[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON THE REPORT OF
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT K. HUR
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-67
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-150 WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM McCLINTOCK, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 2
The Honorable James Comer, Chair of the Oversight Committee from
the State of Kentucky.......................................... 4
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Oversight
Committee from the State of Maryland........................... 5
WITNESS
The Hon. Robert K. Hur, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of
Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 10
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the
Judiciary are listed below..................................... 94
An articles entitled, ``Full Transcript of Biden's State of the
Union Speech,'' Mar. 8, 2024, The New York Times, submitted by
the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Tennessee, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New
York, for the record
An article entitled, ``Full transcript of Biden's Special
Counsel interview paintsnuanced portrait,'' Mar. 12, 2024,
The Washington Post
Materials submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for
the record
A letter from The White House to Special Counsel Robert Hur,
Sept. 11, 2023
A letter from The White House to Attorney General Garland, Feb.
7, 2024
An article enitled, ``The Real `Robert Hur Report' (Versus What
You Read in the News),'' Feb. 10, 2024, Just Security,
submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the
record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Madeleine Dean, a Member of
the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania,
for the record
A Case document United States of America v. Donald J. Trump,
Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida
The Biden-Hur interview transcript, page 82
The Judiciary Committee's transcript of the interview with Steven
D'Antuono, pages 47-48, submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay
Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
State of Pennsylvania, for the record
The Judiciary Committee's transcript of the interview with Steven
D'Antuono, pages 74-77, Jun. 7, 2023, submitted by the
Honorable Veronica Escobar, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New
York, for the record
An excerpt from the book entitled, ``Promise Me, Dad,'' Nov.
14, 2017, Flatiron Books
The report entitled, ``Report of the Special Counsel on the
Investigation Into Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and
Disclosure of Classified Documents Discovered at Locations
Including the Penn Biden Center and the Delaware Private
Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,'' page 97,
Feb. 2024
A letter from The White House to Special Counsel Robert Hur,
Feb. 5, 2024
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for
the record
The report entitled, ``Report of the Special Counsel on the
Investigation Into Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and
Disclosure of Classified Documents Discovered at Locations
Including the Penn Biden Center and the Delaware Private
Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,'' page 1, Feb.
2024
An article entitled, ``Obama AG Eric Holder Blasts Special
Counsel's Report,'' Feb. 2, 2024, Politico
HEARING ON THE REPORT OF
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT K. HUR
----------
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Buck, Gaetz,
Biggs, McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Bishop, Spartz,
Fitzgerald, Bentz, Cline, Armstrong, Van Drew, Nehls, Moore,
Kiley, Hageman, Moran, Lee, Fry, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,
Cohen, Johnson, Schiff, Correa, Swalwell, Lieu, Jayapal,
Scanlon, Neguse, McBath, Dean, Escobar, Ross, Bush, Ivey, and
Balint.
Also present: Representatives Comer and Raskin.
Chair Jordan. This hearing will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. We welcome everyone to today's Hearing on the Report of
Special Counsel Robert Hur.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the State of
Wisconsin for purpose of leading us in the Pledge.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Chair Jordan. Pursuant to an agreement with the Ranking
Member Nadler and without objection, Chair Comer and Ranking
Member Raskin will be permitted to participate in today's
hearing for the purposes of making opening statements and
asking questions of the witness. Each will receive three
minutes for an opening statement and five minutes to question
the witness.
The Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.
Robert Hur was appointed Special Counsel on January 12, 2023.
He had a fundamental question to address. Did Joe Biden
unlawfully retain classified information? The answer: Yes, he
did.
Page one of Mr. Hur's report, he said this.
Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden
willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his
Vice Presidency when he was a private citizen.
He further writes,
Mr. Biden willfully retained marked classified documents about
Afghanistan and handwritten notes in his notebooks which he
stored in unsecured places in his home.
Joe Biden kept classified information and Joe Biden failed to
store classified information properly.
Mr. Hur made these determinations after interviewing 147
witnesses. He examined seven million documents including
emails, text messages, photographs, videos, toll records, and
other materials from both classified and unclassified sources.
There is more.
He not only--Joe Biden not only kept information he wasn't
allowed to keep, and he not only failed to secure that
information properly, but he also shared it with people he
wasn't allowed to--who weren't allowed to see it. He shared
that information with his ghostwriter. Remember, this is
information that only individuals with a security clearance are
supposed to see.
Mr. Hur told us on page 200 of his report that it is the
kind of information that ``risks serious damage to America's
national security.'' What did Joe Biden have to say about all
this? What was his explanation? On page 94 of Mr. Hur's report,
Joe Biden said he took his notebooks with him after his Vice
Presidency because, ``They are mine. And every President before
me has done the same exact thing.'' Nevermind the fact that he
had never been President when he took this information, but
what comes through is Joe Biden felt he was entitled. You can
almost hear it. You can feel the arrogance in the statement
``They are mine.''
Even with all that, Mr. Hur chose not to bring charges
because,
Mr. Biden would like to present himself to a jury, as he did in
our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well meaning, elderly
man with a poor memory.
A forgetful old man who Mr. Hur said, ``did not remember when
he was Vice President,'' forgetting on the first day of the
interview when his term ended, and forgetting on the second day
of the interview when his term as Vice President began.
Mr. Hur produced a 345-page report, but in the end, it
boils down to a few key facts. Joe Biden kept classified
information. Joe Biden failed to properly secure classified
information and Joe Biden shared classified information with
people he wasn't supposed to. Joe Biden broke the law, but
because he is a forgetful, old man, who would appear
sympathetic to a jury, Mr. Hur chose not to bring charges.
Mr. Hur, we think it is important that you be able to
respond to President Biden's response to your report. So, we
are going to play a short video of Mr. Biden's press
conference--President Biden's press conference after your
report was released because there are things in this press
conference that the President of the United States says that
are directly contradicted by what you found in your report. So,
if we could play that video.
[Video played.]
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member,
Mr. Nadler, for an opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I am glad you have such admiration
for the President that you allowed him to take the first 10
minutes of this hearing.
Mr. Chair, House Republicans may be desperate to convince
America that White, conservative men are on the losing end of a
two tiered justice system, a theory that appeals to the MAGA
crowd, but has no basis in reality. Your comments today make me
wonder if you have read the Special Counsel's report at all.
The Hur Report does help us draw a distinction between
President Biden and Donald Trump, just not the one you want.
Two distinctions, actually. First, the report is clear that,
At no point did the Special Counsel 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.
With respect to the classified documents found in President
Biden's possession, ``A decision to decline criminal charges
was straight forward.'' With respect to the Special Counsel's
investigation,
Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National
Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search
of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary
interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.
President Biden acted responsibly, cooperated completely, and
the decision to decline criminal charges was relatively
straight forward.
In short, to borrow a phrase from the last administration,
the Hur Report represents the complete and total exoneration of
President Biden.
How does that record contrast with President Trump, the
documents he retained, and the criminal charges pending against
him in Florida? We know that Trump deliberately took large
amounts of classified information from the White House. He was
admitted as much, occasionally pretending that he classified
this information without telling anyone on his way out the
door. We know that he stored that information around Mar-a-Lago
in the craziest of places, on the ballroom stage, spilled
across the floor of an unlocked closet next to the toilet. We
know that he classified military plans to an author
interviewing him at Bedminster. ``As President, I could have
declassified it,'' Trump says on an audio recording. ``Now, I
can't, but this is still a secret, still a secret.'' So, much
for the declassification theory.
We know from the indictment that Trump has alleged to have
shared these classified documents with many other visitors to
Mar-a-Lago. We know that despite this outrageous conduct, the
Department of Justice gave Trump every opportunity to avoid
criminal charges. Again, in the Special Counsel's words,
After being given multiple chances to return classified
documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the
opposite. He not only refused to return the documents for many
months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to
destroy evidence and then to lie about it.
Why did the President [sic] charge former President Trump, but
not President Biden? Not because of some vast conspiracy, not
because of so-called deepstate was out to get him, but because
former President Trump was fundamentally incapable of taking
advantage of even one of the many, many chances he was given to
avoid those charges.
Which brings me to the second distinction this report helps
us draw between President Biden and Donald Trump. Simply put,
President Biden had the mental acuity to navigate the
situation. Donald Trump did not. Much has been made of the
Special Counsel's gratuitous comments about President Biden's
age, but let's set the context. After returning every
classified document, after opening his home to Federal
investigators while simultaneously managing the first hours of
the crisis in Israel, President Biden volunteered to sit
through a five-hour interview with the Special Counsel. I
believe, as is his habit, that President Biden probably
committed a verbal slip or two during the interview and I am
not sure any of that matters because when the interview was
over, Mr. Hur completely exonerated President Biden.
Then there is Donald Trump. What kind of man bungles not
one, but dozens of opportunities to avoid criminal liability?
What does that say about his mental state? He had two, the
record speaks for itself.
[Video played.]
Mr. Nadler. That is a man who is incapable of avoiding
criminal liability, a man who is wholly unfit for office, and a
man who at the very least ought to think twice before accusing
others of cognitive decline.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Hur. Thank you for
illuminating a stark choice to this country in the months to
come. I look forward to your testimony and I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the Chair of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Comer, for
an opening statement.
Mr. Comer. Thank you. In August 2022, President Biden
questioned in a 60 Minutes interview how anyone can be that
irresponsible when asked about classified documents in the
possession of former President Trump? When President Biden said
this, he knew that he had stashed classified materials in
several unsecured locations for years, dating back to his time
as Vice President and even as a U.S. Senator. President Biden,
the White House, and his personal attorneys have not been
honest with the American people about his willful retention of
classified material and continued to hide information from
Congress. President Biden's attorneys claimed to have first
discovered classified material at Penn Biden Center on November
2, 2022. However, President Biden and his lawyers kept it
secret from the American people before the mid-term elections.
CBS News broke the story in January 2023, leaving Americans
to wonder if the White House had any intention of ever
disclosing that President Biden hoarded classified documents
for years. One of my first actions after becoming Chair of the
House Oversight Committee was to launch an investigation into
President Biden's mishandling of classified documents. This
investigation started before Special Counsel Hur was named.
What we found is alarming. Information obtained through
multiple transcribed interviews conducted by the Oversight
Committee contradict the White House's and President Biden's
personal attorneys' narrative about the discovery of classified
documents at the Penn Biden Center. In fact, the real timeline
began in the Spring 2021, not November 2022, as the White House
claims. Additionally, the classified documents were not kept in
a locked closet as asserted by the White House.
We have also learned that five White House employees and a
Department of Defense employee were involved in the early
stages of coordinating the organizing, moving, and removing of
boxes that were later found to contain classified materials.
There is no reasonable explanation as to why so many White
House employees were concerned with retrieving boxes they
believed only contained personal documents and materials. Why
did President Biden keep these specific documents in an
unsecured location for years? Many questions remain. Now, the
White House is obstructing Congress as we seek the truth for
the American people.
We have subpoenaed former White House counsel Dana Remus to
appear for a deposition to provide information to our
Committee, but the White House is seeking to block the
testimony. We have also subpoenaed the Department of Justice
for audio recordings and transcripts of President Biden's
interview with Special Counsel Hur. These were viewed the
morning of the State of the Union. Only this morning, a couple
of hours before today's hearing, the Department of Justice
finally provided the transcript of President Biden's interview
with Special Counsel Hur. The timing is not coincidental.
Although we have had little time to review the transcripts,
from what we have seen, it is clear that the White House did
not want Special Counsel Hur's final report to be released. The
White House has refused to be transparent with the American
people about the President's mishandling of classified
documents. Worse, they have appeared to have lied about the
timeline, about who handled the documents, and even about the
contents of President Biden's interview with Special Counsel
Hur. That is why today's hearing is important. Transparency is
what we seek today, and we look forward to Special Counsel
Hur's testimony. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee, Mr.
Raskin for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. I thank Chair Jordan. There are just three
basic points that all Americans need to understand about Mr.
Hur's report.
First, the Special Counsel exonerates President Biden. The
very first line of the report says it all,
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 foreclose criminal charges against a
sitting President.
Second, the report establishes that President Biden offered
complete and unhesitating cooperation with the Special
Counsel's investigation. The Justice Department and the
National Archives were proactively notified of the classified
documents, and they were turned over. The President allowed the
FBI to search his homes, and he sat for a voluntary interview
for more than five hours on October 8th and October 9th, even
as he was busy responding to Hamas' vicious terrorist attack in
Israel. The report, thus, demonstrates President Biden's
complete devotion to the rule of law and his respect for a fair
and independent Department of Justice. President Biden did not
assert Executive Privilege or claim absolute immunity from
Presidential crimes. He did not hide boxes of documents under
his bed or in a bathtub. He did not fight investigators, nor
did he seek to redact a single word of Mr. Hur's report. He
consented to the search of numerous locations, including his
homes and he did everything he could to cooperate, not
obstruct.
Third, Special Counsel Hur repeatedly emphasizes that
President Biden's conduct contrasts sharply with that of former
President Trump. Hur observes that unlike President Biden,
The allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if
proven, would clearly establish not only Mr. Trump's
willfulness, but also serious aggravating factors.
He sets forth these points of different in detail.
Most notably after being given multiple chances to return
classified documents and avoid prosecution, Trump allegedly did
the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused
to return the documents for months, but he also obstructed
justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie
about it.
He returned only a portion of subpoenaed documents and
deliberately withheld the rest.
Unlike President Biden, Trump did not alert the National
Archives or DOJ of the documents, nor did he turn over all the
classified materials in his possession. He did not agree to sit
down for a voluntary interview with the Special Counsel. He
never consented to a search of his home. On the contrary, Trump
suggested that his attorney hide or destroy evidence requested
by the FBI and the Grand Jury. Trump carefully instructed the
day to move boxes of classified documents to hide them from the
FBI. Trump tried to delete incrimination security tape footage
from Mar-a-Lago, and he got his attorney to provide a false
certification, the FBI saying he had produced all the documents
in his possession. He did not.
Given that this report is so damning and the contrast
between Biden and Trump, it is hard for me to see why our
colleagues think that this hearing advances their flailing and
embarrassing quest to impeach the President of the United
States. What America sees today is evidence of one President
who believes in the rule of law and works to protect it and one
who has nothing, but contempt for the rule of law and acts
solely in pursuit of his own constantly multiplying corrupt
schemes. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Without objection,
all other opening statements will be included in the record.
We will introduce today's witness. The Honorable Robert Hur
was appointed as a Special Counsel in January 2023 to
investigate the removal and retention of classified documents
discovered at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global
Engagement. He previously served as the Principal Associate
Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice and as the
United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. He was a
law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and clerked for
Judge Alex Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We
welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today.
We will begin by swearing you in. Mr. Hur, would you please
stand, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under
penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is
true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information,
and belief so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witness has answered in the
affirmative. Thank you, you can be seated. Please know that
your written testimony will be entered into the record in its
entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your
testimony.
Mr. Hur, you may begin with your opening statement. Make
sure you have that mic on, if you could, Mr. Hur.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT K. HUR
Mr. Hur. Thank you, Chair. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Nadler, Chair Comer, Ranking Member Raskin, and Members of the
Committee, good morning.
I am privileged to have served our country for the majority
of my career, a decade and a half, most of those years with the
Department of Justice. I have served as a line prosecutor, a
supervisor, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, a
United States Attorney, and as Special Counsel. I have served
in these roles with gratitude as the son of immigrants to this
country, the first member of my family to be born here.
My parents grew up in Korea and were young children during
the Korean War. My father remembers being hungry and grateful
for the food that American GIs shared with him and his
siblings. My mother fled what is now North Korea in her own
mother's arms heading South to safety. My parents eventually
met, married, and came to the U.S. seeking a better life for
themselves and for their children. Their lives and mine would
have been very different were it not for this country.
No matter the role, no matter the administration, I have
applied the same standards and the same impartiality. My
respect for the Justice Department, and my commitment to this
country are why I agreed to serve as Special Counsel when asked
by the Attorney General. I resolved to do the work as I did all
my work for the Department, fairly, thoroughly, and
professionally with close attention to the policies and
practices that govern Department prosecutors.
My team and I conducted a thorough independent
investigation. We identified evidence that the President
willfully retained classified materials after the end of his
Vice Presidency when he was a private citizen. This evidence
included an audio-recorded conversation during which Mr. Biden
told his ghostwriter that he had, ``just found all the
classified stuff downstairs.'' When Mr. Biden said this, he was
a private citizen speaking to his ghostwriter in his private
rental home in Virginia. We also identified other recorded
conversations during which Mr. Biden read classified
information aloud to his ghostwriter. We did not, however,
identify evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. Because the evidence fell short of that
standard, I declined to recommend criminal charges against Mr.
Biden.
The Department's regulations required me to write a
confidential report explaining my decision to the Attorney
General. I understood that my explanation about this case had
to include rigorous, detailed, and thorough analysis. In other
words, I needed to show my work, just as I would expect any
prosecutor to show his or her work explaining the decision to
prosecute or not. The need to show my work was especially
strong here. The Attorney General had appointed me to
investigate the actions of the Attorney General's boss, the
sitting President of the United States. I knew that for my
decision to be credible, I could not simply announce that I
recommended no criminal charges and leave it at that. I needed
to explain why.
My report reflects my best effort to explain why I declined
to recommend charging President Biden. I analyzed the evidence
as prosecutors routinely do, by assessing its strengths and
weaknesses, including by anticipating the ways in which the
President's defense lawyers might poke holes in the
government's case if there were a trial and seek to persuade
jurors that the government could not prove his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
There has been a lot of attention paid to language in the
report about the President's memory, so let me say a few words
about that. My task was to determine whether the President
retained or disclosed national defense information willfully.
That means knowingly and with the intent to do something the
law forbids. I could not make that determination without
assessing the President's state of mind. For that reason, I had
to consider the President's memory and overall mental state and
how a jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in
a criminal trial. These are the types of issues that
prosecutors analyze every day and because these issues were
important to my ultimate decision, I had to include a
discussion of them in my report to the Attorney General.
The evidence and the President himself put his memory
squarely at issue. We interviewed the President and asked him
about his recorded statement ``I just found all the classified
stuff downstairs.'' He told us that he didn't remember saying
that to his ghostwriter. He also said he didn't remember
finding any classified material in his home after his Vice
Presidency. He didn't remember anything about how classified
documents about Afghanistan made their way into his garage.
My assessment in the report about the relevance of the
President's memory was necessary, accurate, and fair. Most
importantly, what I wrote is what I believe the evidence shows
and what I expect jurors would perceive and believe. I did not
sanitize my explanation, nor did I disparage the President
unfairly. I explained to the Attorney General my decision and
the reasons for it. That is what I was required to do.
I took the same approach when I compared the evidence
regarding President Biden to the Department's allegations
against former President Trump. There, too, I called it like I
saw it. As a prosecutor, I had to consider relevant precedence
and to explain why different facts justified different
outcomes. That is what I did in my report.
Confident the analysis set forth in Chapters 11-13 of my
report provided the thorough evaluation and explanation of the
evidence and I encourage everyone to read it when forming their
opinions of the report.
Prosecutors rarely write public reports or testify about
their investigations. That is the Justice Department's long-
standing policy, and it protects important interests. My team
and I prepared the report for the Attorney General with care
and the report stands as the primary source of information.
My responses today will be limited to clarifying
information for the Committee. I will refrain from speculating
or commenting on areas outside the scope of the investigation,
nor will I discuss what investigative steps we did or did not
take beyond what is in the report.
In conclusion, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the
attorneys, agents, analysts, and professional staff who helped
us do our work fairly, thoroughly, and independently. I am
grateful and privileged to have served with them. I single out
for particular thanks Deputy Special Counsel Marc Krickbaum, a
former United States Attorney himself, who brought great
wisdom, skill, and judgment to our task. Thank you. I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Hur follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Hur.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota
for five minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
How could that possibly happen? How could anyone be that
irresponsible? And I thought, what data was in there that could
compromise sources, methods? And it's just totally
irresponsible.
That is President Biden's statement about Donald Trump and the
classified documents.
Mr. Hur, classified documents were found at the Penn Biden
Center?
Mr. Hur. That's correct.
Mr. Armstrong. They were found in President Biden's garage?
Mr. Hur. In Wilmington, Delaware, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. In his basement den?
Mr. Hur. Also in the same home, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. His main-floor office?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. His third-floor den?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. At the University of Delaware?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. At the Biden Institute?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. All right. The elements of the crime for
this, we get into all of this, but the elements of the crime
are pretty simple, right? The President, or President Biden had
unauthorized possession of a document, writing, or note. That's
correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. That the document, writing, or note related
to national defense?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. That the defendant--and we may talk about
the willfully part here in a second--retained the document,
writing, or note and failed to deliver it to an employee or
officer entitled to receive it?
Mr. Hur. Correct. There is a willfulness intent element, as
you say.
Mr. Armstrong. Those are the elements of the crime?
Mr. Hur. Including the intent element, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Yes. There are at least two different
quotes, right, where he told his ghost writer--and this is in
your report--in a matter of fact--and this is February 16,
2017--that he had, ``just found all this classified stuff
downstairs.''?
Mr. Hur. He did make that statement. That was captured on
an audio recording.
Mr. Armstrong. On April 10, 2017, Biden read aloud a
classified passage related to a 2015 meeting in the situation
room?
Mr. Hur. That is in the report, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. These are national security documents?
Afghanistan has been mentioned, a whole bunch of those things,
right?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. At one point in time, his personal attorneys
and the DOJ attorneys argued about notes-taking, all of the
different things, and compared it to Reagan?
Mr. Hur. I'm sorry, could you repeat that, Congressman?
Mr. Armstrong. President Biden's attorneys, personal
attorneys, talked about the notes and why they didn't actually
account for the Presidential Records Act, but you found that
argument--in your report it seems a little persuasive, but you
eventually said, ``no, the Executive Order trumps,'' right?
Mr. Hur. We did conduct--we did set forth an analysis of
the governing law, and ultimately, concluded that the Executive
Order 13526 does apply, and did govern former Vice President
Biden at the time.
Mr. Armstrong. So, you have an audio recording from his
ghost writer where the President acknowledges that the
information he has is classified and he's sharing with his
ghost writer?
Mr. Hur. We have an audio recording capturing a statement
from Mr. Biden saying to his ghost writer, in February 2017,
quote, ``I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.''
Mr. Armstrong. Then, again, reciting passages from a
meeting in the situation room?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Those are in President Biden's own words?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. Right? So, he's--and the ghost writer has no
classified no--he has no clearance, no classified clearance to
anything, correct?
Mr. Hur. That is our undersanding that Mr. Zwonitzer was
not authorized to receive classified information.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. So, the elements are possessed
documents; the documents related to national defense, and
willfully retained those documents, and in this case, shared
them with somebody who was not allowed to receive them?
