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

his role in january 6th, he was charged in the district of columbia for his role in january 6th. 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. i want to first see if you will pledge to not accept an appointment from donald trump if he is >> congressman, i'm not here to testify about what will happen in the future. >> seems like an easy question. >> i am here to talk about the report. >> you don't want to be associated with that guy again, do you? >> i'm not here to talk about that, i will talk about the work in the report, which i stand by. >> there were no limits on you what you could charge by the attorney general, is that right? >> the decisions reflected in

the report are my own. >> you did not bring charges, correct? >> correct. >> there were no limits on john durham in the prior administration when he was special counsel, correct? >> i don't have the information. >> he sat in the same chair and said he investigated president biden and president obamas and did not bring charges. president biden sat for approximately 10 hours, is that right? >> five hours. >> over two days? >> correct. >> in sharp contrast when the mueller investigation did not take place, donald trump. he was not impeached. he did not sit for an interview when the second impeachment occurred for his role in january 6 and did not sit for interview in january 6 case or the

classified documents case. chairman also has not sat for interview in his own subpoena, but joe biden has. i want to turn you to the transcript and day one page 47. you said, to president biden, you have appear to have a photo graphic understanding and recall of the house. did you say that to president biden? >> those words do appear on page 47 of the transcript. >> photo graphic, is that what you said? >> that does appear. >> never appeared in your report? >> it does not appear in my report. i want to play a video of what is not photo graphic. >> in the failing "new york times" by anonymous, gutless

coward. >> we are a nation that heard saudi arabia and russia will -- i hope they now go and take a look at the oranges of the investigation. >> i watch our police and our firemen down at 7-11 at world trade center. we did with obama, won an election everyone said couldn't be won. >> this is definition of totalitarianism. >> let me begin by wishing you a beautiful -- do you remember. >> god bless the united states. the windmills are driving them crazy, they are driving the whales batty. >> i went to puerto rico and met with the president -- >> the gentleman yields back and recognizes gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hur, i'm down here in the

end. i think today the justice department released transcripts of interviews with president biden. are you arngs wear of that? >> i understand that to be true, yes. >> did you have involvement in the release? >> no. did you make recommendation of the release done or not? >> i did not, above my pay grade. >> i don't know why they have been released so close to this hearing, it impacts our ability to evaluate. one point as illustration, on 221 of your report, you are describing i think the afghan pac in 2009, i think information came from. you say, as one reason not to prosecute mr. biden, mr. biden told us in his interview he does not recognize marking confidential as classification

marking, to him that means it should be held in confidence, not necessarily classified and footnote 886 refers to biden 10923 transcript at 24 and 25. we have that now, we haven't until this morning. i want to read from that exchange. this is on page 24, line 15. so this is a typewritten document, it's got confidential stamp at the top and top of the document indicates it is from the american am embassy kabul. dated november 09, only question i have is confidential marking. do you recognize that to be classific marking? >> president biden, no. confidential doesn't want to get around. it is not in a category, i don't think of code word top secret

kind of thing, i don't know where it came from. >> are you familiar with confidential as level of classified information? >> president biden, if i got a document that says confidential, it would mean no one else could see it but me. >> are you aware among suggest categories of classified information there is top secret, secret and also a category of classified information called confidential, is that something you're 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 meant for me to read or discuss with people that sent me the memo, so -- it trails off. as i read those answers, they are equivocal.

he says he doesn't know, do you recognize that to be classification marking? no and explains. mr. cripbomb said there is category called confidential, yes, i was aware. mr. hur, there appears to be discrepancy in the summary of the report and what the transcript says. can you offer guidance to this committee why you put that summary in your report as opposed to saying he gave inkon s inconsist ent answer or why didn't you nail down the correct answer. he says no and yes, why didn't you pursue until you knew. >> the report is our best effort to summarize and characterize information received from the president during our interview

of him. as you point out, the transcript of the president's interview over two days are now available for inspection and the members are able to draw their own conclusion based on transcripts available to them. >> i appreciate your answer and i think you can come up with some details someone can disagree on and has quality of some cherrypicking because i just found something. eave only had a little time to look. i don't think it serves for these transcripts to be dumped into the public. they should have been released at a proper time. i will leave it at that and yield back. >> gentleman. >> mr. hur, someone earlier said something about changing facts and you said, i will not change the facts. same facts and change the subject. same facts, if the individual

