Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 12, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

04:04:28

Canadian Covid Jab CLASS ACTION! Letitia James SHALL NOT BE MOCKED; & MORE! Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It was also his ego.
	Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules.
	The oldest motives in the book, pride and money.
	I've gone live early, people.
	That language does appear in the report and we did identify evidence supporting those assessments.
	You also had another interesting statement in your report.
	You said Joe Biden...
	I want to make sure I get this right.
	Viewed himself as a man of presidential timber.
	Remember that statement, Mr. Herr?
	I believe that does appear in the report, at least in the executive summary.
	I think this is interesting.
	Because here's the scary part.
	Page 200.
	I said this earlier in my opening statement.
	Page 200.
	Joe Biden, this is a quote, Joe Biden risked serious damage to America's national security when he shared information with his ghostwriter.
	Shared it with his ghostwriter, the guy who was helping Joe Biden get $8 million.
	And oh, by the way, Mr. Herr, what did that ghostwriter do with the information Joe Biden shared with him on his laptop?
	What did he do after you were named special counsel?
	Deleted it?
	Exactly what I'm referring to.
	He deleted them?
	He slid, if I remember correctly, he slid those files into his recycle bin on his computer.
	Tried to destroy the evidence.
	I didn't even know that, but I predicted it.
	The very guy who was helping Joe Biden get the $8 million, the $8 million Joe Biden used, the motive for Joe Biden to disclose classified information, to retain classified information, which he definitely knew was against the law.
	When you get named special counsel, what's that guy do?
	He destroys the evidence.
	That's the key takeaway in my mind.
	That's the key takeaway.
	I yield back.
	I didn't know this was on today.
	We're still going to go live with our schedule, but we'll cover this until noon.
	Oh, here.
	Liar of the day.
	We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.
	Yeah, because he's a senile old man.
	No, no ranking member.
	You highlight the independence and support you got from the Attorney General and DOJ.
	Have you changed your mind about that?
	I have not.
	The report describes President Biden's cooperation in your request.
	He allowed his homes to be searched.
	He answered questions for hours in the midst of a global crisis.
	Have you had any reason to change your mind about that?
	No ranking member.
	Jamie Raskin is a liar.
	I am very humbly asking if you could.
	Chip in $5, $10, or even $25.
	I know that times could be tough, and they are tough under this horrible president that we have, Brooke and Joe Biden.
	So if you can't contribute now, don't even think about it.
	Oh, that's an ad.
	Okay.
	Have you done anything to change your judgment about the differences between President Biden's cooperation and the former president's non-cooperation?
	No, I continue to stand by those words in my report.
	With such a striking contrast, our colleagues have switched over from being impeachment investigators for constitutional high crimes and misdemeanors, which is how this whole thing started, to being amateur memory specialists, giving us their drive-by diagrams.
	I hate this guy.
	Jeez Louise.
	A lot of verbal diarrhea.
	The Freedom Caucus were on full display at the State of the Union address last week for the whole country to see.
	The desperate quest to invent an issue is a distraction.
	That's a question.
	From the 91 federal and state federal charges that Donald Trump faces now, his staggering civil court losses in New York now totaling more than a half a billion dollars, and his full...
	Oh, shut up, Jamie.
	Well, he's practiced this.
	This is his moment.
	He wants an Oscar.
	Do you have a question here, sir?
	It's a memory test for all of America.
	Do we remember fascism?
	Do you remember Nazism?
	Do you remember communism and totalitarianism?
	Yeah, and you were the face of it, Ratskin.
	Have we completely forgotten the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents in prior generations?
	Well, we play pin the tail on the donkey.
	What the hell?
	In this wild goose chase.
	Pin the tail of the donkey in a wild goose chase.
	Donald Trump entertains authoritarian hustler Victor Orban at Mar-a-Lago for the weekend, and Orban comes out to declare that if we indeed sleepwalk into another Trump presidency, Trump will, quote, not give...
	Oh my goodness.
	Terrible.
	No, it's about funding Ukraine.
	Because the tyrants and dictators of the world are on the march today.
	Oh my goodness, this is verbal diarrhea.
	So who wins with this ludicrous, embarrassing spectacle?
	Orban wins.
	Putin wins.
	She wins.
	The tyrants of the world win.
	They have one more reason to celebrate Donald Trump and his cult followers.
	Shut your face, you disgusting human.
	Now they appoint themselves amateur memory specialists, and that's what they pounce on the president of the United States about.
	America faces a choice between democracy and tyranny.
	I'm regretting having gone live early, people.
	...laid it out in the State of the Union.
	Will America stand on the side of people struggling against fascist aggression?
	Says the guy who's praising the New York court decision.
	Human trafficking was a problem in Ukraine before the war, Raskin.
	But we're not working on that today.
	We're not standing up for democracy and human rights and international law around the world.
	No, we're trying to play memory detectives.
	To parse the language of a president who the whole world got to see at the State of the Union address.
	No, we saw it.
	Directly address the real questions of our time.
	And it is democracy versus dictatorship.
	And all of the autocrats and the theocrats, all of the kleptocrats of the world are together in league against American democracy.
	And we have to stand up for American democracy against these stupid games.
	I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
	Yeah, you didn't ask a question.
	That was verbal diarrhea.
	Chairman of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Comer, is recognized for five minutes.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	During the Oversight Committee interviews, we've identified a number of White House employees who were involved in the mishandling of classified documents under the leadership of President Biden.
	Useless.
	That guy is a rat.
	Mr. Councilor Hurt, can you please tell us approximately how many current and former White House employees you interviewed related to your investigation?
	Chairman Comer, I don't have that figure immediately at hand.
	Of course, it was a subset of the 173 interviews that we conducted during our investigation.
	Your report indicates that one of those former White House employees who you interviewed was Dana Remus.
	Is that correct?
	We did interview Ms. Remus.
	Ms. Remus was President Biden's former White House counsel, correct?
	She was President Obama's former White House counsel.
	I'm sorry, President Obama's White House counsel.
	Related to Ms. Remus, in your report on page 257, you wrote...
	In May 2022, White House Counsel Dana Remus undertook an effort to retrieve Mr. Biden's files from the Penn Biden Center.
	Remus described the original purpose of that effort as gathering materials to prepare for potential congressional inquiries about the Biden family's activities during the period from 2017 to 2019.
	Now, it seems odd to me that Dana Remus and Joe Biden's personal lawyers were obtaining documents related to potential congressional inquiries.
	about the Biden family activities when Joe Biden has publicly claimed he had no involvement with his family's business dealings.
	Can you provide more information about why Dana Remus, a government employee, was retrieving Joe Biden's documents from the Penn Biden Center?
	Chairman, I'm able to tell you and clarify information that appears in the report about relevant, significant sources of information, but I am not in a position to be able to go beyond that.
	When you interviewed President Biden, did you ask him what documents he possessed at Penn Biden Center that could be related to a potential congressional inquiry about his family's activities?
	We asked President Biden a wealth of questions about all of the different sets of classified materials that were recovered during the course of our investigation.
	Did anything pertain specifically to our congressional inquiry of President Biden that you recall?
	If there are more specific aspects of it that you have in mind, Chairman, that would be helpful to me.
	Interest pertaining to his family's influence-peddling activities?
	If it's helpful, Chairman, Appendix A does list in table chart form a brief description of all of the marked classified documents that were recovered in our investigation.
	We intend to interview Ms. Remus, and the recording or transcript of your interview would be...
	Highly relevant to our future questioning of her.
	Can you confirm that you did, in fact, record her in your interview?
	It was our practice to record the interviews that we conducted, Chairman Gilmer.
	Additionally, in the course of the investigation, the Oversight Committee learned from a Penn-Biden Center employee that Annie Tomasini, a White House employee, visited the Penn-Biden Center in 2021.
	Did you interview Annie Tomasini in the course of your investigation?
	Chairman, the report does not reflect that specific name, but what I can tell you is that the report does reflect that we interviewed the Director of Oval Office Operations, and one of the places that's reflected is footnote 973.
	Okay.
	The Oversight Committee interviewed Kathy Chung, a Department of Defense employee and former Assistant Vice President Biden, and learned that Ms. Chung visited the Biden-Penn Center in June 2022 after being contacted.
	By White House counsel in May 2022.
	This was months before classified documents were allegedly found in November 2022.
	Did you interview Kathy Chung in the course of your investigation?
	Chairman, I believe that the substance relating to the subject you're asking about appears on page 259 of the report.
	While the name Kathy Chung does not appear in the text of the report, there are references to an executive assistant, including a footnote 988.
	It's got a good memory.
	The Oversight Committee also learned from its interviews with Penn Biden Center employees and Kathy Chung that Dana Remus, Anthony Bernal, and Ashley Williams, all at the time White House employees, then visited the Penn Biden Center on different occasions before the alleged discovery of classified materials in November 2022.
	Did you interview these individuals during your investigation?
	We interviewed many individuals, and I can assure you, Chairman, that we...
	It was a priority of ours to interview all the relevant sources of information about these documents, how they got there, who knew about them, and who accessed them.
	So, again, they were all recorded, is that correct?
	So there would be recordings?
	It was our practice to interview recordings, yes, sir.
	How many White House employees visited the Penn-Biden Center before classified materials were reportedly discovered there in November 2022, according to the White House?
	Sir, I don't have an exact count.
	How many visits to the Penn Biden Center were made by either White House employees or President Biden's personal attorneys before the official discovery of documents in November 2022?
	I don't have that figure at hand, but that should be detailed in Chapter 14 of the report, sir.
	Yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	General A from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
	You can tell.
	Republican will ask questions.
	Democrat will grandstand for five minutes.
	We're not watching this all day, by the way.
	I just have to start this.
	To see what's going on.
	Oh!
	Who is she?
	Let me Google her real fast.
	Jackson Lee.
	Ms. Jackson Lee.
	Jackson Lee.
	Good morning.
	The Republicans here asked for a lot of transcripts.
	She looks like a Democrat.
	It's going to be grandstanding.
	...from our interviews, when with those...
	If they are to be released to the American people is the question.
	My question to you...
	Let's hear it.
	...is you decided, based on the facts...
	That's not a question.
	...not to prosecute or indict or bring forward charges against the President of the United States, the sitting President, Joseph Biden.
	Is that correct?
	That was my judgment.
	She's a Democrat.
	This investigation was independent and thorough.
	Let's wait for a question.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	That's a question.
	We have heard from our Republican colleagues who are rapsing at straws allegations that President Biden was treated lightly in this investigation.
	But just a plain reading of this report completely refused that argument.
	We've gone into grandstanding, people.
	There was no two-tiered system of justice.
	There was only a lack of evidence against President Biden.
	No, there wasn't.
	There was a lack of intent.
	An extensive investigation into Mr. Biden's handling of classified information and of the classified documents the FBI sees, correct?
	Correct.
	In your investigation, you conducted 173 interviews of 147 witnesses, correct?
	Correct.
	And President Biden himself was one of those witnesses, correct?
	I'm smelling grandstanding.
	For at least five hours or more.
	Over two days, yes.
	President Biden engaged in this interview voluntarily.
	Correct.
	And the interview with President Biden lasted more than five hours.
	You already said that, yes.
	That's correct?
	That's correct.
	And the interview, and it occurred the day, which all should know, after the horrific attack, October 7th, 2023.
	So he was confused.
	Hamas attack in Israel, according to a letter from the White House Council.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	The interview spans two days, October 8th and October 9th.
	With the president having to be in and out to deal with an international crisis.
	And after the interview, he provided handwritten answers to additional questions, correct?
	These are great questions.
	Congresswoman, I don't recall the president being in and out during our interview to handle the internet.
	Let me go on.
	And President Biden allowed investigators...
	I'm not done talking yet.
	That's a question.
	Is that correct?
	He did consent to the search of his residence.
	And your investigation collected 7 million documents for review in your investigation.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	And this included emails, text messages, photographs, videos, toll records, and other materials from both classified and unclassified sources, correct?
	And you referred or reviewed President Biden's handwritten notes as well, correct?
	Correct.
	And you were coordinated with the multiple government agencies to organize and complete your investigation, correct?
	We consulted with numerous agencies to conduct classification reviews of evidence.
	I'm not done talking.
	I'm not done talking questions.
	That included working with national security experts in the intelligence community to carefully analyze each classified document that was obtained.
	With respect to marked classified documents, that's correct.
	We submitted excerpts from the former vice president's notebooks for classification review.
	And if agencies reviewed classified material and gave it different levels of classification, you classified it as a higher level for the purposes of your investigation, to be thorough, correct?
	That is reflected in appendices A and B. Thank you.
	The FBI requested classification review from each identified agency accordingly for documents where multiple agencies had equities.
	The Special Counsel's Office used the highest level of classification identified by an agency as the current classification of the document.
	Let me go on.
	Attorney General Garland appointed you as special counsel over the matter on January 12, 2023, correct?
	Correct.
	He authorized you to investigate Mr. Biden's possession of the classified documents, including possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records.
	Correct.
	At the Penn Center, Penn Biden Center, President Biden's home, Delaware, as well as any matters that rose from the initial...
	Is that a lollipop?
	included with President Biden himself.
	You reviewed 7 million documents, including President Biden's personal recognition.
	You've asked these questions already, Jackson.
	And in this thorough, lengthy investigation, you did not uncover enough evidence to recommend prosecution against the...
	Wrong.
	That's my judgment.
	And if you had found enough evidence to warrant prosecution, did you feel free?
	I was aware of the Office of Legal Counsel policy right now prohibiting sitting presidents from being charged with federal crimes.
	Apart from that, what I can tell you, Congresswoman, is that the investigative steps that we took were my own, the judgment was my own, and the words in the report are my own.
	And you would have done so in the time the gentlelady has expired.
	Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put into the record justsecurity.org, the real Robert Heuer report, unanimous consent.
	Without objection.
	Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
	Five minutes.
	February 8th, the White House.
	Question.
	Mr. President, why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter?
	He'll ask questions.
	I did not share classified information.
	I did not share it.
	I guarantee I did not.
	That's not true, is it, Mr. Heard?
	That is inconsistent with the findings based on the evidence in my report.
	Yeah, so it's a lie.
	It's just what regular people say.
	No, he forgot.
	He forgot, Matt.
	Yeah, all right.
	So the next one.
	And all the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked.
	That wasn't true either, was it?
	That was inconsistent with the findings.
	Everything is able to be locked.
	Another lie, people might say, right?
	Because what you put in your report was, among the places Mr. Biden's lawyers found classified documents in the garage was a damaged open box.
	So here's what I'm understanding, right?
	It's able to be locked, Matt.
	Come on.
	You find in your report that the elements of a federal criminal violation are met.
	But then you apply this senile cooperator theory that because Joe Biden cooperated and the elevator doesn't go to the top floor, you don't think you get a conviction.
	And I actually think you get to the right answer in that.
	I don't think Biden should have been charged.
	I don't think Trump should have been charged.
	But under the senile cooperator theory, isn't it frustrating that Biden continues to go out and lie about...
	The basic facts of the report that lay out a federal criminal violation.
	No, he's not lying.
	Congressman, I need to disagree with at least one thing that you said, which is that I found that all of the elements were met.
	One of the elements of the relevant mishandling statute is the intent element.
	And what my report reflects is my judgment that, based on the evidence, I would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.
	Yeah, because of the senility cooperation.
	Right, but the reason you have that doubt...
	Is the senile cooperator theory.
	The fact that Joe Biden is so inept in responding, you can't prove the intent.
	Which, again, I don't quibble with that conclusion, but it's frustrating to be like, oh, well, this guy's not getting treated the same way as Trump because the elevator's not going to the top floor, so we can't prove intent.
	While at the same time, Biden goes out there at the White House and says, well, you know...
	He just blatantly lies.
	And what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not Biden's lying because he's still so senile, he hasn't read your report, or whether it's a little craftier and a little more devious and perhaps a little more intentional than we might otherwise think.
	So I also want to go to this Biden-Penn Center.
	Did it give concern to you that the Biden-Penn Center, where all this classified stuff was being mishandled, was being floated by foreign governments?
	What does that mean, floated?
	Congressman, we were concerned with getting to the bottom of all of the classified documents that were recovered during the course.
	Yeah, but what bothers me is that the money that was paying for the place where the documents were being inappropriately held, it was the Chinese and it was other foreign countries.
	Did that play into your analysis?
	Did you look into the billion dollars in foreign funding sources at the Biden Center at UPenn, for example?
	Congressman, we conducted a thorough, impartial, and fair investigation, and we were very, very concerned with getting to the bottom of all the relevant questions relating to the recovered documents.
	Sir, did you look into the fact that the Chinese were floating the place where this guy was keeping the documents unsecure?
	Yes or no?
	Congressman, to the extent that we identified evidence that was relevant and significant to our investigation, we put it in our report.
	Okay, it seemed relevant to me.
	Maybe not to you.
	Another thing that seemed relevant to me is this ghostwriter, right?
	So the ghostwriter...
	He purposely deletes this evidence that seems to show culpability of Biden's crimes, and you don't charge him.
	Why did you not charge the ghostwriter with obstructing justice and deleting evidence?
	Well, for a number of reasons that are laid out in the report, but in brief, Congressman, yes.
	When we interviewed the ghostwriter, he did tell us, and I'm trying to get the exact language, that one of the things on his mind, one of the things he was aware of, was that I had been appointed special counsel and was conducting an investigation.
	So he didn't, just so everybody knows, the ghostwriter didn't delete the recordings just as a matter of happenstance.
	Ghostwriter has recordings of Biden making admissions of crimes.
	He then learns that you've been appointed.
	He then deletes the information that is the evidence.
	And you don't charge him.
	That is reflected in the report, and one of the reasons...
	What does somebody have to do to get charged with a charge of justice by you?
	Deleting the evidence of crimes doesn't count.
	He wasn't the object of the report.
	As we state in the relevant chapter of the report, one of the things that Mr. Zwanitzer did not delete was transcripts of the recordings that he had created that included inculpatory evidence relating to Mr. Blunt.
	Oh, so if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence?
	That somehow absolves you of the evidence you destroy?
	Like, here's what I see.
	Zwaniger should have been charged.
	Wasn't.
	Biden and Trump should have been treated equally.
	They weren't.
	And that is the double standard that I think a lot of Americans are concerned about.
	I see my time's expired.
	I yield back.
	That's a good question.
	The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five minutes.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Thank you for being here.
	Who is he?
	I'm a little confused about this hearing.
	Mr. Raskin laid out the big picture, what we should be concerned about.
	But in the more limited picture, Director Mueller had an investigation.
	He's our most famous recent special prosecutor.
	And he found sufficient evidence to say there was a connection between Russia and the Trump campaign.
	And it supported a criminal prosecution if he were not president.
	You found there was no evidence to support a criminal prosecution.
	And the story here is simple.
	President Biden identified classified documents in his home and other places and told archives about them.
	The Independent Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed you, a former Trump political appointee, as special counsel to fully investigate these circumstances and authorized you to prosecute criminal misconduct.
	You declined to prosecute because you found insufficient evidence of a crime.
	Case closed.
	It makes really a perfect case where you did your job.
	Mr. Garland did his job.
	Oh, this is a Democrat.
	It's Steve Cohen.
	That explains the grandstanding.
	Did Mr. Garland ask you to change your report at all?
	No.
	He did not, sir.
	Didn't redact a thing.
	No, sir.
	Like Mr. Barr did, he redacted everything and made the Mueller report look like 180 degrees different than what it was.
	Oh, yeah.
	They're still going back to the Russia hoax.
	And you did right.
	And I commend each of you.
	The Department of Justice is independent and allows the special counsels to investigate and prosecute the facts if supported.
	Joe Biden's actions in handling of classified materials is similar to most other former presidents and vice presidents' perception as Donald Trump.
	So let's start with some yes or no questions.
	Did you receive any pressure from Mr. Garland or his staff to make any specific factual finding or legal conclusion?
	No.
	Did you receive the resources necessary to carry out your duties?
	Yes.
	Do you have any reason to believe that you were treated differently with regard to independence or resources than other DOJ special prosecutors?
	No.
	Based on your experience as special counsel, do you have any reason to believe the Attorney General is improperly directing, pressuring, or interfering with Jack Smith or his work?
	I don't know.
	I have really, I do not have the basis to answer that question.
	But your declination, which we treat as thoughtful and apolitical, we should treat prosecutorial decisions.
	What the hell are you talking about?
	I don't understand your question.
	I really do not have the sufficient information.
	With respect to Jack Smith's investigation, do you provide any comment on it?
	Let me ask you this.
	If President Biden, in his testimony to you, knew the exact date, January 20, whatever it was, 2009, when he became vice president, and the day when he left being vice president, January the 20th, I guess the first would have been January 20th again, 2009, and then January 20th in 2017, he knew those dates exactly right.
	And if he knew the exact date...
	The instant.
	Sir, I cannot engage in hypotheticals about what my decision would have been with different facts.
	If he weren't a demented old man, would you have charged him or recommended charges?
	Yeah, I think so.
	Minor.
	and after a long period of time.
	They are lying about the transcripts.
	It was not the basis for your decision to decline to prosecute.
	It was the fact that you didn't have the facts, that he acted differently than Trump, that he voluntarily provided the documents, that he complied with the Justice Department, that he didn't try to obstruct His ghostwriter deleted.
	Congressman, my reasons for my declaration decision are set out in my report, and I stand by the words in the report, sir.
