Special Counsel Robert Hur Testifies in House Hearing

Acting Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Raskin will be permitted to participate in today’s hearing for the purposes of making opening statements and asking questions of the witness. They each will receive three minutes for an opening statement and five minutes to question the witness. The chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement. Robert Hur was appointed as special counsel on January 12, 2023. He had a fundamental question to address. Did Joe Biden unlawfully retain classified information? The answer, yes, he did. Page one of Mr. Hur’s report, he says this, “Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his Vice Presidency when he was a private citizen.” He further writes, “Mr. Biden willfully retained marked classified documents about Afghanistan and hand-written notes in his notebooks, which he stored in unsecured places in his home.” Joe Biden kept classified information, and Joe Biden failed to store classified information properly.

(01:09)
Mr. Hur made these determinations after interviewing 147 witnesses. He examined seven million documents, including emails, text messages, photographs, videos, toll records, and other materials from both classified and unclassified sources. But there’s more. Joe Biden not only kept information he wasn’t allowed to keep, and he not only failed to secure that information properly, he also shared it with people who weren’t allowed to see it. Shared that information with his ghost writer. And remember, this is information that only individuals with the security clearance are supposed to see. Mr. Hur told us on page 200 of his report that it’s the kind of information that “risks serious damage to America’s national security.” What did Joe Biden have to say about all this? What was his explanation? On page 94 of Mr. Hur’s report, Joe Biden said he took his notebooks with him after his Vice Presidency because “they’re mine. And every President before me has done the same exact thing.”

(02:25)
Never mind the fact that he had never been president when he took this information, but what comes through is Joe Biden felt he was entitled. You can almost hear it. You can feel the arrogance in this statement, “they’re mine.” But even with all that, Mr. Hur chose not to bring charges because “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did in our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” A forgetful old man who Mr. Hur said did not remember when he was Vice President, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended, and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term as Vice President began. Mr. Hur produced a 345-page report, but in the end, it boils down to a few key facts. Joe Biden kept classified information, Joe Biden failed to properly secure classified information, and Joe Biden shared classified information with people he wasn’t supposed to. Joe Biden broke the law. Because he’s a forgetful old man who would appear sympathetic to a jury, Mr. Hur chose not to bring charges. Mr. Hur, we think it’s important that you be able to respond to President Biden’s response to your report. We’re going to play a short video of President Biden’s press conference after your report was released because there’s things in this press conference that the President of the United States says that are directly contradicted by what you found in your report. If we could play that video.

Hey, everybody.

Good evening.

Let me say a few things before I take your questions. As you know, the special counsel has released his findings today about their look into my handling of classified documents.

President Biden, something the special counsel said in his report is that one of the reasons you were not charged is because, in his description, you are a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.

I’m well-meaning and I’m an elderly man and I know what the hell I’m doing. I’ve been President and I’ve put this country back on its feet. I don’t need his recommendation. It’s totally-

How bad is your memory, and can you continue as president?

My memory is so bad I let you speak. That’s what-

Do you feel your memory has gotten worse, Mr. President?

My memory is fine. Take a look at what I’ve done since I become president. None of you thought I could pass any of the things I got passed. How’d that happen? I guess I just forgot what was going on.

Mr. President, Mr. President.

(05:13)
Voters have concerns about your age. How are you going to asuade them and do you fear that this report is only going to fuel further concerns about your age?

Only by some of you.

Mr. President.

(05:27)
Mr. President.

(05:27)
[inaudible 00:05:28] today, do you take responsibility for at least being careless with classified material?

I take responsibility for not having seen exactly what my staff was doing. If it goes in, it [inaudible 00:05:39] out. Things that appeared in my garage, things that came out of my home, things that were moved not by me, but my staff, but my staff.

Mr. President.

(05:56)
Mr. President.

(05:56)
[inaudible 00:05:55].

(05:56)
Mr. President. For months when you were asked about your age, you would respond with the words, “watch me.”

Watch me.

Many American people have been watching and they have expressed concerns about your age-

That is your judgment. That is your judgment.

[inaudible 00:06:10].

That is not the judgment of the press.

They express concerns about your mental acuity, they say that you are too old. Mr. President, in December, you told me that you believe there are many other Democrats who could defeat Donald Trump. Why does it have to be you now? What is your answer to that question?

Because I’m the most qualified person in this country to be President of the United States and finish the job I started.

[inaudible 00:06:31].

(06:36)
Thank you, everyone. Thank you very much.

I did not share classified information. I did not share it.

With your ghost writer.

With my ghost writer, I did not. Guarantee you did not.

But the special counsel said in the report that [inaudible 00:06:46].

No, it did not say that.

Okay. [inaudible 00:06:47].

It did not say that.

But Mr. President, [inaudible 00:06:50]-

Let me answer your question. The fact of the matter is while I didn’t want repeated, I didn’t read it to him, was I had written a long memorandum to President Obama why we should not be in Afghanistan. Multiple pages. And so what I was referring to, I said classified, I should have said it should be private because it was a contact between the President and Vice President as to what was going on. That’s what it is referring to. It was not classified information in that document. That was not classified.

[inaudible 00:07:25].

(07:35)
He called on me. When you look back at this incident, is there anything you would do differently now, and do you think that a special prosecutor should’ve been appointed in the first place in both of these cases?

First of all, what I would’ve done is oversee the transfer of the material that was in my offices. I should’ve done that. I didn’t have the responsibility to that, my staff was supposed to do that and they referenced that in the report. And my staff did not do it in a way that, for example. I didn’t know how half the boxes got in my garage until I found out staff gathered them up, put them together and took them to the garage in my home. And all the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked. It was in my house. It wasn’t out in Mar-a-Lago in a public place where… And none of it was high classified, didn’t have any of that red stuff on it. You know what I mean around the corners? None of that. And so I wish I had paid more attention to how the documents were being moved and where. I thought they’d be moved to the archives. I thought all of it was being moved. That’s what I thought. Now what was the last part of your question?

Whether a special counsel should’ve been appointed in this case and in the case of former President [inaudible 00:08:56].

I think a special counsel should’ve been appointed, and the reason I think a special counsel should’ve been appointed is because I did not want to be in a position that they looked at Trump and weren’t going to look at me. Just like they looked at the Vice President. And the fact is they made a firm conclusion, I did not break the law. Period. Thank you all very, very much.

[inaudible 00:09:21].

Thank you, thank you.

[inaudible 00:09:24].

The hostage negotiation, look. I’m of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in the Gaza strip has been over the top. I think that, as you know, initially the President of Mexico, CeCe, did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. I talked to him. I convinced them to open the gate. Let them make them part of the Middle East and recognize them fully and return for certain things that the United States would commit to do. And the commitment that were proposing to do related to two items I’m not going in detail, but one of them was to deal with the protection against their archenemy to the Northwest, Northeast I should say. The second one, by providing ammunition and material for them to defend themselves. Coincidentally, that’s the timeframe when this broke out. I have no proof what I’m about to say, but it’s not unreasonable to suspect that the Hamas understood what was about to take place and wanted to break it up before it happened.

[inaudible 00:10:59]. Thank you, everybody.

(11:02)
[inaudible 00:11:06].

(11:02)
We’re going to need everybody to hold for a moment.

Chair now recognizes the ranking member Mr. Nadler for an opening statement.

Mr. Chairman, I’m ready of such admiration for the President that you allowed him to take the first ten minutes of this hearing. Mr. Chairman, House Republicans may be desperate to convince America that White Conservative men are on the loosing end of a two tier justice system. A theory that appeals to the MAGA crowd that has no basis in reality. But your comments today make me wonder if you have read the special counsel’s report at all. The Hur report does help us draw a distinction between President Biden and Donald Trump, just not the one you want. Two distinctions, actually. First, the report is clear that “no point did the special counsel find evidence that Mr. Biden intended or had reason to believe the information would be used to injure the United States or to benefit a foreign nation.” With respect to the classified documents found in President Biden’s possession, “the decision to decline criminal charges was straightforward.” And with respect to the special counsel’s investigation, “Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.”

(12:28)
President Biden acted responsibly, cooperated completely, and the decision to decline criminal charges was relatively straightforward. In short, to borrow a phrase from the last administration, the Hur report represents the complete and total exoneration of President Biden. And how does that record contrast with President Trump, the documents he retained and the criminal charges pressed against him in Florida? We know that Trump deliberately took large amounts of classified information from The White House. He has admitted as much, occasionally pretending that he classified this information without telling anyone on his way out the door. We know that he stored that information around Mar-a-Lago in the craziest of places, on the ballroom stage, spilled across the floor of an unlocked closet, next to the toilet. We know that he showed classified military plans to an author interviewing him at Betminster. “As President, I could have de-classified it,” Trump says on an audio recording. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret. Still a secret.”

(13:38)
So much for the de-classification theory. We know from the indictment that Trump is alleged to have shared these classified documents with many other visitors to Mar-a-Lago. And we know that despite this outrageous conduct, the Department of Justice gave Trump every opportunity to avoid criminal charges. Again in the special counsel’s words, ” After being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. He not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.” Why did the President charge former President Trump but not President Biden? Not because of some vast conspiracy, not because the so-called deep state was out to get him, but because former President Trump was fundamentally incapable of taking advantage of even one of the many, many chances he was given to avoid those charges. Which brings me to the second distinction this report helps us draw between President Biden and Donald Trump. Simply put, President Biden had the mental acuity to navigate this situation.

(14:56)
Donald Trump did not. Much has been made of the special counsel’s gratuitous comments about the President Biden’s age. But let’s set the context. After returning every classified document, after opening his home to federal investigators, while simultaneously managing the first hours of the crisis in Israel, President Biden volunteered to sit through a five-hour interview with the special counsel. I believe as this is habit that President Biden probably committed a verbal slip or two during the interview. And I’m not sure any of that matters, because when the interview is over, Mr. Hur completely exonerated President Biden. And then, there is Donald Trump. What kind of man bungles not one, but dozens of opportunities to avoid criminal liability? What must that say about his mental state? Here too, the record speaks for itself.

One of the great memories of all time. James Webb. I don’t remember the names. Don’t remember the name. Viktor Orban, did anyone ever hear of him? He’s the leader of Turkey. By the way, they never report the crowd on January 6th. Nikki Haley is in charge of security. Three years. Lady, lady, lady. How about that?

Did you actually have a one-on-one with Comey then?

Not much. Not even that I remember. I don’t like mosquitoes. We have languages coming into our country. We have nobody that even speaks those languages. They’re truly foreign languages. Nobody speaks them. Saudi Arabia and Russia will… I have a really good memory.

Your next wife was a woman by the name of Marla Maples.

Right.

Do you recall what years you were married to Ms. Maples?

It’s called up here and it’s called memory and it’s called other things.

You don’t remember saying you have one of the best memories in the world?

I don’t remember that. And Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word today. You heard that, nuclear. We have to win in November or we’re not going to have Pennsylvania. They’ll change the name. I talk to Putin a lot.

Did [inaudible 00:17:10] he voted for? Did you ask him that?

I don’t remember that. I saw that this morning. I don’t remember asking him that question. I have a good memory and all that stuff. A great memory. For 20 years they were fighting ISIS. I defeated ISIS in four weeks. And we did with Obama. We won an election that everyone said couldn’t be won. I’m not cognitively… And you know what? When I am, you’re going to know it. You’re going to be the first people… I know my people. You’ll say, all right, Trump, you did a good job. Get the hell out of here. That’s it.

That is a man who is incapable of avoiding criminal liability, a man who is wholly unfit for office, and a man who at the very least ought to think twice before accusing others of cognitive decline. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Hur. Thank you for illuminating a stark choice for this country in the months to come. I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Comer, for an opening statement.

Thank you. In August 2022, President Biden questioned, in a 60 Minutes interview, how anyone can be that irresponsible when asked about classified documents in the possession of former President Trump. But when President Biden said this, he knew that he had stashed classified materials in several unsecure locations for years dating back to his time as Vice President and even as a US Senator. President Biden, The White House and his personal attorneys have not been honest with the American people about his willful retention of classified material and continue to hide information from Congress. President Biden’s attorney’s claim to have first discovered classified material at Penn Biden Center on November 2nd, 2022. However, President Biden and his lawyers kept it secret from the American people before the midterm elections. CBS News broke the story in January 2023, leaving Americans to wonder if The White House had any intention of ever disclosing that President Biden horded classified documents for years.

(19:20)
One of my first actions after becoming Chairman of the House Oversight Committee was to launch an investigation into President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents. This investigation started before special counsel Hur was named. And what we found is alarming. Information obtained through multiple transcribed interviews conducted by the Oversight Committee contradict The White House’s and President Biden’s personal attorney’s narrative about the discovery of classified documents at the Penn Biden Center. In fact, the real timeline began in the spring of 2021, not November 2022 as The White House claimed. Additionally, the classified documents were not kept in a locked closet as asserted by The White House. We’ve also learned that five White House employees and a Department of Defense employee were involved in the early stages of coordinating the organizing, moving, and removing of boxes that were later found to contain classified materials. There’s no reasonable explanation as to why so many White House employees were concerned with retrieving boxes they believed only contained personal documents and materials.

(20:28)
Why did President Biden keep these specific documents in unsecure locations for years? Many questions remain. But now The White House is obstructing Congress as we seek the truth for the American people. We’ve subpoena’d former White House Council, Dana Remus, to appear for a deposition to provide information to our committee, but The White House is seeking to block her testimony. We’ve also subpoena’d the Department of Justice for audio recordings and transcript of President Biden’s interview with special counsel Hur. These were due the morning of the State of the Union. Only this morning, a couple of hours before today’s hearing, the Department of Justice finally provided the transcript of President Biden’s interview with special counsel Hur. The timing is not coincidental. Although we’ve had little time to review the transcripts, from what we have seen, it is clear that The White House did not want special counsel Hur’s final report to be released. The White House has refused to be transparent with the American people about the President’s mishandling of classified documents.

(21:28)
And worse, they have appeared to have lied about the timeline, about who handled the documents, and even about the contents of President Biden’s interview with special counsel Hur. That is why today’s hearing is important. Transparency is what we seek today, and we look forward to special counsel Hur’s testimony. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Jordan. There are just three basic points that all Americans need to understand about Mr. Hur’s report. Number one, the special counsel exonerates President Biden. The very first line of the report says it all. “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.” Second, the report establishes that President Biden offered complete and unhesitating cooperation with the special counsel’s investigation. The Justice Department and National Archives were proactively notified of the classified documents and they were turned over. The president allowed the FBI to search his homes, and he sat for a voluntary interview for more than five hours on October 8th and October 9th, even as he was busy responding to Hamas’ vicious terrorist attack in Israel. The report thus demonstrates President Biden’s complete devotion to the rule of law and his respect for a fair and independent Department of Justice.

(22:58)
President Biden did not exert executive privilege or claim absolute immunity from presidential crimes. He did not hide boxes of documents under his bed or in a bath tub. He did not fight investigators, nor did he seek to redact a single word of Mr. Hur’s report. He consented to the search of numerous locations, including his homes, and he did everything he could to cooperate, not obstruct. Third, special counsel Hur repeatedly emphasizes that President Biden’s conduct contrasts sharply with that of former President Trump. Hur observes that unlike President Biden, “The allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would clearly establish not only Mr. Trump’s wilfulness, but also serious aggravating factors.” He sets forth these points of difference in detail. “Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.”

(24:12)
He returned only a portion of subpoena’d documents and deliberately withheld the rest. Unlike President Biden, Trump did not alert the National Archives or DOJ of the documents, nor did he turn over all the classified materials in his possession. He did not agree to sit down for a voluntary interview with the special counsel. He never consented to a search of his home. On the contrary, Trump suggested that his attorney hide or destroy evidence requested by the FBI and the Grand Jury. Trump carefully instructed his aid to move boxes of classified documents to hide them from the FBI. Trump tried to delete incriminating security tape footage from Mar-a-Lago and he got his attorney to provide a false certification to the FBI saying he had produced all the documents in his possession. He did not. Given that this report is so damning in the contrast between Biden and Trump, it is hard for me to see why our colleagues think that this hearing advances their flailing and embarrassing quest to impeach the President of the United States. What America sees today is evidence of one president who believes in the rule of law and works to protect it, and one who has nothing but contempt for the rule of law and acts solely in pursuit of his own constantly multiplying corrupt schemes.

(25:27)
I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today’s witness. The honorable Robert Hur was appointed as special counsel in January 2023 to investigate the removal and retention of classified documents discovered at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. He previously served as the principal associate deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice and as the United States attorney for the District of Maryland. He was a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rinques and also clerked for Judge Alex Cazynski on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in. Mr. Hur, would you please stand, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you, God?

(26:19)
Let the record reflect that the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you can be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony. Mr. Hur, you may begin with your opening statement. Make sure you got the mic on, if you could, Mr. Hur. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Jordan, ranking member Nadler, Chairman Comer, ranking member Raskin, members of the Committee, good morning. I’m privileged to have served our country for the majority of my career, a decade and a half, most of those years with the Department of Justice. I have served as a line prosecutor, a supervisor, the principal associate deputy attorney general, a United States attorney, and a special counsel. I’ve served in these roles with gratitude, as the son of immigrants to this country. The first member of my family to be born here. My parents grew up in Korea and were young children during the Korean War. My father remembers being hungry and grateful for the food that American GIs shared with him and his siblings. My mother fled what is now North Korea in her own mother’s arms, heading south to safety. My parents eventually met, married, and came to the US seeking a better life for themselves and for their children. Their lives and mine would have been very different were it not for this country.

(27:49)
No matter the role, no matter the administration, I have applied the same standards and the same impartiality. My respect for the Justice Department and my commitment to this country are why I agreed to serve as special counsel when asked by the Attorney General. I resolved to do the work as I did all my work for the Department, fairly, thoroughly, and professionally with close attention to the policies and practices that govern Department prosecutors. My team and I conducted a thorough, independent investigation. We identified evidence that the President willfully retained classified materials after the end of his Vice Presidency when he was a private citizen. This evidence included an audio recorded conversation, during which Mr. Biden told his ghost writer that he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” When Mr. Biden said this, he was a private citizen speaking to his ghost writer in his private rental home in Virginia. We also identified other recorded conversations during which Mr. Biden read classified information aloud to his ghost writer.

(28:58)
We did not, however, identify evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence fell short of that standard, I declined to recommend criminal charges against Mr. Biden. The Department’s regulations required me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the Attorney General. I understood that my explanation about this case had to include rigorous, detailed, and thorough analysis. In other words, I needed to show my work, just as I would expect any prosecutor to show his or her work explaining the decision to prosecute or not. The need to show my work was especially strong here. The Attorney General had appointed me to investigate the actions of the Attorney General’s boss, the sitting President of the United States. I knew that for my decision to be credible, I could not simply announce that I recommended no criminal charges and leave it at that. I needed to explain why. My report reflects my best effort to explain why I declined to recommend charging President Biden. I analyzed the evidence as prosecutors routinely do, by assessing its strengths and weaknesses. Including by anticipating the ways in which the President’s defense lawyers might poke holes in the government’s case, if there were a trial, and seek to persuade jurors that the government could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

(30:23)
There has been a lot of attention paid to language in the report about the President’s memory, so let me say a few words about that. My task was to determine whether the President retained or disclosed national defense information willfully. That means, knowingly and with the intent to do something the law forbids. I could not make that determination without assessing the President’s state of mind. For that reason, I had to consider the President’s memory and overall mental state and how a jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial. These are the types of issues that prosecutors analyze every day. And because these issues were important to my ultimate decision, I had to include a discussion of them in my report to the Attorney General. The evidence and the President himself put his memory squarely at issue. We interviewed the President and asked him about his recorded statement. “I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” He told us that he didn’t remember saying that to his ghost writer. He also said he didn’t remember finding any classified material in his home after his Vice Presidency. And he didn’t remember anything about how classified documents about Afghanistan made their way into his garage.