was 65 and had a good memory, do you reach the same conclusion? >> i responded earlier i'm not here to discuss hypotheticals, these are facts in this investigation and this set of investigation. >> special counsel hur thank you for being here and your work. you reviewed more than seven million documents and conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses, including president biden, correct? >> yes, congresswoman. >> it cost several million dollars and comprehensive 345 page report with several pages of appendix. you concluded no criminal charges warranted in this matter? >> correct. >> this lengthy investigation resulted in exoneration of joe

biden for every document you discussed in your report, you found insufficient evidence the president violated possession or retention of classified documents. its part of espionage act which criminalizes willful retention or disclosure of information, correct? >> that is one statute we analyzed, i need to go back and take note of word you used, exoneration, that does not appear in my report. >> i will continue with my questions. i know that the term -- >> submission evidence existed such that likely outcome would be a conviction. i did not exonerate him, that did not appear. >> mr. hur, it is my time, thank you. the term willful retention has a particular meaning. i want that meaning to be known to the american people before we

go further to prove the president willfully obtained evidence, you need to prove first that president knowingly obtained information and second knew conduct was unlawful, correct? >> that is correct. and i'm sorry, it was national defense information, third element. >> thank you. to be clear, you did not find sufficient evidence to prove either element beyond a reasonable to show mr. biden willfully obtained the -- in the investigation, correct? >> admissible evidence was not sufficient. >> not sufficient, thank you. few example examples so american people are clear. one side of documents discovered by investigators in president's delaware home. his staff had assembled documents to prepare for an even

with charlie rose. some documents were marked classified, you reviewed all classified documents in the binders and determined mr. biden willfully contained marked in the binders correct? >> that does in the report. >> related to afghanistan troop surge you evaluated if he had the documents in his home. in your report you said there was a shofrtage of evidence for wrongdoing and cannot refute, are those quotes correct? >> if you have particular page cites, i'd be happy. >> right up on the screen. >> with respect to two quotes on

the screen in addition to shortage, there are other recannot refute and conclude evident is not sufficient to convict. >> you concluded the evidence is not sufficient to convict and decline to recommend prosecution, your word, correct? >> those words appear. >> thank you. president biden counsel discovered different set at penn biden center and turned over to the fbi. it contained national security information, you determined you could 234089 prove mr. biden willfully obtained the documents, marked classified documents found were sent and kept there by mistake. we decline any criminal charges related to documents. correct? >> the language we decline any criminal charges related to document does appear page 311 of the report. >> similar conclusion regarding

documents found in president biden senate papers at university of florida of delaware. it is likely documents found in mr. biden senate paper at university of delaware; correct? >> that does appear in the report. >> the crux, main story you found insufficient evidence to prove president biden had any materials. that is story of this report, i yield back. >> gentle lady from indiana recognized. >> i thank you for being here in challenging time. few things interesting for me, you can see there is -- you obviously see it was willful retention of documents, interesting when you talk about sympathetic well meaning older man elderly man with poor

memory, seems like every attorney would advise you to be sympathetic and well meaning and whole fbi need to do based on my hearings here to check on amnesia, everyone says doesn't recall, it might have been more in recollection than typical i don't recall. i have learned here, is it something more than i don't recall something for you to say? seems like this is core of the whole investigation, why did you not pursue further the charges? >> my judgement as to how a jury would likely perceive and receive evidence relating to all the evidence put in by government and defense at trial was based on number of different sources from documents, recordings, some tw 2016 and 2017 timeframe, some from our interview in october of 2023. i think what you are asking

about specifically is how the president presented himself during interview of in october of last year, i did take into account not just the words, but entire manner in living color realtime how the president presented himself. >> hopefully he didn't outsmart all of us. i want to comment mr. raskin -- communist and i have a good recollection what it is and -- on the rise and march you said, they have been embolden by president obama and now president biden and our government and department of justice is now resembles tyrannical government, sad to see that, i'm going with double standard what we have there, i will yield to chairman jordan my time.

