■@ the hard lives of palestinians. we will not be complicit in genocide. help me what?

>> rations. >> we are talking about right -- >> what about russians? >> there are a fraction of the last two years, a fraction of the children that have been killed in gaza. there has been 17,000 orphans in gaza right now in 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 first month. gaza, the size of philadelphia. >> this meeting will come towit 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 the pledge. ■c nikki ♪i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and tohe 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 recognizesthemselves for an opening statement. robert hur was appointed special counsel on january 12, 2023. he had a fundamental question to address. did show bryden unlawfully retain classified information? the answer, jyyes he did.'s pag one of the report says this. our investigation uncovered 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 classified documents about afghanistan and handwritten notes in his notebooks, which ■ places in his home. joe biden kept classified

information and joe biden failed to store classified 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 ■s unclassified sources. but there is more. joe biden not on the kept information he was not allowed to keep and not only failed to secure that information properly, but he also shared it with people who were not allowed to see at. he shared that information with 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 pageofit 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 bide 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 because "mr. biden would likely present 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 said did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting

on the first day of the interview when his term ended and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term as vice president began." but in the end it boils down to a few key facts. joe biden kept classified information. joe biden failed to properly secure classified information. 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. =yhu mr. hur, we think it is important that you be able to respond to president biden's response to your report so we will provide 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 by what you found in your report. so if we can play that video. >> hey, everybody. >> good evening. >> let me say a few things 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 yourcontinue a president? >> 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 the things i got past. how did that happen? i guess i just forgot. >> mr. president. mr. president. >> reporter: do you fear this report is only going to fare ■j fuher concns. >> reporter: 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 atme 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! r 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 are too old. mr. president, in december he told me you believe there are many other democrats who could defeat donald trump so why does it have toyou 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 assified information. i did not share with my 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 it was not classified information in that document. >> reporter: mr. president! why not? >> thank you so much, you guys. president! he called on me. when you look back on this incident there any think you would do differently now, and you think a special prosecutor should have been appointed in the first place in bothofthese 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 in they referenced that in the report and my staff did not do it in the way that -- for example, i did not know how half the boxes got in my garage 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 accessed. it was locked 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 special counsel should have been appointed, and 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 president. and the fact is that they made a firm conclusion i did not break the law. period. thank you very much. >> reporter: mr. biden! mr. president! israel! >> the hostage neti i am of the view, as you know, e in gaza -- in the gaza strip -- has been over-the-top. i think that, as you know, initially, the president of

mexico, 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 against their archenemy to the north west -- northeast, i prov 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 aboutoto break it up before it happened. >> reporter: thank you everybody!

>> we are going everybody to hold for a moment. >> the chair now recognizes that ranking member for an openg >> mr. chairman, i am glad you have such information. that you allowed him to take the first 10 mins of this hearing. mr. chairman, house republicans may be desperate to convince america 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. the hur report does help to draw a distinction between mr. trump and president biden, noyo first, the report is clear that "at no point did the special counsel find evenreason 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 vá 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, etendi

classified this information without telling anyone on his way out the door. we know that he stored that information around mar-a-lago in the craziest of places. on the ballroom stage. spilled acnext to the toilet. we know that he showed classified military plan to an author. "i could have declassified it, trump says on the recording. now i can't, you know, but this is still a secret. still a secret." so much for the de that trump is alleged to have had shared these classified 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 and

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 ." 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 report helps us to between president biden and donald trump. simply put, president biden had the mental acuity to navigate this situation. natrump did not. much has been made of the special counsel's gratuitous biden's age. t president

but let's set the context. after returning every classified document, after opening his home to federal investigators, while simultaneously managing the first hours of the crisis in israel, president biden volunteered to sit through a &■ 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 bungs one but dozens of opportunities to avoid criminal liability? what does that say about his mental state? here too, the record speaks for itself. >> one of the great memories do

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. >> three years later. how about that? >> did you actually have a one- on-one with comey then? >> not that i remember. nobody speaks in. >> saudi arabia. russia. >> i have a really good memory. by the name of marla maples. >> that is ray. >> you recall what years you are married? >> um. >> 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. they will change the name. >> i talked to putin a lot. >> i don't remember that. i saw that this morning. >> a good memory and all that stf.were fighting isis, i defeated isis in four weeks. >> and we did with obama -- we won an election that everyone socannot 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 crimina liability. a man who is wholly unfit for office. and a man who at the very least ought to think twice before accusing others of cognitive decline. thank you for being here today, mr. hur. thank illuminating a

stark choice for the country in the months to come. i look forward to urback. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman now recognizes that chairman mr., for an opening statement. >> thank you. in august 2022 president biden 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 with the american people about his willful retention of classified material and continue to hide information from congress. he first claim to discovered material on november 2nd 2022. however, president biden and his lawyers kept it se the american people before the

midterm elections. cbs news broke the story in to wonder if the white house had any intention of 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 biden's mishandling of classified documents. this investigation started before special counsel hur was named, and what we found was al information obtained through multiple transcribed interviews conducted by the 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 the whitehouse. 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 reasonle 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 obstructing congress as we seek the truth for the american people. we subpoenaed former whitl to a 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 interviewi 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 counsel hur's final report to be released. the white house has refused to be transparent about the president's mishandling of classified documents and, worse, they appear to have lied about the timeline, about who handled the documents, and even the contents of president biden's interview with special counsel hur. that is why today's ararency is today and we look for to special counsel hur's testimony. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman now recognizes 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 this matter. we would wish the same conclusion even if department of justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges agsitting president. second, the report establishes that president biden offered complete and unhesitating cooperation with the special counsel's investigation. 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 ococtober 9t busy responded to hamas's vicious terrorist attack in israel. report thus demonstrates president 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 heseek to redact a single word of mr. hur's report. he consented that 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 difference in detail. ", most notably after being 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 about it." he returned only a portion of subpoenaed documents and deliberately withheld the rest to unlike president biden, trump did not alert the doj nor 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 contrary, trump suggested that his attorney hide 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 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 constantly multiplying corrupt schemes. >> all opening statements will be included in the record. the honorable robert hur was appointed as special cose to in 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 maryland. he also clerked for judge alex kaczynski on the nircuit court of appeals. we welcome our witness and thank him for appear 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 rrect to the b 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. pleasey will be 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, ranking member 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 young children during the 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. i resolve to do 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. my team and i conducted a thorough, 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." when mr. biden said that he was a private citizen speaking to his ghostwriter in his private rental home in virginia. also identified other recorded convclersationduring which mr. biden read classified information allowed to his ghostwriter. we did not however discover 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 or not. the need to show my work was especially strong here. the attorney gene 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 and leave 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 weaknesses and by anticipating the ways in which the president's defense lawyers might poke holes in the case if there were a trial and seek to persuade jurors that the government could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. there s 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 presen 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. consider the president memory and overall mental state and how a jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial. these are the types of issues p

