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 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. not only refused to return the documents for many months but enlisted others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. >> you may stop there. you mentioned the indictment against mr. trump for handling sensitive classified security information, says at the end of his presidency mr. trump, 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, and 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 about, 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 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. 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 at page 11. >> very good. >> mr. hur, to the best of your knowledge and investigation, did president biden ever present an employee to lie or hide or destroy classified information? >> we did not identify such

evidence. >> did he do so himself? >> we do not identify such evidence. >> and you can correct the record on an important point. very sadly, your report on page 208 says that mr. biden couldn't come up with the date, the year of his son beau biden's death, when in fact in the transcript it shows you asked him the month, and 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. >> i don't believe that's correct with respect to the transcript but if you could refer me to a specific page i would be happy to look. >> i read about it in the reporting. i yield back. >> 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 among the reasons was they contested or they asserted

that certain language in the report was inconsistent with doj policy. >> the day 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 explanation of it -- >> it was not just the president, anthony coley, former spokesman for merrick garland says democrats should focus ire on her, and another said it's a shabby piece of work and shoddy work product. >> i disagree vehemently with that characterization. >> i also disagree, i think it's well written and 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, i stand by the report and the work that went into it. >> ranking member started by saying mr. hur completely exonerated president biden and called your report a total and complete exoneration. did you completely exonerate president biden? >> that is not what my report does. >> was it a total and complete exoneration. >> that's not what the report says. the report is not an exoneration. that word does not appear in my report. >> based on the facts and anticipation presented in the report, could a reasonable juror have voted to constrict? >> as i said in the report, some reasonable jurors may have reach the the inferences -- >> a reasonable juror could have voted to convict based on the facts. >> correct. >> if you were on the jury, would you have voted to convict? >> i have not engaged in that thought exercise, congressman, what i would like to stick to is what's in the report, my assessment as a prosecutor.

>> what you did find in the report is that the president, you said page 200, risks 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 was his desire to run for president, and his desire to sell books. so, a reasonable inference for your report is that the president risks 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 the president described his predecessor handling of classified materials as totally irresponsible and your report concludes that mr. biden's -- keeping classified documents unsecured in one's home is equally to his own decision.

>> that language appears in the report. >> mitigating factor the fact the president cooperated with the investigation. at the time it was happening and the 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 application of criminal laws to that general set of circumstances. >> i think that's fair. >> the president when he decided to cooperate or not cooperate, had to know it would be known to the public and judged accordingly, is that correct? >> i'm not in position to opine -- >> relevant to your analysis whether or not it counts as a mitigating factor if he knew he was going to be judged whether he cooperated or not, lessened value as a mitigating factor. did that lessen its value? >> we undertook a comprehensive -- >> 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 deterrence and you say the factor counsels against bringing charges here because you said as for general deterrence, future presidents and vice presidents are likely to be deterred by the recent criminal investigations and one prosecution for mishandling classified documents. so the indictment brought by jack smith. the very terms of your analysis, jack smith's indictment actually counseled against and was counted against bringing charges in this case. is that correct? >> i'm sorry, congressman. i don't follow your drift there. >> you said there is already deterrence, there is a prosecution out there in a prior case related to classified documents so we don't need to bring another case to establish value. that was the essence of your analysis, correct? >> congressman, what i'll say is

that i will stand by the way and specific words in which i characterize my assessment of deterrence on page 254 and 255. >> my time is out, per verse implication here, by the terms of your analysis made it less likely that the president would face charges by jack smith bringing an indictment. thank you, i yield back. >> mr. chairman, unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents, first the superceding indictment against donald trump in the southern district of florida where he is facing criminal charges on 40 counts, including obstruction of justice, lying to the fbi, unlawful willful retention of national defense -- >> without objection the indictment is -- recognized. >> concealment of documents among other things, shortened

version, 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 woman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you for this hearing and thank you so much for spending so much time with us today, special counsel hur. 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. the special counsel's report

makes clear 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 mistakingly 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. president biden's predecessor, when dealing with the issue of having classified materials, took very different steps. 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 it was going to be a crime if he didn't return the classified documents that he had after the

doj and the fbi requested multiple times that trump returned the classified documents, yet he hid them. 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. mr. hur, thank you for being here today. i would 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 as 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. >> yes, at no point did we find evidence. yes, that language is on page 187. >> ok. so what you reported, correct? >> that language is in my report. >> 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 had 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 and appears at page 12 of my report.

