principles that were talked about the most here, joe biden, donald trump, and hillary clinton, all of whom misused classified documents, only one of whom was charged with a crime. and interestingly, only one of whomever had -- was in position to actually declassify documents and in the case of joe biden, not only was he never in position at that point, meaning president, to be able to declassify documents, he spent 50 years in washington as a united states senator with -- in powerful positions so he should have known what he was doing and then later of course as vice president, but he never had the authority to declassify anything. and i think at the end of the day what a viewer comes away from is this is all politics,

it's all political, and i think that in the end that that ends up hurting joe biden and helping donald trump. >> john: jonathan turley, to the point that a lot of democrats are making here, this was a clearly partisan report, that hur was only out to get biden, trying to shred his credibility. he said in his opening statement that he had to, because of doj guidelines, present this report to the attorney general on his decision not to charge. he said i knew from my decision to be credible, i could not simply announce i recommended no criminal charges and leave it at that, i needed to explain why, show my work as he said. put that into context for us legally. did he have to go into this level of detail? because it's -- the part of this that is real ticked off the white house and set democrats aflame is his idea that joe biden is a kindly old gentleman with a bad memory, and that of course brings up the entire conversation about whether or

not he can continue to be president now let alone for another four years. >> yeah, i think that hur did an extraordinary job, not just in laying out the reasons for his conclusions, but also to keep his cool, to be in the middle of a circus and retain some dignity. he did that very well. but he also showed how relevant this was. indeed, you know, if he had not talked about that issue, his report would have looked incredibly biased because the evidence against the president was remarkably strong. he had 40 years of mishandling classified material. the classified material strangely followed him from office to office to residence to residence. classified material he expressly told someone he found and expressly read from to a third party. it is hard not to see how you can charge on that basis. the only rationale that hur had

was i just don't think that we could get this through a d.c. jury because this is someone who claimed that he didn't remember things almost four dozen times that he didn't remember basic facts. and so that is clear as the reason why he did not go forward. he keeps on returning to it over and over again, saying i'm under an obligation not to bring charges that i don't think can be proven. as a criminal defense attorney i must tell you, i'm not sure i agree with him. i mean, d.c. jury pools are notoriously bad for prosecutors to go up against a democratic president. but if i was a democratic -- i'm sorry, if i was criminal counsel in this case, i would have been in a fetal position reading this report. it is so damning, it's hard for a person to conclude that he didn't have knowledge. i mean, it was literally

physically all around him. every time he parked his corvette he had to virtually step over it. it's hard to justify that. and so this was the key justification that hur had, and whether you like it or not, he had to state why he reached that conclusion. >> sandra: jason, jump inner here. >> i thought it was wholly inappropriate for the hur report to even mention donald trump when there's an open pending prosecution that's underway, and i think for him to opine on an open case, it's different in the case of joe biden, right, because the case was closed. we did hearings, i conducted them with james comey about a closed hillary clinton case. but when you have a pending case, how do they write about that and why in the world is he answering questions about donald trump's case whether it's still pending. i thought that was wrong. >> john: all right, so andy, why don't you pick up that question. hur said in his opening statement regarding trump and

the case against him, consider relevant precedence and why different facts justified different outcomes. that is what i did in my report. that was his reason for including information about former president trump and the case against him, which of course democrats jumped on to like it was a carnival ride and rode that around the hearing today. >> well, i also think he's right about that with due respect to jason, you know, all we have talked about for months is the comparison between the two cases. i think if he had tried to generate a report without confronting the elephant in the room, the fact that trump got charged, he would have lost credibility on that end. but i do think that, you know, between the point that jonathan just made and the point jason just made, i want to try to join those together from the perspective of somebody who has been through a number of trials. what hur seems to have done

here, and i think the two weaknesses of his report are he has an explanation for why a jury might acquit with respect to every little specific instance of biden and we have talked about this. it's a mountain of evidence of different classified documents. but why he might have had them here and might have retained them there. and the thing is, in a trial a good defense lawyer is going to try to parse it that way and take each individual instance and come up with an explanation. but at the end of the trial, the jury is going to be told by the trial judge that they should not check their common sense at the door and that pieces of evidence are supposed to be looked at in conjunction, not in isolation. and i don't think that this story holds up when you look at all the different pieces in conjunction, even if you think there is -- that hur has a good explanation dismissing this piece of it or that piece of it. and for that reason, for hur, in