(31:42)
My assessment in the report about the relevance of the President’s memory was necessary and accurate and fair. Most importantly, what I wrote is what I believe the evidence shows, and what I expect jurors would perceive and believe. I did not sanitize my explanation, nor did I disparage the President unfairly. I explained to the Attorney General my decision and the reasons for it, that’s what I was required to do. I took the same approach when I compared the evidence regarding President Biden to the Department’s allegations against former President Trump. Their too, I called it like I saw it. As a prosecutor, I had to consider relevant precedence and to explain why different facts justified different outcomes. That is what I did in my report. I’m confident the analysis set forth in chapters 11, 12, and 13 of my report provides a thorough evaluation and explanation of the evidence and I encourage everyone to read it to inform their opinions of the report. Prosecutors rarely write public reports or testify about their investigations. That is the Justice Department’s longstanding policy and it protects important interests. My team and I prepared the report to the Attorney General with care, and the report stands as the primary source of information.

… information. My responses today will be limited to clarifying information for the committee. I will refrain from speculating or commenting on areas outside the scope of the investigation, nor will I discuss what investigative steps we did or did not take beyond what’s in the report.

(33:18)
In conclusion, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the attorneys, agents, analysts, and professional staff who helped us do our work fairly, thoroughly, and independently. I am grateful and privileged to have served with them. I single out for particular thanks, Deputy Special Counsel Marc Krickbaum, a former United States attorney himself who brought great wisdom, skill and judgment to our task. Thank you. I welcome your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Hur. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota for five minutes.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. “How could that possibly happen? How could anyone be that irresponsible? And I thought, ‘What data was in there that could compromise sources, methods, and it’s just totally irresponsible?’.” That is President Biden’s statement about Donald Trump and the classified documents. Mr. Hur, classified documents were found at the Penn Biden Center?

That’s correct.

They were found in President Biden’s garage?

In Wilmington, Delaware, yes.

And in his basement den?

Also in the same home, yes.

In his main floor office?

Correct.

And his third floor den?

Correct.

At the University of Delaware?

Correct.

And at the Biden Institute?

Correct.

All right. And the elements of the crime for this, I mean, we get into all of this, but the elements of the crime are pretty simple, right? President Biden had unauthorized possession of a document writing or note. That’s correct?

Correct.

And that the document writing or note related to national defense.

Correct.

And that the defendant, and we may talk about the willfully part here in a second, retained the document writing our note and failed to deliver it to an employee or officer entitled to receive it.

Correct. There is a willfulness intent element as you say.

But those are the elements of the crime?

Including the intent element, yes.

And there are at least two different quotes, where he told his ghostwriter, and this is in your report, and this is February 16th, 2017, that he had just found all this classified stuff downstairs.

He did make that statement that was captured on an audio recording.

And on April 10th, 2017, Biden read aloud a classified passage related to a 2015 meeting in the situation room.

That is in the report, yes.

And these are national security documents. Afghanistan, I mean, has been mentioned a whole bunch of those things, right?

Correct.

And at one point in time, his personal attorneys and the DOJ attorneys argued about notes taking all of the different things and compared it to Reagan?

I’m sorry, could you repeat that, Congressman?

President Biden’s attorneys, personal attorneys, talked about the notes and why they didn’t actually account for the Presidential Records Act. But I mean you found that argument… In your report, it seems a little persuasive, but you eventually said, “No, the executive order Trumps,” right?

We did set forth an analysis of the governing law and ultimately concluded that the executive order 13526 does apply and did govern former Vice President Biden at the time.

So you have audio recording from his ghostwriter where the president acknowledges that the information he has is classified and he’s sharing with his ghostwriter?

We have an audio recording capturing a statement from Mr. Biden saying to his ghostwriter in February of 2017, “I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.”

And then again reciting passages from a meeting in the situation room?

Yes.

And those are in President Biden’s own words?

Correct.

Right. And the ghostwriter has no classified… He has no clearance, no classified clearance to anything, correct?

That is our understanding that Mr. Zwonitzer was not authorized to receive classified information.

Okay. So the elements are possessed documents, the documents related to national defense, and willfully retain those documents and in this case shared them with somebody who was not allowed to receive them?

There are different subsections of 18 USC 793. One subsection relates to the willful retention and another relates to disclosure of national defense information.

Well, I mean the willful retention, we’ve got the Penn Biden Center, the garage, the basement den, the main floor office, the third floor den, the University of Delaware and the Biden Institute. We have 50-year career of a person who has not been very great at dealing with classified documents throughout, even prior to his time as vice president when he was in the US Senate, right?

We do address each set of those documents in the report, Congressman.

But I think this is really important because the difference is it appears just from reading the report, and we heard all about exonerated and all of those different things, it appears from the report he met every actual element of the crime. So I want to talk about the department principles on federal prosecution because that actually has nothing to do with the underlying elements, correct? It’s whether or not you can prove this at trial.

Under the department’s justice manual and the principles of federal prosecution, a prosecutor has to assess the evidence and determine whether in his or her judgment the probable outcome will be a conviction at trial.

So whether or not you meet the elements of the crime, which I think it’s clear that it does, the second part of this is this, “And that’s where it gets into the sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” You could have just said, “We don’t prosecute sitting presidents,” but you did not and you entered this. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the actual elements of the crime. That has to do with getting a conviction at trial, correct?

Well, Congressman, part and parcel of a prosecutor’s judgment as to whether or not a conviction is the probable outcome of trial is assessing how the evidence identified during the investigation lines up with the elements and what proof can be offered to a jury during a trial.

Sure. But his well-meaning elderly old man has nothing to do with the underlying elements of the crime.

Well, it certainly has something-

It’s presentation to the jury.

It certainly has something-

I yield back.

Gentleman can respond.

It certainly has something to do with the way that a jury is going to perceive and receive and consider and make conclusions based on evidence at trial, Congressman.

Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair now recognize the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur, in your written testimony, you say that you found some evidence that the president might have willfully retained classified materials at the end of his vice presidency, correct?

Correct.

But ultimately, you concluded that you could not prove the charge in the court of law. In your words, you “did not identify evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” correct?

That was my judgment.

You have been a prosecutor for a long time, Mr. Hur. Would you agree that there’s no such thing as being a little bit charged for a crime? You’re either charged or you’re not, correct?

Could you please repeat the question, Congressman?

Would you agree that there’s no such thing as being a little bit charged for a crime? You’re either charged or you are not charged, correct?

Yes, it is binary. Either one is not charged or charged.

Thank you. So just to be clear, because so many people have taken your words out of context, your ultimate conclusion was that President Biden could not be charged with a crime because even after your thorough investigation, you could not find sufficient evidence to charge him, correct?

My conclusion was that based on my evaluation of the evidence as a-

Don’t [inaudible 00:40:28]. Correct?

I’m sorry, Congressman, I didn’t hear your last question.

I said based on your conclusion, your ultimate conclusion is that President Biden could not be charged with a crime because even after your thorough investigation, you could not find sufficient evidence to charge him. Correct or not correct?

My ultimate conclusion was that criminal charges were not warranted.

Correct. Now let’s talk about why… I have limited time, so please when I say correct or not correct, answer the question. Now let’s talk about why in sharp contrast to President Biden, President Trump faces 40 charges related to the unlawful retention of highly classified documents. That is of course apart from the additional 51 counts in cases alleging that he incited a rebellion in light about his finances. You found that President Biden reported the possible classified documents in his possession to the FBI as soon as he learned of them, correct?

There was a voluntary disclosure by the President’s counsel to authorities relating to the discovery of classified documents of the Penn Biden Center.

Let’s contrast this with President Trump. Are you aware that the FBI only learned that Trump was in possession of classified material after the National Archives discovered them?

Congressman, I am not intimately familiar with the facts relating to former President Trump. I’m prepared to comment on them to the extent that I addressed them to report.

Okay. You write in your report that President Biden “would not have handed the government classified documents from his own home on a silver platter if he had willfully retained those documents for years.” In other words, part of understanding President Biden’s intent was that he quickly and voluntarily returned those documents to the government, correct?

That was a factor in our analysis, yes.

Thank you. By way of contrast, to the best of your knowledge, why did the Department of Justice seek a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago?

Congressman, I am not familiar with those deliberations. That is a matter that I had no participation in.

Well, I’ll tell you, it was because they were concerned that Trump had lied about possession of those documents and might conceal or destroy them. Special Counsel Smith found that President Trump obstructed his investigation by suggesting that his attorney falsely represented the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena. At any point in your investigation, do you have any reason to believe that President Biden lied to you?

I do address in my report one response that President gave to a question that we opposed to him that we deemed to be not credible.

Was it clear he didn’t lie?

I’m sorry, Congressman.

The report is clear that he didn’t lie, and that he didn’t cause the staff to lie to you. Your report is clear on that.

I do not-

Do you agree that causing someone to lie to the FBI as a classic example of obstruction of justice?

It is an example of obstruction, yes.

Thank you. Trump also obstructed the Smith investigation by directing one of his employees to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump’s attorney from the FBI and from the grand jury. At any point in your investigation, did you find that President Biden directed his staff to conceal documents from you or anyone else?

We did not reach that information.

Okay. You would agree that hiding documents is a classic example of obstructing investigation?

It is an example of obstruction.

Thank you. Donald Trump instructed his staff to delete security footage so that the FBI and special counsel could not see how he had tried to move and hide documents. Do you agree that attempting to delete video footage in this matter is plainly an attempt to obstruct an investigation?

Congressman, I don’t want to characterize the evidence in the case against former president.

But if that happened, would you agree that deleting video footage is plainly an attempt to obstruct an investigation?

Congressman, it’s the type of evidence that prosecutors would consider.

Okay. To sum up, Donald Trump is charged with willfully retaining classified documents and conspiring to conceal those documents and he’s facing additional charges for lying to investigators. Isn’t that correct?

Those are allegations that are in a pending [inaudible 00:44:24] against former President Trump.

It’s a matter of public record. And the reason why President Biden is not facing a single charge, Mr. Hur, is not because you went easy on him, but because after reviewing 7 million documents and interviewing nearly 150 witnesses including the president himself, you could not prove that he had committed a crime. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Mr. McClintock, gentleman from California is recognized.

Thank you. Mr. Hur, I first want to get this straight. Is it now okay if I take home top secret documents, store them in my garage and read portions of them to friends or associates?

Congressman, I wouldn’t recommend it, but I don’t want to entertain any hypotheticals at this point.

Was it okay? I mean, I can do that now under this new doctrine?

Again, Congressman, I wouldn’t recommend that you do that, but I don’t want to-

Well, you’ve essentially said so in your report. And certainly it would be exculpatory if I simply told you, “Hey, I’m getting old. I don’t remember stuff the way I used to.”

Congressman, I’m not here to get into hypotheticals. I’m here to talk about the facts and the work that I did [inaudible 00:45:32].

It was not a hypothetical. This is the issue at hand. You correctly noted in your report that former presidents and other senior officials have been given wide latitude in their possession of classified information. I believe your decision to not to prosecute Biden for the same offense is consistent with that precedent. But the problem is, that precedent changed with the administration’s decision to prosecute Donald Trump. And the irony is that as president, Trump had full discretion over handling a classified material and full discretion in deciding which records to retain. As a senator or vice president, Joe Biden didn’t have that.

(46:12)
So now we get to this glaring double standard. I think it would be toxic to the rule of law on its face if it was just two ordinary citizens. But the fact that the only person being prosecuted for this offense happens to be the president’s political opponent makes this an unprecedented assault on our democracy. This is the worst we could expect from a Banana Republic. And I wonder how you square this.

Congressman, I do address as I was required to as a prosecutor, a relevant precedent in the form of the allegations and the indictment against former President Trump. I set forth my explanation and my assessment and comparison to those precedents in my report and I am not here to comment any further beyond what’s in my report.

Well, you said for example, that there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Well, you got the fact that he had classified material in his possession and control in multiple settings for multiple years that he told others he was aware of this and that he shared that material with others. The mind boggles at what beyond reasonable doubt would actually mean.

Well, as I set forth at length in my explanations in chapters 11 and 12 of the report, my assessment is that the evidence, if presented at trial alongside potential defense arguments, would not probably result in a conviction at trial.

Well, that’s one of the points you make, is President Biden’s likely to be an elderly sympathetic figure with a poor memory. But how does that bear on any individual’s guilt or innocence? Isn’t that, again, a question for a judge or jury to decide after guilt or innocence is determined?

It is.

And again, here’s the problem. Donald Trump’s being prosecuted for exactly the same act that you’ve documented that Joe Biden committed.

Congressman, if I understood your question correctly, you said, “Isn’t that a question for a jury?” And it most certainly through the lens of-

Well, my question is, does that bear on the guilt or innocence of an individual?

It certainly bears on how a jury is going to receive and perceive and make decisions [inaudible 00:48:24].

So the answer to my earlier question is correct. All I have to do when I’m caught taking home classified materials to say, “I’m sorry Mr. Herbert, but I’m getting old. My memory’s not so great.”

Congressman, I-

This is the doctrine that you’ve established in our laws now and it’s frightening.

Congressman, my intent is certainly not to establish any sort of doctrine. I had a particular task. I have a particular set of evidence to consider and make a judgment with respect to one particular set of evidence, and that is what I did.

Well, Mr. Hur, here’s the fine point of the matter. The foundation of our justice system is equal justice under law. That’s what give the law its respect and its legitimacy. And without it, the law is simply force, devoid of any moral authority. Justice is depicted as blindfolded for this very reason. It doesn’t matter who comes before her. All are treated equally. You destroy this foundation and the rule of law becomes a sick mockery. It becomes a weapon to wield against political rivals and a tool of despotism. And I’m desperately afraid that this decision of the Department of Justice is now crossed a very bright line. And I yield back.

Gentlemen, yields back.

Chairman, may I ask for unanimous consent to introduce the State of the Union as [inaudible 00:49:47] end of the hearing?

Without objection, that’ll be introduced.

Thank you.

The ranking member’s recognized for a unanimous consent.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an article in this morning is a Washington Post entitled Full Transcript of Biden’s Special Counsel Interview Paints Nuanced Portrait. The President Doesn’t Come Across as Absentminded as Hur Has Made Him Out to Be.

Without objection.

Thank you.

The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from California for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Hur for being here today. I found your report very interesting and I learned some things about it. The law and the precedence. There are clear differences between the cases of set by Presidents Reagan, Trump, and Biden. Now, it was widely known that President Reagan kept diaries from his presidency that included classified information. What I didn’t know and learned in your report was that the Department of Justice “repeatedly described the diaries in public court filings as Mr. Reagan’s personal records” and that no agency ever attempted to remove his diaries. That’s on page 195 of your report. Very interesting.

(51:08)
So the investigation found that President Biden believed that his notebooks were his personal property, including work and political notes, reflections, to do lists and more that he was entitled to take home. You found that on page 232. So while much of his notebook was work related, he still had some purely personal subjects like, again I quote, “gut-wrenching entities about the illness and death of his son Beau.” And that’s on page 82 and 253 of your report. So it’s clear based on the Reagan precedent that no criminal charges were awarded in this matter relative to personal notebooks.

(51:57)
Now, I want to be clear that although the notebooks contain some very personal information and President Biden considered them his personal property, the president allowed your team to seize and review all of the notebooks you found. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Now, that’s in stark contrast to ex-President Trump’s case. He obstructed and diverted all the investigations. Now, you also interviewed President Biden about other classified documents you found outside his notebooks, didn’t you?

Yes, Congresswoman.

So did the president tell you that he believed any documents other than his own handwritten work were his personal property? Yes or no?

We did not hear that from the president during his interview.

So again, it’s very different from ex-President Trump. Ex-President Trump said all of the documents marked classified were his personal property. President Biden did not consider documents that were produced by other entities with classification markings as his personal records.

(53:03)
Now, I think since the majority has tried to assert that there is a disparity based on politics in the differences in the prosecution, it’s worth quoting Page 11 of the report which says, and I quote, “Several material distinctions between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s case are clear. Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.” That’s on page 11. “In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice consented to the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation. It’s clear that these cases are not the same.”

(54:13)
Frankly, I was surprised to learn that some of the classified documents were actually personal diaries that many executive officials have taken home with them because it was in their own handwriting. It was what they produced. And based on the Department of Justice’s 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. So I appreciate your report. I appreciate your being here, Mr. Hur. And I would also like to ask Mr. Chairman a 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.

No objection.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired and I yield back.

General lady yields back. The chair has recognized. Mr. Hur, why did he do it? Why did Joe Biden, in your words, willfully retain and disclose classified materials? I mean, he knew the law. He’d been in office like 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’s 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’re exactly right because he told us when Jack Smith goes after President Trump, Joe Biden says, “How could this happen? What data was in those documents that could compromise sources and methods? It’s irresponsible.” So Joe Biden knew the rules. You know he knew the rules and Joe Biden told us he knew the rules. So Mr. Hur, why did he break them?

Congressman, the conclusion as to 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. I think you told us Mr. Hur. Page 231, you said this, “President Biden had strong motivations.” That’s a key word. We’re getting the 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…” Next word, “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 because he was writing a book. And you further say, “And he began meeting with the ghostwriter while he was still vice president.” There’s 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 sure does. There’s a dollar amount in there. You remember?

I don’t… It may be 8 million if that’s [inaudible 00:57:41].

$8 million. Joe Biden had 8 million reasons to break the rules. He took classified information and shared it with the guy who was writing the book. That’s why he knew the rules but he broke them before. $8 million in a book advance. But you know what? It wasn’t just the money. Joe Biden… This page 231, very next page. In your report, “Joe Biden viewed his notebooks as an irreplaceable contemporaneous 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 “such a record would buttress his legacy as a world leader.” You know what this is? It wasn’t just the money, it wasn’t just $8 million. It was also his ego. Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules. The oldest motives in the book, pride and money. You agree with that, Mr. Hur? You wrote it in your report.

That language and it does appear in the report, and we did identify evidence supporting those assessments.

You also had another interesting statement in your report. You said, “Joe Biden,” I want to make sure I get this right, “viewed himself as a man of presidential timber.” Remember that statement, Mr. Hur?

I believe that does appear in the report, at least in the executive summary.

I think this is interesting. Because here’s the scary part. Page 200, I said this earlier in my opening statement, page 200. “Joe Biden,” and this is a quote, “Joe Biden risked serious damage to America’s national security when he shared information with his ghostwriter.” Shared it with his ghostwriter. The guy who was helping Joe Biden get $8 million. And oh, by the way, Mr. Hur, what did that ghostwriter do with the information Joe Biden shared with him on his laptop? What did he do after you were named Special Counsel?

Chairman, if you’re to the audio recordings that Mr. Zwonitzer created of his conversations with-

Exactly what I’m referring to.

He slid, if I remember correctly, he slid those files into his recycle bin on his computer.

Tried to destroy the evidence, didn’t he?

Correct.

The very guy who was helping Joe Biden get the $8 million, the $8 million Joe Biden 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’s that guy do? He destroys the evidence. That’s the key takeaway in my mind. That’s the key takeaway. I yield back.

(01:00:24)
The Chair now recognize the gentleman from… Is it Mr. Raskin? The gentlemen 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, Ranking member.

You highlight the independence and support you got from the Attorney General and DOJ. Have you changed your mind about that?

I have not.

The report describes President Biden’s cooperation in your requests. He allowed his homes to be searched. He answered questions for hours in the midst of a global crisis. Have you had any reason to change your mind about that?

No, Ranking member.

All right. You also repeatedly contrast Biden’s cooperation with the conduct of Donald Trump. You say, “Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.” Have you had 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 over from being impeachment investigators for constitutional high crimes and misdemeanors, which is how this whole thing started to being an amateur memory specialists giving us their drive-by diagnoses of the President of the United States whose soaring oratory powerful historical analysis and devastating extemporaneous repartee with even the most skilled ninja hecklers of the Freedom Caucus were on full display at the State of the Union address last week for the whole country to see.

