classified documents were actually personal diaries that many executive officials have taken home with them because it was in their own handwriting and what they produced, and based on the department of justice public statements during the reagan administration, it's understandable that a person could believe that their personal diaries that they produced were not to be turned over just as president reagan did not turn them over. i appreciate your report. i appreciate your being here, mr. hur. i would also like to ask mr. chairman, a unanimous request to include in the record a september 11th letter from the special counsel to the president to special counsel hur, and also a letter to merrick garland?

>> without objection. >> i see my time has expired, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. hur, why did joe biden willfully retain and disclose classified materials? he knew the law. been in office, like, 50 years, five decades in the united states senate, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, and eight years as vice president, and he got briefed every day as vice president. he has been in the situation room. in fact, you know he knew the rules because you said so on page 226. president biden was deeply familiar with the measures taken to safeguard classified documents. joe biden told us he knew the rules. mr. armstrong said this earlier, joe biden was deeply familiar with it, and you are exactly right, he told us, when jack smith goes after donald trump,

biden said how does that happen? it's irresponsible. joe biden told us he knew the rules, so mr. hur, why did he break them? >> congressman, the conclusion as to exactly why the president did what he did is not one that we explicitly address in the report. the report explains my decision to the attorney general that no criminal charges were warranted in this matter. >> i think you did tell us. i think you told us, mr. hur. page 231, you said this, president biden had strong motivations. that's a key word. we are getting the motive now. president biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks. why did he have strong motivations? next word, because he decided months before leaving office to write a book. to write a book.

that was his motive. he knew the rules and broke them because he was writing a book, and he began meeting with the ghostwriter while he was still vice president. there's the motive. mr. hur, how much did president biden get paid for his book? >> off the top of my head, i am not sure if that information appears in the report. >> sure does. there's a dollar amount in there. do you remember? >> it may be 8 million. >> joe biden had 8 million reasons to break the rules. took classified information and shared it with the guy writing the book. he knew the rules but he broke them for $8 million in a book advance. but you know what, it was not just the money. next page, joe biden in your report, joe biden viewed his notebooks as a irreplaceable --

he had written this all down for the book, for the $8 million. the next thing you say in your report is, quote, such a record would buttress his legacy as a world leader. you know what this is? it was not just the money. not just $8 million. it was also his ego. pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules. the oldest motives in the book, pride and money. do you agree with that, mr. hur? you wrote it in your report. >> that language does appear in the report and we identified those assessments. >> you also said joe biden -- i want to make sure i get this right, views himself as a man of presidential timber. do you remember that statement? >> i believe that appears in the report, at least the executive summary. >> this is interesting, because here's the scary part. page 200, and i said it earlier in the opening statement, page

200, joe biden, this is a quote, joe biden risked serious damage to america's national security when he shared information with his ghostwriter. shared it with his ghostwriter, the guy that was helping joe biden get $8 million. by the way, mr. hur, what did that ghostwriter do with the information president biden shared -- >> he slid, if i remember correctly, he slid those files into his recycle bin on his computer. >> tried to destroy the evidence, didn't he? >> correct. >> the very guy helping joe biden get the $8 million, and the motive for joe biden to retain and disclose classified information, which he definitely

knew was against the law, and when you get named special counsel, what does that guy do? he destroys the evidence. that's a key takeaway in my mind. that's a key takeaway. i yield back. now the gentleman from maryland for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hur, your report says no criminal charges, and you highlight the independence and support you got from the tkapblg. you have changed your mind about that? >> i have not. >> the report describes president biden's cooperation, he allowed homes to be searched and answered questions, and do you have any reason to change your mind about that? >> no. >> you said most notably after

given multiple chances to return documents and avoid prosecution, he not only refused to return the documents for many months but also obstructed justice by insisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. do you have any reason to change your judgment between the differences between president biden's cooperation and the former president's noncooperation. >> i continue to stand by those words in my report. >> and then constitutional high crimes and misdemeanors, and then giving us the soaring powerful historical analysis and the most skilled ninja hecklers were on full display at the state of the union last week for the whole country to see.

