Joe Biden's ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer, deleted audio recordings from Biden's 2017 memoir sessions after learning that Special Counsel Robert Hur had been appointed to investigate Biden's mishandling of classified documents. The recordings, according to Hur's report, "had significant evidentiary value."
The details, resurfaced by investigative journalist Catherine Herridge, come directly from the Special Counsel's own findings. Hur's report states plainly: "After learning of the special counsel's appointment in this matter, Mr. Biden's ghostwriter deleted audio recordings." Not before. After. The timeline matters because it's the difference between carelessness and consciousness of guilt.
Hur's team considered charging Zwonitzer with obstruction of justice. They declined. The reasoning, per the report: "We believe the evidence would be insufficient." The Special Counsel cited three mitigating factors — Zwonitzer admitted to his actions, he kept the Biden transcripts, and the FBI ultimately recovered the recordings from his computer.
The Biden audio tapes were recorded seven years before Hur concluded Biden could not be prosecuted for mishandling classified information because of his age and failed memory. Seven years of recordings sitting around. Zwonitzer didn't decide to clean up his hard drive until the Special Counsel's name hit the news.
The "insufficient evidence" framing deserves scrutiny. Zwonitzer admitted to deleting the files. The FBI forensically recovered what he deleted. The Special Counsel's own report calls the recordings significant evidence. What exactly is insufficient about a confession, a recovery, and an official finding of evidentiary value? The bar for obstruction apparently has a trap door, but only certain people get to use it.
Consider what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. Federal prosecutors have built obstruction cases on far less — a text message, an ambiguous conversation, a failure to preserve documents that someone didn't even know were relevant. Here, a man learned a federal investigation was underway, took active steps to destroy recordings that the Special Counsel called significant, and walked away without so much as a misdemeanor.
The Special Counsel found the evidence. Named the act. Described the intent. Acknowledged the significance of what was destroyed. Then declined to prosecute.
That's not insufficient evidence. That's a sufficient defendant.