Merrick Garland claims House used ‘congressional authority’ as ‘a partisan weapon’ by holding him in contempt

Garland called House Resolution 1292 "deeply disappointing," suggesting that the 216-207 vote in favor of the resolution to hold him in contempt presented a number of issues regarding the separation of powers, among other things. He has repeatedly stated that complying with the subpoena was not possible as Biden had asserted executive privilege and would have compromised future investigations.

"It is deeply disappointing that this House of Representatives has turned a serious congressional authority into a partisan weapon," Garland wrote in a statement released by the Department of Justice. "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."

He went on to state that he "will always stand up for this Department, its employees, and its vital mission to defend our democracy."

Earlier this month, Garland appeared before Congress to explain why he continued to withhold the audio of the interview, pointing out that his office went to "extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committee gets responses to its legitimate requests for information." In addition to Hur's five-hour testimony, the DOJ provided Hur's report, as well as transcripts of the interview.

"We have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created," Garland said. "Releasing the audio would chill cooperation with the department in future investigations and it could influence witnesses’ answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public."

The audio would potentially give more insight into the mental abilities of the president, given that the transcript was reportedly edited to clear out filler words. Hur found through the interviews that Biden should not be prosecuted over the classified documents case in part would because he would be found to be an “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory” by a jury.