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 recorded statement, "i just found all the classified stuff downstairs." he told us he did not remember saying that to his ghostwriter. he also said he did not remember finding any classified material in his home after his vice presidency and he did not remember anything about how classified documents about afghanistan made their way into his rage. 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 jurors would perceive and believe. i did not sanitize my explanation.

nor did i disparage the president unfairly. i explained to thand 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 agt like saw it. as a prosecutor i had to consider relevant precedents and explain why different facts justify different outcomes. that is what i did in the report. i am confident what the forth i 11, 12, and 13 in my report of the thorough explanation of the analysis and i encourage everyone to read it to inform prosecutors rarely write public report or testify about their investigations. that is the justice department's long-standing policy and it protects important interests. my team and i prepared the report as the primary source of information.

my responses today will be limited to clarifying information for the committee. i will refrain from speculating or commenting on 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 the attorneys, analysts, and q professional staff who helped us to our work thoroughly, thoroughly, and independently. i'm grateful and privileged to have served with him. i signal a lot of particular things for deputy general mark crumpler, 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 a compromise sources, data, it's methods, and it was

totally irresponsible. as about president biden and his statement about donald trump and the classified documents. the documents were found at the penn >> 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 elements of the crime are pretty simple. president biden had unauthorized possession of document. >> correct. >> and that the document 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 2017 -- that he had just found all this classified stuff downstairs. >> is captured on an audio recording. >> on april 10th, 2017, biden read aloud in a 2015 >> that is in the report. >> and these are national security documents. 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 biden's attorneys talked about why they did not actually go to the presidential records act. but you eventually said the executive

>> we did set forth an analysis of governing law and 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. in february 2017, quote, i just found all the classified stuff downstairs. >> and passages from a meeting in this situation. and 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 possessed documents, the documents related to national

defense, and willfully retain those documents, and in this 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 defense information. >> the willful retention, 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 been very great at dealing with classified documents, even prior to his time as vice u.s. senate. >> we do address each of those sets of documents in the report. >> but i think this is really importt. 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 department principles on

federal prosecution because that actually has nothin with the underlying elements. it is weather or not you can prove this at trial? >> 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 ■úmeet 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 crime. that has to do with getting a conviction at trial. correct? >> part of a prosecutor post judgment as to 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 wi the elements of the crime. it is presentation to the jury. >> it certainly has something -- >> the gentleman can respond. >> it certainly has to do with how a jury will perceive and make conclusions based on evidence at trial, congressman. >> the chair now recognizes the nk committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hur, in the written testimony, you say you found some evidence that the present may have willfully 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 you please repeat the question, congressman. >> would you agree there is

either not being able to charge for a crime? you are either charged or not charged. >> so just to be 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 based on the evaluation of the evidence -- >> is that correct? >> i am sorry. is -- i 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 not warranted. >> i have limited time. 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 cases alleging that he incited a rebellion and lied about his finances. you found that president biden reported the possible documents as soon as he learned of them. correct? >> there was a voluntary scre by the president's counsel to authorities relating to the discovery of classified documents -- >> 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 ho a silver platter if 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. >> 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 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 investigation, do you have any reason to believe that president biden and lied to you? 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 kecle didn't lie. or that he called his staff to lie to you.

your report is clear on that. you agree that causing someone to lie to the fbi is a classic example of obstruction of stice >> it is an example of obstruction. >> thank you. trump also directed the smith investigation to movedocuments to conceal them from trump's attorney, the fbi, and the grand jury. at any point in investigation, president biden directed his staff to conceal 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 special counsel cannot see how he tried to move and hide documents. you agree that trying to move and delete video footage in this manner is plain to -- >> congressman, i do not want to characterize the evidence? >> but if that happened would you agree that the leading video footage is plainly an

attempt to -- >> congressman, it is that type 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 those are allegations that are in a pending -- >> and the reason why president biden is not facing a 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 yids is recognized. >> i want to get this straight. is it now okay if i cret docume them in my garage, and read portions of them to friends or associates?

>> congressman, i would not commend 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 presidents and other senior officials who have been given wide latitude in the possession of classified information and i be prosecute biden is consistent with that president. but that changed with the decision to prosecute donald trump and the irony is as president trump had full

discretion over handling classified material and full discretion in deciding which records to retain. as a senator or have that so now we get to this glaring double standard. i think it would be toxic to the rule of las just two ordina citizens, but the fact that 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 harepublic. 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 i set forth my comparison of those precedents in my report 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 told others he was aware of this and that he shared this material with others. the mind boggles what beyond wo mean. >> as i set forth at length in 7 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 at trial. >> that is one of the points you make. president biden is likely to be an elderly, syatwith a poor mem but how does that bear on any individual's guilt or innocence? isn't that a question for a judge ■ or jury? and here is the problem. donald trump is being prosecuted for exactly the same act that you allege joe bide

