[House Report 118-533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                             House Calendar No. 79

118th Congress }                                          { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  2d  Session  }                                          { 118-533

======================================================================
 
 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 
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                                _______
                                

 May 31, 2024. Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    The Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Oversight 
Committee), having considered this Report, reports favorably 
thereon and recommends that the Report be approved.
    The form of the Resolution that the Oversight Committee 
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 Oversight Committee, detailing the refusal of 
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S. Department of 
Justice, to produce documents, records, and materials to the 
Oversight Committee 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.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Executive Summary................................................     2
Authority and Purpose............................................     3
Background on the Investigation..................................     6
The Attorney General's Failure to Produce the Subpoenaed Records 
  Warrants Contempt..............................................    11
Conclusion.......................................................    16
Committee Consideration..........................................    16
Committee Votes..................................................    16
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    22
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    22
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    22
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    22
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    22
Dissenting Views.................................................    22

                           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 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 
Oversight 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 ensure that federal 
agencies, including the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA), adequately account for records and 
documents meant to be returned to the federal government upon 
an executive branch employee's departure from office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 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 ``struggl[ed] to remember events and 
strain[ed] at times to read and relay his own notebook 
entries.''\11\ Special Counsel Hur also observed that President 
Biden ``did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting 
on the first day of the interview 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 5, 207.
    \12\Id. at 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department continues to withhold key material 
responsive to the subpoenas from the Oversight and Judiciary 
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 Oversight, 
Judiciary, 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 Oversight and 
Judiciary 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 Oversight 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 Oversight 
Committee has broad authority to investigate ``any matter'' at 
``any time,'' and specific legislative jurisdiction over the 
management of government operations and activities, NARA, and 
public information and records.\26\ The House Rules also charge 
the Oversight Committee with reviewing and studying the 
operation of government activities at all levels, including the 
Executive Office of the President.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 House of Representatives, R. X, 118th Cong. 
(2023).
    \27\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To further the Committee's constitutionally mandated 
oversight and legislative duties, the Committee must ensure 
compliance with duly authorized congressional subpoenas. As the 
principal investigatory committee of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, the Oversight Committee has authority to 
investigate the Special Counsel's activities with respect to 
President Biden.\28\ The Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the U.S. 
House of Representatives. In addition, the Committee is 
investigating matters that are necessary to consider potential 
legislative reforms. These potential legislative reforms may 
include, among other things, assessing whether additional 
requirements are necessary to properly account for sensitive or 
classified materials in the possession of executive branch 
officials and whether reforms are necessary to the Presidential 
Records Act and Federal Records Act to ensure sensitive or 
classified materials are not accessed by unauthorized parties. 
The Oversight Committee is considering whether certain federal 
agencies, such as NARA, require reform to adequately account 
for records and documents meant to be returned to the federal 
government upon an executive branch employee's departure from 
office. The Oversight Committee has conducted transcribed 
interviews of witnesses related to this investigation and has 
sought additional transcribed interviews with current White 
House officials. The Committee has issued a subpoena to the 
former White House counsel who was involved in the mishandling 
of classified documents.\29\ The evidence the Department is 
withholding will provide insight necessary to further the 
Oversight Committee's legislative goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\See id.
    \29\The Oversight Committee conducted a transcribed interview of 
Kathy Chung on Apr. 4, 2023. Additionally, the Oversight Committee has 
interviewed employees of Penn Biden Center related to its 
investigation. In a pattern of obstructionist efforts, the White House 
has refused to allow Dana Remus, President Biden's former White House 
Counsel, and other White House employees to testify during its 
investigation. The Department appears to be as recalcitrant as the 
White House regarding President Biden's mishandling of classified 
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    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.\30\ Moore 
notified Bob Bauer, who then notified White House Counsel 
Stuart Delery.\31\ The same day, the White House Counsel's 
Office passed the information along to NARA, which retrieved 
the documents, and referred the case to the Department, and on 
November 9, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ``opened 
an initial assessment to begin investigating the matter.''\32\ 
Additionally, between December 2022 and January 2023, Bauer 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.\33\ Between 
January and June 2023, FBI agents located additional materials 
with classification markings in two locations at the University 
of Delaware.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Hur Report, supra note 3, at 19-20 (The classification marks on 
the documents ``dat[ed] to [President Biden]'s vice presidency.'').
    \31\Id.
    \32\Id.
    \33\Id. at 24-25.
    \34\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 the Attorney General should 
appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter.''\35\ 
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.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Id. at 21.
    \36\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.\37\ During his investigation, Special Counsel Hur 
conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses, including President 
Biden himself and his memoir ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.\38\ 
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.\39\ 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 . . 
. when he was a private citizen,''\40\ criminal charges were 
not warranted because, among other things, President Biden is 
an ``elderly man with a poor memory.''\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Id.
    \38\Id. at 29.
    \39\Id.
    \40\Id. at 1.
    \41\Id. at 219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\42\ 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.\43\ Doing so would be an abuse of his office of 
public trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\See Subpoena Letter, supra note 2; Letter from Rep. James 
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. 
James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to 
Robert K. Hur, Special Counsel, Dep't of Justice (Oct. 16, 2023).
    \43\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.\44\ By 2015, Ukrainian prosecutors 
had opened an ``unlawful enrichment'' investigation into 
Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.\45\ Mr. Zlochevsky informed 
Hunter Biden that the investigations placed significant 
pressure on the company and asked Hunter Biden if he could help 
alleviate such pressure.\46\ Testimony provided to the 
Oversight Committee shows that Hunter Biden subsequently 
``called D.C.''\47\ After this phone call, while traveling to 
Ukraine in December 2015, Vice President Biden ```called an 
audible'--he changed the plan'' in Ukraine by conditioning a $1 
billion loan guarantee on the ouster of Ukrainian Prosecutor 
General Viktor Shokin.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Alan Cullison, Bidens in Ukraine: An Explainer, Wall St. J. 
(Sept. 22, 2019).
    \45\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).
    \46\Transcribed Interview of Mr. Devon Archer at 33-34 (July 31, 
2023), available at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/
2024/02/Hunter-Biden-Transcript_Redacted.pdf.
    \47\Id. at 36.
    \48\Glenn Kessler, Inside VP Biden's linking of a loan to a Ukraine 
prosecutor's ouster, Wash. Post (Sept. 15, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\49\ 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.''\50\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\Hur Report, supra note 3, at A-2.
    \50\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.\51\ While working with Zwonitzer on 
his memoir, President Biden read from classified materials 
``nearly verbatim,'' and such classified materials included 
``meeting notes summariz[ing] the actions and views of U.S. 
military leaders and the 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.''\52\ Notably, 
Special Counsel Hur's report found that President Biden 
received an advance of $8 million to produce a memoir.\53\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\See, e.g., id. at 97.
    \52\Id. at 97-106.
    \53\Id. at 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 12, 2024, approximately four days after the 
release of Special Counsel Hur's report, the Chairs of the 
Oversight Committee, the Judiciary 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 Vice 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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Feb. 12 Letter, supra note 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\55\ The Department 
offered no timeframe or commitment for the production of 
requested documents and information.\56\ Accordingly, on 
February 27, 2024, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees 
issued identical subpoenas to Attorney General Garland 
compelling the production of the four categories of materials:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ 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).
    \56\ 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 Vice 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.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ 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.\58\ Two days 
later, the Committees notified the Department that its initial 
production in response to the subpoenas was inadequate.\59\ 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.\60\ 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.\61\ The Department failed to 
comply with the Committees' revised deadline,\62\ and instead 
informed the Committees that an ``interagency review'' for 
classified and confidential information was pending.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ 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.
    \59\ 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.'').
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ 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'').
    \63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Next, a little more than two hours before Special Counsel 
Hur's scheduled testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee 
on the morning of March 12, 2024, the Department produced to 
the Committees two redacted transcripts of Special Counsel 
Hur's interviews with President Biden.\64\ 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 
approximately 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.\65\ 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.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Email from Office Staff, Office of Legislative Affairs, Dep't 
of Justice, to Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability 
(Mar. 12, 2024, 7:48 a.m.); Email from Office Staff, Office of 
Legislative Affairs, Dep't of Justice, to Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on 
Oversight & Accountability (Mar. 12, 2024, 7:52 a.m.); Email from 
Office Staff, Office of Legislative Affairs, Dep't of Justice, to Comm. 
Staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Mar. 12, 2024, 7:53 
a.m.).
    \65\ March 12 Letters, supra note 62.
    \66\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\67\ 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.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ 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).
    \68\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.\69\ 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.\70\ 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.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\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.
    \70\Apr. 8 Letter, supra note 69.
    \71\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.''\72\ 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.\73\ 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.\74\ 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.\75\ The Committees offered the Department until April 25 
to produce the withheld materials or else they would consider 
invoking contempt of Congress proceedings.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\Apr. 15 Letter, supra note 66.
    \73\Id. at 2-3.
    \74\Id. at 3.
    \75\Id. at 4.
    \76\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.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\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) (internal quotation marks omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Committees have articulated the impeachment and 
legislative purposes 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 Committees' 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 does 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.\78\ During his ``dozens of hours of interviews with 
Zwonitzer,'' President Biden ``read from notebook entries 
related to many classified meetings[.]''\79\ 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.\80\ 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.\81\ Similarly, Zwonitzer discussed President 
Biden's description and recollection of these issues during his 
interviews with Special Counsel Hur.\82\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\Subpoena Letter, supra note 2; Mar. 9 Letter, supra note 59.
    \79\Hur Report, supra note 3, at 106.
    \80\Id. at A-1-22.
    \81\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).
    \82\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, 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. In short, the audio recordings would 
offer unique and important information to advance the 
Committees' impeachment inquiry.
    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.\83\ 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.''\84\ However, the official White House transcript of 
that same speech initially did not reflect that President Biden 
uttered the word ``pause.''\85\ In this case, the video and 
audio recording is the best evidence of the words that 
President Biden actually spoke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\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.'').
    \84\See Anders Hagstrom, Biden appears to read script instructions 
out loud in latest teleprompter gaffe: `Four more years, pause,' Fox 
News (Apr. 24, 2024).
    \85\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/briefing-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.\86\ 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, 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.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\Apr. 8 Letter, supra note 69, at 4.
    \87\U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The audio recordings would also inform the Oversight 
Committee as to the need for additional reforms at NARA to 
account for records and documents meant to be returned by 
executive branch employees after leaving federal government. 
Special Counsel Hur's interview with President Biden focused 
extensively on his handling of government documents during and 
after his vice presidency. For example, during Special Counsel 
Hur's interview with President Biden, Special Counsel Hur asked 
about materials found in the President's garage that he 
possessed after leaving the executive branch. The colloquy went 
as follows:

