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? >> i believe if those exact words did not appear on the report, that is consistent with the gist of my conclusion. >> very good. they are that 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 you? i read a portion of it for me your words. it is page 11, starting online three beginning with the words. unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, would you read the next few sentences >> unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of mr. trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts >> keep going >> congresswoman, i'm happy to have you read the words in my

rib. >> well, it's your reports. i think it actually is more fitting that you read those most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite >> you going >> according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. >> you may stop there. thank you. you mentioned the indictment against mr. trump for mishandling sensitive classified national security information. that indictment says at the end of his presidency, mr. trump, i'm looking for my indictment here. i have it here mr. trump himself ordered that boxes containing classified materials go to mar-a-lago where he hosted tens of thousands of guests. then 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 spoon about and when a grand jury subpoena 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, waltine nauta, to move boxes of the documents to conceal them from mr. trump's 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 app the aggravating facts that are referred to in the report are set forth and described in my report at page 11 very good >> mr. herrera, to the best of your knowledge and investigation to president biden, ever direct an employee to lie about hide, or destroy classified information? yes or no? we did not identify such evidence. >> did he do so himself

>> we did not identify such evidence. >> and i want to give you a chance since the transcript is out to correct the record on an important point. very sadly your report on page 20 wait, says that mr. biden couldn't come up with the date, the year of his son, beau biden's death when in fact, in the transcript, it's shows that you asked him the month. and do you know what he said mr. hur? he said, oh god, may 30. would you like to correct the record? his memory was pretty firm on the month and a day. >> congresswoman, i don't believe that's correct. with respect to the transcript, but if you could refer me to a specific page, i'd be happy to look. >> i've read about it, new reporting. thank you. i yield back chair. now recognizes mr. kiley mr. her, why did the white house asked you to remove parts of the report? what was the reason they gave for that >> i don't have the letter in front of me, congressman, i believed that among the reasons was that they contested or that they they asserted that certain

language in the report was inconsistent with doj policy. >> the day that your report came out, the president gave a alive a 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, i'm here to talk about the work that went into the report and my declination decision and my explanation of it for the attorney and it wasn't just the president anthony coley, former spokesman for merrick garland, has said that democrats should focus their ire on her. the president's personal attorney, bob bauer, said that your report is a shabby piece of work and a shoddy work product. do you agree with that characterization of your report? >> i disagreed vehemently with that characterization of my report. >> i also disagree think it's very well-written. well considered and comprehensive. do you think it's appropriate for the administration to be attacking the work of a special counsel that it appointed itself congressman. i'm not going to comment on the propriety of the

administration's reaction to my report. what i can tell you is that i stand by the report and the work that went into it today, the ranking members started his opening statement by saying mr. her completely exonerated president president biden then called your report a total and complete exoneration. there's a hurted you completely exonerate president biden. that is not what by report does. was your report a total and complete exoneration that is not what the report says. the statement by the ranking member who is incorrect, yes. >> as i said, that the report is not an exoneration. that word does not appear in my report based on the facts in anticipation of defenses presented in your report, could a reasonable juror have voted to convict? as i said in the report, some reasonable jurors may have reached the inferences that the government would present and its case and chief, it's a reasonable juror could have voted to convict based on the facts that you present direct if you were on the jury, would you have voted to convict? >> i have not engaged in that thought exercise, congressman. and so what i'd like to stick to is what's in the report, which is my assessment as a

prosecutor. sure. what you did find in the report? is that the president? this page 200 risks serious damage to america's national security through his handling. and ms of classified materials and you identify, quote, a strong motive for the way he handled those materials. two of the motives you cited was his desire to run for president and his desire to sell books. so a reasonable in france for your report is that the president risks serious damage to america's 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 that the president described his presence as there's handling of classified material as totally irresponsible and your report concludes that mr. biden's emphatic and unqualified conclusion that keeping marked classified documents, unsecured, and ones home is totally irresponsible, applies equally to his own decisions. is that correct? that language does appear on the report you

cite as a mitigating factor. the fact that the president cooperated in the investigation. but at the time that the investigation was happening and these acts of cooperation occurred, the mar-a-lago investigation was already a matter of public record, correct? i believe that's correct. so we already had a public debate about the handling of classified documents and the potential application of the criminal laws to that general set of circumstances. i think that's fair >> and so the president, when he decided to cooperate or not cooperate, had to know that that decision to cooperate or not cooperate would become known to the public. and he would be judged according accordingly. is that correct? >> i'm not in a position to opine on what was or was not in the present, but it's relevant to your analysis as to whether or not it counts as a mitigating factor if he knew that he was going to have to be judged based on whether he cooperated or not. that would have less than its value as a mitigating factors. so did that in your analysis and lessen its value >> we undertook a comprehensive that that specific factor did it less than its value as a

mitigating factor that all facts relating to the president's cooperation with our investment. another factor you discussed as a deterrence, and you say that deterrence actually, the factor actually counsels against bringing charges here because you said, as for general deterrence, future presidents and vice presidents are already likely to be charged with deterred by the multiple recent criminal investigations. and one prosecution of current and former president and vice presidents for mishandling classified documents. so that one prosecution of course, is the indictment brought by jack smith. so by the very terms of urinalysis, jack smith's indictment actually counseled against and was accounted against bringing charges in this case. is that correct? i'm sorry, >> congressman, i don't follow your drift. well, you said that there's already deterrence because there's this prosecution out there in a prior case related to classified documents. so we don't need to bring another case to establish the truth value that's that was the essence of urinalysis, correct? >> congressman, what i'll say

is that i will stand by the way in a specific words in which i characterize my assessment of deterrence value of a case of principles of federal prosecution that's on page 254.2, 55 of my room thank you. >> my time is out, >> but i'll just add the perverse implication here is that the administration by the very terms of urinalysis actually made it less likely that the president would face charges by jack smith bringing an indictment. thank you. and i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i have anatomists consent request. thank you. i asked unanimous consent to enter into the record to documents first, the superseding indictment against donald trump in the southern district of florida, where he is currently britley facing criminal charges on 40 counts, including obstruction of justice, lying to the fbi is unlawful willful retention of national defense? >> objection. the indictment is is it concealment of documents from law enforcement, among other things? that was the shortened version. and my

second document to clarify for you, sir, mr. her from the transcription, page 82 the boards are president biden's. what month did you die? oh god. >> may 30th. a searing memory. i asked unanimous consent out. objection. the gentlewoman from georgia's recognize. >> thank you mr. chairman, >> ranking member for this hearing. and thank you so much for spending so much time with us today's special counsel, her in accordance with the law, classified information must be treated he did 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. hur's report, he said and i quote, over my career in public service, i've always worked to protect america's security. i take these issues seriously, and no one has ever questioned that in quote, the special

counsel's report makes clear that this is unfortunately a common occurrence for classified documents to get swept up into members of congress or executive branch of branches, officials, personal effects and as soon as president biden discovered that hit mistakenly kept classified material, he took swift and immediate action to ensure that those materials wereeturned. >> any fully >> cooperated with every step of your investigation. president biden's predecessor when dealing with the issue of having classified materials took very different steps 2016, donald trump declared, and i quote, i'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. >> no >> one will be above the law in quote yet when his lawyer told him that it was going to be a crime if he didn't return the classified documents that he had after nara's 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 too. 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. her. thank you for being here today. i'd like to talk about your report regarding president biden and some of your findings and for the sake of time, if you don't mind just answering yes or no please answer this question. page 187 as your report reads,

at no point that 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 yesterday 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. okay. so then this is what you reported, correct? >> that languages in my report. >> ok. 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 have been discovered intermixed with the personal papers or 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 language appears at page 12 of my report

>> page >> 3-23 also reads, as a matter of historical context, there have been numerous previous incidents and which marked classified documents had been discovered, intermixed with a personal papers of former executive branch officials and members of congress's this, what you're, what you reported. >> that language appears at page 3-23. >> thank you. now, it's my understanding that that this has happened before or classified documents are swept up into official papers. mr. aside from donald trump, are you aware of similar instances in history where officials who those documents from federal law enforcement officials >> the one case that comes to mind that we do address in the report is the prosecution of general petraeus >> so are these historical examples aside from donald trump, where officials instructed their aides to

delete evidence pertaining to those classified documents that was not present in the petraeus prosecution? no. >> okay >> so the american people deserve, as we've always been saying, all along here, that we deserve a leader who will not put themselves above the law but we'll work with law enforcement and hold themselves accountable thank you. and i yield back >> the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized >> special counsel. her when you determine that no criminal charges should be brought against president biden in this matter, you focused on this specific to fix that facts surrounding the classified documents where president biden stored them and on his memory in age you wrote the president biden's memory was significantly limited during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017 and during his interview with the special counsel's office in 2023 you also expressed concern that prospective jurors will be persuaded by president biden's

presentation as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory your assessment however, was focused on how president biden would currently present to a jury if he stood trial. is that correct? >> that was an element of my explanation to the attorney general for my decision. it was not the only element. okay. that wasn't my question, but it was one of the things that we were considering was his current state of mind, his current memory all right correct. one of the things that i consider would be how if a trial whenever a trial theoretically were to be held, how president biden would present himself to the jury if he elected to testify, you did not compare president biden's current memory or condition with his memory or condition when he was in the senate or when he left the vice presidency and took the classified documents subject to your investigation, is that right? >> actually, i believe that's not correct. congresswoman, one of the things that's in the report is an assessment of the president's memory based on recording some of the 2016 2017

timeframe recordings of conversations between mr. biden and his ghostwriter 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 unless there was some issue and disclosed to the american people during his 50 years in office you found that mr. biden fully understood his legal responsibility related to the handling of classified materials, which is why you concluded in your report that mr. biden, quote, willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was it's a private citizen. you state that on page one, correct >> i believe that what i stated on page one was that we identified evidence that mr. biden willfully retained classified information after the end of his vice presidency but ultimately we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant. >> i understand that. please listen to my question. was what i'm 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, isn't that right? he understood that, correct >> my understanding is that based on the evidence my assessment was that a jury that is what my question wants. 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 don't think that's accurate. congresswoman, because when mr. biden was vice president, he was authorized to have classroom obvious, 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 is 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 that he wasn't entitled to keep these documents from one when he when he was a senator, and he knew he wasn't entitled to keep these documents after he had left the vice presidency but because he's now suffering from an impaired memory as you so delicately put it, he got away with it. is that fair >> congresswoman, what i stated my in my report is that there's certainly evidence that some jurors could could infer to suggest that mr. biden willfully retained and disclosed national defense information but in my judgment, the likely outcome of a trial, the probable outcome of it, you know, ms i. have represented a variety of clients over the years and actions against the federal government over in fact, several decades of time it's been my experience that the federal government, the doj, specifically has

essentially unlimited resources to go after and prosecute citizens. and will spare absolutely no expense in doing so. it is also been my experience that the doj has not only overly aggressive in these cases, but makes it clear that part of the reason for such aggression is to make an example of the poor soul who is the subject of such action. in other words, so that other people will not engage in the same kind of conduct mr. her having been a long-term doj prosecutor, can you please explain why those people without the last name of clinton or biden are typically treated quite differently and seemed to be the only ones who are never held accountable for violating the law >> congresswoman, one of the things that i explained in my report is the fact that there are historical precedents with respect to former occupants of the white house their retention of classified materials after they leave. >> so i'm asking specifically about mrs. clinton, gentlemen. mrs. hillary clinton and joe biden, congresswoman. i don't

have any opinion to articulate with respect to the investigation relating to mrs. clinton? >> i yield back gentlewoman from texas is recognized. >> mr. hur's special counsel, jack smith, has charged donald trump with 40 counts related to his unlawful possession of classified documents. the most serious charge carries a penalty of 20 years in prison according to the trump indictment, trump stored those documents at mar-a-lago, which quote hosted events for tens of thousands of members and guests and quote the indictment continues, quote, trump stored his boxes containing classified documents in various locations at the mar-a-lago club, including in a ballroom, a bathroom, a shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room mar-a-lago is more than a mansion or a compound. it is a club with membership with a membership program that sells access to the public it

has hundreds of people moving through it at any given time staffing it alone required 150 staff members. and while those classified national security documents sat in places like his ballroom, trump hosted more than 150 social events like weddings, movie premieres, which thousands of people attended. in brief, special counsel smith has alleged that trump willfully and knowingly took highly classified documents to a location accessible by tens of thousands of people. mr. hur was president biden's residence accessible to tens of thousands of people? >> know >> did president biden ever bring tens of thousands of people into spaces where he stored classified material? >> not to my knowledge. >> did joe biden advertise and sell memberships to his home that would allow members of the

public to have access? >> not that i'm aware of. >> did your investigation find that joe biden ever hosted movie premieres at his home while classified documents were stored there >> moving >> on among the 150 staff members working at mar-a-lago was a trump aide named walt nauta. according to special counsel smith, trump ordered nauta to move boxes of documents so that they could not be found by people looking for them. mr. her did president biden ever direct his staff to move documents? so that you are the fbi could not find them, waited, not identify evidence of that. in fact, according to your report, as soon as bob bauer discovered material and president biden's residence, he contacted john lausch and the president immediately consented to an fbi search of his home. is that correct? >> my report does state that and you found no evidence that any documents were moved prior to that search. is that correct? correct.

