appendix A of Special
Counsel Hur's report, which relate to President Biden's
December 11, 2015, call with then-Ukrainian Prime Minister
Arseniy Yatsenyuk; and (4) all communications between or
among representatives of the Department, including the Office
of the Special Counsel, the Executive Office of the
President, and President Biden's personal counsel referring
or relating to Special Counsel Hur's report.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Feb. 12 Letter, supra note 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 16, 2024, the Department responded to the
Committees' February 12 letter but failed to produce any of
the requested material--stating, instead, that it was
``working to gather and process'' responsive documents.\53\
The Department offered no timeframe or commitment for the
production of requested documents and information.\54\
Accordingly, on February 27, 2024, the Judiciary Committee
and the Oversight Committee issued identical subpoenas to
Attorney General Garland compelling the production of the
four categories of materials:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Letter from Asst. Attorney Gen. Carlos Felipe Uriarte,
U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, et al. (Feb. 16, 2024).
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All documents and communications, including audio and
video recordings, related to Special Counsel Robert Hur's
interview of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.;
2. All documents and communications, including audio and
video recordings, related to Special Counsel Hur's interview
of Mr. Mark Zwonitzer;
3. The documents identified as ``A9'' and ``A10'' in
Appendix A of Special Counsel Hur's report, which relate to
President Biden's December 11, 2015 call with then-Ukrainian
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk; and
4. All communications between or among representatives of
the Department of Justice, including the Office of the
Special Counsel, the Executive Office of the President, and
President Biden's personal counsel referring or relating to
Special Counsel Hur's report.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Subpoena Letter, supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subpoenas set a return date of March 7, 2024. On that
date, the Department produced an incomplete set of documents
comprising only correspondence exchanged between President
Biden's legal counsel and the Department, along with an offer
to review two classified documents in camera.\56\ Two days
later, the Committees notified the Department that its
initial production in response to the subpoenas was
inadequate.\57\ In this letter, the Committees specifically
noted that the Department had failed to produce unredacted
transcripts and audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's
interviews of President Biden or Zwonitzer.\58\ Because
Special Counsel Hur was scheduled to testify in front of the
Judiciary Committee on March 12, 2024, the Committees offered
to accept a production of all materials responsive to the
Committees' subpoenas by March 11, 2024, at 3:00 p.m.\59\ The
Department failed to

[[Page H3742]]

comply with the Committees' revised deadline,\60\ and instead
informed the Committees that an ``interagency review'' for
classified and confidential information was pending.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Letter from Hon. Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att'y
Gen., Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice,
to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar.
7, 2024); Letter from Hon. Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att'y
Gen., Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice,
to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability (Mar. 7, 2024); DOJ-HJC-HUR-0000001-0000032.
\57\ Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, to Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (Mar. 9, 2024) (hereinafter
``Mar. 9 Letter.'').
\58\ Id.
\59\ Id.
\60\ Letter from Hon. Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att'y
Gen., Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice,
to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar.
12, 2024); Letter from Hon. Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant
Att'y Gen., Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep't of
Justice, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Accountability (Mar. 12, 2024) (collectively ``March 12
Letters'').
\61\ Letter from Hon. Merrick Garland, Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't
of Justice, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Ways and Means at 2 (Feb. 16, 2024); Email from
Office Staff, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep't of
Justice, to Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar. 11,
2024, 3:12 p.m.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2024, a little more than two hours before
Special Counsel Hur's scheduled testimony in front of the
Judiciary Committee, the Department produced to the
Committees two redacted transcripts of Special Counsel Hur's
interviews with President Biden.\62\ Significantly, the
Department failed to produce the audio recordings of the
interviews. In its letter accompanying the two redacted
transcripts, which was transmitted to the Committees at 7:45
a.m., the Department represented to the Committees that it
had just completed the ``standard interagency review
process'' earlier that morning, thereby allowing the material
to be released.\63\ Despite the Department's representation,
however, it was apparent that several news outlets had
received and reviewed the transcripts before they were
produced to the Committees.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Email from Office Staff, Office of Legislative Affairs,
Dep't of Justice, to Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on the Judiciary
(Mar. 12, 2024, 7:43 a.m.) (hereinafter ``DOJ OLA 7:43 a.m.
Email''); Email from Office Staff, Office of Legislative
Affairs, Dep't of Justice, to Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary (Mar. 12, 2024, 7:44 a.m.); Email from Office
Staff, Office of Legislative Affairs, Dep't of Justice, to
Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar. 12, 2024, 7:45
a.m.); DOJ-HJC-HUR-0000033-0000290.
\63\ March 12 Letters, supra note 60.
\64\ Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman. H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, to Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (Apr. 15, 2024) (hereinafter
``Apr. 15 Letter''); DOJ OLA 7:43 a.m. Email, supra note 53;
Mark Swanson, Rep. Jordan to Newsmax: WH Sat on Biden-Hur
Transcripts, Newsmax (Mar. 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committees next wrote to Attorney General Garland on
March 25, 2024, regarding the Department's continued
withholding of material responsive to the Committees'
subpoenas, particularly the audio recordings of Special
Counsel Hur's interviews with President Biden and the
transcripts and audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's
interviews with Zwonitzer.\65\ The letter again reminded
Attorney General Garland about the legal obligations imposed
upon him by the Committees' subpoenas and directed him to
produce all responsive materials no later than 12:00 p.m. on
April 8, 2024 to avoid further action on this matter,
including the invocation of contempt of Congress
proceedings.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, to Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (Mar. 25, 2024).
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department replied on April 8, 2024, but again flouted
the Committees' subpoenas, choosing instead to produce only
the transcripts of Special Counsel Hur's two interviews with
Zwonitzer, but not the audio recordings.\67\ In a letter to
the Committees, the Department explained why it decided to
withhold the audio recordings--not because of any applicable
legal privilege, but instead based on the Department's
unfounded accusations regarding the Committees' motives and
its self-interested determination that the audio recordings
were ``cumulative'' of other material already produced.\68\
Rather than engaging with the Committees and addressing their
articulated reasons for seeking the audio recordings, the
Department took it upon itself to dictate to the Committees
what materials fulfilled the House's informational needs.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Letter from Hon. Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att'y
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Apr. 8, 2024)
(hereinafter ``Apr. 8 Letter''); DOJ-HJC-HUR-0000291-556.
\68\ Apr. 8 Letter, supra note 67.
\69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committees addressed the Department's excuses for
failing to comply with the subpoenas in a subsequent letter
to Attorney General Garland dated April 15, 2024, writing
that his response to the subpoenas suggests he is
``withholding records for partisan purposes and to avoid
political embarrassment for President Biden.'' \70\ In that
letter, the Committees rejected the Department's unsupported
assertion that the audio recordings were ``cumulative,''
explaining how audio recordings are materially distinct from
written transcripts and reminding the Attorney General that
federal courts have held that Congress requires ``all
relevant evidence'' in an impeachment inquiry.\71\ The
Committees also pointed out that the Department has asserted
no constitutional or legal privilege shielding the disclosure
of the audio recordings and that any applicable privilege had
been waived by the release of the written transcripts to the
media.\72\ The Committees also rejected the Department's
unsupported speculation about the Committees' motives for
obtaining the audio recordings, explaining their evidentiary
value and highlighting the Department's hypocritical
insistence on a standard of compliance here that it would
never allow for a private party.\73\ The Committees offered
the Department until April 25 to produce the withheld
materials or else they would consider invoking contempt of
Congress proceedings.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Apr. 15 Letter, supra note 64.
\71\ Id. at 2-3.
\72\ Id. at 3.
\73\ Id.
\74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department again refused to comply. On April 25, 2024,
the Department responded to the Committees' letter and
argued, among other things, that the Committees ``have not
articulated a legitimate congressional need to obtain audio
recordings from Mr. Hur's investigation[,]'' and that
releasing the audio recordings ``would harm law enforcement
and the evenhanded administration of justice'' because it
``would compound the likelihood that future prosecutors will
be unable to secure th[e] level of cooperation'' that was
important to Special Counsel Hur's investigation.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Letter from Hon. Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att'y
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman. H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Apr. 25, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Attorney General's Failure to Produce the Subpoenaed Records
Warrants Contempt

The Committees have articulated the impeachment and
legislative purpose for their subpoenas to the Attorney
General. The Department, at the Attorney General's direction,
continues to withhold relevant records that have been
subpoenaed--despite the Committee's repeated attempts to
explain the valid basis for seeking the records.
In the two months since the Committees' initial requests to
the Department, and following the release of Special Counsel
Hur's report, the Department has produced only five letters
from President Biden's White House and personal counsel to
the Department, one letter from the Department to President
Biden's White House and personal counsel, redacted
transcripts of Special Counsel Hur's two interviews with
President Biden, and redacted transcripts of Special Counsel
Hur's two interviews with Zwonitzer. Additionally, the
Department has made available two classified documents in
camera to the Committees.
The Department's production of letters and redacted
transcripts do not relieve it of its obligation to produce
all responsive records, including the audio recordings of
Special Counsel Hur's interviews with President Biden and
Zwonitzer.\76\ During his ``dozens of hours of interviews
with Zwonitzer,'' President Biden ``read from notebook
entries related to many classified briefings'' along with
``foreign policy issues in Ukraine, Central America, and
Iraq. . . .'' \77\ Further, the boxes of documents discovered
in President Biden's personal possession included classified
materials regarding foreign policy issues in, among other
places, Ukraine, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Egypt.\78\ In his interviews with Special Counsel Hur,
President Biden discussed some of these and other foreign
policy issues as well as the retention and handling of the
documents containing some of this classified information.\79\
Similarly, Zwonitzer discussed President Biden's description
and recollection of these issues during his interviews with
Special Counsel Hur.\80\ Although the Department has produced
transcripts of President Biden's and Zwonitzer's interviews
with Special Counsel Hur, it has failed to produce the audio
recordings of the interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Subpoena Letter, supra note 2; Mar. 9 Letter, supra note
57.
\77\ Hur Report, supra note 4, at 97, 106.
\78\ Id. at A-1-22.
\79\ See Recorded Interview Between Special Counsel Robert K.
Hur, et al., and President Joseph R. Biden. Jr., at 132-36,
DOJ-HJC-HUR-0000164-68 (Oct. 8, 2023); see Recorded Interview
Between Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, et al., and President
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., at 31-32, 49-54, DOJ-HJC-HUR-0000222-
23, 240-45 (Oct. 9, 2023).
\80\ See Recorded Interview Between Special Counsel Robert K.
Hur, et al., and Mr. Mark Zwonitzer at 123-27, DOJ-HJC-HUR-
0000413-17 (July 31, 2023); see Recorded Interview Between
Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, et al., and Mr. Mark Zwonitzer
at 42-47, DOJ-HJC-HUR-0000518-23 (Jan. 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interviews of
President Biden and Zwonitzer are of superior evidentiary
value regarding the specific issues the Committees are
investigating. While the text of the Department-created
transcripts purport to reflect the words uttered during these
interviews, they do not reflect important verbal context,
such as tone or tenor, or nonverbal context, such as pauses
or pace of delivery. For instance, when interviewed, a
subject's pauses and inflections can provide indications of a
witness's ability to recall events,\81\ or whether the
individual is intentionally giving evasive or nonresponsive
testimony to investigators. The verbal nuances in President
Biden's answers about his mishandling of classified
information would assist the Committees' inquiry into whether
he abused his office of public trust for his family's
financial gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Hur Report, supra note 3, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This verbal nuance is also important to the Committees'
legislative oversight investigation. Special Counsel Hur
concluded that although there was evidence that President
Biden's conduct satisfied the elements of willfully retaining
classified information, justice would not be served by
indicting President Biden because he would appear to

