your report tells us, quote, we conclude the questioned is not sufficient to convict, those are your words, is that correct? >> i believe if those exact words appear in the court they're consistent with my position. >> very good. they're the exact words. that was not the case with donald trump. you have a copy of your report don't you in front of you? >> i do. >> read a portion for me, your wards, page 11, starting at 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 evidence set forth by mr. trump if proven would have facts -- >> keep going. >> congresswoman, i'm happy for you to read -- >> i think it's more fitting that you i think it's more fit

that you read. >> moat notably given the chance to avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and to lie about it. >> you may stop there. thank you, you mentioned the indictment against mr. trump for mishandling classified sensitive security information. that indictment says tend of his presidency, mr. trump -- i'm looking for my indictment here -- i have it here. mr. trump himself ordered that boxes containing classified materials go to mar-a-lago. where he hosted tens of thousands of guests. then he kept the sensitive materials carelessly about the property as you can see here. classified documents ended up in a bathroom. a ball room, on a floor strewn 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 employ waltteen nada to move boxes of the documents to conceal them from mr. trump's attorney and then lie 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 referred to in your report? >> congresswoman, the aggravating facts that are referred to in the report are set forth and described in my report at page 11. >> very good. mr. hur, to the best of your knowledge, and investigation, did president biden ever direct an employee to lie about, hide or destroy classified information, yes or no? >> we did not identify such evidence. >> did he do so himself? >> we did not identify such

evidence. >> i want to give you a chance since the transcript is out to correct the record on an important point. very sadly, your report on page 208 says mr. biden couldn't come up with the date, the year of his son beau biden's death when in fact it shows that you asked him the month, do you know what he said, mr. hur, he said, oh, god, may 30th. would you like to correct the record. his memory was pretty firm on the month and day. >> i don't believe that's correct with respect to the transcript if you can refer to a specific page, i'll be happy to report. >> i read about it. thank you, i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. conway. >> mr. hur, why did the white house ask you to remove parts of the report? what was the reason they gave you for that? >> i don't have the letter in front of me, congressman. i believe among the reasons was that they contested or asserted that certain language in the

report was inconsistent with doj policy. >> the day that your report came out, the president gave a live news conference on national television. did you watch the news conference? >> i watched the press conference, yes. >> what was your reaction to having the president personally attack you and your team? >> congressman, i'm here to talk about the report. >> it wasn't just the president, anthony coley, former spokesman for merrick garland said that democrats should focus their ire on her. bob bower said the report is a shabby piece of work and shoddy work product. do you agree with the characterization of your report. >> i disagree vehemently with your report. >> i also disagree, i think it's well rein and comprehensive. do you think it's appropriately for the administration to be attacking the work of special counsel of the work that he contacted itself? >> congressman, i'm not going to

talk about the propriety of my report. >> today, the ranking member started the statement by saying mr. hur completely exonerated president biden and call the record a total exoneration. mr. hur, did you exonerate president biden? >> that is not what the report does. >> so the statement by the ranking member was incorrect? >> yes. >> as i said, the report is not an exoneration. that word does not appear in my report. >> based on facts and anticipation of offenses presented in your report, could a reasonable juror have noted to convict? >> as i said in the report some reasonable jurors may have reached the inferences that the government would present in its case in chief. >> so a reasonable juror would 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'd like to stick to what's in the report which is my assessment as a prosecutor. >> sure.

