Robert Hur Snooped Through Joe Biden’s Diaries after White House Warned It Would Be Unprecedented

Much of the press focus (Politico, NYT, WaPo) on the correspondence between Joe Biden’s lawyers and DOJ has focused on Biden’s complaints about Robert Hur’s old geezer comments.

But a September 2023 letter (published by WaPo) regarding the way Robert Hur snooped through Biden’s diaries, which Hur called notebooks to excuse his own prurience, is actually far more troubling.

The letter asserts, then substantiates, a claim that, “at no time in the last thirty years has the Government, including the Department, viewed as actionable the possibility of classified information in the individual writings of a former President or Vice President.”

It describes what happened with Biden’s diaries:

  • January 20, 2023: Hur seizes Biden’s personal diaries and notebooks
  • February 27, 2023: Stuart Delery writes letter noting that DOJ, courts, and Congress have recognized the unique status of presidential and vice-presidential writings
  • Hur reviews diaries in their entirety without prior review by the White House Counsel’s Office
  • Hur sends selections for “classification review” by the Intelligence Community
  • October 8-9, 2023: Hur questions President Biden in the context of a criminal investigation about these materials

It then goes through the record, showing how the government found classified information in not just Reagan’s, but also Poppy Bush’s diaries, as part of Iran-Contra, but didn’t do anything about the diaries themselves outside the context of the focus on Iran-Contra.

It then goes through the publication history of Jimmy Carter’s diaries and memoirs from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and Mike Pence to suggest they had used memorializations to write books that had classified information in them when first submitted to National Security Council for discretionary review.

The description of what happened with Pence’s memoir is most telling. In the very same weeks when Hur was blowing off a letter from Stuart Delery telling him no one had done this before, DOJ’s investigation of Mike Pence made no apparent move to do the same with any notes he used to write his memoir.

Former Vice President Mike Pence published his own memoir on November 15, 2022. Mike Pence, SO HELP ME GOD (2022). Even though Mr. Pence, as a Vice President, had not signed any agreement requiring pre-clearance review, he voluntarily submitted his manuscript to the NSC prior to publication for review for classified information.

Emmet Flood of Williams & Connolly submitted the manuscript to the NSC in June 2022. Ryan Cole, an Indiana writer, was copied on correspondence. We are unaware of whether these two individuals possessed security clearances at the time, or whether draft manuscripts were handled in accordance with security protocols for classified information, but the manuscript was not sent to the NSC under the requirements for transmitting classified materials.

The NSC review resulted in a number of proposed redactions of presumably classified information, which Vice President Pence and his team accepted to the manuscript before it was published.

Two months after the publication date, Vice President Pence’s attorneys discovered classified government documents in his home in Indiana, and the National Archives was notified two days later. Katherine Faulders et al., FBI finds Another Classified Document in Search of Former Vice President Mike Pence’s Indiana home, ABC NEWS (Feb. 10, 2023). A consent search of the home was conducted by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on February 10, 2023, during which an additional classified document was found and “six additional pages” were also seized. Id. It is unclear the nature of the additional pages. We do not know whether the agents searched for drafts of the manuscript that the NSC had determined contained material that needed to be redacted.

But one thing is clear: the manuscript prepared by Mr. Pence with the help of Mr. Cole and Mr. Flood, which presumably also was reviewed by the publishers at Simon & Schuster, contained material that the NSC required to be redacted. Yet, even including the later search for classified documents, we know of no law enforcement inquiry into this writing.

Hur might retort that Trump’s notes got seized in 2022, along with marked classified documents and a whole shit-ton of other documents that belong to the archives under the Presidential Records Act.

But there’s no public hint that Jack Smith assessed those for criminal exposure. There’s just one document charged against Trump, in any case, that has neither date nor classified markings, such that it might be a note.