[[Page H3743]]

a jury to be a ``sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a
poor memory.'' \82\ President Biden's personal attorneys and
the White House Counsel's office have contested Special
Counsel Hur's assessment.\83\ However, Special Counsel Hur
stood by his assessment during his sworn testimony before the
Judiciary Committee.\84\ The transcripts provided to the
Committee are insufficient to arbitrate this dispute as to
President Biden's mental state, an issue which goes directly
to his culpability and whether Special Counsel Hur
appropriately pursued justice by declining to bring an
indictment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Id. at 219.
\83\ Betsy Woodruff Swan, White House lawyers wrote Garland
slamming Hur's report before its' release, Politico (Feb. 15,
2024).
\84\ Hearing on Hur Report, supra note 10, at 18 (``My
assessment in the report about the relevance of the
President's memory was necessary and accurate and fair.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is especially important because while Special Counsel
Hur declined to bring charges against President Biden, at the
same time, the Department, through another Special Counsel's
office, is prosecuting a former President and declared
candidate for that office for allegedly mishandling
classified information.\85\ The Committee must assess whether
Special Counsel Hur's declination decision, which was based
on President Biden's poor mental state, was consistent with
the Department's commitment to impartial justice or whether
legislative reforms are necessary regarding Special Counsel
investigations because they are not leading to impartial
outcomes. The transcripts produced by the Department, due to
their inherent limitations, are not sufficient for that
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Katherine Faulders, et al., Timeline: Special counsel's
investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents,
ABC News (Apr. 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the audio recordings would offer unique and
important information to advance the Committees' impeachment
inquiry and inform the Judiciary Committee as to the need for
legislative reforms to the operations of the Department or
the conduct of Special Counsel investigations. Moreover,
contrary to the Department's assertion that the audio
recordings are ``cumulative'' of the transcripts, an audio
recording is the best evidence of a witness interview. Where
audio recordings and transcripts diverge, because of
``inflection in a speaker's voice or by inaccuracies in the
transcript,'' the audio recordings, not the transcripts,
control.\86\ Such a divergence does occur and, in fact, it
occurred very recently with President Biden. A video and
audio recording taken of President Biden's speech on April
24, 2024, reflects him reading a teleprompter instruction to
pause, saying: ``Imagine what we could do next. Four more
years, pause.'' \87\ However, the official White House
transcript of that same speech initially did not reflect that
President Biden uttered the word ``pause.'' \88\ In this
case, the video and audio recording is the best evidence of
the words that President Biden actually spoke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Don Zupanec, Using Transcripts of Recordings as a
Demonstrative Aid, 23 No. 7 Fed. Litigator 13 (July 2008)
(``The tape recording is evidence for you to consider. The
transcript, however, is not evidence.''). See, e.g., United
States v. Hogan, No. 2:06-CR-10, 2008 WL 2074112, at *1 (E.D.
Tenn. May 14, 2008) (``[T]his Court will instruct the jury as
to the limited use of the transcripts, as the transcripts are
not the evidence but the audio recordings are the actual
evidence.'').
\87\ See Anders Hagstrom, Biden appears to read script
instructions out loud in latest teleprompter gaffe: `Four
more years, pause,' Fox News (Apr. 24, 2024).
\88\ See The White House, Remarks by President Biden at the
North America's Building Trades Union National Legislative
Conference (Apr. 24, 2024), https://web.archive.org/web/
20240425002537/https://www.whitehouse.gov/brefing-room/
speeches-remarks/2024/04/24/remarks-by-president-biden-at-
the-north-americas-building-trades-unions-national-
legislative-conference/ (``Folks, imagine what we can do
next. Four . . . more years (inaudible).''). The White House
subsequently updated the transcript after public attention on
the omission. The White House, Remarks by President Biden at
the North America's Building Trades Union National
Legislative Conference (Apr. 24, 2024), https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/04/24/
remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-north-americas-building-
trades-unions-national-legislative-conference/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Department has claimed that production of the
audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interviews with
President Biden and Zwonitzer to the Committees is not
necessary because ``any information in [the audio] files that
is relevant to the Committees' stated purposes is cumulative
of the information'' produced in the provided transcripts,
the Department's own actions cut against this view.\89\
During Watergate, for example, the Department subpoenaed
audio recordings of conversations between President Nixon and
his advisors. Although the President publicly released more
than 1,200 pages of edited transcripts of these conversations
after the subpoena was issued, the Department maintained the
subpoena for the audio recordings. In United States v. Nixon,
the Supreme Court rejected President Nixon's attempt to quash
that subpoena.\90\ The Department has relied upon this
decision repeatedly in support of its own subpoenas,\91\ and
its own actions demonstrate that it understands that audio
recordings are not simply cumulative of transcripts produced
by a party that is itself under investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Apr. 8 Letter, supra note 67, at 4.
\90\ U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
\91\ See, e.g., United States v. Hussain, No. CR 16-462
(CRB), 2018 WL 6695574 at *2-*3 (Nov. 25, 2018) (citing Nixon
in opposition to a criminal defendant's motion to quash the
Department's subpoena).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, 2024, a mere two hours before the start of the
Committee's meeting to consider a resolution holding the
Attorney General in contempt of Congress, letters from both
Mr. Edward N. Siskel, Counsel to President Joe Biden, and the
Justice Department arrived, informing the Committee that the
President has asserted executive privilege over certain
documents and materials covered by the subpoena.\92\ The
Committee has numerous concerns about the validity of this
assertion, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Letter from Mr. Edward N. Siskel, Counsel to the
President, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. On the
Judiciary, et al. (May 16, 2024) [hereinafter ``Siskel
Letter'']; Letter from Asst. Att'y Gen. Carlose Felipe
Uriarte, U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman,
H. Comm. On the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. On Oversight & Accountability (May 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The President has waived executive privilege by
releasing the contents of his interview with Special Counsel
Hur to the media and public on or around March 11, 2024;
2. The assertion of privilege is three months late and,
therefore, is not valid. To have been timely, any privilege
should have been asserted by March 7, 2024, the subpoena
return date; and
3. Even if the privilege were valid, which is it not, it
certainly has been overcome here, as: (i) the Committee has
demonstrated a sufficient need for the audio recordings as
they are likely to contain evidence important to the
Committee's inquiry, and (ii) the audio recordings sought
cannot be obtained any other way. The audio recordings are
uniquely in the possession of the Justice Department.
Further, President Biden has already waived any potential
assertion of executive privilege over the information
discussed in his interviews with Special Counsel Hur. This
conclusion is consistent with U.S. v. Mitchell, which
rejected a presidential claim of privilege over audio
recordings involving, as here, ``portions of subpoenaed
recordings which the President has caused to be reduced to
transcript form and published.'' \93\ Mitchell concluded that
``the privilege claimed [was] non-existent since the
conversations are . . . no longer confidential.'' \94\
Moreover, the Justice Department could have taken steps to
protect the confidentiality of the transcripts, but failed to
do so when they released them to the press prior to providing
them to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See U.S. v. Mitchell, 377 F. Supp. 1326, 1330 (D.D.C.
1974) (citing Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 718 (D.C. Cir.
1973)).
\94\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Mr. Siskel's letter to the Committee, the President did
not set forth any valid reasons for invoking executive
privilege. Instead, Mr. Siskel stated that the President
``has a duty to safeguard the integrity and independence of
Executive Branch law enforcement functions and protect them
from undue partisan influence that could weaken those
functions in the future.'' \95\ Mr. Siskel also stated that
``the Attorney General has warned that the disclosure of
materials like these audio recordings risks harming future
law enforcement investigations by making it less likely that
witnesses in high-profile investigations will voluntarily
cooperate.'' \96\ Both of these arguments have already been
evaluated and overruled by the Committee.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Siskel Letter, supra note 92, at 2.
\96\ Id.
\97\ See Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. On
the Judiciary, et al., to Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (April 15, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without these audio recordings, the Committee's important
legislative work will continue to be stymied. The audio
recordings are necessary to evaluate what government reform
is necessary within the Judice Department to avoid the
problems uncovered by the investigation in the future.
The President has now asserted executive privilege. This
assertion, however, does not change the fact that Attorney
General Merrick B. Garland is in contempt of Congress today
for failing to turn over lawfully subpoenaed materials.
The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to
dictate to Congress how to proceed with an impeachment
inquiry or to conduct its oversight.\98\ Rather,
``congressional committees have significant discretion in how
they approach an investigation[,]'' \99\ and, in the context
of an impeachment inquiry, federal courts emphasize that
Congress must possess all pertinent evidence.\100\ The
Committees are engaged in

[[Page H3744]]

an inquiry to assess whether to draft articles of impeachment
against President Biden, who is the head of the executive
branch of the federal government. The Committees are under no
obligation to rely exclusively on transcripts created,
refined, and produced by executive agencies subordinate to
the President, especially when, as here, there exists
superior evidence--audio recordings--that would ensure an
accurate and complete record of the interviews. The
Department's refusal to produce the audio recordings amounts
to a demand that the Committees trust that the Department-
curated interview transcripts are accurate and complete,
despite recent evidence of an executive branch entity
manipulating a transcript of the President's statements and
only fixing the error after being caught.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See Linda D. Jellum, ``Which Is to be Master,'' the
Judiciary or the Legislature? When Statutory Directives
Violate Separation of Powers, 56 UCLA L. REV. 837, 884 (2009)
(``Each branch of government deserves the autonomy necessary
to carry out its functions within the constitutional scheme,
and each branch should enjoy a protected sphere of control
over its internal affairs. No branch should be able to
regulate the inner workings of any other branch. Rather, each
branch must be master in its own house.'') (cleaned up).
\99\ Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., Committee Discretion in
Obtaining Witness Testimony 2 (2023).
\100\ See In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F.
Supp. 3d 129, 176 (D.D.C. 2019) (``Impeachment based on
anything less than all relevant evidence would compromise the
public's faith in the process.''), aff'd, 951 F.3d 589 (D.C.
Cir. 2020), vacated and remanded sub nom. on other grounds
DOJ v. House Comm. on the Judiciary, 142 S. Ct. 46 (2021); In
re Request for Access to Grand Jury Materials, 833 F.2d 1438,
1445 (11th Cir. 1987) (``Public confidence in a procedure as
political and public as impeachment is an important
consideration justifying disclosure.''); In re Report and
Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F. Supp. 1219,
1230 (D.D.C. 1974) (``It would be difficult to conceive of a
more compelling need than that of this country for an
unswervingly fair [impeachment] inquiry based on all the
pertinent information.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

Special Counsel Hur's report makes clear, despite its
conclusion that criminal charges are not warranted, that
President Biden willfully and unlawfully retained classified
materials while he was a private citizen. The Committees
subpoenaed Attorney General Garland to produce documents and
materials responsive to four specific requests concerning
Special Counsel Hur's investigation on February 27, 2024. To
date, despite numerous requests from the Committees for
certain audio recordings responsive to the subpoena, and a
specific warning that failure to produce the audio recordings
would result in contempt proceedings, Attorney General
Garland has failed to do so. Attorney General Garland's
willful refusal to comply with the Committees' subpoenas
constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the
appropriate United States Attorney's Office for prosecution
as prescribed by law.

Committee Consideration

On May 16, 2024, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the report favorably reported to the House with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute by a recorded vote of
18 to 15, a quorum being present.

Committee Votes

In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
Committee states that the following recorded votes occurred
during the Committee's consideration of the Report:
1. Vote on Amendment #1 to the Report ANS offered by Mr.
Nadler--failed 8 ayes to 17 nays.
2. Vote on Amendment #2 to the Report ANS offered by Mr.
Johnson--failed 5 ayes to 12 nays.
3. Vote on Amendment #3 to the Report ANS offered by Ms.
Dean--failed 5 ayes to 12 nays.
4. Vote on Amendment #4 to the Report ANS offered by Mr.
Johnson--failed 5 ayes to 12 nays.
5. Vote on Amendment #5 to the Report ANS offered by Ms.
Dean--failed 5 ayes to 12 nays.
6. Vote on Amendment #6 to the Report ANS offered by Mr.
Ivey--failed 8 ayes to 9 nays.
7. Vote on Amendment #7 to the Report ANS offered by Mr.
Swalwell--failed 9 ayes to 12 nays.
8. Vote on Amendment #8 to the Report ANS offered by Ms.
Scanlon--failed 9 ayes to 12 nays.
9. Vote on Amendment #9 to the Report ANS offered by Mr.
Armstrong--passed 15 ayes to 11 nays.
10. Vote on favorably reporting the Report, as amended--
passed 18 ayes to 15 nays.

[[Page H3745]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.001

[[Page H3746]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.002

[[Page H3747]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.003

[[Page H3748]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.004

[[Page H3749]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.005

[[Page H3750]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.006

[[Page H3751]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.007

[[Page H3752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.008

[[Page H3753]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.009

[[Page H3754]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR527.010

Committee Oversight Findings

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of
the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions
of this report.

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

The Committee finds the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, and the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII
and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to
be inapplicable to this Report. Accordingly, the Committee
did not request or receive a cost estimate from the
Congressional Budget Office and makes no findings as to the
budgetary impacts of this Report or costs incurred to carry
out the Report.

Duplication of Federal Programs

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of this Report establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.

Performance Goals and Objectives

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, this Report is to enforce the Committee's
authority to subpoena and obtain testimony related to
determining whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach
President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., and legislative reforms
to the Department of Justice and its use of a special counsel
to conduct investigations of current and former Presidents of
the United States.

Advisory on Earmarks

In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, this Report
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House Rule XXI.

Dissenting Views

I. Introduction

The Majority is clearly disappointed that Special Counsel
Robert Hur declined to bring charges against President Biden,
the latest blow in a long line of apparent disappointments.
After spending more than twenty million taxpayer dollars on a
weaponization

[[Page H3755]]

subcommittee going nowhere, after conducting dozens of
witness interviews, and after reviewing millions of pages of
documents, the Majority has failed to find even a shred of
evidence of wrongdoing by the President. Their impeachment
investigation fizzled out before they could even clearly
articulate a charge. A total lack of policy accomplishments
only compounds their obvious frustration as we approach the
last months of this do-nothing Republican Congress.
Against this backdrop of failure, the Majority makes one,
last-ditch effort to make it look at least like a member of
President Biden's cabinet did something wrong. To be clear,
the contempt citation the Majority recommends against U.S.
Attorney General Merrick Garland is an absolute farce.
The Attorney General and the Department of Justice have
provided the Committee with all the information it requires
to conduct any legitimate oversight activity. The only
discrepancy between what the Majority requested and what the
Department has produced is a set of audio files--recordings
of the interviews the Special Counsel conducted with
President Biden and his ghost writer. The Majority has never
demonstrated a legitimate reason for obtaining these audio
files and certainly cannot justify a contempt citation on
this ground alone.
For a start, the Department of Justice has long since
produced written transcripts of these interviews. The
Department has also expressed serious and legitimate concern
that releasing the audio files would have a chilling effect
on high-profile witnesses in future criminal investigations.
To that end, the President, in consultation with the Attorney
General, has claimed Executive Privilege over the remaining
audio files.
It seems painfully obvious that the Majority wants these
recordings because they hope to find something they can use
to embarrass President Biden. They have certainly amplified
manipulated audio and video evidence for political purposes
in the past. The only surprise is that--after so many of
their members have admitted that their single motivation is
to provide political cover for Donald Trump--the Majority
still feels the need to hide behind a half-hearted interest
in ``vocal tone, pace, inflections, verbal nuance, and other
idiosyncrasies.'' What a sham.
This contempt proceeding is a political stunt and nothing
more. It should be roundly defeated.