Mr. Hur. There are different Subsections of 18 U.S.C. 793.
One Subsection relates to the willful retention, and another
relates to disclosure of national defense information.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, though, the willful retention, we've
got the Penn Biden Center, the garage, the basement den, the
main floor office, the third floor den, the University of
Delaware, and the Biden Institute. We have a 50-year career of
a person who has not been very great at dealing with classified
documents throughout--even prior to his time as Vice President,
when he was in the U.S. Senate, right?
Mr. Hur. We do address each set of those documents in the
report, Congressman.
Mr. Armstrong. So, the difference--but I think this is
really important because the difference is it appears, just
from reading the report, he has--and we heard all about
exonerated and all those different things. It appears from the
report he met every actual element of the crime.
So, I want to talk about the Department principles on
Federal prosecution. Because that actually has nothing to do
with the underlying elements, correct? It's whether or not you
can prove this at the trial?
Mr. Hur. Under the Department's Justice Manual and the
Principles of Federal Prosecution, a prosecutor has to assess
the evidence and determine whether, in his or her judgment, the
probable outcome will be a conviction at trial.
Mr. Armstrong. So, whether or not you meet the elements of
the crime, which I think it's clear that he does, the second
part of this is that's where it gets into the ``sympathetic,
well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.'' You could have
just said, ``We don't prosecute sitting Presidents,'' but you
did not. You entered this. That doesn't have anything to do
with the actual elements of the crime. That has to do with
getting a conviction at trial. Correct?
Mr. Hur. Well, Congressman, part and parcel of a
prosecutor's judgment as to whether or not a conviction is the
probable outcome of trial is assessing how the evidence
identified during the investigation lines up with the elements,
and what proof can be offered to a jury during a trial.
Mr. Armstrong. Sure. His well-meaning, elderly, old man has
nothing to do with the underlying elements of the crime.
Mr. Hur. Well, it certainly has something--
Mr. Armstrong. It's a presentation to the jury.
Mr. Hur. It's certainly having something--
Mr. Armstrong. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman can respond.
Mr. Hur. It certainly has something to do with the way that
a jury is going to perceive, receive, consider, conclude, and
make conclusions, based on evidence at trial, Congressman.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hur, in your written testimony, you say that you found
some evidence that the President might have willfully retained
classified materials at the end of his Vice Presidency,
correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Nadler. Ultimately, you concluded that you could not
prove the charge in a court of law. In your words, you, quote,
``did not identify evidence that rose to the level of proof
beyond a reasonable.'' Correct?
Mr. Hur. That was my judgment.
Mr. Nadler. You have been a prosecutor for a long time, Mr.
Hur. Would you agree that there's no such thing as being a
little bit charged for a crime? You're either charging or
you're not, correct?
Mr. Hur. Could you please repeat the question, Congressman?
Mr. Nadler. Would you agree that there is no such thing as
being a little bit charged for a crime? You're either charged
or you are not charged, correct?
Mr. Hur. Yes, it is binary, either one is not charged or
charged.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. So, just to be clear, because so
many people have taken your words out of context, your ultimate
conclusion was that President Biden could not be charged with a
crime because, even after your thorough investigation, you
could not find sufficient evidence to charge him. Correct?
Mr. Hur. My conclusion was that, based on my evaluation of
the evidence, as a prosecutor--
Mr. Nadler. Don't filibust. Correct?
Mr. Hur. I'm sorry, Congressman, I didn't hear your last
question.
Mr. Nadler. I said, based on your conclusion, your ultimate
conclusion is that President Biden could not be charged with a
crime because, even after your thorough investigation, you
could not find sufficient evidence to charge him. Correct or
not correct?
Mr. Hur. My ultimate conclusion was that criminal charges
were not warranted.
Mr. Nadler. Correct.
Now, let's talk about why--I have limited time. So, please,
when I say, ``Correct or not correct?'' answer the question.
Let's talk about why, in sharp contrast to President Biden,
President Trump faces 40 charges related to the unlawful
retention of highly classified documents. That is, of course,
apart from the additional 51 counts in cases alleging that he
incited a rebellion and lied about his finances.
You found that President Biden reported the possible
classified documents in his possession to the FBI as soon as he
learned of them. Correct?
Mr. Hur. There was a voluntary disclosure by the
President's counsel to authorities relating to the discovery of
classified documents that had been identified--
Mr. Nadler. Let's contrast this with President Trump. Are
you aware that the FBI only learned that Trump was in
possession of classified material after the National Archives
discovered them?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I am not intimately familiar with the
facts relating to former President Trump. I'm prepared to
comment on them to the extent that I addressed them in the
report.
Mr. Nadler. OK. You write in your report that President
Biden, quote, ``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.''
In other words, part of understanding President Biden's
intent was that he quickly and voluntarily returned those
documents to the government. Correct?
Mr. Hur. That was a factor in our analysis, yes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. By way of contrast, to the best of
your knowledge, why did the Department of Justice seek a
warrant to search Mar-a-Lago?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I am not familiar with those
deliberations. That is a matter that I had no participation in.
Mr. Nadler. Well, I'll tell you it was because they were
concerned that Trump had lied about possession of those
documents and might conceal or destroy them.
Special Counsel Smith found that President Trump obstructed
his investigation by suggesting that his attorney falsely
represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have the
documents called for by the grand jury subpoena. At any point
in your investigation, did you have any reason to believe that
President Biden lied to you?
Mr. Hur. I do address in my report one response the
President gave to a question that we had posed to him that we
deemed to be not credible.
Mr. Nadler. Was it clear he didn't lie?
Mr. Hur. I'm sorry, Congressman?
Mr. Nadler. The report is clear that he didn't lie, or that
he caused the staff to lie to you--and that he didn't cause the
staff to lie to you? Your report is clear on that?
Mr. Hur. I did not--
Mr. Nadler. Do you agree that causing someone to lie to the
FBI is a classic example of obstruction of justice?
Mr. Hur. It is an example of obstruction, yes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Trump also obstructed the Smith
investigation by directing one of his employees to move boxes
of documents to conceal them from Trump's attorney, from the
FBI, and from the grand jury. At any point in your
investigation did you find that President Biden directed his
staff to conceal documents from you or anyone else?
Mr. Hur. We did not reach that conclusion.
Mr. Nadler. OK. You would agree that hiding documents is a
classic example of obstructing an investigation?
Mr. Hur. It is an example of obstructing--
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Donald Trump instructed his staff to
delete security footage, so that the FBI and Special Counsel
could not see how he had tried to move and hide documents. Do
you agree that attempting to delete video footage in this
manner is plainly an attempt to obstruct an investigation?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I don't want to characterize the
evidence in the case against former President--
Mr. Nadler. If that happened, would you agree that the
deleting video footage is plainly an attempt to obstruct an
investigation?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, it's the type of evidence that
prosecutors would consider in--
Mr. Nadler. OK. To sum up, Donald Trump is charged with
willfully retaining classified documents and conspiring to
conceal those documents, and he's facing additional charges for
lying to investigators, isn't that correct?
Mr. Hur. Those are allegations that are in a pending--
Mr. Nadler. It's a matter of public record.
Mr. Hur. --indictment against former President Trump.
Mr. Nadler. The reason why President Biden is not facing a
single charge, Mr. Hur, is not because you went easy on him,
but because, after reviewing seven million documents and
interviewing nearly 150 witnesses, including the President
himself, you could not prove that he had committed a crime.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from--Mr. McClintock, the gentleman from
California, is recognized.
Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you.
Mr. Hur, I first want to get this straight. Is it now OK if
I take home top-secret documents, store them in my garage, and
read portions of them to friends or associates?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I wouldn't recommend it, but I don't
want to entertain any hypotheticals at this point.
Mr. McClintock. Well, is it OK? I can do that now under
this new doctrine?
Mr. Hur. Again, Congressman, I wouldn't recommend that you
do that, but I don't want to--
Mr. McClintock. Well, you've essentially said so in your
report. Certainly, it would be exculpatory if I simply told
you, ``Hey, I'm getting old, I don't remember stuff the way I
used to.''
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I'm not here to get into
hypotheticals. I'm here to talk about the facts and the work
that I did in the--
Mr. McClintock. Well, it's not a hypothetical. This is the
issue at hand. You correctly noted in your report that former
Presidents and other senior officials have been given wide
latitude in their possession of classified information. I
believe your decision not to prosecute Biden for the same
offense is consistent with that precedent.
The problem is that precedent changed with the
administration's decision to prosecute Donald Trump. The irony
is that, as President, Trump had full discretion over handling
classified material and full discretion in deciding which
records to retain. As a Senator or Vice President, Joe Biden
didn't have that.
So, now we get to this glaring double standard. I think it
would be toxic to the rule of law on its face if it was just
two ordinary citizens, but the fact that the only person being
prosecuted for this offense happens to be the President's
political opponent makes this an unprecedented assault on our
democracy. This is the worst we could expect from a banana
republic. I wonder how you square this.
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I do address, as I was required to as
a prosecutor, a relevant precedent in the form of the alleged--
the allegations in the indictment against former President
Trump. I set forth my explanation and my assessment in
comparison of those precedents in my report, and I am not here
to comment any further beyond what's in my report.
Mr. McClintock. Well, you said, for example, ``that there
was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt.'' Well, you got the
fact that he had classified material in his possession and
control in multiple settings for multiple years; that he told
others he was aware of this, and that he shared that material
with others. The mind boggles at what ``beyond reasonable
doubt'' would actually mean.
Mr. Hur. Well, as I set forth in, at length, in my
explanations in Chapters 11 and 12 of the report, my assessment
is that the evidence, if presented at trial alongside potential
defense arguments, would not probably result in a conviction at
trial.
Mr. McClintock. Well, that's one of the points you make, is
that President Biden's likely to be an elderly, sympathetic
figure with a poor memory. How does that bear on any
individual's guilt or innocence? Isn't that, again, a question
for a judge or a jury to decide after guilt or innocence is
determined?
Mr. Hur. It is.
Mr. McClintock. Again, here's the problem: Donald Trump's
being prosecuted for exactly the same act that you've
documented that Joe Biden committed.
Mr. Hur. Congressman, if I understood your question
correctly, you said, ``Isn't that a question for a jury?'' It
most certainly through the lens of now--
Mr. McClintock. Well, my question is, does that bear on the
guilt or innocence of an individual?
Mr. Hur. It certainly bears on how a jury is going to
receive and perceive and make decisions on--
Mr. McClintock. So, the answer to my earlier question is
correct. All I have to do when I'm caught taking home
classified materials is to say, ``I'm sorry, Mr. Hur, but I'm
getting old. My memory's not so great''?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I--
Mr. McClintock. This is the doctrine that you've
established in our laws now and it's frightening.
Mr. Hur. Congressman, my intent is certainly not to
establish any sort of doctrine. I had a particular task. I have
a particular set of evidence to consider and make a judgment
with respect to one particular set of evidence. That is what I
did.
Mr. McClintock. Well, Mr. Hur, here's the fine point of the
matter: The foundation of our justice system is equal justice
under law. That's what gives the law its respect and its
legitimacy. Without it, the law is simply force, devoid of any
moral authority. Justice is depicted as blindfolded for this
very reason. It doesn't matter who comes before her; all are
treated equally.
You've destroyed this foundation, and the rule of law
becomes a sick mockery. It becomes a weapon to wield against
political rivals and a tool of despotism. I am desperately
afraid that this decision of the Department of Justice has now
crossed a very bright line.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to
introduce the State of the Union into the hearing.
Chair Jordan. Without objection, that will be introduced.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The Ranking Member is recognized for an
unanimous consent.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that a copy of an article in this morning's Washington Post
entitled, ``Full transcript of Biden's Special Counsel
interview paints nuanced portrait.'' The President doesn't come
across as absent-minded as Hur has made him out to be.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
California for five minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hur, for being here today. I found your
report very interesting, and I learned some things about it,
the law and the precedents. There are clear differences between
the cases of, and precedents set by, Presidents Reagan, Trump,
and Biden.
Now, it was widely known that President Reagan kept diaries
form his Presidency that included classified information. What
I didn't know, and learned in your report, was that the
Department of Justice, quote, ``repeatedly described the
diaries in public court filings as Mr. Reagan's personal
records,'' and that, ``no agency ever attempted to remove his
diaries.'' That's on page 195 of your report. Very interesting.
So, the investigation found that President Biden believed
that his notebooks were his personal property, including work
and political notes, reflections, to-do lists, and more, that
he was entitled to take home. You found that on page 232.
So, while much of his notebook was work-related, he still
had some purely personal subjects, again, I quote, ``gut-
wrenching entries about the illness and death of his son
Beau.'' That's on pages 82 and 253 of your report.
So, it's clear, based on the Reagan precedent, that no
criminal charges were warranted in this matter relative to
personal notebooks.
Now, I want to be clear that, although the notebooks
contain some very personal information, and President Biden
considered them his personal property, the President allowed
your team to seize and review all the notebooks you found. Is
that correct?
Mr. Hur. That is correct.
Ms. Lofgren. Now, that's in stark contrast to ex-President
Trump's case. He obstructed and diverted all the
investigations.
Now, you also interviewed President Biden about other
classified documents you found outside his notebooks, didn't
you?
Mr. Hur. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Lofgren. So, did the President tell you that he
believed any documents other than his own handwritten work were
his personal property? Yes or no?
Mr. Hur. We did not hear that from the President during his
interview.
Ms. Lofgren. So, again, it's very different from ex-
President Trump. Ex-President Trump said, ``all of the
documents marked Classified were his personal property.''
President Biden did not consider documents that were produced
by other entities with classification markings as his personal
records.
Now, since the majority has tried to assert that there is
disparity based on politics in the differences in the
prosecution, it's worth quoting page 11 of the report, which
says, and I quote,
Several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr.
Biden's case are clear. . . . Most notably, after being given
multiple chances to return classified 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 and then to lie about it.
That's on page 11. Quote,
In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the
National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to
the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for
a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the
investigation.
It's clear that these cases are not the same. Frankly, I
was surprised to learn that some of the classified documents
were actually personal diaries that many Executive officials
have, have taken home with them because it was in their own
handwriting; it was what they produced.
Based on the Department of Justice public statements during
the Reagan Administration, it is understandable that a person
could believe that their personal diaries that they produced
were not to be turned over, just as President Reagan did not
turn them over.
So, I appreciate your report. I appreciate your being here,
Mr. Hur.
I would also like to ask, Mr. Chair, a unanimous request to
include in the record a September 11th letter from the Special
Counsel to the President to Special Counsel Hur, and also, a
letter to Merrick Garland.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Lofgren. With that, Mr. Chair, I see my time has
expired, and I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair is
recognized.
Mr. Hur, why did he do it? Why did Joe Biden, in your
words, ``willfully retain and disclose classified materials''?
He knew the law. He'd been in office 50 years. Five decades in
the U.S. Senate, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, eight years as Vice President. He got briefed every
day as Vice President. He's been in the situation room.
In fact, he knew the rules because you said so on page 226,
``President Biden was deeply familiar with the measures taken
to safeguard classified documents.''
Joe Biden told us he knew the rules. Mr. Armstrong said
this earlier. Joe Biden was deeply familiar with it, you're
exactly right, because he told us. When Jack Smith goes after
President Trump, Joe Biden says, ``How could this happen? What
data was in those documents that could compromise sources and
methods? It's irresponsible.''
So, Joe Biden knew the rules. You know he knew the rules,
and Joe Biden told us he knew the rules. So, Mr. Hur, why did
he break them?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, the conclusion as to exactly why the
President did what he did is not one that we explicitly address
in the report. The report explains my decision to the Attorney
General that no criminal charges were warranted in this matter.
Chair Jordan. I think you did tell us. I think you told us,
Mr. Hur on page 231 you said this: ``President Biden had strong
motivations.'' That is a key word. We are getting the motive
now. ``President Biden had strong motivations to ignore the
proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information
in his notebooks.'' Why did he have strong motivations?
Because--next words, ``because he decided months before leaving
office to write a book.'' To write a book. That was his motive.
He knew the rules. He broke them because he was writing a book.
You further say, ``and he began meeting with a ghost writer
while he was still Vice President.'' There is the motive.
Mr. Hur, how much did President Biden get paid for his
book?
Mr. Hur. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if that
information appears in the report.
Chair Jordan. It sure does. There is a dollar amount in
there. You remember?
Mr. Hur. I don't. It may be $8 million, if that's--
Chair Jordan. Eight million dollar. Joe Biden had $8
million reasons to break the rules. Took classified information
and shared it with the guy who was writing the book. That is
why he knew the rules, but he broke them, for $8 million in a
book advance. You know what? Wasn't just the money. Joe Biden--
here is--this is page 231, very next page. In your report,
``Joe Biden viewed his notebooks as an irreplaceable
contemporaneous record of the most important moments if his
Vice Presidency.'' He had written this all down for the book,
for the $8 million. The next thing you say in your report is,
quote, ``Such a record would buttress his legacy as a world
leader.''
You know what this is? It wasn't just the money. It wasn't
just $8 million. It was also his ego. Pride and money are why
he knowingly violated the rules. The oldest motives in the
book: Pride and money. You agree with that, Mr. Hur? You wrote
about it in your report.
Mr. Hur. That language does appear in the report, and we
did identify evidence supporting those assessments.
Chair Jordan. You also had another interesting statement in
your report. You said, ``Joe Biden''--I want to make sure I get
this right, ''viewed himself as a man of Presidential timber.''
Remember that statement, Mr. Hur?
Mr. Hur. I believe that does appear in the report, or at
least in the Executive Summary.
Chair Jordan. I think this is interesting because here is
the scary part: Page 200. I said this earlier in my opening
statement. page 200, and this is a quote-- ``Joe Biden risked
serious damage to America's national security when he shared
information with his ghost writer.'' Shared it with his ghost
writer, the guy who was helping Joe Biden get $8 million.
Oh, by the way, Mr. Hur, what did that ghost writer do with
the information Joe Biden shared with him on his laptop? What
did he do after you were named Special Counsel?
Mr. Hur. Chair, if you're referring to the audio recordings
that Mr. Zwonitzer created of his conversations with--
Chair Jordan. Exactly what I am referring to.
Mr. Hur. He slid--if I remember correctly, he slid those
files into his recycle bin on his computer.
Chair Jordan. Tried to destroy the evidence, didn't he?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Chair Jordan. The very guy who was helping Joe Biden get
the $8 million, $8 million Joe Biden used--the motive for Joe
Biden to disclose classified information, to retain classified
information, which he definitely knew was against the law, when
you get named Special Counsel, what does that guy do? He
destroys the evidence. That is the key takeaway in my mind.
That is the key takeaway. I yield back.
The gentleman from Maryland for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hur, your report starts with the line, ``We conclude
that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.'' Have
you had any reason to change your opinion about that?
Mr. Hur. No, Congressman. No, Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. You highlight the independence and support you
got from the Attorney General and DOJ. Have you changed your
mind about that?
Mr. Hur. I have not.
Mr. Raskin. The report describes President Biden's
cooperation. In your request he allowed his homes to be
searched, he answered questions for hours in the midst of a
global crisis. Have you had any reason to change your mind
about that?
Mr. Hur. No, Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. All right. You also repeatedly contrast Biden's
cooperation with the conduct of Donald Trump. You say, quote,
Most notably after being given multiple chances to return
classified 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 and
then lie about it.
Have you had any reason to change your judgment about the
differences between President Biden's cooperation and the
former President's noncooperation?
Mr. Hur. No, I continue to stand by those words in my
report.
Mr. Raskin. With such a striking contrast our colleagues
have switched over from being impeachment investigators for
constitutional high crimes and misdemeanors, which is how this
whole thing started, to being amateur memory specialists,
giving us their drive-by diagnoses of the President of the
United States, whose soaring oratory, powerful historical
analysis, and devastating extemporaneous repartee with even the
most skilled Ninja hecklers of the Freedom Caucus were on full
display at the State of the Union Address last week for the
whole country to see.
The desperate question vent an issue is a distraction from
the 91 Federal and State Federal charges that Donald Trump
faces now, his staggering civil court losses in New York, now
totaling more than a half a billion dollars, and his full-blown
embrace and romance with authoritarian dictators and communist
tyrants all over the world from Viktor Orban in Hungary to
Vladimir Putin in Russia, the former head of the KGB to the
communist dictator of North Korea.
My friends, this is a memory test, but it is not a memory
test for President Biden. It is a memory test for all of
America. Do we remember fascism? Do we remember Nazism? Do we
remember communism and totalitarianism? Have we completely
forgotten the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents in
prior generations?
While we play pin tail on the donkey in this wild goose
chase, all these silly games, Donald Trump entertains
authoritarian hustler Viktor Orban at Mar-a-Lago for the
weekend and Orban comes out to declare that if we indeed
sleepwalk into another Trump Presidency, Trump will, quote,
``not give a single penny to Ukraine.'' That is what all this
is about. It is about trying to pull the wool over the eyes of
America because the tyrants and dictators of the world are on
the march today.
So, wins with this ludicrous embarrassing spectacle? Orban
wins, Putin wins, and Xi wins. The tyrants of the world win.
They have one more reason to celebrate Donald Trump and his
cult followers who have completely lost their way. They are
looking for high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, they appoint
themselves amateur memory specialists, and that is what they
pounce on the President of the United States about.
America faces a choice between democracy and tyranny. The
President laid it out at Valley Force and he laid it out in the
State of the Union. Will America stand on the side of people
struggling against fascist aggression? Will we stand with the
people of Ukraine against Vladimir Putin, whose filthy war has
meant the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children, the
murder, the slaughter of thousands of Ukrainian civilians, and
the attack on an independent sovereign democracy?
We are not working on that today. We are not standing up
for democracy and human rights and international law around the
world. No, we are trying to play memory detectives, to parse
the language of a President who the whole world got to see at
the State of the Union Address directly address the real
questions of our time. It is democracy versus dictatorship. All
of the autocrats and the theocrats, all the kleptocrats of the
world are together in league against American democracy, and we
have to stand up for American democracy against these stupid
games.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Comer, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
During the Oversight Committee interviews we have
identified a number of White House employees who were involved
in the mishandling of classified documents under the leadership
of President Biden.
Special Counsel Hur, can you please tell us approximately
how many current and former White House employees you
interviewed related to your investigation?
Mr. Hur. Chair Comer, I don't have that figure immediately
at hand. Of course, it was a subset of the 173 interviews that
we conducted during our investigation.
Mr. Comer. Your report indicates that one of those former
White House employees who you interviewed was Dana Remus. Is
that correct?
Mr. Hur. We did interview Ms. Remus, yes.