There’s an unstated reason why Hur’s obstinance about treating Biden’s diaries differently than other prosecutors before him: because when he was making the decision to snoop through all of Biden’s diaries, Biden was under investigation for a crime that was never going to get charged, but his son was under investigation for crimes that — under Hur’s former colleagues and subordinates in the Maryland US Attorney’s Office — did end up getting charged, probably only because one of them reneged on a diversion and plea deal because an FBI informant empowered by Bill Barr attempted to frame Biden and his son. Hur’s descriptions of Biden’s diaries, which he describes to “include[] gut-wrenching passages about his son’s death and other highly personal material,” make it pretty clear they include information that could be detrimental to Hunter. In fact, it’s not yet clear whether DOJ has returned Biden’s diaries, or whether they’re still treating him differently, even as Hur’s former subordinates use pictures of sawdust to try to convict Hunter Biden.

It’s really hard to treat Hur’s decision to treat Biden differently as anything else but an attempt to snoop through Biden’s diaries in search of other dirt.

And he did that in spite of fairly compelling arguments that he was doing something unprecedented.

Update: Bob Bauer wrote a Lawfare piece debunking some claims made by Ben Wittes that gets at the diaries distinction.

image_print
48 replies
  1. EW Moderation Team says:

    A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:

    — We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of 8 letters.

    — We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**

    — If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.

    Thank you.

    • Discontinued Barbie says:

      For the lawyers, and experts on this blog, is Merrick Garland good at his job, or really bad at it? I really haven’t gotten a feel, if he is just bumbling everything or if he’s actually doing his job. These huge swings on how people are being charged seems so out of hand. Like the ship has no captain and the masts are torn and everyone is shouting different directions.
      Does the department have direction and good leadership, or is this guy just mucking it up tremendously?

      • PieIsDamnGood says:

        Marcy talks about this in a recent post https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/02/19/how-merrick-garland-mistook-a-trump-hitman-for-a-career-prosecutor/

        My impression is that Garland is a good lawyer and would have been a good judge. I think he genuinely believes in DOJ as an institution and assumes that his coworkers share those same values. This shows up as bureaucratic naivety and something like the paradox of tolerance – his DOJ cares deeply about defending the rights of those working to destroy it.

      • David F. Snyder says:

        Sign up for the DOJ digital subscriptions. He’s going a great job. This investigation is just one item under his purview.

        End-gaining behavior typically can’t achieve the desired result and usually has unintended repercussions that make the situation worse. As painful as this is, Hur was a good choice, if you want to root out the rot. Let’s be thankful Garland exposed Wernsheimer and allowed Hur to damage Hur’s integrity. There will be no AG Hur (a far scarier proposition) in the future. Sure Hur got a punch in, but it is in no way a knockout blow. The Houston Chronicle came out strong for Biden in response (yes, Texas). Lawrence O’Donnell reports here: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-houston-chronicle-endorses-accomplished-biden-over-trump-because-experience-matters-204520517985

        So we can still say, only the GOPeons have been weaponizing the DOJ in fact. Garland should not be Barr-lite. It would hurt those of us out here knocking on doors in the grassroots.

        • PieIsDamnGood says:

          Why do you think there will be no AG Hur? His reputation has only been damaged in circles that wouldn’t have ever appointed him.

          • c-i-v-i-l says:

            Hur’s reputation is also damaged among Trumpists, who are upset with him for concluding that Biden shouldn’t be indicted.

        • wa_rickf says:

          To be fair, Houston is not a bastion of conservatism. Houston has LGBTQ+ businesses that even San Francisco doesn’t have.

        • Marinela says:

          Just want for once have an investigation at DOJ that is not a shit show like Hur, Durham, Ken Star, Weiss, etc…
          Nothing wrong to appoint a special counsel based strictly on qualifications not based on being a partisan hack, with the rational that being partisans and they don’t indict it will be believed by magats.
          Magats don’t believe anything grounded in reality, give up on those, just get a SC that is qualified. That’s it.
          Basically, DOJ by appointing Hur, is rewarding partisanship, while qualified people are sidelined.
          Appointing Hur is not raising the confidence in DOJ, just makes the majority of us thinking the rot is not going away, is in fact rewarded.

  2. Error Prone says:

    Quick note – The letter link is to a chain of correspondence. The implication a Sept. 2023 letter described: “October 8-9, 2023: Hur questions President Biden in the context of a criminal investigation about these materials,” confuses, where the chain of letters covers October. Obviously.

