Attorney General Garland testifies before House committee on Justice Dept. oversight — 6/4/24

Washington field office ran that raid not the Miami Field office the operation was run out of headquarters excuse me not from an assigned us attorney's office as is customary the FBI didn't seek consent before doing the raid and the FBI refused to wait for president Trump's attorneys to be present before the search was conducted and there's Jay Brad Mr Bratz on the special counsel team he met with Biden White House officials multiple times including just weeks before Jack Smith indicts former president Trump but what's most troubling is what Mr Brad did to Stanley Woodward Mr Woodward represents one of the defendants in the documents case he was summoned by Mr brat to Department headquarters at the meeting Mr brat informed Stanley Woodward if your guy flips if your client changes it could help your chances for that judgeship you are interested in unbelievable and of course there's the fact that Jack Smith changed the sequence of the documents he seized in the raid of the president's home had to file this with the judge and with the court the physical documents don't match the scan documents many people call this tampering with evidence Jack Smith mishandled the very documents he charged president Trump with mishandling remember what special counsel her found on page one of his report he he said this President Biden knowingly kept classified information President Biden knowingly disclosed classified information and then on page 231 he told us why President Biden did it page 231 quote Joe Biden had strong motivations for ignoring the procedures for classified information because he was writing a book A book for which he got paid 8 million president Trump gets charged for allegedly mishandling documents but Jack Smith can mishandle documents no problem Joe Biden can mishandle documents no problem never forget this is the same Department of Justice who made David Weiss the special counsel in the hunter Biden case after Mr Weiss spent four and a half years investigating President Biden's son and had the sweetheart deal he took to the court laughed out of court he gets named special counsel this is the same Department of Justice whose civil rights division is done nothing to address the attacks on Jewish students at college campuses this is the same Department of Justice who can't tell us who planted the pipe bombs on January 6 who leaked the do's draft opinion and who put cocaine in the White House and this is the same Department of Justice who told us in a memo from the attorney general himself that moms and dads at school board meetings should be investigated same Department of Justice who said prolife cath pro-life Catholics are extremists the same Department of Justice who censored Americans and the same Department of Justice who retaliated against whistleblowers who came to this committee and told us about these wrongdoings so Mr Garland we're glad you're here today we've got lots of questions many Americans believe there's now a double standard in our justice system they believe that because there is and we're going to have lots of questions about that problem with that I yield to the ranking member for his opening statement thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman I've been in Congress since 1992 my colleagues and I of course have had our political disagreements in the past 30 years but ultimately in this committee we have worked together more often than not across the aisle to pass transformative pieces of legislation intended to help the American people legislation to protect women from domestic violence and sexual harassment legislation to prevent discrimination against the lgbtq plus Community legislation to fight racial discrimination and Hate crimes legislation to protect Americans privacy I am proud of that record of success and proud of how much work of substance we have accomplished in this hearing room under the leadership of chairman of both parties which makes the current Republican house that much more frustrating I've been a member of this committee for more than 30 years and our work came to a dead stop when the Maga Republicans took over the house and chairman Jordan took the gabble of this committee don't take just take my word for it my Republican colleagues have said it best representative big said quote we have nothing in my opinion we have nothing to go out there and campaign on it's embarrassing close quote representative Roy said quote I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing one that I can go campaign on and say we did one anybody sitting in the complex you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material meaningful significant thing the Republican majority has done close quote I agree wholeheartedly this committee once an agent of momentum to move our country forward has become little more than a field office for the Trump campaign the Republicans on this committee have spent 20 million taxpayer dollars working to get Trump reelected $20 million on an impeachment inquiry based on statements from a witness who turned out to have ties to Russian intelligence $20 million attacking research Searchers who studied disinformation and social media companies who were trying to stop disinformation all in an effort to ensure that Russia can do whatever it wants to interfere in the November election $20 million attacking the work that the justice department and FBI are doing to keep Americans safe to be clear this $20 million effort seems nowhere close to satisfying Maga extremists they want even more money and resources wasted on chasing conspiracy theories in defense of Donald Trump here's just a sampling of what magal leaders had to say over the past few days Jim Jordan is not enough you know to put out a little tweet I'm demanding this no where are the subpoenas where's the vote that's what the American people want what they're tired of is the gutless feckless whining of the Republican establishment I think Jim Jordan and his weaponization committee his little cucky weaponization committee should issue subpoenas right now Jim Jordan we don't need another performative hearing they talk about standing behind Donald J Trump I want to see one of these guys actually act and stop auditioning for a damn job in the Trump Administration it's all talk I'm sick and tired of strongly worded letters and I'm sick and tired of them going on Fox and taking hits and then linking to it to their page and raising money on the carcass of Donald Trump they don't really have Trump's back they want mag to go away we need to continue pushing and forcing these members to actually do something so I'll say it again like I said in my tweet wouldn't it be great if a house Judiciary GOP actually does something unfortunately those are the sentiments that govern my Republican colleagues here today this hearing is not an attempt to conduct real robust oversight of the Department of Justice but rather an attempt to fog the Biden administration's attorney attorney general and to create an outlet to spew more ridiculous conspiracy theories that's why they held a hearing or what they've termed lawfare the ridiculous assertion that the department is somehow orchestrating state prosecutions of the former president for criminal activity that has been well documented that's why the day after Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts by a jury of his peers chairman Jordan tried to drag Manhattan district attorney Alvin brag into this hearing room to discredit the lawful outcome of the trial and that's why they're making threats against and harassing The Fulton County district attorney they are trying to intimidate her out of go going after Trump or at least to proactively discredit any conviction that comes out of the election interference prosecution extreme Maga Republicans will use every tool they have to persecute harass and impune anyone who dares hold Donald Trump accountable that includes a special counsel appointed by the Attorney General to investigate Trump's role in the attacks of January 6th and his alleged theft of classified documents from the White House in service of a convicted felon they will have totally squandered their opportunity to do something meaningful for the American people their failure on this front stands in stark contrast to attorney general Garland's tenure at the Department of Justice which has done vital work in recent years to protect the interests of the American people under your leadership Mr attorney general the department is protecting consumers by ensuring Ticket Master can't exploit its hold on the entertainment industry it is fighting to reduce violent crime and has helped achieve decreasing levels of homicides gun assaults and burglaries across the country it is combating the fentanyl epidemic taking tens of millions of fentanyl pills off the street every year and Prosecuting traffickers and dealers it is defending reproductive freedom in light of roie Wade's downfall fighting to keep abortion health care and medications accessible to American women it is is ensuring our election infrastructure is safe and secure so that we have a fully functional secure and safe election this November without foreign interference and so so much more this doj is doing important work and we have the important job of making sure they do that work well unfortunately Republicans on this committee under the Chairman's leadership don't want to help doj employees do their jobs they want to stop them from doing any work at all taking them out at the knees because that's what Donald Trump wants these Republicans don't care what's in the interest of the American people they just care about getting their favorite felon back in the White House General Garland thank you for being here today I apologize in advance for the wild conspiracies and lies that will be told about you today you and I do not agree on everything but you are a man of Great Character and professional Integrity I take great comfort in knowing that nothing my Republican colleagues say about you here will change the thoughtfulness and decency that Mark your leadership of the department I urge you not to take this process too personally the desperation has nothing to do with your record as attorney general thank you for being here and I yield back without objection all other opening statements will be included in the record we will now introduce today's Witnesses The Honorable Merrick Garland is the Attorney General of the United States he was sworn in on March 11th 2021 we welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today we will Begin by swearing you in would you please rise and raise your right hand do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief so help you God let the records show that the witness is answered in the affirmative you may be seated uh please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record its entirety accordingly we ask that you summarize your testimony you've done this several times before Mr attorney general um uh you can you can start with your opening statement and and I want to make Point uh point out here at the at the outset that anytime you need a break we're going to be here we're going to have to go to the floor and vote anytime you need a break just have your team get a hold of our team and we'll be we'll be happy to do that um you're recognized for your opening statement thank you chairman Jordan ranking member nler and distinguished members of this committee since I last appeared before you the more than 115,000 employees the Department of Justice have continued their work to fulfill our mission on behalf of the American people to keep our country safe to protect civil rights and to uphold the rule of law just 10 days ago we secured the extradition of one of the lead sarios or assassins of the caloa cartel one of the most dangerous drug trafficking organizations in the world just last month we secured a 27-year prison sentence for a man who attempted to kill NYPD officers in a terrorist attack in Times Square in 2022 in just the first three months of this year we charged seven members of a hacking group backed by the Chinese government we disrupted a botn net controled by Russ intelligence services and we seized over $18 million and 500,000 barrels of fuel that would otherwise have enabled the government of Iran to further support Hamas hisbah and other terrorist groups we have continued our work to drive down violent crime work that we know is paying off last year's historic decline in homicides the largest one-year decline in 50 years is continu in in the first quarter of this year we have already seen an 18% drop in murders we know we have much more to do we have also remained steadfast in our commitment to the Justice Department's founding purpose to protect civil rights we have aggressively investigated and prosecuted hate crimes that victimize individuals and terrorize entire communities and we have brought Justice to the perpetrators of those crimes like the def defendant in Florida who attacked two black women because of the color of their skin the defendant in Michigan who defaced synagogues with sasus the defendant in Missouri who set fire to a community Islamic Center and the defendant in Tennessee who committed a series of arson targeting Catholic Methodist and Baptist Churches we have worked to protect their reproductive freedoms that are protected by federal law in Idaho we Su to ensure that women in the state would have access to the emergency care guaranteed to them under federal law we have continued to protect the right to vote and to have that vote counted we successfully challenged a redistricting plan in Galveston County Texas The District Court recognized that the plan violated section two of the Voting Rights Act by depriving the Count's Black and Latino voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect a candidate of their choice we have continued to prosecute fraud and we have challenged illegal monopolies that drive up prices for consumers this year we sued to break up Live Nation Ticket Master or its Monopoly of the live concert industry and we sued Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets we have also continued to fulfill our responsibility that underlies all of our work to uphold the rule of law that is why we have worked worked to combat a worrying Spike of threats of violence against those who serve the public those threats have included targeting of members of Congress police officers judges jurors election workers and the Justice Department's own employees let me be clear if anyone threatens public servants with violence we will hold them accountable and we will continue to protect our Democratic Institution utions like this one and to bring to Justice all those criminally responsible for the January 16th attack on our democracy as attorney general I will continue to forcefully defend the independence of the justice department from improper influence or interference of any kind and I will continue to fiercely protect the Integrity of our criminal investigations nothing will deter me f from fulfilling my obligation to uphold the rule of law fulfilling that obligation includes ensuring that the justice department respects congress's important role in our democracy that is why we have gone to extraordinary links to ensure that the committee gets responses to its legitimate request for information that is why I have provided the committee with special councel her's report while the special councel testified from more than 5 hours and why we have gone beyond precedent to provide the committee with the transcripts of the special council's interview with the president but we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created releasing the audio with chill cooperation with the Department in future investigations and it could influence Witnesses answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement inter interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public now in response certain members of this committee and the oversight committee are seeking contempt as a means of obtaining for no legitimate purpose sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the Integrity of future investigations this effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department's work it comes alongside threats to defund particular Department investigations most recently the special council's prosecution of the former president it comes alongside false claims that a jury verdict in a State Trial by a brought by a local district attorney was somehow controlled by the justice department that conspiracy theory is an attack on the judicial process itself it comes as individual career agents and prosecutors have been singled out just for doing their jobs it comes as baseless and extremely dangerous falsehoods are being spread about the FBI's law enforcement operations and it comes at a time when we are seeing heinous threats of violence being directed at the Justice Department's career civil servants these repeated attacks on the justice department are unprecedented and they are unfounded these attacks have not and they will not influence our decision making I view contempt as a serious matter but I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations I will not be intimidated and the justice department will not be intimidated we will continue to our do our jobs free from political influence and we will not back down from defending democracy I look forward to your questions thank you Mr attorney general we will now proceed under the F minute rule with questions gentleman from Florida is recognized chairman gentleman from the ranking members have some unanimous unanimous consent requests that have to happen right now no they okay well go ahead Mr chair there was an allegation made in a letter yesterday suggesting that the FB FBI was somehow involved on January 6th this is ludicrous and you know it's ludicrous because witness is there is there a unanimous consent request is there not a proper unanimous consent I have some unanimous consent requests I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record and excerpt from the transcrip transcript of the committee's interview with Steve Deano the former leader of the FBI's Washington field office not objection clearly refutes characterizations that the FBI was involved in inciting violence in January without objection the gentleman from I ask unanimous consent to enter into to the record and excerpt from the special agent in charge of the FBI Boston field office in which he explains that conspiracies about the FBI causing the capital Insurrection are false and concerning not objection and finally I ask unanimous consent to enter an excerpt from FBI director Ray testimony before the committee before this committee last July where he States quote I will say this notion that somehow the violence at the capital on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous and so this service to are brave hardworking dedicated men close quote that objection the Gent for is recognized for 5 minutes attorney general you've told us that it's a dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the Department of Justice is communicating with these state and local prosecutions against Trump you can clear it all up for us right now will the Department of Justice provide to the committee all documents all corresponden between the department and Alvin Bragg's office and fonnie Willis's office and Leticia James's office the officers you're referring to are independent offices of State I get that I get that the question is whether or not you will provide all of your documents and correspondence that's the question it's I I don't need a a history lesson well I'm going to say again we do not control those offices they make their own the question is whether you communicate with them not whether you control them do you communicate with them and will you provide those Communications make a request we'll refer it to our office of legislative here's the thing you come in here and you Lodge this attack that it's a conspiracy theory that there is coordinated lawfare against Trump and then when we say fine just give us the documents give us the correspondence and then if it's a conspiracy theory that will be evident but when you say well we'll take your request and then we'll we'll sort of work it through the doj's accommodation process then you're actually advancing the very dangerous conspiracy theory that you're concerned about now you're you were a judge once nominated the highest court in our country when you were a judge I'm just curious did you ever make political donations to partisan candidates no no and and you didn't because that would create the potential appear appearance of impropriety I didn't because there's a federal rule aring federal judges for making contributions right but but under that same theory of attacks on the judicial process like shouldn't someone be owed like a jury of their peers and a judge that's non-biased rather than getting a judge from your Poli political opponent donor file I'm well aware that you're not asking a hypothetical you're asking me to comment on a Verdi jury verdict in a another jurisdiction which has to be respected I won't comment on it that case is still ongoing the defendant Mr attorney general I hadn't asked you about the verdict yet we were getting there I was I was talking about the judge and so so let me ask you this question about your time as as a judge was there ever a time when you were a judge when you had a family member who was personally profiting off of the notoriety of a case that that was before your court I'm going to say again it's very clear you're asking me to comment on a case in another jur wait hold on hold on Mr attorney general did you ever have a family member profit off of the notoriety of any case that you sat over say again you're asking yes or no you're asking me to comment on a Case currently well it seems you're connecting the dots Mr attorney general I'm just asking you as to a general principal but you are aware that judge maran's daughter was profiting off of this prosecution you are aware that that creates the appearance of impropriety you know the very reason there's a federal rule against judges giving donations is because it is the very attack on the judicial process that we're concerned about I'm sorry I don't agree with anything you just said but I'm not going to comment on a you won't comment on it Mr attorney general but you had no problem dispatching Matthew Colangelo who's Matthew Colangelo that is false I did not dispatch Matthew Colangelo Matthew Colangelo Matthew Colangelo became the Assistant Attorney General at the very beginning of the bid ad ministration without having been Senate confirmed goes and gets this senior role at the doj and then after I believe it's uh gupto replaces Colangelo Colangelo makes this remarkable Downstream career Journey from the US Department of Justice in Washington DC and then pops up in Alvin Bragg's office to go get Trump and you're saying that's just a that's just a career choice that was made that has nothing to do with the law fair coordinated by the saying it's false I did not dispatch Mr Colangelo anywhere well do you know how he ended up there I assume he spoke uh he applied for a job there and got the job but see you know what tell you I had nothing to do with it well you might not have had anything to do with it but we've got this contemporaneous evidence in Mr palance's book so pomarance writes this book which I'm sure you're aware of where he says we put together the Legal Eagles to get Trump we got all these folks together and we assembled them for that purpose and so when when we the Judiciary Committee think about attacks on the judicial process our concern is that you the the facts in the law aren't being followed a Target is acquired here Trump and then you assemble the legal Talent from doj Mr pal morance and you bring everybody in to get him I really and meanwhile the judge is making money on it the judge is making money on the judge's family is making money on it for stuff that you yourself wouldn't do you know no one's going to buy this no one's going to believe it it's going to create great disruption and I am sadden by it because like you I