          Mr. Hur: But do you remember how these materials got 
        into this box and then how that box got into the 
        garage?
          President Biden: No, I don't remember how it got--I 
        don't remember how a beat-up box got in the garage.
          Mr. Hur: Okay. And do you remember how things like 
        the Beau Iowa binder got into----
          President Biden: No, I----
          Mr. Hur:--this spot?
          President Biden: Somebody must've, packing this up, 
        just picked up all the stuff and put it in a box, 
        because I didn't.
          Mr. Hur: Okay. Do you have any idea where this 
        material would've been before it got moved into the 
        garage?
          President Biden: Well, if it was 2013--when did I 
        stop being Vice President?
          Ms. Cotton: 2017.
          President Biden: So I was Vice President. So it 
        must've come from Vice President stuff. That's all I 
        can think of.
          Mr. Hur: So it does have some material in here that 
        relate to your activities post-vice presidency,----
          Mr. Hur:--like the Washington Speakers Bureau 
        material. And there's also material in here that 
        relates to the book, Promise Me, Dad, with Mark 
        Zwonitzer. So there is some that dates after----
          President Biden: See, that's what makes me think just 
        people gathered up whatever they found, and whenever 
        the last thing was being moved. So the stuff moving out 
        of the Vice President's residence, at the end of the 
        day, whatever they found, they put--they didn't 
        separate it out, you know, Speakers Bureau and Penn or 
        whatever the hell it is, or Beau. They just put it in a 
        single box. That's the only thing I can think of.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\Recorded Interview Between Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, et 
al., and President Joseph R. Biden. Jr., at 146-47, DOJ-HCOA-HUR-
0000178-79 (Oct. 8, 2023).

    This colloquy is just one example of how this interview is 
relevant to whether legislative reforms are necessary to ensure 
that materials are properly accounted for after executive 
branch officials, particularly high-ranking officials, leave 
office, and if so, what those reforms should be. And the best 
evidence of what was actually said during that interview is the 
audio recording required by the subpoena.
    The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to 
dictate to Congress how to proceed with an impeachment inquiry 
or to conduct its oversight.\89\ Rather, ``congressional 
committees have significant discretion in how they approach an 
investigation[,]''\90\ and, in the context of an impeachment 
inquiry, federal courts emphasize that Congress must possess 
all pertinent evidence.\91\ The Committees are engaged in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\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).
    \90\Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., Committee Discretion in 
Obtaining Witness Testimony 2 (2023).
    \91\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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 16, 2024, 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. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, et 
al. (May 16, 2024) (hereinafter ``Siskel Letter''); Letter from Asst. 
Att'yy Gen. Carlos Felipe Uriarte, U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Rep. James 
Comer, Chairman. H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jim 
Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (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 it is 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 including, 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. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on 
Oversight & Accountability, et al., to Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att'y 
Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (Apr. 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 Justice 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.

                               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, as amended, to the House 
by a recorded vote of 24 to 20, 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. An amendment offered by Chairman James Comer to 
        amend the report to reflect that the White House has 
        now asserted a privilege regarding the subject matter 
        of the report, which was agreed to by a recorded vote 
        of 24 ayes and 19 noes (Rollcall No. 4).
          2. An amendment offered by Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) to 
        amend the report to state that the Department of 
        Justice has complied with the Committee's request, 
        which was not agreed to by a recorded vote of 19 ayes 
        and 23 noes (Rollcall No. 6).
          3. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 
        report offered by Chairman James Comer that made 
        certain technical edits to the Report was agreed to, as 
        amended, by a recorded vote of 23 ayes to 19 noes 
        (Rollcall No. 7).
          4. A motion by Chairman James Comer to report the 
        Report for a Resolution Recommending That the House of 
        Representatives Find Attorney General Merrick B. 
        Garland in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply 
        with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on 
        Oversight and Accountability favorably to the House, as 
        amended, was agreed to by a recorded vote of 24 ayes to 
        20 noes (Rollcall No. 8).
        
        
                      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 R. Biden Jr., and legislative reforms to how 
executive branch agencies adequately account for classified 
records and documents meant to be returned to the federal 
government upon an employee's departure from office.