	Well, thank you, and I think I'm encompassing them in my mischaracterization.
	It was not anything to do with his memory why he wasn't chosen to be, you chose not to indict him.
	It was the difference in the facts in the case and how he dealt with it.
	The fact is, Mr. Biden sat through five hours, and he did an admirable job.
	Well, that's the fact.
	That's a fact.
	That's a fact also.
	Lincoln Riley.
	Oh, shut your face.
	Here we go.
	Diarrhea.
	It's just spewing out of his mouth.
	That's what's important.
	Not if you can be like on the $64,000 question.
	Assuming it was legit.
	And answering every single question correctly.
	That's not what you need to be president.
	Oh my God, shut up.
	You need to have an understanding of what values America has and needs to maintain to keep the world safe and peaceful.
	Yeah, by fomenting war in every corner of the world.
	That's dealing with difficult people like Netanyahu in Israel to try to get something done that's correct.
	Check this guy's mental acuity.
	That's what Joe Biden does.
	And understanding Social Security and Medicaid are important institutions that help seniors.
	Not senile people.
	I mean, I really object to that comment.
	Nobody suggests he's senile, and that's disrespectful of senior people with any kind of memory.
	Shot your face.
	He's senile and demented.
	But they're not senile, and to do such, we're shameful.
	Shameful.
	Joe Biden is not demented.
	Hang on the table.
	That's what you do when you don't have any facts.
	Lincoln Riley.
	I'd like to start off by thanking you for a year of hard work and a comprehensive report.
	I'm going to try not to provide testimony, as some people on both sides are, or provide conclusions, but I do have some questions that lead me to ask you for conclusions.
	One question is, were there notes of the President of the United States that dated back to when he was a senator that contained classified information?
	Among the documents that were recovered during our investigation were marked classified documents that dated back to when Mr. Biden was a senator.
	When he was in his 30s, 40s, 50s.
	I believe that's correct.
	This guy, if he weren't a drill sergeant, you missed an acting career.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So there's been a lot to do about, you know, senility, non-senility, poor memory, and so on.
	But let's just go through something that you deal with as a prosecutor every day.
	You first start off with a set of initial evidence that indicates there may have been a crime.
	Is that right?
	By the time it gets to you, usually you have some evidence that there may have been a crime.
	I think that is fair, yes.
	Okay, and in this case, at some point during this investigation where the elements of the crime, including willfulness, were put before you and you reached a personal conclusion that either there was likely guilt or not.
	Is that correct?
	Not provable, not in front of a jury, just personal, because you have to make that decision as part of the case, correct?
	Correct.
	And I would say I approach the task as I have been trained to as a prosecutor, which is on an iterative basis.
	The investigation is always uncovering new evidence that you incorporate.
	So both before, during, and at the end, did you reach a conclusion, notwithstanding his current mental...
	The state of being an elderly man with a poor memory and so on, that he did in fact deliberately take documents and held them from back when he was a senator.
	And we're talking about your personal, not that you could prove it, but personally, did you see a pattern that goes all the way back to him being a senator of taking documents, making notes, and taking them and holding them personally?
	Congressman, I viewed my task as a prosecutor in this matter to determine what I believed, the evidence.
	No, I appreciate that, and I'm not trying to take away from your conclusion.
	Some others are debating the conclusion.
	I'm not debating the conclusion.
	I just want to go through one element that I think is important.
	Look, you've prosecuted people in the past and failed to get a conviction.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	Okay, you're not a 1,000 perfect batting average.
	I can't say that.
	So you went into cases thinking that you would succeed and you didn't.
	Ah, the H is out of place.
	One might say you probably declined to prosecute ones that you might have either gotten a conviction or gotten a plea on.
	Would you say that's fair to say over your long career?
	There's two R's in diarrhea, people.
	I think that's fair because I take the rules that set forth in the justice manual seriously.
	However, I'm going to presume that you would never prosecute someone you thought was outright innocent.
	Correct.
	In this case, did you reach a conclusion that this man was outright innocent?
	That conclusion is not reflected in my report, sir.
	Right.
	So you did not reach that conclusion or it would have been in your report.
	He had committed crimes, but no one would convict an old man.
	...as being, based on my judgment and my assessment of the evidence, would have...
	Would a conviction at trial be the probable outcome?
	And I just want to make sure the record is complete in that because I think it's extremely important.
	You did not reach an idea that he had committed no wrong.
	You reached a conclusion.
	That he wouldn't get convicted.
	Would not prevail at trial and therefore did not take it forward.
	Is that correct?
	That is correct, Congressman.
	That is correct.
	Okay.
	Why did you do that?
	I just want to go to one or two little housekeeping almost.
	The documents.
	That the president, then vice president, took, which included his own notes.
	To your knowledge, aren't those covered by the Freedom of Information Act?
	I see where he's going with this.
	Potentially.
	Aren't they covered by the Presidential Records Act, as every note and every text...
	He's doing this only to analogize it to Trump.
	...vice president and members of the cabinet are covered.
	I think different folks would have different views on whether they're covered by the PR.
	Different folks would have different strokes.
	But isn't it true that he left office leaving no copies of that behind, and that alone was inconsistent with an open and transparent individual, correct?
	Yeah, well, when he got caught, he was very...
	I'm not aware of copies of those materials being left behind, Congressman.
	Okay, I want to thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for that.
	I'm not aware.
	The guy behind him is about to cry.
	The guy right there.
	Georgia, who's it going to be?
	Who is it?
	Oh, I know this is going to be verbal diarrhea.
	Mr. Johnson, Georgia.
	You served as a student, as executive editor of the Stanford Law Review, correct?
	Correct.
	He's a Democrat.
	Verbal diarrhea is coming.
	Yes, sir.
	After that, you ascended to a clerkship with then Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court, correct?
	Correct.
	And then you later joined the Daddy Bush Department of Justice.
	Daddy Bush?
	That sounds really gross.
	Oh, this is the capsize the eyelid guy?
	Let's see what he has to say today.
	How long is Guam?
	24 miles, 6 miles.
	Justice Department as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, working as the right-hand man for another known Federalist Society member, Rod Rosenstein.
	Isn't that correct?
	I served as Mr. Rosenstein's Principal Deputy.
	And then, Donald Trump appointed you to serve as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.
	Is that correct?
	President Trump nominated me to serve in that position, and I was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate.
	That's correct.
	And thereafter, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed you to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice to conduct a full and thorough investigation of certain matters to determine whether or not Joseph Biden should be charged with unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents.
	Isn't that correct?
	Correct.
	And nowhere in that order does Attorney General Garland authorize you to conduct an investigation and issue a report on whether President Biden is mentally fit to serve as president.
	Isn't that correct?
	That does not appear in the appointment order.
	And pursuant to your appointment to conclude your investigation, you issued a report.
	That's the best question I've heard all day, actually.
	Amazing.
	This is another great question.
	No, that he would be convicted for that.
	He would not get convicted.
	Man, I could answer these questions.
	You determined that there was no evidence of willful retention because each time classified documents were discovered to be in the president's possession.
	He gave them back.
	White House notified the National Archives right away, the Biden legal team and the White House fully cooperated He's about to choke on his own verbal diarrhea.
	During the investigation, once the DOJ opened the investigation, President Biden and his personal counsel fully cooperated.
	Isn't that correct?
	No willful retention?
	The point is, though, that the president cooperated fully with you.
	And didn't the president...
	I mean, they never tried to hide any documents.
	Did you not hear his ghostwriter try to delete evidence?
	Thank you, sir.
	And last but not least, unlike in the Trump classified documents case, President Biden's counsel never falsely certified that there was no classified I don't understand your question.
	The report does include some comparisons and contrasts between the facts alleged in the Trump case and the Biden case.
	Didn't clear him from getting prosecuted.
	Trash and smear.
	Trash and smear.
	Oh, five hours.
	Five hours.
	My goodness, people.
	This is the guy who's going to control the world.
	Can't sit down for five hours.
	He is.
	HOTUS.
	No, that's not what they saw.
	Lincoln Riley, you gosh forsaken liar.
	Hell.
	So that they can expand upon that narrative.
	And you knew that that's what was going to happen, didn't you?
	Congressman, I reject the suggestions that you have just made.
	Let me cut you off.
	Let me cut you off.
	Let me move on.
	No, no, you asked me.
	Shut your face, Johnson.
	Shut it.
	Shut up, Johnson.
	Shut up.
	You are a member of the Federalist Society, are you not?
	Let him answer.
	Are you a member of the Federalist Society?
	I am not a member of the Federalist Society.
	But you are a Republican, though, aren't you?
	I am a registered Republican.
	Yes, sir.
	And you're doing everything you can do to get President Trump re-elected so that you can get appointed as a federal judge to another position in the Department of Justice.
	Isn't that correct?
	Congressman, I have no such aspirations, I can assure you, and I can tell you that partisan politics had no place whatsoever in my work.
	It had no place in the investigative steps that I took.
	It had no place in the decision that I made, and it had no place in a single word of my report.
	You want to get elected, don't you?
	The gentleman's time has expired.
	The gentleman from New Jersey's recommendation.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Harris, thank you for being here.
	You know, I think for the folks that may be watching this at home, they might be a little bit confused, and I'm trying to organize this in my mind as well.
	The way the president is portrayed in your report and just how we feel about him, was he a well-meaning, forgetful man, as you said?
	Or was he a man that was focused on history?
	Was he a man that maintained and retained these top-secret documents that should have been not in his home?
	And was he a man that wanted to prove he was worthy to be president and that his vision of Afghanistan was better than even President Barack Obama's and that his focus on history was most important to him?
	Do you know which it is?
	Congressman, to the extent you're quoting language from my report, I stand by the words in my report.
	So you stand by that he was, and let me quote you exactly, This guy used to be Democrat, is now Republican?
	I don't think those exact words appear in the report, Congressman, but to the extent that I use words similar to that effect in my assessment of how a jury would perceive Mr. Biden and the evidence relating to him, including his testimony, I do stand by that assessment.
	So is it accurate to say that in your interview, President Biden retained and disclosed classified materials as a means to bolster his image as a presidential figure?
	And I'm going to ask you for yes or no's here because our time is so limited.
	I believe words to that effect are in my report, Congressman.
	So the answer is yes.
	Would you agree that President Biden's intent to showcase his legacy provides a motive for his actions concerning classified materials?
	Yes or no?
	It is one of the motives addressed in the report.
	Yep, to showcase his legacy.
	Is it accurate to quote your report that classified documents were found in, quote, badly damaged boxes in his garage near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, and an empty bucket?
	Yes, but the garage was locked.
	Those words do appear in the report.
	So that's correct.
	The answer is yes.
	Are these secure locations to store classified documents?
	They are not.
	Okay, so we got a former vice president who...
	Is established to have willfully, purposefully retained classified documents in order to highlight his political stature and show his stature as a presidential figure.
	We have a former vice president who stored classified documents in very unsecured places.
	We have a former vice president who will not suffer any consequences for all of these actions.
	All because we say, well, he's a well-meaning, forgetful old man.
	You know, if you were kind of a well-meaning, forgetful old man that was driving a car and you forgot what you were doing a little bit and you hit somebody and killed him, I believe you'd be responsible.
	The law must apply, you know this, to everyone.
	The standard behind the decision not to prosecute Joe Biden, especially in light of Special Counsel Jack Smith's decision to prosecute President Trump for similar conduct.
	Gives the real appearance of two standards.
	Just, again, so much part of this Department of Justice.
	Justice for thee, but not for me.
	Special Counsel Herr, has any former president or vice president besides President Trump ever been criminally charged for knowingly retaining classified information after they left office?
	Yes or no?
	No.
	Would you concur that Special Counsel Smith's decision to charge a former president for retaining and disclosing classified information was an extraordinary, unusual, and unprecedented decision?
	I will not comment on that.
	It has never been done before.
	I'm going to comment.
	The answer is yes.
	Special Counsel Heard, these two reports are the culmination, in my mind, of the Department of Justice's two standards.
	Two standards and an example again.
	Of the Justice Department being weaponized against conservatives.
	You know, there's another piece to this, too.
	I have just a few seconds.
	We know that when his ghostwriter was speaking to him, he also did recordings.
	And when he did those recordings, it was clear.
	In fact, I'll try to quote this here.
	It was a month in 2017, a month after Biden left as VP.
	He was aware of top secret classified materials that were, quote, downstairs.
	Is that true?
	That is reflected in an audio recording, yes.
	It's reflected in an audio recording, you know.
	So sometimes he may be sleepy.
	Sometimes he may be forgetful.
	Sometimes he may be cognitively impaired.
	There's no doubt about that.
	But man, when it came to his personal legacy, the way he wanted to be remembered, to be sure that he was a big deal in plain English in the future, he was willingly and knowingly breaking the law.
	And it's unfortunate.
	That we have a Department of Justice that will treat one person one way and somebody else.
	All right, enough grandstanding.
	It's a sad day for America.
	Thank you, Mr. Hur.
	I yield back.
	The gentleman yields back.
	The gentleman from California.
	Oh, from California.
	Oh!
	Oh, God.
	Don't look directly into his eyes, people.
	I want to refer back to your opening statement in which you said that you did not disparage the president in your report.
	But of course you did disparage the president.
	Did you not?
	You disparaged him in terms you had to know would have a maximal political impact.
	You understood your report would be public, right?
	Do you have a question?
	I understood based on comments that the attorney general had made that he had committed to make as much of my report public as consistent with legal policy and legal requirements.
	You know what would have been more politically damaging?
	An indictment.
	And you could have chosen just to comment on the president's particular recall vis-a-vis a document or a set of documents.
	But you decided to go further and make a generalized statement about his memory, didn't you?
	To explain why I did not recommend charges.
	I could have written my report, theoretically, in a way that omitted references to the president's memory, but that would have been an incomplete and improper report.
	That wasn't my question.
	Cut him off.
	You could have written your report with comments about his specific recollection as to documents or a set of documents.
	But you chose a general pejorative reference to the president.
	You understood when you made that decision, didn't you, Mr. Hur, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language?
	Could have ignited a political firestorm by recommending charges.
	No part whatsoever in my investigative steps.
	Come on.
	Nevertheless, Mr. Herb, you cannot tell me you're so naive as to think your words would not 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 my colleagues here on the GOP side of the aisle by President Trump.
	You understood that, did you not?
	Congressman, what I understood is the regulations that govern my conduct as special counsel.
	And those regulations required to write a confidential report for the Attorney General explaining my decision.
	And that is what I did, Congressman.
	I followed the rules.
	You knew it would not be confidential, didn't you?
	Sir, the regulations required me to write a confidential report explaining my decision to the Attorney General.
	Which you knew would be released.
	It was up to the Attorney General to determine what portions of the report would be released, did you not?
	You understood it would be released.
	Part of it.
	You understood it would be released.
	I understood from the Attorney General's public comments that he would make as much of my report public as he could consistently...
	You know what would have caused a bigger political firestorm?
	Recommending an indictment.
	...that you are to take care not to prejudice the interests of the subject of an investigation, right?
	That is generally one of the interests that DOJ policy requires that prosecutors respect.
	And it was your obligation to follow that policy in this report, was it not?
	It was also my obligation to write a confidential report for the Attorney General explaining completely my decision.
	What you did write was deeply prejudicial to the interests of the President.
	You say it wasn't political, and yet you must have understood.
	You must have understood the impact of your words.
	You must have understood the impact of your decision to go beyond the specifics.
	Of a particular document to go to the very general, to your own personal, prejudicial, subjective opinion of the president.
	One you knew would be amplified by his political opponent.
	One you knew that would influence a political campaign.
	You had to understand that.
	And you did it anyway.
	You did it anyway.
	Yeah, because it's the truth.
	The truth hurts, Biatch.
	Let me just go to some of the differences here.
	Oh, okay.
	Back to grandstanding.
	I'm going to go pee.
	be back in a second.
	On page three, it says that Mr. Trump suggested that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that he did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena.
	You didn't find anything like that with respect to Mr. Biden, did you?
	Congressman, I do not have the Trump indictment in front of me, but I need to address something that you said in your prior question.
	But what you are suggesting is that I needed to provide a different version of my report that would be fit for public release.
	That is nowhere in the rules I was to prepare a confidential report that was comprehensive What is in the rules, Mr. Herr, what is in the rules is you don't gratuitously do things to prejudice the subject of an investigation when you're declining to prosecute.
	You don't gratuitously add language that you'll know will be useful in a political campaign.
	You were not born yesterday.
	You understood exactly what you were doing.
	It was a choice.
	You certainly didn't have to include that language.
	You could have said vis-a-vis the documents that were found at the university.
	The president did not recall.
	There is nothing more common.
	You know this.
	I know this.
	There is nothing more common with a witness of any age when asked about events that are years old to say, I do not recall.
	Indeed, they're instructed by their attorney to do that if they have any question about it.
	You understood that.
	You made a choice.
	That was a political choice.
	It was the wrong choice.
	Oh, that sounds like a threat.
	And by the way, they're sucking and blowing here.
	Did the special counsel wish to respond to that final question?
	Yes, Congressman.
	What you are suggesting is that I shape, sanitize, omit portions of my reasoning and explanation to the Attorney General for political reasons.
	No, I suggest that you not shape your report for political reasons.
	Shut your face, Adam.
	That did not happen.
	That did not happen.
	Not just that.
	Understand the lies they're saying here.
	He answered the questions perfectly.
	But when he said, I don't remember, it's because he was allowed to say that.
	I think where you and I might have disagreements, there may be matters of opinion and not necessarily the facts as you've reported them.
	So I want to go over the elements of the offense that seem to have at least struck my craws is that where you put in here twice that the jury would not find, not likely to find, Intentionality on the part of disclosure in particular.
	Where was intentionality required?
	So if it's not willful, we might say an accident.
	Oh, hey.
	With Zim, you could stream free local TV from all over the country.
	Is this happening on my Zim?
	Zim speaks for itself.
	It really doesn't need a celebrity spokesperson.
	But they promised me I could do this.
	What is this?
	Get this out of here.
	So when President Biden misplaced 30 briefing documents in 2010 that had classified material, and they're not sure even if they ever got them all back, or when he was in the Hamptons at a party and he lost what they were calling code words, which is high security information, that wasn't necessarily willful.
	There was no indication that he purposefully did that.
	Accidental, negligent.
	You indicated, don't know if we even got all that information back.
	We're assuming maybe we did.
	That would not be willful, right?
	As reflected in the report, there were certain categories of documents where when we looked into them and investigated how they got to where they ended up or how they ended up being misplaced, we did not identify evidence of willfulness.
	Yeah, and so if something's willful, you wouldn't say it's ignorant, it's not incompetent, it's not accidental.
	We'd say something like it's willful, it's intentional, it's purposeful.
	It indicates really a choice that you have made a deliberate, conscious decision to act in a certain way.
	Is that fair?
	That is fair, Congressman.
	And as I explained in the report, the standard, the willfulness standard basically involves, can be boiled down to the following things.
	That you know that what you are doing is against the law when you do it.
	Correct.
	So let's take a look at it.
	And this has been brought up before in February of 2017.
	He's having the discussion with the ghostwriter.
	He says, he's at the Virginia house at this point.
	He says, I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.
	So he knows he's got classified stuff.
	Two months later, in April, he's at a different location, is my understanding.
	I think he's now up in Delaware.
	Let's look at 105 and 106 here.
	He says, Biden reads from a different notebook entry.
	He reads aloud from notes summarizing a range of issues.
	We're talking about U.S. military views expressed there by the intelligence community, the DNI, CIA director.
	And while he's reading those notes, he says, I can't read my own writing.
	Do you have any idea what the heck I'm saying here?
	He asked the ghostwriter.
	Ghostwriter says, well, something, blah, blah, blah.
	And Biden says this.
	Some of this may be classified, so be careful.
	Some of this may be classified, so be careful.
	Now, my immediate response was, okay, so he knows he's got classified docs.
	He's looking at this.
	He can't read it.
	He's giving this to somebody he knows that has no security clearance.
	So he says, hey, read this.
	But be careful.
	It might be classified.
	The next thing, and the guy says, okay.
	Next thing he says, well, I don't know if it's classified or not.
	I'm suggesting to you, and this is where you and I have a difference of opinion.
	When you say something like, hey, I just, look, this may be classified.
	Be careful.
	That warning, that warning to be careful because it may be classified, that indicates guilty knowledge.
	That indicates he might know something more than he otherwise would have.
	And it indicates, then they go on and they read it.
	As you point out here, he reads classified information.
	And it's still classified today.
	That's on page 106.
	Is that part of what he tried to delete?
	So when you look at this, it's hard for me to say, well, he was ignorant.
	He was incompetent.
	He was accidental.
	No.
	He had guilty knowledge.
	He knew and told the guy that he's going to expose that classified material to, hey, be careful.
	Be careful.
	It may be classified.
	That indicates something a little bit more than mere knowledge.
	Because the next thing he should have said is, hey, I don't know if it's classified.
	But we're going to skip over this until that's resolved.
	He didn't do that.
	What he said is, read it anyway.
	Yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.
	How long does this go on?
	I was moved by your parents' immigrants.
	Oh, God, it's Fartwell.
	How that has shaped you.
	And their story is a story that so many of us know through our constituents.
	It's the story of America.
	It's a story that...
	What the fuck?
	What does that mean?
	...seek to block every day in this room, but it's a story that's persuasive.
	My report is my report.
