Kelly Armstrong Confronts Garland About DOJ Recording Policy Amidst Refusal To Hand Over Biden Audio 

worm!

I couldn't agree more ​@@barne3668

You are looking at a room FULL of snakes! Don't ever make the mistake of thinking they are doing this for us.

​​@@barne3668 He's "SPECIAL." M.G. is a _Placobdelloides jaegerskioeldi_ 🦛🪱 😱 🤣

Presidential immunity, you know, Donald did a bunch of times and you did not whine once.

From Google " Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism; the family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier.

From Google " Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism; the family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier.

A dirty cop....? no he's just a politician.

He's no cop.

😂🤣 That is so funny. Would make a good shortz.

From Google " Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism; the family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier.

From Google " Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism; the family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier.

@@AlexandrawOfficial_Lexi Garfinkel lol.

@@AHD2105 yes says it all

Grow up !

So this is how Trump did it (actually he just eat evidence 😂). Did you hold Trump and every president since the 90 to this standard?

​@@sandracl8757was a lie and then it was misplaced so therefore it didn't exist yeah I don't trust them

From Google " Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism; the family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier.

@@AlexandrawOfficial_Lexi So what? Trump's family name was changed from Drumpf several generations ago. People's names change -- why does it matter?

It’s a construct 😂

@@AmSam-tp4ck what a silly comment to compare something happened yrs before Trump was even born, to Garfinkel purposefully hiding these things as Garland for his professional career.

@@AdvancedTennisFoundation-ph9zo Did you not read the original comment stating that "the family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier"? Explain the difference to me -- are there not several years between generations in your family?

@OrderofthePipe You still haven’t identified a purpose. What legislation are they considering that this audio recording will inform?

​@AmSam-tp4ck you still haven't come up with a reason to withhold the audio recording, what do your people have to hide

@@philipmartin9361 they don’t have anything to hide; that is why they turned over the transcript . There is no legitimate justification for the request of the audio. The only reason they have asked for the same information in a different form is to perpetuate the false impression that evidence exists of a prosecutable crime, Honouring this request would legitimize it.

@phillipmartin9361 the reason to withhold the audio is because complying with this request would send the message that it is a legitimate, justified request. The committee does not need the audio to put forward any bill or to raise articles against Biden. They are asking for the audio to perpetuate a narrative.

@@philipmartin9361 The reason to 'withhold' is that complying with this unfounded, illegitimate request would send the message that this request IS justified and establish a terrible precedent. The committee does not require this audio to take whatever step(s) they feel are justified next.

because the RECORDED deposition does NOT match the doctored transcript....there is NO ''executive privilege" where LEO are involved as they are the SAME branch of government and in THIS instance the events in question were PRE-WH days

Why? You have the transcript, learn to read.

Yes he does….

@Nov1970chevy What do you think is the reason they provided the transcript but won’t provide the audio?

@@AmSam-tp4ck because the video is revealing of his lack of competency and grasp of reality and they were able to doctor the transcript to hide the majority of that

From Google " Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism; the family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier.

And that is the very reason we will never hear the tape...

And it won't match the transcript.

@@richardwickens2923 A Republican prosecutor has advised that the interview did not yield evidence of a prosecutable crime (and he has not challenged the accuracy of the transcript). The DoJ decided not to bring charges against Matt Gaetz for sex trafficiking -- should all of the evidence from that investigation be released in the public arena for the democrats to campaign on? I don't see the point. And I get why some people might distrust the democrats and believe the transcript is not true to what was said -- we live in a time of hyper-partisanship, and I understand that. For that reason, Garland should allow Hur to sit in a room with a copy of the released transcript while the recording is played. He could then listen to the recording and report any specific discrepancies he notices -- with time stamps -- back to congress and they could demand that the democrats make those sections of the recording available. I don't think there would be any such discrepancies, but if there are, then hell yes they should be brought to light. If, however, the transcript is true to what was said and is valid, then there is no reason to release it.

No but he is hoping we will.

You should be thanking Mitch McConnell every day for keeping the incredibly corrupt and partisan Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court.

He doesn’t care

He believes that you believe he's telling the truth we all know he's not telling the truth and he knows he's not telling the truth but he wants you to believe that you he's telling you the truth so that you can get away with it does this word salad make any sense to you,lol😅 So yeah he wants you to believe

YES

@catherinebarr7765 Why hasn’t Hur come out and talked about the differences then?