>> that's in stark contrast to donald trump president biden did not obstruct your investigation. he was fully compliant and with access to the millions of documents he gave you and dozens of hours of witness interviews. he facilitated you were able to fully and totally exonerate him of any criminal wrongdoing. i thank you, mr. hur. and before i yield back, mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into to the record an excerpt from the committee's transcribed interview with steven d'antuono, former assistant director in charge of the fbi, washington field hold office on june 7, 2023, in which mr. d'antuono explained that the fbi executed a search warrant for classified material at mar-a-lago because there was probable cause to believe that donald trump did not fully comply with a subpoena to turn over classified documents the

objection. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman. yields back the gentlelady from florida red counties or gentleman from ranking members recognize its chairman i have three of them is consent requests. all right. firstly, i assume that i asked unanimous consent to enter into the record. the publishers web page for president biden's 2017 book, promise me, dad would shows that the book is a deeply moved memoir about the year. okay. president biden son beau died? objection. yes. i also asked in atoms consent to enter page 97 of mr. hur's report, which says that president biden's book is not known to contain classified information that objects. finally, i he anatomists consenting the enter into the record of february 5, 2024. letters from president biden's counsel to special counsel, her that clarifies the president. biden's 2017 book, quote, does not contain classified information and there has never been any suggestion to the contrary, close quote the objection to turn out

recognized gentlelady from florida misley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you. as special counsel, her for joining us here today to discuss your investigation. regarding president biden's mishandling of classified documents. this is become an issue of great interest to all americans. and of course to all of us here today >> as, as >> outlined in your report, despite the discovery of confidential and top secret records located in the president's personal residence in delaware, including in his garage, offices, and basement. the department declined prosecution and my colleagues questions today have focused on the highway twice from your reports specifically referring to president biden's mental capacity, his willful disregard for the law as a private citizen, and how he would be perceived if presented to a jury of his peers, dependent upon. and i'll use your words from their report how this sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, handled and manage the storage of these confidential documents. the national

security of the united states might have been put at great risk because of the president's behavior. and so one of the things we must consider today is how we can ensure that our national security will not be continually put at risk when under the leadership of the same well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. since the release of the report to your knowledge, has the justice department started to analyze a damage assessment? of what may have been disclosed by these documents being mishandled, an any ongoing national security risks from the inappropriate storage and retention of the documents? >> congresswoman my understanding is it's such a damage assessment is underway in coordination and cooperation with the members of the intelligence community and do you today for us, have any information about the status of that investigation or how long it might take to conclude? >> i do not. congresswoman. >> i'd like to turn your attention to a discussion of the distinction between proving the underlying elements of an

offense and the concept of an obstruction of justice charge. is it correct, special counsel, her that in some circumstances as a federal prosecutor, you may investigate the underlying offense, an underlying offense. >> choose >> not to charge that offense, but still have developed sufficient evidence to charge a defendant with obstruction of justice i think as a matter of law, theoretically, that could occur. i can't bring to mind specific examples of that happening. but i suppose if that were to happen, it would be a more difficult case to try from a prosecutor's. >> the elements are distinct though, are they not? >> they are a distinct down, isn't it? >> isn't it's similar to a case where a federal prosecutor undergoes an investigation and ultimately doesn't pursue the original charge. they were investigating. but during the course of the investigation concludes that a false statement was made to a federal law enforcement officer brynn, and brings a charge under 1,001

that could happen? >> yes >> and again, there to the elements would be different? >> correct. >> and in reaching your final decision related to the declination or the recommendation to decline prosecution? you consider both the underlying elements of the offenses at issue and also the principles of federal prosecution. is that right? correct >> now, the principles of federal prosecution, those are things that may vary case to case. is that right? >> determinations under the principles of federal prosecution or very fact and circumstance-dependent. >> but the elements of the criminal offense are not isn't that also correct? >> elements are defined by law and they do not vary from case to case. >> and thus, those elements of the underlying criminal offense would be exactly the same from one defendant to the next to the next, isn't that right? >> yes. so you would >> expect would you not that a prosecutor who was considering the underlying offenses? it says that you were considering here would be looking at exactly the same elements and requirements of proof that you

did on the underlying charges. >> prosecutors assessing their cases under the same statutes must consider the same elements with respect to those statutes. >> all right. thank you, special counsel, her. >> and then >> if we could turn back to the concept of those principles of federal prosecutor fuchsia those are the additional factors aggravating or mitigating that you might consider an ultimately reaching a charging decision here, is that right? >> they do include such things that are referred to as aggravating and mitigating circumstances there's one thing i want to go back to though, to be clear, it's been said today that your report is tantamount to a total exoneration of president biden. that's not correct, is it? >> that is not correct. all right. thank you, sir. i yield the balance of my time to the chair gentlelady yields back the chair. now recognize gentlelady from north carolina. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. hur, also, for your patients, you're almost too what?

three-and-a-half-hours. so almost as much as biden >> throughout your report, you repeat it. you repeatedly site and credit number of innocent explanations for the presence of classified materials at the president's home and other locations. innocent explanations that you admit that you cannot refute. and i'd like to just focus on a few of them and i'll give you citations one of these explanations for the presence of classified documents, is that a member of the president's staff maintain those documents when he was the vice president and then mistakenly included them in sets of documents that were later sent to the two locations such as the penn biden center and the university of delaware. is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. but if you have a specific page number for me that would help make us will get you one that would be great. you also found that another innocent explanation to be more likely

than a criminal explanation for the presence of classified documents that were found at the penn biden center and the university of delaware. >> is that correct? correct. >> right. >> and then let's talk about the documents in the president's garage as you noted, a reasonable juror could conclude that the location of the documents surrounded by household junk is not a place where a person knowingly and intentionally stores classified documents that are critical to his legacy instead, it looks more like a place where a person stores classified documents is that he's unaware of that's on page 2o19 of your report, correct? >> that is something that a reasonable juror could factor into his or her consideration of whether or not the prisoner had criminal willful intent. >> great. >> and you also noted that president biden was allowed to have classified documents in his home for eight years as vice president. and then again, when he was president, and that

he also had layers of staff who were responsible for assembling, carrying, storing, and retrieving these types of classes fbi documents and because of these facts should determined it was quote, entirely possible that the president did not know he still had some of these documents in his home when his vice presidency ended in 2017. that's on page two 15 entirely possible, entirely possible yeah. >> so that's the citation i'm going to keep going because my time is running while you're looking so you side you also

cite the president's cooperation with your investigation as evidenced that he did not have criminal intent. and i want to quote you here because this is important, >> you wrote most significantly, mr. biden's self-reported to the government that the afghanistan documents were in his delaware garage and consented to the search of >> his house to retrieve them and other un other classified materials. he all also consented to searches of other locations. and later in the investigation, he participated in an interview with our office that lasted more than five hours and provided written answers to most of our written questions. many will conclude that a press up president who knew he was illegally storing classified documents in his home would not have allowed such a search of his home to discover those documents and then answered the government's questions afterwards, page to ten then you said that you expect this argument about the

president's innocence to carry real force for many reasonable jurors because in your words, reasonable jurors will conclude that mr. biden, a powerful sophisticated person, with access to the best advice in the world would not have handed the government classified documents from his own home on a silver platter. if he had willfully retained those documents for years just as a person who destroys evidence and lies often proves his guilt. a person who produces evidence and cooperates will seem by many to be innocent. again, page to ten you as you said in your report, it would be reasonable for juror to reach that conclusion and that a president advised by counsel would not have informed investigators at the presence of classified documents in his home, were invited agents in the search of every nook and cranny of his home? or other residents or sat for an

hourslong interview or answered pages of written questions all going to his full cooperation and his lack of criminal intent. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back bishop. mr. hur, we got three more. we're gonna do never going to take votes and then we'll just have a couple more after that. so i'm going to start with the gentleman from kentucky is recognized and yield to the chairman. i think the gentleman for yielding mr. her, are you opposed to the us congress having access to the audio tapes of the people you interviewed during your investigation >> chairman >> i am not in a position to articulate an opinion one way or the other that is not really up to me. i'm a former employee leave the department of justice. i would refer you to the white house and doj leaders. you're an accomplished lawyer. is there any reason why we shouldn't while the united states congress didn't have access to the same information you had access to. and that was the basis of your decision? >> chairman is not for me to opine on what material the justice department released the transcripts the day of the hearing been nice if we'd had

them in a more i think a better time for the committee to prepare for our questioning for you. they released him today, white house and justice, but just pardon, releasing today. be nice. if we actually had the audio tapes to again, is there any reason why you can see why the american people and their representatives in the united states congress should not have access to those tapes chairman, what i can tell you is that my assessment that went into my conclusions that i described my report >> was based not solely on the transcript. it was based on all of the evidence, including the audio recordings. great point. and that's where i was going. so this was valuable evidence for you as the special counsel named to investigate this issue valuable evidence for you to reach your conclusion and the statements you put in your report. and while i'm asking, is shouldn't the united states congress have access to that same information? >> chairman, again, it is not for me to weigh into >> what information congress should or should not have. but what i will tell you is that the audio recordings were part of the evidence, of course, that i considered in coming to my conclusions. will you back to the gentleman from kentucky

and hopefully can yield to the gentlemen are staccato you to the gentleman from north dakota. >> thank you, mr. hern, chapter ad of your book or your report, you detail that mr. biden retained in his delaware basement classified documents relating back back to his time as a us senator in the '70s, correct? correct. >> and even more senate papers dating back to the '70s through 1991 were found in the university of delaware morris libraries and in biden senate papers collection, correct? >> correct. >> and even more senate papers dating back to the 19th and 1980s were found in biden's delaware garage. >> i believe that's yes. that's correct. and quote, mr. biden had nearly 50 years experience dealing with classified information, including as a member of the senate let's select committee on intelligence and member and chairman of the senate committee on judiciary, a member and chairman of the senate committee on foreign relations and vice president of the united states, and that he was deeply familiar with the measures taken to safeguard classified information and the reasons for them correct >> that language certainly sounds familiar, congressman. but if you have a page citation for me, i can continue. >> and as vice president is

correct that in 2011, mr. biden received advice from his staff about the need to secure classified information in the form of notes? >> correct. >> including his first counsel or his first council, cynthia hogan? >> correct. >> end he was advised in writing in 2011 by hogan that classified notes busbee be attained and secure, saves and stored and secured facility, correct. his second counsel, john miguel, also advised biden that all of mr. biden's records, including his notes, would be sent to the national archives and biden understood and accepted that, correct >> that's correct. with the exception that mr. mcgraw hill was vice president biden's final council, not his second one. all right. >> and on his way out, mr. biden was also a of his obligations by the national archives staff twice more. that is classified node should be secured in yes >> that particular fact is not immediately coming to mind, congressman, but if you have a page citation, i can confirm it for you. >> well, did mr. biden have 30 years experience handling this information? he received advice

from at least two separate counsels, the national archives staff he has demonstrated enough knowledge of the law to attack attack president trump in public over the same exact issue in detail this is where i could get into this. i just have a problem with in your report and this testimony, a reasonable person would conclude that mr. biden knowingly retained national defense information patient, and failed to deliver to an appropriate government official. and that he knew his conduct was unlawful. and i think that's where we end up here and that's what the point is over the last three election cycles, there's only been three people who have ran for president hillary clinton, joe biden, donald trump all three of them had been accused of mishandling classified documents only one of them has been prosecuted. and that's what the american people see as what we see. we had hillary clinton who ran a program called bloodshed on our server. they used hammers to destroy evidence. joe biden has a 50 year history of misplacing

classified documents and numerous different position places. all of these cases have the same underlying elements of the crime. the same fact patterns. and yet we only see one person being prosecuted. and with that i yield back to the gentleman from kentucky and times expire. you back. >> tell me yields back to the ranking member is recognized for unanimous consent. thank you, ms jim is chairman. then in light of what the chairman previously said, i asked you adams consent, that all transcribed interviews taken by the committee this year be made public >> there's an objection to that the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here, mr. her st. louis. and are here today once again, to focus on the real issues that affect our communities instead of parties then hit jobs. let me start by saying that the potential mishandling of classified information is a serious issue. and i believe it was appropriate for the attorney general to appoint both special counsels in the biden and trump cases as my colleagues have

pointed out president biden fully complied with the investigation conducted by special counsel hur, who did not find evidence sufficient to warrant criminal charges. despite this outcome republicans have used the special counsel's report to further their long-standing efforts to reelect reelect the former white supremacists and chief donald trump, who faces 40 criminal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents including obstruction of justice while president biden returned all of the classified material and comply with the special counsel's investigation let's remind ourselves what donald trump has said and done. he refused to turn over the classified documents in his possession to the national archives he is on tape sharing documents. he said he could have declassified when he was president, he wrongly claimed in an interview that the presidential records act allows him to do whatever he wants and he was allowed to do

everything he did he also said on his right-wing social media platform quote, i'm allowed to do all of this he continues to admit to his possession of these documents on the campaign trail. so this hearing is not a good faith oversight effort. it is just the latest in a long line of dysfunctional and destructive actions taken by this republican majority. they don't care about responsible governance or making people's lives better they don't have an affirmative agenda. they are throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping it sticks and they have zero credibility to talk about mental acuity when they support donald trump the same donald trump will mixes up joe biden and barack obama and nikki haley and nancy pelosi. the same donald trump, who incorrectly pronounced the words venezuela respected, and united states. the same donald trump who calls january 6 defendants hostages and the

same donald trump who believed bleach injections would treat covid-19 it is deeply hypocritical for anyone who champions this man for the presidency to talk about the mental acuity of anyone else but this is nothing new. this has been a consistent pattern of the republican majority in this congress from the sham impeachment investigation that has completely collapsed to the absurd impeachment of secretory secretary mayorcas. republicans have solely focused on destroying the incumbent president, destroying the democratic party, destroying progressive movements for social justice. also that they can reelect one of the worst presidents of all time now, it is well that i have disagreements with president biden on certain issues my concerns are rooted in the desire to resolve policy matters and help him take better positions that save more lives that's not what

republicans are doing. that's not what these investigations and attacks or about they are trying everything they can to turn back the clock on our rights and our freedoms, and we cannot take the bait let's focus on policy let's focus on substance less, focus on saving and improving the lives of our constituents. not misusing the precious time and resources of this committee, not being dishonest just because this serves our political interests we are better than that. and our country deserves better than all of this. i will continue to reject these absurd distractions from the investments we need in the communities that we represent. let's focus on that. instead of this irresponsible and easily repudiated republican clown show. thank you and i yield back gentlelady yields back, i recognize myself for five minutes. special counsel, her >> thank you.

>> for a number of things. first, thank you for agreeing to testify today second, thank you also for sharing your family's story of the beginning of her testimony it is an extraordinary story of them coming to america. third, let me also thank you for your in-depth investigation and your detailed report and generally for your services, special counsel is not something that i think many people would look for. and certainly comes with a lot of burdens. so thank you for your work in your opening statement, you described your investigation has quote, thorough, and independent, and i agree with that. >> one >> where you attempted to give, quote, rigorous, and detailed analysis. i also agree with that and one where you say, you quote, must show your work, which we very much appreciate today. we don't normally see that did i recall your opening statement correctly as it relates to those quotes? >> yes, sir. you do. >> in fact, as part of your investigation, you interviewed about 150 different witnesses. you looked at millions of

different documents because you wanted to do a thorough investigation, isn't that true? true. correct. >> and you did this because you took your investigation extremely seriously and you want it to reach accurate conclusions, correct? >> very much. >> then let's review some of your specific findings regarding the issues pertaining to competency and mental capacity of president biden because they you say this is very important. to whether or not there was criminal willful intent. as you can see, i've set forth a number of different quotes up here on this board that i've prepared, some of which i'll read to you, page five. you say mr. biden's quote, mr. biden's memory was significantly limited. that again, on page six, you'd say mr. biden would likely present himself to a jury? as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. then on page 207, you say mr. biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations. and then again, on page 208, he did not remember when he was vice president, and he did not remember even

several even within several years when his son beau died. you finally make the statement on page 248, quote for these jurors, mr. biden's apparent lapses and failures and february and april 2017 will likely appear consistent with the diminished capacities and faulty memory he showed those were astounding conclusions to me. and as i looked through those quotes, i'd say a harken back to my time before commerce congress. i was a judge and one of the things that oversaw was guardian ships and frankly, when i read your when i read your conclusions, red flags began to go up on my mind because i oversaw hundreds of guardian ships back in texas. and as i saw your conclusions, i began to wonder, what is the dc statutes say about guardian ships and how you define an incapacitated individual. and washington dc and i want to show the statute because i presume are you familiar with the statute at all >> i am not, congressman. >> so i didn't think you'd

probably reviewed that, so let me just read to you some of these some of the definition here. and adult who is, whose ability to receive and evaluate information effectively and order to communicate decisions is impaired to such an extent that he or she lacks the capacity to manage all or some of his financial resources. that's the first part of the definition of incapacity and incapacitated individual under the guardianship statute and the district of columbia and quite frankly, i see tons of overlap from what you set forth in your testimony in your written report and the definition here, the phrases are almost identical i would pause it that if he cannot manage national top secret resources, i'm not sure how he can manage his personal financial resources and given your report's findings that his memory was quote, significantly limited and that he is a person with diminished faculties and with quote, fact faulty memory.

