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.

>> he was trying to stay above the fray. brendan, i have not read as mike has, the full transcript. i read "the new york times" analysis of it. again, something for everybody. times when joe biden, they point out, couldn't remember specific dates. didn't have specific memory of how some of these documents were handled but they also said to mike's point about sense of humor, mr. biden went into great detail about many manners, the transcript shows. he made jokes over the two days, teasing the prosecutors and at certain points, he corrected his interrogators when they were the ones who misspoke. is it clear to you on either side, brendan, that one side or the other walks away with something politically advantageous? >> well i think to answer that question, you have to think about where we started from. when this report came out, it was an absolute bombshell, really underscoring the president's difficulty politically with his age. it was a gift to republicans.

now, when you get to a congressional hearing, things aren't so clean. you don't get clean shots. so i think the goal for democrats here was to muddle the situation, to fight it to a draw and they've clearly done that here. so i think that is a huge win. now, i think republicans were going in thinking this was going to be another chance to have this special counsel sit up there and ridicule the president. he clearly wasn't going to do that. he was playing goalie all morning long for both parties. not letting either side score a point. so politically, it may not be such a clear win for democrats but if you look at it in the context of where we thought this report was going to take us, you could easily say they have done their job. >> brendan, i'm going to let you go because i know you've been sitting patiently and you have somewhere else you need to be, but thank you. ken, we went into this hearing assuming there would be this huge focus on joe biden's age, memory. there was more of that as it went on.

i wouldn't say it necessarily dominated. i want to play just a little bit of robert hur speaking to his decision to characterize biden as an elderly man with a poor memory. here it is. >> evidence and the president himself put his memory squarely at issue. my assessment in the report about the relevance of the president's memory was necessary and accurate and fair. >> but then he also said under repeated questioning that he was fully cooperative. one of the democrats read the part of the 345-page report where they said you know, typically, if you're looking at a jury and you are open, you're the one who reports that you have the documents, you're the one who opens up your house and says come on and take a look and then does this five-hour interview, most jurors are not going to be predisposed to think you're trying to hide something. how difficult is this in a

situation like this, ken? for doj, for prosecutors. it seems like it's a no win situation. >> and for rob hur, a career public servant, it's excruciating. as a journalist, if i report a fair and accurate story, i feel like i've done my job and maybe hur will eventually feel like that. but right now, it's got to be unpleasant. in terms of the memory stuff which he's been so criticized for including, i just want to offer the alternative story to what anthony told you. the view though of the career senior justice department official that reviewed this matter after mr. biden's lawyers objected to that language was that it was perfectly appropriate. that it was proper to include because this was a declination memo where hur had to explain to the attorney general why he wasn't bringing charges even though mr. biden was on tape saying i found classified documents back in 2017 when he didn't turn them in to the fbi.

you heard republicans hammering that today. so he was getting it from both sides and you know, in this kind of a setting, he doesn't get a lot of chance to respond. but it's worth remembering, rob hur was nominated by donald trump to be the maryland u.s. attorney. he was confirmed unanimously by the u.s. senate and when he was appointed to be special counsel, i don't remember a lot of objection from democrats. he spent a year investigating this. he's come up with conclusions that have angered both sides and he's really getting hammered for it. >> all right, so, about, ken is one of the best reporters on the doj beat but i want to respond. there are things that are black and white and things that are gray. on black and white on the facts and the law, it was completely appropriate for hur to find that president biden or anyone around him should not face charges. the gray area is subjective. and this is the how. and the language hur used in the

report to describe president biden. he could have said the president had limited recall, for example. he didn't do that. he was clever with his language and wrapped it in words that enabled him to stay within the four corners of what is appropriate with doj. it was clever. and it was deceptive and quite frankly, it was wrong. >> all right. to the whole point of specifically what hur was tasked to do. he got into a little bit of an change with darrell iissa. >> in this case, did you reach conclusion this man was outright innocent? >> that's not reflected in my report. i viewed my task of explaining my decision, the evidence, would a conviction of trial be the probable outcome. >> you did not reach an idea that he had committed no wrong. you reached a conclusion that

you would not prevail at trial and therefore did not take it forward. correct? >> correct, congressman. >> is that what he was tasked with doing, to say i exonerate that person or was it to do an investigation, show the good, the bad, and the ugly and let it be? >> i think the second option is closer to what the mandate of any special counsel is. we can quibble about how much further he went than that and how he caused damage to somebody who he determined shouldn't be charged by going above and beyond that. but i think the mandate is not to exonerate somebody. the mandate is to make an up or down prosecutorial decision or really a recommendation to the attorney general as to whether someone should be charged then to defend that decision, which hur believes he did. others will take issue with how well he did that job. >> right. that was his remit.

