the representative was first elected to conget contact inform members of government in the palm of your hand. when you preorder your copy of c-span's 22 any for congressional directory, with bio and contact information for every house and senate member o. important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. the congressional directory cost 3295 plus shipping and handling in every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to preorder your copy for delivery this spring. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, we are funded by these elevation companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a

community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled listings so students can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving way front row seat to democracy. >> justice department former special counsel robert her period before the house judiciary committe t of his investigation into president biden's handling of classified documents. he defended his decisions to reference the president's mental state in his report during nearly four hours of testimonies. many democrats contrasted the findings in the case facing presidenbiden and ■ñformer president donald trump, whose charge with 40 federal counts for his retention of classified materials. at the conclusion of his investigation he decided not to seek chargesnt biden.

the last four or five months. and our country is funding it. our tax money. why are you taking money from aipac? stop taking money from aipac. this is funding genocide. look at these pictures. these are real children. they have lost their limbs by amputation, all without anesthesia, hospitals, schools, mosques, 6000 bombs. in the of philadelphia. >> this meeting will come to order without objection. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we authorized today's hearing on the special counsel robert mueller. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the state of

wisconsin for the purpose of leading us in >> nikki ♪ to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> opening statements of that witness we will each receive witnesses and five minutes to question the witness. the china recognizes themselves for an opin special counsel on january 12, 2023. he had a fundamental question

to address. did show bryden unlawfully retain classified information? the answer, yes he did.'s page one of the report says this. our investigation unvered evidence that president biden will for he retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. he further writes that mr. biden retained marked clten notes in his notebooks, which he stored in unsecure places in his home. joe biden kept clas■osified information and joe biden failed to store classified é information properly. mr. hur made these determinations after interviewing witnesses and looking through emails, text messages, videos, phone records, and other materials from both classified and unclassified sources. but there is more.

joe biden not on the kept information he was not allowed to keep and not only iled to secure that information properly, but he also shared it with people who were not allowed to shared that informat his ghostwriter. and, remember, this is information that only individuals with a security clearance are supposed to see. mr. hur put us on the 200th page of his report that it is the kind of information that "risks serious damage to america's national security." and what did joe biden have to say about all this? what was his explanation? on page 94 of mr. hur's report, joe biden said he took his notebooks with him after his vice presidency because, " they are mine. and every president has done the same exact thing." nevermind the fact he had never

been president when he took this information, but what comes through his joe biden in feeling and title. you can feel the arrogance in this statement. they are mine. but even with all that, mr. hur chose not to bring charges pre himself to a jury as he did in his interview of him as a sympathetic, well-meaning man with a poor memory. a forgetful old man who mr. hur t remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview and forgetting on the day of the interview when his term as vice president began." he produced a 45 page report but in the end it boils down to a few key facts. joe biden kept classified information. joe biden failed to properly secure and joe biden shared classified information with people he was not supposed to joe biden broke

the law. and because he is a forgetful old man who would appear sympathetic to a jury, mr. hur chose not to bring charges. mr. hur, we think it is important that you be able to respond to president biden's response to your report so we will prove a short video of mr. biden's press conference after your report was released because there are things that the president of the net estates says that are directly contradicted by what you found in your report. so if we can play that video. >> hey, everybody. >> good evening. >> let me say a fethings before i take questions. as you know, the special counsel has released its findings today about -- they are looking into my handling of classified documents. >> reporter: president biden, something special counsel said

in its report is one of the reasons you were not charged is because in his description, you are a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. >> i am well-meaning and i am a elderly man and i know what i am doing. i am president and i have taken this country back on its feet. china how bad is your memory >> my memory is so bad i let you speak. >> your memory has gotten worse mr. president? >> my memory is fine. take a look at what i have done since i've become president. no one else could pass any of thinpast. how did that happen? i guess i just forgot. >> mr. president. mr. president. >> reporter: do you fear this report is only going to fare further concerns. >> only by some of you. >> report: mr. president! mr. president! mr. president! >> reporter: due take

responsibility for being careless with classified material? >> i take responsibility for not having seen exactly what my staff was doing. it goes in and it goes out. things that appeared in my garage. things that came in and out of my home and things that were not moved by me but my staff. my staff. >> reporter: mr. president! mr. president! mr. president! mr. president! for months, you would respond with the words watch me. many people have been watching and they have expressed concerns about your age. >> that is your judgment. that is not your -- that is not the judgment of the press. >> reporter: they say that you ar he told me you believe there are many other democrats who could defeat donald trump so why does it have to be you now? >> i am the most qualified person in the united states to

be president. >> reporter: why are you refusing the names of our leaders? >> i did not share classified information. i did not share with ghostwriter. i did not say that. i did not say that. >> reporter: mr. president? >> let me answer your question. the fact of the matter is what i did not want repeated i did not read it to him. i had written a long memorandum to president obama why we should not be in afghanistan. multiple pages. and so what i was referring to, isa classified. i should have said it should be private because it was a contact between the president and the vice president. that is what is going on. it was not classified information in that document. >> reporter: mr. president! why not? >> thank you so much, you guys.

>> reporter: mr. president! he called on me. when you look back on this incident, is there any think you would do differently now, and you think a special prosecutor should have been appointed in the first place in both of these cases. >> first of all, what i would have done is oversee the transfer of material that was in my office -- my offices. i should have done that. i look back -- i did not have the responsibility to do that report and my staff did not do it in the way that -- for example, i did not know how half the boxes got in myge until i found out that staff gathered them up, put them together, and put them into the garage and my home. and all of them are in filing cabinets that were able to be locked or not able to be

accessed. it was cked and not in a place like mar-a-lago. and none of it was classified. it did not have that red stuff around the corners. none of that. i wish i had paid more attention to how the documents were being moved. i thought they were being moved to the archives. that is what i thought. now what is the last part of your question? >> a special counsel should have been appointed in this case and in the case of your -- >> i think a specíial the reason i think a special counsel should have been appointed as i did not want to be in a position where they looked at trump and not me just like they looked at the vice president. and the fact is that they de co break the law. period. thank you very much. >> reporter: mr. biden! >> the hostage negotiation.

i am of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in gaza -- in the gaza strip -- i think that, as you know, initially, the president of mexi,cc, did not want to open up the gate to allow material to get in. i talked to him. make them part of the middle east and recognize it fully and return for certain things and the united states will commit to do. and the commitment that we were proposing to do related to two items. i am not going to go into detail, but one of them was to

deal with the protection against their archenemy to the north west -- northeast, i should say. the second one, by providing ammunition and material for them to defend themselves. coincidentally, that is the timeframe when this broke out. i have no proof of what i am about to say but it is not unreasonable to suspect that hamas understood what it was about to take place i wanted to break it up before it happened. >> reporter: thank you everybody! >> we are going to get everybody to hold for a moment. >> the chair now recognizes that ranking member for an opening statement. >> mr. chairman, i am glad you have such information. that you allowed him to take the first 10 mins of this hearing. mr. aierica that white, conservative men are on the losing end of a two tiered justice system, a theory that

appears to the maga crowd that has no basis in reality. e to draw a distinction between mr. trump and president biden, not the one that you one. first, the report is clear that "at no point did the special counsel find evidence that mr. biden intended or had reason to believe that the information will be used to benefit a foreign nation." with respect to the documents found in mr. biden's possession "the decision to pursue criminal charges for straightforward." in respect to the special counsel investigation "mr. biden turned the documents to the national archives and department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."

president biden acted responsibly, cooperated completely, and the decision to decline criminal justice -- to decline criminal charges was relatively straightforward. in short, to borrow a phrase from the last administration, the hur report represents the complete and total exoneration of president biden. how does that record contrast with president trump? the documents he retained and the criminal charges pending against him in florida? we know that trump deliberately took large amounts of classified information from the white house. he has admitted as much, occasionally pretending that he classified this information without telling anyone on his way out the door. we know that ■xhe stored that information around mar-a-lago in the craziest of places. on the ballroom stage. spilled across the floor of an unlocked closet next to the toilet. we know that he showed classified military plan to an

author. "i could ump says on the recor now i can't, you know, but this is still a secret. still a secret." so much for the declassification theory. we know from the indictment that trump is alleged to have documents with many other visitors to mar-a-lago, and we know despite this outrageous conduct, department of justice give trump every opportunity to avoid criminal charges. again, in the special counsel's words, "after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it." why did the president charge former president trump but not president biden? not because of some vast

conspiracy. not because of the so-called deep state being out to get him, but because former president trump was fundamentally incapable of taking advantage of even one of the many, many chances he was given to take those charges which brings me to the second distinction this repo and donald trump. simply put, president biden had the mental acuity to navigate this situation. donald trump did not. much has been made of the special counsel's gratuitous comments about president biden's age. but let's set the context. after returning every classified document, after opening his home to federal wh simultaneously managing the first hours of the crisis in israel, president biden volunteered to sit through a five hour interview with the special counsel. i believe as is his habit, president biden probably

committed a verbal slip or two during the interview. and i am not sure any of that matters because when the interview was over, mr. hur completely exonerated president biden. and then there is donald trump. what kind of man bungles not one but dozens of opportunities to avoid criminal liability? what does that say about his mental state? >> one of the great memories of all-time -- don't remember the names. don't remember the names. >> viktor orban. anyone ever hear of him? he is the leader of turkey. >> nikki haley -- nikki haley is in charge of security. about that? >> did you actually have a one- on-one with comey then? >> not that i remember. >> they are truly foreign

languages. nobody speaks in. >> saudi russia. >> i have a really good memory. >> your next wife was a woman by the name of >> that is ray. >> you recall what years you are married? >> it is up here and called memory and other things. >> i don't remember that. >> and putin has so little respect for obama that he is starting to throw around the nuclear term. >> we have to win in november or we will not have pennsylvania. the name. >> i talked to putin a lot. >> i don't remember that. i saw that this morning. >> a good memory and all that stuff. a great memory. >> the 20 years they were fighting isis, i defeated isis in four weeks. >> and we did with obama -- we won an election that everyone so cannot be won.

>> you are going to be there first. i know my people are going to say, all right, trump, you did a good job. get out of here. >> that is a man who is incapable of avoiding criminal liability. a man who is wholly unfit for office. and a man who at the very least ought to think twice before of decline. thank you for being here today, mr. hur. thank you for illuminating a stark choice for the country in the months to come. i look forward to your testimony and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman now recognizes that chairman mr., for an opening statement. >> thank you. question in a 60 minutes interview how anyone can be that irresponsible well when

asked about classified documents in the possession of former president trump but when president biden said this he knew that he had stashed classified materials in several unsecured locations for years dating back to his time as vice president and even as a u.s. senator. president biden, the white house, and his personal attorneys have not been honest with the american people about his willful classified material continue to hide information from congress. he first claim to have discovered material on novemberx 2nd 2022. however, president biden and his lawyers kept it secret from the american people before the midterm elections. cbs news broke the story in january 2023, leaving americans to wonder if the white house ever disclosing that president biden hoarded classified documents for years. one of my first actions after becoming head of the oversight committee was to launch an investigation to president yz

biden's mishandling of classified documents. this investigation started before special counsel hur was named, and what we found was alarming. information obtained through multiple transcribed interviews condthe oversight committee contradict the whitehouse's and president biden's narrative about the discovery of classified documents at the penn biden center. in fact, the real timeline began in the spring of 2021, not november 2022 as the white house claims. additionally, the classified documents were not kept in a locked closet as asserted by we also learned that five white house at employees were involved in the early stages of court needing the organizing, moving, and removing of boxes that were later found that contained classified materials. there is no reasonable explanation as to why so many white house employees were concerned with retrieving boxes they only believed contained personal documents and

materials. lighted president biden keep the specific documents in unsecured locations for years? many questions remain. but now the white house is as w the truth for the american people. we subpoenaed former white house counsel to appear for deposition to provide information to our committee but the white house is seeking to block her testimony. we have also subpoenaed the department of justice for audio recordings and transcripts of special biden's interview with special counsel hur. these were due the morning of the state of the union. only this morning, a couple of hours before the hearing, the department of justice finally provided the transcript of his interview with special counsel hur. the timing is not coincidental. we have had little time to review the transcripts, but what we have seen is that the white house did not want special cosel hur's final report to be released. the white house has refused to be transparent about the president's mishandling of classified documents ■j

worse, they appear to have lied about the timeline, about who handled the documents, and even about the contents of president biden's interview with special l counsel hur. that is why today's hearing is important. transparency is what we seek today and we look for to testimony. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman now recognizes ■.5 mr. raskin for his opening statement. >> thank you. there are three basic points that all americans need to understand about mr. hur's report. number one, the special counsel exonerates president biden program the very first line of the report says it all. we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. we would wish the same conclusion even if department of justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president. second, the report establishes that president biden offered complete and unhesitating

coopation. the justice department and national archives were proactively archived of classified documents and they were turned over. the president allowed the fbi to search his homes and sat a voluntary interview for more than five hours on october 8th and october 9th even as he was busy responded to hamas's vicious terrorist attack in israel. report thus demonstrates prident biden's complete devotion to the rule of law and his respect for a fair and independent department of justice. president biden did not assert executive privilege or claim absolute immunity for special crimes. he did not hide boxes of documents under his bed or in a bathtub. he did not fight investigators nor did he seek to redact a single word of mr. hur's report. he consented at the root report for numerous locations including his homes and he did everything he could to cooperate, not obstruct. third, special counsel hur repeatedly emphasizes that president biden's conduct

contrasts sharply with that of former president trump. hur observed that unlike president biden, "the allegations set forth in the indictment of mr. trump if proven would clearly establish not only mr. trump's willfulness, but also serious aggravating factors. " he sets for these points of given multiple chances to return documents and avoid prosecution, trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for months but also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it." he returned only a portion of subpoenaed documents and deliberately withheld the rest to unlike president biden, trump 4é■+did not alert the doj turn over all the classified materials in his position. he did not agree to sit down with a voluntary interview with

the special counsel. he never consented to a search of his home. on the contrary, trump suggested that his attorney de or ■?destroy evidence. trump carefully instructed his aide to move boxes and classified documents to hide them from the fbi. trump tried to delete incriminating security tape footage from mar-a-lago. and he got his attorney to provide a false certification to the fbi saying he had produced all the documents in his possession. he did not. given this report, and the contrast between biden and trump, it is hard to see why our colleagues think that this hearing advances their flailing and embarrassing quest to impeach the president of the united states. what america sees today is evidence of one president who believes in the rule of law and works to contested and one who sees nothing but contempt for the rule of law and seeks only his own pursuit of his own mul

schemes. >> all opening statements will be included in the record. the honorable robert hur was appointed as special counsel in january 2023 to investigate the removal and retention of classified documents discovered in the penn biden center for diplomacy and global engagement. he served as the deputy attorney general at the department of justice. and the united states department of he also clerked f kaczynski on the ninth circuit court of appeals. we welcome our witness and anappear today. mr. hur, would you please stand and reach a right-hand. do you swear under firm penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge , information, and belief, so help you god? let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative. thank you. you can be seated. please let it be known that your written testimony

summarized. mr. hur, you may begin with your opening statement. make sure you have got that mike on if you could. >> thank you chairman. sherman jordan, rag nadler, chairman comer, ranking member raskin, members of the committee, good morning. i am privileged to have served our country for the majority of my career, a decade and a half. most of those years with the department of justice. i have served as a line prosecutor, a supervisor, the principal associate deputy attorney general, a united states attorney, and a special counsel. i have served in these roles with gratitude as the son of immigrants to this country. the first member of my family to be born here. my parents grew up in korea and for korean war. my father, he remembers being

hungry and grateful for the food that american gis shared with him and his siblings. my mother fled what is now north korea, heading south to safety. my parents eventually met, married, and came to the u.s. seeking a better life for themselves and for their children. their lives and mine would have been very different were it not for this country. no matter the role, no matter the administration, i have applied the same standards and the same impartiality. respect for the justice department and my commitment to this country are why i agreed to serve as special counsel when asked by the attorney general. my work as i do all my work for the department, fairly, thoroughly, and professionally, with close attention to the policies and practices that govern department prosecutors. gh, independent investigation. we identified evidence that the president willfully retained classified materials to the end of his vice presidency when he