has committed. >> congressman, if i understand 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 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 is 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, here 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. this foundation. and the rule of law becomes a sick mockery. it becomes a weapon to wiel 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 >> without objection. the ranking members recognize for unanimous consent. >>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 things about the law and the ts there are clear differences between the cases of precedents set by presidents reagan, trump, and biden. now, it was widely known that president reagan kept diaries from his presidency that included classified information. what i did 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 wrenching remedies about the illness and death of his son bo " and that is on page 256 of your 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 revi d. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> no, that is in stark contrast to ex-president trump's case. he obstct 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 hino? >> we did not hear that from the president during his interview. >> so again it is very different from ex-president trump. ex-president trump said all of the documents marked classified were his personal property. president biden did not consider documents that were produced by other entities with classification markings as his personal records. now, i think, you know, since

the majority has tried to 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 quote "several material distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. biden's case are clear. most notably, after being given 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 locatis, including his homes, sat for a voluntary

interview, and in other ways cooperated with investigation. it is clear that these cases are not the same. and, frankly, i was surprised to learn that some of the classiedpersonal diaries that many executive officials have taken home with them because it was in their own handwriting. it was what they produced. and based on the department 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 over, just as president reagan 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 ■lto merrick garland and with that, i see my time has expired and i yelled back. >> the chair is recognized. mr. hur, why did he do it? why did joe biden willfully and retain classified materials? >> he knew the law. been in office 50 years. five decades in the united states senate, of committee as vice president, he got briefed every day. 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. armstrong ea

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 the report. 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 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 am not sure if that information 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 information 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 know what? was not just the money. joe biden, this is page 231, ne

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 thina 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. joe biden, i want to get this right. viewed himself as a man of presidential timber. >> i believe it does appear in

the report. >> i think that is interesting. here is the scary part. 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 $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 reclaim classified information which he definitely was against the law. what does that i do? destroys . that is the key take away in my mind. that is the key take away. i >> the dome for maryland for five minutes. 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 with donald trump. you say most notably, after being even multiple chances to 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 biden's cooperation in the noncooperation. >> 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 memory specialist. drive-by diagnoses of the president of the united states who is soaring powerful, historical analysis devastating repartee with even the most skilled hecklers of

the freedom caucus. we are on e union address last week for the whole country to see. the desperate question is a distraction from the 91 federal and state fedeat donald trump faces now is staggering civil court losses in new york. more than a half 1 billion doll 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 fries, this is a memory test. it is not a memory test for president biden. it is a memory test for all of america. do we remember fascism? nothingism? communism and 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 games, donald trump entertains authoritarian hustler and mar-a- lago for the weekend. that if w indeed sleepwalk into another trump presidency, trump will quote, not give a silepenny to ukraine. that is what all this is about. pull the wool over the eyesof america. the tyrants and dictators of the world are on the march today. who wins 1ú1with this. wins. the tyrants of the world when.

you have completely lost their way. they are looking for high misde now they appoint themselves in amateur memory specialist. 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 kidnapping of thousands of 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 w got to see at the state of the

union address. directly address the real russians of our time. it■b■@ is demoversus 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 who are involved in the mishandling of classified document under the leadership >> can you tell us approximately how many current and former white house employees related in your investigation? >> i do not have that figure immediately at hand. of course, it was a subset of the 173 interviews that we conducted. >> we did interview miss remus.

>> was counsel, correct? >> she was president obama's 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 fa 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 hahis 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 redent biden a love of questions about all the different sets of classified materials that were recovered during the course of. >> anything pertn specifically to our congressional inquiry president biden but you call? >> if there are more specific that would be helpful. n >> if it is helpful, chairman, appendix a does list in table chart form, a brief distraction of the documents that were to interview miss

remus. the transcript would be highly ■ relevarp 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 the courts of the investigation, the oversight learned that a white house employee visited the in 2021. did ■,u in the course of your investigation? >> chairman, we do not. the roof report does ecific nam 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 interviewed kathy. the department of defense employee former to president biden and learned that the ■8 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 intervie er emplo that dana remus, anthony, and ashley williams on different occasions before the alleged discovery of classified >> interview these interviews during this investigation. >> we interviewed many individuals and i can assure you, chairman it was a priority

of hours to interview the relevant sources and in who knew about them, and you access them. >> they were reported. they were all recordings. >> before classified materials will reportedly discover there according to the white house. >> sir, i 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 discovery of documents in 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 mis. >> 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 recognized.

>> good morning. >> the republicans asked for a lot of transcripts. jordan has yet to release 90+ transcripts fr. for those to be released to the people is the question. my question to you decided based on the facts not to prosecute, indict, or bring forward charges against the president of the united states, the sitting president, joseph biden. is that correct? >> that was my investigation wa independent and thorough. is that correct? >> we have heard from our republican colleagues you are rapping at straws, allegations that president biden has 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 of the classified documents, the fdic's. in your investigation, you 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 than five hours? that is correct? >> correct. >> in the interview, it occurred the day, which all should know after the horrific according to a letter from the

white house counsel. is that correct? >> the interview spans two days. with the president having to be in and out to deal international crisis, and after the interview, he provided answers to additional questions, correct? and out during our interview to handle the internet. >> let me go ■lxá president biden allowed investigators to search his private houses. is that correct? >> 7 million documents for review in your investigation. is that correct? >> this included emails, text messages, photos videos, toll records, and other materials 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 that was obtained? >> with respect to documents. we submitted the president notebooks for classification review. >> if agencies reviewed classified materi and gave a of classification, you classified it as a higher level for the purpose of your investigation to be thorough, correct? >> those reflected. >> thank you. the fbi reflected classification from each agency. multiple agencies had equities. the special counsel's office used the highest level of classification identified by an agency as the current

classification of the document. let me go on. you at special counsel, in 2023, are you correct? >> he offers you to investigate mr. biden's possession of the cost of a document, including possible, unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records. present at biden's home, any matters that rose from the initial investigation may arise directly from the special counsel. is that correct? >> i believe that accurate reflects the language of the order. >> you operated in and visit investigation for a year, what you just stated that you had 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

ident. is that correct? >> that is my judgment. >> if you have 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 office of legal counsel policy prohibiting sitting president. apart from that, what 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 why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter? 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 instigation. >> people might sa 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 apply this scene out cooperator theory that because joe biden 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 that biden continues to pay out in life about the basic facts of the report to lead a federalx 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 thsameway as trump as the elevator is not going to the top floor so we cannot prove intent. the same time, biden go 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 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 countries. that play into 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 qh