(01:02:14)
The desperate quest to invent an issue is a distraction from the 91 federal and state federal charges that Donald Trump faces now. His staggering civil court losses in New York now totaling more than a half a billion dollars and his full-blown embrace and romance with authoritarian dictators and communist tyrants all over the world from Victor Orban in Hungary to Vladimir Putin in Russia, the former head of the KGB, to the communist dictator of North Korea.

(01:02:50)
My friends, this is a memory test, but it’s not a memory test for President Biden. It’s a memory test for all of America. Do we remember fascism? Do we remember Nazism? Do we remember communism and totalitarianism? Have we completely forgotten the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents in prior generations? While we play pin the tail on the donkey in this wild goose chase, all of these silly games, Donald Trump entertains authoritarian hustler Victor Orban at Mar-a-Lago for the weekend. And Orban comes out to declare that if we indeed sleepwalk into another Trump presidency, Trump will “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.

(01:03:49)
So who wins with this ludicrous, embarrassing spectacle? Orban wins. Putin wins. She wins. The tyrants of the world win. They have one more reason to celebrate Donald Trump and his cult followers who’ve completely lost their way. They’re looking for high crimes and misdemeanors. Now they appoint themselves amateur memory specialists, and that’s what they pounce on the President of the United States about.

(01:04:15)
America faces a choice between democracy and tyranny. And the President laid it out at Valley Forge and he 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 and international law around the world. No. We’re trying to play memory detectives to parse the language of a president who the whole 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. And all of the autocrats and the theocrats, all of the kleptocrats of world are together in league against American democracy and we have to stand up for American democracy against these stupid games. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen yields back. The chairman of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Comer, is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the Oversight Committee interviews, we’ve identified a number of White House employees who were involved in the mishandling of classified documents under the leadership of President Biden. Special Counsel Hur, can you please tell us approximately how many current and former White House employees you interviewed related to your investigation?

Chairman Comer, I don’t have that figure immediately at hand. Of course, it was a subset of the 173 interviews that we conducted during our investigation.

Your report indicates that one of those former White House employees who you interviewed was Dana Remus, is that correct?

We did interview Ms. Remus.

Ms. Remus was President Biden’s former White House Counsel, correct?

She was President Obama’s former White House Counsel.

I’m sorry, President Obama’s White House Counsel.

Yes.

Related to Ms. Remus, in your report on page 257, you wrote, “In May, 2022, White House Counsel, Dana Remus undertook an effort to retrieve Mr. Biden’s files from the Penn Biden Center. Remus described the original purpose of that effort as gathering materials to prepare for potential congressional inquiries about the Biden family’s activities during the period from 2017 to 2019.” Now, it seems odd to me that Dana Remus and Joe Biden’s personal lawyers were obtaining documents related to potential congressional inquiries about the Biden family activities when Joe Biden has publicly claimed he had no involvement with his family’s business dealings. Can you provide more information about why Dana Remus, a government employee, was retrieving Joe Biden’s documents from the Penn Biden Center?

Chairman, I’m able to tell you and clarify information that appears in the report about relevant significant sources of information, but I’m not in the position to be able 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 congressional 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 specifically to our congressional inquiry of President Biden that you recall?

If there are more specific aspects of it that you have in mind, Chairman, that would be helpful to me.

Interest pertaining to his family’s influence pedaling activities?

If it’s helpful, Chairman, Appendix A does list in table chart form a brief description of all of the marked classified documents that were recovered in our investigation.

We intend to interview Ms. Remus and the recording or transcript 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 that we conducted, Chairman Comer.

Additionally, in the course of the investigation, the Oversight Committee learned from a Penn Biden Center employee that Annie Tomasini, a White House employee, visited the Penn Biden Center in 2021. Did you interview Annie Tomasini in the course of your investigation?

Chairman, the report does not reflect that specific name, but what I can tell you is that the report does reflect that we interviewed the Director of Oval Office Operations and one of the places that’s reflected is footnote 973.

Okay. The Oversight Committee interviewed Kathy Chung, a Department of Defense employee and former assistant to Vice President Biden, and learned that Ms. Chung visited the Biden Penn Center in June, 2022 after being contacted by White House Counsel in May, 2022. This was months before classified documents were allegedly found in November, 2022. Did you interview Kathy Chung in the course of your investigation?

Chairman, I believe that the substance relating to the subject that you’re 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 interviews of an executive assistant including a footnote 988.

The Oversight Committee also learned from its interviews with Penn Biden Center employees and Kathy Chung that Dana Remus, Anthony Bernal and Ashley Williams all at the time White House employees, then visited the Penn Biden Center on different occasions before the alleged discovery of classified materials in November, 2022. Did you interview these individuals during their investigation?

We interviewed many individuals and I can assure you, Chairman, that it was a priority of ours to interview all the relevant sources of information about these documents, how they got there, who knew about them and who accessed them.

So again, they were all recorded, is that correct? So there would be recordings of those?

It was our practice to interview recordings. Yes, sir.

How many White House employees visited the Penn Biden Center before classified materials were reportedly discovered there in November, 2022?

I don’t have any-

According to the White House?

Sir, I don’t have an exact count of [inaudible 01:10:29].

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, 2022?

I don’t have that figure at hand, but that should be detailed in chapter 14 of the report, sir.

Yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Gentlelady from Texas is recognized for five minutes. Before, Mr. Hur, any time you need a break, if you need a break let us know because we’re going to go a while, as you well know.

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Jackson Lee is recognized.

Mr. Hur, good morning.

Good morning.

The Republicans here asked for a lot of transcripts, but Chair Jordan has yet to release 90 plus transcripts from our interviews, when would those, if they’re 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 the President of the United States, the sitting president, 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 grappling at straws, allegations that President Biden was treated lightly in this investigation. But just a plain reading of this report completely refutes that argument. There was no two tiered system of justice, there was only a lack of evidence against President Biden. Mr. Hur, your office and the FBI undertook an extensive investigation into Mr. Biden’s handling of classified information and of the classified documents the FBI sees, correct?

Correct.

In your investigation, you conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses, correct?

That is correct.

And President Biden himself were one of those witnesses, correct?

Correct.

For at least five hours or more?

Correct.

And President Biden engaged in this interview voluntarily?

Correct.

And the interview with President Biden lasted more than five hours? I’ve said that. That’s 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 October 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 internet.

Let me go on. And President Biden allowed investigators to search his private houses, is that correct?

He did consent to the search of his residence.

And your investigation collected 7 million documents for review in your investigation, is that correct?

Correct.

And this included emails, text messages, photographs, videos, toll records and other materials from both classified and unclassified sources, correct?

Correct.

And you referred or reviewed President Biden’s handwritten notes as well, correct?

Correct.

And you coordinated with multiple government agencies to organize and complete your investigation, correct?

We consulted with numerous agencies to conduct classification reviews of evidence that was seized during the investigation.

Right. And that 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’s correct. We submitted excerpts from the former Vice President’s notebooks for classification review.

And if agencies reviewed classified material and gave it different levels of classification, you classified it as a higher level for the purposes of your investigation to be thorough, correct?

That is reflected in appendices A and B.

Thank you. The FBI requested classification review from each identified agency accordingly for documents where multiple agencies had equities, the Special Counsel’s office used the highest level of classification identified by an agency as the current classification of the document. Let me go on. Attorney General Garland appointed you as Special Counsel over the matter on January 12th, 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 arose from the initial investigation or may arise directly from the Special Counsel. Is that correct?

I believe that accurately reflects the language of the appointment order.

So you operated an independent investigation for about a year, which you just stated that you had adequate resources to complete, in which you conducted 173 interviews, including 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.

And if you had found enough evidence to warrant prosecution, did you feel free, unrestrained 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, Congresswoman, is that the investigative steps that we took were my own. The judgment was my own and the words in the report are my own.

And you would have done so-

Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

The time of the gentlelady has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to put into the record justsecurity.org The Real Robert Hur Report as unanimous consent.

Without objection. Chair now recognize the gentleman for Florida for five minutes.

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, Mr. Hur?

That is inconsistent with the findings based on the evidence in my report.

Yeah, so it’s a lie is just what regular people would say, right? Yeah. All right, so the next one. “And 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? Because what you’ve put in your report was, “Among the places Mr. Biden’s lawyers found classified documents in the garage was a damaged open box.” So here’s what I’m understanding. As Mr. Armstrong laid out, you find in your report that the elements of a federal criminal violation are met, but then you apply this senile cooperator theory, that because Joe Biden cooperated and the elevator doesn’t go to the top floor, you don’t think you’d get a conviction. And I actually think you get to the right answer in that. I don’t think Biden should have been charged, I don’t think Trump should have been charged. But 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?

Congressman, 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, and what my report reflects is my judgment that based on the evidence I would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that that intent element had been met.

Right, but 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 it’s frustrating to be like, “Oh, well this guy’s not getting treated the same way as Trump because the elevator’s not going to the top floor, so we can’t prove intent.” While at the same time, Biden goes out there at the White House and says… Well, he just blatantly lies. And what I’m trying to figure out is whether or not Biden’s lying because he’s still so senile he hasn’t read your report or whether it’s a little craftier and a little more devious and perhaps a little more intentional than we might otherwise think. So I also want to go to this Biden Penn Center. Did it give concern to you that 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 of our investigation.

Yeah, but what bothers me is that the money that was paying for the place where the documents were being inappropriately held, it was the Chinese and it was 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 UPenn, for example?

Congressman, we conducted a thorough, impartial, and fair investigation, and we were very, very concerned with getting to the bottom of all the relevant questions relating to the recovered documents.

Sir, did you look into the fact that the Chinese were floating the place where this guy was keeping the documents unsecure, yes or no?

Congressman, to the extent that we identified evidence that was relevant and significant to our investigation, we put it in our report.

Okay. It seemed relevant to me, maybe not to you. Another thing that seemed relevant to me is this ghost writer, right? So the ghost writer purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to show culpability of Biden’s crimes and you don’t charge him. Why did you not charge the ghost writer with obstructing justice and deleting evidence?

Well, for a number of reasons that are laid out in the report. But in brief, Congressman, yes, when we interviewed the ghost writer, he did tell us, and I’m trying to get the exact language, that one of the things on his mind, one of the things he was aware of was that I had been appointed Special Counsel and was conducting an investigation.

Right. So just so everybody knows, the ghost writer didn’t delete the recordings just as a matter of happenstance. Ghost writer 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 charged with obstruction of justice by you? If like deleting the evidence of crimes doesn’t count, what would meet the standard?

Congressman, as we state in the relevant chapter of the report, one of the things that Mr. Zwonitzer did not delete was transcripts of the recordings that he had created that included inculpatory evidence relating to Mr. Biden.

Oh, so if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence, that somehow absolves you of the evidence you destroy? Here’s what I see. Zwonitzer should have been charged. Wasn’t. Biden and Trump should have been treated equally. They weren’t. And that is the double standard that I think a lot of Americans are concerned about. I see my time’s expired. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur thank you for being here. A little confused about this hearing. Mr. Raskin laid out the big picture, what we should be concerned about. But in the more limited picture, Director Mueller had an investigation, he’s our most famous recent special prosecutor, and he found sufficient evidence to say there was connection between Russia and the Trump campaign. And it supported a criminal prosecution if he were not president. You found there was no evidence to support a criminal prosecution. And the story here is simple. President Biden identified classified documents in his home and other places, and told archives about them. The independent Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed you, a former Trump of political appointee, as Special Counsel to fully investigate these circumstances and authorized you to prosecute criminal misconduct. You declined to prosecute because you found insufficient evidence of a crime. Case closed. It makes really a perfect case where you did your job. Mr. Garland did his job. And unlike Mr. Barr, he didn’t interfere. Did Mr. Garland ask you to change your report at all?

He did not, sir.

Didn’t redact a thing?

No, sir.

Like Mr. Barr did, he redacted everything and made the Mueller report looks like 180 degrees different than what it was. Mr. Garland did right and you did right. And I commend each of you. The Department of Justice is independent and allows the Special Counsel to investigate and prosecute the facts if supported. Joe Biden’s actions in handling of classified materials is similar to most other former presidents and vice presidents. The exception is Donald Trump. So let’s start with some yes or no questions. Did you receive any pressure from Mr. Garland or his staff to make any specific factual finding or legal conclusion?

No.

Did you receive the resources necessary to carry out your duties?

Yes.

Do you have any reason to believe that you were treated differently with regard to independence or resources than other DOJ special prosecutors?

No.

Based on your experience as Special Counsel, do you have any reason to believe the Attorney General is improperly directing, pressuring or interfering with Jack Smith or his work?

I do not have the basis to answer that question.

But your declination, which we treat as thoughtful and apolitical, we should treat prosecutorial decisions by Jack Smith the same way to the best of your knowledge?

Again, I really do not have the sufficient information with respect to Jack Smith’s investigation to provide any comment on it.

Let me ask you this. If President Biden in his testimony to you knew the exact date, January 20, whatever it was, 2009 when he became vice president and the day when he left being vice president, January the 20th… I guess the first would’ve been January 20th again, 2009 and then January 20, 2017, if he knew those dates exactly right, and if he knew the exact date and the instant that Beau Biden died, would that have changed your decision not to bring a prosecution?

Sir, I cannot engage in hypotheticals about what my decision would’ve been with different facts. What I did was to make a decision based on the facts and the circumstances that I was presented with and we did identify during our investigation.

But it appears to me, and I think it would appear to American public, that these minor discrepancies as far as dates and after a long period of time was not the basis for your decision to decline to prosecute. It was the fact that you didn’t have the facts. That he acted differently than Trump, that he voluntarily provided the documents, that he complied with the Justice Department, that he didn’t try to obstruct justice. Those were the reasons you didn’t prosecute him, not because he missed a few dates.

Congressman, my reasons for my declination decision are set out in my report and I stand by the words in the report, sir.

Well, thank you. And I think I’m encompassing them in what I’m saying to you, is that it was not anything to do with his memory why you chose not to indict him. It was the difference in the facts in the case and how he dealt with it. The fact is Mr. Biden sat through five hours and he did an admirable job and he did an outstanding job in the State of the Union laying out the case for the future of America, for the middle class, for 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 like on the $64,000 question, assuming it was legit, and answering every single question correctly. That’s not what you need to be president. To be president, you need to have values, you need to have an understanding of 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 Medicare, Medicaid are important institutions that help seniors, not senile people. I mean I object to that comment. Nobody suggests he’s senile and that’s disrespectful of senior people with any kind of memory disability. Lots of seniors have memory disability, but they’re not senile. And to do such was shameful. Joe Biden is a competent, good president who knows American values.

Mr. Chairman?

Gentleman’s time has expired. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California’s recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr Hur, I’d like to start off by thanking you for a year of hard work and a comprehensive report. I’m going to 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.

And were there documents from the time that he was vice president?

Yes.

Okay. So there’s been a lot to do about 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, usually you have some evidence that there may have been a crime.

I think that is fair, yes.

Okay. And 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 there was likely guilt or not, is that correct? Not provable, not in front of a jury, just personal. Because you have to make that decision as part of the case, correct?

Correct. And I would say I approach the task as I have been trained to as a prosecutor, which is on an iterative basis. The investigation is always uncovering new evidence that you incorporate.

So both before, during, and at the end, did you reach a conclusion, not withstanding his current mental state of being an elderly man with a poor memory and so on, that he did in fact deliberately take documents and held them from back when he was a senator? And we’re talking about your personal, not that you could prove it, but 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?

Congressman, I viewed my task as a prosecutor in this matter to determine what I believed the evidence.

No, I appreciate that. And I’m not trying to take away from your conclusion. Some others are debating the conclusion. I’m not debating the conclusion. I just want to go through one element that I think is important. Look, you’ve prosecuted people in the past and failed to get a conviction, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. You’re not a 1000 perfect batting average.

I can’t say that.

So you went into cases thinking that you would succeed and you didn’t. One might say you probably declined to prosecute ones that you might have either gotten a conviction or gotten a plea on. Would you say that’s fair to say over your long career?

I think that’s fair because I take the rules as set forth in the Justice Manual seriously.

Okay. However, I’m going to presume that you would never prosecute someone you thought was outright innocent.

Correct.

In this case, did you reach a conclusion that this man was outright innocent?

That conclusion is not reflected in my report, sir.

Right. So you did not reach that conclusion, or it would’ve 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? And that’s what explained.

And I just want to make sure the record is complete in that because I think 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 just want to go through one or two little, these are housekeeping, almost. The documents that the president, then vice president, took, which included his own notes. To your knowledge, aren’t those covered by the Freedom of Information Act? Potentially?

I honestly do not know, Congressman.

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 on whether they’re covered by the PRA, Congressman.

But isn’t it true that 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.

Okay. I want to thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the extra few seconds. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur, you’ve led a distinguished career earning your law degree from Stanford University and you served as executive editor of the Stanford Law Review, correct?

Correct.

Then you went on to Clerk for Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, correct?

Yes, sir.

After that you ascended to a clerkship with then Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court, correct?

Correct.

And then you later joined the Daddy Bush Department of Justice as a special assistant to known Federalist Society member and now FBI Director Christopher Wray, isn’t that correct?

I did spend some time working for former Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray.

And you later joined the Trump Justice Department as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General working as the right-hand man for another known Federalist Society member, Rod Rosenstein. Isn’t that correct?

I served as Mr. Rosenstein’s principal deputy.

And then Donald Trump appointed you to serve as US Attorney for the District of Maryland, is that correct?

President Trump nominated me to serve in that position and I was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate.

That’s correct. And thereafter, 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.

And nowhere in that order does Attorney General Garland authorize you to conduct an investigation and issue a report on whether President Biden is mentally fit to serve as president, isn’t that correct?

That does not appear in the appointment order.

And pursuant to your appointment to conclude your investigation, you issued a report that was published by Attorney General Garland, correct?

He made it available to Congress, sir.

And 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 that based on the state of the evidence, a conviction at trial was not the probable outcome.

And you determined that there was no evidence of willful retention because each time classified documents were discovered to be in the President’s possession, the White House notified the National Archives right away, the Biden legal team and the White House fully cooperated with the National Archives during the investigation. Once the DOJ opened the investigation, President Biden and his personal counsel fully cooperated. Isn’t that correct?

We did identify some evidence of willful retention and disclosure, but we also noted in the report-

But the point is though that the president cooperated fully with you. And didn’t President… I mean 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. And 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 contrast 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 documents. And you knew that that would play into the Republican’s narrative that the president is unfit for office because he’s 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 that’s what was going to happen, didn’t you?

Congressman, I reject the suggestions that you just made. That is not what happened.

Let me move on then, sir.

Partisan politics played no part whatsoever in my work. My work was independent and fair.

You are a member of the Federalist Society, are you not? Are you a member of the Federalist Society?

I am not a member of the Federalist Society.

But you are a Republican though, aren’t you?

I am a registered Republican.

Yes, sir. And you’re doing everything you can do to get President Trump reelected so that you can get appointed as a federal judge or perhaps to another position in the Department of Justice. Isn’t that correct?

Congressman, I have no such aspirations. I can assure you. And I can tell you that partisan politics had no place whatsoever in my work. It had no place in the investigative steps that I took. It had no place in the decision that I made, and it had no place in a single word of my report.

Thank you, sir.

Gentleman’s time is expired. The gentleman from New Jersey’s recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur, thank you for being here. I think for the folks that may be watching this at home, they might be a little bit confused, and I’m trying to organize this in my mind as well, the way the president is portrayed in your report and just how we feel about him. Was he a, “well-meaning forgetful man,” as you said? Or was he a man that was focused on history? Was he a 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’re quoting language from my report, I stand by the in my report.

So you stand by that he was, and let me quote you exactly, quote, “a well-meaning, but forgetful old man.”

I don’t think those exact words appear in the report, Congressman, but to the extent that I use words similar to that effect in my assessment of how a jury would perceive Mr.

Biden and the evidence relating to him, including his testimony, I do stand by that assessment.