it's a distraction from the 91 federal and state federal charges that donald trump faces now, his staggering civil court losses in new york now totaling more than half a billion, and his full blown embrace and romance with authoritarian dictators and communist tyrants all over the world, from vladimir putin to the dictator of korea. this, my friends, this is a memory test. it's not a memory test for president biden. it's a memory test for all of america. do we remember fascism? do we remember naziism? communism and totalitarianism? have we not forgotten the

sacrifices of our parents and grandparents? when we play pin the tail on the donkey, and it's declared if we sleepwalk into another trump presidency, president trump will, quote, not give a simple -- a single penny to ukraine. that's what all of this is about. it's about trying to pull the wool over the eyes of america. who wins with the embarrassing spectacle? putin wins, xi wins, the tyrants of the whirlwind. they have one more reason to celebrate donald trump and his cult followers who completely lost their way. they are looking for high crimes and misdemeanors, and now they appoint themselves amateur memory specialists and that's

what they pounce on the former president trump, and the president laid it out in the state of the union, will america stand on the side of people struggling against fascists aggression, and stand with the people of ukraine against vladimir putin, whose filthy war meant the kidnapping of thousands of ukrainian children, the murder and slaughter of thousands of ukrainian civilians and the attack on an independent sovereign democracy? but we are not working on that today. we are not standing up for human rights and international law around the world. no, we are trying to play memory detectives to parse the language of a president who the whole world got to see at the state of the union address directly address the real questions of our time, and it's democracy versus dictatorship. all of the autocrats and all of

the cleptocrats -- >> the gentlemen yields back. mr. comer is recognized for five minutes. >> we identified a number of employees involved in the mishandling of classified documents under the leadership of president biden. special counsel hur, can you tell us how many current and former white house employees you interviewed during your investigation? >> i don't have that figure immediately at hand. it was a subset of the 173 interviews we conducted in our investigation. >> you indicate one of the employees you interviewed was dana remus. >> yes. >> and she was represented by white house counsel, right?

>> she was president obama's former white house counsel. >> okay. you wrote in may of 2022, remus took an effort to retrieve biden's files from the biden center, and that was to prepare for the potential enquiries about the biden families from 2017 to 2019. it seems odd to me that dana remus and joe biden's personal lawyers were obtaining documents about the activities, when joe biden publicly claimed he had no involvement with his family's business dealings. can you provide more information about why she would be obtaining the documents -- >> i am not in a position to go

beyond that. >> when you interviewed president biden, did you ask him what documents he possessed that could be related to a potential congressional inquiry about his activities, and did anything pertain to our inquiry that you recall? >> if you have specifics, that would be helpful? >> in relation to his family's peddling activities? >> if it's helpful, chairman, appendix a does list in table chart form a list of the documents recovered in our investigation. >> we intend to interview ms. remus, and can you confirm that you did record her in your

interview. >> it was our practice to record the interviews. >> and you learned from a biden employee, did you interview tamanasini in the course of your investigation? >> not that name, but we did interview the director of the oval office operations. >> the oversight interview interviewed a former assistant to president biden, and she visited the biden center in 2022, and this was month before classified documents were found in november of 2022. did you interview kathy chung in

the course of your investigation? >> i believe the substance related to the subject you are asking about appears on page 259 of the report, and while kathy chung did not appear in the report, there was a footnote 988. >> dana remus, anthony vurdol and ashley williams visited the biden center before the discovery of the classified materials in november of 2022. did you interview these individuals during your investigation? >> we interviewed many individuals. i can assure you, chairman, that we -- it was a priority of ours to interview all the relevant sources of the documents and how they got there and who could access them. >> so again, there would be

recordings? >> it was our practice to interview -- record interviews, yes, sir. i don't have an exact count -- >> how many visits to the biden center were made by biden's personal attorneys before the official discovery of documents in november of 2022? >> i don't have that on hand but it is in the report, sir. >> i yield back. >> mr. hur, anytime you need a break, if you need a break, let us know, because it will go for a while, as you well know. the gentle lady is recognized.

>> good morning. >> good morning. the republicans here ask for a lot of transcripts, but chair jordan has yet to release 90 plus transcripts from our interviews, and with those, are they to be released to the american people is the question. my question to you is you decided, based on the facts, not to prosecute or indict or bring forward charges against the president of the united states, the sitting president, joseph biden, is that correct? >> that was my judgment. >> this investigation was independent and thorough, is that correct? >> yes. >> we have heard from our republican colleagues, who are grasping at straws, allegations that president biden was treated lightly in this investigation. with just a plain reading of the report completely refutes that argument.

there was no two-tiered justice, and your office and the fbi undertook the extensive investigation into mr. biden's handling of classified information and the documents the fbi seized, correct? >> correct. >> you conducted 173 interviews, correct? >> correct. >> and president biden was one of those witnesses, correct? >> correct. >> for at least five hours or more? >> correct. and president biden engaged in the interview voluntarily, correct? >> correct. >> and it occurred, the interview occurred a day after the horrific attack in october 7th, 2023, hamas' attack in israel, is that correct?