>> page 323 reads as a matter of historical context there have been numerous previous incidents 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 elaborate sc to hide those documents from federal law enforcement officials? >> the one case that comes to mind we do address in the report is the prosecution of general patraeus. >> 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 patraeus prosecution, no. >> so the american people deserve as we have 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. >> gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. >> special counsel hur, when you determined no criminal charges should be brought against president biden in this matter you focused on the 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 ghost writer in 2017 and during his interview with special counsel's office in 2023." you also expressed concern that prospective jurors would be

persuaded by president joe biden's presentation as a simple meaning, older man, and poor memory. and how he would be in front of the jury if he stood trial. >> element of my decision, not the only element. >> that was not my question but one of the things we were considering, his current state of mind, memory, correct sn snchlt --? >> how president biden would be present himself to the j you are if he elected to testify. >> you did not compare president biden's current memory or condition with his memory or condition when he was in the senate or when he left the vice president and took the classified documents subject to your investigation, is that right? >> i believe that's not correct, congresswoman. one of the things in the report is assessment of the president's memory based on recordings from

the 2016-2017 time frame, recordings of conversations between mr. biden and his ghost writer, 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. so, 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 one, correct? >> i believe what i stated on page one, we identified evidence that mr. biden willfully retained classified information after the end of his vice presidency, but concluded 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. you know, i guess the way that i would put it is this. president biden knew better, he knew he was not entitled to keep these documents when he was a senator and knew he was not 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 is certainly evidence that some jurors could infer to suggest that mr. biden willfully retained national defense information but in my judgment the likely -- the probably outcome -- not conviction. >> mr. hur, i have represented a variety of clients over the years in actions over the federal government, over several decades of time. it's my experience the federal government and doj specifically has essentially unlimited

resources to go after and prosecute citizens and will spare absolutely no expense in doing so. it is also 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 an example of the poor soul who was the subject of such action. in other words, so other people will not engage in the same kind of conduct. mr. hur, having been a long-term doj prosecutor, can you explain why those people without the last name of clinton or biden are treated differently and the only ones not held accountable for violating the law? >> congresswoman, one of the things i explain in my report is the fact that there are historical precedents with former occupants of the white house and retention of classified materials after they leave. >> i'm asking you about police clinton. >> the time has expired. >> and 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. >> gentlewoman from texas is recognized. >> mr. hur, special counsel jack smith that is charged donald trump with 40 counts related to his unlawful possession of classified documents. the most serious charge carries 20 years in prison. according to the document, he stored them at mar-a-lago which had thousands of members and guests. stored 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. mar-a-lago is more than a mansion or a compound. it is a club with membership -- with a membership program that sells access to the public. it has hundreds of people moving

through it at any given time. staffing 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 premiers, which thousands of people attended. 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. 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 of his home to allow members of the public to have access.

>> not that i'm aware of. >> did your investigation find joe biden ever hosted movie premiers 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, he ordered nauta to move boxes of documents so they could not be found by people looking for them. 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 on president biden's residence, he contacted john launch and the president had an fbi search of his home. and you found no evidence documents were moved prior to that search, 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 unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the committee's transcribed interview with steven dantono, former assistant director in charge of the fbi washington field office on june 7, 2023, in which mr. dantono 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 go

with a subpoena to turn over classified documents. >> without objection. >> gentle lady from -- excuse me, ranking member is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i have three unanimous consent requests. first i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the publishers web page for president biden's 2017, "promise me that" about the year his son beau died. and also to enter page 97 of mr. hur's report says president biden's book is not known to contain classified information. >> without objection. >> finally, unanimous consent to enter into the record february 5, 2024, letter from president biden's counsel, special counsel hur, that clarifies the book does not contain classified information and never been any suggestion to the contrary. >> without objection. chair recognizes the gentle lady

