not the same. frankly, i was surprised to learn that some of the classified documents were actually personal diaries that many executive officials have taken home with them because it was in their own handwriting and what they produced. 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. i appreciate your report. i appreciate your being here, mr. hur. i would also like to ask mr. chairman unanimous request to include in the record a september 11th letter from the special counsel to the president

to special counsel hur and also a letter to merrick garland. with that, mr. chairman, i see my time has expired and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes, mr. hur, why did joe biden in your words willfully retain and disclose classified materials? he knew the law. been in office for 50 years, five decades in the united states senate, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, eight years as vice president, he got briefed every day as vice president. he has been in the situation room. in fact, you know he knew the rules because you said so on page 226. president biden was deeply familiar with the measures taken to safeguard classified documents. and joe biden told us he knew the rules. mr. armstrong said this earlier. joe biden was deeply familiar with it. you are right. he told us when jack smith goes

after president trump joe biden says what could happen it could compromise sources and methods and it is irresponsible. joe biden knew the rules. joe biden told us he knew the rules. mr. hur, why did he break them? >> congressman, the conclusion as to the exactly why the president did what he did is not one that we explicitly address in the report. the report explains my decision to the attorney general that no criminal charges were warranted in this matter. >> i think you did tell us. you told us, mr. hur, page 231. president biden had strong motivations. that's a key word. getting to motive now. president biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks. why did he have strong motivations? because he decided months before

leaving office to write a book. to write a book. that was his motive. he knew the rules. he broke the rules and began meeting with the ghost writer while he was still vice president. there is the motive. mr. hur, how much did president biden get paid for his book? >> off the top of my head i'm not sure if that information appears in the report. >> it does. there is a dollar in there. >> it maybe $8 million. >> 8 million. joe biden had 8 million reasons to break the rules. classified information and shared it with the guy who was writing the book. that's why -- he knew the rules but broke them for $8 million in a book advance. you know what? it wasn't just the money. joe biden -- this is page 231. next page. joe biden in your report, joe biden viewed his notebooks as an irreplaceable record of the most

important moments of his vice presidency. he had written this all down for the book, for the $8 million and the next thing you say in your report is quote, such a record would but rest his legacy as a world leader. you know what this is? it wasn't just the money, not just $8 million but 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, mr. hur? you wrote it in your report. >> that language does appear in the report and we identified evidence supporting those assessment. >> another interesting statement in your report saying joe biden viewed himself as a man of presidential timber. remember that statement, mr. hur? >> i believe that appears in the executive summary of the report. >> this is interesting. here is the scary part.

page 200 said this earlier in my opening statement. page 200. joe biden -- a quote, joe biden risked serious damage to america's national security when he shared information with his ghost writer. shared it with his ghost writer. the guy helping joe biden get $8 million. by the way, mr. hur, what did that ghost writer do with the information joe biden shared with him on his laptop? what did he do after you were named special counsel? >> if you are referring to the audio recordings that he created of his conversations. >> that's what i'm referring to. >> he slid if i remember correctly, he slid those files into his recycle bin on his computer. >> trying to destroyed the evidence, didn't he? >> correct. >> the guy helping joe biden get to $8 million that he used, the motive for joe biden to disclose classified information, to

retain classified information, which he definitely knew was against the law, when you get named special counsel what does that guy do? he destroys the evidence. that's the key takeaway in my mind. that's a key takeaway. i yield back. >> the gentleman from maryland for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hur your report starts with the line we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. have you had any reason to change your opinion about that? >> no. >> i highlight the independence and support you got from the d.o.j. have you changed your mind about that? >> i have not >> he answered questions for hours in the midst of a global crisis. any reason to change your mind about that? >> no, ranking member. >> you also contrast biden's

cooperation with the conduct of donald trump. most notably after being multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. he not only refused to return the documents for many months but obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. have you any reason to change your judgment about the differences between president biden's cooperation and the former president's non-cooperation? >> no, i continue to stand by those words in my report. >> with such a striking contrast our colleagues have switched from being impeachment investigators, how this whole thing started, to being amateur memory specialists giving us their drive-by diagnoses of the president of the united states whose soaring or tory and ex -- even the most skilled ninja hecklers of the freedom caucus