So 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? And I’m going to ask you for yes or no here because our time is so limited.

I believe words to that effect are in my report, Congressman.

So the answer is yes. Would you agree that 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 motives addressed in the report.

Yep, to showcase his legacy. Is it accurate to quote your report that classified documents were found in, “Badly damaged boxes in his garage near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, and an empty bucket.” Is that correct?

Those words do appear in the report.

So that’s correct. The answer is yes. Are these secure locations to store classified documents?

They are not.

Okay, so we got 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 unsecured places. We have a former vice president who will not suffer any consequences for all of these actions, all because we say, “Well, he’s a well-meaning forgetful old man.” If you were kind of a well-meaning forgetful old man that was driving a car and you forgot what you were doing a little bit and you hit somebody and killed him, I believe you’d be responsible. The law must apply, you know this, to everyone.

(01:40:43)
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 much part of this Department of Justice, Justice for thee but not for me. Special Counsel Hur, has any former president or vice president besides President Trump ever been criminally charged for knowingly retaining classified information after they left office, yes or no?

No.

Would you concur that Special Counsel Smith’s decision to charge a former president for retaining and disclosing classified information was an extraordinary, unusual and unprecedented the decision?

I will not comment on that matter.

Well, I’m going to 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, two standards and an example again, of the Justice Department being weaponized against conservatives. There’s another piece to this too, while I have just a few seconds. We know that when his ghost writer was speaking to him, he also did recordings and when he did those recordings it was clear, in fact, I’ll try to quote this here. It was in 2017, a month after Biden left his VP, “He was aware of top secret classified materials that were, ‘downstairs.'” Is that true?

That is reflected in an audio recording, yes.

It’s reflected in an audio. So sometimes he may be sleepy, sometimes he may be forgetful, sometimes he may be cognitively impaired, there’s 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. And it’s unfortunate that we have a Department of Justice that will treat one person one way and somebody else a different way. It’s a sad day for America. Thank you Mr. Hur. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized.

Mr. Hur, I want to ask you about some of the differences between the facts involving President Biden and President Trump. But before I do, I want to refer back to your opening statement in which you said that you did not disparage the president in your report, but of course, you did disparage the president. You disparaged him in terms you had to know would have a maximal political impact. You understood your report would be public, right?

I understood based on comments that the Attorney General had made, that he had committed to make as much of my report public as consistent with legal policy and legal requirements.

And you could have chosen just to comment on the president’s particular recall vis-a-vis a document or a 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 theoretically, in a way that omitted references to the President’s memory, but that would’ve been an incomplete and improper report and that it did not reflect my analysis-

That wasn’t my question. You could have written-

… and the explanation of my decision.

… you could have written your report with comments about his specific recollection as to documents or a set of documents, but you chose a general pejorative reference to the President. You understood when you made that decision, didn’t you, Mr. Hur, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn’t you?

Congressman, politics played no part whatsoever in my investigative steps-

But you understood nevertheless, didn’t you Mr. Hur?

… my decision or the words that I put in my report.

Mr. Hur, you cannot tell me you’re so naive as to think your words would not have created a political firestorm. You understood that, didn’t you, when you wrote those words, when you decided to include those words, when you decided to go beyond specific references to documents, you understood how they would be manipulated by my colleagues here on the GOP side of the island and by President Trump. You understood that, did you not?

Congressman, what I understood is the regulations that govern my conduct as Special Counsel and-

And those regulations-

… those regulations required you to write a confidential report for the Attorney General-

… which you knew would not be my confidential but you knew-

… explaining my decision and that is what I did Congressman, I followed the rules.

… Mr. Hur, you knew it would not be confidential.

I knew the rules and I followed them.

You knew it would not be confidential, didn’t you?

Sir, the regulations required me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the Attorney General.

Which you knew would be released?

It was up to the Attorney General to determine-

Which you understood it would be released, did you not?

… what portions of the report would be released consistent with DOJ policy and legal requirements.

You understood it would be released. You understood it would be released, didn’t you?

I understood from the Attorney General’s public comments that he would make as much of my report public as he could consistent with legal requirements and DOJ policy.

And you also understand DOJ policy, that you are to take care not to prejudice the interest of the subject of an investigation, right?

That is generally one of the interests that DOJ policy requires that prosecutors respect.

And 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.

But what you did write was deeply prejudicial to the interest of the President. You say it wasn’t political and yet 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, prejudicial subjective opinion of the President, one you knew would be amplified by his political opponent. One you knew that would influence a political campaign. You had to understand that and you did it anyway and 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 three it says that, “Mr. Trump suggested that his attorney falsely represented to the FBI and Grand Jury that he did not have documents called for by the Grand Jury subpoena.” You didn’t find anything like that with respect to Mr. Biden, did you?

Congressman, I do not have the Trump indictment in front of me, but I need to address something that 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 to the Attorney General.

And what is in the rules Mr. Hur, what is in the rules is, you don’t gratuitously do things to prejudice the subject of an investigation when you’re declining to prosecute, you don’t gratuitously add language that you’ll 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 in 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’re instructed by their attorney to do that if they have any question about it. You understood that, you made a choice, that was a political choice. It was the wrong choice. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, gentleman from Arizona. Did Special Counsel wish to respond to that final question?

Yes, Congressman, what you are suggesting is that I shape, sanitize, omit portions of my reasoning and explanation of the Attorney General for political reasons.

No, I suggested that you not shape your report for political reasons, which is what you did.

Time is-

Congressman, that did not happen.

Gentlemen yields back. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Hur for being here and thank you for your report. I’ve read it and I think where you and I might have disagreements, there may be matters of opinion and not necessarily the facts as you’ve reported them. So I want to go over the elements of the offense that seem to have at least struck my craw, is where you put in here twice, that the jury would not likely to find intentionality on the part of disclosure, in particular. So 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.

Yeah. So when President Biden misplaced 30 briefing documents in 2010 that had classified material and they’re not sure even if they ever got them all back or when he was in the Hamptons at a party and he lost what they were calling, code words, which is high security information, that wasn’t necessarily willful, there was no indication that he purposefully did that, accidental, negligent. You indicated, don’t know if we even 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, where when we looked into them and investigated how they got to where they ended up or how they ended up being misplaced, we did not identify evidence of willfulness.

Yeah. And so if somebody’s willful, you wouldn’t say it’s ignorant, it’s not incompetent, it’s not accidental. We’d say something like, it’s willful, it’s intentional, it’s purposeful. It indicates really, a choice, that you have made a deliberate, conscious decision to act in a certain way. Is that fair?

That is fair, Congressman. And as I explained in the report, the willfulness standard basically involves, can be boiled down to the following things, that you know what you are doing is against the law when you do it.

Correct. So let’s take a look at it. And this has been brought up before in February of 2017, he’s having a discussion with the ghost writer. He’s at the Virginia House at this point. He says, “I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” Right? So he knows he’s got classified stuff, right? Two months later in April, he’s at a different location, is my understanding. I think he’s now up in Delaware and as you look at page, let’s look at 105 and 106 here, he says, “Biden reads from a different notebook entry. He reads aloud from notes summarizing a range of issues. We’re talking about US military views expressed there and by the intelligence community, the DNI, CIA director and while he’s 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.

(01:51:41)
Ghost writer says, “Well, 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’s got classified docs. He’s looking at this, he can’t read it. He’s giving this to somebody he knows that has no security clearance.” So he says, “Hey, read this but be careful it might be classified.” And the guy says, “Okay.” Next thing he says, “Well, I don’t know if it’s classified or not.” I’m suggesting to you, and this is where you and I have a difference of opinion, when you say something like, “Hey 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. Then they go on and they read it.

(01:52:41)
As you point out here, he reads classified information and it’s 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, he was incompetent, he was accidental.” No, he had guilty knowledge. He knew and told the guy that he’s going to expose that classified material to, “Hey, be careful. Be careful. It may be classified.” That indicates something a little bit more than mere 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’re 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. The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. Hur, 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. It’s a story of America. It’s a story that the guy who appointed you, would end if he was in charge again. It’s 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 of my decision to the Attorney General-

[inaudible 01:54:27].

… as I was required to do and as I said in my opening statement, I felt that I needed to show my work.

And you want to be received as credible, right?

That would be helpful and laudable, yes.

Well 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 US taxpayer dollars over Ukraine to get dirt on President Biden. He was then impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection. He was charged for possessing classified documents and obstructing justice. He was charged for paying for the silence of a porn star. He was charged in Georgia for his role in January 6th. He was charged in the District of Columbia for his role in January 6th. He owes $400 million to the State of New York for defrauding the state through his taxes and he has been judged a rapist. You want to be perceived understandably, as credible and so I want to first see if you will pledge to not accept an appointment from Donald Trump if he’s elected again as president.

Congressman, I am not here to testify-

Seems like an easy answer-

… about what will happen in the future.

… considering what I just laid out.

I’m here to talk about the report and the work that went into it.

But you don’t want to be associated with that guy again, do you?

Congressman, I’m not here to offer any opinions about 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.

There were no limits on you as to what you could charge President Biden, by the Attorney General, is that right?

The decisions that I made that are reflected in the report are my own.

And you did not bring any charges, is that correct?

Correct.

There were no limits on John Durham and his investigation of the prior administration when he was Special Counsel. Is that right?

I don’t believe I have the information required to answer the question about the Durham investigation.

Well, he sat in the same chair that you’re sitting in. He told us that he also investigated President Biden and President Obama and did not bring any charges. President Biden sat for an interview with you over two days for approximately 10 hours. Is that right?

A little over five hours, Congressman.

Over two days?

Correct.

That’s in sharp contrast to a guy who did not sit for an interview when the Mueller investigation took place, that was Donald Trump. Did not sit for an interview when he was impeached in this committee room by the Judiciary Committee. Did not sit for an interview when the second impeachment occurred and he was invited to sit for an interview for his role in January 6th. And did not sit for an interview in the January 6th case or the classified documents case. Chairman also has not sat for an interview in his own subpoena, but Joe Biden has. I now want to turn you to the transcript and day one, page 47, you said to President Biden, “You have… Appear to have a photographic understanding and recall of the House.” Did you say that to President Biden?

Those words do appear on page 47 of the transcript.

Photographic is what you said. Is that right?

That word does appear on page 47 of the transcript.

Never appeared in your report though. Is that correct, the word photographic?

That does not appear in my report.

I now want to show you and play a video of what is absolutely not photographic.

In the failing New York Times by an anomoniss, really an anomoniss, gutless coward. We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will repeat. I hope they now go and take a look at the oranges, the oranges of the investigation. And I watch our police and our firemen down on 7- Eleven, down at the World Trade Center. And we did with Obama, we won an election that everyone said couldn’t be won. This is the very definition of totalitarianism. And let me begin by wishing you a beautifuel-eh-gluc. Look, you remember this. Do you remember? God bless the United Shates. The windmills are driving them crazy. They’re driving. I’m the gentleman. The whales, I think a little batty. And I went to Puerto Rico and I met with the president of the-

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur, I’m way down here in the end of the diocese. I think today the Justice Department released the transcripts of the interviews with President Biden. Are you aware of that?

I understand that to be true, yes.

Yes. Did you have any involvement in the decision or the timing of the release of the transcripts?

No, Congressman.

Did you make any recommendation about the release of the transcripts being done or not?

I did not. That was above my pay grade.

Yeah. I don’t know why they’ve been released so close to this hearing, but it impacts our ability to evaluate your report and ask you questions about it. But there’s one point just as an illustration, on 221 of your report, you’re describing I think the Afghan PAC or something like that, about in 2009 I think is the information came from. And you say as one reason not to prosecute Mr. Biden it says, “In addition, Mr. Biden told us in his interview that he does not recognize the marking confidential as a classification marking. To him, the marking means the document should be held in confidence but not necessarily that it is classified.” And footnote 866 is a reference and it refers to the Biden 10-09-23 transcript at 24 and 25. Now we have that now, but we haven’t until this morning. But I just want to read from that exchange.

(02:00:31)
This is on page 24, line 15, Mr. Krigbaum, “So this is a typewritten document. It’s got a confidential, what appears to be a stamp at the top and the top of the document indicates it’s from the American AM Embassy Kabul. It’s dated what appears to me to be November ’09. The only question I have for you about this Mr. President, is the confidential marking. Do you recognize that to be a classification marking?” President Biden, “No. I mean confidential doesn’t want to get around. It’s not in a category. I don’t think of code word, top secret, that kind of thing, but I don’t even know where it came from.” Mr. Krigbaum, “Are you familiar with confidential as a level of classified information?” President Biden, “Well, if I got a document that said confidential, it means, it would mean that no one else could see it but me and you give it or the people working on this issue.” Mr. Krigbaum, “And are you aware that among certain categories of classified information there is top secret, secret and there’s also a category of classified information called, confidential. Is that something that you are aware of or not?” President Biden, “I, yes, I was aware of it. I don’t ever remember when I got any document that was confidential that was meant for me to read and or discuss with the people who sent me the memo, so.” And then it trails off. So as I read those answers, they’re equivocal. He at first says, he doesn’t know. “Do you recognize that to be a classification marking?” He said, “No.” And then goes on to explain. But then Mr. Krigbaum came back and he said, “Are you aware that among certain categories of classified information, there’s also a category of classified information called confidential?” And he says, “I, yes, I was aware of it.”

(02:02:29)
So Mr. Hur, just in that one instance, there seems to be a discrepancy between the conclusion in the report or the summary of the evidence in the report and what the transcript says. Can you offer any guidance to this committee, why you would put that summary in your report as opposed to saying that he gave inconsistent answers or in fact, why didn’t you nail down in the transcript, which was the right answer? He’s given answers that says no and then he says yes. Why didn’t you pursue it until you knew?

Congressman, the report reflects our best efforts to summarize and characterize the evidence in the investigation including the investigation we received from the President himself during our interview of him. But as you point out, the transcripts of the President’s interview over two days are now available to the committee for their inspection and the members are able to draw their own conclusions based on the transcripts that are now available to them.

Well with all, and I appreciate your answer and I certainly think things, you can come up with some details that someone can disagree on and it has the quality, I know of some cherry picking because I’ve just found something but we’ve only had a little bit of time to look. I don’t think it serves this process well for the Justice Department to dump these transcripts into the public right now. If they’re going to be released, they should have been released at a proper time and I think I’ll leave it at that. Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back.

The gentleman yield? The gentleman yield?

I will yield to the chairman.

Just real quick, Mr. Hur. Someone earlier said something about changing the facts. You said, I’m not going to change the facts, but let’s keep the facts the same but change the subject. If you had the same facts and the individual that you were investigating was 65 and had a good memory, do you reach the same conclusion?

Congressman, as I responded earlier to a question along these lines, I am not here to entertain hypotheticals about facts or circumstances that may be different. What I did was assess the evidence and the facts that I obtained in this investigation and make a judgment based on this set of evidence.

Fair enough. The chairman now recognizes the gentle lady from Washington for five minutes.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Special Counsel Hur, thank you for being here. Thank you for your work. In your investigation, you reviewed more than 7 million documents and conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses including President Biden. Is that correct?

Yes. Congresswoman.

And your 15 month investigation cost several million dollars and resulted in a comprehensive 345 page report with several dozen pages of appendices. Is it correct that as it says in the first sentence of your executive summary, that your investigation concluded with an assessment that, “No criminal charges are warranted in this matter?”

Correct.

So this lengthy, expensive and independent investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of President Joe Biden. For every document you discussed in your report, you found insufficient evidence that the President violated any laws about possession or retention of classified materials. The primary law that you analyzed for potential prosecution was part of the Espionage Act 18 USC 793 E, which criminalizes willful retention or disclosure of national defense information. Is that correct?

Congresswoman, that is one statute that we analyzed. I need to go back and make sure that I take note of the word that you used, exoneration. That is not a word that was used in the report.

Mr. Hur, I’m going to continue with my questions.

That’s not part of my task as a prosecutor.

I’m going to continue with my questions.

The judgment that I received, that I ultimately reached whether sufficient evidence existed, such that the likely outcome would be-

You exonerated him. I know that the term-

… a conviction. I did not exonerate him and that word does not appear in the report.

… willful retention has a… Mr. Hur. It’s my time. Thank you. I know that the term willful retention has a particular legal meaning and I want to make sure that that meaning is absolutely clear to the American people before we go any further. As you wrote in your report, to prove as a matter of law that the President, “Willfully retained any documents.” You would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt two elements. First that the President knowingly retained or disclosed national defense information and second, that he knew that this conduct was unlawful. Is that correct?

That’s correct.

And to be very, very-

I’m sorry, congresswoman, that it was National Defense information. That’s an important third element.

… okay. Thank you. To be very, very clear, you did not find sufficient evidence to prove either of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, to show that Mr. Biden willfully retained any of the classified National Defense materials that were recovered during your investigation. Correct?

My conclusion was that the admissible evidence was not sufficient to make conviction at trial a probable outcome.

Not sufficient. Thank you. Let me ask you about a few specific examples so the American people are clear. One set of documents was discovered by investigators in the President’s Delaware home. His staff had assembled those documents into binders in 2014 to prepare him for an event with Charlie Rose. Some of the documents in those binders were marked classified. You reviewed all of the facts surrounding the classified documents in those binders and you determined, and this is a quote from your report, “These facts do not support a conclusion that Mr. Biden willfully retained the marked classified documents in these binders.” Correct?

That language does appear in the report.

You also reviewed another set of classified documents from the President’s home related to the Afghanistan troop surge in 2009, and you evaluated whether the President willfully retained such documents in his Delaware home or a home that he rented in Virginia in 2017. In your report you said that there was, “A shortage of evidence.” For any wrongdoing and “Other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute.” Are those quotes correct?

Congresswoman, if you have particular page sites for those quotations, I’d be happy to confirm their accuracy.

Page six. It’s right up on the screen.

With respect to the two quotes that are on the screen. “In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents we cannot refute and we conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict and we decline to recommend prosecution.”

I was just going to get to that.

Those quotes do appear on page six of the report.

And you concluded that, “The evidence is not sufficient to convict and we decline to recommend prosecution.” Those are your words in the report, correct?

Those words appear in the report.

Thank you. President Biden’s counsel discovered a different set of documents at the Penn Biden Center and voluntarily turned them over to the FBI. Those documents contain National Security information, but you determined that you could not in fact, prove that President Biden willfully retained those documents because, “The evidence suggests that the marked classified documents found at the Penn Biden Center were sent and kept there by mistake. Therefore, we decline any criminal charges related to those documents.” Correct?

The language, we decline any criminal charges related to those documents does appear at page 311 of the report.

Thank you. You also reached a similar conclusion regarding the documents found in President Biden’s Senate papers at the University of Delaware. “For these reasons, it is likely that the few classified documents found in Mr. Biden’s Senate papers at the University of Delaware were there by mistake.” Correct?

That language does appear at page 325 of the report.

So it seems to me that the crux of the report, the main story is that you found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Biden willfully retained any classified materials. That is the story of this report and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

The gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Indiana is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just thank you, Special Counsel for being here in this challenging times. And I want to tell you a few things that is interesting for me. You obviously could see that there is a motive, there is a legacy. You obviously see that it was a willful retention of these documents, but it’s interesting for me, that when you talk about sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory, it seems like every attorney would advise you to be sympathetic and be well-meaning, and it seems like the whole FBI needs to do, based on my hearings here, need to do check on amnesia because everyone says, doesn’t recall. So it seems to me that it might have been something way more in his recollection, there’s a typical, I don’t recall because that’s what seems, like that I’ve learned it here. So is there something more than that, that just, I don’t recall something, for you to actually decide? Because it seems that this is the core of the whole investigation. Why didn’t you pursue further the charges?