and he did that but with this kind of extra flourish on the side. >> julie, bottom line. what are lawmakers trying to get out of this? >> reporter: depends on what side of the aisle you sit on. i thought one of the more notable moments in hur's testimony was toward the end. it was when chairman jordan had questioned hur if he believes that the congress should have the audio tapes of those interviews with the president that took place on october 8th and 9th. this is something the department of justice said they were still reviewing the classification forward. jordan also blasted the process by which the transcripts were received by congress just today. and hur responded that he took all of the evidence, not just the transcripts, but also the audio into account when writing his report, when making certain recommendations. i also had an exchange with eric swalwell which is that he

omitted something things and did not include in the report. take a listen. is it your impression that hur deliberately omitted certain things from his actual report? >> you know, whether hur omitted something intentionally or not, it was pointed out today that he did tell the president in the interview that the president had a photographic memory. it's just pretty interesting that was not put in his final report but rather the smear job on the president's memory. >> reporter: so, chris, while other democrats had also questioned hur's intentions, they pointed out the fact he's a registered republican to which hur responded he did not have any political calculations when it came to writing this report. swalwel also said if he was doing so because he one day wants a job in the trump administration. hur declined that had anything

to do with his calculations but over the last four hours, and again, this hearing is not over. you heard pretty much the same lines from democrats and republicans. republicans trying to protect the former president and so we'll see what happens here after the break, chris. >> ken buck, who has been on the program on a number of occasions and who has sometimes broken with his party of republicans, is just talking about the fact that this hearing is a symbol of the dysfunction in washington and although we knew he was not going to run for re-election, he has just put out a statement. what does it say, julie? >> reporter: yeah, exactly. he put out a statement, chris, this is really notable. this makes republicans' margins even smaller. i'm a journalist. not that good at math so we'll calculate later, but they were tight. he wrote in part it has been an honor to serve the people of colorado's fourth district. he said today i'm announcing i

will depart congress at the end of next week. i look forward to staying involved in our political process as well as spending more time in colorado with my family. he had broken with his party as you mentioned on key votes including the impeachment of mayorkas causing it to fail. he said before he would be retiring but this is news that he is leaving at the end of next week. he has yet to talk in the hearing behind me, but he is on the judiciary behind me. i saw him walking back and forth. his reaction to the hearing in real time. it was one of the things he noted in why he chose to early up his retirement, if you will, but certainly this is going to mean big problems for speaker johnson. especially when you look at what's on the docket. when they have to fund the government, they're trying to do it in a partisan way, and they have the aid bill the senate passed that they're also trying to do in their own way. every single vote counts and certainly this is bad news bears

for johnson. >> we're understanding ken buck made it clear he's not going to walk away from politics. he wants to get involved in this year's election. meaning some of the congressional races. both the house and is that the. we should also say that under colorado law, a candidate or the governor can set a date for a vote to replace ken buck. now it has to be before 90 days. so whatever 90 days before the election in november is, let's see if that happens. but again, ken buck making the decision that next week, he's going to say good-bye and get involved in the campaign but in a very different way than some people might have thought before obviously he made his decision clear that he was going to no longer run for re-election. julie, mike, i want to thank you. anthony and lisa, you're going to stay with me. i want to bring in chuck

rosenberg. so, chuck, i'm wondering if the purpose of a special counsel is to shield an investigation from political influence, realistically, has that time come and gone? how effective in the world we live in now can a special counsel be? >> he or she can do their job and report the facts but if the goal is to insulate the special counsel from accusations of politics or partisanship, i think you're right. that time has come and gone. here's what's disappointing to me. and i don't think you can go wrong underestimating the dignity of a house judiciary hearing. there are real issues about how we ought to conduct investigations like this. whether the independent counsel statute, which expired almost a quarter of a century ago, was a better model. or whether the special counsel

regulations are a better model or whether there may be some third way and not one person so far today has even broached that topic. these are just a bunch of partisans left and right trying to win each question and hearing and trying to win each day. i think there are much more important questions of public policy that have been completely and utterly ignored. so yet again, i am disappointed with the house judiciary committee and their ability to stage a hearing. >> i want to expand the lens and talk about the special counsel generally. there was an essay in "the new york times" times today, quote, a special counsel is supposed inl sure the justice department can conduct investigations that are and appear to be fair and apolitical. special counsels and their precursors have for decades failed to achieve this goal. a failure that's reached a peak with two special counsels having