Mr. Comer. Ms. Remus was President Biden's former White
House counsel, correct?
Mr. Hur. She was President Obama's former White House
counsel.
Mr. Comer. I am sorry, President Obama's White House
counsel.
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Comer. Related to Ms. Remus, in your report on page 257
you wrote:
In May 2022, White House counsel Dana Remus undertook an effort
to retrieve Mr. Biden's files from the Penn Biden Center. Remus
described the original purpose of that effort as gathering
materials to prepare for potential congressional inquiries
about the Biden family's activities during the period from 2017
to 2019.
Now, it seems odd to me that Dana Remus and Joe Biden's
personal lawyers were obtaining documents related to potential
congressional inquiries about the Biden family activities when
Joe Biden has publicly claimed he had no involvement with his
family's business dealings. Could you provide more information
about why Dana Remus, a government employee, was retrieving Joe
Biden's documents from the Penn Biden Center?
Mr. Hur. Chair, I am able to tell you and clarify
information that appears in the report about relevant
significant sources of information. I am not in a position to
be able to go beyond that.
Mr. Comer. When you interviewed President Biden did you ask
him what documents he possessed at Penn Biden Center that could
be related to a potential congressional inquiry about his
family's activities?
Mr. Hur. We asked President Biden a wealth of questions
about all the different sets of classified materials that were
recovered during the course of our investigation.
Mr. Comer. Did anything pertain specifically to our
congressional inquiry of President Biden that you recall?
Mr. Hur. If there are more specific aspects of it you have
in mind, Chair, that would be helpful to me.
Mr. Comer. Interest pertaining to his family's influence
peddling activities?
Mr. Hur. If it's helpful, Chair, Appendix A does list in
table chart form a brief description of all the marked
classified documents that were recovered in our investigation.
Mr. Comer. We intend to interview Ms. Remus and the
recording or transcript of your interview would be highly
relevant to our future questioning of her. Can you confirm that
you did in fact record her in your interview?
Mr. Hur. It was our practice to record the interviews that
we conducted, Chair Comer.
Mr. Comer. Additionally, in the course of the investigation
the Oversight Committee learned from a Penn Biden Center
employee that Annie Tomasini, a White House employee, visited
the Penn Biden Center in 2021. Did you interview Annie Tomasini
in the course of your investigation?
Mr. Hur. Chair, we do not--the report does not reflect that
specific name, but what I can tell you is that the report does
reflect that we interviewed the Director of Oval Office
Operations. One of the places that's reflected is footnote 973.
Mr. Comer. OK. The Oversight Committee interviewed Kathy
Chung, a Department of Defense employee and former assistant to
Vice President Biden and learned that Ms. Chung visited the
Penn Biden Center in June 2022, after being contacted by White
House counsel in May 2022. This was months before classified
documents were allegedly found in November 2022. Did you
interview Kathy Chung in the course of your investigation?
Mr. Hur. Chair, I believe that the substance related to the
subject you're asking about appears on page 259 of the report.
While the name Kathy Chung does not appear in the text of the
report, there are references to interviews of an executive
assistant, including at footnote 988.
Mr. Comer. The Oversight Committee also learned from its
interviews with Penn Biden Center employees and Kathy Chung
that Dana Remus, Anthony Bernal, and Ashley Williams, all at
the time White House employees, then visited the Penn Biden
Center on different occasions before the alleged discovery of
classified materials in November 2022. Did you interview these
individuals during your investigation?
Mr. Hur. We interviewed many individuals and we--I can
assure you, Chair, it was a priority of ours to interview all
the relevant sources of information about these documents, how
they got there, who knew about them, and who accessed them.
Mr. Comer. So again, they were all recorded, is that
correct? So, there would be recordings of those interviews?
Mr. Hur. It was our practice to interview recordings, yes,
sir.
Mr. Comer. How many White House employees visited the Penn
Biden Center before classified materials were reportedly
discovered there in November 2022 according to the White House?
Mr. Hur. Sir, I don't have an exact count of [inaudible].
Mr. Comer. How many visits to the Penn Biden Center were
made by either White House employees or President Biden's
personal attorneys before the official discovery of documents
in November 2022?
Mr. Hur. I don't have that figure at hand, but that should
be detailed in Chapter 14 of the report, sir.
Mr. Comer. Yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hur, any time you need a break, if you need a break,
let us know, because we are going to go a while, as you well
know.
Mr. Hur. Thank you, sir.
Chair Jordan. Ms. Jackson Lee is recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Hur, good morning.
Mr. Hur. Good morning.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Republicans here asked for a lot of
transcripts, but Chair Jordan has yet to release 90-plus
transcripts from our interviews when where those, if they are
to be released to the American people, is a question.
My question to you is you decided based on the facts not to
prosecute or indict or bring forward charges against the
President of the United States, the sitting President, Joseph
Biden. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. That was my judgment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This investigation was independent and
thorough, is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We have heard from our Republican
colleagues who are grasping at straws allegations that
President Biden was treated lightly in this investigation. Just
a plain reading of this report completely refutes that
argument. There was no two-tiered system of justice. There was
only a lack of evidence against President Biden.
Mr. Hur, your office and the FBI undertook an extensive
investigation into Mr. Biden's handling of classified
information and of the classified documents the FBI seized,
correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In your investigation you conducted 173
interviews with 147 witnesses, correct?
Mr. Hur. That is correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. President Biden himself was one of those
witnesses, correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. For at least five hours or more?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. President Biden engaged in this interview
voluntarily?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The interview with President Biden lasted
more than five hours. I have said that. That is correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It occurred the day, which all should
know, after the horrific attack, October 7, 2023, Hamas attack
in Israel, according to a letter from the White House counsel.
Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. The interview spanned two days: October 8th and
October 9th.
Ms. Jackson Lee. With the President having to be in and out
to deal with an international crisis. After the interview he
provided handwritten answers to additional questions, correct?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, I don't recall the President being
in and out during our interview to handle the international--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me go on. President Biden allowed
investigators to search his private houses, is that correct?
Mr. Hur. He did consent to the search of his residence.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Your investigation collected seven million
documents for review in your investigation, is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This included emails, text messages,
photographs, videos, toll records, and other materials from
both classified and unclassified sources, correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You referred, or reviewed President
Biden's handwritten notes as well, correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You coordinated with the multiple
government agencies to organize and complete your
investigation, correct?
Mr. Hur. We consulted with numerous agencies to conduct--
Ms. Jackson Lee. That included classification reviews of
evidence that was seized during the investigation. That
included working with national security experts in the
intelligence community to carefully analyze each classified
document that was obtained?
Mr. Hur. With respect to marked classified documents,
that's correct. We submitted excerpts from the former Vice
President's notebooks for classification review.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If agencies reviewed classified material
and gave it different levels of classification, you classified
it as a higher level for the purposes of your investigation, to
be thorough, correct?
Mr. Hur. That is reflected in Appendices A in the--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The FBI requested
classification review from each identified agency accordingly
for documents where multiple agencies had equities. The Special
Counsel's Office used the highest level of classification
identified by an agency as the current classification of the
document.
Let me go on. Attorney General Garland appointed you as
Special Counsel over the matter on January 12, 2023, correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. He authorized you to investigate Mr.
Biden's possession of the classified documents including
possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or other records--
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. --at the Penn Center--Penn Biden Center,
President Biden's home, Delaware, as well as any matters that
arose from the initial investigation or may arise directly from
the Special Counsel. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. I believe that accurately reflects the language of
the appointment order.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you operated an independent
investigation for about a year, which you just stated that you
had adequate resources to complete, in which you conducted 173
interviews including with President Biden himself, you reviewed
seven million documents including President Biden's personal
records, and searched his home thoroughly. In this thorough,
lengthy investigation you did not uncover enough evidence to
recommend prosecution against the President. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. That's my judgment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If you had found enough evidence to
warrant prosecution, did you feel free, unrestrained,
unrestrained by the Attorney General appointed by President
Biden, to make such a recommendation to the Attorney General?
Mr. Hur. I was aware of the Office of Legal Counsel policy
right now prohibiting sitting Presidents from being charged
with Federal crimes, but apart from that what I can tell you,
Congresswoman, is that the investigative steps that we took
were my own, the judgment was my own, and the words in my
report are my own.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You would have done so--
Participant. Point of order, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I would like to put into the
record justsecurity.org, the Real Robert Hur report, by
unanimous consent.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Florida for five minutes.
Mr. Gaetz. February 8th the White House questioned, ``Mr.
President, why did you share classified information with your
ghost writer?'' The President: ``I did not share classified
information. I did not share it. I guarantee I did not.'' That
is not true, is it, Mr. Hur?
Mr. Hur. That is inconsistent with the findings based on
the evidence in my report.
Mr. Gaetz. Yes, it is a lie. It is just what regular people
would say, right?
Mr. Hur. [No response.]
Mr. Gaetz. Yes. All right. So, the next one: ``And all the
stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were
either locked or able to be locked.'' That wasn't true either,
was it?
Mr. Hur. That was inconsistent with the findings of our
investigation.
Mr. Gaetz. Another lie people might say, right? Because
what you put in your report was, ``Among the places Mr. Biden's
lawyers found classified documents in the garage was a damaged
open box.''
So, here is what I am understanding, right? As Mr.
Armstrong laid out, you find in your report that the elements
of a Federal criminal violation are met, but then you apply
this senile cooperator theory, that because Joe Biden
cooperated and the elevator doesn't go to the top floor, you
don't think you could get a conviction.
I actually think you get to the right answer in that. I
don't think Biden should have been charged; don't think Trump
should have been charged. Under like the senile cooperator
theory isn't it frustrating that Biden continues to go out and
lie about the basic facts of the report that lay out a Federal
criminal violation?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I need to disagree with at least one
thing that you said, which is that I found that all the
elements were met. One of the elements of the relevant
mishandling statute is the intent element, and what my report
reflects is my judgment that based on the evidence I would not
be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that this
intent element had been met.
Mr. Gaetz. Right, but the reason you have that doubt is the
senile cooperator theory, the fact that Joe Biden is so inept
in responding that you can't prove the intent, which again I
don't quibble with that conclusion, but it is frustrating to be
like, oh, well, this guy's not getting treated the same way as
Trump, because the elevator is not going to the top floor. So,
we can't prove intent, while at the same time Biden goes out
there at the White House and says, well, you know--he just
blatantly lies.
What I am trying to figure out is whether or not Biden is
lying because he is still so senile that he hasn't read your
report or whether it is a little craftier and a little more
devious, and perhaps a little more intentional than we might
otherwise think.
So, I also want to go to this Biden Penn Center. Did it
give concern to you that the Biden Penn Center, where all this
classified stuff was being mishandled, was being floated by
foreign governments?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, we were concerned with getting to the
bottom of all the classified documents that were recovered
during the course of our--
Mr. Gaetz. Yes, but like what bothers me is that the money
that was paying for the place where the documents were being
inappropriately held--it was the Chinese and there were other
foreign countries that would--did that play into your analysis?
Did you look into the billion dollars in foreign funding
sources at the Biden Center at U. Penn, for example?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, we conducted a thorough, impartial,
and fair investigation and we were very, very concerned with
getting to the bottom of all the relevant questions relating to
the recovered documents.
Mr. Gaetz. Sir, did you look into the fact that the Chinese
were floating the place where this guy was keeping the
documents unsecure, yes or no?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, to the extent that we identified
evidence that was relevant and significant to our investigation
we put it in our report.
Mr. Gaetz. OK. Well, it seemed relevant to me, maybe not to
you.
Another thing that seemed relevant to me is this ghost
writer, right? So, the ghost writer purposefully deletes this
evidence that seems to be--like show culpability of Biden's
crimes and you don't charge him. Why did you not charge the
ghost writer with obstructing justice and deleting evidence?
Mr. Hur. Well, for a number of reasons that are laid out in
the report, but in brief, Congressman, yes, when we interviewed
the ghost writer he did tell us; and I'm trying to get the
exact language, that one of the things on his mind, one of the
things he was aware of was that I had been appointed Special
Counsel and was conducting an investigation.
Mr. Gaetz. All right. Just so everybody knows, the ghost
writer didn't delete the recordings just as a matter of
happenstance. The ghost writer has recordings of Biden making
admissions of crimes. He then learns that you have been
appointed. He then deletes the information that is the
evidence, and you don't charge him.
Mr. Hur. That is reflected in the report. One of the
reasons--
Mr. Gaetz. What does somebody have to do to get charged
with obstruction of justice by you? If deleting the evidence of
crimes doesn't count, what would meet the standard?
Mr. Hur. So, Congressman, as we State in the relevant
chapter of the report, one of the things that Mr. Zwonitzer did
not delete was transcripts of the recording that he had created
that included inculpatory evidence relating to Mr. Biden.
Mr. Gaetz. Oh, so if you destroy some evidence, but not
other evidence that somehow absolves you of the evidence you
destroy? Like here is what I see: Zwonitzer should have been
charged. Wasn't. Biden and Trump should have been treated
equally. They weren't. That is the double standard that I think
a lot of Americans are concerned about.
I see my time has expired. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hur, thank you for being here. I am a little confused
about this hearing. Mr. Raskin laid out the big picture of we
should be concerned about, but in the more limited picture
Director Mueller had an investigation; he is our most famous
recent Special Prosecutor, and he found sufficient evidence to
say there was a connection between Russia and the Trump
campaign. It supported a criminal prosecution if you were not
President. You found there was no evidence to support a
criminal prosecution.
The story here is simple: President Biden identified
classified documents in his home and other places and told
Archives about them. The independent Department of Justice
under Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed you, a former
Trump political appointee, as Special Counsel to fully
investigate these circumstances and authorized you to prosecute
criminal misconduct. You declined to prosecute because you
found insufficient evidence of a crime. Case closed.
It makes really a prefect case. You did your job. Mr.
Garland did his job. Unlike Mr. Barr, he didn't interfere. Did
Mr. Garland ask you to change your report at all?
Mr. Hur. He did not, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Didn't redact a thing?
Mr. Hur. No, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Like Mr. Barr did. He redacted everything and
made the Mueller report look 180 degrees different than what it
was. Mr. Garland did right, and you did right, and I commend
each of you.
The Department of Justice is independent and allows its
Special Counsels to investigate and prosecute the facts if--
that support it. Joe Biden's actions in handling of classified
materials is similar to most other former Presidents and Vice
Presidents. The exception is Donald Trump.
So, let's start with some yes or no questions. Did you
receive any pressure from Mr. Garland or his staff to make any
specific factual finding or legal conclusion?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Cohen. Did you receive the resources necessary to carry
out your duties?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. Do you have any reason to believe that you were
treated differently with regard to independence or resources
than other DOJ Special Prosecutors?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Cohen. Based on your experience as Special Counsel do
you have any reason to believe the Attorney General was
improperly directing, pressuring, or interfering with Jack
Smith or his work?
Mr. Hur. I have really--I do not have the basis to answer
that question.
Mr. Cohen. Your declination, which we treat as thoughtful
and apolitical--we should treat prosecutorial decisions by Jack
Smith the same way to the best of your knowledge?
Mr. Hur. Again, I really do not have sufficient information
with respect to Jack Smith's investigation to provide any
comment on it.
Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you this: If President Biden in his
testimony to you knew the exact date, January 20th, whatever it
was, 2009, when he became Vice President, and the day when he
left being Vice President, January 20th--I guess the first
would have been January 20, 2009, and then January 20, 2017. If
he knew those dates exactly right and if he knew the exact date
and the instant that Beau Biden died, would that have changed
your decision to not bring a prosecution?
Mr. Hur. Sir, I cannot engage in hypotheticals about what
my decision would have been with different facts. What I did
was to make a decision based on the facts and the circumstances
that I was presented with, and we identify during our
investigation.
Mr. Cohen. It appears to me, and I think it would appear to
the American public, that these minor discrepancies as far as
dates after a long period of time was not the basis--it was the
basis for your decision to decline to prosecute. It was the
fact that you didn't have the facts, that he acted differently
Trump, that he voluntarily provided the documents, that he
complied with the Justice Department, that he didn't try to
obstruct justice. Those were the reasons you didn't prosecute
him, not because he missed a few dates.
Mr. Hur. Congressman, my reasons for my declination
decision are set out in my report and I stand by the words in
the report, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Well, thank you. I think I am encompassing them
in what I am saying to you is that it was not anything to do
with his memory why he wasn't chosen to be--you chose not to
indict him. It was the difference in the facts in the case and
how he dealt with it. The fact is Mr. Biden sat through five
hours and he did an admirable job.
He did an outstanding job in the State of the Union laying
out the case for the future of America for the middle class,
for democracy around the world, for standing up to the
Russians, not bending down to them. That is what is important,
not if you can be like on the $64,000 question, assuming it was
legit, and answering every single question correctly. That is
not what you need to be President.
To be President you need to have values, you need to have
an understanding of what values America has and needs to
maintain to keep the world safe and peaceful. That is dealing
with Ukraine. That is dealing with difficult people like
Netanyahu in Israel, to try to get something done that is
correct. That is what Joe Biden does.
Understanding Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are
important institutions that help seniors, not senile people. I
object to that comment that people--see he is not--nobody
suggest he is senile. That is disrespectful of senior people
with any kind of memory disability. Lots of seniors have memory
disabilities, but they are not senile. To do such was shameful.
Joe Biden is a competent good President who knows American
values.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time hass expired. The
gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thanks, Chair.
Mr. Hur, I would like to start off by thanking you for a
year of hard work and a comprehensive report. I am going to try
not to provide testimony, as some people on both sides are, or
provide conclusions, but I do have some questions that lead me
to ask you for conclusions.
One question is: Were there notes of the President of the
United States that dated back to when he was a Senator that
contained classified information?
Mr. Hur. Among the documents that were recovered during our
investigation were marked classified documents that dated back
to when Mr. Biden was a Senator.
Mr. Issa. When he was in his 30s, 40s, 50s?
Mr. Hur. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Issa. Were there documents from the time that he was
Vice President?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Issa. OK. So, there has been a lot to do about
senility, nonsenility, poor memory, and so on. Let's just go
through something that you deal with as a prosecutor every day.
You first start off with a set of initial evidence that
indicates there may have been a crime, is that right? By the
time it gets to you, usually you have some evidence that there
may have been a crime.
Mr. Hur. I think that is fair, yes.
Mr. Issa. OK, and in this case, at some point during this
investigation where the elements of the crime, including
willfulness, were put before you, and you reached a personal
conclusion that either there was likely guilt or not, is that
correct?
Not provable, not in front of a jury, just personal.
Because you have to make that decision as part of the case,
correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct. I would say I approached the task as I
have been trained to as a prosecutor, which is on an iterative
basis. Investigation is always uncovering new evidence that you
incorporate.
Mr. Issa. Right, so before, during, and at the end, did you
reach a conclusion, notwithstanding his current mental state of
being an elderly man with a poor memory and so on, that he did
in fact deliberately take documents and held them from back
when he was a Senator and we are talking about your personal,
not that you could prove it.
Personally, did you see a pattern that goes all the way
back to him being a Senator of taking documents, making notes,
and taking them and holding the personally?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I viewed my task as a prosecutor in
this matter to determine what I believed the evidence--
Mr. Issa. No, I appreciate that. I am not trying to take
away from your conclusion. Some others are debating the
conclusion, I am not debating the conclusion. I just want to go
through one element that I think is important.
Look, you have prosecuted people in the past and failed to
get a conviction, is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Issa. OK, you are not a 1.000 perfect batting average.
OK.
Mr. Hur. I can't say that.
Mr. Issa. Yes. So, you went into cases thinking that you
would succeed, and you didn't. One might say you probably
declined to prosecute ones that you might have either gotten a
conviction or gotten a plea on. Would you say that is fair to
say, over your long career?
Mr. Hur. I think that is fair. Because I take the rules as
set forth in Justice Manual seriously.
Mr. Issa. OK. However, I am going to presume that you would
never prosecute someone you thought was outright innocent.
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Issa. In this case, did you reach a conclusion that
this man was outright innocent?
Mr. Hur. That conclusion is not reflected in my report,
sir.
Mr. Issa. Right. So, you did not reach that conclusion, or
it would have been in your report.
Mr. Hur. I viewed my task of explaining my decision to the
Attorney General as being based on my judgment and my
assessment of the evidence, would a conviction at trial be the
probable outcome.
Mr. Issa. I just want to make sure the record is complete
in that, because I think it is extremely important. You did not
reach an idea that he had committed no wrong. You reached a
conclusion that you would not prevail at trial, and therefore
did not take it forward. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct, Congressman.
Mr. Issa. OK. I just want to go through one or two little,
these are housekeeping almost. The documents that the
President, then-Vice President, took, which included his own
notes, to your knowledge, aren't those covered by the Freedom
of Information Act, potentially?
Mr. Hur. I honestly do not know, Congressmen.
Mr. Issa. Aren't they covered by the Presidential Records
Act, as every note and every text of the President, the Vice
President, and Members of the cabinet are covered?
Mr. Hur. I think different folks would have different views
on whether they are covered by the PRA, Congressman.
Mr. Issa. Isn't it true that he left office leaving no
copies of that behind, and that alone was inconsistent with an
open and transparent individual, correct?
Mr. Hur. I am not aware of copies of those materials being
left behind, Congressman.
Mr. Issa. OK. I want to thank you, and Mr. Chair, I want to
thank you for the extra few seconds. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hur, you have led a distinguished career, earning your
law degree from Stanford University. You served as a student as
Executive Editor the Stanford Law Review, correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. Then you went on to clerk for Judge Kozinksi
of Ninth Circuit, correct?
Mr. Hur. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. After that, you ascended to a clerkship with
then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court,
correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. Then you later joined the Daddy Bush
Department of Justice as a Special Assistant to known
Federalist Society member and now FBI Director Christopher
Wray, isn't that correct?
Mr. Hur. I did spend some time working for former Assistant
Attorney General Christopher Wray.
Mr. Johnson. You later joined the Trump Justice Department
as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, working as
the right-hand man for another known Federalist Society member,
Rod Rosenstein, isn't that correct?
Mr. Hur. I served as Mr. Rosenstein's Principal Deputy.
Mr. Johnson. Then Donald Trump appointed you to serve as
U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. President Trump nominated me to serve in that
position, and I was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Johnson. That is correct. Thereafter, Attorney General
Merrick Garland appointed you to serve as Special Counsel for
the United States Department of Justice to conduct a full and
thorough investigation of certain matters to determine whether
or not Joseph Biden should be charged with unlawfully removing
and retaining classified documents. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. Nowhere in that order does Attorney General
Garland authorize you to conduct an investigation and issue a
report on whether President Biden is mentally fit to serve as
President, isn't that correct?
Mr. Hur. That does not appear in the appointment order.