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 is th ghostwriter, right? the ghostwriter purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to be like show culpability of aden's crimes. why don't you ter with obstruct 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 that 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

en he deletes the information that is the evidence and you don't charge them. what esdo to get charged with abduction obstruction of justice. what would meet the standard? >> congressman, as we stay in the relevant chapter of the report, one of the things that did not delete was transcripts of the recordings that hehad created included evidence. >> if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence, that is somehow gothe 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 standardbut 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 picture that we could be concerned about but in the limited picture, director mueller had an investigation. he is famous recent special sufficient evidence to say there was connection between russia and the trump campaign. you found there was no 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 >> a political appointee of special counsel to fully investigate the circumstances you declined to prosecute because you found insufficient evidence of a crime. 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 you did right. the department of justice is to investigate and prosecute joe biden's actions of handling ossified. >> did you receive any pressure to make specific factual finding or legal conclusion? >> no. >> 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 jack smith the same way. >> i really do not have the sufficient information with ■@ respect to ck 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 he left january the 20th. 2009 and then 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 prosecut 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 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. >> congressman, 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 e future of america for the middle class,

democracy around the world, standing up to the russians, bending down to them. that is. 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 the world safe and peaceful. that is dealing with ukraine, dealing with different people like benjamin netanyahu like ■e 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 senilepeoplecomment. nobody suggests he is senile and that is respectful. lots of seniors have memory disability 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 would like 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 are. 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 recoveh"red during our investigation were marked classified documents. áüa

>> said in response to questions over a five hour interview that he did not recall how he got the documents. he knew that that would play into the republicans narrative that the president is un the american people saw during the state of the union address that that was not true. that is why they are having you here today and can expand upon that narrative. knew that that was going to happen, didn't yo >> you are, whatsoever, a member of the society. are you a member of the federalist society?

but you are a republican, aren't you? >> yes, sir. we are doing everything to do r- elected so that can get appointed as a federal t÷judge the department of justice. is that correct? >> i have no such aspirations. i can assure you and i can tell you that politics had no 0place whatsoever and no place in the investigative steps that i took. no place to continue a word of my. >> the time is expired. the gentleman from new jersey is. you have five minutes. >> thank you for being your. i think the folks let me be watching visit on, trying to organize in my mind as well. the president has portrayed in your report the well-meaning, forgetful men orthat was focused on maintaining and

retaining these secret documents that should've been not in his home. >> was worthy to be president better than any president. >> could you set your putting language for report? >> standby that he was. "a well-meaning but forgetful old man. >> i do not think words appear in the report, congressman. but the extent that i use words similar to that effect in my assessment of how a jury would proceed joe biden and the evidence relating, i do standby that. >> is it to say that in your interview, resident biden with classified materials to his image as a presidential figure?

i am asking yes or no because our time is so limited. >> so the answer is yes? >> do you agree that president biden and his legacy provides a concerning classified material? >> it is one of the motives addressed. >> showcase. >> is accurate to show badly damaged boxes in his garage? a zappos box and an empty bucket, is that correct? >> that is correct. yeah. >> classified documents. we got a former vice president who have willfully purposed retain classified documents in order to highlight his medical statute and a presidential figure. former vice president restored

classified documents in very unsecured places. a former vice president to suffer any consequences all because it is a well-being, forgetful old man. kind of a well-meaning, forgetful and you forgot what you were doing a little bit. i believe responsible. law might apply. you know that. 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 pr president besides president trump ever been terminal e charge for knowingly retaining

ossified information after they would you confer that special counsel smith's decision to charge a former president for retaining and disclosing inform 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 tr an example of the justice department being ■rap against conservatives. there is another piece to this. i have just a few seconds. we know that when ghostwriter is speaking to him, 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

ownstair an audio recording, yes. >> is reflected 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 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 want to ask you about some of the differences between the facts involving president biden and trump. before we do, backto e you said you did not despaired the

report. you did spaired 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 a make a generalized statement, didn't you? >> i could have written my report in a way that omitted th memory but that would have been an incomplete and improper report. >> that was not question. >> you could've 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 are so naove as to think your words would not of created a political. you 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 gop side. you understood that, did you not? >> congressman, what i understood is the regulations that govern my ■÷■wcontact at special counsel. >> a confidential report for the attorney general. >> you knew it would not be confidential, didn't you? >> the regulations required me to write a co report explaining my decision to the attorney general -- >> which you knew would be

released. >> it was up to the attorney ge >> 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 could consistent with legal requirements. >> do you also understand doj policy that you are to take care, not to prejudice the interest of the subject of investigation, right? >> that is generally one of the interests that doj policy reir respect. >> with your obligation to follow the policy in this report, was it not? >>h2 it was also my obligation write a confidential report for the attorney general explaining. >> what you did right was deeply prejudicial. you say it was not political and yet, yomust have understood the impact of your words. you must've understood the impact of your decision to go y document to go the very general. for your own personal

presidential opinion to president, one unit would be 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 superseding indictment, on page 3, it says mr. trump suggested his attorney falsely represented the fbi and 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. the i was to prepare a report that was comprehensive and thorough.