what you did find in the report, the president, page 200 risked serious damage to america's national security, through his handling, and mishandling of classified materials. you identified, quote, a strong motive for the way he handled those motives two of the motives his entire to run for president and sell books. so a reasonable inference for your report is that the president risked serious damage to america's national security in order to make money and advance his personal political ambitions, is that correct? >> report includes a description of the evidence and different inferences that reasonable jurors could draw from the inference. >> and you also note that it's described his predecessor's handles of reports as totally irresponsible. and concluded that the documents unsecured in one tone is totally irresponsible and applies equally to his own decision, is that correct? >> that language does appear in the report. >> you cite as a mitigating

factor the fact that the president cooperated in the investigation. but at the time that the investigation was happening, and acts of cooperation occurred, the mar-a-lago was already a matter of public record, correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> we already had a public debate about the application and criminal laws to that general set of circumstances? >> i think that's fair. >> so the president whether he decided to cooperate or not cooperate, had to know that decision to cooperate or not cooperate would become known to the public and he would be judged accordingly, is that correct? >> i'm not in a position to opine what was or in the president's -- >> but it's in your analysis as to whether or not it counts as a mitigating factor, he knew he was going to have to be judged based on whether he cooperated or not that would mitigate its value as a mitigating factor did that lessen its value? >> one took a comprehensive -- >> that specific factor. >> that, and all facts relating

to the president's cooperation with our investigation. >> another fact that you it discussed is deterrence. you say deterrence in fact against bringing charges here you said as for general deattorneys, future presidents and vice presidents are likely to be deterred by the multi time recent criminal investigations and one prosecution of current and former president and vice presidents for mishandling classified documents. and that one prosecution, of course, is the indictment brought by jack smith. so, by the very terms of your analysis, jack smith's indictment actually counted against bringing charges in this case, is that correct? >> i'm sorry, congressman, i don't follow your drift there. >> well, you said there's already deterrence, because there's prosecution out there in a prior case related to classifies 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 i will stand by the way and the specific words in which i

characterize my assessment of deterrence value of a case under principles of federal prosecution that's on page 254 and 255 of my report. >> my time out. the application here is that the administration by the very terms of your analysis actually made it less likely that the president would face charges by jack smith bringing an indictment. thank you, i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i have unanimous consent request. >> okay. >> thank you, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents. first the superseding indictment against donald trump in the southern district of florida, where he is currently facing criminal charges on 40 points including obstruction of justice, lying to the fbi, his unlawful, willful retention of national defense -- >> without objection, the indictment is prejudiced. >> the concealment of documents from law enforcement, among other things. that was the shortened version. and my second document, to classify 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. >> i ask for consent. >> the gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you ranking member for this hearing and thank you so much for spending so much time with us special counsel hur. in accordance with the law, classified information must be treated with the highest respect and 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 says, 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, end quote. the special counsel's report makes clear that this is unfortunately a common

occurrence for classified documents to get swept up into members of congress or executive branches, official's personal effects. and as soon as president biden discovered that he had mistakenly kept classified material, he took swift and immediate action to make sure 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. end quote. yet, when his lawyer told him that it was going to be a crime if he didn't return the classified documents that he had after nra, doj, and the fbi

requested multiple times that trump return 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'd like to talk about your report regarding president biden and some of your findings. and for the sake of time, if you don't mind just answers yes or no. please answer this question. page 187, 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. this is 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. >> so this is what you reported, correct? >> that language is in my report. >> mr. hur, you acknowledge on page 12 of your report there are as you said numerous previous instances in which marked classified documents had been discovereded intermixed with papers from congress. please confirm this is what you reported? >> that language appears on page 12 of my report. >> page 323 also reads as a

matter of historical context there had been numerous previous incidents in which marked classified documents have been discovered enter mixed with the personal papers of former executive branch officials and members of congress. is this what you reported? >> that language appears at page 323. >> thank you. now, it's my understanding that this has happened before. where classified documents are swept up into official papers. so, mr. hur, aside from donald trump, are you aware of similar instances in history where officials who have had these classified documents engaged in documents from federal law enforcement officials? >> the one case that comes to mind that we do address in the report is the prosecution of general petraeus. >> so, are these historical examples aside from donald trump where official instructed their aides to delete evidence pertaining to those classified