II. Background

On January 12, 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland
appointed Robert Hur, formerly the Trump-appointed U.S.
Attorney for the District of Maryland, as Special Counsel
charged with investigating President Biden's handling of
classified documents.\1\ Hur focused on five categories of
documents: (1) documents related to Afghanistan, in
particular a handwritten memo from then-Vice President Biden
to President Obama dated November 28, 2009, detailing his
concerns about deploying additional troops to the country;
\2\ (2) personal notebooks from the President's time as Vice
President; \3\ (3) certain documents found at the Penn Biden
Center, including documents related to negotiations about the
Iran nuclear deal; \4\ (4) documents found at the University
of Delaware dating to the President's time as a senator; \5\
and (5) other documents found in the President's Delaware
home, including briefing binders from trips that the
President took while he was vice president.\6\ Over the
course of Hur's 15-month probe, his investigators conducted
173 interviews of 147 witnesses and reviewed more than seven
million documents. Hur submitted his 345-page final report to
Attorney General Garland on February 5, 2024, and Garland
publicly released it in full on February 8, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Press Release, Appointment of Robert K. Hur as Special
Counsel, U.S. Dep't of Justice (Jan. 12, 2023), https://
www.justice.gov/d9/2023-01/Order.Appointment%20ofm
%20Robert%20 Hur.11223%20%28002%29.pdf.
\2\ Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, Report on the
Investigation Into Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and
Disclosure of Classified Documents Discovered at Locations
Including the Penn Biden Center and the Delaware Private
Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., U.S. Dep't of
Justice at 145-48 (Feb. 8, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/
storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-
2024.pdf [Hereinafter Hur Report].
\3\ Id. at 2-3.
\4\ Id. at 256-311.
\5\ Id. at 312-25.
\6\ Id. at 326-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hur Report exonerates President Biden of any
prosecutable charges. Specifically, to be charged with the
unauthorized retention of national defense information under
the Espionage Act, the government must show that ``(1) the
defendant had unauthorized possession of a document, writing
or note; (2) the document, writing, or note related to the
national defense; and (3) the defendant willfully retained
the document, writing, or note and failed to deliver it to an
employee or officer entitled to receive it.'' \7\ Hur found
that there was no evidence that the President willfully
retained classified information. He also found that the
President likely did not know certain information was
classified and that he likely believed he was permitted to
retain certain documents as personal records. Hur's report
also distinguished Biden's conduct from that of President
Trump.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. at 178 (citation omitted).
\8\ Id. at 10-11, 250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, 2024, the Attorney General notified the
Committee that Special Counsel Hur had concluded his
investigation.\9\ The following day, the Attorney General
produced the entire unredacted report to Congress and made it
available to the public.\10\ Four days later, Chairman
Jordan, along with House Oversight Chairman James Comer, and
House Ways & Means Chairman Jason Smith wrote to the Attorney
General and demanded that he produce to the Committees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Letter from the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y Gen., to
the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et
al. (Feb. 7, 2024).
\10\ See Letter from the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y Gen.,
to the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
et al. (Feb. 8, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All documents and communications, including audio and
video recordings, related to the Special Counsel's interview
of President Biden;
2. All documents and communications, including audio and
video recordings, related to the Special Counsel's interview
of Mark Zwonitzer;
3. The documents identified as ``A9'' and ``A10'' in
Appendix A of Mr. Hur's report, which relate to President
Biden's December 11, 2015 call with then-Ukrainian Prime
Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk; and
4. All communications between or among representatives of
the Department of Justice, including the Office of the
Special Counsel, the Executive Office of the President, and
President Biden's personal counsel referring or relating to
Mr. Hur's report.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Letter from the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, et al. to the Hon. Merrick
Garland, Att'y Gen. (Feb. 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 16, 2024, the Department of Justice responded
noting that ``[s]everal of the materials listed in your
February 12 letter require review for classification and
protection of national defense information'' and informed the
Members that ``the Department will conduct a review to assess
confidentiality interests and will share materials with
Executive Branch entities with equities in the content of the
materials to determine whether those other entities will
assert any confidentiality interests of their own.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Letter from Carlos Felip Uriarte, Asst. Att'y Gen., to
the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability, et al. (Feb. 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 2024, the Chairmen Jordan and Comer
responded to the DOJ by issuing a subpoena for the requested
documents, claiming that the Department ``offered no
timeframe by which it expected to make productions'' or ``any
commitment that it would produce all of the material
requested.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter from the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, & the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman,
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland,
Att'y Gen. (Feb. 27, 2024), https://judiciary.house.gov/
sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.
house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-02-
27%20JDJ%20to%20DOJ%20re%20subpoena.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOJ responded to the subpoena on March 7, 2024, with
two productions requested by the Committees: (1) the
documents identified as ``A9'' and ``A10'' in Appendix A of
the Hur Report, and (2) communications between the DOJ and
the Executive Office of the President or President Biden's
personal counsel related to Special Counsel Hur's report.\14\
The DOJ also expressed disappointment that the Committee
chose to serve a subpoena ``less than three weeks after Mr.
Hur's report was transmitted to Congress and only seven
business days after the Department made clear it was working
expeditiously to respond in good faith to congressional
requests'' and said that the subpoena was ``premature and
unnecessary given the amount of information the committee has
already received and the Department's proactive efforts to
prepare for responding to congressional requests on this
matter.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Letter from Carlos Felip Uriarte, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
to the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary
(Mar. 7, 2024).
\15\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 2024, the Chairmen Jordan and Comer wrote yet
another letter to the Attorney General claiming that the DOJ
had yet to fully comply with their subpoenas.\16\ On March
12, before Special Counsel Hur was set to testify before the
Judiciary Committee, the DOJ produced the transcripts of
Special Counsel Hur's interview of President Biden.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Letter from the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, & the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman,
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland,
Att'y Gen. (Mar. 9, 2024).
\17\ See Letter from Carlos Felip Uriarte, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
to the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary
(Mar. 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 2024, Chairmen Jordan and Comer once again
notified the DOJ that their compliance with the subpoena was
deficient and requested that the Department provide audio
recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interview of President
Biden and transcripts and audio recordings of Special Counsel
Hur's interview of President Biden's ghostwriter, Mark
Zwonitzer.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Letter from the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, & the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman,
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland,
Att'y Gen. (Mar. 25, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 8, 2024, the DOJ provided the transcripts of
Special Counsel Hur's interviews of ghostwriter Mark
Zwonitzer, which took place on July 31, 2023 and January 4,
2024.\19\

[[Page H3756]]

The DOJ's cover letter notes that the Committees have
responded to the Department's productions with ``escalation
and threats of criminal contempt.'' \20\ Further, the DOJ
wrote, ``We are therefore concerned that the Committees are
disappointed not because you didn't receive information, but
because you did. We urge the Committees to avoid conflict
rather than seek it.'' \21\ The Committees responded on April
15, 2024, claiming that the DOJ's ``response to the subpoenas
remains inadequate, suggesting that you are withholding
records for partisan purposes and to avoid political
embarrassment for President Biden.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Letter from Carlos Felip Uriarte, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
to the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary &
the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability (Apr. 8, 2024).
\20\ Letter from Carlos Felip Uriarte, Asst. Att'y Gen., to
the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary &
the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability at 1 (Apr. 8, 2024).
\21\ Id.
\22\ Letter from the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, & the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman,
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland,
Att'y Gen. at 1 (Apr. 15, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, 2024, the Department responded again to the
Committee's requests, including the February 27, 2024,
subpoena, to inform the Committees ``that the President has
asserted executive privilege over the requested audio
recordings and is making a protective assertion of privilege
over any remaining materials responsive to the subpoenas that
have not already been produced.'' \23\ In an accompanying
letter, the Attorney General explained that the Department
has a vested interest in protecting ``materials related to a
closed criminal investigation where disclosure is likely to
damage future law enforcement efforts,'' which ``is the case
here.'' \24\ The Attorney General further expressed concern
that producing audio recordings to the Committees ``would
raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department's
ability to conduct similar high-profile criminal
investigations--in particular, investigations where the
voluntary cooperation of White House officials is exceedingly
important.'' \25\ Further, the Attorney General explained
that the Committees' ``articulated need for the audio
recordings is insufficient to meet any potentially applicable
standard,'' and that the audio recordings will ``not reveal
any information relevant to the Committees' stated needs that
is not available in the transcripts and other documents that
are already in the Committees' possession.'' \26\ The
Attorney General requested that the President make a
protective assertion of executive privilege.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Letter from Hon. Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att'y
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability at 1 (May 16, 2024).
\24\ Letter from the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y Gen. to
The President at 1 (May 15, 2024).
\25\ Id. at 3-4.
\26\ Id. at 3, 9.
\27\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, 2024, the White House also wrote to the
Committees explaining that ``the President's longstanding
commitment to protecting the integrity, effectiveness, and
independence of the Department of Justice and its law
enforcement investigations'' caused his assertion of
executive privilege.\28\ The White House noted the obvious
partisan motivations behind the Committees' actions, writing,
``[t]he absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings
lays bare your likely goal--to chop them up, distort them,
and use them for partisan political purposes.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Letter from Edward N. Siskel, Counsel to the President,
to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and
Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability at 1 (May 16, 2024).
\29\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Concerns

A. The Majority Misrepresents the Factual Record

As a threshold matter, the Majority severely misrepresents
the record throughout its report in numerous material
respects. It is undisputed that Republican-appointed Special
Counsel Hur exonerated President Biden. Hur found
insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
President Biden willfully retained any of the classified
documents, and in some cases that the documents themselves
were not even classified. The Majority's shameful portrayal
of President Biden as senile or ``incompetent'' is also false
and not supported by the special counsel's own record.
President Biden's age was not a material aspect of Hur's
decision to decline prosecution, contrary to assertions by
members of the Majority. Finally, the report ignores clear
historical context provided by the special counsel regarding
President Biden's retention and use of his notebook, which
other Presidents have done.
Special Counsel Hur focused on five categories of documents
in the investigation: (1) documents related to Afghanistan,
in particular a handwritten memo from then-Vice President
Biden to President Obama dated November 28, 2009, detailing
his concerns about deploying additional troops to the
country; \30\ (2) personal notebooks from the President's
time as Vice President; \31\ (3) certain documents found at
the Penn Biden Center, including documents related to
negotiations about the Iran nuclear deal; \32\ (4) documents
found at the University of Delaware dating to the President's
time as a senator; \33\ and (5) other documents found in the
President's Delaware home, including briefing binders from
trips that the President took while he was vice
president.\34\ With respect to each category of documents,
Hur found that there was no evidence that the President
willfully retained any classified information, and in some
cases found that the information was not actually classified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id. at 145-148.
\31\ Id. at 2-3.
\32\ Id. at 256-311.
\33\ Id. at 312-325.
\34\ Id. at 326-333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Afghanistan Documents
After leaving the vice presidency in 2017, now-President
Biden retained folders of documents related to the 2009 troop
surge in Afghanistan, including a handwritten memo he drafted
opposing the surge and documents supporting that position.
Hur determined that ``the evidence falls short of
establishing . . . beyond a reasonable doubt'' that Biden
willfully retained these classified documents.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id. at 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During a February 16, 2017, recorded interview with the
ghostwriter for his book, Promise Me, Biden said that he had
just found classified material ``downstairs,'' and the
context indicated that those documents might relate to
foreign policy in Afghanistan.\36\ At the time of the
interview, Biden was in a rental home in Virginia. The FBI
ultimately recovered the Afghanistan documents from Biden's
Delaware residence in 2022, while Biden was the sitting
president and thus authorized to have classified documents in
his residence. Special Counsel Hur determined that because
Biden was permitted to have classified documents in his
residence in 2022, the only possible charges related to the
Afghanistan documents would have had to have come from Biden
willfully possessing them in Virginia in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. at 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hur concluded that he could not prove that Biden willfully
possessed these documents:
(1) Biden could have found the classified documents in
Virginia in 2017 and forgotten them soon after, because
finding classified documents so soon after leaving the vice
presidency ``may not have been something he found memorable.
Mr. Biden, after all, had seen classified documents nearly
every day for the previous eight years.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id. at 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) There was ``no definitive evidence'' that the
classified Afghanistan documents were stored in Biden's
Virginia home. \38\ Specifically, Hur determined that other
than the ghostwriter recording, there was ``no witness,
photo, text message, or other evidence [that] establishes
that the documents were ever stored in Virginia.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id. at 211.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Biden might have been referring to a folder containing
documents which were marked classified in 2009, but ``there
are serious questions about whether those particular
documents remain sensitive today, or when Mr. Biden met with
[the ghostwriter] in 2017.'' \40\ With respect to the
handwritten memo in particular, Hur noted that Biden ``said
he did not consider the memo classified when he discussed it
with his ghostwriter,'' and that ``the memo concerned
deliberations from more than seven years earlier about the
Afghanistan troop surge, and in the intervening years those
deliberations had been widely discussed in public, so Mr.
Biden could have reasonably expected that the memo's contents
became less sensitive over time.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id. at 216.
\41\ Id. at 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hur also noted that it would be difficult for prosecutors
to win a case based on the Afghanistan documents because it
could be hard to prove that ``the documents still contain
sensitive national defense information'' and because at trial
he would present credibly to a jury.
b. President Biden's Personal Notebooks
As vice president, Biden regularly took handwritten notes
in notebooks during briefings, including during classified
briefings.\42\ After leaving office, he kept these notebooks
with him at his residence.\43\ Hur determined that he would
not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden
willfully retained the classified information in the
notebooks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id. at 53.
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, Hur found that Biden ``thought his notebooks
were his personal property and that he was allowed to take
them home after his vice presidency, even if they contained
classified information.'' Hur noted that Biden ``was
emphatic, declaring that his notebooks are `my property,' and
that `every president before me has done the exact same
thing.' '' \44\ Hur noted that ``at least one former
president,'' Ronald Reagan, ``and the Department of Justice
also have concluded that a former president may keep
handwritten notes even if they contain classified
information.'' \45\ As a result, ``[m]ost jurors would likely
find this precedent and Mr. Biden's claimed reliance on it .
. . to be compelling evidence that Mr. Biden did not act
willfully.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id. at 232.
\45\ Id. at 239.
\46\ Id. at 240-41.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H3757]]