Mr. Johnson. Pursuant to your appointment to conclude your
investigation, you issued a report that was published by
Attorney General Garland, correct?
Mr. Hur. He made it available to Congress, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Your report concluded that after a full and
thorough investigation, the evidence was insufficient to
establish that President Biden had willfully retained
classified documents, isn't that correct?
Mr. Hur. My judgment was that based on the State of the
evidence, a conviction at trial was not the probable outcome.
Mr. Johnson. You determined that there was no evidence of
willful retention because each time classified documents were
discovered to be in the President's possession, the White House
notified the National Archives right away. The Biden legal team
and the White House fully cooperated with the National Archives
during the investigation.
Once the DOJ opened the investigation, President Biden and
his personal counsel fully cooperated, isn't that correct?
Mr. Hur. We did identify some evidence of willful retention
and disclosure, but we also noted--
Mr. Johnson. The point is, though, that the President
cooperated fully with you. Didn't the President--they never
tried to hide any documents from you, did they?
Mr. Hur. The report does note steps of cooperation taken by
the President.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir. Last but not least, unlike in
the Trump classified documents case, President Biden's counsel
never falsely certified that there was no classified documents
in the President's possession, correct?
Mr. Hur. The report does include some comparisons and
contrasts between the facts alleged in the Trump case and the
Biden case.
Mr. Johnson. Despite clearing President Biden from being
prosecuted, you used your report to trash and smear President
Biden because he said in response to questions over a five-hour
interview that he didn't recall how he got the documents.
You knew that this would play into the Republicans'
narrative that the President is unfit for office because he is
senile. The American people saw, during the State of the Union
address, that this was not true.
Yet, that is what you tried to offer to them, and that is
why they are having you here today, so that they can expand on
that narrative. You knew that this is what was going to happen,
didn't you?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I reject the suggestions that you
have just made. That is not what happened.
Mr. Johnson. Well, let me move on.
Mr. Hur. Partisan politics played no part whatsoever in my
work.
Mr. Johnson. You are a member of the Federalist Society,
are you not?
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Mr. Hur. Fair.
Mr. Johnson. Are you a member of the Federalist Society?
Mr. Hur. I am not a member of the Federalist Society.
Mr. Johnson. You are a Republican, though, aren't you?
Mr. Hur. I am a registered Republican.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. You are doing everything you can do
to get President Trump reelected so that you can get appointed
as a Federal judge or perhaps to another position in the
Department of Justice, isn't that correct?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I have no such aspirations, I can
assure you. I can tell you that partisan politics had no place
whatsoever in my work. It had no place in the investigative
steps that I took. It had no place in the decision that I made.
It had no place in a single word of my report.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman
from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hur, thank you for being here. I think for the folks
that may be watching this at home, they might be a little bit
confused. I am trying to organize this in my mind as well, the
way the President is portrayed in your report and just how we
feel about him.
Was he a well-meaning, forgetful man, as you said, or was
he a man that was focused on history? Was he a man that
maintained and retained these top-secret documents that should
have been not in his home?
Was he a man that wanted to prove he was worthy to be
President, and that his vision of Afghanistan was better than
even President Barrack Obama's, and that his focus on history
was most important to him? Do you know which it is?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, to the extent you are quoting
language from my report, I stand by the words in my report.
Mr. Van Drew. So, you stand by that he was, and let me
quote you exactly, ``a well-meaning but forgetful old man.''
Mr. Hur. I don't think those exact words appear in the
report, Congressman. To the extent that I used words similar to
that effect in my assessment of how a jury would perceive Mr.
Biden and the evidence relating to him, including his
testimony, I do stand by that assessment.
Mr. Van Drew. So, is it accurate to say that in your
interview, President Biden retained and disclosed classified
materials as a means to bolster his image as a President
figure? I am going to ask you for yes or noes here because our
time is so limited.
Mr. Hur. I believe words to that effect are in my report,
Congressman.
Mr. Van Drew. So, the answer is yes. Would you agree that
President Biden's intent to showcase his legacy provides a
motive for his actions concerning classified materials, yes or
no?
Mr. Hur. It is one of the motives addressed in the report.
Mr. Van Drew. Yup. To showcase his legacy. Is it accurate
to quote your report that classified documents were found in
``badly damaged boxes in his garage near a collapsed dog crate,
a dog bed, a Zappos box, and an empty bucket,'' is that
correct?
Mr. Hur. Those words do appear in the report.
Mr. Van Drew. So, it is correct, the answer is yes. Are
these secure locations to store classified documents?
Mr. Hur. They are not.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. So, we got a former Vice President who is
established to have willfully, purposefully retained classified
documents to highlight his political stature and show his
stature as a Presidential figure. We have a former Vice
President who stored classified documents in very unsecure
places.
We have a former Vice President who will not suffer any
consequences for all of these actions. All because we say,
well, ``he is a well-meaning, forgetful old man.''
If you were kind of a well-meaning, forgetful old 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 would
be responsible. The law must apply, you know this, to everyone.
The standard behind the decision not to prosecute Joe
Biden, especially in light of Special Counsel Jack Smith's
decision to prosecute President Trump for similar conduct,
gives the real appearance of two standards. Just again, so much
part of this Department of Justice. Justice for thee, but not
for me.
Special Counsel Hur, has any former President or Vice
President, besides President Trump, ever been criminally
charged for knowingly retaining classified information after
they left office, yes or no?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Van Drew. Would you concur that Special Counsel Smith's
decision to charge a former President for retaining and
disclosing classified information was an extraordinary,
unusual, and unprecedented decision?
Mr. Hur. I will not comment on that matter.
Mr. Van Drew. Well, I am going to comment, the answer is
yes. Special Counsel Hur, these two reports are the culmination
in my mind of the Department of Justice's two standards, two
standards. An example, again, of the Justice Department being
weaponized against conservatives.
There is another piece to this too, while I have just a few
seconds. We know that when his ghost writer was speaking to
him, he also did recordings. When he did those recordings, it
was clear--in fact, I will try to quote this here.
It was a month in 2017, a month after Biden left his VP. He
was aware of top-secret classified materials that were
``downstairs.'' Is that true?
Mr. Hur. That is reflected in an audio recording, yes.
Mr. Van Drew. It is reflected in an audio. So, sometimes he
may be sleepy, sometimes he may be forgetful. Sometimes he may
be cognitively impaired. There is no doubt about that.
Man, when it came to his personal legacy, the way he wanted
to be remembered, to be sure that he was a big deal, in plain
English, in the future, we were willingly and knowingly
breaking the law.
It is unfortunate that we have a Department of Justice that
will treat one person one way and somebody else a different
way. It is a sad day for America.
Thank you, Mr. Hur. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
California is recognized.
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Hur, I want to ask you about some of the
differences between the facts involving President Biden and
President Trump. Before I do, I want to refer back to your
opening statement in which you said that you did not disparage
the President in your report.
Of course, you did disparage the President. You disparaged
him in terms you had to know would have a maximal political
impact. You understood your report would be public, right?
Mr. Hur. I understood based on comments that the Attorney
General had made that he had committed to making as much of my
report public as consistent with legal policy and legal
requirements.
Mr. Schiff. You could have chosen just to comment on the
President's particular recall vis-a-vis a document or a set of
documents, but you decided to go further and make a generalized
statement about his memory, didn't you?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I could have written my report,
theoretically, in a way that omitted references to the
President's memory, but that would have been an incomplete and
improper report in that it did not reflect my analysis--
Mr. Schiff. That wasn't my question. You could have
written--
Mr. Hur. The explanation of my decision--
Mr. Schiff. You could have written your report with
comments about his specific recollection as to documents, a set
of documents, or a set of documents, but you chose a general,
pejorative reference to the President.
You understood when you made that decision, didn't you, Mr.
Hur, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that
language, didn't you?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, politics played no part whatsoever in
my investigative steps, my decision--
Mr. Schiff. You understood nevertheless--
Mr. Hur. The words that I put in my report.
Mr. Schiff. Didn't you, Mr. Hur? Mr. Hur, you cannot tell
me you are so naive as to think your words would not have
created a political firestorm. You understood that, didn't you,
when you wrote those words?
When you decided to include those words? When you decided
to go beyond specific references to documents, you understood
how they would be manipulated by my colleagues here on the GOP
side of the aisle and by President Trump? You understood that,
did you not?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, what I understood is the regulations
that govern my conduct as Special Counsel. The regulations
required me to write a--
Mr. Schiff. Those regulations--those regulations--
Mr. Hur. Confidential report for the Attorney General--
Mr. Schiff. Which you knew would not be confidential.
Mr. Hur. Explaining my decision. That is what I did,
Congressman, I followed the rules.
Mr. Schiff. Which you knew--Mr. Hur, you knew it would not
be confidential.
Mr. Hur. I knew the rules and I followed them.
Mr. Schiff. You knew it would not be confidential, didn't
you?
Mr. Hur. Sir, the regulations required me to write a
confidential report explaining my decision to the Attorney
General--
Mr. Schiff. Which you knew would be released.
Mr. Hur. It was up to the Attorney General to determine
what portion of the report would be released, consistent with
DOJ policy and legal requirements.
Mr. Schiff. You understood it would be released. You
understood it would be released.
Mr. Hur. I understood, from the Attorney General's public
comments, that he would make as much of my report public as he
could, consistent with legal requirements and DOJ policy.
Mr. Schiff. You also understand DOJ policy that you are to
take care not to prejudice the interests of the subject of an
investigation, right?
Mr. Hur. That is generally one of the interests that DOJ
policy requires that prosecutors respect.
Mr. Schiff. It was your obligation to follow that policy in
this report, was it not?
Mr. Hur. It was also my obligation to write a confidential
report for the Attorney General explaining completely my
decision.
Mr. Schiff. What you did write was deeply prejudicial to
the interests of the President. You say it wasn't political,
and yet you must have understood, you must have understood the
impact of your words.
You must have understood the impact of your decision to go
beyond the specifics of a particular document, to go to the
very general, to your own personal, prejudicial, subjective
opinion of the President, one you knew would be amplified by
his political opponent. One you knew that would influence a
political campaign.
You had to understand that. You did it anyway, and you did
it anyway. Let me just go to some of the differences here
between the President's conduct and Mr. Trump's.
In the superseding indictment, on page 3, it says that Mr.
Trump suggested that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI
and grand jury that he did not have documents called for by the
grand jury subpoena.
You didn't find anything like that with respect to Mr.
Biden, did you?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I do not have the Trump indictment in
front of me, but I need to address something that you said in
your prior question.
What you were suggesting is that I needed to provide a
different version of my report that would be fit for public
release. That is nowhere in the rules. I was to prepare a
confidential report that was comprehensive and thorough of an--
Mr. Schiff. What is in the rules, Mr. Hur, what is in the
rules is you don't gratuitously do things to prejudice the
subject of an investigation when you are declining to
prosecute. You don't gratuitously add language that you know
will be useful in a political campaign.
You were not born yesterday. You understood exactly what
you were doing. It was a choice. You certainly didn't have to
include that language. You could have said vis-a-vis the
documents that were found at the university, the President did
not recall.
There is nothing more common, you know this, I know this,
there is nothing more common with a witness of any age, when
asked about events that are years old, to say I do not recall.
Indeed, they are instructed by their attorney to do that if
they have any questions about it.
You understood that. You made a choice. That was a
political choice. It was the wrong choice.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Arizona--did the Special Counsel wish to respond to that final
question?
Mr. Hur. Yes. Congressman, what you are suggesting is that
I shape, sanitize, omit portions of my reasoning and
explanation to the Attorney General for political reasons.
Mr. Schiff. No, I suggest that you not shape your report
for political reasons, which is what--
Chair Jordan. Time is the witness' in response.
Mr. Hur. That did not happen, Congressman, that did not
happen.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Arizona is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hur, for being here. Thank you for your
report, I have read it. I think where you and I might have
disagreements, they may be matters of opinion and not
necessarily the facts as you reported them.
So, I want to go over the elements of the offense that seem
to have at least struck my craw is the--where you put in here
twice that the jury would not find, not likely to find
intentionality on the part of disclosure in particular. So, I
want to talk about that for a second.
So, if it is not willful, we might say an accident,
something negligent, or careless. That would not necessarily
rise to willful, intentional, or purposeful, right?
Mr. Hur. Those are different standards of intent under the
law. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. So, when President Biden misplaced 30
briefing documents in 2010 that had classified material, and
they are not sure even if they ever got them all back, or when
he was in the Hamptons at a party and he lost what they were
calling code words, which is high-security information, that
wasn't necessarily willful, there was no indication that he
purposefully did that. Accidental or negligent.
You indicated don't know if we even got all that
information back. We are assuming maybe we did. That would not
be willful, right?
Mr. Hur. As reflected in the report, there were certain
categories of documents where when we looked into them and
investigated how they got to where they ended up or how they
ended up being misplaced, we did not identify evidence of
willfulness.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, and so if something is willful, you
wouldn't say it is ignorant. It is not incompetent; it is not
accidental. We would say something like it is willful, it is
intentional, it is purposeful.
It indicates really a choice, that you have made a
deliberate, conscious decision to act in a certain way. Is that
fair?
Mr. Hur. That is fair, Congressman. As I explained in the
report, the standard, the willfulness standard basically
involves, can be boiled down to the following things: That you
know that what you are doing is against the law when you do it.
Mr. Biggs. Correct. So, let's take a look at it. This has
been brought up before. In February 2017, he is having a
discussion with the ghost writer. He says--he is at the
Virginia house at this point. He says, ``I just found all the
classified stuff downstairs.'' Right, so he knows he has got
classified stuff, right?
Two months later, in April, he is at a different location
is my understanding. I think he is now up in Delaware. If you
look at pages 105-106 here. He says,
Biden reads from a different notebook entry. He reads aloud
from notes summarizing a range of issues. We are talking about
U.S. military views expressed there and by the intelligence
community, the DNI, CIA Director.
While he is reading those notes, he says,
I can't read my own writing. Do you have any idea what the heck
I am saying here?
He asked the ghost writer. The ghost writer says, ``Well,
something blah, blah, blah.'' Biden says this: ``Some of this
may be classified, so be careful.'' Some of this may be
classified, so be careful. Now, my immediate response was OK,
so he knows he has got classified docs. He is looking at this,
he can't read it. He is giving this to somebody he knows has no
security clearance. So, he says hey, ``read this, but be
careful, it might be classified.''
The next thing--and the guy says OK. Next thing he says,
``Well, I don't know if it is classified or not.'' I am
suggesting to you, and this is where you and I have a
difference of opinion, when you say something like hey, I
just--look, this may be classified, be careful.
That warning to be careful because it may be classified,
that indicates guilty knowledge. That indicates he might know
something more than he otherwise would have. It indicates--then
they go on and they read it, as you point out here. He reads
classified information, and it is still classified today. That
is on page 106.
So, when you look at this, it is hard for me to say, well,
he was ignorant. He was incompetent, he was accidental. No. He
had guilty knowledge. He knew and told the guy that he was
going to expose that classified material to hey, be careful, be
careful, it may be classified.
That indicates something a little bit more than mere
knowledge. Indicates that he has some intent there. Because the
next thing he should have said is, hey, I don't know if it is
classified, but we are going to skip over this until that is
resolved. He didn't do that. What he said is, read it anyway.
Yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
California is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Hur, I was moved by your parents'
immigrant story and how that has shaped you. Their story is a
story that so many of us know through our constituents. It is a
story of America.
It is a story that the guy who appointed you would end if
he was in charge again. It is a story that most of the folks on
the other side of the aisle seek to block every day in this
room. It is a story that is persuasive.
You want your report to be received with credibility, is
that right?
Mr. Hur. My goal was to provide a thorough explanation of
my decision to the Attorney General as I'm required to do and
as I said in my opening statement, I felt that I needed to show
my work.
Mr. Swalwell. You want to be received as credible, right?
Mr. Hur. That would be helpful and laudable, yes.
Mr. Swalwell. Well, a lot has changed since 2018 for the
person who appointed you, former President Trump. Since you
were appointed, he was impeached for leveraging U.S. $350
million over Ukraine to get dirt on President Biden. He was
then impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection.
He was charged with possessing classified documents and
obstructing justice. He was charged for paying for the silence
of a porn star.
He was charged in Georgia for his role on January 6th. He
was charged in the District of Columbia for his role on January
6th. He owes $400 million to the State of New York for
defrauding the State through his taxes and he has been judged a
rapist.
You want to be perceived, understandably, as credible and
so I want to first see if you will pledge to not accept an
appointment from Donald Trump if he is elected again as
President.
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I am not here to testify today about
what will happen in the future.
Mr. Swalwell. Seems like an easy answer considering what I
just laid out.
Mr. Hur. I'm here to talk about the report and the work
that went into it and--
Mr. Swalwell. You don't want to be associated with that guy
again, do you?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I'm not here to offer any opinions
about what may or may not happen in the future. I'm here to
talk about the work that went into the report, which I stand
by.
Mr. Swalwell. There were no limits on you as to what you
could charge President Biden by the Attorney General. Is that
right?
Mr. Hur. The decisions that I made that are reflected in
the report are my own.
Mr. Swalwell. You did not bring any charges. Is that
correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Swalwell. There were no limits on John Durham in his
investigation of the prior administration when he was Special
Counsel. Is that right?
Mr. Hur. I don't believe I have the information required to
answer the question about the Durham investigation.
Mr. Swalwell. Well, he sat in the same chair that you're
sitting in. He told us that he also investigated President
Biden and President Obama and did not bring any charges.
President Biden sat for an interview with you over two days for
approximately 10 hours. Is that right?
Mr. Hur. A little over five hours, Congressman.
Mr. Swalwell. Over two days?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Swalwell. That's in sharp contrast to a guy who did not
sit for an interview when the Mueller investigation took place.
That was Donald Trump.
Did not sit for an interview when he was impeached in this
committee room by the Judiciary Committee. Did not sit for an
interview when the second impeachment occurred and he was
invited to sit for an interview for his role on January 6th,
and did not sit for an interview in the January 6th
classified--in the January 6th, case or the classified
documents case.
The Chair also has not sat for an interview in his own
subpoena but Joe Biden has. I now want to turn you to the
transcript and day one page 47.
You said to President Biden, ``You appear to have a
photographic understanding and recall the of the house.'' Did
you say that to President Biden?
Mr. Hur. Those words do appear on page 47 of the
transcript.
Mr. Swalwell. ``Photographic'' is what you said. Is that
right?
Mr. Hur. That word does appear on page 47 of the
transcript.
Mr. Swalwell. Never appeared in your report, though. Is
that correct? The word photographic?
Mr. Hur. That does not appear in my report.
Mr. Swalwell. I now want to show you and play a video of
what is absolutely not photographic.
[Video played.]
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hur, I'm way down here at the end of the dais.
I think today the Justice Department released the
transcripts of the interviews with President Biden. Are you
aware of that?
Mr. Hur. I understand that to be true, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Did you have any involvement in the decision or
the timing of the release of the transcripts?
Mr. Hur. No, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. Did you make any recommendation about the
release of the transcripts being done or not?
Mr. Hur. I did not. That was above my paygrade.
Mr. Bishop. I don't know why they've been released so close
to this hearing, but it impacts our ability to evaluate your
report and ask you questions about it.
There's one point. Just as an illustration, on page 221 of
your report you're describing the Afghan pack (phonetic) or
something like that, about in 2009. is the information where
that came from, and you say as one reason not to prosecute Mr.
Biden, it says,
In addition, Mr. Biden told us in his interview that he does
not recognize the marking confidential as a classification
marking. To him the marking means the document should be held
in confidence, but not necessarily that it is classified.
Footnote 866 is a reference, and it refers to the Biden,
October 9, 2023, transcript at pages 24-25.
Now, we have that, but we haven't until this morning. I
just want to read from that exchange. This is on page 24, line
15.
Mr. Krickbaum: So, this is a typewritten document. It's got a
confidential--what appears to be a stamp at the top and the top
of the document indicates it's from the American AM Embassy
Kabul. It's dated what appears to me to be November 1909. The
only question I have for you about this, Mr. President, is the
confidential marking. Do you recognize that to be a
classification marking?
President Biden: No. I mean, confidential doesn't want to get
around. It's not in a category, I don't think, of code word
top-secret, that kind of thing. I don't even know where it came
from.
Mr. Krickbaum: Are you familiar with confidential as a level of
classified information?
President Biden: Well, if I got a document that said
confidential it means--it would mean that no one else could see
it but me and you give it or the people working on this issue.
Mr. Krickbaum: And are you aware that among certain categories
of classified information there is top-secret, secret, and
there's also a category of classified information called
confidential. Is that something that you are aware of or not?
President Biden: I--yes, I was aware of it. I don't ever
remember when I got any document that was confidential that was
meant for me to read and/or discuss with the people who sent me
the memo so. And that's the--
and then it trails off.
So, as I read those answers they're equivocal. He at first
says he doesn't know--do you recognize that to be a
classification marking. He said no, and then goes on to
explain. Then, Mr. Krickbaum came back, and he said,
Are you aware that among certain categories of classified
information there's also a category of classified information
called confidential.
He says, ``yes, I was aware of it.''
So, Mr. Hur, just in that one instance there seems to be a
discrepancy between the conclusion in the report or the summary
of the evidence in the report and what the transcript says.
Can you offer any guidance to this Committee, why you would
put that summary in your report as opposed to saying that he
gave inconsistent answers or, in fact, why didn't you nail down
in the transcript which was the right answer? He's given an
answer that says no and then he says yes. Why didn't you pursue
it until you knew it?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, the report reflects our best efforts
to summarize and characterize the evidence in the investigation
including the investigation received from the President himself
during our interview of him.
As you point out, the transcripts of the President's
interview over two days are now available to the Committee for
their inspection and the Members are able to draw their own
conclusions based on the transcripts that are now available to
them.
Mr. Bishop. Well, with all--and I appreciate your answer,
and I certainly think things--you can come up with some details
that someone can disagree on, and it has the quality of some
cherry picking because I just found something.
We have only had a little bit of time to look. I don't
think it serves this process well for the Justice Department to
dump these transcripts into the public right now. If they're
going to be released, they should have been released at a
proper time.
I think I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I'll yield back.
Chair Jordan. Does the gentleman yield? Does the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Bishop. I will yield to the Chair.
Chair Jordan. Just really quick, Mr. Hur, someone earlier
said something about changing the facts. You said, I'm not
going to change the facts. Let's keep the facts the same but
change the subject.
You have the same facts and the individual that you were
investigating was 65 and had a good memory. Do you reach the
same conclusion?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, as I responded earlier to a question
along these lines, I am not here to entertain hypotheticals
about facts or circumstances that may be different.
