also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy the evidence and then to lie about it. on quote, he returned only a portion of subpoena documents and deliberately withheld the rest. i'm like president biden. trump did not alert the national archives or d o j 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 council. he never consented to a search of his home. on the contrary, trumps suggested that his attorney, hyde or destroy evidence requested by the epi i. in the grand jury, trump carefully instructed his aid to move boxes of costs by documents to hide them from the f. b, i trump tried to delete incriminating security tape footage from our logo, and he got his attorney to provide a false certification. the f. b. i saying he had produced all the documents in his possession. he did not given that this report is so damning and the contrast

between biden and trumpet. it's hard for me to see why our colleagues think that this hearing advances, their flailing and embarrassing quest to impeach the president of united states. what americans use today's 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. are you going back or? somebody is back without objection, all of their opening statements will be included in the record. we will now introduce today's witness. the unable robert for was appointed as a special counsel in january 2023 to investigate the removal and retention of classified documents discovered at the pen 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 clark for chief justice william rehnquist and also clark for judge alex kazinsky on the 9th circuit court of appeals. we welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today. will begin by swearing you and mr. her 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 believe so help you god at the rec and reflect that the witness has answered in the affirmative. thank you. and you can be see the, please note that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony, mr. her, you, you may begin with your opening statement. make sure you got the make sure you got that mike on if you could just to her. thank you. thank you. jenna cameron, jordan ranking member and adler, chairman komar, 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 supervisor, the principal associate deputy attorney general,

united states attorney and a special council. i've served in these roles with gratitude as the son of immigrants to this country, the 1st 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 americans you guys 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 have actually 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 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, or why i agreed to serve as special counsel when asked by the attorney general,

i resolved to do the work because i did all my work for the department. fairly early and professionally, with close attention to the policies and practices, the govern department prosecutors. my team and i conducted a thorough independent investigation. we identified evidence that the president wilfully 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, during which mister biden told his ghostwriter that he had, quote, just found all the classified stuff downstairs and quote. when mister button said this, he was a private citizen speaking to his ghostwriter in his private rental home in virginia. we also identified other recorded conversations during which mr. biden read classified information aloud to his ghostwriter. 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 just the decision to prosecute for 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 analyze the evidence as

prosecutors routinely due by assessing its strengths and weaknesses, including by anticipating the ways in which the president's defense lawyers, mike poke holes in the government's case if there were a trial and seek to persuade yours, that the government could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. there has been a lot of attention paid to language of the report about the president's memory. so let me say a few words about that. my task was to determine whether the present retained or disclosed national defense information wilfully. 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, an overall mental state, and how would you re likely would precede his memory and mental state in a criminal trial. these are the types of issues the prosecutors analyzed every day . because these issues one portland, 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, quote, i just found all the classified stuff downstairs and quote, he told us that he didn't remember saying that his ghostwriter. and he also said she 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. my assessments and 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. there 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 and chapters 1112 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 interest. my team and i prepare the report to the attorney general with care and the report stands as the primary source of information. my responses today will be limited to clarifying information

for the committee. i will refrain from speculating or commenting on areas outside the scope of the investigation. nor will i discuss what investigative steps we did or did not take beyond what's in the report. in conclusion, i want to express my heartfelt thanks to the attorneys, agents, analyst and professional staff who helped us do our work fairly orally and independently. i am grateful in privilege to serve with them. i single out for particular thanks, deputies, special counsel, more quick bomb. 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. heard the turn now recognize the gentleman from north dakota for 5 minutes. thank you mister chairman. how could that possibly happen? how could anyone be that are responsible and i thought what data was in there that could compromise sources methods, and it's just totally irresponsible. as president biden statement about donald

trump and the classified documents, mr. her classified documents were found at the pen barton center. that's correct. they were found in president biden's garage in wilmington, delaware? yes. and it is basement den. also in the same home. yes. and image is main for office. correct. and is 3rd floor then correct at the university of delaware? correct. and that's the binding institute. correct, and the elements of the crime for this, i mean, we come and we get into all of this, but the elements of the crime are pretty simple, right. the present, or president biden had a 100 on authorized possession of a document writing or no, that's correct, correct. and then the document writing or no related to national defense, correct. and that the defend it. and we made talk about the willfully part here in a 2nd, retained the document writing our note, and failed to deliver it to an employee or officer entitled to receive it. correct . there is a wilson list intent element as you say. and, but those are the elements of the crime or including the intent element. yes. and