                          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

    The Committee on Oversight and Accountability (the 
``Committee'') has been conducting an impeachment inquiry into 
President Joe Biden for a year and a half--essentially the 
entire duration of the 118th Congress. To date, the Committee 
has amassed more than 3.8 million pages of documents and 80 
hours of testimony from transcribed interviews and depositions 
of 19 witnesses. Nowhere in this mountain of material is there 
any evidence of wrongdoing by the President--let alone an 
impeachable offense. In fact, after 17 months of investigating, 
Chairman James Comer has still not articulated any specific 
high crime or misdemeanor that he believes President Biden has 
committed.
    Among the millions of pages of documents that Committee 
Republicans have already received is a full transcript of 
President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert K. Hur. 
This transcript, which was produced to the Committee by the 
Department of Justice (DOJ), accounts for the entirety of 
President Biden's voluntary five-hour interview with the 
Special Counsel. Nowhere in the transcript's 250 pages is there 
any evidence that President Biden committed an impeachable 
offense.
    Desperate to blame someone--anyone--for the utter failure 
of this impeachment inquiry, Republicans have contrived an 
allegation that Attorney General Merrick Garland has impeded 
their impeachment inquiry by preventing them from hearing 
President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Hur by 
withholding the audio recording. In fact, Republicans, and the 
American public, can already read the full content of that 
interview. We know what the President said. Hearing the 
President's words rather than reading them will not change 
those words and certainly won't suddenly reveal some new 
evidence of an impeachable offense. The Attorney General has 
given the Committee the information it sought: the contents of 
the President's interview with Special Counsel Hur.
    In fact, Attorney General Garland and the Biden 
Administration have made substantial efforts to accommodate the 
Committee's interest in Special Counsel Hur's investigation, 
working in good faith to provide the Committee with all the 
information it requested. In addition to the transcript of the 
President's interview, the DOJ provided the entirety of the 
Special Counsel's report; provided the full transcript of the 
Special Counsel's interview with the President's ghost writer, 
Mark Zwonitzer; made available the two classified documents 
requested by the Committee; and provided requested 
correspondence regarding the Special Counsel's report. In 
addition, the DOJ facilitated the Special Counsel's testimony 
about his report and investigation to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. In other words, the DOJ and the Administration have 
demonstrated extraordinary cooperation in providing the 
Committee with all the information it sought. Yet Republicans 
have responded by attempting to hold the Attorney General in 
contempt based on meritless and preposterous claims of 
obstruction.

I. Consideration of Meritless Contempt Resolution ``Was Not a Good Look 
                             for Congress''

    The after-hours Committee business meeting Chairman Comer 
convened to consider this baseless contempt resolution was 
marred by indecorous outbursts from Republican Members and 
truncated debate that was abruptly cut off after consideration 
of two Republican amendments and only a single Democratic 
amendment--a violation of decades-long Committee precedent.
    On Monday, May 13, 2024, Chairman Comer issued notice that 
the Committee would hold a business meeting on Thursday, May 
16, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., to consider a resolution recommending 
that the House of Representatives hold Attorney General Merrick 
Garland in contempt.\1\ The Republican Majority of the 
Committee on the Judiciary also announced that it would hold a 
business meeting that same day at 10:00 a.m. to consider a 
substantially similar resolution.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Business Meeting 
Notice (May 13, 2024) (online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/
GO00/20240516/117325/HMKP-118-GO00-20240516-SD001.pdf).
    \2\See Committee on the Judiciary, Markup of Report Recommending 
that the House of Representatives Cite Attorney General Merrick Garland 
for Contempt of Congress (May 16, 2024) (online at https://
judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/markups/markup-report-
recommending-house-representatives-cite-attorney-general).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On Wednesday, May 15, 2024, at approximately 7:15 p.m.--the 
night before the Committee meeting--Chairman Comer published a 
notice stating without explanation that the business meeting 
would be postponed to 8:00 p.m.\3\ It soon became evident that 
Chairman Comer had postponed the meeting to accommodate 
Republicans Members' travel schedules. Several Republican 
Committee Members planned to travel to New York City to attend 
the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, who is 
charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records for his 
alleged participation in a hush money scheme intended to 
silence his former mistresses prior to the 2016 presidential 
election.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Time Change: Business 
Meeting Notice (May 15, 2024) (online at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/GO/GO00/20240516/117325/HMKP-118-GO00-20240516-SD003.pdf).
    \4\Id. These charges stand in addition to the numerous other 
federal and state criminal charges pending against Donald Trump in 
forums across the country, including four counts related to the January 
6 attack on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 
election, ten counts related to efforts to reverse the 2020 election 
results in Georgia, and 40 counts related to possession of classified 
documents and obstructing federal efforts to retrieve them. See Keeping 
Track of the Trump Criminal Cases, New York Times (May 8, 2024) (online 
at www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/us/trump-investigations-charges-
indictments.html); Oversight Delays Garland Contempt Hearing for 
Members to Attend Trump Trial, The Hill (May 15, 2024) (online at 
https://thehill.com/homenews/4667089-oversight-delays-merrick-garland-
contempt-hearing-members-attend-donald-trump-trial/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At approximately 8:00 p.m., on May 16, 2024, Chairman Comer 
convened the Oversight Committee to consider the contempt 
resolution. By the time the Oversight Committee began its 
business meeting, the Judiciary Committee had already favorably 
reported their contempt resolution, rendering the Oversight 
Committee's consideration of the analogous resolution both 
duplicative and moot. Nonetheless, Chairman Comer proceeded 
with the Committee's business meeting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Full Committee 
Business Meeting (May 16, 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/
markup/full-committee-business-meeting-73/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It appears that immediately prior to the business meeting, 
the James Comer for Congress committee--in collaboration with 
WinRed, a Republican fundraising platform--circulated an email 
``[f]rom the desk of Oversight Chairman James Comer'' seeking 
campaign donations that referenced Chairman Comer's efforts to 
hold Attorney General Garland in contempt of Congress and 
asserting that ``Biden and his advisors are terrified that I 
will release the recordings.''\6\ The letter was signed: 
``James Comer, Chairman, House Oversight Committee.'' During 
the Committee meeting, Chairman Comer refused to recognize Rep. 
Stephen Lynch's point of order requesting the opinion of the 
parliamentarian as to whether a motion to refer the Chairman's 
conduct to the House Committee on Ethics would be in order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See As GOP Demands Biden/Hur Audio, James Comer Gives Away the 
Game, MSNBC (May 17, 2024) (online at www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/
maddowblog/gop-demands-bidenhur-audio-james-comer-gives-away-game-
rcna152752); see also Acyn (@Acyn), X (May 17, 2024) (online at https:/
/x.com/Acyn/status/1791323954168414469) (``Moskowitz's dramatic reading 
of Comer's fundraising email is definitely worth a watch''); Committee 
on Oversight and Accountability, Full Committee Business Meeting (May 
16, 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/markup/full-committee-
business-meeting-73/).
    \7\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Full Committee 
Business Meeting (May 16, 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/
markup/full-committee-business-meeting-73/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the Committee meeting, after Republican Rep. 
Marjorie Taylor Greene denigrated the appearance of Rep. 
Jasmine Crockett and refused to apologize for her clear breach 
of decorum and basic decency, the Chairman refused to rule Rep. 
Greene had violated the rule against engaging in personalities, 
finding her comments were merely ``indecorous.''\8\ Later, a 
separate disparaging comment by Rep. Greene, this one directed 
at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, was ruled out of order by the 
Chairman, who ordered that her words be stricken from the 
record. However, with the exception of one Member, all 
Committee Republicans voted to allow Rep. Greene to proceed in 
order. As such, Rep. Greene was permitted to continue 
participating in the business meeting and did not face any 
consequences for repeatedly insulting fellow Members of the 
Committee during the debate.\9\ Even the Speaker of the House, 
Mike Johnson, concluded that the disarray Chairman Comer 
allowed during the business meeting ``was not a good look for 
Congress.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Id.
    \9\Id.
    \10\Johnson Slams Raucous Congressional Hearing Sparked by Marjorie 
Taylor Greene's `Fake Eyelashes' Comment, ABC News (May 17, 2024) 
(online at https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/johnson-disappointed-house-
committee-meeting-devolved-chaos-greenes/story?id=110337266).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Three hours into the Committee meeting, much of it wasted 
by Committee Republicans' indecorous antics, and after just 
three amendments--two Republican and one Democratic--had been 
offered, Committee Republicans voted to cut off all debate and 
the consideration of any further amendments by calling the 
previous question. In doing so, Committee Republicans broke a 
decades-long precedent, honored by Chairs of both parties, of 
allowing fulsome debate and the consideration of all germane 
amendments at Committee business meetings. At the time Rep. 
Jake LaTurner moved the previous question, Chairman Comer knew 
that Democratic Members intended to offer two further 
amendments pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement to limit 
debate being negotiated by the Committee's Republican and 
Democratic staffs at the request of the Chairman. Over 
Democratic Members' vociferous objection to prematurely cutting 
off debate and the consideration of amendments, Chairman Comer 
called a vote on Rep. LaTurner's motion to move the previous 
question, forcing immediate votes on the pending amendments and 
the underlying contempt report recommending that Attorney 
General Garland be held in contempt. The report was adopted on 
a party line vote with all Democratic Members opposed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Full Committee 
Business Meeting (May 16, 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/
markup/full-committee-business-meeting-73/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under Chairman Comer's leadership, the Committee's 
consideration of the resolution to hold Attorney General 
Garland in contempt was a late-night spectacle unbecoming of 
the Committee and indeed of the House of Representatives in 
which Democratic Members were insulted and then prevented from 
debating and offering amendments to the Chairman's baseless 
contempt report.