What I did was assess the evidence and the facts that I
obtained in this investigation and make a judgment based on
this set of evidence.
Chair Jordan. Fair enough. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Washington for five minutes.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Special Counsel Hur, thank you for being here. Thank you
for your work.
In your investigation you reviewed more than seven million
documents and conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses
including President Biden. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Jayapal. Your 15-month investigation cost several
million dollars and resulted in a comprehensive 345-page report
with several dozen pages of appendices.
Is it correct that 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''?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Jayapal. So, this lengthy, expensive, and independent
investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of President
Joe Biden. For every document you discussed in your report you
found insufficient evidence that the President violated any
laws about possession or retention of classified materials.
The primary law that you analyze for potential prosecution
was part of the Espionage Act 18 U.S.C. 793(e) which
criminalizes willful retention or disclosure of national
defense information. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, that is one statute that we
analyzed. I need to go back and make sure that I take note of
the word that you used ``exoneration.'' That is not a word
that's used in the report. That's not part of my task as a
prosecutor.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Hur, I'm going to continue with my
questions. I'm going to continue with my questions.
Mr. Hur. The judgment that I received that I ultimately
reached is whether sufficient evidence existed such that a
likely outcome would be a conviction. I did not exonerate him.
That word does not appear in the report, Congresswoman.
Ms. Jayapal. I know that the term--I know that the term you
didn't--you exonerated him. I know that the term willful
retention has a--Mr. Hur, it's my time. Thank you.
I know that the term willful retention has a particular
legal meaning and I want to make sure that this meaning is
absolutely clear to the American people before we go any
further.
As you wrote in your report to prove as a matter of law
that the President, quote, ``willfully retained any documents''
you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt two
elements--first, that the President knowingly retained or
disclosed national defense information and, second, that he
knew that this conduct was unlawful. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. That's correct.
Ms. Jayapal. To be very, very--
Mr. Hur. Oh, and I'm sorry, Congresswoman. That it was
national defense information. That's an important third
element.
Ms. Jayapal. OK. Thank you. To be very, very clear, you did
not find sufficient evidence to prove either of those elements
beyond a reasonable doubt to show that Mr. Biden willfully
retained any of the classified national defense materials that
were recovered during your investigation, correct?
Mr. Hur. My conclusion was that the admissible evidence was
not sufficient to make conviction at trial a probable outcome.
Ms. Jayapal. Not sufficient. Thank you.
Let me ask you about a few specific examples so the
American people are clear. One set of documents was discovered
by investigators in the President's Delaware home. His staff
had assembled those documents into binders in 2014 to prepare
him for an event with Charlie Rose.
Some of the documents in those binders were marked
classified. You reviewed all the facts surrounding the
classified documents in those binders and you determined, and
this is a quote from your report, ``these facts do not support
a conclusion that Mr. Biden willfully retain the marked
classified documents in these binders,'' correct?
Mr. Hur. That language does appear in the report.
Ms. Jayapal. You also reviewed another set of classified
documents from the President's home related to the Afghanistan
troop surge in 2009 and you evaluated whether the President
willfully retained such documents in his Delaware home or a
home that he rented in Virginia in 2017.
In your report you said that there was, quote, ``a shortage
of evidence,'' for any wrongdoing and, quote, ``other innocent
explanations for the documents that we cannot refute.''
Are those quotes, correct?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, if you have particular page cites
for those quotations, I'd be happy to confirm their accuracy.
Ms. Jayapal. Page 6. It's right on the screen.
Mr. Hur. With respect to the two quotes that are on the
screen, in addition to the shortage of evidence, there are
other innocent explanations for documents we cannot refute, and
we conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict and we
decline to recommend prosecution--
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Ms. Jayapal. I was just going to get to that, and you
concluded that, quote, ``the evidence is not sufficient to
convict and we decline to recommend prosecution.'' Those are
your words in the report, correct?
Mr. Hur. Those words appear in the report.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. President Biden's counsel
discovered a different set of documents at the Penn Biden
Center and voluntarily turned them over to the FBI.
Those documents contained national security information,
but you determined that you could not, in fact, prove that
President Biden willfully retained those documents because,
quote,
The evidence suggests that the marked classified documents
found at the Penn Biden Center were sent and kept there by
mistake. Therefore, we decline any criminal charges related to
those documents.
Correct?
Mr. Hur. The language ``we decline any criminal charges
related to those documents'' does appear at page 311 of the
report.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. You also reached a similar
conclusion regarding the documents found in President Biden's
Senate papers at the University of Delaware. Quote,
For these reasons it is likely that the few classified
documents found in Mr. Biden's Senate papers at the University
of Delaware were there by mistake.
Correct?
Mr. Hur. That language does appear on page 325 of the
report.
Ms. Jayapal. So, it seems to me that the crux of the
report--the main story is that you found insufficient evidence
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Biden
willfully retained any classified materials. That is the story
of this report, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized.
Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just thank you, Special Counsel, for being here in these
challenging times. I want to tell you a few things that are
interesting for me. You obviously could see that there is a
motive and there is legacy (phonetic). You obviously see there
was a willful retention of those documents.
It's interesting for me that when you're talking about
sympathetic, well-meaning older man with poor--an elderly male
with a poor memory, it seems like every attorney would advise
you to be sympathetic and be well-meaning and it seems like the
whole FBI needs to do a--based on my hearings here, need to do
a check on amnesia because everyone says they doesn't recall.
So, it seems to me that it might have been something way
more in his recollection because the typical I don't recall--
because that's what everything--that I've learned it here. So,
is there any more substance more than that just, I don't recall
something, for you to actually decide? Because it seems like
this is the core of the whole investigation. Why didn't you
pursue further the charges?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, my judgment as to how a jury would
likely perceive, receive, and consider evidence, relating to
all the evidence that would be put by both the government and
the defense at trial.
It was based on a number of different sources from
documents, including various recordings, some of them from the
2016-2017 timeframe, some from our interview with the President
in October 2023.
I think what you're asking about specifically is how the
President presented himself during his interview in October
last year and, of course, I did take into account not just the
words from the cold record of the transcript, but the entire
manner in living color in real time of how the President
presented himself during his interview.
Ms. Spartz. Hopefully he didn't outsmart you and all of us.
Before I yield, I just wanted to actually just comment on
something Mr. Raskin mentioned about us not remembering
communism. I actually grew up under communists and I have a
very good recollection of what it is and, unfortunately,
tyranny is on the rise, on the march, which he said.
Unfortunately, they've been emboldened by President Obama,
now by President Biden, too, and, unfortunately, our government
and Department of Justice really now resembles a tyrannical
government. It's sad for me to see that. I'm going--and with a
really double standard what we have there. I'm going to yield
to Chair Jordan the rest of my time.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Hur, during your one-year investigation did you have
communications with the White House and the White House Counsel
in particular?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Chair Jordan. I think you had--like, I got five letters
that they communicated with you regarding your investigation.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Hur. We received a number of letters from White House
Counsel's office and as well as the President's personal
counsel.
Chair Jordan. Right. That would be the Special Counsel or
personal counsel. I see they signed the letters.
Did the White House get the report before the report was
made public?
Mr. Hur. We did provide a draft of the report to the White
House counsel's office and members of the President's personal
counsel team for their review.
Chair Jordan. No, I understand.
Did the White House then--once they got the report before
it went public did the White House try to weigh in with your
investigation on elements of that report and, frankly, get the
report changed?
Mr. Hur. They did request certain edits and changes to the
draft report.
Chair Jordan. Yes. I see that in the February 5th letter.
Did they only correspond with you?
Mr. Hur. I'm sorry, Congressman. Are you asking if they
corresponded with anyone else on my team?
Chair Jordan. Once you gave the report to the White House--
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Chair Jordan. --they tried to--they saw changes. I have one
letter here that's addressed to you on February 5th and they
said, ``we're pleased that after more of a year of
investigating you've determined''--they respond to the report.
Then they ask--they disagree with your--they asked for you
to change some of the things you had in your report, namely,
the fact that the President's memory was not very good. Do you
remember that?
Mr. Hur. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. OK. I also have two other letters, one on
February 7th to Merrick Garland where they raised the same
concern, and then on February 12th where they go to the DAG,
Bradley Weinsheimer. Are you familiar with those?
Mr. Hur. I am familiar with those letters. Bradley
Weinsheimer is an Assistant or Associate Deputy Attorney
General.
Chair Jordan. Right. Associate DAG--ADAG, right?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Merrick Garland, of course, is the Attorney
General?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Chair Jordan. So, you're familiar with the fact that they
went over your head?
Mr. Hur. They were certainly entitled to write whatever
letters they wished to Mr. Weinsheimer and to the Attorney
General.
Chair Jordan. I just find that interesting. The White House
is--they're communicating with you throughout this one-year
investigation and then the White House says, oh, we're going
to--we're going to go to the principal's office and we're going
to talk about Mr. Hur's report. Do you find that interesting?
Mr. Hur. As I said, they were free to correspond with
whomever in the Federal Government they wished to correspond
with. I did engage in numerous communications with them during
the course of the investigation, and as is reflected in the
Special Counsel regulations, the Attorney General did provide
oversight of my investigation.
Chair Jordan. I understand. I thank the gentlelady for
yielding and yield back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for
five minutes.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chair Jordan.
First, I want to say that the House Judiciary Committee is
responsible for helping to enforce the rule of law.
Unfortunately, the actions of this Chair in ignoring a
bipartisan Congressional Subpoena have damaged the ability of
this Committee to get information from witnesses and damaged
the rule of law.
Now, Mr. Hur, thank you for being here today. Thank you for
sharing your compelling immigrant story. That just goes to
highlight how America is a Nation of immigrants.
I'm going to ask you a series of questions--yes or no
questions. They are not trick questions. They're simply
designed to highlight what you already found in your report,
which is that there are, quote, ``material distinctions,''
between President Biden's case and Mr. Trump's case.
So, here's my first question. In your investigation did you
find that President Biden directed his lawyer to lie to the
FBI?
Mr. Hur. We identified no such evidence.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find that President Biden directed his
lawyer to destroy classified documents?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find that President Biden directed his
personal assistant to move boxes of documents to hide them from
the FBI?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find the President Biden directed his
personal assistant to delete security camera footage after the
FBI asked for that footage?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find that President Biden showed a
classified map related to an ongoing military operation to a
campaign aide who did not have clearance?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find that President Biden engaged in a
conspiracy to obstruct justice?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find that President Biden engaged in a
scheme to conceal?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Each of the activities I just laid out describe
what Donald Trump did in his willful mishandling of classified
information and his criminal efforts to deceive FBI.
In contrast, President Biden handed over documents without
delay and complied fully with investigators.
Mr. Hur, in your report you write that, quote,
According to the indictment Trump not only refused to return
the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice
by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about
it.
You also say that if proven these would be, quote,
``serious aggravating facts.'' Do you still stand by your
analysis?
Mr. Hur. I do.
Mr. Lieu. I have a few more questions as well. In your
investigation did you find that President Biden set up a shell
company and covertly paid $130,000 in hush money to an adult
porn star?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find that President Biden directed his
lawyer to pay $150,000 in hush money to a former Playboy model?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. In your investigation did you find that President
Biden called the Georgia Secretary of State to demand that he,
quote, ``find 11,780 votes?''
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find that President Biden devised a
scheme to organize a slate of fake electors to undermine a free
and fair election?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Did you find that leading up to January 6, 2021,
President Biden urged his supporters to travel to D.C. and to
storm the Capitol?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
Each of these activities I laid out describe what Donald
Trump did, his efforts to bully election officials, overturn
the results of the election and deceive the American people.
That is why Donald Trump has been indicted and not just one,
not just two, not just three, but four criminal cases.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Tiffany. I just want to do a little repetition, Mr.
Hur, in regard to the Chair's questions from a few minutes ago.
So, is it correct that that February 5th letter that was
sent to you asking you to change references to the President's
poor memory wasn't there a request by the White House to do
that?
Mr. Hur. There was a request, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, I think the record should show that
the gentleman from Maryland earlier said that was not the case.
I think he said, nor did he seek to redact a single word of
Hur's report. Obviously, Mr. Hur is telling us differently
here.
Didn't the White House then go to the Attorney General
himself and say that he would like to see changes to the
references in regard to the President's memory?
Mr. Hur. The White House Counsel did send such a letter.
Mr. Tiffany. So, if this President was 60 years old rather
than 80 years old would you prosecute him?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, as I've said before, I cannot engage
in hypotheticals. I address the facts and the evidence as I
found them in this matter.
Mr. Tiffany. So, there was an 80-year-old grandma that came
to Washington, DC, a few years ago. Did not commit a violent
crime. Committed a crime, but did not commit a violent crime,
and she was fully prosecuted. Doesn't that seem like it's a
dual system of justice where the President is above the law?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I don't know the facts and the
details of this other case that you're referencing with this
other person.
Mr. Tiffany. You say that the President is unlikely to
``reoffend in the future.'' I believe that was a quote that you
put in your report. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. I believe that's in Chapter 13.
Mr. Tiffany. How so? How is he unlikely to reoffend in the
future? How do you come to that judgment?
Mr. Hur. As I say on page 254 any deterrent effect at
prosecution would likely be slight. We are not concerned with
specific deterrence as we see little risk he will reoffend.
Mr. Tiffany. Well, isn't it because he's now the President
and he has almost unlimited authority to release documents?
Isn't that correct? I mean, as a Vice President he didn't have
that authority.
Now, that he's President isn't it easy to say that he's
unlikely to reoffend because he's got almost unlimited
authority to release these documents?
Mr. Hur. Well, that statement was based on--that assessment
of the likeliness of reoffending from this particular person,
President Biden, is based on a number of factors including the
authority that he has now with respect to classified materials
as well as the experience that he's had going through a Special
Counsel investigation.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, but looking back at 2011 there were
multiple instances where he was informed by his staff, and they
ratcheted it up to where there was a formal process. You're
saying he's learned from that when he's proven that he hasn't?
That goes all the way back to 2011.
Mr. Hur. Congressman, what I'm saying in the report at page
254 is that--
Mr. Tiffany. He's a repeat offender, Mr. Hur, isn't he?
Mr. Hur. What I say--
Mr. Tiffany. Let me move on to--I'll move on to something
else here.
You said he had strong motivations to ignore the proper
procedures for safeguarding classified information and he
provided raw material to his ghostwriter that would be of
interest to prospective readers and buyers of his book, and you
said something about he viewed himself as a historic figure,
correct?
Mr. Hur. I believe those words do all appear in the report.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes. He was also doing this for business
purposes--that there may be people that would want to buy his
book?
Mr. Hur. Toward the end of his Vice Presidency, Mr. Biden
had resolved to write a book and began to work on it toward the
end of his Vice Presidency.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, this is really consistent with the
Biden family when you look at them in trying to enrich
themselves. You're familiar with the work that the Oversight
Committee has done over the last year, right?
Mr. Hur. I have read some reports of it.
Mr. Tiffany. Twenty phone calls that were made to his son
that he denied in 2019-2020 shell companies that were created.
Over $20 million.
Doesn't it appear there's a pattern here where I come from,
they almost call it money grubbing.
Mr. Hur. Congressman, what I'm here to testify about today
is the work that I conducted in this investigation and in this
report.
Mr. Tiffany. So, I want to thank you for the work that you
did as far as you could. Unfortunately, you are part of the
Praetorian Guard that guards the swamp out here in Washington,
DC, protecting the elites and Joe Biden is part of that company
of the elites.
You see it in the things that the Department of Justice has
not acted on, Mr. Chair. You look at the President's son who
does not have to answer for lying on his Form 4473 in regard to
throwing away a weapon.
You see it where the Department of Justice fends off the
IRS when the whistleblowers come with this information. Now, we
see it once again where a President believes he is above the
law and there is no doubt that this President does believe he's
above the law.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hur, welcome. I also concur and let me echo what's
already been said by my colleagues that your personal story of
being an immigrant, your family immigrants to this country. The
way you've contributed to the greatness of this country shows
why America is great. A great immigrant story. Thank you for
being here, sir.
The first question to you is: You're a Republican?
Mr. Hur. I am, sir.
Mr. Correa. Does that stop you from conducting a thorough
and fair investigation?
Mr. Hur. I certainly hope not, and I know not.
Mr. Correa. This story is really proof of the old saying
that the cover up is worse than the crime. President Trump and
President Biden handled their classified materials differently,
wouldn't you say?
Mr. Hur. My report includes an assessment of the alleged
facts in the pending indictment of former President Trump and a
comparison of the facts that we found in this case.
Mr. Correa. Clearly, the handling of these documents was
night and day, correct?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, do you have a specific aspect of the
handling of the documents that you have in mind?
Mr. Correa. Well, President Trump intentionally took
classified materials and obstructed justice to ensure that
those materials wouldn't be taken from him and refused to work
with law enforcement. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. My report reflects no findings of obstructive
conduct on the part of--
Mr. Correa. Let me ask you another question. President
Trump has been indicted in the U.S. District Court of Southern
Florida on 40 counts related to his possession of classified
documents. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. I don't know the exact number of counts. I know
that an indictment is pending in that district.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Hur, you even wrote that after being given
a number of chances to return classified documents and avoid
prosecution, I should say President Trump allegedly did oppose.
According to the indictment, he not only refused to return
those documents over for many months but he also obstructed
justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about
them. Compare and contrasting to President Trump, President
Trump turned classified documents over to the National Archives
and the Department of Justice and he consented to searching his
home and other locations. Wouldn't you say that's night and day
when it comes to cooperation with law enforcement?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, the report does include an analysis
and a comparison of the facts that are alleged with respect to
former President Trump and does detail steps of cooperation
that the President and his team took with respect to my
investigation.
Mr. Correa. I would say President Biden, you had his full
cooperation in this investigation?
Mr. Hur. The report includes cooperative steps that the
President took.
Mr. Correa. Would this be a factor in your decision to
prosecute?
Mr. Hur. It was a factor, and I explained it as such in the
report, Congressman.
Mr. Correa. You stated that the recommendation not to
prosecute had nothing to do with Department of Justice policy
not to indict the sitting President. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Well, the report says that even if it were not
current Department of Justice policy that a sitting President
may not be indicted on Federal crimes, I would reach the same
conclusion that criminal charges are not warranted.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Hur, have you set a new precedent here
today?
Mr. Hur. To the extent that the Department of Justice makes
enforcement decisions or nonenforcement decisions in particular
cases, those are precedents. Those are events that future
prosecutors do look to in an endeavor to make sure that Federal
law is applied consistently over time.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Hur, I'd say based on your education and
your career experience, you are a very, very competent
prosecutor, a very, very well-prepared attorney. I'm going to
ask you one more time. Does the fact that you're Republican,
does that stop you from a thorough and fair investigation?
Mr. Hur. No, partisan politics had nothing to do with the
work that I did or the report that I wrote or the decision that
I reached.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much for being here. Mr. Chair,
I yield.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Gentleman from
Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Attorney Hur, Webster's Dictionary defines
senile as exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability such as
memory associated with old age. Mr. Hur, based on your report,
did you find that the President was senile?
Mr. Hur. I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my
report, Congressman.
Mr. Fitzgerald. You felt, though, that the President's
memory or lack thereof was a critical reason to decline
prosecution. The reason I'm asking this is whether you believe
the President would be fit to stand trial. Do you think his
lawyers would argue his incompetence to stand trial due to his
state of mind? Also, was he in a place to actually be
questioned?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, my report to the extent that it
addresses the President's memory gaps that we identified and
the evidence that we obtained during our investigation, they're
addressed in the context of determining how the jury would
perceive, receive, and consider evidence relating to whether or
not the President had willful intent when it came to retaining
or disclosing national defense information.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. I'd like to focus my questioning
on Chapter 14 of your report. The classified documents found at
the Penn Biden Center, you State in your report that the
documents found at the Penn Biden Center were the most highly
classified, sensitive, and compartmentalized materials
recovered during your investigation. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. That is correct.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Many of the documents came from Mr. Biden's
West Wing office. That's also correct, isn't it?
Mr. Hur. I believe that is reflected in the report.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Did you ask if he had packed the boxes
himself?
Mr. Hur. I believe that was one of the questions that we
asked and that is reflected in the transcript now available to
the Committee.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it's important. How would you
characterize the packing of these boxes? Was it slow and
meticulous or where they packed in haste without much scrutiny
at all?
Mr. Hur. I don't recall if it's exactly how you
characterize it. I think the gist of the evidence is that the
manner in which files were packed up and moved out of the end
of the Obama Administration it was in something of a rushed
manner.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. According to your report, the
boxes were moved between multiple offices, between Mr. Biden
departing his West Wing Office in January 1917 and his arrival
at the Penn Biden Center's permanent offices in October 1917.
Were any of these offices authorized to store classified
information?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Fitzgerald. When the boxes finally arrived at the Penn
Biden Center's permanent offices, how were they stored?
Mr. Hur. I believe when the materials were recovered, some
of them were stored in a storage closet. I believe the others
were in file cabinet drawers.
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Mr. Fitzgerald. What's your assessment of security and
access control measures at the Penn Biden Center?
Mr. Hur. That was something that we looked at. There were
some security access controls at the Penn Biden Center. We did
get a handle on people who had access to the office space
during the time period when we believed the materials were
there. There were other people, including students and some
foreign dignitaries that visited that facility at the time.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. You anticipated my next
question. So, when the boxes were discovered to have classified
documents more than five years later, who discovered these
boxes? It was Patrick Moore. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct. One of the President's personal counsel.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Did Mr. Moore have some type of active
security clearance at the time?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Fitzgerald. How about the Executive Assistant at the
Penn Biden Center?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Fitzgerald. On page 265 of your report--
Mr. Hur. Actually, I'm sorry, Congressman. I may have
misspoken. I am not certain whether or not that Executive
Assistant had an active security clearance at the time.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. On page 265 of your report, you
stated,
When interviewed by FBI agents, Moore believed the small closet
was initially locked and that the Penn Biden Center staff
member provided a key to unlock it but his memory was fuzzy on
that point.
An interview with Mr. Biden's Executive Assistant seemed to
contradict his statement. Do you remember this exchange? Did,
in fact, it contradict each other?
Mr. Hur. Sir, you're asking if I remember the exchange with
Mr. Moore during our interview with him?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. Do you remember them contradicting
each other?
Mr. Hur. I don't remember that contradiction specifically.
Generally during the interview, sometimes we heard things from
some witnesses that were in tension with what we heard from
other witnesses. We did our best to resolve those conflicts.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Just very quickly. In total, National
Archives discovered nine documents totaling 44 pages with
classification markings. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. From the Penn Biden Center, yes.
Mr. Fitzgerald. You decline charging because in summarizing
your analysis, you couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that retention of the documents was willful?