>> what is in the rules? what is not intuitively do things to prejudice the subject of an investigation when you are planning to prosecute. not add language that 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 xxt 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 gentlen 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 isrecognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being here, thank you for your. i think where you and i might have disagreements, there may bematterofopinion 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 llor purposeful. >> those are different standards of under the law, i'm sure. >> yes. so when president biden misplaced 30 briefing documents in 2010, the classified ever got them all back, or when he was in the hamptons at a party and he lost what they were calling code words, which is i security information. that was not necessarily willful, no indication at he ■c purposefully did not. accidental, negligent. you indicated that we do not even know if we got all that back. we are assuming maybe we did. that would not be willful, right? >> as reflected in the report, there were certain categories of documents were will me looking 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 made a deliberate, qx 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 fo 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 th 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 summarizing issues. while he is reading those notes, i cannot read my own writing. you have any idea what i am saying here? >> he asthe ghostwriters. biden says this. 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 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. 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 well, he was ignorant, he was incompetent, he was accidental. no. he had guilty knowledge. hetold the guy that he's going to expose that classified material to. hey, be careful, be careful.

it may be classified. that indicates something a little bit more than knowledge. it indicates he has some intact. the next thing you should've said is hey, i do not know if it is classified but we are going to skip over this until that is resolved. he didn't do that. what he said is read anyway. i yield back. >> the gentleman yelled back. the gentleman from california is recognized for five nutes. >> 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 an 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 tbetween 350 to 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 $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 what i just laid out? >> i'm here to talk about the report and the work that went into it. >> but you don't want to assisted with that guy again? >> congressman, i'm not here to offer opinions about what may or may not have been the 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 right? >> the decisions that i made 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 two

days for approximately 10 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 mu investigation took place. donald trump you did not support interview when he was impeached in this committee room by the -- did not sit for 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 ary 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, photographic understanding and recall of the house but did you say that to president biden? >> 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 i understand that to be true. two did you have any involvement in the decision of the timing release of the transcripts? >> oh. recommendation by the release of the president being done or not? >> i did not pick that is above my pay grade. >> i don't know whether release 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 on2:21 of your report you are describing, i think the afghan pack or something like that from 2009, i think is the information you and is one reason not addition mr. biden told us in his interview that he does not recognize they marking confidential as a classification marking. to him, the marking means the document

classified. 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 morningju from that exchange. this is on page 24 line 15. so, this is a type written document. it's got a confidential, what appears to +c 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 noonly question i have you about this mr. president is the confidential marking. do you recognize that to be a classification marking? president biden: no. i mean, confidential doesn't want to get around. it's not in a 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? es 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 infoation there is top-secret, secret and also a category of classified information called confidential is that me aware of him or not? president biden: i, yes. 0#■ 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 mem 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 cagories oasof classified information called confidential and he said, yes. i was aware of it. 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 inconsistent answers, or in fact, why did you not nailed down inright 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 instigation 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 be found something but we've only had a little bit of time to look i don't think it serves this process well for the justice department to jump the 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 your investigation 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 rt. is it correct that as it says in the first sentence of your executive summary that your investigation concluded with an assessment that, quote, no criminal charges are warranted in this matter? >> correct? payments of this lengthy, expensive and independent investigation relted in a mplete exoneration or president joe biden. for every document you

discussed in your report, you found insufficient evidence 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. any to go back and make sure i 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 term-- multi mac >> -- evidence existed and the likely outcome. >> you exonerated him. >> it is not exoneration. >> mr. hur, my time. i know the term 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 report to

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 correct? >> that is 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 evidence to prove either of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt to show that mr. biden willfully retained 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. thank you pick let me ask you about example. one set of 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 binds your facts do not support a conclusion that mr. biden willfully retained the work 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/doc■auments in his delaware home or a home that he rented in virginia in 2017. in your report you said there was, quote, a shortage 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 their accuracy. >> it's up 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 no 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 delaware 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 indiana is recognized. >> thank you, special counsel, for being here in these challenging times and i wa few interesting for me. you obviously could see -- you obviously seeit was for attention of these documents but it's interesting for me that when you talk about a sympathetic older man, elderly man with a poor memory, it 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 so it seems to me it may have been more in his recollection than the typical i don't recall because that's what appears. did you get a sens and i just d 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 judgment as to how a jury would likely perceive and recee ence relatin all the evidence that we put in by both the government and the defense at trial. it was based on a number of . 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 specifally 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 presented himself during his interview? 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 ob and 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 time? an >> thank you.

mr. hur during your one your investigation did you have communication with the whyae housicular? >> yes . >> i got five letters that they communicated with you regarding your investigation. is that accurate? >> we received a number of letters from the white house 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

you have determined, they responded to the report. and then they disagree with your, they ask for you to change some of the things you had in the report namely the 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 --p bradley one standard evenly with those? >> i'm familiar with those letters. radley weinheimer is an general. deputy at >> 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 ee with whomever in the federal government they wish to correspond with. i did engage in numerous communicationsduring the course of the investigation and as is reflected in special 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 five minutes. >> thank you, chairman jordan. i want to first say that the housdible for helping to enforce the rule of law. unfortunately, the absence of this chairman in ignoring a bipartisan congressional subpoena condemns the ability of this committee to get information from witnesses and damage the rule of law. 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 lawyer to destroy classified documents? >> 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 directed as personal assistant to delete security camera footage after the fbi asked for the footage? >> no. >> thvi showed a classified map related to an ongoing military operation to a campaign aide who did not have clearance? >> no. >> to divine president biden engage in a conspiracy to

obstruct justice? >> no >> did you see he had a scheme to conceal? >> no. >> 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 lith 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 otrsso say 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 president biden 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 of state to demand that he find 11,780 votes? >> no. >> 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? vities 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. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is regn 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 to you asking you to change references 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 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 changes to the references in regards to the president's memory? >> white house coa letter. >> so if this president was 60

years old rather than 80 years old, would you prosecute them? >> congressman, as i said before, i cannot engage in hypotheticals. 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. committed a 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.t? >> 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 documents7g1,