II. Republicans are Trying to Hold the Attorney General in Contempt for 
       Information the Department of Justice has Already Provided

    Committee Republicans assert that Attorney General Garland 
should ``be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to 
comply with a congressional subpoena'' issued in identical form 
by Oversight Committee Chairman Comer and Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Jim Jordan.\12\ Specifically, Committee Republicans 
speciously allege that the Attorney General has ``impeded 
[their] impeachment inquiry'' against President Biden by 
failing to provide audio recordings of President Biden's 
voluntary interview with Special Counsel Hur, as well as the 
audio recording of Special Counsel Hur's interview with his 
ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 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 Oversight and 
Accountability (May 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2024/05/Garland-Contempt-Report-re-Hur-Report.pdf).
    \13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To be clear, the DOJ and the Biden Administration have 
provided the information sought by each of the subpoena's four 
requests, including by providing full transcripts of the 
Special Counsel's interviews of President Biden and Mr. 
Zwonitzer. These transcripts already provide the Committee with 
the content of these interviews. Hearing these interviews on an 
audio tape rather than reading them in a transcript will not 
change the content of these interviews.

  A. DOJ AND THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAVE FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE 
                          COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA

    On February 12, 2024, the Chairmen of the Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability, Committee on the Judiciary, and 
Committee on Ways and Means requested information from the DOJ 
regarding Special Counsel Hur's investigation of the President, 
including documents and communications related to the Special 
Counsel's interviews of President Biden and his ghostwriter, 
Mark Zwonitzer.\14\ The DOJ responded to the Chairmen's request 
four days later, explaining that ``several of the materials 
listed in [the] February 12 letter require review for 
classification and protection of national defense information'' 
and, consistent with usual practice, the DOJ would conduct a 
``review to assess confidentiality interests'' involving other 
Executive Branch agencies.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary, and 
Chairman Jason Smith, Committee on Ways and Means, to Attorney General 
Merrick Garland, Department of Justice (Feb. 12, 2024) (online at 
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/DOJ-Transcript-
video-letter-02122024.FINAL_.pdf).
    \15\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, 
Committee on the Judiciary, and Chairman Jason Smith, Committee on Ways 
and Means (Feb. 16, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/
DOJ.240216%2CResponse%20to%20Comer%20Jordan%20Smith%20re%20Biden%20
Classifed%20Docs%20-%20Hur%20021224.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the DOJ's prompt response, Chairmen Comer and 
Jordan each issued a subpoena on February 27, 2024, for the 
following documents and information:
          1. All documents and communications, including audio 
        and video recordings, related to the Special Counsel's 
        interview of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.;
          2. All documents and communications, including audio 
        and video recordings, related to the Special Counsel's 
        interview of Mr. 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 DOJ, 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary, to 
Attorney General Merrick Garland, Department of Justice (Feb. 27, 2024) 
(online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/
Subpoena-Cover-Letter-to-AG-Garland_Hur-Report-Materials-Joint-Letter-
2-27-24.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DOJ subsequently produced documents and information 
responsive to each of the subpoena's four requests. On March 7, 
the Department produced documents responsive to requests 3 and 
4 of the Committee's February 27 subpoena, including ``the two 
documents cited in the report that were requested by the 
Committee,'' which the Department offered to make available 
``through an in camera production in a facility appropriate for 
viewing classified information,'' and ``communications between 
the Department and the Executive Office of the President or 
President Biden's personal counsel referring or relating to Mr. 
Hur's report.''\17\ On March 12, the Department produced the 
full transcript--totaling more than 250 pages--of the voluntary 
interview Special Counsel Hur conducted with President Biden on 
October 8, 2023. and October 9, 2023, responsive to request 1 
of the Committee's subpoena.\18\ On April 8, 2024, the 
Department produced the transcript of Special Counsel Hur's 
interview with Mark Zwonitzer, responsive to request 2 of the 
Committee's subpoena.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Mar. 7, 2024) (online at 
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024.03.07-OUT-Comer-
SCO%20
Subpoena_0.pdf).
    \18\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, (Mar. 12, 2024) (online at 
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/
DOJ.240312.Response%20to%20Comer%20re%20Subpoena%20-
%20Hur%20and%20Biden%20Classified%20Docs.pdf).
    \19\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, 
Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 8, 2024). (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024.04.08-OUT-Jordan-
Comer-Re%20SCO%20Hur.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOJ's responses to the Chairman's subpoena continued the 
Biden Administration's demonstrated cooperation with Congress's 
oversight of Special Counsel Hur's investigation. This 
cooperation began with the Special Counsel's report itself. 
President Biden ``did not assert executive privilege over any 
portion of Special Counsel Hur's final report, which the 
Department provided promptly and in full to Congress.'' In 
addition, the DOJ ``readily agreed to allow Special Counsel Hur 
to testify publicly'' before the Committee on the 
Judiciary.\20\ Special Counsel Hur spent more than five hours 
answering congressional questions under oath.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Letter from Edward Siskel, Counsel to the President, to 
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and 
Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary (May 16, 2024) (online 
at www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018f-8149-d166-a5af-df5b358d0001).
    \21\Committee on the Judiciary, Hearing on the Report of Special 
Counsel Robert K. Hur (Mar. 12, 2024) (online at https://
judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-report-special-
counsel-robert-k-hur).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  B. THE COMMITTEE HAS A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESIDENT'S VOLUNTARY 
INTERVIEW, AND NO NEW EVIDENCE WILL MATERIALIZE FROM AN AUDIO RECORDING 
                            OF HIS INTERVIEW