were on display for the whole country to see. it is a distraction from the 91 state and federal charges that donald trump faces now. his staggering civil court losses in new york now totaling more than half a billion dollars. and his full blown embrace and romance with authoritarian dictators and communist tyrants all over the world from or ban in hung gary to putin in russia and the communist dictator of north korea. it is not -- this, my friends, this is a memory test. but it is not a memory test for president biden. it is a memory test for all of america. do we remember fascism? do we remember nazism? do we remember communism and have we completely forgotten the sacrifices of our parents and

grand parents in prior generations while they play pin the tail on the donkey in this wild goose chase, all of these silly games, donald trump entertains authoritarian hustler victor orban and if we sleepwalk into another trump presidency trump will quote not give a simple -- single penny to ukraine. that's what all of this is about. it's about trying to pull the wool over the eyes of america. because the tyrants and dictators of the world are on the march today. so who wins with this ludicrous, embarrassing spectacle? putin and xi and the tyrants of the world win. they have one more reason to celebrate donald trump and his cult followers who have completely lost their way. they are looking for high crimes and misdemeanors and now amateur

memory specialists and what they pounce on the president of the united states about. america faces a choice between democracy and tyranny and the president laid it out at valley forge and laid it out in the state of the union. will america stand on the side of people struggling against fascist aggression? will we stand with the people of ukraine against vladimir putin? whose filthy war has meant the kidnapping of thousands of ukrainian children, the murder, the slaughter of thousands of ukrainian civilians and the attack on an independent sovereign democracy? but we're not working on that today. we're not standing up for democracy and human rights in international law around the world, no. we're trying to play memory detect the -- detectives who the world got to see at the state of the union address directly address the real questions of

our time and it is democracy versus dictatorship. all of the auto congratulates and theocrats of the world are in league against american democracy and we have to stand up for that against these stupid games. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. mr. comer is recognized. >> during the oversight committee interviews we've identified a number of white house employees who were involved in the mishandling of documents under president biden. how many current and white house employees you interviewed in your investigation? >> i don't have that figure immediately at hand. it was a subset of the 173 interviews we conducted during our investigation. >> your report indicates one of the former white house employees was dana remis. she was president biden's former white house counsel, correct?

>> she was president obama's former white house counsel. >> i'm sorry, president obama. in your report on page 257 you wrote in may 2022, white house counsel understood an effort to retrieve my biden's files from the penn biden center. she described the purpose of that effort as gathering materials to prepare for congressional inquire eaves about the biden family's activities during the period from 2017 to 2019. now, it seems odd to me that dana remis and joe biden's personal lawyers were obtaining documents related to congressional inquire eaves about the biden family activities when biden claimed he had no involvement with his family's business dealings. can you provide more information why a government employee, was retrieving joe biden's documents from the penn biden center? >> chairman, i am able to tell you and clarify information that appears in the report about

relevant significant sources of information. i'm not in a position to go beyond that. >> when you interviewed president biden did you ask him what documents he possessed at penn biden center that could be related to a potential inquiry about his family's activities? >> we asked president biden a wealth of questions about all of the different sets of classified materials that were recovered during the course of our investigation. >> did anything pertain to our congressional inquiry of president biden as you recall? >> if there are more specific aspects you have in mind that would be helpful. >> pertaining to his family's activity. >> appendix a does list in table chart form a brief description of all the marked classified documents recovered in our investigation. >> we intend to interview miss remis and the recording of your interview would be highly relevant to our future

questioning of her. can you confirm that you did, in fact, record her in your interview? >> it was our practice to record the interviews we conducted, chairman comer. >> in the course of the investigation the oversight committee learned that annie, a white house employee, visited the penn biden center in 2021. did you interview annie in the course of your investigation? >> chairman, we do not -- the report does not reflect that specific name. what i can tell you is the report does reflect be interviewed the director of oval office operations in footnote 973. >> they interviewed kathy chung. a former assistant to vice president and learned that she visited in june of 2022 after being contacted by white house counsel in may of 2022. months before classified documents were allegedly found

in november of 2022. did you interview kathy chung in the course of your investigation? >> i believe that the substance relating to the subject you are asking about appears on page 259 of the report and while the name kathy chung does not appear in the text of the report there are references to interview of an executive assistant included in footnote 988. >> the oversight committee learned from penn biden center employees and kathy chung that dana remis and ashley williams visited the penn biden center on various occasions before the discovery of materials in november of 2022. >> we interviewed many individuals and i can assure you, chairman, that we -- it was a priority of ours to interview all the relevant source evers about these document, how they got there, who knew about them and who accessed them.