  3. JJ Hayden says:

    AG Garland, as is the case in almost all the instances of judicial or prosecutorial activities where D.Trump is involved have bent regular practice almost to the breaking point to avoid any grounds for judicial reversal when cases move up the judicial ladder. The tactic of clogging the judicial drains with spurious filings should have consequences when they are denied. Imagine the state the judicial system would be in if EVERY indictment – from low amount drug possession to murder were dealt with by a battalion of lawyers as is the case when the cases the MAGAits are involved.

  4. vigetnovus says:

    Party over department, over country, over Constitution. That’s the new republican motto. O’Brien said it himself in 1984.

  5. Chetnolian says:

    This is starting to look comprehensible to me. It is; be careful what you wish for.

    The Biden White House will have wanted to look really squeaky clean, compared with Trump. So they were not unhappy that someone who was no friend to Trump was chosen. They trusted his ethics.

    They may also have assumed the parallel example of Mike Pence would play well for them, underestimating the extent to which Pence has become a Trump target.

    Wrong on Pence, wrong on the ethics.

  6. Ginevra diBenci says:

    Take a US president dealing with an immediate and rapidly changing international crisis, as Joe Biden was on October 8-9 2023. Hit this man, whom you know to be acting in good faith under extreme duress, with questions about his sons; the death of one has caused unending grief and the struggles of the other are the source of a contemporaneous political maelstrom cooked up by those acting in the worst possible faith.

    Using entries scraped from years-old diaries, throw this man into emotional turmoil. Then exploit his resultant hesitancy, to score a political hit job–one that leverages his good faith as a cudgel against him *and* potentially the only son who survives.

    EW, I may be reading more into your post than you intended. But it seems as if Hur continues to attempt a kind of blackmail: he knows what Joe wrote about Hunter in those “gut wrenching” diaries. Hur may have used that material to throw Joe off-balance (or even further off-balance) during the days after Hamas attacked Israel.

    But the real problem now is that he retains that material, in some form. As long as the GOP guns for Hunter, the threat remains that it will be even further weaponized.

    • higgs boson says:

      I think you’re absolutely correct re weaponization. I would expect these people to be planning one or more October Surprises using material found in those diaries. Cardinal Richelieu: “Give me six lines composed by the most honest of men…”

    • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

      Hur must have considered that if he found evidence of a crime and the only evidence of the crime was in Biden’s diaries, he could not prosecute if Bob Bauer’s piece is accurate on the law, and Hur’s search through the diaries was unlawful.

      I wouldn’t worry too much, because I’m sure Joe friggin’ Biden looked at his notebooks like we all should be looking at our emails and internet comments, with the assumption they would be public some day. Biden probably felt he was keeping notes for historians. Anyway, I imagine if the diary’s got Biden praying to Cthulhu, I imagine Hur would have found a way to get it into his report already.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Joe Biden probably did think of these diaries as a rough draft of history, but I’m guessing he considered them *his* rough draft, to be perused and harvested from in a process like the one his ghostwriter described. I doubt he ever considered a hostile prosecutor violating his privacy in this way.

        And Hur doesn’t need to prosecute Hunter using whatever he found in Joe’s diaries; he just needs to send the best parts on to folks who know how to turn them into ammunition. It’s not like they have to be particularly subtle: just push Hunter into relapsing, which will emotionally swamp Joe and make him act like the doddering, “well-meaning, elderly” fool who’s also a criminal mastermind with a fixation on his own place in history, so odd in an American president.

        It doesn’t even have to make sense.

  7. salient green says:

    This invasive tecknique mirrors the investigation into the personal, even physical life of Fanni Willis.
    I suppose once your moral compass has been smashed there is nothing left but dehumanization by trivilialzing anything dear to an opponants heart.

    • missinggeorgecarlin says:

      Being completely and utterly shameless is a ‘super-power’ of the DJT and his GOP.
      They can look you dead in the eye and take both sides of the same issue.

      Since the average American now reads at a “6th grade level or less” and many get their “news” from Facebook, etc….they can largely get away with this crap.

      Like Stephen Colbert said in his famous speech at the white house press corps dinner, the legacy media folks are mostly ‘stenographers’….they often refuse to push back on the lies.

    • wa_rickf says:

      Since Trump has partially taken over of the GOP (the take-over will be compelete once his daughter-in-law Laura is installed as co-chair of the RNC and longterm RNC employees are replaced with Trump loyalists), dehumanizing of others has become a GOP speciality.

