Joe Biden’s Interview With Special Counsel Hur Is Worse Than You’ve Heard. (Part 1)

Biden testifies falsely in an official government investigation.

In 2021, after Joe Biden had been President for just seven months, I published an article in The Federalist asking, “If Joe Biden’s Team Will Lie About His Dog Biting People, What Won’t They Lie About?” The President himself has now – once again – answered that question with a resounding “Nothing!”

WHAT HAS HE DONE NOW?

One of the latest examples of this lack of discipline and honesty, is Biden’s testimony in the course of his two-day interview by Special Counsel Robert Hur. To an eye practiced in reviewing the transcript of those interviews and Joe Biden’s fitness for the office he holds, they are even worse that the initial reports that drove Biden into a rage, the White House into a panic, and the nobles of the ancient régime media into spasms of condemnation of Special Counsel Hur. I will cover some of that in a subsequent article. The limited focus of this discussion is his fanciful testimony about his law school prowess.

In a nutshell, Biden testified to the Special Counsel that on his first day in law school he had not read the assigned case and was totally unprepared. He then spun an incredible story about how after he was called on in class, he cleverly avoided potential disaster, and emerged the hero. More on this below.

Any honest person with the slightest knowledge about how law school classes are taught, will immediately spot this as a totally fake story. Below I will provide some analysis, particularly for the lay reader, that illustrates just how far-fetched Biden’s story is.

BIDEN’S PROPENSITY FOR LYING ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS

Context requires us to note that Biden’s latest prevarications include his previous lies about his law school career. While running for president in 1988, he bragged that he attended law school on a full academic scholarship, that he graduated in the top half of his class, and that he graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school.  

All that was a lie. He did not go to law school on a “full academic scholarship.” He graduated in the bottom ~11% of his class (76^th out of 85), not in the “top half” as he claimed. And he graduated from undergraduate school with one degree, not three.

Biden ultimately confessed that these were falsehoods, but they gave us a glimpse into the character of the man. Because of them and his proven plagiarism, Biden dropped out of the 1988 presidential race.

Biden’s more recent prevarications about his law school prowess must be viewed against that backdrop. They are more of the same.

SOME INFORMATIVE BACKGROUND ABOUT LAW SCHOOL

To fully grasp the mendacity of Biden’s testimony to the Special Counsel, it is necessary for the lay reader to have at least a basic knowledge of how law school professors approach their craft. Armed with that understanding, the reader will know beyond peradventure that Biden’s testimony was a continuation of his falsehoods about his academic prowess. It required s a modest discussion of the teaching approach employed by most professors at good law schools, particularly for first year students where the prime objective is to teach new students how to “think like a lawyer.”

It is a very rigorous, analytical approach that requires students to prepare diligently by reading, and analyzing the cases assigned for the day. They must be able to discuss them, the scope of the precedent they set, and how to distinguish the case in order to argue that its holding is inapplicable to a situation involving slightly different facts.

A Professor would typically begin by calling on a student and asking, “What are the facts in Smith v. Jones? Or perhaps, “What is the holding of this case?” After the initial question, the professor will then follow up with more probing questions, changing the facts slightly, and asking how that will affect the result, how this case may apply to a situation with different facts, and so on. It is not possible that any law student who had not read the case, could bluff their way through this process. They would quickly be found out.

For those old enough to have seen The Paper Chase, the depiction of Harvard law school Professor Kingsfield is pretty accurate. Tough professors rightly are not known for coddling students, since they are being trained to practice before judges who are not going to pamper them.

The approach is particularly tough for the first several weeks or months of law school. Two short anecdotes from my first year at University of Texas School of Law will illustrate the point. My first example is from the first day of my first-year contracts class. The first case that we were assigned began with the words, “This is an action for  ….” Our professor’s first words were, “Mr. Baker, what is an action? “I am sure that my classmate and law school friend will not mind me saying that he spazzed around a bit, and finally confessed what had become painfully obvious – he could not adequately “action.”

The professor then proceeded to ream out this budding law student with an expertise and vigor that would have made a Marine Corps drill instructor proud. I remember him asking, “How do you expect to get through three years of law school when you cannot define the fourth word in the first sentence of the first case assigned to you?” As I said, it is a rigorous approach.

My second example involves UT’s Wyatt Earp-look-alike, Professor Gus Hodges. Professor Hodges’ approach is particularly relevant to our present topic, including the wages of coming to class unprepared. If he (or any professor for that matter) called on a student to discuss a case, it was inconceivable for the student to try to BS their way through the discussion if he or she had not read the case. It was simply impossible; it could not be done, even by the most brilliant students.

Professor Gus Hodges

So, if a student who was called upon had not read the assigned case (which was rare), he would candidly admit that he was unprepared. Professor Hodges would then say, “Yer excused,” which meant “Get out of my classroom and don’t come back until you are prepared.” The unfortunate student would pack up his books and begin the walk of shame out of the classroom. Although other professors might allow the offending student to remain silently in class, this was not terrain upon which any student wanted to land.