documents? >> that was not present at the petraeus prosecution, no. >> so, the person people deserve, as we've always been saying all along here, we deserve a leader who will not put themselves above the law, but will work with law enforcement and hold themselves accountable. thank you, and i yield back. >> the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. >> special counsel hur, when you determined that no criminal charges should be brought against president biden in this matter, you focused on the specific facts surrounding the classified documents, where president biden stored them and on his home other and age. you wrote that president biden's, quote, memory, was significantly limited during his recorded interviews with the ghost writer in 2017 and during his interview with the special counsel's office in 2023. you also expressed concern with respect to jurors would be persuaded by president biden's

presentation as a sympathetic well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. and your focus was how president biden would currently present to a jury if he stood trial, is that correct? >> that was an element of my statement of attorney general it was not only element. >> that wasn't my question, but it was one. questions we can considering was his current state of mind, his memory, correct? >> one of the things i would have considered, whether a trial, heretically were to be held, how president biden would present himself to a jury if elected to testify. >> you did not compare president biden's current memory or condition when he was a senator when he left the vpscy and took the classified documents subject to your investigation, is that correct? >> actually, i believe that's not correct, congresswoman. one of the things in the report is an assessment of the president's memory based on recordings from the 2016, 2017

time frame, recordings of mr. biden and his ghostwriter, and comparing that with the memory that mr. biden exhibited in interview of 2023. so there was a comparison there. >> okay, unless there was some issue disclosed 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, quote, will fly detained classified materials after he was a private citizen, you state that on page 1, correct? >> i believe what will i stated on page 1, we identified evidence that mr. biden willfully obtained classified information after his vice presidency. but ultimately, we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant that. >> 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, at 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 them at his home. >> after he left, he knew he was not allowed to keep classified information at his home, right? >> after he left, there's evidence to suggest that he knew he could not legally have classified information at 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 i would put it is this, president biden knew better. he knew that he wasn't entitled to keep these documents when he was a senator. and he knew he wasn't entitled to keep these documents after he had left the vice presidency. but because he's now suffering from an impaired memory as you so delicately put it, he got away with it, that fair? >> congresswoman, what i stated in my report is that there's certainly evidence that some jurors could infer to suggest that mr. biden willfully retained and disclosed national defense information but in my judgment, the likely outcome of a trial, it's not a conviction. >> mr. hur, i have represented a variety of clients over the years and actions of the federal government over in fact several decades of time. it's been my experience that the federal government and the doj specifically has essentially unlimited resources to go after

and prosecute citizens and will spare absolutely no expense in doing so. it has also been my experience that the d.o.j. is not only overly aggressive in these cases, but makes it clear part of the reason for aggression is to make it an example of the poor soul for such action, in other words so that other people will not engage in that conduct. mr. hur, being a long-term prosecutor, could you explain why those people without the last name of clinton or biden are treated quite differently and seem to be the only ones who are not held liable for violating the law? >> congresswoman, one of the things in my report there are historical precedence with those in the white house and retention of classified documents. >> i'm asking specifically about hillary clinton and joe biden. >> congresswoman, i don't have any opinion to articulate with

respect to the investigation relating to mrs. clinton. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. recognized chool? get his little puppy diploma? how much have i been spending on this little guy? when your questions about life turn into questions about money... there's erica. the virtual financial assistant to help you spend, save, and plan smarter. only from bank of america. anthony: this making you uncomfortable? and plgood.arter. when you've got type 2 diabetes like me, you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack or worse death. even when meeting your a1c goal. discomfort can help you act. i'm not trying to scare you. i'm empowering you... to get real with your health care provider. talk to them about lowering your risk of stroke, heart attack or death.

ma, ma, ma— ( clears throat ) for fast sore throat relief, try vicks vapocool drops. with two times more menthol per drop, and powerful vicks vapors to vaporize sore throat pain. vicks vapocool drops. vaporize sore throat pain. if your moderate to severe crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms are stopping you in your tracks... choose stelara® from the start... and move toward relief after the first dose... with injections every two months. stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition, may be possible. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. feel unstoppable. ask your doctor how lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options.