>> during your one-year investigation, did you have communication with white house and white house counsel in particular? >> yes. >> i got five letters they communicated with you, is that accurate? >> we received number of letters from white house counsel and president's personal counsel. >> special counsel or personal counsel i see sign said letters. did the white house get report before report was made public? >> we provided a draft to the white house counsel office and the president's personal counsel team for review. >> i understand. did the white house try to weigh in with your investigation on elements of that report and get the report changed? >> they did request edits and changes. >> i see that in february 5 letter. >> did they only correspond with you? >> anyone else on my team? >> they saw changes, i have one

letter addressed to you on february 5, we are pleased you determined and respond to the report. they disagree with your ask for you to change some things you had in your report, the fact the president's memory was not very good, do you remember that? >> yes, sir. >> i have two other letters, one on february 7 to merrick garland, they raise the same concern and on february 12, they go the dag. you familiar with those? >> i am familiar with those letters, bradley wisehimeris associate deputy. >> the adac and merrick garland attorney general. you familiar with the fact they went over your head? >> they were certainly entitled to write whatever letters they wish to the attorney general. >> i find that interesting. the white house communicating

you throughout this investigation and then white house says, we're going to the principal's office and talk about mr. hur's report. you find that interesting? they were free to correspond with whomever they wish to correspond with, i did engage with them during the course of the investigation and as reflected in special counsel regulation, the attorney general did provide oversight of my investigation. >> understand, yield back. chair recognizes gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman jordan. i want to say house judiciary committee is responsible for helping to enforce rule of law. unfortunately the actions of this chairman in ignoring bipartisan congressional subpoena damaged ability of this committee to get information from witnesses and damaged the rule of law. mr. hur, thank you for being here today. thank you for sharing your

compelling immigrant story that highlights how america is a nation of immigrants. i will ask you a series of yes and no questions, not trick questions, simply designed to highlight what you found in your report, which there are material distinctions between president biden's case and mr. trump's case. here is my first question. in your investigation, did you find president biden directed his lawyer to lie to the fbi? >> we identified no such evidence. >> did you find president biden directed his lawyer to destroy classified documents? >> no. >> did you find president biden directed his personal assistant to move boxes and hide from the fbi? >> no. >> did you find president trump directed personal assistant to delete footage after fbi asked for footage? >> no. >> did you find president biden showed classified map to a campaign aid who did not have

clea clearance? >> no. >> did you find president biden engaged in a scheme to conceal? >> no. each activity i laid out describe what donald trump did in woeful mishandling and criminal efforts to deceive fbi and president biden handed over document without delay and complied fully with investigators. you write that quote, according to indictment trump refused to return documents for many months and enlisted others to destroy evidence and lie about it, end quote. you said, if proven, these would be serious aggravating facts, do you still stand by analysis? >> i do. >> a few more questions inform your investigation did you find president biden set up a shell company and paid $130,000 in hush money to adult porn star? >> no. >> did you find president biden

paid to a former playboy model? >> no. >> in your investigation, did you find mr. biden demanded he find 11,780 votes? >> no. >> did you find president biden had fake eshg lectors to undermine free and fair election? >> no. did you find president biden urged supporters to travel to d.c. and storm the capitol? >> no. >> each activity describe what donald trump did, his effort to pulley election officials and deceive the american people, that is why donald trump has been indicted in not one, not two, not three, but four criminal cases. i yield back. >> >> gentleman from wisconsin recognized for five minutes. >> i want to go to repetition in

regard to chairman questions. is it correct on february 5 letter that was sent to you asking you to change references to the president's poor memory, wasn't there request by the white house to do that? >> there was request, yes. >> the record should show the gentleman from maryland earlier said that was not the case. he said nor did he seek to redact a single word of hur's report, mr. hur is telling us differently. didn't the white house go to the attorney general himself and say that he would like to see changes to the references in regard to the president's memory? >> 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?