A Republican prosecutor has advised that the interview did not yield evidence of a prosecutable crime (and he has not contested the accuracy of the transcript). The DoJ decided not to bring charges against Matt Gaetz for sex trafficiking -- should all of the evidence from that investigation be released in the public arena for the democrats to campaign on? I don't see the point. And I get why some people might distrust the democrats and believe the transcript is not true to what was actually said -- we live in a time of hyper-partisanship, and I understand that. For that reason, Garland should allow Hur to sit in a room with a copy of the released transcript while the recording is played. He could then listen to the recording and report any specific discrepancies he notices -- with time stamps -- back to congress, and they could demand that the democrats make those sections of the recording available. I don't think there would be any such discrepancies, but if there are, then hell yes, they should be brought to light. If, however, the transcript is true to what was said and is valid, then there is no reason to release it.

He is just buying time to do exactly what he says they are doing. They are making an AI deep fake to match the transcript. The more Congress says that worrying about a deep fake is unfounded, the more they feel OK for doing it. It is obvious, as otherwise they would have invited a Congressman to come listen to it, or would have invited a Congressman to the deposition itself.

Johnson doesn’t have the right to overturn SCOTUS’s rules regarding separation of power. If Johnson wants SCOTUS ‘s decision to be overturned he has to go through the process and congress will make the decision. This is part of how democracy works.

Cut their budget to zero.

@@chippateIt’s not fair to punish the whole committee for the disingenuous actions of some members.

DO THAT

Grow up !

Biden exercised his constitutional right to executive privilege.

I wish Garland would just admit, he is protecting Biden. We the people shouldn’t trust the government right now, but Garland is just proving that even further!

​@@oleladywhorelease the audio

​@@oleladywhoRU-vid should divulge 1 week of comments, I'd love to read yours. Release the audio and let all the voters hear it.

HE WON'T LET GO OF THE AUDIO, BC IT OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MATCH THE TRANSCRIPT..LOL, LOL, LMAO. HAND IT OVER, WE WANT TO HEAR IT...

From Google " Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism; the family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier.

@@AlexandrawOfficial_Lexi Trump's family name was changed from Drumpf several generations ago. Family names change -- so what?

They have been supoenaed but Garland won’t turn them over.

They did. Garland thinks he decides what evidence oversight gets. He's in contempt of Congress.

Because Congress hasn’t provided a purpose. They have the transcript. The only reason I imagine they want the audio so they can leak to the media. Congress has the info and they need to just do their jobs.

They have been, through FOIA

They have, but the Emperor (Biden) declared they are classified and privileged, so his right hand man Tarkin (Garland) is doing all he can to obstruct justice and cover up for the Emperor.

🎯🎯🎯

He does not know anything...

They have the transcripts and those have been sufficient in past committee sessions. The question I’d have is why can’t they read this time.

​@@sandracl8757the gentleman doing the interview said sometimes it's more helpful to listen to it than to read it because it sounds different than it reads. Just like a movie and a book sometimes the book is better but usually the movie is

@@sandracl8757 The transcripts have been doctored to remove "boring bits", that is not something that gives an accurate interpretation of the interview. If there was nothing in the audio that needed covering up then it would be released.

Be honest -- you know the Republicans only want the recording so they can use clips from it in campaign ads. If you record five hours of unscripted speech by ANYONE, there will be moments that can be lifted out of context and used in a disingenuous fashion, and this is not fair when a Republican prosecutor has advised that the interview did not yield evidence of a prosecutable crime. The DoJ decided not to bring charges against Matt Gaetz for sex trafficiking -- should all of the evidence from that investigation be released in the public arena for the democrats to campaign on? I don't see the point. And I get why some people might distrust the democrats and believe the transcript is not true to what was said -- we live in a time of hyper-partisanship. For that reason, Garland should allow Hur to sit in a room with a copy of the released transcript while the recording is played. He could then listen to the recording and report any specific discrepancies he notices -- with time stamps -- back to congress, and they could demand that the democrats make those sections of the recording available. I don't think there would be any such discrepancies, but if there are, then hell yes, they should be brought to light. If, however, the transcript is true to what was said and is valid, then there is no reason to release the audio.

Campaign interference, Deep State coverup, it doesn’t involve Trump.