i thank you mr. hur, and before i yield back, mr. chairman, i ask unanimous content to enter into the record an excerpt from the committee's transcribed interviewed with steven detornno, former fbi director from 2023, in which he explained that the fbi executed a search warrant for classified material at mar-a-lago because there was probable cause to believe that donald trump did not fully comply with a subpoena to turn over classified documents. >> no objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i

yield back. >> gentleman yields back -- the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i have three unanimous consent requests. >> all right. >> first, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the publisher's web page for president biden's 2017 book "promise me dad. ""a deeply moving book. >> no objection. >> 1997, mr. hur's report which says president biden's book is not known to contain classified information. >> no objection. >> finally i ask consent to into into the record, special counsel hur that classifies that president biden's 2017 book, quote, does not contain classified information there's never been any suggestion to the contrary. >> no objection.

>> thank you, special counsel hur for joining us here today to discuss your investigation. regarding president biden's mishandling of classified documents. this has become an issue of great issue to all americans and of course to all of us here today. as outlined in your report, despite the discovery of confidential and top secret records located in the president's personal residence in delaware, including in his garage, office and basement, the department declined prosecution. and my colleagues' questions today have focused on the highlights from your report, specifically referring to president biden's mental capacity, his willful disreguard of the law and how he would be perceived by a jury of his peers, dependent upon, 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. so one of the things we must consider today is how we can ensure that our national security cannot continually be put at risk when under the leadership of the same well-meaning ed determine 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 or retention of the documents? >> congresswoman, my understand is that such a damage assessment is under way in coordination and cooperation with the members of the intelligence community. >> and do you, today, for us have any information about the status about that investigation o how long it might take to conclude? >> i do not, congresswoman. >> i'd like to turn your attention to the discuss of the distinction between proving the underlying elements of a defense and construct of obstruction of

justice charge. is it correct, counselor hur, you may investigate an underlying offense, choose not to charge that offense, but still have developed sufficient evidence to charge a defendant with obstruction of justice? >> i think as a matter of law, theoretically that could occur. i can't bring to mind specific examples of that happening. but i suppose if that were to happen, it would be a difficult case to try from a prosecutor's point. >> well, the elements are distinct, are they not. >> they are distinct. >> and isn't it similar to a case where a federal prosecutor undergoes an investigation and ultimately doesn't pursue the original charge they were investigating. but during the course of the investigation concludes that a fault statement was made to a federal law enforcement officer and brings the charge under 1001. >> that could happen.

>> yes. there, too, the elements would be different? >> correct. >> and in reaching your final decision on the recommendation to decline prosecution, you considered both the underlying elements of offenses at issue and also the principles of federal prosecution, is that right? >> correct. now, the principles of federal prosecution, those are things that may vary case to case, is that right? >> determination under the principles-federal prosecution are very fact dependent. >> you but the elements of the defense are not, isn't that also correct? >> elements are defined by law, and they do not vary case to case. >> thus, those elements of underlying defense would be exactly the same from one defendant to the next, isn't that right? >> yes. >> so, you would expect, would you not that a prosecutor who was considering the underlying offenses that you were considering here would be looking at exactly the same elements and requirements of proof that you did on the

underlying charges? >> prosecutors assessing their cases under the same statues must consider the same elements with respect to those statutes. >> thank you, special counsel hur. and if we could turn back to the concept of principles of federal prosecution. those are the additional factors, aggravating or mitigating, that you might consider in ultimately reaching a charge or decision here, is that right? >> they do include such things that are referred to as aggravating and mitigating circumstances. >> there's one thing i want to go back to, though, to be clear. it's been said today that your report is tantamount to a total exoneration of president biden. that's not correct, is it? >> that is not correct. >> thank you, sir, i yield the balance of my time to the chair. >> the chair 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 3 1/2 hours, 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 you cannot refute. and i'd like to just focus on a few of them. and i'll give you citations. one of these explanations, for the presence of classified documents, is that a member of the president's staff maintains those documents when he was the vice president. and then mistakenly included them in sets of documents that were later sent to locations such as the penn/biden center and the university of delaware, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. but if you have a specific page number for me that would help. >> we'll get you one that would be great. you also found that another innocent explanation to be more likely than a criminal explanation, for the presence of