c. Penn Biden Center Documents, University of Delaware
Documents, and other Documents Found in Biden's
Residence
The FBI also recovered marked classified documents from
Biden's time as vice president at the Penn Biden Center and
in his Delaware residence, and documents from Biden's time as
senator in papers at the University of Delaware. In each
case, the special counsel determined that Biden did not
willfully retain the documents and that they were likely
brought to their respective locations by mistake. \47\ In
reaching these conclusions, the special counsel referred to
``the numerous previous instances in which marked classified
documents have been discovered intermixed with the personal
papers of former Executive Branch officials and members of
Congress.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id. at 12.
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority has doubled down on its partisan strategy to
portray and attack President Biden as being elderly or having
memory issues based on superfluous dicta in the report. The
Majority has, for example, repeatedly accused President Biden
of not being able to recall the date of his son Beau's death.
To be clear, Special Counsel Hur's reference to President
Biden's age and memory was not only wildly inappropriate, but
it was unsupported by the actual record. The transcript of
Mr. Biden's interview clearly shows he did recall the date.
In the interview transcripts, President Biden clearly
recalled the date of his son's death, saying: ``what month
did Beau die? Oh God, May 30.'' \49\ The special counsel's
decision to make this deeply personal and emotional response
from the President part of his report was completely out of
bounds and wrong. The Majority's effort to exploit this
response for partisan political gain is dishonest and
shameful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Interview with President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. at Day 1,
p. 82 (October 8, 2023) (on file with Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transcript shows that President Biden was in clear
command of his cognitive functions and that he was able to
recall items with specific detail during 5 hours of interview
when an international crisis was unfolding in the Middle
East.\50\ In fact, Special Counsel Hur himself remarked that
the president had a ``photographic understanding and recall''
in response to certain questions.\51\ President Biden was
also able to provide detailed and vivid responses regarding
events that occurred over 15 years ago including detailed
discussions of debates regarding Afghanistan policy.\52\ He
was able to provide detailed descriptions of how the Naval
Observatory was laid out and his office.\53\ He was able to
provide detailed explanations of the layout of his Wilmington
home.\54\ Hur observed: ``[W]e expect the evidence of Mr.
Biden's state of mind to be compelling,'' pointing to his
``clear, forceful testimony.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The day of the interview, October 8, 2023, was the day
after the horrific and deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel. Mr.
Hur at the beginning of the interview remarked: ``. . . Well
Mr. President, I do want to take an additional minute and
thank you for being here and making this time for us. I know
there's a lot of other things in the world going on that
demand your attention.'' Id. at Day 1, p. 3. President Biden
subsequently acknowledged that he had ``just got off the
phone with Bibi Netanyahu.'' Id.
\51\ Id. at Day 1, pp. 47, 92.
\52\ Id. at Day 2, pp. 18-19, 49-50.
\53\ Id. at Day 1, pp. 31-32, 32-33.
\54\ Id. at Day 1, pp. 42-45.
\55\ Hur Rept. supra at 233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority's report repeatedly references the executive
summary of Special Counsel Hur's report, which claims that
the investigation ``uncovered evidence that Biden willfully
retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice
presidency when he was a private citizen'' including
``notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about
issues of national security and foreign policy.'' \56\
However, the Majority ignores Hur's determination that the
evidence would not ``meet the government's burden at trial,
particularly the requirement to prove that Mr. Biden intended
to do something the law forbids.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Id. at 1.
\57\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hur's investigation clearly shows that President Biden
``believed he was allowed to keep the notebooks in his home''
\58\ and explains that ``this view finds some support in
historical practice.'' \59\ According to Hur's report, ``the
clearest example is President Reagan, who left the White
House in 1989 with eight years' worth of handwritten diaries,
which he appears to have kept at his California home even
though they contained Top Secret information.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Id.
\59\ Id. at 9.
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like President Biden's notebooks, Reagan's diaries were
used as a source for several books and were read aloud in the
den of his home after leaving office. According to Hur's
report, Reagan's diaries ``served as sources for at least
three publications that Mr. Reagan or his representatives
authorized: (1) An American Life, Mr. Reagan's autobiography
published in 1990; (2) Dutch, a biography authored by Edmund
Morris and published in 1999; and (3) The Reagan Diaries, a
collection of the diaries themselves first published in 2007
after Mr. Reagan's death.'' \61\ Hur's report also
acknowledges that An American Life includes ``dozens of
verbatim quotations from Mr. Reagan's diaries'' \62\ and
acknowledges that ``[f]or several years after their return to
California, the Reagans would often sit together in their den
after dinner, reading aloud from their diaries and
reminiscing about their White House years.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Id. at 197.
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id. at 196; See also: Ronald Reagan, THE REAGAN DIARIES
x (Douglas Brinkley ed., First Harper Perennial ed. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority's Report falsely claims that the special
counsel found President Biden to have met the elements of a
crime, but that justice would not be served because of his
age and memory. \64\ During the committee markup, Members
even peddled blatant falsehoods that the special counsel
found President Trump ``incompetent'' to stand trial.\65\
Nowhere in the report did Special Counsel Hur write anything
even close to these false accusations. As explained above,
Special Counsel Hur exonerated President Biden for each of
the categories of documents for reasons because there lacked
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he had willfully
retained any classified documents. President Biden's memory
is not an element of any crime that Special Counsel Hur was
charged with investigating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See, e.g., Garland Contempt Report at 13.
\65\ For example, Rep. Van Drew stated at the May 7, 2024
Committee Markup: ``Because if our commander-in-chief is so
incompetent that he cannot stand trial, he is not fit to
stand trial, then he is too incompetent, for God's sake, to
be the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the
earth.'' Rep. Nehls stated: ``I want everybody to understand
we're either saying that our current President is cognitively
impaired, incompetent, unable to stand trial even though he
broke the law.'' Rep. Bentz commented: ``It just seems to me
that Mr. Hur was saying that we don't exonerate. What we are
going to do is say that, that the President is an older
gentleman who is incompetent, and we don't think we can get a
conviction. Therefore, we are not going to prosecute.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Majority Has Not Articulated a Legitimate Basis to Overcome a
Valid Assertion of Executive Privilege to Protect Sensitive Law
Enforcement Materials

As more fully explained in the Attorney General's May 15,
2024 letter to the Committees, the President has
affirmatively asserted Executive Privilege over the audio
recording of the special counsel's interviews. The Attorney
General explained that producing those recordings ``would
raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department's
ability to conduct similar high-profile criminal
investigations--in particular, investigations where the
voluntary cooperation of White House officials is exceedingly
important.'' \66\ When Executive Privilege is invoked,
Congress, a separate and co-equal branch of government, must
overcome the privilege by demonstrating a legitimate
need.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Letter from Att'y Gen. Garland to Committees, supra n.
24 at 3.
\67\ As described in the letter from the Attorney General,
the Committees did not meet any of the potential applicable
standards to overcome an assertion of Executive Privilege.
See id. at 7, n. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority has offered no valid explanation for why it
needs these audio recordings, particularly when it has
received copies of transcripts for both interviews. The
Majority's main argument is that the recordings are of
``superior evidentiary value regarding the specific issues
the Committees are investigating.'' \68\ While Republicans
acknowledge possession of the transcripts, they complain that
those documents ``do not reflect important verbal context,
such as tone or tenor, or nonverbal context, such as pauses
or pace of delivery.'' \69\ The Majority's Report explains:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Id. at 12.
\69\ Id. 12-13 (citation omitted).

For instance, when interviewed, a subject's pauses and
inflections can provide indications of a witness's ability to
recall events, or whether the individual is intentionally
giving evasive or nonresponsive testimony to investigators.
The verbal nuances in President Biden's answers about his
mishandling of classified information would assist the
Committee's inquiry into whether he abused his office of
public trust for his family's financial gain.\70\`
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Id. at 12-13.

These strained arguments are part of the Majority's
continuing efforts to rewrite Special Counsel Hur's report
and have nothing to do with any legitimate purpose. Notably,
Hur personally attended and conducted the interview with
President Biden, and evaluated each of these elements himself
before determining that President Biden could not be charged
with a crime. By contrast, Congress is not a law enforcement
agency, and there is no legitimate reason why Members of
Congress would need to evaluate ``tone or tenor, or nonverbal
context'' to second guess Special Counsel Hur's exercise of
prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, producing the audio files
risks having a chilling effect on future witnesses'
willingness to participate in voluntary interviews and/or to
be recorded.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Letter from Carlos Felip Uriarte, Asst. Att'y Gen., to
the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary &
the Hon. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability at 4-5 (Apr. 8, 2024); Letter from Att'y Gen.
Garland to Committees, supra n. 24 at 3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H3758]]

Likewise, the Majority claims that they need access to the
audio files as part of their ``impeachment inquiry.'' \72\
But as Special Counsel Hur notes in his report, the laws on
handling classified material do not apply to a sitting
president or vice president.\73\ Accordingly, even if Hur had
determined that there was criminal conduct at issue here--
which he did not--it would have pertained to the time before
Biden was elected president. As perennial Republican witness
and legal scholar Jonathan Turley noted when he testified
before the House Oversight Committee last year:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ E.g., Garland Contempt Report at 13.
\73\ Hur Report supra n. 2, at 15.

The use of pre-office conduct [in impeachment proceedings]
remains controversial and should be approached with great
circumspection and abundant caution. Absent continuing
misconduct in office, even criminal acts that occur in
private life should not be the subject of an inquiry. If that
were the case, the House could launch investigations for any
crime committed by an individual as a private citizen before
taking office. It would convert impeachment into a
rationalization for subjecting officials to limitless
inquiries.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ The Basis for an Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph
R. Biden, Jr.: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight
Accountability, 118th Cong. (Sep. 28, 2023) (written
statement of Jonathan Turley at 31), https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/GO/GO00/20230928/116415/HHRG-118-GO00-Wstate-
TurleyP-20230928.pdf.

The Majority incorrectly cites Supreme Court case United
States v. Nixon as precedent for their demand that DOJ hand
them audio recordings that they already have transcripts for.
The Nixon case is a starkly different scenario and not on
point to the matter of contempt before this Committee. In
Nixon, the dispute was over whether a special prosecutor,
pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, was able to defeat a Motion to Quash of a Grand
Jury subpoena seeking tape recordings and documents relating
to the President's conversations with aides and advisers. The
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court held:

We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as
to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is
based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it
cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of
law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The
generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the
demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending
criminal trial.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (U.S. 1974).

Here, Congress is not investigating or prosecuting a
criminal case pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules.
Moreover, the tapes in Nixon memorialized the actual
commission of a crime. Eighteen and a half minutes of those
tapes were deleted, meaning that eighteen and a half minutes
of a crime were not available to investigators. By contrast,
the files the Majority seeks are of interviews conducted by
the Special Counsel. Transcripts of the interviews have
already been produced and there are no allegations that any
portions of the interviews have been deleted.
Perhaps more fatal to their claim, the Majority has also
been unable to articulate exactly how the audio files would
aid any of their so-called stated purposes of inquiry. For
example, the Majority has generally claimed it desires to
ascertain whether President Biden ``willfully retained
classified information and documents . . . to assist his
family's business dealings or to enrich his family'' or
whether there were any scope limitations placed on the
interviews by the attorneys. Seemingly absent is any
explanation for how important ``verbal context'' such as
``tone or tenor, or nonverbal context, such as pauses or pace
of delivery'' would provide the Majority with any information
not otherwise available in the transcript or other sources.
The Majority has also charged that it is interested in
determining whether there should be reforms to the special
counsel regulations to ensure impartial justice or whether
there should be policy changes regarding the return of
presidential documents. Again, there is no explanation for
how the ``tone or tenor, or nonverbal context, such as pauses
or pace of delivery'' would assist the Committees in either
of these policy determinations. Moreover, the Majority was
able to secure the entire unredacted transcript of the
special counsel report, 5 hours of testimony by the special
counsel himself, and all the additional information requested
(including transcripts of the interview). Finally, the
Majority suggests it needs to ensure the accuracy of the
transcript. The transcript was prepared by the special
counsel's office for criminal proceedings where accuracy was
of paramount importance. The Majority has no reason to
believe that inaccuracies exist between the audio and
transcribed versions.

