Transcripts For CNNW The 20240704 : comparemela.com

hur and also a letter to merrick garland? >> objection. >> and with that, mr. chairman, i see my time has expired and i yield back gentlelady yields back the chair is recognized. mr. her, why do you do it? why did joe biden your words willfully retained and disclosed, classified materials? i mean, he knew the law in an office like 50 years five decades in the united states senate, chairman 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, you know, he knew the rules because you said so on page 226 president biden was deeply familiar with the measures taken to safeguard classified documents and 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 role rules, you know, he knew the rules and joe biden told us he knew the rules. so mr. her, why did he break them? >> the conclusion as to exactly why the president did what he did is not one that we explicitly address in the report the report explains my decision to the attorney general that no criminal charges were warranted in this matter. >> i think you did tell us. i think he told us mr. page to 31. you said this president biden had strong motivations. that's a key word. we're getting a 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 you next word, because he decided months before leaving office to write a book, to write a book that was his motive. he knew the rules are broken because he was writing a book. and you further say andy began meeting with the ghostwriter while he was still vice president there's the motive mr. her, how much did president biden get paid for his book >> off the top of my head. i'm not sure if that information appears in the report. sir, does there's $1 amount in there? you remember? >> i don't it may be 8 million if that's elian dollars. 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's why he did. he knew the rules, but he broke them big for $8 million in a book advance but you know what wasn't just the money joe biden, here's this page to 31, very next page. joe biden, in your report, joe biden viewed his notebooks as an irreplaceable, contemporaneous record of the most important moments of his vice presidency he had written this all down for the book, for the $8 and 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 it was also his ego pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules the oldest motives in the book pride and money you agree with that, mr. hur he wrote it in your report that language, and it does appear in the report. and we did identify evidence supporting those those assessments. >> 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. her? >> i believe that does appear on the report, at least in the executive summary i think this is interesting because here's the scary part. page 200. i said this earlier in my opening statement. page 200, joe biden. this is a quote, joe biden risk serious damage to america's national security when he shared information with his ghostwriter shared it with his ghostwriter that the guy who was helping joe biden get 8 million by the way, mr. her what did that go? swider do with the information joe biden shared with him on his laptop. what did he do after you were named special counsel? >> chairman, if you're referring to the audio recordings that mr. zwonitzer created of his conversations with exactly what i'm referring to. >> he >> he slid if i remember correctly, he slid those files into his recycled been on his computer tried to try to destroy the evidence, didn't correct. the very guy who is helping joe biden get to $8 million, joe biden had 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's that guy? do? >> you destroys the evidence? that's the key takeaway. my mind. that's the key takeaway i yield back from this ms raskin. gentleman from maryland for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. her, 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? >> no guns? >> no ranking member, you highlight the independence and support you got from the attorney general and doj. have you changed in mind about that? >> i have not. >> the risk 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 global crisis, have you had any reason to change your mind about that? >> no ranking member. >> 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 troy evidence and then to lie about it. have you any reason to change your judgment about the differences between president biden's cooperation and the former president's non-cooperation no, i continue to stand by those words in my report 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. is still being an amateur memory specialists giving us their drive by diagnoses of the president united states, who's soaring oratory, powerful historical analysis, and devastating extemporaneous revpar te, 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 vinton issue as 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 1 billion. 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 it's not this my friends. this is a memory test, but it's not a memory test for president biden. it's a memory test for all of america do we remember fascism remember nazism? do remember communism and totalitarianism. >> have we >> completely forgotten the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents and prior generations? what we play pin the tail on the donkey in this wild goose chase all of 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 simple pin a single penny to ukraine that's what all of this is about. >> it's about trying to pull the >> wool over the eyes of america because the tyrants and dictators of the world are on the march today. so who wins with this ludicrous, embarrassing spectacle or ban winds putin wins, she wins the tyrants of the world when they have one more reason to celebrate donald trump and his cult followers, who have completely lost their way they're looking for high crimes and misdemeanors. now they appoint themselves, amature memory specialists, and that's what they pounce on the president, the united states about. america faces a choice between democracy and tyranny. and the president laid it out at valley forge 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? who's 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 but we're not working on that today. we're not standing up for democracy and human rights in international law. around the world. no, we're 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, direct, directly address the real questions of our time and it is democracy versus dictatorship in all of the autocrats in the theocrats, all of 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. chairman gentleman yields back the chairman of the oversight committee, mr. comer is recognized for five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman, during the oversight committee interviews, we've identified a number of white house employees who were involved in the mishandling of classified documents under the leadership of president biden special counsel hurt, can you please tell us approximately how many current and former white house employees you interviewed related year investigation >> chairman 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 >> your report indicates at one of those former white house employees who you interviewed was dana remus. is that correct? >> we did interview ms raman, mr. ramos was spreads at biden's former white house counsel, correct? >> she was president obama's former white house counsel. >> or i'm sorry, fed's obama's white house counsel related to this remiss 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 can you provide more information about why dana remus, a government employee, was retrieving joe biden's documents from the penn biden center. >> chairman i'm i'm able to tell you and clarify information that appears in the report about relevance, significant sources of information but i am not in a position to be able to go beyond that. >> when you interviewed president biden, did you ask him what documents he possessed it? penn biden center. that could be related to a potential congressional inquiry about his family's activities >> we asked president biden a wealth of questions about bowl of the different sets of classified materials that were recovered during the course of our investigation. >> anything pertains specifically to our congressional inquiry of president biden that you recall. >> if there are more specific aspects of it, you have in mind shame, chairman, that would be helpful to interests pertaining to his family's influence, peddling activities if it's helpful, chairman, appendix a does list in table >> chart form, a brief description of all of the marked classified documents that were recovered in our investigation. >> 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? >> it was our practice to record the interviews that we conducted. chairman goma, 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 any time on acini in the course of your investigation >> chairman we do not. that the report does not reflect that specific name, but what i can tell you is that the report does reflect the week interview the director of oval office operations, and one of the places that's reflected his footnote 973. >> okay. >> the oversight committee interviewed kathy chung, a department of defense employee and former assistant by two vice president biden and learn that ms chung visited the biden penn 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 interviewed kathy chung in the course of your investigation? >> chairman, i believe that the substance related to the subject you're asking about appears on page 259 of the report. and 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 >> the oversight committee also learned from its interviews with penn biden center employees and kathy chung that dana remus, anthony bernal, and actually 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? >> we interviewed many individuals and we i can assure you, chairman, that we it was a priority of ours to interview all the relevant sources information out. these documents how they got there, who knew about them, and who access them. >> can you so again, they were all recorded. is that correct? so there would be recordings >> it was our practice to interview recordings, yes. >> how many white house employees visited the penn biden center before? for classified materials were reportedly discovered there in november 2022? >> i don't have anything to the white house, sir. i don't have an exact count of how many visits to the penn biden center were made by either white house employees are president biden's personal attorneys before the official discovery of documents? in november 2022? >> i don't know if that figure at hand, but that should be detailed in chapter 14 of the report, sir. >> yield back. >> gentleman yields back gentlelady from texas recognized five minutes before mr. herrera, any anytime you need a break, if you need a break, let us now, because i'm gonna go while as you as you well know. thank you. certainly. are. ms jackson lee is recognized >> good morning. good morning. >> the republicans here asked for a lot of transcripts but chair jordan has yet to release 90 plus transcripts from interviews when with those if they are to be released to the american people is the question my question to you? is you decided based on the facts not to prosecute or indict or bring forward charges against the president of the united states. the sitting president, joseph biden. is that correct? that was my judgment. >> this investigation was independent and thorough. is that correct? >> yes. >> we have heard from our republican colleagues who are grappling at straws allegations that president biden was treated lightly in this investigation but 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 have the classified documents the fbi sees, correct? >> correct. >> in your investigation, you conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses, correct? >> that is correct. >> and president biden himself well, one of those witnesses, correct? correct. for at least five hours or more? correct. >> and president biden engaged in this interview voluntarily? >> correct. >> and the interview with president biden lasted more than five hours. i've said that that's correct. correct. and the interview and it occurred that 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? the >> interview spans two days, october 8 and october 9, with the president having to be in and out to deal with an internal international crisis. and after the interview, he provided handwritten answers to additional questions, correct? >> congresswoman, i don't recall the president being in and out during our interview to handle the internet. >> me go on and president biden allowed investigators to search his private houses. is that correct? >> he did consent to the search of his residence and your investigation collected 7 million documents for review in your investigation. is that correct? correct. >> and this >> included emails, text messages, photographs videos, to records, and other materials from both classified and unclassified sources, correct? correct. >> and you referred are reviewed president biden's handwritten notes as well, correct >> correct. >> and you coordinated with a multiple government agencies to organize and complete your investigation, correct? >> we consulted with numerous agencies to conduct and that included reviews of evidence that was seized during the investigation, right? >> in >> that included working with national security experts in the intelligence community to carefully analyze each classified document that was obtained with respect to marked classified documents, that's correct. we submitted excerpts from the vice president, former vice president's notebooks for classification review. >> and if agencies reviewed classified material and gave at different levels of classification, you classified it as a higher level for the purposes of your investigation to be thorough, correct? >> that is reflected in appendix appendices at the mpi requested classification review from each identified agency accordingly, for documents were multiple agencies had equities. the special counsel's office use 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? correct. he authorize you to investigate mr. biden's possession of the classified documents, including possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records correct at the at the penn center, penn biden center, president biden's home delaware, as well as many. any matters that arose from the initial investigation or may arise directly from the special counsel investigators that correct? >> i believe that accurately reflects the language of the appointment order. >> so you operated an independent investigation for about a year? here which you just stated that you had adequate resources to complete, in which you conducted 173 interviews included with president biden years himself. you review 7 million documents including president biden's personal records and searched his home thoroughly. and in this thorough lins investigation, you did not uncover enough evidence to recommend prosecution against the president. is that correct? >> that's my judgment. >> and 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. he shouldn't to the attorney general >> 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 where my own the judgment was my own and the words in the report on my home. >> and you would have done so much regular order, ms chair of the gentlelady has expired. mr. chairman, i'd like to put into the record jets security.org, the real one. but two or report that janet mills consent that objection. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, five minutes february 8, the white house question, mr. president, why did you share classified information with the ghostwriter? the president? i did not share classified information. i did not share it. i guarantee i did not that's not true, is it, mr. her? >> that is inconsistent with the findings based on the evidence, and i'm in my report. >> yes, its allies, just what regular people would say, right? yeah. 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, wasn't that was inconsistent with the findings of our investigation. >> another alive people might say, right? because what you've put in your report was among the places mr. biden's lawyers found classified documents in the garage was a damaged opened box. so here's what i'm what i'm 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 and go to the top floor, you don't you get a conviction. and 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. but under the senile cooperator theory, isn't it frustrating the biden continues to go out and lie about the basic facts of the report that lay out of federal criminal violation. >> congressman, i needed it disagree with at least one thing that you said which is that i found that the all of 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 that intent element had >> but the reason you have that doubt the senile cooperator theory, the fact that joe biden is so inept and responding that you can't prove the intent, which again, i don't quibble with that conclusion, but it's 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 improve intent while at the same time biden goes out there at the white house and says, well, you know he just he just he just blatantly lies. and what i'm trying to figure out is whether or not biden is lying because he's still so senile, he hasn't read your report or whether it's a little craft here and a little more devious and perhaps a little more intentional then we might otherwise things. so i also want to go to this biden penn center, like 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 congressman, we were concerned with getting the bottom of all of the classified documents that were recovered during the course of them. >> 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 it was other foreign countries that we did that play into your analysis, did you did you look into the billion-dollars and foreign funding sources at the biden center at upenn, for example, congressman, we conducted a thorough and and fair investigation and we were very, very concerned with getting to the bottom of all the relevant questions relating to the recovered, sir, did you look into the fact that the chinese were floating the place where this guy was keeping the documents on secure? >> yes or no >> congressman, to the extent that we identified evidenced that was relevant and significant to our investigation week put it in our report. >> it seemed relevant to me, maybe not to you. another thing that seemed relevant to me is this ghostwriter, right? so the ghostwriter 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 ghostwriter with obstructing justice and deleting evidence well, for a number of reasons that are laid out in the report. but in brief, congressman, yes. when we when we interviewed the ghost writer, what 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. >> so he didn't just so everybody knows, the ghostwriter didn't delete the recordings just as a matter of happenstance, ghostwriter has recordings of biden making admissions of crimes. he then learns that you've been appointed he then deletes the information that is the evidence and you don't charge him >> that is reflected in the report. and one of the reasons like what does somebody have to do to get charged with obstruction of justice by you if lifelike deleting the evidence of crimes doesn't count, what would meet the standard. >> so congressman, as we as we stayed in the relevant chapter of the report, one of the things that mr. zwonitzer did not delete was transcripts of the recordings that he had created that included inculpatory evidence relating to mr. wow. >> so if you destroy some evidence, but not other evidence, that somehow absolves you of the evidence. you destroy it like here's what i see. zhuan or should have been charged, wasn't biden and trump should have been treated equally. they weren't. and that is the double standard that i think a lot of americans are concerned about. i see my time expired, i yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. herb, thank you for being here with are confused about this hearing. mr. raskin laid out the big picture. what we should be concerned about. but in the more limited picture director mueller had an investigation. he's our most famous recent special prosecutor, and he found sufficient evidence to say there was connection between russia and the trump campaign. >> but in it did not put in and supported a criminal prosecution. if you were not present, you found there was no evidence to support a criminal prosecution in 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, a political appointee. special counsel to fully investigate the circumstances and off the rise due to prosecute criminal prosecutor misconduct, you declined to prosecute because you found insufficient evidence of a crime case closed it makes really if perfect case, you did your job mr. garland did his job. and unlike mr. barr, he didn't interfere, did mr. garland asked you to change your report at all? >> he did not, sir. >> didn't redact the thing? >> no, sir. >> like mr. barr, did he redacted everything and made the muller report looks like 180 degrees different than what it was mr. garland did. right. and you did, right. and i commend each of you that of justice's independent and allows the special counsels to investigate and prosecute the facts. if supported. >> joe biden's actions >> and handling of classified materials is similar to most other former presidents and vice presidents. 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 specific factual finding our legal conclusion, no. >> did you >> receive the resources necessary to carry out your duties? >> yes. >> do you have any reasonably that you were treated differently with regard to independence or resources than other doj special prosecutors? >> no. >> based on your experience as special counsel, you have any reason to believe the attorney general is improperly directing pressuring or in a frame with jack smith or his work >> i have really i do not have the basis to answer that question. >> but you're declination which we treat as thoughtful on a political we should treat it prosecutorial decisions by jack smith, the same white, the best of your knowledge? >> again, i really do not have the sufficient information with respect to jack smith's investigation to provide any comment on it? >> let me ask you this. >> if >> president biden, in his testimony to you, knew the exact date, january 20, whatever it was, 22,009. what he became vice president. and the day when he left being vice president, january the 20th, i guess the first one on january 20th, again, 2009 of the january 20, 2017, 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 to bring a prosecution, >> 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 circumstances that i was presented with and we did identify during our investments, it appears to me, and i think it appeared american public that these minor discrepancies as far as dates and after long period of time was not the basis, it was not. right. the basis for your decision to decline to prosecutors, the fact you didn't have the facts he acted differently than trump, that he voluntarily provided the documents, 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 congressman, my reasons for my declination decision or set out in my report, and i stand by the words in the report, sir. >> well, thank you. and i think i'm a encompassing them in my what i'm saying to you is that there's 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 that mr. biden sat through five hours and he did an admirable job and 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 the freedom for democracy around the world, for standing up to the russians, not bend, bending down to them that's what's important. not if you can be on the $64,000 question, assuming it was legit an entry, every single question correctly, that's not what you need to be president. to be president, you need to have values. you didn't have an of what values america has and needs to maintain to keep the world safe and peaceful that's dealing with ukraine, that's dealing with difficult people like net nyu and israel to try to get something done that's correct. that's what joe biden does and understanding social security and medicare, medicaid are important institutions that help seniors and not see now, people. i mean, i really object to that comment. people see he's not nobody's suggesting. see now, and that's disrespectful of senior people with any kind of memory disability, lots of seniors have memory disability, but they're not seen alan to do such were shameful joe biden is competent, good president or those american values >> turn the gentleman's time has expired. gentleman yields back gentlemen for california's recognize five minutes. there was chairman sure. i'd like to start off by thanking you for a year of hard work and a comprehensive report i'm 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 are where their notes of the president united states that dated back to when he was a senator that contain classified information among the documents that were recovered during our investigation were marked classified documents that dated back to when mr. biden >> was a senator, when he was in his '30s, '40s, '50s, i believe that's correct. >> and were there >> documents from the time that he was vice president? >> yes. >> okay >> so there's been a lot to do about senility, non-centrality, poor memory, and so on but 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 i think i think that is very yes. okay. 