    • ExRacerX says:

      “Them”? “Us”?

      Legitimate request for clarification—after all, this claim has also come out of Trump’s cakehole.

  8. N.E. Brigand says:

    Will Joe Biden’s diaries be returned to him now that the case is closed? (Or were they already returned to him?)

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        If he has/is, Joe can try for a cease and desist order and demand that Hur disgorge any revenue from violating his privacy and copyright – for personal gain and “personal promotional purposes,” as Ben Wittes might describe it. The DoJ can then decide how to punish him (however unlikely that is).

    • Shadowalker says:

      That is standard DOJ practice. If they are diary’s (or used for the purposes of a diary) they are returned to the owner. If they are deemed to fall under the PRA then the material is sent to the archives for proper storage.

      Here’s how the PRA defines diaries:

      “(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;”

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        How they treat Biden’s writings will say a lot about how the DoJ really regards them. If they treat them like diaries and return (or have returned) them promptly to Joe Biden, that undercuts Bob Hur’s questionable characterization. If they really regard them as presidential records, they should go to the National Archives.

        • Shadowalker says:

          DOJ doesn’t get to decide. The archivist and the office holder decide what falls under the PRA. What is not clear is what happens in cases of a dispute, but I’m thinking they should be returned to the President (former Vice President) only because any action by the Archivist are way past the time required in the PRA.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            The DoJ still has to determine how to treat them and then do it. Has it asked the NA for an opinion, or to confirm its preliminary assessment? Has it just returned the diaries to Biden? Enquiring minds want to know.

            • Shadowalker says:

              I don’t think anybody has even talked to the National Archives. For all we know those diaries could have been deemed personal and not covered under the act when Joe was leaving office.

            • Ginevra diBenci says:

              This mind very much wants to know. As well as the exact provenance at every step, along with whatever definition(s) accompanied it.

  9. Rugger_9 says:

    Once Hur parsed ‘diaries’ into ‘notebooks’ for the purposes of panty-sniffing the rest is a logical progression. However, I have zero doubt that Hur was sent on a mission by Defendant-1 (or his minions, this smells like Stone and/or Boris) on a wink and nod to dig up dirt by any means necessary. Just like John Yoo (still tenured at Boalt Law) manufactured an excuse for torture, Hur manufactured an excuse for violating the law.

    Given that Hur was warned about it, there is no way for him to claim ignorance. I don’t think that the Ds on Comer’s Clown Committee will miss this opportunity to roast Hur, five minutes at a time.

    • Error Prone says:

      If the Biden writings memorialized meetings, including his contemporaneous impressions, notebooks seems correct.

      If they reflect thoughts back to earlier events, what’s important now in retrospect vs. transcribing who said what at a meeting, if they get as appears the case into feelings about his surviving two children to adulthood, then the grief and adaptation after losing the elder, sadness over Hunter’s disjointed times, it’s personal, and diaries.

      In any event putting out a report closed Hur’s mandate, and if the notes are not returned to Biden already, DOJ holds them, not Hur. No more paycheck, no more jurisdiction over Biden’s past. Facing hearings, yes, and has he, Hur, during his investigation kept notebooks or were they diaries? He’d have had to turn notebooks over to DOJ before leaving. Part of the record, or not if diaries?

      • Error Prone says:

        Presumably House Committee Minority members have a right to request to review working papers leading up to Hur’s final report, the record, or is there some privilege the DOJ might want to protect, for the future?

        Phone records, emails, all were input into a process yielding a final report. There might be a FOIA privilege, but what of Congressional need in preparation for a bipartisan hearing?

        Lowell might like to have access, but that’s a separate question – unless Hur and Weiss’s staff coordinated deliberation, then the vindictive prosecution question might reach Hur.

        I am not a lawyer able to judge such questions. Nor am I competent to have an informed opinion of Garland’s job performance.

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I find Ben Wittes to be highly overrated, notwithstanding – or because of – his approval by the establishment, including Brookings and HLS giving him saintly gigs. He’s a journalist, who holds a BA from Oberlin and writes on legal topics.

Comments are closed.