Mr. Hur. Correct, sir.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from
Pennsylvania is recognized.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hur, for your
testimony today. With all the posturing that we heard thus far
this morning, I think it's important that we refocus and
remember the conclusion that you reached on the first page and
in the very first sentence of your report which was we conclude
that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. Did I
read that accurately?
Mr. Hur. You did, Congresswoman.
Ms. Scanlon. OK. Your report also says, in addition, to the
shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for
the documents that we have not been able to refute. Did I read
that correctly?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, if you would give me a page
citation, I can--
Ms. Scanlon. Page 6.
Mr. Hur. Six. Yes, I see that language on page 6.
Ms. Scanlon. OK. Thank you. Now, in addition to those
conclusions, your report details several material distinctions
as you called them between President Biden's actions and former
President Trump's mishandling of classified materials. The
facts are that President Biden cooperated with your
investigation. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. He did.
Ms. Scanlon. His team notified authorities when they
discovered classified documents and he turned them over
immediately. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. He consented to multiple searches of his home
and other properties. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Scanlon. He voluntarily sat for an interview with you.
Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Scanlon. When it comes to Mr. Trump's treatment of
classified materials, your report states that according to the
criminal indictment against him, he refused to return
classified documents in his possession for many months despite
having multiple chances to do so. He obstructed justice by
enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about it. Is that
correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Scanlon. Now, you note in your testimony that the
specific comments you made about President Biden's memory have
gotten a lot of attention. As we've seen today, our Republican
colleagues are again and again trying to weaponize those
comments in a cheap attempt to score political points. As
someone who's participated in trials, you know that witnesses
regardless of age often have difficulty recalling specific
statements or facts when asked about them many years after
those facts. So, let's take a quick look at a differing witness
experiencing a lapse in memory during a deposition.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Scanlon. So, I would also add that Mr. Trump told
lawyers, I don't remember, 35 times in his deposition for a
lawsuit over Trump University. In response to questions from
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, he answered, he did not
remember or could not recall, 27 times. Now, Mr. Hur, you've
said today that DOJ process and regulations required you to
assess whether a jury would find Mr. Biden to be a credible
witness, correct?
Mr. Hur. I'm not sure that I said those words exactly. Of
course, in my view, how a jury would perceive Mr. Biden if he
elected to testify in his own defense at a trial, that would be
part of the whole ball of wax the jurors would consider in
determining whether he had willful intent in retaining or
disclosing national defense information.
Ms. Scanlon. Sure. Do you have any reason to believe that
the Special Counsel who investigated and charged Mr. Trump with
willful retention of classified documents would've failed to
make an assessment of whether the jury would find Mr. Trump to
be a credible witness?
Mr. Hur. I don't have any information relating to what or
how--I'm not qualified basically to answer that question as to
what went into Mr. Smith's decisionmaking.
Ms. Scanlon. You are qualified to say what are the normal
procedures followed by Special Counsel, correct?
Mr. Hur. I'm familiar with the rules as set forth in the
Justice Manual and my understanding of how to apply them.
Ms. Scanlon. In fact, what you did?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Scanlon. OK. So, I would suggest that we can all assume
that the fact that Mr. Trump was charged with multiple counts
of willfully concealing classified documents suggests that the
Special Counsel in that case determined that Mr. Trump's
denials are not credible. At the point, I would ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the
Committee's transcribed interview with Steven D'Antuono, former
Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office
on July 7, 2023, in which, he explained the urgency for the FBI
to retrieve and secure classified documents from Donald Trump's
estate because they contain national security information that
should not be viewed by anyone without the proper security
clearance. Even Mr. D'Antuono himself could not view the
documents given their high security clearance despite being the
Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field
Office. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Gentlelady yield back. The Gentleman from
Oregon is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was quite interested in
the dates that are set forth in your report, Mr. Hur. The
reason I'm interested is because I keep getting confused
between the 2017 date and the 2024 date as to the condition of
the President's memory. So, was there a difference, because
when I look at it, it seems like his memory was bad in 2017 and
then it was bad today.
There's never any distinction made. Isn't it true that if
you're going to be look at prosecuting as you were, you would
look carefully at his condition in 2017. Is that the proper
time? Because I think you say in your report that your best
case, I think you call it out--the best case for charges to
rely on Mr. Biden's possession of Afghanistan documents in his
Virginia home in February 2017 when he was a private citizen
and when he told his ghost rider, he just found classified
material. That's the best case as you say it?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Bentz. Then you work your way through a series of
defenses against your best case. So, you were looking at his
condition in 2017. Do I have that right?
Mr. Hur. You do, Congressman.
Mr. Bentz. His memory was bad then and we can maybe draw
our conclusions whether improved over the next six years or
not. I just want to make sure it's clear that we're looking at
his condition in 2017, which you then find as you go through
kind of the list of defenses that is his memory is bad, his
memory is bad, this memory is bad.
There are about six or seven defenses here. So, where it
gets me to is this question. I actually pulled this quote out
this morning that perhaps your report concluded and perhaps it
did not that the President is, quote, ``incapable of being held
accountable.'' That's not quite what happened, is it? You
didn't find that he was incapable of being held accountable,
did you?
Mr. Hur. I did not. Those words do not appear in my report.
Mr. Bentz. They do not. You reached the conclusion that you
didn't have the evidence. Then your report continually recites
these defenses. I'm having a hard time putting the two
together. If you didn't have the evidence, why do you persist
in reciting these defenses?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I wrote my report as an explanation
of my decision to decline charges as to President Biden. The
way that I came up with that explanation and wrote it in my
report for the Attorney General is the following. The approach
that I took was a prosecutor envisioning what would be the
probable outcome of trial if we charge this case, if we
presented the evidence to a jury. Not only the government
presenting the evidence to a jury, but what would happen if the
defense lawyers also got a chance to try to poke holes in the
government's case at trial?
With respect to one of the several potential defenses that
I lay out in the report, one of them does focus on the
President's memory-related issues. That is a defense that the
President's defense lawyers may well present at trial. A jury
is going to be confronted with at least three separate sets of
evidence relating to the President's memory. One is from the
recordings in 2016 and 2017 from the ghostwriter.
Mr. Bentz. Forgive me for interrupting, but I'm limited on
time as everybody else was. You say, that the evidence suggests
he is incapable of forming or you're incapable of proving
intent. There's kind of a bit of a difference there, right?
You may well have had the intent, but you could not prove
holding these documents and I hate to say hiding the documents.
You couldn't prove it. So, what you did instead is fell back to
the various defenses that might also be asserted against you,
kind of a heap of rationale for not pursuing the President. Do
I have a right now?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I think we're on the same page. I
think what I'm trying to convey is that the way that
prosecutors assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case
is to think through, hey, in the government's case-in-chief,
here's the evidence we're going to present. The jury might be
with us.
Mr. Bentz. Maybe another--
Mr. Hur. That's not the end of the trial. The trial also
has to include presentation from the defense lawyers.
Mr. Bentz. You're correct. I'm a lawyer. I've tried cases,
so I get it. Your report is not an exoneration so much as a
determination that the evidence as you saw it would not
overcome the defenses that you'd identified plus whatever lack
of evidence you perceived. So, it's not an exoneration, is it?
Mr. Hur. The word, exoneration, does not appear anywhere in
my report and that is not my conclusion.
Mr. Bentz. The other thing that's of interest and I think
you were misquoted. You said something about--or someone, I
think it was Mr. Raskin, suggested that you--I'm going to run
out of time. I appreciate the work you do as a prosecutor, and
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Hur, we've been at
this close to three hours. We will--if you can hang with us,
we'd like to keep going. There's a chance we can complete votes
by the time we have to go to votes on the House floor which
would be about 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Hur. I can keep going, Chair.
Chair Jordan. OK. Then we'll try to do that. There's a
chance we may not too. I just wanted you to know the lay of the
land. Now, I'll yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hur, for
your testimony and for your service as a prosecutor at the
Department of Justice. I want to focus a bit more on the
progress of the investigation, kind of some process questions.
So, you were appointed by Attorney General Garland as Special
Counsel to investigate the President's handling of classified
documents in January 2023, correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Neguse. Attorney General Garland, of course as you
know, was nominated by President Biden to serve in his role?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Neguse. During your 15-month investigation, did the
Attorney General attempt to interfere with your investigation?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Neguse. Did he impede your investigation in any way?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Neguse. Did any other member of the Department of
Justice or within the administration refuse to cooperate with
your investigation?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Neguse. Were you ever denied access to materials,
witnesses, resources from Attorney General Garland that you
might've needed during the investigation?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Neguse. You submitted--I think this is right--your
final report to Attorney General Garland on February 5, 2024?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Neguse. OK. It was then released publicly three days
later on February 8, 2024. Is that right?
Mr. Hur. I believe that's true, yes.
Mr. Neguse. In the final report that was released, were any
of your substantive findings redacted or changed in any way?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Neguse. None of your findings were modified by the
Attorney General?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Neguse. Did the Attorney General issue any kind of
statement or a letter attempting to describe the contents of
your report?
Mr. Hur. No.
Mr. Neguse. OK. You're familiar, I'm sure, with the
investigation that was conducted by Special Counsel Mueller
years ago with respect to the former President?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. At that time, Attorney General Barr was in
charge of the Justice Department. He sat where you sat in this
Committee. I remember it well, just a few short years ago,
testifying to the nature of that particular investigation. Are
you familiar with the way, in which, he released that report
and characterized it?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. OK. Very different from the way that Attorney
General Garland conducted this particular release. I'd take it
you'd agree with that.
Mr. Hur. They were not the same approach.
Mr. Neguse. Not the same approach, right? In the case of
Attorney General Garland, no impeding or interfering with your
investigation in anyway whatsoever, releasing the report in
full to the American public, not attempting to mischaracterize
it or describe it in any way? Dissimilar from Attorney General
Barr who five years ago as you recall after Special Counsel
submitted his report to the Department of Justice took nearly a
month to release the report to the American public, heavily
redacted and not before had issued a letter of his own to the
leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees,
mischaracterizing the contents of that report.
That distinction and difference is very important because
from your testimony, at least from what I gleaned from your
testimony, is that Attorney General Garland acted appropriately
and ethically with respect to this investigation. I take it you
agree?
Mr. Hur. Attorney General Garland did not interfere with my
efforts. I was able to conduct a fair, thorough, and
independent investigation.
Mr. Neguse. Very different approach as you said from the
way in which the Department of Justice unfortunately,
tragically functioned under the former President. I'm going to
yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Alabama is recognized for five minutes. Will the gentleman
yield for 10 seconds?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. I would just point out to the gentleman of
Colorado's last point. There was one big difference. Bill Barr
didn't name Bob Mueller as Special Counsel.
Bob Mueller was named by Rod Rosenstein. That's a huge
difference in how this whole thing works. I now yield back to
the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hur, in your report,
you cited principles of Federal prosecution and observed that,
and I quote,
Historically, after leaving office, many former Presidents and
Vice Presidents have knowingly taken home sensitive materials
related to national security from their administrations without
being charged with crimes. And this historical record has
imported context for judging whether and why to charge a former
Vice President and/or former President.
Why is examining this history so important?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, one of the reasons that it was
important was because it would bear on how a jury would
perceive--how a jury would decide whether or not criminal
willful intent was formed by the person retaining or disclosing
the national defense information at issue.
Mr. Moore. Has there been an exception to this in the
history of the Nation? Have we charged any former Presidents?
Mr. Hur. As I state in the report, to my knowledge, there
is only one exception and that is former President Trump.
Mr. Moore. Given the history, is it fair to say it's
preferable not to charge a former President or a Vice President
for allegedly mishandling classified documents in your opinion?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I can't articular a preference,
whether it's preferable. All I can talk about is the work that
I did, the facts that I found, and the decision that I reached
in my case.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Hur, what's the difference in a U.S. Senator
having documents and a former President of the United States?
Mr. Hur. For purposes of proving willfulness, I believe
that there would be a number of differences in terms of the
types of access and the easy with which Presidents while in
office can access classified information as compared to the
access privileges that Senators have.
Mr. Moore. Can Presidents declassify documents that they
have in their possession?
Mr. Hur. I believe under certain circumstances, yes.
Mr. Moore. Former Presidents as well?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I confess. I'm not--this is not an
area of the law that I've looked into or explained in my
report. I'm here to talk about the work that is reflected in
the report.
Mr. Moore. Well, let me say this, sir. You have a
reputation beyond reproach. I just want you to know that. I
think that President Biden ought to be thankful that the
Attorney General appointed you to investigate his case. You
have a Special Counsel colleague by the name of Jack Smith who
cannot lay claim to such a reputation. Isn't that right?
Mr. Hur. I have no opinion. I don't have anything to say
about--
Mr. Moore. In fact, Jack Smith who Biden Justice Attorney
General Garland appointed to investigate President Trump has a
reputation according to deep-rooted reporting from Washington
Times, ``as an overzealous prosecutor who relies ethically--or
unethically dubious tactics.'' His prosecutorial record is
replete with a, quote, let me say this, ``string of mistrials
and overturned convictions.'' Actually, Chief Justice Roberts
once rebuked Mr. Smith's prosecutorial theory as a balanced
interpretation of Federal rivalry statute.
That did not comport with the text of the statute or the
President of this court according to the Supreme Court Justice.
So, my question is, do you think in the case of Jack Smith, do
you think justice is blind when he's looking at President
Trump? Since we've never done this in the history of the
country, is justice truly blind?
Mr. Hur. Sir, I'm not here to express any opinions with
respect to a pending case against another defendant. I'm here
to talk about the work that I did with respect to the
investigation relating to President Biden.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time.
Chair Jordan. Can you explain what specifically in your
interview with President Biden led you to this conclusion?
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Hur. Congressman Jordan, I'm sorry, the mic was turned
on midway through.
Chair Jordan. Yes, can you explain what specifically in
your interview with President Biden led you to this conclusion?
Mr. Hur. The conclusion about--
Chair Jordan. A broad statement that's been cited many
times.
Mr. Hur. The totality of the time that I spent with the
President during his voluntary interview was something that I
certainly considered in framing my assessment and articulating
it in the report. That includes not only the words in the cold
record of the transcript of the interview, but also the
experience of being there in the room with him and frankly
considering how he would present to a jury in a criminal trial
if charges were brought.
Chair Jordan. I guess I'm asking specifically. I know you
site in the report the dates that he couldn't remember when he
was Vice President, when he began, when his term ended. You
cite that in your report. Is there anything else specifically
that stands out from that interview with the President?
Mr. Hur. A number of things stand out. Again, I'm aware
that the transcript how now been made available. I do provide
certain examples in my report of significant personally painful
experiences about which the President was unable to recall
certain information.
I also took into account the President's overall demeanor
in interacting with me during the five-plus hour voluntary
interview. So, it was a wealth of details about being there in
the moment with the President, including his inability to
recall certain things. I'll also say, as reflected in the
transcript, the fact that he was prompted on numerous occasions
by the members of the White House Counsel's Office.
Chair Jordan. I read that. We looked at the transcript this
morning because we just got it this morning. I saw some of
that. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas--or excuse
me, Pennsylvania. I'm used to you being down there, the
gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Dean. I got an upgrade.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Hur. Thank you, Chair. Thank you,
Mr. Hur, for your service to our country, for your team's
service in this investigation.
You determined after what you described as rigorous,
detailed, and thorough analysis that President Biden should not
be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. In fact,
everybody can take a look at your report. The very first
sentence says as much. It says, quote, ``We conclude that no
criminal charges are warranted in this matter.'' Am I correct?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Dean. That's the bottom line of this report, am I
correct?
Mr. Hur. That is the first sentence.
Ms. Dean. It's the first sentence and the bottom line.
There's an awful lot of misinformation that has been put
forward by the press in some cases, and also, by the other side
of this dais.
You didn't reach this decision because President Biden was
sympathetic, is that correct?
Mr. Hur. I reached the decision based on the totality of
the reasons that I set forth at length in my report.
Ms. Dean. Based on the evidence? While Mr. Trump, who is
being prosecuted, is not sympathetic. You didn't calibrate any
of that in there? Sympathetic, not sympathetic, it doesn't
matter? It's the evidence, right?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, I did not reach any assessments of
the evidence in the Trump matter. To the extent that I
considered the allegations against former President Trump, it
was for purposes of hearing relevant precedence.
Ms. Dean. I trust that, with your credibility, you were not
out to get Mr. Trump, nor here to help Mr. Biden. I think it's
about the evidence, and I think you say that over and over
again in your report.
Why did you decide President Biden should not be
prosecuted? Your report tells us, quote, ``We conclude the
evidence is not sufficient to convict.'' Those are your words,
is that correct?
Mr. Hur. I believe, if those exact words do not appear in
the report, that is consistent with the gist of my conclusion.
Ms. Dean. Very good. They are your exact words.
That was not the case with Donald Trump. You have a copy of
your report today, don't you, in front of you?
Mr. Hur. I do.
Ms. Dean. Would you read a portion of it for me? Your
words, it is page 11, starting on line 3, beginning with the
words, ``Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden . . . .''
Would you read the next few sentences?
Mr. Hur.
Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set
forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present
serious aggravating facts.
Ms. Dean. Keep going.
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, I'm happy to have you read the
words in my report.
Ms. Dean. Well, it's your report. So, I think it actually
is more fitting that you read those.
Mr. Hur.
Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return
classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly
did the opposite.
Ms. Dean. Keep going.
Mr. Hur.
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 then to lie about it.
Ms. Dean. You may stop there. Thank you.
You mentioned the indictment against Mr. Trump for
mishandling sensitive classified national security information.
That indictment says, at the end of his Presidency, Mr. Trump--
I'm looking for my indictment here. I have it here. Hang on.
Mr. Trump himself ordered that boxes containing classified
materials go to Mar-a-Lago, where he hosts 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 ballroom, on a floor strewn about.
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 represented
at the FBI and grand jury that he did not have documents called
for by the subpoena.
He directed his employee Waltine Nauta to move boxes of the
documents to conceal them from Mr. Trump's attorney and then
lied to his attorney and the FBI and the grand jury, suggesting
his attorney might hide or destroy documents called for by the
grand jury investigation.
Mr. Hur, are those the type of aggravating facts to which you
refer to in your report?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, the aggravating facts that I refer
to in the report are set forth and described in my report on
page 11.
Ms. Dean. 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?
Mr. Hur. We did not identify such evidence.
Ms. Dean. Did he do so himself?
Mr. Hur. We did not identify such evidence.
Ms. Dean. 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 that Mr. Biden couldn't
come up with the date, the year, of his son Beau Biden's death,
when, in fact, in the transcript it shows 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 the day.
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, I don't believe that's correct with
respect to the transcript, but if you could refer me to a
specific page, I'd be happy to look.
Ms. Dean. I've read about it in reporting.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Armstrong. [Presiding.] The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Mr. Hur, why did the White House ask you to
remove parts of the report? What was the reason they gave for
that?
Mr. Hur. I don't have the letter in front of me,
Congressman. I believed that, among the reasons, was that they
contested, or that they asserted, that certain language in the
report was inconsistent with DOJ policy.
Mr. Kiley. The day that your report came out the President
gave a live news conference on national television. Did you
watch that news conference?
Mr. Hur. I watched the press conference, yes.
Mr. Kiley. What was your reaction to seeing the President
personally attack you and your team?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I'm here to talk about the work that
went into the report and my declination decision and my
explanation of it for the Attorney--
Mr. Kiley. It wasn't just the President. Anthony Coley,
former spokesman for Merrick Garland, has said that ``Democrats
should focus their ire on Hur.''
The President's personal attorney, Bob Bauer, said that
your report is, ``a shabby piece of work and a shoddy work
product.'' Do you agree with that characterization of your
report?
Mr. Hur. I disagree vehemently with that characterization
of my report.
Mr. Kiley. 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 of a Special Counsel that it appointed
itself?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, I'm not going to comment on the
propriety of the administration's reaction to my report. What I
can tell you is that I stand by the report and the work that
went into it.
Mr. Kiley. Today, the Ranking Member started his opening
statement by saying, ``Mr. Hur completely exonerated President
Biden,'' and called your report ``a total and complete
exoneration.'' Mr. Hur, did you completely exonerate President
Biden?
Mr. Hur. That is not what my report does.
Mr. Kiley. Was your report a total and complete
exoneration?
Mr. Hur. That is not what the report says.
Mr. Kiley. So, the statement by the Ranking Member was
incorrect? Yes?
Mr. Hur. As I said, the report is not an exoneration. That
word does not appear in my report.
Mr. Kiley. Based on the facts, and anticipation of defenses
presented in your report, could a reasonable juror have voted
to convict?
Mr. Hur. As I said in the report, some reasonable jurors
may have reached the inferences that the government would
present in its case-in-chief.
Mr. Kiley. So, a reasonable juror could have voted to
convict, based on the facts that you--
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Kiley. If you were on the jury, would you have voted to
convict?
Mr. Hur. I have not engaged in that thought exercise,
Congressman. So, what I'd like to stick to is what's in the
report, which is my assessment as a prosecutor.
Mr. Kiley. Sure. What you did find in the report is that
the President--and you said this on 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 materials.
Two of the motives you cited was his desire to run for
President and his desire to sell books. So, a reasonable
inference for your report is that the President risked serious
damage to America's national security to make money and
advanced his personal political ambitions. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. The report includes a description of the evidence
and different inferences that reasonable jurors could draw from
the evidence.
Mr. Kiley. You also note that the President described his
predecessor's handling of classified materials as ``totally
irresponsible,'' and your report concludes that Mr. Biden's
emphatic and unqualified conclusion that keeping marked
classified documents unsecured in one's home is ``totally
irresponsible'' applies equally to his own decision. Is that
correct?
Mr. Hur. That language does appear in the report.
Mr. Kiley. You cite as a mitigating factor the fact that
the President cooperated in the investigation. At the time that
the investigation was happening and these acts of cooperation
occurred, the Mar-a-Lago investigation was already a matter of
public record. Correct?
Mr. Hur. I believe that's correct.
Mr. Kiley. So, we already had a public debate about the
handling of classified documents and the potential application
of criminal laws to that general set of circumstances?
Mr. Hur. I think that's fair.
Mr. Kiley. So, the President, when he decided to cooperate
or not cooperate, had to know that this decision to cooperate
or not cooperate would become known to the public and he would
be judged accordingly. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. I'm not in a position to opine on what was or was
not in the President's--
Mr. Kiley. It's relevant to your analysis as to whether or
not it counts as a mitigating factor. He knew that he was going
to have to be judged based on whether he cooperated or not.
That would have lessened its value as a mitigating factor. So,
did that in your analysis lessen its value?
Mr. Hur. We undertook a comprehensive assessment--
Mr. Kiley. So, that, that specific factor, did it lessen
its value as a mitigating factor?