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 bideisctors including 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 when he's proven that he hasn't? that goes all the way back to 2011. >> congressmwhrt 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 said 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 may be people that would want to 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 presidencyt%. >> 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 ofthreports? >> 20 phone calls made to his son that he denied in 2019. 20 shell companies that were created. 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 you for the work you did as far 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 ay a weapon you see it with the department of justice fending off the irs when the whtleblowe, with this information. now we see it once again where a president believes he is above the law anthere 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 immigrants to this country, the way you contributed to the greatness of this country shows why america is great. a greatfor being here, sir. first question to you is you an. >> 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 crime. president trump and president biden handled their classified materials differently, wouldn't you say? >>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 hangyou >> president trump intentionally took classified materials and obstructed justice to ensure those materials will not be taken and refuse to work with law enforcement. is that correct? >> my report reflects no findings of obstructive conflict on the part -- -- pre bes. district court of southern florida on 40 accounts related to his possession of classified documents. 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 osecution , i should say president trump allegedly did oppose and according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents over but obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about them.

comparin■> congressman, the report does include an analysis and comparison of the fact that her alleged with respect to former steps of cooperation the president and his team talk with respect to my investigation. >> full cooperation in this investigation. >> the report includes cooperative steps the president took. >> would this be a factor in your decision to prosecute? >> it was a factor and i explained it as such in the 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 repo sxsays even if it weren't current department of justice policy that a sitting president may not be indicted on federal crimes, i would 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 events that future prosecutors do look to in an endeavor to make sure that federal law is applied consistent over time. >> sir, i would say based on your education and your career experience you are very, very ey -- 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 such as memory associated with old age. mr. hur, based on your report, did you find the president was senile? does not appear my report. >> you felt though that the president's lack of memory was a critical reason you decline prosecution. the reason i'm asking this is whether you believe the president would be fit to stand trial or do you wo his and competence to stand trial due to his state of mind? also, was in a place to actually be questioned?

>> congressman, my report to the extent it addresses the president's memory gaps we identified in the evidence we obtained during the investigation are addressed in the context of determining how the jury would perceive, receive and consider evidence relating toñ 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 ieden er. you state in your report that the 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 . how would you characterize the packing of these boxes? was it slow and meticulous or were they packed in haste >> 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 to store classified information? >> no. >> 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 st at, i believe, others of them were in file cabinet drawers. what is your assessment of security and access control measures at the penn biden center? >> that was something we looked at. there were some security access controls at the penn biden center, díbut we did get a hand on people who had access to the office space during the time. when we believe the materials were there and there were other people including students and some foreign dignitaries that visited ty 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 e 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. >> on page 265 of the report he stated when 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? >> sir, you're asking if 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. >> quickly. the national archives discovered nine documents totaling 44 pages with classification markings. is that correct? >> from cline 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 reached on the first page and 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

>> congresswoman, if you give me a page citation. >> page six. >> six. yes. 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. is that correct? o multiple >> correct. >> any separate entity with you? >> correct. >> and when it comes to . 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 havi do so him and he o

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 we've 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 th 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 have to get 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 don't remember that. i remember you telling me. >> so would add that mr. trump told lawyers i don't remember university his deposition for and response to questions from special counsel robert mueller, he answered did not remember our could not recall 27 times. mr. hur, you said today the doj processed and regulations required to to assess whether a jury would find mr. biden to be a credible witness, correct? 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 the special counsel who investigated and charged mr. 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 what are the normal procedures followed by special counsel, correct? >> i'm familiar with the roles set forth in the justice menu and make the standing of how to >> 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 concealiclassifieddodetermined 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 with stephen dantonio, former assistant director entered the fbi washington field office on july 7, 2023in 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 withouth, even mr. dantonio himself cannot dose given their high security clearance despite eating the assistant direge of the fbi washington field office . thank you. >> without objection. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minus i'm set for in your report, mr. hur pick the reason i'm interested is a gift getting confused between the 2017 date and the 2024 date. as to the condition of the president's memory. was there 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 prosecutin 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, the best 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 worked your way through a series of defenses against your best case. so you're looking at his 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 bad. his memory is bad. there were about six or seven defenses here. what this gets me to was this question. i actually pull this out this morning that perhaps your report concluded and perhaps it did not that the president is comical, and capable of being held accountable. but that's not quite 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 rt. >> 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 bin.with that explanation and wrote it in my report for the attorney general is for the following: the approach i took with the prosecutor envisioning what would be the probable outcome of trial if we charge this case, if we presented the id. not only the government presenti ce to t would happen if the defense lawyers also got a chance to try to poke holes in the government case at trial. and with respect to eone 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 ast three separate sets of evidence relating to the president's

memory . one is from the recordings in 2016 and 2017 from the ghostwriter. >> forgive me for interrupting but i'm limited on time as everybody else was you say, i think, that the evidence suggests he is incapable of forming or you are incapable 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, but you 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 heapof rationale for not pursuing the president. do i have it right? >> congressman, i think were on 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. t th

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 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 prosecutored 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 could complete by the time we have to go to votes on the house floor keep going -- >> i can keep going. >> there's a chance we may not

want you to know the lay of the land and i now yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you. thank you mr. hur for your testimony and your service as a prosecutor at the department of justice i want to focus a bit more on the progress of the investigation. 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 attorneygeneral 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. yes. >> in the final report that was released, when he veered substantive findings redacted or >> no? >> money refunded or modified by the attorney general? >> no. >> did the attorney general issue any kind 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 juago.

testifying on the nature of that particular investigation. are you familiar with the way in which ■che released that report and characterize it? >> yes. >> very different from the way that attorney general garland conducted this particular release. i take 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 interfering with your investigation in any way whatsoever. releasing the report in full to the american public. not 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 release the report to the american public. heavily redacted. and not before he issued a letter of his own to the leaders of the senate and house judiciary committees mischaracterizing the contents of that report. that distinction and difference is very important because from

your testimony, at least from what i glean from your testimony, is that attorney general garland acted appropriately and ethically with respect to this 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 point out to the gentleman from colorado there was a big difference. bill barr did not name bob mueller is a special counselnam rosenstein. that's a huge difference in howq 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 sensitivri 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 would perceive, how a jury would decide whether or rmed by 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