C. Waiver

The Majority also wrongly claims that the Executive Branch
waived its ability to claim privilege by producing the
transcript of Special Counsel Hur's interviews with President
Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer. As the Attorney General explained in
his letter to the President, ``audio recordings have distinct
features and law enforcement uses, which implicate privacy
interests and risks of misuse to a greater degree than
transcripts, and disclosure to Congress of the recordings
would have a chilling effect on future cooperation in similar
investigations.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Letter from the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y Gen. to
The President, supra n. 24, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Majority discounts that the Department has
released transcripts in good faith as part of the
accommodations practice. The Attorney General has expressed
concern that finding waiver here would ``incentivize less
Executive Branch cooperation and broader privilege
assertions.'' \77\ The Minority is similarly concerned that a
finding of waiver here risks seriously damaging the
accommodation process going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The Department Provided the Majority all the Information it Asked
For--The True Intention of the Majority in Seeking the Audio is to Aid
Donald Trump

As established above, the Majority's justifications for
overcoming the claim of privilege are both pretextual and
insufficient. In reality, the Department took extraordinary
measures to provide the Majority with all the information it
asked for. Within two days of Special Counsel Hur's submitted
report, the Department released an unredacted copy to
Congress. Shortly thereafter, the Department also agreed to
allow Mr. Hur to testify before the Committee, which he did
for over five hours at a March 12, 2024, hearing. In response
to the Majority's Subpoena, the Department: (1) made
available the classified documents listed as A9 and A10 in
the appendix of the report; (2) provided communications
between the Department and the Executive Office of the
President and President Biden's personal counsel regarding
Special Counsel Hur's report; (3) produced the transcripts of
President Biden's voluntary interview with Special Counsel
Hur; and (4) produced the transcripts of Mr. Zwonitzer's
voluntary interviews with Special Counsel Hur.
The Majority is truly interested in the audio recordings
because they believe it will provide them with an opportunity
to embarrass President Joe Biden in the months leading up to
an election--a justification which falls far short of the
Executive Branch interests expressed by the White House and
the Attorney General.
The Majority's unwillingness to respect these interests is
particularly ironic when members of the Majority, including
the Chairman himself, have previously protested similar
invasions of presidential privacy. Notably, Chairman Jordan
expressed ``grave concern'' about protecting President
Trump's privacy when Congress issued a subpoena to Mazars for
his tax records. Specifically, in an April 15, 2019
Memorandum, the Chairman, then serving as Ranking Member of
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote:

I have concerns that if Chairman Cummings obtains highly
sensitive, personal information about the President's
finances, he will selectively release the information
publicly in a misleading fashion to create a false narrative
for partisan political gain.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Republican Staff Memorandum, Chairman Cummings's
Unprecedented Subpoena of Mazars USA LLP, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Reform (April 15, 2019), https://
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-15-
JDJ-to-EEC-re-Mazars-Subpoena.pdf.

Mr. Jordan proceeded to argue that the ``partisan'' request
for Mr. Trump's tax records was not a responsible use of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee's oversight power. He argued:

The Supreme Court has cautioned that Congress does not have
`general authority to expose the private affairs of
individuals without justification in terms of the functions
of the Congress.' '' \79\ He also added, ``Quite simply,
Chairman Cummings seems to be seeking this sensitive,
personal information in a pursuit to satisfy his preconceived
and unsupported conclusions.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Id. (citing Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187
(1957).
\80\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later in that same Memorandum, he stated:

The Democrat obsession with the President and his family is
gravely dangerous and counterproductive to the work of our
Committee. The American people can now see that Democrats'
pursuit of the truth is clouded by their obsession with
attacking the President and the First Family. None of our
actions would be necessary if not for Chairman Cummings's
decision to pursue reckless, partisan investigations designed
to attack the President and his family.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Id.

Moreover, while the Majority has argued that the Committee
needs audio files from the Department because they ``are the
best evidence of witness interviews,'' the Majority has
refused to release even basic transcripts to the American
people from nearly all the 120 transcribed interviews the
Committee has taken to date. The Majority has also refused to
provide audio and video copies of the transcribed interviews
to the Minority. The reason is self-evident--the Majority
does not care about the ``best evidence'' of a witness
interview when it might contradict or disprove its cherry-
picked and manipulated Committee reports or out-of-context
sound bites leaked to the media for partisan political gain.

[[Page H3759]]

E. Amendments

During the markup of this report, various amendments were
offered to correct or provide context to the highly partisan
language of the report, which were all defeated on party
lines.
I offered an amendment to reflect the assertion of
Executive Privilege by the President based on his substantial
interest in protecting sensitive law enforcement
investigation files.
Representative Johnson (D-GA) introduced an amendment
highlighting disturbing public gaffes by Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump, which draw serious
concerns about his mental competency. Because the Majority
has fixated on their so-called need to evaluate President
Biden's age and memory, it is only appropriate to juxtapose
President Trump at a recent rally praising a fictional
character from the film Silence of the Lambs: ``The late,
great Hannibal Lecter, he's such a wonderful man.'' The
record should be clear that the Majority's report does not
appear to be concerned when a presidential candidate shows
serious signs of cognitive impairment if his name is Donald
Trump.
Representative Dean (D-PA) offered an amendment to
demonstrate the Majority's proclivity to push false
narratives to malign their perceived political enemies with
the assistance of manipulated audio. The Amendment pointed
out that this is the true reason for the Majority's fervent
actions to obtain the audio tape and not because they are
legitimately interested in the President's ``vocal tone,
pace, inflections, verbal nuance, and other idiosyncrasies.''
The Amendment also pointed out the devastating effects of
these shameful tactics, by telling the story of Ms. Nina
Jankowicz, who appeared for a deposition before the committee
last year.\82\ Years earlier, Ms. Jankowicz had participated
in an hour-long roundtable in which she was asked about a
nascent Twitter program through which users could add context
to misleading tweets. In the full video, she explained what
the program was and criticized it. After Ms. Jankowicz was
appointed to a position at DHS, the Chairman retweeted a
sliced-and-diced one minute clip of her comments which made
it sound like she endorsed the program and mocked President
Trump's Twitter followers. In reality, she did neither of
these things. But the Chairman tweeted this video with,
quote, ``1984'' as the sole caption, a reference to George
Orwell's novel. The Chairman's tweet was subsequently
amplified by others, and Ms. Jankowicz faced serious threats,
including death threats hurled at her while she was in her
third trimester of pregnancy.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Deposition of Nina Jankowicz (Apr. 10, 2023), https://
judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-
judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/
Jankowicz%20Transcript_Redacted.pdf.
\83\ Id.; Heidi Przybyla, `A surreal experience': Former
Biden `disinfo' chief details harassment, Politico (Mar. 8,
2023), https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/08/former-biden-
disinfo-chief-details-harassment-00085981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Johnson offered an amendment showing that
MAGA Republicans have spent $20 million on a committee
investigating conspiracy theories that has yielded nothing.
This is true despite holding 10 hearings before the Select
Weaponization of the Federal Government--six of which have
been on the same topic--120 transcribed depositions and
depositions, 555 hours of staff and witness time in these
transcribed interviews and depositions, more than 60
subpoenas to executive branch agencies and private entities,
and the solicitation of over 3,000,000 pages of documents
from agencies and private entities. Even after all this
activity, MAGA Republicans have failed in its efforts to find
any impeachable offense committed by President Biden or
misconduct in his administration. This has not stopped right
wing media, however, from excoriating the Committee for not
doing enough this Congress. This Amendment was offered to add
context and accuracy to the report by adding additional
backdrop about this protracted and over the top
investigation.
Representative Dean offered an amendment proving that
President Biden did in fact remember the date of his son
Beau's death during the interview with Special Counsel Hur.
This amendment sought to set the record straight and point
out that Hur's remarks on that exchange were inaccurate,
grotesque, and gratuitous. The Majority's efforts to repeat
that mischaracterization for political ends is even more
distasteful.
Representative Ivey (D-MD) introduced an amendment to
provide factual accuracy to the record regarding the stark
differences between former President Trump's criminal
mishandling of documents versus the circumstances that led to
a special counsel investigation into President Biden. Special
Counsel Hur noted there were material distinctions between
the two scenarios. Hur noted there are ``serious aggravating
facts'' in the Trump case.\84\ ``Most notably, after being
given multiple chances to return classified documents and
avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite.
According to the indictment, he not only refused to return
the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice
by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about
it.'' \85\ ``In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified
documents to the National Archives and the Department of
Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations
including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in
other ways cooperated with the investigation.'' \86\ The
amendment was offered to illustrate that, unlike President
Biden, Donald Trump intentionally and flagrantly took and
concealed highly classified documents. Mr. Trump's actions
are extremely serious and warrant the 32 counts of Willful
Retention of National Defense Information, Conspiracy to
Obstruct Justice, and Making False Statements brought against
him. The Majority's efforts to conflate the two cases is
morally bankrupt and dishonest. It is, in fact, the Majority
that seeks to discredit and undermine the fair administration
of justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Hur Report, supra n. 2, at 11.
\85\ Id.
\86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Swalwell (D-CA) introduced an amendment
stating that no Member may be permitted to hold any other
person in contempt of congress unless they themselves have
provided the testimony that has been required of them
regarding their participation in the planning and execution
of the events that took place at the Capitol on January 6,
2021. The purpose of the Amendment was to show the irony that
at least two committee members of Majority have been asked to
comply with a subpoena related to January 6.
Representative Scanlon (D-PA) introduced an amendment
pointing out that the Majority has no legitimate purpose in
furthering their impeachment inquiry because impeachment is
not available. As Special Counsel Hur noted specifically in
his report, the laws on handling classified material do not
apply to a sitting president or vice president. Accordingly,
even if Hur had determined that there was criminal conduct at
issue here--which he did not--it would have pertained to the
time before Biden was elected president. The Majority's
perennial witness and legal scholar Jonathan Turley confirmed
when he testified before the House Oversight Committee last
year that ``even criminal acts that occur in private life
should not be the subject of an impeachment.''

Jerrold Nadler,
Ranking Member.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the
Judiciary, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1292) recommending that
the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General
Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a
subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1287, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 1292

Resolved, That Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, shall be found in contempt of Congress
for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, to produce documents, records, and
materials to the Committee on the Judiciary as directed by
supoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia, to the end that Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

General Leave

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to insert extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on page 1 of his report, Special Counsel Hur said:
``President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials
after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen.''
Joe Biden not only kept information he wasn't allowed to keep, he
shared it with people who weren't allowed to get it.

[[Page H3760]]

On page 231, the special counsel told us why President Biden did
this. He said: ``Mr. Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper
procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his
notebooks. He had decided months before leaving office to write a
book,'' a book for which he got paid $8 million.
So we have motive, an $8 million motive, and we have the elements of
the crime, knowingly keeping classified information, knowingly
disclosing classified information.
Despite all this, Special Counsel Hur declined to recommend
prosecution for President Biden because Joe Biden is ``a sympathetic,
well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.''
On page 207 of his report, Special Counsel Hur said: ``Mr. Biden's
memory also appeared to have significant limitations, both at the time
he spoke to [the ghostwriter], Mr. Zwonitzer in 2017, as evidenced by
their recorded conversations, and today, as evidenced by his recorded
interview with our office.''
The committees need the audio recordings to determine whether the
Justice Department appropriately carried out justice by not prosecuting
the President.
Remember what they told us. The Justice Department said we are going
to operate independent of the White House. They said we will be
impartial, independent arbiters of the facts.
Maybe so, but what we do know is this: One former President is being
charged; Joe Biden is not being charged. We think we are entitled--
actually we know we are entitled to all the evidence and the best
evidence. The transcripts alone are not sufficient evidence of the
state of the President's memory, especially since the executive branch
has a history of changing transcripts.
We saw this in late April. The transcript the White House put out
didn't match the video and audio recording of President Biden's speech,
and only after the White House was caught did they change the
transcript.
In that case and in this case, the audio recording is the best
evidence of the words that President Biden actually spoke.