	Projection.
	And as I said in my opening statement, I felt that I needed to show my work.
	And you want to be received as credible, right?
	That would be helpful and laudable, yes.
	Well, a lot has changed since 2018 for the person who appointed you, former President Trump.
	Since you were appointed, he was impeached for leveraging 350 U.S. He was impeached by a bunch of criminal Democrats.
	He used taxpayer dollars over Ukraine to get dirt on President Biden.
	He was in and impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection.
	He was charged for possessing classified documents and obstructing justice.
	He was charged for paying for the silence of a porn star.
	He was charged in Georgia for his role in January 6th.
	He was charged in the District of Columbia for his role in January 6th.
	He owes $400 million to the state.
	Bullshit.
	They love communism.
	And he has been judged a rapist.
	No, he hasn't.
	That's a lie.
	We want to be perceived, understandably, as credible.
	And so I want to first see if you will pledge to not accept an appointment from Donald Trump if he is elected.
	Oh, go kiss an apple.
	What does this have to do with anything?
	I'm not here to testify about what will happen.
	Yeah, consider what you just laid out.
	All lies.
	But you don't want to be associated with that guy again, do you?
	Congressman, I'm not here to offer any opinions about what may or may not happen in the future.
	I'm here to talk about the work that went into the report.
	This guy had sexual relations with a Chinese parliament.
	There were no limits on you as to what you could charge President Biden by the Attorney General.
	Is that right?
	The decisions that I made that are reflected in the report are my own.
	And you did not bring any charges.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	There were no limits on John Durham and his investigation of the prior administration.
	Dude, I don't know.
	Go ask him.
	Is that right?
	I don't believe I have the information required to answer the question about the Durham investigation.
	This is annoying.
	Well, you sat in the same chair that you're sitting in.
	He told us that he also investigated President Biden and President Obama and did not bring any charges.
	President Biden sat for an interview with you over two days for approximately 10 hours.
	Is that right?
	No.
	A little over five hours, Congressman.
	Over two days.
	Correct.
	Yeah, not five hours each day, dummy.
	That's in sharp contrast to a guy who did not sit for an interview when the Mueller investigation took place.
	that was Donald Trump, did not sit for an interview when he was impeached in this committee room by the Judiciary Committee, did not sit for an interview when the second impeachment occurred and he was invited to sit for an interview on January 6th, and did not sit for an interview in the January 6th classified, in the January 6th case or the classified...
	But Joe Biden has.
	I now want to turn you to the transcript.
	Day one, page 47. You said...
	Swalwell thought it was five hours a day because he's a moron.
	You appear to have a photographic understanding and recall of the House.
	Did you say that to President Biden?
	Oh, don't...
	Oh, he just did it again.
	Those words do appear on page 47 of the transcript.
	Photographic is what you said.
	Is that right?
	Swallow doesn't understand how senility works, but let him go.
	Never appeared in your report, though.
	Is that correct?
	The word photographic?
	That does not appear in my report.
	I now want to show you and play a video of what is absolutely not photographic.
	Oh, this is so...
	Oh, Trump!
	In the failing New York Times by anonymous...
	This is so annoying.
	...gutless coward.
	We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will be due.
	I hope they now go and take a look at the oranges, the oranges of the...
	investigate.
	And I watch our police and our firemen down on 7-Eleven, down at the World Trade Center.
	And we did with Obama.
	We won an election that everyone said couldn't be won.
	This is the very definition of Totem.
	Of totalitarianism.
	And let me begin by wishing you a beautiful, like, look, if you remember this, do you remember?
	God bless.
	We haven't heard something more than eight seconds yet.
	The windmills are driving them crazy.
	They're driving, they're driving the whales, I think a little batty.
	And I went to Puerto Rico and I met with the president of the...
	The gentleman yields back.
	The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
	Oh, you did it, Swallow.
	Nice.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Look at that smug bastard, self-satisfied, gratified.
	I think today the Justice Department released the transcripts of the interviews with President Biden.
	Are you aware of that?
	I understand that to be true, yes.
	Did you have any involvement in the decision or the timing of the release of the transcripts?
	No, Congressman.
	Did you make any recommendation about the release of the transcripts for being done or not?
	I did not.
	That was above my pay grade.
	I don't know why they've been released so close to this hearing, but it impacts our ability to evaluate your report and ask you questions about it.
	But there's one point, just as an illustration, on 2-21 of your report, you're describing, I think, the Afghan pack or something like that, about in 2009, I think, is the information it came from.
	And you say...
	As one reason not to prosecute, Mr. Biden says, in addition, Mr. Biden told us in his interview that he does not recognize the marking confidential as a classification marking.
	To him, the marking means the document should be held in confidence, but not necessarily that it is classified.
	And footnote 866 is a reference, and it refers to the Biden 10-9-23 transcript at 24 and 25. Now, we have that now.
	But we haven't until this morning.
	I just want to read from that exchange.
	This is on page 24, line 15. Mr. Crickbaum.
	So this is a typewritten document.
	It's got a confidential, what appears to be a stamp at the top.
	And the top of the document indicates it's from the American AM Embassy, Kabul.
	It's dated, what appears to me, to be November 2009.
	The only question I have for you about this, Mr. President, is the confidential marking.
	Do you recognize that to be a classification marking, President Biden?
	No.
	I mean, confidential doesn't want to get around.
	It's not in a category, I don't think, of code word, top secret, that kind of thing, but I don't even know where it came from.
	Mr. Crickbaum, are you familiar with confidential as a level of classified information?
	President Biden.
	Well, if I got a document that said confidential, it would mean that no one else could see it but me, and you give it, or the people working on this issue, Mr. Trickbomb.
	This makes no sense.
	Are you aware that among certain categories of classified information, there is top secret, secret, and there's also a category of classified information called confidential?
	Is that something that you are aware of or not?
	President Biden, I...
	Yes, I was aware of it.
	I don't ever remember when I got any document that was confidential that was meant for me to read and or discuss with the people who sent me the memo so.
	And then it trails off.
	So as I read those answers, they're equivocal.
	He at first says he doesn't know.
	Do you recognize that to be a classification marking?
	He said no.
	And then goes on to explain.
	But then Mr. Crickbaum came back and he said, are you aware that among certain categories of classified information, there's also a category of classified information called confidential?
	And he says, I, yes, I was aware of it.
	So Mr. Hurd, just in that one instance, there seems to be a discrepancy between the conclusion in the report or the summary of the evidence in the report and what the transcript says.
	Can you offer any guidance to this committee?
	Why you would put that summary in your report as opposed to saying that he gave inconsistent answers, or in fact, why didn't you nail down in the transcript which was the right answer?
	He's given answers that says no, Congressman, the report reflects our best efforts to summarize and characterize the evidence in the investigation, including the investigation received from the president himself during our interview of him.
	But as you point out, the transcripts of the president's interview over two days are now available to the committee for their inspection.
	They ain't good.
	And the president were able to draw their own conclusions based on the transcripts that are now available to them.
	Well, and I appreciate your answer.
	And I certainly think things, you know, you can come up with some details that someone can disagree on, and it has the quality, I know, of some cherry-picking, because I've just found something.
	But we've only had a little bit of time to look.
	I don't think it serves this process well for the Justice Department to dump these transcripts into the public right now.
	If they were going to be released, they should have been released at a proper time.
	And I think I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.
	What page of the transcript did he just read from?
	I will yield to the chairman.
	Just real quick, Mr. Hurd, someone earlier said something about changing the facts.
	You said, I'm not going to change the facts, but let's keep the facts the same but change the subject.
	You had the same facts, and the individual that you were investigating was 65 and had a good memory.
	Do you reach the same conclusion?
	I can't answer that.
	As I responded earlier to a question along these lines, I am not here to entertain hypotheticals about facts or circumstances that may be different.
	What I did was assess the evidence and the facts that I obtained in this investigation and make a judgment based on this set of evidence.
	Fair enough.
	The chair now recognizes the general aide from Washington for five minutes.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Special Counsel Herr, thank you for being here.
	Thank you for your work.
	In your investigation, you reviewed more than 7 million documents.
	We've covered this, J-PAL.
	173 interviews of 147 witnesses, including President Biden.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, Congresswoman.
	And your 15-month investigation cost several million dollars and resulted in a comprehensive 345-page report with several dozen pages of appendices.
	Is it correct that, as it says in the first sentence of your executive summary, that your investigation concluded with an assessment that "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter"?
	Correct.
	Yes.
	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.
	The primary law that you analyzed for potential prosecution was part of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C.
	793E, which criminalizes willful retention or disclosure of national defense information.
	Is that correct?
	Congressman, 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.
	Mr. Herr, I'm going to continue with my questions.
	I'm going to continue with my questions.
	I know that the term willful retention has a...
	Mr. Herr, it's my time.
	Thank you.
	I know that the term willful retention has a particular legal meaning, and I want to make sure that that meaning is absolutely clear to the American people before we go any further.
	As you wrote in your report, to prove as a matter of law that the president, quote, willfully retained any documents, you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt two elements.
	First, that the president knowingly retained or disclosed national defense information, and second, that he knew that this conduct was unlawful.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	And to be very, very...
	Again, I'm sorry, Congressman, that it was national defense information.
	That's an important third element.
	Okay, thank you.
	To be very, very clear, you did not find sufficient evidence to prove either of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt to show that Mr. Biden willfully retained any of the classified national defense materials that were recovered during your investigation, correct?
	My conclusion was that the admissible evidence was not sufficient to make conviction at trial a probable Not sufficient.
	Thank you.
	Exoneration.
	Thank you.
	People are clear.
	One side of documents was discovered by investigators in the president's Delaware home.
	His staff had assembled those documents into binders in 2014 to prepare him for an event with Charlie Rose.
	Some of the documents in those binders were marked classified.
	You reviewed all of the facts surrounding the classified documents in those binders and you documented.
	We determined, and this is a quote from your report, these facts do not support a conclusion that Mr. Biden willfully retained the mark to classify documents in these binders, correct?
	That language does appear in the report.
	You also reviewed another set of classified documents from the president's home related to the Afghanistan troop surge in 2009, and you evaluated whether the president willfully retained such documents in his Delaware home or a home that he rented in Virginia in 2017.
	In your report, you said that there was, quote, a shortage of evidence, end quote, for any wrongdoing and, quote, other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute, end quote.
	Are those quotes correct?
	Congresswoman, if you have particular page sites for those quotations...
	God damn it, these are annoying people.
	It's right up on the screen.
	Then yes, if you pulled it from the report!
	Stupid questions!
	With respect to the two quotes that are on the screen, in addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for documents we cannot refute, and we conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict.
	I was just going to get to that, and you concluded that, quote, the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we declined to recommend prosecution, end quote.
	Those are your words in the report, correct?
	Those words appear in the report.
	Thank you.
	President Biden's counsel discovered a different set of documents at the Penn Biden Center and voluntarily turned them over to the FBI.
	Those documents contain national security information, but you determined that you could not, in fact, prove that President Biden willfully retained those documents because, quote, the evidence suggests that the marked classified documents found at the Penn Biden Center were sent and kept there by mistake.
	Therefore, we decline.
	We decline any criminal charges related to those documents.
	End quote.
	Correct?
	The language, we decline any criminal charges related to those documents, does appear at page 311.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Thank you.
	You also reached a similar conclusion regarding the documents found in President Biden's Senate papers at the University of Delaware.
	Quote, for these reasons, it is likely that the few classified documents found in Mr. Biden's Senate papers at the University of Delaware were there by mistake.
	Correct?
	That language does appear at page 325 of the report.
	I'm happy with myself.
	I agree.
	So it seems to me that the crux of the report, the main story, is that you found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Biden willfully retained any classified material.
	Thanks for your closing arguments.
	That is the story of this report.
	And I yield back, Mr. President.
	All right, guys, I'm going to take this out for a bit, everybody.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I thank you, Special Counsel, for being here.
	In these challenging times.
	And I want to tell you a few things that is interesting for me.
	Well, hold on.
	Maybe after this one.
	You obviously could see that there is a motive, there is a legacy.
	You obviously see that it was a willful retention of these documents.
	But it's interesting for me that when you talk about sympathetic, well-meaning, older man with poor, elderly man with a poor memory, it seems like every...
	attorney would advise you to be sympathetic and be well-meaning.
	And it seems like the whole FBI needs to do, based on my hearings here, I need to do check on amnesia because everyone says doesn't recall.
	So it seems to me that it might have been something way more in his recollection.
	There's a typical, I don't recall, because that's what everything is like that.
	I've learned it here.
	So is there something more than that, that just...
	Who's speaking now?
	Because it seems that this is the core of the whole investigation.
	-Ukraine and American.
	-Congresswoman, my judgment as to how a jury would likely perceive and receive and consider evidence relating to relating to all the evidence that would be put in by both the government and the defense at trial, Everybody, I'm going to bring this out and we'll come back to it in a bit.
	I hope no one's going to get too mad if you wanted to watch more of this rubbish.
	I think what you're asking about specifically is how the president presents.
	Putting it on pause.
	I'm bringing this out because we're going to get to the actual scheduled show of the day, and I'll come back to this afterwards.
	For those who want to watch that, there's a lot of people streaming it, but we're going to actually deal with something that's quite important and might have some impact in the United States of America.
	Up in Canada, there are a couple of lawsuits now that have been filed against Pfizer and Moderna by...
	People who have been injured by the Jibby Jab or parents of children who have passed away that has been tied to the Jibby Jab.
	I covered the case that most people hadn't heard of, which was coming out of Alberta, where...
	I'm just reading the chat for a second.
	Where there was a...
	Well, we're going to get into it.
	Now, hold on.
	Let me refresh my memory.
	Oh, sorry.
	They sued the government.
	And they won against the government for...
	Okay, I've confused myself for a second here.
	I've got two lawyers coming on, Eva Chipyuk and Jeffrey Roth, who were at the helm of the lawsuit that took the Alberta government to task.
	And now there's a class-action lawsuit that's being filed against the federal government and provincial government, from what I understand, but they're going to describe it better, for people who were either injured by or...
	I'm going to bring them in, people.
	And we're going to talk about this and we'll get back to the grandstanding rubbish.
	Jeffrey, I'm bringing you in.
	Eva, I'm bringing you in.
	And I'm going to put myself on the bottom here.
	I know I screwed something up there because I got confused first.
	The lawsuit that many people hadn't heard of from the province of Alberta that is laying the groundwork for all of this, who's going to summarily review that so that the audience knows what we're talking about?
	Yeah, I'll jump in on that.
	That was the Ingram case in the province of Alberta.
	We represented Rebecca Ingram, who is a gym owner in Alberta whose business was destroyed by Dina Hinshaw with her ridiculous COVID lockdown orders where she would tell healthy people.
	That they couldn't go to businesses run by healthy people and that healthy business owners running healthy businesses should be shut down for public health reasons.
	So I think there's a lot of that foolishness going on across the country.
	So anyway, we succeeded in going to the Court of King's Bench and obtaining an order from Justice Romaine of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta that declared all of Dina Hinshaw's public health orders to be ultra vires the Public Health Act, or in other words...
	All of the orders issued by Dini Hinshaw throughout the pandemic in Alberta were patently illegal.
	So that now serves as the foundation for a massive class action that we filed against the government of Alberta with regard to all of these unlawful business closers that bankrupted businesses across Alberta, drove suicides across the province of Alberta, etc.
	Eva's involved in.
	We've now filed a massive class action lawsuit against the government of Canada and the government of Alberta for the illegal manner in which they withheld evidence of the danger of the vaccines from the public to promote their phony safe and effective narrative throughout the pandemic while they were...
	You know, curtailing civil rights across the country, not letting healthy people fly on airplanes because they wouldn't take a shot that people fundamentally believe was poisonous and experimental, told healthy people that they couldn't go to restaurants or sporting games or sports with their children if they wouldn't take a shot that was dangerous and experimental, etc., etc.
	So what we've done, and it's kind of, as a lawyer, you'll appreciate this.
	We've sued the government of Canada and the government of Alberta in conspiracy to commit, amongst other things, conspiracy to commit assault and battery.
	And specifically, I guess everybody knows that if you do any medical malpractice work, if somebody doesn't sign a consent for surgery, as an example, or any other medical procedure where they interfere with your body, if the person doesn't provide full and informed consent to that treatment, it becomes an assault and battery.
	That's why you have...
	You know, all of these medical ethics telling doctors that, you know, they have to obtain the full and informed consent of patients free of coercion for any medical treatment.
	And of course, as we all know, nobody in this country gave their free and informed consent to the jabs.
	We were coerced throughout.
	We were mandated throughout.
	We were told that if we didn't get the shots, we couldn't live our normal lives.
	And now, as it turns out, more and more evidence is coming out that...
	Theresa Tam and Dina Hinshaw and all of those evil people at the heads of so-called public health in Canada were deliberately withholding relevant information from Canadians in order to get Canadians vaccinated against their will.
	Let me pause you right there.
	I'm going to bring this up because it's a crowd pleaser every time it comes up, just to show you who Dina Hinshaw is.
	She got fired ultimately, but this is Dina Hinshaw with the theatre of the absurd instilling terror.
	This was the woman giving, in theory, the public health order advice out of Alberta.
	Good morning, everyone.
	I won't play the whole thing because we've seen it many, many times.
	And I will now turn the podium over to Minister LaGrange.
	Just the theatre of the absurd.
	That's Dina Hinshaw.
	She was one purportedly giving the medical advice or recommendations to the government, but then it turns out it was all politics, and she was basically giving a list of recommendations that the government was moving with, not based on science, but based on politics.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, you go ahead because I'll have another question after.
	I was going to say, speaking of not based on science, I mean, one of the things that we're suing the government of Alberta for with regard to Dini Hinshaw's, you know, what I would refer to as gross negligence, that all we have to prove is she was negligent, is that she was promoting this vaccine buffet.
	That had never been tested, and that's what our client ultimately paralyzed, the whole left side of our client's body, was that Dina Hinshaw was telling everybody, oh, well, AstraZeneca's bad, and it's killing too many people, so it's now been withdrawn from the market.
	But don't worry, other vaccines are available.
	So if you've had the dangerous AstraZeneca shot that we've now withdrawn because it's killing people, just go ahead and get a Pfizer shot, and then you can follow that up with a Moderna shot.
	It's all safe and effective, right?
	So our client, after having had the outlawed AstraZeneca shot, took Dina Hinshaw's advice, got the Pfizer shot, and immediately after getting the Pfizer shot, the whole left-hand side of her body became paralyzed.
	She's also now suffered debilitating cognitive impairment and brain damage, such that she has absolutely no short-term memory left as a result of the damage done to her brain by...
	Following Dina Hinshaw's advice and signing up for Dina Hinshaw's vaccine buffet.
	And obviously, you know, there's people right across the country that have suffered because of all the negligent advice given by Tam, Teresa Hinshaw, or I'm sorry, Dina Hinshaw, Trudeau, and the rest of them constantly parroting the safe and effective narrative we all know to be true.
	It's one of the first questions I asked at the time, like, you fooled me once and whatever, but it was when they started saying, okay, well, if you got the Pfizer, well, that one's not available, so go get the Moderna.
	And I'm like, well, in the trials, I mean, these are two different processes.
	These are two different products.
	How do they even know how they work the one after the other?
	And now I've had on Kayla Pollack, who's now also suing Moderna.
	She went, you know, she was told two Pfizer jabs and follow it up with a Moderna because that was what was available at the time.
	The science was safe and effective even to mix match like a cocktail, like your body is a chemical testing ground.
	She's suing Moderna.
	You've got Dan Hartman who's suing Pfizer for the death of his son, Sean Hartman.
	Now, in Canada, we have what we suspect are indemnity clauses in these contracts, but not immunity provisions so that the pharmaceutical companies can be sued.
	You're going after the government, though, in this class action.
	What are you going to run into by way of government immunity from government conduct?
	Well, governments in Canada, under various Crown Proceedings Act, both provincially and federally, aren't immune from negligence.
	They're not immune from criminal action.
	Obviously, that's why we didn't name Justin Trudeau personally.
	We didn't name Jason Kenney personally.
	You know, we're suing, you know, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Alberta, you know, because that's how it is that we're allowed to sue governments in Canada or how, you know, the statutes are structured to sue governments in Canada.
	But, you know, by and large, governments are not immune from lawsuits in Canada.
	Otherwise, people like Omer Cotter wouldn't, you know, who murdered a couple of American servicemen wouldn't have been paid $10 million by the Canadian taxpayer for having been shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, right?
	So, you know, you can certainly sue governments in Canada, and that's all I've done my entire career is sue governments in Canada.
	So, you know, I think we're on very solid ground.
	Well, I want to get to, like, specific detail.
	Of course, you'll describe the nature of the class action, but, you know, in the States here, PrEP Act gave immunity to the pharma companies, but there's the old expression in law, fraud vitiates everything.
	If the delivered product was not the same as the tested and approved product, well, that opens the door.
	One of the, I guess it's going to be the key allegation, and you've mentioned it, the false, I guess the false representations or misrepresentations or statements, assurances made when there was no legitimate basis to make those statements, affirmations, warranties, and representations.
	What, I mean, there's allegations at this point in time, you'll prove them or they will not be proven.
	What are the allegations that it was known that the information they were giving, the advice they were giving, was either untrue or unsubstantiated at the time they were giving it?
