Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

Special Counsel Robert Hur Testifies About President Biden's Handling Of Classified Documents. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired March 12, 2024 - 12:00   ET



ERIC SWALWELL, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT: Since you were appointed, he was impeached for leveraging 350 U.S. -- 350 million U.S. taxpayer dollars over

Ukraine to get dirt on President Biden. He was then impeached a 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 6th. He was charged in the District of

Columbia for his role in January 6th. He owes $400 million to the state of New York for defrauding the state through his taxes. And he has been judged

a rapist.

You want to be perceived, understandably, as credible. And so, I want to first see if you will pledge to not accept an appointment from Donald Trump

if he is elected again as President --

ROBERT HUR, SPECIAL COUNSEL: Congressman, I don't, I'm not here to testify about what will happen in the future.

SWALWELL: -- considering what I just laid out.

HUR: I'm here to I'm here to talk about the report and the work that went into it.

SWALWELL: But you don't want to be associated with that guy again, do you?

HUR: Congressman, I'm not here to offer any opinions about what may or may not happen in the future. I'm here to talk about the work that went into

the report, which I stand by.

SWALWELL: There were no limits on you as to what you could charge President Biden by the attorney general. Is that right?

HUR: The decisions that I made that are reflected in the report are my own.

SWALWELL: And you did not bring any charges. Is that correct?

HUR: Correct.

SWALWELL: There were no limits on John Durham and his investigation of the prior administration when he was special counsel. Is that right?

HUR: I don't believe I have the information required to answer the question about the Durham investigation.

SWALWELL: Well, he sat in the same Chair that you're sitting in. He told us that he also investigated President Biden and President Obama and did not

bring any charges. President Biden sat for an interview with you over two days for approximately 10 hours. Is that right?

HUR: A little over five hours, Congressman.

SWALWELL: Over two days.

HUR: Correct.

SWALWELL: You know, that's in sharp contrast to a guy who did not sit for an interview when the Mueller investigation took place. That was Donald

Trump. Did not sit for an interview when he was impeached in this Committee room by the Judiciary Committee.

Did not sit for an interview when the second impeachment occurred and he was invited to sit for an interview for his role in January 6th. And did

not sit for an interview in the January 6th Classified -- in the January 6th 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 day one, page 47.

You said to President Biden, you have -- appear to have a photographic understanding and recall of the House. Did you say that to President Biden?

HUR: Those words do appear on page 47 of the transcript.

SWALWELL: Photographic is what you said. Is that right?

HUR: That word does appear on page 47 of the transcript.

SWALWELL: Never appeared in your report, though. Is that correct? The word photographic?

HUR: That does not appear in my report.

SWALWELL: I now want to show you and play a video of what is absolutely not photographic.


DONALD TRUMP, FOREMER U.S. PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In the failing "New York Times" by an anonymous, really an anonymous, gutless

coward. We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will repeat -- I hope they now go and take a look at the oranges --

the oranges of the investigation.

And I watch our police and our firemen down on 7-11, down the World Trade Center. And we did with Obama. We won an election that everyone said

couldn't be won. This is the very definition of totalitarianism. And let me begin by wishing you a beautiful look.

You remember this? Do you remember? God bless the United States. The windmills are driving them crazy. They're driving -- they're driving the

whales, I think, a little batty. And I went to Puerto Rico and I met with the President of the -

JIM JORDAN, (R-OH) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

DAN BISHOP, U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: S Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur, 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 that?

HUR: I understand that to be true. Yes.

BISHOP: Did you have any involvement in the decision or the timing of the release of the transcripts?

HUR: No, Congressman.

BISHOP: Did you make any recommendation about the release of the transcripts for being done or not?

HUR: I did not. That was above my pay grade.

BISHOP: I don't know why they've been released so close to this hearing. But it sort of -- it impacts our ability to evaluate your report and ask

you questions about it.


But there's one point, just as an illustration, on 221 of your report, you're describing, I think, the Afghan pack or something like that about

2009, I think, is the information came from. And and you say it's one reason not to prosecute Mr. Biden. It says, "In addition, Mr. Biden told us

in his interview that he does not recognize the marking confidential as a classification marking.

To him, the marking means the document should be held in confidence, but not necessarily that it is classified. And footnote 866 is a reference and

it refers to the Biden 10-923 transcript at 24 and 25. And we have that now, but we haven't until this morning. But I just want to read from that


This is on page 24, line 15. Mr. Krickbaum -- "So, this is a typewritten document. It's got a "Confidential", what appears to be a stamp at the top

and the top of the document indicates it's from the American A.M. Embassy, Kabul. It's dated what appears to me to be November 'O9. The only question

I have for you about this, Mr. President, is the "Confidential" marking. Do you recognize that to be a classification marking?"

President Biden - "No, I mean, "Confidential" doesn't want to get around. It's not in a category. I don't think of code word, "Top Secret", that kind

of thing. But I don't even know where it came from."

Mr. Krickbaum -- "Are you familiar with "Confidential" as a level of classified information? President Biden -- Well, if I got a document that

said "Confidential", it means it would mean that no one else could see it but me and you give it or the people working on this issue."

