That you read. Moat notably given the chance to avoid prosecution, mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and to lie about it. You may stop there. Thank you, you mentioned the indictment against mr. Trump for mishandling classified sensitive security information. That indictment says tend of his presidency, mr. Trump im looking for my indictment here i have it here. Mr. Trump himself ordered that boxes containing classified materials go to maralago. Where he hosted Tens Of Thousands of guests. Then he kept the sensitive materials carelessly about the property as you can see here. Classified documents ended up in a bathroom. A ball room, on a floor strewn about. And when a grand jury subpoenaed the documents, what did donald trump do . The indictment again shows against him what he responded by. Suggesting that his attorney falsely represent that the fbi and grand jury that he did not have documents called for by the subpoena. He directed his Employ Waltteen Nada to move boxes of the documents to conceal them from mr. Trumps attorney and then lie to his attorney and the fbi and the grand jury. Suggesting his attorney might hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury investigation. Mr. Hur, are those the type of aggravating facts to which you referred to in your report . Congresswoman, the aggravating facts that are referred to in the report are set forth and described in my report at page 11. Very good. Mr. Hur, to the best of your knowledge, and investigation, did President Biden ever direct an employee to lie about, hide or destroy Classified Information, yes or no . We did not identify such evidence. Did he do so himself . We did not identify such evidence. I want to give you a chance since the transcript is out to correct the record on an important point. Very sadly, your report on page 208 says mr. Biden couldnt come up with the date, the year of his son beau bidens death when in fact it shows that you asked him the month, do you know what he said, mr. Hur, he said, oh, god, may 30th. Would you like to correct the record. His memory was pretty firm on the month and day. I dont believe thats correct with respect to the transcript if you can refer to a specific page, ill be happy to report. I read about it. Thank you, i yield back. Chair recognizes mr. Conway. Mr. Hur, why did the white house ask you to remove parts of the report . What was the reason they gave you for that . I dont have the letter in front of me, congressman. I believe among the reasons was that they contested or asserted that certain language in the report was inconsistent with doj policy. The day that your report came out, the president gave a live News Conference on national television. Did you watch the News Conference . I watched the press conference, yes. What was your reaction to having the president personally attack you and your team . Congressman, im here to talk about the report. It wasnt just the president , anthony coley, former spokesman for Merrick Garland said that democrats should focus their ire on her. Bob bower said the report is a shabby piece of work and shoddy work product. Do you agree with the characterization of your report. I disagree vehemently with your report. I also disagree, i think its well rein and comprehensive. Do you think its appropriately for the administration to be attacking the work of Special Counsel of the work that he contacted itself . Congressman, im not going to talk about the propriety of my report. Today, the Ranking Member started the statement by saying mr. Hur completely exonerated President Biden and call the record a total exoneration. Mr. Hur, did you exonerate President Biden . That is not what the report does. So the statement by the Ranking Member was incorrect . Yes. As i said, the report is not an exoneration. That word does not appear in my report. Based on facts and anticipation of offenses presented in your report, could a reasonable juror have noted to convict . As i said in the report some reasonable jurors may have reached the inferences that the government would present in its case in chief. So a reasonable juror would have voted to convict based on the facts . Correct. If you were on the jury, would you have voted to convict . I have not engaged in that thought exercise, congressman what id like to stick to whats in the report which is my assessment as a prosecutor. Sure. What you did find in the report, the president , page 200 risked serious damage to Americas National security, through his handling, and mishandling of classified materials. You identified, quote, a strong motive for the way he handled those motives two of the motives his entire to run for president and sell books. So a reasonable inference for your report is that the president risked serious damage to Americas National security in order to make money and advance his personal political ambitions, is that correct . Report includes a description of the evidence and different inferences that reasonable jurors could draw from the inference. And you also note that its described his predecessors handles of reports as totally irresponsible. And concluded that the documents unsecured in one tone is totally irresponsible and applies equally to his own decision, is that correct . That language does appear in the report. You cite as a Mitigating Factor the fact that the president cooperated in