>> i cannot engage in hypotheticals, i address facts and evidence. >> there was an 80-year-old grandma that came to washington, d.c., did not commit a violent crime, committed a crime, she was fully prosecuted doesn't that seem dual system of justice where the president is above the law? >> i don't know the facts of this other person. >> you say that the president is unlikely to reoffend in the future, a quote you put in the report, is that correct? >> i believe chapter 13. >> how so? how is he unlikely to reoffend? how do you come to that judgement? >> as i say on page 254, any effective prosecution would be slight, we are not concerned with specific deterrence and little risk he will reoffend. he is now the president and has almost unlimited authority to

release documents, isn't that correct? as vice president, he didn't have that authority, now as president, isn't it easy to say he is likely to reoffend he has unlimited authority to release documents. that statement, assessment of reoffending from this person, president biden based on authority he has now with respect to classified documents as well as experience he had going through special counsel investigation. >> look at 2011, multiple instances, he was informed by staff and ratcheted up to formal process. you say he has learned from that, he has proven he hasn't all the way back to 2011. >> what i'm saying on page 254. >> he is repeat offender, isn't

he? i will move on. you said he had strong motivation for classified documents and provided raw material to ghost writer that would be of interest to perspective readers and buyers of his book and viewed himself historic figure, correct? >> i believe those words appear in the report. >> he was doing this for business purposes, there may be people that would want to buy his book? >> toward end of his vice presidency, he resolved to write a book. >> i think mr. chairman, this is consistent with the biden family trying to enrich themselves. you are familiar with the work oversight committee has done over the last year, right? >> i have read some reports. >> 20 phone calls to his son, 20 shell companies created, over $20 million.

doesn't it appear there is a pattern of where i come from, money grubbing. >> i am here to testify about the work i conducted in this investigation and report. >> i want to thank you for your work. unfortunately, you are part of the guard that guards the swamp in washington, d.c. protecting elites and joe biden is part of that company of elites and you see it in the things that the department of justice has not acted on, mr. chairman. you look at the president's son, who does not have to answer for lying on form 4473 in regard to throwing away a weapon. you see it with department of justice fends off i.r.s. when whistleblowers come with information and we see it once again, a president believes he is above the law and no doubt this president believes he is above the law. >> gentleman from california recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hur, welcome. i concur and let me echo what has been said by my colleagues, your personal story of being an immigrant to this country and way you contribute to greatness of this country shows why america is great, the great immigrant story. thank you for being here. first question to you, you are republican? >> i am, sir. >> does that stop you from thorough and fair investigation? >> i certainly hope not and i know not. >> this story is really proof of the old saying the cover up is worse than the crime. president trump and president biden handled their classified documents differently, wouldn't you say? >> my report includes assessment of alleged facts in indictment of president trump and comparison to facts in this case. >> the handles of documents was night and day, correct?

>> do you have a specific aspect that you have in mind? >> you know, president trump intentionally took classified documents and obstructed justice to ensure those materials wouldn't be taken from him and refused to work with law enforcement, correct? >> my report -- >> another question, president trump been indicted in southern florida on 40 counts related to possession of classified documents, is that correct? >> i don't know the exact number of counts, i know indictment is pending in that district. >> mr. hur, you wrote, after being given number of chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, president trump allegedly did oppose and according to the indictment he refused to return document over for many months and obstructed justice by enlisting others to

destroy evidence and lie about them. compare and contrast president trump, president trump turned classified document over to national archive and department of justice and consented to searching his home and other locs, wouldn't you say that is night and day? >> the report does include analysis and comparison of what is alleged with respect to former president trump and details steps of cooperation the president and his team took with respect to investigation. >> you had president biden full cooperation? >> the report includes cooperative steps the president took. >> is this a factor in your decision to prosecute? >> it was a factor and i explained in the report. >> you stated recommendation not prosecute had nothing to do with department of justice policy not

to indict sitting president, correct? >> the report says if it were not current policy, sitting president may not be, i would reach that criminal charges are not warranted. >> have you set new precedence here today? >> in particular cases, those are precedence, events that future prosecutors look to in endefer to make sure federal law is applied consistently over time. >> based on your education and career experience, you are competent prosecutor, very well prepared attorney, i will ask you one more time. does the fact that you're republican stop you from a thorough and fair investigation? >> no.

partisan politics had nothing to do with work i did or report i wrote or decision i reached. >> thank you for being here, i yield. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from wisconsin. >> taken hur webster dictionary defines senile memory associated with old age. did you find that the president was senile? >> i did not. that conclusion does not appear in my report, congressman. >> you felt the president's memory or lack thereof was critical reason to decline prosecution. the reason i'm asking this, whether you believe the president would be fit to stand trial or would his lawyers argue incompetence to stand trial due to his state of mind? also, you know issue was he in a place to actually be questioned?