>> the interview spanned two days, october 8th and 9th. >> he provided coherent answers to questions, correct? >> i don't recall the president being in and out during our interview -- >> let me go on. and president biden allowed investigators to search his private houses, is that correct? >> he did consent to the search of his residents? >> you collected 7 million documents for your review in your investigation, correct? >> correct. >> this included emails, toll records and other records from classified and unclassified sources, correct? >> correct. >> you reviewed president biden's handwritten notes as well, correct? >> correct. >> and you coordinated with a multiple government agencies to organize and complete your investigation, correct?

>> we consulted with numerous agencies to -- >> right, and that included working with national security experts in the intelligence community to carefully analyze each classified document that was obtained? >> yes, we submitted exerts for classification review. >> you classified it as a higher level for the purposes of your investigation. >> is that reflected in the appendix -- >> thank you. attorney general garland appointed you as special counsel over the matter, correct?

>> correct. >> president biden's home, delaware as many -- any matters that rose from the initial investigation or arose from the -- >> i believe that accurately reflects the language of the appointment order. >> you conducted an investigation for about a year, and you conducted 173 interviews, including president biden himself, and you reviewed 7 million documents including president biden's personal records and in the thorough and lengthy investigation, you did not uncover enough evidence to recommend prosecution against the president, is that correct? >> that's my judgment. >> if you found enough evidence to warrant prosecution, did you feel free, unrestrained,

unrestrained by the attorney general appointed by president biden to make such a recommendation to the attorney general? >> i was aware of the office of legal counsel policy right now, prohibiting sitting presidents being charged with federal crimes, but apart from that, what i can tell you, congresswoman, is the investigative steps we took was my own and the judgment was my own and the words in the report are my own. >> the time has expired. >> i would like to put in the record -- >> yes, without objection. mr. president, why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter? the president, i did not share classified information. i did not share it. i guarantee, i did not. that's not true, is it mr. hur? >> that's inconsistent with the

findings in my report. >> it's a lie is what regular people would say, right? >> yeah. >> so the next one, all the stuff in my home was in filing cabinets that were locked or able to be locked. that was not true either, was it? >> that was inconsistent with the findings of my investigation. >> another lie people might say, right, and in your report you said among other documents in the garage was a damaged open box. you find in your report the elements of a criminal federal investigation are met, and then you have a -- i think you get to the right answer in that, i don't think biden or trump should have been charged, but under the senile cooperator theory, isn't it frustrating that president biden goes out

and continue to lie about the facts in the report that would lay out a criminal -- >> i found all the elements were met. i would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that that intent -- >> the reason you have that doubt is the senile cooperator theory, the fact that joe biden is so inept in responding you can't rely on the intent, and biden goes out there at the white house and says, you know, he just blatantly lies. what i am trying to figure out is biden is lying because he is still so senile or if it's a little more devious and perhaps a little more intentional than we might otherwise think? i want to go to the biden penn

center. did it give concern to you that the biden penn center where all this classified stuff was being handled was being floated by other foreign governments? >> we were concerned about all the classified documents recovered -- >> what bothers me is the money paying for the place where the documents were being inappropriately held, there was the chinese and other foreign countries -- did that play into your analysis? did you look into the billion as a foreign funding -- >> we were very concerned with getting to the bottom of all of the relevant -- >> did you look into the fact that the chinese were floating the funding for the place the documents were found.

that seemed relevant to me. the ghostwriter purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to be like show culpability in biden's crimes and you don't charge him. why didn't you charge the ghostwriter? >> well, when we interviewed the ghostwriter, he did tell us and i am trying to get the exact language, one of the things on his mind, one of the things he was aware of is i was conducting an investigation. >> just so everybody knows, the ghostwriter didn't delete the recordings just as a matter of happenstance. the ghostwriter has recordings of biden making admissions of crimes and he learns you have been appointed, and he then deletes the information that is the evidence and you don't charge him. >> that is reflected in the report. one of the reasons --

