Special Counsel Robert Hur‘s report on Joe Biden‘s handling of classified documents became immediately famous after Hur’s “gratuitous” characterization of Biden as a “elderly man” with a “poor memory.”
That assertion, tucked into a nearly 400-page report that did not recommend charges against Biden, went viral with the help of mainstream media and Republican operatives, who used Hur’s words to portray Biden as mentally unfit for office — even as their own presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, stood indicted by a grand jury for mishandling secret documents and obstructing the efforts of the U.S. government to retrieve them.
Today as Congress heard testimony from Hur about his report, Democrats used the occasion to emphasize the difference between what Trump is accused of vis-a-vis classified documents and what Biden had been accused of — until Hur’s report concluded without recommending charges.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) excoriated Hur for his intentional denigration of Biden, calling the editorializing in Hur’s report “deeply prejudicial” and a “political decision.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), like Schiff a Harvard lawyer-turned-congressman, emphasized another aspect of Hur’s report that could be seen as political — and which greatly favors Biden instead of Trump.
That is, where Hur himself makes the distinction between the Trump and Biden cases in language that makes clear that Trump’s alleged malfeasance is at a different, much more dangerous level that what Biden had been accused of.
Rep. Raskin: Unlike President Biden, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Trump allegedly did the opposite. Trump did not not turn over all the classified materials in his possession pic.twitter.com/kk9WB8LtvT
— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) March 12, 2024
Raskin quotes Hur at length, saying “Special Counsel Hur repeatedly emphasizes that President Biden’s conduct contrasts sharply with that of former President Trump. Hur observes that unlike President Biden, quote, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would clearly establish not only Mr. Trump’s willfulness, but also serious aggravating factors.
“[Hur] sets forth these points of difference in detail, quote, ‘most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, [Trump] not only refused to return the documents for months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.”
In his report, which Raskin references, Hur is quoting from Special Counsel Jack Smith‘s charges, and couching his phrasing with conditionals like “if proven” and “according to the indictment.” But the effect is to portray the substantive differences in the accusations, which Raskin emphasizes.
If the Hur report can be used to wallop Biden with its politically motivated editorializing, Raskin contends, then it can also be used to emphasize what even a Trump-appointed operative like Hur says in plain language — that the Mar-a-Lago documents case is a different beast.