{time} 1130

Following the release of Special Counsel Hur's report, both the
Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas
requiring Attorney General Garland to turn over the transcripts of the
audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interviews with President
Biden and his ghostwriter.
To date, the Attorney General has failed to produce those recordings.
In fact, he told us last week he wasn't going to do it, and that is why
we are here. Despite the committee's best efforts, the Department has
continued to withhold the audio recordings of those interviews without
providing any constitutional or legal basis to do so.
Just hours before the committee was set to meet and consider the
contempt resolution, the Department notified the committee that
President Biden had asserted, at the Attorney General's urging,
executive privilege over the audio recordings.
It is simple. Attorney General Garland holds information vital to the
committee's legislative oversight and the House impeachment's inquiry.
Remember, this body voted December 13 of last year to enter that phase
of our oversight duty and impeachment inquiry. The Department has a
legal obligation to turn over the requested material. Attorney General
Garland's willful refusal constitutes contempt of Congress.
This resolution upholds the institutional power of the House by
recommending that the House find Attorney General Merrick Garland in
contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the committee's
subpoena. Our oversight and impeachment responsibilities are too
important to allow the Attorney General to willfully disregard this.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the dishonesty that we have just heard is illustrated by
what Mr. Jordan just said, his selective quote from Mr. Hur's report.
He said: ``Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden
willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-
presidency when he was a private citizen.''
The report does say that, but he neglects a sentence a paragraph
later: ``However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that
the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.'' That is deceptive.
Secondly, as the majority well knows, the President asserted
executive privilege in this matter. Maybe that was proper, maybe not,
but the way to contest executive privilege is not by a contempt
resolution. It is by going to court and letting the court decide
whether the exercise of executive privilege is warranted or not. For
that reason also, this resolution fails.
Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee, under Republican control, has
spent the last 18 months and 20 million taxpayer dollars in a desperate
search to find something, anything, that they can use to damage
President Biden and to protect Donald Trump.
Other committees have gotten into the act as well, spending untold
taxpayer money not to benefit the American people, not to feed hungry
children, not to address our housing crisis, and not to improve our
healthcare system, but on a single-minded quest to follow every
rightwing conspiracy theory in the vain hope that it might lead to some
evidence of wrongdoing.
What exactly have they delivered to the American people on their
investment? Nothing. No evidence that the conspiracies are true, no
indictments, no impeachment, no wins of any significance. The
Republican leadership knows that if they don't come up with something
to show for the millions of dollars they have spent, the MAGA political
base may stay home next November.
They are scrambling in a desperate attempt to look like they have
accomplished something. They were fervently hoping that Special Counsel
Hur would indict President Biden for mishandling classified documents
so that they could attack President Biden and misdirect the American
people away from Donald Trump's treacherous handling of classified
information.
However, the special counsel cleared Mr. Biden of wrongdoing for
reasons that have nothing to do with Mr. Hur's gratuitous and widely
contradicted comments about the President's memory.
What do our Republican friends do when an investigation turns up
short? Simply put, they engage in fantasy. That is what they are doing
here today. Unable to come up with any wrongdoing by the President,
they have now trained their sights on the Attorney General. They accuse
him of withholding key evidence, but the Attorney General has
substantially complied with their every request. Sometimes he has been
too responsive, in my opinion, given the obvious bad faith of the MAGA
majority.
The DOJ has produced 92,000 pages of documents since Republicans took
control of the House last year and has made dozens of witnesses
available for interviews, hearings, and briefings. That is more pages
of documents and more witnesses than the Trump Justice Department
produced to Congress in 4 years. Just last week, the Attorney General
himself spent more than 5 hours testifying before the Judiciary
Committee.
With respect to the subpoena at issue in this contempt resolution,
the Department turned over all the information Republicans asked for.
There has been no obstruction, only cooperation. In reality, the
Attorney General and DOJ have been fully responsive to Congress in
every way that might be material to their long-dead impeachment
inquiry.
All that remains are audio files for which the President has asserted
executive privilege. In a letter to Chairmen Jordan and Comer, the
Department of Justice noted that producing the audio recordings would
``raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department's ability to
conduct . . . high-profile criminal investigations; in particular,
investigations where the voluntary cooperation of the White House
officials is exceedingly important.''

The chairmen claim that they need those records to understand the
pauses,

[[Page H3761]]

pace, and tone of the conversation. This is absurd and clearly
pretextual. In any event, it does not outweigh the extensive concerns
expressed by the President and the Department.
Moreover, with respect to the recording at issue in this report, a
complete certified transcript has already been provided to both
committees, and no credible allegation has been made that these
transcripts have been altered in any material way. The only thing that
has not been introduced is the recording itself, something that in the
wrong hands can be easily manipulated.
That is not an idle concern. Deepfakes and misleadingly edited videos
and recordings have proliferated in recent years. Last year, a witness
testifying in a closed-door deposition told us that she was the victim
of a manipulated video made by a third party but shared widely by the
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who refused to take down the
video even after it was abundantly clear that it was manipulated. That
video contributed to a flood of death threats against the witness.
This isn't really about a policy disagreement with the DOJ. This is
about feeding the MAGA base after 18 months of investigations that have
produced failure after failure.
Like most of the bills House Republicans have pushed on purely
partisan lines, this contempt resolution will do very little other than
smear the reputation of Merrick Garland, who will remain a good and
decent public servant no matter what Republicans say about him today.
This resolution may boost Donald Trump's spirits before his
sentencing, but it will almost certainly not convince the Department of
Justice to produce the one remaining file in question. Like the broader
impeachment effort before it, this contempt resolution will have been a
partisan stunt, destined to fail from the very start. As I said before,
if they were really interested in getting this recording, they would
contest the assertion of executive privilege in court, not bring a
contempt resolution against the Attorney General.
The American people actually need us to do important work. I am tired
of these games, and so are the American people. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and
a good friend.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. This is not a
complicated matter. The Oversight and Judiciary Committees issued duly
authorized legal subpoenas to Attorney General Garland for a certain
set of documents, including the audio recordings of Special Counsel
Hur's interview with President Biden.
The Attorney General has refused to produce these audio recordings.
Unlike what my Democratic colleagues keep claiming, this is not just
Republicans who need these recordings for their oversight duties. Media
outlets, including the AP, CBS, CNN, NBC, and The Washington Post,
among others, have filed suit to get these same audio recordings as
well because the media, like everyone else, knows there is no
substitute for a recording of an interview. Not a transcript, not a
summary, not the Attorney General's judgment that Congress doesn't need
it.
The Oversight Committee's investigation of these classified documents
has already revealed that the White House's official timeline of events
regarding these classified materials left out very important details.
For instance, White House employees were entering the Penn Biden
Center and moving documents months before the discovery of the
classified materials by President Biden's personal attorneys in
November 2022. One of those employees was former White House counsel
Dana Remus. We issued a subpoena for Ms. Remus' deposition, but the
White House has blocked Ms. Remus from speaking to the Oversight
Committee. The White House has also blocked other White House employees
who visited the Penn Biden Center before November 2022 from speaking to
us.
What is the Biden administration trying to hide?
Attorney General Merrick Garland's refusal to produce this evidence
establishes a clear pattern of obstruction by the DOJ to cover up
President Biden's wrongdoing. President Biden has lied to the American
people about his mishandling of classified documents.
He has repeatedly denied not knowing about or being involved in his
family's influence-peddling schemes, which the Oversight Committee can
now show has raked in $18 million from foreign individuals and entities
for the Biden family members, including President Biden himself. He
also met with nearly all his family's foreign associates.
President Biden's Department of Justice appears to be taking every
step to insulate him from the consequences, whether it is hiding these
audio recordings or attempting to give Hunter Biden a sweetheart plea
deal to shield Joe Biden from facing accountability for his role in his
family's influence-peddling schemes. This is unacceptable.
The House of Representatives cannot serve as a necessary check on the
Presidency if the executive branch is free to ignore the House's
subpoenas. I urge my colleagues to hold Attorney General Merrick
Garland in contempt of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the
Oversight and Accountability Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues invite us today to become the
first Congress in the history of the United States to hold someone in
contempt for complying with our demands, and their target is the
Attorney General of the United States.

Attorney General Garland gave us the special counsel's report on
President Biden in full. He made the special counsel available to us in
committee for hours of testimony, where he answered all our questions,
and he provided the full transcript of the President's voluntary 5-hour
interview with the special counsel, all 250 pages of it.
The whole world can read President Biden's interview and his answers
unedited, but that is apparently not enough. Now they want to hold the
Attorney General in contempt for not turning over the audiotape of the
interview that we have the verbatim transcript of.
Why is that important? Well, in case America has lost the thread of
this madcap wild goose chase, remember, this is an impeachment
investigation. Do they think that the Holy Grail of the 118th Congress
evidence of a Presidential high crime and misdemeanor is lurking in the
pauses or the background throat clearings and sneezes on the audiotape?
Well, of course not.
They know there is no high crime or misdemeanor to be found because
they have spent the last 17 months and millions of our taxpayer dollars
looking for it, and it simply does not exist. They literally don't even
know what they are looking for anymore.
Why do they want it? Well, they are hoping that in the 5 hours of
President Biden's testimony, they can find a mispronounced word or
phrase or a brief stammer which they can then turn into an embarrassing
political TV attack ad.
Get it, America? That is what this is all about. Holding the Attorney
General of the United States in contempt is one more useful distraction
from the complete and devastating implosion of the Biden impeachment
probe which, of course, was the number one priority of these talented
leaders.
Remember, they promised to reveal the greatest Presidential high
crime and misdemeanor in American history, an act of treachery and
deceit that dwarfs even the incitement of a violent mob insurrection
and an attempted political coup that took place right here against our
Constitution, our Congress, and our Vice President in this Chamber.
However, after their truly prodigious investigation, punctuated
admittedly by some unfortunate mishaps like Chinese spies, fake
evidence, pornographic displays in committee, and their own witnesses
testifying that there were no grounds for Presidential impeachment,

[[Page H3762]]

they have nothing to show for their arduous work other than one more
debunked Russian disinformation operation and one more indicted GOP
informant and star witness.
Rather than admit defeat in this bumbling operation and look for some
other way to actually aid the public good, they have decided to flail
about in mock outrage against a series of phantom tyrants in the hopes
of distracting everyone from this epic flop.

{time} 1145

Their first distraction was to impeach Secretary Ale Mayorkas as a
paltry consolation prize, but that pathetic decoy action blew up in
their hands. Then, the plan was to skip the mundane work of casting
votes and actually doing committee business to travel on a collective
spiritual pilgrimage on Amtrak to New York City to attend the criminal
trial of an unmentionable American felon, 1 of 19 million in the
country.
That strange journey to mecca also blew up in their faces when this
mystery political false prophet was convicted unanimously by a jury of
his peers on dozens of felony criminal counts in a fair American trial.
They tried to salvage the credibility of this bizarre expedition by
blaming the American justice system for being weaponized against
Republicans, but this political extremism quickly melted away when the
son of President Biden, the original target of their wrath, was also
prosecuted and convicted, like another disarmed felon whose name may
now not be spoken on the floor, apparently, by a unanimous jury of his
peers on all counts against him.
That trial, unlike the trial whose very existence must be sent down
the Orwellian memory hole to save someone's hurt feelings, was actually
tried in the Federal system.
What is left to do now? Well, let's hold the Attorney General of the
United States, Merrick Garland, in contempt, of course. This will be
sure to placate an unrepentant and anonymous convicted felon from New
York and distract everybody else for a day or two.
I confess it is a bit rich, Mr. Speaker, to be asked to hold the
Attorney General of the United States in contempt of Congress for
overwhelmingly complying with the committee's demands by Members who
voted against contempt citations for Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro,
two persons subpoenaed by the January 6th Select Committee who never
spent a single minute with the January 6th Select Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, Bannon and Navarro never spent a minute with
the January 6th Committee and never turned over a single document to
our committee. These people had zero percent compliance with Congress.
They demonstrated true contempt, which is why they have been sentenced
to jail.
Chairman Comer, in his wisdom, would hold the Attorney General of the
United States of America in contempt for what I think is 100 percent
compliance, but in any event, it is something like 98 or 99 percent
compliance.
If you think a Federal official has not rendered proper compliance,
you take them to court. You don't hold them in contempt. It is rich
beyond measure, like billionaire rich, to be asked to hold the Attorney
General in contempt by people who themselves received subpoenas to
testify before the January 6th Committee who never rendered a single
document nor a single minute of testimony to the January 6th Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to reject this absurd motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Norman). The Chair would remind Members
to refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees
for the Office of the President.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I never said I wouldn't testify in front of the January
6th Committee. I just wanted to know what the parameters of that
testimony were going to be. I never did say ``no'' to that.
Second, the speaker before just said we don't know what we are
looking for. We are looking for equal treatment under the law. Special
Counsel Hur found that Joe Biden knowingly kept classified information
and that Joe Biden knowingly disclosed classified information. He told
us that on the very first page of his report, and then he told us later
why he did so. He said he had strong motivation for ignoring classified
procedures because he was writing a book for which he got paid $8
million.
Again, we have motive, and we have him knowingly disclosing
classified information. He doesn't get charged, yet President Trump
does. President Trump gets charged by Jack Smith, the guy who had to
file with the court a notice saying that he actually altered the order
of the documents he seized in the raid of the President's home. He had
to tell the court that. The physical documents don't match up with the
scanned documents.
You are not allowed to change the sequence of the documents you
seize, but Jack Smith did. Jack Smith mishandled the documents he is
accusing President Trump of mishandling. You can't make this stuff up.
That is what we are focused on. By the way, we are in the midst of an
impeachment inquiry. We are entitled to the best evidence. That is why
we want the audiotape.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Biggs), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal
Government Surveillance.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
During his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Special
Counsel Hur stated that ``the evidence and the President himself put
his memory squarely at issue.'' In his report, Special Counsel Hur
noted that during both his and Zwonitzer's interviews with President
Biden, the President's memory was ``significantly limited.'' President
Biden has contested that. The Democrats contest that.
In reality, it is the failure to fully comply with committee
subpoenas regarding the audio recordings of the Biden and Zwonitzer
interviews that has hindered the House's ability to adequately conduct
oversight over Special Counsel Hur regarding his investigative findings
and the President's retention and disclosure of classified materials,
and it has impeded the committee's impeachment inquiry.
The committee must assess whether Special Counsel Hur's declination
decision, which was based on President Biden's poor mental state, was
consistent with the Department's commitment to impartial justice or
whether legislative reforms are necessary regarding special counsel
investigations because they are not leading to impartial outcomes.
In short, the audio recordings would offer unique and important
information to advance the committee's impeachment inquiry and inform
the Judiciary Committee as to the need for legislative reforms to the
operations of the Department or the conduct of special counsel
investigations.
Those are legislative purposes. They are constitutional purposes.
They justify us getting the audio recordings. Yet, they don't want the
audio recordings to come forward. Why is that? It is odd, isn't it? The
DOJ admitted in court filings 2 weeks ago that they actually did alter
the transcript. They claim there was just filler information. Maybe
they were duplicative words. There are blank pauses in there that were
not noted in the transcript.
That is why an audio recording is important because the transcripts
do not reflect important verbal context such as tone, tenor, or
nonverbal context such as pauses or pace of delivery, all of which went
into the decision by Mr. Hur not to prosecute a crime that he said was
committed.
That prosecutorial discretion is under review by our committee,
legitimately and constitutionally. We have the right to that audio
recording. The Department has said they are not going to give it to
us--odd--because the cases that deal with requiring the audio recording
to be turned over, the long skein of cases, turn on various things like
the audio recording is the best evidence. They say that. Odd.
They also say that if there is tampering or any kind of editing or
altering of the written transcript, which we