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 >> not not in front of a jury, just personal because you have to make that decision as part of the case, correct? >> correct. and i would say i approached the task as i have been trained to as a prosecutor, which is on an iterative basis that's the cation is always uncovering evidence that you incorporate, right? so both 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 that we're talking about, your personal not that you could prove it, but personally, did you see a pattern that goes all the way back to him being a senator of taking documents, making notes, and taking in them and holding them personally. >> congressman, i viewed my task as a prosecutor in this matter to determine what i believed that evidence. know. i appreciate that, and i'm not trying to to take away from your conclusion some others are debating the conclusion. i'm not debating the conclusion. i just want to go through one element that i think is important. >> look. you've prosecuted people in the past and failed to get a conviction. is that correct? correct. okay. you're not a 1,000 perfect batting average >> okay. i can't say that. yeah. >> 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, which he said that's fair to say over your long career. >> i think that's fair because i take the rules as set forth in the just kidding you serious? >> however, i'm going to presume that you would never prosecute someone you thought was outright innocent, correct? in this case, did you reach a conclusion that this man was outright innocent? >> that conclusion is not reflected in my report, sir. >> right. so you did not reach that conclusion or it would have been in your report >> i viewed my task of explaining my decision to the attorney general as being based on my judgment in my assessment of the evidence, would a would a conviction at trial be the probable outcome? and that's >> and i just want to make sure the record is complete in that because i think it's extremely important you did not reach an idea that he had committed no wrong. you reached a conclusion that you would not prevail a trial and therefore did not take it forward. is that correct? correct, congressman. >> okay >> i just want to go through one or two little housekeeping almost the documents that the president, the vice president, then vice president, took, which included his own notes to your knowledge, aren't those covered by the freedom of information act? >> potentially i >> honestly do not know congressman aren't they covered by the presidential records act as every note and every text of the president, the vice president, and members of cabinet are covered i think different folks would have different views on whether they're covered by the pra congressman. >> but isn't it true that he left office leaving none no copies of that behind and that alone was inconsistent with an open and transparent individual, correct? >> i'm not aware of copies of those materials being left behind, congressman. >> okay. i want to thank you. and mr. chairman, i want to thank you for the extra few seconds. i yield back >> gentleman, yields back the gentleman from georgia is recognized thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. >> her, you've led a distinguished career, earning your law degree from stanford university, and you served as a student as executive editor of the stanford law review correct? >> correct. >> then you went on to clerk for judge kaczynski of the ninth circuit, correct? >> yes, sir. >> after that, you ascended to a clerkship within chief justice william rehnquist on the united states supreme court, correct? >> correct. >> 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? >> i did spend some time working for former assistant attorney general, christopher wray. >> you later join 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? >> i served as mr. rosenstein's principal deputy and then donald trump appointed you to serve as us attorney for the district of maryland is that correct? >> president trump nominated me to serve in that position and i was asleep confirmed by the united states senate. >> that's correct. and thereafter, attorney general merrick garland a 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. it's not >> correct >> and 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 in that, correct? >> that does not appear in the appointment order >> and pursuant to your appointment to conclude your investigation, you issued a report that was published by attorney general garland, correct? >> he made it available to congress, sir. >> and your report concluded that after a full and thorough investigation, the evidence was insufficient to establish that president biden had willfully retained classified documents, isn't that correct? >> my judgment was that based on the state the state of the evidence a conviction at trial was not the probable outcome, and 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 in that correct? >> we did we did identify some evidence of willful retention and disclosure, but we've had so know that the president cooperating fully with you and didn't president i mean, they never tried to hide any documents from you, did day the report does note steps of cooperation taken the president who served and last but not least unlike in the trump classified documents case president biden's council never falsely certified that there was no classified documents in the president's possession, correct? >> the report does include some comparisons and contrasts between the facts alleged in the trump case the biden case, despite clearing president biden from being prosecuted you use your report to trash >> and smear president biden because he said in risk in response to questions over a, five-hour interview that he didn't recall how he got the documents and you knew that that would play into the republicans narrative that the president is unfit for office because he's senile the american people saw during the state of the union address, did that was not true but yet that's what you tried to offer to them and that's why they are having you here today so that they can expand upon that narrative and you knew that that's what was going to happen, didn't you? >> congressman? i reject the suggestion that you have just made. it's not what let me move on. >> holiday. you whatsoever you member of the federalist society now you're not add fair. are you a member of the federalist society? >> i am not a member of the federal >> assistance, but you are republican know, aren't you? i am a registered republican. >> and you're doing everything you can do to get president trump re-elected. so that you can get appointed as a federal judge or perhaps to another position in the department of justice, isn't that correct? >> congressman? i have no such aspirations. i can assure you and i can tell you that partisan politics had no place whatsoever and my work, it had no place in the investigative steps that i took it at no place in the decision that i made and it had no place in single word if my report think dallas. time has expired, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. thank you for being here. no, i think for the folks that may be watching this at home, they might be a little bit confused and i'm trying to organize this in my mind as well. the way the president has portrayed in your report and just how we feel about them 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 maintain and retain these top secret documents? that should have been not in his home. and was the man that wanted to prove he was worthy to be president and that his vision of afghanistan was better than even president barack obama's. and that his focus on history was most important to them do you know what it is congressman to the state you're quoting language from my report. i stand by the words in my report. >> so you stand by that he was and let me quote you exactly. quote, a well-meaning but forgetful old man. >> i don't think those exact words appear in the report, congressman, but to the extent that i use 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. >> 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 presidential figure. and i'm asking for yes or no's here because our time so limited, i believe words that effect or in my report conference, the answer is yes. >> would you agree that president binds intend to showcase his legacy, provides a motive for his actions concerning classified materials yes, i know it is one of the motives addressed in the report yep. >> to showcase his legacy, is it accurate to quote your report that classified documents were found in quote, badly damaged boxes in his garage near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed. zappos box, and it empty bucket. is that correct? >> those courts do appear in the report >> so that's correct. answer is yes or these secure locations to store classified documents, they are not. >> okay. so we've got a former vice president who is established. well, willfully, purposefully retained cloud classified documents in order 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 unsecured places. we have a former vice president who will not suffer any consequences for all of these actions, all because we say, well, he's a well-meaning, forgetful man you know, a few are kind of a well-meaning forgetful nan that was driving a car and you forgot what you were doing a little bit. and you hit somebody and, kill them. i believe you'd 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, sopin much part of this department of justice justice friday, but not for me. special counsel, her 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? no. >> 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. >> i will not comment on that matter. >> well, i'm going to comment you the answer is yes special counsel, how are these two reports are the culmination in my mind of the department of justice's to standards to standards. an example, again, of the justice department being weaponized against conservatives you know, there's another piece to this. do while i've just a few seconds we know that when his ghostwriter was speaking him, he also did recordings. and when he did those recordings, it was clear, in fact, i'll try to quote this here. it was a month in 2017, a month after biden left as vp he was aware of top secret classified materials that were, quote downstairs. is that true? >> that is reflected in an audio recording? yes. it's reflected in an audio quick so sometimes you may be sleepy, sometimes he may be forgetful sometimes he may be cognitively impaired. there's no doubt about that but man, when it came to his personal legacy, the way he wanted to be remember to make sure that he was a big deal in plain english in the future, he was willingly and knowingly breaking the law and it's unfortunate that we have a department of justice that will treat one person one way and somebody else a different way. it's a sad day for america. thank you. mr. i. yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from california is recognized. >> sure. i want to ask you about some of the differences between the facts involving president biden prison trump. but before i do i would refer back to your opening statement in which you said that you did not disparage the president your report. but of course you did this berge, the president disparaged him in terms you had to know what have a maximal political impact you understood your report would be public, right? >> i understood. based on comments that the attorney general had made, that he had committed to make as much of my report public as consistent with legal policy and legal requirements and you could have chosen just to comment on the presence 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? >> 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 and then it was like questions alison it could have recommendation of by your report with his comments about his specific recollection as to documents or a set of documents. but you chose a general pejorative referenced the president. you understood what you made that decision, didn't you, mr. her, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn't you? >> congressman politics played no part whatsoever in my investigative steps. you understood nevertheless, weren't sure that mr.. mr. hurt, you? >> you cannot tell me you're so naive as to think >> your words who 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 by my colleagues here on the gop side of the island by president trump, you understood that, did you not? >> congressman what i understood is the regulations that govern my conduct. a special counsel and those regulations regulation right. and report for the attorney general which you knew would not be named and that's what i did, congressman after all the rules, you knew it would not be confidential. you knew would not be confidential, didn't you? >> sir? the regulations required me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the attorney general, which you knew would be released. it was up to the attorney general determine. >> understood. it would be released not released, consistent with doj policy, you understood it would be raised. >> you understood to be released. 