    As discussed above, the DOJ has produced to the Committee a 
full, 250-page transcript of President Biden's voluntary, five-
hour interview with Special Counsel Hur.\22\ The Department has 
also produced the transcripts of Special Counsel Hur's 
interview with Mark Zwonitzer.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, 
Committee on the Judiciary, and Chairman Jason Smith, Committee on Ways 
and Means (Mar. 12, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/
DOJ.240312.Response%20to%20Comer%20re%20Subpoena%20-
%20Hur%20and%20Biden%20Classified%20Docs.pdf). Those interview 
transcripts are now publicly available. See Read the Full Transcript of 
Robert Hur's Interview with President Biden, Washington Post (Mar. 12, 
2024) (online at www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/12/
biden-hur-transcript-classified-documents-memory/).
    \23\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, 
Committee on the Judiciary, and Chairman Jason Smith, Committee on Ways 
and Means, (Apr. 8, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024.04.08-OUT-Jordan-
Comer-Re%20SCO%20Hur.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By definition, the written transcript of the President's 
voluntary interview with Special Counsel Hur contains content 
that will be identical to audio recordings of the same event, 
and Republicans therefore already know everything the President 
said in the interview. Chairman Comer asserts, however, that 
contempt proceedings against Attorney General Garland are 
warranted because the DOJ did not provide the information in 
the Chairman's preferred format--an audio recording rather than 
a written transcript.
    Committee Republicans have provided no reasonable 
explanation of how receiving information in audio format would 
provide any evidence relevant to the Committee's impeachment 
inquiry that is absent from the written transcript. The 
Committee has simply asserted that its impeachment inquiry 
``will suffer'' without the audiotapes because the tapes are 
purportedly a ``unique and invaluable medium of information 
that capture vocal tone, pace, inflections, verbal nuance, and 
other idiosyncrasies.''\24\ Incomprehensibly, Republicans have 
further asserted that ``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'' and 
therefore ``audio recordings would offer unique and important 
information to advance the Committees'' impeachment 
inquiry.''\25\ To be clear, the full transcript of the 
President's voluntary interview reports all of the words he 
said, and these words do not show any evidence that the 
President abused his office--or committed any high crime or 
misdemeanor. Republicans' assertion that verbal nuances that a 
written transcript cannot capture could possibly reveal 
evidence of impeachable conduct is simply ludicrous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary, to 
Attorney General Merrick Garland, Department of Justice (Apr. 15, 2024) 
(online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/
democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-04-
15.Comer%20Jordan%20to%20Garland-DOJ%20re%20Hur%20-Subpoena%20follow-
up%202.pdf).
    \25\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 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 Oversight and 
Accountability (May 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2024/05/Garland-Contempt-Report-re-Hur-Report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is also notable that the Republicans' contempt report 
includes a lengthy quote from the written transcript of the 
President's interview and, based on the excerpt, concludes that 
``this interview is relevant to whether legislative reforms are 
necessary''--an apparent concession that the written transcript 
is sufficient to satisfy the Committee's legislative needs.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It further appears that the DOJ's cooperation was so 
fulsome that it exceeded the Committee's need for information. 
Indeed, it appears neither the Chairman nor the Committee's 
Republican staff ever made arrangements to review the documents 
identified as ``A9'' and ``A10'' identified in Request 3 of the 
Committee's subpoena, which the DOJ offered to make available 
for in camera review.
    As the DOJ noted, Committee Republicans have also failed to 
explain why the information they seek ``outweighs the serious 
harms to the Department's articulated law enforcement 
interests.''\27\ The DOJ has repeatedly emphasized its need to 
protect sensitive law enforcement information, explaining that 
``producing the audio files would compound the likelihood that 
future prosecutors will be unable to secure'' the type of 
exceptional cooperation afforded by President Biden to Special 
Counsel Hur in his classified documents investigation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, 
Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 25, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/HJC%20COA%20Response%20-
%204.25.24.pdf).
    \28\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, 
Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 8, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024.04.08-OUT-Jordan-
Comer-Re%20SCO%20Hur.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DOJ has also explained that it must:

          [A]lso take seriously the harm producing [the audio 
        files] could do to the public's interest in effective 
        law enforcement investigations. Although some risks 
        diminish once an investigation closes or a case 
        resolves, the production of sensitive law enforcement 
        files from a closed matter can still harm prosecutorial 
        decision-making, privacy and reputational interests of 
        witnesses and uncharged parties, and sources and 
        methods, among other law enforcement concerns that the 
        public has a strong interest in protecting.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Letter from Department of Justice to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, 
Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 25, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/HJC%20COA%20Response%20-
%204.25.24.pdf).

    Further, prior to the May 16 Committee meeting, President 
Biden asserted executive privilege over the requested audio 
files at Attorney General Garland's request.
    The White House transmitted a letter to Chairman Comer 
asserting this privilege and explaining that ``because of the 
President's longstanding commitment to protecting the 
integrity, effectiveness, and independence of the Department of 
Justice and its law enforcement investigations, he has decided 
to assert executive privilege over the recordings.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Letter from Edward Siskel, Counsel to the President, to 
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and 
Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary (May 16, 2024) (online 
at www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018f-8149-d166-a5af-df5b358d0001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee Republicans decided to move ahead with contempt 
despite this assertion of privilege by claiming the assertion 
of privilege was untimely, that the White House waived 
privilege by providing the transcripts, and that the ``audio 
recordings [. . .] are likely to contain evidence important to 
the Committee's inquiry.''\31\ These claims are, however, 
internally inconsistent. Committee Republicans appear to be 
claiming both (1) that the transcripts and audio recording 
contain the same information, such that by producing one, the 
White House has waived privilege as to both; and (2) that they 
are different information, such that despite already having the 
transcript, the audio recordings contain ``evidence important 
to the Committee's inquiry'' that somehow is not captured by 
the transcript.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute to the Committee Report for the Resolution Recommending that 
the House of Representatives Find Attorney General Merrick B. Garland 
in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly 
Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability (May 16, 2024) 
(online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20240516/117325/
BILLS-118-ANStoContemptReport-C001108-Amdt-2.pdf).
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite Committee Republicans' claims to the contrary, it 
is clear that the Committee has received extraordinary 
cooperation from the DOJ throughout its impeachment inquiry and 
has received or been given access to all of the information it 
subpoenaed. The assertion that the Attorney General has in some 
way obstructed the Committee's investigation--or that there is 
any new evidence to be found in an audio recording of an 
interview for which the Committee already has a full 
transcript--is simply false.

     C. THE DOJ AND BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S RECORD OF EXTRAORDINARY 
COOPERATION WITH THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION STAND IN STARK CONTRAST 
          TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S RECORD OF OBSTRUCTION