the end, it comes down to biden cooperated with the investigation and trump didn't cooperate with the investigation. and the fact of the matter is, whether you cooperate or not is not a guilt issue. that's an issue that goes to sentencing. we expect people, especially when they are suspects and they know they are suspects, we expect them to cooperate with investigators. it's not at all unusual for example that a suspect allows the police to go in and search his residence when he knows that they could get a warrant easily to do just that. so all that stuff, if the guy cooperates, if you get sentenced in your criminal trial or get convicted in your criminal trial, at sentencing they tell the judge, gee, he cooperated with the investigation. but we don't forgive the underlying crime that's being investigated because you cooperated. >> sandra: to john's earlier point about the democrats trying to tie hur to trump, pointing out his political affiliation

and everything, this was a moment eric swalwel -- >> i want to first see if you will pledge to not accept an appointment from donald trump if he is elected again as president. >> congressman, i'm not here to testify -- >> seems like an easy answer. >> i'm here to talk about the report and the work that went into it. >> you don't want to be associated with that guy again, do you? >> congressman, i'm not here to offer opinions what may or may not happen in the future. i'm here to talk about the work that went into the report which i stand by. >> sandra: they did seem to be on a mission with that. >> yes, and the thing is, at points it got particularly uncomfortable for many of us that have a thought of historical reflection. at one point you had congressman hank johnson saying essentially are you or have you been a member of the federalist society and then said you are a member of the federalist society, aren't you, and hur was trying

to say no, i'm not, and when he finally got that out, he said but you are a republican. and you -- you really sort of sit back from that and you realize my god, is this what we have become as a country. i mean, no matter how you feel about prosecuting the president, this report is damning. what was done here is wrong, and you would think that -- from what the democrats were saying that they were going to give the president an approval for great housekeeping of classified material. sure showed over and over again the president lied after his investigation was over. the president said it was hur that raised his son's death, it was the president. you know, he said that hur essentially exonerated him, hur said he didn't. he said that there was no evidence that he willfully did anything. hur said exactly the opposite. and so all of this is -- for average americans is very, very

disturbing. but you are left with this contrast. you know, they keep on bringing up the trump case, but they cite the wrong count. you know, we are talking about the retention, mishandling of classified material as the point of comparison. i don't see how you can read the hur report and support what smith has done. it seems to me that you have to indict them both or neither on those classified retention counts. what they were referring to is different charges, dealing with obstruction of justice and that's fine. go at it. if you think president trump obstructed justice, you can prosecute him. that's not the comparison to judge these two cases. they did not want to talk about, i think the detail of comparison between these, the handling of classified material. in biden's case, there were aspects that were more aggravating, more alarming,

including the period of time. this is a court of conduct going back 40 years. when they are talking about documents that hur confirmed he removed as senator, he likely removed those from the senate scif. i've been in that scif. i've testified in that scif. p you know, the fact is that it would really require biden himself to remove that material. you don't do -- it was not a staffer who walked up to him and shoved papers unknowingly in his briefcase. so you are talking about a pattern of conduct that is quite shocking. >> john: there was no reason for him to have in his possession classified documents during his time as senator at all. you can understand, it happened to mike pence, boxing things up as vice president when 1 or 2 things end up in the boxes but the fact that he had them from his senate time, that's extraordinary. we have to jump to chad pergram, live on capitol hill.

breaking news about ken buck. chad. >> that's right, john. ken buck, the republican congressman from colorado has announced he will resign from the house of representatives at the end of next week. we knew he was going to step down at the end of this congress here. this is going to squeeze this margin for house republicans more and more here. these will be the numbers when ken buck steps down at the end of next week. down to 431 members, 218 republicans to 213 democrats. as i always say, it's about the math. right now republicans can only lose two votes on their side and still pass a bill because a tie vote that goes down automatically by rule. still a two-vote margin for ken buck and the republicans, he is going to step aside at the end of next week, increase the headaches for house speaker mike johnson. keep in mind they have to fund the government again at the end

of next week, more spending bills to move through the house and the senate to keep the government open, two-thirds of all federal spending and have to do it with a tighter margin yet with ken buck gone. >> sandra: just a reminder, jason chaffetz here, he used to be the head of the republican party in colorado. did he say why he's leaving and the timing of the decision? >> i just looked at his statement a second ago here, just coming in as we get it here. he had indicated he was going to step down. he had expressed a lot of concern here about how things were going. he actually put forth a resolution not long ago, he was still engaged in legislation to try to invoke the 25th amendment to remove the president because of what was said in the robert hur report about whether or not the president was fully with it. that has not gotten any consideration here but that demonstrates ken buck was working on this right up to the end. he was also at odds with his party. you might remember that he was 1 of 3 republicans who voted