	Yeah, I'd like to jump in on this one because one thing that is incredibly important for Canadians to understand is that it's without question everyone heard safe and effective.
	That was the narrative the government and public health officials were narrating across the country.
	But what Canadians need to understand is that Health Canada changed the approvals for the COVID vaccine with an interim order and removed that requirement that it be safe and effective and changed the test for the COVID vaccines for the benefits to outweigh the harm.
	And the question is, what is that test?
	It seems quite subjective.
	There's no objective basis for it.
	And so while they're parroting all across Canada, urging, coercing, enticing Canadians to take a vaccine they're saying is safe and effective, that was never a part of the approval.
	Something else, too, Viva, that people need to be aware of.
	And it's one of the things, like, you know, throughout the pandemic, I was very concerned.
	I was representing doctors that didn't want to be vaccinated and were being fired for taking a stand against mandatory vaccines in the workplace.
	So I've been following a lot of the data very early on.
	And there's a document, it's called Table 14 of the Pfizer Emergency Use Authorization Application in the United States.
	I sent a copy of it to Trudeau.
	I sent a copy of it to TAM.
	I sent a copy of it to then Brenda Luckey, who is the Commissioner of the RCMP.
	I sent a copy of it to Hinshaw.
	I sent a copy of it to Kenny.
	And what this Table 14 does is it shows notionally...
	How many lives Pfizer claimed hypothetically the vaccine would save in children under 18 who got COVID?
	So Pfizer claimed that they would save the life of one child per million under the age of 18 with the shots, right?
	But...
	Stop, stop, stop, stop.
	Sorry.
	That was their claim.
	They would save one child per million.
	That's correct.
	Per million vaccinated.
	Right.
	And I'm saying jab, I'm sorry.
	Right.
	But just to get to the, I say injected, because I don't accept that they're vaccines, but you can call them Jimmy Jobs or whatever makes you comfortable.
	But the same, very same table, right?
	You go to the end, and then it says, how many children are going to get myocarditis that's so severe that they're going to end up in the ICU?
	And that's just myocarditis.
	It's not anaphylaxis.
	And stop.
	I want to guess the number.
	This is from Pfizer's own data.
	Right.
	I'm going to say, is it, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
	They'll want to say it's bad, but not too bad.
	They'll say one in 24,000.
	No, it's 34 children per million.
	It will end up with myocarditis so bad that they'll end up in the ICU versus notionally saving one life per million.
	So if you talk to any cardiac ICU doctor, you know, you're looking at children going into the hospital with myocarditis so bad that they need to be in the ICU, not hospital, right?
	Let's quickly finish the point.
	Anybody who knows anything about pediatric ICU will tell you that probably 14 or 15 of those kids are going to die, right, that go to the ICU with myocarditis so bad to be at ICU.
	So, in effect, Pfizer provided evidence to the government of Canada and the government of the United States that the Pfizer vaccine was as much as 14 times more likely to kill a child, right, than COVID.
	Think about that for a second and then ask yourself what parent in their right mind, if given a free choice and weren't lied to continually, say, hey, we want your kid to take this product.
	It doesn't stop COVID.
	It doesn't stop them from giving COVID to grandma.
	It doesn't make them less sick.
	And it's 14 times more likely to kill them than COVID.
	But parents would have given their kid that shot.
	Well, not to say I could get to the math, but 34 per million is, if I'm not wrong about how to do this, you do a million divided by 34, and that's roughly 1 in 29,000 would get myocarditis.
	No, myocarditis is so severe that they would end up in ICU.
	I think Pfizer's number, I don't remember that number off the top of my head, but it's around 67 or 67, 68, something like that.
	67 would end up in hospital with myocarditis, and Pfizer didn't...
	Those are bad enough to be in hospital, not ICU.
	And then they didn't provide us the numbers of how many kids per million would end up with myocarditis that they would call just mild myocarditis, only minor damage to the heart muscle, which will come back and kill them when they're 30 or 40, right?
	And so that data comes from where exactly?
	It comes from Table 14 of the Pfizer EUA application in the United States.
	I could have Ever or somebody from my office send you a copy of that.
	Please send that to me afterwards and I'll just make sure that, you know, admittedly...
	To me, what's criminal is the fact that I forwarded that very document to Trudeau.
	I forwarded it to Tam.
	I forwarded it to Hinshaw.
	I forwarded it to Kenny.
	I forwarded it to the head of the RCMP.
	You know, suggesting that, look, if you continue to push this drug on people without telling people that, you know, it's more likely to kill you than COVID and people die, you know, you can be subjected to an investigation for manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death because you know that you're promulgating false information, right, about a product that's more likely to kill a child than COVID according to the manufacturer's own data.
	Do you know when that data was shared with the government?
	Oh, I could find you exactly.
	I actually had a website set up.
	You might want to peruse sometime.
	But in the middle of COVID, I set up a website called the wrathandcompanycovidlitigation.com and all of the letters that we were sending to everybody on an ongoing basis, we were posting.
	So my best recollection, it would have been somewhere prior to the fall of 2021 when they started bringing in the real hard vaccine mandates and restrictions.
	Wow.
	I mean, it's wild.
	And now, if it's only one demographic, people can sort of not either weasel out, but they'll say, okay, fine.
	Well, you know, it might have been necessary for a specific demographic with a specific age, sorry, risk factor, but not for everyone.
	Vaccine passports in my province.
	Sorry, Eva, you look like you want to say something very badly.
	No, like, it's just hard to listen to sometimes.
	But what I think I just wanted to add to the comments is that we have to understand that, you know, our client listened to these representations, that they're safe and effective.
	Meanwhile, they were suppressing, and we know this, the information about the risk and the harm, as Jeff just very much explained.
	And so it's not a...
	A big leap to say that there's a conspiracy at all.
	This was a coordinated effort to really amplify the message that it's safe and effective, while at the same time very much downplaying any evidence of harm and risk.
	And on that basis, how many millions of Canadians took the COVID vaccine?
	And the question is, which I think is quite obvious, whether or not they took it with informed consent.
	And just to be clear, Viva, a party that I really, really wanted to sue, but just because we have an obligation to our clients, plural, to class action, to get a result as quickly as possible.
	So that's why we've trimmed this lawsuit down, so we're just suing Canada and Alberta, right?
	But you can't underplay the role that all of the colleges of physicians and surgeons have played from coast to coast to coast in Canada in terms of...
	You know, their role in promulgating this conspiracy.
	Like the CPSA in Alberta, as an example, they fired every single employee that would not get vaccinated.
	Right?
	And they did it all hush-hush, and we had a whistleblower contact our office.
	They were paid double severance.
	I mean, did anybody consult with the Alberta government or Alberta taxpayers about paying double severance to employees at the College of Physicians and Surgeons who didn't want to become vaccinated?
	And they were fired without cause because their quote-unquote values no longer aligned with the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
	So the CPSA in Alberta is still persecuting doctors on the basis of allegations of misinformation or providing advice that was contrary to the public narrative, you know, specifically telling the truth about vaccines.
	Because I guess as we've learned in Alberta...
	That the medical ethic of informed consent and not coercing people into doing medical procedures against their will doesn't apply if you're the College of Physicians and Surgeons and you can coerce all of your employees into getting a medical treatment on pain of termination of employment.
	I was arguing...
	It's despicable what went on across the country and the role of these colleges across the country in promulgating these false narratives.
	My brother and I, I'll try to find the tweet, but at one point in time, my brother, who's still a practicing attorney, I just got the training, we were like, yeah, this is the legal definition of battery.
	This is the legal definition of coercion.
	That's funny.
	There was no question.
	There was never any free consent, let alone enlightened or informed consent, especially if they were concealing...
	The lack of research or the lack of safety protocols for certain demographics.
	So you have a petitioner for a class action lawsuit against the provincial government and the federal government.
	Correct.
	And the class is going to be people who were, are there two separate suits discriminated against based on policy for having not gotten the jab or discriminated against period and or injured?
	Well, no, this lawsuit that we're doing now is strictly...
	My friend Leighton Gray, who is co-counsel with us in the Ingram case, has other vaccine class actions going forward.
	I think on the discrimination basis that, you know, you've suffered harms because you wouldn't get the shot.
	This action that we're bringing on behalf of Kerry Sakamoto is on behalf of people who are coerced into getting the shot, who are injured by getting the shot.
	Right?
	And of course, what we suspect is that the numbers are going to be far higher than anything the government of Canada would admit to.
	You know, your viewers need to internalize these numbers.
	The government now admits...
	To over 11,000 serious adverse events or vaccine injuries from COVID vaccines.
	They admit to killing over 400 Canadians with the COVID vaccines.
	That's what they admit to.
	But we know the numbers are way higher.
	Like, I know doctors in Alberta that have filed affidavits and other proceedings that have filed affidavits saying how hard it is to make an adverse vaccine report in Canada.
	It takes a doctor...
	Over an hour to fill out the paperwork on behalf of one patient and nine times out of ten, if they submit a report saying that somebody's vaccine injured, the deep state bureaucrats that are protecting the vaccine injury numbers will reject those reports from qualified physicians on the basis that they do not disclose proof of vaccine injury.
	So you've got bureaucrats with limited or no medical training telling certified doctors, right, that The reports of vaccine injuries are wrong and they will not be accepted for statistical purposes in Canada.
	So we know these numbers have been completely manipulated and played with from start to finish.
	Can I just jump in one second?
	That's actually happening to our client right now, Carrie Sakamoto, is that her medical doctor is submitting information and it's being rejected by these bureaucrats, like Jeff is saying.
	And the doctor is getting so frustrated.
	He's like, okay, I'll have to connect the dots more.
	But she's already been approved by the government of Canada as having a vaccine injury.
	And he's providing additional evidence to how it's changed.
	And they're just pushing back and denying and denying and denying.
	And so it's just a consecration.
	I want to bring this back up here because I'll play the devil's advocate quite literally because the government is the devil here.
	Oh, only 11,000 adverse events, Jeff, but there's been 105 million doses administered.
	Statistically, that's very safe.
	Yeah.
	Just so everyone understands, that's sarcasm, people.
	Right.
	But again, the point is, where's freedom of choice?
	It's like, I know people, I know, actually she's one of my clients, and this is all public record so I can talk about it, but Dr. Joanna Moser, an anesthesiologist in Alberta, like board-certified anesthesiologist, of which we have an immense shortage in Alberta, right?
	She was told that if she didn't get vaccinated, she was going to get fired.
	Right?
	And health bureaucrats testified under oath that Joanne was a completely replaceable cog in the machine, that if they fired her, there was going to be no adverse impact on the health system at all, whatever, whatever.
	So the day that they fired Joanna Moser from...
	From AHS, or put her on leave without pay, I guess is the proper term.
	She was no longer able to provide services to the Regional General Hospital in Red Deer, which the very day after they suspended Joanna Moser for not getting vaccinated, they had to shut that hospital down, put the entire emergency department of that hospital on diversion, meaning people would have to be flown to either the foothills in Calgary or flown to Edmonton by helicopter because they didn't have an anesthesiologist for that hospital.
	The ideology of the vaccine cultists is so deep in Alberta, they would put patients' lives at risk rather than having an unvaccinated anesthesiologist provide services in a hospital.
	They did the same thing in Nova Scotia.
	I mean, I don't know if the last 2022 was a particularly bad year for people dying in the ER, but they're lacking professionals everywhere.
	Healthcare experts, firefighters.
	I mean, it's known what they did.
	It's almost like an ideological cleansing of the institutions.
	And to show you how nutty these people were, like Joanna's vaccine exemption request.
	She wasn't the least bit frivolous.
	Again, this is public record, so I can talk about it, and Joanna doesn't mind that I talk about it.
	But has been diagnosed with Graves' disease, diagnosed with previous anaphylaxis from previous vaccines.
	She had letters from all of her physicians that were treating her saying, you know, like, these vaccines will kill her.
	The last time she had a vaccine, she almost died.
	And you know what the response of AHS was?
	That her caring colleagues that were members of the vaccine cult?
	Well, Joanna, why don't you just come into work and we'll give you the vaccine in the OR so if you code, we can revive you.
	Can you imagine?
	Like, this is what was passing for medical advice in the province of Alberta amongst the AHS-employed vaccine cultists who are still there today.
	Like, it's just completely despicable the way these people behave.
	Well, and I wanted to highlight a little bit more, too, to what Jeffrey was saying, because public record as well, I was representing an anesthesiologist, and I didn't appreciate how that affects everyone else, because you think, okay, a surgery is just good.
	And in AHS in Alberta, they were saying, okay, everyone can work.
	And then last minute, they said everybody...
	Everyone's getting fired at the end of the month.
	Okay, no, we're going to change your mind.
	They did that three times.
	Imagine how that affects everyone that's being scheduled for an emergency or an operation who's been waiting two years to go on the emergency room table.
	All of a sudden, everything had to get rescheduled.
	It's not just like anything else where you could open up the next day, shopping back to normal, like a retail store.
	It's completely different.
	Nobody is talking about how that affected the medical community and, in the end, public health care.
	The people that are supposed to be treated, they were the ones neglected the most.
	And that conversation isn't happening at all.
	And it's quite terrifying.
	So now, the class action that you just filed, I mean, this is infancy stages.
	It hasn't gotten certification.
	Have you had an initial hearing yet?
	No, we're working forward through the steps.
	We're hoping to have a certification hearing this fall.
	As we indicated, the business class action on the previous show that you had us on is scheduled for a certification hearing the first week in October.
	And we're hoping to move this one forward so we can have a certification hearing in the first week in November.
	While we're here, one of the things that I wanted to bring up that's completely but maybe somewhat related was I watched your program recently on Bill C-63.
	And we're also doing some work on Bill C-63, Trudeau's bill to try to destroy the internet and drive social service providers out of Canada.
	But one of the things I wanted to bring to your viewers' attention, and I don't know if you touched on it in your talks on it, did you catch the anti-trucker convoy provision in the bill?
	I'm not sure.
	Unless it was specific like that, I have to refresh my memory.
	This is what they've done, and your viewers need to be aware of this, okay?
	Hold on, hold on.
	Just to everyone know, the Bill C-63 is the amendments to the Human Rights Act criminal code.
	The purpose of it is called the Online Harms Act.
	It's to govern the internet and to protect the children, and now they want to add hatred to the criminal code and a bunch of other crazy stuff.
	And I've also got...
	I have to finalize the time.
	But John Carpe from the Justice Center coming on at some point this week or next.
	But what is the trucker provision, Jeff?
	Because I must have missed it.
	They slid it into...
	Sorry, I'm having trouble with my tablet this morning.
	So long as you're wearing pants, we'll be good.
	I'm wearing pants and everything's zipped up the way it's supposed to be.
	So, anyway.
	So, where was I?
	So, anyway.
	They snuck it into the definition section.
	Go back and read it, Viva.
	You're going to flip when you see it.
	So it's under incitement of hatred, right?
	So they've now defined incitement of hatred.
	It's section two, okay?
	Like it's sort of halfway down the second page, incitement of hatred, as encouraging anyone to disrupt the facility, system, et cetera, et cetera, right?
	So what they've done is they've literally made it a crime.
	So if somebody on their social media page or whatever it is were to post F Trudeau, go truckers, right?
	The F Trudeau part wouldn't necessarily be inciting hatred.
	Or violence, right?
	But the go truckers part, insofar as you'd be encouraging people to engage in activities that would seriously disrupt services, facilities, etc.
	Any encouragement online of any protest, like the trucker protest, would result in a person being charged under the criminal code for incitement of hatred, right?
	And this is the kick, and I don't know if you were commenting on it as well.
	Did you look at the maximum penalty provisions of the bill?
	The mass company provisions of the bill allow for fines up to 6% of a social media provider's gross global revenues.
	So Facebook last year, as an example, had $145 billion U.S. in gross global revenues.
	So if Trudeau and his friends went after Facebook for not quickly shutting down a GoTruckers post on Facebook, they could be liable up to $11 to $12 billion Canadians.
	I think they capped it.
	It was 6% gross global revenue or 10 million, whichever was higher, right?
	I think they capped it.
	Whichever was higher, right?
	Oh, whichever was higher.
	I'm such an idiot.
	The 10 million is just a baseline fine.
	And I have it on good authority.
	One of my best friends that I golf with is a Conservative Member of Parliament.
	And we'll leave his name out of it for today.
	But my friend said that the Conservatives have actually been talking to the social media companies, Facebook, Google, etc.
	And the Conservatives have been told that if Bill C-63 passes, they are all going to shut down their platforms in Canada to Canadians.
	Period.
	As a CEO, you can't risk a $12 billion fine for a single offense of somebody saying, go truckers.
	It's exactly what they did with the Online Streaming Act.
	It's by design.
	It's a feature, not a bug.
	Then they get to either they shut down or they say, OK, in order to hedge our risk, we'll just agree to pay like, I don't know, $100 million annually to avoid the risk.
	And you go use that money to regulate the Internet to protect the children.
	And like they did with the Online Streaming Act where...
	Google and Meta agreed to pay like $10 million a year for the link tax.
	Why do you think Bell Media just announced there's no money left in radio in Canada?
	Because people in radio can't post anything online anymore to drive traffic back to radio because all the online streaming platforms have said, well, we can't take the risk that whatever you're publishing can't be misconstrued as news, so no more.
	You can't post on our site.
	So, you know, they completely destroyed radio in Canada.
	Now, and quite frankly, I'm not really online, so it doesn't affect me, but I think this is intentional.
	They're going to take away Facebook, Twitter, every way that Canadians have to communicate with one another through social media in time for the next federal election.
	Right.
	So, in other words, the only media that's going to be left in Canada that people, you know, can get their news from.
	Right.
	It's going to be CTV, Global, CBC, the Toronto Red Star, Globe and Mail, you know, whatever.
	All these news outlets that have been bought and paid for by Trudeau.
	And Canadians are not going to be able to talk to one another online anymore because all of the streaming platforms are going to like we're not going to risk.
	right?
	But see, if someone were to post, and I'm just saying that hypothetically, I'm not encouraging it.
	No, no, no.
	You know, I'm not trying to, you know, I'm not trying to foment a nationwide boycott of Ottawa and trucks going to Ottawa.
	But if somebody were to do that or suggest as a matter of opinion that that's what should happen, that person would be liable under the criminal code for inciting hatred.
	And any social media providers that allowed that post to be posted that hadn't brought in special tools, I guess you'd have to get them from communist China to filter the internet and to make sure that no opinions harmful to the Trudeau junta made it onto social media.
	If they didn't do that, they could be fined billions and billions and billions of dollars and effectively put out of business by the government of Canada.
	So who the hell would want to stay in Canada under those conditions?
	I mean, our entire internet, you know, I would imagine the number of Canadians that are on Facebook, you know, would be smaller than the number of illegal aliens that Joe Biden has currently allowed into the United States.
	Like, we're not a big market.
	If you're a CEO, isn't the safest thing to do?
	Say, okay, no more Canadians on Facebook, no more Canadians on Twitter, no more Canadians on YouTube.
	We can't trust you guys about how to protest against your government, which would be inciting hatred.
	Go for it, Eva, sorry.
	I just want to highlight that the news media...
	Outlets that would stay have not mentioned either of these class actions in Alberta that are affecting Albertans that Albertans should know about, not one mention of them.
	And this goes to show you the information that they'll be providing Canadians, Albertans.
	Like Alberta business owners should know about the lawsuit.
	People that have been injured by the vaccines were...
	Jibby Jabs, as you call them, should know about this lawsuit.
	Allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	We've got to be lawyers.
	I'm laughing because it's either that or crying.
	But not one mention.
	What are they talking about?
	What's amazing is that all of this would result in the only media companies existing or being able to exist in Canada, CBC, Radio Canada, and whatever loyal...
	Legacy Media gets the print bailout or the digital advertising.
	It'll get subsidized by Canadian dollars, tax dollars, directly or indirectly.
	Well, Trudeau wasn't joking when he said at that correspondence dinner a while ago in Ottawa, it's like, isn't life so much better since I bought all the media in Canada?
	You know, that's the reality of it.
	And everyone said...
	No, and the media came out and said, oh, it was fake because it was actually an insult at himself because he ran headlines that were disfavorable.
	The headlines he ran, as the punchline to that joke, this is the type of media that, you know, money gets, even the headlines were pussyfooting around his evil and were...
	Whitewashing his horrible government.
	So the whole thing is that the joke proved itself because even the examples of bad media coverage were still pretty darn good.
	No, that's what we're dealing with.
	C63 is just going to put all of that on steroids and Canadians are not going to have a forum.
	Where they can engage in, you know, healthy dissent.
	You know, the other thing is, and I've written about it in a substack recently that I'll forward you after the show that you might get a laugh out of, but I wrote about C63.
	And this whole thing about making genocide punishable by, you know, promoting genocide.
	Life in prison.
	Punishable by life imprisonment, right?
	Well, my first comment is, who commits genocide, right?
	It's not individual citizens that commit genocide.
	It's governments that commit genocide.
	So is Trudeau actually saying, That, you know, he's so weak-minded and at such risk of actually committing genocide that he has to punish Canadians with life imprisonment if they encourage him to commit genocide?
	I mean, I said, well, why don't we just have a government campaign, a Justin-say-no-to-genocide campaign, and we just tell Justin not to commit genocide and we solve the problem.
	The phraseology, promoting or advocating genocide, all three of those terms require some serious definition and are seriously vague or void for vagueness.
	Let's look at what's going on right now in the world, right?