was a private citizen. this evidence included a audiorecorded conversation during which mr. biden told his ghostwriter that he had, "just found all the classified stuff downstairs." a private citizen speaking to his ghostwriter in his private rental home in virginia. also identified other recorded conversations during which mr. biden read classified information allowed to his ghostwriter. we did not howevesc evidence that rose to the level of an unreasonable doubt. i declined to recommend, charges against mr. biden. the departments regulations require me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the attorney general. i understood that my explanation about this case had to include rigorous, detailed, and a thorough analysis. in other words, i needed to show my work, just as i would

expect any prosecutor to show his or her work expending the decision to prosecute ■$■yor no the need to show my work was especially strong here. the attorney general had appointed me to investigate the actions of the attorney general's boss, the sitting president of the united states. i knew that for my decision to be credible, i cannot simply announce that i recommended no criminal charges anleave it at that. i needed to explain why. my report explains my best effort to show why i declined recommending charges for president biden. i analyze the evidence by assessing strengths and the president's defense lawyers might poke holes in the case if there were a trial and seek to persuade jurors that the goveprove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. there has been a lot of attention paid to language in the report about the

president's memory so let me say a few words about that. my task was to determine whether the president retained or disclosed national defense information willfully. that means knowingly and with the intent to do something that the law forbids. i cannot make that determination without assessing the president's state of mind. for that reason, i had to consider the president memory and overall mental state and ju perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial. these are the types of issues that prosecutors analyze every day and because these issues are important to my ultimate decision, i have to include a discussion of them in my report to the attorney general. the evidence and the president himself put his memory squarely at issue. we interviewed the president and asked him about his classif downstairs." he told us he did not remeer te he also said he did not

remember finding any classified material in his home after his é vice presidency and he did not remember anything about how classified documents about afghanistan made their way into his garage. my assessment in the report that the relevance of the present's memory was necessary and accurate and fair. most importantly, what i wrote is what i believe the evidence shows that what i expect juuld i did not sanitize my explanation. nor did i disparage the president unfairly. i explained to the attorney general my decision and the reasons for it. that is what i was required to do. i took the same approach when i compare the evidence regarding president biden to the department allegations against former president trump. there too i called it like i saw it. as a prosecutor i had to consider relevant precedents and explain why different facts justify different outcomes. that wh report. i am confident what the

analysis set forth in chapters 11, 12, and 13 in my report of the thorough explanation of the analysis and i encourage everyone to read it to inform their opinions of the report. prosecutors rarely write public investigations. that is the justice department's long-standing policy and it otects and i prepared th information. my responses today will be limited to clarifying information for the committee. i will refrain from speculating areas outside the scope of the investigation, nor will i discuss what investigative steps we did or did not take beyond what is in the report. in conclusion, i want to express my heartfelt thanks to us to our work thoroughly, d thoroughly, and independently.

i'm grateful and privileged to have served with him. i signal a lot of particular who brought skill, wisdom, and judgment to our task. i welcome your questions. >> thank you, mr. hur. that china recognizes the gentleman from dakota for five minutes. >> thank you. how can i possibly happen? how could anyone be that irresponsible? i thought what data was in the back compromise sources, data, it's methods, and it was totally irresponsible. as president biden's statement about president biden and his statement about do assified doc the documents were found at the penn biden center. >> that is correct. >> in his garage? >> in wilmington, delaware. >> in his basement? >> also in the same home. >> in his third-floor done. >> correct. >> at the university of

delaware? >> correct. >> and at the biden institute. >> correct. >> we get into all this but the pretty simple. president biden had unauthorized possession of a document. >> correct. >> and that related to national defense. >> correct. >> and we may talk about the willfully part here in a second but he retained the document, writing, or note and failed to ride it to a document or officer. >> right. there is a willfulness intent as you say. >> but those are the elements of the crime. >> including the intent element. >> and there are two different reports where he told his ghostwriter -- and this is in 2017 -- that he had just found all this clasfied stuff downstairs. >> he did make that statement that is captured on an audio recording. >> on april 10th2017, biden

read aloud in a 2015 meeting. >> that is in the report. >> and these are national seri i mean, afghanistan has been mentioned in a whole lot of things. >> correct. >> and at one point in time his personal attorneys and doj attorneys argued taking notes and comparing it to reagan. >> and repeat that? >> president 8u■biden's attorne talked about why they did not actually go to the presidential executive order, trump. >> we did set forth an analysis of governing law d ultimately concluded that executive order 13526 does apply and it cover former vice president biden at the time. >> you have audio recording from his ghostwriter were the president acknowledges that the information he has is classified that he is sharing with his ghostwriter. >> we have an audio recording

capturing a statement from mr. biden saying to his ghostwriter in february 2017, quote, i just found all the classified stuff downstairs. >> and then again reciting passages from a meeting in this situation. d those are in president biden's own words? >> correct. >> the ghostwriter has no classified -- he has no classified clearance to anything? >> that is our understanding. he is not authorized to receive classified information. >> so the elements are sed docu documents related to national defense, and willfully retain s case shared them with someone who is not allowed to receive them. >> there are different subsections. one subsection released to the willful retention and another relates to disclosure of national defens the penn biden center, the garage, the third-floor done, the

university of delaware, the biden institute. we have a 50 year career of a person who has not classified documents, even prior to his time as vice president when he was in the u.s. senate. >> we do address each of those sets of documents in the report. >> but i think this is really important. it appears just from reading the report -- we have heard all about exonerated -- it appears from the report that he met every actual element of the crime. so i want to talk about the dert principles on federal prosecution because that actually has nothing to do with the underlying elements. it is weather or not you can >> under the departments justice manual and principles, a prosecutor has to assess the evidence and determine whether in his or her judgment the probable outcome will be a conviction in trial. >> so whether or not you meet the elements of the crime which i think clearly it does, the second part of this is this. that is where it gets into the

sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. you could have just that we ■ don't prosecute sitting presidents and we do not. that does not have anything to do with the elements of the that has to do with getting a conviction at trial. correct? >> part of a prosecutor post judgment as to whether a outcome probable a trial is the evidence lines up with the elements and what proof can be offered to a jury during a trial. >> sure. but his well-meaning, elderly old man has nothing to do with the elements of the crime. it is presentation to the jury. >> it certainly has something -- >> the gentleman can respond. >> it certainly has to ■mdo wit how a jury will perceive and make conclusions based on evidence at trial, congressman. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the judiciary committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hur, in the written

testimony, you say you found some evidence that the present may have y retained classified materials at the end of his vice presidency. correct? >> correct. >> but ultimately you concluded you cannot prove that in a court of law. it did not amount to evidence that rose to reasonable doubt. >> that was my ■judgment. >> it would you agree that there is no such thing as either being able to charge for a crime? you are either charged or correct? >> could yo question, congressman. >> would you agree there is either not being able to charge for a crime? you are either charged or not chbe clear. because so many people have taken your words out of the context, the ultimate conclusion was that president biden cannot be charged because you could not find sufficient evidence to charge him. correct? >> my conclusion was sed on e e -- >> is that correct? >> i am sorry.

is -- i did not hear the question. >> that president biden could not be charged with a crime because even after the thorough investigation you cannot find sufficient evidence to charge him. cracked are not correct? >> my ultimate conclusion was that charges were not warranted. >>i me. when i say correct or not correct answer the question. let's talk about why in sharp contrast to president biden, president trump faces charges. that is apart from the additional 51 counts of cases alleging that he incited a rebellion and lied found that p reported the possible documents as soon as he learned of them. correct? >> there was a voluntary disclosure by the president's counsel to authorities relating to the discovery of classified ■ó-- >> let's contrast this with president trump. are you aware that the fbi only

learned president trump learned he was in possession after the national archives discover them? >> i'm not familiar with the facts relating to former president trump. >> you writing a report that president biden "would not have handled the documents from his own home on he had willfully retain those documents for years." in other words, part of understanding president biden's intent was that he quickly returned those documents to the government. correct? >> that was a factor in our analysis. >>w.why did the department of justice seek a warrant to search mar-a-lago? >> congressman, i am not familiar with those deliberations. >> i will tell you. is because trump had lied about possession of those documents and may conceal or destroy them. special counsel smith found that president trump obstructed his investigation by suggesting that his attorney falsely

represented the fbi and grand jury that trump did not have the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena. at any point in your president biden and lied to ny you? >> i do address in my report one response that the president gave to a question that we had posed to him that we deemed to be not credible. >> was it clear he didn't like? >> the report was clear that he didn't lie. or that he called his staff to lie to you. port is clear on th you agree that causing someone to lie to the fbi is a classic example of obstruction of justice. >> it is an example of obstruction. >> thank you. n to move documents to conceal them from trump's attorney, the fbi, and the grand jury. at any point in your

investigation, did you find the president biden rel from you or anyone else? >> we did not reach that conclusion. >> you would say that is a classic example of obstructing investigation? >> it is an example. >> thank you. donald trump instructed to delete security footage so special counsel cannot see how he tried to move and hide and delete video footage in this manner is plain to -- >> congressman, i do not want to characterize evidence? >> but if that happened would you agree that the leading video footage is plainly an attempt to -- >> congressman, it is that$v ty of evidence that -- >> to sum up, donald trump is charged with willfully retaining documents and conspiring to conceal those documents and he is facing additional charges for lying to investigators. isn't that correct? >> those are allegations that are in a pending -- >> and the reason why president biden is not facing a single

charge, mr. hur, is not because you went easy on him but because after viewing 7 million documents and interviewing nearly 150 witnesses including the president himself, you cannot prove that he had committed a crime. i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i want to get this raight. is it now okay if i take him top-secret documents, store them in my garage, and read portions of them to friends or associates? >> congressman, i would not recommend it but i would not want to entertain and hypotheticals at this point. >> is that okay? can i do that now under this new doctrine? >> congressman, i would not recommend that you do that. >> you have essentially said so in your report, and certainly it will be exculpatory if i simply told you, hey, i am getting old. i don't remember stuff the way i used to. >> congressman, i am not here

to get into hypotheticals but to talk about the facts and the work that i did. >> this is not a hypothetical but the issue at hand. you have correctly noted in your report that former presidents and other senior officials who have been given wide latitude in the possession of classified information and i believe the decision not to with that president. but that changed with e trump and the irony is as president trump had full discretion over handling discretion in deciding which records to retain. as a senator or vice president, joe biden did not have that so now we get to this glaring double standard. i think it would be toxic to the rule of law on its face if it was just two ordinary ■; citizens, but the only person being prosecuted happens to be the president's

clinical opponent makes this a unprecedented assault on our democracy. this is worse than we could have respected from a banana republic. and i wonder how you square this. >> congressman, i do address as i was required to as a prosecutor a relevant president in the form of the allegations against former president trump. i set forth my comparison of those precedents in my report and i'm not here to comment any further. >> well, you said for example that there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt. you got the fact that he had classified material in his possession and control and multiple settings for multiple years. that he aware of this and that he shared this material with others. the mind boggles what beyond reasonable doubt would 2uactual mean. >> as i set forth at length in

my explanations in chapters 11 and 12 of the report, my assessment is that the evidence, if presented in trial, alongside potential defense arguments, would not probably result in a conviction at trial. >> that is one of the points you make. president biden is likely to be an elderly, sympathetic figure with a poor memory. but how does that bear on individual's guilt or innocence? isn't that a question for a judge or jury? and here is the donald trump is being prosecuted for exactly the same act that you allege joe biden has committed. 4h nd your question correctly, didn't you say that is a question for a jury? and to the length of -- >> does that bear on the guilt or innocence of an individual? spend it certainly bears on how a jury will perceive and make decisions. >> the answer to my other question is correct. all i have to do when taking home classified materials

essay, i am sorry. i am getting old. my memory is not so great. this is the doctrine that you have established in our laws now and it ■xis frightening. congressman, my intent is not to establish nature of doctrine. i had a particular task instead of evidence to consider and make a judgment with one particular set of evidence and that is what i did. >> well, mr. hur, re is the fine point of the matter. the foundation of our justice system is equal justice under law. that is what gives the law its respect and its legitimacy. and without it, the laws simply force. devoid of any moral authority. justice is depicted as blindfolded for this very reason. it does not matter who comes before her. all are treated equally. you have destroyed this foundation. and the rule of law becomes a sick mockery. it becomes a weapon to wield against political rivals and

equal despotism. and i am desperately afraid that this decision of the department of justice has now crossed a very bright line. and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> we introduce the state of the union for the hearing. >> without objection. the ranking members recognize for unanimous consent. >> mr. chairman, i asked for the unanimous consent for a copy of an article this morning on the washington post entitled the full transcript of biden's special counsel interview paints nuanced portrait. the president does not come across as absent-minded as hur made him out to be. >> we now denies the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you gentleman and mr. hur for being here today. i found your report very interesting and i learned some i things about the law and the presidents. there are clear differences

between the cases of precedents set by presidents reagan, trump, den. now, it was widely known that president reagan kept diaries from his presidency that cldid not know and learned in your report was that the department of justice "repeatedly described the diaries in public court filings as mr. reagan's personal records." and that no agency ever attempted to remove his diaries. that is on page 185 of your report. very interesting. so the investigation found that president biden believed that his notebooks were his personal property, including work and political notes, reflections, to-do lists, and more but he was entitled to take home. you found that on page 232. so while much of his notebook

was work-related, he still had some purely personal subjects like, and again i quote, "gut wrenching remedies about the illness and death of his son bo " and that is report. so it is clear based on the reagan president that no criminal charges were warranted in this matter relevant to personal notebooks. i want to be clear that although the notebooks contain some very personal information and president biden considered them his personal property, the president allowed your team to seize and review all of the notebooks you found. is correct? >> that is correct. >> no, that is in stark contrast to ex-president trump's case. he obstructed and diverted all the investigations. now, you also interviewed president biden about other classified documents you found outside his notebooks.

didn't you? >> yes, congresswoman. so did the president tell you that he believed any documents other than his own handwritten work were his personal property? yes or no? >> we did not hear that from the president during his interview. >> so again it is very different from ex-presint the documents marked classified were his personal prop. president biden did not consider documents that were produced by other entities with classification markings as his personal records. now, i think, you know, simajor assert that there is a disparity based on politics in the differences in the prosecution, it is worth quoting page 11 of the report which says, and i quote "several material distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. biden's case are clear. most notably,

multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. that is on page 11. "" in contrast mr. biden turned in classified documents to the national archives and the department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation. it is clear that these cases are not the same. and, frankly, i was surprised to learn that some of the classified documents were actually personal diaries that many executive officials have taken home with them because it was in their own handwriting. it was what they ucpartment of

justice public statements, during the reagan administration, it is understandable that a person could believe that their personal diaries that they produced were not to be turned overju did not turn them over. being here, mr. hur . i would also like to ask mr. chairman a unanimous request to include in the record eight september letter from the special counsel to the president to special counsel hur and a letter to merrick garland and with that, yelled back. >> the chair is recognized. mr. hur, why did he do it? why did joe biden willfully and retain classified material

>> he knew the law. been in office 50 years. five decades in the united states senate, of the relations he has been in the situation. in fact, you know he knew the rules because you said so and page 226. president biden was deeply familiar with the measures taken to safeguard classified documents and joe biden told us he knew the rules. mr. armstrong earlier. he told us when jack smith goes after president trump, joe biden says how could this happen? what data was in those documents that could compromise sources and methods? it is irresponsible. joe biden knew the rules, you knew he knew the rules. >> why did he break them? >> the conclusion as to exactly why the president did what he

did is not one that he explicitly addressed in to the attorney general that no criminal were warranted in this matter. >> i think he did. i think you told us. page 231, you said this. president biden had strong motivations. out of the keyword. getting the motive now. resident biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures in his notebooks. why did he have strong motivations? because he decided months before leaving office to write a book. to write about. that was his mother. he knew the rules. he broke because he was writing about. he began meeting with the ghost writer while he was still vice president. >> how much did mr. get paid for his book?