have given my life to the law I care deeply about the law and I think that the law fair we've seen against President Trump will do great damage well beyond our time in public service I see my time's expired I y'll back ranking members recognize for five minutes thank Mr chairman M Mr attorney general do you want to respond uh to anything in Mr Gates's tiate I think everything he was talking about was an a case in another jurisdiction an independent prosecutor Mr pomerance uh work for that independent prosecutor I don't know Mr pomarance I don't know what's in his book but uh these are decisions made in another Office Independent of the justice department thank you Mr attorney general last week as we all know a jury of his peers convicted former president Trump on 34 felony Council falsifying business directions of the first degree the case was brought by the Manhattan da so it is a state case not a federal case I shouldn't have to ask you this Mr attorney General but since the majority seems to be confused can you please explain the difference between a state case and a federal case yes the manh Manhattan district attorney um um has jurisdiction over cases involving New York state law completely independent of the justice department which has jurisdiction over cases involving federal law we do not control the manatt Manhattan district attorney Manhattan district attorney does not report to us uh the Manhattan district attorney makes its own decisions about cases that he wants to bring under his uh state law thank you my Republican colleagues seem to believe that the Department of Justice is secretly coordinating the now successible prosecution of former president Trump in New York is there any truth to this allegation and what is your response to this allegation the case in New York is brought by the Manhattan district attorney independently on his own Val and his own determination of what was what he believed was a violation of state law Mr attorney general two weeks ago this committee took the extraordinary step of holding you in contempt I want to make some things clear for the record since 2022 when the chairman took over the committee the Department of Justice has produced over 92,000 pages of documents and made 25 employees available for interviews we've run the numbers this is more than double the number of documents and exponentially more witnesses than the Trump administrations Department of Justice produced to this Committee in four years and with respect to the actual audio recording sought by the majority the Department of Justice has produced full and complete transcripts of the conversations memorialized by these recordings is that correct it is there's been an allegation that the transits might have been altered in some way is there any truth to that allegation there's no allegate truth to that the senior um uh career official in the department um in a declaration he filed under oath stated that he had compared the audio uh to um the transcript and that it is an accurate transcript is accurate with the exceptions of us and a and repetitions of words like I and and and he consulted with Mr uh her the special councel uh and with the FBI agents in the room who agreed that the who created the transcript and who agreed um that it was an accurate transcript thank you um one more question Mr attorney general throughout the 118th Congress Republicans have made bogus allegations claiming that the justice department has been weaponized most recently there was an allegation that the FBI was authorized to quote kill the former president what impact do this type of rhetoric have on the career prosecutors and law enforcement agents at the Department of Justice this is dangerous it raises the threats of violence against prosecutors and career agents the allegation is false as the FBI has explained the document that's being discussed is our standard use of force um protocol which is a limitation on the use of force and which is routinely part of the package for search warrants and was part of the package for the search of President Biden's home as well so in president former president Trump alleges that um uh this was an assassination attempt against him is not telling the truth either knowingly or as is often the case with him unknowingly I'm just saying that the allegation uh is not true um this is a our standard use of force policy which limits uh the use of force that agents can uh use it is used as routine matter in searches that was a court authorized search um and it accompanied that package as it routinely does thank you so in other words when pre former president Trump makes that allegation he is either deliberately or as is often the case uh not knowing what he's either deliberately lying or as as often the case not knowing what he's talking about thank you I yield back uh thank you Mr attorney general there's no blinking the fact that for the first time in American history we do have a presidential Administration that's working to put its opponent in jail Ian that's a fact uh and and that an opponent who's a former president of the United States now as I understand the facts Jack Smith was the principal player in the IRS targeting of the Tea Party he was a wellestablished record of prosecutorial abuse uh and yet you appointed him to prosecute the former president of the United unit States who happens to be running against your boss now this is entirely your work including approving and unprecedented search of a former president's home and though you've just maintained that the local prosecutors are independent it's a fact that in the Manhattan case the third ranking official in your department um left it to join the local Prosecutors office to spearhead the New York prosecution the Atlanta prosecutor strategized for hours with the White House Council in advance of filing that case and you've just refused Mr Gates's request to reveal what Communications your department and its employees have had with those local offices so what are we to make of all of this well I have to disagree with um the characterizations that you made we're happy to take into account the requests if you make them to us that's a normal process and we will respond to characterization do you question well I I I I I disagree with with your characterization that um this person was sent by my office didn't say he was sent but it is rather odd that the third ranking uh official in your office leaves it to go to a local prosecutor's office to prosecute this case justice department had nothing to do with that person going he was the principal Deputy to the third ranking like's wife it's important that that your department be above reproach and and and and and clearly it's not special C Council her concluded that that Al there there was evidence President Biden had willfully retained and disclosed classified materials when he was a private citizen his words criminal charges were not warranted because among other things President Biden is quote sympathetic well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory do you do you agree with that decision I have said before I'll say again I'm not going to comment I didn't comment on Mr Durham's special counsel report I'm not going to comment on Mr Mr hers Mr her testified for 5 hours before this committee this is a Department of Justice matter you're the attorney general and there's no prosecution involved with this at this point so of course it matters Mr her explained the rationale for his decision in that case and he explained the dis differences between that case and the case involving the former president well I do want to thank you for your your your testimony expressing concern for terrorist attacks we've had 5 million illegal immigrants deliberately released into our country with very limited vetting um and while the border patrol has been overwhelmed in another two million known Goda alwayss have entered as well now last year your FBI director told this committee that he believes this constitutes a massive security threat again his words do you agree with that assessment I'm I'm I'm never going to be disagreeing with the FBI director but um my recollection he said that there is a national security threat if people um from known terrorist organizations crossing the border and the FBI will do everything it can to follow those people if they manage to make it across the border and to ensure that the country is we could go into that in great detail but my greatest fear uh is that we could face a coordinated terrorist attack from from elements among the millions who've entered this country illegally over the last three years is this fear Justified I am worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack in the country after October 7th the Threat Level for us has gone up enormously every morning we worry about this question we try to track anyone who might be trying to hurt the country of course this is a priority a major priority for the because of this administration's policies you now have millions and millions uh who have been allowed into this country or who have evaded the border patrol why they've been overwhelmed admitting these millions uh in and and I worry about the stages set for something very bad happening in the very near future because of your administration's uh policies you it's reported the president intends to use section 212f of the immigration nationality act to to turn back illegal entries once they reach 2500 a day that's nearly a million a year so that's not closing the barn door that's keeping it propped open indefinitely but it is a lower number than your administration's tolerated so far yet for the last 3 years three and a half years the president's maintained that that he has no such Authority so what's changed other than we five months before the election behind the going to have to refer you to the Department of Homeland Security which is responsible for the uh uh border issues I would say that the best way to protect the Border was to uh pass the bipartisan legislation that was proposed responsible well the bipartisan legislation would have forbidden future presidents from using that very Authority and illegal entries uh reach 4,000 a day so's time is gent's time has expired um they've called votes on the floor I think we'll try to do a couple more questions then we'll break for about approximately 15 minutes Mr attorney general and then we'll be back chair I recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee thank you Mr Jordan thank you for your attendance here today General Garland uh I'm a little perplexed here I'd like to ask you a few questions they've raised the fact that this is the first time that there's a been a prosecution of a president's gone after allegedly gone after after his opponent has there ever been another time in American history when a president was involved in an Insurrection trying to overthrow the government of the United States of America other than January 6th uh the answer is no but I do not intend to comment on um um the charges and the prosecution of the former president any more than I would uh comment on um um Mr her report I I just am not going to comment on matters that are before courts thank you thank you um it was said some I quoted that one of the reasons Mr uh it was was there was no indictment of President Biden on records classified records was because he was considered a sympathetic character um in the Trump case did anybody consider him a sympathetic character again I'm going to fall back on my respect for the court process on the fact that cases are in and I'm just not going to I just can't comment Mr Jordan in his opening comments commented on the the the execution of the search warrant and said it was different in all these different ways how many classified documents were found pursuant to that search warrant and how many times that there had been an attempt to get those classified documents and they'd been refused to return yeah so I don't know that I don't have in my head the number uh that's all on the public record uh including the number of times that efforts were made to obtain through legal process to documents this whole hearing is about weaponization of the justice department and the suggestion that there was somehow your department was involved in the prosecution of of Donald Trump in the state court in New York uh as far as weaponization of the department goes um did the justice department indict Senator Mendez it's a matter of public record yes and he's a Democrat isn't he um I'm assuming the answer is yes and Henry quar justice department adicted him he's a Democrat too isn't he it's a m matter of public record so you've prosecuted Democrats and as we speak Hunter Biden who is a son of the president is under trial uh in in Delaware and that so you haven't weaponized the justice department in terms of hiding and protecting Democrats Menendez quar and Hunter Biden the the justice department follows the facts and the law we prosecute like cases alike and we make decisions about different cases and different ways we do not allow the political party or the ethnicity or the religion or the race or the uh uh wealth or the influence of uh someone we're investigating to make a difference in our charging decisions I noticed Mr Gates who took you on first uh is not here now and that's unfortunate because he is Living testament to the fact and direct evidence that you have not weaponized the justice department he was investigated for sex trafficking and while many expected a prosecution you chose not to prosecute this very active Republican is is that true you did not prosecute him I'm sorry I'm not I'm not sure how much what is in the public record and what's not so I'm just not going to comment on that violent crime in urban are areas is decreasing and I thank you for that unfortunately Memphis is not one of the cities where we've seen violent crime being reduced but we're working on it uh it's it was the Second City to join the violent crime initiative which increases Federal resources in specific communities and I thank you for getting your your department involved in trying to reduce murders and violent crime in our city uh my city um resources have been helpful based on my conversations with our us attorney and our district attorney and I want to thank you for that can you share some of the Department's successes in tackling violent crime well yes as I said uh in my opening um and I want to be clear these are not uh the Justice Department's successes these are the country's successes the success in fighting violent crime relies on our partnership with state and local law enforcement which really face violent crime the most directly we operate um um um in support of them um and in our ability to bring technological iCal uh tools and um and statutes um uh to the fight uh that they may not have available I'm about my times almost up I just want to mention one thing I read yesterday that the chairman of the committee wants to reduce funding to the justice department and particularly certain certain areas that would be defunding the justice department and defunding the opportunity to go after reducing violent crime and I'm shocked and I yield back the balance of my Time gentleman excuse me gentleman yields back uh Mr Attorney General we're going to take a break now um the bootes have been going on for a while on the floor we will be back and give or take a 15 minutes more or less uh with that the committee will stand in recess e got e for e that for e e e [Applause] I got col e e e e spe e froma go IND I e e e e e e SC e un e e e St you well they found she was SW e should spe that's a Pur stand this very really good C e e e sh yes e I let e Prin ear for for got carry it all you just want to think committee will come to order uh I would ask unanimous consent enter into the record uh in in uh in light of the the questioning from the gentleman from Florida a letter that we sent the committee sent to the Attorney General on April 30th asking for all Communications with Mr Colangelo um with the justice department and um the folks in in the U Manhattan uh District Attorney's office so without objection that will be entered into the record the chair now recognizes the gentleman from um oh by the way that was April 30th 2024 so attorney general's had plenty of time to respond to what Mr Gates raised in his question about getting that information if it's really no coordination as he alleges then then show us the information or tell us that you don't have any gentleman from Wisconsin recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chair Attorney General on May 15 2024 you sent a letter to President Biden recommending he invoke executive privilege on audio recordings of his interview with special counsel Robert her in this letter you claim the precise concern is that executive privilege protects materials related to a closed criminal investigation where disclosure might hamper prosecutorial efforts in future cases is that correct I think you stated that earlier yes in this letter you also wrote that you are concerned about the prospect of Committees of Congress obtaining confidential records from Justice Department of Criminal investigative files for the purpose of addressing highly politicized issues in public committee hearings is that correct as well are you are you starting my letter yeah in in in correct yeah right so let me go back in the United States versus Mitchell during the Watergate district court case judge CA held that by releasing portions of a subpoenaed recording in transcript form for publication the president's claim of confidentiality and that privilege associated with it was no longer valid since the conversations were no longer confidential you produced the transcripts to this committee correct yes um and and prior to producing the transcripts to the committee they were leaked to the Press So based on Mitchell which is still good law the recordings are in fact no longer confidential aren't they I respond I'm sorry that's not what Mitchell was about at all Mitchell was first of all about transcripts created by President um Nixon for which there was plenty of reason to believe that they were not accurate and secondly it had to do with the confidentiality of communications between Nixon and his staff and one he provided the transcripts the court said those Communications were no longer confidential that is not the allegation that is not what we're asserting here here we're asserting confidentiality over the audio not confidentiality but protection of the audio in a criminal investigation an interview not a staff meeting okay thank you let me move on on your May 15th letter also relies on the argument that producing the audio tapes would affect the Department's ability to obtain vital cooperation and high-profile criminal investigations in particular in investigation through the voluntary cooperation of White House officials is exceeding exceedingly important is it your testimony that a White House official would voluntarily cooperate in a criminal investigation only if the justice department promises not to release the audio recordings it doesn't make any sense uh the longtime experience of the justice department has also reflected in the Declaration that was filed under oath is that Witnesses uh want to protect the confidentiality of their Communications with the prosecutors during these um uh sensitive interviews um in the Cheney case the justice department made the same claim even with respect to uh FBI notes about interviews of uh Mr Cheney and that special counsel it's our view that uh we need um um witnesses to be willing to uh be tape recorded uh uh audio recorded and that they are going to be less willing to do that um if they know it's going to be made public in the Declaration was filed um in court on Friday um the uh senior official stated that he knew of cases right now where people are unwilling to provide audio um because they are worried about it becoming public so the answer is yes that is our view attorney general Have you listened to the audio recording I have not because there's no reason for me to listen to it to and in order to make the determinations that I had to make we had the special councel describe in detail his explanations for his determinations so let me I mean I don't understand how you can kind of sit before the Congressional committee and kind of arbitrate um what's indistinguishable from the transcripts if you're not even sure what's on the tapes themselves I'm I'm not doing it on my own I have so you're seeing other people have listened to it within the department within the department and the special counsel has listened to it and special Counsel had every interest in ensuring that the transcript that he produced in order to do his investigation would be accurate yes that's right okay so let's go back so in May 15th letter you also attempt to distinguish the committee's Reliance on the United States versus Nixon specifically you claim that since President Nixon had released only edited transcripts of a portion of the meetings covered by the audio recordings the Nixon case does not apply but that was not what the Court held regarding the enforceability of the special PR prosecutor subp was it I mean that's not that doesn't match up right now then I'm not exactly sure what you're asking that Nixon it was well known that Nixon had edited the tapes there uh had edited the transcripts and he said he had edited the transcripts uh that is not what happened here the special counsel the FBI agents in a room and the senior uh career official said that the transcripts match the audio so the court reason that the audio recordings would be relevant to show among other things a criminal conspiracy and for other valid potential evidentiary uses for the same material in the Nixon case yes because there were parts of the transcript in which the conspiracy was disclosed of those Communications which he parts of the audio and which were not in the transcript that's not the situation here here we don't know that though attorney general we we're unaware because we haven't heard the Taves we don't know if they match up everyone had a genuine uh reason to believe that those transcripts were not accurate here you have the special counsel agents in the room and you have um uh the senior career official in the department all comparing it and finding them to be accurate time of the gentleman has expired gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman most Americans have grown sick and tired of this do nothing Maga Republican House of Representatives which has failed to pass a single piece of legislation that lowers cost for families or addresses the southern border issue or other important issues instead of attacking real issues that matter house Maga Republicans Fritter away time with Rabbit Hole investigations of Dr fouchy and Hunter Bon while simultaneously spinning webs of lies that seek to create public wrath against anyone who would dare to be involved in any effort to hold convicted felon Donald Trump accountable for his misconduct the American people can see right through the distraction efforts attorney general Garland thank you for your many years of service to our nation among other positions in the federal justice system you have had an illustrious career as a federal judge a judge of the United States court of appeals for the District of Colombia circuit from 1997 through 2021 including as chief judge from 2013 to 2020 and you also served as chair chair of the executive committee of the judicial Conference of the United States from 2017 to 2020 so I'm sure that you've had uh a lot of time to think deeply about the importance of judicial impartiality and a functioning democracy I and 44 other members of Congress have called for justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves in cases where they cannot be seen as impartial in the case seeking immunity for Donald Trump and others Justice Thomas's wife played a major role in the sto the steel movement that culminated in the January 6 Insurrection and we recently learned that Justice Alito flew Flags related to the stop the steel movement at both his residential home and his vacation home in 2021 and again in 2023 which directly ties him to the January six Insurrection to Donald Trump and to efforts to overturn the 2020 election