>> it >> makes me wonder how close he is coming to meeting this definition. of an incapacitated individual sites that he should have a guardian appointed by the dc courts for his personhood. there's at least i believe a prima facia argument to say that there is substantial evidence to indicate such. and you mentioned is not just what you written in the report, but it was your the demeanor of president biden as you interviewed him? i'll say in conclusion whether he does or does not meet this definition. i believe your findings raise significant concerns about his current fitness for the office of president, and certainly it's his fitness going forward in the future. and i appreciate the fact you are brazen enough to raise this issue in this report because you knew this would be significant in your findings, but you did so based on a very significant, very detailed, very thorough, independent report. and i praise you for that. doing your duty in scituate. thank you, special counsel? i yield back

>> gentleman. yields back. mr. hur, we have votes on the floor. we have a few more members who will do their five minutes of questioning. so we're going to reassess and then we will convene ten minutes after the conclusion of the last vote. i believe we only have a couple of votes. >> is that right? >> to votes? so congress had, that'll take awhile. but we'll get back to you as soon as we can and there's there's there's food in the backroom for i think we still have some left that you're welcome to, but that we're we stand in recess until ten minute this after the last vote >> and welcome to cnn, breaking news coverage. we have been watching former special counsel robert hur testified to congress on the biden classified documents probe. i'm anderson cooper in new york alongside jake tapper in washington. and for some, for hours now, lawmakers from both parties had been grilling in sparring with her for very different reasons. republicans argue he dropped the ball by not pursuing charges despite concluding in his report that joe biden mishandled classified

documents, democrats say the hur's characterization or prison biden's age and memory was an unnecessary detail. >> that's right. anderson and some democrats went much further accusing her of purposely trying to damage biden in order to score political points with donald trump suggesting that he was fishing for an appointment in a second. trump justice department, it's a motivation that her denies let's let's talk about this we can paula reid. let me start with you. what do we want to run these clips? let's let's let's run these clips from the front of the hearing my assessment and the report about the relevance of the >> president's memory was necessary. an accurate and fair most importantly, what i wrote is what i believe the evidence shows and what i expect jurors would perceive and believe i did not sanitize my explanation, nor did i

disparage the president unfairly all right, let's talk about this paula reid what's your take on it so far? special >> counsel for her. special counsel, rob hur. he understood the assignment. he showed up today, not to show favor with either side. he did not reveal much new information. he took hits from members of both sides of the aisle and continue to for to his report. i don't think anybody would walk away from today's hearing believing that he is a partisan, or if they do right, they all everyone believes he's a partisan for the other side. and i spoke with a source close to her earlier today and they said that's when, you know, you are good special counsel. when everybody is mad at you and i don't think he did anything to change that today during this hearing. this is what he showed up to do. they said a good special counsel sticks to the facts, doesn't draw outside the lines of the report, and that's exactly what he did to that city, would not entertain hypotheticals even referred to footnotes in certain answers. i mean, he really understood what he needed to do today. >> evan osnos, you are the

unofficial biden biographer you've interviewed him many times in this 300 plus pages or whatever this is, a transcript of his interview, five hours worth is this the joe biden, you know, is this like he forgot some details? but also can be avuncular and friendly also can be annoyed >> is this him very much so i was going to say if you ever wonder what it's like to sit down and talk to joe biden, read this transcript he tells some stories, some of which go back 1015 years. he also hunt around for a date at one moment he says he was i vice president at that point. and the reason he's doing it is because he's telling some story about the paper flow, the management of documents in his office one of the things that i think comes through is this was an exchange in which he answered every question and sometimes his answer was, i don't know or it's sometimes a spice your version of that he would say, i don't have any god, it idea because they were talking about things that in his mind or not

the things that a vice president or former vice president should be thinking about. he was asked literally questions like, what color were the file folders that were used for these materials where they greene where they blew with a yellow and he's answering, well, i don't know. so the takeaway is some people say, well, maybe you should have been more engaged, more involved in these kinds of record keeping issues. but his counsel would say if you don't know the answer, say you don't know, and so you get over and over again in the course of this interview, him saying, i don't know, i don't have any idea gloria borger, you've been covering joe biden for a long time in washington, dc is this ham and what do you think of the congressmen that we just heard from congressman moran, republican in from texas, suggesting that if dead, if joe biden does not have a complete grasp on all the information that he was asked in this transcript than he perhaps doesn't have the capacity to be president. well, first of >> all, these were things that happened on the personal. it is the joe biden these are things that happened a long time ago. yes, he should have known when his vice presidency and did et cetera, et cetera. but he

doesn't know what color folders were and what went into boxes as compared to donald trump, who actually directed people to put things in boxes and i think the question that the democrats were raising today was about this issue of his memory and senility and whatever. and adam schiff really when at her and said that this was a political choice and asked him why you chose a general pejorative description of biden's. >> let's let let's let's run that. that's run that clip if we can and it's sought 20 and then we'll come back to on the other end of the chlorine. >> you chose a general pejorative reference, the president. you understood when you made that decision, didn't you, mr. her, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn't you? >> congressman? politics played no part whatsoever in my investigative steps. you understood nevertheless, weren't schemester, not mr.

hurt, you you cannot tell me you're so naive as to thank your words wouldn't have created a political firestorm. you understood that, didn't you, when you wrote those words, when you decided to include those words, when you decided to go beyond specific references to documents, you understood how they would be manipulated by by my colleagues here on the gop side of the island by president trump, you understood that, did you not, congressman, what i understood? good is the regulations that govern my conduct. a special counsel and those regulations, regulation is confidential report for the attorney general, which you knew would not be named what i did, congressman, after all the rules, you knew it would not be confidential. you knew would not be confidential, didn't you >> so there he is. adam schiff, who is running for senate in california and known for being a rather partisan democrat out there saying, you put this in there because you knew it would hurt biden right. >> and i think you can hear the white house applauding. as he said that because, you know,

the democrats are making the point that there was no reason, particularly if you look at the transcript where he made mistakes, but also went back and corrected himself and asked for guidance. when was that? you know, i think i got that wrong. and what adam schiff is saying is that this was done purposefully, that there were other words he could have used rather than an elderly man with a poor memory you have this image so this poor guy sitting on a park bench, she feeding the birds, that's, that's not who joe biden is and i think her and you would know this best. paula is somebody who's so literal? >> yes >> and it has this reputation of being so literal that what he wrote is by the book. >> and >> he, he had to know the political consequences of it but in his mind, he did what he had to do and what her walked up to the line. he didn't quite say this, but he infers that had you have the transcript

that's what you're looking at. but remember, i listened to it live in real time. and again, a source close to him earlier today. so look, it's notable that the white house released the transcript today clearly, there were worried about more damaging information in this hearing, but what no one is hearing is the tape and that is what rob hur used to draw these conclusions. >> you know, it's interesting, i think the timing of this hearing matters greatly because it comes after joe biden just had a very successful effective state of the union address. so nobody who saw him on that night is going to think of a mess, as gloria said, a kindly old man sitting on a park bench feeding the pigeons additionally, it comes as our own cnn reporting as reveal new details about how recklessly president trump, former president trump handled the documents that were at mar-a-lago. and so i think you could see what was interesting to me was how many republicans were trying to muddy the waters? knowing that there's

more damning evidence coming out about trump, and probably more that will come throughout the course of this year as these cases move on. >> so look, i think a special counsel, her did a good job today, right? he did what he did we use showed up to do. he was paula said he call balls and strikes the people who said he was out to get a job in the next trump administration. i think he clearly proved that that's not the case because he really wasn't carrying their water. i think you've shown the work on the old man sit on the bench, feed the pigeons. he's like, this is why we did not move forward to process notably, he said, this is not my report, did not exonerate the president. right. so that's that's a key takeaway for republicans. but the part about the mental capacity wasn't necessarily today, but he's saying i could see in another year two and if this does go to trial, he's gonna get older and this is what a jury is going to proceed, right? my opinion is a prosecutor

that he showed up today to kind of clear the air, get his reputation straight because he's not his empire here. he's not a republican. he's not a democrat. he was a great special counsel in this case. you can call them balls and strikes and anderson, i mean, i think it's fair to say robert hur felt that if he was not going to bring charges, he had to explain why >> and saying i wouldn't be able to get a conviction is just following the words of omar from the wire. if you come for the king, you best not. >> ms i always love in an omar a reference and are you thank you. jake tapper. >> the panel is going to reconvene after taking some votes while obviously bringing more of that joining me now are cnn political commentators, van jones, scott jennings, and our legal analyst, elie honig, and jen rodgers. jen, let's start with you just from a legal standpoint, which not a lot of news today. i mean, not a lot of legal news, at least a lot of political back-and-forth. i mean, neither side got him to say what they wanted him to say, right? the republicans wanted him to say that biden

was guilty and he got off because this is senile old man that they couldn't convict a trial. democrats wanted him to say that biden was completely exonerated by his investigation. so the truth lies somewhere in the middle, which is what the report says. there is evidence suggesting that biden kept and held improperly held classified information and that he knew he had at least some of it but it didn't get to the point where he said, i could bring this case and when this case and so we shouldn't prosecute, and that's where it ended up. that's where the report started out. and so i think her did a good job of kind of mostly keeping his cool and just sticking to the four corners of the report left both sides unhappy as paula reid was saying down in dc, which is what someone who's supposed to be independent is likely to do. >> it. there's something here for everyone. there's something here for republicans to love and democrats, the hate and vice versa and i do think it's important to point out to consistent overstatements that i think need to be fact checked. first of all, republicans time and again suggested what biden data would trump did one in the same, how

could one be charged, not the other? there are substantial differences. the most glaring one being that donald trump obstructed joe biden mostly not perfectly, but mostly lee cooperated with the investigation that's not necessarily determinative, but that's a big factor. but democrats and the white house frankly overshot as well by trying to claim this was a complete exoneration. it was not that they tried to claim there was no evidence and it's really important people understand because i think sort of normal viewers at home may be thinking, well, how could there be? evidence but not a charge. there is a broad gulf between the evidence you need to bring a charge as a prosecutor and no evidence whatsoever. and i think robert hur has made very clear there was some evidence it was substantial. he even said on questioning by representative kiley robert hur said that a reasonable juror could have convicted. so that means there's evidence that a prosecutor could have decided to charge, but in his exercise of discretion, which i think was sound, he decided it was not worth it because he wasn't

confident enough. you could go to a jury and get them all unanimous. a lot of this revolves around handwritten notes that then vice president biden he had written down that he felt based on ronald reagan keeping his handwritten notebooks and no, never going after him. he felt he was entitled to keep crucial point here >> this is not one set of classified documents. this is about five to seven different sets of classified documents. which made their way through various homes and offices of joe biden's in virginia and delaware in dc. one of those sets involve handwritten notes and robert hur said, i think pretty clearly in the report and today that that would be tricky to charge for exactly the reason you say anderson, that there is a tradition of people keeping their diaries, keeping their notes. so that's one of the sets where the evidence was weak or but there's other sets of evidence where the evidence was way stronger. for example the tape where joe biden says in february 2017, i just found all the classified document and classified materials downstairs that relates to marked classified documents about afghanistan. so they're not all one in the same. and i

think hur was careful and you see democrats cherry-picking from the weaker ones and you see republicans cherry picking from the stronger ones. >> i had a few takeaways. i do want to stand up for her. he was really between the scylla in the charybdis today. i mean, and had people coming in from both sides. i thought the attacks on him by hank johnson and adam schiff were particularly egregious. this guy is obviously a public servant. he's not there for partisan political reasons. to portray him as otherwise was beyond the pale my takeaways him saying i did not exonerate biden. that's obviously that was the main pushback of democrats after the report came out with biden was exonerated. he he put that to bed today the transcripts that came out today do show biden did have a lot of memory lapses her told the truth about that. >> he so confirmed that the white house tried to get the department of justice to change his report after he wrote it and after it came out. and finally, and one crucial thing, joe biden lied in his press conference when this came out, he said, i'll guarantee you i

didn't disclose any classified information on my ghost rider her made clear today. they have a tape of all this. he told his ghostwriter about the material. he told them where the classified information was stored. it's fairly obvious that the evidence shows biden misled the american people about this. >> i mean, this is a great big mess about nothing because it the end of the day, the reason that you want to charge somebody for doing something like this is to punish, deter, incapacitate. joe biden and donald trump behaved so completely differently. i think that did come out. but the republicans win on this just by making it an issue just having biden classified docs investigation, biden investigation by an investigation, what they're trying to do here is just create this equivalents in the public mind that the biden and trump both did best up with documents and that is a win for them regardless of influxes in arranged in jordan, let's listen to and and we know we know that we know jack smith and what he's done in the past

i do got to get to let's it will check in with lauren to hear what he may have said >> prior to us going to him, but van continue. >> i'm just saying >> that the bigger politics here you wrote, rewind the tape four years ago most people in this country when they went to vote they had a favorable view of biden unusual. biden, good man, trump batman. biden kind trump, mean and what the problem has been trying to do is to dirty up biden's reputation and that's why they're making such a big deal about a charge that shouldn't be brought. i want to get back to dana bash on capitol hill with more reaction from a member of the committee, dana. >> thanks, anderson. i'm here with congressman ken buck, republican of colorado. you just came from the hearing before we get to that, you announced some big news. you're leaving congress at the end of next week? >> i am. yes, i'm resigning my seat and creating a vacancy in my district. why? >> well, everywhere i go in colorado, dan, i hear that people are not happy with trump and are not happy with biden.

and i think we need to change our electrical electoral laws here and i have a passion for that. and i'm going to leave and i'm going to fight find the right organization to join. and i'm going to start work on that issue. we have to have better candidates up and down the bowel, not just president, but senate, house, local offices. we've got to find better ways to elect candidates and bring america together. >> you already had announced that you weren't going to not run for reelection why leave now and leave a vacancy in an already very narrow majority for your party. yeah. because to me it's important to get in the mix of this election cycle and start talking about the issues that people recognize our such a problem right now our my colleague, melanie zanona is reporting that there is such tension among house republicans that many of them aren't >> even going to overtreat. that's going to happen at the end of this week. is that tension part of why you're leaving so abruptly? >> i think displaces dysfunctional at, for example, i am the number of third

ranking member of the judiciary committee. i haven't even asked my questions yet, 40, 50 people have gone before me, but that could be personal, but it could be personal, but but but a lot of this is personal. that's the problem. instead of having decorum instead of operating in a professional manner displaces just devolved into this bickering and nonsense and knopp, not really doing the job for the american how much of the fact that you are leaving march my second next friday, how much does it have to do with the fact that trump >> is the presumptive nominee and you're not exactly a fan well, i don't think whether he was the nominee or not. i think our system is broken and how we choose candidates. and i want to get involved in that process. >> is it really that miserable right now to be i mean, from the outside and it doesn't look that fine. from the inside in is it that bad that you're saying? >> i'm done? >> it is the worst year of the nine years and three months that i've been in congress. and having talked to former

members, it's the worst year and 40 50 years to be in congress. >> but i'm >> leaving because i think there's a job to do out there that i want to go do. >> anybody that you want to fill your seat >> i have not gotten well done that and i'm going to stay out of there is a primary in colorado at the end of june june 25th is a primary election qatar on the right, and that >> before i let you go and i toss back to my colleague thank you. you mentioned that you haven't asked questions in here, but as a former federal prosecutor, yourself of listening to what mr. hur has said, do you feel comfortable with the fact that he decided not to press charges against the now president. >> why i have to tell you, dana, i think he is one of the most intelligent witnesses. i've ever seen. he has immense credibility grasp on the facts. i haven't seen the witnesses. i haven't heard the witnesses. i haven't read the underlying documents. i trust mr. hurd, who have made the right decision >> anything else you want to add about your announcement, your big announcement? know,

just goodbye. >> okay >> thank you. thanks for being here. thank you. jake, back to all right. >> congressman ken buck, a bidding adieu to washington, dc. let's go live to lauren fox now, she's live at the capital and lauren both democrats and republicans went into this hearing with definite strategies what are you hearing about how these partisans feel? other strategies are playing out? >> yeah i mean, both sides are extremely frustrated with her today. you're seeing that in the testimony, no one completely satisfied with that report, no one completely satisfied with his answers to questions republicans arguing that they feel like hard did not move forward with the prosecution against joe biden, and that his rationale for doing so was really checkered messi you heard that from jim jordan, the top republican on the judiciary committee. here's what he told me just a few moments it's ago >> i'm pursuing the american people should have access to

her also suggested that there is a difference between trauma girl in the sense, by differences joe biden kept classified information. is that about i forget how many, like nine different locations because the penn biden center move like three times in dc. so three locations there is garages dead his office on thursday on stairs and then at the university of delaware, the library and the university of delaware biden centers like i'm having that isn't like nine different places because the trucks play president trump's classified documents were kept at his home with secret service protection by the report don's point out that biden or not information that came aware of it what he points out in the report is based on what jack >> smith is sad and we know we know that, you know we know jack smith and what he's done in the past. so i do got to get the votes. i apologize >> and you also are hearing from democrats who are extremely frustrated about the focus about biden's age and his ability to remember things.