>> off the top of my head, i i appears in the report. >> assured us. there is a dollar in there. >> it may be 8 million. >> $8 million. joe biden had eight million reasons to rules. classified inrmation and shared it with the guy who is writing the book. he knew the rules but he broke before $8 million in a book advance. you kn wh was not just the money. joe biden, this is page 231, the very next page. joe biden viewed his notebooks as an irreplaceable contemporaries record with the most important moments of vice presidency. with the book. for $8 million, the next thing is such a record with legacy as a world leader. it wasn't just $8 million. it was also his ego.

pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules. the oldest motives in the book pride and money. do you agree with that? >> that language does appear in the report. supporting those assessments. right. viewed himself as a man of presidential timber. >> i believe it does appear in the report. here is the scary part. esting. i said this earlier in my opening statement. page 200. joe biden, this is a quote, joe biden wrist serious damage to america's security when he shared information with his ghostwriter. helping joe biden get $8

million. one of the ghostwriter do with the information joe biden shared with him on his laptop? what did he do after you were named special counsel? >> chairman, if you're referring to the audio recordings, he slid, if i remember correctly, he slid those files into the recycle bin on his computer. >> tried to destroy the evidence, didn't he? >> use the motive for joe biden to disclose classified information, to reclformation w definitely was against the law. what does that i do? destroys the evidence. that is the key mind. that is the key take away. i yield back. >> the dome for maryland for

five minutes. your report starts with the line. we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. have you had any reason to change your opinion about that? you highlight the independence and doj. have you changed your mind about that? >> i am not. >> the report describes president biden's cooperation ■. in your request. he allowed his to be searched. have you had any reason to change her mind about that? >> no. >> also repeatedly contrast biden's cooperation with donald trump. you say most notabley,multiple avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy others in the lie about it.

the differences between president deooperation. >> i continue to stand by those words in his report. >> with such a striking contrast, our colleagues have switched over from being impeachment investigators from high crimes and misdemeanors. which is how this whole thing started being amateur me specialist. drive-by diagnoses of the president of the united states who is soaring powerful, historical analysis and devastating repartee with even the skilled hecklers of the freedom caucus. we are on full display at the state of the union address last week for the whole country to see. the desperate question is a distraction from the 91 federal and state federal charges that donald trump faces now losses in new york. more than a half 1 billion dollars and his full-blown

embrace and romance with authority indicators all over the world from vladimir putin in russia, the former head of the kgb to the dictator of north korea. >> >> my friends, this is a memory test. president biden. y test for it is a memory test for all of america. do we remember fascism? totalitarianism? have we completely forgotten the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents in prior generations? when we play pin the tail on the donkey in this wild goose chase, all of these silly game donald entertains authoritarian hustler and mar-a- lago for the weekend. comes out to declare that if we indeed sleepwalk into another trump presidency, trump will

quote, not give a single penny to ukraine. that is what all this is about. pull the wool over the eyes of america. the tyrants and dictators of the march today. who wins with the tyrants of the world when. you have completely lost their way. they are looking for high crimes and misdemeanors. now they appoint themselves in amateur memory specialist. america faces a choice between democracy and tyranny. the president laid it out at valley forge and he laid it out in the state of the union. will america stand against aggression. but we stand with the people of ukraine against vladimir putin?

whose filthy war has met the kidnapping of thousands of 1h■/ ukrainian children? the murder, the slaughter of thousands of ukrainian civilians and the attack on an independent sovereign democracy? >> we are not working on that today. we are not standing up for democracy and human rights around the world. we are trying to play memory detectives to the language of the president the whole world got to see at the state of the union address. directly address the real russians of our time. it is democracy versus dictatorship. all of the autocrats and theocrat, all of the are together in league against american democracy and we have to give up for american democracy against these stupid games. i yield back.

>> during the intersite interviews, we have o are involved in the mishandling of classified document under the leadership president biden. >> can you tell and former white house employees related in your investigation? >> i do not have that figure immediately at hand. ofco, it was a subset of the 173 interviews that we conducted. >> we did interview miss remus. >> was counsel, correct? >> she was president obams white house counsel. >> annual report on page 257, you wrote in may of 2022, white house counsel dana remus undertook an effort to retrieve mr. biden's files from. describe the original purpose of that effort is gathering materials to prepare for

potential congressional inquiries about the biden families activities during the period of 2017-2019. it seems odd to me that joe biden's personal lawyers were obtaining documents related to potential congressional inquiries about the biden family activities when joe biden has publicly claimed he had no involvement with his families business dealings. can you provide more information about why a government employee was retrieving joe biden documents from the pen biden center? >> chairman, i am able to tell you and clarify information that appears on the report of relic significant sources of information. i am not in a position to be able to go beyond that. >> when you interviewed president biden, did you ask him what documents he possessed that could be related to an inquiry about activities? >> we asked resident biden a love of questions about all the

different sets of classified materials that were recovered during the course of. >> anything pertain specifically to our congressional inquiry president you call? >> if there are more specific aspects that you have in mind, that would be helpful. >> if it is helpful, chairman, appendix a does list in table chart form, a brief distraction of the documents that were recovered in the investing. >> we intend to interview miss remus. the transcript would be highly relevant to our future question of her. can you confirm that you did, in fact, recorder in your interview >> it was our practice to record. >> in th investigation, the oversight learned that a white house employee visited the pen biden center in 2021. did you interview in the course

of your investion? >> chairman, we do not. the roof report does not reflect that specific name. i can tell you that the report does reflect that we interview the director of oval office operations and in one of the places, that is footnote 973. >> the oversight committee fens employee former to president biden and learned that the biden penn center in june of 2022 after being contacted by white house counsel in may of 2022. this was months before classified documents were allegedly found. did you interview kathy chung? >> i believe that a substance appears on page 259 of the report and while it does not appear in the text, there are references to interviews about executive assistant including a

footnote 988. >> the oversight committee learn from it interviews with the pen biden center employees that dana remus, anthony, and ashley williams on different occasions before the alleged discovery of classified materials. >> interview these interviews during thisk) investigation. >> we interviewed many individuals and i can assure you, chairman it was a priority of hours to interview the relevant sources and information about these documents, how they got there, who knew about them, and you t they were all als will reportedly discover there in november of 2022. according to the white house. >> sir, do not have an exact count -- >> how many visits were made by white house employees or

president biden's personal attorney's before the official november of 2022? >> that should be detailed in chapter 14 of the report, sir. >> i yield back. >> bitten him and yelled back. from texas and recognized five minutes. >> anytime you need a break, if you need a break, let us know. it's going to go a while, as you well know. >> ms. jackson lee is >> good morning. >> the republicans asked for a lot of transcripts. jordan has yet to release 90+ transcripts from. for those to be released to the people is the question.

my question to you is you decided based on the facts not to prosecute, indict, or bring forward charges against the president of the united essitti biden. is that correct? >> that was my judgment. >> this investigation was independent and thorough. is that correct? >> we have heard from our republican colleagues you are rapping at straws, alleon treated lightly in this investigation. completely refutes that argument. there was no two tiered system of arguments. your office and the fbi undertook an extensive investigation into mr. biden's handling of classified information. and ofthclassified documents,

the fdicu conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses, correct? >> that is correct. >> president biden, himself, was one of those witnesses, correct? >> for at least five hours or more. >> correct. >> president biden engaged in this interview voluntarily. >> correct. >> the interview with president biden lasted more five hours? that is correct? >> correct. >> in the interview, it occurred the day, which all should know after the horrif ha according to a letter from the white house counsel. isthat correct? >> the interview spans two days. with the president having to be in and out to deal with an international crisis, and after the interview, he provided answers to additional questions, correct? >> congresswoman, i do not recall the president being in and out during our interview to

handle the internet. >> let me go on. president biden allowed investigators to search his private houses. that correct? >> he did consent to the search of residence. >> 7 million documents four inv is that correct? >> this included emails, text messages, phot from both classified and unclassified sources, correct? >> you referred or reviewed president biden's handwritten note as well, correct? >> correct. and you coordinated with multiple government agency to organize and complete your investigation, correct? >> we consulted with numerous agencies to conduct -- >> evidence that was seized during the investigation. >> right. that included working with national security expert analyze document th was obtained? >> with respect to documents.

we submitted excerpts from the president notebooks for classification review. >> if agencies reviewed classified material and gave a different level of a higher lev purpose of your investigation to be thorough, correct? >> those reflected. >> thank you. the fbi reflected classification from each agency. multiple agencies had equities. the speciacounsel's office used the highest level of classification identified by an agency as the current classification of the document. let me go on. attorney general garland, pointing to you at ■aspecial counsel, in 2023, are you correct? >> he offers you to investigate mr. biden's possession of the i possible, unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records. present at biden's home, any

matters that rose from the initial investigation ■umay ari directly from the special counsel. is that correct? >> i believe that accurately reflects the language of the order. >> you operated in and visit investigation for a year, what you just stated that you had adequate resources to complete in which you conducted 173 interviews, included with ■(president biden himself, to review 7 million documents including president biden's personal records and search thoroughly. in this thorough investigation who did not uncover enough evidence to recommend prosecution against the president. is that correct? >> th found enough evidence to warrant prosecution, did you feel free, unrestrained, unrestrained appointed by president biden to make a recommendation to the attorney general? >> i was aware of the awesome prohibiting sitting president.

apart from that, what i can tell you is that the investigative steps that we took were my own. the judgment was my own. >> the time for the gentle lady has expired. >> would like to put into the record the report. >> without objection, the chair not recognize general for five minutes. >> february 8, the white house question mr. president. why did you share classified to the present. that is not true. >> just regular people would say. the next one. all the stuff that is in my home was in filing cabinets. that were either locked or able to ■be locked. >> that was inconsistent with the findings of our

investigation. >> people might say what you put in your report is among the places mr. biden with documents in the garage was a damaged open box. here is what i am understanding. as mr. armstrong laid out, you find in your report that the elements of a federal terminal violation are met but then you appltheory that because joe bid cooperated in the elevator didn't go to the top floor, you don't think you'll get a conviction. i actually think you will get to the right answer in that. biden should not of been charts, transient ottoman chart. under the scene out cooperator theory, isn't it frustrating thatbi pay out in life about the basic facts of the report to lead a federal criminal violation. >> i found that all of the omens were met. one of the elements of mishandling statute is the intent element and what my report reflects is my judgment based on the evidence i could prove beyond a reasonable

doubt. >> the reason i have that doubt is encino cooperator. responding to prove the intent. i do not quibble with the conclusion but it's frustrating to be like this guy is not getting treated the same way as trump as the elevator is not going to the top floor so we cannot prove intent. the same time, biden goes out there at the white house and says he just plainly lies. what i'm trying to figure out is whether or not biden is lying because he is senile, he has not read your report or whether it is a little craftier and a little more devious. perhaps, a little more intentional than we might otherwise think. i also want to go to this biden pen center. did it give concern to you that the biden pen center is all this classified stuff is by )v foreign governments. >> all of the classified documents that were recovered.

>> what bothers me is that the " money that was paying for the place or the document from being inappropriately held was the chinese and other foreign your analysis? did you look into the billion dollars in foreign funding sources? >> we conducted a thorough and partial and fair investigation. we were very concerned with getting to the bottom of all the relevant questions relating. >> with i was keeping the documents and secured, yes or no? >>, and, to the extent that we had in a fight element that was relevant and significant our investigation, we put in our report. >> it seemed relevant to me, maybe not to you. another thing that seemed relevant to me is this ghostwriter, right? the ghostwriter purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to be like show culpability of aden's crimes. why don't you charge the

ghostwriter with obstructing justice and deleting evidence? >> for a number of reasons that is laid out in the report, but in grief, congressman, yes. when we interviewed the ghostwriter, but he did tell us, i'm trying to get the exact language that one of the things on his mind, one of the things he was aware of is that i have been appointed shall counsel and was conducting an investigation. >> just so everybody knows, the ghostwriter did not delete the recordings just as a matter of? >> ghostwriter has recordings of biden making admission to crimes. he then learns that you have been appointed. he deletes the information that is the evidence and you don't charge them. what does somebody have to do to get charged with abduction obstruction of justice. what would meet the standard? >> congressman, as we stay the relevant chapter of the report, one of the things that did not delete was transcripts of the recordings that he had

created included evidence. >> if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence, that is somehow going to for the evidence you destroyed? >> here is what i see. should have been charged. biden and trump should have been treated equally. they were not. that is the double standard but i think a lot of americans are concerned about. i see my time is expired. i yield back. >> the gentleman yelled back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> think you, mr. chairman. for being here. i am confused about this hearing. laid out the big cture that we could be concerned about but in the limited picture, director mueller had an investigation. he is famous recent special prosecutor and he found sufficient evidence to say there was connection between russia and the trump campaign. you found there was no evidence

to support a criminal prosecution. in the story here is simple. president biden identified classified documents in his home and other places and told archives about him. >> a policatee of special counsel to fully investigate the circumstances and rise to prosecute. you declined to prosecute because you found insufficient case closed. >> mr. garland at his job, and he didn't interfere. did he ask you to change your report that all, a thing. 180 degrees different than what it was. mr. garland did right and u did right. the department of justice is to investigate and prosecute the facts supported. joe biden's actions of handling ossified.

>> did you receive any pressure to make specific factual finding or >> did you receive resources necessary to carry out your duties? >> yes. >> do you have any reason to believe that you were treated differently in regards to resources that other doj special prosecutor's? >> based on your experience as special counsel, do you have any reason to believe the attorney general is with jack smith or his? >> i do not have the basis to answer that question. >> your declaration, which we treat as thoughtful and political, we should treat decisions by jack smith the same way. >> i really do not have the sufficient information with respect to jack smith's investigation to provide any comment on it. >> let me ask you this. president biden in his testimony to you knew the exact date january 20 or whatever it was, became vice president.

he left january the 20th. 2009 and january 2017. he knew the state exactly right. if you knew the exact date in an instant that biden died, with that of changed your decision not to bring a prosecution? >> i cannot engage in hypotheticals about might've been with different facts. what i did was make a decision on the facts and circumstances that i was presented with and we did identify. >> it appears to me and the american public that these minor discrepancies, as far as dates after a long period of time was not the basis. it was not the basis for decision, it was the fact that you didn't have the facts. those with a reason you didn't prosecute, not just because he

missed a few dates. my reasons my declaration decision are set out in my report and i stand by the word to my report, sir. >> thinking. i am encompassing what i am saying to you. it was the difference in the facts of how he dealt with. mr. biden set for five hours and he did an admirable job. he did an outstanding job in state of the union laying out the case for the future of america for the middle class, democracy around the world, standing up to the russians, bending down to them. that is. not like the $64,000 question assuming it was legit and answering every question correctly. that is not what you need to be president. to be president, you need to have values, understanding of what values america has a need

to maintain to keep ■6the world safe and peaceful. that is dealing with ukraine, dealing with different people like benjamin netanyahu like getting something done that is correct. that is what joe biden does. understanding social security and medicaid are important institutions that help seniors and not senile people. i reject that comment. nobodysuggests is senile and that is respectful. lots of seniors have memory disability they are not senile. >> joe biden is a confident who knows american values. >>the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes or you >> thank you, chairman. i to start off by thanking you for all your hard work in a comprehensive report. i'm going to try to not provide testimony, as some people on both sides e. i do have some questions that lead me to ask you for

conclusions. notes of the president of the united states that dated back to when he was a senator that can cleaned contain classified information. >> among that were recovered during our investigation were marked classified documents. g#