BIDEN’S LATEST FICTION

In the October 8 interview (at pp. 54-55 of the transcript), Special Counsel Hur asked the President about the types of files and documents that he had kept at his residence at the Naval Observatory. Biden mentioned that he may have had a few speeches, press clippings, and photos. He then (at p. 56) diverted to his first day of law school. Here is what happened on that day, according to Biden:  

PRESIDENT BIDEN: I didn't take law school very seriously, but I won the International Tort Competition. I was in -- matter of fact, the first time in tort class, we had a really difficult professor. I mean, very well-known, Professor at Syracuse, and -- he called on me to -- you know how they do in law school, discuss a case, you know, in your first torts class. And I had never read the case, and I stood up and I spoke for 10 minutes. The whole class stood up, started clapping. (Laughter)

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And he said, Mr. Biden, you'll be a hell of a trial lawyer. He said, not a single thing you -- had to do with that.

Most knowledgeable people looking at this testimony would quickly conclude that it lacks credibility. But rather than go with just gut instinct, let’s take a closer look to see if there is any way this story could be true.

So, Biden said that on his first day in law school he was in a class taught by a professor who was well-known for being “really difficult.” This obviously was a man who doubtlessly wanted to develop his students into the best lawyers possible. That required him to be demanding and to hold his students to high standards. I am sure Professors Kingsfield, Hamilton, and Hodges would have recognized him as a kindred spirit. This was not a man to tolerate fools gladly.

Then Biden said that he had not read the case assigned for his first day in law school. This is not impossible, but it also is not very credible. It is simply inconceivable that any law student, even one who ultimately would graduate in the basement of his class, would not read the first case assigned for his first day of law school. No law student I have ever met would do that. Ask your lawyer friends, and I expect you will find unanimity on that point. At a minimum it would be indicative of a totally unserious person who was totally unsuited, not just for law school, but for any position of responsibility.

But let’s assume it was true and see how that plays out. Biden next flew totally off the rails with his claim that he took the floor and launched into a 10-minute spiel about the case that he had never read.

Hogwash. No law professor would have tolerated that for a minute.  I mean that literally – not for a single minute. That is not how law professors conduct classes, especially in the first year. When called upon, students do not stand and give ten-minute orations on their own. The professor would have begun with a pointed question, not with a request for a lengthy exposition. And when it immediately became apparent that Biden didn’t know what he was talking about, no professor would have let him continue wasting the rest of the class’s time after about fifteen seconds or so. Biden’s fanciful description is nothing more than another made-up story intended to impress his listeners.

Biden would then have us believe that his performance so impressed this “really difficult professor,” that he exclaimed that young Joe had just proved that he was going to become “a hell of a trial lawyer.” Didn’t happen. Take that to the bank.

But that’s not all. Joe’s classmates were instantly in awe of him. They gave him a standing ovation. If anyone believes that, please get help.

In short, the fiction that Biden told the Special Prosecutor in an official government investigation, was total hogwash. It is one thing for a man to embellish stories about his law school experiences while sitting around having a drink with his buddies, but it is quite another thing for the President of the United States to make up such stories while he is the subject of an official Department of Justice investigation.

ANY OTHER CONCLUSIONS?

That the President would fabricate such a story is bad enough. What does that tell us?  It is part of a pattern of false braggadocio about his personal history. This includes, not just his phony law school credentials, but all his other fanciful tales: his intimidation of that “bad dude” Corn Pop, his invented history of being a civil rights activist who was arrested while protesting, his mythical coal mining family, his experience as a driver of a big-rig 18-wheeler, and on and on. His prevarications are so numerous that even CNN referred to his “habit of inaccurate ad-libbing about his biography.”

At a minimum these lies seem to be those of a pathological liar or someone so insecure about his own accomplishments that he must invent a new persona to present to the public. But other aspects of this episode are almost inexplicable.

Consider Section 1001 of the federal criminal code, which makes it a felony to make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” to a government investigator such as Special Counsel Hur. Biden’s DOJ has not hesitated to charge Trump supporters with violating this statute. If it were Trump who had made such prevarications in the course of responding to a DOJ investigation, the MSNBC hounds would be baying for his blood. Biden’s defenders would argue that his statements were not “material,” but who in his right mind would want to risk losing that argument with such pointless resumé inflation when the potential penalty could be five years in federal prison?

Mr. Hur certainly impresses as a serious and intelligent man.  How could Biden possibly think that Hur would believe such fabrications? It is irrational.

The lack of good answers to these questions indicates (again) that Biden has simply lost touch with reality. He said these things because his mental capacity is so impaired that he is no longer capable of functioning as the chief executive of any significant organization, much less the most United States government. But his enablers continue to cover for him, endangering the Country further.