Mr. Hur. That and all facts relating to the President's
cooperation with our investigation.
Mr. Kiley. Another factor you discuss is a deterrence. You
say that deterrence, actually, the factor actually counsels
against bringing charges here. Because you said,
As for general deterrence, future Presidents and Vice
Presidents are already likely to be deterred by the multiple
recent criminal investigations, and one prosecution of current
and former Presidents and Vice Presidents for mishandling
classified documents.
So, 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 counseled against and was--it
counted against bringing charges in this case, is that correct?
Mr. Hur. I'm sorry, Congressman, I don't follow your drift
there.
Mr. Kiley. Well, you said that there's already deterrence
because there's this prosecution out there in a prior case
related to classified documents. So, we don't need to bring
another case to establish deterrent value. That was the essence
of your analysis. Correct?
Mr. Hur. Congressman, what I'll say is that I will stand by
the way and the specific words, in which, I characterized my
assessment of deterrence value of a case, under the Principles
of Federal Prosecution that's on pages 254-255 of my report.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you. My time is out, but I'll just add the
perverse implication 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, and I yield back.
Ms. Dean. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Armstrong. OK.
Ms. Dean. 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 counts, including obstruction of
justice, lying to the FBI, his unlawful, willful retention of
national defense information and withholding the concealment of
documents from law enforcement, among other things. That was
the shortened version.
My second document, to clarify for you, sir, Mr. Hur, from
the transcription, page 82, the words are President Biden's.
``What month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30th.'' A searing
memory.
I ask unanimous consent.
Mr. Armstrong. Without objection.
Mr. Armstrong. The gentlewoman from Georgia is recognized.
Ms. McBath. I thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, for
this hearing.
Thank you so much for spending so much time with us today,
Special Counsel Hur.
In accordance with the law, classified information must be
treated with the highest respect and also protected. President
Biden has made it clear during this investigation, and long
before, that he agrees.
In response to Mr. Hur's report, he said, and I quote,
Over my career in public service, I have always worked to
protect America's security. I take these issues seriously, and
no one has ever questioned that.
The Special Counsel's report makes clear that this is,
unfortunately, a common occurrence for classified documents to
get swept up into Members of Congress' or Executive Branch,
branch officials' personal effects.
As soon as President Biden discovered that he had
mistakenly kept classified material, he took swift and
immediate action to ensure that those materials were returned,
and he fully cooperated with every step of your investigation.
President Biden's predecessor, when dealing with the issue
of having classified materials, took very different steps. In
2016, Donald Trump declared, and I quote,
I'm going to enforce all the laws concerning the protection of
classified information. No one will be above the law.
Yet, when his lawyer told him that it was going to be a
crime if he didn't return the classified documents that he had,
after NARA, the 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, but 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. For the sake of time, if you
don't mind just answering yes or no.
Please answer this question: On page 187 of your report
reads,
At no point did we find evidence that Mr. Biden intended or had
reason to believe the information would be used to injure the
United States or to benefit a foreign Nation.
Is this what you reported?
For the second time, please answer yes or--yes or no.
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, you said page 187?
Ms. McBath. Of your report, yes.
Mr. Hur. Ah, yes. At no point did we find evidence. Yes,
that language is on page 187.
Ms. McBath. OK. So, then, this is what you reported?
Correct? Yes.
Mr. Hur. That language is in my report.
Ms. McBath. OK. Mr. Hur, you acknowledge, on page 12 of
your report, that there are, as you said,
Numerous previous instances in which marked classified
documents have been discovered intermixed with the personal
papers of former Executive Branch officials and Members of
Congress.
Please, once again, can you confirm for us, yes or no, to
answer whether this is what you reported?
Mr. Hur. That language appears on page 12 of my report.
Ms. McBath. Page 323 also reads,
As a matter of historical context, there have been numerous
previous incidents in which marked classified documents have
been discovered intermixed with the personal papers of former
Executive Branch officials and Members of Congress.
Is this what you reported?
Mr. Hur. That language appears on page 323.
Ms. McBath. 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 a months-long, elaborate scheme
to hide those documents from Federal law enforcement officials?
Mr. Hur. The one case that comes to mind that we do address
in the report is the prosecution of General Petraeus.
Ms. McBath. So, are these historical examples, aside from
Donald Trump, where officials instructed their aides to delete
evidence pertaining to those classified documents?
Mr. Hur. That was not present in the Petraeus prosecution,
no.
Ms. McBath. So, the American people deserve, as we've
always been saying all along here, that we deserve a leader who
will not put themselves above the law, but will work with law
enforcement and hold themselves accountable.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Armstrong. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized.
Ms. Hageman. 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 memory and age.
You wrote that President Biden's, quote,
Memory was significantly limited during his recorded interviews
with the ghostwriter in 2017 and during his interview with the
Special Counsel's Office in 2023.
You also expressed concern that prospective jurors would be
persuaded by President Biden's presentation ``as a sympathetic,
well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.''
Your assessment, however, was focused on how President
Biden would currently present to a jury, if he stood trial, is
that correct?
Mr. Hur. That was an element of my explanation to the
Attorney General about my decision. It was not the only
element.
Ms. Hageman. OK. That wasn't my question, but it was one of
the things that we were considering, was his current state of
mind, his current memory? Correct?
Mr. Hur. One of the things that I considered would be how,
if a trial--whenever a trial, theoretically, were to be held,
how President Biden would present himself to the jury, if he
elected to testify.
Ms. Hageman. OK. You did not compare President Biden's
current memory or condition with his memory or condition when
he was in the Senate or when he left the Vice Presidency and
took the classified documents subject to your investigation, is
that right?
Mr. Hur. Actually, I believe that's not correct,
Congresswoman. One of the things that's in the report is an
assessment of the President's memory, based on recordings from
the 2016-2017 timeframe, recordings of conversations between
Mr. Biden and his ghostwriter, and comparing that with the
President's memory that he exhibited during our interview of
him in October 2023. So, there was a comparison there.
Ms. Hageman. OK. So, unless there was some issue
undisclosed to the American people during his 50 years in
office, you found that Mr. Biden fully understood his legal
responsibility related to the handling of classified materials,
which is why you concluded in your report that Mr. Biden,
quote, ``willfully retained and disclosed classified materials
after his Vice Presidency when he was a private citizen.'' You
State that on page 1, correct?
Mr. Hur. I believe that what I stated on page 1 was that we
identified evidence that Mr. Biden willfully retained
classified information after the end of his Vice Presidency,
but, ultimately, we concluded that the evidence was
insufficient to warrant--
Ms. Hageman. I understand that. Please listen to my
question. What, 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?
Mr. Hur. My understanding is that, based on the evidence,
my assessment was that a jury--
Ms. Hageman. That isn't what my question was. Please listen
to my question. My question was that Mr. Biden understood when
he was a Senator and Vice President that he could not keep
classified materials at his home, at his garage, and in other
offices. Is that fair?
Mr. Hur. I don't think that's accurate, Congresswoman,
because when Mr. Biden was Vice President, he was authorized to
have classified, classified material in his home.
Ms. Hageman. After he left, he knew that he was not
entitled to keep classified information at his home. Correct?
Mr. Hur. After he left, there is evidence to suggest that
he knew that 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.
Ms. Hageman. Based on precedent. I guess the way that I
would put it is this: President Biden knew better. He knew that
he wasn't entitled to keep these documents from the--when he
was a Senator and he knew he wasn't entitled to keep these
documents after he had had left the Vice Presidency.
Because he's now suffering from an impaired memory, as you
so delicately put it, he got away with it. Is that fair?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, what, what I stated in my, 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. In my judgment, the
likely outcome of a trial, the probable outcome of a trial
would not be a conviction.
Ms. Hageman. Mr. Hur, I have represented a variety of
clients over the years in actions against 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 DOJ is not only
overly aggressive in these cases but makes it clear that part
of the reason for such aggression is to make an example of the
poor soul who is the subject of such action. In other words, so
that other people will not engage in this same kind of conduct.
Mr. Hur, having been a long-term DOJ prosecutor, can you
please explain why those people without the last name of
Clinton or Biden are typically treated quite differently, and
seem to be the only ones who are never held accountable for
violating the law?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, one of the things that I explain in
my report is the fact that there are historical precedents with
respect to former occupants of the White House and their
retention of classified materials after they leave--
Ms. Hageman. I'm asking specifically about Ms. Clinton
and--
Mr. Armstrong. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Hageman. Ms. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, I don't have any opinion to
articulate with respect to the investigation relating to Ms.
Clinton.
Ms. Hageman. I yield back.
Mr. Armstrong. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.
Ms. Escobar. Mr. Hur, Special Counsel Jack Smith has
charged Donald Trump with 40 counts related to his unlawful
possession of classified documents. The most serious charge
carries a penalty of 20 years in prison. According to the Trump
indictment, Trump stored those documents at Mar-a-Lago, which,
quote, ``hosted events for tens of thousands of members and
guests.''
The indictment continues, quote,
Trump stored his boxes containing classified documents in
various locations at the Mar-a-Lago club, including in a
ballroom, a bathroom, and a shower, an office space, his
bedroom, and his storage room.
Mar-a-Lago is more than a mansion or a compound. It is a
club with membership--with a membership program that sells
access to the public. It has hundreds of people moving through
it at any given time. Staffing it alone required 150 staff
members. While those classified national security documents sat
in places like his ballroom, Trump hosted more than 150 social
events, like weddings and movie premiers, which thousands of
people attended.
In brief, Special Counsel Smith has alleged that Trump
willfully and knowingly took highly classified documents to a
location accessible by tens of thousands of people.
Mr. Hur, was President Biden's residence accessible to tens
of thousands of people?
Mr. Hur. No.
Ms. Escobar. Did President Biden ever bring tens of
thousands of people into spaces where he stored classified
material?
Mr. Hur. Not to my knowledge.
Ms. Escobar. Did Joe Biden advertise and sell memberships
to his home that would allow members of the public to have
access?
Mr. Hur. Not that I'm aware of.
Ms. Escobar. Did your investigation find that Joe Biden
ever hosted movie premieres at his home while classified
documents were stored there?
Mr. Hur. No.
Ms. Escobar. Moving on, among the 150 staff members working
at Mar-a-Lago was a Trump aide named Walt Nauta. According to
Special Counsel Smith, Trump ordered Nauta to move boxes of
documents, so that they could not be found by people looking
for them.
Mr. Hur, did President Biden ever direct his staff to move
documents, so that you or the FBI could not find them?
Mr. Hur. We did not identify evidence of that.
Ms. Escobar. In fact, according to your report, as soon as
Bob Bauer discovered material in President Biden's residence,
he contacted John Lausch, and the President immediately
consented to an FBI search of his home. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Our report does State that.
Ms. Escobar. You found no evidence that any documents were
moved prior to that search. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Escobar. That's in stark contrast to Donald Trump.
President Biden did not obstruct your investigation. He was
fully compliant, and with access to the millions of documents
he gave you and the dozens of hours of witness interviews he
facilitated, you were able to fully and totally exonerate him
of any criminal wrongdoing. I thank you, Mr. Hur.
Before I yield back, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record an excerpt from the Committee's
transcribed interview with Steven D'Antuono, former Assistant
Director in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office, on June
7, 2023, in which Mr. D'Antuono 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.
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] Without objection.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
Ms. Escobar. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from Florida is recognized--
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. Oh, excuse me. The gentleman from--the
Ranking Member is recognized.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have three unanimous consent
requests.
Chair Jordan. All right.
Mr. Nadler. First, I ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record the publisher's webpage for President Biden's 2017
book, ``Promise Me, Dad,'' which shows that the book is a
deeply moving memoir about the year President Biden's son Beau
died.
I also ask unanimous consent to enter page 97 of Mr. Hur's
report, which says that President Biden's book is not known to
contain classified information.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
the February 5, 2024, letter from President Biden's counsel to
Special Counsel Hur that clarifies that President Biden's 2017
book, quote, ``does not contain classified information; there
has never been any suggestion to the contrary.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Florida, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to 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 interest to all Americans and, of course, to all of us
here today.
As is 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.
My colleagues' questions today have focused on the
highlights from your report; specifically, referring to
President Biden's mental capacity, his willful disregard for
the law as a private citizen, and how he would be perceived if
presented to a jury of his peers.
Dependent on--and I'll use your words from the report--how
this ``sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor
memory,'' handled and managed the storage of these Confidential
documents, the national security of the United States might
have been put at great risk because of the President's
behavior.
So, one of the things we must consider today is how we can
ensure that our national security will not be continually put
at risk when under the leadership of this same ``well-meaning,
elderly man with a poor memory.''
Since the release of the report, to your knowledge, has the
Justice Department started to analyze a damage assessment of
what may have been disclosed by these documents being
mishandled and any ongoing national security risks from the
inappropriate storage and retention of the documents?
Mr. Hur. Congresswoman, my understanding is that such a
damage assessment is underway in coordination and cooperation
with the members of the intelligence community.
Ms. Lee. Do you today for us have any information about the
status of that investigation or how long it might take to
conclude?
Mr. Hur. I do not, Congresswoman.
Ms. Lee. I'd like to turn your attention to a discussion of
the distinction between proving the underlying elements of an
offense and the concept of an obstruction of justice charge.
Is it correct, Special Counsel Hur, that in some
circumstances, as a Federal prosecutor, you may investigate the
underlying offense, an underlying offense, choose not to charge
that offense, but still have developed sufficient evidence to
charge a defendant with obstruction of justice?
Mr. Hur. 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 that, if that were to happen, it would
be a more difficult case to try from a prosecutor's
perspective.
Ms. Lee. Well, the elements are distinct, though, are they
not?
Mr. Hur. They are distinct elements.
Ms. Lee. 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 false
statement was made to a Federal law enforcement officer, and
brings a charge under 1001?
Mr. Hur. That could happen.
Ms. Lee. Yes. Again, there, too, the elements would be
different?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Lee. In reaching your final decision related to the
declination or the recommendation to decline prosecution, you
considered both the underlying elements of the offenses at
issue, and also, the Principles of Federal Prosecution? Is that
right?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Lee. Right. Now, the Principles of Federal Prosecution,
those are things that may vary case to case, is that right?
Mr. Hur. The determinations under the Principles of Federal
Prosecution are very fact- and circumstance-dependent.
Ms. Lee. The elements of the criminal offense are not.
Isn't that also correct?
Mr. Hur. Elements are defined by law, and they do not vary
from case to case.
Ms. Lee. Thus, those elements of the underlying criminal
offense would be exactly the same from one defendant to the
next, to the next. Isn't that right?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Lee. 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?
Mr. Hur. Prosecutors assessing their cases under the same
statutes must consider the same elements with respect to those
statutes.
Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you, Special Counsel Hur.
Then, if we could turn back to the concept of those
Principles of Federal Prosecution, those are the additional
factors, aggravating or mitigating, that you might consider in
ultimately reaching a charge in the decision here, is that
right?
Mr. Hur. They do include such things that are referred to
as aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Ms. Lee. 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?
Mr. Hur. That is not correct.
Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you, sir.
I yield the balance of my time to the Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North
Carolina.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hur, also, for your patience. You are almost
to, what, 3\1/2\ hours, so almost as much as Biden.
Throughout your report you repeated, you repeatedly cite
and credit a number of innocent explanations for the presence
of classified materials at the President's home and other
locations, innocent explanations that you admit that you cannot
refute. I would like to just focus on a few of them. I will
give you citations.
One of these explanations for the presence of classified
documents is that a member of the President's staff maintained
those documents when he was the Vice President and then
mistakenly included them in sets of documents that were later
sent to locations such as the Penn Biden Center and the
University of Delaware. Is that correct?
Mr. Hur. I believe that's correct. If you have a specific
page number for me, that would help the matter.
Ms. Ross. We will 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?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Ross. Right.
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 stores
classified documents that are critical to his legacy. Instead,
it looks more like a place where a person stores classified
documents that he is unaware of. That is on page 209 of your
report. Correct?
Mr. Hur. That is something that a reasonable juror could
factor into his or her consideration of whether or not the
President had criminal, willful intention.
Ms. Ross. Right.
You also noted that President Biden was allowed to have
classified documents in his home for eight years as Vice
President and then again when he was President, and that he
also had layers of staff who were responsible for assembling,
carrying, storing, and retrieving these types of classified
documents?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Ross. Because of these facts, you determined it was,
. . . entirely possible that the President did not know he
still had some of these documents in his home when his Vice
Presidency ended in 2017.
That is on page 215. Entirely possible?
Mr. Hur. Entirely possible.
Ms. Ross. Yes. That is the citation. I am going to go, keep
going--
Mr. Hur. OK.
Ms. Ross. --because my time is running while you are
looking.
So, you cite, you also cite the President's cooperation
with your investigation as evidence that he did not have
criminal intent. I want to quote you here because this is
important. You wrote, page 210,
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, 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.
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 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 other residence,
or sat for an hours-long interview, or answered pages of
written questions all going to his full cooperation and his
lack of criminal intent.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Hur, we have got three more we are going to, and then
we are going to take votes, and then we will just have a couple
more after that.
So, I am going to start with the gentleman from Kentucky is
recognized.
Mr. Massie. I yield to the Chair.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Hur, are you opposed to the U.S. Congress having access
to the audiotapes of the people you interviewed during your
investigation?
Mr. Hur. Chair, I am not in a position to articulate an
opinion one way or the other. That is not really up to me. I am
a former employee of the Department of Justice. I would refer
you to the White House and DOJ leadership.
Chair Jordan. You are an accomplished lawyer. Is there any
reason why we shouldn't, why the U.S. Congress shouldn't have
access to the same information you had access to and that was
the basis of your decision?
Mr. Hur. Chair, it is not for me to opine on what
materials.
Chair Jordan. Well, the Justice Department released the
transcripts the day of the hearing. It would be nice if we had
them in a better time for the Committee to prepare for our
questioning for you. They released them today. The White House
and Justice Department released 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 U.S. Congress should
not have access to those tapes?
Mr. Hur. Chair, what I can tell you is that my assessment
that went into my conclusions that I described in my report was
based not solely on the transcripts. It was based on all the
evidence, including the audio recordings.
Chair Jordan. Great point. That is where I was going.
So, this was valuable evidence for you, as the Special
Counsel named to investigate this issue, valuable evidence for
you to reach your conclusion and the statements you put in your
report.
All I am asking is shouldn't the U.S. Congress have access
to that same information?
Mr. Hur. Chair, again, it is not for me to weigh into what
information Congress should or should not have. What I will
tell you is that the audio recordings were part of the
evidence, of course, that I considered in coming to my
conclusion.
Chair Jordan. I will yield back to the gentleman from
Kentucky and hope he can yield to the gentleman from North
Dakota.
Mr. Massie. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
Mr. Hur, in Chapter 8 of your book, or your report, you
detail that Mr. Biden retained in his Delaware basement
classified documents relating back to his time as a U.S.
Senator in the seventies; correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. Even more Senate papers dating back to the
seventies through 1991 were found in the University of Delaware
Morris Libraries, and in the Biden Senate Papers Collections;
correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. Even more Senate papers dating back to the
1970s-1980s were found in Biden's Delaware garage?
Mr. Hur. I believe that's, yes, that's correct.
Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Biden had nearly 50 years' experience dealing with
classified information, including as a member of the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, and member and chairman of
the Senate Committee on Judiciary, a member and chairman of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and Vice President of
the United States, and that he was deeply familiar with the
measures taken to safeguard information and the reasons for
them.
Correct?
Mr. Hur. That language certainly sounds familiar,
Congressman. If you have a page citation for me, I can confirm.
Mr. Armstrong. As Vice President is it correct that in
2011, Mr. Biden received advice from the staff about the need
to secure classified information in the form of notes?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. Including his first counsel, Cynthia Hogan?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. He was advised in writing in 2011 by Hogan
that classified notes must be maintained in secure safes and
stored in secure facilities?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. His second counsel John McGrail also advised
Biden that all of Mr. Biden's records, including his notes,
would be sent to the National Archives, and Biden understood
and accepted that. Correct?
Mr. Hur. That's correct, with the exception that Mr.
McGrail was Vice President Biden's final counsel, not his
second one.
Mr. Armstrong. All right.
On his way out, Mr. Biden was also appraised of his
obligations by the National Archives staff twice more that his
classified notes should be secured in a SCIF?
Mr. Hur. That particular fact is not immediately coming to
mind, Congressman. Give us a page citation and I can confirm it
for you.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, did Mr. Biden have 30 years'
experience handling this information, he received advice from
at least two separate counsels, the National Archives staff, he
has demonstrated enough knowledge of the law to attack
President Trump in public over the same exact issue in detail?
This is where I got into this. I just have a problem with this.
In your report and this testimony, a reasonable person
would conclude that Mr. Biden knowingly retained national
defense information and failed to deliver it to an appropriate
government official, and that he knew his conduct was unlawful.
I think that is where we end up here and that is what the point
is.
Over the last three election cycles there has only been
three people who have run for President: Hillary Clinton, Joe
Biden, and Donald Trump. All three of them have been accused of
mishandling classified documents. Only one of them has been
prosecuted.
That is what the American people see. That is what the
American people see. That is what we see.
We had Hillary Clinton, who ran a program called BleachBit
on her server. They used hammers to destroy evidence.
Joe Biden has a 50-year history of misplacing classified
documents in numerous different positions, places.
All these cases have the same underlying elements of the
crime, the same fact patterns. Yet, we only see one person
being prosecuted.
With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Massie. My time has expired. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Ranking Member is recognized for a unanimous consent.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, in light of what the Chair previously said, I
ask unanimous consent that all transcribed interviews taken by
the Committee this year be made public.
Chair Jordan. There is an objection to that.
The gentlelady from Missouri is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here,
Mr. Hur.
St. Louis and I are here today once again to focus on the
real issues that affect our communities instead of partisan hit
jobs. Let me start by saying that the potential mishandling of
classified information is a serious issue. I believe it was
appropriate for the Attorney General to appoint both Special
Counsels in the Biden and Trump cases.
As my colleagues have pointed out, President Biden fully
complied with the investigation conducted by Special Counsel
Hur, who did not find evidence sufficient to warrant criminal
charges.
Despite this outcome, Republicans have used the Special
Counsel's Report to further their longstanding effort to
reelect, reelect the former White Supremacist-in-Chief Donald
Trump, who faces 40 criminal charges related to the mishandling
of classified documents, including obstruction of justice.
While President Biden returned all the classified material
and complied with the Special Counsel's investigation, let's
remind ourselves what Donald Trump has said and done.
He refused to turn over the classified documents in his
possession to the National Archives.
He is on tape sharing documents he said he could have
declassified when he was President.
