You read those. Most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. Not only refused to return the documents for many months but enlisted others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. You may stop there. You mentioned the indictment against mr. Trump for handling sensitive classified security information, says at the end of his presidency mr. Trump, looking for my indictment here, i have it here, hang on. Mr. Trump himself ordered that boxes containing classified materials go to maralago, where he hosted Tens Of Thousands of guests, and he kept these sensitive materials carelessly about the property as you can see here, classified documents ended up in a bathroom, a ballroom, on a floor 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 employee to move boxes of the documents to conceal them from mr. Trumps attorney, and then lied to his attorney. And the fbi and the grand jury, suggesting his attorney might hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury investigation. Mr. Hur, are those the type of aggravating facts to which you refer to in your report . Congresswoman, the aggravating facts that i refer to in the report are set forth and described at page 11. Very good. Mr. Hur, to the best of your knowledge and investigation, did President Biden ever present an employee to lie or hide or destroy Classified Information . We did not identify such evidence. Did he do so himself . We do not identify such evidence. And you can correct the record on an important point. Very sadly, your report on page 208 says that mr. Biden couldnt come up with the date, the year of his son beau bidens death, when in fact in the transcript it shows you asked him the month, and you know what he said, mr. Hur, he said oh, god, may 30th. Would you like to correct the record, his memory was pretty firm on the month and the day. I dont believe thats correct with respect to the transcript but if you could refer me to a specific page i would be happy to look. I read about it in the reporting. I yield back. Mr. Hur, why did the white house ask you to remove parts of the report, what was the reason they gave for that . I dont have the letter in front of me, congressman. I believed among the reasons was they contested or they asserted that certain language in the report was inconsistent with doj policy. The day your report came out the president gave a live News Conference on national television. Did you watch that News Conference . I watched the press conference, yes. What was your reaction to seeing the president personally attack you and your team. Congressman, im here to talk about the work that went into the report and my explanation of it it was not just the president , anthony coley, former spokesman for Merrick Garland says democrats should focus ire on her, and another said its a shabby piece of work and shoddy work product. I disagree vehemently with that characterization. I also disagree, i think its well written and considered and comprehensive. Do you think its appropriate for the administration to be attacking the work of a Special Counsel that it appointed itself . Congressman, im not going to comment on the propriety, i stand by the report and the work that went into it. Ranking member started by saying mr. Hur completely exonerated President Biden and called your report a total and complete exoneration. Did you completely exonerate President Biden . That is not what my report does. Was it a total and complete exoneration. Thats not what the report says. The report is not an exoneration. That word does not appear in my report. Based on the facts and anticipation presented in the report, could a reasonable juror have voted to constrict . As i said in the report, some reasonable jurors may have reach the the inferences a reasonable juror could 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 i would like to stick to is whats in the report, my assessment as a prosecutor. What you did find in the report is that the president , you said page 200, risks serious damage to Americas National security through his handling and mishandling of classified materials and you identify a strong motive for the way he handled those materials. Two of the motives was his desire to run for president , and his desire to sell books. So, a reasonable inference for your report is that the president risks serious damage to Americas National security in order to make money and advanced his personal political ambitions. Is that correct . The report includes a description of the evidence and different inferences that reasonable jurors could draw from the evidence. And you also note the president described his Predecessor Handling of classified materials as totally irresponsible and your report concludes that mr. Bidens keeping classified documents unsecured in ones home is equally to his own decision. That language appears in the report. Mitigating factor the fact the president cooperated with the investigation. At the time it was happening and the acts of cooperation occurred, the maralago investigation was already a matter of public record, correct . I believe thats correct. So we already had a public debate about the handling of classified documents and the application of criminal laws to that general set of circumstances. I think thats fair. The president when he decided to cooperate or not cooperate, had to know it would be known to the public and judged accordingly, is that correct . Im not in position to opine relevant to your analysis whether or not it counts as a Mitigating Factor if he knew he was going to be judged whether he cooperated or not, lessened value as a Mitigating Factor. Did that lessen its value . We undertook a comprehensive that specific factor. Did it lessen its value as a Mitigating Factor. That and all facts relating to the president s cooperation with our investigation. Another factor you discussed is deterrence and you say the factor counsels against bringing charges here because you said as for general deterrence, future president s and Vice President s are likely to be deterred by the recent criminal investigations and one prosecution for mishandling classified documents. So the indictment brought by jack smith. The very terms of your analysis, jack smiths indictment actually counseled against and was counted against bringing charges in this case. Is that correct . Im sorry, congressman. I dont follow your drift there. You said there is already deterrence, there is a prosecution out there in a prior case related to classified 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 that i will stand by the way and specific words in which i characterize my assessment of deterrence on page 254 and 255. My time is out, per Verse Implication here, by the terms of your analysis made it less likely that the president would face charges by jack smith bringing an indictment. Thank you, i yield back. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents, first the superceding indictment against donald trump in the Southern District of florida where he is facing criminal charges on 40 counts, including obstruction of justice, lying to the fbi, unlawful willful retention of National Defense without objection the indictment is recognized. Concealment of documents among other things, shortened version, and my second document, to clarify for you, sir, mr. Hur, from the transcription, page 82, the words are President Bidens. What month did beau die, oh, god, may 30th. A searing memory, i ask unanimous consent. Without objection. The woman from georgia is recognized. Thank you for this hearing and thank you so much for spending so much time with us today, Special Counsel Hur. In accordance with the law, Classified Information must be treated with the highest respect and also protected and President Biden has made it clear during this investigation and long before that he agrees. In response to mr. Hurs report he said 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. The Special Counsels report makes clear 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 mistakingly kept classified material, he took swift and immediate action to ensure that those materials were returned and he fully cooperated with every step of your investigation. President 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. Yet when his lawyer told him it was going to be a crime if he didnt return the classified documents that he had after the doj and the fbi requested multiple times that trump returned 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. I would 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 answering yes or no. Please answer this question. Page 187 as your report reads at no point did we find evidence that mr. Biden intended or had reason to believe the information would be used to injure the United States or to benefit a foreign nation. Is this what you reported . For the second time, please answer yes or 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. Ok. So what you reported, correct . That language is in my report. And mr. Hur, you acknowledged on page 12 of your report that there are as you said numerous previous instances in which marked classified documents had been discovered intermixed with the personal papers of former executive Branch Officials and members of congress. Please once again can you confirm for us yes or no the answer whether this is what you reported. That and appears at page 12 of my report. Page 323 reads as a matter of Historical Context there have been numerous previous incidents which marked classified documents have been discovered intermixed with the personal papers of former executive Branch Officials and members of congress. Is this what you reported . 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 elaborate sc to hide those documents from federal Law Enforcement officials . The one case that comes to mind we do address in the report is the prosecution of general patraeus. So are these historical examples aside from donald trump where officials instructed their aides to delete evidence pertaining to those classified documents . That was not present in the patraeus prosecution, no. So the American People deserve as we have always been saying all along here that we deserve a leader who will not put themselves Above The Law but will work with Law Enforcement and hold themselves accountable. Thank you, and i yield back. Gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. Special counsel hur, when you determined no criminal charges should be brought against President Biden in this matter you focused on the facts surrounding the classified documents, where President Biden stored them and on his memory and age. You wrote that President Bidens memory was significantly limited during his recorded interviews with the ghost writer in 2017 and during his interview with Special Counsels office in 2023. You also expressed concern that prospective jurors would be persuaded by president joe bidens presentation as a simple meaning, older man, and poor memory. And how he would be in front of the jury if he stood trial. Element of my decision, not the only element. That was not my question but one of the things we were considering, his current state of mind, memory, correct sn snchlt . How President Biden would be present himself to the j you are if he elected to testify. You did not compare President Bidens current memory or condition with his memory or condition when he was in the senate or when he left the Vice President and took the classified documents subject to your investigation, is that right . I believe thats not correct, congresswoman. One of the things in the report is assessment of the president s memory based on recordings from the 20162017 time frame, recordings of conversations between mr. Biden and his ghost writer, and comparing that with the president s memory that he exhibited during our interview of him in october of 2023. So there was a comparison there. Okay. So, but unless there was some issue undisclosed to the American People during his 50 years in office, you found that mr. Biden fully understood his legal responsibility related to the handling of classified materials which is why you concluded in your report that mr. Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his Vice Presidency when he was a private citizen. You state that on page one, correct . I believe what i stated on page one, we identified evidence that mr. Biden willfully retained Classified Information after the end of his Vice Presidency, but concluded the evidence was insufficient to warrant 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, and in other offices. Is that fair . I dont think thats accurate, congresswoman, because when mr. Biden was Vice President he was authorized to have classified material in his home. But after he left, he knew that he was not entitled to keep Classified Information at his home, correct . After he left there is evidence to suggest that he knew that he could not legally have Classified Information in 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 that i would put it is this. President biden knew better, he knew he was not entitled to keep these documents when he was a senator and knew he was not entitled to keep these documents after he had left the Vice Presidency. But because hes now suffering from an impaired memory, as you so delicately put it, he got away with it. Is that fair . Congresswoman, what i stated in my report is that there is certainly evidence that some jurors could infer to suggest that mr. Biden willfully retained National Defense information but in my judgment the likely the probably outcome not conviction. Mr. Hur, i have represented a variety of clients over the years in actions over the federal government, over several decades of time. Its my experience the federal government and doj specifically has essentially unlimited resources to go after and prosecute citizens and will spare absolutely no expense in doing so. It is also my experience that the doj is not only overly aggressive in these cases, but make