an extraordinary impact on a presidential election. it is time to kill the special counsel institution, but to the point of what is the alternative in a situation like this and in something so highly politically charged that a presidential election could hang in the balance. is there an alternative? >> there's no perfect alternative, chris. there's no perfect solution. this is a really, really hard problem. but i agree with what jack smith, what jack goldsmith wrote and what you read. i urge people to read his "new york times" editorial today. i think there's a better way but marginally so. that would be to leave big, important, sensitive, difficult cases to the ordinary mechanisms of the united states department of justice. it's not going to please everyone but that's not the goal. one of the things i dislike most about the special counsel regulations is that rob hur was

required to do something we never do as presidential prosecutors, which is to write a declination memo, which he knew was going to become public. he writes a confidential memo to the attorney general of the united states but mr. garland had previously said that to the extent possible he was going to make all of these types of reports public. that is a terrible way to conduct business as a federal prosecutor. we open cases all the time. we close cases all the time. some of the cases we close, we close without bringing charges and we do not speak publicly about why we close cases. so to that extent, chris, i think the special counsel regulations are flawed. i agree it's time to kill the special counsel. there is no perfect alternative but if i was in charge for a day, i would leave it to the mechanisms of the department of justice to bring cases, either prosecute them or decline them in the ordinary fashion. >> chuck rosenberg, thank you. now, one issue brought up time

and again by lawmakers in the hur hearing is where exactly presidents biden and trump kept their classified information. >> president biden did not insert executive privilege or claim absolute immunity for presidential crimes. he did not hide boxes of documents under his bed or in a bathtub. >> is it now okay if i take home top secret documents, store them in my garage and read portions of them to friends or associates? >> congressman, i wouldn't recommend it, but i don't want to entertain any hypotheticals. >> is it okay? like, i can do that now? >> i want to bring in jonathan, former senior director of the national security counsel in the trump administration. let's just be clear as this report makes it clear, these are not the same. what happened with donald trump and classified documents and what happened with joe biden are completely different. having said that, and setting

aside what is prosecutable and not prosecutable. classified documents were found with both biden and trump and mike pence. is there something wrong with the system? a national security protocol that needs to be addressed? >> thanks for having me. as a former intelligence professional and someone who served on the nsc for a year under president trump. i think there are some things that need to be changed with the distribution of these classified materials. even when they're going all the way up to the president as commander in chief. i thought a lot about this now that i've been out of government the last few years. maybe it's time to you know, picking up on what chuck said previously about changes perhaps to the special counsel process. maybe there needs to be a change to allowing hard copied documented to stay with very senior officials. hard copy classified documents, even if they need to have that

information to make foreign policy decisions. but is it really a wise choice to leave those behind. i for one now that we've given all the examples over the years, maybe now is the time to change that and maybe they can still have access to those materials electronically but perhaps just leaving the hard copy behind and then perhaps taking the rest, that it could be mishandled, that perhaps might need to be relooked. >> when you look at these two investigations, it's clear where they think the buck stops during the hearing. the sound of a biden press conference was played where he said he wished he had personally supervised the handling of documents himself when he left office. i mean, is that even reasonable in his case and the case of any former president or vice president? i don't know. prosecutors say when the documents were found, he turned them over, unlike trump, but does and should the buck always stop with them? >> as the president, commander in chief, they have access to

all of the intelligence that the u.s. intelligence community provides and again, how that intelligence material gets delivered to them is, can be, can happen differently. maybe we need to stick more with the electronic briefing type of routine where all the information can be displayed. they get it electronically. whether on an ipad or computer but then when the briefing is over, then the information, the equipment is taken back or the electronic device is taken back and if they want to have access to something, they have to put in a request to their presidential briefer or intelligence briefer and they can get it that way. but looking at the biden and the trump cases, clearly, there's a volume issue at play here. there's scope. there's a question of when did this material start to leak out of control the intelligence community and how come nobody tried to get it back. these are all the tough issues that are at play with the physical side of delivering

these intelligence insights. >>. >> it's great to have you on the program. thanks for coming on. we have breaking news. the white house announcing just a short time ago that it is sending $300 million worth of new weapons to ukraine. how important it could be and the fight against putin. that's coming up. d the fight against putin. that's coming up (man) excuse me, would you mind taking a picture of us? (tony) oh, no problem. (man) thanks. (tony) yes, problem. you need verizon. get the new iphone 15 pro with tons of storage. so you can take all the pics! (vo) trade-in any iphone in any condition and get a new iphone 15 pro and an ipad and apple watch se all on us. only on verizon.