>> they were all recorded, is that correct? there would be recordings? >> it was our practice to interview recordings. >> how many white house employees visited the penn biden center according to the white house before november of 2022? how many visits to the penn biden center were made by either white house employees or president biden's personal attorneys before the official discovery of documents in november of 2022. >> that should be detailed in chapter 14 of the report. >> yield back. >> the gentleman lady from texas. mr. hur, any time you need a break, let us know. we'll go a while as you well know. miss jackson lee is recognized.

>> sir, good morning. the republicans here asked for a lot of transcripts. chair jordan has yet to release 90 plus transcripts from our interviews when -- with those, if they are to be released, to the american people is the question. my question to you is you decided, based on the facts, not to prosecute or indict or bring forward charges against a sitting president of the united states, joseph biden, is that correct? >> that was my judgment. >> this investigation was independent and thorough, is that correct? >> yes. >> we have heard from our republican colleagues, who are grasping at straws, allegations that president biden was treated lightly in this investigation. just a plain reading of this report completely refutes that

argument. there was no two-teared system of justice, there was only a lack of evidence against president biden. mr. hur, your office and the f.b.i. undertook an extensive investigation into mr. biden's handling of classified information and of the classified documents the f.b.i. seized, correct? >> correct. >> 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. >> it lasted more than five hours, that correct? >> correct. >> and it occurred the day which all should know after the horrific attack, october 7th, 2023, hamas attack in israel, according to a letter from the white house counsel, is that correct?

>> the interview spans two days, october 8th and 9th. >> with the president having to be in and out to deal with an international crisis and after the interview he provided handwritten answers to additional questions, correct? >> congresswoman, i don't recall the president being in and out during our interview to handle the international. >> president biden allowed investigators to search his private houses, is that correct? >> he did consent to the search of his residence. >> your investigation collected 7 million documents for review in your investigation, is that correct? >> correct. >> this included emails, text messages, photographs, videos, records and other materials from both classified and unclassified sources. >> correct. >> and you referred or reviewed president biden's handwritten notes as well, correct? >> correct. >> and you coordinated with the multiple government agencies to organize and complete your

investigation, correct? >> we consulted with numerous agencies to conduct interviews of evidence seized during the investigation. >> included working with national security experts in the intelligence community to carefully analyze each classified document that was obtained? >> with respect to marked classified documents that correct we submitted excerpts from his notebooks for classification review. >> if agencies reviewed classified material and gave it different levels of classified you classified it for the higher level for the purposes of your investigation to be thorough. >> that is reflected in appendices a and b. >> the f.b.i. requested review and documents from multiple agent seals had equities. special counsel's office used the highest level of classification identified by an agency as the current classification of the document. attorney general garland appointed you as special counsel

over the matter on january 12, 2023, correct? >> correct. >> he authorized you to investigate mr. biden's possession of the classified documents including possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records. >> correct. >> at the penn biden center, president biden's home, delaware as well as any matters that rose from the initial investigation or may arise directly from the special counsel investigation, is that correct? >> that accurately reflects the appointment order. >> you had an independent investigation for a year and adequate resources to complete and conducted 173 interviews included with president biden himself, you reviewed 7 million documents including president biden's personal records and searched his home thoroughly and in this thorough, lengthy investigation you did not uncover enough evidence to recommend prosecution against the president, is that correct? >> that's my judgment. >> if you had found enough

evidence to warrant prosecution, did you feel free, unrestrained by the attorney general appointed by president biden to make such a recommendation to the attorney general? >> i was aware of the office of legal counsel policy right now prohibiting sitting presidents from being charged with federal crimes but apart from that what i can tell you is that the investigative steps we took were my own, the judgment was my own and words in the report are my own. >> regular order. >> the time of the lady has expired. >> i want to put in the record the report >> without objection. chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> february 8th the white house, question, mr. president, why did you share classified information with your ghost writer? the president, i did not share classified information. i did not share it. i guarantee i did not. that's not true, is it? >> that's inconsistent with the

findings based on the evidence in my report. >> it's a lie is what regular people would say, right? >> all right. the next one. in all the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked. that wasn't true either, was it? >> that was inconsistent with the findings of our investigation. >> another lie people might say, right? what you put in ruer report among the places they found classified documents in the garage was a damaged open box. here is what i'm understanding, right? as ms. armstrong laid out you find that the elements of a federal criminal violation are met. then you apply this senile cooperator theory. because joe biden cooperated and the elevator didn't go to the top floor you don't get a conviction. you get to the right answer in that. don't think biden or trump should have been charged. under the senile cooperator theory isn't it frustrating that biden continues to go out and