>> 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? >> congressman, 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 office can access classified information, as compared to the privileges that senators have picked >> and president's declassify documents they have in their possession? >> i believe under certain circumstances, yet? >> former president's as well? >> congressman, i confess this is not an area of law that i 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 sathis but you have a reputation beyond reproach and i want you to know that and i think president biden ought 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 opinion. 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 etca dubious tactics," and his prosecutorial record is replete -- string of missed trials and overturned convictions. chief justice roberts once rebuked mr. smith's prosecutorial theory as a balanced predation at the bribery statute. that did not comport with the text of the statute or the president of this court according to the supreme court justice. soquestion 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 presid 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 roomhim and, frankly, considering how he would present to a jury in 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 things stand out. 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 was unable to recall certain 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 occaon white house counsel pick >> a brief look at the transcript this morning, i saw some of that. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from texas, excuse me, 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 thorough analysis that president biden should not be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. in fact, everybody can take a look at your report. the very first sentence says as much. it says, quote,, we conclude that no criminal 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 beident 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. while mr. trump, who is being prosecuted is not sympathetic 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 consider the allegations against former president trump. it was for purposes -- >> with your credibilite not ou 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, quote, we conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict. 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 gi■e 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 on line 3. beginning with the words -- unlike the evidence involving mr. bidenyou read the next two sentences? >> i like the evidence unlike involving mr. biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of mr. trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating factor. >> keep going.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 handling classified national security information. the indictment says s presidenc i'm looking for my indictment here, i have it here. hang on. mr. trump himself ordered that boxes containing classified materialgo 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 jury subpoena the documents, what 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 xes of conceal them from mr. trump's attorney, and then lied to his 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 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

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, 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? the month end the day. >> congresswoman, i don't believe that'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. >> 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, corebelieve that a reasons were that they contested, 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 personlyteam? >> i'm here to talk about the work that went into the report, 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 , the president's personal attorney bob hours that in your 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 report. >> 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 lf?

>> 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 em by saying mr. hur completely exonerated president biden, and 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 atement 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 could have voted to convict based on 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 is what's in the report. >> sure. and what you did find in the report is that the president, 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 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 handling of classified materials as totally 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 the 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 >> i believe that's correct. >> so we already had a public debate about the handling of classified documents and the potential application of the criminal laws to the general set of circumstances. . >> and so the president, whether he decided to cooperate 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 opine on what was or was not -- >> 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 beed 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, you took presidents and vice presidents are already likely 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 inthat 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 threport >> thank you but my 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 indiment. thank you. i yelled back. >> mr. chairman, i have a unanimous consent request. thank 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 enforcement, among other things. that was the shortened version. and my second document, to clarify ■k■cfor you, sir, mr. h

from the transcription, page 82. the words are president what month did beau die? oh god, may 30th. a searing memory. i ask unanimous consent. >> without objection. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i thank you, mr. chair, ranking member for this hearing, and thank you so much for spending so much time with us today, special counsel hur. ■ in accoceth the law, classified information must treated with the highest respect and also protected, and president biden has made it clear during this investigation and long before that he agrees. in respon report, he said, and i quote, over my career 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 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. 2016, donald trump declared, and i quote, i'm going to enforce all the laws concerning 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 here today. i'd like to talk about 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, at no point did we find

evidence that mr. biden intended or had reason to believe the information would be used to injure the united states or to 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 inreport. >> 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 anof please, once again, can you confirm for us yes or no, the answer whether this is what you reported? >> that language appears in page 12 of my report.

>> page 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 official papers. so mr. hur, aside from donald trump, are you aware of similar instances in history where officials who have hathese classified documents engaged in a months long 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 pertainingto those classified documents?

>> that was not president pretorius prosecution, no. >> okay. rve, 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 rcement 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 ma, 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 ghost writer 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 queson, but it was one of the things that we were considering with his current state of mind, his current memory, >> one of the things that i considered would be how, if a 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 president's memory based on recordings from the 2016-2017

timeframe, recordings of d his ghostwriter, and comparing that with the president's 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 mari concluded in your report that mr. biden, quote, willfully rotated and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. you state that on page one, correct? >> i believe that what i stated on page one was that we 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 vice president, isn't that right? he understood that, correct? >> my understanding is that based on the evidence, my assessment was that a >> 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 mateals 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 on precedent.

>> 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 representein 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 been a longtime doj prosecutor, can you 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 histori respect to former occupants of the white house and their retention of classified marials after they leave -- >> i'm acting specifically about misses clinton and misses hillary clinton and joe biden. >> congresswoman, i don't have any opinion ect to the investig

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 poessified documen the most serious charge carries a penalty of 20 years 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 end qu 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 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 willfully and knowingly took highly classified documents to a location accessible by tens of thousands ofpeople. mr. hur , was president biden residence accessible to tens of thousands of people? >> no. >> did president biden ever bring tens of thousands of people into spaces where he stored classified materials? >> not to my knowledge. biden a sell membership to his home that would allow members of the public to have access? >> not that i'm aware of. >> did your investigation find

that joe biden ever hosted movie premieres at his home while classified documents were stored there? >> no. >> moving on. 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 people looking for them. mr. hur, did president biden ever direct his staff to move documents so that 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 and the president immediately consented to an fbi search of his home, is that correct? >> my report does state that. >> and you found noevidence 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 any criminal wrongdoing. i thank you, 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 stephen dench, former assistant director and charge of the fbi washington field office. dantonio explaine 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. mr. chairman. >> i have three unanimous consent request. unanimous consent to enter into the record the publisher's webpage for president biden's 2017 book, which shs th 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, quote, does not contain 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 ion. regarding president biden's mishandling of classified documents, this has become an issue of great interest to all americans , and, of course, to 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 colleagues questions today have focused on the highlights from your report, specifically referring to president biden's mental capacity, his willful disregard for the law as a private citizen, and how he would be perceived if presented to a jury of his peers. dependent upon, and i'll use your words from the report, how elderly man with a poor memory handled and managed the storage of these confidential documents. the national security ofbeen 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 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. have any information about the status of that investigation or 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 fedeyou may 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, 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. , 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 enforcemenfi and brings the charge under 1001? >> that could happen. >> yes.