♪♪ vicks vapostick provides soothing, non-medicated vicks vapors. easy to apply for the whole family. vicks vapostick. and try vicks vaposhower for steamy vicks vapors.

(ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) so we partner with verizon vicks vapostick. to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. [dog whimpers] [thinking] why always the couch? does he need to go to puppy school? 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. business. it's not a nine-to-five an proposition.r. it's all day and into the night. it's all the things that keep this world turning. the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business. see why comcast business powers more small businesses than anyone else. get started for $49.99 a month plus ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. don't wait- call today.

we have that breaking news that the white house is just now

announcing. it is sending $300 million worth of new weapons to ukraine. >> when russian troops advance and it guns fire, ukraine does not have enough ammunition to fire back. that's costing terrain. it's costing lives and it's costing us, the united states and nato alliance, strategically. so today on behalf of president biden, i'm announcing an emergency package of security assistance of $300 million worth of weapons and equipment to address some of ukraine's pressing needs. this package contains a large traunch of artillery rounds and gimlers. >> kelly o'donnell is live in washington. this obviously comes amid that battle over ukraine aid in congress. president biden has been pleading for. we've been hearing reports for many weeks now about the desperate situation with the lack of ammo for the ukrainians.

tell us what you know about how this came to be. >> the briefing is still ongoing so we may learn more in the next few minutes, but this was unexpected and jake sullivan, the president's national security adviser, says this package is only possible because they have scoured the books and found cost savings within the department of defense for existing contracts where the full resources had not been spent. they do not anticipate they will be able to do this again but this was culling the resources that currently exist to find this $300 million package, which jake sullivan says could last for a period of weeks. so the pressure continues from the white house on to congress to fund more. that ongoing stalemate that you indicated has been a source of great concern for the biden administration. for u.s. allies and of course, for the u.s. partners in ukraine. president zelenskyy and others who need this kind of support in order to carry out the war

against russia. so, this is unexpected. it is different and it is a way to try to again show the administration's commitment to ukraine by finding funds and being able to get this package together and it addresses some of the specific needs with artillery rounds and ammunition that have been so much a part of some of the losses that ukraine has suffered in recent weeks. the caution here, this is a surprise, unexpected thing so it is not to take the pressure off congress, the administration says, but it is a way to immediately help the people of ukraine, president zelenskyy, and his team and to further support our nato partners because certainly, the administration believes that any progress that russia makes is a potential threat to nato. so this is unusual and it is something that will certainly be driving a lot of questions about how this will happen and will it change in any way the dynamic on capitol hill. chris? >> kelly o'donnell, thank you.

the prime minister of haiti, they've reconvened. back to the robert hur hearing. just been gavelled into order. >> issue of the release of the transcript. i've heard complaints from my republican colleagues about white house only releasing the transcript from the biden interview this morning. i have to note that there are i think over 90 transcripts that are being held by the majority here in the judiciary committee and oversight committee for interviews we all care about. they all go directly to issues with respect to the alleged impeachment inquiry. you know, it's kind of the pot calling the kettle black it seems to me, as an understatement. i noted, too, that when the ranking member requested the majority release the transcripts, the chairman objected. so i hope that we can move forward in a, in the mode of cooperation sharing information. i think it's just reasonable to

do. mr. hur, i wanted to thank you again for the work you did. i don't agree with everything you wrote in the report but that's the nature of the business, i think. i did want to ask you about this. i know you started off with and the first line executive summary, we con that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. and i take it that's still your position today. >> yes, it is. >> all right. you also noted a little bit below that for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. still hold that view? >> i do. >> even though you objected to the use of the word exonerated from your perspective, he's been cleared of all criminal investigations? >> i determined based on the evidence, criminal charges are not warranted. >> okay. and i did want to go to the issue of material distinctions you raised in your report between president biden and

former president trump. we've got a document up here that lays it out and you've answered questions about this already. i think it seemed to be highly relevant in your analysis that president biden cooperated. i wanted to walk through a couple of those points. one is that he turned in classified documents to the national archives and to the department of justice upon request. is that fair? >> that was a factor we considered, yes, congressman. >> he cooperated with your investigation? >> yes. >> consented to the search of multiple locations including his house? >> correct. >> sat for a voluntary interview? >> yes. >> that was five hours over two days? >> little over five hours over two days. >> okay. allowed investigators to review handwritten notebooks that were his personal property. >> correct. >> now with respect to the comparison with former president

trump, and i believe this is on page 11, which is still in your executive summary. unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of mr. trump have proven would prevent serious aggravating facts. after returning documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence then lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turned in classified documents to the national archives, the department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with this investigation. that's from page 11 of your report? >> i see that language on page 11. >> you still stand by that language?