	So I'm sure as far as most of the Palestinian advocates are concerned, that the police action in Gaza is a form of genocide.
	So any Israeli that stands up and says, hey, you know, I support...
	You know, my government's action in Gaza because, you know, they murdered and raped pregnant women and did a whole bunch of really horrible things and we have to end Hamas once and for all.
	That's their legitimate opinion.
	But they can be said to be promoting genocide.
	On the other side of the argument, any Israeli or Jewish person in Canada who is rightly concerned about people chanting from the, you know, from the river to the sea and people burning down, you know, wanting to burn down synagogues and all this other, you know, stuff that Trudeau promotes in Canada along with the burning down of Catholic churches, right?
	Those people could be charged with genocide, right?
	Misgendering someone could be charged with genocide since people say misgendering is a form of genocide.
	I'm not saying it to be hyperbolic or funny.
	It's the reality.
	Denying trans rights is a form of genocide.
	Denying that trans people exist, whatever that means, is a form of genocide.
	So it's seriously criminalizing.
	Well, certainly, you know, if you look at the treaties, like Treaty Number 8, as an example, is really clear in the Commissioner's Report, which the Supreme Court of Canada says forms part of the treaty, right, that the Indian children should be educated in the religion, language, and culture of their choice.
	So to the extent that Justin Trudeau is denying Cree children Cree language education, is he guilty of genocide?
	I think so.
	I mean, you know, clearly the United Nations, if you look at their definition of genocide, eradicating languages is a form of genocide.
	In whole or in part, bring it to Quebec.
	Right, right, right.
	So to the extent that Justin Trudeau isn't providing Cree and Dene language education in Treaty 8 in Northern Alberta and Northeastern BC, isn't he guilty of genocide?
	I'd like to see him in prison for life.
	I mean, you know, I wouldn't hurt my feelings, but I think it's a bad law.
	Wild.
	Okay.
	We got a little bit off topic here today, but I really did feel it was important to raise that with you today because I didn't think that your readers or your viewers were aware that Trudeau had, in fact, snuck an anti-trucker provision into Bill C-63.
	Well, I'm going to go back to this.
	I might do a standalone of this.
	This is in the definitions.
	Content that incites violence means content that...
	Actively encourages a person to commit or that actively threatens the commission of an act of physical violence against a person, yada, yada, yada.
	Go to sub C. And then a serious bodily harm to a person, a person's life to be endangered, serious interference with serious disruption of essential service.
	Wow.
	Criminalizing protests.
	Right.
	How do you reconcile that with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that enshrines the right to protect?
	Hold the line.
	Yeah, Go Truckers is going to be incitement of hatred under the criminal code.
	You know, every single Canadian that stood out on a bridge over Highway 1 cheering on the truckers because they gave us hope, every single one of those Canadians was inciting hatred, according to Trudeau, according to Bill C-63.
	And posted a picture of all those people standing out on the overpasses cheering.
	They would be guilty of offending, inciting hatred sub-C, you know, section 2 sub-C of the Online Harms Act.
	There's going to be a lot of people in jail.
	Well, I mean, Canada will just be one big outdoor prison.
	I mean, we saw how they turned it into a prison during COVID.
	But it's so funny, like even, like this bill is so bad that even the Toronto Red Star the other day...
	Wrote a column talking about the fact that the bill goes too far.
	But of course, needless to say, the Toronto Red Star didn't comment on the anti-trucker provision or some of the other gross excesses in the bill, including the thought crime provision that says that somebody suspects that you might in the future...
	engage in some form of prohibited online speech.
	You can be put under house arrest, have your computer taken away, have your guns taken away, have an ankle monitor put on.
	And then they specifically in the bill, and I don't know if you caught this or not, they actually wrote in the fact that a provincial court judge Yeah, suspicion that it might happen.
	Tamara Leach-like bail conditions imposed on them where they're not allowed to speak to fellow dissidents.
	They're not allowed to associate with people that the government considers unworthy of association.
	Like, you and I won't be able to talk anymore.
	Look, I'll say I wasn't ahead of the curve by much because it was quite clear where this was going, but it was incremental.
	And by the way, Rath, Jeff, I just realized that I was going to make the joke, like, you have the Rath.
	What does the W stand for in your middle name?
	Well, actually, it was my grandfather's name.
	He went by RW, but it stands for Ralph Wallace.
	What I love is now it's actual wrath.
	That's right.
	I refer to myself sometimes as the wrath of God.
	Well, it's wild.
	I mean, you guys are doing...
	There's a few of you up there doing, I say, the Lord's work, or at least the people's work.
	JCCF, you guys.
	I'd say Rebel News to some extent is doing some...
	I mean, fighting the fights that nobody's fighting, but Rebel News is going to be first on the chopping block if and when.
	I've asked this privately to a few people because the procedure always gets me confused.
	It passed the first reading.
	Now there's going to be what they call it, like not the speech and debate, but the public consult.
	People submit their commentary.
	What is the process before which C-63 becomes law if it ever does?
	Well, now it's in the public consultation period leading up to the second reading, and then following the second reading, I think it goes back to committee, and then it goes into the third reading.
	But what I'm hearing, at least from my friends in the Conservative Party, that they're hoping to filibuster or run the clock and have this thing die on the order paper so that it won't get past at least this term.
	But don't be surprised.
	I mean, I'm not going to be the least bit surprised if Trudeau...
	You know, is desperate to get this in place prior to the next election.
	Because it's the only way he has a hope of getting re-elected.
	You know, as if he prevents Canadians from talking online about what a mess he's made of the country and limits, you know, limits the issues to those issues that are deemed acceptable by the legacy media that he's bought and paid for.
	So, I mean, you know, if people were concerned about the vaccine mandates...
	You know, they need to be doubly and triply concerned about Bill C-63.
	And everybody needs to write, you know, I say write your MP, but also write your provincial premier.
	You know, and the premiers need to become engaged.
	Daniel Smith needs to invoke the Sovereignty Act.
	Because, you know, this...
	Trenches on an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, namely property and civil rights in the province.
	I mean, the search and seizure provisions in this Bill Viva are through the roof.
	They're going to have this online safety commission.
	They're going to have online safety commission inspectors that have the power to go into any business without a warrant, seize all of their business records, financial records, you name it, looking not only for proof of thought crimes, but...
	Also, to look at your financial records so that they can properly assess the 6% gross global revenue fine against you to determine whether you should only be bankrupted with $10 million in fines or determine whether you're big enough to have to fork over billions to the Canadian government.
	It's one of the broadest search and seizure provisions I have ever seen in a piece of Canadian legislation.
	The only limitation on it is if the Online Digital Safety Commission inspectors want to go into your home, they have to get a warrant to go into your home.
	But they don't need a warrant to go into a business.
	They don't need a warrant to go into a law office.
	They don't need a business to go into a medical practice.
	They don't need warrants to do anything other than to go into somebody's home.
	I mean, it's crazy stuff.
	It's communism.
	People think it was hyperbolic.
	They still think it is.
	It's legislated communism.
	Just because Trudeau was elected with a minority government to ram through this legislation with his partner in crime, Jagmeet Singh.
	Oh boy.
	It is.
	It's Stalinism complete with a star chamber called the Online Digital Safety Commission.
	Right?
	I mean, it's absolutely nuts that Trudeau is going to be able to appoint these commissars to literally stick their noses into every single aspect of a Canadian's life.
	Like, it's complete insanity, and people need to rise up in revolt over this bill.
	Careful there now, Jeff.
	We're not living in Canada anymore.
	No, there's no question about that.
	And if C63 passes, what you just said there is going to be incitement, punishable by life.
	I'm exaggerating with the life, but not by much.
	Where can people find you?
	Rath& Company.
	So there's a website, Rath& Company, and there's two links, one for the business class action and one for the COVID vaccine mandate.
	You know, I'm going to say it again, is that this is restricted to people in Alberta.
	We've gotten lots of comments and questions and inquiries from people outside of Alberta and even outside of Canada.
	So this is an Alberta action and I would hope and encourage other lawyers to take a look at the lawsuits and do it in other provinces as well.
	There is certainly a demand for it.
	Yeah, the vaccine class, actually, again, it's at wrathandcompany.com.
	And anybody interested in joining, the other issue is, in Alberta, you're deemed to be in unless you opt out.
	But we're asking anybody that's been vaccine injured to please go to our website, wrathandcompany.com, and fill out a form with your contact information detailing your injuries.
	And somebody from our office will be in touch with you because we're obviously trying to get a handle on the size of this thing.
	And, you know, our feeling is that it's much, much, much bigger than the federal statistics would, you know, would indicate.
	I mean, we have, like, we have a 30% myocarditis rate in my office.
	So in my office, you know, everybody had a choice to, you know, either do their own thing or listen to their doctors or whatever.
	And out of 12 employees in our office, 10 people actually got vaccinated.
	Which actually surprised me.
	And out of 10 people that got vaccinated, fully three of them had cardiac complications.
	And one of the lawyers in our office has now been diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis and vasculitis.
	So this suggestion that somehow 105 million jabs has only resulted in 11,000...
	It's bullshit of the highest order.
	It's completely ludicrous from my way of thinking.
	We had a 30% myocarditis rate in my office alone.
	Well, they'll just turn back and say, that's COVID-induced myocarditis and you can never tell the difference because we'll attribute it to one even though the other...
	Potential explanation is present as well.
	Jeff and Eva, you'll come back on and give me periodic updates as things progress?
	Yeah, anytime you want to have us, Viva.
	It's always a pleasure to be here and we're very grateful for you continuing to get the word out.
	So thank you.
	My pleasure.
	Now we've got to go back to boring our ears.
	Let me see if this hearing is still on here.
	Just quickly before we go, I was pleased to see your reaction to listening to Democrats talk.
	It's predictive.
	Some of the Republicans have been grandstanding also.
	The guy with the purple tie, Strats.
	No, that was the lady that was speaking.
	Some of the Republicans grandstand as well.
	It just so happens that the Republican grandstanding is a former Democrat.
	They're not perfect, but it's verbal diarrhea coming out of one side of the floor.
	You watch this and it's like white is black, black is white.
	Let's turn the world on its head.
	Good is evil and evil is good.
	He's not senile.
	We loaded him full of Adderall and stood him up in front of the Congress.
	On the one hand, they're saying his answers were perfect.
	Oh, Jeff went sideways.
	That's how bad it is.
	His answers were perfect.
	He remembered the month his son died.
	And then answering, I don't remember, is also perfect because who the hell can remember all that stuff?
	They can't even keep track of their lies.
	But we'll go back to that.
	I'm going to go pick on Leticia James a little later on.
	F and Jeff, thank you very much.
	You'll come back every time, anytime.
	Anytime you want to have us, Viva.
	We'll be here.
	Thank you.
	Awesome.
	Thank you.
	Thanks so much.
	Thank you.
	Bye-bye.
	And everybody, we're ending it on YouTube.
	We've gone way too long on YouTube.
	We're going to go over to Rumble.
	Viva, read your rants.
	Oh, I'm going to read my rants.
	Do I want to read the rants before we head over?
	I'll read a few of these before we go over.
	Let me bring up the...
	The France.
	It's an old joke.
	If you want justice, go to a whorehouse.
	If you want to get fucked, go to court.
	No truer words ever spoken.
	I'm going to say...
	Geez, Louise.
	The guy there who said everything.
	Mark Twain.
	I don't know.
	I'll have to see who said that.
	Thorn.
	Sadly, Canada has fallen.
	King of the Biltong.
	By the way, I got them yesterday.
	Delicious.
	I'll actually eat them.
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	Free shipping for your Biltong with code Viva on Biltong.
	BiltongUSA.com or AntonUSA.com.
	Biltong.
	It's like lightly dried, air-dried wet steak.
	It's delicious, actually.
	Straight up.
	Will Danielle Smith be named in the class action lawsuit?
	They answered that.
	She's on the record promoting the Jansen jab.
	Notice that no staffer dares to sit behind Swalwell from Pinboy Slick.
	And I don't know why they bobblehead.
	Oh, God.
	All right.
	Do we get back to that?
	Do we get back to that thing?
	We should get back to the hearing.
	What we're going to do is we're going to end on YouTube anyhow.
	Come on over to the Rumbles.
	I started early, so technically it's, you know, fuck YouTube.
	YouTube is asshole.
	I never get tired of that one.
	Link to Rumble if I can spell properly.
	And I'll give the link to Locals as well for anybody who wants to go there.
	Oh, let's get back to this hearing.
	And then we'll pick on Leticia James afterwards.
	If we don't get to the topic of the day, link to Locals.
	Okay, we're going to end it on YouTube.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com or Viva Fry on Rumble.
	And let's get back to the hearing of diarrhea.
	Remove.
	Hold on a second.
	I always forget what I'm doing here.
	Remove and remove.
	Okay.
	And good.
	And now we go present, share screen.
	Back to...
	Here we go.
	We got people talking.
	Oh, my God.
	My time is out, but I'll just add the perverse implication here is that the administration, by the very terms of your analysis, that the president would face charges by Jack Smith bringing an indictment.
	Thank you, and I yield back.
	Let's just see if we've made any progress.
	Request?
	Thank you.
	I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents.
	Ms. Dean.
	Why would that be relevant for this?
	Oh.
	So we've missed nothing, people.
	Oh, hush money payments?
	Without objection, the indictment is recognized.
	enforcement, among other things.
	Oh, shut your face.
	And my second document, to clarify for you, sir, Mr. Herr, From the transcription, page 82, the words are, President Biden's, what month did Bo die?
	Oh God, May 30th.
	A searing memory, I ask unanimous consent.
	I'm sorry, that's out of context.
	That's out of context.
	May, he asks the room, and then is told the answer.
	Doesn't matter.
	It's all diarrhea.
	In accordance with the law, classified information must be treated 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. Herr'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." 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 classified documents, officials, personal effects.
	And as soon as president Biden discovered that he had mistakenly Notice how they all have to testify to him.
	Oh, yes, yes, yes.
	She's a Democrat.
	It's like we haven't made one step forward in terms of progress.
	Told him.
	Why would you know what his lawyer said, by the way?
	Multiple.
	That Trump returned the classified documents, yet he hid them.
	Trump himself acknowledged that the same year that service members have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country, yet he decided that This is too annoying for me to continue listening to it, but I'll do it.
	Ma 'am, do you have a question?
	to that.
	What's your question?
	Mr. Herr, thank you for being here today.
	I'd like to talk about your report for Regarding President Biden and some of your findings.
	So all of that was useless?
	And for the sake of time, if you don't mind just answering yes or no.
	For the sake of time, you just wasted two minutes with verbal diarrhea.
	Page 187 of your report reads, At no point did 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?
	Is that what it says?
	If that's what it says, that's what it says.
	For the second time, please answer yes or no.
	For the second time?
	Congresswoman, you said page 187?
	Of your report, yes.
	For the second time?
	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 language is in my report.
	Okay, 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 of former executive branch officials and members of Congress.
	Please, once again, just love it, love it.
	Yeah, it's what it says, lady.
	Page 323 also reads, as a matter of historical context, there have been numerous previous incidents in which marked classified documents have been discovered, intermixed with the personal papers of former executive branch officials and members of Congress.
	Is this what you reported?
	That language appears at page 323.
	Thank you.
	Now it's my understanding that this has happened before.
	Where classified documents are swept up into official papers.
	So Mr. Herr, aside from Donald Trump, are you aware of similar instances in history where officials who have had these classified documents engaged in a month-long elaborate scheme to hide those documents in federal law enforcement officials?
	He's not going to answer that question as phrased.
	The one case that comes to mind that we do address in the report is the prosecution of General Petraeus.
	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.
	So, 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 will work with law enforcement and hold themselves accountable.
	Thank you, and I yield back.
	She got her to ratify a premise of her question, which is a disputed fact.
	Special Counselor Herr, when you determined that no criminal charges should be brought against President Biden in this matter, you focused on the specific facts surrounding the classified documents where President Biden stored them and on his memory and age.
	You wrote that President Biden's, quote, 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 would 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.
	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.
	Correct?
	One of the things that I considered 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 recordings from 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, but unless there was some issue undisclosed 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 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.
	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 isn't what my question was.
	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.
	I can't testify to what he knew, but it's fair.
	I don't think that's accurate, Congresswoman, because when Mr. Biden was vice president, he was authorized to have 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 at his home.
	However, there is evidence with respect to his notebooks that he believed he was authorized to keep the notebooks at home based on...
	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 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 in my report is that there's certainly evidence that some jurors 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 a trial is not a conviction.
	You know, Mr. Kerr, I have represented a variety of clients over the years in 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 has also been my experience that the DOJ is 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.
	Who's the one that's going to jail now for four months?
	Mr. Carr, 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 seem to be the only ones who are never helped?
	Kiva Navarro.
	I'm asking specifically about Mrs. Clinton.
	This woman talking now is Republican.
	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. Kerr, Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with 40 counts related to his...
	Oh my God, how many times do we have to hear this shit?
	What's on her necklace?
	According to the Trump indictment, Trump stored those documents at Mar-a-Lago, which, quote...
	Why would a hearing about Biden deal with Trump so much?
	I'm going to guess that she's a Democrat.
	Escobar.
	Texas.
	Democrats.
	an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room.
	Mar-a-Lago is more than a mansion or a compound.
	She is a Democrat.
	It is a club 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 Oh, my goodness.
	Oh, my goodness.
	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.
	The entire purpose of this is just so they can power the narrative.
	Trump is rightly prosecuted, Biden is rightly exonerated, and he's not senile.
	Did President Biden ever bring tens of thousands of people into spaces where he stored classified material?
	Patronizingly stupid.
	Did Joe Biden advertise and sell memberships to his home that would allow members of the public to have access?
	This is like mentally deficient.
	We don't know, but he probably had a lot of crack addicts and hookers come over.
	Moving on.
	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 Nowda to move boxes of documents so that they could not be found by people looking for them.
	Mr. Herr, did President Biden ever direct his staff to move documents so that you or the FBI could not find them?
	We did not identify evidence of that.
	In fact, according to your report, as soon as Bob Bauer discovered material in President Biden's presence, 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.
	That's in stark contrast.
	President Biden did not obstruct your investigation.
	Biden, good.
	Trump back.
	He facilitated.
	I'm sorry, I did not exonerate them.
	I did not exonerate them.
	I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the committee's transcribed interview with Stephen Denton, former assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington field office.
	On June 7th, 2023, in which Mr. D 'Antonio 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.
	Without objection.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I yield back.
	I did not exonerate him, Escobar.
	Excuse me.
	Gentlemen, from the ranking members recognize.
	Chairman.
	Oh!
	Three unanimous consent requests.
	First, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record.
	That might be...
	Hold on.
	What's my internet saying here?
	My internet's fine.
	Let me refresh.
	If I refresh, we're going to get an ad.
	Oh, it's like the computer can detect evil.
	Give me one second.
	Do I refresh it?
	I'll refresh it.
	Let's see what happens.
	Okay, press play.
	We're going to have to get through that.
	These are amazing.
	Wow.
	That's good.
	Wow, these are good.
	That's delicious.
	What if I told you that you could...
	You tell me nothing.
	I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record.
	Oh, what the fudge is going on here?
	We're refreshing it again, people.
	Press play again.
	I ask unanimous consent...
	Oh, so it might have gone dead.
	Hold on one second.
	Okay, so it's freezing.
	Okay, so let's go with...
	What's the guy's first name?
	It's not Ben-Hur.
	It's Hur.
	Here it testifies live.
	Let's see who else has got her hearing.
	And my colleagues' questions today have focused on the highlights from your report, specifically referring to President Biden's mental capacity, his willful disregard for 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 the report, how this sympathetic...
	Well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory handled and managed 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 and any ongoing national security risks from the inappropriate storage and retention of the documents?
	Congresswoman, my understanding is that 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 Herr, 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 that if that were to happen, it would be a more difficult case to try from a prosecutor's perspective.
	Well, the elements are distinct, though, are they not?
	They are a distinct element.
	And isn't it 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 and brings a charge under 1001?
	That could happen.
	Yes.
	And again, there are two elements.
	We have exhausted the utility of this hearing.
	And in reaching your final decision related to the recommendation to decline prosecution, you considered both the underlying elements of the offenses at issue and also the principles of federal prosecution.
	Is that right?
	Correct.
	That is 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 are 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...
	You have the mens rea of criminal offenses.
	And those elements of the underlying criminal offense would be exactly the same from one defendant to the next.
	Except the intent, the criminal intent.
	Mens rea.
	So you would expect, would you not, that a prosecutor who was considering the underlying offenses that you were considering here...
	Would be looking at exactly the same elements and requirements of proof that you did.
	Including mens rea.
	Prosecutors assessing their cases under the same statutes must.
	Consider the same elements with respect to those statutes.
	All right.
	Thank you, Special Counsel Herr.
	And then, if we could turn back to the concept of those principles of federal prosecution, those are the additional factors, aggravating or mitigating, that you might consider in ultimately reaching a charge of 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.
	He's clarified that multiple times.
	That is not correct.
	All right.
	Thank you, sir.
	I yield the balance of my time to the chair.
	The gentlelady is back.
	The chair now recognizes gentlelady from North Carolina.
	Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Herr, also for your patience.
	You're almost to, what, three and a half hours?
	So almost as much as Biden.
	Shut your face, whoever you are!
	You repeatedly cite and credit.
	A 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...