against the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas, the homeland security secretary here, he's a conservative, he does not like what mayorkas had done but thought it was a bridge too far to impeach mayorkas, only the second cabinet secretary ever impeached. so he was at odds with parts of his party for quite a long time, sandra. >> john: he was very vocal about it, did not know why they were going down that road. what are the implications for november when you take a look at the ratings for the house and the number of seats that they think they might be able to either gain or worry about losing? senate republicans are thinking that they could probably do pretty well, democrats are defending in 23, republicans in 11, a number are open seats and competitive. what are the implications overall for november? >> well, it's certainly a lot tougher for democrats to hold on to the senate because of the way the map has been drawn. it favors the republicans right

now. we are trying to parcel out the maps in the house of representatives. but won or lost probably in california and probably in new york state because they have new maps there. you might remember that republicans surprised a lot of people, flipping five house seats in new york. three there that they thought they might be able to hold on to. but that's going to be where the house is won. in the senate here that, is an uphill battle because they have to defend sherrod brown, he won in 2006, 2012 with barack obama on the ballot, won in 2018, a democratic year in the midterm election. john tester is the democrat from montana, and keep in mind that he always sometimes figures out a way to win. he's a moderate. but look at other places where the presidential election is going to be in play. wisconsin and michigan. >> john: and of course in new york as you mentioned, you know,

there is some seats that flipped toward the republicans but that third congressional district just flipped back when they booted george santos from the body. all right, chad. thanks very much. thank you very much for the update. appreciate it. >> sandra: so that's the breaking news. we are waiting on more breaking news as this hearing is about to resume on capitol hill on the biden classified documents and the former special counsel hur. they are expected back in that room shortly. we'll take a quick break and be right back. hing... -left over? -yeah. oh, absolutely. (inner monologue) my kids don't know what they want. you know who knows what she wants? me! with empower, we get all of our financial questions answered. so you don't have to worry. empower. what's next.

(vo) if you have graves' disease... ...and blurry vision, you need clear answers. people with graves' could also get thyroid eye disease, or t-e-d, which may need a different doctor. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com. i hear it all the time. people tell me they'd love to buy gold.

but because it's gold - they think it must be complicated. it isn't. not with rosland capital. with rosland... the entire process from start to finish is built on one concept... one... keep... it... simple. rosland capital - a trusted leader in helping people acquire precious metals. gold bullion, lady liberty gold and silver proofs, and our premium coins, can help you preserve your wealth. call rosland capital at 800-630-8900 to receive your free rosland guide to gold, gold & precious metals ira, and silver brochures. with rosland, there are no hassles, no gimmicks, and our shipping is fast and reliable. remember. keep it simple. make gold your new standard. call rosland capital today at 800-630-8900, 800-630-8900. that's 800-630-8900.

>> sandra: we are waiting on this hearing to resume there, a live look on capitol hill. as we do await lawmakers back in the room, and the former special counsel hur, florida democratic congressman jared moskowitz.

we are waiting for it to be underway shortly. let's play this out. this was a bit of what we heard from hur as far as his take-away from his sit-down with the president. listen. >> anything else specifically that stands out from that interview with the president? >> a number of things stand out. and again, i'm aware that 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 in interacting with me during the five-plus hour voluntary interview. so a wealth of details, including his inability to recall certain things and the fact that he was prompted on numerous occasions by the members of the white house counsel -- >> sandra: congressman, if i can, get you to respond to that and what we have heard so far.

>> first, thank you for having me. look, i think so far we are just seeing a recitation of the report that he filed. i don't think there's any -- nothing new that has come out, obviously. the special counsel wrote a report, there were no charges filed against president biden in this document case. he did opine on the president's mental state, although i do think a lot of that was disproven in the state of the union. in the transcript, there are areas in which the special counsel says the president has an almost photographic-like memory over the areas of his house, and so there's some things in the report that contradict each other. oh, by the way, when the transcript came out, president biden answered his question when beau biden died, march 30 -- sorry, may 30, he answer thad right away. and so there is some contradictory things between the transcript and the report. right now i think the whole thing is kind of just a wash. >> john: when you take a look

at, john here, congressman, this really is about both sides scoring points here, republicans scoring points against biden, democrats scoring points against president trump. there was a curious moment where your colleague, hank johnson, issued a recitation of all of the members of the federalist society that robert hur had worked with in past jobs and said you are a member of the federalist society, to which robert hur said no, i'm not, and johnson said well, you are a republican, as if the two things could automatically be equated. curious thing for me was during the mueller report hearings, democrats did not seem to have any concerns that robert mueller was a registered republican, so why the concerns about hur? >> yeah, john, look, i think that's a fair point. i don't like when we do that just because you are a democrat or just because you are republican. unfortunately i think that's something we saw really get a lot of play in the last administration when it came to a judge, oh, it's a democratic