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 you also understand doj policy that you were to take care not to prejudice the interests of the subject of an investigation, right? >> that is generally one of the interests that doj policy requires that prosecutors respect. >> and it was your obligation to follow that policy in this report was it not? >> it was also my obligation to write a confidential report for the attorney general explaining completely what you did, right. was deeply prejudicial to the interests 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, the president, one you knew would be amplified by his political opponent when you knew that would influence a political campaign, you had to understand that and you did it anyway, you did it anyway and let me just go 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 three 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? >> 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 of what you were are suggesting is that i needed to provide a different version of my report that would be fit for public release that is nowhere in the rules. i was to prepare a confidential report that was comprehensive and thorough of what is in the rules. >> mr. her, what is in the rules is you don't gratuitously do things to prejudice this subject of investigation when you're 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 a 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're instructed by their attorney to do that. if they have any question about it, you understood that you made a choice that was a political choice. it was the wrong choice. mr. chairman, i yield back kellman yields back, gentleman from arizona did does special counsel wish to respond to that and final question? yes, congressman, what you are suggesting? is that i shape sanitize, omit portions of my reasoning and explanation. the attorney general for political reasons? know i suggest that you not shape your word for political reasons, not just what you would not happen, sponsor that did not happen. gentleman yields back the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. hur for being here. thank you for your read it and i think where you and i might have disagreements. there may be matters of opinion not necessarily the facts as you reported them. so i want to i want to go over the elements of the offense that seem to have at least struck micros is where you put in here twice that the jury would not find not likely to find intentionality on the part of disclosure in particular. i want to talk about that for say. so. so it's not willful. we might say an accident something negligent or careless that would not necessarily rise to willful or intentional or or purposeful, right? >> those are different standards of intent under the law? yes, sir. >> yeah. >> so so when president biden misplaced 30 briefing documents in 2010, that had classified material and then they're not sure even if they ever got them all back or when he was in the hamptons part at a party and he lost what they were calling code words, which has high security information that wasn't necessarily willful. there was no indication that he purposefully did that accidental negligent you indicated don't know if we even got all that information back. >> we're assuming maybe we did that would not be willful, right >> as reflected in the report, there were certain categories of documents where when we looked into them, an how they got to where they ended up or how they ended up being misplaced. we did not identify evidence of willfulness. >> and so if something's willful, you wouldn't say it's ignorant. it's not incompetent, not accidental we'd say something like it's willful. this intentional is purposeful. it indicates really a choice you have made a deliberate, conscious decision to end to act in a certain way. is that fair? >> that is fair, congressman. and 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 and when you do it correct. >> so let's take a look at it and that's been brought up before in february of 2017? he's having the discussion with the ghostwriter. he says he said the virginia house at this point, he says, i just found all the classified stuff downstairs. right. so he knows he's got classified stuff. >> right? >> two months later in april. he's had a different location as my understanding i think he's i think he's now up in delaware. as you look at page let's look at 1.51, 06 here. he says, biden reads from a different notebook entry. he reads aloud from notes summarizing a range of issues. we're talking about us military and views expressed there and they tell by the intelligence community the dni, cia director and wileys, reading those notes. he says, i can't i can't read my own writing. you have any idea what the heck i'm saying here >> he asked the ghostwriter as well, something blah, blah, blah. and biden says this some of this may be classified so be careful. some of this may be classified to be careful. >> now, >> my immediate response was okay, so he knows he's got classified docs. he's looking at this. he can't read. he said he's giving this to somebody he knows. he has no security clearances read this, but be careful, it might be classified. in next thing, and the guy says, okay, next thing he says, well, i don't know if it's classified or not. i'm suggesting to you and this is the 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 that warning to be clarified, be careful because it may be classified that indicates guilty knowledge that indicates he might know something more than he otherwise would have and it indicates didn't they go on and read it as you point out here, he reads classified information and it's still classified today. that's on page 106 so when you look at this it's hard for me to say, well he was ignorant. he wasn't company was accidental. >> know he had guilty knowledge. he knew and told the guy that he's 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's classified but we're going to skip over this until that's resolved. he didn't do that. what he said is read it anyway, yield back tell me yields back the gentleman from california is recognized five minutes >> mr. her, i was moved by your parents, immigrate story. and how that has shaped you. and their story is a story that so many of us know through our constituents it's the story of america it's a story that the guy who appointed you would end if he was in charge against a story that most of the folks on the other side of the aisle seek to block every day in this room, but it's a story that's persuasive you want your report to be received with credibility. is that right >> my goal was to provide a thorough explanation decision to the attorney general is required to do. and i as i said, my opening statement, i felt that i needed to show my work and you want to be received as credible, right >> that would be helpful and laudable, yes. >> 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 350 us 350 million us taxpayer dollars over ukraine to get dirt on president biden. he was then peach the second time for inciting an insurrection he was charged for possessing classified documents and obstructing justice. he was charged for paying for the silence of a porn star. he was charged in georgia for his role in january 6. he was charged in the district of columbia for his role in january 6. he owes 400 million to the 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 congressman, i don't i'm not here to testify about what will happen considering when >> i just laid out, i'm here to here to talk about that. the report and the work that went into it. and you don't want to be associated with that guy again, do you >> 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 there were no limits on you as to what you could charge president biden by the attorney general. is that right >> the decisions that i made that reflected in the report or my own and you did not bring any charges. is that correct >> correct. >> there were no limits on john durham and his investigation of the prior administration when he was special counsel. is that right? >> i don't believe i have the information required to answer the question about the durham investigation 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 ten hours. is that right a little over five hours, congressman. over two days? >> correct. >> that's in sharp contrast to a guy who did not sit for an interview when the moeller 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 in january nearly six, and did not sit for an interview in the january 6 classified in the january 6 case or the classified documents case chairman, 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 de one, page 47 you said to president biden >> you have appear to have a photographic understanding and recall the house. did you say that to president biden? >> those words do appear on page 47 of the transcript >> photo graphic is what you said. is that right? >> that word does appear on page 47 of the transcript, never appeared in your report though, is that correct? the word photographic that does not appear in my report. i now want to show you in play a video of what is absolutely not photographic in the failing new york times by an anonymous, really an >> ominous, gutless coward. we are a >> nation that just recently heard the saudi arabian russia will repeat i hope they now go and take a look at the oranges. are the oranges of the investigate. and i watch our police and our fireman down and 711 down the world trade center. >> and we did with obama we want an election that everyone said couldn't be one. this is the very definition of totality terrorism. and let me begin by wishing you a beautiful let's luck to you. remember this jury member. god bless the united church, the windmills are driving him crazy. they're driving their, driving the gentle wales, i think a little baddie weeks. >> and i met with the president of the verdict the gentleman yields back the chair now recognizes the gentleman for north carolina >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. her, i'm way down here in the end of the dais >> i think >> today the justice department released the transcripts of the interviews with president biden. are you aware of? >> i understand that to be true, yes. >> did you have any involvement in the in the decision or the timing of the release of the transcripts know congress did you make any recommendation about the release of the transcripts are being done or not? >> i did not. that was above my pay grade. >> i don't know why there have been released so close to this hearing, but it sort of it impacts our ability to evaluate your report and asked you questions about. >> but >> there's one point, just as an illustration, on to 21 of your report, you're describing, i think the afghan pack or something like that about in 2009, i think as the information came from and you say it's one reason not to prosecute mr. biden 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. and footnote 866 is a reference and it refers to the biden ten transcript at 24.25. now we have that now, but we haven't until this morning. >> but i just want to read from that exchange. this is on page 24 at line 15. mr. crick ban. so this is a type written 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 09. 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 know? 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. but i don't even know where it came from. mr. crick bomb, 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. crick bomb 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 sub and that's the end. then it trails all >> so as i read that >> those answers there equivocal, he at first says he doesn't know. what do you recognize that to be a classification marking. he said no. and then goes on to explain. but then mr. craig ban came back and he said, are you aware that among certain categories of classes it's fine information. there's also a category of classified information called confidential and he says, i yes, i was aware of it. so mr. heard, 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 us answers that says no. and then he says yes. why didn't you pursue it until you knew 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. but 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. >> 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 i know of some, of some cherry picking because i've just found something. but we've 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. and i think i'll leave it at that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yield. the gentleman yield. >> i will yield the desert, but just real >> quick, mr. hurt, someone earlier said it said something about changing the facts. she said, i'm not going to change the facts, but let's keep the facts the same, but change the subject if you had the same facts and the individual that you were investigating was 65 and had a good memory. do you reach the same conclusion >> 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 assessed the evidence and the facts that i obtained and this investigation and make a judgment based on this set of evidence. fair enough to recognize the gentlelady from washington for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. special counsel? her thank you for being here. thank you for your work in your investigation. you reviewed more than 7 million documents and conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses including present biden. is that correct? >> yes. congresswoman. >> and you're 15 month investigation costs several million dollars and resulted in a comprehensive 345 page report was several dozen pages of appendices yes is a 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? correct. >> 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 present 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 usc 793e, which criminalizes willful retention or disclosure of national defense information is that correct? >> congresswoman, that is one statute that we analyzed. i need to go back and make sure that i take take note of a word that you used exoneration that is not a word or i'm gonna tell you with my question to ask because i'm going to continue with my questions. i noted her term ultimately reach i know that their sergeant evidenced existed such that that the likely to, you exonerate a conviction, i know they're not exam room full or it's as mr. hurts, my time thank you. i know that the term willful retention has a particular legal meaning and i want to make sure that that 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? that's correct. >> and to be very very >> sorry, congressman, that it was national defense it's information that's an important third element. >> okay. 