multiple democrats pressing her on why he had to include that information, the top democrat on the judiciary committee, jerry nadler, telling me that it was superficialis and that he feels like her is acting as a republican operator here. so it's really this unique moment on capitol hill, hill where you have a witness who's frustrating both republicans and democrats. jake no one completely satisfied, but as you noted, both sides clearly went in today with a very clear idea of how they wanted to tackle this moment. >> january, lauren fox, thanks so much. we're going to have much more of our special coverage ahead. we're going to squeeze in a quick break, stay with us the lead with jake tapper today at four on cnn >> it's time to feed the dogs real food, not highly processed paella. the farmers dog is fresh food made with whole meat and veggies. it's not dry food. it's not wet food. it's just real food.

>> it's an idea please. time has come >> bleeding gums are serious, jamie, dr. garcia euro sign of infection. >> rasgon detoxifies antibacterial fluoride works below the gum line to help heal gums and stop bleeding, press saves the day, press when these business owners need cash fast, they turned to bids to credit to fund what's next from fitness studios to medical offices and every small >> business in between. we've got your covered whether you need new equipment, funds to expand or need money to cover unforeseen business expenses, bids to credit is the trusted partner for years small business and ending needs. scan the code on your screen now or go to bids to credit.com to apply this to credit funding. what's next? >> was wet amd, i worry i'm not only losing my sight, but my time to enjoy it but now i can open up my war, which will buys

who buys mole was the first fda approved treatment for people with wet amd than improves vision. >> and delivers a chance for up to four months between so i can do more of what i love who buys more works differently. it's the only treatment designed to block two causes whether amd, the buys nose and i injection, don't take it if you have an infection active eye swollen, or are allergic to it, treatments like the by smoke can cause an eye infection or retinal detachment, >> but bys will may cause some temporary increase in ai pressure after receiving the injection. there's an uncommon risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots, severe swelling of blood vessels in the eye can occur. most common side effects were cataract and broken blood vessels opened up your world with vice a chance for up to four months between treatments with proviso, ask your dr. stay tuned to learn more about this limited time offer from renewal by anderson. >> have you been looking at replacing your home's windows or doors? if so, i'm sure is a huge factor. a renewal by anderson we're really proud of

our fair pricing policy were typical middle-class family. we have a budget, we need to be aware of where our money's going and the great thing about renewal by anderson was they actually had several financing options that we're going to make sense for our situation. >> let's talk. windows are five rx window material is like the gold standard in the industry. it's a composite material that lasts longer performs better, and is actually two times stronger than vinyl, okay so you're carrying this out to your back deck, but you've got to stop and try to shove open that patio door that can be real frustrating >> the dual ball >> bearing adjusters on our patio doors help the doors to glide easily and renewal by anderson, we've been doing this a long time and we know that you don't want some hard sell sales pitch will visit your home, see exactly what you have, and then give you an exact price quote and we'll honor that price for a whole year so that there's no pressure. let us give you a price on the windows and doors

that you will love. >> we have the intention of looking at different companies, doing some due diligence, and we started with renewal by anderson and it was such a compelling conversation and process that we ended up not even looking any further its renewal by anderson's 31 day sales event before march 31st, save $377 on every window and save $777 on every patio. odor and entry door with no money down, no monthly payments and no interest, poor 12 months are 31 day sales event ends march 31st for a free appointment during our sale call 1805011400. that's 180501 so you've fed on new floors. what i'm buyer today's buy one, get giuffre sale by flores for one room and get carpet, hardwood vital, and lamina if we're to war rooms free

>> today >> if you work in spaceflight, this is the worst possible thing i can ever happen. >> my dad died doing what he's loved >> space shuttle columbia, the final flight from your sunday, april 7 at nine on cnn welcome back. >> we're standing by for the questioning of special counsel robert hur to resume, democrats have been grilling him over his portrayal of president biden's memory, republicans over his refusal to prosecute the president, joining us now is democratic member of the house judiciary jerry committee, congresswoman madeline dean, congresswoman. thanks for being with us. first of all, your reaction to the testimony you've heard from east to her so far >> yes, i'm a member of judiciary had the chance to be there for his opening the statement, as well as many of the questions and had my own time to offer questions of mr. hur. i found him to be a public servant, a straight shooter, but we did have the chance to say, look, what was this actually all about this multi-hundred page report the

report begins with this simple sentence. we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. first sentence, and that is repeated throughout the report unfortunately, the coverage of this report got muddied. i believe because of throwing in of information about mr. biden being old a sympathetic man with a poor memory i found that to be very gratuitous and i found it to be an accurate specifically in one instance regarding the death of beau biden. so i thought that was most unfortunate. >> the other important >> go ahead and you pointed out that mr. hurd for the had said that the president did not remember the year of his son's death. and you pointed out in the transcript, he remembered the month and the the de may 30, i believe it was may 30. exactly. he said oh, my god may 30 you're asking me the month that beau died? may 30. so it was rather gratuitous to say he had a faulty memory, couldn't

come up with a year, but he came up with a month some of the day. so i found that to be unfair and he knew mr. hur had to know that that would be a bit of a poison of this report. it would be the light tightening rod to which media and others would go. he's actually had a motive behind it >> i have no idea. he says and i'll take him at his word. he says that that was part of the evaluation of this case. but really, what was the evaluations this case was the evidence and what i thought he also did very, very clearly was contrast the behavior of president biden, who voluntarily said, take a look in my house, my offices search anywhere you like voluntarily came in for more than five hours worth of testimony. never asked his employees to move destroy, or lie about documents contrast that with mr. trump, who is facing 40 counts for his taking of documents and mishandling of classified the top secret documents to mar-a-lago, asking his

employees to move things, hide things, destroy surveillance tape if they could possibly do that he lied to his own lawyers after he was subpoenaed, he asked her some of these things. >> yeah. obviously, in defiance of a subpoena, the contrast is so stark, some democrats on the committee have attempted to get mr. hur to say that he exonerated the private end. mr. hur has pushed back on that, pointing out that that is not language he used, that he'd this report does not exonerate the president however, after a thorough investigation, as he calls, no criminal charges are warranted you can play with the semantics, but no criminal charges they are warranted. he has declined to prosecute because he simply didn't see evidence enough to prosecute. >> he also said that he didn't think that he can get a conviction shin in any prosecution, congresswoman madeline dean thank you for your time, jake. >> thank you. >> all right. >> anderson, thanks so much.

let's go live now to cnn's evan perez. evan, you were in the hearing room. >> we >> saw lawmakers clashing with her from both sides of the aisle over the meaning of his report and his decisions. how does the report stand up? to what lawmakers are claiming it says >> well, i think what what you hear from rob hur as he's trying to stick very closely to what the report says because he knows that there was obviously there's a political effort on both sides to try to get him to say something beyond what the report says that you saw that play out in a couple of soundbites. they're aware representative jayapal from the democratic side resigned. scott fitzgerald on the republican side both try to get him safe to go beyond what he found in his report take a listen to these two exchanges. >> 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. >> i need to go back and make sure that i take take note of the war that you used exoneration. that is not a worker. i'm good at you with my question. i just ask us, i'm going to continue with my questions. you exonerate a conviction i know that dot exam room flow or it's not a shred has 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? >> i did not that conclusion does not appear in my report. congressman >> and look, jake jake you know what i think that i think you will continue to hear as frustration certainly from the white house about this report. they think from looking at the transcript that there's a more nuanced view of president biden from those five hours over two days last october, when he sat

down with rob hur or there was also remarkable things is that you've seen the justice department's a stick by rob and his findings, everything that he found in here they defended certainly when the white house was trying to push back on some of the language that they find objection. >> all right. evan perez, thanks so much. let's turn now to cnn's mj lee, who is at the white house for us mj. how is the biden white house response to this hearing? >> well, jake, obviously this has been a highly partisan hearing about a highly controversial report. and what we have heard so far from the white house's one a defense of president biden and to criticisms of robert hur and his report. much of it lining up with what we heard from the white house as soon as the report came out last month, the white house for one is squarely rejecting the notion that the president quote, willfully retained classified materials. they are once again pointing but two specific language from the report that they say speaks

contrary to that claim. they're also sort of vehemently taking issue with the language throughout the report that takes issue with the president's memory issues, say citing media reports that say the president seem to go into great detail in that multi-hour interview that he had with robert hur and saying that he did. in fact, remember if you look at the transcript, the month and the day that his late son, beau had died, and the white house is also just continuing to say that the report was completely gratuitous. an unnecessary and some of the language that it used, the conclusions that it seemed to draw. again mostly about his age and his memory issues so these defenses were very much reflected in some of the democratic lawmakers and the tax that they use up, for example, congressman adam schiff, excoriating robert hur during his line of questioning, saying that he purposely wrote the report in a gratuitous way for political reasons, take a listen what is in the rules is you don't gratuitously do things to prejudice the subject

of an investigation where you are >> declining to prosecute, you don't gratuitously add language that you know will be useful in a political campaign you were not born yesterday. you understood exactly what you were doing it was a choice >> and something else that we have heard a lot obviously from the white house is just the difference is that they say that they see between the way that president biden handled classified documents and that former president donald trump did. democrats crowds we saw today saying there's simply no comparison that they're the two scenarios are completely different, whereas republicans basically said it's not fair that former president donald trump is being prosecuted while president biden is not. so those are some of the political battle lines, of course, that we saw sort of a snapshot of during the hearing so far today that we are served only going to see continuing to play out as we get closer to november, jr. and mj lee, thanks so much. we're going to squeeze in a quick break when we come back, we'll talk more about this

testimony and hearing today >> do you know why i selected you to crush what makes you weak >> anyone who dares insult me or mine? i shall feel my gut regime streaming exclusively on max >> this is a future. >> go daddy arrow creates a logo website, even social posts in minutes. >> ai ai like it who wants to come see the get your business online in minutes with godaddy arrow >> what is the jg wentworth toll free number >> correct >> before my dr. and i chose breaths tree for my copd. i had bad days

>> flare-ups that could >> permanently damaged my lungs with breaths, tree, things changed for grass tree gave me better breathing, starting within five minutes, i noticed by lung function improved. it helps improve my symptoms and breaths tree was even proven to reduce flare-ups, including those that could send me to the hospital. so now i look forward to more good days. >> breaths tree won't replace the rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your dr. if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it, don't take breaths tree more than prescribed. registry may increase your risk of thrush pneumonia and osteoporosis call your dr. if for some breathing chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems, urinating, vision changes, or i paint occur can afford you medication astrazeneca may be able to help ask your dr. about grez tree for muscle cramps and spasms. their works absorbs quickly for relief so get back at it.

>> there works, >> works for fast muscle relief. their works work triet their works, and get back at i t >> unnecessary. know, >> neither is missing your daughter's competition to do payroll with paycom employees do their own payroll. so you don't have to, ms your daughter's big day time. >> to, shine >> get pay calm, and make the unnecessary, unnecessary >> hey, you with the small business you've got all kinds of bright ideas that your customers need to know about constant contact makes it easy with everything from managing your social posts and events to email and sms marketing constant contact delivers all the tools you need to help your

business grow. get started today at constant contact.com. constant contact helping the small stand tall you again for the work you did, i don't agree with everything you wrote in the report, but that's the nature of their business thank but i did want to ask you about this and you started off with the first-line executive summary. we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter and i'd take that still your position today? >> yes, it is. all right. you also noted a little bit below that for the reasons summarize below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. you still share that, still hold that view? >> i do. >> okay. and even though you objected to the use of the word exonerated he's from your perspective, he's been cleared of all criminal charges in your investigation. is that fair? >> i determine that based on the evidence, criminal charges are not warranted >> okay. >> and i did want to go to the issue of material distinctions

that you raised in your report between president biden and former president trump. we've got a document up here that lays some of it out and you've asked answered some questions about this already, but i think it seemed to be highly relevant in your analysis that president biden cooperated and i wanted to walk through a couple of those points. one is it he turned in classified documents to the national archives into the department of justice upon request. is that fair? >> that was a factor that we considered, yes, congressman. >> all right. he cooperated with your investigation? >> yes >> consented to the search of multiple low yes. and that was five hours over two days, a little over five hours over two days. okay. >> turned over to allow investigators to review handwritten notebooks. he believed to be as personal property correct. now, with respect to the comparison with

former president trump and i believe this is on page 11, which is still in your executive summary and. >> i'll, just read part of this till you unlike the evidence involving mr. biden, the allegation set forth in the indictment of mr. trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite, according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turned in classified documents to the national archives and department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways, cooperated with his investigation. that's from page 11 of your report. >> i see that language on page

