House fails to take action against AG Garland over Biden audio tape controversy
- The House failed to pass a resolution to hold Attorney General Garland in contempt.
- Republican-led effort to penalize Garland for withholding President Biden's audio tapes was unsuccessful.
- The GOP-pushed resolution to fine AG Garland did not pass in a stunning vote.
In a recent development on Capitol Hill, a resolution to fine Attorney General Merrick Garland $10,000 per day for not handing over audio recordings from President Biden's special counsel interview failed to pass in the House. The resolution, brought to the floor by Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, aimed to hold Garland in contempt for withholding the tapes, which Luna argued were crucial for national security and to prevent an organized effort to undermine Congress. Despite the failed vote, Luna plans to reintroduce the resolution, confident it will pass on a subsequent attempt. The dispute revolves around the audio tapes of Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Hur, where Biden was described as an "elderly man with a poor memory." While Garland provided transcripts of the interview, he did not release the audio, prompting accusations of potential editing by the Justice Department. Luna initially proposed using "inherent contempt" to hold Garland accountable but revised the resolution to impose fines instead. Former President Donald Trump voiced support for the move, urging Republicans to back Luna's efforts to obtain the tapes. House Republicans have been critical of the Justice Department's refusal to release the audio files, with Luna leading the charge to compel Garland to comply with the subpoena. The resolution, which calls for daily fines until Garland complies, underscores the ongoing battle over transparency and accountability within the Biden administration. Despite facing resistance and legal challenges, Luna remains determined to pursue the issue and ensure that the tapes are made available to Congress and the public. The Department of Justice maintains its stance that there is no legitimate legislative purpose for the demand, setting the stage for continued confrontation between lawmakers and the executive branch.