(Washington, DC) – In court documents filed on Monday, Special Counsel Jack Smith referenced a report by Robert Hur concerning President Biden’s handling of classified material in response to claims made by former President Trump’s legal team. The attorneys for Trump argued that their client was selectively prosecuted, a claim that Smith sought to counter by highlighting the differences in scope between the two cases.
Smith pointed out that Trump, unlike Biden, faced allegations of extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and impede the return of documents marked with classifications. The filing emphasized the contrasting evidence regarding the intent of the two individuals, particularly in terms of knowingly possessing and willfully retaining classified documents, as outlined in the Hur Report.
Hur had cleared Biden of criminal wrongdoing, determining that while the president’s retention of classified information at his home and office violated procedure, it was not illegal. Notably, the report described Biden as an elderly individual with poor recall, a factor Hur cited as a reason why he believed a jury would not convict Biden.
Despite these findings, Biden, along with the White House and his 2024 campaign, vehemently rejected this characterization. Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was chosen by Biden to lead the Justice Department, argued that Trump’s violations were intentional and included the unauthorized sharing of classified information. Federal prosecutors contended that Trump’s willful retention led to the FBI searching his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida, where they discovered boxes of non-secured classified materials.
In contrast, Biden’s team maintained that they fully cooperated with investigators when classified materials dating back to his time as vice president and senator were found at his home in Delaware and an old office in Washington.
Smith, in his filing, asserted that Trump’s comparison of the two cases failed to identify another individual facing a similar legal predicament.
