Andy Biggs: “What I find intriguing is we have had references repeatedly tonight that this is not the Kremlin and assertions that…”

“What I find intriguing is we have had references repeatedly tonight that this is not the Kremlin and assertions that some of us received subpoenas and didn't respond. This individual doesn't know the facts. When a subpoena was issued, does he know whether service was ever made? Does he know that? The answer is no, and it wasn't. Let's talk about why we are here today. The other side says: Wait a second, Mr. Garland was in compliance because he provided a written transcript that was accurate--except for what happened 3 weeks ago now, the DOJ itself in pleadings to the court said: We made changes to the transcript, but don't worry, don't worry about those changes. They were de minimis. We took out repeat words. We took out pauses. We took out all kinds of things that were just small in nature. How do we know? We don't know. However, there was an audio recording. Isn't that fortunate? There was an audio recording. Just like in the Nixon tapes--and this is the controlling law here-- the Court said if you change the written transcript, you have to provide the audio recording. That is what the Court said. My friends across the aisle said we have to rely on what the Court said. The Court said if you have doctored or altered or changed or edited the transcript, the written transcript, you have to provide the audio recording. That is all we are asking for. Comply with that. Comply with the law.…”