>> i do, sir. >> okay. and this is, this is your report. you take full responsibility for everything that's in the document? >> i do. i stand by every word in it. >> all right. all right. wanted to ask you a couple of questions. one is with respect to the surprising line of questions you got right before we broke about guardianship. which seems to me like a dramatic stretch of the anything that was remotely involved in your report. did you raise any kind of issues about mr. biden needing guardianship or anything along those lines? >> nothing related to guardianship appears in my report. >> okay. and so i guess you made the one point about him being an elderly man with poor memory. but are you saying, did you say anywhere in your report that you thought not only would he be unfit to handle his own finances, but he'd be unfit for public office? >> my report did not include any

opinions on those issues. >> i see my time is exhausted but thank you again for your testimony. >> gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> yield to the chairman. >> i'll just point out the issue with transcripts. he has complete access to every transcript we've done. he can show up for all the depositions. i show up for most of those. what we don't have is access to the transcripts of all the witnesses. we only have mr. biden and we don't have access to the audio tapes. >> will the gentleman yield? >> you're speaking but it's not your time. >> it's my time. >> you yielded to me. >> i thank the gentleman. special counsel hur, thank you for being here. your story is an impressive one. your achievements are impressive as well. you've been a prosecutor for many years, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i was not a prosecutor for more than a couple of years, but i still remember my record in jury trials. do you remember your record?

>> it will take me a little time to reconstruct, but i think i could get there. >> is it above 500? >> it is above 500, yes, sir. >> okay, well, i'm curious because the evidence that you outlined in your report is pretty significant. when it comes to evidence that after his vice presidency, mr. biden willfully retained marked reports about afghanistan and unmarked classified documents in his notebooks both of which he stored in unsecure locations in his home and that there's evidence he retained documents including the thanksgiving memo and had a strong motive to keep such classified documents. you outlined that motive. can you tell me what is the motive for keeping the thanksgiving day memo? >> one of the motives that we addressed in the report was the issue of whether or not a troop surge should be sent to afghanistan in 2009 was a hotly

contested and debated issue within the obama administration back in 2009. and one in which then vice president biden had a significant role and felt very strongly about. >> quote from your report. president biden believed president obama's 2009 troop surge was a mistake on par with vietnam and wanted the record to show he was right about afghanistan. that his critics were wrong and he had opposed obama's mistake and decision forcefully when his judgment was sound, when it mattered most. >> that sounds familiar from the report, yes. >> okay. that is pretty significant in terms of a motivating factor for retaining those documents, wouldn't you say? >> that would be a factor that a jury would assess in considering whether or not mr. biden had criminal intent. >> and i also know that president biden was working with a ghost writer on a book. mark zwanaker, correct? >> correct. >> and your investigation

concluded when president biden began work on his memoir, correct? at what time did your investigation conclude? >> with respect to the second book published in 2017, we identified evidence that mr. biden began recording conversations with him in 2017 before the end of mr. biden's vice presidency. >> it's your view that he read classified information from his notebooks nearly verbatim, sometimes for an hour or more, correct? >> correct. >> was he authorized to receive this information? >> he was not. >> and in fact in their february 16th meeting, was it true president biden read aloud and nearly verbatim related to the foreign country and terrorist organization? >> i believe that was captured in a recording in april of 2017. not february.

>> and mr. zwanaker became aware of your appointment? >> at some point, yes. >> upon learning of the investigation, he deleted digital audio record, with mr. biden during the process of writing the book. >> correct. >> investigators with your office interviewed him about deleted recordings and he admitted part of his motivation was that he was aware of an investigation, correct? >> correct. >> did this conduct raise concerns with your office? >> it did. we considered it to be significant evidence we needed to follow up on. >> significant evidence. i would argue you also had significant evidence surrounding the retention of these documents, the storage of these documents, and even though there was a bit of a disconnect between what a reasonable juror