lie about the basic facts of the report that lay out a federal criminal violation? >> i need to disagree with at least one thing that you said which is that i found that all of the elements were met. one of the elements of the relevant mishandling statute is the intent element. what my report reflects is my judgment based on the evidence i would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury the intent element. >> the reason you have that doubt is the senile cooperator theory. the fact that joe biden is so inept in responding that you can't prove the intent which again i don't quibble with that conclusion but is frustrating to be this guy is not getting treated the same way as trump because the elevator isn't going to the top floor and biden goes out and says well you know, he just blatantly lies. what i'm trying to figure out is whether biden is lying because he is so senile. or whether it's a craftier and more deefshous and perhaps a little more intentional than we

might otherwise think. i also want to go to this biden penn center. did it give concern to you the biden penn center where all this classified stuff was being mishandled was being floated by foreign governments? >> congressman, we were concerned with getting to the bottom of all of the classified documents that were recovered during the course. >> what bothers me is that the money that was paying for the place where the documents were being held was the chinese and other foreign countries. did that play into your analysis? did you look into the billion dollars in foreign funding sources at the biden center at u penn for example? >> we conducted a thorough, impartial and fair investigation and very concerned getting to the bottom of all the relevant document. >> did you look into the fact the chinese were floating the place where this guy was keeping the documents unsecure yes or no? >> to the extent we i dent feed

evidence significant to our investigation we put it in the report. >> another thing that seemed relevant to me is this ghost rarity. the ghost writer purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to be and show culpability of the crimes and you didn't charge him. why didn't you charge him with obstructing justice and getting rid of evidence. yes, when we interviewed the ghost writer he did tell us -- i'm trying to get the exact language. one of the things on his mind and he was aware of was i had been appointed special counsel and conducting an investigation. >> so everybody knows, the ghost writer didn't delete the recordings as a matter of happens stance. he has recordings of biden making admissions of crimes. he then learns that you've been appointed. he then deletes the information that is the evidence and you

don't charge him. >> that is reflected in the report and one of the reasons -- >> what does somebody have to do to get charge with that? what would meet the standard? >> as we state in the relevant chapter of the report, one of the things that he did not delete was transcripts of the recordings that he had created that included evidence relating to mr. biden. >> if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence that's somehow ab solves you of the evidence you destroyed? he should have been charged and wasn't. biden and trump should have been treated equally and they weren't and a double standard a lot of americans are concerned about. i see my time is expired. >> the gentleman was tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. hur, thank you for being here. little confused about this hearing. mr. raskin laid out the big picture. in the more limited picture,

director mueller had an investigation, the most famous recent special prosecutor and found sufficient evidence to say there was connection between russia and the trump campaign but it did not support a federal prosecution. you found there was no evidence to support a prosecution. president biden identified classified documents in his home and told archives about them. the independent department of justice appointed you, a former trump political appointee as special counsel to investigate these circumstances and authorized you to prosecute criminal misconduct. you declined to prosecute because there was insufficient evidence of a crime. case closed. the perfect case. you did your job, mr. garland did his job and unlike mr. barr, he didn't interview. did mr. garland ask you to change your report at all? >> he did not, sir. >> didn'try dakota a thing?

>> mr. barr redacted anything and made it look different than it was. mr. garland and you did right. the department of justice allows the special counsels to investigate and prosecute the facts if it's afforded. joe biden's actions in handling classified materials is similar to other vice president and vice president except donald trump. did you receive any pressure from mr. garland or staff to make any specific legal conclusion or finding? >> no. >> did you receive are resources necessary to carry out your duties or treated differently to independents and resources than other d.o.j. special prosecutors? >> no. >> do you have any reason to believe the attorney general was interfering with jack smith or his work? >> i have really -- i do not have the basis to answer that question. >> your declaration we should

treat prosecutorial decisions by jack smith the same way. >> i do not have the sufficient information with respect to jack smith east investigation to provide a comment on it. >> if president biden in his testimony to you knew the exact date, january 20th whatever it was, 2009 when he game vice president and the day when he left become vice president january 20th, i guess the first would have been january 20, 2009, el knew the dates right. if he knew the exact date and the instant beau biden died would that have changed your decision not to bring a prosecution? >> sir, i cannot engage in hypotheticals what my decision would have been with different facts. i made a decision based on the facts and circumstances i was presented with and we identified during our investigation. >> it appears to me the minor