Mr. Krickbaum -- "And are you aware that among certain categories of classified information, there is Top Secret, Secret, and there's also a

category of Classified Information called "Confidential". Is that something that you are aware of or not?"

President Biden -- "I -- yes, I was aware of it. I don't ever remember when I got any document that was "Confidential", that was meant for me to read

and or discuss with the people who sent me the memo -- so."

And then, it trails off. So as I read that -- those answers, they're equivocal. He, at first, says he doesn't know --" Do you recognize that to

be a classification marking?' He said, "No," and then goes on to explain. But then Mr. Krickbaum came back and he said, "Are you aware that among

certain categories of classified information, there's also a category of Classified Information called Confidential?" And he says, "I -- yes, I was

aware of it."

So, Mr. Hur, just -- in that one instance, there seems to be a discrepancy between the conclusion in the report or the summary of the evidence in the

report and what the transcript says. Can you offer any guidance to this Committee why you would put that summary in your report as opposed to

saying that he gave inconsistent answers?

Or in fact, why didn't you nail down in the transcript which was the right answer? He's given answers that says no. And then he says, yes. Why didn't

you pursue it until you knew?

HUR: Congressman, the report reflects our best efforts to summarize and characterize the evidence in the investigation, including the investigation

received from the President himself during our interview of him.

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.

BISHOP: Well, with all -- and I appreciate your answer. And I certainly think things, you know, 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 were 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'll yield back.

JORDAN: The gentleman will yield. The gentleman will yield.

UNKNOWN: I will yield to the gentleman.

JORDAN: Just real quick, Mr. Hur, someone earlier said, you know, said something about changing the facts. You 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?

HUR: Congressman, as I responded earlier to a question along these lines, I am not here to entertain hypotheticals about facts or circumstances that

may be different. What I did was assess the evidence and the facts that I obtained in this investigation and make a judgment based on this set of


JORDAN: Fair enough. The Chair recognizes the gentle lady from Washington for five minutes.

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Special Counsel Hur, thank you for being here. Thank you for your work. In your

investigation, you reviewed more than seven million documents and conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses, including President Biden.


Is that correct?

HUR: Yes, Congresswoman.

JAYAPAL: And your 15-month investigation cost several million dollars and resulted in a comprehensive 345-page report with several dozen pages of

appendices. Is it correct that, as it says in the first sentence of your executive summary, that your investigation concluded with an assessment

that, quote, "No criminal charges are warranted in this matter"?

HUR: Correct.

JAYAPAL: So, this lengthy, expensive, and independent investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of President Joe Biden. For every

document you discussed in your report, you found insufficient evidence that the President violated any laws about possession or retention of classified

materials. The primary law that you analyzed for potential prosecution was part of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793E, which criminalizes willful

retention or disclosure of national defense information. Is that correct?

HUR: Congresswoman, that is one statute that we analyzed. I need to go back and make sure that I take note of the word that you used -- "exoneration".

That is not a word used in my report. That's not part of my task.

JAYAPAL: Mr. Hur, I'm going to continue with my questions. I' going to continue with my question. I know that the term -- I know that the term --

HUR: That is not a word used in my report -- the judgment that I ultimately reached whether sufficient evidence existed such that the likely outcome

would be a conviction.

JAYAPAL: You didn't -- you exonerated.

JAYAPAL: I know that the term, "willfull retention" has a --

HUR: I did not exonerate him. That word does not appear in the report, Congresswoman.

JAYAPAL: Mr. Hur, it's my time. Thank you. I know that the term "willfull 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?

HUR: That's correct.

JAYAPAL: And to be very, very --

HUR: Oh and I'm sorry, Congresswoman. That was national defense information. That's an important third element.

JAYAPAL: 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 your investigation,


HUR: My conclusion was that the admissible evidence was not sufficient to make conviction at trial a probable outcome.

JAYAPAL: Not sufficient. Thank you. Let me ask you about a few specific examples so the American people are clear. One set of documents was

discovered by investigators in the President's Delaware home. His staff had assembled those documents into binders in 2014 to prepare him for an event

with Charlie Rose.

Some of the documents in those binders were marked "Classified". You reviewed all 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 retained the

marked "Classified" documents in these binders, correct?

HUR: That language does appear in the report.

JAYAPAL: You also reviewed another set of classified documents from the President's home related to the Afghanistan troop surge in 2009, and you

evaluated whether the President willfully retained such documents in his Delaware home or a home that he rented in Virginia in 2017.

In your report, you said that there was, quote, "a shortage of evidence", end quote, "for any wrongdoing", end quote, "other innocent explanations

for the documents that we cannot refute", end quote. Are those quotes correct?

HUR: Congresswoman, if you have particular page sites for those quotations, I'd be happy to confirm their accuracy.

JAYAPAL: Page six. It's right up on the screen.

HUR: 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 recommend prosecution --

JAYAPAL: I was just going to get to that. And you concluded that, quote, "The evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to recommend

prosecution." End quote. Those are your words in the report, correct?

HUR: Those words appear in the report.

