Warning for Democrats

Surprisingly, Robert Hur wasn’t always regarded as a political outcast among Democrats in Washington. Just six weeks ago, he was a Republican attorney and former federal prosecutor, managing one of the Justice Department’s less desirable tasks as the special counsel overseeing the investigation into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents.

However, his recent findings, detailed in a 345-page report, concluded that there was insufficient evidence for criminal charges against Biden. Yet, the report’s more significant impact on the political landscape was its numerous references to Biden’s poor memory. Timed during a period when concerns about the president’s age and lackluster polling in his re-election bid were prominent, the report, coupled with Biden’s verbal misstep at a press conference rebutting Hur, created an explosive situation.

Recognizing a potential political opportunity, Republicans called on Hur to testify before Congress at a hearing on the report. Democrats face a delicate situation as they decide how to question him. Aggressively targeting Hur could backfire, considering his potential role as a crucial witness in the heated election year. Despite lacking a resume that aligns him with GOP activism or MAGA devotion, Hur could inflict unique political damage on Biden, particularly if provoked.

Democrats must choose during the hearing: aggressively confront Hur or adopt a more measured approach to assure the public of their nominee’s fitness for a second term. To Hur’s supporters, the reaction to the report has been excessive and needlessly personal.

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, familiar with controversy himself, hired Hur as a young prosecutor in 2007. Rosenstein highlights that releasing the detailed declination memo eliminates the need for ad hominem attacks, allowing individuals to evaluate the merits independently.

Hur, a member of Washington’s conservative legal establishment, drew praise for his tenure as the U.S. Attorney in Maryland, exhibiting political independence by declining to prosecute John Kerry. While some Democrats viewed him warily, his public record as a prosecutor doesn’t warrant casual vilification.

Criticism of the report, particularly its length and specific language about Biden’s memory, is acknowledged, but claims of ad hominem attacks are refuted. Hur, within his rights, evaluated the persuasiveness of Biden’s limited recall and assessed its impact on a potential jury, employing typical prosecutorial judgment.

While the report’s references to Biden’s memory are not irrelevant, some objections arise from a tone of disdain or incredulity. Hur’s report contains additional material beyond media coverage, and Democrats should consider this when questioning him.

Hur’s acknowledgment in the report that Trump’s alleged behavior regarding classified documents was far worse than Biden’s provides Democrats with a strategic angle to insulate the Justice Department from Trump’s claims of selective prosecution.

Despite the report’s flaws, such as excessive length, Democrats can emphasize that even Hur believes Trump’s alleged behavior was more egregious than Biden’s, creating both a political and potential legal advantage.

Hur, not a political novice, may have anticipated the controversial lines’ impact on the press. Democrats risk elongating an unhelpful controversy if they treat him as a political hack.

The 2024 presidential election’s rough outlines are emerging, with voters likely choosing between two elderly candidates facing age-related decline. The public has ample time to evaluate candidates based on their actions, major policy disagreements, and potential controversies, rather than relying on a lengthy government report that few are likely to read.

Ultimately, the Hur report’s prominence in the November presidential campaign seems low, as voters are more likely to base their decisions on their direct observations of the candidates over the coming months.