11. >> all right. >> you >> still stand by that language? >> i do, sir. okay. >> and this is this is your report. you take full responsibility for everything that's in the document. >> i do. i stand by every word in it. >> all right. all right >> wanted to ask you a couple of questions. one is with respect to the surprising line of questions you got right before we broke about guardianship which seems to me like a dramatic stretch of the anything that was remotely involved in your report, did you raise any kind of issues about mr. biden needing guardianship or anything along those lines? >> nothing relating to guardian ship appeared in my report. >> okay and so i guess you made the one point about him being an elderly man with a poor memory, but are you saying you did you say anywhere in your report that you thought not only would he be unfit to handle his own finances, but

he'd be unfit for public the office. >> my report did not include any opinions on those issues. >> okay. i see my time has exhausted, but thank you again for your testimony. i appreciate your efforts. >> tell me yields back gentleman from virginia is recognized >> yield to the chairman briefly. >> i think jumped for you. i'm just point out, mr. ivy, raise the issue of transcripts. he has complete access to every transcript that we have done it congressional investigation. you can go he could he could show up for all the depositions like, frankly, i show up for most of those so he has complete access to that. what we don't have is access to the transcripts of all the witnesses. we only have mr. biden and we don't have access to the audio tapes of all the witnesses. gentleman yields it's not my time. i yield back to the gentleman from virginia. >> you're speaking, but it's not your time. >> it's my time. eulogy >> i thank the gentleman special counsel, her. thank you for being here. your story is an impressive one. your achievements are impressive as well. you've been prosecuted for many years, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i was not a prosecutor for more than a couple of years, but i still remember remember

my record in jury trials. do you remember your record >> it'll take me a little time to reconstruct, but i think i could get there if is it above 500 it is above 500, yes. okay. >> well, i'm curious because the evidence that you outlined in your report is pretty significant when it comes to evidence that after his vice presidency and i'm reading through your report mr. biden willfully retained marked classified documents about afghanistan and unmarked classified handwritten notes in his notebooks, both of which he stored in unsecured places in his home further, you noted that there's evidence that he willfully retain the classified afghanistan documents, including the thanksgiving memo, and had a strong motive to keep such classified documents you outline what that motive is. can you tell me what what is the motive for keeping the thanksgiving day memo >> one of the motives that we addressed in the report was that the issue of whether or not a troop surge should be

sent to afghanistan in 2009? was a hotly contested, debated issue within the obama administration back in 2,009.1 in which then vice president biden had a significant role when he felt very strongly about i'm going to quote from your report and president biden believe president obama's 2009 troop surge was a mistake on par with vietnam. and one of the record to show that he was right about afghanistan, that has critics were wrong and that he hit opposed president obama's mistaken decision forcefully and it was made that his judgment was sound when it mattered most. is that sound correct? >> that language sounds familiar from the report, yes. okay >> that is pretty significant in terms of a motivating factor for retaining those documents, wouldn't you say that would be a factor that a jury would assess in considering whether or not mr. biden had criminal intent and i also know that president biden was working with the ghostwriter on a book, >> mark zwonitzer, correct

>> correct. >> and your investigation concluded when president biden began work on his memoir, correct when at what time did your investigation conclude with respect to the second book published in 2017, we identified evidence that mr. biden began recorded conversations with mr. zwonitzer 2016 before the end of mr. biden's vice presidency. >> and it's your understanding that while mr. zhuan occur interview president biden, he read classified information from his notebooks, nearly verbatim sometimes for an hour or more at a time, correct? >> correct. >> and was mr. zwonitzer authorized to receive this classified information? >> he was not and in fact, in their february 16 meeting, which has been alluded to earlier, isn't it true that president biden read aloud and nearly verbatim classified >> information regarding the actions and views of us military leaders in the cia director relating to the foreign country and foreign terrorist organization i believe that occurred that was captured in a recording later in 2017, i believe in april of

2017, not february. >> okay. >> and >> mr. zwonitzer became aware of your special >> your appointment as special counsel, correct? >> at some point, mr. zwonitzer did become aware of my appointment, yes. >> and perform learning of the investigation mr. zwonitzer deleted digital audio recordings of his conversations with mr. biden during the writing of the book, promise me, dad, correct? did investigate and investigators with your office interviewed mr. zwonitzer about the deleted recordings and he admitted that part of his motivation for deleting this recording was because he was aware there was investigation, correct? >> correct. >> and did this conduct raised >> concerns with your office >> it did. we consider to be significant evidence that we needed to follow up on significant evidence. and i would argue that you also had significant evidence surrounding the retention of these documents, the storage of these documents. and even though there was a bit of a

disconnect between what a reasonable juror could conclude the intent was there at the motive was there for the book, for exoneration, and i would argue that you had enough to move forward. my time is expired. i yield back gentlelady from vermont is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. and thank you. special counsel, her for being here today. i know it's been hours and hours and i really appreciate you staying to the bitter end here. and i think it speaks to the possibility and promise afforded by this nation that you as a child of immigrants sit here as special counsel and i as a child of immigrants, sit here as a member of congress there is a lot that's been said today and i'm part of the challenge that i have is trying to translate this for my constituents back home and so i want to start with sort of the top line. so you are tasked with identifying whether criminal conduct occurred regarding classified documents

and after over a year of investigation, including 150 witness interviews and over 7 million documents reviewed. you wrote in the first sentences of the executive summary quote, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. we would reach the same conclusion, even if department of justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president, were those were those your words? yes. >> thank you. >> so let's get into it. mr. hur, at any time, doj doj leadership or the attorney general attempt to influence the outcome of your investigation? >> no. >> do you believe it's important that the special counsel investigations or any doj investigation be impartial and free of influence from political actors? >> yes. >> do you believe you were independent and thorough in your report? >> yes. >> do you believe do you think it's true that you received no

pressure from attorney general garland in this matter? >> that's correct. >> is it true that you had all of the resources that you needed? enabled for you to conduct your interviews, to conduct your investigation, and to complete your report? >> yes. >> is it true that you recommended that the attorney general decline to charge president biden i submitted a report to the attorney general explaining by decision that criminal charges were not warranted in this matter. >> right. so you said on page one of the report, quote, we conclude that the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. is it true that your report ultimately concluded that the evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that president biden willfully retained classified materials? yes. >> is it true that president biden cooperated with your investigation? >> yes. >> is it true that president biden sat for an interview with you the day after the october 7 attacks in israel, in the midst

of an international crisis he sat for interviews over two days, october 8 and october 9th. thank you. >> is it true that the that president biden allowed the fbi to conduct thorough searches of his home and his beach house yes. is it true that your report found multiple possible innocent explanations as to why the classified documents ended up where they did as. >> part of our analysis, we walked through a number of different explanations that defense counsel would present could present a trial if this case were charged. >> and as you said on page six of your report, quote, in addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute >> your report writing. i see that language, yes. >> thank you. >> your report reads with one exception, there is no record of the department of justice is prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. the exception is former president trump. am i

reading that correctly? yes. >> is it true or is it correct that your report recommends no charges and that you would be that would be the case, even if he were not a sitting president correct >> so what we've >> had today is hour after hour after hour of trying to distract us from. >> the >> clear statements that come through this report and you yourself have said multiple times today, there was no attempt to obstruct justice by the president by the department of justice, by the attorney general, that you had all the resources that you need to conduct a fair and thorough investigation and report. and that what you concluded was in fact, the evidence was not sufficient to bring charges against the president for

mishandling documents. i thank you for being here today. yield back >> gentlelady yields back the gentleman from south carolina is recognized mr. chairman, i yield to use such time as you may consume, sir. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding up. >> mr. hur, why >> did why did the white house go? why the white house lawyers go look in the first place. i understand is they went to the penn biden center why they, go look in the first place miami looked for classified mishandling of classified looked for classified documents. why did it what we identified through our investigation was that at a certain date, members of the president's staff went to the penn biden center in order to get a better handle on what the information what kinds of evidence and what kinds of materials were at the penn biden the center. >> were they specifically looking for potential documents that were classified or was it a broader initial look >> my understanding is that it was a broader initial look and i'm looking at chapter 14, page to 57 of my report about a visit march 2021, and biden

center okay in march in march of 2021. >> and >> was this after the justice department began their investigation into president trump? >> i confess i don't have the date of the beginning of the investigation into president trump at hand. >> i believe it was the same month. i mean, i believe it was after salvo. just just curious. now, one other thing i think it's important for folks understand is president biden had this information everywhere? you said they initially went to the penn biden center, which location was at at do you remember when they initially did there look, was it at the transition office? was at the temporary penn biden center in chinatown or was that at its current location where the penn biden center currently sits here in our final location, i guess in dc. you remember? i believe the visit is it that i referenced in march 2021? that's described on page 257 was to the penn penn biden centers, a permanent and current location, permanent and current. so there were three places. those three places classified information was at is that fair to say?

>> that's correct. the initial transition office immediately after the end of vice presidency, the penn biden center is temporary office and then the penn biden center is permanent office. >> okay. >> so those and then you had the university of delaware library the university of delaware biden center. right. so that's five total. and then you had multiple places in his home, correct? the garage, the den, the office upstairs in the office downstairs? >> correct. >> so what does that that's like nine different places. >> i've lost count, >> sir, but it's everywhere and it was documents over 50 your time? all right. and then by comparison because the democrats want to keep comparing to present a presidential run his home. but secret service protection, i don't know that they're anywhere else. were they? >> i'm not aware of other locations. >> yeah. >> i think i think that's important distinction that would go back to the demo for south carolina. appreciate him yielding. >> thank you, chairman briefly, i know we've got two minutes left, but mr. hur, how would you define willful? >> with respect to the intent

of willfulness? what a jury has to conclude is that someone knew that their conduct was illegal when they engaged in that conference. it's >> intentional, right? it's not by accident. it's not accidental or involuntary? correct. okay. so so here's where i disagree with your portion of the report on willful is that you have a gentleman who serves 36 years in the senate. >> i've >> only been here a year, but i understand the importance of handling classified information. he served eight years as vice president in 2010, it came to the attention of the vice president's staff that classified briefing f'ing books had not been returned even even if they they were returned. some of the content was missing. the same year, the executive secretary raised that nearly 30 of the classified briefing books from the first six months of 2010, we're missing in august of that year, then vice president biden failed to return top secret sensitive compartment, compartmented information contents of a classified briefing book from a trip that

he took to the hamptons. and to date, you were unable to determine if these documents were ever recovered. is that correct? correct. >> so to me, this wasn't when does willfulness as a when does willfulness factor in? is it now and his diminished mental capacity or is it then when he was serving as senator and vice president >> a jury would be assessing president biden's mental state and his intent or whether or not he had willfulness at the time that the conduct was committed, correct? >> i think everyone can plainly see that transgression or the difference between then candidate biden or vice president biden. and what is going on now. and so this is where i go to it as the chairman talked about in his opening comments, get 8 million reasons to hold these documents. in fact, he disclosed some of this information to his ghostwriter. and so i think that there could have been willfulness. i think i've got ten seconds left, but

look at since 2016, there have been three candidates to run for president all three have had allegations of issues surrounding the retention and holding of classified documents. but mr. hur, only one of them has been charged and that's president trump. and that's why people think and view this as a two tiered system of justice. thank you, sir. >> gentleman yields back the chair now recognizes the gentleman from shield. >> yeah. been a misconception >> oh, wait. >> let him go ahead, gentlemen, >> from colorado, mr. buck. thank you. >> mr. hur, they say they saved the best for last, so i'm looking forward to this opportunity first of all what i've observed in this hearing is that one side thinks you're trying to get president trump elected and the other side thinks you're trying to get president biden elected. i served as a prosecutor for 25 years. here's i know that you're going to take grief from both sides. you must be doing a great job in your report and

during your investigation, if you have convinced both sides that you are somewhere in the middle i commend you for your background. i would love to have met chief justice rehnquist what a hero to conservatives and really americans. and that must have been a great opportunity for you but when both sides attack you, my admonition is welcome to congress. how many i do have a question and it goes along the lines of what mr. armstrong and mr. frey we're asking you earlier. i'm really confused about willfulness in your view of willfulness, it's clear to me that at the time vice president biden knew he had classified documents. he told his after he left the vice presidency, he told his biographer, ghostwriter those

classified documents are in the basement >> so he had the >> mental state that he had classified documents. he also knew that his basement was not a scif. it is not a secure area. and so at the point if, if at that point in time he said, oh, my gosh, i've got to call the archivist got a call secret service, somebody and get these documents taken away. perhaps he has this defense of acting as quickly as he knew about the documents, but i don't see where the willfulness is missing. when he had those to the elements pretty clear. he possessed classified documents. he held them in a non-secure area, and he did so knowingly. he knew he had classified documents in an unsecure area what is where's the willfulness missing >> well, sir prosecutor prosecutor, i certainly agree with you that the evidence in the form of the audio recorded statement where the president said to his ghostwriter, i just found all the classified stuff downstairs that is evidence

that that any prosecutor would would present as significant evidence in a case if this went to trial. so there and reasonable jurors might well infer that president biden formed criminal intent based on that piece of evidence but what we did in our report was to try to walk their exhaustively, you know, well, as a prosecutor, you need to assess with a very cold, eye the strengths of your case and the weaknesses of your case, and try to anticipate arguments that defense counsel might well present and at trial. and what we tried to do in our report would was to walk through potential arguments that will be presented by defense lawyers at the president's trial. and to determine how by our judgment, how jurors would receive and perceive the evidence presented, including including but not limited to, evidence relating to the president's memory gaps that were in various pieces of evidence that we assessed. >> so how do you overcome that recording where he says, i've got classified documents he's

30 years in the senate or whatever it is. yeah. obviously knows how he has to treat classified documents. i've got classified documents in the basement. >> what is the >> defense to that? that it was a made-up recording, that it wasn't his voice, that everyone was wrong. >> how do you defend >> that that particular fact as well as i did a lot of tax cases, you had to prove a pattern of conduct. and in this case, he had a lot of documents and a lot of places. how do you overcome those things? >> yes, congress and so we walked through a number of different evidentiary gaps that reasonable jurors might focus on. as well as a number of different different defense arguments that the president's defense lawyers could president could present at trial. the first is a theory or an argument to the jury that the president yes. he did say to his ghostwriter, i just found all the classified stuff downstairs. but then soon thereafter, forgot about the documents and therefore, it would be difficult to convince a jury that actually he willfully he knew that it was

illegal to keep the documents and he continued to do so. a second argument that we considered is that perhaps this these documents never actually were in virginia in his private rental home there. perhaps the documents were there by virtue of staff or himself having those documents at the delaware home? from the time that he was still vice president all the way through the time of their being discovered and finally, another theory that we walked through in the report is that there were two folders marked classified documents related to afghanistan found in the box in the present isn't it? it's telework a rash one of them contain national defense information and the other it would be a more difficult task to persuade a jury that it did contain national defense information so that that argument would be premised on perhaps the president was referring to the one folder that didn't contain national defense information, but was not it would be difficult for the government i meant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the one that did contain national defense information so i just laid a lot on you there, but we do we do our best to explain that at

some length in the report. >> thank you. i yield back gentleman yields back >> chairman gentlelady from texas recognized. >> i thank you. >> and >> there's been a lot of time being shared, mr. chairman, i asked you a very brief indulgence made my way back. >> you got to unanimous consider you ask them question your brief indulgence and unanimous consent dash. question >> and then and now you can do a unanimous consent request, but you don't get to get another round. someone that comes to yield your time, but i don't think they can do that because everyone on the democrat side has taken their time. i didn't know what, you know that i had to do first shape the gentlelady from texas, but you don't get a go-to rounds i'm not trying to go two rounds, but you've got an atom is consent request. you wanted the record states cell if not, then we're i'm i am most getting ready to do the unanimous consent requests, hoping that someone would come through the door. i asked, you know, i'm just going stand we could only be a republican because all the democrats have spoken. >> i asked unanimous consent that we add to the record as stated from page one of the executive summary, we conclude

that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter we would reach the same conclusion, even if the department of justice policy did not foreclose anything criminal charges against him that sentence be put in a secondarily, i asked ananda its consent. a >> random or consent to add something to the record that's already in the record. god bless you will do it. >> thank you. and i add with the emphasis of sheila jackson lee does not have and i particularly asked that this be added to the record that mr. her stated that biden couldn't recall when his son, beau died. i unanimous consent out of an article in politico and indicate that there was no mercy given to biden and no mercy given to him and when? >> objection so entered, mr. hurt, even though there wasn't a question there, do you want to respond to any of that >> no. all right. >> mr. hur, we want to thank you for today and we wish the best to you and your family. this concludes today's hearing. we thank our witnesses for