we urg them to recuse themselves from related cases and Justice Alito last week uh refused then last week my colleague Jamie Rasin wrote an oped arguing that doj could petition the other seven justices to require Justice Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves that leads me to this question is the filing of such a petition with the Supreme Court something that the Department of Justice is considering I'm afraid I'm going to have to give the same answer I've given to other members justice department can't comment on matters that are before a court matters you're talking about before The Supreme Court this is I'm talking in terms of an independent U petition uh not related to any matter pending before the court at this time but related uh to those matters justice department speaks through its filings on matters uh before the court and that's all I can say about it well I'd like for the doj to at least consider that possibility uh my next question public reporting uh has revealed that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have accepted Gifts of luxury travel and lodging from billionaire benefactors and failed to report those gifts as required under federal financial disclosure laws the ethics and Government Act provides the Attorney General authority to investigate and take action against violations of the federal of the financial disclosure laws by members of the federal Judiciary even without a referral from the judicial conference is what can you tell us about uh Department of Justice uh efforts to investigate uh those high-profile violations by by those two uh justices afraid I'm going to have to say the same as I said before the justice department does not comment on whether an investigates or who it investigates or whether should investigate fair enough all of our statements are reflected in court papers and Fa fair enough threats on the Judiciary uh are uh increasing um and um this is frightening to the rule of law can you talk about the work that doj is doing to address this important issue yes um the threats uh to the Judiciary threats to prosecutors threats to law enforcement agents have all spiked significantly um and um um in some cases have accelerated from threats to actual violence um we have a threats task force um engaged in investigating uh these matters um we intend to aggressively investigate and prosecute threats against our public officials including members of Congress of which the numbers have actually exploded um uh in the past few couple of years um our democracy cannot continue if the people who make the Democracy run are afraid um if they make their decisions uh based on fear of being threatened or of being assaulted um no democracy can survive under those circumstances and we will do everything we can in our power uh to investigate deter and prosecute anyone who makes threats against public service time is the gentleman thank I you gentleman you's back Mr Garland why why Jack Smith why'd you pick him I've said um uh at the time I appointed Mr Smith I explained uh he was independent he was a longtime career prosecutor um with um but there are probably other people who you would describe as independent longtime career prosecutor why did you pick this is probably the most high profile special counsel investigation maybe in American history you're going to be investigating a former president a candidate for president and leading in all the polls and you pick Jack Smith most important selection may be ever made from attorney general when you comes to a special counsel I just want to know why you could have picked I'm tell former AGS Deputy AGS us attorneys you got all kinds of lawyers in this town but you pick Jack all the people you just mentioned were political would be political appointees I appointed somebody who is not a political appointee somebody who was independent nonpartisan with an with a record of career experience as a prosecutor that seemed to me the perfect resume for making that kind of he was a guy you guy guy worked had to bring him back from Europe he worked at the ICC worked at the world Court he was the best pick for the most high-profile investigation ever he was independent he was nonpartisan he had never held a political office he was never appointed in a political office was he your first choice long career as a career was he your first choice I'm not going to go into um the questions did you know him before you picked him I did not you never worked with with him I did not did you meet with him prior to announcing his selection and telling what was going on course I did what what what what happened in that meeting I met with him I asked him if he would be willing to do this we talked about my understandings of the role of this office which are on the public record that's all did he ask for the job this is not a job I don't think anybody asks for I'm sorry no but that's not the question I asked you I said did Jack Smith ask did not ask me for the job no did did he convey through someone else that he wanted the job I I would be surprised if that were the case but I you don't know no I don't know so he may have I can only tell you what I know I chose him because he had a record of impartial um career experience as a prosecutor that's why he was chosen was it impartial when he went after Governor McDonald he was a member of he was after govern McDonald that case gets appealed to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court unanimously said it was wrong and overturns the conviction it was a in the public Integrity section of the justice department a career position they made the decisions they thought were warranted and we respect the decision of the Supreme Court did the fact that he was interested in going after the very people who were targeted by the IRS about a decade ago did that have any influence on your selection let's put up this slide here this is a this is from Jack Smith to uh some other folks in the justice department and it says could we ever charge a conspiracy to violate laws of the US for Miss use of such nonprofits to get around existing campaign Finance laws Jack Smith was looking to Pro prosecute the very people who were targeted by the Obama IRS I don't know you have excerpts from an email I've never seen you should know that iiss s I'm just asking it this way into your decision did you know about this this I don't know if it's I also don't know if it's true now IRS commissioner Sarah Ingram overse this from Jack Smith himself let's discuss tomorrow but maybe we should try to set up a meeting this week and here's the response here's the response you didn't get your meeting with Miss Ingram from the IRS but she's sending the head of the exempt organizations Lois learner who known to us so Jack Smith meeting with Lois learner looking for ways to prosecute the very people who were victims of the Obama IRS and I'm just asking did that factor in your decision to name Jack Smith as special counsel I didn't have any idea about the things didn't know about that no and I don't know whether they're true now by looking at this well they're definitely true did uh uh but you didn't know about this guy was so important you have to bring him from Europe back here to go after president Trump name him as a special counsel uh do you regret the pick I'm sorry I couldn't do you regret picking him no I do not regret picking him well prosecutors aren't supposed to tamper with evidence and it looks like that's what he did he changed the sequence of the documents that he sees from our logo I'm sorry that's a false characterization but that is on here's what he said to the court Mr attorney general there are some boxes where the order of items within the box is not the same as in the associated scans I mean he said it I didn't say it he told the court that now you're asking me to comment on a discovery dispute that's going ongoing in in a court I don't know the facts of it and I'm not going to com this is from Jack Smith filing with the court he admitted to the court that they tamper with the evidence he mishandled the very documents he's charging president Trump with mishandling and I'm just asking do you regret picking this guy as the special counsel in the most important special counsel investigation probably in American history I'm I'm sorry I didn't not hear the words tamper in the statement that Mr Smith filed he did not use the words well let me ask it this way are you supposed to change the order of the documents that you seiz and there the physical documents don't match up with the scan documents you supposed to do that as a prosecutor this is a matter in dispute in Discovery in that court and I'm going to leave it for the district court to make a determination after I would just say one not in dispute this is what he said in the court filing Jack Smith's team said that to the judge in the court by the way this case is now basically on hold because they've screwed up so many things again I don't know whether your description of the facts are true or not true and I'm not going to intrude in a decision in a district court CH recognize a gentleman from California Mr attorney general we appreciate your being here uh we appreciate how you have led this department with Integrity uh and discipline and uh and your enormous Public Service I appreciate your willingness to sit through this endless Cascade of false allegations and conspiracy theories and innuendo uh the chairman began this hearing with the dramatic statement that Justice is no longer Blind by that he means that Justice is no longer objective or impartial that it is suddenly now a respector of persons in the in the wrong way that is it will distinguish between People based on their position but of course the Chairman's real problem is that Justice remains no respector of persons that you can be the former president the United States but if you commit crimes you'll be held responsible that's his problem that's the problem of all my Republican colleagues right now and that is they're about to nominate a convicted felon and they don't know how to cope with that they don't know how to cope with the justice system that in fact treats Donald Trump the same as it would any other Citizen and so they have to push these conspiracy theories that they know are patently false and they try to run over you with questions they won't let you to answer won't let you answer because their whole arguments are utterly insupportable and destructive of our justice system they care more about this convicted felon than they do the country I have to say I'm I'm pleased and a bit surprised to see that the flag in this committee is still flying right side up because they want to turn it upside down even as they want to turn our justice system upside down let me address the conspiracy theory of the day which is somehow president President Biden through your department has convicted Donald Trump in Manhattan in an effort to weaponize Justice against the former president so let me just ask some basic questions about this phony conspiracy theory did you appoint uh Alvin Bragg to be Manhattan da no of course not he's elected did you select the jury in that case the judge selected the jury they well did you select the judge in that case no no of course not the judge was randomly selected did you select the jury in that case no the jury was actually selected by Donald Trump and his attorneys did you reach a verdict in that case no did you instruct the jury in that case no did you tell the prosecutor What charges to bring in that case no this was 12 ordinary New Yorkers who weighed the evidence and found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felonies and instead of celebrating the fact that in this country an ordinary group of jurors an ordinary group of 12 people can still can still adjudicate a case involving one of the most powerful people in the country know they would denigrate the whole system they would tear it down in the service of this convicted felon they would tear everything down they would tear the house of this democracy down around them they say it's unprecedented to bring charges against a former president you're damn right it's unprecedented we've never had a president of the United States who was making hush money payments to a porn star and then falsifying business records to cover it up yeah that's unprecedented we've never had a president with classified information and then obstruct the investigation that is unprecedented we never had a president in sight a violent attack on the capital that is unprecedented and you know what else is unprecedented the fact that so many leaders of that party are perfect fine with all of that in their headlong pursuit of power they're perfectly fine with that they're going to nominate a convicted felon as their presidential candidate and they have another conspiracy theory which is when when a search was executed to the president's residents in maral Lago they they went in as the president said locked and loaded and ready to take him out yet another dangerous falsehood and your dedicated public servants at the justice department are having their lives threatened because of the irresponsible actions of people on this committee and in the Senate and elsewhere who would endanger the lives of those committed to to enforcing Law and Order even as they claim to be a party of Law and Order Mr ATT General I am grateful for your service service for your withstanding all of this we will get through this because of people like you and the uh and The Honorable public servants at the justice department Mr chairman I yield back chairman Yi's back the chair recognized gent for Arizona thanks Mr chairman um Mr attorney general the the reality is Mr her special counsel her found that Pres the then former vice president President Biden had retained and disclosed um classified information isn't that true Mr Herr has presented a long report isn't that true I come on I'm I'm practically quoting right from it you you wouldn't disagree with that disagree with with I'm not going to comment on his report he sets forth I appointed him to investigate allegations about classified documents so the reason that we end up talking over you is because a simple question like that goes unanswered you're nonresponsive you're non-responsive to the question because that is what what Mr her found and then he also found and and you're not going to like this because I'm going to I'm GNA I'm going to quote from it uh from this he said he basically says here that he he found Mr Biden to be sympathetic and uh here he is well-meaning elderly men with a poor memory and so he made a prosecutorial decision that he wasn't going to prosecute are you going to dispute that you're not disputing that are you Mr her report okay you're going say it stands on its own okay so it stands on no because you don't you you're not intent on answering you want to be non-responsive you want to filibuster would like to answer your question do you dispute that so let's just face it Mr Biden has not been prosecuted correct that's correct and the rationale given by Mr her is because he was a sympathetic well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory and he thought the jury would have sympathy towards Mr Biden that was one of a long list of reasons that Mr her gave for his decision that give me one more reason he found that look I I don't want to go get into a discussion about this but I will say one of them was that the president was Co completely Cooperative uh in this matter that that's the reason huh okay all right the Reas the is the issue that we have here you don't want to give us the audio tape you don't want us to have the recording but ultimately the issue is whether the transcript actually supports the special council's determination now your office has PL has basically pled two things in court claiming number one executive privilege and number two this kind of interesting novel approach saying fake uh deep fakes AI right did you did they consult did you did your staffer who filed that did they consult with you about the Deep fake AI uh rationale for not providing the audio to us you're mischaracterizing the filing that was one of a again a substantial number of arguments made in a Freedom of Information did they consult with you specifically about that idea that notion where they were going to say something like quote this is from the pleading the passage of time and advancements in audio artificial intelligence and deep fake Technologies only amplify concerns about Mal malicious manipulation of audio files close quote did they consult with you about that provision not going to talk about internal Department deliberations that was one of a large number of explanations in the document you're talking about and I'm talking specifically about that particularized rationale and you don't want to discuss it which is why you're non-responsive and that's why we need the audio now let me explain why because your your um attorney also said that you did alter the transcript and they said it was filler words repeat words and and I I but you know what we don't know whether there the blank he said there were blank times where there was silence we don't know whether those were one minute long two minutes long we don't know if he's sputtered for and and and and and because those were edited out we do not know whether this supports and substantiates Mr her's findings by the way you you you want to rely on Mr her you you need to go back and listen to his testimony Mr her was pretty conclusive there that we have that this that he had a a poor memory he was not able to answer all the questions substantively the transcript may be accurate but you know what the audio would tell us so much more which is why which is why the Supreme Court in the case that you poo pooed when Mr Fitz Fitzgerald was asking about they they said look you know if there's editing that's gone on here that's the rationale and there was editing your own office admitted it but you won't admit it today you've been nonresponsive and that's why we need the audio and that's why you're here you'll back back Mr chairman request ranking members recognize Mr chairman I ask un consent to enter into the record the transcripts of special counsil her's interviews with President Biden as you can see in the last pages the transcriber certifies that the transcripts are true and correct without objection gentleman from Arizona is recognized for thank you Mr chairman I also submit uh the pleadings in the case of Judicial Watch versus US Department of Justice objection um a document en titled doj claims unprecedented deep fake objection transcript tampering doj say says written record of Biden interview with prosecutors omitted words that objection doj refuses to release audio of Biden and the her interview that objection the gentleman from California is recognized before anyone else on the other side Saddles up and gets on their High legal horses I just want to remind the committee that the chairman is 754 days into his own subpoena Defiance Mr Attorney General last week it was reported that house ethics panel subpoena doj for Gates records it was a May 14 2024 political piece I'd like to submit it to the record with unanimous consent without objection I just want to get this straight Mr Gates wants the Attorney General to reopen and publicize evidence from an investigation that a Donald Trump appointed prosecutor closed against President Biden while at the same time Mr Gates himself is being protected by the same doj policy that is refusing to voluntarily turn over evidence from Mr Gates's sex trafficking investigation Mr attorney general can you just briefly without going into the facts of that case address why that is the doj policy as it relates to the current president and any other requests about closed investigations yeah without without um referencing any case we try to protect um the uh law enforcement files of the justice department uh so that in future investigations people are willing uh to cooperate with us we understand uh congress's concerns and um when we're uh we have an obligation um to assess um whether the information that we've provided uh is sufficient to accommodate the legitimate needs of the Congress all of the reasons that Congress has given us for why they uh need the audio are satisfied uh with respect to the tapes that is all of the legitimate reasons given the reasons that relate to uh legislative um uh work of the uh committee um as to that we've accommodated by providing the audio we provided Mr her's testimony in full um and we've provided Mr her testimony uh uh report um we've gone as far as we can go to accommodate we're trying to protect our ability to do investigations in this case and in any other case Mr attorney general let's set the facts straight here and my job is to kind of lead an intervention for my colleagues I I think they need it the Attorney General did not prosecute Donald Trump in New York it was the result of Donald Trump's choices Donald Trump chose to live in New York he chose to commit his crimes in New York he was afforded a right to be Tried by his neighbors jurors in New York he chose that jury in New York working with his councel and they chose to make him a 34 time over convicted felon but some of the choices the department has made in the recent years is that the president that was first appointed that Donald Trump appointed the US attorney who is investigating the current president's son Donald Trump appointed John Durham who investigated the wild claims made by this committee during the Russia investigation and Donald Trump appointed Robert her who was kept on by the Biden Administration all also you have the right in our country to Aid yourself in your own defense and talk to investigators you also have a right not to Mr attorney general did Donald Trump sit down for an interview in the mher investigation I I I actually don't know but I'm not going to comment on other investig he didn't did he sit down for an interview with investigators prior to the January 6 indictment I I'm not going to comment he didn't he also didn't sit down for an interview for invest with investigators in the classified materials indictment but President Biden did sit down for a voluntary interview with Robert Herr a jury can't hold it against Donald Trump that he did not testify in his own defense in New York but he promised everyone else in the country that he would you can hold it against Donald Trump that he did not testify when you consider whether you should so blindly follow every wild claim that he makes my colleagues none of this today that you are bringing makes sense your inconsistencies your hypoc ocracy you're sick of fancy unless you are in a cult and guys I'm starting to think you're in a cult that is your right but it's not your responsibility I promise you that's not what your constituents would want so if you believe in State's rights except when a jury in that state convicts your nominee for president you might be in a cult if you can't if you claim you back the blue but want to defund the police when the police go to your nominees house to retrieve National Security secrets you might be in a cult if you're supporting a guy whose felony convictions prevent him from getting a security clearance you might be an Ault and if the guy you're supporting for president has felony convictions that prevent him from going to artina Australia brail Cambodia Canada Chile China Cuba Dominican Republic Egypt Ethiopia Indonesia Iran Ireland Israel Jaan Kenya maau Malaysia Mexico Morocco Nepal Philippines Singapore South Africa South Korea Taiwan Tanzania Tunisia turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates gentle the gentl from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes I'm asking the gentleman I have unanimous consent request has unanimous consent request I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an amikas brief by the former Attorney General Edwin me um without objection the the question presented is whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States um also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article titled was it legal to appoint Jack Smith in the first place this Heritage publication not objection I want to start by reading you the appointment Clause of the Constitution Article 2 Section 