and they, again there too, the elements would be different. 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 also the principles of federal 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 the underlying criminal offense would be exactly 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 looking at exactly the same elements and requirements that you did on the underlying charges. >> 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 concept 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 thvs arting circumstances. >> 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 patience. you're almost to, what, 3 1/2 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 citations. one of these explanations for the president's of classified 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 wod help me -- >> we'll get you one. that would be great. you also found that 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 clasfints in his home for eight years, as vice president, and then again when he was president, and that 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 not know 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. that's a citation. i'm going to keep going, because my time is running what you're looking. so you, you also cite the president's cooperation with 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 government that the afghanistan documents 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 office that lasted more than five hours, and provided written answers to most of our written questions. many will 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 todi■sscover those documents, and then answer the government's questions afterwards. page 210. and then, you said that you expect this argument about the president's innocent to carry real force for many reyour word

reasonable jurors will conclude that mr. biden, a powerful, sophisticated person with access to the best advice in the world, would not have handed the government classified documents from his own ho platter if he had willfully retained those documents for years. just as a person who destroys evidence and lies often proves produces evidence and cooperate will seem by many to be innocent. again, lgpage 210. as you said in your report, it would be reasonable for a juror to reach that conclusion, and counsel would not have informed investigators of the presence of classified documents in en i search of every nook and cranny of his home or other residence, or sat for an hours long interview, or answered pages of

written questions, all going to his full cooperation and his 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 gentlen 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 investigation? >> chairman, i am not in a position to articulate an opinion one way or the other. that is not really up to me. m 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 justifierelease 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? my assessment that went into my conclusions that i described in my report was based not solely on the transcript. it was based on all of the evidceg 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 congress have access to that same information? >> chairman, again, it is not for me to weigh into what information congress should or should not have, but what i

audio recordings were part of the evidence, of course, that i considered in coming to my conclusions. >> hope we can yield to the gentleman. >> yields to the gentleman from north dakota. >> thank you, mr. hur. 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 the '70s through 1991 were found in the university of delaware morris library and in the biden senate papers collection, correct? and even more senate pa■urs 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 and member and chairman of the senate 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 and the reasons for them, correct? >> that language 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 information in the form of notes? >> expert >> including his first counsel, his first counsel, cynthia hogan? >> correct. >> and he would advised in writing in 2011 by hogan d classified notes be attained secure skates and stored in secure facilities. >> correct. >> is second counsel, john the, also advised biden that all of his notes, would be sent to the national archives and biden understood and accepted that, correct? >> that's correct with the exception that mr. mcgrail was vice president biden cond one. >> and on his way out, mr. 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 deta is where i get in i just have a problem with this. in your report, and this 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 thate 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. been prosecuted. and that's what the american people see. that's what we see. her server and they used ho ran 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 crime, the same fax patterns, and yet we only see one person being prosecuted. and with that i yield back to the gentleman from 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 transcribed and taken by the committee this year be made 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 ■ communities instead of partisan hit jobs. let me start by saying that the potential mishandling of classified information is a serious issue, and i believe it was appropriate for the attorney general to appoint both special councils in the biden and trump cases. as my colleagues have out, pres

with the investigation conducted by special 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 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 whatand done. refused to turn over the classified documents in his possession to the national archives. he is on tape sharing documents he said he could've declassified when he was president. he wildly claimed in an interview that the presidential records act allowed him to do whatever 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. so this hearing is not a good faith oversight effort. it is just the latest in a long line of dysfunctional and destructive actions taken by this republican majority. they don't care about responsible governance or making people's ■ylives 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 nikkhaleand nancy pelosi. the same donald trump who 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 for

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 one of the worst presidents of all time. now, it is well known that i den on certain issues. my concerns are rooted in the desire to resolve policy matterve 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. 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 ■0than that, and our country deserves better than all 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 five minutes. special counsel hur, thank you for a number of things. first, thank you for agreeing to testifying today.

second, thank you also for sharing your family's story at the beginning of your testimony. it is an extraordinary story of them coming to america. third, let me also thank you for your in-depth investigation and your detailed report, and generally for your rv 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. e , quote, rigorous and detailed analysis. i also agree with that. and one where you say you, quote, must show your work, which we very much appreciate today. we don't normally see that. then i recall your opening statement correctly as it relates to those quotes? ■=" 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 took your investigation extremely seriously, and you wanted to reach accurate conclusions, correct? >> very much. >> the let's review some of your specific findings regarding the issuesmental capacity of president biden, because you say this is very important to whether or not as you can see, i it for the number of different quotes appear on this board that i've prepared, some of which i'll read to you. page five, you say mr. biden's, 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. have significant limitations. then again on page 208, he did not remember when he was vice president, and he did not withi 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 likely appear consistent with the diminished capacities and faulty memory he showed. those were astounding conclusions to me, and as i looked through those quot, to m time before congress. i was a judge, and one of the things i oversaw was guardianships, and frankly, when i read your, i read your conclusions, red flags began to go up in my mind, because i oversaw hundreds of 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 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 identical. i would posit that if he cannot 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, quot 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 invi appointed by the bc courts for his personhood. there is at least, i believe, a prima facie argument to say that there is substantial not just 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 he does or does not meet this definition, i believe your findings raise significant concerns about his current fitness for the office of 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■t mr. her, we have looked from the floor, we have a