Hur and Schiff clash over Biden docs report, accusations fly

Contentious⁤ Exchange Between Robert Hur and ⁤Adam Schiff

During a Capitol Hill hearing on Tuesday, Robert ⁣Hur​ engaged in a heated back-and-forth with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) ⁣over his special ‌counsel report on President Joe Biden’s handling ‍of classified documents while out of office. The discussion centered around the issue of Biden’s foggy memory.

Schiff accused ⁢Hur ​of injecting⁣ his “personal,‍ prejudicial, subjective opinion” into the report,‍ which⁣ described⁢ Biden as an ​elderly man with a poor memory.​ Schiff argued that political rivals could exploit this characterization during an ⁢election season.

Hur, however, redirected the conversation back to⁣ Schiff’s comments about the investigation ​into Biden and leveled his ‌own accusation at the ​congressman.

.@RepAdamSchiff: ⁢”You made a choice. That was a ‌political ‌choice.⁢ It‍ was the wrong choice.”

Former Special Counsel⁢ Hur: “What you are‍ suggesting is that I shape, sanitize, omit ‍portions of my reasoning and explanation to the Attorney ⁣General for political ‌reasons–” pic.twitter.com/yV1h9tdkps

—⁤ CSPAN ‌(@cspan) March 12, 2024

“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 and thorough,” ​Hur firmly stated.

Schiff argued that the rules required‌ Hur not to “gratuitously do things to prejudice‍ the subject of an investigation when you are declining to prosecute.” He claimed that Hur’s language in⁤ the report could be ⁢used for political purposes.

In response, Hur reiterated, “What you are suggesting is that I shape, ​sanitize, omit⁢ portions of ‍my reasoning⁤ and explanation to the attorney general for political reasons — “

Schiff‌ interrupted⁢ and asserted, “No, I suggested that you not shape your⁣ political report for political reasons,‌ which is ⁣what you did.”

With Schiff’s time running out, ⁤Hur ‍had one ⁤final opportunity to​ respond: “That ⁣did not​ happen.”

Earlier in the exchange, Hur clarified⁣ that regulations required him to write a confidential report explaining his decision-making to Attorney General‌ Merrick Garland. However, it was ultimately Garland’s decision on​ how much of the report to release to ‌the public.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

Schiff, who is currently running for Senate, previously served‍ as⁤ the top Democrat on the ⁢House Intelligence Committee. However, he‍ was⁢ removed from the panel by then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) ‍due to accusations of repeated lying, particularly​ in investigations related‌ to ‍Trump.

The GOP-led House later voted to censure Schiff over allegations of abusing his access‍ to sensitive ⁣information and misleading ‌the American people. Schiff dismissed the censure⁢ resolution as a “sham” and proudly embraced it as a “badge of honor.”

Recently, Schiff expressed his⁢ hope ⁣that the U.S. intelligence community​ would “dumb down” ⁢ briefings for Trump if‌ he secures the GOP nomination for a ⁢possible 2020 rematch against ⁤Biden in‍ the upcoming election.

Ing out, ⁣Hur concluded, ​”I respectfully ‍disagree. I did my job, and I did it with the utmost integrity and professionalism.

Can Ing’s claim of having done their job with integrity be objectively ​assessed within the context of the PAA

Assessing Ing’s claim⁤ of having done⁤ their job with integrity within the context of⁢ the PAA (Presidential Accountability Act) would require an examination ⁣of their‌ actions‌ and whether⁤ they align with the ‍principles outlined in ​the PAA.

The PAA sets​ certain standards and expectations for public officials, including honesty, transparency, lack of conflicts of interest, ⁤and adherence to ethical ⁢guidelines. To assess Ing’s claim, one would need to evaluate whether⁢ they have demonstrated these qualities in their job performance.

Objective assessment ‍can involve examining objective facts, such as whether Ing has been involved in any proven cases of corruption or unethical behavior. It would also involve considering any conflicts of interest or ethical violations ⁤that may arise ⁤from ‌their actions in relation to their⁤ job responsibilities.

Additionally, it may be helpful to review Ing’s track record, ⁤such as the consistency of their actions with the values and principles of the PAA. Other factors that could ⁣be considered include Ing’s adherence to ‍legal requirements, accountability,⁢ responsiveness, and commitment to the public’s interest.

Ultimately, the objective assessment of Ing’s claim would depend on the availability of evidence ⁣and an unbiased evaluation‌ of their actions, considering ⁢them in relation to the standards set forth in the PAA.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases