Court Rules Recorded Words Can Be Recordings
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that conversations recorded for a future bestselling memoir may, under an aggressive new interpretation of public records law, become audible to the public. The D.C. Circuit rejected former President Joe Biden’s attempt to block the Justice Department from releasing redacted recordings and transcripts of his interviews with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer, dealing a serious blow to the long-established presidential doctrine that a microphone becomes a diary whenever its contents are embarrassing. The panel paused its decision until Aug. 3, giving Biden time to appeal the judiciary’s finding that recorded words remain recordings even after lawyers describe them as private reflections.
The material became evidence during special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents and is now sought by the Heritage Foundation, an organization operating under the radical assumption that the Freedom of Information Act occasionally includes information. Biden’s lawyers argued that disclosure would invade his privacy, weaponize government records and expose conversations intended only for a ghostwriter, a publisher, editors, marketers, reviewers, bookstore customers and anyone passing through an airport. Until Monday, memoir research was widely understood to be sacred personal territory, particularly after it had been packaged, promoted and converted into royalties.
Donald Trump praised the ruling while clarifying that transparency is a universal democratic principle with one universally recognized exception. “This is beautiful transparency because it is about Biden, but tapes of me would be illegal interference, probably treason, even if I made them myself and sold the book,” Trump said. Constitutional scholars said the decision could establish a destabilizing precedent under which former presidents cannot transform government evidence into a federally protected memory palace simply by hiring a writer. The doctrine could eventually spread to emails, tax returns, financial disclosures and, in the most severe cases, direct answers to questions. The court has therefore confirmed America’s newest constitutional crisis: words recorded by a recording device are recordings.
* None of the quotes in this article were spoken by an actual person. More info.