    The DOJ's record of extraordinary cooperation with 
Republicans' impeachment inquiry against President Biden stands 
in stark contrast to the Trump Administration's record of 
obstructing congressional investigations and refusing to comply 
with congressional subpoenas.\33\ In fact, one study found that 
the Trump Administration refused to provide information in more 
than 100 congressional investigations and inquiries from 2017 
to 2021.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See House Holds Barr and Ross in Contempt over Census Dispute, 
New York Times (July 17, 2019) (online at www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/
us/politics/barr-ross-contempt-vote.html).
    \34\ Co-Equal, Trump Administration Oversight Precedents (Mar. 
2024) (online at www.co-equal.org/guide-to-congressional-oversight/
trump-administration-oversight-precedents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike the Biden Administration, the Trump Administration 
refused to comply with the 2019 impeachment inquiry into then-
President Trump. President Trump ordered his entire 
Administration not to cooperate with the House's impeachment 
inquiry's requests for interviews of federal officials with 
factual knowledge relevant to the investigation.\35\ In total, 
12 federal officials refused to testify before Congress, ten of 
whom defied congressional subpoenas.\36\ Similarly, the White 
House explained in correspondence to Congress that it would not 
comply with congressional subpoenas issued to it for relevant 
documents as part of the impeachment inquiry.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The Trump-
Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report (Dec. 2019) (online at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-Y4_IN8_18-PURL-gpo129303/pdf/GOVPUB-
Y4_IN8_18-PURL-gpo129303.pdf).
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the Trump Administration, under then-Attorney 
General William Barr, the DOJ, itself refused to cooperate with 
multiple congressional investigations. For example, in 2018, 
the Committee on Oversight and Reform launched an investigation 
into the Department of Commerce's effort to include a 
citizenship question in the upcoming 2020 census.\38\ Attorney 
General Barr, together with then-Secretary of Commerce Wilbur 
Ross, obstructed the Committee's investigation by refusing to 
provide key documents specifically identified in bipartisan 
Committee subpoenas. Further, during the investigation, 
information emerged that a DOJ official, John Gore, had 
pressured the Department of Commerce to include the citizenship 
question at the direction of President Trump.\39\ After Mr. 
Gore refused to answer more than 150 questions during a 
transcribed interview in March 2019, the Committee issued a 
bipartisan subpoena for his deposition testimony.\40\ Attorney 
General Barr instructed Mr. Gore not to appear at the 
deposition as required by the subpoena, and several subsequent 
attempts by the Committee to obtain Mr. Gore's deposition 
testimony failed.\41\ Accordingly, the Committee voted to hold 
Attorney General Barr, as well as Secretary Ross, in contempt 
of Congress in June 2019, and the full House approved the 
contempt resolutions in July 2019.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Resolution 
Recommending that the House of Representatives Find William P. Barr, 
Attorney General of the United States, and Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., 
Secretary of Commerce, in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply 
with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform, 
116th Cong. (2019) (online at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-
116hrpt125/pdf/CRPT-116hrpt125.pdf).
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.; House Votes to Hold Attorney General Barr, Commerce 
Secretary Ross in Contempt for Failing to Comply with Subpoena on 2020 
Census, Washington Post (July 17, 2019) (online at 
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-to-vote-to-hold-barr-ross-in-
contempt-over-2020-census-citizenship-question/2019/07/17/8dbeb35c-
a89c-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In another instance, in April 2019, reports emerged that 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller had written to Attorney General 
Barr expressing concern that a publicly released memorandum 
written by Attorney General Barr summarizing the Special 
Counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 
presidential election ``did not fully capture the context, 
nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions'' 
and urging Mr. Barr to release the full content of the Special 
Counsel's report.\43\ Only one month later did Attorney General 
Barr released a version of the Special Counsel's report.\44\ 
This publicly released report contained significant redactions. 
Subsequently, the House Judiciary Committee sought to convene a 
hearing to review the Special Counsel's findings, including the 
Attorney General's role in their release, but Attorney General 
Barr refused to testify.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ See Mueller Complained that Barr's Letter Did Not Capture 
`Context' of Trump Probe, Washington Post (Apr. 30, 2019) (online at 
www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-
barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/
d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html); see also Read 
Attorney General William Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report, New York 
Times (Mar. 24, 2019) (online at www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/
24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html).
    \44\ Mueller Reveals Trump's Attempts to Choke off Russia Probe, 
Associated Press (Apr. 18, 2019) (online at https://apnews.com/article/
north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-russia-
48f9d5132d7a4e2d823edad8fc407979).
    \45\ Co-Equal, Trump Administration Oversight Precedents (Mar. 
2024) (online at www.
co-equal.org/guide-to-congressional-oversight/trump-administration-
oversight-precedents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Former President Trump and the Trump Administration provide 
clear examples of what actual obstruction of a congressional 
investigation looks like. By contrast, the Biden 
Administration, Attorney General Garland, and the DOJ have 
already provided all of the information Republicans have sought 
about Special Counsel Hur's investigation, including about 
President Biden's interview with the Special Counsel, and there 
is no new information that Republicans can learn about the 
contents of this interview from audio tapes of it.

 III. Unable to Identify Any Wrongdoing by the President, Republicans 
Are Baselessly Trying To Blame the Attorney General for the Failure of 
        a Baseless Impeachment Effort That Fell Apart Months Ago

    Republicans are desperate both to performatively insinuate 
that some evidence against the President still remains to be 
uncovered and to claim that their 17-month impeachment effort 
failed to find any evidence of an impeachable offense because 
someone has withheld that evidence. As such, Republicans have 
manufactured the allegation that Attorney General Garland has 
obstructed their impeachment inquiry by withholding the tape of 
President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Hur. In fact, 
as previously discussed, no new evidence of an impeachable 
offense will emerge from an audio tape of an interview for 
which Republicans already have a full transcript. And, to be 
clear, Republicans know the full content of that interview 
because the DOJ gave them a transcript of it that records 
precisely how President Biden answered every question he was 
asked.

   A. REPUBLICANS' SHAM IMPEACHMENT EFFORT HAS BEEN BASED ON RUSSIAN 
       DISINFORMATION DEBUNKED BY THE FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

    Former President Trump, who was impeached twice by the 
House of Representatives, instructed House Republicans to get 
revenge by impeaching President Biden, and he even publicly 
conveyed the allegations that were to become the basis of House 
Republicans' failed effort.\46\ In August 2023, former 
President Trump posted the following on social media:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\H.Res. 755, 116th Cong. (2019); H.Res. 24, 117th Cong. (2021).

          The Republicans in Congress, though well meaning, 
        keep talking about an Impeachment ``Inquiry'' on 
        Crooked Joe Biden. Look, the guy got bribed, he paid 
        people off, and he wouldn't give One Billion Dollars to 
        Ukraine unless they ``got rid of the Prosecutor.'' 
        Biden is a Stone Cold Crook--You don't need a long 
        INQUIRY to prove it, it's already proven. These 
        lowlifes Impeached me TWICE (I WON!), and Indicted me 
        FOUR TIMES--For NOTHING! Either IMPEACH the BUM, or 
        fade into OBLIVION. THEY DID IT TO US!\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Donald J. Trump, @realDonaldTrump, Truth Social (Aug. 27, 2023) 
(online at https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/
110963746628215974).