judge or republican judge. we never used to do that sort of stuff ten years ago. and i really do think that just because you are a democrat or just because you are republican it does not discredit you off the bat on any subject. but i think you are right. i think, you know, this hearing is about scoring political points. it's more theater, obviously, point to biden gaffes, democrats point to trump gaffes, plenty of them on both sides, both of these gentlemen are not young. so yeah, this hearing i think seems to have been really unnecessary but you know, look, that's what we do in a lot of these hearings and 118th congress, a lot of unnecessary theater and not doing stuff to help the american people on a bipartisan basis. >> sandra: all right, so, what are you left wondering then? obviously we are going to see lawmakers come back in the room with statements or questions and where do you see all this going? this is out there for the public to see and take in in this moment on capitol hill, congressman. >> well, i really think there's something being lost here,

right. so, what's being lost here with the issues that happen with the document case with donald trump and then joe biden and mike pence, i think members on a bipartisan basis should be passing new rules and regulations dealing with classified documents. who boxes them up, and how they leave. i mean, there's no doubt a lot of these boxes are boxed up by lower level staff in these administration's. they probably don't even know a lot of what winds up leaving the white house or leaving the senate or leaving the vice president's residence or office. so i do think congress's role is to make sure we do a better job on the rules and regulations with these documents leaving. i think that's what we should do. if we want to make sure protecting national security, that's what we do on a bipartisan basis rather than having hearings trying to score political points. >> john: just on the point there, i want to put a button on that. what ends up leaving the senate. there should never ever be a classified document in a senator's office. those should only be viewed in a scif. i want to ask you about this,

congressman, about this one point, though, and this was about the president's memory and whether or not the president truthfully recalled the events that occurred over several years. robert hur writes we identified evidence that the president willfully retained classified materials at the end of his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. he cites a couple of audio recordings, speaking to his ghost writer, in which he says that i just found all the classified stuff downstairs and then there was another conversation in which mr. biden read classified information a loud to his ghost writer according to hur's opening statement. biden did not recall any of that in the interview and i don't think he was speaking to that point. but listen to hur's response when he was pressed by gerald nadler on whether or not the president ever told him anything that was untrue. listen here. >> do you have any reason to believe president biden lied to you? >> i do address in my report one

response the president gave to a question that we had posed to him that we deemed to be not credible. >> john: i'm not sure if gerald nadler was anticipating that response or expecting it. the ship has sailed on whether or not there are criminal charges but this may leave some people at home thinking why weren't criminal charges pursued? >> well, look, everyone is going to view this through the lens they came to this hearing with. that's just the nature of the beast. look, you are in a five-hour hearing, anyone who sat for a five-hour hearing or interview, sometimes you say things that maybe not deem credible but not intentional lie, like robert hur was talking about bush v. gore and said it happened in 2002. we all know it happened in 2000. i don't think hur was trying to

intentionally mislead people. sometimes people misspeak and there is not intent behind it. the big news here regardless of the theater, and i think the main comparison. >> john: a lot of people who covered that know there's more than 30 days of their life they'll never get back from bush v. gore. appreciate it. >> sandra: we are going to dip into the white house press briefing room where karine jean-pierre is now talking, a quick update here and back to the hearing as soon as it is underway. >> so i know that he is going to continue to be responsive so he will be able to take your questions but we want to wait 'til the hearing is completed and once that's wrapped up he'll be right at the sticks doing the gaggle. >> is the president monitoring the hearing? >> the president is obviously meeting as he does every day, meet with his senior advisers,

senior staff. he's preparing for tomorrow's trip. he's going to be going to milwaukee, wisconsin. i cannot speak to what the president is keeping track of or watching. obviously he'll get updates on it or -- >> sandra: we are going to monitor that and head back to the hearing room, it is back again. let's listen. >> biden interview this morning but i have to note that there are, i think, over 90 transcripts that are being held by the majority here, the judiciary committee and oversight committee for interviews that we all care about, they all go directly to issues with respect to the alleged impeachment inquiry. the you know, it's kind of the pot calling the kettle black it seems to me as an understatement. so and i noted, too, that when the ranking member requested the majority release the transcripts, the chairman objected. so, i hope that we can move forward in the mode of

cooperation and sharing information. i think it's just reasonable to do. mr. hur, i wanted to thank you again for the work you did. i don't agree with everything you wrote in the report, but that's the nature of the business, i think. but i did want to ask you about this. you started off with, the first line executive summary we conclude no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. and i take it that's still your position today. >> yes, it is. >> all right. you also noted a little bit below that for the reasons summarize below, conclude the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. you still hold that view? >> i do. >> even though you objected to the use of the word exonerated, from your perspective, cleared of all criminal charges. >> based on the evidence criminal charges are not warranted. >> i did want to go to the issue of material distinctions that