JAYAPAL: Thank you. President Biden's counsel discovered a different set of documents at the Penn-Biden Center and voluntarily turned them over to the

FBI. Those documents contain national security information, but you determined that you could not, in fact, prove that President Biden

willfully retained those documents because, quote, "The evidence suggests that the marked "Classified" documents found at the Penn-Biden Center were

sent and kept there by mistake. Therefore, we decline -- "We decline any criminal charges related to those documents", end quote. Correct?

HUR: The language, "We decline any criminal charges related to those documents" does appear at page 311 of the report.

JAYAPAL: Thank you. You also reached a similar conclusion regarding the documents found in President Biden's Senate papers at the University of

Delaware. Quote, "For these reasons, it is likely that the few "Classified" documents found in Mr. Biden's Senate papers at the University of Delaware

were there by mistake, correct?

HUR: That language does appear at page 325 of the report.

JAYAPAL: So, it seems to me that the crux of the report, the main story is that you found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that President Biden willfully retained any classified materials. That is the story of this report.


And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

JORDAN: The gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Indiana is recognized.

VICTORIA SPARTZ, U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just thank you, Special Counsel, for being here in these challenging times. And

I want to tell you a few things that is interesting for me. You obviously could see that there is a motive, there is a legacy. You obviously see that

it was a willful retention of these documents.

But it's interesting for me that when you talk about sympathetic, well- meaning, older man who has poor - elderly man who has a poor memory, it seems like every, you know, attorney would advise you to be sympathetic and

be well-meaning. And it seems like the whole FBI needs to do -- based on my hearings here, I need to do check on amnesia because everyone says doesn't


So, it seems to me that it might have been something way more in his recollection that's the the typical -- I don't recall. Because that's what

everything is like. That's what I've learned here. So, is there something more than that? That just I don't recall something for you to actually

decide? Because it seems like this is the core of the whole investigation. Why didn't you pursue further -- the charges?

HUR: Congresswoman, my judgment as to how a jury would likely perceive and receive and consider evidence relating to -- relating to all the all the

evidence that would be put in by both the government and the defense at trial, it was based on a number of different sources -- from documents,

including various recordings, some of them from the 2016-2017 time frame, some from our interview with 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.

SPARTZ: Hopefully, he didn't smart you and all of us. But before I yield, I just wanted to actually just comment on something, you know, Mr. Raskin

mentioned about us not remembering communists. I actually grew up under communists, and I have a very good recollection of what it is. And

unfortunately, Tehran's eye on the rise, on the march, which he said, unfortunately, they've been emboldened by, you know, President Obama, now

by President Biden, too.

And unfortunately, our government and Department of Justice really now resembles a tyrannical government. It's sad for me to see that. But I'm

going in with a really double standard, what we have there. But I'm going to yield to Chairman Jordan the rest of my time.

JORDAN: Thank the gentle lady for yielding. Mr. Hur, during your one-year investigation, did you have communications with the White House and the

White House Counsel in particular?

HUR: Yes.

JORDAN: I think you had like, I got five letters that they -- and they communicated with you regarding your investigation. Is that accurate?

HUR: We received a number of letters from White House Counsel's office and -- as well as the President's personal counsel.

JORDAN: Right. They're either special counsel or personal counsel, I see, who signed the letters. And did the White House get the report before the

report was made public?

HUR: We did provide a draft of the report to the White House Counsel's office and members of the President's personal counsel team for their


JORDAN: No, I understand. And did the White House then -- once they got the report before it went public, did the White House try to weigh in with your

investigation on elements of that report? And, frankly, get the report changed?

HUR: They did request certain edits and changes to the draft report.

JORDAN: Yeah, I see that in the the February 5th letter. Did they only correspond with you?

HUR: I'm sorry, Congressman, are you -- are you asking if they -- Congress -- if they corresponded with anyone else on my team?

JORDAN: Once you gave the report to the White House --

HUR: Yes.

JORDAN: They tried to -- they saw changes. I have one letter here that's addressed to you on February 5th, and they said we're pleased that after

more of your -- of investigating, you've determined, you know, they'd respond to the report. And then they asked -- they disagree with your --

they asked for you to change some of the things you had in your report, namely the fact that the President's memory was not very good. Do you

remember that?

HUR: Yes, Sir.

JORDAN: Okay. But I also have two other letters, one on February 7th to Merrick Garland, where they raised the same concern, and then on February

12th, where they go to the DAG. Bradley Weinsheimer. You familiar with those?

HUR: I am familiar with those letters, Bradley Weinsheimer is an assistant or Associate Deputy Attorney General.

JORDAN: Right. Associate DAG. The ADAG, right?

HUR: Yes.

Jordan: And Merrick Garland, of course, is the attorney general.

HUR: Yes and yes.

JORDAN: So, you're familiar with the fact that they went over your head?

HUR: They were certainly entitled to write whatever letters they wished to Mr. Weinsheimer and to the attorney general.

JORDAN: I just find that interesting. The White House is -- they're communicating with you throughout this one-year investigation, and then the

White House says, oh, we're going to --we're going to go to the -- we're going to go to the Principal's Office, and we're going to -- we're going to

talk about Mr. Hur's report. Do you find that interesting?

HUR: As I said, they were free to correspond with whomever in the federal government they wished to correspond with. I did engage in numerous

communications with them during the course of the investigation, and as is reflected in the special counsel regulations, the attorney general did

provide oversight of my investigation.