He wrongly claimed in an interview that the Presidential
Records Act allows him to do whatever he wants, and he was
allowed to do everything he did.
He also said on his right-wing social media platform, ``I'm
allowed to do all of this.''
He continues to admit to his possession of these documents
on the campaign trail.
So, this hearing is not a good faith oversight effort. It
is just the latest in a long line of dysfunctional and
destructive actions taken by this Republican majority. They
don't care about responsible governance or making people's
lives better. They don't have an affirmative agenda.
They are throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping
it sticks. They have zero credibility to talk about mental
acuity when they support Donald Trump, the same Donald Trump
who mixes up Joe Biden and Barrack Obama, and Nikki Haley and
Nancy Pelosi, the same Donald Trump who incorrectly pronounced
the words Venezuela, respected, and United States, the same
Donald Trump who calls January 6th defendants hostages, and the
same Donald Trump who believed bleach injections could treat
COVID-19.
It is deeply hypocritical for anyone who champions this man
for the Presidency to talk about the mental acuity of anyone
else.
This is nothing new. This has been a consistent pattern of
the Republican majority in this Congress, from the sham
impeachment investigation that has completely collapsed, to the
absurd impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas, Republicans have
solely focused on destroying the incumbent President,
destroying the Democratic Party, destroying progressive
movements for social justice, all so that they can reelect one
of the worst President of all time.
Now, it is well known that I have disagreement 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 is not what Republicans
are doing. That is 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. We cannot take the bait.
Let's focus on policy. Let's focus on substance. Let's
focus on saving and improving the lives of our constituents,
not misusing the precious time and resources of this Committee,
not being dishonest just because it serves our political
interests. We are better than that, and our country deserves
better than all of this.
I will continue to reject these absurd distractions from
the investments we need in the communities that we represent.
Let's focus on that, instead of this irresponsible and easily
repudiated Republican clown show.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Moran. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
I recognize myself for five minutes.
Special Counsel Hur, thank you for a number of things.
First, thank you for agreeing to testify today.
Second, thank you also for sharing your family story at the
beginning of your testimony. It is an extraordinary story of
them coming to America.
Third, let me also thank you for your in-depth
investigation and your detailed report, and generally for your
service as Special Counsel. It is not something that I think
many people would look for, and certainly comes with a lot of
burdens. So, thank you for your work.
In your opening statement you described your investigation
as ``thorough and independent.'' I agree with that.
One where you attempted to give ``rigorous and detailed
analysis.'' I also agree with that.
One where you say you ``must share your work,'' which we
very much appreciate today. We don't normally see that.
Did I recall your opening statement correctly as it relates
to those quotes?
Mr. Hur. Yes, sir. You did.
Mr. Moran. 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?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Moran. You did this because you took your investigation
extremely seriously and you wanted to reach accurate
conclusions. Correct?
Mr. Hur. Very much.
Mr. Moran. Then let's review some of your specific findings
regarding the issues pertaining to competency and mental
capacity of President Biden because, as you say, this is very
important to whether or not there was criminal willful intent.
As you can see, I have set forth a number of different
quotes up here on this board that I prepared, some of which I
will read to you.
Page 5 you say Mr. Biden's, quote, ``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.'' Then, 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 Bo died.''
You finally make the statement on page 248, ``For these
jurors Mr. Biden's apparent lapses and failures in February and
April 2017, will likely appear consistent with the diminished
capacity and faulty memory he showed.''
Those were astounding conclusions to me. As I looked
through those quotes I would say I harkened back to my time
before Con-
gress. I was a judge, and one of the things that I oversaw was
guardianship. Frankly, when I read your, when I read your
conclusions red flags began to go up in my mind because I
oversaw hundreds of guardianships back in Texas. As I saw your
conclusions I began to wonder what does the D.C. Statute say
about guardian-
ships and how you define an incapacitated individual in
Washington, DC.
I want to show you this statute because I presume, are you
familiar with the statute at all?
Mr. Hur. I am not, Congressman.
Mr. Moran. So, I didn't think you had probably reviewed
that. So, let me just read to you 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 is the first part of the definition of incapacity, an
incapacitated individual under the guardian 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 am not sure how he can manage his personal
financial resources. Given your report's findings that his
memory was ``significantly limited'' and that he is a person
with ``diminished faculties,'' and with ``faulty memory,'' it
makes me wonder how close he is coming to meeting this
definition of an incapacitated individual such that he should
have a guardian appointed by the D.C. courts for her
personhood.
There is at least, I believe, a prima facie argument to say
that there is substantial evidence to indicate such. You
mentioned it is not just what you have written in the report,
but it is the demeanor of President Biden as you interviewed
him.
I will 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.
I appreciate the fact that you were brazen enough to raise
this issue in this report because you knew this would be
significant in your findings, but you did so based on a very
significant, very detailed, very thorough independent report. I
praise you for that, doing your duty in such a way.
Thank you, Special Counsel.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Hur, we have votes on the floor. We have a few more
Members who will do their five minutes of questioning.
So, we are going to recess. Then we will convene 10 minutes
after the conclusion of the last vote. I believe we only have a
couple votes. Is that right? Two votes. So, you know Congress,
that will take a while. We will get back here as soon as we
can.
There is food in the back room for--I think we still have
some left that you are welcome to.
With that, we stand in recess until 10 minutes after the
last vote.
[Recess.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. I see a
former colleague of ours, Mr. Brat from the great State of
Virginia. Welcome to the Committee.
Mr. Hur, we will now go to the gentleman from Maryland for
five minutes, Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hur, appreciate you coming in today. I did want to deal
with one preliminary matter, which is the issue of the release
of the transcript. I have heard complaints from my Republican
colleagues about the White House only releasing the transcript
from the Biden interview this morning, but I have to note that
there are I think over 90 transcripts that are being held by
the majority here of the Judiciary Committee and Oversight
Committee for interviews that we all care about. They all go
directly to issues with respect to the alleged impeachment
inquiry. That is 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 of the transcripts, the Chair objected. So, I
hope that we can move forward in the mode of cooperation
sharing information. I think it is 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
is the nature of the business, I think. I did want to ask you
about this: I know you started off with, ``In the first line
Executive Summary we conclude that no criminal charges are
warranted in this matter.'' I take it that is still your
position today.
Mr. Hur. Yes, it is.
Mr. Ivey. 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.'' You still share that--still hold that view?
Mr. Hur. I do.
Mr. Ivey. OK. Even though you objected to the use of the
word ``exonerated,'' from your perspective he has been cleared
of all criminal charges in your investigation. Is that fair?
Mr. Hur. I determined that based on the evidence criminal
charges are not warranted.
Mr. Ivey. OK. I did want to go to the issue of material
distinctions that you raised in your report between President
Biden and former President Trump. We have got a document up
here that lays some of it out. You have asked--answered some
questions about this already, but I think it seemed to be
highly relevant in your analysis that President Biden
cooperated and 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?
Mr. Hur. That was a factor that we considered, yes,
Congressman.
Mr. Ivey. All right. He cooperated with your investigation?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Ivey. Consented to the search of multiple locations
including his house?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Ivey. Sat for a voluntary interview?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Mr. Ivey. That was five hours over two days?
Mr. Hur. A little over five hours over two days.
Mr. Ivey. OK. Turned over and allowed investigators to
review handwritten notebooks he believed to be his personal
property?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Ivey. Now, with respect to the comparison with former
President Trump, and I believe this is on page 11, which is
still in our Executive Summary--and I will just read part of
this to you.
Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set
forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump if proven would present
serious aggravating facts. Most notably, after being given
multiple chances to return classified 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 and then to lie about it. In contrast Mr.
Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives
and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of
multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary
interview, and in other ways cooperated with his investigation.
That is from page 11 of your report?
Mr. Hur. I see that language on page 11.
Mr. Ivey. All right. You still stand by that language?
Mr. Hur. I do, sir.
Mr. Ivey. OK. This is your report? You take full
responsibility for everything that is in the document?
Mr. Hur. I do. I stand by every word in it.
Mr. Ivey. All right. I 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?
Mr. Hur. Nothing relating to guardianship appeared--is in
my report.
Mr. Ivey. OK. So, I guess you made the one point about him
being an elderly man with poor memory, but are you saying you--
did you say anywhere in your report that you thought not only
would he be unfit to handle his own finances, but he would be
unfit for public office?
Mr. Hur. My report did not include any opinions on those
issues.
Mr. Ivey. OK. I see my time is exhausted, but thank you
again for your testimony. I appreciate your efforts.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Van Drew. I yield to the Chair briefly.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I will just point out Mr. Ivey raised the issue of
transcripts. He has complete access to every transcript that we
have done in the congressional investigation. You can go--he
could show up for all the depositions like--frankly, I show for
most of those. So, he has complete access to that.
What we don't have is access to the transcripts of all the
witnesses. We only have Mr. Biden. We don't have access to the
audio tapes of all the witnesses--
Mr. Ivey. Will the gentleman yield?
Chair Jordan. It is not my time. I yield back to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Ivey. You are speaking, but it is not your time?
Mr. Van Drew. It is my time.
Chair Jordan. He yielded to me.
Mr. Ivey. All right.
Mr. Van Drew. 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 have been a prosecutor for many years, correct?
Mr. Hur. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. 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?
Mr. Hur. It will take me a little time to reconstruct, but
I think I could get there.
Mr. Van Drew. Is it above 500?
Mr. Hur. It is above 500, yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. Well, I am curious because the evidence
that you outlined in your report is pretty significant. ``When
it comes to evidence that after his Vice Presidency,'' and I am
reading from your report,
Mr. Biden willfully retained marked classified documents about
Afghanistan and unmarked classified handwritten notes in his
notebooks, both of which he stored in unsecured places in his
home.
Further, you noted that,
There's evidence that he willfully retained classified
Afghanistan documents including the Thanksgiving memo and had a
strong motive to keep such classified documents.
You outline what that motive is. Can you tell me, what is the
motive for keeping the Thanksgiving Day memo?
Mr. Hur. One of the motives that we addressed in the report
was that 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. He felt
very strongly about it.
Mr. Van Drew. I am going to 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
that he was right about Afghanistan, that his critics were
wrong, and that he had opposed President Obama's mistaken
decision forcefully when it was made, that his judgment was
sound when it mattered most.
Does that sound correct?
Mr. Hur. That language sounds familiar from the report,
yes.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. That is pretty significant in terms of a
motivating factor for retaining those documents, wouldn't you
say?
Mr. Hur. That would be a factor that a jury would assess in
considering whether or not Mr. Biden had criminal intent.
Mr. Van Drew. I also know that President Biden was working
with a ghost writer on a book, Mark Zwonitzer. Correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Van Drew. Your investigation concluded when President
Biden began work on his memoir, correct? At what time did your
investigation conclude?
Mr. Hur. With respect to the second book published in 2017
we identified evidence that Mr. Biden began recorded
conversation with Mr. Zwonitzer in 2016 before the end of Mr.
Biden's Vice Presidency.
Mr. Van Drew. It is your understanding that while Mr.
Zwonitzer interviewed President Biden, he read classified
information from his notebooks nearly verbatim, sometimes for
an hour or more at a time. Correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Van Drew. Was Mr. Zwonitzer authorized to receive this
classified information?
Mr. Hur. He was not.
Mr. Van Drew. In fact, in their February 16th meeting which
has been alluded to earlier, isn't it true that President Biden
read aloud and nearly verbatim classified information regarding
the actions and views of U.S. Military leaders and the CIA
Director relating to the foreign country and foreign terrorist
organization?
Mr. Hur. I believe that occurred--that was captured in a
recording later in 2017, I believe in April 2017, not February.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. Mr. Zwonitzer became aware of your
Special--your appointment as Special Counsel, correct?
Mr. Hur. At some point Mr. Zwonitzer did become aware of my
appointment, yes.
Mr. Van Drew. On learning of the investigation Mr.
Zwonitzer deleted digital audio recordings of his conversations
with Mr. Biden during the writing of the book ``Promise Me,
Dad?''
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Van Drew. Investigators with your office interviewed
Mr. Zwonitzer about the deleted recordings and he admitted that
part of his motivation for deleting this recording was because
he was aware there was an investigation, correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Van Drew. Did this conduct raise concerns with your
office?
Mr. Hur. It did. We considered it to be significant
evidence that we needed to followup on.
Mr. Van Drew. Significant evidence. I would argue that 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 that you had enough to move forward.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Special Counsel Hur, for being here today. I
know it has been hours and hours and I really 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
child of immigrants sit here as a Member of Congress.
There is a lot that has been said today and part of the
challenge that I have is trying to translate this for my
constituents back home, and so I want to start with sort of the
top line.
So, you were tasked with identifying whether criminal
conduct occurred regarding classified documents. After over a
year of investigation including 150 witness interviews and over
seven 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 foreclose criminal charges against a
sitting President.
Were those your words?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Balint. 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?
Mr. Hur. No.
Ms. Balint. Do you believe it is important that the Special
Counsel investigations, or any DOJ investigation be impartial
and free of influence from political actors?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Balint. Do you believe you were independent and
thorough in your report?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Balint. Do you think it is true that you received no
pressure from Attorney General Garland in this matter?
Mr. Hur. That's correct.
Ms. Balint. Is it true that you had all the resources that
you needed in able for you to conduct your interviews, to
conduct your investigation, and to complete your report?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Balint. Is it true that you recommended that the
Attorney General decline to charge President Biden?
Mr. Hur. I submitted a report to the Attorney General
explaining my decision that criminal charges were not warranted
in this matter.
Ms. Balint. Right. So, you said on page 1 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 doubt that President Biden
willfully retained classified materials?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Balint. Is it true that President Biden cooperated with
your investigation?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Balint. 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?
Mr. Hur. He sat for interviews over two days, October 8th
and October 9th.
Ms. Balint. Thank you. Is it true that President Biden
allowed the FBI to conduct thorough searches of his home and
his beach house?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Balint. Is it true that your report found multiple
possible innocent explanations as to why the classified
documents ended up where they did?
Mr. Hur. As part of our analysis, we walked through a
number of different explanations that defense counsel would
present, could present at trial if this case were charged.
Ms. Balint. As you said on page 6 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 reads--
Mr. Hur. I see that language, yes.
Ms. Balint. 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?
Mr. Hur. Yes.
Ms. Balint. Is it true or is it correct that your report
recommends no charges and that you would be the case even if he
were not a sitting President?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Ms. Balint. So, what we have had today is hour after hour
after hour of trying to distract us from the clear statements
that come through this report. 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.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Fry. Mr. Chair, I yield to you such time as you may
consume, sir.
Chair Jordan. Oh, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Hur, why did the White House go--why did the White
House lawyers go look in the first place? My understanding is
they went to the Penn Biden Center. Why did they go look in the
first place?
Mr. Hur. My--
Chair Jordan. Look for classified--mishandling of
classified--look for classified documents. Why did they do it?
Mr. Hur. 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 the
information--what kinds of evidence and--what kinds of
materials were at the Penn Biden Center.
Chair Jordan. Were they specifically looking for
potential--documents that were classified or was it a broader
initial look?
Mr. Hur. My understanding is that it was a broader initial
look. I'm looking at chapter 14, page 257, of my report about a
visit in March 2021 to the Penn Biden Center.
Chair Jordan. Right.
OK. In March?
Mr. Hur. In March 2021.
Chair Jordan. Was this after the Justice Department began
their investigation into President Trump?
Mr. Hur. I confess I don't have the date of the beginning
of the investigation into President Trump at hand, Chair.
Chair Jordan. I believe it was the same month. I believe it
was after. So, I was just curious about 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, when they initially did
their look? Was it at the transition office, was it at the
temporary Penn Biden Center in Chinatown, or was that at its
current location where the Penn Biden Center currently sits
here in--or final location I guess in D.C.? You remember?
Mr. Hur. 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.
Chair Jordan. Permanent and current. So, there were three
places. Those three places classified information was at. Is
that fair to say?
Mr. Hur. That's correct. The initial transition office
immediately after the end of the Vice Presidency, the Penn
Biden Center's temporary office, and then the Penn Biden
Center's permanent office.
Chair Jordan. OK. Then you had the University of Delaware
Library. The University of Delaware Biden Center, right? So,
that is five total. Then you had multiple places in his home.
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Chair Jordan. The garage, the den, the office upstairs, and
the office downstairs.
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Chair Jordan. So, what is that? That is like nine different
places.
Mr. Hur. I've lost count, sir, but that sounds about right.
Chair Jordan. Yes, it is everywhere, and it was documents
over a 50-year timeframe. Then 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 if they were anywhere else, were they?
Mr. Hur. I'm not aware of other locations [inaudible].
Chair Jordan. Yes, I think that is an important
distinction. I would yield back to the gentleman from South
Carolina. Appreciate him yielding.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Chair.
Briefly; I know we have got two minutes left, but, Mr. Hur,
how would you define willful?
Mr. Hur. With respect to the intent of willfulness, what a
jury has to conclude is that someone knew that their conduct
was illegal when they engaged in that conduct.
Mr. Fry. Right. So, it is intentional, right? It is not by
accident? It is not accidental or involuntary?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Fry. OK. So, here is where I disagree with your portion
of the report on willful is that you have a gentleman who
served 36 years in the Senate. I have 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 of the
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 sensitive compartmented information contents
of a classified briefing book from a book that he took to the
Hamptons. To date you are unable to determine if these
documents were ever recovered, is that correct?
Mr. Hur. Correct.
Mr. Fry. So, to me this wasn't--when does willfulness as
a--when does willfulness factor in? Is it now in his diminished
mental capacity or is it then when he was serving as Senator
and Vice President?
Mr. Hur. A jury would be assessing President Biden's mental
state and his intent or whether or not he had willfulness at
the time that the conduct was committed.
Mr. Fry. Correct. I think everyone can kind of plainly see
that the transgression or the difference between then candidate
Biden, or Vice President Biden and what is going on now.
So, this is where I go, too, the Chair talked about it in
his opening comments--he had eight million reasons to hold
these documents. In fact, he disclosed some of this information
to his ghost writer. So, I think there could have been
willfulness.
I have got 10 seconds left, but look, since 2016 there have
been three candidates to run for President. All three have had
allegations of issues surrounding the retention of holding of
classified documents, but, Mr. Her, only one of them has been
charged, and that is President Trump. That is why people think
and view this as a two-tiered system of justice. Thank you,
sir.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from--you have
unanimous consent?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, I will wait. Let him go ahead.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Buck. Mr. Hur, they say they save the best for last, so
I am looking forward to this opportunity.
First, what I have observed in this hearing is that one
side thinks you are trying to get President Trump elected and
the other side thinks you are trying to get President Biden
elected. I served as a prosecutor for 25 years. I know that you
are 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. That must have been a great opportunity
for you.
When both sides attack you, my admonition is welcome to
Congress.
I do have a question and it goes along the lines of what
Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Fry were asking you earlier. I am really
confused about willfulness and your view of willfulness. It is
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 document. He also knew that his
basement was not a SCIF. It is not a secure area.
So, if at that point in time he said, oh, my gosh, I have
got to call the Archivist, I have got to call 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 element is pretty clear. He
possessed classified documents, he 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?
Mr. Hur. 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, reasonable jurors
might well infer that President Biden formed criminal intent
based on that piece of evidence.
What we did in our report was to try to walk through
exhaustively--you know well as a prosecutor you need to assess
with a very cold eye the strengths of your case and the
weaknesses of your case and try to anticipate arguments that
defense counsel might well present at trial. What we tried to
do in our report would--was to walk through potential arguments
that would be presented by defense lawyers at the President's
trial and to determine by our judgment how jurors would receive
and 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 that we assessed.
Mr. Buck. So, how do you overcome that recording where he
says ``I've got classified documents?'' He is 30 years in the
Senate or whatever it is. He obviously knows how he has to
treat classified documents. I have got classified documents in
the basement. What is the 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. In
this case, he had a lot of documents in a lot of places. How do
you overcome those things?
Mr. Hur. Yes, Congressman. So, we walked through a number
of different evidentiary gaps that reasonable jurors might
focus on as well as a number of different arguments that the
President's defense lawyers could present at trial.
The first is a theory or an argument to the jury that the
President--yes, he did say to his ghost writer I just found all
the classified stuff downstairs, but then soon thereafter
forgot about the documents. Therefore, it would be difficult to
convince a jury that actually he knew that it was illegal to
keep the documents and he continued to do so.
A second argument that we considered is that perhaps these
documents never actually were in Virginia in his private rental
home there. Perhaps the documents were there by virtue of staff
or himself, having those documents at the Delaware home from
the time that he was still Vice President all the way through
the time of their being discovered.
Finally, another theory that we walked through in the
report is that there were two folders of marked classified
documents relating to Afghanistan found in the box in the
President's Delaware garage. One of them contained national
defense information and the other--it would be a more difficult
task to persuade a jury that it did contain national defense
information. So, that argument would be premised on perhaps the
President was referring to the one folder that didn't contain
national defense information but was not. It would be difficult
for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
possessed the one that did contain national defense
information.
So, I just laid a lot on you there, but we do our best to
explain that at some length in the report.
Mr. Buck. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentle yields back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. There has been a lot of time
being shared, Mr. Chair. I ask your very brief indulgence.
Chair Jordan. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You got an unanimous
consent or are you asking a question?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Your brief indulgence and unanimous
consent to ask a question.
Chair Jordan. No, no, no, no. You can make a unanimous
consent request, but you don't get to get another round. If
someone comes to yield you time, but I don't think they can do
that because everyone on the Democrat side has taken their
time. You know that I appreciate the gentlelady from Texas, but
you don't get to go two rounds.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am not trying to two rounds, but--
Chair Jordan. If you have a unanimous consent request you
want on the record, state so. If not, then we are going to
close--
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am getting ready to the unanimous
consent request, hoping that someone would come through the
door. I ask unanimous consent--
Chair Jordan. It could only be a Republican, because all
the Democrats have spoken.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask unanimous consent that we add to the
record as stated from page 1 of the Executive Summary,
We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this
matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if the
Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges
against a sitting President.
I would ask unanimous consent that this sentence be put in.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Secondarily, I ask unanimous consent and--
Chair Jordan. Unanimous consent to add something to the
record that is already in the record? God bless you. We will do
it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I add with the emphasis of
Sheila Jackson Lee does not have 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. I ask 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 of this report.
Chair Jordan. Without objection, so entered.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Hur, even though there wasn't a question
there, do you want to respond to any of that?
Mr. Hur. No, Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. All right. Mr. Hur, we want to thank you for
being here today and we wish the best to you and your family.
This concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for
appearing before the Committee today.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witness or
additional materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
All items submitted for the record by Members of the
Commit-
tee on the Judiciary can be found at https://docs.house.gov/
Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116942.
[all]