there are at least 2 different quotes, right, where he told his gross writer, and this is in your report in a matter of fact. and this is february 16th, 2017, that he had just found all of his classified stuff downstairs. you 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 test, 2015 meeting and the situation that is in the report. yes. and these are national security documents, afghanistan, and i mean has been mentioned a whole bunch of those things. right? correct. and at one point in time, his personal attorneys and the d o. j attorneys argued about notes taking all of the different things and compared it to reg, i'm sorry, could you repeat that powers of president biden's attorney's personal attorney has talked about the notes and why they didn't actually account for the presidential records act, but you didn't, you 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 conduct, we did a set forth analysis of the governing law and ultimately concluded that the executive order 13526, does apply, and did govern press the former vice president biden at the time. so you have audio recording from his ghostwriter, where the president acknowledge is that the information he has has classified any sharing with his girlfriend. we have an audio recording capturing statement from mr . barton saying to his ghostwriter in february of 2017 quote. i just found all the classified stuff downstairs and quote, and then again reciting passages from a meeting in this situation. yes. and those are in president biden's own words? correct. right. so he's in the ghost rider has no classified. you know, steve, he has no clue clearance, no classified clearance to anything correct? that is our understanding that mister is want it, sir, was not authorized to receive classified information. okay, so the elements are possessed, documents the documents related to national defense and will fully retain those

documents, in this case, shared them with somebody who was not allowed to receive. there are different subsections of 18, usc, 7, and 793. 1 subsection relates to the welfare of attention and, and other relates to disclosure of national defense. and from the i mean the local retention. we've got the pen binding center, the garage, the basement, and the main floor office. the 3rd floor down the university of delaware, and the biden is who we have 50 year career of a person who has not been very great at dealing with classified documents throughout the day. even prior to his time, his vice president, when he was in the us senate, right, we do address each set of those documents and that report congress. so the difference, but i think this is really important because the difference is it appears just for reading the report he has been, and we heard all about exonerated and all 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 is whether or not you can prove this

a try. the under the department of justice manual and the principles of federal prosecution. a prosecutor has to assess the evidence and determine whether in his or her judgement, but likely of the probable outcome will be a conviction, a trial. so whether or not you meet the elements of the crime which i think it's clear that it does. the 2nd part of this is best 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 of trial. correct? all congressmen, a part and parcel of a prosecutor's judgement 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 the trial? sure, but his well meaning elderly own man has nothing to do with the underlying elements of the crime. well, it certainly has present taishan to the jury. it certainly has something back to

him with him to respond. it certainly has something to do with the way that a jury is going to perceive and receive and consider and conclude. make conclusions based on evidence at trial congress. time and yelman's expired to turn on recognize the ranking member district committee. mister matter. thank you. thank you mister chairman. mister heard your written testimony. you say that you've found some evidence the present might have wilfully retained classified materials at the end of his vice presidency, correct? correct. but ultimately it includes that you could not prove the charge in the portable on your words. you quote, did not identify evidence that rose to the level of prove down to reasonable doubt close quote, correct. that was my judge. you've been a prosecutor for a long time. is that, or would you agree that there is no such thing as being a little bit charged for crime? you're either charged or you're not correct. could you please repeat the question congress? would you agree that there is no such thing as being a little bit charged for a crime? you're either charged or you're not charged?

correct? yes, it is binary. either one is not engaged or shortly just to be clear. because so many people taking your words out of context, your ultimate conclusion was at present bite and could not be charged with the crime. because even after your thorough investigation, you could not find sufficient evidence to charge you correct. my conclusion was that based on my evaluation of the evidence would as if i don't feel that is correct. i'm sorry, congress, but i didn't hear last question. i said, based on your conclusion, your ultimate recluses at present binding could not be charged with the crime. because even half the a thorough investigation could not find sufficient evidence to charge or correct or not correct, my ultimate conclusion was that criminal charges were not warranty 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, the president biden, president trump faces 40 charges related to the unlawful retention of highly classified documents. that is, of course of parts and the additional $51.00 counts in cases alleging that the