2 Clause 6 States the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors other public ministers and C cels judges of the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law are us attorneys nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate according to this appointment's Clause they are appointed um by the president confirmed by the Senate would you agree that us attorneys are held to the appointments Clause because they are delegated some part of the Sovereign power of the United States such as the ability to make indictments and charge individuals with cl crimes I would say that those are not the reasons why and a court has already ruled on the question of whether special councils are subject to the appointments Clause um in the Mueller case and ruled that they were not this matter Jack Smith was Jack Smith nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the US Senate look you're asking me about a case again motions filed as just this a simple question no I'm not Jack Smith nominated by President Biden no he was not was he confirmed by the Senate no he was not when was the special Council statute passed there is no special Council statute there was an independent Council statute that was uh expired so it expired so what gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel to create you've created an office in the in the US government that does not exist without authorization from Congress there regulations under which the Attorney General appoint special counsel they've been in effect uh for 30 years maybe longer under parties of uh under both parties uh the matter that you're talking about about whether somebody can have an employee of the Justus Department service special counsel has been adjudicated you you appealed let me let me interrupt for a second because you appealed to a regulation a rule whereas the Constitution says shall be established by law yeah the the statutes right the statute but you referred to a regulation not to us code regul may I answer the regulation cites the two uh us code uh Provisions that permit uh the Attorney General's appointment attorney general bar cited to the same ones um uh you even attorney general me did that are are you familiar with former Attorney General me's amikas brief uh no you're not I know that that he's filed one CU I read it in the newspapers but otherwise I'm not familiar with it but well he raises some good questions that I agree with in there it seems like you've created an office U that would require an act of Congress yet there's not an act of Congress that authorizes that and even if it didn't require an act of Congress and you've already admitted it there was no act of Congress that established this office it would still require according to the Constitution a nomination by the president and Confirmation by the Senate I want to move on uh to January 6th is it accurate to say that the doj is on Pace to arrest roughly one protester a day in 2024 nearly 3 years after the incident I don't know what the pace is is OB is to arrest uh um and bring to Justice people who are criminally responsible and as they are found they will be arrested is your office preparing to drop charges against more than 340 January 6th there charged with 1512 C2 and released dozens from prison on that count if the Supreme Court this month reverses how your department has used that statute against them we respect the Supreme Court whatever the court rules we will act appropriately so you'll have to drop the charges if the Supreme Court says that you did that wrong hypotheticals we'll wait and see what the Supreme Court says what do you say in response to DC appell at court overturning two excessive sentencing requests sought by your office I say that's that is a the United States system of justice working if people think that they have inappropriate sentences they can appeal their sentences that's the way our system works and we respect the results so you've you've refused to answer questions before us including my questions about January 6th on on multiple occasions here in this committee but the Inspector General is preparing a report are you in receipt of that report yet he's he's promised to um examine the role and activity of doj and its components in preparing for and responding to the events at the US Capital do you have are you in receipt of that I'm not in receipt of an interport you'll have to ask the Inspector General isn't it true that it will go to you before it's released for review I I don't know about the it will not C to me for review the Inspector General is independent I hope to see it before but um that's up to the Inspector General let me just remind you I was not the Attorney General on January do we have your commitment to release that as soon as you see it the determination of of of the release of Inspector General reports is up to the Inspector General we give them Independence Congress demands that we give them my time has expired but we so we have your commitment not to slow down that the release of that from the Inspector General our Inspector General is a very independent person there's no way I could stop him from doing what the law requires and I would certainly never do that gentleman yields back gentleman from Cal California is recognized thank you Mr chairman the house Judiciary Committee is resp responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law unfortunately the chairman of this committee himself ignored a bipartisan Congressional subpoena the actions of this chairman have made it harder for congressional committees to get information from Witnesses and have hurt the rule of law thank you attorney general Garland for your public service I'm going to ask you a series of simple questions about past concluded cases to get the facts out to American people the department Justice charged Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul manfor in a federal court with multiple felonies Mr manfor was convicted in a federal court correct it's my recollection of what the public record um discloses public record shows he was convicted in a federal court the Department of Justice charged Donald Trump's former deputy campaign chairman Rick gates with multiple felonies Mr Gates was convicted in a federal court correct again that's to best to my best to my recollection that's what the public record discloses thank you the Department of Justice charged Donald Trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos Mr Papadopoulos was convicted in federal court correct again that's my best recollection of the public record you were not the Attorney General at the time correct I was not no in fact the attorney general for those three criminal cases was Jeff sessions who was nominated by Donald Trump the Department of Justice charged Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen with multiple felonies he was convicted in a federal court correct again that's my best recollection of the public record you were not the Attorney General at the time correct was not in fact Michael had two sets of convictions the attorney general for Michael Cohen's second conviction was Matthew Whitaker who was also appointed by Donald Trump the Department of Justice charged Roger Stone who was an advisor to Donald Trump with multiple felonies rogerstone was convicted in a federal court correct again my best recollection of the public record Theo of Justice charge Elliot Bry who was a fundraiser for Donald Trump Mr Bry was convicted in a federal court correct same answer you were not the Attorney General at the time right I was not in fact the attorney general for those two criminal cases was Bill bar who was nominated by Donald Trump what these facts show is that the Department of Justice has not been weaponized we have one Department of Justice that goes after criminals regardless of party affiliation these Trump Associates were convicted under the administration of three Republican Attorneys General each of whom was nominated by Donald Trump Trump's campaign manager felon Trump's Deputy campaign manager felon Trump's foreign policy advisor felon Trump's lawyer felon Trump's political adviser felon Trump's fundraiser felon it is not the fault of the Department of Justice that Donald Trump surrounded himself with criminals Trump brought that upon himself one of the things that makes America great is we are ruled by the law not by a cult or personality I want to thank you attorney general Garland and the Department of Justice for applying the law without fear or favoritism and I note as we sit here today the Department of Justice is Prosecuting Hunter Biden in a federal court right now you can't love your country only when the candidate you like wins and you can't love Law and Order except when the criminal felon is someone you like in America no one is above the law not the rich not the powerful not any former presence and certainly none of his criminal felon enablers now I want to move on to another subject our general man from Arizona on the other side of the aisle gave away the game today when he said why he wanted the audio transcript he said we wouldn't know if Joe Biden had said and and and and so I just want to ask you this question special councelor Robert her said that this transcript was accurate the written transcript was an accurate rendition of the audio transcript correct except for some stutters yes so what the Gent from Arizona wants is that transcript audio with an end and and end because Joe Biden stutters he's had a stuttering problem his entire life he overcame stuttering he was made fun of in school and he overcame this disability to become president of United States a leader of their free world and it is Despicable that my Republican colleagues want to go after him for his stuttering problem they should apologize and I yield back gentleman yields back uh the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized uh Mr attorney general uh you said earlier today you spoke to the committee's recommendation to the house to hold you in contempt you said but we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created uh you went on to uh to say that certain members of this committee and the oversight committee are seeking contempt you're aware that a majority of of this committee has marked up a contempt resolution aren't you sir certain members includes the majority yes it's a big difference isn't it sir isn't that significant the fact that a majority of the committee charged by the Congress to inquire into the grounds for impeaching the president of the United States has issued a has marked up a Content resolution that's more important than certain members isn't it sir majority institutionally more important a majority has sought contempt yes you said that you will not be intimidated are you the Arbiter I'm sorry are you the AR Arbiter the decider of whether or not those tapes will be provided to this Congress at the instance at The subpoena of its committee to investigate the president Constitution requires me to protect the separation of powers and our ability to do investigations in the future it requires me and the court Law Court proceedings make that clear to weigh whatever interests you have against the interests of law enforcement uh the president has asserted executive privilege and I have not heard a legitimate legislative reason why the audio is insufficient for any purpose that legitimate purpose you know you know what demeanor evidence is don't you sir I'm sorry demeanor evidence you know what that is sat on the bench for decades you know I know what demeanor evidence I know what demeanor evidence is and I've not been shown any reason why audio evidence of demeanor would make a difference in any legislative purpose that well that's exactly what demeanor evidence is Sir witnessing an observing a witness as they testify and what can be done by this committee is to observe the audio recording of the president testifying to see whether it comports with the transcript or whether it reveals things about his capacity or his veracity or anything else that comes from the his demeanor as he as he is interviewed well none of the things that you just mention are legislative purpose I don't have I yet to suggest suggest any law that you intend to pass or thinking about in which the audio would make a difference over the transcript if a future doj concludes well let me ask you this question what happened to Peter nooro and Steve Bannon when they decided to defy a subpoena of the Congress we we received three uh four referrals criminal referrals two were prosecuted two were not the two that were prosecuted as the published Court opinions may clear What will what will happen to you if your decision is Basel may I continue to answer no I I know what happened you know the what happened to they're in Mr Navaro is in prison uh what will happen to you if your sole determination uh that you're not going to cooperate with this committee subpoena is um with respect to the two people you asked the court made clear they did not comply in any way did not even appear and second there was no executive privilege neither goes as true in my case if a future Department of Justice follows the facts and the law as you're fond of reciting even to the point of Prosecuting a former president then if your decision is baseless you should be prosecuted right if a future and I hope it will be the case a future justice department follows the law and uh and the uh decisions of the office of legal counsel since the Reagan Administration when there is an assertion of executive privilege the contempt statute is in applicable that's been the rule through every Administration including um um the uh Reagan administration it even reached back to the Eisenhower Administration uh Mr attorney general I hope they will follow the law Mr attorney general you have um uh resurrected the foreign influence task force and there's a FBI spokesman recently told media according to reports that uh FBI has returned to facilitating the sharing of information about foreign malign influence with social media companies in a way that rein forces that private companies are free to decide on their own whether and how to take action on that information a district court has decided that you didn't do that before how are you doing that how are you reinforcing that private companies have their own capacity to decide the case that you're talking about is now under advisement in the Supreme Court of the United States and I'm not going to comment on any Court matter which the court May didn't ask you to do that I ask you to ask you how you're reinforcing it that's what your spokesman said you're reinforcing the private company's latitude how are you doing I'm going to comment on what the district court said we have the authority as a supreme court just held last week uh to persuade we can't coer so we can provide information that Russia or China or Iran or North Korea is operating on a social media platform why don't you do it leave it to the social media to take it down why don't you do it in public I'm sorry why don't you do that in public so the public can see what you're doing well I'm not saying that we shouldn't also do it in public I hope everybody in this room would want to know if one of our adversaries is um um um acting as if they were American citizens on a on a social time of the gentleman's expired uh the gentle lady from Pennsylvania has a UC then we'll come to I have a brief UC uh unanimous consent request and it follows directly in line with what was just being asked about chairman Jordan has argued that the committee needs this audio file of the President Biden's interview with doj yet has refused to release the transcripts from the vast majority of more than 130 transcribed interviews that the committee has conducted today even refused to provide copies of the audio and video files of the transcribed interviews and deposition request in here there is I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record all of the transcripts transcribed interviews that the committee has conducted this Congress so that we can bring that real transparency to the American people I object gentleman from North Carolina Jacks um and I thank you for releasing the one transcript uh we will release all the transcripts when we complete our investigation for you did they've completed their investigation they won't give us all the evidence we will give all that evidence when we're done with our investigation the gentleman from Pennsylvania is Rec thank you attorney general Garland over here thank you thank you for your longstanding and honorable service to our country and for being here today the American people appreciate the serious work that you and the dedicated members of the Department of Justice do on their behalf every day to protect the rule of law and to protect our communities and our civil rights Congress of course has a legitimate duty to oversee the Department's functions but it's pretty clear from the remarks we've heard from our Republican colleagues in this hearing that they have not brought us here today in pursuit of that Duty instead this hearing appears driven by the desire to Curry favor with the disgraced impeached indicted and now convicted former president president and their ongoing efforts to legitimize his attacks on American elections our judicial process law enforcement the press and basically anybody who contradicts or seeks to hold him accountable so this isn't legitimate oversight it's political theater and it's pretty bad theater at that it's not the serious work that the American people should expect us to do here and it distracts from our understanding and oversight of the Department of Justice's important efforts to protect our national security to combat violent crime gun violence drug trafficking and fraud to protect voting rights and reproductive freedoms to combat hate crimes and to advance environmental justice so I would highly recommend that anyone who is actually interested in the department of Justice's work to read the statement that you submitted to the committee today because it contains some important details about the work that the department is doing I was particularly struck and profoundly troubled by your comments about the extraordinary rise in threats and violence against public servants in our country ranging from Criminal threats against election workers and members of Congress to the January 6th assault on this capital and our constitutional order so I'd particularly like to focus on one aspect of those attacks on public servant and one that has implications for the strength and future of our Democratic Republic I'm interested in the department of Justice's work to protect those who Implement and defend our elections because in the wake of the 2020 election and in response to the lies and conspiracy theories embraced by the former president and his lackes we've seen election officials and poll workers across the country these are apolitical employees their community volunteers retirees neighbors Civic Champions um they become targets for threats and violence when they stand up against the lies and seek to hold the former president accountable because they did their jobs running our elections and to the extent that these lies and conspiracy theories have been embraced or elevated by members of this Congress or committee shame on them this isn't legitimate political discourse it should not be part of our americanl public life because words do have consequences When leaders Embrace misinformation that's dangerous and when they fail to defend our elections from lies and misinformation that's dangerous and cowardly now this committee has heard testimony from multiple Witnesses experts in election security who've expressed concern that threats to election workers which exploded in 2020 will result in fewer people being willing to serve and whether as nonpartisan employees or volunteers attorney general Garland can you comment briefly on the incidents of threats and violence against election workers why these incidents are dangerous and if you have any insight on what's caused this dramatic rise so your portrayal I think is quite accurate I've been worried about this since 2021 um and we've been I've been um talking about this with our United States attorneys uh we created an election threats task force particularly because we were so worried uh and as you say this is not only about elected election officials not only about appointed election officials but um about ordinary Americans who show up as pole Watchers on a single day uh during the year uh to to run our elections our our democracy can't work if the those people uh fear um um threats that are urged against them or if there's actual violence against them we have brought I don't have the exact numbers but I think it's creeping up on 20 cases uh where there have been uh extraordinarily uh graphic threats of violence against election workers and we have received some pretty strong sentences uh in those cases of course we always balance uh First Amendment right to criticize um uh to disagree but when somebody makes a threat um to kill a uh uh an election worker to kill members of their family we respond and we are going to respond aggressively every us attorney um uh has uh endorsed this position every uh FBI field office has an election uh security uh agent whose job it is to secure to be sure that threats like against um election workers um are investigated deterred and prosecuted thank you um and if there are additional tools that Congress can provide that would help the department in in this work I'd appreciate hearing about it I see my time has expired thank you for your testimony G yields back the gentleman from Morgan's recogniz thank you Mr chair and thank you Mr attorney general for being here today I just have a a couple of areas uh of of interest to me at least um the first one has to do with your remarks earlier in the hearing where you were drawing the distinction between state court and federal court and you were saying that state court is quote another jurisdiction State quote prosecutors are independent uh third remark prosecutors are completely independent fourth remark action decisions of the state prosecutors are independent and they taken of their own volition um what what disturbs me about those assertions is what actually happened uh I I'll go with the fanny Willis Case first and just mentioned that uh her her friends spent some eight hours in the White House discussing discussing the case um her friend Fanny Willis's friend um and my question to you is if they're so independent what were the what why were people who were involved in this state action up talking to the the federal folks what's what how do you explain that well I don't know if it's true I don't know anything about that I don't know if if she was there what she was talking about I don't know anything to support this allegation at all I think what I have here uh on my on my notes are were you aware that the Fon County DA Fanny wil's office coordinated with special councel Smith the Biden White House and the Democrat Run January 6 committee during her investigation of President Trump you're saying you don't know anything about that yes I don't know anything about that would it disturb you if that actually happened well I I imagine that if this committee asks a prosecutor for information um or if a prosecutor asks this committee for information there may be conversations about uh that information I think that is relatively routine um I don't have any idea uh whether there were any conversations with the special counsel but it would not be uh uh uh anything wrong with um uh people in different jurisdictions who have evidence um obtaining the evidence the were you aware that da Willis hired her friend Nathan way to prosecute president Trump uh as he met that Mr Wade met with the Biden White House on two occasions for eight hours I I don't know anything about it again would that disturb you and the reason I'm asking this is because it appears that there is this double standard some people refer to as a two-tier system that is one tier for certain people like President Trump and the other tier for everybody else and that disturbs me would it disturb you if there was a different type of Justice being applied to our former president than that which has applied to other defendants of course it would disturb me there is only one tier of Justice we treat like cases alike we don't give any benefit to a powerful person over a non-powerful person any benefit to a Democrat over a republican I'm not so I'm not concerned about the defendants getting the benefits so much as I am the prosecutors and State Court coming to the federal folks and and basically saying hey we know you've been doing all this work here give us all this material now maybe that much is fine but that's isn't what generally happens uh now if you were a former president you're going to get a lot of attention and and that's that's exactly what's been happening here and and it's I don't think that's fair I don't think the people of the United States think it's fair that that that a former president would be ganged up on if you will by by by both the federal government and the state government that does not seem right I mean you may be doing it and I guess you're saying that it would be fine if that did happen but to me it seems like a double standard I want to shift over to the audio tapes and uh I you're you're a former judge so you're very familiar with the best evidence rule it's Rule one2 and it I I went to law school I I remember uh the discussions about quote best evidence but you would know it far better than I you must have dealt with it literally hundreds of times but the best evidence rule in to to we uh rural practitioners of country law meant that if you had one piece of evidence W I know an audio tape you'd be far more likely to want to use it and perhaps it would be required as opposed to a transcript is that correct I I respect your experience but I'm afraid the best evidence rule is not applicable best evidence rules reflected in rule 103 of the federal Rules of Evidence and it provides that a duplicate is admissible for all purposes as an original unless there is a genuine dispute about its authenticity for the reasons I've stated extensively in answers to the other members there is no genuine dispute about the authenticity of the transcripts so the best evidence rule simply has no application in this Cas so actually I would agree with you in the sense that we're not in federal court but but I also also want to tell you that when when the the essence of of his decision Mr her's decision was that there was a a a a challenge that our president was fa is facing when it comes to his memory and his demeanor then I have to agree with gentleman from North Carolina that the audio tapes are are the best evidence of exactly how how qualified uh Mr her was in making his decision that he should not prosecute but that I see my time is exhausted so I yield back gentleman yields back the gentle lady from uh Pennsylvania is recognized thank you Mr chairman uh hello attorney general Garland I thank you for being here today I thank 115,000 members of the Department of Justice for your faithful Service uh and I am sorry for the regrettable conversations that are going on I've served on this committee for the better part of six years I begged to be on this committee when I ran there was so much I wanted to work on like focusing on gun violence like focusing on the opioid poisoning epidemic uh and so many other things having to do with the protection of civil rights and the rule of law and yet what we've observed in this Committee in hearing after hearing after hearing sadly is misinformation disinformation very pointedly with the purpose of tearing down America's faith in our institutions this is one such hearing there are members on this committee who would rather tear down the faith in the independence of the Department of Justice then say that one man is responsible for his behaviors and is being held to account both civil and now criminally Mr Trump's behaviors are the reasons they are railing and they are upset he's been convicted of he's been um found guilty of fraud he's been convicted on 34 felony counts and it would be okay if it weren't so dangerous that's what worries me it is so dangerous what is going on so let's be clear one of the reasons that you're here today is to say somehow the Department of Justice had something to do with the Manhattan district attorney bringing uh the suit uh and a jury of 12 citizens strangers listening to the evidence here ing from talented prosecutors and defense attorneys and the judge and they came back with a Clarity of 34 convictions for a former president and a Presidential nominee what role did your department have in that prosecution that prosecution was determined by the Manhattan district attorney which does not report to us is not controlled by us um and operates completely independent of the Department of Justice thank you I also want to respond to a few other dangerous statements chairman Jordan said a kangaroo court that's quoting convicted president Trump he's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee speaker Johnson's claimed that Democrats cheered this purely political exercise and we heard him in an interview on fox saying the Supreme Court should uh break up the conviction overturn the conviction and he knows many of the justices personally Mr Trump pies himself as a so-called political prisoner these statements are false and they are aimed to mislead they are aim to inflame they are dangerous the nominee is a convicted fell or the would be nominee is a convicted felon what happened is he was guilty of an unlawful conspiracy to win the 2016 election by falsifying records to cover a trist with a porn star in the days before for the 2016 election I'm grateful our institution stood up I'm grateful to that set of jurors who walked in as strangers and citizens and listened to the evidence and put the law attached to it but I'm really deeply concerned that our institutions are under attack Mr Garland you talked about in your written testimony the role of the Department of Justice in upholding the rule of law can you speak to that a little more so I have um devoted my entire career to ensuring that the rule of law is the rule that the justice department applies and that the courts apply that we follow the precedents that we treat light cases alike that we do not have enemies or friends that we do not pay attention to the political parties or the wealth or the power or the influence to the people that we are investigating that we follow the facts and the law um this is what distinguishes this country from our adversaries and an attack on the rule of law tears down people's confidence in in the basic fundamental element of our democracy that all people will be treated equal and I intend uh to continue uh to protect the rule of law to protect the 115,000 career employees of my department to make sure that they can continue to go about their job uh which is to do the right thing every day uh and not to be distracted uh by outside influences political or otherwise I thank you m Mr attorney general and I call upon those time I I want to just mention one other thing quickly I'm fearful I'm fearful for the appalling Silence of good people on this committee okay okay we've heard of that gent ladies gent ladies time has expired uh Mr attorney general we understand you want to break can we do one more five minutes and then we'll take a little break would that work all right the gentl from Texas recognize uh thank you Mr attorney general for appearing before the Judiciary Committee uh I read a report recently that the uh DC United States attorney's office had only devoted 5% of resources to January 6th prosecutions but I've also understand from any conversations that the most or all of the United States Attorney uh us attorney districts contributed an aosa or an investigator to the effort can you confirm whether the department across the board has been providing additional support from other us attorneys offices in terms of a usas or investigators uh contributing for the January 6 investigations uh yes uh that's true and that began before I became attorney general that continued after I became attorney general so multiple resources across the department have been devoted to that effort including other districts yes because of the significance of an attack on the democracy and this body the reason I'm asking about that is in terms of the focus of the resources of the department um if if I uh staff would put up on the screen um there's a number of people here that I want to see if you can identify who they are um what we have here in the bottom rightand corner is a woman named Elizabeth Medina uh she was found dead uh in a bathtub uh in Texas uh her mom found her uh hoping to see her in a parade uh that night uh she was killed by rapael go Romero who is here illegally uh on the bottom leftand corner you have Lake and Riley um she was killed uh by 26-year-old Jose abara arrested by uh US Customs of Border Protection after he unlawfully entered the United States near El Paso Texas uh up above you have officers Richard yuso 26 uh and officer Christopher AB 26 both were shot this last weekend by Bernando rul Castro mat and 19-year-old Venezuela National apprehended by US border patrol unlaw entered the United States near Eagle Pass uh in July of 2023 what we have is a continued effort by the uh federal government uh to fail to secure the border of the United States and Americans are dying or getting shot in this case law enforcement getting shot to young women who are dead uh my question for you with respect to the department is uh do you believe that Texas has a right to defend itself and to ensure that people who are in this country uh are not here illegally and that we can protect the citizens of Texas from people unlawfully here who are committing crimes to Elizabeth Madina who's no longer with us because the federal government refused to do its job yet the Department of Justice is suing the state of Texas to stop implementation of sp4 so do you say as the Attorney General of the United States Texas does not have a right to defend itself and to protect our citizens from Murder By people who have come here illegally into the United States I say as the attorney general and and as a human being that my heart goes out to the families that these are terrible terrible events I say secondly as the Attorney General the way to stop people like this from coming into into the United States is to give more resources to to the border patrol so that they can prevent Mr attorney general no no you don't want we the people of Tex money's not going to solve the problem when the Department of Homeland Security and the president of the United States refus to enforce the law ignore the policies and Elizabeth Medina would be here alive today if we were following the law Lake and Riley would be here today if we had not released a killer under the streets of the United States of America through parole policies that this Administration is advancing and the Department of Justice is suing the state of Texas in court taking valuable resources to go against the people of Texas when Texas simply wants to say that we should have a say in stopping people who are illegally arrest them and be able to deal with that on our own terms when the federal government refuses to do its job as reflected in our as reflected in our filings in that case we are in court because the United States Supreme Court in Arizona versus the United States held that states cannot adopt their own immigr you're you're in court because you're choosing to try to stop Texas from enforcing the laws that the federal government is refusing to enforce and by the way that's not the same thing as Arizona but a final question in my last minute the Department of Justice did not assert privilege with regard to the transcript correct that's right the and you articulated a minute ago to my colleague that the best evidence rule says that the transcribed copy is admissible right but but how can you claim privilege in the face of not just a legislative inquiry but a constitutional impeachment inquiry how can you claim privilege for something that you just testified was effectively the same thing how can you claim privilege for the audio of the transcript you just testified was the same I just testified the words are the same sensing an audio is different you have not given any explanation and there's nothing in the impeachment resolution that uh would make a difference e e e e e e e e spe not m [Music] for for e spe e e for it's [Music] said I'm so confus e e e dis different love after e no e we for May e e TR e e e e e Gir spe e e e e e e e e TR e e e e e e e e can if will come to order the G A from Texas recognize for five minutes thank you Mr chairman uh Mr Garland right here uh first I want to thank you and every single member of your team for your dedicated public service for everything that you do on behalf of our country every single day I know this political environment is toxic and difficult and it's not just difficult for you and your team but it's difficult for your families as well um so I I wanted to express my gratitude to you and I also wanted to provide a very distinct and different perspective on what the state of Texas is doing from what one of my Texas colleagues uh just described and the way that he described it is is really troubling to me Governor Greg abbit uh under the offices of what a republican colleague of mine just described as Texas defending itself has actually um created an incredibly hostile environment for my community of El Paso Texas and very likely other communities along the Texas Mexico border my constituents have seen significant property damage to their property as a result of Reckless and dangerous high-speed chases my constituents have been detained illegally uh under operation lonar and all of these constituents are US citizens by the way uh who are Hispanic and who have been targeted by operation lonar most recently the Texas Attorney General has targeted a nonprofit in El Paso that has long been a partner to the federal government a part partner long before President Biden was in office a partner to the federal government during uh former president Donald Trump's term in office and long before that and the uh Texas Attorney General has targeted that nonprofit effectively trying to shut it down for being a partner to the federal government when it comes to migration and you and I had a meeting a few months ago and I shared with you some of my concerns not just on these issues but also with regard to Senate Texas Senate Bill 4 which creates a whole new level of immigration enforcement at the state level something that apparently my Republican colleagues are championing would you please share with us with the committee and the American public why it is um really a terrible consequence for any state whether it's Texas or any state what the challenges are with a state deciding it's going to create its own immigration uh uh process uh thank you um um I'm going to follow my practice of sticking to what we've said in the public filing so what I can say about as before is we regard it as an unconstitutional act by the state the Supreme Court has held that immigration deportation questions are um matters for the federal government uh under the immigration Naturalization Act and under the Constitution that every state can't adopt its own views about deportation um um that there are uh serious law enforcement risks of uh different law enforcement agencies operating in the same venues but the important thing is that this is a question of uh the sovereignty of the United States and of the Constitution so I I can't say anything more but this is in litigation and uh we are doing our best to uphold the the Supreme Court's president on this and it's a relatively recent precedent thank you Mr Garland I also want to make sure to make you aware that we have gotten reports of uh some of the Texas National Guard shooting indiscriminately into crowds of migrants On the Border shooting plastic bullets want to make sure that you are aware of that in addition to all the other issues that I've made you aware of uh that are occurring in El Paso um I see I'm out of time but I will continue to Comm communicate with you and your staff the egregious civil rights and human rights violations happening in my community at the hands of operation lonar thank you I yield back J yields back and jally from Texas made me uh um think about our other Democrat uh member from Texas who has it's been announced is dealing with cancer and our thoughts and prayers are with Miss Jackson Le who's been a great member of this committee for a long long time I just just thought of that after the gentle lady began her questions we now recognize a gentleman from Wisconsin Mr Tiff attorney general during the Department's criminal investigation of Hunter Biden investigators gave Hunter's councel a heads up regarding their future investigative actions specifically a pending search warrant does the Department of Justice usually tip off the defense Council ahead of time to warn them that they'll be executing a search warrant you're asking me about a case that's in trial as we speak and I'm just not going to comment and I think that's highly inappropriate for me to do oh this would not be inappropriate at all do you warn defense Council ahead of time is this a standard operating procedure for uh the Department of Justice to notify that you're going to execute a search warant think I've answered this question before it depends on the situation in some circumstances yes and some circumstances no generally not but so shortly after if I may interrupt shortly after the FBI raate on maral Lago you said upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor did the Department of Justice give the same courtesy to president Trump's Council and warn them about the search warrant for Mara Lago saying the issues are determined on the ground with respect to um what people um are concerned about out on the ground um that that issue about marago is also the subject of a challenge in court and I'm not going to comment about that either so one you notified defense counsel the other one you didn't I don't know whether uh whether you're accurately describing what happened in the hunter Biden case or not during special counsel her's investigation to whether or not President Biden retained classified documents he found that President Biden knew the information in his possession was classified isn't that correct I don't I don't recall the exact words of of Mr her but but um they are what they are yeah I mean he knew the information uh um Joe Biden knew the information that he had in his possession was classified I I think that's widely known again Mr her testified for five hours in front of you and all these questions could be asked of him um um and and he a long report it's on the the public record on this question I'm just not going to comment just like I didn't comment on Mr Durham's report when people ask me to do that did then Vice President Biden have the authority to declassify the classified documents he illegally retained Mr her addressed any questions like that in in his um report I know what you're really asking me about is the case in um Florida and I'm just not going to comment on matters that are being litigated in court it's highly inappropriate for me to do so you can't comment on something that's already out there publicly by Mr her simply uh did Vice President Biden then Vice did he have the ability to declassify classified documents Mr does any vice president have the uh ability to declassify classified documents depends on who the original I mean the ultimate Theory goes back to an executive order that depends on the origin the classification any a very long discussion about classification have any other former president pres vice presidents or cabinet secretaries retained classified information after they left office have others done this I I don't know Mr her did Vice President Pence have classified Mr her recounted the information that he had about past um um keeping former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did she have classified documents anything more than Mr her reported in his report on these matters how many of those that have had classified documents either a former vice president like Pence or um Secretary of State like Hillary Clinton how many of them were charged with retaining classified information Mr her explained why he chose not to cl to recommend a Class A a um a charge the answer is none of them were charged and how many of them none of them were charged other than president Trump how many of them are currently running for president against President Biden Mr her explained in detail the reasons that distinguished former president case from the current president was there opposition in the Washington field office seeking a search warrant of Mara Lago I I I'm hoping that there was always discussion in field offices about the appropriate um approach who gave the goahead the search I know I know that the the uh reference to the special agent that was made earlier left out the conclusion of his transcript which is he thought it was lawful who gave the go-ahead to do the search warrant to execute the search warrant on Marl Lago Magistrate judge in in the district approve the search warrant who ultimately um okayed it within the department of J I've already said I approved the recommendation to seek a search warrant the search warrant application then went to a judge who found probable cause for the search for the reason stated in the affidavit and displayed all over the record of the 11 circuit opinion Mr chairman classified documents Biden no Trump yes Council notified Biden yes Trump no the Dual system of justice in America gentlemen Yi gentleman Yi's back gentle lady from Washington's recognized thank you Mr chairman we are supposed to be here conducting oversight of the Department of Justice but instead Republicans are using this hearing and this committee as a legislative arm of the Trump campaign this hearing is clearly a desperate attempt to distract the American people from the consequences of the former president's action and the fact that no one is above the law including the former president I want to remind my colleagues that this hearing should be about the Department of Justice and protecting doj's mission to uphold the rule of law to keep our country safe and to protect civil rights it's extremely disturbing to me to see Donald Trump campaigning on a promise to overhaul our nation's top law enforcement body so that it he can go after his opponents and and Mr chairman I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record an article summarizing an investigation by the ethics Watchdog citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington without objection this report found that quote since the start of last year Trump has issued direct or implied threats on Truth social to use the powers of the federal government to Target Joe Biden during a second Trump Administration he's done that 25 times to uh Target Joe Biden with FBI raids in investigations in indictments and even jail time and that Trump has quote threatened or suggested that the FBI and the Department of Justice should take action against Senators judges members of Biden's family and even non-governmental organizations in contrast I want to thank you for your tremendous service to our country attorney general Garland and to say that uh with you under the Biden Administration your department of justice has shown remarkable in Independence and integrity in the execution of our laws as a committed public servant who has served our nation's top law who has served as our nation's top law enforcement officer and under five Attorneys General in both career and non-career positions can you briefly tell me how the Department of Justice makes decisions about how to use its investigative and enforcement powers and how we can strengthen those processes against political influence in future administrations yes um uh after Watergate uh there was an effort to create a set of principles of federal prosecution uh which I worked on um when I first entered the justice department as a young lawyer it it sets forth the principles it says um um uh prosecutions uh cannot occur unless um the uh prosecutor believes that uh they can um but more likely than not they will be able to prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt um the guilt of the person that no uh non-merit issue can be considered uh with respect to a prosecution not wealth not power not party not religion not ethnicity and that there has to be a federal purpose uh for the investigation um we established lines of uh Independence between the White House um and the um justice department as well as between the Congress and the justice department to ensure that political considerations do not uh take are not taken into consideration but the principal um um bull workk of um the rule of law is the career uh Workforce of the department the agents and the prosecutors uh who do their jobs every day with only one purpose uh to do the right thing in every case thank you attorney general um I want to talk briefly about antitrust because this is an area where under your leadership and the leadership of Assistant Attorney General Jonathan caner historically a bipartisan issue by the way the doj antitrust division has won victories in court against employers that sought to suppress workers pay and blocked harmful mergers in the airline industry you're working to lower food prices by targeting anti-competitive practices and mergers in the grocery and meat processing industry and the antitrust division successfully ended a price fix fix in scheme in DVD and Blu-ray sales and prevented video game companies from suppressing wages in Esports these are incredible uh accomplishments and you're also working to promote competition in the live music industry um thank you for the Recently filed case against Live Nation Ticket Master um proud that Washington's attorney general has joined that case along with 29 others um and I was struck by the so-called Ticket Master flywheel a self-reinforcing business model that traps fans are artist and independent venues in The Ticket Master ecosystem can you just explain how that works and why this is so important for competition and for lower prices for consumers in the live music industry I'm sorry to um have to give you the same answer that I gave your colleagues on the other side of the aisle uh we filed a case um we announced the complaint that at this point um we can't comment on it but the answers to your question I think are very well laid out out and the Very extensive uh complaint that we filed in that matter I was hoping to be able to brag about it but I understand and uh thank you so much for your service Mr chairman I yiel back lady yelds back gentlemen Virginia is recognized Mr attorney general uh the public has seen through the claims you've made today about fair and impartial pursuit of Justice they see that lady Justice's blindfold has slipped off and they need look no further than the treatment by your department of former president Trump and current defendant Hunter Biden um I chair the subcommittee on responsiveness and accountability to oversight and your office has uh gone a long way towards obstructing our efforts to investigate uh much of what we've talked about today but beyond simply obstructing Congress uh did allegations surface last year that senior Justice Department officials attempted to obstruct the criminal investigation in Hunter Biden's numerous alleged tax crimes I'm sorry I didn't understand the question did you attempt to obstruct the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden's alleged crimes absolutely not according to IRS whistleblower Joseph zegler on October 21st 2021 us attorney Leslie wolf told investigators they would be in quote hot water and quote if they interviewed Hunter Biden's adult children and IR IRS investigators were prevented by doj from interviewing Hunter Biden's other relatives including the president's brother and sister Hunter Biden's in-laws ex-wife and Bo Biden's Widow doesn't this depart from standard investigative procedure you ask me if I obstructed I don't know virtually any of the people you just listed other than because they've been in the newspaper Mr Weiss has testified about this matter Mr Weiss will testify again when the matter is completed he will write a report you'll be able to examine him for 5 hours if you want but I I don't know the facts of this matter and I don't intend to intrude on Mr Weiss's investigation but it is false that I in any way obstructed Mr Weiss's uh investigation that's just false did the doj allow the statute of limitations to lapse on some of the most serious I've testified about this uh before Mr Weiss will have an opportunity to explain uh which matters he decided to bring which matters he decided not to bring and I don't know any more about it than that it's not that he decided to bring charges or not he decided to allow statut limitations to lapse uh on the 2014 and 2015 tax returns even though prosecutors could have sought an extension and in fact defense Council was willing to agree to extend the statute of limitations for these charges isn't that correct I don't know if anything you're saying is correct Mr Weiss will have to answer those questions and I'm sure he will be able to when he appears before this committee uh it doesn't seem like you're aware of a lot that's going on intentional with respect to Mr Weiss's investigation that's what an independent special counsel is about when did you when did you appoint special Council Weiss sorry say again when did you appoint special Council David I don't remember the exact dat it's a matter of public record isn't this corre isn't it correct that this was after iros whistleblowers like Mr shapley exposed numerous instances of wrongdoing including allowing the statute of limitations to expire the appointment of Mr Weiss has nothing to do with anything any whistleblower said the statute of limitations was allowed to expire before your appointment some of the statute limitations likely expired before I was appointed as attorney general I I don't know the facts here they have no connection to each other so your claim that it should be you can't comment on it because Mr Weiss is currently investigating has nothing to do with it's actually the fact that those statutes limitations expired before you were appointed and before he was appointed correct I'm sorry I'm not I'm not following the question there's no con ction between whatever happened with the statute of limitation which I don't know about and my appointment of Mr Weiss did special Council Weiss receive directions from your office regarding the details of the plea deal for Hunter Biden when I was nominated to be attorney general two members of the Senate publicly asked me to let Mr Weiss continue in his role to which he had been appointed by President Trump I promised that I would thereafter more than a majority of the Republican members of the Senate asked me to appoint Mr tce a special counsel okay ultimately I did appoint him as special counsel I promised not to intrude and I stuck with my promise let me ask you something you might remember on May 23rd of this year were you in attendance at a state dinner for the president of Kenya yes I was did Hunter Biden also attend the dinner uh from newspaper reports yes did you and Hunter interact in any way I have never spoken to Hunter Biden in my life as far as I know yield the remainder of my time to the chairman uh I thank the gentl for yielding is the Department of Justice retaliating against whistleblowers no that would be a violation of Statute and a violation of our Inspector General seems to think you are I got this management advisory memorandum dated May 2024 notification of concerns regarding the Department of Justice compliance with whistleblower protections for employees with the security clearance the M that I've read the management uh um um memo I think it's a good memo it doesn't say we've been retaliated against anybody it says that there have to be additional protections with respect is it just pure qu incidence at Marcus Allen security clearance got reinstated today whistleblower came in front of this committee Democrats despar this guy called him conspiracy theorist 27 months without his security clearance and we find out today it's been reinstated yeah I'm sorry I don't know about the facts anything about the facts of that case retali against wh retaliation against whistleblowers is against the law and it will be punished three people have come and talked to this committee as whistleblowers have had their security clearance taken Marcus Allen gets gets his security clearance put back in place to day and the Inspector General says he's got concerns doing an investigation as we speak about what's going on I'm sorry the management memo that you're talking about does not conclude there was any retaliation against no he's putting on notice that he's investigating Mr chairman regular order the gentleman from California is recognized thank you Mr chairman and Mr Garland over here oh do you want additional time to answer the Chairman's questions or comments no I I I've answered we do not if there is there it is the policy and the practice if somebody has a complaint about whistleblowing to go to the Inspector General that's why the Inspector General is investigating it the the memorandum that the inspector General issued does not say he concluded that anybody uh retaliated against anybody thank you very much Mr chairman I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a Wall Street Journal article that appeared yesterday June 3rd titled Mary Garland three special councils and the justice department Under Fire Mr Garland I'd ask you after this to go back and read this article it talks about your long and distinguished career uh I think the article really summarizes it by open quote here a sentence it says Garland has been driven by one Mantra follow the facts and the law close quote it's about your commitment in your history to the rule of law in this country thank you sir um today we're talking of a lot of issues very important this is our job oversight um you know if I pull back a little bit think about what people back home care about they care about Safe Streets eliminating drugs harmful drugs from our streets consumer protection uh so I want to ask you can you highlight talk a little bit about it your actions the efforts of the justice department to reduce violent crime in the United States and more specifically how you work with our local sheriff's or local police department to reduce violent crime in our streets yes that that that is an important part of our obligation to protect uh the American people and America's communities uh in 2021 soon after I became an attorney general I saw the statistics regarding the spike of violent crime that happened during the pandemic and I knew that it was important that we do everything we can to drive that number down both for the protection of the individuals who are hurt uh but also for the people's sense of security and their communities and and belief that the system will work on their behalf so we issued a memorandum uh directing um the strategy that we know worked and that worked in the last time I was in the justice department when I was a drugs and guns prosecutor and then again when I was a prosecutor uh in in Maine Justice we cooperate with we create TX task forces with our state and local law enforcement Partners Sheriff's offices and police departments so that the federal government can bring the benefits and advantages it has sometimes money sometimes technology sometimes better statutes and the um uh sheriff's deputies and the officers on the ground uh can bring their knowledge of the community and their knowledge of uh of the Bad actors so we we can take the most dangerous um uh uh criminals off the streets the repeat Shooters those who are responsible for violence the people running in gangs that cause violence that we can uh bring cases um both against individuals and against criminal organizations that um um strategy if I can interrupt you only have a minute and a half left the strategy has been successful uh the homicide homicide rate last year went down um higher decline than in 50 years and it is again going th uh down this quarter by somewhere between 18 and 20% thank you for that good work you know we talk about getting fentel off our streets something very important to both sides of the aisle everybody on Main Street and you mentioned in your opening remarks that you put away a head of a caloa cartel one of the uh kingpins there drug pins I I sit on homeland security and we know one way to get there is to take down these cartels you know put away the lead ership can you explain a little bit about what else you're doing to go in that direction to get these what I would call terrorists drug terrorists um how do we put them in prison get them off the street so they won't be organizing and selling drugs fentel in our country so the DEA has done extraordinary uh work worldwide in order to track uh these cartels and to Pro uh to provide uh the evidence uh that has led to the indictments of uh the chapito the sons of El Chapo of El Chapo himself and as I said just last week uh the chief sakario sakario uh the Assassin and protector of the caloa cartel I've traveled to Mexico several times myself my Deputy has traveled several times herself the DEA um um uh group has persuade uh the Mexican uh authorities uh to uh make extraditions in these cases um I I specifically with respect to Alini I I made the necessary calls uh my counterparts agreed and they arranged for his extradition to the United States thank you sir and I hope you continue the good work chairman I yield gentlemen Yi's back the gentleman from Arizona is recognized for consent yes Mr chairman I have a few articles one is the full transcript of President Joe Biden's interview with time not objection uh Town Hall uh talking about the transcript from interview with time is a mess objection thank you Mr chair U I would ask you name's consent to enter into the record the management advisory memorandum from the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General 24067 May 2024 notification of concerns regarding the department of Justice's compliance with whistleblower protections for employees with the security clearance with that recognize the gentleman from New Jersey thank you [Music] chairman Equal justice for all you use those words like cases treated alike you use those words all people are treated equal let's just look and review a few things let's look at the classified documents case one individual is Vice President of the United States removes documents which he has no right to do Joe Biden he then removes documents also before he was vice president as a US senator no right to do that doesn't have the right to declassify yet a special council's appointed and the result of that is that well there's nothing we're going to do because he's a kindly older gentleman that has a bad memory and it wouldn't be a good case and yet at the same time a president of the United States who does have a right to declassify documents removes them keeps them in a secure place has the right to do it because he was a president and he's indicted Equal justice for all prosecutor brag and I'm going to ask you a question about this just your opinion he ran for office saying he was going to put Donald Trump in jail before he saw all the evidence before he knew everything about the case before he knew anything he ran for office saying he was going to put another human being in jail and ran on that as his platform do you believe that it's appropriate for somebody to run for prosecutor and by that also in Fulton County Georgia the same thing happened there the prosecutor do you think it's appropriate do you think someone who's being interviewed for a position when they're going to be appointed or somebody who is running for office and is going to be elected at this level of government in the Judiciary should say what they want to do do as far as putting somebody in jail before they've even seen the case is that appropriate yes or no your description of the her and Smith cases is inaccurate I don't know whether your description of what the two district attorneys said well then you don't look at the news excuse me attorney general because they only have a limited amount of time everywhere everywhere it was reported it was if you knew anything you knew that Alvin brag and also again the prosecutor in Fulton County Georgia they ran on that and that's wrong that isn't equal justice for all it's wrong and this wasn't Equal justice for all and by the way I think my rendition of what happened uh when the special counsel looked at that is pretty damn accurate I even put the word kindly in there kindly Old Gentleman forgetful it wouldn't be a good case for that reason those are all accurate but I want to ask you something else do you know who Jay Brad is I know that you do he's a top to Jack Smith and I know that you must be aware that Mr Brad attempted to pressure the defense attorney of a close Trump Aid with a judgeship with a judgeship if the attorney went along with Jack Smith's desires and his demands are you aware of that I know Mr brat to be an excellent lawyer a longtime career prosecutor a person of high ethics I know the issue you're talking about is disputed those facts are disputed in the district court in Florida and it will be resolved by the judge in that case Y and and and that's why the case was stopped because it's obviously of concern there's something there are you aware that on May 3rd Special counsel Smith himself acknowledged in the court filing that after the FBI seized evidence that and its rate on moral Lago that some of the evidence was altered manipulated or disturbed is that standard procedure I I've have not read anywhere where he said it was altered or manipulated um so again I can't accept that characterization um um Mr attorney G I com a federal are you living in a bubble here I mean I'm not living in a bubble but everybody saw it everybody heard it Smith himself said it that's why that case was stopped if you can show me where he said he manipulated the evidence I'll have a different you don't like my word but that there was some tampering and absolutely he said that that he would touch the evidence and we don't know what level and now Americans are concerned God knows what level it is and whether we'll really know the truth and I got a question about this former president Trump as you know was being dragged through a political travesty and you won't agree that it's a travesty orchestrated by Alvin Bragg how is it that a man Matthew Colangelo the third highest ranking individual in the Department of Justice takes a pay cut and takes a cut in just you know what it is he does for a living as far as Prestige to go and join that case and I know you'll say you don't have the answer to that either I have the answer I took an enormous pay cut to become an assistant us attorney Mr uh Mueller May took an enormous pay cut both of us as partners and law fir work for the public good most many people um have a view about doing the public good and not caring about how much money they make I'm going to yield in a second but we RI to about Catholic churches R to about school board meetings we were lied to about Russian collusion we were lied to about the president's sweetheart deal we were lied to about mishandling of classified materials we were lied to about fisa and I back time and gentlemen expired the gentle a from Pennsylvania is recognized for unanimous consent yes I have a unanimous consent Republicans have continued to misrepresent the her report saying that as saying that President Biden had a poor memory and that's not supported by the special council's own record ask unanimous consent to enter into the record and excerpt from the transcript of special councel hers interview with President Biden I'm reading from the transcript on October 8 2023 at page 47 lines 20 to 21 from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about equal justice under the law or adherence to the rule of law to a man who has spent virtually his entire career in pursuit of upholding the rule of law you talked a bit about your professional background you started at the Department of Justice as a line prosecutor I know you served as a Special Assistant prior to that but the bulk of your early career at the Department of Justice was a line prosecutor yes drug trafficking organized crime violent crime cases yes you then proceeded to become the principal associate Deputy attorney general yes long title long title important job and in that capacity you oversaw a series of very important criminal prosecutions including the prosecutions connected to the Oklahoma City bombing is that right yes you were nominated and you were confirmed on a bipartisan basis here in Washington DC to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals yes you Rose to chief judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals I think that just meant I survived my colleagues yes that may be Mr attorney general but what I can say with confidence is that you have a more distinguished record with respect to Fidelity to the rule of law than any member sitting on the dis here today on either side of the aisle and I appreciate your integrity your leadership of the department and to be candid your patience during the bulk of this hearing which of course has focused on virtually every issue unconnected to the bulk of the work that is done by our nation's Premier law enforcement agency I I've you know been in and out of this hearing I believe it's correct that you haven't gotten any questions about cyber crime let's say for example that's right fair or foreign Espionage right I know during your opening statement you talked about the decisive action that the Department of Justice is taking in coordination with the DEA and the FBI against cartels very few questions about that today from my colleagues unfortunately unless I'm wrong you're right a Litany of work that's being done each and every day at the Department of Justice that has a real impact on people's lives in terms of keeping our community safe keeping Americans safe this was supposed to be I thought an oversight hearing for the Department of Justice and unfortunately it has descended into a lot of rhetoric about conspiracy theories and the like um I think it's a wasted opportunity to actually engage with you and your Department about the issues that the American people care deeply about and so I will uh spend the the remaining amount of my time left talking about an issue that's deeply important to me and I know an issue that's important to you which is the scourge of gun violence and the department has taken a leadership role under your tenure in the last several years particularly as it relates to implementing the bipartisan safer communities act which was a a bipartisan bill that this Congress passed thanks to President Biden's leadership and I wonder if you might just open Pine a bit or expound a bit on your work as it relates to gun violence well uh the bipartisan Savor communities act has been extraordinarily helpful in our effort to combat gun violence it's led to uh substantial numbers of uh prohibited sales of guns to miners uh who the the statutes prohibit possessing because of uh conduct that they have engaged in it's given us the authority to uh to bring cases for for straw purchasing that's led to Crime guns and to uh gun uh trafficking uh to criminals and in those ways has help drive down the numbers with respect to gun violence we have set up um crime gun intelligence centers so that our our state and local counterparts can trace guns that are find found at crime scenes to determine whether they were used by serial killers by serial Shooters uh to help us find out uh uh to run the DNA um off of the casings so that we can find uh hits on those people and arrest them and prevent them from committing further crimes there's a host of things that the department has done um but the principal kind of violence we're worried about in the country is is is gun violence that's what causes uh the enormous number of deaths we face every year I thank you Mr attorney general for your service to our country and I hope you'll relay the same to all the folks at the Department of Justice and I thank the chairman for his Indulgence I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Al oh excuse me unanimous consent request from G A for North