>> what does somebody have to do to get charged with obstruction of justice by you? if deleting evidence of crimes doesn't count, what is the stand yard? >> one of the things he did not delete was transcripts of the recordings he created and that included evidence -- >> so if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence that somehow absolves you of the evidence you do destroy? what i see is the ghostwriter should have been charged and wasn't, and biden and trump should have been treated equally, and they were not. that's what the american people should be concerned about. >> the gentlemen from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. raskin laid out the big picture that we could be concerned about, but in the more limited picture, director muller

found sufficient evidence to say there was a connection between russia and the trump campaign, and it supported a criminal prosecution if you were not president. you found no evidence to support a criminal prosecution. it's simple, the independent department of justice appointed you as special counsel to fully investigate the issues, and you found in sufficient evidence of a crime. case closed. you did your job. mr. garland did his job, and unlike mr. barr, he did not interfere. did mr. garland ask you to change your report? >> no. >> mr. barr redacted the report.

the department of justice is independent and allows the special counsel to investigate. let's start with yes or no questions. did you receive any pressure from mr. garland or his staff to make any specific factual finding or legal conclusion? >> no. >> did you receive resources necessary to carry out your duties? >> yes. >> do you have any reason to believe you were treated differently with regard to independents or resources than other doj or special prosecutors? >> no. >> was anybody interviewing with jack smith or his work? >> i do not have the basis to answer that question. >> your summation, which we treat as thoughtful and unpolitical, we should treat

decisions by jack smith the same way to your knowledge? >> i do not have sufficient information with regard to jack smith see investigation to provide any comment on it. >> let me ask you this, if president biden in his testimony to you, knew the exact date, whatever date it was when he came vice president, and when he left as vice president, and it would be january 20th -- he knew the dates exactly right, and if he knew the exact date and the instant that his son died, would not have changed your decision to bring about prosecution? >> i cannot engage in hypotheticals, and what i did was make a decision on the facts and circumstances i was presented with. >> it appears to me, and i think it would appear to the american public, that these minor discrepancies as far as dates after a long period of time was

not the basis, it was not the basis of your decision to decline to prosecute, but it was that he acted differently than trump, and he didn't try to obstruct justice. those were the reasons you didn't prosecute him, not because he miss add few dates? >> congressman, my reasons are set out in my report and i stand by the words in my report. >> i think -- what i am saying to you, it's not anything to do with his memory why you chose not to indict him, it was the facts in the case. he did an outstanding job in the state of the union, laying out the case for the future of america, for the middle class and democracy around the world and standing up to the russians, and not bending down to them, and that's what is important, and not if you can be like, the

$64 million question, assuming you can answer that correctly, but the president needs to have values and needs to maintain to keep the world safe and peaceful. that's dealing with ukraine, and netanyahu, and that's what joe biden does and understanding social and medicaid are important institutions that help seniors, and not senile people, and lots of seniors have memory disabilities, and they are not senile, and to do such was shameful. joe biden is a competent and good president that knows american values. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from california is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for a year of hard work and a comprehensive report. i will try not to provide testimony like people on both sides are or provide conclusions, but i do have questions that leads me asking you for conclusions. were there notes of the president of the united states that dated back to when he was a senator that contained classified information? >> among the documents that were recovered during our investigation were marked classified documented that dated back to when biden was a senator. >> in his 40s, 50s? >> i believe that was correct. >> were there documents from the time he was vice president? >> yes. so there has been a lot to do about, you know, senility, nonsenility, poor memory and so

on. let's go through what you deal with as a prosecutor every day. you first start off with a set of initial evidence that indicates there may have been a crime, is that right? by the time it gets to you, usually you have some evidence there may have been a crime? >> i think is that fair, yes. >> in this case at some point during this investigation where the elements of the crime including willfulness were put before you and you reached a personal conclusion that either it was likely guilt or not, is that correct? not provable, not in front of a jury, but just personal because you have to make that decision as part of the case, correct? >> correct. i approached the task as i have been trained to as a prosecutor, and the investigation is uncovering evidence you

incorporate. >> before, during and at the end did you reach a conclusion not withstanding his current mental state of being an elderly man with a poor memory and so on, that he did, in fact, deliberately take documents and held them from back when he was a senator that -- and we're talking about your personal, not that you could prove it, but personally did you see a pattern that goes all the way back to him being a senator of taking documents, making notes and taking them and holding them personally? >> congressman, i viewed my task as a prosecutor to determine the evidence -- >> i appreciate that and i am not trying to take away from your conclusion. others are debating the conclusion. i am not debating the conclusion. i just want to go through one element that i think is important. look, you have prosecuted people in the past and failed to get a conviction, is that correct? >> correct. >> you are not a 1000 perfect