>> you've prosecuted people in the past and failed to get a conviction, is that co1000 perfd rich -- you are not a 1000 perfect batting average. we went in thinking you would succeed. one might say you would prosecute and you might've gotten a conviction or a plea on. we do thinkfair to say over your long career? >> i think that's fair because i take forward the rules seriously. >> i'm going to presume you

would never prosecute someone you thought was outright innocent. >> correct. >> in this case, did you reach conclusion that this man was outright innocent? >> that conclusion is not reflected in my report. rep. issa: you did not reach that conclusion or would've been in your report. >> my task has been based on my judgment and assessment would a conviction trial be the probable outcome? rep. issa: i think it's extremely important, you did not reach an idea that he had committed no wrong, he reached a conclusion that you would not prevail at trial and therefore did not take it forward, is that correct? >> correct, congressman. rep. issa: i want to go through one or two housekeeping, almost. the documents that the presidt, then vice president

took, which included his own notes, are those covered by the freedom of information act? potentially? robert: i do not know, congressman. rep. issa: aren't they covered by the presidential record act as every note and text of the vice president and members of the cabinet are covered? robert: different different vier they are covered. rep. issa: isn't it true he left office leaving no copies of that behind and that alone was inconsistent with an open and transparent individual, correct? robert: i am not aware of copies of those materials being left behind, congressman. rep. issa: mr. chairman, i thank you for the extra few seconds. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. hur, you've led a distinguished

career from stanford university and you served as a student, as executive editor as the stanford law review, correct? then you went on to clerk for judge kaczynski of the ninth circuit. after that, you ascended to a click shift within chief justice william rehnquist on the united states supreme court. then you later joined the department of justice as a special assistance to known federalist society member and now fbi director christopher ay, isn't that correct? mr. hur: i did spend time working for former attorney general christopher wray. >> you later joined the trump justice department as the principal associate deputy attorney general working as the right-hand man for another known federalist society member, rod rosenstein, isn't that correct? mr. hur: i served as his

principal deputy. >> donald trump appointed you to service the u.s. attorney for maryland, is that correct? mr. hur: i was confirmed by the united states senate. >> attorney general merrick garland appointed you to serve the special counsel for the united states department of justice to conduct a full and thorough investigation of certain matters to determine whether or not joseph biden should be charged with unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. isn't that correct? nowhere in that order does attorney general garland authorize you to conduct an investigation and issue a report on whether president biden is mentally fit to serve as president, isn't that correct? mr. hur: that does not appear in the appointment order. rep. johnson: to conclude your investigation, you assured -- issued in a report that was published by attorney general garland.

your report concluded that, after a full and thorough investigation, the evidence was insufficient to establish that president biden had willfully retained classified documents. isn't that correct? mr. hur: my judgment was based on the state of the evidence, a rep. johnson: you determined there was no evidence of willful retention because each time classified documents were discovered to be in the president's possession, the white house notified the national archives right away, the biden legal and the white house fully cooperated with the national archives during the investigation. once the doj opened the investigation, president biden and his personal counsel fully cooperated. isn't that correct? mr. hur: we did identify some evidence of willful retention -- rep. johnson: it is though that the president cooperated fully with you. didn't -- they never tried to

hide any documents from you, did they? mr. hur: the report does note steps of cooperation taken by the president. rep. johnson: last but not least, unlike in the trunk classified documents case, president biden's counsel never falsely certify that there was no classified documents in the president's possession, correct? mr. hur: the report does include comparisons and contrasts between the facts alleged between the trump case in the biden case. rep. johnson: despite clearing president biden from being prosecuted, you use your report to trash and smear president biden because he said in response to questions over a five hour interview that he did not recall how he got the documents. and you knew that that would play into the republicans narrative that the president is unfit for office because he senile, and the american people sawthe state of the

union address that that was not true. but yet, that's what you try to offer to them, and that's why th are having you here today, so that they can expand upon that narrative. and you knew that that's what was going to happen, didn't you question meant mr. hur: congressman, i reject questions you have just made -- rep. johnson: let me move on. you are a of the federalist society, are you not? are you a member of the federalist society? mr. hur: i am not a member of the federalist society. i am a registered republican. rep. johnson: you are doing everything you can do to get president trump reelected so that you can get appointed as a federal judge or perhaps to another position in the department of justice, isn't that correct? mr. hur: i have no such aspirations, i can assure you. i can tell you partisan politics have no place in my work, it had no place in the investigative steps that i took, it had no

place in the decision that i made and had no place in a single word of my report. >> the gentleman's time has expired. general men from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. i think for the folks that may beatching this at home, they might be confused. i'm trying to organize this in my mind as well. the way the president is portrayed in your report he a well-meaning, forgetful man, as you said? or was he a man focus on history? was he a man that maintained and retained these top-secret documents that should've been not in his home? a man that wanted to prove he was worthy to be president and that his vision of afghanistan was better than even president barack obama's, and that his focus on history was most important to him? do you know which it is? mr. hur: to the extent you are quoting language fromy report, i stand by the words of my report.

>> you stand by that he was -- let me quote you exactly, "a well-meaning, but forgetful old man?" mr. hur: i don't think those exact words appear in the report, but to the extent i used word similars in my assessment of how a jury would perceive mr. biden in the evidence related to him including his testimony, i stand by that assessment. rep. van drew: is accurate to say president biden disclosed material to bolster his image as a presidential figure? i'm asking for yes or knows. mr. hur: i believe words to that effect are in my report. rep. van drew: is a yes. would you agree president biden is showcasing his legacy concerning classified materials? mr. hur: it is one of the motives are just in the report. rep. van drew: that showcases his legacy. is accurate to quote his report that classified documents were in badly damaged boxes in

his garage near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a box and an empty bucket? mr. hur: those words to appear in the report. rep. van drew: the answer is yes. are these secure locations distort classified documents? mr. hur: they are not. rep. van drew: we got a former vice president who is established to have willfully, purposely retain classified documents in order to highlight his political stature and show his stature as a presidential figure. we have a former vice president who stored classified documents in very unsecured places. we have a former vice who will not suffer any consequences for all of these actions all because we say, he's a well-meaning, forgetful old man. if you were a well-meaning, forgetful old man that was driving a car and forgot what you were doing, and you hit somebody and kild them, i believe you would be responsible. the law must apply, you know

, everyone. that. the standard behind the decision, especially in light of special counsel with president trump for similar conduct. real appearance of two standards. again, this department of justice. but not for me. special counsel hur , as any former president or vice president besides president trump ever been terminal e charge for knowingly retaining ossified information after they left office? yes or no. would you confer that special counsel smith's decision to charge a former president for retaining and disclosing ossified information was an extraordinary, unusual, and unprecedented decision? >> i will not comment on the matter. >> i am going to comment. the answer is yes. special counsel hur, these

reports are the culmination in my mind of the department of justices true standards. an example of the justice department being weaponized against conservatives. there is another piece to this. i have just a few seconds. we know that when ghostwriter is speaking to him, he did recordings. when he did those recordings, it was clear. i will try to quote this. it was a month after biden left his vp. he was aware of top-secret classified materials that were "downstairs. is that true? >> that is reflected in an audio recording, yes. >> is reected in an audio recording. >> sometimes he may be sleepy, forgetful, sometimes he may be cognitively impaired. there is no doubt about that but when it came to his personal legacy, the way he wanted to be remembered, being sure he was a big deal and playing english in the future, he was willingly and knowingly breaking the law.

it is unfortunate that we have a department of justice that will treat one person one way and somebody else a different way. it is a sad day for america. thank you, hur, i yield back. >> the gentleman yelled back. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i wa to ask you about some of the differences between the facts involving president biden and trump. before we do, back to the opening statement in which you said you did not despaired the report. you did despaired the president. you despaired him in terms you have to know would have a political impact. i understand on the return generally has made committed to make as much of my report public and consistent with policy and legal requirements? >> you could have chosen a, on the president's particular recall with a document or set

of documents. you decided to go further and make a generalized stemen you? >> i could have written my report in a way that omitted references to the presidents memory but that would have been an incomplete and improper report. >> that was not my question. >> you written the report about his comments with specific recollection of a set of documents but you chose a general reference to the president. you understood when you made that decision, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn't you? >> congressman, politics played no part in my investigative steps. >> you understood nevertheless. you cannot tell me you arso naove as to think your words would not of created a political. you understood that when you wrote those words, when you decided to include those words, go beyond specific references to documents, you understood

how they would be manipulated by my colleagues on the ■u■gop side. you understood that, did you not? >> congressman, what i understood is the regulations that govern my contact at special counsel. >> a confidential report for the attorney general. >> you knew it would be confidential, didn't you? >> the regulations required me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the attorney general -- >> which you knew would be released. >> it was up to the attorney general. >> consistent with doj policy. >> you understood it would be released. >> i understood from the attorney general's public comments that he would make my report public as he coulwith le requirements. >> do you also understand doj policy that you are to take care, not to prejudice the interest investigation, right? >> that is generally one of the

interests that doj policy requires the prosecutors respect. >> with your obligation to follow the policy in this report, was it not? >> it was also my obligation to write a confidential report for the attorney general explaining. >> what you did right was deeply prejudicial. you say it was not political and yet, you must have understood the impact of your words. you must've understood the impact of your decision to go beyond the specifics of a document to go the very general. for your own personal presidential opinion to president, one unit would be amplified by his critical opponent. one that would influence a political campaign. you had to understand that. you did it anyway. you did it anyway. let me go to some of the differences here between the president's conduct and mr. trump. in the sursedpage 3, it says mr

suggested his attorney falsely represented the grand jury that he did not document called for by the subpoena. we did not find anything like that with respect to mr. biden, didn't you? >> i do not have the trump indictment in front of me but i need to address prior question. what you are suggesting is that i needed to provide a different version of my report that would be fit for public release. that is nowhere in the rules. i was to prepare a report that was comprehensive and thorough. >> what is in the rules? what is in the rules if you do not intuitively do things to prejudice the subject of an investigation when you are planning to prosecute. you do you know will be useful in a political campaign. you were not born yesterday. you understood exactly what you were doing. it was a choice. you certainly did not have to include that language. you could've said vis-@-vis the

document. the president did not recall. there is nothing more common. you know this, i know this. there is nothing more common with the witness of any age when asked about events that are years old to say i do not recall. indeed, they are instructed by their attorneys to do that if they have any question about it. you understood that, you made a choice. that was a political choice. it was the wrong choice. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from arizona, special counsel was to respond to that final question? >> guess. what you are suggesting is that i shape, sanitize, omit portions of my reasoning and explanation for political reasons. >> messages that you not. >> that did not happen. >> the gettleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being here, thank you for your. i think where you and i might

have disagreements, there may be matters of opinion and not necessarily the facts that you reported. i want to go over the elements of the offense that seemed to have at least. the weight you put in here twice that a jury was not likely to find intentionality on the part of disclosure in particular. >> if it is not willful, we might say an accident, something negligent, careless. that would not necessarily rise to willful or intentional or purposeful. >> those are different standards of under the law, i'm sure. >> yes. so when president misplaced 30 briefing documents in 2010, the classified material and they are not sure if they ever got them all back, at a party and he lost what

they were calling code words, which is i security information. that was not necessarily willful, no indication that he purposefully did not. accidental, neglig■vent. you indicated that we do not even know if we got all that back. we are assuming maybe we did. that would not be ■y■willful, right? >> as reflected in the report, there were certain categories of documents were will me looking at them and investigated, how they got to where they ended up or how they ended up being misplaced, we did not identify evidence. >> if something is willful, you would not say it is ignorant, not incompetent, not axonal. something like willful, intentional, purposeful. indicates a choice that you have madedeliberate, conscious decision to act in a certain way. is that fair? does he that is fair, congressman. i would like to ask when in the report the willfulness standard that involves the following

things. you know that what you are doing is against the law when you do it. >> correct. >> let's take a look. it has been brought up with february of 2017. the discussion with the ghostwriter, at the virginia house at this point. he says i just found all the classified stuff downstairs. he knows he's got classified stuff, right? two month later, in april, he is at a different location, as my understanding. i think he is now up in delaware. let's look at 105-106. biden reads from a different notebook entry. he reads notes while he is reading those notes, i cannot read my you have any idea what i am saying here?

>> he asked the ghostwriters. s some of this may be classified so be careful. some of this may be classified so be careful. my immediate response was okay, he knows he's got classified documents. he is looking at this. he is giving this to somebody he knows that has no. he says hey, read this but careful. it might be classified. >> the guy says okay. the next thing, i do not know if it is classified or not. >> i am suggesting to you, and this is where you and i have a difference of opinion. when you say something like hey, this may be classified. ■ú be careful. that morning may be classified. that indicates he might know something more than he otherwise would have.

it negates, then they going to read it, as you point out, he reads classified information and it is still classified today. that is on page 106. when you look at this, it's hard for me to say we, he was ignorant, he was incompetent, he was accidental. no. he had guilty knowledge. he knew and told the guy that expose that classified material to. hey, be careful, be careful. it may be classified. that indicates something a little bit more than knowledge. it intehas some intact. the next thing you should've said is hey, i do not know if it going to skip over this until that is resolved. he didn't do that. what he said is read it anyway.

i yield back. >> the gentleman yelled back. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i was moved by your story and how to shape you. their story is a story that so many of us know through constituent. the story of america. the story that the guy who appointed you would and if he was in charge. >> what you report to be received with great ability, is that right? >> my goal was to provide a thorough explanation by the attorney general and as i said in my opening statement, i thought they needed to show my work. >> you want to be received is gettable, right? >> that would be helpful in laudable, yes. >> alanis changed since 2018

for the person who appointed you. >> was impeached ■2between 350 get there on president biden who pitched a second time for inciting an insurrection. he was >> impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection. he was charged for possessing classified documents and obstructing. he was charged for paying for the silence of a and

charge the district columbia for his role in january 6 and owes$400 million to the state of new york for defrauding the state through his taxes and he has been judged a trenton one. i was if you will pledge not to accept an open from donald trump if he is elect as president. >> congressman, i'm not here to testify what will happen -- >> considering whatlaid out? >> i'm here to talk about the report and the work that went into it. >> but you don't want to be assisted with that guy again? >> congressman, i'm not here to not have been the ut what may future. i'm here to talk about when into the report which is standby. >> there are no limits on you as to what you could charge

president biden by the attorney general. is that righ that were reflected in the report on my own. >> and you did not bring any charges, is that correct? >> yes. >> there are limits on john drummond's investigation of the prior administration? when he was special counsel. is that right? >> i don't believe i have the information required to answer the question about the term investigation. >> he sat in the same chair you're sitting in and told us he also investigated president biden and president obama and did not bring any charges. president biden set for an interview with you over hours. is that right? >> a little over five hours, congressman. >> over two days? >> correct. >> that is in sharp contrast verga he did not sit with an interview when the mueller investigation took place. donald trump you did not support interview when he was - an interview when the second impeachment occurred and he was invited to sit for an interview for his role in january 6, and do not sit for interview and the january 6 classified, generate six case or the classified documents case.

chairman also has not set for an interview in his own subpoena , but joe biden has. i know want to turn you to the transcript and day one page 47. you said to president biden, you have come up here to have a photographic understanding and recall of the house but preside >> those words to appear on page 47 of the transcript. >> photographic. never appeared in report though, is that correct? the word graphic? >> that does not appear in my report? >> i want to show you play video of what is absolutely not a graphic. >> in the failing new york times by and anonymous, really

anonymous, gutless, coward. >> we are a nation that just recently heard that saudi arabia and russia will -- >> i hope they now go and take a look at the oranges. the oranges of the investigation -- >> and a watcher police in an environment done on 711 >> the gentleman yields back victor china recognizes the gentleman from carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hur, i'm down here . i think, today, the justice department released the transcripts of the interviews with president biden. are you aware of that? >> i understand that to be true. two did you have any involvement in the decision of the timing release of the transcripts? >> oh. >> did you make a recommendation by the release of the president being done or not? >> i did not pick that is above my pay grade.