from florida. >> thank you mr. chairman and special counsel hur for joining us here today to discuss your investigation regarding president joe biden's mishandling of classified documents. this is an issue of great interest to all americans and of course to all of us here today. as is outlined in the report, despite confidential and top secret records located in the personal residence in delaware, including his garage, office and basement, the department declined prosecution and my colleagues' question have focused on highlights of your report, specifically referring to president biden's mental capacity, 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, 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, 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 would like to turn your attention to a discussion of the distinction the underlying

elements of defense and concept of obstruction charge. is it correct, special counsel hur, in some circumstances as a federal prosecutor, you may investigate the underlying offense, 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 if that were to happen, it would be a more difficult case to try -- >> the elements are distinct, are they not? >> they are distinct elements. >> isn't it similar to a case where a federal prosecutor under goes an investigation and ultimately pursue the original charge they were investigating but during the course of the investigation concludes a false statement was made and brings the charge under 1,001?

>> that could happen. >> and there, too, the elements would be different. >> correct. >> in reaching your final decision related to the recommendation to decline prosecution, you considered both the underlying elements of the offenses at issue and also the principles of federal prosecution. >> correct. >> the principles of federal prosecution, those may vary case to case, is that right? >> determinations under the principles of federal prosecution are very fact and circumstance dependent. >> 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 the same from one defendant to the next to the next. isn't is 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 you did underlying charges. >> prosecutors assessing their cases under the same statutes must consider the same elements with respect to those statutes. >> 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, you may consider a charge here, is that right? >> they do include such things as aggravating or mitigating circumstances. >> there's one thing i want to go back to 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's not correct. >> the chair now recognizes the gentle lady 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 would like to just focus on a few of them, 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 that would help me. >> we'll get you one, that would be great. you also found 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. >> correct. >> and 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. that's on page 209 of your report, correct. >> that is something a reasonable juror could factor into his or her consideration as to whether or not the president had criminal willful intent. >> and you also noted 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 he also had layers of staff who were responsible for assembling, caring, 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, my time is running while you are looking. so you -- 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 mr. biden 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. 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 them for years, as a person who destroys evidence, and cooperates will seem by many to be innocent. 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 where invited agents in the search of every nook and cranny of his home or other residence

or sat for an hours' 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. >> mr. hur, three more and then take votes and then we'll have a couple more after that. so, start with the gentleman from kentucky, recognized. >> yield to the chairman. >> thank you. mr. hur, are you opposed to the u.s. congress having audio tapes to the people you interviewed during your investigation? >> chairman, i am not in position to articulate opinion one way or the other. that's 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 are an accomplished lawyer. any reason the congress should not have information you had access to and basis for your decision. >> not for me to opine -- >> justice department released

them on the hearing, i think it would be better, they released them today, white house released them today. nice if we had the audio tapes, too. again, is there any reason you can see why the american people and representatives in congress should not have access to those tapes. >> chairman, what i can tell you is my assessment that went into my conclusions that i describe in my report was based not solely on the transcript. it was based on all of the evidence, including the audio recordings. >> great point. that's where i was going. so valuable evidence for you as the special counsel named 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, shouldn't the united states congress have access to that same information? >> chairman, it is not for me to weigh into what information congress should or should not have. but what i will tell you, audio recordings were part of the evidence of course i considered in coming to my conclusions.

>> yield back to the gentleman from kentucky and then north dakota. >> north dakota. >> you retailed mr. biden retained in his delaware basement, classified documents to his time in the senate 1970s. >> correct. >> and through 1991, found at the university of delaware and biden center papers. >> correct. >> and more papers from the 1970s and 1980s found in biden's delaware garage. >> i believe that's -- yes, that's correct. >> quote, nearly 50 years of experience dealing with classified information, including member senate select committee, and judiciary, and 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 sounds familiar, congressman. but if have a page citation. >> as vice president, correct in