batting average? >> i can't say that. >> you went into cases thinking you would succeed and you didn't, and one might say you declined to prosecute ones where you could have gotten a conviction or plea on, would you say that's fair to say over your long career? >> i think that's fair because i take the rules seriously. >> i would presume you would never prosecute somebody you thought was out right innocent? >> correct. >> in this case, did you reach the conclusion that the man was out right innocent? >> that was not reflected in my report, sir. >> 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 was based on my judgment and evidence, what would be the probable outcome.

>> i think this is extremely important. you did not reach an idea that he committed no wrong, but you reached a conclusion that you would not prevail at trial and therefore did not take it forward, is that correct? >> correct, congressman. >> i want to go through one or two little -- it's housekeeping, almost. the documents that the president, then vice president took, which included his own notes, to your knowledge, aren't those covered by the freedom of information act, potentially? >> i do not know, congressman. >> aren't they covered by the presidential records act as every note and every text of the president, the vice president and members of his cabinet are covered? >> i think different folks would have different views on that. >> but he left office with no

copies left behind and that was consistent with an open and transparent individual, correct? >> i am not aware of copies of those materials being left behind, congressman. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you. mr. hur, you have a distinguished career with a degree from stanford university, and serves as a student as the stanford law review, correct? >> correct. >> then you went on to clerk for a judge in the ninth circuit, correct? >> correct. >> and then you clerked for william rehnquist on the united states supreme court, right? >> correct. >> then you were a special assistant to known federalists society member and now fbi

director, christopher wray, isn't that correct? >> i did spend time working for former attorney general, christopher wray. >> you later joined the trump justice department as the assistant attorney general working for the right hand man for rod rosenstein? >> i serves as rosenstein's principle deputy. >> then president trump nominated you to -- >> i was unanimously confirmed by the united states senate. >> and there after attorney merrick garland appointed you to conduct a full and thorough investigation of certain matters to determine whether or not joseph biden should be charged with unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents,

correct? >> correct. >> nowhere in that order does attorney garland ask you to decide if mr. biden is mentally fit. >> that was not in the report. >> and you published a report. >> your report concluded that after a full and thorough investigation, the evidence was insufficient to establish that president biden had willfully retained classified documents, isn't that correct? >> my judgment was on the state of the evidence, a guilty judgment was not the outcome. >> the biden legal team and the

white house fully cooperated with the national archives during the investigation. once the doj opened the investigation, president biden and his personal counsel fully cooperated, isn't that correct? >> we did identify some evidence of willful retention and disclosure -- >> the point is that the president cooperated fully with you. didn't president -- i mean, they never tried to hide documents from you, did they? >> the report does note cooperation from the president. >> unlike in the trump classified documents case, president biden's counsel never falsely certified there was no classified documents in the president's position, correct? >> the report does report on the comparisons and contrasts between the biden and trump cases. >> despite president biden from being prosecuted, you used your

report to trash and smear president biden because he said in response to questions over a five-hour interview, he did not remember how he got the documents, and you said he was unfit because he's senile, and the american people saw in the state of the union address that's not true, and that's why they are having you here today, so they could expand on that narrative. you knew that was what was going to happen? >> congressman, i reject -- >> you are a member of the federalist society, are you not? are you a member of the federalist society? >> i am not.

>> you are a republican, aren't you? >> i am a registered republican. >> yes, sir. you are doing everything you can do to get president trump re-elected so you can get appointed perhaps as a judge or another position in the department of justice? >> i have no such aspirations, and i can tell you that had no place in the steps i took or the decision i made or no place in my report. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> thank you for being here. i think for the folks that may be watching this at home, they may be confused. i am trying to organize this in my mind as well. the way the president is portrayed in your report and just how we feel about him, was he a well-meaning forgetful man, as you said, or was he a man that was focussed on history, a man that maintained and retained

these top secret documents that should have been not in his home? was he a man that wanted to prove he was worthy to be president and that his vision of afghanistan was better than even barack obama's and his focus on history was most important to him? do you know which it is? >> you are quoting language from my report, and i stand by the words in my report. >> you stand by that he was -- let me quote you, exactly, a well-meaning but forgetful old man. >> i don't think those exact words appear in the report, but to the extent that i used words similar to the effect of how a jury would perceive president biden and the evidence relating to his testimony, i do stand by that assessment. >> is it accurate to say in your interview president biden retained classified information as a means to bolster his --

