House Republicans voted on Wednesday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio recordings of President Joe Biden’s interviews with former special counsel Robert Hur. Hur had investigated Biden’s handling of classified material and ultimately declined to bring charges. The vote was 216 to 207, with one Republican, Rep. Dave Joyce of Ohio, voting against the measure.
Following the vote, House Speaker Mike Johnson will certify the report to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. According to the law, this certification requires the US attorney to present the matter to a grand jury for its action, though the Justice Department will also make its own determinations regarding prosecution.
House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed satisfaction with the vote’s outcome, stating that Republicans had upheld their duty under Article I of the Constitution by holding Garland in contempt. Johnson emphasized the importance of defending congressional oversight authority. When asked about potential prosecution for Garland, Johnson remarked,
“We did our job on the contempt, and I think it sends an important message. We’re defending Article I and our authority for oversight, and we have to do that.”
Johnson remained uncertain about the possibility of impeaching President Biden, emphasizing that the process would proceed methodically. He rejected comparisons to past impeachments conducted by Democrats, insisting that the current inquiry is being handled appropriately. Johnson highlighted concerns about the Biden family receiving substantial sums from foreign sources, which he believes require accountability.
“There’s a lot of conduct that begs answers,” Johnson said, accusing the Biden family of receiving “millions of dollars from foreign nations.”
“There’s not been a final accountability for that,” he said. “We’ll see what comes out in the end,” he added. “In spite of criticism, we have to follow the Constitution.”
In response to criticism regarding the costs of the investigations, Johnson defended the probe as necessary for ensuring accountability to the American people. He argued that the ongoing inquiries have already revealed significant information and promised that more would be uncovered. However, despite the extensive investigation, no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden has been found.
Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who voted in favor of the contempt resolution, highlighted the need for transparency in obtaining the audio recordings of Biden’s interviews.
“We want to make sure it matches what the transcript says,” she said, arguing that the recordings match the transcript is a matter of oversight. Malliotakis dismissed suggestions that the recordings would be used for political attack ads, stating that compliance with the subpoena is essential for transparency and proper oversight.
Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed disappointment over the House’s decision to hold him in contempt, criticizing it as a partisan misuse of congressional authority. Garland defended the Justice Department’s actions, citing the constitutional separation of powers and the significant amount of information already provided to the Committees.
“Today’s vote disregards the constitutional separation of powers, the Justice Department’s need to protect its investigations, and the substantial amount of information we have provided to the Committees,” Garland said in a statement.
Democratic lawmakers questioned the legitimacy of the Republicans’ request for the audio recordings. Rep. Daniel Goldman argued that the demand lacked a legitimate oversight purpose and suggested that the recordings might be used to aid Donald Trump’s campaign.
“What they really want to do is release it to help Donald Trump and misconstrue these recordings, use them during the campaign, and that is a legitimate purpose,” Goldman told reporters after the vote.
The New York lawmaker said that the Department of Justice being forced to turn over the recording would have a “chilling impact on any future cooperation of witnesses who would know they would be recorded” and argued that the transcript is enough to fulfill the purpose of congressional oversight.