2011 received advice from the staff about the need to secure classified information in the form of notes? >> correct. >> including his first counsel, cynthia hogan? >> correct. >> advised in writing by hogan in 2011 classified notes must be in saves and stored insecure facility. >> correct. >> his second counsel also said all of his records, including his notes, would be except to the national archives and biden understood and accepted that, correct? >> that's correct. with the exception of mr. mcgral was vice president's final counsel, not second one. >> on the way out, mr. biden was also apprised of his obligations by the national archive staff twice more that his classified notes should be secured in a scif. >> that particular fact is not immediately coming to mind, congressman. but if you have a page citation, i can confirm it for you. >> did mr. biden have 30 years experience handling this

information, received advice from at least two separate counsels, national archive staff, 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, only 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, what we see. hillary clinton ran a program called bleach it on her server, they used hammers to destroy evidence. joe biden has a 50-year history

of misplacing classified documents in numerous places, all of these cases have the same underlying elements of the crime, the same fact patterns and yet only one person being prosecuted. with that i yield back to the gentleman from kentucky. >> ranking member recognized for unanimous consent. >> 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 gentle lady from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for being here, mr. hur. here to focus on the real issues that affect our communities instead of partisan hit jobs. start by saying 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 re-elect -- re-elect the former white supremacist and 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. 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 0 credibility to talk about mental acuity when they support donald trump. 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 championed 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 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. 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, i yield 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 story in 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 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 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 you say you "must show your work," we appreciate today, don't normally see that. did i recall your opening statement correctly as relates to those quotes? >> yes, sir, you do. >> in fact, as part of your investigation, you interviewed about 150 different witnesses,

millions of documents, because you wanted to do a thorough investigation. isn't that true? >> correct. >> you did this because you took your investigation very 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, it's very important whether there was criminal willful intent. i've set forth a number of different quotes up here on the board that i have prepared. some of which i'll read to you. page 5, you say mr. biden's memory was significantly limited. then again on page 6, mr. biden would likely present himself to a jury as a sympathetic, well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. page 207, 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 did not remember even several -- 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 and 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 look through those quotes, i hearken back to my time before congress, i was a judge and one of the things i oversaw was guardianships and frankly, when i read your conclusions, red flags began to go up in my mind. i oversaw hundreds of guardianships in texas and i began to wonder what is the d.c. statute say about guardianship and define an incapacitated individual in d.c. are you familiar with the statute at all? >> i am not, congressman. >> i didn't think you probably

reviewed that. read to you some of these -- some of the definitions here. an adult whose ability to receive and evaluate information effectively and, 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 under the guardianship statute in the district of columbia. and frankly, i see tons of overlap what you set forth in your testimony and your written report and the definition here. the phrases are almost identical. i would posit 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 his memory was significantly limited, and a person with diminished faculties, and with "faulty memory," it makes me

wonder how close he is coming to meeting this definition of an incapacitated individual such he should have a guardian appointed from the d.c. courts for personhood. there is an argument to say there is substantial evidence to indicate such and not just in the report but the demeanor of president biden as you interviewed him. i'll say in conclusion, whether he does or does not meet the definition, i believe your findings raise significant concern for his current fitness for the office of the president and fitness going forward in the future and i appreciate the fact that you were brazen enough to raise this issue in this report because 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, doing your duty in such a way. thank you, special counsel. i yield back.

>> gentleman yields back. mr. hur, we have votes on the floor, a few more members who will do their five minutes of questioning, so we are going to recess and then we will convene ten minutes after the conclusion of the last vote, i believe we only have a couple votes -- two votes, so congress, that will take a while. we'll get back here as soon as we can, and there's food in the back room for, i think we still have some left, you are welcome to. we stand in recess until ten minutes after the last vote. >> john: quite a day so far, the house judiciary committee, long anticipated testimony of robert hur, the special counsel, who was looking into the classified documents controversy involving the president of the united states. sandra, who this hearing was about really depends on what side of the political aisle you sit. for republicans, it was all about biden. and for the democrats, it was all about former president trump

and robert hur's integrity. >> sandra: and as you just heard there, jim jordan said they are going to take the vote, still a few members who want to make statements or ask questions so this will resume, we are told, around 2:15 p.m. eastern time, so we have our a-team on deck. we can ask questions until they return. >> john: jonathan turley with us, along with jason chaffetz, andy mccarthy and jonathan, what did you make all of this? >> well, i thought the republicans did a particularly good job today. often the democrats are way ahead in framing of hearings. but at points the democrats seemed almost a border on the delusional when you had hur say i did not exonerate the president and then democrats would say ok, so you exonerated the president and he would say no, i didn't and thank you for that with that exoneration. so for a lot of people watching, they probably kept on having to