appearing before the committee day without objection, all members while five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness for additional materials for the record without objection, the hearing is adjourned >> special counsel, robert hur, just wrapping up his testimony on the hill as the gavel comes down after roughly five hours of intense questioning from members of both major political parties. it anderson it's been a highly scrutinized performance sparked by his highly scrutinized report on president biden's handling of classified documents will get you much more a reaction from capitol hill, first one to bring in my team here in new york, elie, what stood out to you? >> well, so here, here's what i see is the bottom line here. a couple of main takeaways. there was no charge recommended by robert hur and i think he ran a un extensive and really impressive investigation. i think his fact-finding left very little uncovered, and i think his analysis was sound and fair. however, he did find

some evidence of criminality. he did find evidence pretty clear cut evidence. that joe biden retained classified documents, knew he retain them as evidenced on that tape and did not immediately turn them back over. the other thing that i think is important to note is that joe biden did mislead the public as did other members of joe biden's team. because for the past year or so, the talking point and we've seen this repeated many times times has been it was entirely unintentional by joe biden. he had no idea he had any of these documents, things get moved around. whoops, what are you going to do? it turns out that is somewhat fair when it comes to some of the documents, but not others. he absolutely knew we had these documents. i do think the decision not to charge him was a close one, but i think it was sound yeah. >> i agree. i agree. i mean, i think that we were talking about this a little bit break. there's been a little bit of muddying about this notion of if you get in front of a jury, what the jury is going to do. i mean, almost sounds like he was saying, well, we had the proof. we think we have the proof, but you never know what a juror will do with an old man with a

faulty memory. and so we decided not to charge, but then it became clear when you look at the report and he says, basically we didn't have the proof. there's insufficient proof, so there's been there was a little bit of confusion, i think around and this went to the republicans trying to say he was guilty, but you let them off because of the old man? defense. but really, if you can't prove your case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't bring the case. i mean, especially talking about charging a president >> you have a duty not to bring okay. so if you don't think you're going to be able to get a conviction and look, i think that you saw a real professional. we're so used to partisan hackery and nonsense to see somebody sit there for four hours and answer the question is calling the balls and strikes. he made a lot of republicans frustrated democrats, frustrated but you can't say that's a partisan hack. i got a lot. >> schiff was really going after him and trying to say, look, you knew this report would be released. yes. you knew that the language you were using was would be incendiary?

>> yeah. and i think that he defended themselves. look, there are other people. i'm getting messages from people saying, look, he's a republican. his republican donors, republican voter. >> look, i >> think we got to let our public servants vote and donate. the question is, on the facts as they were presented here did he make a sound decision not to charge i think any fair person would say maybe it's not as straightforward as biden would want it. but i don't think that's a good use of taxpayer money to go after somebody who when they were asked to turn to stuff back over all the interest that we have is getting the documents back the government has the documents back. so i think that i think he did a good job. i also think the democrats tried to, and i think often did a good job of trying to continue to use as an opportunity to put trump on trial, even to put trump's memory on trial. and so that was important. so there's a lot of political stuff going on here, but i do think people at home, we should be proud that you've got special prosecutor like him, who did it professional job

today, didn't embarrass the country and shows you how you hire supposed to listen. >> yeah, i felt the same. i felt like he proved that the department of justice may in fact act without fear or favor. listen, i don't think this was the political when house republicans thought that it was going to be from the outset. her stood by his report, but he declined to take the bait to overreach and make to make assumptions about biden's mental acuity step and things that a prosecutor doesn't have any business weighing into in the setting. he also made a clear point to very much differentiate between the trump case and the biden case, saying on multiple occasions that there were significant differences between the two and finally, i think this is a public servant who just fundamentally believes that officials need to handle classified documents better. he was not he did not give a pass to biden on it. he emphasized throughout that there were misdoings. i think the most egregious was the afghanistan document because there seemed to be a level of intent there but overall, it's showed that this process can work. and i think it exposed kind of partisan hackery on both sides, honestly, if i can also add a word of credit and praise to merrick garland, person who had

a nose. i criticized plenty. but i think he deserves credit for the way he handled this. he appointed robert hur to be special counsel. he let robert hur do his job. robert hur made clear .'s zero interference, zero influence. he got hur's report and he didn't touch it. in contrast to bill barr who destroyed molars are poor and held onto it for a month. he turned it over at merrick garland, turn the report over to congress as is. and now we get to see it as is. and i think it's worth crediting merrick garland for the way he handle this. >> can i say one more thing on the political optics when this report came out, it was damning because the public felt like they hadn't heard a lot from joe biden. there were very legitimate concerns which i still believe are legitimate about his age as there are about donald trump's age. but then he gave the state of the union, and i think a lot of american said this is a guy who may be up to the job. maybe these concerns that we read about aren't as significant so in some ways, i think this hearing fell a lot more flat with the public having the benefit of having seen biden themselves. >> i think that's right. i also think that for people who are on democratic side, we may not

recognize there's a deeper subtext here. there's a conversation on the right is there is a deep-state conspiracy to undermine donald trump. they want to give a pass to hillary clinton. they want to give a pass to biden, who are just as bad. >> maybe even worse. and i think that's a very dangerous game for the republicans. keep playing. you are undermining faith in our institutions. you're under i'm no big fan by the way but federal prosecutors just to be just sit be clear. i love you guys. but still but even i and i think more and more progressive saying you can't just have termite eating into the fundamental foundations of public confidence in our institutions. it is obvious that biden is not completely innocent, but it's also obviously he's nowhere near what trump is doing in terms of just flagrantly lee violating the law and refusing to cooperate with the government when the government wants cooperation. and so i hope that republicans, you had your day

you got a chance to, to run you one more lap on this thing. but we have other things to worry about in the country. i'd rather see congress do anything, but it's been a whole day undermining public confidence in our in our federal prosecutions in terms of this, do you think this puts this teres enter in a rational and irrational world that would be a >> four hours and were we're same place we were before, but i think this is i think it's important for republicans to try to muddy up joe biden's name and i think that this is the one thing they keep bringing up. hunter biden and these documents to try to muddy up joe biden's name to bring him down the same level as donald trump? most people honestly know that joe biden's in a very different level of terms of character than trump. but this is politics. >> this is also the undoing of norms in the trump era because what joe biden did was wrong. and there are, there's, there's this intent when it came to the afghanistan documents, he wanted to kind of preserve his record for the history books. this isn't okay. i was a national security professional. had i done what he did, i would be in prison now granted, i wasn't the president. but what donald trump did is so egregious, it

almost starts to normalize this, like flippant mishandling of national security secrets. i mean, last night, kaitlan collins had this incredible interview with a gentleman who was actually helping hide didn't move boxes with national security secrets. for donald trump that is so well, the fbi was looking for that is so different. the facts are so different news striking to hear republicans talk about joe biden mishandling them in just the cognitive disconnect of what donald trump's done. >> all right, thanks, everybody back to you, jake thanks, anderson. let's talk with our panel here, but let me start with paula reid because you think this isn't entirely over because there is still a key part of the evidence file that has not been released. tell us more. >> it's gonna be all about the tape going forward because clearly republicans and democrats really also didn't get what they wanted out of rob hur. this did not move the ball. we didn't really get any news out of this hearing. that's the way rob hur wanted it. but this morning, there was a transcript released of biden's interview with the special counsel that was

supposed to be helpful to the president. many people believe it was, but we you saw the special counsel say when he was pressed about the tape, is there but he made his conclusions about biden's mental state based on what he heard in that interview, right? he he walked right up to line. he didn't say release the tape, but he said, look, you've read the transcript, but i heard it live. the tape, the recording what you hear there, that was part of what led him to say some of these things that the white house finds objectionable. so you know, republicans have already asked for the tape. they haven't gotten it. the justice department has supplied them with a transcript. they are going to continue to press on this issue. what was said, what does it sound like? why did rob hur have so many concerns? because of course this really isn't that much about classified documents for the average american, the average american is curious about biden's mental capacity and the tape, according to rob rob hur, has something to say about that. >> so what's your reaction to the hearing? >> so my reaction is that there's a lot of talk clearly

from republicans who were trying to focus on this issue of biden's mental acuity. and i agree that there's going to be interest in this tape. >> but the >> bottom line continues to be what democrats continued time and time again to repeat one after another, we conclude that no formal charges are warranted in this matter. and the reason why i think that that's so important and that democrats should continue to focus on that as opposed to complaining about the mental acuity thing is because and i've talked to a couple of lawyers here. i'm not one. so would love to hear from those who are that even if the, even if her had not heard the tape, what he said, that in and of >> itself, there was not sufficient evidence to bring this to a criminal matter. that's why democrats were so furious about the fact that he included the commentary about the president's mental acuity. because regardless, if the

evidence isn't there, the evidence isn't there. >> so hur's response would be if i may on and then i'll get reaction is i didn't say anything about his mental well acuity. i said i'm not going to bring this case. i know that that's what democrats are saying. but i said, i'm not going to bring this case because he would come across to a jury as a kind old man with a bad memory, right? >> well, look, the justice department, whether it's a us attorney or whether it's someone from maine maine justice is never going to bring a case against anyone unless they think they can get a conviction that's just the case, especially if it's the president united states, if you're gonna bring a case against the president of united states, you better be well short that the lack of her words, it's a head shot, legally speaking, to make sure that there's a conviction. clearly, he didn't feel like there's just enough, therefore, but i think if you just take a step back and you look at where we were walking into today. the only thing most americans had heard about this at this point was that line that was repeated at nausea today from the report that he was a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. but republicans spent the entire afternoon doing was trying to knock out the first two points they were

trying to say no, he's not sympathetic. he's not well meaning, in fact, this was willful intent his intended if you heard jim jordan say it was pride and money and so what you're beginning to see is republicans tried to say, this isn't just your doddering old uncle hanging around the white house. this is a little bit more than that. this is someone who willfully violate the law. >> so let me talk down, bring in republican member of the house judiciary committee the congressman kelly armstrong congressman armstrong, thanks for joining us. what's your reaction to the testimony laid out so far >> well, my reaction is that it's clear that president biden met the elements of the crime and the decision he should not to prosecute had more to do with how he how special are how robert hur thought he would present to a jury? i always get a little frustrated with the willful required pryor met and acting like any doj prosecutor has to, like, walk to and from school without their shoes on because that's not been my experience in federal court, but it's clear that he he did all three elements of the crime >> in your questioning, you

brought up her as assessment that biden would not be convicted by a jury if brought to trial. were you satisfied with his answer? he was saying he did this, didn't make that a jury would convict he didn't think he thought the jury would find him sympathetic >> know that very melt way. very well may be. and i think there's a reason that the white house went into complete spin zone after the report originally came out. i just think you have 30 years of experience and being warned by two different consultant bolton's national archives, his own advisers, his own lawyers all of which. and he was storing these documents and numerous different places. i think that shows willful intent and i think that i think the report and a conclusion aren't really consistent with each other. >> the report also makes it very clear that the charges against the details about the charges against president trump i've got president biden are very different than the ones against donald trump because the ones about donald trump include an attempt to influence

witnesses, not cooperating with the fbi, obstruction of justice. do you agree? >> i think, if you're talking about obstruction, that's a different charge than the underlying effect underlying conduct, and that's another frustrating thing. let me just clear. i said this in the hearing only three people have ran for president since 2016. all three of them have been accused of mishandling classified documents. only one of them has been prosecuted. if donald trump was only being prosecuted for obstruction, may be that argument would have a little better place, but none none of the other two were charged with mishandling classified document it's either. >> but obviously donald trump didn't cooperate and didn't hand over the documents when asked, and that does differ with president biden, at least according to robert hur >> wow, president biden's been cooperating with ms documents for 30 three years. he had

senate papers from the '70s, the incentive papers from the '80s in the 19th, he had been told and that wasn't the reason they didn't prosecutor omitted bros. it or they didn't reform, they didn't record men prosecution because they didn't vague that had the willful requirement, which is where i think there i mean, i just think the report shows they absolutely did. you can't get that much advice from the learned counsel as vice president, consultants, national archives over the course of 50 years, actually tell your ghost writer that you know, these are classified documents while you're reading to them and then tell me there's not willful conduct >> i don't think that's what happened. i think he referred to the fact that there were classified documents in a box. i don't think he was reading them to him >> well he he said, i have these classified documents in my basement med later on, he was actually reading classified documentation whose cosine one was in february 1 was in april what questions do you have handed in his own words on the recovered audio? >> what questions do you still need to answer >> why i think we need answers

to why there's a two-tier justice system why there are some people when all three of all three of the last three presidential candidates have met the same exact underlying, underlying elements of the crime. and only one of whom stepped prosecuted and that's just and that's absolutely true. >> you really don't see the obstruction as being a part of this because obviously the difference between hillary clinton and joe biden and their alleged criminal well, behavior is different significantly in the sense that donald trump refused to cooperate when asked over and over and over again. and in fact, i've heard republicans say if he had just cooperated and special counsel jack smith never would have brought charges i'm not entirely sure you can have more obstruction than running a program called bleach it on your server and destroying things with destroying cell phones with hammers let's put it beside the fact that again, you're talking about a different set, a different crime. the crime here is possession and maintaining classified documents and all three of them did it. all three of them met the elements of those crimes. and if you want to say one of them shouldn't have been charged for the

search and i'm wondering why the ghost writer wasn't charged with obstruction. he tried to delete this information and only after the after the doj recovered entity. i mean, did we even know it still existed? >> congressman kelly armstrong. thanks so much for your time. really appreciate it. we're going to have much more of our coverage of the special counsel testifying on capitol hill. we're going to squeeze in a quick break. we'll be right back >> the lead with jake tapper today at four on cnn >> we talking about cash back, kevin hart, not a game talking about cash back? >> we talking about cash back diversity, not talking about bracket. >> know. >> we talked about cash back. we talked about cash. we talking about cash we've been talking about practice for too long. >> word. no practice. we talk about cashback, talking about cash back. >> we not >> talking about a guy. >> cash that's like a pro with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cashback chase? make more of what your freedom

>> unlimited when these business owners need cash fast, they turned to bids to credit to fund what's next from fitness studios to medical offices and every small business in between. >> we've got you covered whether you need new equipment, foster to expand or need money to cover unforeseen business expenses, bids to credit is the trusted partner for your small business funding needs scan the code on your screen now or go to biz to credit.com to apply this to credit funding. what's next? >> dr.. time.com? we've been hard at work. can we finally did get your mic? and so i can find a shop with thousands of cars were no hit to my credit. >> yes >> good at that time that sound good. approve or stop your real cross wave hydro still >> it's part of vacuum bomb. the steamer. and tori nato chaser this on a new breed of clean