	Do we want to see her or do we want to see questions?
	One of these explanations for the presence of classified documents is that a member of the president's staff maintained those documents when he was the vice president.
	And then mistakenly included them in sets of documents that were later sent to locations such as the Penn-Biden Center and the University of Delaware.
	Is that correct?
	Do we want to see his case or the person asking the question?
	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.
	Great.
	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 that he's unaware of.
	That's on page 209 of your report, correct?
	That is something that a reasonable juror could factor into his or her consideration of whether or not the president had criminal, willful intent.
	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 classified documents.
	Correct.
	And because of these facts, you determined it was Quote, entirely possible that the president did not know he still had some of these documents in his home.
	Hold on, everybody.
	I'm going to switch.
	I found one channel that's going back and forth.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Here we go.
	Boom.
	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 215.
	Okay, good.
	This one's switching back and forth so we can see both people because I don't want to just see one person's face.
	Hur looks like he could fight in the UFC.
	It was at that moment that Hur realized that is what he wrote.
	Yes, that's what that verb you just used here.
	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.
	What an itch bay.
	You also cite the president's cooperation with your investigation as evidence that he did not have criminal intent.
	And I want to quote you here because this is important.
	You wrote, Five hours!
	Over two days!
	When October 7th had happened the day before.
	Many will conclude that a 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 210.
	I don't want to wait for you.
	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. Mr. Biden presents himself sophisticated person presents 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 210.
	As you said in your report, it would be reasonable for a juror to reach that conclusion.
	And that a president advised by counsel would not have informed investigators of the presence of classified documents in his home, or invited agents in the search of every nook and cranny of his home or other residents, or sat for an hours-long interview, or answered pages of written questions.
	All going to his full cooperation and his lack of criminal intent.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
	Gentle lady yields back.
	Mr. Hur, we got three more we're going to do, and then we're 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.
	I yield to the chairman.
	I thank the gentleman for yielding.
	Mr. Hur, are you opposed to the U.S. Congress having access to the audio tapes of the people you interviewed during your investigation?
	Including Biden?
	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 of the Department of Justice.
	I would refer you to the White House and DOJ leadership.
	You're an accomplished lawyer.
	Is there any reason why we shouldn't?
	Why the United States Congress shouldn't have access to the same information you had access to and that was the basis of your decision?
	Chairman, it is not for me to opine on what materials.
	Well, the Justice Department released the transcripts the day of the hearing.
	It'd been nice if we'd had them at a more, I think, a better time for the committee to prepare for our questioning for you.
	They released them today.
	The White House and the Justice Department released them today.
	It'd be nice if we actually had the audio tapes, too.
	Why couldn't you get the audio tapes?
	Again, is there any reason why the American people and their representatives in the United States Congress should not have access to those tapes?
	If they have the transcript.
	Chairman, what I can tell you is that my assessment...
	That went into my conclusions that I described in my report was based not solely on the transcript.
	It was based on all of the evidence.
	What question are you answering right now?
	Great point.
	That's where I was going.
	So this was valuable evidence for you as the special counsel name to investigate this issue.
	Valuable evidence for you to reach your conclusion and the statements you put in your report.
	And all 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.
	I will yield back to the gentleman from Kentucky and hope we can yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
	Yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
	Thank you, Mr. Hearn.
	Chapter 8 of your report, you detail that Mr. Biden retained in his Delaware basement classified documents relating back to his time as a U.S. 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 the Biden Senate Papers collection, correct?
	Correct.
	And even more Senate papers dating back to the 1970s 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 Select Committee on Intelligence, a 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...
	And as vice president, is it 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, Cynthia Hogan?
	Correct.
	And he was advised in writing in 2011 by Hogan that classified notes must be obtained in secure safes and stored in secure facilities?
	Correct.
	His second counsel, John McGill, 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. McGill was Vice President Biden's final counsel, not his second one.
	And on his way out, Mr. Biden was also appraised of his obligations by the National Archives staff twice more that his classified notes should be secured in a skiff.
	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 councils, the National Archives staff.
	He has demonstrated enough knowledge of the law to attack President Trump in public over the same exact issue in detail.
	This is where I get into this.
	I just have a problem with this.
	In your report...
	Sensitive compartmented information facility.
	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 have been accused of mishandling classified documents.
	Only one of them has been prosecuted.
	And that's what the American people see.
	That's what we see.
	We had Hillary Clinton who ran a program called Bleach It on her server.
	She was Secretary of State.
	No authority to have classified documents.
	No they don't.
	Hillary was Secretary of State.
	And with that, I yield back to the gentleman from Kentucky.
	She did not have the authorization to do that.
	The gentleman yields back.
	The ranking member is recognized for unanimous consent.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Who the hell is drinking Coca-Cola?
	In light of what the chairman previously said, I ask unanimous 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. Herr.
	St. Louis and I are here today once again to focus on real issues that affect our communities instead of partisan 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 Her.
	And he was fully exonerated.
	Despite this outcome, Republicans have used the special counsel's report to further their longstanding efforts to re-elect, re-elect, the former white supremacist-in-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 complied with the special counsel's investigation, Oh, yeah.
	He was allowed to do everything he did.
	He also said on his right-wing social media platform...
	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 who mixes up Joe Biden and Barack Obama and Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi.
	Oh, shut the front door, Bush.
	The same Donald Trump who incorrectly pronounced the words Venezuela, respected, and United States.
	So we can pick on people now for mispronouncing words?
	The same Donald Trump who calls January 6th defendants hostages.
	And the same Donald Trump believed bleach injections would treat COVID-19.
	That's a lie.
	You're a godforsaken liar.
	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 Secretary Clinton.
	Oh, she mispronounced secretary.
	She's an idiot too.
	She's mispronounced secretary.
	Oh, so you get to decide who gets to get re-elected.
	It is well known 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 are about.
	They're telling you what they're doing right now, people.
	Women's reproductive rights.
	This is coming from the party that impeached Trump twice.
	Mueller investigation, three and a half years.
	Can you believe these hypocrites?
	That's exactly what she is.
	Describing herself?
	No, you're not.
	You are that.
	I will continue to reject these absurd distractions from the investments we need in the communities that we represent.
	Send some more money to Ukraine, Corey.
	Instead of this irresponsible, easily repudiated Republican clown show.
	Thank you, and I yield back.
	Gentle lady that yields back, I recognize myself for five minutes.
	Special Counselor Herr, 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 at the beginning of your testimony.
	Thank you.
	It is an extraordinary story to America.
	Third, let me also thank you for your in-depth investigation and your detailed report, and generally for your service as special counsel.
	It's not something I think many people would look for, and certainly comes with a lot of burden, so thank you for your work.
	In your opening statement, you described your investigation as, 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.
	A lot of appreciation here.
	Yes, sir, you do.
	About 150 different witnesses.
	You looked at millions of different documents because you wanted to do a thorough investigation.
	Isn't that true?
	Correct.
	Okay, the butt kissing's over.
	Can you get to the point, Moran?
	Extremely seriously, and you wanted to reach accurate conclusions.
	No, he didn't.
	I wanted to do something terrible.
	Let's review some of your specific findings regarding the issues pertaining to competency and mental capacity of President Biden.
	Because, as 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.
	Please read them.
	You say, Mr. Biden's quote, Mr. Biden's memory was significantly limited.
	Then again, on page six, you say, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury as a well-intentioned, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.
	Then on page 207, you say, Mr. Biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations.
	Then again on page 208, he did not remember when he was vice president, and he did not remember even within several years when his son Beau died.
	He had to ask the room.
	We're going to get to this afterwards.
	Page 248, quote, For these jurors, Mr. Biden's apparent lapses and failures in 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 look through those quotes, I'd say I hearken back to my time before Congress.
	I was a judge, and one of the things I oversaw was guardianships.
	And frankly, when I read your conclusions, red flags began to go up in my mind because I oversaw hundreds of guardianships back in Texas.
	And as I saw your conclusions, I began to wonder, what does the D.C. statute say about guardianships, and how do you define an incapacitated individual in Washington, D.C.?
	And I want to show you this statute, because I presume, are you familiar with the statute at all?
	I am not, Congressman.
	So I didn't think that you'd probably review that, so let me just read to you some of the definitions here.
	An adult whose ability to receive...
	And evaluate information effectively or 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, an incapacitated individual under the guardianship statute in 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 posit 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, quote, diminished faculties, and with, quote, faulty memory, it makes me wonder how close he is coming to meeting this definition.
	Of an incapacitated individual, such that he should have a guardian appointed by the D.C. courts for his personhood.
	There is at least, I believe, a prima facie argument to say that there is substantial evidence to indicate such.
	And you mentioned it's not just what you've written in the report, but it was 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 the President and certainly his fitness going forward in the future.
	And I appreciate the fact that you were 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 such a way.
	Thank you, Special Counsel.
	I yield back.
	The 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 recess, and then we will convene 10 minutes after the conclusion of the last vote.
	I believe we only have a couple votes.
	Is that right?
	Two votes.
	So, you know, Congress, that'll take a while, but we'll get back here as soon as we can.
	There's food in the back room for...
	I think we still have some left that you're welcome to.
	With that, we stand in recess until 10 minutes after the last vote.
	10 minutes after the last vote.
	What are they voting on right now?
	Let me just reply to a tweet from Tim Pool.
	That's frickin' painful.
	I mean, I hope everyone...
	What the heck is going on in my back?
	Let me put this here.
	My drone.
	That's painfully painful.
	That might actually be less pleasant than, what's it called, a root canal at the dentist.
	We're going to go into a few things.
	The thumbnail of the day, we're going to talk about Leticia James and thou shalt not mock your new overlords.
	I made the joke that you go to Washington, D.C., and you see these monuments that government erects to themselves like they are the new gods.
	They are the new gods.
	And you shall not mock God, according to Leticia James.
	We're going to get there.
	But before we get there, let's deal with a couple of things that are the lies of the day.
	I didn't know this hearing was scheduled.
	I'm not sure that even if I had known it, well, I mean, if I had known it, would I have scheduled this in advance?
	I started watching it, and then I was like, well, if I'm going to suffer and watch this for the hour before the stream, you're going to watch it and suffer with me.
	I mean, somebody wants to see what the hell's going on.
	These are, what is it, dog and pony shows?
	This is pure political theater.
	Can you imagine how much money is being wasted hourly, just like minutely, in that room?
	Oh my, and it's freaking useless.
	There's some good questions coming out from the Republicans, and I'll give what's-her-face credit.
	Who was it that did good?
	She really, she got her questions out there.
	Hold on, let me see who it was.
	It was the lady who loaded her questions.
	With arguable or disputed premises to the question.
	And who was it, Chad?
	I can't remember who it was.
	And I think I'm on the wrong window here.
	This is the right window?
	No, this is the right window.
	Okay, fine.
	It was the woman who was wearing a purple dress.
	Let me go back here.
	There's the blue dress.
	Are we seeing this?
	No, we're not.
	Okay, it was before PayPal.
	It was before Schiff.
	It was before this guy.
	I'm not going to find it.
	It might have been before we changed the channel or had to refresh.
	It was whoever loaded the question with premises that were disputed, but then she got her to answer the question, and in so doing, I'm not going to be able to find it.
	It doesn't matter.
	Was it before Swallow Well?
	Eh, forget it.
	Who cares?
	It's very depressing.
	We're watching, like, the destruction of Western society in real time from Canada to the US.
	Just wondering, like, what happens after the Roman Republic fell?
	I mean, Italy thrived for the next thousand years, so it wasn't all bad.
	Holy...
	Oh, Hagerman.
	Harriet Hagerman.
	Thank you.
	That's who it was.
	I wanted to play something that I had in the backdrop.
	Just waiting there.
	Waiting there.
	Who was it that was the evil woman?
	Sheila Jackson?
	Someone said, listen to her yelling at her staffer.
	Well, let's hear her yelling at her staffer, people.
	I haven't heard this yet.
	If this is my first time in my life that I know of hearing this audio.
	You took a piece of paper from that woman regarding something that was old-eyed dunking.
	Where is it?
	What paper was it?
	I'll forget.
	Jerome took it upstairs.
	I have to call him.
	He took it up when I switched out the picture.
	I'll call him.
	I don't want you to do a goddamn thing.
	I want you to have a fucking brain.
	I want you to get Reddit.
	I want you to say, "Congresswoman, it was such and such day." That's what I want.
	That's the kind of staff that I want to have.
	So some stupid other motherfucker did it, and I don't have the information.
	Nobody sent me the information.
	I need to.
	Uh, ensure my, um, schedule.
	And, uh, you know, if boo-boo did it, shit-ass did it, fuck-face did it, and nobody knows a goddamn thing in my arm.
	Okay?
	Nothing.
	I gave it to you.
	Your job was to get it on the calendar, imprint it in your brain, or send me the information back saying, Congresswoman, I made sure that the Ovi Duncan Tally man that you gave me, uh, for so-and-so date at 7 is on the fucking calendar.
	not to quote Jerome Hanson.
	Okay, so when I called Jerome, he only stood up there like a fat ass, just an idiot talking about what's
	fuck he doesn't know okay both y'all are fucked up a fucking f is the worst shit that i could have ever had put together two goddamn big ass children fucking idiots serve no goddamn purpose ain't managing nobody nobody's respecting them nobody gives a shit about what you're doing and you ain't doing shit and this is an example of it i gave it to drone this is not child's work Okay.
	Peace.
	Wow!
	Jackson Lee.
	Jackson Lee Staffer.
	This is what I just read in the chat.
	I don't know if this person...
	I just read this in the chat.
	Cause of death revealed for...
	Sheila Jackson Lee's former staffer linked to audio.
	Scandal?
	Well, what?
	Are we discovering something in real time here?
	Click to Houston.
	Austin police investigated and said the death was not a homicide.
	Now Hill County Forensics has completed Brooks' autopsy report indicating he died from a drug overdose and ruled his death as accidental.
	Well, holy shit.
	Are we discovering a scandal in real time?
	Like, this is all news to me.
	What year is this from?
	Published February 1st, 2024?
	What month are we in now?
	We're in March.
	This is a month and a half ago.
	So this is the cause of death revealed for Rep.
	Taylor Jackson's Leaver, a former staffer linked to the audio scandal.
	He's dead.
	Hmm.
	Don't worry, it wasn't homicide.
	It was accidental drug overdose.
	Chief for...
	I'm not...
	I mean, it's either suicide.
	It's either accidental drug overdose.
	Or something else, even more sinister.
	Chief forensic pathologist, yada yada, he went to a hotel room of a man he met online.
	There he was observed to drink ethanol and take pills described as ecstasy?
	Ethanol?
	I'm just looking it up because I want to see what this is.
	Also known as...
	It's a simple phenol that was derived from...
	It was reported to possess extremely potent estrogenic activity on par with that of steroidal estrogens like estrone with a dose of one microgram inducing estrus in rats.
	However, subsequent studies with different preparations of anal failed to confirm these findings and it was found the dimerization of anal into dienol.
	I'm looking up anal.
	I want to look up ethanol.
	What the heck did I just look up?
	Look up ethanol.
	Colorless, volatile, flammable.
	Okay, so it's alcohol.
	Yeast used in making beers metabolizes the sugar into ethanol, hybrid.
	Which one is the one that you can't drink?
	Blend of ethane and alcohol.
	Paramedics were called, grabbed his chest, slumped over.
	He was given CPR and naloxone, but did not survive.
	Who did he meet online?
	I'd like to know who he met online.
	Forensic toxicologist Michael Lamb.
	Are we reading this together?
	We are.
	Holy crap.
	They found, Brooks said, alcohol, MDMA, methamphetamine, sildenephil, I don't know what that is, a drug similar to Viagra, oh, now I know what it is, in his system.
	KPRC2 investigates reached out to Jackson Lee about the report.
	We were told she's traveling.
	We will provide a comment once it's available.
	So that's how he died.
	But this is another statement.
	Death of Paris.
	Harris Wofford.
	Who is Harris Wofford?
	Everybody just going to see the rabbit holing in real time.
	Harris Wofford, after spending years in private law.
	Oh, so that's another guy who is an older guy that died.
	So her staffer just died recently of drug overdose.
	Wow.
	Let me just go to the chat and rumble.
	Did everybody know that?
	Methanol literally makes you go blind.
	Okay, so it's ethanol, the one that you can drink.
	Methanol is the one that's in mouthwash you can't drink.
	Okay, fine.
	Who remembers when Kitty Dukakis drank the mouthwash back in, what, like, 96?
	Who was the person that he met with?
	I'm just going to go back and get the name of the staffer.
	That's not the right staffer.
	The staffer, Jerome Brooks.
	Do we know who he met with?
	I'm just going to Google this in real time.
	This is wild.
	We're going mildly down a small rabbit hole, people.
	Come on, get to Google.
	Jerome Brooks.
	Who did he meet with in hotel?
	Jerome Brooks, I'm not going to get a quick answer to that question because I'd be curious to know what ties that man might have had to Democrat parties of sorts.
	Methanol not in mouthwash, says Seferdine Squibb.
	Well, everybody remembers when Kitty Dukakis drank the bad alcohol and had to be rushed to the hospital.
	Poisoning or OD, there is a difference, says Veldita for life.
	Absolutely.
	Politics is deadly, says Perlova.
	So all that to say, people, this has been painful and it's been fun suffering together.
	But I want to pull up the lies of the freaking day.
	You can see it happening in real time.
	You spend enough time on Twitter and you see the trends.
	Like yesterday, it was Trump is going to cut social Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
	Everybody.
	And the same accounts spouting the lie.
	One after the other.
	Today, let me see if I got one where I put a few of these.
	I compiled them.
	I put a compilation together.
	Dina Hinshaw is psychotic.
	Okay, that's not the right one.
	Was it this one?
	I put a montage together.
	Let me see if it's this one right here.
	Oh, no, but here, this is the lie of the day.
	Holy shit.
	I mean, I love how they all start, like that guy there, Victor Shee.
	Holy shit.
	Holy hell.
	Oh, it starts off with caps.
	Grab your attention.
	Then they run into the lie.
	We now have the five-hour transcript.
	Turns out that the, quote, Biden couldn't remember when Bo died was a lie!
	Exclamation point.
	There's a special place in hell for these MAGA people and her.
	What month did Bo die?
	Oh, God.
	May 30th?
	Mr. Biden asks the room.
	A White House lawyer responds, 2015.
	Was it 2015 he had died?
	The president asks.
	An unidentified person in the room replies, it was May of 2015.
	Mr. Biden agrees.
	It was 2015, he said.
	Let me just go back to the characterization of this person, A.J. Delgado.
	Lawyer via Harvard Law.
	There we go.
	That explains it.
	Done.
	Mr. What?
	Made with Cuban parts.
	Proud mommy of four rescue dogs and one human.
	Boy, are you a...
	Is it a rescue?
	Four rescue dogs?
	Good.
	I'll give you credit for that.
	316.
	I'll have to go see what that portion of the Bible is.
	Oh, and not a fan of Trump.
	102,000 followers.
	Harvard Law graduate, people.
	Let's just go back to her understanding.
	Holy shit.
	We now have a five-hour transcript.
	It turns out the, quote, Biden couldn't remember when Bo died was a lie.
	You know what this tweet is predicated on?
	That people are so freaking lazy on Twitter, they won't actually just go and expand.
	Let me read it in Joe Biden's voice, and then you'll understand.
	What month did Bo die?
	Oh, God.
	May 30th?
	May 30th?
	2015.
	Was it 2015 he died?
	It was May 2015, Mr. President.
	Yeah, that's it.
	It was 2015.
	Oh, there goes the theory.
	That's number one.
	There's endless one after the other of these people trying to promote.
	A narrative that is straight up false.
	What's the other one here?
	Here, I think I may have called this person out here.
	Oh, this is...
	Oh, that's right!
	The stutter!
	David Axelrod!
	Mocking someone's stutter for laughs is pathetic and small.
	The stuff of schoolyard bullies not grown up.
	This was the day before yesterday.
	The narrative spin of the day.
	Biden has always had a stutter.
	You know what reserves a special seat in hell?
	Is someone pretending to have a disability.
	And then...
	And then exploiting.
	Because it doesn't end with the lie.
	Then they gotta go and exploit children who apparently actually have the...
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	You want to talk about reserving yourself a special seat.
	Now, stolen valor, by the way, applies to soldiers who claim to have acquired medals for their valiant effort.
	Stolen pity is what Joe Biden is doing right now because he's pretending to have a medical condition to garner sympathy and gaslight the public.
	And then he goes and...
	He exploits a kid who seemingly, apparently, is actually afflicted with the issue that Joe Biden is lying about being afflicted with.
	Look at this.
	What's your name?
	Owen, this is my son Braden.
	Hey Braden, how are you man?
	Hey man, how are you man?
	Oh man, come on.
	Oh man.
	I'll tell you what.
	Don't let it define you.
	You are smart as hell.
	How you really are.
	You can do that.
	Get your hands off him.
	Can I get a phone number for you and I can tell you what I used to do and how I would do it?
	Can you take us from, because there's about 25 stutterers I continue to work with.
	There's 25, oh, stutterers, I mean individuals with a stutter.
	And I can tell you the things that helped me.
	I know, by the way, the hardest thing is talking on the telephone.
	Oh, he knows that.
	When I stuttered, I used to talk like this.
	And it took a lot of practice, but I promise you, you can do it.
	I promise you.
	And don't let it define you.
	You're handsome.