of close to this hearing but it impacts our ability to evaluate a report and ask you questions about it. there is one point, as an illustration on 2:21 of your report you are describing, i think the afan pack or something like that from 2009, i think is the information you and you say is one reason not to prosecute mr. bottomley in addition mr. biden told us in his interview that he does not recognizeythtion marking. to hi the marking means the document should be held in confidence but not necessarily that it is classi. and footnote 866 as a reference and refers to the biden 10/9/23 transcript as 24 and 25 and we have that now that we haven't until this morning. i just want to read from that exchange line 15. so, this is a type written document. it's got a

confidential, what appears to be a stamp at the top and the top of the document indicates it's from the american a.m. embassy in kabul. it stated what appears to me to be november/09. the only question i have you about this mr. president is the confidential marking. do you recognize th tion markin president biden: no. i mean, confidential doesn't want to get around. it's not in category, i don't think, of code word, top- secret, that kind of thing. but i don't even know where it came from. are you familiar with confidential as a level of classified information? president biden. well, if i got a document that said, confidential, it would mean that no one else could see it but me and you give it, or the people working on this issue. mr. crick: and are you aware that among certain categories of classified information there is top-secret, secret and also

a category of classified information called confidential is that something that you are aware of him or not? president biden: i, yes. i was aware of it. i don't ever remember when i got in a document that was confidential that was meant for me to read and or discuss with the people who sent me that memo . and then it trails off. so as i read that, those answers they are equivocal. the first is that he do you recognize that to be a classification marking and he said no. and then goes on to explain but then he came back and said, are you aware that among certain categories of classified information there is also a category of classified information called confidential and he said, yes.. mr. hur, and then what is does there seem to be a discrepancy between the conclusion in the report of the summary of the

evidence in the report and what the transcript says. can you offer any guidance to this committee why you would put that summary annual report as opposed to saying that he gave , or in fact, why did you not nailed down in the transcript which was the right answer■? he's giving answers this is no and then he says yes. why did you not pursue it until you knew? >> congressman the report reflects our best efforts to summarize and characterize the evidence in the investigation including the investigation received from the president himself during our interview of him. but as you point out, the transcripts of the residential interview over two days are now available to the committee for their inspection and the members are not able to draw their own conclusions based on the transcripts that are now available to them. >> and i appreciate your answer and i certainly think you can come up with some details that someone can disagree on and has the quality, i know, of some cherry picking because i just found something but we've only had a little bit of time

i don't think it serves this process well for the justice department to jump these transcripts into the public right now. the going to be released, they should've been released at a proper time. and i think i will leave it at that, mr. chairman. i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields. >> i will yield. >> really quick, mr. hur, someone said about changing the fact. let's keep the facts the same but change the subject to the same facts and the individual you were investigating was 65 and had a good memory, do you reach the same conclusion? >> congressman, as a responded early to a question on these lines. i'm not here to entertain empathetic about facts or circumstances that may be different than what it did was assess the evidence and the fact that he obtained in this investigation to make a judgment based on the set of evidence. >> fair enough. recognize the gentleman from washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman. special counsel her. in youration due to

more than 7 million documents i conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses including president biden. is that correct? >> yes. >> in your 15 month investigation call several million dollars and resulted in a comprehensive, 345-page report was several dozen pages of appendices. is it correct that as it says in the first that, quote, no criminal charges are warranted in this matter? >> correct? payments of this lengthy, expensive and independent investigation resulted in a complete exoneration or president joe biden. for every document you i that the president violated any laws about possession or retention of classified materials pick the primary law that you analyze for potential prosecution was part of the espionage act, 18 usc 790 5e which criminalizes willful retention or disclosure of national defense information. is that correct? >> that is one statute we analyze. take note of the word that you

used, exoneration. >> i'm going to continue with my question. i'm going to continue with my question. i know that the -- multi mac >> -- evidence existed and the likely outcome. ation. >> mr. hur, my time. i know the term willful retention has a potential legal meaning and i want to make sure that meaning is clear to the american people before we go any further. as you wrote in your reportto prove as a matter of law that the president, quote, willfully retained any documents, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt two elements. first, that the president knowingly retained or disclosed national defense information and second that he knew that this conduct was unlawful. is that corctis correct. i'm sorry, that it was national defense information. that's an important third element . >> thank you. to be clear. you did not find sufficient

those elements beyond a reasonable doubt to show that mr. biden willfully retained any of the classified national defense materials that were recovered during your investigation, correct? >> my conclusion was the admissible evidence was not sufficient to make conviction at trial a probable outcome >> not sufficient. me ask you about example documents was discovered by investigators in the president's delaware home. his staff had assembled those documents into binders in 2014 to prepare him for an event with charlie rose. some of the documents in those binders were marked classified. you reviewed all the facts surrounding the classified documents in those binders and you determined, and this is a book from your report, these facts do not support a conclusion that mr. bied the wo classified documents in these binders, correct?? >> that when was disappear in

the report. >> you reviewed another set of documents from his home related to the afghanistan troop surge in 2009 and you evaluated whether the president willfully retained/documents in his delaware home or a home that he rented in virginia in 2017. in your report you said there was, ottage of evidence for any wrongdoing and other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute. are those quotes correct? >> congresswoman, if you have a particular page site for those quotations i'd be happy to confirm eiup on the screen. >> with respect to the post on the screen, in addition to the shortage of evidence there are other innocent explanations of documents we cannot refute and we conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict and we declined -- >> i'm going to get to that. and you concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to convict and we decline to recommend prosecution." those are your words in the report, correct?. >> those words appear in the report. >> president biden's counsel discovered another set of

documents and voluntarily turned them over to the fbi. those documents contain national security information but you determine that you could not prove that president biden willfully retained those documents because the evidence suggests the marked classified documents found at the penn biden center were sent and get there by mistake, therefore we decline, we decline any criminal charges related to those documents." . correct?? payment billing which we decline in criminal charges related to the documents does appear on page 311 of the report . >> to reach a similar conclusion regarding the documents found in president biden senate papers at the university of delaware. for these reasons it is likely that the few classified documents and found that mr. biden senate papers at the university of delare was there by mistake. correct?? >> that languages appear on page 325 of the report. >> it seems the main story of the report as you found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that president biden willfully retained any classified material. that is the story of this

report and i yelled back. >> the gentle lady yields back and the lady from ized. >> thank you, special counsel, for being here in these challenging times and i want to tell you a few things that is interesting for me. you obviously could see -- you obviously see it was for attention of these documents but it interesting for me that when you talk about a sympathetic older man, elderly man with a poor memory, it :d seems like every attorney would advise you to be sympathetic and be well-meaning and it seems like the whole fbi needs to do, based on the hearings here, to check on amnesia because everyone says they don't recall. so it seems to me it may have been■■z more in his recollectio than the typical i don't recall because that's what appears. did you get a sense that was more than that and i just don't recall something for you to actually decide?

it seems like this is the core of the whole investigation. why did you not pursue further the charges? >> congresswoman, my dgment as to how a jury would likely perceive and receive and consider evidence relating to all the evidence that we put in by both the government and the defense at trial. it was based on a number of different sources . from documents, including various recordings, some of them from the 2016-17 timeframe. some from the interview of the president in october of 2023. i think what you're asking specifically is how the president presented himself during his interview in october of last year and i did take into account not just the words from the old record of the transcript but the entire manner in living color and in real-time of how the president presentehi payment hopefully -- i want to actually comment on something. it was mentioned remembering

communism pick a group under communists and i have a good recollection of what it is and unfortunately they have been emboldened by president obama and a president biden and are department of justice now resembles a true medical government. it sat for me to see that. it was a double standard we have there but i will yield to chairman jordan the rest of my time? >> thank you. mr. hur during your one your investigation did you have communication with the white house and the white house counsel in particular? >> yes . >> i got five letters that they communicated with you regarding your investigation. is that accurate? >> we receiva om the white hous counsel's office and the presidents personal counsel? >> is her special counsel or personal counsel. i see who signed the letters. ended the white house get the report before the report was made public? >> we did provide a draft of the report to the white house

counsel's office and members of the presidents personal counsel team for their review. >> understand. and in the white house, once the got the report for when public to the white house try to weigh in with your investigation on elements of the report, and frankly, get the report changed? >> they did request certain edits and changes to the draft report. >> i see that in the february 5 letter. the only correspond with you? >> i'm sorry, are you asking if they correspond with anyone? >> want to give the report to the white house. they sought changes. i have one letter here that is addressed to you on february 5 and they said we are pleased that after more investigating you have determined■9, they responded to the report. and then they disagree with your, they ask for you to change me fact that the president's memory was not very good. you remember that? >> yes sir. >> but have two other letters. one on february 7 to merrick garland with a raise the same

concern and then on february 12 where the --y one standard evenly with those? >> i'm familiar with those letters. radley weinheimer is an associate deputy attorney general.■g >> and merrick garland is the attorney general. your family with the fact he went over your head? >> they were certainly entitled to write whatever letters they wished to mr. wise hammer and the attorney general? >> i just find it interesting that the white house is committed kidding with you throughout this one your investigation and then the white house says we are going to go to the principal's office and talk about mr. hur report find that interesting? >> eyes i said. they were free to correspond with whomever in the federal government they wish to correspond with. i d gage in numerous communications with them during the course of the investigation and as is reflected in specl counsel regulation, the attorney general did provide oversight of the investigation. >> understand.

i think the gentle leader for yelling and yelled back. we recognize the gentleman from california for vechairman jorda i want to first say that the house judiciary committee is responsible for helping to enforce the rule of law. unfortunately, the absence of this chairman in ignoring a subpoena condemns the ability of this committee to get information from witnesses and damage the rule of law. mr. hur, thank you for being here today. thank you for sharing your compelling immigrant story . that just goes to highlight how america is a nation of immigrants. i'm going to ask you a series of questions, yes or no questions. do not trick questions was simply designed to highlight what you already found in your report, which is that there are, quote, material distinctions between president biden's case and mr. trump's case. here's my first question. in your investigation, did you find that president biden directed his lawyer to lie to the fbi?

>> we identified no such evidence. >> did you find a president biden directed his ments? >> no. >> did you find a president biden directed as personal assistant to move boxes of documents or hide them from the fbi? >> no. payment did you find a president biden directedant to security camera footage after the fbi asked for the footage? >> no. >> the divine president biden showed a classified map related to an ongoing military operation to a campaign aide who d president biden engage in a conspiracy to obstruct justice? >> no >> did you see he had a scheme to conceal? >> >> it of those activities i laid out describe what donald trump did and is willful mishandling of classified information and criminal efforts to deceive the fbi in contrast president biden handing over documents without delay and complied fully with investigators. mr. hur, in

your report you write that, quote, according to the indictment trumpet only refused to return the documents for many months but also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it," you also say that approving these would be, quote, serious aggravating factors, and pull. do you stand by your analysis? >> i do. >> and a few more questions, as well. and your investigation to divine presidentbiden set up a shell company and covertly paid $130,000 in hush money to an adult porn star? >> no ■? >> did you find the president biden directed adler to pay $150,000 in hush money to a former playboy model? >> no. >> investigation to divine president biden called the georgia secretary to demand that he find 11,780 votes? >> noéw. >> to divine president biden devised a scheme to organize a slate of fake electors to undermine a free and fair election? >> no. >> did you find leading up to january 620 21 president biden urged his supporters to travel

to d.c. and to strum the capitol? >> no. >> thank you. each of these activities i laid out describe what donald trump did in his efforts to bully election officials, overthrow the results of the election and deceive the american people. that is what donald trump has been indicted and not just one, two, or three, but four criminal cases. i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> i just want to repetition, mr. hur, in regards to the chairman's questions from a few minutes ago. is it correct on that february 5 letter that was sent asking you to change refeújnces to the president's poor memory, wasn't that request by the white house to do that? >> there was a request. >> and i think the record should show the gentleman from maryland earlier said that was not the case. i think he said nor did he seek

to redact a single word of hur's report. obviously mr. hur is telling us differently. enter the white house then go to the attorney general himself and say that he would like to see chansto the references in regards to the president's memory? >> white house counsel did send such a letter. >> so if this president was 60 years old rather than 80 years old, would you prosecute them? >> congressman, as i said before, ca i address the facts and the evidence as i found them. >> it was an 80-year-old grandmother that came to washington, d.c. a few years ago and did not commit a violent crime.crime but not a violent crime and she was fully prosecuted. doesn't that seem like it's a dual system of justice for the president is above the law? >> congressman, i don't know the facts and the details of this other case you are referencing with this other person.

>> you say the president is unlikely to reoffend in the future. i believe that was a quote you put in the report. is that correct? >> i believe it was chapter 17. >> how is unlikely to reoffend in the future? how did you come to that judgment? >> as i say on page 254, any deterrent effect of prosecution would likely be slight were not concerned with specific deterrence as we say little risk he will reoffend. >> is in it because he's now the president and he is almost unlimited authority to release documents, is that correct? as a vice president he did have that authority -- did not. as he's president, is an easy to say that he is unlikely to reoffend because he has almost unlimited authority to release these documents? >> well, that statement was based, that assessment of the likeliness of reoffending from this particular person,

president biden, is based on a number of factors including the authority that he has now with respect to classified materials, as well as the experience he's had going through a special counsel investigation. >> looking back at 2011, there were multiple instances where he was informed by his staff and they ratcheted it up to where there was a formal process you are saying he has learned from that wh hasn't? that goes all the way back to 2011. >> congressman, what i'm saying in the report on page 254 -- >> he is a repeat offender, hur, isn't he >> what i say -- >> let me move on to let me move on to something else. you say you have strong motivation to ignore the proper procedures for safe guarding classified information and he provided raw material to his ghost writer that would be of interest to prospective readers and buyers of his book and i think you id something about he viewed himself as a historic figure. correct? >> i believe those words appear in the report. >> and he was also doing this for business purposes. that there ma buy his book?

>> toward the end it is vice president mr. biden/harris all to read a book and began work on it toward the end of his vice presidency. >> i think mr. chairman this is consistent with the biden family when you look at them in trying to enrich themselves. i mean, your family with the work of the oversight committee over the last year, right? >> i read some reports? >> 20 phone calls made to his son that he denied in 2019. 20 shell companies that were created. over $20 million it doesn't appear there is a pattern here that where i come from, they almost call it moneygrubbing. >> congressman, what appeared to just about today is the work i conducted in this investigation and in this report. >> i want to thank u as you could, but unfortunately, you are part of the praetorian guard that guards the swamp out here in washington, d.c. protecting the elites and joe biden is part of that company of the elites and you see it in the things the department of

justice has not acted on, mr. chairman. we look at the president's son who does not have to answer for lying on his 44473 in regards to throwing away a weapon you see it with the department of justice fending off the irs when the whistleblowers, with this information. now we see it once again where a president believes he is above the law and there is no doubt that this president does believe he is above the law. i yelled back. -- i yield back. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> hur, welcome. i concur in the me echo what has been said by my colleagues that your personal story being an immigrant, your family of immigran ts of this country sho why america is great. a great advocate story protect you for being here, sir. first question to you is you

are a republican. >> i am. >> does that stop you from a thorough and fair investigation? >> i certainly hope not and i know not. >> this story is really proof of the old saying that the cover-up is worse than the crime. president trump and president biden handled their classified materials differently, wouldn't you say? >> my report includes an assessment of the alleged facts in the pending indictment of former president trump and a comparison to the fact that we found in this case. >> but clearly the handling of this documents was night and day , correct? >> congressman, do you have a specific aspect of the handling intentionally took classified materials and obstructed justice to ensure those materials will not be taken from him and refuse to work with law enforcement. is that correct? >> my report reflects no findings of obstructive conflict on the part -- >> mr. -- president trump is been indicted in the u.s.

district court of southern florida on 40 accounts related to his possession of classifi is that correct? >> i don't know the exact number of counts but an indictment is pending in the district. >> mr. hur, you even wrote that after being given a number of chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution , i should say president trump allegedly d and according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents over for many months but obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about them. comparing contrasting to president trump, president trump turned classified documents over to the national archives and the department of justice and consented to searching his home and other locations. wouldn't you say that's night and day when it comes to cooperation with law enforcement? >> congressman, the report does include an analysis and comparison of the fact that her alleged with respect to former president trump and does detail

steps of cooperation the president and his team talk with respect to my investigation. >> president biden, you it is full cooperation in this investigation. >> the report includes cooperative steps the president took. >> would this be a factor in your decision to prosecute?ch i report, congressman. >> and you save the recommendation not to prosecute had nothing to do with the department of justice policy not to indict the sitting president, is that correct? >> the report says even if it weren't current department of justice policy that a sitting president may not be diwould reach the same conclusion that criminal charges are not warranted. >> mr. hur, have you set a new precedent here today? >> to the extent that the department of justice makes enforcement decisions are nonenforcement decisions over

particular cases, those are precedents. those are even prosecutors do look to in an endeavor to make sure that federal law is applied consistently over time. >> sir, i would say based on your education and your career experience you are very, very competent prosecutor. very, -- attorney. does the fact that you are republican, does that stop you from a thorough and fair investigation? >> no. partisan politics had nothing to do with the work that i did are the report i wrote or the decision i reached. >> thank you very much for being here. mr. chairman, i is that correct. >> the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> attorney hur, webster's dictionary says a decline of cognitive ability such as memory associated with old age. mr. hur, based on your report, did you find the president was senile? >> i did not.

