In an extraordinary development in contemporary US politics, CNN has initiated a legal fight for public access to the audiotapes of President Joe Biden’s interview with federal investigators. This interview, led by former Special Counsel Robert Hur, scrutinizes Biden’s handling of classified documents after his tenure as vice president.
Central to the dispute is a five-hour interview between President Biden and Hur, one of the rare occasions where a sitting president has been questioned by a prosecutor regarding potential charges. This interview was part of Hur’s broader investigation, which ended without enough evidence to accuse Biden of criminal mismanagement of records. After concluding the investigation, the Justice Department made public the interview transcripts but not the audio, sparking a discussion about the completeness of public records.
Filed in the DC District Court, CNN’s legal action aims to force the Department of Justice to disclose these audio recordings, citing, “Transcripts, however, are no substitute for recordings.” The media network’s pursuit of access underlines a wider demand for transparency, enabling the public and media to draw their own interpretation about Hur’s conclusions and Biden’s depiction as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
But the dispute is not exclusive to CNN. Almost a dozen other news outlets, along with various organizations, including the conservative Heritage Foundation and Judicial Watch, are also seeking access to the recordings. This collective effort demonstrates a rising demand for government transparency and the public’s role in holding leaders to account.
Hur’s probe and subsequent remarks at a congressional hearing stressed the importance of the recordings in his decision-making process. Hur claimed that the audio provides crucial insights into Biden’s demeanor and thought processes, aspects that transcripts alone fail to capture fully. This argument strengthens the case for the release of the recordings, implying that they contain essential evidence that could influence public understanding of the investigation’s findings.
The Biden administration, for its part, has contested Hur’s description of the president, challenging the representation of Biden’s memory and cognitive capabilities. In the released transcripts, Biden displayed instances of confusion over dates and details, including the years of his vice presidency and his son, Beau Biden’s death.
Besides CNN’s lawsuit, House Republicans have amplified their calls for transparency. The Chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and the Oversight Committee, James Comer of Kentucky, expressed their adamant stance in a letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland on March 25.
They warned that contempt proceedings could be initiated against the Justice Department if it fails to provide materials subpoenaed from Robert Hur’s investigation. They specifically pointed to the lack of audio recordings from Hur’s interviews with President Biden and both the transcript and audio recordings from Hur’s interactions with Mark Zwonitzer, Biden’s ghostwriter, as instances of the withheld information.
The Chairmen’s letter to Attorney General Garland stressed that the subpoenas issued on February 27 impose a legal obligation on the Attorney General to furnish the requested materials. They set a new deadline of April 8, 2024, at noon for full compliance with their request. Non-compliance with this deadline, they cautioned, would lead the committees to consider further actions, possibly including initiating contempt of Congress proceedings.
As CNN and others continue their legal battles, the case foregrounds privacy, public interest, and the right to know. It raises queries about the balance between safeguarding sensitive information and ensuring that voters are fully informed about their leaders’ actions and character.
This legal struggle also highlights the unique nature of the Biden interview. It is a rare instance where a sitting president has directly engaged with a prosecutorial investigation into his behavior, in stark contrast with former President Donald Trump, who faced multiple investigations but never participated in such an interview.