JORDAN: I understand.


I thank the gentle lady for yielding and I yield back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for five minutes.

TED LIEU, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT: Thank you, Chairman Jordan. I want to first say that the House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to

enforce the rule of law. Unfortunately, the actions of this Chairman in 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. Hur, thank you for being here today. Thank you for sharing your compelling immigrant story that just goes to highlight how America is a

nation of immigrants. I'm going to ask you a series of questions, yes and no questions. They are not trick questions.

They're simply designed to highlight what you already found in your report, which is that there are, quote, "material distinctions", end quote, between

President Biden's case and Mr. Trump's case. So here's my first question. In your investigation, did you find that President Biden directed his

lawyer to lie to the FBI?

HUR: We identified no such evidence.

LIEU: Did you find that President Biden directed his lawyer to destroy classified documents?

HUR: No.

LIEU: Did you find that President Biden directed his personal assistant to move boxes of documents to hide them from the FBI?

HUR: No.

LIEU: Did you find that President Biden directed his personal assistant to delete security camera footage after the FBI asked for that footage?

HUR: No. Did you find that President Biden showed a classified map related to an ongoing military operation to a campaign aide who did not have


HUR: No.

LIEU: Did you find that President Biden engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice?

HUR: No.

LIEU: Did you find that President Biden engaged in a scheme to conceal?

HUR: No.

LIEU: Each of the activities I just laid out describe what Donald Trump did in his willful mishandling of classified information and his criminal

efforts to deceive the FBI. In contrast, President Biden handed over documents without delay and complied fully with investigators.

Mr. Hur, in your report, you write that, quote, "According to indictment, Trump not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also

obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it," end quote. You also say that if proven, these would be, quote,

"serious, aggravating facts," end quote. Do you still stand by your analysis?

HUR: I do.

LIEU: Okay. I have a few more questions, as well. In your investigation, did you find that President Biden set up a shell company and covertly paid

$130,000 in hush money to an adult porn star?

HUR: No.

LIEU: Did you find that President Biden directed his lawyer to pay $150,000 in hush money to a former Playboy model?

HUR: No.

LIEU: In your investigation, did you find that President Biden called the Georgia Secretary of State to demand that he, quote, "Find 11,780 votes?"

HUR: No.

LIEU: Did you find that President Biden devised a scheme to organize a slate of fake electors to undermine a free and fair election?

LIEU: No. Did you find that leading up to January 6, 2021, President Biden urged his supporters to travel to D.C. and to storm the Capitol?

HUR: No.

LIEU: Thank you. Each of these activities I laid out describe what Donald Trump did, his efforts to bully election officials, overthrow the results

of the election, and deceive the American people. That is why Donald Trump has been indicted in not just one, not just two, not just three, but four

criminal cases. I yield back.

JORDAN: Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.

TOM TIFFANY, U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: I just want to go do a little repetition, Mr. Hur, in regards to the Chairman's questions from a few

minutes ago. So, is it correct that on that February 5th letter that was sent to you, asking you to change references to the president's poor

memory, wasn't there a request by the White House to do that?

HUR: There was a request, yes.

TIFFANY: And, Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show that the gentleman from Maryland earlier said that that was not the case. I think he

said, "nor did he seek to redact a single word of Hur's report".

Obviously, Mr. Hur is telling us differently here. And didn't the White House then go to the attorney general himself and say that he would like to

see changes to the references in regards to the President's memory?

HUR: The White House counsel did send such a letter.

Tiffany: So, if this President was 60 years old rather than 80 years old, would you prosecute him?

HUR: Congressman, as I've said before, I cannot engage in hypotheticals. I address the facts and the evidence as I found them in this matter.

TIFFANY: So, there was an 80-year-old grandma that came to Washington, D.C. a few years ago, did not commit a violent crime, committed a crime, but did

not commit a violent crime, and she was fully prosecuted. Doesn't that seem like it's a dual system of justice where the President is above the law?

HUR: Congressman, I don't know the facts and the details of this other case that you're referencing with this other person.

TIFFANY: You say that the President is unlikely to reoffend in the future.


I believe that was a quote that you put in the report. Is that correct?

HUR: I believe that's in Chapter 13.

TIFFANY: How so? How is he unlikely to reoffend in the future? How do you come to that judgment?

HUR: 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 reoffend.

TIFFANY: Well, isn't it because he's now the President and he has almost unlimited authority to release documents? Isn't that correct? I mean, as a

Vice President, he didn't have that authority. Now that he's President, isn't it easy to say that, that he's unlikely to reoffend because he's got

almost unlimited authority to release these documents?

HUR: Well, that statement was based on -- that assessment of the likeliness of reoffending from this particular person, President Biden, is based on a

number of factors, including the authority that he has now with respect to classified materials, as well as the experience that he's had going through

a special counsel investigation.

TIFFANY: Yeah, but look at back at 2011, there were multiple instances where he was informed by 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 2011.

HUR: Congressman, what I'm saying in the report at page 254 is that --

TIFFANY: He's a repeat offender, Mr. Hur, isn't he?