classified documents that were found at the penn-biden center and the university of delaware, is that correct? >> correct. >> great. and then let's talk about the documents in the president's garage. as you noted, a reasonable juror could conclude that the location of the documents surrounded by household junk is not a place where a person knowingly and intentionally stored classified documents that are critical to his legacy. instead, it looks more like a place where a person stores classified documents that he's unaware of. that's on page 209 of your report, correct. >> that is something that say reasonable juror could factor into his or her consideration of whether or not the president had criminal, willful intent. >> great. and you also noted that president biden was allowed to have classified documents in his home for eight years as vice president, and then when he was president. that he also had layers of staff

who were responsible for assembling, carrying, storing and retrieving these types of classified documents? >> correct. >> and because of these facts, you determined it was, quote, 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. >> so that's the citation. i'm going to keep going because my time is running while you're looking. so, you cite -- 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 quote, 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 answer 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 those documents for years. just as a person who destroys evidence and lies often proves his guilt. a person who will produces evidence and cooperates will seem by many to be innocent. again, page 210. as you said in your report, it would be reasonable for a juror to reach that conclusion. and that a president advised by counsel would not have informed investigators of the presence of classified documents in his home or invited agents in the search of every nook and cranny of his home or sat for an hours' long interview or answer pages of

written questions. all going to his full cooperation and his lack of criminal intent. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. hur, three more then we take votes and a couple more after that. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> i yield to the chairman. >> mr. hur, are you opposed to u.s. congress having access to audiotapes to the people you interviewed during your investigation? >> chairman, i am not in a position to articulate an opinion one way or the other. that's not really up to me. i'm a former employee of the department of justice, i'd refer tout white house. >> you're an accomplished lawyer is there any president bush why the united states congress shouldn't have access to the same information you had access to and basis of your decision? >> chairman, it's not for me to opine on what materials -- >> justice department released the transcripts the day of the hearing, it would be nice to have the committee prepare for

questioning of you, releasing them today. it would be nice if we actually had the audiotapes, too. again, is there any reason why you can see why the american people and their representatives in the united states congress should not have access to those tapes? >> chairman, what i can tell you is my assessment that went into my conclusions that i describe in my report was based not solely on the transcript. it was caved on all of the evidence, including the audio recordings. >> great point. that's where i was going. so this is valuable evidence for you as the special counsel named, valuable evidence for you to reach a exclusion. statements in your report. all i'm asking should the united states congress have access to the same information? >> chairman, again, it's not for me to weigh in on what information congress should or should not have. the audio recordings are part of the evidence that i considered. >> we'll get back to the gentleman from kentucky.

>> yield to the gentleman north dakota. >> thank you, chairman. in the report, you indicate that mr. biden retained classified documents back to his time back to the '70s as a senator, correct? >> correct. >> even more papers back to 1991 were university in the university of delaware, morris libraries and biden center, correct? >> correct. >> even more papers relating back to the 1970s and 90s were back to mr. biden's garage? >> correct. >> mr. biden had 50 years of experience, with the member and chairman of the foreign relations and vice president of the united states. and that he was deeply familiar with the measures taken to safe guard classified information and the reasons for them. krokt? >> that language certainly sounds familiar, congressman, but if you have a page citation i can confirm. >> as vice president, is it correct in 2011, mr. biden

received the advice from staff about the need to secure classified information in the form of notes? >> correct. >> including first council cynthia hogan. >> correct. >> advised in writing by council hogan that classified should be stored in a secure state and facility. >> correct. >> and also all of mr. biden's records including his notes wok sent to the national archives and biden understood and accepted that, correct? >> that's correct, with the exception that mr. mcgrail was mr. biden's final council, not his second one. >> and mr. biden was praised device more that his classified notes should be stored in a skiff. >> that matter does not come to mind, congressman, but if you give a page citation i can confirm it. >> did mr. biden have 30 years of handling information, you received advice from two