discrepancies as far as dates after a long period of time was not the basis. it was not the basis for your decision to decline to prosecute. you didn't have the facts. he acted differently than trump. he voluntarily provided the documents and complied with the justice department and didn't try to obstruct justice. those were the reasons you didn't prosecute not because he missed a few dates. >> congressman, my reasons for my decision are set out in my report and i stand by the words in the report, sir. >> thank you. i think i'm encompassing them what i'm saying to you. it was not anything to do with his memory why he wasn't chosen to be -- you chose not to indict him. it was the difference in the facts of the case and how he dealt with it. the fact is mr. biden sat through five hours and he did an admirable job and outstanding job in the state of the union laying out the case for the future of america for the middle class, for the democracy around the world, for standing up to the russians, not bending down

to them. that's what's important. not if you can be the $64,000 question assuming it was legit and answering every question quebecly. that's not what you need to be president. you need to have values and understanding and what values america has and needs to maintain to keep the world safe and peaceful. that's dealing with ukraine, that's dealing with difficult people like netanyahu in israel to try to get something done that's correct. that's what joe biden does and understanding social security and medicaid are important institutions that help seniors and not senile people. i object to that comment. it is disrespectful of senior people with any kind of memory disability. lots of seniors have memory disabilities and they're not senile. to do that is shameful. president biden is a competent president who knows american

values. >> gentleman from california. >> i would like to start off by thanking you for a year of hard work and comprehensive report. i will try not to provide testimony as some people on both sides are or provide conclusions but i do have some questions that lead me to ask you for conclusions. one question is were there notes of the president of the united states that dated back to when he was a senator that contained classified information? >> among the documents that were recovered during our investigation were marked classified documents that dated back to when mr. biden was a senator. >> when he was in his 30s, 40s, 50s. >> i believe that's correct. >> there were documents from the time he was vice president? >> yes. >> okay. so there has been a lot to do about, you know, senility,

non-senility. poor memory and so on. but let's just go through something that you deal with as a prosecutor every day. you first start off with a set of initial evidence that indicates there may have been a crime, is that right? by the time it gets to you you have some evidence there may have been a crime. >> i think that is fair, yes. >> in this case, at some point during this investigation where the elements of the crime, including willfulness, were put before you and you reached a personal conclusion that either it was likely guilt or not, is that correct? not in front of a jury. you have to make that decision as part of the case. >> i approached the case as a

prosecutor, investigation is always uncovering new evidence that you incorporate. >> before, during and at the end did you reach a conclusion notwithstanding his current mental state of being an elderly man with a poor memory and so on, that he did, that fact, deliberately take documents and held them from back when he was a senator, and we are talking about you personal. personally did you see a pattern that goes all the way back to him being a senator of taking documents, making notes and taking them and holding them personally? >> i viewed my task as a prosecutor to determine what i believe to be evidence. >> i appreciate that and i'm not trying to take away from your conclusion. so others are debating the conclusion. i'm not debating the conclusion. i want to go through one element that i think is important. you have prosecuted people in

the past and failed to get a conviction, is that correct? >> correct. >> you are not a 1,000 perfect batting average. >> i can't say that. >> you went into cases thinking you would succeed and you didn't. one might say you probably declined to prosecute ones you might have either gotten a conviction or a plea on would you say that's fair to say over your long career? >> i think it's fair. i take the rules as set forth in the justice manual seriously >> however, i pro sum you would never prosecute someone you found innocent. did you reach conclusion that man was outright innocent. >> that conclusion snot reflected in my report. >> you did not reach that conclusion or it would have been in your report. >> i viewed my task of explaining my decision to the attorney general as being based on my judgment and my assessment of the evidence. would a conviction at trial be

the probable outcome. >> i want to make sure the record is complete in that. it's extremely important. you did not reach an idea that he had committed no wrong. you reached a conclusion that you would not prevail at trial and therefore did not take it forward, is that correct? >> correct, congressman. >> okay. i want to go through one or two housekeeping almost. the documents that the president, then vice president took, which included his own notes, to you are knowledge aren't those covered by the freedom of information act? potentially >> i don't know. >> aren't they covered by the presidential records act as every note and every text of the president, the vice president and members of the cabinet are covered? >> i think different folks would have different views whether they're covered. >> isn't it true he left office