HUR: What I say --

TIFFANY: Let me move on to -- I'll move on to something else here. You said he had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding

classified information. And he provided raw material to his ghostwriter that would be of interest to perspective readers and buyers of his book.

And I think you said something about he viewed himself as a historic figure, correct?

HUR: I believe those words do all appear in the report.

TIFFANY: Yeah. And he was also doing this for business purposes, that there may be people that would want to buy his book.

HUR: 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.

TIFFANY: You know, 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?

HUR: I have read some reports of it.

TIFFANY: I mean, 20 phone calls that were made to his son that he denied in 2019, 20 shell companies that were created, over $20 million. I mean,

doesn't it appear there's a pattern here that where I come from, they almost call it money grubbing.

HUR: Congressman, what I'm here to testify about today is the work that I conducted in this investigation and in this report.

TIFFANY: So, I want to thank you for the work that you did as far as you could. But unfortunately, you are part of the Praetorian Guard that guards

the swamp out here in Washington, D.C., 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 look at the President's son, who does not

have to answer for lying on his Form 4473 in regards to throwing away a weapon. You see it where the Department of Justice fends off the IRS when

the whistleblowers come with this information.

Now, we see it once again, where a President believes he is above the law. And there is no doubt that this President does believe he's above the law.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

JORDAN: Gentlemen yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized.

LOU CORREA, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur, welcome. I also concur. And let me echo what's already been said by my colleagues

that your personal story of being an immigrant, your family immigrants to this country, the way you've contributed to the greatness of this country

shows why America is great. The Great Immigrant Story. Thank you for being here, Sir. First question to you is, you're a Republican?

HUR: I am, Sir.

CORREA: Does that stop you from a thorough and fair investigation?

HUR: I certainly hope not. And I know not.

CORREA: This story is really proof of the old saying that the cover up is worse than the crime. President Trump and President Biden handled their

classified materials differently, wouldn't you say?

HUR: 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.

CORREA: But clearly the handling of these documents was night and day, correct?

HUR: Congressman, do you have a specific aspect of the handling of the documents that you have in mind?

CORREA: Well, you know, President Trump intentionally took classified materials and obstructed justice to ensure that those materials wouldn't be

taken from him. And he refused to work with law enforcement. Is that correct?

HUR: My report reflects no findings of obstructive conduct on the part of - -

CORREA: Let me ask you another question. President Trump has been indicted in the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida on 40 counts related to his

possession of classified documents.


Is that correct?

HUR: I don't know the exact number of counts, but I know that an indictment is pending in that district.

CORREA: Mr. Hur, you even wrote that after being given a 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.

Compare and contrasting the President Trump, President Trump turned classified documents over to the National Archives and the Department of

Justice. And he consented to searching his home and other locations. Wouldn't you say that's night and day when it comes to cooperation with law


HUR: Congressman, the report does include an analysis and a comparison of the facts that are alleged with respect to former President Trump and does

detail steps of cooperation that the President and his team took with respect to my investigation.

CORREA: I would say -- President Biden, you had his full cooperation in this investigation.

HUR: The report includes cooperative steps that the President took.

CORREA: Would this be a factor in your decision to prosecute?

HUR: It was a factor, and I explained it as such in the report, Congressman.

CORREA: And you stated that the recommendation not to prosecute had nothing to do with the Department of Justice policy not to indict the sitting

President. Is that correct?

HUR: 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.

CORREA: Mr. Hur, have you set new precedent here today?

HUR: To the extent that -- to the extent that the Department of Justice makes enforcement decisions or non-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.

CORREA: Mr. Hur, I'd say based on your education and your career experience, you're a very, very competent prosecutor, a very, very well-

prepared attorney. I'm going to ask you one more time. Does the fact that you're Republican, does that stop you from a thorough and fair


HUR: No. Partisan politics had nothing to do with the work that I did or the report that I wrote or the decision that I reached.

CORREA: Thank you very much for being here. And Mr. Chairman, I yield.

JORDAN: Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

SCOTT FITZGERALD, U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: Attorney Hur, Webster's dictionary defines senile as exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability, such as memory

associated with old age. Mr. Hur, based on your report, did you find that the President was senile?

HUR: I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my report, Congressman.

FITZGERALD: But 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 his incompetence to stand trial due to

his state of mind? Also, you know, was he in a place to actually be questioned?

HUR: Congressman, my report, to the extent that it addresses the President's memory gaps that we identified in 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.

FITZGERALD: Very good. I'd like to focus my questioning on Chapter 14 of your report, the classified documents found at the Penn-Biden Center. You

state in your report that the documents found at the Penn-Biden Center were the most highly classified, sensitive, and compartmentalized materials

recovered during your investigation. Is that correct?

HUR: That is correct.

FITZGERALD: Many of the documents came from Mr. Biden's West Wing office. That's also correct, isn't it?

HUR: I believe that is reflected in the report.

FITZGERALD: Did you ask if he had packed the boxes himself?

HUR: I believe that was one of the questions that we asked, and that is reflected in the transcript now available to the Committee.

FITZGERALD: 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?

HUR: I don't recall off the top of my head exactly how we characterized 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 something of a rushed manner.