    In an effort to fulfill Donald Trump's demand and support 
his presidential campaign, Republicans eagerly embraced the 
unsworn, unverified allegations contained in a tipsheet called 
an FD-1023 falsely claiming--just as former President Trump 
had--that Joe Biden took bribes from a Ukrainian energy company 
called Burisma on whose board his son, Hunter Biden, 
served.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Hannity, Fox News (Jan. 11, 2024) (online at www.foxnews.com/
video/6344716486112).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Critically, allegations that Joe Biden acted corruptly in 
Ukraine had already been repeatedly debunked and revealed as 
Russian disinformation by numerous federal entities--including 
by Donald Trump's own Department of the Treasury and by the 
intelligence community--long before House Republicans made them 
the centerpiece of their impeachment inquiry.\49\ In 2021, the 
Trump Administration's Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, 
denounced the Russian-backed individuals who ``coordinated 
dissemination and promotion of fraudulent or unsubstantiated 
allegations involving a U.S. political candidate'' (Joe Biden) 
and ``repeated public statements advancing malicious narratives 
that U.S. Government officials have engaged in corrupt dealings 
in Ukraine.''\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\U.S. Department of the Treasury, Press Release: Treasury 
Sanctions Russia-Linked Election Interference Actors (Sept. 10, 2020) 
(online at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1118); U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Press Release: Treasury Takes Further 
Action Against Russian-Linked Actors (Jan. 11, 2021) (online at https:/
/home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1232); U.S. Department of 
State, Sanctioning Russia-Linked Disinformation Network for Its 
Involvement in Attempts to Influence U.S. Election (Jan. 11, 2021) 
(online at https://2017-2021.state.gov/sanctioning-russia-linked-
disinformation-network-for-its-involvement-in-attempts-to-influence-u-
s-election/); National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Press 
Release: Statement by NCSC Director William Evanina: Election Threat 
Update for the American Public (Aug. 7, 2020) (online at https://
www.odni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2020/
3473-statement-by-ncsc-director-william-evanina-election-threat-update-
for-the-american-public); National Intelligence Council, Foreign 
Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections (Mar. 10, 2021) (online at 
www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ICA-declass-16MAR21.pdf); 
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, Report on the Investigation 
into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election (Mar. 2019) 
(online at www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl).
    \50\U.S. Department of State, Sanctioning Russia-Linked 
Disinformation Network for Its Involvement in Attempts to Influence 
U.S. Election (Jan. 11, 2021) (online at https://2017-2021.state.gov/
sanctioning-russia-linked-disinformation-network-for-its-involvement-
in-attempts-to-influence-u-s-election/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nonetheless, Chairman Comer claimed the FD-1023 tipsheet 
was so central to the Committee's ongoing investigation of 
President Biden that he falsely accused the DOJ of ``seeking to 
bury this record to protect the Bidens.''\51\ And Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Jordan made it explicitly clear that the FD 
1023 was ``the heart of this matter.''\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Senator Chuck Grassley, Press Release: Grassley Obtains & 
Releases FBI Record Alleging VP Biden Foreign Bribery Scheme (July 20, 
2023) (online at www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-
obtains-and-releases-fbi-record-alleging-vp-biden-foreign-bribery-
scheme).
    \52\Hannity, Fox News (Jan. 11, 2024) (online at www.foxnews.com/
video/6344716486112).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Republicans continued to trumpet the allegations in the FD-
1023 until February 2024, when Alexander Smirnov, the 
confidential human source behind the allegations the tipsheet 
recorded, was arrested for lying to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. According to 
Special Counsel David Weiss, Mr. Smirnov admitted that 
``officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved 
in passing a story about Business person 1 [Hunter 
Biden].''\53\ Critically, the Special Counsel has warned that 
``Smirnov's efforts to spread misinformation about a candidate 
of one of the two major parties in the United States 
continues'' [sic] and ``[h]e is actively peddling new lies that 
could impact U.S. elections after meeting with Russian 
intelligence officials in November.''\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\Government's Application for Review of Magistrate Judge's Bail 
Order, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 5 (Feb. 21, 2024) United 
States of America v. Alexander Smirnov, Central District of California 
(No. CR 2:24-cr-00091-ODW) (online at https://
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.915062/
gov.uscourts.cacd.915062.11.0_4.pdf).
    \54\Id. at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the request of Committee Democrats, Rudy Giuliani's 
right-hand man, Lev Parnas voluntarily testified at the 
Committee's second impeachment hearing in March 2024. In his 
testimony, Mr. Parnas explained that ``Rudy Giuliani, on behalf 
of then President Donald Trump, tasked me with a mission to 
travel the globe, finding dirt on the Bidens so then an array 
of networks could spread misinformation about them, thus 
securing the 2020 election for Donald J. Trump.'' Despite Mr. 
Parnas' best efforts, however, ``In nearly a year traveling the 
world and interviewing officials in different countries, I 
found precisely zero evidence of the Bidens corruption in 
Ukraine.'' Mr. Parnas also made clear that ``[t]he only 
information ever pushed on the Bidens in Ukraine has come from 
one source and one source only: Russia and Russian 
agents.''\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Testimony of Lev 
Parnas, Hearing on Influence Peddling: Examining Joe Biden's Abuse of 
Public Office (Mar. 20, 2024) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Parnas-Lev-Written-
Statement.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stunningly, even two Republican Committee Chairmen have 
also warned that Republican Members of Congress are amplifying 
Russian propaganda and disinformation. In a recent interview, 
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul stated: 
``I think Russian propaganda has made its way into the United 
States, unfortunately, and it's infected a good chunk of my 
party's base.''\56\ House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence Chairman Michael Turner similarly warned: ``We see 
directly coming from Russia attempts to mask communications 
that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages, some of which we 
even hear being uttered on the House floor.''\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\McCaul to Action, PUCK (Apr. 2, 2024) (online at https://
puck.news/ukraine-aid-q-and-a-rep-mccaul-on-republican-support-for-
bill/); see Luxury Yachts and Other Myths: How Republican Lawmakers 
Echo Russian Propaganda, NBC News (Apr. 14, 2024) (online at 
www.nbcnews.com/politics/luxury-yachts-myths-republican-lawmakers-echo-
russian-propaganda-rcna147293).
    \57\State of the Union, CNN (Apr. 7, 2024) (online at www.cnn.com/
videos/title-2248506); See State of the Union Transcripts, CNN (Apr. 7, 
2024) (online at https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sotu/date/2024-04-07/
segment/01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the overwhelming evidence that the allegations at 
the heart of their impeachment inquiry are thoroughly 
discredited Russian disinformation, the Majority's contempt 
resolution against Attorney General Garland again repeats the 
same Burisma-Ukrainian conspiracy theory pushed by Russian 
agents and Rudy Giuliani.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 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 Oversight and 
Accountability (May 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2024/05/
Garland-Contempt-Report-re-Hur-Report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  B. REPUBLICANS HAVE REPEATEDLY MISREPRESENTED AND WITHHELD EVIDENCE 
                  THROUGHOUT THEIR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

    House Republicans, including Chairman Comer, have 
frequently misrepresented the evidence they have collected in 
their investigation of Joe Biden--and selectively withheld 
evidence--in order to smear President Biden with false 
allegations.
    For example, in November 2023, Chairman Comer selectively 
released one page of a four-page internal bank email chain and, 
on the basis of that single page, falsely claimed that 
regulators were concerned that Hunter Biden's financial 
activities amounted to money laundering. In fact, the three 
other pages of the email chain--which contain later emails 
directly contradicting the Chairman's public claims--explicitly 
state that the transactions at issue were ``reasonable and 
consistent with the business profile'' and that the entity was 
``transparent.''\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Oversight Committee Democrats (@Oversight), X (Nov. 29, 2023) 
(online at https://twitter.com/OversightDems/status/
1730011731986927930?s=20) (citing Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight), 
X (Nov. 29, 2023) (online at https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/
1729983592648855652)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In December 2023, Chairman Comer blatantly mischaracterized 
transaction records showing Hunter Biden repaid his father for 
car payments that Joe Biden--who was at the time a private 
citizen--made on Hunter Biden's behalf while Hunter Biden was 
in and out of rehabilitation for drug addiction. In fact, the 
Wall Street Journal confirmed that Joe and Hunter Biden 
purchased the vehicle in June 2018 from Bay shore Ford Truck 
Sales in Delaware, even interviewing the now-retired salesman 
who organized the deal and who confirmed that Joe Biden signed 
for the financing of the vehicle.\60\ The Wall Street Journal 
article includes a photograph of Hunter Biden shaking hands 
with the salesman as Joe Biden looks on, and notes that even 
``[m]essages on Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop also support 
details about the transaction and the monthly repayments from 
Hunter Biden to his father.''\61\ As CNN reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\GOP Sees Skulduggery in Hunter Biden Paying His Father Back for 
Truck, Wall Street Journal (Dec. 4, 2023) (online at www.wsj.com/
politics/gop-sees-skulduggery-in-hunter-biden-paying-his-father-back-
for-truck-5d40741a).
    \61\Id.

          Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released 
        a document showing payment from Hunter Biden's business 
        entity, Owasco PC, to President Joe Biden when he was 
        not in office, but neglected to include evidence that 
        the president's son was repaying his father for a 
        car.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\House Oversight GOP Release Document Showing Payments Made by 
Hunter Biden to His Dad; Documents Say They Were for a Car, CNN (Dec. 
5, 2023) (online at www.cnn.com/2023/12/04/politics/oversight-
committee-hunter-biden-car-payments/index.html).