	You're smart.
	You're a good guy.
	I really mean it.
	Don't let it define you.
	And you know when I say I know about bullies, you know about bullies.
	The kids who make fun, it's going to change, honey.
	I promise you.
	Everything about that is worthy of a seat in hell.
	Oh, my God.
	I'm going to go to the chat and just see what everyone thinks about that.
	God, I want to puke, says Angel underscore 7171972.
	You smell nice, says Glenn Stevens.
	Ick, says Perlova.
	Wonderbucket said, kids like, I will never stutter again if it means never talking again.
	What a sick, sick, pathetic individual.
	It's so gross.
	It's so freaking gross.
	Navarro going to serve four months, says Joe Maskew in our chat in viva barnes law dot locals dot com.
	But that was an older chat.
	Oh, says Piran 54. Heard should have dosed Biden with uppers before the interview.
	Methanol is poisonous, says Darren Escola.
	There's more in promoting of the lie of the day.
	And when you're on the platform, you can see it.
	Let me see which one this one is here.
	Oh yeah, why'd you admit this portion of the transcript here, says someone in relation to that other liar.
	Well, maybe he does have a stutter.
	I don't know.
	This was 2017?
	2018?
	That area?
	Her.
	Yes, sir.
	Biden.
	Remember, in this time frame, my son has either been deployed or is dying.
	And so it was...
	And by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate that were encouraging me to run in this period, except the president.
	I'm not...
	And not a mean thing to say, he just thought that she...
	Had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did.
	And so I hadn't.
	I hadn't at this point, even though I'm at Penn, I hadn't walked away from the idea that I may run for office again.
	But if I ran, I'd be running for president.
	And so what was happening, though?
	What month did Bo die?
	Oh, God.
	May 30. Rachel Cotton.
	Wow.
	Wow, the person actually skipped that part of the transcript out.
	I'm going to leave that one open because that looks like the person actually physically removed a portion of the transcript from the answer.
	Holy crabapples.
	That's wild.
	So that's another piece of the evidence.
	Let me make sure not to pull that one back up again.
	The other narrative, by the way...
	Well, Trump is a rapist.
	We already got to that one.
	Oh, lordy, lordy, looky.
	Well, that's repulsive, everybody.
	Let's go back and see what's going on with the Rumble rants, if we have any here.
	Do we have any?
	Here we do.
	I think we do.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Viva, is there any...
	Let me get this out of the way.
	A ghost of Recon 19D.
	Viva, they're never anything to be learned from a congressional hearing.
	They're just for soundbites, so press orgs can pick up on the narrative that they prefer.
	Hey, David, check your locals' money chats.
	The UK just banned puberty blockers for children under 14. STFU.
	FFS.
	This hearing is useless except to explain and except in order to let politicians flap their gums.
	Perlova.
	Viva.
	The verbal diary is just set.
	Dems setting the narrative repeatedly.
	Yep, for the USA.
	Actually, it was Richard Gere in Primal Fear.
	If you want justice, go to a whorehouse.
	Oh, that's the sentence, the phrase.
	Yep, Primal Fear.
	That's with Ed Norton.
	That movie was not as good as everyone had hyped it up to be for me.
	Now, let me go to the Rumble rants and bring up one of them.
	Hey, Viva!
	This is F-Z-F-U underscore F-F-S.
	Viva Fry, check the...
	I just lost the chat.
	Hold on a second.
	View tips.
	Check the comment where I just added to the thread that UK just banned puberty blockers.
	And then USA Now says, Viva, we found your 2.5-year-old lost son.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Okay.
	I don't know what happens in this video, but I see a kid fishing, and I need to see what happens here.
	This is from our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	What happens here?
	What happens?
	We got on, Lukey.
	Big Smalley.
	Yeah.
	You know, my kids, I think I may have outfished my kids.
	They actually...
	It's a big one?
	Yeah.
	Oh, man, that looks like a pretty good one.
	Dude, what's...
	How long?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	You got to keep reeling, man.
	Oh, if he leaves up on the tension.
	Keep reeling.
	Keep the tension.
	You're going to lose the fish.
	Is he snagged?
	Come on, come on, come on.
	Come on now, rock me now.
	Is he snagged?
	Okay, walk up to the bank.
	Walk backwards.
	Go that way.
	See, if this is a real fish, I would be freaking out at the prospect of losing it.
	It's nice to let the kids have the experience.
	Dad, you better get your butt in there.
	Oh, there was a hard edit.
	Get down.
	Wheel.
	Pull him on up there.
	All right, pull him up on shore.
	That was awesome, dude.
	That is a big fish.
	Wow.
	Now let the holier-than-thous of the internet scream, you can't let a fish drag on the ground.
	You're going to rub off the mucous membrane and it's going to hurt the fish and they're going to be more prone for infection when you put them back in the water.
	Excuse me.
	That's cute.
	We've all seen me catch the bass off a drone.
	I don't think we need to watch that again.
	Oh, Lordy.
	So do we wait for the rest of this?
	Hold on one second.
	Stop screen.
	So that was good.
	That was USA Now, I think, who gave us that one.
	Oh, can I celebrate a mild...
	Is it a big W or a small W that I got off Twitter?
	I did not watch the Oscars.
	In fact, when we went live on Sunday, I didn't realize the Oscars were on.
	I caught up on everything I needed to know about the Oscars the day after.
	Close your eyes, everybody.
	Close your eyes for one second.
	Close your eyes.
	I'm just going to go here, and I'm going to go up here, and I'm going to go here.
	All right.
	So everybody seems to love Jimmy Kimmel roasting Trump.
	Here's Jimmy Kimmel roasting Trump.
	Doing this show is not about me and I appreciate you having me.
	It's really about you and Emma and all these great actors and actresses and filmmakers.
	But I was told we have like an extra minute and I'm really proud of something.
	I hate Jimmy Kimmel.
	I was wondering if I could share it with you.
	I just got a review and...
	Go ahead, Jimmy.
	Has there ever been a worse host than Jimmy Kimmel at the Oscars?
	His opening was that of a less-than-average person trying too hard to be something which he is not and never can be.
	Get rid of Kimmel and perhaps replace him with another washed-up but cheap ABC talent, George Slopinopoulos.
	He would make everybody on stage look bigger, stronger, and more glamorous.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Can we appreciate that that's actually pretty funny?
	I didn't watch his opening monologue.
	I saw the shot that he took at Robert Downey Jr.
	That's actually pretty funny, Trump.
	So, you know, well done.
	Yeah, put George Slopadopoulos up there.
	He'll make me look big by comparison.
	I don't even know if George is big or not, but whatever.
	Make America great again.
	They said the bad man's name.
	Smooth-brained seals.
	Plap it up.
	See if you can guess which former president just posted that on Twitter.
	That's funny.
	That's not a joke.
	We know who it was.
	His observations were mildly insightful.
	You're a washed-up, unfunny hack, Jimmy Kimmel.
	The only one who's worth his weight in salt is Ricky Gervais.
	Anyone?
	No?
	Well, thank you, President Trump.
	Thank you for watching.
	I'm surprised you're still watching.
	Isn't it past your jail time?
	Oh, we love communism!
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	They gave standing ovations to a child rapist, Roman Polanski.
	These morally degenerate, depraved losers are going to judge Trump.
	Oh, yeah.
	Who's that?
	That one was Keaton.
	Diane Keaton?
	Oh, he nailed him.
	Isn't it past your jail time?
	Oh, that's funny.
	So you revel in the fact that you've weaponized the court systems and turned it into a Stasi court system.
	I don't even know if that makes sense, but you know what I mean.
	So that was Jimmy Kimmel.
	To which Katie Couric says, love it.
	Oh, I love Katie Couric.
	She loves the show.
	Journalist, by the way.
	She's a journalist.
	Shouldn't even be giving her this platform.
	Founder, podcaster, and co-founder of the eponymous, look it up, eponymous, giving their name to something.
	Seems like a very pretentious word to use.
	All right, the eponymous Katie Couric Media.
	Number one New York Times bestseller.
	She loves it, people.
	She loves it.
	Love it, Jimmy.
	You sure roasted his ass.
	Oh, you taught him a lesson.
	Oh, Katie.
	Oh, I'm sorry, Katie.
	This is on Alamy.
	It's a stock photo website for those of you who don't know.
	Is that Katie?
	Rubbing the chest of a serial sexual abuser?
	Oh, but Donald Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse by a jury.
	Oh, I'm sure it was just a one-off.
	Oh, looky there!
	Look where he's got his hand, by the way.
	Look at that.
	By the way, you don't touch someone who's not your wife like that.
	Is that his wife?
	No, she looks kind of young.
	Oh, here's Katie.
	Loving it.
	Love it, Katie.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, I love it.
	Let me just go back to that one.
	I want to see her face in the other one, too.
	Look at this.
	Love it.
	Oh, Harvey, you're the best.
	Love it.
	Oh, Jimmy, you sure roasted Trump.
	Now, let me just go.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	Matt Lower, another dude who had some sexual impropriety issues at the...
	Oh, look at this.
	Get your hands.
	Flesh-to-flesh contact.
	There's a reason why the Bible has certain provisions.
	Oh, yeah, and also Katie Couric, the stealth editor who makes up shit in fake documentaries to demonize Second Amendment supporting Americans.
	So the dishonest video editing fraternizing with sexual predators.
	Katie Couric.
	Oh, she loved Jimmy Kimmel.
	Does Jimmy Kimmel have any odd history?
	So, yeah.
	Oh, hold on.
	Why was that such a big W?
	I forgot to say why.
	Because it got retweeted three and a half thousand times.
	That's some fun stuff right there.
	Every now and again.
	Oh, it was Annette Bening.
	Every now and again.
	I go back to the fishing videos.
	Well, we do have time.
	I don't know.
	I'm not going to wait forever for this hearing to come back on.
	I'm not sure if it does come back on.
	I'll just finish with the stuff that we had on the menu for the day.
	All right.
	Going back.
	That was a W. Katie Couric.
	Nice.
	Yeah.
	Oh, and then, by the way, speaking of the sex, but Trump is guilty of rape.
	This is the other story of the day.
	Nancy Mace gets on and gets shamed by George Stephanopoulos, Slopadopoulos.
	Nancy Mace comes out and says there's nothing valiant about shaming a rape victim, which she is or says she is, depending on how you want to adduce evidence.
	I don't know if there was a conviction, but she came out and shared her story from when she was younger.
	And then this other person here, Jody.
	Oh, another one.
	Okay, well, whatever.
	Every now and again, I tricked into responding to bots.
	You shamed E. Jean Carroll.
	To which I responded, E. Jean Carroll ain't no rape victim, moron, even according to the verdict form.
	Literally.
	But then you got the judge there.
	Not a corrupt judge and not a corrupt court system coming out and saying, yeah, notwithstanding the verdict finding.
	Did Ms. Carroll prove by a preponderance of the evidence?
	Because we're civil, by the way, not crippled.
	So you can't even be criminal.
	Can't even say that he was found guilty of rape.
	You'd have to say that he was found liable because it was civil.
	Was he found liable for rape?
	No!
	Can I get in any closer?
	No!
	I can't get in closer.
	Not guilty of rape.
	Oh, sexually abused, Ms. Kyle.
	Yeah, because he touched her, according to this nutbags, fabricated 30-year-old hallucination.
	But they still run with it.
	Trump guilty of rape.
	Because the judge comes out afterwards.
	Hey, isn't it past your jail time?
	Yeah, that's funny, Jimmy.
	Playing the fiddle while Rome burns.
	Yeah, the judge came out and said, notwithstanding the jury verdict, saying that he was not liable of rape, because even the jury didn't believe that aspect of her farcical hallucination.
	The judge comes out and says, yeah, but you know, it's what most people understand to be raped.
	So technically, he did indeed rape her.
	And now people go and say, yeah, he was found guilty of rape.
	It's just amazing how the lie gets laundered.
	And the idiots repeat it.
	And the low information.
	Internet people who don't follow Viva Fry or Viva and Barnes.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	They fall for the crap.
	Thank you.
	How did he sexually abuse her, says ToolGal462.
	He was found liable of sexual abuse because the jury found that he touched her and touched her in the Fannie region, the British Fannie region.
	And that they couldn't come to the finding of Rafe because they didn't know what it was, but he touched her with his fingers or something.
	They get a corrupt Judge Kaplan with a corrupt prosecutor Judge Kaplan and a corrupt jury in the corrupt district.
	Was it Southern District of New York?
	It's New York.
	Who believe this nutbags hallucination of 30 plus some odd, I'll say 30 some odd years ago, despite not a dearth of evidence.
	A dearth being a severe shortage.
	An absolute absence of evidence, but even more than that, contradicting evidence to support her story.
	As in, the evidence contradicted her story in that she said, I was wearing a dress at the time that didn't exist at the time.
	No evidence other than a nutcase fabricating a hallucination.
	No video evidence.
	No other corroborating evidence from witnesses who said they saw, you know, Trump go into the burgdor.
	Nothing.
	A crazy woman who named her cat Vagina T Fireball, who posted tweets about how she loved Donald Trump, how Law& Order was her favorite show, and there was, oddly enough, an episode of Law& Order where someone got sexually assaulted in a Bergdorf changing room.
	Fabricated, fabricated story, but they got a judge, they got a jury, and this is how we are now witnessing the modern-day lynch mobs, the modern-day judicial lynchings, replace racial prejudice with political prejudice, and now you understand exactly what's going on.
	And then they get the judge to come in after he was already found not liable for rape to say, yeah, but he did it anyhow.
	And now you get to run with convicted of rape as though he had a criminal trial, which he didn't, as though he had a lawful, fair civil trial, which he didn't, as if he's not appealing that decision, which he is.
	But this is the world in which we are currently living.
	You got no choice.
	Like the bird, like the heron in the pond waiting for...
	A fish.
	I don't know what the hell I was going with that.
	The analogy is we are here and we have no choice but to stand up, talk up, and not fight back because those words can get you put into jail.
	Pushback.
	And vote like the Republic depends on it in 2024, which it does.
	I'm still waiting seemingly here on the backdrop.
	Live?
	Are we live?
	Yeah, nothing's happening here.
	How long do they research for, these lazy bastards?
	Okay, I'll leave the audio on, and then I'll hear it.
	But let me come back, because I've still got some more.
	Well, look, we're going to get some thumbnail.
	We're going to get to the thumbnail of the day, people, because, look, we've got to talk about that.
	But I had some more stuff here.
	Jody, you shamed a rape victim.
	Okay, we got this one, so I closed that down.
	Get that one out of here.
	What else did we have on the backdrop?
	I'll get to this in the chats afterwards, or the chats.
	What do we have here?
	Oh yeah, Rep Colin Allred is running for election in Texas.
	This is just totally random.
	Don't anyone forget, Rep Colin Allred, a month after the events of January 6th, tweeted this out.
	Nearly one month ago, the Capitol was attacked by a violent mob who murdered United States Capitol Police Officer Sicknick as he defended our democracy.
	He is a hero today.
	He lies in honor in the Rotunda as we recognize his bravery and offer our gratitude.
	My heart goes out to his family and loved ones.
	That tweet...
	Is not only still up, it has not yet been community noted.
	How many community notes is working?
	A load of shiatt.
	The man is running for Congress, and people shouldn't forget that.
	I don't think people care.
	We're living in a world where people don't care about the lie.
	But that's the link, and why it has not been community noted?
	Because they're too busy community noting Elon Musk's tweet where he says, You know, the people beat up the officer in New York Police Department and he puts in the meme of the guy flipping the bird and Biden giving him the Medal of Honor.
	And they have to specify that's not a real photograph.
	Thanks, dipshits.
	How about you fact check and community note the stuff that's actually disinformation, misinformation, and malicious at that.
	His tweet is still up, Colin Allred, promoting that lie three and a half years later and it hasn't been community noted.
	I don't have community notes powers on Twitter.
	But I do have a bullhorn that I'll use right now.
	So that was the other part of today's news.
	Okay, well, that's not really today's news.
	I called it tonight.
	Oh, yeah, I called this the other night also.
	Who else thinks Kamala Harris?
	Who else thinks VP Harris is awesome?
	Who's Sam Jones?
	23,000 following, 23,000 followers, Dem campaign.
	And actually, at least it counts.
	It's just like, once you appreciate your...
	More often than not, on Twitter, probably engaging with a robot account unless you know that they are a real human.
	All that I said is I called it.
	They're going to try to pass the narrative that Kamala Harris will make an awesome president because Joe Biden will not be the one who's on that ballot.
	I called it before, and that is my prediction.
	Okay, now I think we've gotten through all of the good stuff.
	Except...
	Now we're going to get to Leticia James.
	You cannot mock your overlords, people.
	The news of the day, I put out a tweet yesterday, not a tweet, a vlog yesterday, is that Leticia James, not her directly, what's the woman's name who has never been a fire person, fire woman?
	Oh, jeez, what's her name?
	They're going to go after the firefighters who booed.
	Who booed their Lord and Savior, Leticia James.
	Let me go get it here.
	Play a little bit.
	It was a short vlog.
	YouTube does not seem to be promoting anything that's not Fanny Willis these days.
	Anything that highlights other issues.
	Here, let's do this here.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Ooh, we got a stream yard ad.
	Okay, here we go.
	Hunting on.
	Here we go.
	This one right here.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Leticia James is not hunting down the people who heckled her the other day.
	Don't be silly.
	Now just turn yourselves in and don't make them hunt you down.
	I need to play the first few minutes so you can...
	I laughed so out loud.
	Viva Frye, former Montreal litigator, turns current Florida rumbler.
	I've stepped out of my office to do this video to listen to the chirping birds bask in the sunlight and get out of my office.
	Holy crabapples, people.
	If you haven't heard of the news, last week, as Leticia James, New York's Attorney General, the one who is prosecuting Trump in front of New York nipple Judge Engeron, was giving a speech in front of some firefighters where she was heckled, to say the least.
	Now, most people would just brush it off and move along with their day, but not petty tyrants.
	If there is one thing petty tyrants cannot stand, that is being publicly mocked.
	Leticia James was publicly mocked.
	And my goodness, an article came out the other day with the headline, nobody is hunting down the people who heckled Leticia James.
	But when you read the article, it's quite clear they are being hunted down one by one, politically speaking, of course.
	What a beautiful bird.
	From an article in Fox News, FDNY, that's the fire department of New York, quote, looking into, end quote, staff who booed New York Attorney General Leticia.
	Now, for those of you who don't know who Leticia James is, I'm not even going to make the living in a cave joke.
	Everybody knows who Leticia James is, but if you had any doubts about it, she's among the most disgusting people on earth.
	Someone once told me, if you want something done, give it to a woman.
	Every time, people!
	Apparently, Leticia James was giving a speech at some promotion ceremony at the fire department when she was...
	I won't even call it heckled.
	It wasn't heckled.
	It was...
	She might have been booed.
	She might have been booed a little bit.
	People started cheering Trump, Trump, Trump.
	And she told the crowd to, quote, simmer down.
	If you haven't seen the video, I'll play you the best video I can pull off the internet.
	Simmer down.
	Oh, come on.
	We're in a house of God.
	Maybe you shouldn't do this in a house of God.
	First, simmer down.
	I want to thank Commissioner Kavanaugh.
	Look at her face.
	She's angry.
	First, simmer down.
	There you go.
	The face changes.
	Down.
	Simmer down.
	I want to thank Commissioner Kavanaugh and Chief Hodgins for that recognition.
	And today we are making history, swearing in our first African-American woman.
	Hey, by the way, yeah, simmer down.
	It's a house of God.
	Maybe don't bring politics into a house of God then.
	Maybe.
	You know, because they were celebrating the appointment of the first African-American woman to a certain position.
	Everything is identity politics with people who only view the world through identity politics.
	If you don't want...
	Oh, we're back on.
	We're back on.
	Don't bring it into a house of God.
	Long story short.
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	Here we go.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Herr.
	I appreciate you coming in today.
	I did want to deal with the preliminary matter, which is the issue of the release of the transcript.
	I've heard complaints from my Republican colleagues about the White House only releasing the transcript from the Biden interview this morning.
	But I have to note that there are, I think, over 90 transcripts that are being held by the majority here at the Judiciary Committee.
	Oversight Committee for interviews that we all care about.
	They all go directly to issues with respect to the alleged impeachment inquiry.
	Okay, we're seeing that.
	Good.
	You know, it's kind of the pot calling the kettle black, it seems to me, as an understatement.
	And I noted, too, that when the ranking member requested the majority release the transcripts, the chairman objected.
	So I hope that we can...
	Move forward in the mode of cooperation and sharing information.
	I think it's just reasonable to do.
	Mr. Herr, I wanted to thank you again for the work you did.
	I don't agree with everything you wrote in the report, but that's the nature of the business, I think.
	But I did want to ask you about this.
	I know you started off with, in the first-line executive summary, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.
	And I take it that's still your position today.
	Yes, it is.
	All right.
	You also noted a little bit below that, for the reasons summarized 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...
	From your perspective, he's been cleared of all criminal charges.
	Has not been cleared.
	I determined that based on the evidence, criminal charges are not warranted.
	He has not been cleared.
	What do you not understand about that?
	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 answered some questions about this already.
	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.
	Let's remind him.
	Classified documents to the National Archives and to 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?
	Soundbite.
	Consented to the search of multiple locations, including his house?
	Soundbite.
	Sat for a voluntary interview?
	Soundbite.