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 our investor investigation, correct? >> my conclusion was that the admissible evidence was not sufficient to make conviction at trial. the probable outcome not sufficient. thank you. >> let me ask you about a few >> specific examples. so the american people are clear. one side, 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 of 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? >> that language does appear on the report. >> 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 retain such documents in his delaware home or home that he rented in virginia in 2017 in your report, you said that there was quote, a shortage of evidence and quote, for any wrongdoing and quote, other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute and quote, are those quotes correct? >> congresswoman, if you have particular page sites for those quotations, i'd be happy to confirm their intersection right up on the screen. >> with, respect to the two quotes that are on the screen in addition to this 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 rest, just going to get and you concluded that, quote, do not sufficient to convict and we declined to recommend prosecution. and those are your words in the report, correct? >> those words appear in that report. thank you. >> president biden's council discovered a different set of documents at the penn biden center in voluntarily turn them over to the fbi. those documents contain national security information, but you determined that you could not, in fact, proof prove that president biden willfully retain 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 we decline any criminal charges related to those documents and quote, correct? the language we decline any criminal charges related to those documents does appear at page 311 of the report. >> thank 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 >> that language does appear at page 325 of the report. >> so it seems to me that the crux of the report, the main stories 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.. mr. chairman, gentlelady yields back the gentlelady from indiana is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just thank you. special counsel for being here in this challenging times and i wanted to tell you a few things that his interests since for me you obviously could see that there is a there was and the laggards see, you obviously see that it was eventful retention of this documents but it's interesting for me that when you talk about sympathetic, well-meaning older man was poor, elderly man with a poor memory. it seems like every attorney would advise you to be sympathetic and developed meaning, and it seems like the whole fbi needs to based on my appearance here, i need to do check on amnesia because everyone says doesn't recall. so it seems to me that it might have been something way more in his recollection, does a typical i don't recall because that's what every scenes like that i've learned that here. so he's already was samson more than that? that just i don't recall something for you to actually decide because it seems that this is the core of the whole investigation by junior pursue. further the charges. >> congresswoman, my judgment as to how a jury would likely perceive and receive then consider evidence relating to relating to all the evidence that would be put in both 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 27 muntean timeframe, some from our interview, the president in october of 2023 i think what you're asking about specifically is how the president presented himself during his interview in october of 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. >> i hopefully he did in that smart you and all advice, but i do for a yield, i just wanted to actually just comment on samson, mr. raskin mentioned about, you know, is not tremendous remembering communists actually grew up under communist and i have a very good recollection what it is. and unfortunately, tyranny ions on the rise and the march which he said, unfortunately, they've been emboldened by president obama now by president biden to, and unfortunately, our government in department of justice is really now resembles you not tyrannical government had set for me to see that. but i'm going and was a real double standard. what we have there, but i'm going to yield to chairman jordan dye. so my time. thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. heard during your one-year investigation, did you have communications with the white house and the white house counsel in particular? >> yes. >> i think you had like i got five letters that they communicated with you regarding your investigation. is that accurate? we received a number of letters from white house counsel's office. and as well as the president's personal counsel, right. >> there. either special counsel or personal county so i see his signed the letters and did the white house get the report before the report was made public? >> 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 understand. >> and did the white house then once they got the report before it went public, did the white house tried to weigh in with your investigation on elements of that report and frankly, get the report, change. >> they did request certain edits and changes to the draft report. >> yeah, i see that in the february 5 letter, did they only correspond with you? >> i'm sorry, congressman, or are you asking if they congress if they corresponded with anyone else? >> once you gave the report to the white house? yes. they tried they saw changes. i have one letter here that's the address to you on february 5. and they said we're pleased that after more of year of investigating, you've determined that they respond to the report? and then they asked they disagree with your they asked for you to change some of the things you had your report, namely the fact that the president's memory was not very good. >> you remember that? >> yes, sir. >> okay. but i also have two other letters, one on february 7 to merrick garland, where they raised the same concern. and then on february 20, where they go to the dag, bradley weinsheimer, you familiar with those? >> i am familiar with those letters. bradley weinsheimer is an assistant or associate deputy attorney general. so should dag a dag, right? >> yes. >> and merrick garland courses the attorney general so you've from there with the fact that they went over your head they were certainly entitled to write whatever letters they wished to mr. weinsheimer end to the attorney general i just find that interesting. >> the white house is they're >> communicating with you throughout this one, your investigation. and then the white house says, oh, we're gonna, we're gonna go to the, we're gonna go to the principal's office and we're gonna we're gonna talk about mr. hur's report. you find that interesting as i said, that they were free to correspond with whomever on the federal government they wish 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 i understand. i think the gentlelady for healing and yield back the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. jordan. i wonder if first say that the house judiciary committee, who responsible for helping to enforce the rule of law unfortunately, the actions of this chairman, ignoring a bipartisan congressional subpoena have damaged the ability of this committee to get information from witnesses and damage the rule of law now, mr. hern, 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. there's simply designed to highlight what you already found in your report, which is that there are quote, material distinctions and quote between president biden's case and mr. trump's case so here's my first question. in your investigation that you find that president biden directed his lawyer to lie to the fbi? >> we identified no such evidence. >> did you find that president biden during his lawyer to destroy classified documents? know that you're finally president biden directed his personal assistant to move boxes of documents to hide them from the fbi no did you find that president biden directed his personal assistant to delete security camera footage after the fbi asked for that footage 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 no. did you find the present by to engage in a conspiracy to obstruct justice? >> no. >> did you find that president biden engaged in a scheme to conceal know each of the activities i just laid out, describe what donald trump did in his willful mishandling classified information is criminal efforts to the sea. the fbi in contrast, present biden handed over documents without delay and complied fully with investigators. ms a. hernia report, you write that quote, according to the indictment, trump now only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others. his story evidence and then to lie about it. and quote, you also say that if proven, these would be quote, serious aggravating facts, end quote. do you still stand by your analysis? >> i do. >> i have a few more questions as well. >> and you investigation did you find that president biden's set up a shell company and covertly paid $130,000 in hush money to adult porn star >> know. >> did you find that president biden during his lawyer, to pay $150,000 hush money to a former playboy model no. your investigations, you find the president biden called the georgia secretary of state. does man to demand that he quote find 11,007 or 80 votes? >> no. >> did you find the president biden devise a scheme to organize a slate of fake electors to undermine a free and fair election >> no. >> did you find that leading up to january 6, 2021, president biden urged his supporters to travel to dc and to storm the capitol no. >> thank you. >> each of these activities i laid out, describe what donald trump did is efforts to bully election officials, overturn the results of the election and to see if the american people, that is why donald trump has been indicted and not just one, not just to not just three, but four criminal cases i yield back >> gentleman yields back to jamon from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes >> i just want to go >> to a little repetition, mr. her, in regards to the chairman's questions from a few minutes ago. so it's a correct on that february 5 letter that was sent to you asking you to change references to the president's poor memory, wasn't their request by the white house to do that? there was a request, yes. >> and mr. chairman, i think the record should show that the gentleman from maryland earlier said that that was not 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's telling us differently here and dent the white house. >> then >> gold to the attorney general himself and say that he would like to see changes to the references in regards to the president's memory. >> the white house counsel did send such a letter. >> so if if this president was six years old rather than 80 years old would you prosecute him? >> congressman, as i've said before, i cannot engage in hypotheticals. i addressed the facts and the evidence as i found them, 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 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 congressman i don't know, the facts on the details of this other case that you're referencing with this other person, you say that the president is unlikely to re-offend in the future >> i believe that was a >> quote that you put in report. is that correct? >> believe that's in chapter 13. >> how so how is he unlikely to re-offend in the future? how do you come to that judgment >> as i say on page 254, any deterrent effect of prosecution would likely be slight. we are not concerned with specific deterrents. as we see, little risk, he will re-offend 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 an easy to say that that he's unlikely to re-offend because he's got almost unlimited authority to release these documents. >> well, that statement was based on that assessment of the likeliness of re-offending 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. >> yeah. but look at 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 i mean, that goes all the way back to two 1,011 congressman, what i'm saying in the report at page 254 is that he's have offender. mr. hur has any what i say, 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 safe regarding classified