    Similarly, Chairman Comer misrepresented checks from James 
Biden to his brother, Joe Biden--when both were private 
citizens--to insinuate that they showed President Biden 
``profited'' from his family's business. Chairman Comer even 
claimed that Joe Biden had engaged in ``bribery'' and ``money 
laundering.'' In fact, the checks, as well as other bank 
records in the Committee's possession all make clear that James 
Biden was simply repaying his brother for a short-term, 
interest-free loan that was extended and repaid when both were 
private citizens. The Chairman's false claims to the contrary 
were immediately fact-checked by at least ten different news 
outlets, including Washington Examiner and CNN.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\Joe Biden May Have Lent James Biden Money to Justify `Loan' 
Repayments, Bank Records Show, Washington Examiner (Nov. 8, 2023) 
(online at www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/bank-records-show-joe-
biden-paid-james-biden); Fact Check: Evidence Supports Democrats' Case 
that Joe Biden Made a Personal Loan to His Brother, CNN (Oct. 31, 2023) 
(online at www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/politics/fact-check-evidence-
supports-democrats-case-that-joe-biden-made-a-personal-loan-to-his-
brother/index.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    True to form, Republicans have also misrepresented the 
conclusions of Special Counsel Hur's investigation. For 
example, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jordan alleged that Joe 
Biden had retained classified documents after serving as Vice 
President because ``he had 8 million reasons to ignore the 
rules''--referring to the $8 million advance Joe Biden and his 
wife received to write three books.\64\ In fact, Special 
Counsel Hur wrote in his report that President Biden's 
``published book is not known to contain classified 
information'' and that ``the Afghanistan documents and the 2009 
troop surge played no role in Promise Me, Dad, the book Mr. 
Biden wrote.''\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\The Fact Checker: How Jim Jordan Tried to Connect the Dots on 
Biden's $8 Million Book Deal, Washington Post (May 18, 2024) (online at 
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/18/how-jim-jordan-connected-
dots-bidens-8-million-book-deal/).
    \65\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. (Feb. 
2024) (online at www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-
robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Republicans have not limited their misrepresentations about 
the classified documents investigation to the Hur Report. The 
Committee's contempt report references four transcribed 
interviews that the Committee conducted with Gary Stern, 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General 
Counsel; Kathy Chung, a former executive assistant to President 
Biden; and two employees of the Penn Biden Center.\66\ 
Committee Republicans have refused to release the transcripts 
of these interviews and have instead mischaracterized these 
witnesses' testimony for over a year. In particular, Chairman 
Comer falsely asserted that Ms. Chung was specifically hired to 
move classified documents on the recommendation of Hunter 
Biden. As reflected in the interview transcript, Ms. Chung's 
attorney explained, in a letter to the Chairman, that she was 
``hired as an Assistant to the Vice President responsible for 
office affairs,'' and not ``for the purpose of helping with 
moving documents.''\67\ When Ms. Chung's attorney demanded that 
Chairman Comer correct his ``absurd statements'' about Ms. 
Chung, Republican staff privately conceded that the Chairman 
``misspoke.''\68\ However, Chairman Comer failed to publicly 
retract his false claims. Chairman Comer has also repeatedly 
promoted racist and xenophobic conspiracy theories about Ms. 
Chung, falsely suggesting a connection between Ms. Chung and 
the Chinese Communist Party.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 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 Oversight and 
Accountability (May 2024) at 6 (online at https://oversight.house.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Garland-Contempt-Report-re-Hur-Report.pdf).
    \67\Letter from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, to 
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Mar. 
14, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-
subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/2023-03-
14%20Correspondence%20to%20Chairman%20Comer.PDF); See also Memorandum 
from Committee on Oversight and Accountability Democratic Staff to 
Democratic Members of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability re 
Oversight Committee Investigation into Presidential and Classified 
Records and Transcribed Interview of Former Executive Assistant to 
then-Vice President Biden (May 3, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
oversight.house.gov/files/5.3.2023%20Chung%20Memo%20-%20FINAL.pdf).
    \68\Call with Staff, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and 
Counsel for Ms. Chung, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP (Mar. 27, 2023).
    \69\Congressman Comer Joined Jenn Pellegrino on Newsmax Tonight, 
Newsmax (Jan. 24, 2023) (online at www.facebook.com/CongressmanComer/
videos/573322927985215/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Republicans have also falsely alleged that the DOJ's 
decision to prosecute former President Trump for mishandling 
classified information--but not to prosecute President Biden--
proves that DOJ is biased and actively protecting President 
Biden. For example, House Speaker Mike Johnson previously said, 
``remember now, the DOJ is indicting one president with 
politically motivated charges and they are now carrying the 
water for another amid very similar allegations.''\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\FactCheck.Org, Republicans Distort Facts on Special Counsel 
Decision Not to Charge Biden (Feb. 16, 2024) (online at 
www.factcheck.org/2024/02/republicans-distort-facts-on-special-counsel-
decision-not-to-charge-biden/); C-SPAN, House Republican Leadership 
News Conference (Feb. 14, 2024) (online at www.c-span.org/video/
?533580-1/house-republican-leadership-news-conference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To be clear, Special Counsel Hur is a registered Republican 
who served as a senior political appointee in the Trump 
Administration.\71\ Prior to his appointment as Special Counsel 
to investigate President Biden, Mr. Hur served as Associate 
Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ from 2017 to 2018, during 
the Trump Administration.\72\ Mr. Hur was subsequently 
appointed by Donald Trump to serve as U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Maryland in 2018.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\Who is Robert Hur, Special Counsel for Biden Classified 
Documents Probe?, Washington Post (Feb. 16, 2024) (online at 
www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/12/special-counsel-
robert-hur-biden-classified-documents/).
    \72\Who is Robert Hur? A Look at the Special Counsel Due to Testify 
on Biden Classified Documents Case, Associated Press (Mar. 11, 2024) 
(online at https://apnews.com/article/robert-hur-biden-special-counsel-
classified-documents-0f8e4a9d99f8b7d035f75f78e9b8d3d3).
    \73\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Special Counsel Hur affirmed during his testimony before 
the Judiciary Committee that ``Attorney General Garland did not 
interfere with my efforts and I was able to conduct a fair, 
thorough and independent investigation,'' and that ``[p]artisan 
politics had no place whatsoever in my work.''\74\ In fact, in 
his report, the Special Counsel laid out the clear differences 
between the conduct of Donald Trump and President Biden, 
noting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\Hur Says Garland Did Not Interfere--Live Updates, Politico 
(Mar. 12, 2024) (online at www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/03/12/
congress/hur-says-garland-did-not-interfere-00146565); Hur Defends His 
Findings as Political Knives Come Out, New York Times (Mar. 12, 2024) 
(online at www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/us/hur-biden-testimony).

          It is not our role to assess the criminal charges 
        pending against Mr. Trump, but several material 
        distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's 
        are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the 
        allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, 
        proven, would clearly establish not only Mr. Trump's 
        willfulness but also serious aggravating facts. Most 
        notably, after being given multiple chances to return 
        classified documents avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump 
        allegedly did the opposite. According to the 
        indictment, he not only refused to return documents for 
        months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting 
        others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In 
        contrast, Mr. Biden alerted authorities, turned in 
        classified documents to the National Archives and the 
        Department of Justice in 2022 and 2023, consented to 
        the search of multiple locations including his homes, 
        permitted the seizure and review of handwritten 
        notebooks he believed to be his personal property, and 
        in numerous other ways cooperated with the 
        investigation.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\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. (Feb. 
2024) (online at www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-
robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf).

    In sum, there is simply no basis to hold Attorney General 
Garland in contempt. Far from impeding the Committee, the 
Attorney General has cooperated with the Committee's 
investigation and provided it with all the information it has 
sought, including the complete, 250-page transcript of the 
President's voluntary, five-hour interview with Special Counsel 
Hur. The audio recording of that interview will not in any way 
change the President's words, nor will it miraculously reveal 
the evidence of impeachable conduct that Committee Republicans 
have vainly sought in the 3.8 million pages of documents and 80 
hours of testimony collected as part of their 17-month 
impeachment inquiry. These contempt proceedings are a 
transparent effort to find a scapegoat for the embarrassing 
failure of this sham impeachment effort.
                                              Jamie Raskin,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                                  [all]