>> welcome to the waiver hood, wayfair vibe at airplane western. >> my thing, darling. >> gardening >> some of us go for the dramatic >> i did i know we've had vanity's entitled this ottomans got legs. can you flip for the proofs? >> in the waiver? there's a place for all >> of us. >> every style, every home to fungus is tough to kill and it can spread. >> it's time to start using funky nail, maximum strength bungie nail is so powerful, it cures and prevents fungal infections. plus it has aloe and tea tree oil to restore skin house. say goodbye to tokyo fungus with bungie nail. >> the edge and rash of moderate to severe eczema disrupts my skin night and day. despite treatment, it's still not under control. >> but >> now i have revoke. revoke is a once-daily pill that reduces the itch and helps clear for the rash of eczema fast, some

are invoked patients felt significant inch relief as early as two days. some achieved dramatic skin clearance as early as two weeks and many taking invoke saw clear or almost clear skin. >> rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb, serious infections, and blood clots. some fatal cancers including lymphomas, skin, heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor haven't increased risk of death serious allergic reactions can occur tell your dr. if you are may become pregnant help heal your painful skin, disrupt the edge and rash of eczema. talk to your dr. about brynn folk. >> learn how advil can help you save. >> doctors, recommend coley's stool softener for gentle dependable relief from constipation. it's so gentle, doctors even recommended during pregnancy and after surgery, polglase increases water in the stool making it softer. so it's easier to go. no harsh laxatives, cramping, restraining calais when you

hear iphone an apple watch with >> consumer cellular is fast and relax hello, coverage. it's easy to win. >> get up to >> $300 off when you combine iphone 15 pro and any apple watch start, your. day with nature me. >> the number one pharmacist recommended >> vitamin supplement brand, >> backroom deals, cia secrets, affairs, bribery, corruption, prostitution so, much more to the store. >> united states of scandal with jake tapper sunday at nine on cnn. >> democrats repeatedly push robert hur today on his decision ultimately to not prosecute president joe biden here with us now, democratic member of the house judiciary committee congresswoman sheila jackson lee, congresswoman. what did you take away from what you heard from robert hurt today

>> robert hurt? told the truth in his opening sentence and there was nothing more for us to even pursue the hearing could have ended when he acknowledged that there were no criminal charges there could be brought up ins president biden and there was no basis for prosecution. there was no evidence, there was no facts. and that was the extent of his report except for the ad hominum points that he made that i think we're enormously sad. and at the very, very end even though i didn't have enough time anderson, i asked, did he give the president any extraordinary mercy? did he show him any difference? and of course he did not answer, but it shows that he did not. and there was no equality between the actions of president trump and the openness and the conspicuous willingness to comply with any requests

between biden and trump. it was completely different >> some democrats did try to get her or tried to portray her as exonerating the president, which her categorically said he did not exonerated him and an answer to a question from a republican, he did say that a a fair minded juror might have found might have been able to determine that the president was guilty on some aspect of this. so it was not an exoneration, wasn't i'm going to say that he can not have his cake and eat it too. i'm going to hold mr. hurt to his words and his words were that there were no criminal don't charges. yes. some democrats use the word exoneration, but then he cannot extend it to suggest that a juror might have had a different interpretation one, the republicans wanted to use this as a foundation for the impeachment of the present united states. they fell completely short because mr. hur gave no substance to

suggest that there were any impeachable offenses at all. but what he did do that really concerned me is asked mr. biden about his deceased son and any of us in this country that knows the biden family we have seen the hurt and pain that generates when you speak a bot that was unnecessary. so he didn't show him any mercy. and as well, he didn't give deference over the ex-president for him and his ad hominem comments about an elderly man was again, mr. hur knows that is inappropriate and the department of justice frowns on that. so if anything was wrong, it was the wrong language that he used about an elderly man that could be driven to be sent out. and then to personally ask the question about your deceased son, mr. hur was wrong he didn't get what he might have wanted. maybe he was acting professional in his

mind, but he was not acting professional in my mind. and as far as i'm concerned, he should have ended the testimony. we should that hearing should have ended, like i said, anderson at the very beginning, no criminal charges were warranted for mr. joseph biden. now, the president of the united states, quite contrary to the ludicrous behavior, the hiding the rejection, the refusal to respond to mr. hur's team that president trump did. former president trump did. he did everything he could? throughout the investigation to stop the investigation and to prevent any facts from coming out about the documents that literally he had co-opted, one would say stuff colon and he did not want to give him back. there was quite contrary to what president biden did. he was open he was direct and everything that he had weather documents were he made it available to mr. hur was mr. hur i think that overreach and his questions about the status

of mr. biden or is he loves son? no mercy was given to joe biden and he handled it beautifully. >> cars woman sheila jackson lee, thank you very much. jake, back to you in dc. thank you so much. while perhaps the most surprising news out of the last few hours of special counsel robert hur's hearing before the house judiciary committee was what happened during the break when republican house member and committee member, congressman ken buck of colorado suddenly announced that he would be resigning at the end of next week. his departure narrows the republican party's already razor slim, razor thin majority in the house of representatives to just five seats. let's bring in cnn's melanie zanona. melanie, you have reporting about ken buck's announcement >> yeah. that's right. ken buck made this announcement. remember he had already said he was going to retire, but this early resignation announcement is really a big blow to house republicans already razor-thin majority and speaker mike johnson told us that he was caught off guard and that he has given no heads-up but this big announcement was coming. now, book says that he did try

to call the speaker and leave a message. so it may have been just a mutex miscommunication or misconnection there, but no doubt this is going to have implicate implicating patients for how they're going to govern right now, republicans can only afford to lose two republicans on any party-line votes. and meanwhile, this also raises questions for republicans look and lauren boebert, who was planning to run in bucks district because it's more conservative, more safe. so a lot of implications, a lot of developments here today. and of course it also let's speaks to the fact that right now it's pretty miserable to be a house republican buck talk to dana about that a little bit ago and just said right now, the tensions are so high in the conference. there's then in fighting they can't even pass basic procedural votes. a lot of sore feelings in the wake of kevin mccarthy unprecedented ouster as speaker. so bucks early resignation just a prime example of all of that. jake. >> not right. melanie zanona on capitol hill. thank you so much. we're going to have more on our coverage of the testimony of the special counsel after this quick break stay with us the greatest stage

they told about for a >> lifetime reuse. well, the champions have tbs my melas csma made me feel really ugly. >> i didn't recognize myself in the mirror. i just hated taking photos. >> how am i ever going to get rid of it? >> stopped suffering from the laszlo more than 600,000 people have regained their confidence with it's us lese prescription treatments in the first two weeks, i was amazed >> i looked at myself in the mirror and i just thought i'm back. i've been telling everybody about it been life-changing, find the real you again, go to muesli slash tv high. >> we've both got a big birthday coming up. so we have a lot of questions about medicare plans. >> we've got a lot of answers. how can i help? >> what was starters? do you include hearing benefits?

>> how about a plan with dental vision and hearing? >> i share >> like the sound of that, then how does a $0 monthly plan premium sound >> if you're new to medicare, how 188865 edna will walk you through all your coverage and benefit options to help find the right plan for you. >> this morning >> the rise >> sanders would do blue sale is now on for limited time visit sanders.com or call juanita hundred sandals. >> when i started bright star care, i had one focus to provide a higher standard of care safe, reliable nurse led care, right in people's homes

that's been my goal for 20 years. and it always will be. now, local agencies are looking for experienced nurse it isn't caregivers who had the passion it takes to deliver that higher standard of care for nearly a decade, i served in the navy supporting seal teams. today, i run sabo outdoors with fellow special operations veterans our mobile app connects customers with a hunting fishing, and other outdoor experiences. american technology has been essential to our growth. but some in washington want to stifle the technology. small businesses like ours depends on this misguided agenda will empower foreign adversaries. threatened national security, and destroy jobs are leaders need to strengthen, not weaken american technology it's time >> yes. >> the time has come for a fresh approach to dogfight every day.

>> laura dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmers dog made by vets and delivered right to your door. precise? only portion for your dogs needs. >> it's an idea >> whose time has come >> the all new godaddy arrow helps you get your business online and minutes with the power of ai, with the perfect name great level and a beautiful website, just start with a my name is oluseyi and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport.

direct redefining insurance i'm jeremy diamond, in tel aviv, and this is cnn >> special counsel robert hur's finished his testimony. the house judiciary committees. and as evan perez was in the hearing, was all lawmakers clash with her from both sides of the aisle. and what did you take away as you watched the hearing? >> well, anderson, i think for rob hur, he came here to present his report to defend it because he knew do that there

have been so many attacks frankly, from both sides. and you heard that from him early on, who's perhaps it came across a little defensive, right? in trying to explain some of the language that was used in the report in which of course has come under attack from the white house and from democrats listened to him explaining why he used the words he used in the report. listen >> my assessment in the report about the relevance of the president's memory was necessary and accurate and fair most importantly, what i wrote is what i believe the evidence shows and what i expect jurors would perceive and believe i did not sanitize my explanation nor did i disparage the president unfairly >> at anderson, you know, lucky that was a lot of criticism including from people for people at the justice department, democrat, democrats who thought that he went outside of the bounds of what

the justice department is supposed to do. i've talked to people well inside the justice department who defend the language and say, this is what these reports, this is what a prosecutor does when they make a declination. it's just said very often. >> it's very >> rare rather for us to see this language and it's because he was a special counsel now, talking to people around the former special counsel, the now former special counsel, you know, they feel that he came here to do the job. they think he did it appropriately and now he's hoping to go away and not have to deal with this anymore. >> anderson, >> i shall see i'm impressed. thanks very much, jake thanks so much anderson. there's something that democrats have been talking about for weeks now, really that i want to clear up and they're really two parts of it. let me start by saying, obviously the loss of beau biden was a horrible loss for anybody who knew him. i knew him. it's very sad. he was a really good guy, a great father, a great husband, and his loss is a tragedy. that said, his loss has been used by

people defending president biden as a cudgel against the special counsel. so let's just talk about how this actually comes up. on page 82 of this interview. they're talking about where documents were kept the special counsel is trying to find out where documents were kept. president biden says, he starts trying to figure out when this was. he says, this is what 2017, 2018, that area. mr. hur says, yes. president biden says, remember in this time frame, my son is either been deployed or is dying. and so it was and by the way, there were stolen lot of people at a time when i got to the senate there encouraging me fernando, president's editor. and then he goes, he goes on a little bit and then he says, what month did beau die? oh god, may 30 and then somebody says 2015, somebody else's 2015 president biden says, was it 2015? he had died. somebody else says it was may of 2015. president biden says it was 2015. his lawyer says, or i'm not sure the monster, but i think that was the year. all right. now, look losing a son

is losing a child is unfair. it's horrible, >> and here he is >> being asked about all sorts of dates thrown about 2015, 2009, 2020, whatever. but it is true that for a moment there, he seems confused about the year that his beloved son, beau died now, robert hur didn't bring it up despite what we've heard from democratic members of congress. robert hur was trying to find a date. joe biden has that as a point of reference, he's trying to figure out the times he brings us up. he seemed unsure for of the year. and that's where this all happens. so that's 0.1 point to paula. let me ask you, if robert hur had not mentioned this in his report, had not mentioned the fact that joe biden one point seemed confused about what year his son had died, if he'd not mentioned that and this transcript came out today, clearly suggesting that joe biden at one point and people get confused. i understand. but at one point he

seems confused about what year his son died in robert hur would have been ferociously attacked for covering it up. >> exactly. and that's why you've heard robert hur's say repeatedly today that i had to address these issues to make my report complete. this is what i had to do to explain my decision. now there's no guarantee that that transcript would ever see the light of day, but obviously was please today? likely, yes. eventually it would have come out, but he absolutely understood the circumstance in which he was conducting this investigation while he refers it's technically a confidential report. you know, it was going to be released publicly and he had to make sure he included every detail, even it was going to antagonize the white house context is, and the question that was asked is, where did you keep? your paper right after you left the vice presidency in 2017 that's what they wanted to know. and then what happens is that biden starts conflating what occurred in his life in 2016 when he decided not to run for the

presidency and does a little riff on that and how obama didn't want him to run and 2015 then of course is when beau died and it was probably lawyer of his who reminded him that it was 2015, the beau died. so he was sitting there going, well, what year? >> okay. let me get this straight. what year was it that i left the vice presidency? what year was it that beau died? what year was it that i decided not to run for president and he was he was almost thinking out loud, well, laura, that's where he lived a long life. there's a lot of stuff we're talking about two or three years, but my point, evan now this is not to vilify or defend president biden here. my point is to say, democrats keep acting as though robert hur is bringing this up to be a jerk. he didn't bring up beau biden dying and once this cat was out of the bag, he had dimension in his report or lcd be accused of the covering something up

>> the context is the essential thing. this is what's remarkable about this transcript is if you would just read the special counsel's report, you might have come away with the impression that this is a man who has suddenly lost the ability to remember one of the most seismic moments in his entire life. what you see if you go into this transcript is something very different, which is they were having a complicated discussion about dates, about times, about paper management and in the course of that, he says as laura, i think put it so well, he essentially thinking out loud like, well, remind me when is it that i was vice president? when was this that happened with my son because he's trying to unearth what they're really talking about is where boxes, where and when. i think your point is right, jake, look, this came up when joe biden brought up his son's death in the context of robert hur pursuing the question of what were you doing in those years, right. and in those years, i could tell you, joe biden was thinking about one thing which is his son had died. he was writing a book about it and he was also at a government for the first time in his life. so when you ask her about 20:17, joe biden has

those things reverberating in his mind and he gives you an explanation of it but it is the context in some ways. the most, some of the most important things that happened in this hearing today, we're parts when democrats pointed out things that we're not in the special counsel's report, but we're in the transcript. i'll just give you one example. when democrats said eric swalwell pointed out, at some point along the way, robert hur actually praised joe biden's photographic. understood. that was her word photographic reconstruction of the yeah. graphy of the naval observatory. americans didn't get that from the special counsel. >> that's exactly what i was going to bring up. and the reason why this is such a big deal for democrats is because when robert hur makes that when he talks about how joe biden is having his memory failed or whoever it was, he described him, the connection that they're making is when he talks about beau biden, his son, and that's why it was also so hurtful for the president when you go back and look at the transcript that's exactly what a lot of democrats frankly

mentioned it today as well and the fact that this prosecutor, special prosecutor, special counsel, talked about how he also looked at how president biden recalled several events from way years back, talked about the details of those praised him for having a photographic memory so then democrats continued to go back. and why why was there the need to talk about now him in that way in the final report, this wasn't like he was asked about some date back in the mid 2000s when he's in the senate is on the senate foreign relations committee, who has gone back and forth between dc and delaware on an amtrak. this was literally a delineating time, i would imagine his life saying, did this occur when you were the sitting vice president living in the name? if observatory or was it when you're in a new house and he didn't have a job. it's a very big defining line, so the defense that will maybe he was just messing up the dates. he was trying to get around it. these are some very key moments to think about the context around it. and i just wanted to, i think what this is is the

democrats on that committee today looked pretty good when they stopped with the facts and they tried to confirm the facts. i think they actually hurt themselves when they tried to undermine the credibility of robert hur. you saw adam schiff do that. i'm sure in part because and he's raised a lot of money for us senate race in california after an assay primary, but ultimately, those are the moments i think think they felt flat. and that's where your contingency, sheila jackson lee, has kept asking about the documents and why didn't you indict him? and one thing her said is, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute all right. period. oh, i forgot that. i put it there. right. and that's that's and that's part of what a jury would have to contend with exactly. >> so so >> much so much emphasis has been put on. oh, my god, the president's memory and all this. when in fact, they listened to the, to the testimony about the documents. and then i had no way of disproving prove it in court right beyond a reasonable doubt. exactly. thanks. one and all we'll be right back

