WSJ Editorial Board: Biden Makes a Bogus Executive Privilege Claim

WASHINGTON—The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board today discussed how the White House’s executive privilege claims over the audio recordings of President Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Hur are bogus and intended to avoid presidential embarrassment. The Editorial Board details how the White House’s claim would not withstand legal scrutiny. The House Oversight and Accountability Committee tonight is initiating contempt of Congress proceedings against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena requiring the production of the audio recordings of President Biden’s interview about his mishandling of classified documents.  

“Mr. Biden sat for an interview over two days with the special counsel about his mishandling of classified documents. A pair of House committees sought the transcript and audio recordings of the interview, and the White House turned over the transcript. But on Thursday the President asserted executive privilege over the audio tapes.

[…]

“The privilege claim is bogus on two grounds. First, once a President waives a privilege right, it can’t be reclaimed. Mr. Biden conceded that the interview wasn’t privileged, and there’s no legal basis to say that a recording is different from a transcript.

“Even if Mr. Biden had first claimed privilege over the interview, that wouldn’t pass legal muster because the interview subject didn’t concern his presidential duties or White House deliberations. It concerned his handling of documents while in the Senate, as Vice President, or as a private citizen.

“Mr. Siskel’s claim that the goal is to protect the Justice Department’s ‘law enforcement investigations’ also doesn’t work. Such a claim of law-enforcement privilege typically attends to a continuing investigation, but Mr. Hur’s work is complete. He has filed his report and closed up shop.

[…]

“The White House claim of privilege over the recordings isn’t intended to protect executive power. It’s intended to avoid presidential embarrassment. That’s a political goal, not a legitimate legal justification.”