>> i believe words to that affect are in my report. >> so the answer is yes. do you think that provides a motive for his actions concerning classified materials, yes or no? >> it's one of the motives addressed in the report. >> and classified documents were found in badly damaged boxes in his garage, is that correct? >> those words do appear in the report. >> so that's correct. the answer is yes. are these secure locations to score classified documents? >> they are not. >> we have a former vice president who is established to have willfully, purposefully retained classified documents in order to highlight his political stature and show his stature as a president figure. we have former vice president

that stored classified documents in very unsecured places. we have a former vice president who will not suffer any consequences for his actions because he's a well-meaning forgetful old man. if you were a well-meaning forgetful old man and was driving a car and you forgot what you were doing and you hit somebody and killed them, i believe you would be responsible. the law must apply. you know this. the standard not to prosecute joe biden but to prosecute trump for similar conduct gives the appearance of two standards. again, justice for thee but not for me. special counsel hur, has any

other president been charged for retaining classified information after leaving office, yes or no? >> no. >> would you concur mr. smith's decision to prosecute mr. trump for retaining classified information -- >> i will not comment on that. >> these two reports are the culmination of the department of justice's two standards, and that's an example of the justice department being weaponized against conservatives. we know that when his ghostwriter was speaking to him and he did recordings, and when he did the recordings, it was a month after biden left as vp, he was aware of top secret classified materials that were,

quote, downstairs. is that true? >> that is reflected in an audio recording, yes. >> that is reflected in an audio recording. sometimes he may be sleepy and sometimes he may be forgetful and sometimes he may be cognitively impaired, no doubt about that, but when it came to his personal legacy, the way he wanted to be recommended, to make sure he was a big deal in plain english in the future, he was willingly and knowingly breaking the law. it's unfortunate that we have the department of justice that will treat one person one way and somebody else a different way. it's a sad day for america. thank you, mr. hur. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i want to ask you about some of the differences between the facts involving president biden and president trump, but before i do, i want to refer back to the president where you said you did not disparage the president

in your report, but of course you did, you disparaged in terms you had to know would have a maximum impact. you understand your report would be public, right? >> i understood based on the comments from the attorney general made. >> you could have chosen just to comment on the president's particular recall vis-a-vis, a particular document or set of documents, but you chose to go further and make a generalized statement about his memory, correct? >> well, that would have been an incomplete and improper report and that did not reflect the analysis -- >> you could have written the report with comments about his specific recollection about documents or a set of documents, but you chose a general reference, and you understand when you made that decision, mr.

hur, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn't you? >> mr. congressman, politics played no part in my decision or the words i put in the report. >> you cannot tell me you are so naive to understand your words would create a political firestorm? you understood how they would be manipulated by my colleagues here on the gop side of the aisle and president trump. you understand that, did you not? >> what i understood was the regulations that confidential. you knew it would not be confidential, didn't you? >> sir, the regulations required me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the attorney general. >> which you knew would be released. you understood it would be released, did you not? you understood it would be released?

you understood? >> i understood that he would make as much of my report public as he could consistent with legal requirements. >> you also understand doj policy that you are to take care not to prejudice the subject of the investigation? and it was your obligation to follow that policy in this report, was it not? >> it was also my obligation to write a confidential report for the attorney general explaining completely -- >> what you did write was deeply prejudicial to the interest of the president. you say it wasn't political. yet, you must have understood -- you must have understood the impact of your words. you must have understood your decision to go beyond the specifics of a particular document, to go to the very general -- to your own personal prejudicial, subjective opinion of the president, one you knew would be amplified by his political opponent, one that would influence a political

campaign. you had to understand that. you did it anyway. and let me just go to some of the differences here between the president's conduct and mr. trump's. in the superseding indictment, on page 3, it says that mr. trump suggested that his attorney falsely represent to the fbi and grand jury that he did not have documents called for by the grand jury's subpoena. you didn't find anything like that with respect to mr. biden, did you? >> congressman, i do not have the trump indictment in front of me. i need to address something you said in your prior question. what you are suggesting is that i needed to provide a different version of my report that would be fit for public release. that is nowhere in the rules. i was to prepare a confidential report that was comprehensive and thorough of and -- >> what is in the rules, mr. hur, is you don't gratuitously do things to prejudice the subject of an investigation when