information, and he provided raw material to his ghostwriter, would be of interest to pursue prospective readers and buyers of his book. and i think you said something about he viewed himself as a historic figure correct? i believe those words do all appear on the report. >> and he was also doing this for business purposes, that there may be people that would want to buy his book towards? the end of his vice presidency, mr. biden had resolved to write a book and began work on it towards the end of his vice presidency. i think mr. chairman, this is really consistent with the biden family. when you look at them in trying to enrich themselves, i mean, you're familiar with the work that the oversight committee has done over the last year, right? >> i have read some reports of it. i mean, 20 phone calls that were made to his son that he denied in 2000 1920 shell companies that were created over $20 million. i mean, doesn't it appear there? there's a pattern here that we're i come from the almost call it money-grubbing >> congressman, what i'm here to testify about today is the work that i conducted in this investigation and in this report. >> so i want to thank you for work you did as far as you could but 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 and you see it in the things that the department of justice has not acted on, mr. chairman, i mean, you'd look at the president's son who does not have to answer for lying on his forum for 473. in regards to throwing a way a weapon, you see it with a department of justice fends off the irs when the whistleblowers come with this information. now we see it once again where a president and believes he is above the law and there is no doubt this president does believe he's above the law. i yield back, mr. chairman >> gentleman yields back the gentleman >> from california is recognized thank you, mr. chairman. mr. her, welcome. i also concur and let me echo what saudi been said by my colleagues that your personal story of being an immigrant, your family immigrants to this country the way you contributed to the greatness of this country shows why america's great. >> the >> great immigrant story. thank you for being here, sir. first question to you as you're a republican, i am sorry. does that stop you from a thorough and fair investigation >> i certainly hope not. and i know not this story is really approved for the old saying that the cover-up is worse than the crime president trump and president biden handle their classified materials differently, wouldn't you say? >> my report includes an assessment of the alleged facts in the pending indictment of former president trump, and a comparison to the facts that we found in this case. >> but clearly the handling of these documents was night and day correct. >> congressman, do you have a specific aspects of the handling of the documents that you have in mind? >> well, you know, president trump intentionally took classified materials and obstructed justice to ensure that those materials wouldn't be taken from him in refused to work with law enforcement. is that correct? >> my report reflects no findings of obstructive conduct on the part of me. >> asking another question, president trump has been indicted in the us district court of the southern florida on 40 counts related to his possession of classified documents. is that correct? >> i don't know the exact number of counts, but i know that an indictment is pending in that district mr. hur, you even wrote that after today after being given number of chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution mr.. i should say president trump allegedly did oppose. and 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 comparing contrasting and president trump. president trump turn classified documents over to the national archives. and the department of justice. any consistent consented to searching his home in other locations? wouldn't you say that's night and day when it comes to cooperation with law enforcement >> 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 investigator i would say president biden, you had his full cooperation in this investigation >> the report includes co-operative steps that the president took >> would this be a factor in your decision to prosecute? >> it was a factor and i explained it as such in the report, congressman and you stated that the recommendation not the prosecutor, had nothing to do with the department of justice policy, not to indict the sitting president. is that correct? >> what 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. her, have you set a new precedent here today >> to the extent that to the extent that the department of justice makes enforcement decisions or not enforcement decisions in particular cases, those are precedents, those are those are events that future prosecutors do look to in an endeavor to make sure that law, federal law is implied consistently over time >> mr. her, i'd say based on your education in your career experience, you're very, very competent prosecutor a very, very well-prepared to tourney. 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? >> no partisan politics said nothing to do with the work that i did or the report that i wrote or the decision that i reached. >> thank you very much for being here. i'm so chairman, i yield gentleman yields back gelmes from wisconsin is recognized attorney, her webster's dictionary defines senile as exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability, such as >> memory associated with old age. mr. her, based on your report, did you find that the president was senile? >> i did not. that conclusion does not appear in my report. congressman 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 or do you think his lawyers would argue is incompetent to stand trial? due to his state of mind also was was he in a place to actually be questioned? >> 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 are 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. >> very good. i'd like to focus my questioning on chapter 14, your report, the classified documents found at the penn biden center you state your report that the documents found at the penn biden center where the most highly classified sensitive in kharp compartmentalize materials recovered during your investigation, is that correct? that is correct. many of the documents came from mr. biden's west wing office. that's also correct as i believe that is reflected in the report >> did you ask if >> he had packed the boxes himself >> i believe that was one of the questions that we asked and that is reflected in the transcript now available to the committee i think it's important. how would you characterize the packing of these boxes? was it slow and meticulous or were they packed in haste without much scrutiny at all? >> i don't recall off the top my head exactly how we characterize it, but i think the gist of the evidence is that the manner in which files were packed up and moved out at the end of the obama administration, was in a it was in some something of a rushed manner. >> very good. >> according to your report, the boxes were moved between multiple offices between mr. biden departing is west wing office in january of 17 and his arrival at the penn biden centers permanent offices in october of 17 were any of these offices authorized to store classified information? no. >> when the box has finally arrived at the penn biden centers permanent offices how were they stored >> i believe when the >> materials were recovered, some of them were stored in a storage closet. i believe others of them were in file cabinet drawers but i'm sure for you to the report. what's your assessment of security and access control measures at the penn biden center? >> that was something that we looked at. there were some security access controls at the penn biden center, but we did get a handle on people who had access to the office space during the the time period when we believe the materials were there and there were other people, including students and some foreign dignitaries that visited that facility at the time. 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 correct. one of the president's personal counsel. >> and did mr. >> moore have some type of active security clearance at the time? >> no. >> how about the executive assistant at the penn biden center? know on page 265 years. i'm sorry, congressman, i may have misspoken there. i am not certain whether or not that executive assistant justin had an act of security clearance at the time. >> very good. on page 265, a year report, you stated when interviewed by fbi agents more 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. but an interview with mr. biden's executive assistant seem to contradict a statement do you remember this exchange and did did in fact it contradict each other? >> sorry, you're asking if i remember the exchange with mr. moore during our interview of him >> right. do you remember though do you remember them contradicting each other? >> i don't remember that contradictions specifically, but generally during the interviews, sometimes we heard things from some witnesses that were intention with what we heard from other witnesses and we did our best to resolve those those conflicts just very quickly in total, national archives discovered nine documents totaling 44 pages with classification markings. is that correct? from the penn biden center? yes. and you declined charges because in summarizing your analysis, you couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that retention of the documents was willful correct, sir? >> very good. yield back down, yields back gentlelady from pennsylvania recognize >> thank you. and thank you, mr. hur, for your testimony today >> with all >> the posturing that we've 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? >> you did. congresswoman. okay. >> your report also says, in addition to this shortage of evidence there are other innocent explanations for the documents. we have not been that we have not been able to refute. did i read that correctly >> congresswoman, if you would give me a page citation, age 66 yes. >> i see that language on page six. okay. 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? >> he did. >> and his team notified authorities when they discovered classified documents and he turned them over immediately. is that correct? yes. >> he consented to multiple searches of his home and other properties. is that correct? correct >> and he voluntarily sat for an interview with you, is that correct? correct. >> but 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. and he obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about it. is that correct? correct. >> now, you note in your testimony that the specific comments you made about president biden's memory had gotten a lot of attention. and as we've seen today, are republican colleagues are again and again trying to weaponize those comments in a cheap attempt. to score political points. but as someone who's participated in trials, you know that witnesses, regardless of age, often have difficulty recalling specific statements are facts when asked about them many years after after those facts. so let's take a quick look at a differing witness. experiencing a lapse in memory during a deposition >> your next wife was a woman by the name of marla maples >> and she here today, do you recall what years you were married to ms maples >> would have to get the exact dates view. i can my correct. that you married your current wife in january 2000? >> i don't know relative to that. and what years were you the on are the possible or deal know the use james webb? >> i don't remember the names. you'll remember the neck. so you don't remember saying one of the best one? i don't remember that i have i know i remember you telling me, but i don't know that 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 and a response to questions from i'm counsel robert mueller. he answered, 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? yes, correct >> i'm not sure said that i said those words exactly but 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. >> 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 have failed to make an assessment of whether the jury would find mr. trump to be a credible witness? >> i don't i don't have any information relating to what how i'm not qualified basically to answer that question as to what went into mr. smith's decision-making? >> but you are qualified to say, what are the normal procedures followed by a special counsel, correct? >> i'm familiar with the rules as set forth in the justice manual and my understanding of how to apply them. >> and in fact, what you did correct. okay. >> 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 this point, i would ask you nancymace consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the committee's transcribed 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 and 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. depp, antonio himself could not documents given their high security clearance, despite being the assistant director in charge of the fbi, washington field office thank you. out objection. gentlelady yields back. gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm quite interested in the dates that are set forth in your report mr. hern reason i'm interested is because i keep getting confused between the 2017 date into 2024 date as to the condition of the president's memory and 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. but there's never any distinction made, but isn't it true that if you're going to be looking at his i'd prosecuting as you were you would look carefully at his condition in 2017, isn't that the proper time? because i think you say in your report that the most your best-case i think you call it out the best case for charges would rely on mr. biden's possession of afghanistan documents, industry genya home in february 2017 when he was a private citizen. and when he told his ghostwriter, you just found classified material that's the best-case as you say it? yes. and >> then you work your way through a series of defenses against your best-case. so you're looking at just conditioned in 2017. do i have that right? you do. >> in his memory was bad then? what's we can make draw conclusions whether it improved over the next six years or not. but 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 the list of defenses that is his memory is bad. his memory is bad, has memory is bad. there's about six or seven defenses here. and so when it gets me to is this question and i actually pulled this quote out of so they read what this this morning that perhaps your report concluded and perhaps it did not, that the president is quote, incapable of being held accountable. but that's not quite what happened, is it you didn't find that he was incapable of being held accountable, did you? >> i did not. those words did not appear in my report that they do not. >> but you reached a conclusion that you didn't have the evidence, but 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? >> congressman i wrote my report as an explanation of my decision to decline charges as to president biden and 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 and 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, and 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 2,016.20, 17 from the ghostwriter because if i may forgive me for interrupting, but i'm limited on time as everybody else was. but you say, i think that the evidence suggests he is incapable of forming or urine capable of proving intent there's a bit of a difference there, right? you may well have had the intent, but you could not holding these these documents and i hate to say hiding the documents. but you can't you couldn't prove it. so what you did instead is fell back to the various defenses that might also be asserted against you a heap of rationale for not pursuing the president. does that is that do i have it right now? 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 we this is of their case is to think through, hey, in the government's case in chief, here's the evidence we're going to work on at present, and the jury might be with us, maybe maybe another, but that's not the end of the trial. the trial also has to include presentation from the defense lawyer. you are you're correct. i'm a lawyer tried cases, so i get it that your report is not an exoneration so much as the determination that the evidence is you saw it would not overcome the defenses that you had identified. plus, whatever lack of evidence you perceived. so it's not an exoneration, is it? the word exoneration does not appear any in my report, and that is not my conclusion. >> the other the other thing is so interesting. i think you were misquoted you, you said something about or someone it was mr. raskin suggested that you i'm gonna run out of time, but i appreciate i appreciate the work you do as a prosecutor and a yield back gentleman yields back, mr. herb, we've been out this close to three hours. we will. if you can hang with this, we'd like to keep going. there's a chants we could complete votes by the time we have to go to votes on the house floor, which would be about 01:40 i can keep going, chairman. okay. then we'll try to will try to do that. there's a chance we may not to, but i just wanted you to know the lay of the land. now, you'll to the gentleman from colorado thank you. mr. chairman. thank you, mr. hurt, for your testimony and for your services. a prosecutor at the department of justice. i want to focus a bit more on the progress of the investigation. some process questions. so you were appointed by attorney general garland, a special counsel to investigate the president's handling of classified documents in january of 2023? right? correct. and attorney general garland, of course, as you know nominated by president biden to serve in his role. >> correct. >> during your 15 month investigation, did the attorney general attempt to interfere with your investigation? no. >> did he impede your >> investigation in any way? know did any other member of the department of justice or within the administration refused to cooperate with your investigation? >> no. >> were you ever denied access to materials, witnesses, resources? from attorney general garland that you might have needed during the investigation? no you submitted i think this is right. that your final report to attorney general garland on february 5 of 2024? >> correct? right. okay. >> and it was then released publicly three days later on february 8, 2024. is that right? i believe that's true, yes. >> in the final report that was released, where any of your substantive findings redacted or changed in any way? >> no >> none of your findings >> were modified by the attorney general know did the attorney general issue any kind of statement or a letter? attempting to describe the contents of your report? >> no. okay. >> you're familiar? i know. i'm sure with the investigation that was conducted by special counsel muller years ago, with respect to the former president? >> yes. >> and 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 on the nature of that particular investigation. are you familiar with the way in which he released that report and characterized it >> yes. okay. >> very different from the way that attorney general garland conducted this particular release. i take it you'd agree with that? >> they were not the same approach? >> not the same approach, right? in the case of attorney general garland know impeding or interfering with your investigation in any way 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 muller 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 he 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? >> attorney general garland did not interfere with my efforts and i was able to conduct a fair, thorough, and independent investigation. >> 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. >> gentleman yields back gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes with a gentleman yield for ten seconds down from yesterday i would just point out to the dome of cholera is last point there was one big difference bill barr didn't named bob molar as a special counsel molar was named by rod rosenstein. that's that's a huge difference in how this whole thing works. i now yield back to the gentleman from alan mann. >> thank you, ms chairman. missed her in your report, you cited principles of federal prosecution and observed that not quote historically after leaving office, many former presidents and vice presidents have knowingly taken home sensitive materials related to national security for their administrations without being charged with crimes. and this historical record is important context for judging whether to charge a former vice president our and our former president unquote. >> why is examining this history so important >> congressman, not 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? >> has there been an exception to this and the history of the nation? and we charged any former >> presidents, as i state in the report, to my knowledge, there is only one exception and that is former president trump given the history. >> is it fair to say is preferable not to charge a former president or vice president for allegedly mishandling classified documents in your opinion >> congressman, i can't articulate a preference whether it's preferable. all i can talk about is the work that i did, the facts that i found, the decision that i reached in my case, mr. wesa it's in the us senator having documents and a former president of the united states >> for purposes of proving willfulness. i believe that there would be a number of differences in terms of the types of access and the ease with which presidents while in office can access classified information as compared to the access privileges that senators have. >> can president's declassified documents that they have in their possession? >> i believe under certain circumstances, yes. former presidents as well? >> congressman i confess i'm not this is not an area of the law that i've looked into or explained in my report and i'm here to talk about the work that is reflected in the report well, let me say this or you have a reputation beyond reproach and i just want you to know that and i think that president biden ought to be thankful that the attorney general appointed you to investigate his case but you have a special counsel colleague by the name of jack smith, who cannot lay claim to such a reputation, isn't that right? >> i have no opinion. i don't have anything to say about in fact, jack smith who biden justice, attorney general garden garland, appointed to investigate president trump has a reputation according to deep rooted reporting from washington times as an overzealous prosecutor who realize ethically our own ethically dubious tactics unquote. and his prosecutorial record is replete with a quote with a quote, let me say this string of mistrials and overturn convictions, actually, chief justice roberts wants rebuke mr. smith's prosecutorial prosecutorial theory as a boundless interpretation of federal bribery statute that did not comport with the text of the statute or the president of this court, according to the supreme court, justice. and so my question is, do you think in the case of jack smith do you think justices biden when he's looking at president trump since we've never done this in the history of the country, has justice truly blind? >> sir? i'm not here to express any opinions with respect to a pending case against another defendant. i was i'm here to talk about the work that i it did with respect the investigation relating to president biden, this terminology of the balance of my time >> due to this conclusion congressman jordan, i'm sorry. the mic was turned on its way through your new explain what specifically in your interview with president biden led you to this conclusion the conclusion about odd statement that's been cited many times the totality of the time that i spent with the president during his voluntary interview was something that i certainly considered in in framing my assessment and articulating in the report, and 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. >> and i guess i'm asking specifically, i know you cite in the reported the dates that he couldn't you remember when he was vice president when he began when his term ended, you cite that in report. is there anything else specifically that stands out from that interview with the president a number of things stand out. and again, i'm aware that the transcript has 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 our voluntary interview. so it was a wealth of details about being there in the moment with the president, including his inability to recall britain, things. and 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 read what would brief the brief look ahead at the transcript it's morning because we just got it this morning. i saw some of that. you're not recognize the gentlelady from texas, or excuse me. that's the way i'm justi been down there, i didn't leave from pennsylvania, got an upgrade thank you, mr. hart. thank you, chairman. thank you, mr. hern, for your service to our country, for your teams 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? >> yes. >> that's the bottom line of this report, am i correct? >> that is the first sentence. >> it's the first sentence in 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 >> reach the decision based on the totality of the reasons that i set forth at length in my room based on the evidence and while mr. trump, who is being prosecuted is not sympathetic, you didn't calibrate any of that in their sympathetic, not sympathetic doesn't matter. it's the evidence, right? >> 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 relevant precedents 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? >> i believe if those exact words did not appear on the report, that is consistent with the gist of my conclusion. >> very good. they are that your exact words? that was not the case with donald trump. you have a copy of your report today. don't you? in front of you? i read a portion of it for me your words. it is page 11, starting online three beginning with the words. unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, would you read the next few sentences >> unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of mr. trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts >> keep going >> congresswoman, i'm happy to have you read the words in my rib.