Carolina yes I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record of March 2nd 2023 Democratic staff report from this committee which shows that the testimony from three former um FB FBI employees is false and misleading and funded by maggot extremists here you go without objection the uh one of those individuals so you falsely labeled that just got a security clearance given back to him in light of the inspector General's ending investigation the gentleman from New Jersey for unanimous consent just the unanimous consent with the exact words of what special Council her said which will verify everything that I said that objection gentleman from Alabama is now recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman Mr attorney general what was your understanding of Jack Smith's reputation in the legal Community reputation was he had the highest um reputation for both ethics and and uh skill at being a career prosecutor were you aware that uh individuals who had worked with him uh noted that and I quote this overzealous prosecu prosecutor who relies on ethically dubious tactics while investigating or Prosecuting criminal cases were you aware of that I don't know what anonymous source you're citing there but I certainly wasn't aware of it no well let me cite another source to you are you aware that Mr Smith's conviction against former Republican Virginia uh Governor Robert F McDonald and his wife whom he accused of accepting payment and Gifts in violation of federal cor corruption laws was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court are you aware of that yeah my understanding is uh from that is Supreme Court actually changed its view of that particular law we respect the Supreme Court's ultimate determination that has nothing to do with Mr Smith let me read you a quote from Chief Justice Roberts he rebuked Mr Smith's theory of case writing Our concern is with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute which did not comport with the text of the statute or the precedent in the court does Mr Smith's prior boundless interpretation of federal laws concern you Mr Smith's um um case um was supported by the justice department on appeal and in the solic by the solicitor General's office we respect the decision of the Supreme Court and their interpretation and narrowing of our anti-corruption statute have you received any briefings from the Department from Jack Smith um concerning the pro prosecution of President Trump have you received any subsequent uh briefings have I received briefings from Mr Smith yes that's part of the special Council regulations so I'm going to change gears here for a second I uh you know we talk a lot in here about the attack of the rule of law and embrac and misinformation um do you see that the American people the number one thing I see when I'm touring the district or at least in 21 not anymore it's the Border but in 21 Mr Garland it was a concern for the weaponization of the government against us citizens what do you think is driving the concern uh I think when people say over and over the word weaponization it can have an effect on people's belief whether it's founded or unfounded do you think it might be founded based on the Durham report when Durham himself said that he was extremely concerned with the with the the way that col me the FBI director Lynch and those knew that the D he was driving the Russian collusion narrative and then they went out and opened an investigation do you think maybe those kind of things maybe impeaching him twice maybe arresting him maybe Raiden his home for the first time ever we've actually indicted a president do you think maybe those are more the reason that people are starting to lose trust in the justice system and maybe anything we're saying here on the hill Mr Durham was reporting at events that occurred in administration before I was uh attorney general but does it still not erode The credibility of the Department of Justice and just Justice in America the rule of law when things like what happened last week start to happen that have never happened before in the history of the country do you think that maybe has more to do with this and what we're saying here when you're referring to last week you're referring to a decision by a jury and a um uh a state case un related to the uh Department of Justice I'm not going to comment on that jury verdict so what about $200 million in donations in less than maybe 48 hours do you think maybe that's sending a message that maybe the people in America are not living in a bubble maybe we are maybe it's not what we're saying maybe it's what we're doing maybe that carries more weight what we do than what we say here well I do think that what we do is more important than what we say and I think the justice department should be evaluated by its acts and I think the J it is being evaluated by appropriately you're talking about fundraising related to something that happened in New York I'm talking about a jury verdict anywhere in the political world if you're indicted normally that's campaign over if you're convicted of felonies you are certainly you can consider your campaign over why would the American people 30% who had never donated to a campaign give 200 million to million dollars to a man that you just charged with 34 felonies you are asking me a political question that I am not qualifying I'm telling you sir we're making the justice system political that's what's going on in America and the people are waking up it's not us saying it here not the weaponization of government here it's the grass roots of America asking us those very questions and when you convict a man or at least try try to convict a man and charge a man and they donate $200 million in 48 hours sir they're sending a signal they have lost all trust in this system I think we all have a responsibility to respect jury verdicts and the failure to respect jury verdicts it's the way that we arrive at the verdict I think that's the problem and the American people see it sir and under your watch the system is losing credibility it concerns me for this country and certainly for the future of the direction of the Department of Justice and with that Mr chairman I'll yield back gentleman yields back the Gent lady from George is recognized hey Kelly a Garland thank you so much much for being here and thank you for all that you have done and I know that you were just here in September and I want to commend you for being so responsive to your duties and to the American public being the Attorney General is a very difficult job and still I am proud of the work that you've done thus far and of your sound judgment very sound judgment as you navigate these investigations and requests as these decisions will set the president for attorney generals and others that come behind you in the future and of those decisions setting a precedent I would like to focus on a problem plaguing our nation just as my colleague Mr nus did as well gun violence we have lost thousands of Americans to gun violence I just came from another event uh in in the same dealing with gun violence yet there are officials and others in power that continue to push back on just simple Common Sense legislation Ru making and other efforts that can save the lives of our children and our families and keep our community so much more safe the doj just issued a proposed rule to update the definition of frame or receiver which would reg regulate so-called ghost guns the same as traditional firearms and this life saving rule is now being challenged the doj issued a proposed rule to clarify restrictions on short barrel rifles this lifesaving rule is also being challenged the doj published a rule to update the definition of engaged in business regarding the sale of far firearms and this life saving rule is also being challenged now I'm all for accountability and transparency uh and protecting our constitutional rights but these challenges are not put forth with any of those goals in mind they are harmful and they're put in place so that the gun lobby can continue cashing checks regardless of how many lives in this country that we lose every single day Common Sense gun safety legislation does move us to a safer America and no law enforcement officer in this country whether they be state or local or federal should be put in danger danger because some of our American leaders fail to see the bigger picture of the lives that can be saved and work towards that mean means but in this country we have teenagers who are just too afraid to even go to festivals in their communities anymore or parades because they recognize that it's likely a place that there might be another mass shooting we have five and six year olds in our classrooms uh that have learned more about active shooter drills than they probably had in their own AC academics and we have an entire generation that's growing up thinking that their elected officials don't even care to protect them I hear from them every single day and that we're here in Washington only playing politics and everyone here on this committee should be eager to find ways to protect the American public and to eliminate unlawful guns and the access and um possession of them by people who simply shouldn't not have them the steps that the doj is taking to clarify and protect those around Firearms are the steps that we truly need to keep our community safe we need to get back on track and worry about the actual issues that are affecting us today so AG Garland I sincerely wish that you could be in your office today really doing your work uh the substantive work that you have uh been duly sworn to do with your your team to implement the policies that are needed to protect our country and provide law enforcement with the tools that they need to track down criminals so if you we not here today just tell us what work would you actually be doing instead of being here in front of us again today and having to be put through the ringer one more time Al it's going to be take a long explanation but today and and I know you don't have time for it day begins with a threats briefing from the FBI and intelligence Community about the threats this country is facing both outside the United States and inside the United States threats from foreign terrorist organizations from domestic violent extremists from uh people um uh uh intending to commit hate crimes and we spend that time trying to allocate our resources and orienting our people so that they can deter and disrupt and prevent those attacks that's what my morning would be but it looks like we're out of time so um I'm I'm happy to to tell you what my afternoon would be if if there's more time later once again I'm so sorry that you're being put through this again but thank you for the work that you and your staff and all those that are tasked to support you are doing on behalf of the American people now you back gentlem from Texas recognized Mr Mar thank you Mr chairman uh General Garland thank you for being here today and for your testimony it will come as no surprise to you that my constituents in East Texas are not pleased with the ATF under the ultimate authority of the doj as you know which is elected to implement some extremely stringent gun control policies my colleague from the other side was mentioning some of those simply by administrative Fiat ruem this includes things like the pistol brace rule that attempts to restrict millions of Americans and in particular disabled veterans from owning a firearm accessory that helps them discharge their pistols in a stabilized manner the framan receiver or the ghost rule as is known which expands the definition of several terms associated with firearms in order to subject them to regulation by the ATF and the zero tolerance Zero Tolerance policy by the ATF against Federal firearm licensed dealers which really incentivizes those dealers not to cooperate with the ATF for fear of reprisal because effectively that new rule allows the ATF to revoke the licenses of ffls for simple Technical and non-material paperwork that's what I'm hearing from my dealers back home and finally the overly broad application of the quote engaged in business rule which overextended the definition to as the ATF now interprets quote even a single transaction or offer to engage in a transaction when combined with other evidence may be sufficient to require license as an FFL end quote the rule states that quote absent reliable evidence to the contrary individuals are presumed to be quote engaged in the business of dealing in Firearms if their conduct Falls within one of the atf's specified presumptions and those presumptions are not exhaustive as you know so it really flips the burden of proof and and presumes that Americans engaged in conduct disav disfavored by the ATF are breaking the law unless they can prove their innocence and that's simply turning that I think it upside down to what extent was your office involved in crafting or approving these policies I I approved all of those rules and if you give me a minute I'll go through each one so that you can explain to your constituents so with respect to the brace uh it does not apply to an arm brace supplied by a disabled person or anyone else the statute says if you have a a rifle 16 Ines or smaller um intended to be fired from the shoulder that it has to be registered the shoulder braces uh which are only used to fire from the shoulder turn it into a short barrel rifle they they turn a pistol a short barrel pistol into a short barreled rifle and we know that there was a there's a short period of time and I think your agent your department has even admitted a short period of time within which folks had to register and we had millions of people across America that were supposed to register a lot of whom were serving overseas at the time and couldn't do it within the specified period in fact we sent a letter that asked your department to uh extend the period of time at least extend the period of time within which they could register and you guys rejected that but since since you reviewed and approved all these uh and I know that you you're crafting these at the behest of the president which is certainly your right to do one of the things I can't wrap my head around is the fact that on one hand the administration is saying it's cracking down on guns that was a quote but here in DC the US attorney also under your ultimate Authority actively chooses to let Harden criminals who commit crimes with illegal Firearms walk away scotf free from the criminal actions under us attorney Matthew Graves here's what has happened in DC his office has declined to prosecute 32% of the carrying a pistol without a license cases in 2023 up from 15% in 2018 60% of those convictions in 20123 were misdemeanors which is up from 25% between 2018 and 2021 this rise to uh this Rose to 48% misdem meter rate in US attorney Graves First full year and then 60% record high last year were you aware of these statistics Mr Graves is a experienced former career prosecutor um impossible to make these judgments based on numbers it depends on what the evidence is in the cases my understanding is that those percentages have increased uh now and my evid information is that the crime rate in the District of Columbia in first quarter of this year is now going down have you have you had a discussion about why he's not Prosecuting more gun crime here in DC he is uh putting huge priorities into Prosecuting um violent crime in the district of Colombia and the main justice has provided assistance from the FBI ATF uh and the marshals um as well as assistant us attorneys from other locations to help him do that well I find it interesting that he's declined to prosecute 30% of the assault cases with dangerous weapons in 2022 he also simultaneously blames crime lab uh blames the crime lab for a lack of prosecution but he takes credit for quote effectively building a makes shf Department of forensic science while felony drug convictions are down 88% since 2017 drug convi convictions as you know are one of the main ways DC targets gangs Crews that drive so much of the gun violence uh I'm I'm frankly uh in awe that uh that DC and and the the department has allowed him to go that direction and not called him to the carpet for it we need more prosecution of the gun crimes here in DC and elsewhere I yield back gent lady from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes yes thank you Mr attorney general um for your service and thank you for your patience I know it's been a long day we all know that the purpose of this hearing is not genuine oversight of the Department of Justice but rather a cynical effort to cast out on the Myriad legal troubles of former president Trump I want to focus instead on a recent issue that I believe highlights the value of the Department of Justice and the hard work that federal law enforcement does to keep our community safe recently when speaking with a rabbi in my district in Raleigh North Carolina I learned that a North Carolina synagogue had received violent threats over the past month one threat from early May stated Jews don't deserve to live Jews didn't deserve to be on this Earth I'm going to kill the Jews I'm coming to the temple to kill all the Jews and the children according to doj several North Carolina synagogues received threats like this just days later I spoke with this Rabbi um and the Department of Justice had charged and arrested a California man Kevin Dunlow for these threats as well as for a false bomb threat to the Wake County Sheriff's Office and a threat to an elected official Mr attorney general today we've heard plenty of criticism of your office from the other side of the aisle I wanted to share this story to shed light on the good work the Department of Justice is doing work that in the past couple of weeks has made a direct impact on Public Safety in my community thank you for your diligence not only in this case of horrific and violent anti-Semitism but in addressing threats against other communities and in addition to the recent uptick in anti-semitic threats we've seen an increase in threats against Muslim communities which is equally troubling the war in Gaza has heightened emotions across the United States and and unfortunately some of our most vulnerable communities are facing the brunt of this sentiment which too often has turned into vicious threats of violence I want to start by asking you how the case involving Kevin Dunlow the California man who made the threats in this District um got put together could you walk us through the kind of work that you do when you find out about these kinds of violent threats I I can't U walk through that specific case um and I want to make clear um that although I'm nice to give me credit in fact all the credit belongs um to the career prosecutors and the career agents who investigate a case like that so of course a case like that has to begin with some recording of of the of the threat or um some electronic version that was transmitted by the internet uh it takes an enormous am amount of work to find out who transmitted it uh um often times people attempt to hide their Origins um but uh we have particularly skilled um computer analysis who are able to do that it has to get traced back to the source uh then we have to find any other information we have about the person we suspect see what else the state and local police have on that matter and then try to make an arrest as soon as we can uh you are right that since October 7th there's been a terrible explosion of uh an Semitic threats um also anti-arab anti-muslim uh uh threats in this country um um that make all of these communities afraid um and we regard it as an important element of our civil rights work uh to deter and to investigate and to prosecute and to stop these threats uh this is all in a proposition for the department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and since um since October the 7th have you taken any new steps new strategies to try to deal with these threats so the the to the extent there are new steps they have to do with a meet meeting with um all of our us attorneys virtually uh to insist uh on Communications with the local communities that's the way we find out about these threats uh to publicize our uh willingness and our uh our duty uh to uh investigate them and bring them down um so I say that's the principle um um things that we are doing that is lashing up with our state and local Partners uh to find out when threats are made and to go after them as soon as we can thank you and I yield back gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes good afternoon Mr attorney general uh you've testified today that you're not going to comment on the jury verdict in a state case has that always been your practice as attorney general the justice department practice is always to um to say that we respect the verdict of a jury that's our PR okay so in 2021 Derek shavin was convicted in a Minnesota State Court by a jury of several felonies did you issue a statement after that verdict yes we always issue a statement after the verdict describing what the verdict was no this was a state case did you issue a statement following the state court conviction I'm sorry who was the person again Derek shavin well this was also a federal case right but this was before the state the federal case uh and we got a verdict from the jury and you issued a state did you issue a statement yes or no I don't know the answer to that we always describe we always describe the verdict this is a state court decision from a jury and you said well the state's prosecution was successful I know that nothing can fill the void that the loved ones of George Floyd have felt so you agreed with the decision it's not a question of agreeing it's a question of a verdict was uh occurred and okay but you said the prosecution was successful it was successful because it led to a successful verdict so would you say that the prosecution and people Trump last week was successful I I guess by the definition of when somebody brings a case if they get the verdict they ask for it's successful without commenting on any particular case and you just said successful here you said that in this case the prosecution was successful so in a similar vein would you say the prosecution and people be Trump was successful I'm going to say again you're asking me a topology when a prosecutor brings a case and the prosecutor wins the case it is by definition successful what if the case is later overturned on appeal is the prosecution we of course accept the decision on appeal and then it's no longer successful so a successful prosecution is one where you get a jury verdict and then it's upheld on appeal yes you were very quick the day of the jury verdict to say that the prosecution was successful uh in the shavin case would you say that by that definition in the same way the prosecution was successful and people be Trump I'm not going to comment on that case you can ask me 10 different ways even though you're commenting on other state cases I want to ask you actually about federal case an opinion that you wrote in your last year on the DC circuit it was called fecv Craig do you remember that case I don't but if involving former senator Larry Craig yes so Mr Craig of course had gotten himself in trouble for disorderly conduct in an airport uh bathroom and he used campaign funds to fight those allegations and he came into your court and said that it was okay to do so because if he makes the allegations go away that's going to help his campaign but you rejected that argument you ruled that he should have used personal FS because the underlying conduct was personal in nature doesn't that that rule of law that you articulated uh expressly contradict the theory of the case in people V Trump you can again Ask me 12 times if you want about to comment on that case and I'm not going to I have your opinion right here it's a very well written opinion I'm sorry that case is an interpretation of the federal elections commission act that's all we did in that case right and you're well aware that an interpretation of a federal elections commission Act was uh at the core of the prosecution's theory of the case last week I think the reason that you are so reticent about commenting here Mr attorney general even though you had a a press release the very