In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, the White House expressed strong objections to the report by special counsel Robert Hur, released the following day. The report, which focused on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents, was criticized for its “multiple denigrating statements” about the president’s memory.
The letter represents the culmination of a months-long effort by Biden’s team to influence the investigation through correspondence with Hur and, eventually, his superior, the attorney general. Despite these efforts, Hur’s report was not the narrow, fact-focused document the president’s lawyers had hoped for.
The 388-page report, which ultimately declined to bring charges against Biden, ignited a political firestorm by repeatedly referencing the president’s difficulties with recalling dates and details. Biden’s personal lawyer, Bob Bauer, and White House counsel, Edward Siskel, expressed their objections in a letter to Garland on February 7.
The lawyers also criticized Hur’s report for its “global and pejorative judgment on the President’s powers of recollection,” which they deemed “uncalled for and unfounded.”
In their letter, Biden’s lawyers drew parallels between Hur’s report and the actions of James Comey, the FBI director in 2016 who criticized then-candidate Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server, despite not bringing charges. They argued that Hur’s report “mirrors one of the most widely-recognized examples in recent history of inappropriate prosecutor criticism of uncharged conduct.”
The letter, published by Politico and The New York Times, highlights the deep anger generated by Hur’s report within the White House and reveals tensions between Biden’s team and Garland. CNN has previously reported on the high levels of frustration within the White House regarding some of Garland’s decisions related to the classified documents matter.
The White House also objected to Hur’s portrayal of Biden’s practice of keeping personal diaries, describing it as “totally irresponsible,” despite the fact that “prior Presidents have done exactly the same thing.”
Since the release of Hur’s report, the White House and the president’s lawyers have strongly objected to the handling of the investigation and, in particular, the references to Biden’s memory issues, which they deem gratuitous and inappropriate.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer defended the report and its inclusion of details about Biden’s memory, arguing that the context made it appropriate under Department policy and Special Counsel regulations. Weinsheimer also rejected the comparison to Comey, stating that Hur’s report was “readily distinguishable from Director Comey’s press conference” about the Clinton email server.
In response to Weinsheimer, Bauer and Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, reiterated their disagreement with the DOJ’s assessment that Hur’s report was consistent with the department’s policy and practice. They cited former Attorney General Eric Holder, who criticized the Hur report for containing “way too many gratuitous remarks” and being “flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions.”
This story will be updated as more information becomes available.