>> congressman, my report to the extent it addresses the president's memory gaps we identified in evidence during the investigation, they are addressed in context of determining how the jury would perceive, perceive and consider the evidence related to willful intent when it came to disclosing national defense information. >> very good, focus my attention on chapter 14 of the report. classified documents found at penn biden center, you state in your report, documents found at penn biden center were most lily classified sensitive compartmentalized material recovered during your investigation, correct? >> correct. >> many documents came from west wing office, correct? >> i believe that is reflected in the report. >> did you ask if he had packed

the boxes himself? >> i believe that was one of the questions asked and reflected in the transcript to the committee. >> how would you characterize packing of these boxes, slow and meticulous or packed in haste without much scrutiny at all? >> i don't recall off the top of my head how he characterized it, jest of the evidence, manner in which files were packed up and moved out of the end of the obama administration was in something of a rushed manner. >> very good. according to your report, boxes moved between multiple offices between mr. biden departing west wing office in january of 2017 and arrival at penn biden offices in october of '17. were offices authorized to store classified documents? >> no. >> when boxes arrived at penn

biden offices, how were they stored? >> i believe when materials were recovered, some stored in a storage closet and others of them in file cabinet drawers. refer to the report. >> what is your opinion on security and access at penn biden center? >> there were some controls in the penn biden center. there were other people including students and foreign dignitaries that visited at the time. >> when boxes were discovered to have classified documents more than five years later, who discovered these boxes? patrick moore, is that correct? >> correct, one of the president's personal counsel. >> did mr. moore have active security clearance? >> no.

>> how about executive assistant at penn biden center? >> no. >> page 265 -- >> i may have misspoken, i'm not certain if they had active security clearance. >> you stated when interviewed by fbi agent, moore believed the closet was locked and the staff member provided key to unlock it, but his memory was fuzzy. interview with mr. biden executive assistant contradict that statement. do you remember this exchange and did it contradict each other? >> sir, you are asking if i remember exchange with mr. moore during our interview with him? >> right, do you remember them contradicting each other? >> i don't remembers that contradiction, sometimes we did

our best to resolve conflicts. >> in total national archive discovered nine documents, 44 pages with classification markings; correct? >> yes, from the penn biden center. >> you declined charges because you couldn't prove that retention of document was willful. >> correct. >> yield back. >> gentle lady from pennsylvania recognized. >> thank you, thank you for your testimony today. with all the posturing we've heard thus far this morning, i think it is important to refocus and remember the conclusion you reached on the first page and in the first sentence of your report, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter, did i read that accurately? >> you did. >> your report says in addition to shortage of evidence, there are innocent explanation for documents we have not been able

to refute, did i read that correctly? >> if you would give me page citation. >> page six. >> six. >> i see that language on page six. >> in addition, your report details several distinctions between president biden's actions and former president trump's mishandling of the material. president biden cooperated with your investigation, correct? scombl he did. >> his team notified authorities when they discovered classified documents and turned them over immediately, correct? >> yes. he consented to multiple searches? >> correct. >> he voluntarily sat for interview with you, correct? >> correct. >> mr. trump's treatment of classified documents, according to criminal indictment against him he refused to -- multiple

chances to do so and obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about it; correct? >> correct. >> you note specific comments you made about president biden's memory have gotten a lot of attention. and republicans are scoring political points, you know that witnesses, regardless of age often have difficulty recalling specific statements or facts when asked many years after facts. take a quick look at different witness during a deposition. >> your next wife was named marla maples? >> right. >> sitting here today, do you recall what years you were married to ms. maples? um, i'd have to get exact dates, ki do that.