you raised in your report between president joe biden and former president trump. we have a document that lays some out and you've answered some questions about this already. but i think it seemed to be highly relevant in your analysis that president biden cooperated and i wanted to walk through a couple of those points. one is that he turned in classified documents to the national archives and to the department of justice upon request, is that fair? >> that was a factor that we considered, yes, congressman. >> he cooperated with your investigation? >> yes. >> consented to the search of multiple locations, including his house? >> correct. >> sat for a voluntary interview? >> yes. >> and that was five hours over two days? >> a little over five hours over two days. >> okay. turned over and allowed investigators to review handwritten notebooks he believed to be his personal property. >> correct. >> now with respect to the comparison with former president

trump, and i believe this is on page 11, which is still in your executive summary, and i'll just read part of this to you. unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of mr. trump if proven would present serious aggravating facts. most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. not only refused to return the documents for many months but also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turned in classified documents to the national archives and the department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview and other ways cooperated with the investigation. page 11 of your report. >> i see that language on page

11. >> you still stand by that language? >> i do, sir. >> and this is -- this is your report, you take full responsibility for everything that's in the document? >> i do. i stand by every word in it. >> all right, all right. i wanted to ask you a couple questions. one is with respect to the surprising line of questions you got right before we broke about guardianship. which seems to me like a dramatic stretch of anything that was remotely involved in your report. did you raise any kind of issues about mr. biden needing guardianship or anything along those lines? >> nothing related to guardianship appeared in my report. >> ok. and so the -- i guess you made the one point about him being an elderly man with poor memory. but are you saying -- did you say anywhere in your report that you thought not only would he be unfit to handle his own finances but unfit for public office?

>> my report do not include any opinions on those issues. >> ok. i see my time is exhausted. thank you again for your testimony. i appreciate your efforts. >> gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> yield to the chairman briefly. >> i think the gentleman -- point out mr. ivy raised transcripts, he has complete access to transcripts, he can show up for all the depositions like i show up for most of those. complete access to that. what we don't have is access to all the witnesses, we only have biden and the audio tapes. >> you are speaking but it's not your time? >> he yielded to me. >> all right. >> i thank you the gentleman -- special counsel hur, thank you for being here. your story is an impressive one, achievements are impressive as well. you've been a prosecutor for many years, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i was not a prosecutor for more than a couple of years, but i still remember my record

injure trials. do you remember your record? >> it will take me a little time to reconstruct but i think i could get there. >> is it above 500? >> it is above 500, yes, sir. >> well, i'm curious, because the evidence you outline in your report is pretty significant when it comes to evidence that after his vice presidency, reading from your report, mr. biden willfully retained marked classified documents about afghanistan and unmarked classified work in notebooks in his home, and willfully retained afghanistan documents including thanksgiving memo and strong motive to keep such classified documents. you outline what that motive is. can you tell me what is the motive for keeping the thanksgiving day memo? >> one of the motives we addressed in the report was the issue of whether or not a troop surge should be sent to

afghanistan in 2009 was a hotly contested and debated issue in the obama administration back in 2009. and one in which then vice president biden had a significant role and he felt very strongly about. >> quote from your report, president biden believed the troop surge was mistake on par with vietnam and wanted the record to show he was right about afghanistan that his critics were wrong and that he had opposed president obama's mistake and decision that his judgment was sound when it mattered most. >> that language sounds familiar from the report, yes. >> that is -- is pretty significant in terms of a motivating factor for retaining those documents, wouldn't you say? >> that would be a factor that a jury would assess in considering whether or not mr. biden had criminal intent. >> and i also know that president biden was working with a ghost writer on a book, mark

swaniger, correct? >> correct. >> and your investigation concluded when president biden began work on his memoir. at what point did your investigation conclude? >> with resuspect to the second book published in 2017, identified evidence that mr. biden began recorded conversations before the end of mr. biden's vice presidency. >> your understanding while mr. swaniger interviewed president biden, he read from notebooks, nearly verbatim. >> correct. >> and was mr. swanier authorized to receive the information? >> he was not. >> and the president read out loud classified information regarding the actions and views of military views and the cia and foreign terrorist organization. >> that was captured in a recording later in 2017, i believe in april of 2017, not

february. >> okay. and mr. swaniger became aware of your appointment as special counsel, correct? >> at some point he did become aware of my appointment, yes. >> and upon learning, he deleted digital audio recordings with his conversation with mr. biden during "promise me dad." >> correct. >> investigators interviewed him about the deleted recordings and part of his motivation for deleting the recording is he was aware there was an investigation, correct? >> correct. >> did this conduct raise concerns with your office? >> it did. we considered to be significant evidence that we needed to follow up on. >> significant evidence, and i would argue that you also had significant evidence surrounding the retention of these documents, the storage of these documents, and even though there was a bit of a disconnect

between what a reasonable juror could conclude, the intent was there, the motive was there for the book, for exoneration, and i would argue that you had enough to move forward. my time has expired. i yield back. >> gentle lady from vermont is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you, special counsel hur for being here today. i know it's been hours and hours and appreciate you staying to the bitter end here. i think it speaks to the possibility and promise afforded by this nation that you as a child of immigrants sit here as special counsel and i as a child of immigrants sit here as a member of congress. there is a lot that's been said today and part of the challenge that i have is trying to translate this for my constituents back home. and so i want to start with sort of the top line. so, you were tasked with identifying whether criminal conduct occurred regarding classified documents, and after

over a year of investigation, including 150 witness interviews and over 7 million documents reviewed, you wrote in the first sentences of the executive summary, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. we would reach the same conclusion even if department of justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president. were those your words? >> yes. >> thank you. so let's get into it. mr. hur, at any point did doj leadership or the attorney general attempt to influence the outcome of your investigation? >> no. >> do you believe it's important special counsel investigation or any doj investigation be impartial and free of influence from political actors. >> yes. >> do you believe you were independent and thorough in your report? >> yes. >> do you believe -- do you think it's true that you

received no pressure from attorney general garland in this matter? >> that's correct. >> is it true you had all the resources to conduct your r interviews, to conduct your investigation and complete your report? >> yes. >> is it true that you recommended the attorney general decline to charge president biden? >> i submitted a report to the attorney general explaining my decision that criminal charges were not warranted in this matter. >> right. you said on page one of the report, we conclude the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. is it true that your report ultimately concluded that the evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that president biden willfully retained classified materials. >> yes. >> is it true that president biden cooperated with your investigation. >> yes. >> is it true that president biden sat for an interview with you, the day after the october 7th attacks in israel in

the midst of an international crisis. >> he sat for two days, october 8th and october 9th. >> thank you. is it true president biden allowed the fbi to conduct thorough searches of his home and beach house? >> yes. >> is it true your report found multiple possible innocent explanations as to why the classified documents ended up where they did? >> as part of our analysis, we walked through a number of different explanations that defense counsel would present, could present at trial if the case were charged. >> as you said on page 6 of the report, in addition to the shortage of evidence there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute. your report reads. >> i see that language, yeah. >> reads with one exception no report of the department of justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. the exception is former president trump, am i reading that correctly?

>> yes. >> is it true -- is it correct that your report recommends no charges and that you would be -- that would be the case even if he were not a sitting president? >> correct. >> so what we have had today is hour after hour after hour of trying to distract us from the clear statements that come through this report. and you yourself have said multiple times today there was no attempt to obstruct justice by the president, by the department of justice, by the attorney general, that you had all the resources that you needed to conduct a fair and thorough investigation and report and that what you concluded was in fact the evidence was not sufficient to bring charges against the president for mishandling documents. i thank you for being here.

i yield back. >> gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i yield to you. >> appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. hur, why did the white house go -- why did the white house lawyers go looking in the first place? my understanding they went to the penn-biden center. why did they look for classified documents? >> what we identified through the investigation was that at a certain date members of the president's staff went to the penn-biden center to get a better handle what kinds of evidence and what kind of materials were there. >> were they specifically looking for potential documents that were classified or was it a broader initial look? >> my understanding is it was a broader initial look and i'm looking at chapter 14, 257 of my report, visit in march 2021.

>> all right. in march. >> march of 2021. >> was this after the justice department began their investigation into president trump? >> i confess i don't have the date of the beginning of the investigation into president trump at hand. >> i believe it was the same month. i believe it was after, i'll just curious of that. one other thing i think is important for folks to understand is president biden had this information everywhere. you said initially went to the penn-biden center. which location, was it the transition office, at the temporary in chinatown, or at its current location where the penn-biden center currently sits here, you know, final location i guess in d.c. do you remember? >> i believe the visit i referenced in march 2021 described on 257 was the permanent and current location. >> permanent and current. >> those three places classified information was at, is that fair

to say? >> that's correct. the initial transition office, immediately after the end of the vice presidency, the penn-biden center temporary office and then permanent office. >> and university of delaware library. university of delaware biden center, right, so that's five total, and then multiple places in his home. >> correct. >> garage, den, the office upstairs and the office downstairs. >> correct. >> what is that, that's like nine different places. >> i've lost count -- >> it's everywhere. and it was documents over 50 years time frame and comparison, the democrats want to compare -- president trump's documents were at his home with secret service protection. i don't know if they were anywhere else, were they? >> i'm not aware of any other locations. >> i appreciate him yielding. back to the gentleman from south carolina. >> two minutes left, mr. hur, how would you define willful?

>> with respect to the intent of willfulness, what a jury has to conclude is someone knew their conduct was illegal when they engaged in that conduct. >> it's intentional, it's not by accidental or involuntary. >> correct. >> here is where i disagree with your portion of the report on willful is that you have a gentleman who served 36 years in the senate. i've only been here a year but i understand the importance of handling classified information. served eight years as vice president. in 2010, came to the attention of the vice president's staff that classified briefing books had not been returned, even if they were returned, some of the content was missing. the same year the executive secretary raised nearly 30 of the classified briefing books from the first six months of 2010 were missing. then vice president failed to return top secret comemented information contents of a briefing book from a trip he

took to the hamptons. and to date, you are unable to determine if the documents are ever recovered. >> correct. >> so to me, this wasn't -- when does willfulness as -- when does willfulness factor in, now in his diminished mental capacity or then serving as senator and vice president? >> a jury would be assessing president biden's mental state and his intent, or whether or not he hlfulness, at the time that the conduct was committed. >> correct. and i think everyone can plainly see the transgression or the difference between then candidate biden or vice president biden and what is going on now. and so this is where i go is the chairman talked about in his opening comments, he had 8 million reasons to hold these documents, he disclosed some of this information to his ghost writer. and so i think there could have been willfulness and i've got ten seconds left.

look, since 2016, there have been three candidates to run for president. all three have had allegations of issues surrounding the retention and holding of classified documents. mr. hur, only one of them has been charged. and that's president trump and that's why people think and view this as a two-tiered system of justice. thank you, sir. >> gentlemen yields back. the chair now recognize the gentleman from -- unanimous consent. >> i'll wait. >> mr. buck. >> thank you. >> mr. hur, they say they save the best for last, i'm looking forward to this opportunity. first of all, what i've observed in this hearing is that one side thinks you are trying to get president trump elected and the other side thinks you are trying to get president biden elected. i served as prosecutor for 25 years, i know that you are going to take grief from both sides. you must be doing a great job in your reporting and during your

investigation if you have convinced both sides that you are somewhere in the middle. i commend you for your background. i would have loved to have met chief justice rehnquist. what a hero to conservatives and really americans and that must have been a great opportunity for you. but when both sides attack you, my admonition is welcome to congress. how many -- i do have a question, and goes along the lines of what mr. armstrong and fry were asking you earlier. i'm confused about willfulness and your view of willfulness. it's clear to me that at the time vice president biden knew he had classified documents, he told his -- after he left the vice presidency, he told his bio

grapher ghost writer the classified documents are in the basement. so he had the mental state he had classified documents. he also knew his basement was not a scif, it's not a secure area. and so at the point -- if at that point in time he said oh, my gosh, i've got to call the archivist, i've got to call secret service somebody and get these documents taken away, perhaps he has this defense of acting as quickly as he knew about the documents. but i don't see where the willfulness is missing when he had these two -- the elements are clear, he possessed classified documents, he held them in a nonsecure area, and he did so knowingly. he knew he had classified documents and unsecure area. what is -- where is the willfulness missing? >> well, sir, prosecutor -- i certainly agree with you the evidence in the form of the audio recorded statement where the president said to his ghost writer i just found all the

classified stuff downstairs, that is evidence that any prosecutor would present as significant evidence in a case if this went to trial. so -- and reasonable jurors might well infer that president biden formed criminal intent based on that piece of evidence. but what we did in our report was to try to walk through, you know well as a prosecutor you need to assess with a very cold eye the strengths of your case and the weaknesses of your case and try to anticipate arguments that defense counsel may well present at trial and what we tried to do in the report was to walk through potential arguments by defense lawyers, and how the jurors would receive the evidence presented, including but not limited to the president's memory gaps in various pieces of evidence we assessed. >> how do you overcome that recording where he says i've got classified documents, he's 30 years in the senate or whatever

it is, he obviously knows how he has to treat classified documents, i've got classified documents in the basement. is the defense, it was a made up recording, it wasn't his voice, everyone was wrong, how do you defend that particular fact as well as i did a lot of tax cases, you had to prove a pattern of conduct and in this case, he had a lot of documents and a lot of places. how do you overcome those things? >> yes, congressman. we walked through a number of different evidentiary gaps and defense arguments the lawyers could present at trial. the first is a theory or argument to the jury that the president, yes, he did say to his ghost writer i just found all the classified stuff downstairs, but then soon thereafter forgot about the documents. and therefore it would be difficult to convince a jury that actually he willfully, he knew it was illegal to keep the documents and continued to do

so. a second argument that we considered is that perhaps the documents never actually were in virginia in his private rental home there. perhaps the documents were there by virtue of staff or himself having those documents at the delaware home from the time that he was still vice president all the way through the time of their being discovered. and finally, another theory we walked through in the report, there were two folders of classified documents in the box in the delaware garage. one contained national defense information, and another more difficult task that it did contain national defense information. so that was perhaps the president was referring to the one folder that did not contain national defense information but difficult to prove that he did know he possessed the one that did contain national defense information. i laid a lot on you there but do

our best to explain it in the report. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman -- >> gentle lady from texas. >> i thank you, and there's been a lot of time being shared, mr. chairman, i ask brief indulgence. >> wait wait wait, unanimous consent or asking a question? >> your brief indulgence on unanimous consent/question. >> no, no, someone yields the time, every one on the democrat side has taken their time. you know that i -- appreciate the gentle lady from texas but can't go two rounds. >> i'm not trying to go two rounds. >> unanimous consent -- >> i was hoping someone would come through the door. >> only be a republican, all the democrats have spoken. >> unanimous consent that we add to the record as stated from page one of the executive summary, conclude no criminal

charges are warranted in this matter. we would reach the same conclusion even if the department of justice policy did not foreclose -- >> the committee knows what's in the report. >> that sentence be put in and ask unanimous consent and -- >> unanimous consent to add something that's already in the record, god bless you, we will do that. >> and i ask this be added to the record mr. hur stated that biden couldn't recall when his son beau died. unanimous consent out of an article in politico, and indicate that there was no mercy given to mr. biden and no mercy given to him in -- >> without objection, so entered. mr. hur, even though there was not a question, do you want to respond to any of that? >> no, chair. >> mr. hur, we want to thank you for being here today. and we wish the best to you and your family. this concludes today's hearing. we thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee

today without objection. all members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. without objection, the hearing is adjourned. >> sandra: and there you have it. the chairman, jim jordan has adjourned. bring back the panel, jonathan turley, jason chaffetz and started about 10:00 this morning, a brief break in between, but has concluded. andy, top line thoughts as it has wrapped. >> i have to say that last bit by hur i thought was the weakest testimony he provided all day, i thought he was a very strong witness. but the idea that like biden could know that he was illegally retaining classified information and then forget about it and then that is somehow exculpatory, he knew he was doing it, and guilty of doing it.

that did not make sense to me. >> john: not legally, but politically, what's the up shot of all that, like robert hur would say i am going to file charges, what is politically the upshot? >> the strongest point for republicans the motivation that joe biden may have had, that he had this lucrative $8 million deal and that he wanted to get and impress this ghost writer and at one point, according to the audio, which we have not heard but was talked about, is this idea that hey, you know, i've got this classified information, be careful. i think that goes to motive, it goes to intent, it goes to thought process that was going through joe biden's head and i thought when jim jordan did that line of questioning, you know, a little bit later into the hearing, that was perhaps the most compelling piece that was illuminated in a way that had not -- that had light shed on it

and given the emphasis it needed. >> sandra: jonathan, what struck you in the last half hour of the hearing? >> i think overall the weight of the evidence in favor of charging was substantial. i think it explains why he had to emphasize the president's lack of memory and how he might appeal to a jury. because the evidence was not supportive of the president. i think that what was particularly damning in hur's testimony is his constant reference to facts where the president acknowledged he knew he had classified evidence, that he did the same conduct going back 40 years, and it does leave you with this question of why he then gets this level of deference. but i think it leaves the other obvious question, and that is why is the department of justice prosecuting trump on the classification questions, as opposed to the obstruction questions. that's what the democrats kept on coming back to. but trump obstructed.

well, g -- yeah, you can prosecute on obstruction but how you reconcile the two cases, one prosecuted and the other not, i'm afraid is beyond me. the evidence seems very strong in terms of joe biden willfully retaining and quite frankly knowing that he did so. >> john: well, a lot to chew on between now and november, no question about that. jonathan, andy and jason, thanks so much for being with us this afternoon. >> sandra: thank you, gentlemen. john, hard to believe that does it for us. it's almost 3:00 eastern. thank you for joining us, everyone. sandra smith. >> john: that went by really fast. britain has just banned puberty blockers for people under the age of 18. we'll see how that resonates here in america. i'm john roberts. >> martha: thanks, guys. i'm martha maccallum in new york. this is "the story." moments ago, theou