FITZGERALD: Very good. According to your report, the boxes were moved between multiple offices, between Mr. Biden departing his West Wing office

in January of 17 and his arrival at the Penn-Biden Center's permanent offices in October of 17. Were any of these offices authorized to store

classified information?

HUR: No.

FITZGERALD: When the boxes finally arrived at the Penn-Biden Center's permanent offices, how were they stored?

HUR: I believe when the materials were recovered, some of them were stored in a storage closet. And I believe others of them were in file cabinet

drawers. So I would refer you to the report.

FITZGERALD: What's your assessment of security and access control measures at the Penn-Biden Center?

HUR: 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 time period when we believed the materials were there. And there were other people, including students and

some foreign dignitaries that visited that facility at the time.

FITZGERALD: Very good. You anticipated my next question. So, when the boxes were discovered to have classified documents more than five years later,

who discovered these boxes? It was Patrick Moore. Is that correct?

HUR: Correct. One of the President's personal counsel.

FITZGERALD: And did Mr. Moore have some type of active security clearance at the time

HUR: No.

Fitzgerald: How about the executive assistant at the Penn-Biden Center?

HUR: No.

FITZGERALD: On page 265 of your report --

HUR: I'm sorry, Congressman. I may have misspoken there. I am not certain whether or not that executive assistant had an active security clearance at

the time.

FITZGERALD: Very good. On page 265 of your report, you stated, when interviewed by FBI agents, Moore believed the small closet was initially

locked and that the Penn-Biden Center staff member provided a key to unlock it. But his memory was fuzzy on that point. But an interview with Mr.

Biden's executive assistant seemed to contradict his statement. Do you remember this exchange? And did, in fact, it contradict each other?

HUR: Sir, you're asking if I remember the exchange with Mr. Moore during our interview with him?

FITZGRERALD: Right. Do you remember them contradicting each other?

HUR: I don't remember that contradiction specifically. But generally, during the interview, sometimes we heard things from some witnesses that

were in tension with what we heard from other witnesses. And we did our best to resolve those conflicts.

FITZGERALD: Just very quickly, in total, the National Archives discovered nine documents totaling 144 pages with classification markings. Is that


HUR: From the Penn-Biden Center. Yes.

FITZGERALD: And you declined charges because, in summarizing your analysis, you couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that retention of the

documents was willful.

HUR: Correct, Sir.

FITZGERALD: Very good. I yield back.

JORDAN: Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized.

MARY GAY SCANLON, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT: 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?

HUR: You did, Congresswoman.

SCANLON: Okay. Your report also says, in addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we

have not been able to refute. Did I read that correctly?

HUR: Congresswoman, if you would give me a page citation, I can --

SCANLON: Page six

HUR: Six. Yes, I see that language on page six.

SCANLON: 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?

HUR: He did.

SCANLON: And his team notified authorities when they discovered classified documents, and he turned them over immediately. Is that correct?

HUR: Yes.

SCANLON: He consented to multiple searches of his home and other properties. Is that correct?

HUR: Correct.

SCANLON: And he voluntarily sat for an interview with you. Is that correct?

HUR: 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?

HUR: Correct.

SCANLON: Now, you note in your testimony that the specific comments you made about President Biden's memory have gotten a lot of attention. And as

we've seen today, our Republican colleagues are again and again trying to weaponize those comments in a cheap attempt to score political points.

But as someone who's participated in trials, you know that witnesses, regardless of age, often have difficulty recalling specific statements or

facts when asked about them many years after those facts.


So, let's take a quick look at a differing witness experiencing a lapse in memory during a deposition.


UNKNOWN: Your next wife was a woman by the name of Marla Maples.

TRUMP: Right.

UNKNOWN: And sitting here today, do you recall what years you were married to Ms. Maples?

TRUMP: I'd have to get the exact dates for you. I can do that.

UNKNOWN: Am I correct that you married your current wife in January 2005?

TRUMP: I don't know relative to that date.

UNKNOWN: And what years were you the owner of the Paz Hotel?

TRUMP: I don't know the years.

UNKNOWN: James Webb.

TRUMP: I don't remember the names. I don't remember the name.

UNKNOWN: So, you don't remember saying you were one of the best men in the world?

TRUMP: I don't remember that. I remember you telling me, but I don't know the answer.


SCANLON: So, I would also add that Mr. Trump told lawyers, "I don't remember" 35 times in his deposition for a lawsuit over Trump University.

And in response to questions from special 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,


HUR: I'm not sure 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 that jurors would consider in determining whether he had willful intent in

retaining or disclosing national defense information.

SCANLON: Sure. Do you have any reason to believe that the special counsel who investigated and charged Mr. Trump with willful retention of classified

documents would have failed to make an assessment of whether the jury would find Mr. Trump to be a credible witness?

HUR: 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?

HUR: I'm familiar with the rules that set forth in the justice manual and my understanding of how to apply them.

SCANLON: And in fact, what you did.

HUR: Correct.

SCANLON: 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 unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the Committee's transcribed interview with Steven D'Antonio,

former assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington field office on July 7th, 2023, in which he explained the urgency for the FBI to retrieve

and secure classified documents from Donald Trump's estate because they contained national security information that should not be viewed by anyone

without the proper security clearance.

