Special Counsel Admits Why Biden Retained Classified Documents
More information about former Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into President Joe Biden’s filegate issues is coming to light, and it seems bad for the president.
The now former special counsel appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Tuesday and cleared up some of the misleading claims Democrats have been making about his conclusions in the case of Biden’s illegal storage of classified documents in a garage in his home in Delaware, his office, and other places.
Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan asked the seminal question of why Biden held onto those documents even though Hur determined that Biden knew full well that removing them from official repositories was illegal.
Hur replied that the answer to the question of why he retained the documents was not one they “explicitly addressed” in the investigation.
But Jordan was not satisfied with the reply.
“I think you did tell us. I think you told us, Mr. Hur,” Rep. Jordan exclaimed. “Page 231 you said this: ‘President Biden had strong motivations,’ that’s a key word. We’re getting to motive now. ‘President Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks.’ Why did he have strong motivations, ‘because’ — this next word — ‘because he decided months before leaving office to write a book,'” Jordan reminded Hur.
Jordan added that Hur also pointed out in his report that Biden was meeting with a ghostwriter for this planned book while he was still serving as Barack Obama’s vice president.
The Ohio representative then revealed how much Hur said that Biden received as an advanced payment for writing that book.
Biden got $8 million. That, Jordan said, was a very strong motive to illegally retain classified documents — despite the president’s claims that he never shared classified information with anyone.
[firefly_poll]
“Joe Biden had eight million reasons to break the rules,” Jordan said. “Took classified information and shared it with the guy who was writing the book. … He knew the rules, but he broke them for $8 million in a book advance.”
Rep. @Jim_Jordan: “Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules. The oldest motives in the book, pride & money. Do you agree with that…?”
Former Special Counsel Hur: “That language does appear in the report and we did identify evidence supporting those assessments.” pic.twitter.com/Qb3SQVMgM1
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 12, 2024
Jordan went on to say that Biden’s rule-breaking was also about his vanity and ego.
“And the next thing you say in your report is, ‘Such a record would buttress his legacy as a world leader.’ You know what this is?” Jordan continued. “It wasn’t just the money. It wasn’t just the $8 million. It was also his ego. Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules. The oldest motives in the book: pride and money.
“Do you agree with that, Mr. Hur? You wrote it in your report.”
“That language does appear in the report, and we did identify evidence supporting those assessments,” Hur responded.
During another segment of his appearance before the committee, as Fox News noted, Hur pushed on claims made by Democrats that he somehow exonerated Biden for illegally storing classified documents in his home.
“So this lengthy, expensive and independent investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of President Joe Biden,” Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington said. “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. The primary law that you analyze for potential prosecution was part of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793, which criminalizes willful retention or disclosure of national defense information. Is that correct?”
“Congresswoman, that is one statute that we analyzed. I need to go back and make sure that I take note of the word that you used. Exoneration. That is not a word that used in the report, and that is not part of my task as a prosecutor. The judgement that I received and that I ultimately reached was relating to whether sufficient evidence existed such that the likely outcome would be a conviction,” Hur told the congresswoman.
“You exonerated him,” Jayapal insisted.
“I did not exonerate him,” Hur replied. “That word does not appear in the report, congresswoman.”
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