[[Page H3763]]

now know is true, then the audio recording is mandatory. That is why we
should get it. This Department won't give it to us. Merrick Garland is
in contempt of this Congress, and he needs to be held in contempt.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. This is Fellini in the
Congress.
Comparing what Joe Biden did to what the other fellow that preceded
him in office did in keeping documents in Mar-a-Lago in his bathroom
and out in the fancy rooms where all of his billionaire friends go is
like comparing somebody that writes a bad check by $2, an overdraft, to
somebody who is a bank robber with guns, weapons, and machine guns
going into banks and robbing money.
Biden was a sympathetic figure, said Mr. Hur, a Republican, who
Merrick Garland gave the duty to study that case. He was a sympathetic
figure.
You don't convict a crime unless there is guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Mr. Hur found there could not be guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
What the other fellow did, refusing to comply with requests to give
the classified documents up, refusing and refusing and then having to
have a search warrant to find them, hundreds of documents, not for the
purpose of writing a book--for somebody who can't even read a book--was
for purposes that we don't know. We don't know what they were used for,
but they were taken illegally and improperly.
Merrick Garland is an honorable and good man who should be in the
College of Cardinals and not being tried for contempt by this
Felliniesque----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a more diligent and honorable
Attorney General in the time I have served in Congress. Merrick Garland
is a superb individual, and this is just projection, trying to throw
things off from the other fellow, Trump, and put them on Biden.
There is no comparison. Once again, it is like comparing a bank
robber to a guy who wrote an overdraft.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before recognizing Mr. Bishop, the Chair
would remind Members again to refrain from engaging in personalities
toward presumptive nominees for the Office of the President.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding time.
This matter is simple, and in its simplicity is the clarity of its
appropriate resolution. The audio recording of President Biden's
interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur is demeanor evidence.
Demeanor is one's outward manner, a way of conducting oneself. One
might say his bearing. In some circumstances, demeanor evidence is the
most probative, powerful evidence that can be heard. Better than words,
it can evidence credibility or evasiveness and avoidance. Especially in
this circumstance, it can evidence a witness' capacities to observe,
recall, and relate information accurately.
President Biden shared classified information with his ghostwriter in
pursuance of securing his $8 million book advance. Mr. Hur attributed
the Justice Department's decision not to recommend prosecution of
President Biden for misusing and mishandling classified documents on
this and other occasions to the fact that he is an elderly man with
poor memory.
A raw transcript doesn't inform the Judiciary Committee sufficiently
to evaluate the reasonableness of that determination, especially since
President Biden hotly contested Special Counsel Hur's characterization.
Demeanor evidence could powerfully clarify whether that exercise of
prosecutorial discretion was politically neutral or politically
freighted. In fact, it is the very power of the demeanor evidence in
the audio of Biden's interview that Garland inadvertently acknowledges
in stubbornly withholding it. If it were nothing more than a duplicate
of the transcript, it would never have been refused.

The Justice Department and the Attorney General have not a leg to
stand on. Their refusal is the essence of contempt. Garland's own words
reflect it in the hearing before the Judiciary Committee the other day.
He said ``certain members of this committee'' have marked up a contempt
resolution, but as I pointed out to the Attorney General, it was a
majority of the members of the committee. He retracted those words. It
was a majority of the committee charged by a majority of this House
with inquiring into the existence of grounds to exercise the awesome
constitutional power of impeachment.
The Attorney General's reference to ``certain members'' reflects a
political mindset that does not support withholding evidence that the
committee seeks that is squarely relevant and essential to its inquiry.
That defiance, the House cannot abide. Therefore, this resolution for
contempt must pass this House.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, contempt: to hold something as beneath the
dignity of consideration; something to be scorned; an attitude toward
something that is inferior, worthless; open disrespect for something
that is vile, despised, disgraced; insolence in the presence of the
law.
An apt description not of the subject of this motion but of those who
bring it, not of an Attorney General who has upheld our justice system,
who has demonstrated a respect for institutions, but of those who mock
the idea that we are a nation of laws, not the individual.
When Republicans line up in front of a Manhattan courthouse to
denigrate the rule of law in the service of a now-convicted felon, that
is contemptuous.
When Republicans peddle the lie that Joe Biden is pulling the levers
of Trump's Manhattan prosecution, that is contemptuous.
When Republican committee chairmen ignore their own subpoena but
feign indignation when the Attorney General complies with his, that is
contemptuous. That is deserving of our scorn. That is beneath the
dignity of this body. That is vile, disgraceful, and worthy of
derision.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, those who bring this motion bring contempt,
all right, but only upon themselves.

{time} 1200

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in American history, a Presidential
administration is trying to jail its opponent, and not just any
opponent, but a former President of the United States.
To pursue this objective, Mr. Biden's Attorney General approved an
unprecedented armed raid on a former President's home, despite
strenuous objections by career officials and the local field office
that normally would have had jurisdiction.
He then created a new position without the constitutional requirement
of congressional action or Senate confirmation. He filled that position
with one Jack Smith, despite the central role Smith had played in the
IRS scandal that targeted and harassed Tea Party volunteers and despite
a long history of prosecutorial misconduct.
The cooked-up charge was the mishandling of classified documents.
Shortly thereafter, we discovered that as Vice President, Joe Biden
had done the same thing, yet, as President, Mr. Trump had absolute
authority to declassify materials at will, as Vice President Joe Biden
did not.
As President, Mr. Trump had absolute authority to determine what
records to keep upon leaving office. As Vice President, Joe Biden did
not. Yet, the Biden administration's appointed special counsel in the
Biden case concluded that although Biden had ``willfully retained and
disclosed classified materials . . . when he was a private citizen,''
criminal charges were not warranted because he is ``a sympathetic,
well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.''

[[Page H3764]]

Well, the principal justification for this glaring double standard in
the handling of these two cases was the interview with Mr. Biden, yet
all we have is the unverified transcript to determine the validity of
this otherwise inexplicable decision.
Mr. Biden cannot claim executive privilege. This was not a policy
discussion, and he has already released the transcript. It is vital
that our committee know if the transcript is complete and whether it
accurately portrays the circumstances under which that decision was
made.
Two Trump officials have been sentenced to prison for their failure
to honor congressional subpoenas, and that case was far weaker than
this one because at the time, Congress was not exercising oversight or
considering legislation.
In this case, the Judiciary Committee is doing both. Yet once again,
we have this glaring legal double standard at play.
I expect the Attorney General to thumb his nose at the citation. We
have come to expect that of him. However, the House Judiciary Committee
is charged with defending and upholding the rule of law and its
fundamental principle of equal justice under the law. If we are going
to restore them, this resolution is an indispensable step that we must
take today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just attacked Special Counsel
Smith. This dangerous attempt to demonize anybody who would hold Donald
Trump accountable for his actions is despicable and it is a full-out
assault on the basic tenets of our democracy.
I want to remind my colleagues that these types of actions have
consequences. They affect the lives of many men and women who have
dedicated themselves to public service and upholding the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a June 11, 2024, article from
The Washington Post by the Honorable Merrick Garland titled:
``Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end.''

[June 11, 2024]

Unfounded Attacks on the Justice Department Must End

(By Merrick Garland)

Merrick Garland is attorney general of the United States.
Last week, a California man was convicted of threatening to
bomb an FBI field office where hundreds of agents and other
employees work. In one of his threats to the FBI, the man
wrote: ``I can go on a mass murder spree. In fact, it would
be very explainable by your actions.''
These heinous threats of violence have become routine in an
environment in which the Justice Department is under attack
like never before.
In recent weeks, we have seen an escalation of attacks that
go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and
necessary oversight of our work. They are baseless, personal
and dangerous.
These attacks come in the form of threats to defund
particular department investigations, most recently the
special counsel's prosecution of the former president.
They come in the form of conspiracy theories crafted and
spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the
judicial process itself. Those include false claims that a
case brought by a local district attorney and resolved by a
jury verdict in a state trial was somehow controlled by the
Justice Department.
They come in the form of dangerous falsehoods about the
FBI's law enforcement operations that increase the risks
faced by our agents.
They come in the form of efforts to bully and intimidate
our career public servants by repeatedly and publicly
singling them out.
They come in the form of false claims that the department
is politicizing its work to somehow influence the outcome of
an election. Such claims are often made by those who are
themselves attempting to politicize the department's work to
influence the outcome of an election.
And media reports indicate there is an ongoing effort to
ramp up these attacks against the Justice Department, its
work and its employees.
We will not be intimidated by these attacks. But it is
absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of whom risk
their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing
their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long
guided the Justice Department's work.
In my first job at the Justice Department some 45 years
ago, I worked on what would become the department's first
edition of the Principles of Federal Prosecution. That set of
rules for prosecutors enshrined what every department
employee lives by every single day: an unwavering commitment
to the fair and impartial application of our laws. That
commitment has been sustained by dedicated career
professionals who serve across administrations of both
political parties.
The Justice Department makes decisions about criminal
investigations based only on the facts and the law. We do not
investigate people because of their last name, their
political affiliation, the size of their bank account, where
they come from or what they look like. We investigate and
prosecute violations of federal law--nothing more, nothing
less.
We do this not only because of the principles that have
long guided our work, but also because we know that our
democracy cannot survive without a justice system that
ensures the equal protection of law for all its citizens.
The Justice Department will continue to uphold its
obligation under the Constitution to fiercely defend the
right of all Americans to peacefully express opinions,
beliefs and ideas. Disagreements about politics are good for
our democracy. They are normal.
But using conspiracy theories, falsehoods, violence and
threats of violence to affect political outcomes is not
normal. The short-term political benefits of those tactics
will never make up for the long-term cost to our country.
Continued unfounded attacks against the Justice
Department's employees are dangerous for people's safety.
They are dangerous for our democracy. This must stop.

Mr. NADLER. It is absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of
whom risk their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing
their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long guided the
Justice Department's work. I would also remind my friends on the other
side of the aisle that the conviction of Mr. Trump was in a State court
in New York having nothing to do with the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Swalwell).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind Members to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for
the Office of the President.
Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Speaker, this is not about the contempt of the
Attorney General. It is about MAGA Republicans' contempt for the
Constitution, the rule of law, and democracy. It is about who any of us
came here to fight for.
MAGA Republicans are fighting for one person at the cost of what your
constituents actually care about. You are fighting for a felon. You are
fighting for a felon.
On this side, we are fighting for working people. We are fighting for
the kids and the teachers and the soldiers and the cops and the
firefighters and the bakers and the butchers, the people who go to work
every day and count on us to do something for them; and you, you are
working for a felon, a felon.
Twelve of his neighbors, people in the community where he committed
crimes, made 34 decisions, and 408 straight times they said he was
guilty.
Let me make it clear where we stand. We will choose families over
felons, verdicts over vengeance, and people over politics.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about subpoenas for just one
second because two of your last speakers are 750-plus days in defiance
of a subpoena. Get real when Mr. Jordan and Mr. Biggs come to this
floor and want to talk and get all righteous about subpoenas.
You start honoring your subpoenas, and we can talk about anyone
else's subpoenas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind Members to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for
the Office of President and to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to refer to the current
President or the presumptive nominee. For my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I
am going to refer to the history of this body because I think the study
of the history of this body should tell Members on both sides of the
aisle that this is an appropriate contempt. It will lead eventually to
compliance and, again, to holding this body as a coequal branch of
government.
I might remind my colleagues, some of them here in the room, Mr.
Speaker,

[[Page H3765]]

that in 2007, this body held the White House counsel on behalf of the
President of the United States, then-President Bush, in contempt for
refusing to show up before this very committee, Judiciary.
In 2012, this body held a previous Attorney General--in a very
similar situation affecting the same two committees that have been
speaking here, Oversight and Accountability and Judiciary--Eric Holder,
in contempt because he told us that if we would take 200-and-some
documents, that was all that was left, and end our case, he would give
them to us. Otherwise, he would withhold them.
We held him in contempt, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an appointee
of President Obama, held several things, including that President Obama
had clearly falsely claimed an executive privilege, probably based on
being misled by then-Attorney General Eric Holder.
In fact, 10,000-plus documents were turned over to the United States
Congress. The then-Attorney General had lied. The then-Attorney General
Eric Holder had lied to this body and to the chairman of the committee
and ultimately was held in contempt on a bipartisan basis with 12
Members of the other party voting for that contempt.
After a long period of time, we managed to get the equilibrium this
body deserves. I call, Mr. Speaker, on this body and all my colleagues
today to live up to the standard that we learned in 2007 when a White
House, then of a Republican, refused to deliver a witness.
Then, in 2012, when the Attorney General claimed that we were not
entitled to the best documents we sought and that we were entitled to
the documents related to Fast and Furious that he believed were
appropriate, he failed, and he failed based on a judge appointed by
President Obama. Why?
He failed because this body does have the obligation and the right to
seek all of the best evidence it believes--not that the other side
believes; it believes.
There has been no call for an in-camera review, no call for any kind
of compromise. Once again, we are to take the word of an Attorney
General working for the current President that there is nothing there.
I have watched a lot of television over the years. I am not going to
believe these are not the droids we are looking for. This, in fact,
could be important evidence. Whether it is or isn't, isn't germane.
What is important is that this body, in fact, lives up to its
obligation. I call on every Member--those on the other side who did or
didn't join with me in 2012 but who voted in 2007 to hold the White
House in contempt--to consider whether once again we are balancing the
power and the rights of this body.
Mr. Speaker, many are arguing against the best interests of the
United States House of Representatives, and for that, shame on those
who do.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this contempt vote is MAGA
Republicans' desperate attempt to save face following their many failed
investigations, including the one about Hunter Biden's laptop.

