Special counsel Hur gets hammered by lawmakers: 5 takeaways

Special Counsel Robert Hur appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to defend and explain his findings regarding President Biden’s handling of classified documents.

Mr. Hsu answered questions from lawmakers for about four hours and had several tense exchanges, especially with Democratic lawmakers who accused him of being partisan.

Here are five takeaways from Hur’s testimony.

Ha was attacked from all sides.

Hsu’s treatment of Biden has spurred backlash from both sides of the aisle, with Republicans repeatedly suggesting he bowed to pressure and not recommending charges against the president, while Democrats have criticized his mental acuity with “unwarranted words.” ”, which violated prosecutorial norms.

In one of the most intense moments of the hearing, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Biden for what he described as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

“They could have written a report on the president’s comments by specifically recalling a series of documents, but they chose to make general references to the president. You knew it would cause an uproar, right?” Schiff said he plans to run against Republican Steve Garvey in the Senate race this fall after winning last week’s California primary.

“What you wrote was very damaging to the president’s interests,” Schiff said. “You said it wasn’t political, but you still understood the impact of your words.”

Republican officials said the revelations raised questions about whether Mr. Hsu punched up his report on Mr. Biden, and some complained about his treatment of former President Trump.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) accused Mr. Ha of setting a dangerous precedent by considering how potential jurors might perceive Mr. Biden.

“Your report found that the elements of a violation of federal criminal law were met, but then the old man’s cooperator theory because Joe Biden cooperated and the elevator couldn’t get to the top floor. Convict.” Gates said.

Democrats dispute the extent to which Huh’s report exonerates Biden

Democrats accused Mr. Huh of burying the most important part of the report, which said there was not enough evidence to indict Mr. Biden.

“President Biden’s decision to act responsibly, cooperate fully, and decline criminal charges was a relatively easy one. In short, in the words of the previous administration, the Hur report is a complete and complete “It represents a great deal of innocence,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee’s ranking member.

“To be clear, so many people are taking your words out of context that the bottom line is that we do not find enough evidence to indict President Biden. That means they can’t be prosecuted.”

Throughout the hearing, Democrats looked at the substantive analysis presented by Mr. Hur about the flaws in the evidence and why he did not believe he could build a case. , pointing to everything from documents stored in his garage. Please help us by submitting documents and sitting for the interview.

At many points during the hearing, Mr. Hsu agreed with the Democratic Party’s characterization of the case, but objected to the repeated use of the word “not guilty.”

“I have to go back and note the word ‘exonerate’ that you used. That’s not a word that appears in the report. It’s not part of my job as a prosecutor.” , Ha said during questioning from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

“You exonerated him,” Jayapal said.

“We have not proven his innocence. That word is not in the report,” Xu replied.

Republicans capitalize on Xu’s most important statement

Republicans focused on language in Hsu’s report that cast Biden’s actions in a more negative light.

“Did Joe Biden illegally keep classified information? The answer: Yes, he did. That’s what the report says on page one,” said House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-S.C. State of Ohio) stated at the beginning of the hearing.

Mr. Hur appeared to agree with Mr. Gaetz after reviewing remarks made during the Biden news conference about the document. At one point, Mr. Xu said Mr. Biden’s characterization of how the documents were stored was “inconsistent” with his own report.

Mr. Hur similarly agreed with several statements made by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

“Have you come to the conclusion that this man is completely innocent?” Issa asked.

“That conclusion is not reflected in my report, sir,” Mr. Xu replied.

“You didn’t come to the conclusion that he had done nothing wrong. You came to the conclusion that you couldn’t win in court and didn’t go ahead with it,” Issa later asks. “Yes,” he urged Huo to answer.

Xu defends his comments about Biden’s memory

In his opening statement and in an exchange with lawmakers on Tuesday, Mr. insisted.

“The need to show my work was particularly strong here,” Hoare said in his opening statement. “The Attorney General has appointed me to investigate the actions of the Attorney General’s boss, the sitting President of the United States.” I knew I couldn’t leave it there. I needed to explain why.”

He pushed back against Schiff’s proposal, insisting that politics played no role in his approach.

“I could have written a report that omitted the reference to the president’s memory, but that would have been an incomplete and inadequate report,” he said.

Hoare also told Jordan that there were numerous instances in his interactions with Biden that led him to believe that disclosure was the right decision.

“The time I spent with the president during his voluntary interviews was certainly something I took into consideration when constructing my assessment and clarifying it in my report,” Ho told lawmakers. . “This includes not just the words on the cold record of an interview transcript, but the experience of being in that room with him and thinking candidly about how he would explain it to a jury in a criminal trial if he were accused. It is.”

The transcript of the two-day interview was released hours before Mr. Xu testified. Biden is shown stumbling over certain dates and facts, while also joking with the special counsel and repeatedly saying he has no intention of taking away classified materials when he leaves office. The situation was also described.

Trump prominently documents features of incident

Several Democrats spent time contrasting the facts of the case facing Biden and Trump, who is facing 40 federal indictments in Florida for storing classified materials.

The strategy was clear from the beginning of the hearing. Nadler used his opening statement to draw a distinction between Biden’s cooperation with the Xu investigation and Trump’s refusal to turn over classified materials to the National Archives after leaving the White House.

Nadler said that Trump’s failure to be indicted was not due to “some vast conspiracy” and that “fundamentally, he was unable to take advantage of even one of the many opportunities presented to him to avoid prosecution.” He said this was because he couldn’t do it.

“What man would miss not one, but dozens of chances to escape criminal liability? What does that say about his mental state? Again, the record speaks for itself.” , President Trump later added, “People should think twice before accusing others of cognitive decline.”

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) asked whether Biden instructed his lawyers to lie, his assistants to move boxes of classified materials, and whether he deleted surveillance footage. They also asked election aides whether they had shown them confidential maps. Trump is accused of doing just that.

Mr. Hsu said he would not get involved in details about Mr. Trump’s case or special counsel Jack Smith. But Mr. Xu’s own report acknowledged a clear difference between Mr. Biden’s cooperation with his office and Mr. Trump’s refusal to cooperate.

“While it is not our role to evaluate the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, it is clear that there are some significant differences between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s.” Mr. Hur said in his report.