Congresswoman, my judgment as to how a jury would likely perceive and receive and consider evidence relating to all the evidence that would be put in by both the government and the defense at trial. It was based on a number of different sources, from documents, including various recordings, some of them from the 2016, 2017 timeframe, some from our interview of the President in October of 2023. I think what you’re asking about specifically, is how the President presented himself during his interview in October of last year? And of course, I did take into account not just the words from the cold record of the transcript, but the entire manner in living color, in real-time, of how the President presented himself during his interview.

Hopefully he didn’t, not smart you and all of us. But before I yield, I just wanted to actually just comment on something. Mr. Raskin mentioned about us not remembering communist, actually grew up under communist and I have a very good recollection what it is. And unfortunately, [inaudible 02:11:45] on the rise and the march, which he said, unfortunately they’ve been emboldened by President Obama, now by President Biden too. And unfortunately our government and Department of Justice is really now resembles a tyrannical government.

It’s sad for me to see that, but I’m going in with a really double standard what we have there, but I’m going to yield to Chairman Jordan the rest of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Hur, during your one-year investigation, did you have communications with the White House and the White House Counsel in particular?

Yes.

I think you had like, “I got five letters that day.” And they communicated with you regarding your investigation. Is that accurate?

We received a number of letters from White House Counsel’s Office and as well as the president’s personal counsel.

Right. They’re either special counsel or personal counsel, I see, who signed the letters. And did the White House get the report before the report was made public?

We did provide a draft of the report to the White House Council’s Office and members of the president’s personal council team for their review.

No, I understand. And once they got the report before it went public, did the White House try to weigh in with your investigation on elements of that report and frankly, get the report changed?

They did request certain edits and changes to the draft report.

Yeah, I see that in the February 5th letter. Did they only correspond with you?

I’m sorry, Congressman, are you asking if they corresponded with anyone else on my team?

Once you gave the report to the White House-

Yes.

… they saw changes. I have one letter here that’s addressed to you on February 5th and they said, “We’re pleased that after more of a year of investigating, you’ve determined…” They’d respond to the report. And then they asked for you to change some of the things you had in your report, namely the fact that the president’s memory was not very good. Do you remember that?

Yes, sir.

Okay. But I also have two other letters. One on February 7th to Merrick Garland, where they raised the same concern and then on February 12th where they go to the DAG, Bradley Weinsheimer. You familiar with those?

I’m familiar with those letters. Bradley Weinsheimer is an assistant or associate deputy attorney general.

Right. Associate DAG. The ADAG, right?

Yes.

And Merrick Garland, of course, is the attorney general.

Yes, he is.

So, you’re familiar with the fact that they went over your head?

They were certainly entitled to write whatever letters they wished to Mr. Weinsheimer and to the attorney general.

I just find that interesting. The White House, they’re communicating with you throughout this one-year investigation and then the White House says, “Oh, we’re going to go to the principal’s office and we’re going to talk about Mr. Hur’s report.” Do you find that interesting?

As I said, they were free to correspond with whomever in the federal government they wish to correspond with. I did engage in numerous communications with them during the course of the investigation and as is reflected in the special counsel regulations, the attorney general did provide oversight of my investigation.

I understand. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and yield back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Jordan. I want to first say that the House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to enforce the rule of law. Unfortunately, the actions of this chairman in ignoring a bipartisan congressional subpoena have damaged the ability of this committee to get information from witnesses and damaged the rule of law.

(02:15:05)
Now, Mr. Hur, thank you for being here today. Thank you for sharing your compelling immigrant story that just goes to highlight how America is a nation of immigrants. I’m going to ask you a series of questions, yes and no questions. They’re not trick questions. They’re simply designed to highlight what you already found in your report, which is that there are, quote, “material distinctions” end quote, between President Biden’s case and Mr. Trump’s case.

(02:15:32)
So, here’s my first question. In your investigation, did you find that President Biden directed his lawyer to lie to the FBI?

We identified no such evidence.

Okay. Did you find that President Biden directed his lawyer to destroy classified documents?

No.

Did you find that President Biden directed his personal assistant to move boxes of documents and hide them from the FBI?

No.

Did you find that President Biden directed his personal assistant to delete security camera footage after the FBI asked for that footage?

No.

Did you find that President Biden showed a classified map related to an ongoing military operation to a campaign aide who did not have clearance?

No.

Did you find that President Biden engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice?

No.

Did you find that President Biden engage in a scheme to conceal?

No.

Each of the activities I just laid out describe what Donald Trump did in his willful mishandling classified information in his criminal efforts to deceive the FBI. In contrast, President Biden handed over documents without delay and complied fully with investigators.

(02:16:34)
Mr. Hur, in your report you write that, quote, “According to the indictment, Trump not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.” End quote. You also say that if proven these would be, quote, “serious aggravating facts.” End quote. Do you still stand by your analysis?

I do.

Okay. I have a few more questions as well. In your investigation, did you find that President Biden set up a shell company and covertly paid $130,000 in hush money to an adult porn star?

No.

Okay. Did you find that President Biden directed his lawyer to pay $150,000 in hush money to a former Playboy model?

No.

In your investigation, did you find that President Biden called the Georgia Secretary of State to demand that he, quote, “find 11,780 votes.”?

No.

Did you find that President Biden devised a scheme to organize a slate of fake electors to undermine a free and fair election?

No.

Did you find that leading up to January 6th, 2021, President Biden urged his supporters to travel to DC and to storm the Capitol?

No.

Thank you. Each of these activities I laid out describe what Donald Trump did. His efforts to bully election officials, overturn the results of the election and deceive the American people. That is why Donald Trump has been indicted in not just one, not just two, not just three, but four criminal cases. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.

Yeah. I just want to do a little repetition, Mr. Hur, in regards to the chairman’s questions from a few minutes ago. So, is it correct on that February 5th letter that was sent to you asking you to change references to the President’s poor memory, wasn’t there a request by the White House to do that?

There was a request, yes.

And Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show that the gentleman from Maryland earlier said that that was not the case. I think he said, “Nor did he seek to redact a single word of Hur’s report.” Obviously, Mr. Hur is telling us differently here.

(02:18:46)
And didn’t the White House then go to the attorney general himself and say that he would like to see changes to the references in regards to the president’s memory?

The White House Counsel did send such a letter.

So, if this president was 60 years old rather than 80 years old, would you prosecute him?

Congressman, as I’ve said before, I cannot engage in hypotheticals. I address the facts and the evidence as I found them in this matter.

So, there was an 80-year-old grandma that came to Washington DC a few years ago, did not commit a violent crime, committed a crime, but did not commit a violent crime and she was fully prosecuted. Doesn’t that seem like it’s a dual system of justice where the president is above the law?

Congressman, I don’t know the facts and the details of this other case that you’re referencing with this other person.

You say that the president is unlikely to re-offend in the future. I believe that was a quote that you put in the report. Is that correct?

I believe that’s in chapter 13.

How so, how is he unlikely to re-offend in the future? How do you come to that judgment?

As I say on page 254, “Any deterrent effect of prosecution would likely be slight. We are not concerned with specific deterrents as we see little risk he will re-offend.”

Well, isn’t it because he’s now the president and he has almost unlimited authority to release documents? Isn’t that correct? I mean, as a vice president he didn’t have that authority. Now that he’s president, isn’t it easy to say that, that he’s unlikely to re-offend, because he’s got almost unlimited authority to release these documents?

Well, that statement was based on that assessment of the likeliness of re-offending from this particular person, President Biden, is based on a number of factors including the authority that he has now with respect to classified materials as well as the experience that he’s had going through a special counsel investigation.

Yeah. But looking at back at 2011, there were multiple instances where he was informed by his staff and they ratcheted it up to where there was a formal process. You’re saying he’s learned from that, when he’s proven that he hasn’t? I mean, that goes all the way back to 2011.

Congressman, what I’m saying in the report at page 254 is-

He’s a repeat offender, Mr. Hur, isn’t he?

What I say-

I’ll move on to something else here. You said, “He had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safe regarding classified information and he provided raw material to his ghost writer that would be of interest to prospective readers and buyers of his book.” And I think you said something about, “He viewed himself as a historic figure.” Correct?

I believe those words do all appear in the report.

Yeah. And he was also doing this for business purposes, that there may be people that would want to buy his book?

Towards the end of his vice presidency, Mr. Biden had resolved to write a book and began work on it towards the end of his vice presidency.

I think, Mr. Chairman, this is really consistent with the Biden family when you look at them in trying to enrich themselves. I mean, you’re familiar with the work that the oversight committee has done over the last year, right?

I have read some reports of it.

I mean, 20 phone calls that were made to his son, that he denied in 2019, 20 shell companies that were created, over $20 million. I mean, doesn’t it appear there’s a pattern here that where I come from, they almost call it money grubbing?

Congressman, what I’m here to testify about today is the work that I conducted in this investigation and in this report.

So, I want to thank you for the work that you did as far as you could, but unfortunately you are part of the Praetorian Guard that guards the swamp out here in Washington DC protecting the elites, and Joe Biden is part of that company of the elites and you see it in the things that the Department of Justice has not acted on, Mr. Chairman.

(02:22:41)
I mean, you look at the president’s son who does not have to answer for lying on his form 4473 in regards to throwing away a weapon. You see it where the Department of Justice fends off the IRS when the whistleblowers come with this information. And now we see it once again where a president believes he is above the law and there is no doubt that this president does believe he’s above the law. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur, welcome. I also concur and let me echo what’s already been said by my colleagues that your personal story of being an immigrant, your family are immigrants to this country, the way you’ve contributed to the greatness of this country shows why America is great. The great immigrant story. Thank you for being here, sir. First question to you is, you’re a Republican?

I am, sir.

Does that stop you from a thorough and fair investigation?

I certainly hope not, and I know not.

This story is really proof of the old saying that the coverup is worse than the crime. President Trump and President Biden handled their classified materials differently, wouldn’t you say?

My report includes an assessment of the alleged facts in the pending indictment of former President Trump and a comparison to the facts that we found in this case.

But clearly the handling of these documents was night and day, correct?

Congressman, do you have a specific aspect of the handling of the documents that you have in mind?

Well, President Trump intentionally took classified materials and obstructed justice to ensure that those materials wouldn’t be taken from him, and he refused to work with law enforcement. Is that correct?

My report reflects no findings of obstructive conduct on the part of President Trump.

Let me ask you another question. President Trump has been indicted in the US District Court of Southern Florida on 40 counts related to his possession of classified documents. Is that correct?

I don’t know the exact number of counts, but I know that an indictment is pending in that district.

Mr. Hur, you even wrote that, “After being given number of chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr.,” I should say, “President Trump allegedly did oppose and according to the indictment, he not only refused to return those documents over for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about them.”

(02:25:13)
Compare and contrasting to President Trump. “President Trump turned classified documents over to the National Archives and the Department of Justice and he consented to searching his home and other locations.” Wouldn’t you say that’s night and day when it comes to cooperation with law enforcement?

Congressman, the report does include an analysis and a comparison of the facts that are alleged with respect to former President Trump and does detail steps of cooperation that the president and his team took with respect to my investigation.

I would say, President Biden, you had his full cooperation in this investigation?

The report includes cooperative steps that the president took.

Would this be a factor in your decision to prosecute?

It was a factor and I explained it as such in the report, Congressman.

And you stated that the recommendation not to prosecute had nothing to do with the Department of Justice policy not to indict the sitting president. Is that correct?

Well, the report says that even if it were not current Department of Justice policy that a sitting president may not be indicted on federal crimes, I would reach the same conclusion that criminal charges are not warranted.

Mr. Hur, have you set new precedent here today?

To the extent that the Department of Justice makes enforcement decisions or non-enforcement decisions in particular cases, those are precedents. Those are events that future prosecutors do look to in an endeavor to make sure that federal law is implied consistently over time.

Mr. Hur, I’d say, based on your education and your career experience, you are a very, very competent prosecutor, a very, very well-prepared attorney. I’m going to ask you one more time, does the fact that you’re Republican, does that stop you from a thorough and fair investigation?

No. Partisan politics had nothing to do with the work that I did or the report that I wrote or the decision that I reached.

Thank you very much for being here. And Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Gentlemen yields back. Gentleman from Wisconsin’s recognized.

Attorney Hur, Webster’s Dictionary defines senile as, “Exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability such as memory associated with old age.” Mr. Hur, based on your report, did you find that the president was senile?

I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my report, Congressman.

You felt though that the president’s memory or lack thereof was a critical reason to decline prosecution. The reason I’m asking this is whether you believe the president would be fit to stand trial, or do you think his lawyers would argue his incompetence to stand trial due to his state of mind? Also, was he in a place to actually be questioned?

Congressman, my report, to the extent that it addresses the president’s memory gaps that we identified in the evidence that we obtained during our investigation, they are addressed in the context of determining how the jury would perceive, receive, and consider evidence relating to whether or not the president had willful intent when it came to retaining or disclosing national defense information.

Very good. I’d like to focus my questioning on chapter 14 of your report, the classified documents found at the Penn Biden Center. You state in your report that, “The documents found at the Penn Biden Center were the most highly classified, sensitive, and compartmentalized materials recovered during your investigation.” Is that correct?

That is correct.

Many of the documents came from Mr. Biden’s West Wing office. That’s also correct, isn’t it?

I believe that is reflected in the report.

Did you ask if he had packed the boxes himself?

I believe that was one of the questions that we asked him, that is reflected in the transcript now available to the committee.

I think it’s important. How would you characterize the packing of these boxes? Was it slow and meticulous or were they packed in haste without much scrutiny at all?

I don’t recall off the top of my head exactly how he characterized it, but I think the gist of the evidence is that the manner in which files were packed up and moved out at the end of the Obama administration, it was in something of a rushed manner.

Very good. According to your report, the boxes were moved between multiple offices between Mr. Biden departing his West Wing office in January of ’17 and his arrival at the Penn Biden Center’s permanent offices in October of ’17. Were any of these offices authorized to store classified information?

No.

When the boxes finally arrived at the Penn Biden Center’s permanent offices, how were they stored?

I believe when the materials were recovered, some of them were stored in a storage closet and I believe others of them were in file cabinet drawers. But I would [inaudible 02:30:28] to the report.

What’s your assessment on security and access control measures at the Penn Biden Center?

That was something that we looked at. There were some security access controls at the Penn Biden Center, but we did get a handle on people who had access to the office space during the time period when we believed the materials were there. And there were other people including students and some foreign dignitaries that visited that facility at the time.

Very good. You anticipated my next question. So, when the boxes were discovered to have classified documents more than five years later, who discovered these boxes? It was Patrick Moore, is that correct?

Correct. One of the president’s personal counsel.

And did Mr. Moore have some type of active security clearance at the time?

No.

How about the executive assistant at the Penn Biden Center?

No.

On page 265 of your report report-

Actually, I’m sorry, Congressman, I may have misspoken there. I’m not certain whether or not that executive assistant had an active security clearance at the time.

Very good. On page 265 of your report you stated, “When interviewed by FBI agents, Moore believed the small closet was initially locked and that the Penn Biden Center staff member provided a key to unlock it, but his memory was fuzzy on that point, but an interview with Mr. Biden’s executive assistant seemed to contradict his statement.” Do you remember this exchange and did, in fact, it contradict each other?

Sorry, you’re asking if I remember the exchange with Mr. Moore during our interview with him?

Right. Do you remember them contradicting each other?

I don’t remember that contradiction specifically, but generally during the interview, sometimes we heard things from some witnesses that were in tension with what we heard from other witnesses. And we did our best to resolve those conflicts.

Just very quickly, in total the National Archives discovered nine documents totaling 44 pages with classification markings. Is that correct?

From the Penn Biden Center, yes.

And you declined charges because in summarizing your analysis, you couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that retention of the documents was willful?

Correct, sir.

Very good. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania’s recognized.

Thank you, and thank you Mr. Hur for your testimony today. With all the posturing that we’ve heard thus far this morning, I think it’s important that we refocus and remember the conclusion that you reached on the first page and in the very first sentence of your report, which was, “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.” Did I read that accurately?

You did, Congresswoman.

Okay. Your report also says, “In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we have not been able to refute.” Did I read that correctly?

Congresswoman, if you would give me a page citation, I can-

Page six.

Six? Yes, I see that language on page six.

Okay, thank you. Now, in addition to those conclusions, your report details several material distinctions, as you called them, between President Biden’s actions and former President Trump’s mishandling of classified materials. The facts are that President Biden cooperated with your investigation, is that correct?

He did.

And his team notified authorities when they discovered classified documents and he turned them over immediately, is that correct?

Yes.

He consented to multiple searches of his home and other properties, is that correct?

Correct.

And he voluntarily sat for an interview with you, is that correct?

Correct.

But when it comes to Mr. Trump’s treatment of classified materials, your report states that, “According to the criminal indictment against him, he refused to return classified documents in his possession for many months despite having multiple chances to do so, and he obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about it.” Is that correct?

Correct.

Now, you noted in your testimony that the specific comments you made about President Biden’s memory have gotten a lot of attention and as we’ve seen today, our Republican colleagues are again and again trying to weaponize those comments in a cheap attempt to score political points. But as someone who’s participated in trials, you know that witnesses regardless of age, often have difficulty recalling specific statements or facts when asked about them many years after those facts. So, let’s take a quick look at a differing witness experiencing a lapse in memory during a deposition.

Your next wife was a woman by the name of Marla Maple?

Right.

And sitting here today, do you recall what years you were married to Ms. Maples?

I’d have to get the exact dates for you. I can do that.

Am I correct that you married your current wife in January, 2005?

I don’t know relative to that date.

During what years were you the owner of the Plaza Hotel?

I don’t know the-

James Webb.

I don’t remember the names. I don’t remember the name.

So, you don’t remember saying you have one of the best memories in the world?

I don’t remember that. I remember you telling me, but I don’t know that I-

So, I would also add that Mr. Trump told lawyers, “I don’t remember,” 35 times in his deposition for a lawsuit over Trump University and in response to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller, he answered, “Did not remember,” or, “Could not recall,” 27 times.

(02:35:46)
Now, Mr. Hur, you’ve said today that DOJ process and regulations required you to assess whether a jury would find Mr. Biden to be a credible witness, correct?

I’m not sure that I said those words exactly, but of course in my view, how a jury would perceive Mr. Biden if he elected to testify in his own defense at a trial, that would be part of the whole ball of wax that jurors would consider in determining whether he had willful intent in retaining or disclosing national defense information.

Sure. Do you have any reason to believe that the special counsel who investigated and charged Mr. Trump with willful retention of classified documents would’ve failed to make an assessment of whether the jury would find Mr. Trump to be a credible witness?

I don’t have any information relating to how … I’m not qualified, basically, to answer that question as to what went into Mr. Smith’s decision making.

But you are qualified to say what are the normal procedures followed by a special counsel, correct?

I’m familiar with the rules as set forth in the justice manual and my understanding of how to apply them.

And, in fact, what you did?

Correct.

Okay. So, I would suggest that we can all assume that the fact that Mr. Trump was charged with multiple counts of willfully concealing classified documents suggest that the special counsel in that case determined that Mr. Trump’s denials are not credible.

(02:37:09)
At this point, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the committee’s transcribed interview with Steven D’Antuono, former assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office on July 7th, 2023, in which he explained the urgency for the FBI to retrieve and secure classified documents from Donald Trump’s estate because they contained national security information that should not be viewed by anyone without the proper security clearance. Even Mr. D’Antuono himself could not view the documents-

I’ll object.

… given their high security clearance despite being the assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office. Thank you. I yield back.

One objection. Gentlelady yields back. Gentlemen from Oregon’s recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was quite interested in the dates that are set forth in your report, Mr. Hur. And the reason I’m interested is because I keep getting confused between the 2017 date and the 2024 date, as to the condition of the president’s memory. And so, was there a difference? Because when I look at it, it seems like his memory was bad in 2017 and then it was bad today, but there’s never any distinction made.

