Court Allows Release of Biden Ghostwriter Interview Tapes
WHO:
ABC News - Joe Biden, President of the United States
CBS News - Joe Biden, President of the United States
WHAT:
CNN - The appeals court ruled that the public interest in the recordings outweighs Biden's privacy claims, stating, “Any remaining incursion on personal privacy from disclosure of the now-redacted materials likely does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.”
CNN - The court's decision was made by a 2-1 panel of judges, with Judges Sri Srinivasan and Gregory Katsas in favor, while Judge Florence Pan dissented, citing substantial privacy concerns.
CNN - The recordings are of Biden speaking to his ghostwriter for his memoir, “Promise Me, Dad,” and are now in the hands of the Justice Department.
CNN - The Heritage Foundation has expressed interest in obtaining the recordings to shed light on a criminal investigation into Biden that resulted in no charges and his declining health over the past decade.
CNN - The court noted, “The public has a ‘weighty’ and ‘significant’ interest in ‘shining a light’ on the Special Counsel’s investigation of a former Vice President for alleged mishandling and disclosure of classified information.”
Fox News - The appeals court's ruling specifically pertains to audio recordings and transcripts from Robert Hur's classified documents probe.
ABC News - The interviews with Biden's ghostwriter occurred before he was elected president.
ABC News - A federal appeals court has rejected a request by Joe Biden to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of his interviews with a memoir ghostwriter.
CBS News - An appeals court denied Biden's attempt to keep the Justice Department from giving a conservative think tank redacted transcripts and audio recordings of conversations with his biographer.
WHERE:
ABC News - The decision involves the Justice Department and a conservative think tank, though specific locations are not mentioned.
WHEN:
CBS News - The appeals court's decision is described as being made "for now," indicating that further legal actions may occur in the future.
WHY:
ABC News - The request to block the release was made by Biden, suggesting a desire to maintain privacy regarding the content of the interviews.
HOW:
ABC News - The appeals court's decision allows the release of the recordings and transcripts, indicating a legal process involving appeals and requests to the court.
(UPDATED July 21, 2026 22:18 UTC)
A federal appeals court has ruled that the public interest in recordings of President Biden speaking with his ghostwriter for the memoir "Promise Me, Dad" outweighs his privacy claims, stating that any remaining privacy concerns do not surpass the need for disclosure. The decision came from a 2-1 panel, with Judges Sri Srinivasan and Gregory Katsas supporting the ruling, while Judge Florence Pan dissented due to privacy issues. The Heritage Foundation is seeking access to these recordings to provide insight into a criminal investigation involving Biden that ultimately did not lead to charges, emphasizing the public's significant interest in the Special Counsel's probe into alleged mishandling of classified information.
--
(UPDATED July 21, 2026 17:22 UTC)
An appeals court has ruled on the matter of audio recordings and transcripts related to Robert Hur's investigation into classified documents. This decision is significant as it directly impacts the handling of evidence in the ongoing probe. The ruling was announced at 17:22 UTC by Fox News.
--
(UPDATED July 21, 2026 14:42 UTC)
Interviews with Biden's ghostwriter took place prior to his election as president. This information has been confirmed by ABC News. The timing of these interviews adds an interesting layer to the narrative surrounding Biden's presidency.
--
(UPDATED July 21, 2026 13:29 UTC)
A federal appeals court has denied President Biden's request to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his interviews with a memoir ghostwriter. This decision allows the Justice Department to provide a conservative think tank with the redacted materials, although specific locations related to the case have not been disclosed. The court's ruling is described as being made "for now," suggesting that further legal actions may still be on the horizon.