inside of the rebellion and light about his finances. you found the present by reported the possible quest by documents in his possession to the f b. i. as soon as he learned to them, correct, there was a voluntary disclosure by the president's council, 2 authorities relating to the discovery of classified documents of the best buy. let's contrast this with president trump. are you aware that the f b, i only learned that trump was in possession of classified material as to the national archives discovered them? congress. 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. okay, the point right in your report, the president biden quote, would not have handed the government classified documents from his own home on a silver platter. if he had wilfully retained those documents for years, close, quote. in other words, part of understanding present binds intent, was that he quickly involuntarily returns 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 largo congress when i am not familiar with those deliberations, that is a matter that i had no part as well. i'll tell you is because they were concerned the trumpet light about possession of those documents. and mike can see or destroy them. special counselor smith found the president trump struck at his investigation by suggesting that his attorney for the represent to the fbi i in grand jury. the trunk did not have the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena. at any point in your investigation, do you do have any reason to believe the president biden lied to you? i do address in my report. one response, the president gave it to a question that we had posed to him that we deemed to be not credible. was it clear he didn't mind? i'm sorry, congress from the report is clear that he didn't lie or that because the staff to id and that he didn't cause the staff to. why do you report is clear on that?

i would agree that causing someone to lie to the f. b, i is a classic example of obstruction of justice. it is an example of obstruction. yes. thank you. trump most of struck to dismiss investigation by directing one of his employees to move boxes of documents to conceal of them trumps attorney from the f b i. and from the grand jury. at any point in your investigation, did you find the president biden directed his staff to conceal documents from you or anyone else? we did not reach the okay. you would agree that hiding documents is a classic example of obstructing investigation. it is an example of a thank you, donald trump, this struck the staff to the least security footage said the epi, i in special council, could not see how we would try to move in high documents. do you agree that attempting to delete video footage in this matter is plainly and attempted to obstruct investigation? congress what i don't want to characterize the evidence in the case against warner, but if that happens, we do agree that the leading video footage is plainly an attempt to have struck an

investigation. congressman, it's the type of evidence that prosecutors would okay that are in some up donald trump discharge with willfully retaining classified documents and conspiring to conceal those documents. and these facing additional charges, the line to investigators is that correct? those are allegations that are in a pending and public brand, former president trump. and the reason why president biden is not facing a single 2 items. there is not because you went easy on him because after reviewing 7000000 documents and interviewing nearly a 150 witnesses including the present himself, you could not prove that he had committed a crime or jo back. it's telling us back the gentleman from ms. mcclane talk to him from california to recognize. thank you mr. her. i 1st want to get this straight. is it now? okay, if i take home top secret documents stored in my garage and read portions of them to to friends or associates. congress, i wouldn't recommend it, but i don't want to entertain any hypotheticals that this was it. ok,

i mean i can do that now under this new doctrine. again, congressman, i wouldn't recommend that you do that, but um you, you, this actually said so in your report and certainly it would be of scope of tour if i, if i simply told you, hey, i'm getting old, i don't remember stuff the way i used to congress when i'm not here to get into hypotheticals, i'm here to talk about the facts and the work that i did. it was not a hypothetical. this is the issue at hand of you correctly note in your report that the former presidents and other senior officials have been given wide latitude in their possession of classified information. and i believe your decision to probably not to prosecute fighting for the same offense is consistent with that precedence. but the, the problem is that president changed with the administration's decision to prosecute donald trump. and the ernie is that his president trump had full discretion over

handling a classified material and full discretion in deciding which records to retain is a centered or vice president joe biden. didn't have that. so now we get to this glaring double standard, i think would be toxic to the rule of law on his face if it was just to ordinary citizens. with the fact that the only person being prosecuted for this offence happens to be the president's political opponent. makes this an unprecedented assault on our democracy. this is, this is the worst we could expect from a banana republic. i wonder how you square this a time you're spending. i do address as i was required to as a prosecutor, a relevant president in the form of the alleged the allegations me and i've made against for president trump. i set forth my explanation of my assessment and compare. so those precedents in my report and i am not here to comment any further be, well, you said for example, that of, of the day there, there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt. well,