(02:38:21)
But isn’t it true that if you were going to be looking at prosecuting, as you were, you would look carefully at his condition in 2017? Isn’t that the proper time? Because I think you say in your report that your best case, I think you call it out, “The best case for charges would rely on Mr. Biden’s possession of Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home in February, 2017 when he was a private citizen and when he told his ghost writer he just found classified material.” That’s the best case, as you say it.

Yes.

And then you work your way through a series of defenses against your best case. So, you were looking at his condition in 2017. Do I have that right?

You do, Congressman.

And his memory was bad then. We can draw our conclusions whether it improved over the next six years or not. But I just want to make sure it’s clear that we’re looking at his condition in 2017, which you then find as you go through the list of defenses that is, his memory is bad, his memory is bad, his memory is bad. There’s about six or seven defenses here.

(02:39:31)
And so, what it gets me to is this question, and I actually pulled this quote out of something I read this morning that perhaps your report concluded and perhaps it did not, that the president is, quote, “incapable of being held accountable.” But that’s not quite what happened, is it? You didn’t find that he was incapable of being held accountable, did you?

I did not.

You did not.

Those words do not appear in my report.

They do not. But you reached a conclusion that you didn’t have the evidence, but then your report continually recites these defenses. And I’m having a hard time putting the two together. If you didn’t have the evidence, why do you persist in reciting these defenses?

Congressman, I wrote my report as an explanation of my decision to decline charges as to President Biden. And the way that I came up with that explanation and wrote it in my report for the attorney general is the following. The approach that I took was a prosecutor envisioning what would be the probable outcome of trial if we charged this case, if we presented the evidence to a jury, and not only the government presenting the evidence to a jury, but what would happen if the defense lawyers also got a chance to try to poke holes in the government’s case at trial?

(02:40:52)
And with respect to one of the several potential defenses that I lay out in the report, one of them does focus on the president’s memory-related issues. That is a defense that the president’s defense lawyers may well present at trial. And a jury is going to be confronted with at least three separate sets of evidence relating to the president’s memory. One is from the recordings in 2016 and 2017 from the ghost writer.

Forgive me for interrupting, but I’m limited on time, as everybody else was. But you say, I think, that the evidence suggests he is incapable of forming, or you’re incapable of proving intent. There’s a bit of a difference there, right? He may well have had the intent of holding these documents, and I hate to say hiding the documents, but you couldn’t prove it. So, what you did instead is fell back to the various defenses that might also be asserted against you. A heap of rationale for not pursuing the president. Do I have it right now?

Congressman, I think we’re on the same page. I think what I’m trying to convey is that the way that prosecutors assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case is to think through, “Hey, in the government’s case in chief, here’s the evidence we’re going to present and the jury might be with us.” But that’s not the end of the trial. The trial also has to include presentation from the defense lawyers.

You’re correct. And I’m a lawyer, I’ve tried cases. So, I get it. That your report is not an exoneration so much as a determination that the evidence as you saw it, would not overcome the defenses that you had identified plus whatever lack of evidence you perceived. So, it’s not an exoneration, is it?

The word exoneration does not appear anywhere in my report, and that is not my conclusion.

The other thing that’s of interest, and I think you were misquoted, you said something about … Or someone, I think it was Mr. Raskin, suggested that you … Well, I’m going to run out of time, but I appreciate the work you do as a prosecutor and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. Hur, we’ve been at this close to three hours. If you can hang with us, we’d like to keep going. There’s a chance we could complete votes by the time we have to go to votes on the House floor, which would be about 1:40.

I can keep going, Chairman.

Okay, then we’ll try to do that. There’s a chance we may not too, but I just wanted you to know the lay of the land. I’ll now yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hur, for your testimony and for your service as a prosecutor at the Department of Justice. I want to focus a bit more on the progress of the investigation and some process questions. So, you were appointed by Attorney General Garland as special counsel to investigate the president’s handling of classified documents in January of 2023, correct?

Correct.

And Attorney General Garland, of course, as you know, is nominated by President Biden to serve in his role.

Correct.

During your 15-month investigation, did the attorney general attempt to interfere with your investigation?

No.

Did he impede your investigation in any way?

No.

Did any other member of the Department of Justice or within the administration refuse to cooperate with your investigation?

No.

Were you ever denied access to materials, witnesses, resources from Attorney General Garland that you might have needed during the investigation?

No.

You submitted, I think this is right, your final report to Attorney General Garland on February 5th of 2024.

Correct.

Right. Okay. And it was then released publicly three days later on February 8th of 2024, is that right?

I believe that’s true, yes.

In the final report that was released, were any of your substantive findings redacted or changed in any way?

No.

None of your findings were modified by the attorney general?

No.

Did the attorney general issue any kind of statement or a letter attempting to describe the contents of your report?

No.

Okay. You’re familiar, I know, I’m sure, with the investigation that was conducted by Special Counsel Mueller years ago with respect to the former president.

Yes.

And at that time,

… time Attorney General Barr was in charge of the Justice Department. He sat where you sat in this committee, I remember it well, just a few short years ago, testifying on the nature of that particular investigation. Are you familiar with the way in which he released that report and characterized it?

Yes.

Okay. Very different from the way that Attorney General Garland conducted this particular release. I take it you’d agree with that?

They were not the same approach.

Not the same approach. Right. In the case of Attorney General Garland, no impeding or interfering with your investigation in any way whatsoever, releasing the report in full to the American public, not attempting to mischaracterize it or describe it in any way. Dissimilar from Attorney General Barr, who five years ago, as you recall, after Special Counsel Mueller submitted his report to the Department of Justice, took nearly a month to release the report to the American public, heavily redacted, and not before he had issued a letter of his own to the leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees mischaracterizing the contents of that report.

(02:46:11)
That distinction and difference is very important. Because from your testimony, at least from what I glean from your testimony, is that Attorney General Garland acted appropriately and ethically with respect to this investigation. I take it you agree?

Attorney General Garland did not interfere with my efforts, and I was able to conduct a fair, thorough, and independent investigation.

Very different approach, as you said, from the way in which the Department of Justice unfortunately, tragically functioned under the former president. I’m going to yield back the balance of my time.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for five minutes. Will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds?

Yes, sir.

I would just point out, to the gentleman from Colorado’s last point, there was one big difference. Bill Barr didn’t name Bob Mueller as a special counsel. Bob Mueller was named by Rod Rosenstein. That’s a huge difference in how this whole thing works. I now yield back to the gentleman from Alabama.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(02:47:09)
Mr. Hur, in your report, you cited principles of federal prosecution and observed that, and I quote, “Historically after leaving office, many former presidents and vice presidents have knowingly taken home sensitive materials related to national security for their administrations without being charged with crimes. And this historical record is important context for judging whether or why to charge a former vice president and/or former president.” Why is examining this history so important?

Congressman, one of the reasons that it was important was because it would bear on how a jury would decide whether or not criminal willful intent was formed by the person retaining or disclosing the national defense information at issue.

Has there been an exception to this in the history of the nation? Have we charged former presidents?

As I state in the report, to my knowledge there is only one exception, and that is former president Trump.

Given the history, is it fair to say it’s preferable not to charge a former president or a vice president for allegedly mishandling classified documents in your opinion?

Congressman, I can’t articulate a preference whether it’s preferable. All I can talk about is the work that I did, the facts that I found, and the decision that I reached in my case

Mr. Hur, what’s the difference in the US Senator having documents and a former President of the United States?

For purposes of proving willfulness, I believe that there would be a number of differences in terms of the types of access and the ease with which presidents while in office can access classified information, as compared to the access privileges that senators have.

Can presidents declassify documents that they have in their possession?

I believe under certain circumstances, yes.

Former presidents as well?

Congressman, I confess this is not an area of the law that I’ve looked into or explained in my report and I’m here to talk about the work that is reflected in the report.

Well, let me say this sir. You have a reputation beyond reproach, and I just want you to know that. And I think that President Biden ought to be thankful that the Attorney General appointed you to investigate his case. But you have a special counsel colleague by the name of Jack Smith who cannot lay claim to such a reputation, isn’t that right?

I have no opinion. I don’t have anything to say about that.

In fact, Jack Smith, whom Biden Justice Attorney General Garland appointed to investigate President Trump, “has a reputation according to deep-rooted reporting from Washington Times as a overzealous prosecutor who relies on ethically dubious tactics”. And his prosecutorial record is replete with a, quote, let me say this, “string of mistrials and overturned convictions. Actually Chief Justice Roberts once rebuked Mr. Smith’s prosecutor prosecutorial theory as a boundless interpretation of federal bribery statute that did not comport with the text of the statute or the president of this court according to the Supreme Court justice.”

(02:50:05)
And so my question is do you think in the case of Jack Smith, do you think justice is blind when he’s looking at President Trump? Since we’ve never done this in the history of the country, is justice truly blind?

Sir, I’m not here to express any opinions with respect to a pending case against another defendant. I’m here to talk about the work that I did with respect to the investigation relating to President Biden.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the about my time back to you.

[inaudible 02:50:44] can you explain what specifically in your interview with President Biden led you to this conclusion?

Congressman Jordan, I’m sorry, the mic was turned on part way through your-

Yeah. Can you explain what specifically in your interview with President Biden led you to this conclusion?

A conclusion about a-

A broad statement that’s been cited many times.

The totality of the time that I spent with the president during his voluntary interview was something that I certainly considered in framing my assessment and articulating in the report, and that includes not only the words in the cold record of the transcript of the interview, but also the experience of being there in the room with him, and frankly considering how he would present to a jury in a criminal trial if charges were brought.

And I guess I’m asking specifically, I know you cite in the report the dates that he couldn’t remember when he was vice president, when he began, when his term ended. You cite that in the report. But is there anything else specifically that stands out from that interview with the president?

A number of things stand out. And again, I’m aware 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.

(02:52:09)
So it was a wealth of details about being there in the moment with the president, including his inability to recall certain things. And I’ll also say, as reflected in the transcript, the fact that he was prompted on numerous occasions by the members of the White House Counsel’s office-

I read that. The brief look I had at the transcript this morning, because we just got it this morning, I saw some of that. Chair now recognize the gentlelady from Texas. Or excuse me, Pennsylvania. I’m used to you being down there. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania.

I got an upgrade. Thank you, Mr. Hur. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you Mr. Hur for your service to our country. For your team’s service in this investigation. You determined after what you described as rigorous, detailed, and thorough analysis that President Biden should not be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. In fact, everybody can take a look at your report. The very first sentence says as much. It says, “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.” Am I correct?

Yes.

That’s the bottom line of this report. Am I correct?

That is the first sentence.

It’s the first sentence and the bottom line. There’s an awful lot of misinformation that has been put forward by the press in some cases, and also by the other side of this dais. You didn’t reach this decision because President Biden was sympathetic. Is that correct?

I reached the decision based on the totality of the reasons that I set forth at length in my report.

Based on the evidence. And while Mr. Trump who is being prosecuted is not sympathetic. You didn’t calibrate any of that in there. Sympathetic, not sympathetic, it doesn’t matter. It’s the evidence, right?

Congresswoman, I did not reach any assessments of the evidence in the Trump matter to the extent that I considered the allegations against former president Trump. It was for purposes of comparing relevant precedents.

I trust that with your credibility you were not out to get Mr. Trump nor here to help Mr. Biden. I think it’s about the evidence, and I think you say that over and over again in your report.

(02:54:14)
Why did you decide President Biden should not be prosecuted? Your report tells us, quote, “We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict.” Those are your words, is that correct?

I believe, if those exact words do not appear in the report, that it’s consistent with the gist of my conclusion.

Very good. They are your exact words. That was not the case with Donald Trump. You have a copy of your report today, don’t you, in front of you?

I do.

Would you read a portion of it for me? Your words, it is page 11, starting on line three, beginning with the words, “Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden…” Would you read the next few sentences?

“Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump if proven would present serious aggravating facts.”

Keep going.

Congresswoman, I’m happy to have you read the words in my report.

Well, it’s your report, so I think it actually is more fitting that you read those.

“Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite.”

Keep going.

“According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.”

You may stop there. Thank you. You mentioned the indictment against Mr. Trump for mishandling sensitive classified national security information. That indictment says, “At the end of his presidency, Mr. Trump…” I’m looking for my indictment here. I have it here. Hang on. “… Mr. Trump himself ordered that boxes containing classified materials go to Mar-a-Lago, where he hosted tens of thousands of guests. Then he kept these sensitive materials carelessly about the property, as you can see here. Classified documents ended up in a bathroom, a ballroom, on a floor spewing about.”

(02:56:04)
And when a grand jury subpoenaed the documents, what did Donald Trump do? The indictment again shows, “Against him what he responded by, suggesting that his attorney falsely represent that the FBI and grand jury that he did not have documents called for by the subpoena. He directed his employee, Waltine Nauta, to move boxes of the documents to conceal them from Mr. Trump’s attorney, and then lied to his attorney and the FBI and the grand jury, suggesting his attorney might hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury investigation.”

(02:56:41)
Mr. Hur, are those the type of aggravating facts to which you refer to in your report?

Congresswoman, the aggravating facts that I refer to in the report are set forth and described in my report at page 11.

Very good. Mr. Hur, to the best of your knowledge and investigation, did President Biden ever direct an employee to lie about, hide, or destroy classified information, yes or no?

We did not identify such evidence.

Did he do so himself?

We did not identify such evidence.

And I want to give you a chance since the transcript is out to correct the record on an important point. Very sadly, your report on page 208 says that Mr. Biden couldn’t come up with the year of his son Beau Biden’s death, when in fact in the transcript it shows that you asked him the month. And do you know what he said Mr. Hur? He said, “Oh God, May 30th.” Would you like to correct the record? His memory was pretty firm on the month and the day.

Congresswoman, I don’t believe that’s correct with respect to the transcript, but if you could refer me to a specific page, I’d be happy to look.

I’ve read about it in reporting. Thank you. I yield back.

Chair now recognizes Mr. Kiley.

Mr. Hur, why did the White House ask you to remove parts of the report? What was the reason they gave for that?

I don’t have the letter in front of me, Congressman. I believed that among the reasons was that they contested or that they asserted that certain language in the report was inconsistent with DOJ policy.

The day that your report came out, the president gave a live news conference on national television. Did you watch that news conference?

I watched the press conference, yes.

What was your reaction to seeing the president personally attack you and your team?

Congressman, I’m here to talk about the work that went into the report and my declination decision and my explanation of it for the attorney-

And it wasn’t just the president. Anthony Coley, former spokesman for Merrick Garland, has said that Democrats should focus their ire on her. The president’s personal attorney, Bob Bauer, said that your report is a shabby piece of work and a shoddy work product. Do you agree with that characterization of your report?

I disagree vehemently with that characterization of my report.

I also disagree. I think it’s very well written, well considered, and comprehensive. Do you think it’s appropriate for the administration to be attacking the work of a special counsel that it appointed itself?

Congressman, I’m not going to comment on the propriety of the administration’s reaction to my report. What I can tell you is that I stand by the report and the work that went into it.

Today, the ranking member started his opening statement by saying, “Mr. Hur completely exonerated President Biden,” and called your report a total and complete exoneration. Mr. Hur, did you completely exonerate President Biden?

That is not what my report does.

Was your report a total and complete exoneration?

That is not what the report says.

So the statement by the ranking member was incorrect, yes?

As I said, the report is not an exoneration. That word does not appear in my report.

Based on the facts and anticipation of defenses presented in your report, could a reasonable juror have voted to convict?

As I said in the report, some reasonable jurors may have reached the inferences that the government would present in its case-in-chief at trial.

So a reasonable juror could have voted to convict based on the facts that you presented?

Correct.

If you were on the jury, would you have voted to convict?

I have not engaged in that thought exercise, Congressman. And so what I’d like to stick to is what’s in the report, which is my assessment as a prosecutor.

Sure. And what you did find in the report is that the president, this is page 200, risked serious damage to America’s National Security through his handling and mishandling of classified materials. And you identify “a strong motive for the way he handled those materials.” Two of the motives you cited was his desire to run for president and his desire to sell books.

(03:00:30)
So a reasonable inference for your report is that the president risked serious damage to America’s national security in order to make money and advanced his personal political ambitions. Is that correct?

The report includes a description of the evidence and different inferences that reasonable jurors could draw from the evidence.

And you also note that the president described his predecessor’s handling of classified materials as totally irresponsible. And your report concludes that Mr. Biden’s emphatic and unqualified conclusion at keeping marked classified documents unsecured in one’s home is totally irresponsible applies equally to his own decision. Is that correct?

That language does appear in the report.

You cite as a mitigating factor the fact that the president cooperated in the investigation. But at the time that the investigation was happening and these acts of cooperation occurred, the Mar-a-Lago investigation was already a matter of public record, correct?

I believe that’s correct.

So we already had a public debate about the handling of classified documents and the potential application of the criminal laws to that general set of circumstances?

I think that’s fair.

And so the president, when he decided to cooperate or not cooperate, had to know that that decision to cooperate or not cooperate would become known to the public and he would be judged accordingly. Is that correct?

I’m not in a position to opine on what was or was not in the president’s-

But it’s relevant to your analysis as to whether or not it counts as a mitigating factor. If he knew that he was going to have to be judged based on whether he cooperated or not, that would lessen its value as a mitigating factor. So did that in your analysis lessen its value?

We undertook a comprehensive assessment.

That specific factor. Did it lessen its value as a mitigating factor?

That and all facts relating to the president’s cooperation with our investigation.

Another factor you discussed is a deterrence. And you say that deterrence actually the factor actually counsels against bringing charges here, because you said, “As for general deterrence, future presidents and vice presidents are already likely to be deterred by the multiple recent criminal investigations and one prosecution of current and former president and vice presidents for mishandling classified documents.” So that one prosecution of course is the indictment brought by Jack Smith.

(03:02:38)
So by the very terms of your analysis, Jack Smith’s indictment actually counseled against and was accounted against bringing charges in this case. Is that correct?

I’m sorry, Congressman. I don’t follow your drift there.

Well, you said that there’s already deterrence because there’s this prosecution out there in a prior case related to classified documents, so we don’t need to bring another case to establish deterrent value. That was the essence of your analysis, correct?

Congressman, what I’ll say is that I will stand by the way and the specific words in which I characterize my assessment of deterrence value of a case under the principles of federal prosecution that’s on page 254 and 255 of my report.

Thank you. My time is out, but I’ll just add, the perverse implication here is that the administration by the very terms of your analysis actually made it less likely that the president would face charges by Jack Smith bringing an indictment. Thank you and I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.

Okay.

Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents. First, the superseding indictment against Donald Trump in the southern district of Florida, where he is currently facing criminal charges on 40 counts, including obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI, his unlawful willful retention of national defense-

Without objection, the indictment is recognized.

… the concealment of documents from law enforcement, among other things. That was the shortened version.

(03:04:09)
And my second document, to clarify for you sir, Mr. Hur, from the transcription, page 82. The words are President Biden’s. “What month did Beau die? Oh, God. May 30th. A searing memory.” I ask unanimous consent.

Without objection. The gentlewoman from Georgia is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and ranking member, for this hearing, and thank you so much for spending so much time with us today, Special Counsel Hur.

(03:04:40)
In accordance with the law, classified information must be treated with the highest respect and also protected, and President Biden has made it clear during this investigation and long before that he agrees. In response to Mr. Hur’s report, he said, and I quote, “Over my career in public service, I’ve always worked to protect America’s security. I take these issues seriously, and no one has ever questioned that.”

(03:05:07)
The special counsel’s report makes clear that this is unfortunately a common occurrence for classified documents to get swept up into members of Congress or executive branches officials’ personal effects. And as soon as President Biden discovered that he had mistakenly kept classified material, he took swift and immediate action to ensure that those materials were returned, and he fully cooperated with every step of your investigation.

(03:05:37)
President Biden’s predecessor, when dealing with the issue of having classified materials, took very different steps. In 2016, Donald Trump declared, and I quote, “I’m going to enforce all the laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.” Yet when his lawyer told him that it was going to be a crime if he didn’t return the classified documents that he had after NARA, the DOJ, and the FBI requested multiple times that Trump returned the classified documents, yet he hid them.