sort of reverse, and see if they missed something here. the fact is that hur tried over and over again to distinguish between his findings, which is that he was not confident he could convict if he did bring any charges, and the statement of democrats that the president was cleared. but out of this hearing came really some quite shocking observations. i mean -- at the end you were sort of still wondering why he wasn't charged, including hur saying look, we had an audio tape of the president referring to the fact he found classified evidence in his basement. well, ok. that seems like full knowledge. but he kept on coming back to the fact that i think a jury might have been persuaded that this was a nice elderly man with a faulty memory. >> sandra: andy, i know you are chomping at the bit to get in there, a similar point with the many many questions we heard in

the room whether the report exonerates biden, an exchange with rep jayapal. >> you exonerated. >> willful retention has -- >> why was this a repeated line from those democrats? >> well, because he didn't get charged. the thing is, prosecutors don't exonerate people. the gig is that you look at the evidence that you have and you decide whether you can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all the elements of a criminal offense. the fact you draw a conclusion you don't think you can get over the high proof hurdle does not mean either that the crime did not happen or the suspect did not do it. it just means you don't think you can prove the case. but on that score, very tellingly, hur acknowledged that a reasonable, rational juror

could have drawn the conclusion that biden was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and i think the reason that's so significant is that on appeal, the standard would be that a conviction would be upheld if a rational juror could have found enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. so the fact that that concession was made by hur i think is very notable. >> john: so jason chaffetz, we saw the exchange right there between hur and jayapal. let's wind the tape back again and exactly the same conversation between darrell issa and robert hur, but goes in a different direction. >> 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 have been in your report. >> i viewed my task of

explaining my decision to the attorney general as being based on my judgment and my assessment of the evidence would a conviction at trial be the probable outcome. >> 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. >> john: jason, a sense of deja vu. the same thing that happened in the mueller report where president trump and his supporters said this report exonerates me and democrats screamed to the rooftops, no it doesn't, and nowhere in this report is he exonerated. it's basically the same thing. >> yeah, i left this hearing so far wondering what democrat could actually get prosecuted for mishandling classified information. and sensitive information or information that's under subpoena from the united states congress. i mean, i issued subpoenas on the irs, we had cases with hillary clinton, we had cases with joe biden, willingly know

those things are going on. so, when are you going to actually prosecute somebody, and i feel for all the men and women who serve this country and their information is in there. their lives are on the line. some of that is so sensitive and classified that even i as the chairman could not look at it. there's a couple missed opportunities, by the way. i do think they should have been asking hur if he looked at the hundreds if not thousands of emails that joe biden was sending using a fake name and fake account and that goes to intent. that was something that was also in the hillary clinton case that did not come up. and the other point that i would make is as a senator there is no fact pattern in which you can have any sort of classified information. you cannot take it, possess it, have it, he knew that, decades, and that should have been drawn out in this questioning because when are we going to actually

prosecute somebody for mishandling information? >> sandra: charlie hurt, get on in here, hur what was multiple occasions in that room, defending making biden's memory a key part of this report. listen here. >> my task was to determine whether the president retained or disclosed national defense information willfully. i could not make that determination without the president's state of mind. 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. >> sandra: charlie, to you. >> so obviously he's trying to get into the mind of jurors and figure out what kind of conviction he could get, a

mountain of evidence that joe biden did willfully retain documents he shouldn't have retained. one of the things just as somebody who loves covering politics for a long time, i enjoy when career professionals wind up in front of a committee and continue to play it straight while everybody tries to turn them into political things to use against the other side. and i thought republicans did a very, very good job. i agree that a lot of the democrats ended up kind of sounding delusional, refusing to hear the facts as robert hur was laying them out. but i think where republicans did a very good job here were two things. one is they laid out the idea that clearly there was the evidence there to charge a normal person with -- if joe biden had a capable memory or had all of his capacity, the capacity to even know what he was doing. and the other thing i think is kind of interesting is you know,

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