>> i was was caught in the trap. any couldn't get out. >> vegas was having an identity crisis. >> that was the beginning of the downfall. but vegas at a different idea, vegas the story of sensitive. sunday at ten on cnn >> my late father-in-law lit up a room, but his vision dimmed with age. he had amd. i didn't know it then, but it can progress to ga and advanced form of the disease. his struggle with vision loss from amd made me want it i hope you see warning signs of ga like hazy or blurred vision. so it's hard to see fine details, colors that appeared dull or washed out or trouble with low light that makes driving at night or real challenge. >> if you think you have ga >> don't wait, treatments are available. ask a retina specialist about fda approved

treatments for ga and go to ga won't wait.com >> when these business owners need cash, fast, they turned to bids to credit to fund what's next from fitness studios to medical offices and every small business in between. we've got your covered. whether you need new equipment, funds to expand or need money to cover unforeseen business expenses, bids to credit is the truck let's did partner for your small business funding needs, scan the code on your screen now or go to biz to credit.com to apply this to credit funding. what's next? >> falls are the number one cause of injury to senior citizens. acorn stair lifts has the solution just don't fall sit, relax, ride with an acorn stair lift. the world's leader in stair lifts don't let limited mobility keep you from going up and down your stairs, even an outside called acorn stair lifts. now, for a free information kit and no

obligation, quote, why risk falling when you can safely ride our akon stair lift his definitely more than movie, the acorn stair lift has a padded seat and backrest safety sensors stop the chair if there are obstacles, the seat swivels in locks, so you don't twist your body and the acorn stair lift folds away. they'd even runs during power outages. >> i was really surprised at how little it cost. >> call 180611 at 27 right now for your free information kit or visit our website today that's when 80611 at 27. >> we have made a pool with dr. time. you get the real deal of time, real deal to customize the real down payment and monthly payment of the car you want to buy super smart and the deal you make on your phone is the deal you paid but the real deal he tried to him that calm man, i wish had 750 doneness like this sign says, it says $750 to doughnuts what if each doughnut cost $1

>> hey, that you're kinda right? >> switch to progressive and you could save hundreds >> now adt professionally installs google nest products >> you're all set. >> so your home is safe and smart. we're gonna ms you can check it on your home are mis system, you should go manager system from virtually anywhere and get intelligent alerts like what a package which has arrived or the most trusted name and home security as the intelligence of google, you have a home with no worries brought to you by adt, frustrated by your weight and health, join over 5 million people who found go low the natural weight loss solution, get your free goal for life plan and learn the facts about willpower capitalism and lasting weight loss with starvation diets, get the goal of her life plan delivered right to your door. no credit card is required, plus get free instant access to my go low.com for support with no monthly fees, never pay for an online

diets site again, head to go low that's goal.com this is your invitation to experience the elevation of electrification >> some of the >> best offers that the yields, like models petition to lexis sales event >> closed captioning brought to you by mesobook.com our firm has offered a free book about mesothelioma for over ten years. mesothelioma is really all we do. >> 80087 to 4901 this just into cnn, the trump and don trump's georgia election interference case says he is on track to have his order of >> finished by the end of the week on whether to remove fulton county district attorney fani willis judge mcafee, telling wsp radio quote, i'm calling as best i can and the law as i understand it. so i still feel like i'm on track to having that done by the deadline that i put on myself when i'm talking about that

here with the panel in new york obviously that will be a big deal for the georgia case. if he decides that she stays on what does that mean for the actual scheduling in the case? >> so massive consequences to this decision if the judge decides that the da has a conflict of interests, she is off the case. she's conflicted off the case, but so is the entire office because she's the da, which would completely sidetracked this case timing-wise. it may never see the light of day. what would happen in that instance is it goes to this independent panel of prosecutors in georgia they'll take their time, heaven knows, if they'll ever pick it up if the judge denies the motion and says no conflict of interest, the da's fine to stay on the case, then the case can get back on track. the status quo is the da has asked for an august trial date. now that is in my view, completely unrealistic. they wouldn't even be done picking a jury by the november election that's not a set trial date in august. that's what the da is asking for. so i think if the judge denies this motion keeps fani willis on the case, we will see a trial eventually, but not

before the election. >> jen, do you agree with it? >> yeah, i agree. i agree. there's no way this is being tried this year, no matter when it happens and there's some really consequential decisions the judge has to make here. one of them being a legal issue of whether there has to be an actual conflict or the appearance of a conflict. different judges have decided that different ways in georgia, a lot of legal analysts have said it has to be an actual conduct flights and that makes a real difference here, because the actual conflict they're talking about is all of this financial stuff which was gone into in great depth in the hearing. but i thought actually fani willis and the witnesses that the state called did a good job of dispelling the actual conflict here. so if he decides that there has to be an actual conflict, i suspect she will win this one, although it's close. >> what i'm what an extraordinary though. >> just turn of events. i mean, you can imagine this. i mean, of all the things to derail this case, something that has nothing to do with this case percent. yeah. this happens. prosecutors are held to a very high standard of conduct and i think it's worth stepping back and reminding ourselves this is

a case where donald trump is accused along with 18 other people of trying to steal the 2020 election in georgia and elsewhere. and if you're wondering, how do we get here, how do we get to the da's romantic life and finances? this is a conflict of interest argument and a conflict of interests don't necessarily have to have anything to do with the allegations. in fact, what a narrowly prosecutors will acknowledge a conflict of interest say, yes, i have some crossed wires here. i have a personal relationship. i have a financial relationship, hence, i'm out. it's rare that you see it fully litigated in a mini trial like this. and the key issues and you can i was trying to read the tea leaves there and the judges statement, he's being has he should be cagey. but the judge is going to have to decide did fani willis have some sort of financial conflict here? did the fact that she chose nathan wade, who she had a relationship with. there's a dispute about when who was intern paid 100 of thousands of dollars to work this case over $600,000. and some of that money, relatively small amount made its way to benefits for fani willis. she said, well, i

repaid him in cash. that's what the judge has to sift through here, and it's a tough call. i don't envy him. yeah. >> nick valencia is joining us, who has been following this case. obviously, a covering very closely. nick, is it unusual for this judge be speaking out like this and this radio stay rare, anderson? >> yeah, extremely rare but it's only been a handful of times. it's got mcafee has addressed the case. he's not giving very many interviews. he's been asked repeatedly to be interviewed about this case and he actually agreed to this interview in part because he was talking about his reelection bid. not only is fani willis up for reelection, but also scott mcafee, and it was last week that we learned mcafee had a challenger to his his post as a judge. he was interviewed about that on wsp radio. and during the course of that interview, he did mention about how this case is affected him personally. he talked about which you've been talking about there with a panel that this is going to take time it was almost so as he signaled that two weeks, the self-imposed deadline that he gave himself wasn't going to be enough time. and there's a theory that he could potentially actually be writing new georgia case law if you remember, during those

disqualifications hearings, it was talked about how a district attorney had never been disqualified in the state of georgia over forensic misconduct. steve sadow, out, the attorney here for former president trump, has requested that fani willis be disqualified in part because of forensic misconduct. so mcafee signaling that he's going to probably take the entire two weeks that he gave himself to do this. so we're expecting a decision to come any moment now, but more likely towards the end of this week, anderson in philadelphia. >> thanks very much. how likely do you think it is that? fani willis will stay on that. >> her office will sasha i would say if i felt one way or the other, i keep looking at this from both ways. actually sort of reminds me of what we just saw with robert hur and the following respect. there's a difference as a prosecutor between knowing something and being able to prove it in a concrete way where you can establish your burden of proof i think there are real doubts about whether fani willis was truthful when she said her romantic relationship only started after the fact. i think there are doubts about whether she re-paid all of the financial benefit she got in

cash. there's no receipts or withdrawal slips but i also agree with what jen said before. i think the evidence and the defendants bear the burden in that case. the evidence is a mess. the evidence is unclear. it was muddled. >> and to make the comparison to >> robert hur, he says, look, there is some evidence of wrongdoing, but the burden that he bears as a prosecutor is very high. it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. and so while hers conclusion is yes. biden did wrong i don't think i have enough proof that's specific enough to bring a criminal charge. so look, this happens in the law, you end up in that gray zone. a lot of times it's not always satisfying, but that's the reality of it. but ultimately, this judge is going to have to rule judge mcafee thumbs up or thumbs down with enormous consequences, and anderson, can i mentioned listen irresponsible when the stakes are this high, dozens and dozens of witnesses let's put their lives on hold to testify in this case. i think if cassidy hutchinson who basically moved down to atlanta, spent months when she was under threats for cooperating in this case, and this delays it. we will likely not have resolution before the election. and there's even a chance of this could fall apart because of her actions. we've

seen this before, but the stakes are so high, she shouldn't say she would have a relationship with somebody on her staff while this was well, having previously made statements about how she would not do that, right? >> i think it's it's heartbreaking because i think there is a sense here, the right-wing's the double standard, double-standard against our guy. i think most people there's a double standard in favorite people like donald trump, who can just seem to get away with anything and for it to have the ball securely in her hands. a lot of people were seeing her as a hero to have her fumble the ball in this way is terrible, but it does come down to what standard the judge holds her too. if it's an appearance standard, then it's over >> but the >> idea, i mean, you have to think about how ludicrous that, what is a conflict of interests that the only way that she could figure out a way to get money to go on vacations just to give her boyfriend a job and that's why she's prosecuting donald trump late it's messy. she shouldn't have done it, but i don't think i don't think that is affecting her judgment of whatever financial benefits he's getting from her boyfriend is not affecting her judgment

as a prosecutor. i don't think she's only going after donald trump because of that. and so if that is a way to try to make sense of why a judge might give her a pass on this i think the evidence is messy and i don't think the reason that donald trump's at the cross hairs is because he's got some financial interests and certainly a number of the witnesses who were called to backup the allegations against her certainly did not comport themselves very well on the witness stand? >> no. no, they definitely didn't. i mean, everybody was a mess. i know fani willis, i actually thought was a pretty persuasive witness, although way to combative but i think the problem for a lot of people here when you step back from it and don't think about the legal standards, but just watch it as a show and think about what it means. if you have people, fani willis and nathan wade who are willing to lie in court to stay on a case what does that say? like, would you really leave prosecutors in place on a case if you believed that they were lying to the

judge and lying in their papers, that may not be technically a means of disqualification here, depending on the legal standard that the judge uses. but that's a really bad statement. yes, it doesn't have anything to do with the facts of the underlying case. but who wants prosecutors to, you know, trump's attorneys will use that throughout the defense to try to discredit them. >> based, everybody, let's go back to jake >> thanks so much. anderson also just into cnn, the biden administration shan has just announced a new weapons package for ukraine after warning for months that there was no money left for those weapons. cnn's oren liebermann is live for us at depending on oren, what can you tell us about this new weapons package? >> jake, this is the first ukraine weapons package we have seen from the us since december 27. and that's because the us had effectively run out of what's called replenishment funding. it had more money and more authority to give weapons to ukraine, but he couldn't backfill it. and that is a critical part of all of this. and that's where this money came from effectively over purchasing contracts and weapons bought from arms

manufacturers. the us was able to recoup $300 million of that money and that is what allowed for this $300 million weapons package to be announced earlier today, according to the pentagon and the white house, it includes critical munitions for ukraine, the weapons we have seen plays such a critical role from 155 millimeters in her artillery ammunition that ukraine is firing at a far lower rate than russia, also high-mars that's for the guided multiple launch rocket system anti-aircraft missiles. those are absolutely critical as russia continues to launch aerial assaults with devastating impacts. so those are the weapons needed to keep ukraine in this fight and make sure they can fight back against russian forces that have had some significant advances. as ukraine has been waiting for aid >> or how long will this new package help keep ukraine in the fight? >> effectively not long at all, 300 million isn't that large of a ukraine aid package especially not from the united states. and the white house warned this may only keep them in and keep them supplied for a matter of weeks, perhaps even

those little as a couple of weeks. and that's why officials both at the white house and at the pentagon pointed out that this does not replace a 60 he billion dollars supplemental that has made it through the house, the senate, and is now waiting on the house. so they said, look, that is still absolutely critical for ukraine. this 300 million will help ukraine, but only for a bit here. >> or in where does >> this extra 3,300, rather, this extra $300 million. what does it come from? >> it comes from that savings and effectively the purchase of weapons depending on estimates, how much these contracts will cost. and then through negotiations with these arms manufacturers, they are here and they're able to get essentially a better price on what is effectively bulk buying of weaponry. and that adds up, it adds up very slowly here in 300 million years old a fraction of what the us has sent to this point, but it has added up to this level, it gives the us some replenishment money to work with. so it's able to use some of the authority it has to send money to ukraine. it's a critical point here. the us has 4

billion in authority to send equipment to ukraine, but it needs to be able to replenish that. >> and that's the money that the us warned for months had run out. they were able to get back 300 million so they can send a little more aid here to ukraine. >> all right. oren liebermann at the pentagon for us. thanks so much. thank you so much for watching our special coverage today. we're gonna have much more on the special counsel's hearing and super tuesday two is voters in several states go back to the polls and much, much more of today's news. that's coming up on the lead right after this do you think that our democracy is at risk? >> we have the very concerned why do you think he's doing this? and can he be talked out >> do you think he's guilty >> the lead with jake tapper next on cnn. hi, i'm david he lost 92 pounds on goal. i noticed within a week that the released supplement really knocked out my sugar cravings that didn't feel the need that go into the store for candy or

go through the drive-thru? after work. i feel so much better these days and i have goal to thank for that. >> i've struggled with generalized myasthenia gravis but the pitcher started changing when i started on vif guard >> this guard has for adults generalized myasthenia gravis or anti kachroo antibody positive in a clinical trial, vif guard significantly improved most participants ability to do daily activities when added to their current gmc treatment most participants taking viv guard also had less muscle weakness >> and you have they've guard treatment schedule is designed just for you clinical study, the most common side effects included urinary and respiratory tract infections and headache, viv, garten may increase the risk of infection. tell your dr. if you have a history of infections or symptoms of an infection, they've guard can cause allergic reactions available as vivek or for iv infusion and also was vif guard high true low for subject tania's injection. additional side effects for vif guard high

trudeau. they include injection site reactions to talk to your neurologist about viv guard high. >> we've both got a big birthday coming up, so we have a lot of questions about medicare plans. >> we've got a lot of answers. how can i help? >> well, for starters do you include hearing benefits? >> how about a plan with dental vision and hearing benefits >> sure. like the sound of that been how does a $0 monthly plan premium sound >> if you're new to medicare? how 188865 edna will walk you through all your coverage and benefit options to help find the right plan for you >> important health care announcement if people tell you your tv is too loud, or if listening in some environments has become too difficult we are requesting your participation in a special program called the 30-day risk-free challenge hearing live hearing centers are seeking people with hearing difficulties to evaluate a new 100% digital mini hearing aid. now being released, all people

with hearing aids are hearing difficulties are wanted to take part in this 30 risk-free challenge, evaluating this new high-tech device that sits discreetly behind your ear. this hearing aid is bluetooth enabled and rechargeable. all hearing assessments are performed at no charge for those taking part in the challenge, participants we'll try these hearing aids for 30 days. now to take part in this event, you must call. so please get a pencil and write down the number below call us and take the hearing life 30-day risk-free challenge, meet noodles >> she's part short hair and part ninja. >> make the bissell cross wave hydro steam it's part vacuum,

pride that every day, millions say, i use splenda >> i'm evan perez in washington. >> and this is cnn special counsel or her could have