>> the conclusion does not appear my report. >> you felt though that the president's lack of memory was a critical reason you decline prosecutionreason i'm asking this is whether you believe the president would be fit to stand trial or do you think his lawyers would argue his and competence stand also, was in a place to f mind actually be questioned? >> congressman, my report to the extent it addresses the president's memory gaps we identified in the evidence d i the context of determining how the jury would perceive, receive and consider evidence relating to whether or not the president her willful intent when it came to retaining or disclosing national defense information.

>> very good. i like to focus my questioning on chapter 14 in your report for classified documents found at the penn biden centerrt that documents found at the penn biden center were the most highly classified, sensitive, and carpenter lysed materials recovered during your investigation. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> documents came from mr. biden's west wing office and that is correct ? >> i believe that is reflected in the report. >> did you ask if he had packed the boxes himself? >> i believe that was one of the questions we asked and that is reflected in the transcript now available to the committee. >> i think it's important. how wo>euld you characterize the packing of these boxes? was it slow and meticulous or were they packed in haste without much scrutiny at all? >> i don't recall off the top of my head exactly how we characterize it but i think the gist of the evidence is that the manner in which files were

packed up and moved out of the end of the obama administration was in, it wasn't something of a rushed manner. >> very good. according to report the boxes were moved between multiple offices between mr. biden departing's west wing office in january '17 and his arrival at the penn biden center's permanent offices in october '17 . were any of these offices authorized tost. >> when the boxes arrived at the penn biden center's permanent offices, how are they stored? >> i believe in the materials were recovered, some of them were stored in a storage closet at, i believe, others of them were in file cabinet drawers. what is your assessment of security and access control measuresat the penn biden

center? >> that was something we looked at. there were some security access controls at the penn biden center, but we did get a handle on people who had access to the office space during the time. when we believe the materials were other people including students and some foreign dignitaries that visited the facility at the time. >> very good. you anticipate him and ask questions. so when the boxes were discovered to have classified documents more than five years later, who discovered these boxes? it was patrick moore, correct? >> corrected one of the president's personal counsel. >> ended mr. moore mac have some sort of active security clearance at the time? >> no texting how but the executive assistant at the penn biden center? >> no. >> on page 255 does >> i'm sorry, congressman. i may have misspoken. i'm not sure if the executive assistant had an active security clearance at the time. n interviewed by fbi agents were believe the small closet was initially locked and the penn biden center staff member provided a key to unlock it but his memory was fuzzy on that point. but in an interview with mr. biden's executive assistant

seem to contradict a statement. do you remember this exchange and did, in fact, it contradict each other? >>i remember the exchange with mr. moore during his interview with him? >> right. do you remember them contradicting each other? >> i don't remember that contradiction specifically but generally during the interview some times we heard things from some witnesses that were in tension with what we heard from other witnesses and we did our best to resolve those conflicts. >> q the national archives discovered nine documents totaling 44 pages with classification markings. is that correct? >> from the penn biden center. yes. >> and you decline charges because in summarizing urinalysis you could not prove beyond a reasonable bout that retention of the documents was willful? >> correct. >> very good peer i yield back. >> the gentle lady from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you. thank you mr. hur for your

testimony today. with all the posturing we have heard thus far this morning, i think it's important we refocus and remember the conclusion in the first sentence of your report which was we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. every that accurately? >> you did, congresswoman. >> the report says in addition to the shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents we have not been able to refute . did you read that correctly? >> congresswoman, if you give me a page citation. >> page six. >> six. yens. i see that language? >> thank you. in addition to those conclusions your report detail several material distinctions between president biden's actions and former president trump's mishandling of classified material.

the facts are president biden cooperated with your investigation. is that correct? >> he did. >> and his team notified authorities when they discovered classified documents and return them over immediately. is that correct? >> yes. >> he consented to multiple searches of his home in the properties. is that correct? >> correct. >> any separate entity with you? >> correct. >> and when it comes to mr. trump's treatment of materials you report states according to the criminal indictment against him he refused to return classified documents in his possession for many months despite having multiple chances to do so him and he obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about it. is that correct? >> correct? >> you noting your testimony the specific comments you made about president biden's memory have gotten a lot of attention and as wee seen today, our republican colleagues are again and again trying to weapon isis comments and an attempt to score political points, but as someone who has participated in trials, you know that witnesses regardless of age often have difficulty recalling specific

statements or fact when asked about them many years after those facts so let's take a look at a differing witness experiencing a lapse in memory during a deposition. >> your next wife was a woman by the name of marla maples? >> yes. >> and do you recall what years you were married? >> i'd the exact dates for you. i can do that. >> you married your current wife in january, 2005? >> i don't know relative to the day. >> what year? >> i don't remember the names. >> say don't remember -- >> i n't mber that. i remember you telling me. >> so would add that mr. trump told lawyers i don't remember 35 times in his deposition for a lawsuit over trump university and response to questions from

robert mueller, he answered did not remember our could not recall 27 times. processed and regulations required to to assess whether a jury would find mr. biden to be payment i'm not sure that i said those words exactly but, of course, and my view how the jury would perceive mr. biden if you elected to testify in his own defense at a trial, that would be part of the whole ball of wax the jurors would consider in determining whether he had willful intent in retaining or disclosing national defense information. >> you have any reason to believe thmr. trump with willful retention of classified documents would have failed to make an assessment of whether the jury would find mr. trump to be a credible witness? >> i don't have any information relating to -- i'm not

qualified basically to answer that question as to what went into mr. smith decision-making. >> but you are qualified to say whatllowed by special counsel, correct? >> i'm familiar with the roles set forth in the justice menu and make the standing of how to apply them. >> and that's what you did. >> correct. >> i would suggest that we can all assume that the fact that mr. trump was charged with multiple counts of willfully concealing classified documents suggest the special counsel in that case determined that mr. trump's denials are not credible. at this point i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record and excerpt from the committees transcribed interview withonio, former assi director entered the fbi washington field office on july 7, 2023 in which he explained the urgency for the fbi to retrieve and secure classified documents from donald trump's estate because they contained national security information that should not be viewed by anyone without the proper security clearance, even mr. dantonio himself dose

given their high security clearance despite eating the assistant director in charge of the fbi washington field office . thank you. >> without objection. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes >>, i'm interested in the dates set for in your report, mr. hur pick the reason i'm interested is a gift getting confused betwee and the 2024 date. as to the condition of the president's memory. wathere a difference? when i look at it it seems like his memory was bad in 2017 and then it was bad today. there's never any distinction made. isn't it true that if you are going to be looking at prosecuting, as you were, you would look carefully at his condition in 2017. is and that the proper timing? i think you say in your report the most, your best case, i think you call it out, ábthbest

case for charges would rely on mr. biden's position of afghanistan documents in his virginia home in february 2017 when he was a private citizen and when he told his ghostwriter he just found classified material. that's the best case as you say it. and then you ed your way through a series of defenses against your best case. so you're looking at his condition in 2017. do i have that right? >> you do. >> and his memory was bad then. and we can draw conclusions whether it improved over the next six years are not. i just want to make sure it's clear that we are looking at his condition in 2017, which you then find as you go through the list of defenses that his memory is bad. his memory is there were about six or seven defenses here. what this gets me to was this question. and i actually pull this quote out this morning that perhaps

your report concluded and perhaps it did not that the president is comical, and capable of being held accountable.ite what happened, is it? you do not find that he was incapable of being held accountable, did you? >> i did not. that did not appear in the report. >> they do not but you reached a conclusion that you did not have the evidence. but then your report continually recites these defenses. and having a hard time putting the two together. if you do not have the evidence, why do you persist in reciting these defenses? >> congressman, i wrote my report as an explanation of my decision to decline charges as to president biden. and the way that i came up with that explanation and wrote it in my report for the attorney o

prosecutor envisioning what would be the probable outcome of trial if we charge this case, if we presented the evidence to a jury. not only the government presenting the evidence to the jury about what would happen if the defense lawyers also got a chance to government case at trial. and with respect to one of the several potential defenses that i lay out in the report, one of them does focus on the president's memory -related issues. that is a defense that the defense lawyers may well present a trial and a jury will be confronted with at least three separate sets of evidence relating to the prident'5s memory . one is from the recordings in 2016 and 2017 fromthrrupting but i'm limited on time as everybody else was you say, i think, that the evidence suggests he is incapable of forming or yoarincapable of proving intent. there is a bit of a difference there, right? he may well have had the intent but you -- holding these

documents, and he does a hiding the documents, buyou could not prove it so what you did instead was fell back to the various defenses that might also be asserted against you. kind of a heap of rationale for not pursuing the president. do i have it right? >> congssman, in the same page. what i'm trying to convey is the way prosecutors assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case is in the government's case, here's the evidence we will present and the jury might be with us. but that's not the end of the trial. the trial also has to include presentation from defense lawyers. >> you are correct. i'm a lawyer and i've tried cases so i get up the report is not an exoneration so much as a determination that the evidence as you saw it or not overcome the defenses you identified, plus whatever lack of evidence you perceived pick so it's not an exoneration, is it? >> the word exoneration does not appear anywhere in my report and that is not my conclusion. >> the other thing of interest, and i think you were misquoted,

you said something, or someone suggested that you -- i'm going to run out of time. i appreciate the work you do as a prosecutor and i yelled back. mr. hur, we've been close to this for three hours per if you can hang this or would like to keep going. there is a chance we by the ti go to votes on the house floor around 1:40. i can keep going -- >> i can may not want you to know the lay of the land and i now yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you.ur testimony and your service as a prosecutor at the department of justice i want to focus a bit more on the progress of the instigation. some process questions. you were appointed by attorney general garland as special counsel to investigate the president's handling of classified documents in january 2023.

>> correct >> attorney general garland, as you know, nominated by president biden to serve in his role. >> correct. >> during a 15 month investigation, to the attorney general attempt to interfere with your investigation? >> no. >> that he and peter investigation in any way? >> no? >> did any other member of the department of justice within the ministration refused to cooperate with your investigation? >> no. >> were you denied access to materials, witnesses, resources from attorney general garland email needed during the investigation? >> no. >> you submitted, i think this is right, your final report to attorney general garland on february 5, 2024. >> correct. >> and it was then released publicly three days later on february 8, 2024, is that right? >> i believe that's true. yesño7t. >> in the final report that was released, when he veered substantive findings redacted or changed in any way? >> no? >> money refunded or modified by the attorney general?

>> no. >> did the attorney general issue any kind of statement or a letter attempting to describe the contents of your report? >> no. >> okay. you are familiar, i know, i'm sure, with the investigation that was conducted by special counsel mueller years ago with respect to the former president? >> yes. >> and at that time attorney general barr was in charge of the justice department. he sat where you said in this committee. i remember it well just a few short years ago. testifying on the nature of that particular investigation. are you familiar with the way in which he released that report and characterize it? >> yes. >> very different from the way that attorney general garland conducted this particular release. i take it you would agree with that? >> they were not the same approach. >> not the same approach. in the case of attorney general garland, no imputing or interfing with your investigation in any way whatsoever. releasing the report in full to

the american public. not attempting to mischaracterize it or describe it in any way. dissimilar from attorney general barr who five years ago, as you recall, after special counsel mueller submitted his report to the department of justice took nearly a month to release the report to the american public. heavily redacted. and not beforehe issued a letter of his own to the leaders of the senate and house judiciary committees mischaracterizing the contents of that report. that distidifference is very important because what i glean from your testimony, is that attorney general garland acted appropriately and ethically with respect to this investigation. i take it you agree? >> attorney general garland did not interfere with my efforts and i was able to conduct a fair and thorough and independent investigation. >> very different approach, as you said. from the way in which the department of justice,

unfortunately, tragically, functioned under the former president. i will yield back the balance of my time? >> the gentleman from alabama as recognized. i would like to point out to thebig difference. bill barr did not name bob mueller is a special counsel. bob mueller was named by rod rosenstein. that's a huge difference in how this whole thing works. and now yield to the gentleman from alabama. >> mr. hur, in your report you cited principles of federal prosecution and observed that historically after leaving office many former president's and vice president's have knowingly taken home sensitive materials related to national security for their administrations without being charged with crimes. and this historical record is important context for judging whether or not to charge a former vice president, and/or former president.". why is examining this history so important? >> congressman, one of the

reasons that was important was because it would air on how a jury would perceive, how a jury would decide whether or not criminal, willful intent was formed by the person retaining or disclosing the national defense information at issue. >> has a been an exception to this in the history of the nation? >> have recharged me former president's? >> as a data my report, to my knowledge there is only one exception of that and that is former president trump. >> given the history, is it fair to say it's preferable not to charge a former president or vice president for allegedly mishandling classified documents, in your opinion? >> congressma i can't articulate a president whether it's preferable. all i can talk about is the work i did and the facts i found in the decision i reached in my case. >> what is the difference with a u.s. senator having documents any former president of the united states? >> for purposes of proving willfulness, i believe there would be a number of differences in terms of the types of act as and the ease

with which president's while in office can access classified information, as compared to the privileges that senators have picked >> and president's declassify their possession? >> i believe under certain circumstances, yet? >> former president's as well? >> congressman, i confess this have looked into or explained in my report and i'm here to talk about the work that is reflected in the report. >> let me say this but you have a reputation beyond reproach and i want you to know that and to be thankful the attorney general appointed you to investigate his case you have a special counsel calling by the name of jack smith that cannot lay claim to such a reputation, isn't that right? >> i have no opinioñin. i'm nothing to say -- >> jack smith who the biden just attorney general garland has a reputation according to deep rooted reporting from the

washington times as an overzealous prosecutor realize ethically or unethically dubious tactics," and his prosecutorial record is -- string of missed trials and overturned convictions. chief justice roberts once prosecutorial theory as a balanced predation at the bribery statute. that did not comport with the text of the statute president of this court according to the supreme court justice. so, my question is, do you think in the case of jack smith , do you think justice is blind when is looking at president trump? we've never done this in the history of the country. is just as truly blind? >> i'm not here to express opinions with pending case against another defendant. i'm here to talk about the work i did with respect to the investigation relating to president biden. >>

>> -- to this conclusion? >> i'm sorry. the microphone -- >> can you explain in your interview with president biden led you to this conclusion? >> the conclusion does >> the statement that's been cited many times. >> the totality of the time that i spent with the president during his voluntary interview was something that i certainly considered and framing my assessment and articulating it into the report. that includes not only the words in the cold record of the transcript of the interview, but also the experience of being in the room with him a criminal trial if charges were brought. >> i guess i'm asking specifically pick you cited in the report the dates he could remember when he was vice president, when he began and the term ended.

is there anything else specifically that stands out from that interview with the president? >> a number of and again, i'm aware the transcript has now been made available. i do provide certain examples in my report of significant, personally painful experiences about which the president wacer information. i also took into account the president's overall demeanor and interacting with me during the five plus voluntary interview. about the details about being in the moment with the president , including his inability to recall certain things come and i will also say is reflected in the transcript the fact that he was prompted on numerous occasions by the members of the white house counsel pick >> a brief look at the transcript this morning, i saw some of that. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from xame, pennsylvania. i'm used to being down there. >> i got an upgrade. thank you, mr. hur and chairman