the investigation. But at the time that the investigation was happening, and acts of cooperation occurred, the maralago was already a matter of public record, correct . I believe thats correct. We already had a public debate about the application and criminal laws to that general set of circumstances . I think thats fair. So the president whether he decided to cooperate or not cooperate, had to know that decision to cooperate or not cooperate would become known to the public and he would be judged accordingly, is that correct . Im not in a position to opine what was or in the president s but its in your analysis as to whether or not it counts as a Mitigating Factor, he knew he was going to have to be judged based on whether he cooperated or not that would mitigate its value as a Mitigating Factor did that lessen its value . One took a comprehensive that specific factor. That, and all facts relating to the president s cooperation with our investigation. Another fact that you it discussed is deterrence. You say deterrence in fact against bringing charges here you said as for general deattorneys, future president s and Vice President s are likely to be deterred by the multi time recent criminal investigations and one prosecution of current and former president and Vice President s for mishandling classified documents. And that one prosecution, of course, is the indictment brought by jack smith. So, by the very terms of your analysis, jack smiths indictment actually counted against bringing charges in this case, is that correct . Im sorry, congressman, i dont follow your drift there. Well, you said theres already deterrence, because theres prosecution out there in a prior case related to classifies documents so we dont need to bring another case to establish value. That was the essence of your analysis, correct . Congressman, what ill say is i will stand by the way and the specific words in which i characterize my assessment of Deterrence Value of a case under principles of federal prosecution thats on page 254 and 255 of my report. My time out. The application here is that the administration by the very terms of your analysis actually made it less likely that the president would face charges by jack smith bringing an indictment. Thank you, i yield back. Mr. Chairman, i have unanimous consent request. Okay. Thank you, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents. First the superseding indictment against donald trump in the Southern District of florida, where he is currently facing criminal charges on 40 points including Obstruction Of Justice, lying to the fbi, his unlawful, willful retention of National Defense without objection, the indictment is prejudiced. The concealment of documents from Law Enforcement, among other things. That was the shortened version. And my second document, to classify for you, sir, mr. Hur, from the transcription, page 82. The words are President Bidens. What month did beau die, oh, god, may 30th. I ask for consent. The gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. Thank you Ranking Member for this hearing and thank you so much for spending so much time with us Special Counsel Hur. In accordance with the law, Classified Information must be treated with the highest respect and protected. And President Biden has made it clear during this investigation and long before that he agrees. In response to mr. Hurs report he says, and i quote, over my career in public service, ive always worked to protect americas security. I take these issues seriously. And no one has ever questioned that, end quote. The Special Counsels report makes clear that this is unfortunately a common occurrence for classified documents to get swept up into members of congress or executive branches, officials personal effects. And as soon as President Biden discovered that he had mistakenly kept classified material, he took swift and immediate action to make sure that those materials were returned. And he fully cooperated with every step of your investigation. President bidens predecessor, when dealing with the issue of having classified materials took very different steps. 2016, donald trump declared, and i quote, im going to enforce all the laws concerning the protection of Classified Information. No one will be above the law. End quote. Yet, when his lawyer told him that it was going to be a crime if he didnt return the classified documents that he had after nra, doj, and the fbi requested multiple times that trump return the classified documents, yet, he hid them. Trump himself acknowledged that the same year that Service Members have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country. Yet, he decided that his desire to keep these documents outweighed the potential loss of life for these people, if those papers got out. Not only did trump have a legal obligation, he also had a moral obligation to all of us, and he failed to live up to that. Mr. Hur, thank you for being here today. Id like to talk about your report regarding President Biden and some of your findings. And for the sake of time, if you dont mind just answers yes or no. Please answer this question. Page 187, your report reads at no point did we find evidence that mr. Biden intended or had reason to believe the information would be used to injure the United States or to benefit a foreign nation. This is what you reported. For the second