leaving no copies of that behind and that alone was inconsistent with an open and transparent individual, correct? >> i'm not aware of copies of those materials being left behind, congressman. >> i want to thank you. mr. chairman thank you for the extra few seconds. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> mr. hur you have led a distinguished career earning your law degree from stanford university and you served as a student as executive editor of the stanford law review, correct? >> correct. >> then you went on to clerk for a judge in the ninth circuit, correct? and after that you ascended to a clerkship with william rehnquist on the united states supreme court, correct? >> correct. >> you joined the daddy bush

under christopher wray, isn't that correct? >> i did spend some time working for former assistant attorney general christopher wray. >> and later joined the trump justice department as the principal associate deputy attorney general working at the right hand man for another known federalist society member, rod rosenstein, isn't that correct? >> i served as his principal deputy. >> and then donald trump appointed you to serve as u.s. attorney for the district of maryland, is that correct? >> president trump nominated me to serve in that position. i was unanimously confirmed by the united states senate. >> after that attorney general merrick garland appointed you to serve as special counsel for the united states department of justice to conduct a full and thorough investigation of certain matters to determine whether or not joseph biden should be charged with

unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. isn't that correct? >> correct. >> nowhere in that order does attorney general garland authorize you ton duct an investigation or issue a report on whether president biden is mentally fit as president, isn't that correct? >> it does not appear in the appointment order. >> pursuant your appointment to conclude your investigation you issued a report published by attorney general garland, correct? >> he made it available to congress. >> your report concluded that after a full and thorough investigation the evidence was insufficient to establish that president biden had willfully retained classified documents, isn't that correct? >> my judgment was based on the state of the evidence, a conviction at trial was not the probable outcome. >> determined no evidence of willful retention because each time classified documents were discovered to be in the president's possession, the white house notified the national archives right away,

the biden legal team and the white house fully cooperated with the national archives during the investigation. once the d.o.j. opened the investigation, president biden and his personal counsel fully cooperated, isn't that correct >> we did identify some evidence of willful retention and disclosure. >> the president cooperated fully with you. didn't president -- they never tried to hide any documents from you, did they? >> the report does note steps of cooperation taken by the president. >> thank you, sir. last, but not least, unlike in the trump classified documents case, president biden's counsel never falsely certified that there was no classified documents in the president's possession, correct? >> the report does include some comparisons and contrasts between the facts alleged in the trump case and the biden case. >> despite clearing president

biden from being prosecuted, you used your report to trash and smear president biden because he said in response to questions over a five-hour interview that he didn't recall how he got the document and you knew that would play into the republicans' narrative that the president is unfit for office because he is senile and the american people saw during the state of the union address that that was not true. but yet that's what you tried to offer to them and that's why they are having you here today so that they can expand upon that narrative and you knew that's what was going to happen, didn't you? >> congressman, i reject the suggestion you have just made. that's not what happened. partisan politics did not play no part whatsoever. i am -- >> are you a member of the

federalist society? >> i am not. >> you are a republican though, aren't you have? >> i am a registered republican. >> yes, sir. >> and doing everything you can do to get president trump reelected so you can get appointed as a federal judge or perhaps to another position in the department of justice, isn't that correct? >> congressman, i have no such aspirations. i can assure you and i can tell you partisan politics had no place whatsoever in my work. ist had no place in the investigative steps that i took and no place in the decision that i made and it had no place in a single word of my report. >> gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being here, mr. hur. i think for the folks that may be watching this at home might be a little bit confused. i'm trying to organize this in my mind as well. the way the president is portrayed in your report and how we feel about him. was he a well-meaning forgetful man as you said or was he a man

that was focus on history and man that maintained and retained these top secret documents that should have been not in his home and was he a man that wanted to prove he was worthy to be president and that his vision of afghanistan was better than even president barack obama's and that his focus on history was most important to him? do you know which it is? >> congressman, to the extent you are quoting language from my report i stand by the words in my report. >> you stand by that he was --let me quote you,, a well-meaning but forgetful old man. >> i don't think those exact words appear in the report. but to the extent i used words similar to that effect in my assessment how a jury would perceive mr. biden and the evidence relating to him including his testimony i stand by that assessment. >> is it accurate to say that in your interview president biden retained and disclosed

classified materials as a means to bolster his image as a presidential figure? ask for yes or no. our time is limited. >> words to that effect are in my report. >> the answer is yes. would you agree president biden's intent to showcase his legacy provides a motive for his actions concerning classified materials yes or no. >> it is one of the moat ephors addressed in the report. >> showcase his legacy. is it accurate to quote your report that classified documents were found in quote badly damaged boxes in his garage near a collapsed dog crate, dog bed, empty bucket is that correct? >> those words appear in the report. >> that's correct. the answer is yes. are these secure locations to store classified documents? >> they are not. >> a former vice president who is established to have willfully purposefully retained classified documents in order to highlight his political stature and show