(03:06:20)
Trump himself acknowledged that the same year that service members have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country, yet he decided that his desire to keep these documents outweighed the potential loss of life for these people if those papers got out. Not only did Trump have a legal obligation, he also had a moral obligation to all of us, and he failed to live up to that.

(03:06:53)
Mr. Hur, thank you for being here today. I’d like to talk about your report regarding President Biden and some of your findings. And for the sake of time, if you don’t mind just answering yes or no. Please answer this question. Page 187 of your report reads, “At no point did we find evidence that Mr. Biden intended or had reason to believe the information would be used to injure the United States or to benefit a foreign nation.” Is this what you reported? For the second time, please answer yes or no.

Congresswoman, you said page 187?

Of your report, yes.

Ah, yes. At no point did we find evidence. Yes, that language is on page 187.

Okay. So then this is what you reported, correct?

That language is in my report.

Okay. And Mr. Hur, you acknowledged on page 12 of your report that there are, as you said, “numerous previous instances in which marked classified documents have been discovered intermixed with the personal papers of former executive branch officials and members of Congress.” Please once again can you confirm for us, yes or no, the answer whether this is what you reported?

That language appears at page 12 of my report.

Page 323 also reads, “As a matter of historical context, there have been numerous previous incidents in which marked classified documents have been discovered intermixed with the personal papers of former executive branch officials and members of Congress.” Is this what you reported?

That language appears at page 323.

Thank you. Now it’s my understanding that this has happened before, where classified documents are swept up into official papers. So Mr. Hur, aside from Donald Trump, are you aware of similar instances in history where officials who have had these classified documents engaged in a months-long elaborate scheme to hide those documents from federal law enforcement officials?

The one case that comes to mind that we do address in the report is the prosecution of General Petraeus.

So are these historical examples, aside from Donald Trump, where officials instructed their aides to delete evidence pertaining to those classified documents?

That was not present in the Petraeus prosecution, no.

Okay. So the American people deserve, as we’ve always been saying all along here, that we deserve a leader who will not put themselves above the law, but will work with law enforcement and hold themselves accountable. Thank you. And I yield back.

The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized.

Special Counsel Hur, when you determined that no criminal charges should be brought against President Biden in this matter, you focused on the specific facts surrounding the classified documents, where President Biden stored them, and on his memory and age. You wrote that President Biden’s “memory was significantly limited during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017 and during his interview with the special counsel’s office in 2023.” You also expressed concern that prospective jurors would be persuaded by President Biden’s presentation as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.

(03:10:15)
Your assessment however was focused on how President Biden would currently present to a jury if he stood trial. Is that correct?

That was an element of my explanation to the attorney general for my decision. It was not the only element.

Okay. That wasn’t my question. But it was one of the things that we were considering was his current state of mind, his current memory, correct?

One of the things that I considered would be how, whenever a trial theoretically were to be held, how President Biden would present himself to the jury if he elected to testify.

Okay. You did not compare President Biden’s current memory or condition with his memory or condition when he was in the Senate when he left the vice presidency and took the classified documents subject to your investigation. Is that right?

Actually, I believe that’s not correct, Congresswoman. One of the things that’s in the report is an assessment of the president’s memory based on recordings from the 2016, 2017 timeframe, recordings of conversations between Mr. Biden and his ghostwriter, and comparing that with the president’s memory that he exhibited during our interview of him in October of 2023. So there was a comparison there.

Okay. But unless there was some issue undisclosed to the American people during his 50 years in office, you found that Mr. Biden fully understood his legal responsibility related to the handling of classified materials, which is why you concluded in your report that Mr. Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.” You state that on page 1, correct?

I believe that what I stated on page 1 was that we identified evidence that Mr. Biden willfully retained classified information after the end of his vice presidency, but ultimately we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant-

I understand that. Please listen to my question. What I’m getting at is that Mr. Biden fully understood that he could not keep classified information at his home as both a former senator and vice president, isn’t that right? He understood that, correct?

My understanding is that based on the evidence, my assessment was that a jury-

That isn’t what my question was. Please listen to my question. My question was that Mr. Biden understood when he was a senator and vice president that he could not keep classified materials at his home, at his garage, and in other offices. Is that fair?

I don’t think that’s accurate, Congresswoman, because when Mr. Biden was vice president, he was authorized to have classified material in his home.

But after he left, he knew that he was not entitled to keep classified information at his home, correct?

After he left, there is evidence to suggest that he knew that he could not legally have classified information in his home. However, there is evidence with respect to his notebooks that he believed he was authorized to keep the notebooks at home based on precedent.

Based on precedent. I guess the way that I would put it is this. President Biden knew better. He knew that he wasn’t entitled to keep these documents when he was a senator, and he knew he wasn’t entitled to keep these documents after he had left the vice presidency. But because he’s now suffering from an impaired memory, as you so delicately put it, he got away with it. Is that fair?

Congresswoman, what I stated in my report is that there’s certainly evidence that some jurors could infer to suggest that Mr. Biden willfully retained and disclosed national defense information. But in my judgment, the likely outcome of a trial, the probable outcome of a trial, not a conviction.

Mr. Hur, I have represented a variety of clients over the years in actions against the federal government over, in fact, several decades of time. It’s been my experience that the federal government, and the DOJ specifically, has essentially unlimited resources to go after and prosecute citizens, and will spare absolutely no expense in doing so.

(03:14:16)
It has also been my experience that the DOJ is not only overly aggressive in these cases, but makes it clear that part of the reason for such aggression is to make it example of the poor soul who is the subject of such action. In other words, so that other people will not engage in the same kind of conduct.

(03:14:34)
Mr. Hur, having been a long-term DOJ prosecutor, can you please explain why those people without the last name of Clinton or Biden are typically treated quite differently and seem to be the only ones who are never held accountable for violating the law?

Congresswoman, one of the things that I explain in my report is the fact that there are historical precedents with respect to former occupants of the White House and their retention of classified materials after they leave.

I’m asking specifically about Mrs. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

Congresswoman, I don’t have any opinion to articulate with respect to the investigation relating to Mrs. Clinton.

I yield back.

The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.

Mr. Hur, Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with 40 counts related to his unlawful possession of classified documents. The most serious charge carries a penalty of 20 years in prison. According to the Trump indictment, Trump stored those documents at Mar-a-Lago, which “hosted events for tens of thousands of members and guests.” The indictment continues, “Trump stored his boxes containing classified documents in various locations at the Mar-a-Lago club, including in a ballroom, a bathroom, and a shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room.”

(03:15:58)
Mar-a-Lago is more than a mansion or a compound. It is a club with a membership program that sells access to the public. It has hundreds of people moving through it at any given time. Staffing it alone required 150 staff members. And while those classified national security documents sat in places like his ballroom, Trump hosted more than 150 social events, like weddings and movie premieres, which thousands of people attended.

(03:16:32)
In brief, Special Counsel Smith has alleged that Trump willfully and knowingly took highly classified documents to a location accessible by tens of thousands of people.

(03:16:45)
Mr. Hur, was President Biden’s residence accessible to tens of thousands of people?

No.

Did President Biden ever bring tens of thousands of people into spaces where he stored classified material?

Not to my knowledge.

Did Joe Biden advertise and sell memberships to his home that would allow members of the public to have access?

Not that I’m aware of.

Did your investigation find that Joe Biden ever hosted movie premieres at his home while classified documents were stored there?

No.

Moving on, among the 150 staff members working at Mar-a-Lago was a Trump aide named Walt Nauta. According to Special Counsel Smith, Trump ordered Nauta to move boxes of documents so that they could not be found by people looking for them.

(03:17:36)
Mr. Hur, did President Biden ever direct his staff to move documents so that you or the FBI could not find them?

We did not identify evidence of that.

In fact, according to your report, as soon as Bob Bauer discovered material in President Biden’s residence, he contacted John Lausch, and the president immediately consented to an FBI search of his home. Is that correct?

… correct?

My report does state that.

And you found no evidence that any documents were moved prior to that search, is that correct?

Correct.

That’s in stark contrast to Donald Trump. President Biden did not obstruct your investigation. He was fully compliant. And with access to the millions of documents he gave you and dozens of hours of witness interviews he facilitated, you were able to fully and totally exonerate him of any criminal wrongdoing. I thank you, Mr. Hur. And before I yield back Mr. Chairman, I ask you unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the committee’s transcribed interview with Steven D’Antuono, former assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington Field office on June 7th, 2023, in which Mr. D’Antuono explained that the FBI Executed a search warrant for classified material at Mar-a-Lago because there was probable cause to believe that Donald Trump did not fully comply with a subpoena to turn over classified documents.

Without objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. The gentlelady from Flores is recognized.

Mr. Chairman.

Excuse me. Gentleman from… The ranking members recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments consent requests.

All right.

First, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the publishers web page for President Biden’s 2017 book, Promise Me That, which shows that the book is a deeply moving memoir about the year that President Biden’s son Beau died.

Without objection.

I also ask the unanimous consent to enter page 97 of Mr. Hur’s report which says that President Biden’s book is not known to contain classified information.

Without objection.

Finally, I ask the unanimous consent into the enter into record, February 5th 2024, letter from President Biden’s counsel to Special Counsel Hur that clarifies the President Biden’s 2017 book, “does not contain classified information, and there has never been any suggestion to the contrary.”

Without objection. Chair now Recognizes gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Special Counsel Hur for joining us here today to discuss your investigation regarding President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents. This has become an issue of great interest to all Americans, and of course, to all of us here today. As is outlined in your report, despite the discovery of confidential and top-secret records located in the president’s personal residence in Delaware, including in his garage office and basement, the department declined prosecution. And my colleagues’ questions today have focused on the highlights from your report, specifically referring to President Biden’s mental capacity, his willful disregard for the law as a private citizen, and how he would be perceived if presented to a jury of his peers. Dependent upon, and I’ll use your words from the report, how this sympathetic well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory handled and managed the storage of these confidential documents, the national security of the United States might have been put at great risk because of the president’s behavior.

(03:21:13)
And so one of the things we must consider today is how we can ensure that our national security will not be continually put at risk when under the leadership of the same well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory since the release of the report. To your knowledge, has the Justice Department started to analyze a damage assessment of what may have been disclosed by these documents being mishandled and any ongoing national security risks from the inappropriate storage and retention of the documents?

Congresswoman, my understanding is that such a damage assessment is underway in coordination and cooperation with the members of the intelligence community.

And do you today, for us, have any information about the status of that investigation or how long it might take to conclude?

I do not, Congresswoman.

I’d like to turn your attention to a discussion of the distinction between proving the underlying elements of an offense and the concept of an obstruction of justice charge. Is it correct, Special Counsel Hur ,that in some circumstances as a federal prosecutor you may investigate the underlying offense, an underlying offense, choose not to charge that offense but still have developed sufficient evidence to charge a defendant with obstruction of justice?

I think as a matter of law, theoretically that could occur. I can’t bring to mind specific examples of that happening. But I suppose that if that were to happen, it would be a more difficult case to try from a prosecutor’s-

Well, the elements are distinct though. Are they not?

They are distinct elements.

And isn’t it similar to a case where a federal prosecutor undergoes an investigation and ultimately doesn’t pursue the original charge they were investigating, but during the course of the investigation, concludes that a false statement was made to a federal law enforcement officer and brings a charge under 1,001.

That could happen.

Yes. And again, there too, the elements would be different.

Correct.

And in reaching your final decision related to the declination or the recommendation to decline prosecution, you considered both the underlying elements of the offenses at issue, and also the principles of federal prosecution. Is that right?

Correct.

Okay. Now, the principles of federal prosecution, those are things that may vary case to case. Is that right?

The determinations under the principles of federal prosecution are very fact and circumstance dependent.

But the elements of the criminal offense are not. Isn’t that also correct?

Elements are defined by law, and they do not vary from case to case.

And thus, those elements of the underlying criminal offense would be exactly the same from one defendant to the next to the next. Isn’t that right?

Yes.

So you would expect, would you not, that a prosecutor who was considering the underlying offenses that you were considering here would be looking at exactly the same elements and requirements of proof that you did on the underlying charges?

Prosecutors assessing their cases under the same statutes must consider the same elements with respect to those statutes.

All right. Thank you, Special Counsel Hur. And then if we could turn back to the concept of those principles of federal prosecution, those are the additional factors aggravating or mitigating that you might consider in ultimately reaching a charge decision here. Is that right?

If they do include such things that are referred to as aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

There’s one thing I want to go back to though to be clear. It’s been said today that your report is tantamount to a total exoneration of President Biden. That’s not correct. Is it?

That is not correct.

All right. Thank you, sir. I yield the balance of my time to the chair.

The gentlelady is back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Hur, also for your patience. You’re almost to, what, three and a half hours? So almost as much as Biden. Throughout your report you repeatedly cite and credit a number of innocent explanations for the presence of classified materials at the president’s home and other locations, innocent explanations that you admit that you cannot refute. And I’d like to just focus on a few of them, and I’ll give you citations. One of these explanations for the presence of classified documents is that a member of the president’s staff maintained those documents when he was the vice president, and then mistakenly included them in sets of documents that were later sent to locations such as the Penn-Biden Center and the University of Delaware. Is that correct?

I believe that’s correct. But if you have a specific page number for me, that would help me, Congresswoman.

We’ll get you one. That would be great. You also found that another innocent explanation to be more likely than a criminal explanation for the presence of classified documents that were found at the Penn-Biden Center and the University of Delaware. Is that correct?

Correct.

Great. And then let’s talk about the documents in the President’s garage. As you noted, a reasonable juror could conclude that the location of the documents surrounded by household junk is not a place where a person knowingly and intentionally stores classified documents that are critical to his legacy. Instead, it looks more like a place where a person stores classified documents that he’s unaware of. That’s on page 209 of your report, correct?

That is something that a reasonable juror could factor into or her consideration of whether or not the president had criminal willful intent.

Great. And you also noted that President Biden was allowed to have classified documents in his home for eight years as vice president, and then again when he was president, and that he also had layers of staff who were responsible for assembling, carrying, storing, and retrieving these types of classified documents.

Correct.

And because of these facts, you determined it was “entirely possible that the president did not know he still had some of these documents in his home when his vice presidency ended in 2017.” That’s on page 215. Entirely possible.

Entirely possible.

That’s the citation. I’m going to keep going because my time is running while you’re looking. So you also cite the president’s cooperation with your investigation as evidence that he did not have criminal intent. And I want to quote you here because this is important. You wrote, “Most significantly, self-reported to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage and consented to the search of his house to retrieve them and other classified materials. He also consented to searches of other locations. And later in the investigation, he participated in an interview with our office that lasted more than five hours and provided written answers to most of our written questions. Many will conclude that a president who knew he was illegally storing classified documents in his home would not have allowed such a search of his home to discover those documents, and then answered the government’s questions afterwards.” Page 210.

(03:29:05)
And then you said that you expect this argument about the president’s innocence to carry real force for many reasonable jurors, because in your words, “Reasonable jurors will conclude that Mr. Biden, a powerful, sophisticated person with access to the best advice in the world, would not have handed the government classified documents from his own home on a silver platter if he had willfully retained those documents for years. Just as a person who destroys evidence and lies often proves his guilt, a person who produces evidence and cooperates will seem by many to be innocent.” Again, page 210. As you said in your report, “It would be reasonable for a juror to reach that conclusion” and that, “A president advised by counsel would not have informed investigators of the presence of classified documents in his home or invited agents in the search of every nook and cranny of his home or other residents or sat for an hour’s long interview or answered pages of written questions,” all going to his full cooperation and his lack of criminal intent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.

The Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Hur, we’ve got three more we’re going to do. And then we’re going to take votes, and then we’ll just have a couple more after that. So I’m going to start with the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.

Yield to the chairman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Hur, are you opposed to the U.S Congress having access to the audio tapes of the people you interviewed during your investigation?

Chairman, I am not in a position to articulate an opinion one way or the other. That is not really up to me. I’m a former employee of the Department of Justice. I would refer you to the White House and DOJ leadership.

You’re an accomplished lawyer. Is there any reason why shouldn’t, why the United States Congress shouldn’t have access to the same information you had access to and that was the basis of your decision?

Chairman, it is not for me to opine on what materials-

Well, the Justice Department released the transcripts the day of the hearing. Been nice if we’d had them at a more, I think a better time for the committee to prepare for our questioning for you. They released them today. White House and the Justice Department released them today. It’d be nice if we actually had the audio tapes too. Again, is there any reason why you can see why the American people and their representatives in the United States Congress should not have access to those tapes?

Chairman, what I can tell you is that my assessment that went into my conclusions that I described in my report was based not solely on the transcript. It was based on all of the evidence, including the audio recordings.

Great point. And that’s where I was going. So this was valuable evidence for you, as the special counsel name, to investigate this issue, valuable evidence for you to reach your conclusion, and the statements you put in your report. And all I’m asking is, shouldn’t the United States Congress have access to that same information?

Chairman, again, it is not for me to weigh into what information Congress should or should not have, but what I will tell you is that the audio recordings were part of the evidence, of course, that I considered in coming to my conclusions.

I will yield back to the gentleman from Kentucky, and hopefully he can yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Thank you, Mr. Hur. In chapter eight of your book, or your report, you detail that Mr. Biden retained, in his Delaware basement, classified documents relating back to his time as a US senator in the 70s, correct?

Correct.

And even more Senate papers dating back to the 70s through 1991 were found in the University of Delaware Morris libraries and in the Biden Senate papers collection, correct?

Correct.

And even more Senate papers dating back to the 1970s and 1980s were found in Biden’s Delaware garage?

I believe that’s… Yes, that’s correct.

And, “Mr. Biden had nearly 50 years experience dealing with classified information, including as a member of the Senate select Committee on Intelligence, a member and chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, a member and chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and Vice President of the United States,” and that he was deeply familiar with the measures taken to safeguard classified information and the reasons for them. Correct?

That language certainly sounds familiar, Congressman, but if you have a page citation for me, I can confirm.

And as vice president, is it correct that in 2011 Mr. Biden received advice from his staff about the need to secure classified information in the form of notes?

Correct.

Including his first counsel, Cynthia Hogan.

Correct.

And he was advised in writing in 2011 by Hogan that classified notes must be obtained in secure saves and stored in secure facility.

Correct.

His second counsel, John McGill, also advised Biden that all of Mr. Biden’s records, including his notes would be sent to the National Archives, and Biden understood and accepted that. Correct?

That’s correct. With the exception that Mr. McGill was Vice President Biden’s final counsel, not his second one.

All right. And on his way out, Mr. Biden was also appraised of his obligations by the National Archives staff twice more that his classified notes should be secured in a skiff.

That particular fact is not immediately coming to mind, Congressman, but if you have a page citation, I can confirm it for you.

Well, did Mr. Biden have 30 years experience handling this information? He received advice from at least two separate councils, the National Archives staff, and he has demonstrated enough knowledge of the law to attack President Trump in public over the same exact issue in detail. This is where I get into this. I just have a problem with this. In your report and this testimony, a reasonable person would conclude that Mr. Biden knowingly retained national defense information and failed to deliver to an appropriate government official and that he knew his conduct was unlawful. And I think that’s where we end up here and that’s what the point is. Over the last three election cycles, there’s only been three people who have ran for President, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Donald Trump. All three of them have been accused of mishandling classified documents. Only one of them has been prosecuted. And that’s what the American people see. That’s what we see. We had Hillary Clinton who ran a program called Bleach It on our server.

(03:35:03)
They used hammers to destroy evidence. Joe Biden has a 50-year history of misplacing classified documents in numerous different places. All of these cases have the same underlying elements of the crime, the same fact patterns, and yet we only see one person being prosecuted. And with that I yield back to the gentleman from Kentucky.

My time has expired. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. The ranking member’s recognized for unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in light of what the chairman previously said, I ask unanimous consent that all transcribed interviews taken by the committee this year be made public.