you got the factory. you had classified material in his possession and control in multiple settings for multiple years that he told others he was aware of this, that he shared that material with others. the mind boggles at what, beyond a reasonable doubt would actually mean. well, as i set forth, you know, at length, in my explanations, in chapters 11 and 12 of the report, my assessment is that the evidence it presented at trial, alongside potential defense arguments would not probably result in a conviction that, well, that's one of the points you make is that the president bind is likely to be an elderly sympathetic figure with a poor memory. but how does that bear on any individuals, guilt or innocence? isn't that again, a question for a judge or jury to decide after guilt or innocence is, is determine, you know, and again, here's the problem. donald trump's been prosecutor for exactly the same act that you documented the joe biden committee. congressman, uh,

if i understood your question correctly, you said how isn't that a question for a jury and it most certainly in the through the lens. so 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 decision on the answer to my earlier question is correct. all i have to do when i'm caught taking home classified materials mistakes. i'm sorry mister herbert, but i'm getting old. my memory is not so great. congressman, this is the doctrine that you've established in our laws now, and it's frightening. it's, congress in mind tend to 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 judgement with respect to one particular set of evidence, and that is what i did, mr. her. here's the, here's the find point of the matter. the foundation of our justice system is equal justice under law. that's what give the law it's,

it's respect and it's legitimacy. and without it, the law is simply force devoid of any moral authority. just as depicted as blindfolded for, for this very reason, it doesn't matter who comes before, 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 am desperately afraid that this decision of the department of justice is now crossed a very bright line. now you're back telling us back here, i'm going to ask for unanimous consent to introduce the state of the union is to the hearing the without objection of that'll that'll be introduced. the ranking members recognize for unanimous consent chairman is chairman. i ask unanimous consent the copy of an article this morning, the washington post, and titled the full transcript to bite in special council interview paints nuanced

portrait. the president the president doesn't come across is absent minded, served as made them out to be with without objection. thank you. okay recognizes. now writing is generally from california for 5 minutes. thank you mister chairman. and thank you mr. her for being here today. i found your report very interesting and i learned some things about the law and the precedence. there are clear differences between the cases of and precedents, a set by presidents, reagan, a trump, in biden, out, 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 quote, repeatedly described the diaries and public court filings. as mr. reagans personal records and quote, and that no an agency ever attempted to remove his diaries that's on page $195.00

of your report. very interesting. and so the investigation found that president biden believe that he has no books where his personal property, including work and political notes, reflections to do less and more. but he was entitled to take home you found out on page 232 so well, much of his notebook was work related. he still had some truly personal subjects. like again, i quote, gut wrenching entities about the illness and death of his son bo. now it's on page $82.25 of your report. so it's clearly based on the reagan precedent that no criminal charges were awarded in this matter relative to personal notebooks. now i want to be clear that although the notebooks contain some very personal information and president biden,

consider them is personal property. the president allowed your team to seize and review all of the no books you found. is that correct? that is correct. now that's in stark contrast to ex president crumbs case. he obstructed and diverted all the investigations. now, you also, we interviewed president binding about other classified documents you found outside his notebooks, didn't you? to? yes, congress only. so did the president tell you that he believed any documents other than his own hand written work or his personal property? yes or no. we did not hear that from the president during his interview. so again, it's very different from x president trump. x president. trump said all of the documents marked classified where his personal property present and by and did not consider documents that were produced by other entities with classification markings as his personal records. now, i think, you know,

since the majority is tried to assert that there is a disparity based on politics and the differences in the prosecutors, and it's worth quoting page 11 of the report which says, and i quote, several material distinctions between district trends case in 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, for the also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence, and then to lie about it. that's on page 11. quote. in contrast, mister book 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. and frankly, i was surprised to learn that some of the classified documents were actually personal diaries, that many executive officials have have taken home with them because it was in their own handwriting. it was what they produced and based on the the spoken to the of the renews on life. and so, coming up in the next 60 minutes, bombardments across garza killed dozens of palestinians. council says how most of these routes are not close to agreeing a trace. political uncertainty in haiti, hours after the prime minister around re agrees to gang leaders, demands to step down. we'll say citizens, army says it's taking control of the national tv headquarters as it.