The fight over the audiotape of Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur just heated up with a post on X that is getting a lot of attention.
The Oversight Project posted part of a filing made on Friday concerning the matter. Oversight Project is part of the Heritage Foundation, which, along with Judicial Watch, was trying to get the audio released.
Advertisement
Now it should be noted this is from the affidavit of Bradley Weinsheimer, who is an associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice. And yes, the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. There were two different transcripts that cover the two days of the interview.
He notes in the affidavit that there are “minor instances” of “filler words” such as “uh” and “um” that are not included in the transcript, and words that were said multiple times like “and, and” that were not included. He said besides those “minor” differences, there were no “material” differences between the audio recording and the transcript. “None of the minor differences include any audible substantive exchanges — that is, based on my review, there is no material omission of words between the audio recording and the transcripts,” he said. He said the transcripts “accurately” reflect the words on the audio.
Translation: there are differences. But what exactly are those differences?
My colleague Jim Thompson outlined some of this on Saturday in his article about the filing, about how they are arguing “privacy” now in order to prevent its release and claiming that it could face alteration by AI.
Advertisement
READ MORE:
NEW: Biden’s DOJ Files Specious Arguments to Keep Biden’s Audio Hidden
The Oversight Project’s tweet caused a firestorm on X, with the post going viral and getting over a million views.
Now, White House Counsel spokesperson Ian Sams has responded.
Sams said the transcripts accurately reflect the words of the audio.
But then he was ratioed with a simple point: Why not simply release the audio? If it’s the same, there should be nothing to hide.
If it’s the same, what “privacy” are you protecting?
If you’ve already released the transcript, how can you claim any privilege for the audio of words you have already given up? Since you already released it and you claim it’s the same, there is no “privacy” to protect. And frankly, anything could get doctored by AI; you wouldn’t need the audio to do it and that shouldn’t be an excuse because then you could argue that to prevent the release of a single thing.
It should also be noted that in Weinsheimer’s affidavit, he also talks about points in the interview where the words are “indiscernible.” He said that he agreed the words were unclear. But the audio could place that more into context. What are the indiscernible parts? Things that are “indiscernible” to someone not used to listening to Biden may not be garbled to someone like me who speaks “Bidenese” and has been dissecting him for years now.
Advertisement
Further it should be noted there are also some redactions pertaining to the removal of “sensitive information (including classified information).”
The fact that they seem so intent and desperate to fight against the release of the audio tells you there’s something they really don’t want you to hear.