. thank you, mr. hur, for your service to our country and your team's service in this investigation. you determined after what you described as rigorous him a detailed and that president biden should not be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. in your report. the very first sentence says as much. it says, quote,, we conclude that nocriminal charges are warranted in this matter. am i correct? >> yes. >> that's the bottom line of this report. correct? >> that is the first sentence. >> is the first sentence of the bottom line. is an awful lot of misinformation that has been put forward by the press come in some cases, and by the other side of this dais. you do not reach this decision because president biden was sympathetic, is that correct? >> i reached the decision based on the totality of the reasons

that i set forth at length in my report? >> based on the evidence. wh[zile mr. trump, who g prosecuted is not sympathetic. you did not calibrate any of that in there picks sympathetic or not sympathetic. doesn't matter. the evidence lacks >> i did not reach any assessments of the evidence in the trump matter to the extent that i conser the allegations against former president trump. it was for purposes -- >> with your credibility, you are not out to get mr. trump, nor here to help mr. biden. i think it's about the evidence and i think you say that over and over again in your report why did you decide president biden should not be prosecuted? your report tells us, qu suffic those are your words. is that correct? payment i believe if those exact words not appear in the report that it is consistent with the gist of my conclusion. >> they are your exact words but that was not the case with donald trump. you have a copy of your report today, don't you come in front of you? good to read a portion of it

for me? your words, page 11 starting line 3. beginning with the words -- unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, would you read the next two sentences? >> i like the evidence unlike t involving mr. biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of mr. trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating factor. >> keep going. >> i'm happy to have you read the words in the report. >> well, it's your report, so i think it actually is more fitting that you read those. >> most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classify documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. >> keep going. >> according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also objected others by destroying evidence. >> you may stop there. you mentioned the indictment against mr. trump from his handling classified national security information. the indictment says at the end

of his presidency, mr. trump, i'm have it here. hang on. mr. trump himself ordered that boxes containing classified materials go to mar-a-lago, where he hosted tens of thousands of guests. then he kept the sensitive materials carelessly about the property, as you can see here, classified documents ended up in a bathroom, a ballroom, on a floor strewn about. and when a grand did donald trump do? the indictment again shows, against him, what he responded by, suggesting that his attorney falsely represent that the fbi and grand jury that he did not have documents called for by the subpoena that he directed his employee to move boxes of the documents to conceal them from mr. trump's attorney, and then lied to his attorney. and the fbi and the grand jury. suggesting his attorney might hide or destroy documents

called for by the grand jury investigation. mr. hur, are those the type of aggravating facts to which you refer to in your report? >> congresswoman, the aggravating facts that i referred to in the report are set forth and described in my report on page 11. >> very good. mr. hur, to the best of your knowledge and investigation, did president biden ever direct an employee to lie about, hide, or destroy classified information? yes or no? >> we did not identify such evidence. >> did he do so himself quite >> we did not identify such evidence. >> and i want to give you a chance, since the transcript is out, to correct the record on an important point. very sadly, your report, on page 208, says that mr. biden couldn't come up with the date, the year of his son, beau biden's, desperate one, in fact, in the transcript, it shows that he asked in the month, and do you know what he said, mr. hur? he said, oh god, may 30th. would you like to correct the

record? his memory was pretty firm on the month end the day. >> 's correct, with respect to the transcript. but if you could refer me to a specific page, i'd be happy to your look. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> chernow recognizes mr. curry. >> mr. hur, why did the white house ask you to remove parts of the report? what was the reason they gave for that? >> i don't have the letter in front of me, congressman. i believe that among the reasons were that they ■rcontested, or that they, they asserted that certain language in the report was inconsistent with doj policy. >> the day that your report came out, the president gave a, a live news conference on national television. did you watch the news ■& conference? >> i watched the press conference, yes. >> what was your reaction to see the president personally

attack you and your team? >> i'm here to talk about th we and my declination decision and my explanation of it for the attorney. >> and it wasn't just the president. former spokesman for merrick garland has said that democrats should focus their ire on hur , report is a shabby piece of work and a shoddy work product. do you agree with that characterization of your report? >> i disagree vehemently with that characterization of my rert. >> i also disagree. i think it's very well written, well considered, and copperheads of. do you think it's appropriate for the administration to be attacking the work of a special counsel that it appointed itself? >> congressman, i'm not going to comment on the propriety of the administration's reaction to my report. what i can tell you is that i stand by the report and the work that went into it. >> today, the ranking member started his opening statement by saying mr. hur completely exonerated president biden,d called to report a total and complete exoneration. mr. hur, did you completely exonerated president biden? >> that was not my report. that is not what the report

says. >> so the statement is incorrect, yes? >> as i said, the report is not an exoneration. that word does not appear in my report. >> on the facts and anticipation of defenses presented in your report, could a reasonable juror have voted to convict? >> as i said in the report, some reasonable jurors may have reached the inference is that the government would represent in its case -- >> so a reasonable juror coult the facts. >> correct. >> if you were on the jury, would you have voted to convict? >> i have not engaged in i thought exercise, congressman. and so what i'd like to stick to >> sure. and what you did find in the report is that the president, on page 200, risks serious damage to america's national security through his handling and mishandling of classified materials, and you identify, quote, a strong motive for the

way he handled those materials. two of the motives you cited was his desire to run for president, and his desire to sell books. so a reasonable inference for your report is that the president risked serious damage to america's national security in order to make money and advances personal political ambitions. is that correct? two the report includes a description of the evidence and different inferences that reasonable jurors could draw from the evidence. >> and you also know that the president describes his predecessor's handlitotally irresponsible, and your report concludes that mr. biden's emphatic and unqualified conclusion of keeping marked classified documents unsecured in one's home is totally irresponsible, applies equally to his own decision. is that correct? >> that language does appear in the report. >> you cite as a mitigating factor the fact that e president cooperated in the investigation. but at the time of the investigation was happening and the active cooperation occurred, the mar-a-lago investigation was already a matter of public record, correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> so we debate about the handling of classified documents and the potential application of the criminal laws to the general set of circumstances.

>> i think that's fair. >> and so the president, whetheate or not, had to know that visited to cooperate or not cooperate would become known to the public, and he would be judged accordingly. is that correct? >> i'm not in a position to >> is relevant to your analysis as to whether or not it counts as a mitigating factor. he knew that he was going to have to be judged based on whether he cooperated or not. that would lessen its value as a mitigating factor. so did that, in your analysis, lessen its value? >> we, we undertook a comprehensive -- >> that specific factor. today lessen its value as a mitigating factor? >> that and all facts relating to the president's cooperation with our investigation. >> another factor you discussed was deterrence, and you say that deterrence actually counseled against bringing charges here, because you said asked for general deterrence, to be deterred by the multiple recent criminal investigations, and one prosecution, of current and former president and vice president for mishandling classified documents. so that one prosecution, of

course, is the indictment brought by jack smith. so by the very terms of your analysis, jack smith's indictment actually counseled against, counted against ringing charges in this case, is that correct? >> i'm sorry, congressman, i don't follow your draft. >> you said that there's already deterrence because there's this prosecution out there in a prior case related to classified documents. so we don't need to bring another case to establish value. that was the essence of your analysis, correct? >> congressman, what i'll say is that i will stand by the, the way and the specific words in which i characterized my assessment of deterrence value of a case under the principle of federal prosecution that on page 254 and 255 of my report. >> thank you but my time is up, but i'll just add the perverse implication here is that the administration, by the very terms of your analysis, actually made it less likely that the president would face charges by jack smith bringing an indictment. thank you. i yelled back. >> mr. chairman, i have a

unanimous consenk you. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents. first, the superseding indictment against donald trump in the southern district of florida, where he is currently facing criminal charges on 40 counts, including obstruction of justice, lying to the fbi, unlawful willful retention of national defense -- >> without objection, the indictment is -- >> the concealment of documents from law enfoen other things. that was the shortened version. and my second document, to clarify for you, sir, mr. hur, from the transcription, page 82. the words are president biden's. what month did beau die? oh god, may 30th. a searing memory. i ask unanimous consent. >> without objection. the gentleman from georgia is y

ranking member for this hearing, and thank you so much for spending so much time with us today, special counsel hur. in accordance with the law, classified information must treated with the ghes respect and also protected, and president biden has made it clear during this investigation and long before that he agrees. in response to mr. hur's report, he said, and i quote, ovmy in public service, i've always worked to protect america's security. i take these issues seriously, and no one has ever questioned that, end quote. the special counsel's report makes clear that this is unfortunately a common occurrence for classified documents to get swept up into members of congress or executive branches, officials personal effects. and as soon as president biden discovered he had mistakenly kept classified material, he took swift and immediate action to ensure that those materials were returned, and he fully cooperated with every stuff of your investigation. president biden's predecessor, when dealing with the issue of

having classified materials, took very different steps. 20donald trump declared, and i quote, i'm going to enforce all the laws concerning the protection of classified information. no one will be above the law, end quote. get when his lawyer told him that it was going to be a crime if he didn't return the classified documents that he had after nara, the doj, and the fbi requested multiple times that trump return the classified documents, yet he hid them. trump himself acknowledged that the same year that service members have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country, yet he decided that his desire to keep these documents outweighed the potential loss of life for

these people if those papers got out. not only did trump have a legal obligation, he also had a moral obligation to all of us, and he failed to live up to that. mr. hur, thank you for being your report regarding president biden and some of your findings. and for the sake of time, if you don't mind just answering yes or no. please answer this question, page 187, as your report reads, at no point did we find evidence that mr. biden intended or had reason to believe the information would beedto benefit a foreign nation. this is what you reported. for the sake of time, please answer yes or, yes or no. >> congresswoman, you said page 187? >> of your report, yes.

>> yes. at no point did we find evidence, yes. that language is on page 187. >> okay, so then this is what you reported, correct? >> that languages in my report. >> you acknowledged on page 12 of your report that there are, as you said, numerous previous instant in which marked classified documents have been discovered intermixed with the personal papers or former executive branch officials and members of congress. please, once again, can you r u answer whether this is what you reported? >> that language appears in page 12 of my report. >> page 323 also reads, as a matter of historical context, there have been numerous previous incidents in which marked classified documents have been discovered intermixed with the personal papers of former executive branch officials and members of congress. is this what you reported? >> that language appears in page 323. >> thank you. now, it's my understanding that, that this has happened before. where classified documents are swept up into official papers.

so mr. hur, aside from donald trump, are you aware of similar instances in history where officials who have had these classified documents engaged in a elaborate scheme to hide those documents from federal law enforcement officials? >> the one case that comes to mind that we do address in the report is the prosecution of general portray us. >> so are these historical examples, aside from donald trump, where officials instructed their aides to delete evidence pertaining to those classified documents? >> that was not president pretorius prosecution, no. >> okay. so the american people deserve, as we've always been saying all along here, that we deserve a leader who will not put themselves above the law, but will work with law enforcement and hold themselves accountable. thank you, and i yield back. >> the gentleman from wyoming

is recognized. >> special counsel hur, when you determined that no criminal charges should be brought against president biden in this matter, you focused on the specific facts surrounding the classified documents where president biden stored them, and on his memory and age. you wrote that president biden's, quote, memory was significantly limited during his recorded interviews with the in 2017, and during his interview with the special counsel's office in 2023. you also expressed concern the prospective jurors would be persuaded by president biden's presentation as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. your assessment, however, was focused on how president biden would currently present to a jury if he stood trial. is that correct? >> that was an element of my explanation to the attorney general. it was not the only element. >> okay. that wasn't my question, but it was one of the things that we were considering with his current state of mind, his

current memory, correct? >>pá one of the things that i considered would be how, if a trial, whenever a trial, theoretically, were to be held, how president biden would present himself to the jury if he elected to testify. >> okay. you did not compare president biden's current memory or condition with his memory or condition when he was a senator when he left the vice presidency and took the classified documents subject to your investigation, is that right? >> actually, i believe that's not correct, congresswoman. one of the things that's in the report is an assessment of the president's memory based on recordings om-2017 timeframe, recordings of conversation with mr. biden and memory that he exhibited during our interview with him in october of 2023. so there was a comparison there >> okay. unless there was some issue undisclosed to the american people during his 50 years in office, you found that mr. biden fully understood his legal responsibility related to the handling of classified materials, which is why you concluded in your

rotated and disclosed classified materials after his vice prid private citizen. you state that on page one, correct? >> i believe that what i stated on page one was that we identified evidence that mr. biden willfully retained classified information after the end of his vice presidency, but ultimately we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant -- >> i understand that. please listen to my question. what i'm getting at is that mr. biden fully understood that he could not keep ■#classified information at his home as both a former senator and vi president, isn't that right? he understood that, correct? >> my understanding is that based on the evidence, my assessment was that a jury -- >> that isn't what my question was. please listen to my question. my question was that mr. biden understood when he was a senator and vice president that he could not keep classified materials at his home, at his

garage, and in other offices. is that fair? >> i don't think that's accurate, congresswoman, because when mr. biden was vice president, he was authorized to have ossified material in his home. >> but after he left, he knew that he was not entitled to keep classified information at his home, correct? >> after he left, there is evidence to suggest that he knew that he could not legally have classified information in his home. however, there is evidence, with respect to his notebooks, that he believed he was authorized to keep the notebooks at home, based >> based on precedent. you know, i guess the way that i would put it is this. president biden new governor. he knew that he wasn't entitled to keep these documents when he was a senator, and he knew he wasn't entitled to keep these documents after he had left the vice presidency. because he's now suffering from an impaired memory, as you so delicately put it, he got away with it. is that fair?

>> congresswoman, what i stated in my report is that there's certainly evidence that some jurors could, could infer to suggest that mr. biden willfully retained and disclosed national defense information. but in my judgment, the likely outcome of a trial, the probable outcome -- >> you know, mr. hur, i have represented a variety of clients over the years in actions against the federal government over, in fact, several decades of time. it's been my experience that the federal government, the doj specifically, has essentially unlimited resources to go after and prosecute citizens, and will spare absolutely no expense in doing so. it has also been my experience that the doj is not only overly aggressive in these cases, but makes it clear that part of the reason for such aggression is to make an example of the -- who is the subject of such actions. in other words, so that other people will not engage in the same kind of conduct. mr. hur, having u please

ask blaine wipe both people, without the last name of clinton or biden, are typically treated quite differently and seem to be the only ones who are never held accountable for violating the law? >> congresswoman, one of the things that i explained in my report is the fact that there are historical precedents wi former occupants of the white house and their retention of classified materials after they leave -- >> i'm acting specifically about misses clinton and misses hillary clinton and joe biden. >> congresswoman, i don't have any opinion to articulate with respect to the investigation relating to misses clinton. >> i yelled back. >> gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. hur, special counsel jack smith has charged donald trump with 40 counts related to his unlawful possession of classified documents. the most serious charge carries in prison. according to the trump indictment, trump stored those documents at mar-a-lago, which, quote, hosted events for tens of thousands of members and

guests, end quote. the indictment continues, quote, trump stored his boxes containing classified documents in various locations at the mar- a-lago club, including in a ballroom, a bathroom, and a shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room. mar-a-lago is more than a mansion or a compound. it is a club, with membership -- with a membership program that sells access to the public. it has hundreds of people moving through it at any given time. staffing it alone requires 150 staff members. and while those classified national security documents sat in places like his ballroom, trump hosted more than 150 social events like weddings and movie premieres, which thousands of people attended. in brief, special counsel smith has alleged that trump willfully and knowingly took highly classified documents to

a location accessible by tens of thousands of people. mr. hur , was president biden residence accessible to tens of thousands of people? >> no. >> did president biden ever bring tens of thousands of into stored classified materials? >> not to my knowledge. >> did joe biden advertise and sell membersh to his home that would allow members of the public to have access? >> not that i'm aware eof. >> did your investigation find that joe biden ever hosted movie premieres at his home while classified documents were stored there? >> no. >> among the 150 staff members working at mar-a-lago, was a trump aide named walter nauta. according to special counsel smith, trump ordered him to move boxes of documents so that they could not be found by ople mr. hur, did president biden ever direct his staff to move

documents ■+■a you or the fbi could not find them? >> we did not identify evidence of that. >> in fact, according to your report, as soon as bob auer discovered material in president biden's residence, he contacted john lauand the president immediately consented to an fbi search of his home, is that correct? >> my report does state that. >> and you found no evidence that any documents were moved prior to that search, is that correct? >> correct. >> that's in stark contrast to donald trump. president biden did not obstruct your investigation. he was fully compliant, and with access to the millions of documents he gave you and dozens of hours of witness interviews he facilitated, you were able to fully and totally exonerate him of criminal wrongdoing. i thank iwyou, mr. hur, and before i yield back, mr. chairman, i ask unanimous

consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the committees transcribed interview with step charge of the fbi washington field office on june 7th, 2023, in which mr. dantonio explained that the fbi executed a search warrant for classified material at mar-a-lago because there was probable cause to believe that donald trump did not fully comply with a subpoena to turn over classified documents. >> >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentle lady from florida is recognized. gentleman from -- ranking member is recognized. chairman. >> i have three unanimous consent request. firstly, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the publisher's webpage for president biden's 2017 book, which shows that the books have deeper memoir about