There’s an objection to that. The gentlelady from Missouri is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being, Mr. Hur. St. Louis and I are here today once again to focus on the real issues that affect our communities instead of partisan hit jobs. Let me start by saying that the potential mishandling of classified information is a serious issue, and I believe it was appropriate for the Attorney General to appoint both special counsels in the Biden and Trump cases. As my colleagues have pointed out, President Biden fully complied with the investigation conducted by special counsel Hur, who did not find evidence sufficient to warrant criminal charges. Despite this outcome, republicans have used the special counsel’s report to further their long-standing efforts to reelect the former white supremacist in chief Donald Trump who faces 40 criminal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents, including obstruction of justice. While President Biden returned all of the classified material and complied with the special counsel’s investigation, let’s remind ourselves what Donald Trump has said and done.

(03:36:50)
He refused to turn over the classified documents in his possession to the national Archives. He is on tape sharing documents he said he could have declassified when he was president. He wrongly claimed in an interview that the Presidential Records Act allows him to do whatever he wants, and he was allowed to do everything he did. He also said on his right-wing social media platform, “I’m allowed to do all of this.” He continues to admit to his possession of these documents on the campaign trail. So this hearing is not a good faith oversight effort. It is just the latest in a long line of dysfunctional and destructive actions taken by this Republican majority. They don’t care about responsible governance or making people’s lives better. They don’t have an affirmative agenda. They are throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping it sticks, and they have zero credibility to talk about mental acuity when they support Donald Trump.

(03:37:50)
The same Donald Trump who mixes up Joe Biden and Barack Obama and Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi, the same Donald Trump who incorrectly pronounced the words Venezuela, respected, and United States, the same Donald Trump who calls January 6th, defendants hostages, and the same Donald Trump who believed bleach injections would treat COVID-19. It is deeply hypocritical for anyone who champions this man for the presidency to talk about the mental acuity of anyone else. But this is nothing new. This has been a consistent pattern of the Republican majority in this Congress. From the sham impeachment investigation that has completely collapsed to the absurd impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas, Republicans have solely focused on destroying the incumbent president, destroying the Democratic party, destroying progressive movements for social justice, all so that they can re-elect one of the worst presidents of all time. Now, it is well known that I have disagreements with President Biden on certain issues.

(03:38:57)
My concerns are rooted in the desire to resolve policy matters and help him take better positions that save more lives. That’s not what Republicans are doing. That’s not what these investigations and attacks are about. They are trying everything they can to turn back the clock on our rights and our freedoms, and we cannot take the bait. Let’s focus on policy. Let’s focus on substance. Let’s focus on saving and improving the lives of our constituents, not misusing the precious time and resources of this committee, not being dishonest just because it serves our political interests. We are better than that, and our country deserves better than all of this. I will continue to reject these absurd distractions from the investments we need in the communities that we represent. Let’s focus on that instead of this irresponsible and easily repudiated Republican clown show. Thank you. And I yield back

The gentlelady that yields back. I recognize myself for five minutes. Special Counsel Hur, thank you for a number of things. First, thank you for agreeing to testify today. Second, thank you also for sharing your family’s story at the beginning of your testimony. It is an extraordinary story of them coming to America. Third, let me also thank you for your in-depth investigation and your detailed report, and generally for your service as special counsel. It’s not something that I think many people would look for, and certainly comes with a lot of burden. So thank you for your work. In your opening statement, you described your investigation as “thorough and independent,” and I agree with that. One where you attempted to give “rigorous and detailed analysis.” I also agree with that. And one where you say you “must show your work,” which we very much appreciate today. We don’t normally see that. Did I recall your opening statement correctly as it relates to those quotes?

Yes sir, you do.

In fact, as part of your investigation, you interviewed about 150 different witnesses. You looked at millions of different documents because you wanted to do a thorough investigation. Isn’t that true?

Correct.

And you did this because you took your investigation extremely seriously and you wanted to reach accurate conclusions. Correct?

Very much.

Then let’s review some of your specific findings regarding the issues pertaining to competency and mental capacity of President Biden because, as you say, this is very important to whether or not there was criminal willful intent. As you can see, I’ve set forth a number of different quotes up here on this board that I’ve prepared, some of which I’ll read to you. Page five, you say, “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited.” But again, on page six you’d say, “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Then on page 207 you say, “Mr. Biden’s memory also appeared to have significant limitations.” And then again, on page 208, “He did not remember when he was vice president, and he did not remember even within several years when his son Beau died.” You finally make the statement on page 248, “For these jurors, Mr. Biden’s apparent lapses in failures in February and April, 2017 will likely appear consistent with the diminished capacities and faulty memory he showed.” Those were astounding conclusions to me. And as I looked through those quotes, I have to say I harken back to my time before Congress. I was a judge, and one of the things that I oversaw was guardianships. And frankly, when I read your conclusions, red flags began to go up in my mind because I oversaw hundreds of guardianships back in Texas. And as I saw your conclusions, I began to wonder, what does the D.C statute say about guardianships? And how do you define an incapacitated individual in Washington D.C? And I want to show you this statute because I presume… Are you familiar with the statute at all?

I am not, Congressman.

So I didn’t think that you’d probably reviewed that, so let me just read to you some of the definitions here. An adult whose ability to receive and evaluate information effectively or to communicate decisions is impaired to such an extent that he or she lacks the capacity to manage all or some of his financial resources. That’s the first part of the definition of incapacity and incapacitated individual under the guardianship statute in the District of Columbia. And quite frankly, I see tons of overlap from what you set forth in your testimony, in your written report and the definition here. The phrases are almost identical. I would posit that if he cannot manage national top secret resources, I’m not sure how he can manage his personal financial resources. And given your report’s findings that his memory was ” significantly limited” and that he’s a person with “diminished faculties” and with “faulty memory,” it makes me wonder how close he’s coming to meeting this definition of an incapacitated individual, such that he should have a guardian appointed by the DC courts for his personhood.

(03:44:20)
There is at least, I believe, a prima facie argument to say that there is substantial evidence to indicate such. And you mentioned it’s not just what you written in the report, but it was the demeanor of President Biden as you interviewed him. I’ll say in conclusion, whether he does or does not meet this definition, I believe your findings raise significant concerns about his current fitness for Office of the President, and certainly his fitness going forward in the future. And I appreciate the fact that you were brazen enough to raise this issue in this report. You knew this would be significant in your findings, but you did so based on a very significant, very detailed, very thorough independent report, and I praise you for that, that doing your duty in such a way. Thank you, Special counsel. I yield back/

Gentlemen yields back. Mr. Hur, we have votes on the floor. We have a few more members who will do their five minutes of questioning. So we’re going to recess, and then we will convene 10 minutes after the conclusion of the last vote. I believe we only have a couple votes. Is that right? Two votes. You know Congress. That’ll take a while, but we will get back here as soon as we can. There’s food in the back room for,…I think we still have some left that you’re welcome to. With that, we stand in recess until 10 minutes after the last vote.

We have a former colleague of ours, Mr. Brat, from the great state of Virginia, welcome to the Committee. Mr. Hur, we will now go to the gentleman from Maryland for five minutes. Mr. Ivey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hur. Appreciate you coming in today. I did want to deal with one preliminary matter, which is the issue of the release of the transcript.

(04:23:24)
I’ve heard complaints from my Republican colleagues about the White House only releasing the transcript from the 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 in 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 pot calling the kettle black, it seems to me as an understatement. And I noted, too, that when the ranking member

… we 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. I know you started off with in the first line executive summary, “We conclude that 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 reason summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” You still hold that view?

I do.

Okay. And even though you objected to the use of the word exonerated, from your perspective, he’s been cleared of all criminal charges in your investigation. Is that fair?

I determined that based on the evidence, criminal charges are not warranted.

Okay. And I did want to go to the issue of material distinctions that you raised in your report, between President Biden and Former President Trump. We’ve got a document up here that lays some of it 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.

All right. 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 have 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. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other way cooperated with his investigation.” That’s from page 11 of your report?

I see that language on page 11.

All right. And you still stand by that language?

I do, sir.

Okay. And 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. Wanted to ask you a couple of 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 relating to guardianship appeared in my report.

Okay. And so, I guess, you made the one point about him being an elderly man with poor memory. But did you say anywhere in your report that you thought not only would he be unfit to handle his own finances, but he’d be unfit for public office?

My report did not include any opinions on those issues.

Okay. I see my time is exhausted, but thank you again for your testimony. I appreciate your efforts.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Virginia is recognized.

Yield to the chairman briefly.

I thank gentlemen for yielding. I’m just [inaudible 04:28:25] I’ve erased the issue of the transcripts. He has complete access to every transcript that we have done in a congressional investigation. He can go, he could show up for all the depositions, like frankly, I show up for most of those. So he has complete access to that. What we don’t have is access to the transcripts of all the witnesses. We only have Mr. Biden and we don’t have access to the audio tapes of all the witnesses, which is what we’re seeing.

Will the gentleman yield?

It’s not my time. I yield back to the gentleman from Virginia.

You’re speaking, but it’s not your time?

It’s my time.

He yielded to me.

All right.

I thank the gentleman. Special Counsel Hur, thank you for being here. Your story is an impressive one. Your 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 in jury trials. Do you remember your record?

It’ll take me a little time to reconstruct, but I think I could get there.

Is it above 500?

It is above 500. Yes, sir.

Okay. Well, I’m curious because the evidence that you outlined in your report is pretty significant. “When it comes to evidence that after his vice presidency,” and I’m reading from your report, “Mr. Biden willfully retained marked classified documents about Afghanistan and unmarked classified handwritten notes in his notebooks, both of which he stored in unsecured places in his home.” Further, you noted that there’s evidence that, “He willfully retained the classified Afghanistan documents, including the Thanksgiving memo, and had a 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 that 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 within the Obama administration back in 2009, and one in which then Vice President Biden had a significant role and he felt very strongly about.

I’m going to quote from your report. “President Biden believed President Obama’s 2009 troop surge was a mistake on par with Vietnam, and wanted the record to show that he was right about Afghanistan, that his critics were wrong, and that he had opposed President Obama’s mistaken decision forcefully when it was made, that his judgment was sound when it mattered most.” Does that sound correct?

That language sounds familiar from the report, yes.

Okay. That 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 Zwonitzer, correct?

Correct.

And your investigation concluded when President Biden began work on his memoir, correct? At what time did your investigation conclude?

With respect to the second book published in 2017, we identified evidence that Mr. Biden began recorded conversations with Mr. Zwonitzer in 2016, before the end of Mr. Biden’s vice presidency.

And it’s your understanding that while Mr. Zwonitzer interviewed President Biden, he read classified information from his notebooks nearly verbatim, sometimes for an hour or more at a time, correct?

Correct.

And was Mr. Zwonitzer authorized to receive this classified information?

He was not.

And in fact, in their February 16th meeting, which has been alluded to earlier, isn’t it true that President Biden allowed a nearly verbatim classified information regarding the actions and views of U.S military leaders and the CIA director, relating to the foreign country and foreign terrorist organization?

I believe that occurred, that was captured in a recording later in 2017, I believe in April of 2017, not February.

Okay. And Mr. Zwonitzer became aware of your appointment as special counsel, correct?

At some point, Mr. Zwonitzer did become aware of my appointment, yes.

And upon learning of the investigation, Mr. Zwonitzer deleted digital audio recordings of his conversations with Mr. Biden, during the writing of the book Promise Me, Dad?

Correct.

And investigators with your office interviewed Mr. Zwonitzer about the deleted recordings and he admitted that part of his motivation for deleting this recording was because he was aware there was an investigation, correct?

Correct.

And did this conduct raise concerns with your office?

It did. We considered it 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.

The gentleman yields 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 I really appreciate you staying to the bitter end here. And 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 an immigrant 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 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, quote, “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 time did DOJ leadership or the attorney general attempt to influence the outcome of your investigation?

No.

Do you believe it’s important that the special counsel investigations 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 think it’s true that you received no pressure from Attorney General Garland in this matter?

That’s correct.

Is it true that you had all of the resources that you needed, enable for you to conduct your interviews, to conduct your investigation, and to complete your report?

Yes.

Is it true that you recommended that 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. So you said on page one of the report, quote, “We conclude that 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 interviews over two days, October 8th and October 9th.

Thank you. Is it true that President Biden allowed the FBI to conduct thorough searches of his home and his beach house?

Yes.

Is it true that 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 this case were charged.

And as you said on page six of your report, quote, “In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute.”

I see that language, yes.

Thank you. Your report reads, “With one exception, there is no record 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 or is it correct that your report recommends no charges, and that would be the case even if he were not a sitting president?

Correct.

So what we’ve 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 today. I yield back.

Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to you such time as you may consume, sir.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Hur, why did the White House lawyers go look in the first place? My understanding is they went to the Penn Biden Center. Why’d they go look in the first place? Looked for mishandling of classified, looked for classified documents. Why’d they do that?

What we identified through our investigation was that at a certain date, members of the president’s staff went to the Penn Biden Center in order to get a better handle on what the information, what kinds of evidence and what kinds of materials were at the Penn Biden Center.

Were they specifically looking for potential documents that were classified, or was it a broader initial look?

My understanding is that it was a broader initial look. And I’m looking at chapter 14, page 257 of my report about a visit in March 2021 to Penn Biden Center.

Okay. In March?

In 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, Chairman.

I believe it was the same month. I believe it was after, so I was just curious of that. Now, one other thing I think is important for folks to understand is President Biden had this information everywhere. You said they initially went to the Penn Biden Center. Which location was it at? Do you remember, when they initially did their look? Was it at the transition office? Was it at the temporary Penn Biden Center in Chinatown, or was that at its current location where the Penn Biden Center currently sits here in our final location, I guess, in DC? Do you remember?

I believe the visit that I referenced in March 2021 that’s described on page 257 was to the Penn Biden Center’s permanent and current location.

Permanent and current. So there were three places, 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’s temporary office, and then the Penn Biden Center’s permanent office.

Okay. So those, and then you had the University of Delaware Library, the University of Delaware Biden Center, right? So that’s five total. And then you had multiple places in his home.

Correct.

The garage, the den, the office upstairs, and the office downstairs.

Correct.

So what is that? That’s like nine different places.

I’ve lost count, sir, but that sounds right.

Yeah, exactly. It’s everywhere, and it was documents for over a 50-year timeframe. And then by comparison, because the Democrats want to keep comparing to President Trump. President Trump’s classified documents were at his home, with Secret Service protection. I don’t know that they’re anywhere else were they?

I’m not aware of other locations presently.

Yeah. I think that’s an important distinction. I would yield back to the gentleman for South Carolina. Appreciate him yielding.

Thank you, Chairman. Briefly, I know we’ve got two minutes left, but Mr. Hur, how would you define willful?

With respect to the intent of willfulness, what a jury has to conclude is that someone knew that their conduct was illegal when they engaged in that conduct.

Right. It’s intentional, right? It’s not by accident, it’s not accidental or involuntary?

Correct.

Okay. So here’s 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. He served eight years as vice president. In 2010, it 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 that nearly 30 of the classified briefing books from the first six months of 2010 were missing. In August of that year, then Vice President Biden failed to return top secret sensitive compartmented information contents of a classified briefing book from a trip that he took to the Hamptons. And to date, you were unable to determine if these documents were ever recovered. Is that correct?

Correct.

So to me, when does willfulness factor in? Is it now in his diminished mental capacity, or is it then when he was serving as senator and vice president?

A jury would be assessing President Biden’s mental state and his intent or whether or not he had willfulness at the time that the conduct was committed.

Correct. And I think everyone can plainly see that 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 to it, as the chairman talked about it in his opening comments, he had 8 million reasons to hold these documents. In fact, he disclosed some of this information to his ghost writer. And so I think that there could have been willfulness, and I think I’ve got 10 seconds left. But 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. But 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.

Gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from… Shield, you have any unanimous consent?

Yeah, I’ll wait. Let him go ahead.

Gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck.

Thank you.

Mr. Hur they say they save the best for last, so I’m looking forward to this opportunity. First of all, what I’ve observed in this hearing is that one side thinks you’re trying to get President Trump elected, and the other side thinks you’re trying to get President Biden elected. I served as a prosecutor for 25 years. I know that you’re going to take grief from both sides. You must be doing a great job in your report 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’ve loved to have met Chief Justice Rehnquist. What a hero to conservatives and really Americans, and that must’ve been a great opportunity for you. But when both sides attack you, my admonition is welcome to Congress.

(04:44:41)
I do have a question, and it goes along the lines of what Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Fry were asking you earlier. I’m really 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. After he left the vice presidency, he told his biographer, ghost writer, those classified documents were in the basement. So he had the mental state that he had classified documents. He also knew that his basement was not a skiff, it is not a secure area. And so 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 those two. The elements pretty clear, he possessed classified documents, he held them in a non-secure area, and he did so knowingly. He knew he had classified documents in an un-secure area. Where is the willfulness missing?

Well, sir, prosecutor to prosecutor, I certainly agree with you, that 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. 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 exhaustively. 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 might well present at trial. And what we tried to do in our report was to walk through potential arguments that would be presented by defense lawyers at the President’s trial, and to determine how, by our judgment, how jurors would receive and perceive the evidence presented, including, including but not limited to evidence relating to the president’s memory gaps that were in various pieces of evidence that we assessed.

So 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.” What is the defense to that? That it was a made up recording, that it wasn’t his voice, that 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 in a lot of places. How do you overcome those things?

Yes, Congressman. So we walked through a number of different evidentiary gaps that reasonable jurors might focus on, as well as a number of different defense arguments that the president’s defense lawyers could present at trial. The first is a theory or an 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 that it was illegal to keep the documents, and he continued to do so. A second argument that we considered is that perhaps these 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 that we walked through in the report is that there were two folders of marked classified documents relating to Afghanistan, found in the box in the president’s Delaware garage. One of them contained national defense information, and the other, it would be a more difficult task to persuade a jury that it did contain national defense information. So that argument would be premised on perhaps the president was referring to the one folder that didn’t contain national defense information, but was not. It would be difficult for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the one that did contain national defense information. So I just laid a lot on you there, but we do our best to explain that at some length in the report.

Thank you. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back.

Mr. Chairman.

Gentle lady from Texas is recognized

I thank you. There’s been a lot of time being shared, Mr. Chairman. I ask your very brief indulgence.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. You got a unanimous consent or are you asking a question?

Your brief indulgence on unanimous consent to ask a question.

No, no, no, no. You can do a unanimous consent request, but you don’t get to get another round. Someone comes to yield you time. But I don’t think they can do that, because everyone on the Democrat side has taken their time.

How did you tell the man.

You know that I appreciate the gentle lady from Texas, but you don’t get to go two rounds.

I’m not trying to go two rounds.

If you’ve got the unanimous consent request, you wanted the record, state so. If not then we’re close today’s hearing.

I am getting ready to do the unanimous consent request, hoping that someone would come through the door. I asked unanimous consent.

It can only be a Republican because all the Democrats have spoken.

I asked unanimous consent that we add to the record as stated from page one of the executive summary, “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if the Department of Justice policy-

Objection.

… did not foreclose criminal charges against the sitting president.”

I think the committee knows what’s in the report.they got the report.

I ask unanimous consent that, that sentence be put in. And Secondarily, I asked unanimous consent and a reference-

Unanimous consent to add something to the record that’s already in the record. God bless you. We’ll do it.

Thank you. And I add, with the emphasis of Sheila Jackson Lee does not have. And I particularly ask that this be added to the record that Mr. Hur stated that Biden couldn’t recall when his son Beau died. I add the unanimous out of an article in Politico, and indicate that there was no mercy given to Mr. Biden and no mercy given to him in the decision of this court.

Without objection, so entered. Mr. Hur, even though there wasn’t a question in there, do you want to respond to any of that?

No, Chairman.

All right. Mr. Hur, we want to thank you for being here today.

Thank you I yield back.

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 will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness, or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.