his stature as a presidential figure. we have a former vice president who stored classified documents in very unsecure places. we have a former vice president who will not suffer any consequences for all these actions. all because we say well he is a well-meaning for getful old man. if you were kind of a well-meaning forgetful old man driving a car and forgot what you were doing a little bit and hit somebody and killed them i believe you would be responsible. the law must apply, you know this, to everyone. the standard behind the decision not to prosecute joe biden especially in light of special counsel jack smith's decision to prosecute president trump for similar conduct gives the real appearance of two standards. just again so does this department of justice. justice for thee not me.

has any former president or vice president besides president trump charged retaining classified information yes or no? >> no. >> would concur smith's decision to charge a former president for retaining and disclosing classified information was an extraordinary, unusual and unprecedented decision? >> i will not comment on that matter. >> i will comment. the answer is yes. special counsel hur these two reports are the culmination in my mind of the department of justice's two standards and an example, again, of the justice department being weaponized against conservatives. there is another piece to this, too, while i have just a few seconds. we know when his ghost writer was speaking to him he also did recordings and when he did those recordings, it was clear. i will try to quote this here. a month after biden left his v.p. he was aware of top secret

classified materials that were, quote, downstairs. is that true? >> that is reflected in an audio recording yes. >> reflected in an audio recording. sometimes he may be sleepy, sometimes he may be forgetful, sometimes he may be cognitively impaired. no doubt about that. but man when it came to his personal legacy, the way he wanted to be remembered, to be sure that he was a big deal in plain english in the future, he was willingly and knowingly breaking the law. it's 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, mr. hur. i yield back. >> bill: gentleman yields back. gentleman from california is recognized. >> some of the differences between the facts involving president biden and president trump. refer back to your opening statement where you said you did

not disparage the president in your report. of course you did disparage the president. you disparaged him in terms you had no know had a political impact. you understood your report would be public, right? >> based on comments the attorney general made he committed to make as much of my report public as legal requirements. >> you could have chosen just to comment on the president's particular recall. document or set of documents but you decided to go further and make a generalized statement about his memory, didn't you? >> congressman, i could have written my report their et i can will i in a way that omitted references to the president's memory but it would have been an incomplete and improper report of my analysis in the explanation of my decision. >> you could have written your report with comments about his recollection to documents or set of documents but you chose a

general reference to the president. you understood when you made that decision, didn't you, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn't you? >> congressman, politics played no part whatsoever in my investigative steps. my decision. the words that i put in my report. >> you cannot tell me you are so naive as to think your words would not have created a political firestorm. you understood when you wrote those words and decided to include those words and decided to go beyond specific references to documents you understood how they would be manipulated by my colleagues on the gop side of the aisle and president trump. >> what i understood is the regulations that govern my conduct as special counsel and it required me to write a could have confidential report explaining my decision. i followed the rules and i knew them. >> you knew it would not be confidential. >> the regulations required me

to find a confidential report. >> you understood it would be released. >> consistent with gop policy. >> you understood. >> i understood from the attorney general's public comments he would make as much as my report public as much as he could. >> you understand doj policy you are to take care not to prejudice the interests of the subject of an investigation, right? >> that is generally one of the interests that d.o.j. policy requires that prosecutors respect. >> it was your obligation to follow that policy in this report, was it not? >> it was also my obligation to write a confidential report for the attorney general explaining completely my decision. >> what you wrote was deeply prejudicial to the interest of the president. you must have understood -- you must have understood the impact of your words. you must have understood the impact of your decision to go beyond the specifics of a particular document to go to the

very general to your own personal presented jigs all opinion of the president. one amplified by his political opponents and influence a political campaign. you had to understand that and you did it anyway. you did it anyway. and let me just go to some of the differences here between the president's conduct and mr. trump's. in the superseding indictment on page th3 it suggested that his attorney falsely represented to the f.b.i. and grand jury he did not have document called for by the grand jury subpoena. you didn't find anything like that with respect to mr. biden. >> i don't have the trump indictment in front of me. i need to address something you said in your prior question. what you are suggesting is that i needed to provide a different version of my report that would be fit for public release. that is nowhere in the rules. i was to prepare a confidential

report that was comprehensive and thorough of an explanation of why i found. >> you don't gratuitously do things to prejudice the subject of an investigation when you are declining the prosecute. you don't 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 didn't have to include that language. you could have said vis-a-vis the documents that were found at the university, the president did not recall. there is nothing more common. you know this, i know this. there is nothing more common with a witness of any age when asked about events that are years old to say i do not recall. indeed they are instructed by their attorney to do that if they have any question about it. you understood that and made a choice that was a political choice. it was the wrong choice. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman from arizona. did special counsel wish to respond to that final question.