Do you all remember that?
They promised Trump and the American people that they would impeach
President Biden, but after spending more than $20 million investigating
conspiracy theories, MAGA Republicans have nothing to show for it.
This do-nothing Congress can't pass legislation to help the American
people and also can't prove any wrongdoing by President Biden. They are
running out of time and they are desperate.
Plus, their own Presidential candidate Donald Trump just became a
convicted felon according to a jury of his peers. MAGA Republicans are
trying to shift the blame to someone else.
Even though the Justice Department produced more than 92,000 pages of
documents and made dozens of witnesses available, Republicans have made
Attorney General Garland their scapegoat. This is a farce, and the
American people can see right through it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the
Office of the President.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Kiley), my colleague and neighbor.
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a textbook example of the executive
branch obstructing the oversight function of Congress.
The committees of jurisdiction here have clearly set forth the legal
basis for compelling disclosure of President Biden's interviews with
Special Counsel Hur. Now the administration has agreed with us inasmuch
as they have produced the transcripts of those recordings. However,
they have grasped wildly for some basis on which to withhold the
recordings themselves. The most telling is that they have given
contradictory reasons for doing so.
At first, they said they weren't going to hand over the recordings
because they were cumulative of the transcripts, meaning they were so
similar to the transcripts that we didn't need them. Later, they argued
that, in fact, they are so different from the transcripts that one is
privileged and the other is not.
When you have self-contradictory arguments being made, that is a sign
that the true purpose here is obstruction.
Perhaps the most absurd argument we have heard is the supposed
interest asserted by the administration for withholding the recordings,
which is disclosing them might discourage witnesses from cooperating in
future high-profile investigations.
In this case, the President is not merely a witness. He is the target
of an investigation by his own administration. By the way, Special
Counsel Hur testified before our committee that based on that
investigation, a reasonable juror could have voted to convict President
Biden.

{time} 1215

What is the administration arguing the interest here is? It is that
if somewhere down the line there might be another President who is
subject to an investigation by his own administration, then the
argument goes that if that President knows that the transcript will be
released, then he will sit for the interview, but if he knows there is
a chance that a recording might be released, then he won't cooperate.
This is an absurd proposition, Mr. Speaker, certainly not sufficient
to override the legitimate oversight interests of the House of
Representatives.
Frankly, this is not how we would like to be spending floor time, but
the recalcitrance and obstruction of this administration has made it
necessary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this contempt resolution is the latest attempt to tear
down our democracy. The Department of Justice has cooperated with
congressional Republicans at every turn, but after 92,000 pages of
documents, more than a dozen transcribed interviews, and a 250-page
transcript that was verified, my colleagues still aren't satisfied.
They are doing this in service of one man, the disgraced former
President, in a misguided attempt to distract from his crimes. On May
30, a jury of stranger-citizens found Mr. Trump guilty of 34 felony
charges.
It is beyond disheartening that a former President and now potential
Presidential candidate, again, was convicted of coordinating ``an
unlawful conspiracy'' to win the 2016 election and falsifying records
to cover his tryst with an adult porn star.
I am grateful that the rule of law prevailed, yet I am deeply
concerned that our democratic institutions are under threat. Some of
these attacks come from within.
Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has said that a kangaroo court
convicted President Trump, and Speaker Johnson called the trial a
purely political exercise. Mr. Trump apparently pities himself as a so-
called political prisoner.
All this is to tear down Americans' faith in the rule of law.
Contrary to his complaints, Mr. Trump was tried and treated fairly.

[[Page H3766]]

Justice was served in a courtroom that was open and filled with
reporters and a jury that was chosen by the prosecution and defense.
This is the rule of law at work.
Political rhetoric and deliberate misinformation, the likes of these
and a dangerous many others, erode faith in our institutions and
threaten the safety of the American people. These attacks undermine the
rule of law, which stands to protect the rights of all people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, when Attorney General Garland
was before the Judiciary Committee, he described his career upholding
the rule of law. In his own words, that means ensuring that ``we treat
like cases alike: that we do not have enemies or friends, that we do
not pay attention to the political parties or the wealth or the power
or the influence of the people that we are investigating, that we
follow the facts and the law. This is what distinguishes this country
from our adversaries.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will, again, remind Members to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for
the Office of the President.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleagues discussing the rule of law, I
find it shocking because the average American is looking across their
country wondering what happened to the rule of law.
I watch my fellow Texans getting destroyed by dangerous cartels and
individuals being allowed into the United States who are terrorists and
people moving fentanyl into the communities that killed six kids in the
school district in which I live. That is happening every single day.
I watched a 75-year-old woman being put in prison by a politically
motivated judge in the District of Columbia because she protested in
front of an abortion clinic.
I want to say that again: This Department of Justice is putting a 75-
year-old woman in jail for 2 years who is dealing with physical
infirmities because she was praying and protesting in front of an
abortion clinic.
That is astounding. That is what has happened to the rule of law. The
American people are watching while statues are being defaced in the
name of being pro-Palestinian, and people who are exercising their so-
called free speech rights are advancing the cause of terrorism against
our friends in Israel.
All this is happening right here, mere feet from the White House, and
the American people are wondering how this world got turned upside
down.
Here we sit, and we are debating the issue of the Attorney General of
the United States, Merrick Garland, coming before the House Judiciary
Committee just a little over 1 week ago. In that hearing, a number of
questions were asked.
I engaged with the Attorney General. I asked the Attorney General if
he did or did not claim privilege with respect to the transcripts of
the audio recording in question when we were talking about Special
Counsel Hur looking into the allegations of the abuse of classified
materials by the President of the United States before he was
President.
I asked him, and he said: No, no. We did not claim executive
privilege with respect to the transcripts.
In a separate exchange involving the best evidence rule, the Attorney
General was engaging with another colleague, a friend on the Judiciary
Committee, about the best evidence rule and, in doing so, articulated
and explained how the transcript was admissible under the best evidence
rule, which is correct, but in doing so, he kind of gave up the game in
which he described and said: They are the same.
He said to the committee: They are the same.
Now, he had just told me that they did not claim executive privilege
with respect to the transcript. Then he said to all of us: They are the
same. The audio recording and the transcript are the same.
Then he proceeds to say that he must, in defending the rule of law,
claim executive privilege on the actual audio, and then he denied the
Members of Congress the ability in the middle of an impeachment
inquiry, duly constituted and voted on by this body on the House floor,
an impeachment inquiry, to then deny us the ability to listen to the
audio.
The fact of the matter is there is only one reason why the Attorney
General would do that. He doesn't want us to hear it. That is why.
There are really only two reasons why that would be the case. Either
the transcript doesn't match the audio, or the audio is so bad that he
doesn't want us to hear it because Special Counsel Hur put the entirety
of his decision not to prosecute, not to pursue, and not to go after
the President of the United States for abuse of classified materials
entirely on the basis of what we perceive as the demeanor of the
President. Only the audio can allow Congress the ability to determine
the validity of that determination by the special counsel.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).
Ms. BALINT. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of the Republican
Party's unrelenting effort to get Donald Trump back into office, no
matter the facts and no matter the law.
For over 1 year, Judiciary Committee Republican colleagues have
desperately sought evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. What have
they found? They have found nothing. Nothing.
I am sure it was disappointing for my Republican colleagues when
Special Counsel Hur cleared the President instead of indicting him, but
it is time to move on. We should be on the floor moving gun violence
legislation, protecting the right to abortion, and protecting the LBGTQ
Americans across the country who are attacked relentlessly by my
colleagues on the other side.
This is a colossal waste of time, but more importantly, it is
dangerous. What they are doing is dangerous.
When this Congress is over, the only achievements my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle will be able to point to will be the things
that we, as Democrats, helped them to pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Vermont.
Ms. BALINT. Mr. Speaker, it is my job, and it is all of our jobs, to
represent constituents. I thought that is what we are all here for. I
implore my Republican colleagues to stop putting the interests of only
one man above the interests of Americans.
The truth will out, and history will not look kindly on what you have
done here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, if you gave truth serum to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, I am pretty sure they would admit they would rather
not be here today doing this. They would admit that Attorney General
Merrick Garland is collateral damage in a failed effort to impeach the
President of the United States.
There is no honor in that, and my colleagues are, for the most part,
I think, honorable people, so this is not something they want to do,
but it is demanded of them nonetheless.
Former President Trump has repeatedly threatened the House Republican
Conference that they must impeach President Biden or else. So here we
are.
They found the Attorney General in contempt for providing a
transcript, a full transcript and not an audio recording, of an
interview from an investigation that ended up finding nothing.

[[Page H3767]]

By the way, Mr. Speaker, the recording in question is now subject to
executive privilege, so their fight is not even with the Attorney
General of the United States. It is with the White House.
I take some solace in the fact that many of my Republican friends and
colleagues are here doing the dirty work of one individual against
their will and better judgment. I know deep down, very deep down, they
would rather do the honorable thing and give up this miscarriage of
justice today.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close when the gentleman
is finished, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have spent the last 18 months in a
futile effort to dig up dirt on President Biden, which has culminated
in their epic failure of an impeachment inquiry. This resolution is
nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face with the MAGA-
sphere.

They seek to hold the Attorney General in contempt even though he has
already turned over all the underlying information they requested in
their subpoena. This resolution will not change that fact, but facts
have never been the animating force behind their investigations.
It is a show, and apparently, the show must go on even though the
script hasn't turned out the way they wanted. Nevertheless, the reviews
are in, and it is a flop, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this resolution and to put an end to this farce.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the American justice system is the pride of our Nation.
It is the envy of the world. Its central principle is the equal
application of justice under law.
This is why justice is depicted as blindfolded. It doesn't matter who
comes before it; all are to be treated equally. It is this central
principle that gives the law its legitimacy. Without it, the law
becomes raw force devoid of legitimacy, and respect for the law gives
way to the law of the jungle. This is the well-trodden path many
nations before us have taken to despotism and ruin.
It is the responsibility of the House Judiciary Committee to protect
the rule of law and its equal application. It is our responsibility to
guard our Nation against the convulsions that have commonly afflicted
banana republics whenever a ruling party tries to jail its opponents.
The radically different handling of the documents cases involving Mr.
Trump and Mr. Biden should ring alarm bells in every corner of the
land.
The principal justification for this radical, unequal application of
law is the interview that the Judiciary Committee seeks through ancient
constitutional prerogatives.
It is vital that we understand the whole context of this decision, to
verify the accuracy of the transcript, and to determine the extent that
this conversation informed the decision that strikes at the heart not
only of our rule of law but the right of the American people to guide
their own destiny through fair, free, and unfettered elections.
Congress has a constitutional right and a constitutional duty to seek
this information, and the Attorney General has a legal obligation to
provide it, an obligation he refuses to honor.

{time} 1230

This Congress has enforced this prerogative in past cases under far
less demanding circumstances than these.
In order to assure that we have discharged our responsibilities, we
have to compel the Attorney General to discharge his, and that is what
this citation seeks to do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Attorney
General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress. This resolution is not
only a distraction but a waste of valuable time and resources that
could be better spent addressing the pressing needs of the American
people.
Firstly, this contempt vote is politically motivated and baseless.
Attorney General Garland has consistently cooperated with Congress,
providing over 2,500 pages of documents and making senior officials
available for testimony. These facts underscore his commitment to
transparency and accountability, making the charge of contempt
unfounded.
Furthermore, let's consider the broader implications of this
resolution. Pursuing this baseless contempt charge diverts attention
from the real issues that matter to working-class Americans. According
to recent data, policies that directly impact the well-being and
opportunities of American families should be our primary focus. For
instance:
Economic Support: We should be prioritizing policies that boost
economic opportunities. The American Rescue Plan, for example, has
already provided significant relief to millions of families. Continued
efforts in this vein would better serve our constituents.
Healthcare Access: Expanding access to affordable healthcare remains
a critical need. By focusing on comprehensive healthcare reforms, we
can ensure that every American has the coverage they need.
Education and Workforce Development: Investing in education and
workforce training programs is essential for the future of our economy.
These initiatives equip Americans with the skills necessary to compete
in a rapidly changing job market.
Infrastructure and Clean Energy: Comprehensive infrastructure
projects, including advancements in clean energy, create jobs and
promote sustainable growth. These initiatives not only strengthen our
economy but also address the urgent issue of climate change.
Instead of engaging in politically charged actions that yield no
tangible benefits, we must redirect our efforts toward these meaningful
policies. Addressing these key areas will directly enhance the lives of
working-class Americans and foster a more prosperous and equitable
society.
I urge my colleagues to reject this contempt resolution. Let us focus
our energy on policies that deliver real results for our constituents,
ensuring that we are truly serving the American people's best
interests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1287, the previous question is ordered
on the resolution.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H. Res.
1292 is postponed.

____________________