the year president biden's son, beau, died. i also ask unanimous consent to enter page 97 of mr. hur's report, which says that president biden's book is not known to contain classified information. finally, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the february 5th, 2024 letter for president biden's counsel, special counsel hur . president biden's 2017 book classified information, and there has never bigger than a suggestion to the contrary," but >> cannot recognize the gentle lady from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman, advocate, special counsel hur, for joining us here today to discuss your investigation. regarding president biden's mishandling of classified documents, this has become an americans , and, of course, to all of us here today. as is outlined in your report, despite the discovery of confidential and top-secret records located in the president's personal residence in delaware, including in his

garage, office, and basement, the department declined prosecution, and my colleagues questions today have focused on the highlights from your report, specifically res mental capacity, his willful disregard for the law as a private citizen, and how he would be perceived if presented to jury of his peers. dependent upon, and i'll use your words from the report, how this sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory handled and managed the storage of these confidential documents. the national security of the unit is eight might have been put at great risk because of the president's behavior, and so one of the things we must consider today is how we can ensure that our national security will not be continually put at risk when under the leadership of the same well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. since the release of a report, to your knowledge, has the justice department started to analyze a damage assessment of what may have been disclosed by these documents being mishandled, and any ongoing national security risks from

the inappropriate storage and retention of the documents? >> congresswoman, my understanding is that such a damage assessment is underway in coordination and cooperation with the members of the intelligence community. >> and do you, today, for us, have any information about the status of that investig how long it might take to conclude? >> i do not, congressman. >> i'd like to turn your discussion distinction between proving the underlying elements of an offense and the concept of an obstruction of justice charge. is it correct, special counsel hur, that in some circumstances as a federal prosecutor, you may investigate the underlying offense and underlying offense, choose not to charge that offense, but still have developed sufficient evidence to charge a defendant with obstruction of justice? >> i think it's a matter of, theoretically, that could occur. i can't bring to mind specific examples of that happening, but

i suppose if that were to happen, it would be a more difficult case to try from a prosecutor's perspective. >> the elements are distinct, though, are they not? and isn't it, isn't it similar to a case where a federal prosecutor undergoes an investigation and ultimately doesn't pursue the original charge they were investigating, but during the course of the investigation, concludes that a false statement was made to a federal law enforcement officer and brings the charge under 1001? >> that could happen. >> yes. and they, again there too, the elements would be different. >> correct. >> and in reaching your final decision related to the declination or the recommendation to declined prosecution, you considered both the underlying elements of the offenses of that issue, and alsoe prosecution, is that right? >> correct and now, the principle of federal prosecution, those are things that may very case to case, is that right? >> determinations under the

principle of federal prosecution are very fact and circumstance dependent. >> but the elements of the criminal offense are not, isn't that also correct? >> elements are defined by law, and they do not vary from case to case. >> and those, those elements of nse would be exactly the same from one defendant to the next to the next, isn't that right? >> yes. >> so you would expect, would you not, that a prosecutor was considering the underlying offenses that you are considering here would be looking at exactly the same elements and requirements that you d >> prosecutors assessing their cases under the same statutes must consider the same elements with respect to those statutes. >> all right, think a special counsel hur. and then if we could turn back to the concf'ept of those principles of federal prosecution, those are the additional factors aggravating or mitigating that you might that are and ultimately reaching a charge in the decision here, is that right? >> they do include such things

that are referred to as aggravating and mitigating >> there's one thing i want to go back to, though, to be clear. it's been said today that your report is tantamount to a total exoneration of president biden. that's not correct, is it? >> that is not correct. >> all right, thank you sir. i yield the balance of my time to the chair. >> the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from north carolina. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. hur, also for your 2 hours? so almost as much as biden. throughout your report, you repeatedly cite and credit a number of innocent explanation for the presence of classified materials at the president's home and other locations. innocent explanation that you admit that you cannot refute, and i'd like to just focus on a few of them, and i'll give you citations. onof these explanations for the president's of classified

documents is that a member of the president's staff maintained those documents when he was the vice president, and then mistakenly included them in stead of documents that were later sent to locations such as the 10 biden center and the university of delaware, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct, but if you have a specific page number for me, that would help me -- >> we'll get you one. that would be great. another innocent explanation to be more likely than a criminal explanation for the president's -- presence of classified documents that were found at the penn biden center and the university of delaware. is that correct? >> correct. >> great. and then let's talk about the documents in the president's garage. as you noted, a reasonable juror could conclude that the location of the documents, surrounded by household junk, is not a place where a person knowingly and intentionally stores classified documents that are critical to his

legacy. instead, it looks more like a place where a person stores classified documents that he's unaware of. that's on page 209 of your report, correct? >> that is something that a reasonable juror could factor into his or her consideration, but whether or not the president had criminal willful intention. >> great. and you also noted that president biden was allowed to have classified documents in his home for eight years, as vice president, and then again he also had layers of staff were responsible for assembling, carrying, storing, and retrieving these types of classified documents. >> correct. >> and because of these facts, you determined it was, quote, entirely possible that the president did noiknow he still had some of these documents in his home when his vice presidency ended in 2017. that's on page 215.

>> entirely possible. >> entirely possible. >> yeah. th's a citation. i'm going to keep going, because my time is running what you're looking. so you, you also cite your investigation as evidence that he did not have criminal intent, and i want to quote you here, because this is important. you wrote, most significantly, mr. biden's self-reported to the vernment thments were in his delaware garage, and consented to the search of his house to retrieve them and other, and other classified materials. he also consented to searches of other locations, and later

in the investigation, he participated in an interview with our offi lasted more than five hours, and provided written answers to most of our written questions. many conclude that a president who knew he was illegally storing classified documents in his home would not have allowed such a search of his home to discover those documents, and then answer the government's questions afterwards. page 210. ■w, you said that you expect this argument about the president's innocent to carry real force for many reasonable jurors, because, in your words, reasonable jurors will conclude that mr. biden, a powerful, wi access to the best advice in the world, would not have handed the government classified documents from his own home on a silver platter if he had willfully retained those document■s for years. just as a person who destroys evidence and lies often proves

his guilt, a person who produces evidence cooperate will seem by many to be innocent. again, page 210. as you said in your report, it would be reasonable for a juror to reach that conclusion, and that a president advised by counsel would not have informed investigators of the presence of classified documents in his home when inviting aided in the search of every nook and cranny of his home or other residence, or sat for an hours long interview, or answered pages of his full cooperation and his to lack of criminal intent. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. we got three and more we're going to do, and then we'll just have a couple more after that. going to start with the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. i think the gentleman is yielding. mr. hur, are you opposed to the u.s. conference having access to the audiotapes of the people

you interviewed during your investigation? >> chairman, i am not in a position to articulate an opinion one way or the other. that is not really up to me. i'm a former employee of the department of justice. i would refer you to the white house and doj leaders. >> is there any reason why we shouldn't? by united states congress shouldn't have access to the same information you had access to, and that was the basis of your decision? >> chairman, it is not for me to opine on what materials -- but the justice department release the transcripts today of the hearing. would be nice to have them in a better time for the committee to prepare for a questioning for you they release them today why has it been justified justified release of today it would be nice if we actually had the audiotapes too. again, is there any reason why you can see why the american people and their representatives and united states congress should not have access to those tapes? >> chairman, what i can tell you is that my assessment that went into my colusions that i described in my report was based not solely on the transcript. it was based on all of the evidence, including the audio

recordings. >> great point, and that's where i was going. so this was valuable evidence for you, as a special name, to investigate this issue, valuable evidence for you to reach your conclusion, and in the statements you put in your report, and all i'm asking is, shouldn't the united states >> chairman, again, it is not for me to weigh into what information congress should or should not have, but what i will tell you is that the audio recordings were part of the evidence, of uri considered in coming to my conclusions. >> hope we can yield to the gentleman. >> yields to the gentleman from north dakota. >> thank you, mr. hur. your report, you detailed that mr. biden retained in his delaware basement classified documents relating back to his time as a u.s. senator and the '70, correct? and even more senate papers heading back to through 1991 were found in the university of delaware morris library and in the biden senate papers collection, correct? and even more senate papers dating back to the 1970s and

1980s were president biden's delaware garage. >> i believe that, yes, that's correct. >> mr. biden had nearly 50 years experience dealing with classified information, including as a member of the senate select committee on intelligence committee on judiciary, a member and chairman of the senate committee on foreign relations and vice president of the united states. and that he was deeply familiar with the measures taken to safeguard classified information ange certainly sounds familiar, congressman, but if you have a page citation for me -- >> and as vice president, is it correct that in 2011, mr. biden received advice from his staff about the need to secure classified inat >> expert >> including his first counsel, his first counsel, cynthia hogan? >> correct. >> and he would advised in writing in 2011 by hogan and fi secure skates and stored in secure facilities. >> correct. >> is second counsel, john the, also advised biden that all of mr. biden's records, including

his notes, would be sent to the national archivesn understood and accepted that, correct? >> that's correct with the exception that mr. mcgrail was vice president biden final counsel, not his second one. biden was also appraised of his obligations by the national archives that twice more than his classified notes should be secured in a skiff. >> that particular fact is not immediately coming to mind, congressman, but if you have a page citation, i can confirm it for you. >> did mr. biden have 30 years experience handling this information? he received advice, and i believe two separate councils, the national archives staff, and he has demonstrated enough knowledge of the law to attack, attack president trump in public over the same exact issue in detail. this is where i get into this. i just have a problem with your testimony, a reasonable person would conclude that mr. biden knowingly retained national defense information and failed to deliver to an appropriate

government official, and that he knew his conduct was unlawful. and i think that's where we end up here, and that's what the point is. over the last three election cycles, there's only been three people who have ran for president. hillary clinton, joe biden, donald trump. all three of them have been accused of mishandling ossified documents. only one of them has been prosecuted. and that's what the american people see. that's what we see. we had hillary clinton, who ran a program called leach it on her server and they used hammers to destroy evidence. joe biden has a 50 year history of misplacing classified documents in numerous different places. all of these cases have the same underlying elements of the crime, the same fax patterns, and yet we only see one person being prosecuted. and with that i yield back to th kentucky. >> my times expiring, i yelled back with >> ranking members recognize for unanimous consent. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. chairman. in light of what the german previously said, i ask

unanimous consent that all e th public. >> there's an objection to that. the gentle lady from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for being here, mr. hur. st. louis and i are here today once again to focus on the real issues that affect our communities instead of partisan hit jobs. let me start by saying that the potential mishandling of classified information is a seirious issue, and i believe i was appropriate for the attorney general to appoint both special councils in the biden and trump cases. as my colleagues have pointed out, president bin'ial counsel hur, who did not find evidence sufficient to warrant criminal charges. despite this outcome, republicans have used the special councils report to further their long-standing efforts to re-elect, re-elect the former white supremacist in chief, donald trump, who faces 40 criminal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents, including obstruction of justice.

while president biden returned all of the classified material and complied with the special councils investigation, let's remind ourselves what donald trump has said and done. he refused to turn over the classified documents in his possession to the national archives. he is on tape sharing documents he id hecould've declassified when he was president. he wildly claimed in an interview that the presidential records act allowed him to do whever he wants, and he was allowed to do everything he did. he also set on his right wing social media platform, quote, i'm allowed to do all of this. he continues to admit to his possession of these documents on the campaign trail. good faith oversight effort. it is just the latest in a long line of dysfunctional and they don't care about ken responsible governance or making people's lives better. they don't have an affirmative

agenda. they are throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping it sticks, and they have zero credibility to talk about mental acuity when they support donald trump. the same donald trump who mixes up joe biden and barack obama and nikki haley and nancy pelosi. the same donald trumwho incorrectly pronounce the words venezuela, respected, and united states. the same donald trump who calls january 6 defendants hostages. in the same donald trump who believes bleach injections would treat covid-19. it is deeply hypocritical anyone who tramped against this man for the presidency to talk about the mental acuity of anyone else. but this is nothing new. this has been a consistent pattern of the republican majority in this congress. from the sham impeachment investigation to his completely collapsed, to the absurd impeachment of secretary

mayorkas, republicans have focused on destroying the incumbent president, destroying the democratic party, destroying progressive movements of social justice, also that they can re-elect e time. now, it is well known that i have disagreements with president biden on certain issues. my concerns are rooted in the desire to resolve policy matters, and help him take better positions that save more lives. that's not what republicans are doing. it's not what these investigations and attacks are about. they are trying everything they can to turn back the clock on our rights and our freedoms, and we cannot take the bait. let's focus on policy. let's focus on substance. let's focus on saving and approving the lives of our constituents. not misusing the precious time and resources of this committee. not being dishonest just because it serves our political interests. we are better than that, and

of this. i will continue to reject these absurd distractions from the investment we made in the communities that we represent. let's focus on that instead of this irresponsible and easily repudiated republican clown show. thank you, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. i recognize myself for special counsel hur, thank you for a number of things. first, thank you for agreeing to testifying today. second, thank ■6u also for sharing your family's story at the beginning of your testimony. it is an extraordinary story of third, let me also thank you for your in-depth investigation and your detailed report, and generally for your service as special counsel. it's not something that i think many people would look for, and certainly comes with a lot of burdens. so thank you for your work. in your opening statement, you described your investigation

as, quote, thorough and independent, and i agree with that. one where you attempted to give, quote, rigorous and detailed analysis. i also agree with and one where you say you, quote, must show your work, which we very much appreciate today. we don't normally see that. you statement correctly as it relates to those quotes? >> yes sir, you do. >> in fact, as part of your investigation, you interviewed about 150 different witnesses. you look at millions of different documents. because you wanted to do a thorough investigation. isn't that true? >> correct. >> and you do this because you extremely seriously, and you wanted to reach accurate conclusions, correct? >> very much. >> the let's review some of your specific findings regarding the issues pertaining to competency and ■>■umental capacity of president biden, because you say this is very important to whether or not there was criminal willful intent. as you can see, i it for the number ofdiotes appear on this board that i've

prepared, some of which i'll read to you. page five, you say mr. biden's, quote, mr. biden's memory was limited. to begin on page six, you say mr. biden would likely present himself to a jury as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. then on page 207, you say mr. biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations. then again on page 208, he did not remember when he was vice president, and he did not remember even, even within several years when his son, beau, died. you finally made the statement on page 248, quote, for these jurors, mr. biden's apparent lapses and failures in february and april 2017 will likeconsist diminished capacities and faulty memory he showed. those were astounding conclusions to me, and as i looked through those quotes, i'd say i harken back to my time before congress. i was a judge, and one of the

things i oversaw was guardianships, and frankly, when i read your, when i read your conclusions, red flags began to go up in my because i guardianships back in texas. and as i saw your conclusions, i began to wonder, what is the d.c. statute say about guardianships, and how do you define an incapacitated individual in washington, d.c.? and i want to show you the statute, because i presented -- are you familiar with the statute at all? >> i am not, congressman. >> so i didn't think that you probably reviewed that, let me just read to you some of these, some of the, the definitions here. an adult who is, whose ability to receive and evaluate information effectively, or to communicate decisions, is impaired to such an extent that he or she lacks the capacity to manage all or some of his financial resources. that's the first part of the definition of incapacity, and incapacitated individual under the guardianship statute in the

district of columbia. and quite friendly, i see tons of overlap from what you set forth in your testimony and your report, and the definition here, the phrases are almost si manage national, top-secret resources, i'm not sure how he can manage his personal financial resources. and given your reports finding that his memory was, quote, significantly limited, and that he's a person with, quote, diminished faculties, and was, quote, faulty memory, it makes me wonder how close he is coming to meeting this definition of an incapacitated individual. he should have a guardian appointed by the bc courts for his personhoodere is at least, prima facie argument to say that there is substantial argument to indicate such. and you mentioned it's not justp what you've written in the report, but it was the demeanor of president biden as you interviewed him. i'll say in conclusion, whether definition, i believe your

findings raise significant concerns about his current fitness for the office of president and certainly his fitness going forward in the future, and i appreciate the fact that you are brave enough to raise this issue in this report, because you knew this would be significant in your findings. but you did so based on a very significant, very detailed, very thorough independent report, and i praise you for that, that doing your duty and situate. thank you, special counsel. i yield back at >> gentleman yields back. mr. her, we have looked from the floor, we have a few more members who will do their, their five minutes of questioning, so we're going to recess, and then we will convene 10 minutes after the conclusion of the last vote. i believe we only have a couple votes, two votes. that will take a while. but wel get back here soon as we can, and there's, there's, there's food in the, in the, in the back room for, i think we still have some left that