Even Mr. D'Antonio himself could not view the documents given their high security clearance, despite being the assistant director in charge of the

FBI Washington field office. Thank you.

JORDAN: Without objection, the gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for five minutes.

CLIFF BENTZ, U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm quite interested in the dates that are set forth in your report, Mr. Hur. And the

reason I'm interested is because I keep getting confused between the 2017 date and the 2024 date as to the condition of the President's memory. 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 were going to be looking at his, at 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 in his Virginia home in February 2017, when he was a private citizen. And when he

told this ghostwriter, he just found classified material. That's the best case as you say it.

HUR: Yes.

BENTZ: And then you work your way through a series of defenses against your best case. So, you were looking at his condition in 2017. Do I have that


HUR: You do, Congressman.

BENTZ: And his memory was bad then. What's -- we can draw our 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 kind of the list of defenses

that his memory is bad, his memory is bad, his memory is bad. There's about six or seven defenses here. And so, what it gets me to is this question.

And I actually pulled this quote out of something I read 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?

HUR: I did not. Those words do not appear in my report.

BENTZ: 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?

HUR: 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 charged this case, if we presented the

evidence to a jury, and 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 2016 and 2017 from the ghostwriter.

BENTZ: 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 you're incapable of proving intent. There's kind of a bit of a difference there, right? You may well have had the intent, but you could

not prove of holding these documents and, I hate to say, hiding the documents.

But you couldn't prove it. So, what you did instead is fell back to the various defenses that might also be asserted against you. Kind of a heap of

rationale for not pursuing the President. Do I have it right now?

HUR: Congressman, I think we're on the same page. I think what I'm trying to convey is that the way that prosecutors assess the strengths and

weaknesses of their case is to think through, hey, in the government's case in chief, here's the evidence we're going to present, and the jury might be

with us. But that's not the end of the trial. The trial also has to include presentation from the defense lawyers.

You're correct, and I'm a lawyer. I've tried cases, so I get it. But your report is not an exoneration so much as a determination that the evidence,

as you saw it, would not overcome the defenses that you had identified, plus whatever lack of evidence you perceived. So, it's not an exoneration,

is it?

HUR: The word exoneration does not appear anywhere in my report, and that is not my conclusion.

BENTZ: The other thing that's of interest, and I think you were misquoted, you said something about, or someone, I think it was Mr. Raskin, suggested

that you, well, I'm going to run out of time, but I appreciate the work you do as a prosecutor and I yield back.

JORDAN: The gentleman yields back. Mr. Hur, we've been at this close to three hours. If you can hang with us, we'd like to keep going. There's a

chance we could complete votes by the time we have to go to votes on the House floor, which would be about 140. I can keep going, Chairman.

JORDAN: Okay, then we'll try to do that. There's a chance we may not, too, but I just wanted you to know the lay of the land. Now, I yield to the

gentleman from Colorado.

JOE NEGUSE, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hur for your testimony and for your service as a prosecutor at the

Department of Justice. I want to focus a bit more on the progress of the investigation and some process questions. So, you were appointed by

Attorney General Garland as special counsel to investigate the President's handling of classified documents in January of 2023, correct?

HUR: Correct.

NEGUSE: And Attorney General Garland, of course, as you know, was nominated by President Biden to serve in his role.

HUR: Correct.

NEGUSE: During your 15-month investigation, did the Attorney General attempt to interfere with your investigation?

HUR: No.

NEGUSE: Did he impede your investigation in any way?

HUR: No.

NEGUSE: Did any other member of the Department of Justice or within the administration refuse to cooperate with your investigation?

HUR: No.

NEGUSE: Were you ever denied access to materials, witnesses, resources from Attorney General Garland that you might have needed during the


HUR: No.

NEGUSE: You submitted, I think this is right, your final report to Attorney General Garland on February 5th of 2024.

HUR: Correct.

NEGUSE: Okay. And it was then released publicly three days later on February 8th of 2024. Is that right?

HUR: I believe that's true, yes.

NEGUSE: In the final report that was released, were any of your substantive findings redacted or changed in any way?

HUR: No.

NEGUSE: None of your findings were modified by the Attorney General?

HUR: No.


NEGUSE: Did the Attorney General issue any kind of statement or a letter attempting to describe the contents of your report?

HUR: No.

NEGUSE: Okay. You're familiar, I know, I'm sure, with the investigation that was conducted by Special Counsel Mueller years ago with respect to the

former President?

HUR: Yes.

NEGUSE: 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?

HUR: Yes.

NEGUSE: Okay. Very different from the way that Attorney General Garland conducted this particular release. I take it you'd agree with that.

HUR: They were not the same approach.

NEGUSE: Not the same approach. Right. In the case of Attorney General Garland, no 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 Mueller 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.

HUR: Attorney General Garland did not interfere with my efforts, and I was able to conduct a fair, thorough, and independent investigation.

NEGUSE: Very different approach, as you said, from the way in which the Department of Justice unfortunately, tragically, functioned under the

former President. I'm going to yield back the balance of my time.

JORDAN: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for five minutes. Would the gentleman yield for 10 seconds?