councils, the national archive staff. he's demonstrated enough knowledge of the law to attack president trump in public over the exact same issue in detail. this is where i get into this. i just have a problem with this. in your report, this testimony, a reasonable person would conclude that mr. biden knowingly retained national defense information and failed to report to an appropriate government official and that he knew his kaukt was unlawful. that's what we end up with here. over the last three election cycles three people have run for president, hillary clinton, joe biden, donald trump. all three of them have been accused of mishandling classified documents. only one of them has been prosecuted. and that's what the american people see. that's what weigh see. we have hillary clinton who 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 different places. all of these cases have the same underlying elements of the crime. the same fact pattern, and yet, we only see one person being prosecuted. >> with that, i yield back to the gentleman from kentucky. >> time is expiring, ranking members recognized for unanimous content. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i ask for you unanimous consent that all transcribed entried to the committee 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. we're here today to focus on the real issues that affect our communities instead of partisan hit jobs. let me start by saying the potential mishandling the classified information is a serious issue and i believe it's appropriate for the attorney general to appoint special

counsel. as my colleagues pointed out, president biden fully complied with the investigation by special counsel hur who did not find it sufficient for charges. republicans have used this report for long-standing efforts to re-elect, re-elect the former white supremacist and chief donald trump who faces 40 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 position 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, quote, 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 action taken by his republican majority. they don't care about responsible governance or making people's lives better. huh-uh. they don't have an affirmative agenda. they are throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping it sticks. and they have zero credibility to talk about mental acuity when they support donald trump. the same donald trump who mixes up joe biden and barack obama and nikki haley and nancy pelosi. the same donald trump who incorrect pronounced the words, venezuela, respected and the united states. the same donald trump who calls january 6 defendants hostages.

and the same donald trump who believes bleach injections would treat covid-19. it's unbelievable to have this man talk about the mental acuity of anyone else. but this is nothing new, this has been the subject of this congress. from the sham that completely collapsed. to the absurd impeachment of secretary mayorkas. republicans have focused on destroying the democratic party, destroying movements for social justice all so they can re-elect one of the word presidents of all time. now, it's 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 times and resources of this committee not being dishonest just because it serves our political interest. we are better than that. and our country deserves better than all of this. i will continue. to reject these absurd distractions from the investments we need in the communities that we represent. let's focus on that instead of this irresponsible and easily repudiated republican clown show. thank you, and i yield back. >> i recognize myself for five minutes. special counsel hur, thank you for a number of things. first, thank you for agreeing to

testify today. second, thank you also for sharing your family's story at the beginning of your testimony. it is an extraordinary story of them coming to america. third, let me also thank you for your your in-depth investigation and your detailed report and generally for your service as special counsel. it's not something that i think many people would look for. and certainly comes with a lot of burden, so thank you for your work. in your opening statement, you described your investigation as, quote, thorough and independent and i agree with that. one where you attempted to give, quote, rigorous and detailed analysis. i also agree with that. and one that you say, quote, must show your work, we don't normally see that. i recall your opening statement correctly as it relates to those quotes? >> yes, sir, did you. >> in fact, as part of your investigation, you interviewed about 150 different witnesses. you looked at millions of different documents because you wanted to do a thorough

investigation, isn't that true? >> correct. >> and you did this because you took your investigation extremely seriously and you wanted to reach accurate conclusions, correct? >> very much. >> then, let's review some of the your specific findings regarding the issues pertaining to competency and mental capacity of president biden. because as you say, this is very important to whether or not there is criminal, willful intent. as you can see, i've set forth a number of different quotes up here on this board that i 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, you say mr. biden would likely present himself to a jury as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. and on page 207, you say mr. biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations. then again on page 208, he did not remember when he was vice president. and he did not remember even within several years when his

son beau died. you final may make the at the same time on 208, quote, for these years, mr. biden's apparent lapses in memory in february and april will likely appear consistent with the diminished capacities and faulty memory he showed. those are astounding conclusions to me. i'd harken back to my time before congress, i was a judge. and one of the things i oversaw was guardianships. frankly, when i read your conclusions, red flags began do go through my mind because i oversaw hundreds of guardianships back in texas. i began to what does the d.c. guardianship say? i want to show you the statute, i presume -- are you familiar with the statute at all? >> i am not, congressman. >> i do think you probably reviewed that. let me just read some of

these -- some of the definitions here. an adult whose ability to receive and evaluate information effectively, or to communicate decisions is impaired to such an extent that he or she lacks the capacity to manage all or some of his financial resources. that's the first part of the definition of incapacitated individual under the guardianship statute in the district of columbia. quite frankly, i see tons of overlap from what you set forth in your testimony, in your written report. and the definition here. the phrases are almost identical. i would posit that if he cannot manage national top secret resources, i'm not surely how he can manage his personal financial resources. and gimp the report's findings that his memory was, quote, significantly limited and that he's a person with, quote, diminished faculties. and with, quote, faulty memory, it makes me wonder how close he is coming to meeting this

definitionch an incapacitated individual. such that he should have a guardian appointed by the d.c. courts for his personhood. there's at least, i believe, a prime facie article to say there's evidence to indicated such. you indicate it's not just what you've written 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 this definition, i believe your findings raise significant concerns about his current fitness for the office of president. and certainly, his fitness going forward in the future. and i appreciate the fact that you were brazen enough to raise this issue in this report, because you knew this would be significant in your findings, but you did so based on a very significant, verydetailed, very thorough independent report. praise you for that. doing your duty in such a way. thank you, special counsel. i yield back. >> we have votes on the floor.

we have a few more members who will do their five minutes of questioning. so we're going to recess. and then we will convene ten minutes after the conclusion of the last vote. i believe we only have a couple votes. two votes. you know 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, that you're welcome to. we stand in recess until ten minutes after last vote. >> good day. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. and we have been listening all morning long to lawmakers question robert hur. he was appointed to conduct an apolitical investigation but he found out that in today's washington, that's very, very difficult. because this was a hearing that was officially called a focus on hur's report on the president's handling of classifies documents

but it became the latest battle in the proxy war between supporters of joe biden and donald trump. republicans calling biden a liar. democrats slamming trump as unfit for office. both sides trying to squeeze political advantage out of the findings. >> donald trump and his followers who have completely lost their way. they're looking for high crimes and misdemeanors. now they appoint themselves amateur memory specialists and that's what they pounce on the president of the united states about. >> you know, if you were kind of a well meaning, forgetful man that was driving a car and you forgot what you were doing a little bit and you hit somebody and killed them, i believe you'd be responsible. >> the president, i did not share classified information. i did not share it. i guarantee, i did not. that's not true, is it, mr. hur? >> that is inconsistent with the findings based on the evidence in my report. >> it's a lie. it's just what regular people would say. >> is it correct as it says in

the first sentence of your executive summary that your investigation concluded with an assessment that quote, no criminal charges are warranted in this matter? >> correct. >> as for hur's actual findings in that 345-page report, democrats worked hard to underscore his bottom line. his conclusion that biden's handling of classified documents did not warrant prosecution and draw a contrast to trump. while republicans spent the bulk of their time repeatedly challenging hur's decision not to prosecute, trying to argue contrary to evidence, that trump's decision to withhold secret documents was in the words of one republican congressman, exactly the same thing. i've got a great panel with me. ken dilanian has been following the story for us. julie is on capitol hill. mike memoli covers the white house. brendan buck was an aide to paul ryan and john boehner and is an msnbc political analyst.