you are declining to prosecute. you don't gratuitously add language you know will be useful in a political campaign. you were not born yesterday. you understood exactly what you were doing. it was a choice. you certainly didn't have to include that language. you could have said, vis-a-vis the documents found at the university, the president did not recall. there is nothing more common -- you know this. i know this. there's nothing more common with a witness of any age when asked about events that are years old to say, i do not recall. indeed, they are instructed by their attorney to do that if they have any question about it. you understood that. you made a choice that was a political choice. it was the wrong choice. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from arizona, does special counsel wish to respond? >> yes. what you are responding is that i shape, sanitize, omit portions of my reasoning and explanation to the attorney general for political reasons.

>> i suggest you not shape your report for political reasons. which is what you did. >> that did not happen. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. hur, for being here. i think where you and i might have disagreements, there may be matters of opinion and not necessarily the facts as you reported them. i want to go over the elements of the offense that seem to have at least struck my -- the jury not likely to find intentionality on the part of disclosure in particular. i want to talk about that for a second. if it's not willful, we might say an accident, something negligent, careless, that would not necessarily rise to willful or intentional or purposeful, right? >>standards

of intent under the law. >> when president biden misplaced 30 briefing documents in 2010 that had classified material -- they are not sure if they got them all back. or when he was in the hamptons at a party and he lost what they were calling code words, which is high security information, that wasn't necessarily willful? there was no indication he purposefully did that? accidental, negligent? you indicated -- don't know if we got all that information back. we're assuming maybe we did. that would not be willful, right? >> as reflected in the report, there were certain categories of documents where when we investigated how they got to where they ended up or how they ended up being misplaced, we did not identify something willful. >> it's not incompetent? it's not accidental? would you say it's willful, it's

intentional, it's purposeful, it indicates really a choice, that you have made a deliberate, conscious decision to action in a certain way, is that fair? >> that is fair, congressman. as i explained in the report, the standard -- the willfulness standard involves the following things. that you know that what you are doing is against the law when you do it. >> correct. let's take a look at it. it's been brought up before. in february of 2017, he is having a discussion with the ghost writer. he is at the virginia house. he said, i just found all the classified stuff downstairs. so he knows he has classified stuff. right? two months later, in april, he is at a different location, it's my understanding. i think he is now up in delaware. let's look at 105 and 106 here. he says -- biden reads from a

different notebook entrance. he reads from notes. we are talking about u.s. military views expressed by the intelligence community, cia director. while he is reading those notes, he says, i can't read my own writing. do you have any idea what i'm saying here? he asked the ghost writer. ghost writer says, something, blah, blah, blah. biden says, some of this may be classified, so be careful. some of this may be classified, so be careful. my immediate response was, okay, so he knows he has classified docs. he is looking at this. he can't read it. he is giving this to somebody he knows has no security clearance. read this but be careful, it might be classified. the guy says, okay. next thing, well, i don't know if it's classified or not. i'm suggesting to you -- this is where you and i have a difference of opinion. when you say something like,

hey, i just -- this may be classified. be careful. that warning -- that warning to be careful because it may be classified, that indicates guilty knowledge. that indicates he might know something more than he otherwise would have. in any case, as you point out here, he reads classified information, and it's still classified today. that's on page 106. when you look at this, it's hard for me to say, well, he was ignorant, it was accidental. no. he had guilty knowledge. he knew and told the guy that he is going to expose that classified material to, hey, be careful. be careful. it may be classified. that indicates something a little bit more than mere

knowledge. it indicates that he has some intent there. because the next thing he should have said is, hey, i don't know if it's classified, but we're going to skip over this until that's resolved. he didn't do that. what he said is, read it anyway. yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. hur, i was moved by your parents' immigrant story and how that shaped you. their story is a story that so many of us know through our constituents. it's the story of america. it's a story that the guy who appointed you would end if he was in charge. it's a story that most of the folks on the other side of the aisle seek to block every day in this room. it's a story that's persuasive. you want your report to be received with credibility. is that right?

>> my goal was to provide a thorough explanation of my decision to the attorney general -- >> be credible. >> as i said, i felt 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. he was then impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection. he was charged for possessing classified documents and obstructing justice. he was charged for paying for the silence of a porn star. he was charged in georgia for his role in january 6. he was charged in the district of columbia for his role in january 6. he owes $400 million to the