time, please answer yes or no. Congresswoman, you said page 187. Of your report, yes. Yes, at no point, did we find evidence, yes that language is on page 187. So this is what you reported, correct . That language is in my report. Mr. Hur, you acknowledge on page 12 of your report there are as you said numerous previous instances in which marked classified documents had been Discovereded Intermixed with papers from congress. Please confirm this is what you reported . That language appears on page 12 of my report. Page 323 also reads as a matter of Historical Context there had been numerous previous incidents in which marked classified documents have been discovered enter mixed with the personal papers of former executive Branch Officials and members of congress. Is this what you reported . That language appears at page 323. Thank you. Now, its my understanding that this has happened before. Where classified documents are swept up into official papers. So, mr. Hur, aside from donald trump, are you aware of similar instances in history where officials who have had these classified documents engaged in documents from federal Law Enforcement officials . The one case that comes to mind that we do address in the report is the prosecution of general petraeus. So, are these historical examples aside from donald trump where official instructed their aides to delete evidence pertaining to those classified documents . That was not present at the petraeus prosecution, no. So, the person people deserve, as weve always been saying all along here, we deserve a leader who will not put themselves above the law, but will work with Law Enforcement and hold themselves accountable. Thank you, and i yield back. The gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. Special counsel hur, when you determined that no criminal charges should be brought against President Biden in this matter, you focused on the specific facts surrounding the classified documents, where President Biden stored them and on his home other and age. You wrote that President Bidens, quote, memory, was significantly limited during his recorded interviews with the ghost writer in 2017 and during his interview with the Special Counsels office in 2023. You also expressed concern with respect to jurors would be persuaded by President Bidens presentation as a sympathetic well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. And your focus was how President Biden would currently present to a jury if he stood trial, is that correct . That was an element of my statement of Attorney General it was not only element. That wasnt my question, but it was one. Questions we can considering was his current state of mind, his memory, correct . One of the things i would have considered, whether a trial, heretically were to be held, how President Biden would present himself to a jury if elected to testify. You did not compare President Bidens current memory or condition when he was a senator when he left the vpscy and took the classified documents subject to your investigation, is that correct . Actually, i believe thats not correct, congresswoman. One of the things in the report is an assessment of the president s memory based on recordings from the 2016, 2017 time frame, recordings of mr. Biden and his ghostwriter, and comparing that with the memory that mr. Biden exhibited in interview of 2023. So there was a comparison there. Okay, unless there was some issue disclosed to the American People during his 50 years in office, you found that mr. Biden fully understood his legal responsibility related to the handling of classified materials which is why you concluded in your report that mr. Biden, quote, will fly detained classified materials after he was a private citizen, you state that on page 1, correct . I believe what will i stated on page 1, we identified evidence that mr. Biden willfully obtained Classified Information after his Vice Presidency. But ultimately, we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant that. I understand that. Please listen to my question. What im getting at is that mr. Biden fully understood that he could not keep Classified Information at his home, as both a former senator and Vice President , isnt that right . He understood that, correct . My understanding is that based on the evidence, my assessment was that a jury that isnt what my question was. Please listen to my question. My question was that mr. Biden understood when he was a senator and Vice President that he could not keep classified materials at his home, at his garage, at other offices, is that fair . I dont think thats accurate congresswoman, because when mr. Biden was Vice President he was authorized to have them at his home. After he left, he knew he was not allowed to keep Classified Information at his home, right . After he left, theres evidence to suggest that he knew he could not legally have Classified Information at his home. However, there is evidence with respect to his notebooks that he believed he was authorized to keep the notebooks at home, based on precedent. Based on precedent. You know, i guess the way i would put it is this, President Biden knew better. He knew that he wasnt entitled to keep these documents when he was a senator. And he knew he wasnt entitled to keep these documents after he had left the Vice Presidency. But because hes now suffering from an