could conclude, the intent was there, the motive was there for the book, for exoneration, and i would argue you had enough to move forward. my time's expired. i yield back. >> the gentle lady from vermont. >> thank you for being here today. i know it's been hours and hours. i appreciate you staying to the bitter end here. i think it speaks to the possibility and promise afforded by this nation that you as a child of immigrants sit here as special counsel and i as a member of congress. there's a lot that's been said today and part of the challenge that i have is trying to translate this for my constituents back home. so i want to start with the top line. so you were tasked with identifying whether criminal conduct occurred regarding classified documents. and after over a year of investigation including 150

witness interviews and over 7 million documents reviewed, you wrote in the first sentences of the executive summary, quote, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. we would reach the same conclusion even if department of justice policy did not fore close criminal charges against a sitting president. were those your words? >> yes. >> thank you. so, let's get into it. mr. hur, at any time did doj leadership or the attorney general attempt to influence the outcome of your investigation? >> no. >> do you believe it's important that the special counsel investigations or any doj investigation be impartial and free of influence from political actors? >> yes. >> do you believe you were independent and thorough in your report? >> yes. >> do you believe, do you think it's true you received no pressure from attorney general garland in this matter?

>> that's correct. >> is it true that you had all of the resources that you needed, enable for you to conduct your interviews, to conduct your investigation and to complete your report? >> yes. >> is it true that you recommended that the attorney general decline to charge president biden? >> i submitted a report to the attorney general explaining my decision that criminal charges were not warranted in this matter. >> right. so you said on page one of the report, quote, we conclude that the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. is it true that your report ultimately concluded that the evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable down that president biden willfully retained classified materials. >> yes. >> is it true that president biden cooperated with your investigation? >> yes. >> is it true that president biden sat for an interview with you the day after the october 7th attacks in israel in the midst of an international

crisis? >> he sat for interviews on october 8th and 9th. >> thank you. is it true that president biden allowed the fbi to conduct thorough searches of his home and his beach house? >> yes. >> is it true that your report found multiple possible innocent explanations as to why the classified documents ended up where they did? >> as part of our analysis, we walked through a number of different explanations the defense counsel could present at trial if this case were charged. >> as you said on page six of your report, quote, in addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute. your report -- >> i see that language, yes. >> thank you. your report reads with one exception, there is no record of the department of justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. the exception is former president trump. am i reading that correctly? >> yes. >> is it true or is it correct

that your report recommends no charges and that would be the case even if he were not a sitting president? >> correct. >> so what we've had today is hour after hour after hour of trying to distract us from the clear statements that come through this report. and you yourself have said multiple times today there was no attempt to obstruct justice. by the president. by the department of justice. by the attorney general. that you had all the resources that you needed to conduct a fair and thorough investigation and report and that what you concluded was in fact the evidence was not sufficient to bring charges against the president for mishandling documents. i thank you for being here today. i yield back.

>> gentle lady yields back. gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> i yield to you such time. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. hur, why did the white house lawyers go look in the first place? my understanding is they went to the penn biden center. why? look for classified mishandling documents. why? >> what we identified through our investigation was that at a certain date, members of the president's staff went to the penn biden center to get a better handle on what kinds of materials were at the penn biden center. >> were they specifically looking for potential documents that were classified or was it a broader initial look? >> my understanding is that it was a broader, innocent look and i'm looking at chapter 14, page 251 about a visit on march 2021.

>> in march. >> was this after the justice department began their investigation into president trump? >> i don't have the date of the investigation. >> i believe it was the same month. just curious of that. now, one other thing i think is important for folks to understand is president biden had this information everywhere. you said they initially went to the penn biden center. which location was it at, do you remember? the transition office? the temporary penn biden center in chinatown or at its current location where the penn biden center currently sits here? final location in d.c. do you remember? >> i believe the visit that i referenced in march 2021 that's described on page 257 was to the penn biden center's permanent and current location. >> so there were three places, those three places, classified information was at. is that fair to say? >> that's correct. the initial transition office

immediately after the end of the vice presidency, the penn biden center's temporary office and then permanent office. >> then the university of delaware library, the university of delaware biden center, right? so that's five total. then you had multiple places in his home. >> correct. >> the garage, the den, the office upstairs and the office down stairs. >> correct. >> that's like nine different places. >> i've lost count, sir. >> everywhere. and it was documents over a 50-year time frame. by comparison, because the democrats want to keep comparing to president trump's classified documents were at his home with secret service protection. i don't know they were anywhere else, were they? >> i'm not aware of other locations. >> i think that's important. back to the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, chairman. briefly i know we've got two minutes left, but mr. hur, how would you define willful? >> with respect to the intent of