>> you married your current wife in january of 2005? >> i don't know. what year were you the owner of the hotel? >> i don't know. >> james webb. >> you don't remember the name? >> i don't remember that. i remember you telling me. i don't know that i -- >> so i would also add mr. trump told lawyers i don't remember 35 times in a lawsuit over trump university and response to question from robert m mueller e answered account not remember or do not recall. process and regulation required you to assess whether a jury would find mr. biden to be credible witness, correct? >> not sure i said those words exactly, of course in my view, how a jury would perceive mr. biden if he elected to testify at trial would be part of the

whole ball of wax jurors would consider in determining whether he had willful intent. >> do you have any reason to believe special counsel who investigated and charged mr. trump with willful retention of classified documents would have failed to make an assessment whether the jury would find mr. trump a credible witness? >> i don't have information, i'm not qualified to answer what went into mr. smith's decision-making. >> you are qualified to say what are normal procedure followed by a special counsel, correct? >> i'm familiar with rules set forth in justice manual and my understanding how to apply them. >> and what you did? >> correct. >> i would suggest that mr. trump was charged with multiple charges of concealing classified documents suggest that special counsel in that case determined mr. trump's denials are not credible. at thissin po point i ask

unanimous consent to enter transcribed interview with former -- on july 7 2023, in which he explained urgency for fbi to retrieve classified documents from donald trump estate because they contained national security information that should not be viewed by anyone without proper security clearance, he could not view the document given high security clearance despite being in charge of the washington field office. >> objection. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. quite interested in dates set forth in your report. i am interested because i keep getting confused between 2017 date and the 2024 date as to condition of the president's memory. so was there a difference?

when i look, seems like his memory was bad in 2017 and bad today. there is never distinction made. isn't it true if you look at his prosecuting as you were, you would look carefully at his condition in 2017? is that the proper timing? i think you say in the report, the most, best case you call it out, best case for charges rely on mr. biden possession of afghanistan document in 2017, when he was a private citizen and told his ghost writer he found classified documents. that is best case? >> yes. >> you work 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. >> memory bad then, and whether

it improved over next six years or not, i want it to be clear we are looking at his condition in 2017, 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, six or seven defenses. it gets me to this question. i actually pulled this quote out of this morning. perhaps your report concluded and perhaps it did not that the president is incapable of being held accountable? that is not what happened, is it? you did not find he was incapable of being held accountable, did you? >> i did not. those words do not appear. >> they do not, you reached conclusion you did not have evidence. your report recites defenses and having hard time putting the two

together. if you didn't have 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 in my report for attorney general is following, the approach i took was prosecutor envisioning probable outcome of trial if we presented evidence to a jury and if the defense lawyers got a chance to try to poke holes in the government's case at trial. with respect to one of the several potential defenses laid out in the report, one focuses on the president's memory relatocha scott-bivensed issue. that is defense the president's lawyers may present in that trial. confronted with three separate

sets of evidence related to memory, one from recordings in 2016 and 2017 from the ghost writer. >> i'm limited on time, you say, i think, evidence suggests he is incapable of forming or you are incapable of proving intent. there is a difference there, right? he may have had intent, you could not -- of holding documents and i hate to say hiding documents, you could not prove it, what you did is fell back to the various defenses that might be asserted against you, heap of rationale for not pursuing the president, is that, do i have it right now? >> congressman, i think we're on the same page, i'm trying to convey the way prosecutor convey their case is to think through in the government's case inef chief, here is evidence we're

going to present, that is not the end of the trial, there is presentation from the defense lawyers. >> i get it, your report is not exoneration, the evidence you saw it and identified plus whatever lack of evidence you perceived, it is not exoneration, is it? >> word exoneration does not appear in that report and that is not my conclusion. >> another thing of interest and i think you were misquoted. someone, i think mr. raskin, suggested that you ago00 i appreciate the work you do as prosecutor and i yield back. >> mr. hur, we've been at this close to three hours, if you can hang with this, we'd like to keep going, there is a chance we can complete by time to go to vote on house floor at 1:40. >> i can keep going, chairman.

>> we will try to do that. there is a chance we may not. gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. hur, for your testimony and service at department of justice. progress of the investigation and process questions. so you were appointed by attorney general garland in january of 2023; correct? >> correct. >> attorney general garland, as you know, nominated by president biden to serve. >> correct. >> during 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 member of the department of justice refuse to cooperate with your investigation? >> no. >> were you denied access to materials, witnesses, resources from attorney general garland you might have needed during the investigation? >> no.