	And that was five hours over two days?
	A little over five hours over two days.
	Soundbite.
	Turned over and allowed investigators to review handwritten notebooks he believed to be his 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.
	So, I think that's a good question.
	And I'll just read part of this to you.
	Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump had 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 the 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?
	Who drafted that language?
	And this is your report.
	You take full...
	No, it's Susie's from down the street.
	I forgot to mention it.
	I do.
	I stand by every word in it.
	All right.
	All right.
	Don't yell at me.
	I'm going to ask you a couple of questions.
	One is with respect to...
	That's what you're there for, sir.
	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?
	Why would he have?
	Nothing related to guardianship appeared in my report.
	Okay.
	And so I guess you made the one point about him being an elderly man with poor memory.
	But are you saying, 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 office?
	My report did not include any opinions on those issues.
	Okay, I see my time is exhausted.
	Yeah, well, you wasted it.
	Thanks.
	I appreciate your efforts.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
	Yield to the chairman briefly.
	I think the gentleman for yielding.
	I'm just trying to raise the issue of transcripts.
	He has complete access to every transcript that we have done in the congressional investigation.
	He can 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.
	Will the gentleman yield?
	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.
	Oh, shut up.
	Get on with the day.
	I thank the gentleman.
	Special Counsel Hur, thank you for being here.
	Your story is an impressive one.
	Your achievements are impressive as well.
	You've been a prosecutor for many years.
	The room is much more empty than it was before.
	I was not a prosecutor for...
	More than a couple of years, but I still remember my record in jury trials.
	Do you remember your record?
	50-50.
	Anybody who says it's more than 50?
	Oh, he's a prosecutor?
	No, it'll be 95. Is it above 500?
	It is above 500, yes, sir.
	90%.
	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, 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 retained 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?
	Profit for his book.
	What is the motive for keeping the Thanksgiving?
	Legacy and profit for his book.
	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 and debated issue within the Obama administration back in 2009, and one in which then-Vice President Biden had a significant role and he felt very strongly about.
	I'm going to quote from your report.
	President Biden believed President Obama's 2009 troop surge was a mistake on par with Vietnam and wanted the record to show that he was right about Afghanistan, that his critics were wrong, and that he had opposed President Obama's mistaken decision forcefully when it was made, that his judgment was sound when it mattered most.
	Does 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...
	I don't know why her played judge and jury.
	I also know that President Biden was working with a ghostwriter on a book, Mark Zwaneker, correct?
	Zwaneker.
	We've talked about this already.
	Your investigation concluded when...
	President Biden began work on his memoir, correct?
	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. Zwanitzer in 2016 before the end of Mr. Biden's vice presidency.
	And it's your understanding that while Mr. Zwanitzer interviewed 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. Zwanter authorized to receive this classified information?
	No.
	He was not.
	And in fact, in their- Why was he not charged?
	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 U.S. military leaders and 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. Zwanter became aware of your special- Your appointment is special counsel, correct?
	At some point, Mr. Zwanter did become aware of my appointment, yes.
	And then what do you do?
	Upon learning of the investigation, Mr. Zwanter deleted digital audio recordings of his conversations with Mr. Biden during the writing of the book, Promise Me Dad.
	Correct.
	We covered this.
	Why wasn't he charged?
	And investigators with your office interviewed Mr. Zwanter about the deleted recordings, and he admitted that part of his motivation for deleting this recording was because he was aware there was an investigation, correct?
	Correct.
	And did this conduct raise concerns with your office?
	It did.
	We consider it to be significant evidence that we needed to follow up on.
	Significant evidence.
	And I would argue that you also had significant evidence surrounding...
	This is good questioning.
	...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, the motive was there for the book, for exoneration, and I would argue that you had enough to move forward.
	My time has expired.
	I yield back.
	All right, well, let's lay out some relevant facts.
	Why did they not charge the ghostwriter with anything?
	Mr. Chair, and thank you, Special Counsel Herb, for being here today.
	I know it's been hours and hours.
	It has, for everybody.
	I really appreciate you staying to the better 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 an immigrant sit here as a member of Congress.
	There is a lot that's been said today and 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 were 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...
	She's a Vermont Democrat.
	Where is she going?
	...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 your words?
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Great question.
	Mr. Herr, at any time did 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 opinion?
	Geez, I swear I heard these questions before.
	Do you believe, do you think it's true that you received no pressure from Attorney General Garland in this matter?
	Not only did they ask these questions already, I just read a tweet from someone who summarized this before.
	Yes, yes, yes, we got there.
	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 my 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?
	Is it true that President Biden cooperated with your investigation?
	Is it true that President Biden sat for an interview with you the day after the October 7th attacks in Israel in the midst of an international crisis?
	He sat for interviews over two days, October 8th and October 9th.
	Thank you.
	Is it true 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.
	I see that language, yes.
	Thank you.
	Your report reads, with one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice 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 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 needed 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.
	I yield back.
	Well, what did we learn?
	Nothing.
	The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield to you such time as you may consume, sir.
	I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
	Mr. Hur, why did the White House go, why did the White House lawyers go look in the first place?
	My understanding is they went to the Penn-Biden Center.
	Why'd they go look in the first place?
	I mean, look for classified, you know, mishandling, look for classified documents.
	Why'd they do 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 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 257 of my report about a visit in March 2021 to the Penn Biden Center.
	Okay.
	In March?
	In March of 2021.
	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.
	Sound like he doesn't remember.
	He's an old man.
	It was after.
	So I was just curious to that.
	Now, one other thing I think is important for folks to understand is President Biden had this information everywhere.
	You said they initially went to the Penn Biden Center.
	Which location was it at?
	Do you remember when they initially did their look?
	Was it at the transition office?
	Was it at the temporary Penn Biden Center in Chinatown?
	Or was that at its current location?
	The Penn Biden Center currently sits here in our final location, I guess, in D.C. Do you remember?
	I believe the visit that I referenced in March 2021 that's described on page 257 was to the Penn Biden Center's 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 the vice presidency, the Penn-Biden Center's temporary office, and then the Penn-Biden Center's 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, and the office downstairs.
	Correct.
	So what is that?
	That's like nine different places.
	I've lost count, sir.
	It's everywhere.
	And it was documents over a 50-year time frame.
	And then by comparison, because the Democrats want to keep comparing to President Trump's classified documents right at his home.
	In a ballroom.
	With Secret Service protection.
	I don't know that they're anywhere else, were they?
	I'm not aware of other locations, President.
	I think that's an important distinction.
	I would yield back to the gentleman from South Carolina.
	I appreciate him yielding.
	Thank you, Chairman.
	Briefly, I know we've got two minutes left, but...
	Mr. Herr, how would you define willful?
	In full awareness of fact and law.
	Of willfulness, what a jury has to conclude is that someone knew that their conduct was illegal when they engaged in that conduct.
	It's intentional, right?
	It's not by accident.
	It's not accidental or involuntary.
	This is actually the wrong definition.
	Here's where I disagree with your portion of the report on willful, is that you have a gentleman who served 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 books had not been returned.
	Even if 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 were missing.
	In August of that year, then-Vice President Biden failed to return top-secret, sensitive compartmented information contents 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 in his diminished mental capacity or is it then when they have a 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.
	There you go.
	Not as of today.
	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 it in his opening comments, he had 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.
	And I think, you know, I've got 10 seconds left.
	But look, 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. Herr, only one of them has been charged, and that's President Trump.
	All right, we got that point.
	Is it over?
	How long can this go on for?
	I'll wait.
	Let him go ahead.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Heard, I say they saved the best for last.
	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.
	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.
	No, they convinced both sides that you're against the other side.
	That's not the right way of phrasing it.
	Your background.
	I would have loved 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.
	I do have a question that goes along the lines of what Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Fry were asking you earlier.
	I'm really confused about willfulness and your view of willfulness.
	It's clear to me that...
	It's not about knowing it was illegal.
	It's about doing the actions on purpose.
	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 skiff.
	It is not a secure area.
	And so...
	If at that point in time he said, oh my gosh, I've got to call the archivist, I've got to 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 two.
	The element's 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.
	Where is the willfulness missing?
	Well, sir, prosecutor to 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 any prosecutor...
	Would present as significant evidence in a case if this went to trial.
	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 through 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 at trial.
	And what we tried to do in our report was to walk through potential arguments that would 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 but not limited to evidence relating to the president's memory gaps.
	That we're in various pieces of evidence that we assess.
	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.
	He obviously knows how he has to treat classified documents.
	How do you write that off?
	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?
	Good question.
	Everyone was wrong?
	No, that he collaborated.
	That particular fact.
	That he cooperated after.
	I did a lot of tax cases.
	You had to prove a pattern of conduct.
	And in this case...
	We had a lot of documents in a lot of places.
	How do you overcome those things?
	Yes, Congressman.
	So we walked through a number of different evidentiary gaps that reasonable jurors might focus on, as well as a number of different defense arguments that the president's defense lawyers could present at trial.
	The first is a theory or an argument to the jury.
	That's a Freudian slip.
	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 He didn't have to know that it was illegal.
	A second is that perhaps 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 of marked classified documents relating to Afghanistan found in the box in the president's Delaware garage.
	One of them contained 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 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 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 our best to explain that at some length in the report.
	Thank you.
	I yield back.
	Gentleman yields.
	Yeah, that was a bad answer.
	Back.
	Mr. Chairman.
	Gentleman from Texas, recognized.
	I thank you.
	There's been a lot of time being shared, Mr. Chairman.
	I ask your very brief indulgence.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait.
	You got a unanimous consent or you're asking a question?
	Your brief indulgence and unanimous consent dash question.
	No, no, no, no.
	You can do a unanimous consent request, but you don't get to get another round.
	Someone comes to yield you time, but I don't think they can do that because everyone on the Democrat side has taken their time.
	You know that I appreciate the general lady from Texas, but you don't get to go too round.
	I'm not trying to go two rounds.
	Yes, you are.
	I'm getting ready to do the unanimous consent request.
	Do the unanimous request.
	We can only be a Republican because all the Democrats have spoken.
	I ask 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 criminal charges against the Senate President.
	I ask unanimous consent that that sentence be put in.
	Secondarily, I ask unanimous consent.
	It's in the report already!
	An unanimous consent to add something to the record that's already in the record.
	God bless you.
	We'll do it.
	Thank you.
	God bless you.
	It does not mean God bless you.
	And I particularly ask that this be added to the record that Mr. Herr stated that Biden couldn't recall when his son Bo died.
	I add unanimous consent out of an article in Politico and indicate that there was no mercy given to Mr. Biden and no mercy given to him.
	What the hell are you talking about?
	Mr. Hurt, even though there wasn't a question there, do you want to respond to any of that?
	No.
	All right.
	Mr. Hurt, thank you for being here today.
	Gotta get the last word, Jackson.
	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 will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness, for additional materials for the record.
	Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
	Now, I'm not a religious man, but hallelujah and testify.
	Okay, that was an unexpected four hours of our respective lives.
	Are we any better for it?
	I don't know.
	Are we going to catch a hot mic?
	No, we're done.
	Okay, so let's get this out of here.
	You know what?
	I'm not going to shut it down.
	I'm just going to take it out.
	I would have taken issue.
	When Herr says...
	Pass due notice for some electricity.
	When Herr said...
	They asked him.
	He had to know it was illegal.
	When he was doing it.
	That is, look, I'm a Canadian, former Canadian lawyer, never practiced criminal law.
	It was among my worst grades, but I did study it.
	But when they talk about the actus reus and the mens rea of criminal law, the actus reus being the act and the mens rea of having had the intention to commit the act, it's the intention to commit the act, not the intention to break the law.
	And it's a very subtle distinction, I remember.
	You don't have to have known that it was illegal if you had the intention, the mens rea, to commit the act that was illegal.
	The whole issue is not knowing that something's illegal is not always a defense.
	In fact, it's very rarely a defense.
	I didn't know it was illegal to kill, I don't want to take something that's absolute responsibility, you know, like kill a deer out of season.
	Did you kill the deer on purpose?
	Yes.
	Then you have the mens rea, not you killed the deer knowing it was illegal.
	And so did Joe Biden have the mens rea to knowingly take the classified documents out of his office, whether or not he knew it was illegal?
	That's the relevant part.
	It's an interesting distinction because if you did not have the intention to commit the act, the mens rea, like you're driving your car and you hit the deer.
	You didn't mean to kill the deer, so you don't even have the mens rea to commit the act, which is illegal.
	I didn't mean to kill the deer.
	And that's where you get off, where you have the actus reas, which is having killed the deer, but not the mens rea, the intent to have committed the act of killing the deer.
	I hope that makes sense.
	So hold on, did Joe intend to do something illegal?
	Did he intend to do the act, which was illegal?
	And the answer is yes.
	Mwah!
	Shea, boss!
	Mwah!
	Anyhow, so that was useless.
	We all got our soundbites.
	I had one time at three hours and 49 minutes.
	I'm going to go back and see why I took that time as a note.
	As a note, eh?
	All right, we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com because despite the length of this, we shall have our exclusive Locals afterparty.
	Locals!
	Yeah, I stole the car but didn't realize it was illegal.
	Then the question is, I didn't even mean to steal the car.
	I thought it was my car.
	Oh yeah, apparently Ken Buck is leaving Congress today, so I just got that.
	Come on over to Locals.
	I'll share the link one more time.
	We'll have a little party there.
	Locals after party.
	And I'm going to get to the rumble rants that I see in the backdrop.
	And then I'm going to go pay attention to some kids because I hear them out there coming back from school.
	They'll want to not go fishing with me, people.
	I think I've overfished my kids.
	Nobody wants to go fishing with me anymore.
	SplatterRGB.
	All this bullshit, BS, sorry.
	He was not the president.
	He has no authority to possess these documents.
	Public Records Act does not apply to him, as he was a senator or VP when he took them.
	Testify.
	Outdoor Nobles says, Viva, check out my Etsy store, my Etsy, at Outdoor Nobles Designs, and pick out a t-shirt and find me on Instagram.
	This is a lot of work, Outdoor.
	I know you're offering me something.
	I need one step.
	I also get a little anxious when I have too many.
	I'm going to look.
	Thank you very much.
	Find me on Instagram at Outdoor Nobles or message in the shop address and I'll send it to you.
	I'm a former CPS.
	That'd be Child Protective Services and Appreciate You.
	Thank you very much, Outdoor Nobles.
	I was being tongue-in-cheek about the more links, the more I'm likely to get distracted in between links.
	Some people call that ADHD.
	Whatever.
	Crash Bandit says, Viva, didn't Joe have to take classified documents out of the SCIF first?
	That would be the secured location.
	That's what I understand, Crash Bandit.
	Verax One says, Viva, I just found the absolute worst anti-Trump YouTube propaganda.
	Dude, you just found Midas Touch?
	I've been picking fun at them on Twitter for a long time.
	There's some shady shit going out with Midas Touch as well.
	Sometimes you have to see the bullshit to appreciate reality.
	Thanks for the good work.
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah, Midas Touch is tied for the worst.
	Viva, there never anything to be learned from a congressional here.
	Okay, we got that.
	And that's it.
	Locals, Rumble, thank you all for being here.
	This was fantastic.
	Did I have anything on the backdrop?
	Oh yeah, we got to finish with Letizia James.
	So the First Amendment argument, people.
	We're going to go back to Leticia James hunting down the firefighters who dared mock her in the house of God.
	Don't bring politics into a house of God, Leticia, Fannie.
	It's amazing how they do it.
	They bring politics in and then say, don't criticize me for my politics because we're in a house of God.
	Keep politics out of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship.
	A, for those who are saying First Amendment rights.
	And then those who are saying they're at work and they lose some First Amendment rights when they're at work.
	I appreciate that.
	I'm sure that there might be some policy somewhere that they signed onto that says you'll represent, you know, you'll show respect to your superiors.
	Imagine if this was the military and you had a bunch of soldiers roasting their sergeant at a time when they're not supposed to and they're supposed to be respecting the sergeant.
	I can understand the argument.
	I understand that there might be something in the regulation that might say, don't heckle Leticia James, your lord and savior.
	You cannot do that.
	You lose certain First Amendment rights when you're at work.
	I understand that too.
	Here's the bottom line.
	They've made it so much more humiliating for Leticia James based on their announcement to hunt the people down, even though they're not going to hunt them down.
	They literally said in an email, turn yourselves in, don't make us hunt you down.
	You make it worse.
	You make it more political.
	You make it more divided.
	And you show to the world why you are a petty tyrant who cannot stand the slightest bit of criticism.
	That's what Leticia James is.
	That's what Fanny Willis is.
	We haven't yet seen Alvin Bragg.
	I got a fingernail that I got to not pull the wrong way.
	Hold on.
	We're going to see if Alvin Bragg is the same way if they go to trial next week.
	But yeah, look, I could steal, man.
	They're at work and they're in a work environment and they shouldn't...
	They shouldn't...
	They shouldn't...
	Behave like that.
	And they signed a code of conduct that says they won.
	All right.
	You know what?
	It's possible to be right and wrong at the same time.
	And Leticia James wants to say, well, you signed in your code of conduct that you...
	Hey, good.
	Walk out of work.
	These are firefighters.
	These are men and women who risk their lives every day of the week.
	And you're going to shit on them because they decided to heckle an itch bay who's destroying their state?
	GTFO, as the kids would say these days.
	And one last thing.
	Because I asked our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	I'm going to get this thing out.
	I got bitten by something.
	Here, you see that?
	Focus on this.
	I'm picking the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs.
	Let me get in focus here.
	I got bitten by something when I was out playing in the, not the swampish water, but the Everglades water.
	And it looked like a mosquito at first.
	A mosquito bite.
	It swelled up like a mosquito bite swelled up.
	This was Sunday.
	And then it turned into like that sort of blistery poison ivy-ish type thing.
	I'm thinking it was just a fire ant, the lone fire ant that made its way up my arm and bit me.
	The only thing I'm worried about is the brown recluse spider.
	And Bill, I know you're watching.
	You haven't planted that seed.
	I had that seed in my brain beforehand.
	So I'm going to keep an eye on it.
	But if anybody knows what it is, tell me.
	It started off, it was itchy like a mosquito bite, it swelled up white blanched like a mosquito bite, and then it turned into that sort of pustule that looked like an ant, a red ant bite.
	Polysporin, yep.
	Put some yin care on it.
	I'm going to put some polysporin on it.
	It's not infected, that's the other thing.
	Recluses cause rot, yes.
	And I was certainly, this was from Blue13RYU, and I was not in an area.
	Where there were recluses, because I was in an open area.
	And everybody says colloidal silver in our VivaBarneslaw.locals.com community.
	LucyCat10.
	Fire ant, I think so.
	Not monkeypox, big white dog.
	Quarantine.
	All right, so that's it.
	Spiderbite says, Chad, first, I think it's an ant.
	And I've been bitten by the ants before.
	I was fishing, standing in an ant, didn't notice it.
	This was like...
	Three months ago.
	It was actually like right after Rogan got his ankles bitten up.
	And I'm sitting there fishing, and I feel like little stings on my feet.
	And I was like, oh, look at that.
	I'm sweating.
	My socks are itchy.
	Well, I was not wearing socks.
	That might have been the other problem.
	Sorry, no.
	My flip-flops.
	Then I looked down.
	I'm being bitten by freaking...
	It's not a tick, Varax.
	It definitely was not a tick.
	It didn't have enough time to get in.
	I got bitten by ants all over my ankles.
	And then they turned into little pustules.
	And I was squeezing them.
	And every one that I squeezed took...
	Much longer to heal than the ones that I didn't squeeze.
	So I haven't even touched this.
	The brown recluses don't live in South Florida.
	The brown recluse doesn't live in South Florida, according to Florida Department of Wildlife.
	I'd know if it was a fire ant.
	Anyhow, all right, so that's it.
	We're going to go over to our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Tomorrow, I've got a good guest tomorrow.
	Hold on, who is it?
	Hold on.
	Yeah, tomorrow, I'm such an idiot.
	I'm going to have 30 minutes with Jeff Clark's attorney.
	Jeff Clark, one of the co-defendants in Fannie Willis' trial, the Fannie Willis-Rico case.
	Jeff Clark, who submitted the most blistering rebuttal to Fannie Willis' rebuttal.
	Not Fannie Willis', Adam Abate's closing argument.
	Supplemental argument brief.
	Yeah, don't squeeze it just.
	I'm not, I'm not, I'm not.
	So I got Jeff Clark's lawyer coming on tomorrow at lunch.
	No, not in the lunch, in the afternoon.
	Harry McDougald.
	Hold on.
	Let me just make sure what time it's at because I don't want to screw up.
	Three o 'clock Eastern tomorrow.
	Tomorrow I will be on The Unusual Suspects.
	Again, Patrick Bet-David's program with Vinny Oceana and whoever else they have on the roster that week.
	So that'll be tomorrow night.
	I got that in the morning.
	Get back in time.
	And...
	What else?
	So that's it.
	So stay tuned for tomorrow.
	It's going to be an amazing stream tomorrow.
	Thank you all for being here.
	I genuinely love that so many people decide to come and suffer with me.
	So thank you.
	And now on over to Locals.
	And then I'm going to...
	One of those kids is going fishing with me, whether they want to or not.
	I'm freaking fishing tonight.
	Go!
	I'll see you all tomorrow.
	Peace out, Rumble.
	If you're not coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Booyah!

▲