willfulness, what a jury has to conclude is that someone knew their conduct was illegal. >> it's intentional, not accidental. or involuntary. >> correct. >> okay. so here's what i disagree with your portion of the report on willful is that you have a gentleman who served 36 years in the senate. i've only been here a year but i understand the importance of handling classified information. he served eight years as vice president. in 2010, it came to the attention of the vice president's staff that classified briefing books had not been returned. even if they were returned, some of the content was missing. the same year the executive secretary raised that nearly 30 of the classified briefing books from the first six months of 2010 were missing. in august of that year, then vice president biden failed to return top secret information of a classified briefing book from a trip he took to the hamptons and to date, you were unable to

determine if these documents were ever recovered, correct? >> correct. >> so to me, this wasn't -- when does willfulness as a, when does it factor in? now in his diminished mental capacity or then when serving as senator and vice president? >> a jury would be assessing president biden's mental state and his intent or whether or not he had willfulness at the time the conduct was committed. >> correct. i think everyone can kind of plainly see that the transgression or difference between then candidate biden or vice president president biden and what is going on now. the chairman talked about it in his opening comments. had eight million reasons to hold these documents. in fact, he disclosed some of this information to his ghost writer. and so i think there could have been willfulness. i think about ten seconds left, but since 2016, there have been three candidates to run for

president. all three have had allegations of issues surrounding the retention and holding of classified documents. mr. hur, only one of them has been charged and that's president trump. and that's why people think and view this as a two tier system of justice. thank you, sir. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognize it is gentleman from -- unanimous consent? >> i'll wait. let him go ahead. >> gentleman from colorado. >> they save the best for last so i'm looking forward to this opportunity. first of all, what i've observed in this hearing is that one side thinks you're trying to get president trump elected and the other side thinks you're trying to get president biden elected. i served as a prosecutor for 25 years. i know that you're going to take grief from both sides. you must be doing a great job in your report and during your investigation if you have convinced both sides that you

are somewhere in the middle. i commend you for your background. i would have loved to have met chief justice rehnquist. what a hero to conservatives and really americans and that must have been a great opportunity for you. but when both sides attack you, my admonition is welcome to congress. how many -- i do have a question and it goes along the lines of what mr. armstrong and fryer were asking you earlier. i'm really confused about willfulness and your view of willfulness. it's clear to me that at the time vice president biden knew he had classified documents. he told his after he left the vice presidency, he told his biographer, ghost writer, those classified documents are in the

basement. so he had the mental state that he had classified documents. he also knew his basement is not a skiff, it's not a secure area. and so at the point, if at that point in time, he said oh, my gosh, i've got to call the archivist, secret service, somebody, and get these documents taken away, perhaps he has this defense of acting as quickly as he knew about the documents. but i don't see where the willfulness is missing when he had those two. the elements clear. he possessed documents. held them in a nonsecure area. and he did so knowingly. he knew he had classified documents in an unsecure area. where is the willfulness missing? >> well, sir, prosecutor to prosecutor, i certainly agree with you that the evidence in the form of the audio recorded statement where the president said to his ghost writer i just found all the classified stuff downstairs. that is evidence that any

prosecutor would present as significant evidence in a case if this went to trial. so and reasonable jurors might well infer that president biden formed criminal intent based on that piece of evidence but what we tried to do in the report was walk through exhaustively. you need to assess with a very cold eye the strengths and weaknesses of your case and try to anticipate argument that is defense counsel might present at trial and what we tried to do in our report was to walk through potential arguments that will be presented by defense lawyers at the president's trial and to determine how, by our judgment, how jurors would perceive the evidence presented including, including but not limited to, evidence relating to the president's memory gaps that were in various pieces of evidence we assessed. >> so how do you overcome that recording where he says i've got classified documents. he's 30 years in the senate or whatever it is. he obviously knows how he has to

treat classified documents. i've got classified documents in the basement. what is is defense to that, that it was a made up recording? that it wasn't his voice? that everyone was wrong? how do you defend that particular fact as well as, i did a lot of tax cases. you had to prove a pattern of conduct and in this case, you have a lot of documents and a lot of places. how do you overcome those things? >> yes, congressman. we walked through a number of gaps jurors might focus on as well as a number of different defense arguments that lawyers could present at trial. the first is a theory or argument to the jury that the president, yes, he did say to his ghost writer, yes, i did find the classified stuff downstairs but then forgot about the documents. therefore, it would be difficult to convince a jury that actually he willfully, he knew that it was illegal to keep the documents and he continued to do so. a second argument we considered

is that perhaps these documents were never in virginia in his private rental home. perhaps the documents were there by virtue of staff or himself having those documents at the delaware home from the time he was still vice president all the way through the time of their being discovered. and finally, another theory we walked through in the report is that there were twofolders of march reports relating to afghanistan found in a box in the garage. one contained national defense information, the other, it would be a more difficult task to persuade a jury that it contained national defense information. that argument would be prefaced on prapt the president was referring to the one folder that didn't contain defense information but it would be difficult for the government to prove. i just laid a lot on you there. we do our best to explain that in the report. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back.