lisa rubin is an msnbc political correspondent and anthony coally was adviser to merrick garland and justice affairs analyst. let me get the big picture here, lisa. republicans started off by questioning hur's reasoning for not bringing charges. how'd he do? >> i think hur gave everybody something to be upset about and a little bit of something to be happy about. which is to say he pleased everyone and no one simultaneously. that as prosecutors might tell you is the mark of a solid investigation. he was not trying to score political points with republicans. we know that hur is associated with the republican party, but as evidenced by his answers, he wasn't there to make friends with jim jordan and the like. i think everybody walked out of that hearing room at the break a little bit dissatisfied.

never getting upset or angry, always measured. not long-winded. >> both sides referring to actually what the report said that as you say, had a little bit of something for everyone. anthony, you actually got name checked during this for sitting there. i just want to play that section. >> it wasn't just the president, anthony coally, former spokesman for merrick garland, should focus their eyre on her. bob bower said your report is a shabby piece of work and a shoddy work product. do you agree? >> i disagree vehemently. >> i also disagree. i think it's very well written, well considered and comprehensive. do you think it's appropriate for the administration to be

attacking the work? >> i'm not going to comment on the propriety. what i can tell you is that i stand by the report and the work that went into it. >> i'm going to give you a chance now. were you appropriately and fully represented there and what did you think? >> yeah, so, a couple of things. number one, my quote was with regard to anyone who has respect for the justice department and the fact of the matter is this colorful commentary were not consistent with the best traditions of the justice department and the fact he used them tells me me didn't have the best judgment. it's clear to me now that robert hur just wasn't the choice for garland to make to be the special counsel. >> do we know if he was the first choice? >> he wasn't the first or quite frankly the second. so there are a lot of people who passed before this came to robert hur. and the fact of the matter here is that hur was hired to just

call balls and strikes as they are, to be apolitical. but by using this commentary, he colored outside the lines and that was -- >> you're talking specifically about biden's age. his presentation. >> absolutely. what garland should have done is hire someone who was at the end of a distinguished legal career. someone who was not 50, 51 years old. who was mid career like robert hur and has his eye on a job in a potential future republican administration. >> which he was asked about but said he wasn't going to comment on the possibility of that. mike, i have to play part of what jamie raskin said as he attacked the entire hearing as what he called the republicans' stupid games. >> with such a striking contrast, our colleagues have switched over for being impeachment investigators to amateur memory specialists, giving us their drive by diagnosis of the president of

the united states. who's soaring words were a powerful historical analysis in devastating of the freedom caucus were on full display at the state of the union address last week for the world to see. the question is a distraction from the 91 federal and state federal charges that donald trump faces. >> so as lisa pointed out, mike, something for everyone there. not all great for joe biden. not all bad, but how much does the white house believe that his state of the union kind of shields him at least a little bit from what's happening on capitol hill today and the repeated bringing up of whether or not joe biden is fit? >> well, absolutely, chris. the state of the union address, really one of two factors here that has reassured the way democrats feel and certainly the white house feels about this special counsel probe. just think back to a month ago

when this report from robert hur was released. the panic frankly among democrats about that damaging assessment about the president's mental capacities then it really helps explain the giddiness of a lot of democrats in the house after biden's state of the union address. they felt he was able to answer a lot of the questions about his age. then this morning, it was interesting. i had a chance yesterday over three hours to read every page of the transcript of that interview and then it was house democrats this morning that were the first to post that same transcript publicly, allowing everybody to really view the full five hours of questioning. over two days that president biden went through with the special counsel. as you say, there was even in that transcript, something for both sides. the white house believes and points to the reporting that there's a much more nuanced

presentation of how biden handled those questions. how he handled the interview more broadly than what hur was able to present in that summary in his final report. i would also as i was reading that report, there were many funny moments. there were some clear moments of frustration on the part of the president and his lawyers. one interesting moment i want to spotlight given what anthony was discussing, perhaps a mid career prosecutor not being the right choice. biden talks about if you ever run for political office, this is something maybe you should hold on to when he was describing something he had in his possession. hur responded saying he would completely rule out running for public office, but as you did see, he did not want to engage on whether he would accept an appointment from donald trump should he return to the white

house.