JORDAN: I would just point out to the gentleman from Colorado's last point, there was one big difference. Bill Barr didn't name Bob Mueller as a

special counsel. Bob Mueller was named by Rod Rosenstein. That's a huge difference in how this whole thing works. I now yield back to the gentleman

from Alabama.

MOORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hur, in your report, you cited principles of federal prosecution and observed that, and I quote,

"Historically, after leaving office, many former Presidents and Vice Presidents have knowingly taken home sensitive materials related to

national security for their administrations without being charged with crimes.

And this historical record is important context for judging whether or why to charge a former Vice President or and our former President," unquote.

Why is examining this history so important?

HUR: Congressman, one of the reasons that it was important was because it would bear on how a jury would perceive -- how a jury would decide whether

or not criminal willful intent was formed by the person retaining or disclosing the national defense information at issue.

MOORE: Has there been an exception to this in the history of the nation? Have we charged any former Presidents?

HUR: As I state in the report, to my knowledge, there is only one exception, and that is former President Trump.

MOORE: Given the history, is it fair to say it's preferable not to charge a former President or Vice President for allegedly mishandling classified

documents, in your opinion?

HUR: 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, and

the decision that I reached in my case.

MOORE: Mr. Hur, what's the difference in the U.S. Senator having documents and a former President of the United States?

HUR: For purposes of proving willfulness, I believe that there would be a number of differences in terms of the types of access and the ease with

which Presidents, while in office, can access classified information as compared to the access privileges that senators have.

MOORE: Can Presidents declassify documents that they have in their possession?

HUR: I believe under certain circumstances, yes.

MOORE: Former Presidents, as well?

HUR: Congressman, I confess I'm not -- this is not an area of the law that I've looked into or explained in my report, and I'm here to talk about the

work that is reflected in the report.

MOORE: Well, let me say this, Sir. 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?

HUR: I have no opinion. I don't have anything to say about that.

MOORE: In fact, Jack Smith, whom Biden Justice Attorney General Garland appointed to investigate President Trump, has a reputation, according to

deep-rooted reporting from "Washington Times", as an "overzealous prosecutor who relies ethically or unethically on dubious tactics",



And his prosecutorial record is replete with a quote, let me say this, "a string of mistrials and overturned convictions". Actually, Chief Justice

Roberts once rebuked Mr. Smith's prosecutorial theory as a boundless interpretation of a federal robbery statute. That did not comport with the

text of the statute or the precedent of this court, according to the Supreme Court justice.

And so, you know, my question is, do you think in the case of Jack Smith, do you think justice is blind when he's looking at President Trump? Since

we've never done this in the history of the country, is justice truly blind?

HUR: 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 did with respect to the investigation relating to President Biden.

MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time back to you.

UNKNOWN: Thank you. To this conclusion.

HUR: Congressman Jordan, I'm sorry, the mic was turned on.

JORDAN: Can you explain what specifically in your interview with President Biden led you to this conclusion?

HUR: The conclusion about --

JORDAN: A broad statement that's been cited many times.

HUR: The totality of the time that I spent with the President during his voluntary interview was something that I certainly considered in framing my

assessment and articulating 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.

JORDAN: And I guess I'm asking specifically, I know you cited in the report, the dates that he couldn't remember when he was Vice President,

when he began, when his term ended, you cite that in report. Is there anything else specifically that stands out from that interview with the


HUR: 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 hour voluntary interview.

So, it was a wealth of details about being there in the moment with the President, including his inability to recall certain things. 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's office.

JORDAN: I read that. The brief look I had at the transcript this morning, because we just got it this morning, I saw some of that. We now recognize

the gentle lady from Texas. Or excuse me, Pennsylvania. I'm used to you being down there. The gentle lady from Pennsylvania.



DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Hur. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hur for your service to our country, for your team's service in this investigation. You

determined after what you described as rigorous, detailed and thorough analysis that President Biden should not be prosecuted for mishandling

classified documents.

In fact, everybody can take a look at your report. The very first sentence says as much. It says, quote, "We conclude that no criminal charges are

warranted in this matter." Am I correct?

HUR: Yes.

DEAN: That's the bottom line of this report. Am I correct?

HUR: That is the first sentence.

DEAN: 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?

HUR: I reached the decision based on the totality of the reasons that I set forth at length in my report.

DEAN: Based on the evidence. And while Mr. Trump, who is being prosecuted, is not sympathetic, you didn't calibrate any of that in there. Sympathetic,

not sympathetic. Doesn't matter. It's the evidence, right?

HUR: Congresswoman, I did not reach any assessments of the evidence in the Trump matter to the extent that I considered the allegations against former

President Trump. It was for purposes of comparing relevant precedents.

DEAN: I trust that with your credibility, you were not out to get Mr. Trump nor here to help Mr. Biden. I think it's about the evidence. And I think

you say that over and over again in your report. Why did you decide President Biden should not be prosecuted? Your report tells us, quote, "We

conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict. Those are your words." Is that correct?

HUR: I believe if those exact words do not appear in the report, that is consistent with the gist of my conclusion.

DEAN: Very good. They are your exact words. That was not the case with Donald Trump. You have a copy of your report today, don't you? In front of


HUR: I do.

DEAN: Read a portion of it for me. Your words. It is page 11, starting on line three, beginning with the words.