chairman. >> gentle lady from texas. >> i thank you. there's been a lot of time being shared, mr. chairman. i ask you brief indulgence. >> unanimous consent or question? >> your brief indulgence or unanimous consent to ask a question. >> no, no, no. you can do an unanimous consent request but you don't get any round. everyone on the democrat side has taken their time. you know i appreciate the gentle lady from texas, but you don't get to go two rounds. >> i'm not trying to go two rounds. >> state so, if not -- >> i'm getting ready to do the unanimous consent. >> can only be republican because all the democrats have spoken. >> i ask unanimous consent that we add to the record as stated from page one of the executive summary, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.

we would reach the same conclusion eve fn -- >> objection. >> did not foreclose -- that sentence be put in secondarily. i ask unanimous consent -- >> to add something to the record that's already in the record. god bless you, we'll do it. >> thank you. and i add with the emphasize and i particularly ask that this be added to the record that mr. hur stated that biden couldn't recall when his son, beau, died. unanimous consent out of an article in politico and indicate that there was no mercy given to mr. biden and no mercy given to him in the decision -- >> objection. so entered. mr. hur, even though there wasn't a question there, do you want to respond to any of that? >> no, chairman. >> all right. mr. hur, we want to thank you. >> i yield back. >> and we wish the best to you and your family. this concludes the day's hearing. we thank our witnesses for appearing. all members will have five day

to present additional questions or materials for the record. without objection, the hearing is adjourned. >> former special counsel, robert hur, taking it from both sides. republicans and democrats. each side getting something that they wanted in his 345-page report, but he never really broke a sweat. never went away from what was contained in the report. probably the most fulsome explanation we got of anything was when he was just asked the question about the details of the decision when some classified documents were found. why that didn't. when there was a tape. when the president said they were there. why they didn't prosecute. he laid out three reasons. i want to bring back anthony. we've talked across the six hours when we had a break about democrats got something, republicans got something.

they each had some challenging things. what about doj? what about this organization that has been frankly much maligned, much questions. do you think the american public watching this says you know what, they looked at both sides of it and they did a pretty good job. or do they throw up their hands and say just more politics that's infused with department of justice? >> i think it's a little bit of both. if i'm sitting at home, i'm in north carolina, and if i'm sitting home watching this, i think my takeaway isn't a crime. we saw that in the report and we saw that reiterated throughout this hearing today. and i think the other thing, too, with regard to questions about the president's age. honestly, chris, if this hearing had happened a week ago before 32 million americans saw the president give a very in command speech at the state of the union

address, people would think differently but now they've seen him firsthand. honestly, at the end of this hearing, i don't know that much new ground was broken and i think most americans are more interested in the royal family, kate middleton and photogate. >> i don't know. no punches really landed, per se. >> right. >> so when you look at what the change just was, which was about can i prove the case. prosecutors have an advantage, right? >> that's right. >> defense attorneys have to defend whatever is thrown at them. prosecutors have to look at can i prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. bottom line is robert hur is saying we did all of this. all of these documents, all of this investigation, all of the searching we did and ultimately came to the conclusion there is not a jury likely to convict the president. >> no charges were warranted. that's the end of the story. >> so that's the end of the story, but is it the end of the story? what are you looking for potentially coming out of this?

30 seconds. >> i think what's going to happen now there was a lot of talk about the audio recording between the president and his ghost writer i suspect that republicans are going to push for that audio to come out. so i think if i were a betting man, i would suspect we would see that over the course of the next several weeks. >> and you'll be back. i'd love to have you back. thank you for those two hours. much appreciated. that is going to do it for us. make sure to join us every weekday from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. here on msnbc. our coverage continues with katy tur reports right now. good to be with you. what is the point of today's special counsel hearing on capitol hill? robert hur testified about his decision not to charge president biden for taking classified documents from the white house

te