>> you submitted, i think this is right, your final report to garland on february 25 of 2024. >> correct. >> and it was released publicly three days later, on february 8, is that right? >> i believe that is true, yes. >> final report released, any of your findings redacted or changed in any way? >> no. none of the findings modified by the attorney general? >> no. >> did the attorney general issue a statement or letter attempting to describe contents of your report? >> no. >> you are familiar, i know, i'm sure, with the investigation that was conducted by special counsel mueller with respect to the former president? >> yes. >> at that time, attorney general barr was in charge of the justice department and sat where you sat in this committee, i remember well, a few short years ago, testifying on 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 attorney general garland conducted this particular release, i take it you agree with that? >> they were not the same approach. >> not the same approach, 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. dissim mar from attorney general barr, who five years ago, you recall after special counsel mueller submitted to department of justice took nearly a month to release to the american public, heavily redacted and not before he issued letter to leaders of senate and house judiciary committee mischaracterizing content of

that report. that distinction and difference is very important. from your testimony 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 conducted fair, thorough and independent investigation. >> very different approach, as you said from the way in which the department of justice tragically functioned under former president. yield back. >> gentleman from alabama. gentleman of colorado last point, one big difference, bill barr did not name him special counsel. he was named by rosenstein. big difference.

>> in your report you cited federal prosecution and observed that historically after leaving office many former presidents and vice presidents have taken home sensitive material without being charged with crimes. this historical record is important judges whether or why to charge a former vice president and/or former president. why is examining this history so important? >> congressman, one reason it was important because it would bear on how a jury would perceive or decide whether or not criminal willful intent was fofrm formed by person. >> has there been exception to this in history of this nation? charged any former president? >> as i state in my report, to my interest, only one exception, former president trump. >> is it fair to say it is

favorable not to charge a former president or vice president for handling classified documents in your opinion? >> i can't articulate preference, i can only talk about the decision i reached. >> what is difference in u.s. senator and former president of the united states having documents? >> for purposes of proving willfulness, i believe there would be number of differences in terms of type of access and ease of which president can access classified documents as compared to access privileges that senators have. >> can presidents declassify documents that i have in their possession? >> i believe under certain circumstances, yes. >> former presidents, as well? >> congressman, i confess i'm not, this is not an area of the law i've looked into or explained in my report and i'm here to talk about work reflected in the report. >> you have reputation beyond

reproach, i want you to know that, i think president biden ought to be thankful you were appointed to the case. jack smith cannot lay claim to such a reputation, isn't that right? >> i have no opinion. >> jack smith, attorney general garland appointed to investigate trump has a -- over zel us prosecutor who relies on unethical dubious tactics and record remreet with string of mistrials and overturned adequates. -- federal bribery statute. according to the supreme court justice. so you know, my question is, do you think in the case of jack

smith, you think justice is blind when looking at president trump? is justice truly blind? >> i'm not here to express opinion with pending case. >> i yield balance of my time back. [indiscernible] -- led you to this conclusion? >> congressman jordan, i'm sorry, the mic was turned on halfway through. >> can you explain what specifically in your interview with president biden led you to this conclusion. >> the conclusion -- >> the broad statement 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 it 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. >> i guess i'm asking specifically. i know you cited in the report the dates he could not remember when he was vice president, when he began, term ended, is there anything else specifically that stands out from that interview with the president? >> a number of things stand out and again, i'm aware the transcript has now been made available. i do provide certain examples in my report of significant personally painful experiences about which the president was unable to recall certain information. i also took into account the president's overall demeanor in interacting with me during the five plus hour voluntary interview.

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 member of the white house counsel -- >> the brief look i had at the transcript this morning i saw some of that. chair recognizes the gentle lady from texas -- i'm sorry, 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. >> 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 dias. 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's the evidence, right? >> congresswoman, i did not reach assessments in the evidence in the trump matter to the extent that i considered the allegations against former president trump it was for purposes of comparing relative precedence. >> with your credibility, you were not out to get mr. trump more to help mr. biden. i think it's about the evidence

and i think you say that over and over again in your report. why did you decide president biden should not be prosecuted? your report tells us "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 word that is consistent with the gist of my conclusion. >> 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. >> can you read a portion of it for me, your words, page 11, starting on line 3. 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. >> it's your report. i think it is more