Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Special Counsel Testifies On Biden Classified Docs Investigation. Aired 12:30-1p ET
Aired March 12, 2024 - 12:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:30:00]
REP. LOU CORREA (D), CALIFORNIA: 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 with President Trump, President Trump turned classified documents over to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, and he consented to searching his home in other locations. Wouldn't you say that's night and day when it comes to cooperation with law enforcement?
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 a sitting president. Is that correct?
HUR: Well, 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 the Department of Justice makes enforcement decisions or non-enforcement decisions in particular cases, those are precedents, 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 investigation?
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.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
REP. SCOTT FITZGERALD (R), WISCONSIN: 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: 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 and the evidence that we obtained during our investigation, they are addressed in the context of determining how the jury would perceive, receive, and consider evidence relating to whether or not the president had willful intent when it came to retaining or disclosing national defense information.
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?
[12:35:01]
HUR: I don't recall off the top of my head exactly how we characterize it, but I think the gist of the evidence is that the manner in which files were packed up and moved out at the end of the Obama administration was in a -- it was in 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. I believe others of them were in file cabinet drawers.
FITZGERALD: So what's your --
HUR: I would refer you to the report.
FITZGERALD: What's your assessment on 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: Actually, 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 a 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?
FITZGERALD: 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 those conflicts.
FITZGERALD: Just very quickly, in total, the National Archives discovered nine documents totaling 44 pages with classification markings. Is that correct?
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. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (D), PENNSYLVANIA: 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: OK. Your report also says, in addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents we have not been -- that we have not been able to refute. Did I read that correctly?
HUR: Congresswoman, if you would give me a page citation, I can --
SCANLON: Page 6.
HUR: Six. Yes, I see that language on page 6.
SCANLON: OK, 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.
SCANLON: 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.
[12:40:03]
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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your next wife was a woman by the name of Marla Maples?
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 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.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Am I correct that you married your current wife in January 2005?
TRUMP: I don't know relative to that date.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In what years were you the owner of the Paz Hotel?
TRUMP: I don't know the years.
James Webb, I don't remember the names. Don't remember the name.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you don't remember saying you were one of the best men in the world?
TRUMP: I don't remember that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
TRUMP: I have -- I know I remember you telling me, but I don't know the dates (ph).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
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, correct?
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 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.
SCANLON: But you are qualified to say what are the normal procedures followed by a special counsel, correct?
HUR: I'm familiar with the rules as set forth in the Justice Manual and my understanding of how to apply them.
SCANLON: And, in fact, what you did.
HUR: Correct.
SCANLON: OK. 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'Antuono, 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'Antuono 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. I yield back.
JORDAN: Without objection. Gentlelady yields back.
Gentleman from Oregon is recognized for five minutes.
REP. CLIFF BENTZ (R), OREGON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was 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 his 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 right?
HUR: You do, Congressman.
BENTZ: And his memory was bad then. What's -- we can draw conclusions whether it improved over the next six years or not. But I just want to make sure it's clear that we're looking at his condition in 2017, which you then find as you go through the kind of the list of defenses and that is his memory is bad, his memory is bad, his memory is bad. There's about six or seven defenses here.
[12:45:02]
And so what it gets me to is, 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. And 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 charge 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: But if I may -- forgive me for interrupting, but I'm limited on time as everybody else was. But you say, I think, that the evidence suggests he is incapable of forming, or 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, of holding these these documents and I hate to say hiding the documents, but you can't -- you couldn't prove it. So what you did instead is fell back to the various defenses that might also be asserted against you. Kind of a heap of rationale for not pursuing the president. Is that -- 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.
BENTZ: Maybe another --
HUR: But that's not the end of the trial. The trial also has to include presentation from the defense lawyers.
BENTZ: 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: Gentleman yields back. Mr. Hur, we've been at this close to three hours. We will -- if you can hang with this, 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 1:40.
HUR: I can keep going chairman.
JORDAN: OK, 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.
REP. JOE NEGUSE (D), COLORADO: 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 kind of 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 investigation?
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: OK. 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.
[12:50:07]
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: OK. 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: OK. 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, it 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: Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Alabama is recognized for five minutes. Will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds? Gentleman from?
NEGUSE: Yes, sir.
JORDAN: Yes, 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. And how this whole thing works.
I now yield back to the gentleman from Alabama.
REP. BARRY MOORE (R), ALABAMA: 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/or 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 a 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 we're -- 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 --
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 dubious tactics, unquote. And his prosecutorial record is replete with a, quote -- and I'm -- with a quote, let me say this, "string of mistrials and overturned convictions."
[12:55:21]
Actually, Chief Justice Roberts once rebuked Mr. Smith's prosecutorial theory as a boundless interpretation of federal bribery statute. That did not comport with the text of the statute or the president of this court according to the Supreme Court justice.
And so, 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'll yield the balance of my time back to you.
(OFF-MIC)
JORDAN: Can you explain what specifically in your interview with President Biden led you to this conclusion?
HUR: Congressman Jordan, I'm sorry, the mic was turned on halfway through your question.
JORDAN: Yes. Can you explain what specifically in your interview with President Biden led you to this conclusion?
HUR: A conclusion about a --
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 it 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 the report. Is there anything else specifically that stands out from that interview with the president?
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. What -- the brief -- look I had at the transcript this morning, because we just got it this morning, I saw some of that.
Chair now recognize the gentlelady from Texas -- or excuse me, Pennsylvania. I'm used to you being down there. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D), PENNSYLVANIA: I got an upgrade.
JORDAN: OK.
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 was 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.
