Watch: Rep. Schiff has testy exchange with Robert Hur over Biden classified documents probe

IT’S A SAD DAY FOR AMERICA. THANK YOU, MR. HUR. I YELLED BACK. >> JEN DANIELS BACK IN THE JENNIFER CALIFORNIA HAS RECOGNIZED. >> I WANT ASK YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FACTS INVOLVING RESIDENT BIDEN AND PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOUR OPENING STATEMENT WHERE YOU SAID YOU DID NOT DISPARAGE THE PRESIDENT IN YOUR REPORT, BUT YOU DID DISPARAGE THE PRESIDENT. YOU DISPARAGED HIM IN TERMS YOU HAD TO KNOW WHAT HAVE A MAXIMAL POLITICAL IMPACT IN YOU UNDERSTOOD YOUR REPORT WOULD BE PUBLIC OR?? >> 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 COULD HAVE CHOSEN JUST TO COMMENT ON THE PRESIDENT POTENTIAL RECALL. THESE ARE THE DOCUMENTS OR SET OF DOCUMENTS, BUT YOU DECIDED TO GO FURTHER AND MAKE IT GENERALIZED ABOUT HIS MEMORY. DIDN’T YOU? >> CONGRESSMAN, I COULD HAVE WRITTEN MY REPORT THEORETICALLY IN A WAY THAT OMITTED REFERENCES TO THE PRESIDENTS MEMORY BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN INCOMPLETE AND IMPROPER REPORT. >> THAT WASN’T MY QUESTION. YOU

COULD HAVE WRITTEN YOUR REPORT WITH COMMENTS ABOUT HIS SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION AS TO DOCUMENTS OR SET OF DOCUMENTS, BUT YOU CHOSE A GENERAL REFERENCE TO

THE PRESIDENT. YOU UNDERSTOOD WHEN YOU MADE THAT DECISION. DIDN’T YOU, MR. HUR, THAT YOU WOULD IGNITE A POLITICAL FIRESTORM? >> CONGRESSMAN, POLITICS PLAYED NO PART WHATSOEVER IN MY INVESTIGATIVE STEPS. >> YOU UNDERSTOOD, NEVER THE LESS? MR. HUR, YOU CANNOT TELL ME YOU ARE SO NAOVE TO THINK THAT YOUR WORDS WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED A POLITICAL FIRESTORM. YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT WHEN YOU WROTE THOSE WORDS? WHEN YOU DECIDED TO INCLUDE THOSE WORDS AND

WHEN YOU DECIDED TO GO BEYOND SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO DOCUMENTS. YOU UNDERSTOOD HOW THEY WOULD BE MANIPULATED BY MY COLLEAGUES HERE ARE THE GEO P SIDE AND BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT. >> WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS THE REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN MY CONDUCT A SPECIAL COUNSEL. >> THOSE REGULATIONS. >> A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DAY >> YOU KNEW. MR. HUR, YOU KNEW IT WOULD NOT BE CONFIDENTIAL. YOU KNEW IT WOULD NOT BE CONFIDENTIAL. DIDN’T YOU? >> THE REGULATIONS WERE WIRED ME TO WRITE A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT! TO MY DECISION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> YOU

KNEW IT WOULD BE RELEASED. >> IT WAS UP TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> YOU UNDERSTOOD IT WOULD BE RELEASED, DID YOU NOT? YOU UNDERSTOOD IT WOULD BE RELEASED? >> I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT HE WOULD MAKE AS MUCH IS MY REPORT PUBLIC AS HE COULD CONSISTENT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. >> YOU UNDERSTAND DOJ POLICY THAT YOU ARE TO TAKE CARE NOT TO PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE SUBJECT OF AN INVESTIGATION. RIGHT? >> THAT IS GENERALLY WHEN OF THE INTEREST THAT DOJ REQUIRES THE PROSECUTORS RESPECT. >> 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. >> WHAT YOU DID RIGHT WAS DEEPLY PRESIDENTIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT AND YOU SAY WAS A POLITICAL BUT YOU MUST HAVE UNDERSTOOD. YOU MUST HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE IMPACT OF YOUR WORD. 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 PERSPECTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN YOU KNEW IT WOULD BE AMPLIFIED BY HIS

POLITICAL OPPONENT AND YOU KNEW IT WOULD INFLUENCE A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. YOU HAD TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND YOU DID IT ANYWAY. YOU DID IT ANYWAY AND LET ME JUST GO TO SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES HERE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT AND MR. TRUMP. THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ON PAGE THREE, IT SAYS THAT MR. TRUMP SUGGESTED THAT HIS ATTORNEY FALSELY REPRESENTED TO THE FBI AND GRAND JURY THAT HE DID NOT HAVE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY THE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA. YOU DO NOT 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 YOU SAID IN THE PRIOR QUESTION AND WHAT YOU’RE SUGGESTING IS THAT IT’S 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 AND THOROUGH. >> WHAT IS IN THE RULES IS, YOU DON’T GRATUITOUSLY DO THINGS THE PRESIDENT THE SUBJECT OF AN INVESTIGATION WHEN YOU ARE DECLINING TO PROSECUTE. YOU DON’T GRATUITOUSLY ADD LANGUAGE THAT YOU KNOW WILL BE USEFUL IN THE 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 THESE WILL BE 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’S NOTHING MORE COMMON WITH THE WITNESS OF ANY AGE WHEN ASKED ABOUT EVENTS THAT WERE YEARS OLD TO SAY, I DO NOT RECALL. INDEED, THEY ARE INSTRUCTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY TO DO THAT IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT. YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT. HE

MADE A CHOICE. THAT WAS A POLITICAL CHOICE. IT WAS THE WRONG CHOICE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I YELLED BACK. >> KEN AMARO LEADS BACK. GENTLEMEN FROM ARIZONA, TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT? >> YES, CONGRESS BUT, WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT