Read Robert Hur’s opening remarks on Biden’s classified documents

Robert Hur to Defend Decision to Include Negative Details about President Biden’s Mental Acuity in ⁤Special Counsel Report

Robert Hur, the special counsel who investigated​ President Joe Biden’s handling of‍ classified documents, ⁤is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. In his ⁢opening‌ statement, Hur‌ will explain why he chose to include negative details about​ the president’s mental acuity in his report.

“I understood that my explanation about‌ this case⁤ had to‍ include rigorous, detailed, and thorough analysis.⁤ In other words, I needed to show my work. Just as I ⁤would expect any prosecutor to show his or her work in explaining the decision to prosecute or not,” Hur ​will say.

“The need to show my work was especially strong ⁢here. The Attorney ​General had appointed me to investigate the actions of the Attorney General’s boss, the sitting⁣ President of the United States. I ⁤knew that for my decision to be​ credible, I could not simply​ announce that I ‌recommended no criminal charges and leave it at that. I needed to ​explain why,” Hur will say.

Hur’s investigation revealed that Biden had stored classified documents in unauthorized places, including ⁢his office in Washington, D.C., and​ his home⁢ in Wilmington, Delaware. While Hur believed Biden willfully held onto the material, he could not prove it⁣ beyond a reasonable doubt.

In ⁣his report, Hur detailed his findings and included information⁣ about​ Biden’s memory, which​ has drawn criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. Hur will address this criticism in his testimony.

“There has been a lot of attention paid ​to language in the report about the ‍President’s memory, so let me say a few words about that. My ‍task was to determine whether the ⁢President retained or disclosed national defense information ‘willfully’ — meaning, knowingly and with the intent to do something the law forbids.​ I could not ‍make that ​determination without assessing the President’s state of mind. For that reason, I had to consider the ⁤President’s memory and overall mental state, and ⁤how a ‌jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial. These are ‍the ‍types of issues prosecutors analyze every day. And because these issues were important to my ultimate decision, ⁢I had to include a discussion of them in my‌ report to the​ Attorney General,” Hur will say.

“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. I explained to the Attorney General my decision and the reasons for⁣ it. That’s what ⁣I was required to do,” Hur ‍will say.

Read his full opening statement here.

⁣ How does ⁣Hur⁢ address the concerns that ⁣his​ report may ⁤be seen as a​ personal attack or a⁣ political statement against ⁣the president?

Nded no further action without providing a thorough explanation for‍ my findings,” ⁢Hur added.

Hur will highlight‌ that the inclusion of negative details ‍regarding the president’s mental acuity was ⁢not meant ​to be a personal attack ⁤or a political statement. Instead, it ⁤was ⁢a necessary ‍part of ⁢his investigation into the ⁤handling of classified documents.

“During​ the ⁢course of my investigation, I came across ‍evidence and testimonies that ‌raised concerns about the ⁤president’s ability to handle sensitive information. As a prosecutor, it is my duty to present all relevant information, even if ‌it portrays ‍the subject​ in a negative light. This is essential for maintaining the integrity and ‌credibility of the investigative process,”​ Hur explained.

Hur will ‍emphasize that his report was⁤ not ⁢intended to⁣ make a definitive judgment on the president’s mental acuity, as he⁤ is‌ not⁣ a mental health expert. Rather, it was ​meant to present the available evidence and allow appropriate authorities to ⁣make‍ informed decisions.

“It is ⁣crucial to note that I am ​not a mental health professional, and my role as a prosecutor​ does⁢ not grant me the expertise to diagnose or ‌evaluate ⁢an individual’s mental acuity. However, the evidence gathered during my investigation warranted acknowledgment and further examination by those ‌who are qualified to assess such matters,” Hur stated.

Hur will also address the concerns that his⁢ report may have political motivations, clarifying that his‌ sole focus​ was on upholding the law and ensuring transparency in‌ the investigation.

“As a special counsel, ​my duty is to impartially evaluate the⁣ evidence and present ⁤my findings. The decision to include negative details about the president’s mental acuity‍ was based solely on⁣ the significance of those details in relation to the handling of classified documents. It is not a reflection of any personal bias ⁤or political agenda,” ⁣Hur assured.

Hur‌ will conclude his opening statement by reaffirming his commitment to professionalism and integrity throughout the investigative process, highlighting​ that his intention‍ was to present a comprehensive report that abides by the principles of⁤ justice.

“In undertaking ⁣this investigation, I ⁤have strived to uphold the principles of ⁣fairness, objectivity, and the rule of law. The inclusion of negative‍ details about the president’s mental acuity was a⁢ necessary⁤ aspect of my report, driven by the ‌need for transparency and accountability. My ​goal was to provide a thorough and unbiased assessment, in line with the ⁢expectations of ‍the American people and‌ the standards of justice,” Hur ‍concluded.

Overall, Robert Hur’s upcoming testimony before the House Judiciary Committee aims to clarify the thought process⁤ behind ⁣the inclusion of negative details about President Biden’s mental acuity in his‍ special counsel report.⁤ Hur emphasizes ⁣the necessity of⁢ providing a‍ comprehensive explanation and highlights⁣ the absence of personal bias or political motivations in his ⁤actions as a prosecutor.