>> yes, what you are suggesting is that i shape, sanitize, omit portions of my reasoning and explanation for the attorney general for political reasons. >> i suggest you not shape your report for political reasons. >> that did not happen, congressman. that did not happen. >> thank you for being here and thank you for your report. i read it. i think where you and i might have disagreements there may be matters of opinion and not necessarily the factss you reported them. i want to go over the elements of the offense that seem to have at least struck my craw as where you put in here twice that the jury would not find -- not likely to find intentionality on the part of disclosure in particular. i want to talk about that for a second. so if it's not willful, we might say an accident, something

negligent, careless, that would not necessarily rise to willful or intentional or purposeful, right? >> those are different standards of intent under the law, yes, sir. >> so when president biden misplaced 30 briefing documents in 2010 that had classified material and they aren't sure even if they ever got them all back or in the hamptons at a party and lost what they were calling code words, which was high security information, that wasn't necessarily willful. no indication he purposefully did that. accidental, negligent, you indicated don't know if we got all that information back. we're assuming maybe we did. that would not be willful, right? >> as reflected in the report there were certain categories of documents when we looked into them and investigated how they got to where they ended up or

how they ended up being in this place we did not identify evidence of willfulness. >> if something is willful it is not ignorant or incompetent or accidental. something like willful, intentional, purposeful. indicates really a choice that you have made a deliberate, conscious decision to act in a certain way, is that fair? >> that is fair. as i explained in the report the standard, the willfulness standard basically can be boiled down to the following things. you know that what you are doing is against the law when you do it. >> correct. let's take a look at it. it has been brought up in february of 2017 he is having the discussion with the ghost writer and he says at the virginia house at this point. he says i just found all the classified stuff downstairs. so he knows he has got classified stuff, right? two months later in april he is at a different location is my

understanding. i think he is now up in delaware. he will look. look at page 105 and 106. he says biden reads from a different notebook entry leads aloud a change of issue. the intelligence come untorics c.i.a. director and while he is reading those notes, he says i can't read my own writing. do you have any idea what the heck i'm saying here? he asked the ghost writer. he said something blah blah blah and biden says this. some of this may be classified. so be careful. some of this may be classified so be careful. now, my immediate response was okay, so he knows he has classified documents. he is looking at this and giving it to somebody who has no security clearance saying hey, read this but be careful, it might be classified.

next thing and the guy says okay. he says i don't know if it's classified or not. i'm suggesting to you -- this is where you and i have a difference of opinion. when you say something like hey, i just -- look, this may be classified, be careful. that warning to be careful because it may be classified, that indicates guilty knowledge. that indicates he might know something more than he otherwise would have. it indicates -- they read it as you point out here he reads classified information and it is still classified today. that's on page 106. so when you look at this, it's hard for me to say well, he was ignorant and incompetent and it was accidental. he had guilty knowledge. he knew and told the guy that he is going to expose that

classified material to hey, be careful. be careful. it may be classified. that indicates something a little bit more than your knowledge, indicates that he has some intent there. because the next thing he should have said is hey, i don't know if it's classified but we are going to skip over this until that's resolved. he didn't do that. what he said is read it anyway. yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman of california is recognized for five minutes. >> i was moved by your parents' immigrant story and how that has shaped you and their story is a story that so many of us know through our constituents. a story of america, a story that the guy who appointed you would end if he was in charge again. a story that most of the folks on the other side of the aisle

seek to block every day in this room, but it's a story that's persuasive. you want your report to be received with credibility, is that right? >> my goal was to provide a thorough explanation, my decision to be attorney general. i was required to do. as i said in my opening statement i needed to show my work. >> you want to be received as credible, right? >> that would be helpful and laudable, yes. >> a lot has changed since 2018 for the person who appointed you, former president trump. since you were appointed he was impeached for leveraging 350 million u.s. taxpayer dollars over ukraine to get dirt on president biden. then impeached a second time for inciting and insurrection. charged for possessing classified documents and obstructing justice. he was charged for paying for the silence of a porn star. he was c