To cover up the Democrats illegal activities 🤔

Be honest -- you know the Republicans only want the recording so they can use clips from it in campaign ads. If you record five hours of unscripted speech by ANYONE, there will be moments that can be lifted out of context and used in a disingenuous fashion, and this is not fair when a Republican prosecutor has advised that the interview did not yield evidence of a prosecutable crime. The DoJ decided not to bring charges against Matt Gaetz for sex trafficiking -- should all of the evidence from that investigation be released in the public arena for the democrats to campaign on? I don't see the point. And I get why some people might distrust the democrats and believe the transcript is not true to what was said -- we live in a time of hyper-partisanship, and I understand that. For that reason, Garland should allow Hur to sit in a room with a copy of the released transcript while the recording is played. He could then listen to the recording and report any specific discrepancies he notices -- with time stamps -- back to congress, and they could demand that the democrats make those sections of the recording available. I don't think there would be any such discrepancies, but if there are, then hell yes, they should be brought to light. If, however, the transcript is true to what was said and is valid, then there is no reason to release the audio.

@@AmSam-tp4ckwhat a long way to say you support government corruption and lack of government transparency

@@crowjones78What a succinct way to argue against civil liberties and the notion of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

@@crowjones78Do you care to actually discuss the substance? What action do you see as corrupt?

@kylecaldwell It means more time and tax dollars wasted for people to listen to what they’ve already read. Ridiculous. They should get back to the business of governing.

Because it's not the same. If they release the audio it will prove that the transcript is a lie.

@@AmSam-tp4ck They are an oversight committee. They are doing their job.

@@richardwickens2923 Let Hur listen to it alongside the released transcript -- IF he observes any omissions or changes, then the DoJ should have to release those sections and explain the reasons for the difference.

​@@AmSam-tp4cka ridiculous argument. As though the party greenlighting hundreds of billions to combat inflation (lol) cares about the cost of allowing Congress to listen to audio

Because turning over the audio suggests there is a legitimate reason to do so, lends credence to the investigation and sets a bad precedent. If you disagree that recordings should be shared without due cause, please post a copy of all of your voicemails here.

@@AmSam-tp4ck There is cause, they are not just asking for random audio recordings. They are asking for THOSE specific audio recordings because CLEARLY they are not going to match the transcripts provided. Everyone EXPECTED to get the audio recordings in the first place, like every OTHER investigation, but suddenly they were handed transcripts. Why?

@@richardwickens2923 Be honest -- you know the Republicans want it to use clips from the recording in campaign ads. If you record five hours of unscripted speech by ANYONE, there will be moments that can be lifted out of context and used in a disingenuous fashion, and this is not fair when a Republican prosecutor has advised that the interview did not yield evidence of a prosecutable crime. The DoJ decided not to bring charges against Matt Gaetz for sex trafficiking -- should all of the evidence from that investigation be released in the public arena for the democrats to campaign on? I don't see the point. And I get why some people might distrust the democrats and believe the transcript is not true to what was said -- we live in a time of hyper-partisanship, and I understand that. Garland should therefore allow Hur to sit in a room with a copy of the released transcript while the recording is played. He could then listen to the recording and report any specific discrepancies he notices -- with time stamps -- back to congress and they could demand that the democrats make those sections of the recording available. I don't think there would be any such discrepancies, but if there are, then hell yes they should be brought to light. If, however, the transcript is true to what was said and is valid, then there is no reason to release it.

fuk it we need the video of the ol man president

Why not open session

@@dianasims6819 Garland is basically denying open session.

Audio shows a level of truth , a level of clearity, a level of doubt... It answers the question : are these your words as written on the transcript...

You have the transcripts, learn to read.

​@@BobM.-to9ji they don't match. That's the problem. Pay attention

What evidence and what crime? Are you saying that SCOTOS’s ruling should be overturned?

@@BobM.-to9ji Not redacted, the actual transcripts.

@@stevemt3238 - Multiple people have said the transcripts are accurate, including the special prosecutor. Nice try.

Unless they tamper it with ai

@leskjohnson Help me understand why it would be beneficial - what will the recording give us that the transcript doesn’t?

@@AmSam-tp4ck it will give us the truth unless they have altered it to remove what they don’t want us to see. How could you possibly believe anything Garland says?

Maybe not everyone on the planet. Why is he refusing to turn over the audio recordings?

@@alexthompson9516. I think a better question is why is this committee wasting their time asking for it? If they have a legislative reason why they need it and why the transcript doesn’t suffice, this committee should provide that reason. SCOTUS had a reason they ruled for this way back in the 90’s.

@@sandracl8757 Exactly. It's also a waste of time to ask the Attorney General about it since it is the President who is claiming executive privilege.