Related Keywords

Documents , Officials , Diaries , Some , Department Of Justice , Home , Handwriting , Statements , Person , Administration , Mr , Report , Reagan , Being , Chairman , Counsel , Letter , Request , Counsel Hur , September 11 , 11 , Chair , Merrick Garland , Objection , Yields , Joe Biden , Vice President , Words , Materials , Law , Office , Senate Foreign Relations Committee , United States Senate , 50 , Eight , Five , Rules , Fact , Page , Situation Room , 226 , Trump , Jack Smith , Measures , Armstrong , Role Rules , Sources , Data , Methods , Conclusion , One , Decision , Attorney General , Charges , Word , Matter , Motive , Motivations , Us , 31 , Information , Notebooks , Procedures , Book , Ghost Writer , Meeting , Sir , Top , Head , Amount , 1 , , 8 Million , Guy , Reasons , Million , Hur S Report , Money , Wasn T , Book Advance , Thing , This Is It Wasn T , Quote , Record , Vice Presidency , Down , Legacy , World Leader , Moments , 8 , Pride , Motives , Ego , Evidence , Language , Statement , Assessments , Hur He , Man , Part , Right , Executive Summary , Timber , 200 , Risk , Opening Statement , Damage , Way , Swider , Laptop , Special Counsel , Zwonitzer , Files , Audio Recordings , Conversations , Computer , We Haven T , Classified Information , Mind , Ms , Takeaway , Gentleman , Line , Raskin , Maryland , Reason , Independence , Ranking Member , Opinion , Guns , Questions , Cooperation , Crisis , Homes , Justice , Prosecution , Conduct , Indictment , Chances , Opposite , Avoid , President , Judgment , Others , Differences , Troy Evidence , Non Cooperation , Memory Specialists , Impeachment Investigators , Colleagues , Contrast , High Crimes And Misdemeanors , Diagnoses , Ninja Hecklers , Freedom Caucus , Devastating Extemporaneous Revpar Te , Soaring Oratory , Powerful Historical Analysis , Question , Estate , State Of The Union , Country , Court , Issue , Distraction , Display , Faces , Losses , New York , 91 , World , Tyrants , Dictators , Embrace , Viktor Orban , Romance , 1 Billion , Memory Test , Dictator , Russia , Friends , Vladimir Putin , Kgb , North Korea , Wall , Communism , Parents , Totalitarianism , Fascism , Sacrifices , Nazism , Generations , Games , Pin , Grandparents , Tail , Donkey , Authoritarian Hustler , Presidency , Penny , Single , Ukraine , Mar A Lago , Spectacle , Wool , Eyes , Ban Winds , Cult Followers , Crimes , Misdemeanors , Wins , League Against American Democracy , Choice , Amature Memory Specialists , Side , Tyranny , Will America Stand , Valley Forge , People , Thousands , Aggression , War , Slaughter , Children , Murder , Kidnapping , International Law , Human Rights , Attack , Civilians , Around The World , Address , Direct , Memory Detectives , Dictatorship , Theocrats , Autocrats , Kleptocrats , White House , Employees , Number , Oversight Committee , Oversight Committee Interviews , Comer , Figure , Mishandling , Hurt , Leadership , Year Investigation Chairman Comer , Thorough Lins Investigation , Course , Interviews , Dana Remus , Hand , Ramos , Subset , Raman , 173 , White House Counsel , Barack Obama , Effort , Remiss , Fed , 2022 , 257 , May 2022 , Activities , Penn Biden Center , Inquiries , Purpose , Biden Family , 2019 , 2017 , Family , Lawyers , Business Dealings , Involvement , Relevance , Position , Inquiry , Anything , Wealth , Sets , Bowl , It , Interests , Table Chart , List , Appendix A , Influence , Shame , Aspects , Interview , Transcript , Recording , Questioning , Description , Practice , Fact Record , Penn Biden Center Employee , Goma , Annie Tomasini , Investigation Chairman , Employee , Acini , 2021 , Places , Director , Oversight Committee Interviewed Kathy Chung , Name , Footnote , Department Of Defense , Oval Office Operations , 973 Okay The , 973 , Vice President Biden , Chung , Assistant , June 2022 , Two , Investigation , Subject , Substance , November 2022 , 259 , References , Text , Executive Assistant , Penn Biden Center Employees , Anthony Bernal , 988 , Individuals , Discovery , Occasions , Sources Information Out , Priority , Recordings , Yes , Count , Attorneys , Visits , Yield , Break , Chapter , Gonna Go , Texas , Herrera , 14 , Jackson Lee , Are , Transcripts , Lot , Republicans , Jordan , 90 , Facts , Reading , Allegations , Argument , Straws , Fbi , Handling , Black , System , Correct , Witnesses , 147 , October 7 , Israel , Hamas , 7 , 2023 , October 7 2023 , Answers , 9 , October 8 , October 9 , Investigators , Congresswoman , Internet , Houses , Consent , Search , Residence , Records , Review , Videos , Text Messages , Emails , 7 Million , Notes , Government Agencies , Agencies , Community , Working , National Security Experts , Reviews , Classified Document , Respect , Excerpts , Former , Notebooks For Classification Review , Classification , Level , Purposes , Identified Agency , Levels , Mpi , Appendix Appendices , Classification Review , Document , Agency , Let Me Go On , Equities , Retention , Possession , Removal , January 12 2023 , 12 , Matters , Many , Biden S Home Delaware , Appointment Order , Resources , Recommendation , He Shouldn T , Office Of Legal Counsel , Unrestrained , Steps , Policy , Presidents , Order , Jets Security Org , The Real One , Gentlelady , Janet Mills , Florida , February 8 , Stuff , Findings , Filing Cabinets , Allies , Garage , Wasn T True Either , Elements , Violation , Criminal , Box , Senile Cooperator Theory , Met , Answer , Conviction , Elevator , Floor , Isn T , Don T Think Trump , Congressman , Lie , Doubt , Element , Jury , Statute , Intent , I Don T Quibble , He Hasn T , Craft , Things , Concern , Governments , Place , Bottom , Example , Countries , Analysis , Play , Funding , Chinese , Biden Center At Upenn , Extent , Recovered , Show Culpability , Ghostwriter , Obstructing Justice , Well , Brief , Everybody , Admissions , Happenstance , Somebody , Standard , Crimes Doesn T Count , Lifelike Deleting , Obstruction Of Justice , Wasn T Biden , Americans , They Weren T , Zhuan , Hearing , Picture , Director Mueller , Herb , The Big Picture , Tennessee , Special Prosecutor , Trump Campaign , Connection , Story , Archives , Trump Case The Biden , Circumstances , Prosecutor , Crime , Rise , Appointee , Misconduct , Job , Barr , Job Mr , The Thing , Didn T Redact , Everything , Actions , Counsels , Muller , 180 , Pressure , Vice Presidents , Staff , Exception , Finding , Special Prosecutors , Experience , Regard , Duties , Work , Basis , Pressuring , Frame , Decisions , Comment , Knowledge , White , Best , Testimony , January 20 , January 20th , 2009 , 20 , 22009 , January The 20th , Beau Biden , Instant , January 20 2017 , Public , Investments , Hypotheticals , Prosecutors , Discrepancies , He Didn T , Declination Decision , Memory , Biden Sat , Difference , Them , He Wasn T Chosen , Case , Middle Class , Democracy , Freedom , Russians , Values , Entry , 64000 , 4000 , Something , Social Security , Dealing , Peaceful , Medicaid , Medicare , Net Nyu , Kind , Seniors , Institutions , Memory Disability , Help , Nobody , Lots , California S , Gentlemen , Conclusions , Sides , Senator , 40 , 30 , Senility , Non Centrality , Set , Point , Willfulness , Guilt , Task , Front , The End , Cation , Before , Forgetful Man You Know , Pattern , Personal , Cases , Batting Average , 1000 , Career , Ones , On , Plea , Someone , Assessment , Trial , Idea , Outcome , Wrong , Housekeeping , Aren T , Freedom Of Information Act , Members , Folks , Views , Note , Cabinet , Pra , Individual , Copies , Behind , None , Left Behind , Law Degree , Georgia , Stanford University , Kaczynski , Executive Editor , Student , Clerk , Stanford Law Review , Ninth Circuit , Daddy Bush Department Of Justice , Federalist Society , William Rehnquist , Special Assistant , United States Supreme Court , Clerkship , Member , Assistant Attorney General , Christopher Wray , Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General , Rod Rosenstein Isn T , Attorney , District , Principal Deputy , Nowhere , Report On Whether , Appointment , Congress , The National Archives , Team , Disclosure , Council , Contrasts , Comparisons , Response , Narrative , The American People Saw , Didn T You , Suggestion , Assistance , Aren T You , Politics , Aspirations , Think Dallas , New Jersey , Bit , Well Meaning , History , Focus , Vision , Afghanistan , End Quote , Old Man , Effect , Means , Report Conference , Yes Or No , Image , A Hernia Report , Boxes , Report Yep , Zappos Box , Courts , Locations , Dog Crate , Bucket , Dog Bed , Stature , Cloud , Consequences , Car , Forgetful Nan , Everyone , Light , Standards , Appearance , Friday , Sopin , Retaining , Special Counsel Smith , Culmination , To Standards , Conservatives , Piece , Justice Department Being Weaponized , Vp , Left , Quote Downstairs , Audio Recording , Audio , Deal , English , Biden Prison Trump , Impact , Terms , Berge , Comments , Requirements , Recall Vis A , Recollection , Firestorm , Pejorative , Weren T Sure , Regulations , Regulations Regulation , Island , Report Public , Care , Obligation , Specifics , Wasn T Political , Opponent , Campaign , Three , Subpoena , Grand Jury , Trump Indictment , The Grand Jury , Release , Version , Add Language , Vis A , Don T Gratuitously , Nothing , Events , Witness , University , Back , Wish , Arizona , Kellman , Explanation , Reasoning , Portions , Disagreements , Hur , Micros , Offense , Intentionality , Say , Particular , Purposeful , Accident , Material , Briefing Documents , Party , Hamptons , 2010 , Security Information , Code Words , Indication , Categories , Ignorant , Fair , Look , Discussion , Doing , February Of 2017 , Understanding , Virginia House , Location , Issues , Notebook Entry , Range , Delaware , Page Let S Look , 06 , 1 51 , Military , Writing , Heck , Wileys , Cia , Intelligence Community The Dni , Blah , Something Blah , Security Clearances , Classified Docs , Warning , 106 , He Wasn T Company , Charge , Most , Constituents , Aisle , Room , Credibility , Goal , Dirt , 350 Million , 2018 , 350 , Role , Porn Star , Insurrection , Silence , Taxes , Rapist , District Of Columbia , January 6 , 400 Million , 6 , I Don T , Limits , Opinions , John Durham , Durham Investigation Well , Ten , Committee Room , Judiciary Committee , Impeachment , Six , De One , 47 , Photo , Photographic , New York Times , Video , Anonymous , Nation , Oranges , Take A Look , Gutless Coward , Saudi Arabian , Election , Investigate , Police , World Trade Center , Definition , Fireman , Couldn T Be One , 711 , United Church , Jury Member , Let , Windmills , Terrorism , Luck , God , Wales , Baddie , Verdict , North Carolina , Dais , Pay Grade , Timing , Ability , Pack , Illustration , 21 , Marking , Addition , Footnote 866 , Reference , Confidence , 24 25 , 866 , Type Written Document , Exchange , Crick Ban , 15 , 24 , Confidential , Stamp , Am Embassy Kabul , November 09 , 09 , Category , Classification Marking , Doesn T , Crick Bomb , Secret , Else , Memo Sub , Craig Ban , Classes , House Judiciary Committee , Summary , Discrepancy , Instance , Guidance , Heard , Efforts , Inspection , Quality , Cherry Picking , Department , Gentleman Yield , Process , Same , Desert , 65 , Lines , Washington , Pages , Appendices , 345 , Sentence , Exoneration , Laws , Defense , Espionage Act , 18 Usc 793e , 793 , 18 , Term , Sergeant , Meaning , Exam Room , Hurts , Defense Information , Second , First , Beyond A Reasonable Doubt , Investor Investigation , Binders , Examples , Event , Delaware Home , 2014 , Charlie Rose , Troop Surge , Explanations , Wrongdoing , Quotes , Screen , Intersection , Quotations , Page Sites , Convict , Mistake , Security , Proof , 311 , Papers , University Of Delaware , Stories , Crux , 325 , Times , Indiana , Laggards , Amnesia , Doesn T Recall , Core , Scenes , Junior , Government , Both , October Of 2023 , 2016 , 27 , Manner , Color , Samson , Advice , Biden To , Tyranny Ions , Gentlelady For Yielding , Double Standard , Jordan Dye , Letters , Communications , County , Draft , Change , Anyone Else , Edits , 5 , February 5 , More , Changes , February 7 , Deputy Attorney General , Dag , Associate , Bradley Weinsheimer , February 20 , Courses , Gonna Go To The Principal S Office , Gonna Go To The , Whomever , Gonna , Special Counsel Regulations , Oversight , Healing , Rule Of Law , Hern , Immigrants , Immigrant , Series , Lawyer , Material Distinctions And Quote Between President Biden S , Personal Assistant , Footage , Campaign Aide , Clearance , Military Operation , Security Camera , Map , Scheme , Know , Conspiracy , Willful Mishandling , Delay , Sea , Story Evidence , Hush Money To Adult Porn Star Know , Shell Company , 30000 , 130000 , Georgia Secretary Of State , Investigations , Hush Money , Playboy , Votes , Model , 150000 , 11007 , 50000 , 80 , Electors , Dc , Slate , Capitol , Supporters , Biden Devise , January 6 2021 , Each , Results , Jamon , Wisconsin , Little Repetition , Four , Regards , 13 , 254 , 2011 , 1011 , 20 Million , 1920 , 2000 , 0 Million , 473 , 17 , 265 , 44 , Nine , 66 , January 2000 , 35 , July 7 2023 , 2024 , February 2017 , Seven , 2016 20 , 01 , January Of 2023 , February 5 Of 2024 , February 8 2024 ,