day of uh the verdict in past cases is because you know your own very well-written opinion clearly shows that there was reversible error in this case you testified earlier that you have not made I appreciate the compliment about my case but it has nothing to do you testified earlier that you have never made uh political contributions is that correct well I was a judge I did not make how about before you were a judge I'm sorry before you were a judge I think maybe 40 years ago I made a political contribution to whom well it's public knowledge I made a a contribution to the mandale campaign okay and if Mr Mondale had come before you as a party uh would you have recused yourself or would you have heard the case and I know now that for the 14th time you're asked trying to ask me a no I'm not I'm asking you about your own campaign no you're not you're asking me to comment on the Jud J in the case uh under a different jurisdiction no I'm not I'm asking you about your own political contribution that you just said you made if Mr mandale who you donated to had come before you as a party would you have recused yourself yes or no if 20 10 years later when I or 20 years later when I became a judge uh would have not made any difference judges put aside their political views uh their personal views every Justice at the Supreme Court has testified Mr Garland you testified that you don't regret picking Jack Smith do you regret picking Robert her as a special counsel I don't regret no and you testify that he has a long and distinguished career as a prosecutor rather you said that when you appointed him do you stand by that that's a fact and and you do not uh dispute his conclusion that President Biden willfully retained classified information is that correct well that wasn't his conclusion he said there was evidence but that the evidence did not warrant going forward I yeld back CH recognized D lady fromour for 5 minutes thank you Mr chairman and thank you again attorney Garland for being here St Louis and I are here today in support of our Democratic institutions and the rule of law nearly four years ago I was barricaded in my office with my staff wondering if we would be killed or at least harmed by a mob incited by Donald Trump to storm the US capital because he could not accept the fact that he lost the 2020 presidential election in that moment I thought to myself like this has to be it this has to be the moment in our country that people finally realize that the extremist Maga movement is a violent cult that will destroy anything in its path all for Donald Trump and yet nearly four years later here we are again far from rejecting Donald Trump and his Insurrection the Republican party has embraced its role as the party of insurrection ction Republicans have defended January 6th attacked the Department of Justice for seeking accountability continued their assault on voting rights and built a pro- Insurrection wing of the Supreme Court they have also overwhelmingly back Trump who has been convicted of 34 felony criminal charges despite his attacking the prosecutor the judge the jurors and the case and even though he still refuses to say he will support the outcome of the 202 24 election so as we sit here today our democracy is in as precarious a position as it was in 2020 if not more attorney general Garland I want to thank you um but I want to talk to you about the ongoing assault on our democracy and the rule of law how does interference by politicians in criminal trials harm our democracy and the separation of powers our Criminal Justice System proceeds on the uh understanding that the decisions will be made in the courtroom without uh political interference in any way um and fundamentally it depends on the respect of uh the citizenry of the judicial processes that occur uh people can uh disagree with results people can challenge results people can appeal results um but we respect the judicial process the judges um and and the juries uh and the appellant um um uh justices um that's a fundamental element of our democracy and um how do conspiracy theories and misinformation affect the ability of Courts to conduct impartial trials well that's a a broader question than I can answer answer in specifics I think attacks on uh personal attacks on judges personal attacks on juries uh personal attacks on prosecutors and agents uh make people um afraid to do their job according to uh the merits and according to the law thank you um I will say an obvious answer is that Republicans are not doing any of this because they care about our communities they care about our country or our democracy they are doing this because they realize their agenda is absolutely unpopular and they will do anything to stay in power the Republican party is all about projection Republicans talk about violent crime while insiding violent crime on January 6th Republicans talk about the weaponization of the federal government as they themselves weaponize it on behalf of Donald Trump including the baseless impeachment investigation and these sham committee hearings Republicans talk about the unfairness of the criminal legal system while ignoring the actual communities mostly black and brown who are dis tionately targeted by that system and don't have high powerered attorneys unlike Donald Trump who has used his wealth his resources his power to Shield himself from accountability his entire life Republicans talk about big government and Liberty and don't tread on me as they use government to rip away the freedoms of women of lgbtq plus folks and countless others Republicans talk about cancel culture as they Champion uh violent crackdowns on student students who dare to speak out about the humanity of Palestinians Republicans talk about unethical judicial overreach despite the comical Corruption of their extremist justices so while Republicans focus on hypocrisy and distraction my Democratic colleagues and I will continue asking the real questions advancing real solutions and advocating for our communities so thank you again for being here attorney general Garland and I yeld back gentle lady yields back the gentle lady from Indiana is recognized I yield one minute to gentleman from I appreciate the Gent lady yielding a news story last week in Politico uh first paragraph the justice department has agreed to settle long running litigation stemming from a decision in 2017 to release the to the media text messages between two former FBI employees involved in the probe of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign are Peter struck and Lisa Page going to get a windfall of American tax dollars soon here Mr attorney general I'm sorry I I either didn't hear or didn't understand the question here's the here's are Peter struck and Lisa Page going to get a winfall of American tax dollars sorry are you in settlement negotiations with Peter struck and Lisa oh um I don't know how what's public in that respect or not I I'm reading from the story someone gave it to him I assume it was you guys justice department has agreed to a long running litigation stemming from a decision 2017 I don't know whether um discussions are public or not in every case when people bring cases against the United States we attempt to settle the cas simple question are Lisa Page and Peter stro going to get money from the American taxpayer when that determination is made about whether settlement is made in that case it will be announced you're back um thank you uh Mr chairman uh attorney Mr attorney general do you agree that yours and my job is to protect constitutional rights of Americans yes that's the easy one to agree with okay that at least the Grim s so let's just go a little bit through that rights and I want to explain to you how a lot of Americans in my district and my observation or interested observation do not trust and believe so and this is an interesting observation I've noticed that you know a lot of people that then come with cases and they say FBI showed up to my house ATF showed up to my house never showed up before La Biden citizens when I asked them were you uh in DC on January 6 Str strangely enough a lot of these people usually say yes and that is really looks very suspicious to me but let's just talk about our amendments do you believe under the Second Amendment there should be the agree no restriction on the quantity of gun that any law biding citizen should own I'm not talking about types I can knowe five guns 500 or 5,000 do you believe there should be no limitations on quantity of guns no no limitations on what on the quantity on number number five 500 or 5,000 guns that I can own on the number of guns that people can purchase yeah I don't for my collection I don't think there's any statutory yeah so there is no limitation so you agree with that right if I have as many guns as I want you know in my Personal Collection do you think you know you have this new rule that you celebrated with your at ATF director which I think is very dangerous do you think there should be limitations on percentage of my collections that I should be able to sell or time frame I can hold a gun like you know I could buy 10 guns and try to shoot them in the range they're not good and I went and sell sold them should be there any limitations on the time frame or percentage of how much of my collections I can replace um there's a there's an exception in the statute for sales uh from personal collections so I can do as many I can set 500 guns so it shouldn't be a problem right if I want to if it happens that it's you know I just want to replace all I can say is there's an exception in the statute and the regulations with respect to sales from personal collections I don't I I don't know the answer to the question about percentages well it would be good because American people would like to know the answer because this create a lot of dangers and we'll follow up with the ladder because you know this is called destroy people's life and we already had this situation that happened in Arkansas but then another on the First Amendment do you think people it had the right to be here in January 6th of 21 you know if they didn't want to do anything bad they just be here in Washington DC do you think it's a constitutional right for people to be here yes people have a constitutional right to be in Washington DC that's right so you have H how many Americans did you charge at section 1512 C2 obstruction of justice and convicted I don't know the answer but it's listed on the web page yeah so it's a several hundred a lot of people why this section was legislated do you know when the section 1512 C2 what is the reason with the section was legislated it has to do with obstruction of no it didn't have to do that that you you should know legal history right when it was legislated and why you're asking me a question the Supreme Court's about to rule on okay so the history this section was legislated for sorbin o with andran situation to deal with a situation that happened on the financial crimes right and actually the title is is tempering with a witness victim and informant is that correct you agree with that we can have a long discussion on the not a discussion just the fact the historic fact that was it would be it was abroad and ambiguous but that's what was legislated the text of the statute does not make the limitation you're saying all this has been argued in cour it's argued and if your interpretation is wrong under Supreme Court and Supreme Court is going to reverse this decision do you have a plan what are you going to do with all of these people that potentially wrongfully was charged do you have a plan our plan is that we will follow the law that the Supreme Court tells us we don't know yet what the Supreme Court will say assure you we will follow what the Supreme Court says well but your ambigous interpretation destroys people's life I yield back the gentle yields back the gentleman from oh that's right I apologize attorney gent asked for a brief break we'll take it we'll take a brief break uh if we can make it five minutes Mr turn joh that' be great okay great thank you me we'll stand in recess for five minutes for I all you thinking about it to I e da e e e e e than for for for commit will come to order with the gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman good afternoon General I wanted to take a moment and raise some voices that really haven't been heard at this hearing today I I had a chance to go visit a church in my neighborhood on Sunday it was men's day and of course the the topic before and after service for some of them was uh Mr Trump's conviction and they approached me because they know I'm an attorney and they were trying to sort through the meaning of the conviction and so one of them asked me so Donald Trump was convicted on criminal charges I said yes and he still gets to run for president and I said yes if he wins he can take office I said looks like it and he paused a second he said wow I got convicted for some misdemeanors and I couldn't even get any kind of job not fast food not a convenience store not Landscaping but he can still be president and I said yes sir another man approached me as well after over hearing part of the conversation he said you know I got arrested I didn't even get convicted but I got fired immediately and then a third gentleman raised this point he said when I got out I couldn't Vote or hold office as long as I was on probation but Trump can go straight to the White House and I said yes sir I think that that may be right and I told him too and I said don't forget he got a jury uh finding of sexual assault against him as well what kind of job could you get if you had something like that on your your record and they all paused and I think they were just deeply disturbed by the disparity that they saw between their lives and the Liv that Mr Trump is leading and my wife and I got in the car and we started driving home and cut on the radio and they do the replay of the uh Meet the Press in those shows on um blumberg and I heard Mr Trump given a quote about two tiers of justice and how unequally he's been treated and it sort of struck me that uh you know there may be two tiers of justice but if there are he certainly is in the much higher tier than the gentleman I was talking with and in fact he's in the absolute highest possible part of the high tier and as Miss Bush mentioned a few moments a ago um know Donald Trump had millions of dollars to spend on his defense he he hired lawyers from across the country to be his trial lawyers to anal his appeals and the like um the men that I was talking to you know probably had public defenders who were overworked and underpaid and had Case Files of you know 200 plus clients and I'm sure they didn't have anybody like the speaker of the house showing up at their trial uh bringing 20 other plus house members Republican house members to stand outside and make Public public attacks on the judge and and the prosecutors in an obvious an unfortunate attempt to influence the jury the men that I talked to um some of them had gone to jail uh but they knew that no matter what happens in this case or the cases that are coming the chances of Donald Trump going to jail or slim and none so I I really struggle when I hear the conversations it's that's being made about the two tiers of Justice stuff because because I know just from my experience of having been in these cases that it's nothing like that and I also know that even if he doesn't go to jail and he's he's put on probation you know the things that these men had to go through on probation or parole is different than what he's going to face I mean they're not going to be delaying cabinet meeting so he can have his mandatory appointment with his probation officer they're not going to be delaying National Security meetings so he can do his your analysis test and he's not going to have to get permission from a judge before he flies Air Force one out of the jurisdiction there's definitely two tiers of justice but to the extent that my colleagues on the other side and Mr Trump are arguing that somehow he's suffering more he's some kind of martyr in this context I think it's ridiculous I to to me this is just another page out of his sore loser Playbook after he lost the 2020 election he kept saying there's no way he's been denying that he lost for for four years now he lost to 60 cases Plus in in courts across the country that rejected his arguments about election fraud he lost a sexual assault trial he lost a corporate fraud trial now he's lost a criminal trial here in New York as well and I think it's time that he'd be held accountable now my colleagues over there they're going to keep arguing to defend him and that's their right but I think for most people and some of the polling data I saw last night suggests other otherwise I think the time has come for the public to hold him accountable and hopefully Republican colleagues on the other side Who attack the juries and the like attack the criminal justice system as a whole attack the rule of law will come back to their senses and stand with you and the job that you and the Department of Justice have been doing and with that I yield back gentlemen yields back uh gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for consent Mr chairman I have an article dated m 6 2024 called dayc crime facts without objection without objection and a vanderbelt law review article titled Corruption of a term the problematic nature of 18 USC 1512 C the federal obj Justice power provision thank without objection thank gentlemen gentleman from Texas recognized for five minutes thank you um Mr attorney general I want to go back to the Mr Colangelo questions that I didn't quite get answers with uh is it true that Mr Michael Matthew Colangelo who's at one point the third highest ranking of official at the doj join Bragg's DA office in New York before the Trump prosecution is that do I have that right I don't know anything other than that's on the public record he was um a the principal Deputy uh to the associate attorney general and he joined the um um um uh case in New York I don't know how it related timeline to the prosecution has anyone from the Department your department been in touch with Mr Colangelo or ever discussed any of the case about President Trump since he left look we have 115,000 people in the employ in the department I can speak for myself I have not had any Communications with Mr Colangelo so you don't know if anyone in the department has as I said there's 115,000 and uh I don't know what they've uh talked about so if I asked for further information and sent you a letter could I uh get some of these questions answered um I've asked for correspondence I sent a letter back in April and haven't received a a response uh you said in your testimony that you've gone to extraordinary links to get Congress information they request yeah look I I'm I'm in I'm in favor of transparency uh because I believe it will show uh that these allegations about some kind of control or collusion between the department and the independent Manhattan um office are not true so then would you we'll take back your letter and uh we'll uh we'll try to get a response to you to to kind of follow up with what Mr gate said earlier this morning will you commit to uh releasing any Communications between your department in the local da offices in New York or Atlanta with respect to this these Trump trials I'm going to commit to to look I I would like transparency on this matter u in the normal course if you submit your letter or office of legislative affairs will get a response to you because I think one of the problems here is we we hear you criticize some of us uh for being critical and accusing you all of a two-tier Justice session we use the system we use the term weaponization of government but then when we ask you all for information you tell us we can't have it or you've decided that we shouldn't have it so it's difficult when you criticize us but we don't get the information we're asking for I'm not criticizing you and and in fact we produced 92,000 pages of documents in response to hundreds of requests you've called some of the things we've said conspiracy theories um I won't read back your testimony to you but i' I've printed it since your office posted it online this morning um and I would just ask you to to work with us because it's difficult uh for us to Tamper down some of these uh claims that you say we're making when we don't get the information we request from you all I'll that's fair I'd be happy to work with you to Tamper this down thank you Abol hey we'll tamper away if we can get the information we're asking I yield assume that's a verb I'm with it that's right thank you uh Mr Jordan I'll yield to you I I appreciate the gentleman yielding I'm going to go back to where I was Mr Attorney General a few minutes ago I want to read from this politico's news story from one week ago today umor I just want to read two sentences the first two sentences in the article justice department has agreed to settle a long running litigation stemming from a decision in 2017 to release to the media text messages between two former FBI employees involved in the probe of President Trump Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign next sentence in a notice file with two federal judges in Washington on Tuesday the justice department said it had reached settlements of legal claims that fired FBI agent Peter struck and former FBI attorney Lisa Page brought in 2019 alleging that the disclosure violated their privacy so again I just want to be clear the the the department is getting ready to pay Peter struck and Lisa Page uh some money is that accurate um I wasn't aware that we'd announced it all I can say is we reached settlements based on our litigators um assessment of whether we can win the case and how much will cost if we lose lose the case that's the way we decide on reaching settlements just to be clear the guy who texted Peter struck who was involved in the spying on President Trump's campaign who was then involved uh worked on the Mueller investigative team and sent this Tex text message to Lisa Page just went to a Southern Virginia Walmart I could smell in all capitals I could smell the Trump support that guy's going to get tax dollars from the American people that case has brought he brought a case under the Privacy Act the question is did the justice department violate the Privacy ACTA page said this in a text message to Peter struck Trump's not ever going to become president right with a question mark Peter struck's response no no he's not we'll stop it and these two individuals are going to get a windfall of money from the American taxpayers because you decided that's the right thing to do the Privacy Act doesn't distinguish between people we like and people we don't like information we like and information we don't like if somebody in the government discloses personal information protected by the Privacy Act that's the way the law is and they can go after a president you get rewarded for doing so according to the justice department not a question of reward it's a question of the government paying for violating the law they're going to get a lot of money and I know that this is what they said we know what they were up to CH now recognizes the gentle lady from Vermont thank you Mr chair thank you attorney general Garland for being here today I know it's been a very long day and and I just want to start by saying you know may the record show that although I'm a vermonter I do not partake in cannabis products but after today's hearing I could understand why someone might want to actually pop a gummy it is maddening to witness so many of my colleagues seeming to care more about propping up and protecting a convicted felon and protecting the rule of law and last week was a a district week so it's was back in my my home district and I got asked the following questions a lot and this was from people from across the political Spectrum Democrats Republicans Independents they asked me the same questions why do they protect him and the himym in question is of course the former president and they ask me are they True Believers are they apologists are they enablers are they just scared about what's going to happen to them if they don't defend the former president I don't know but I do know history is going to reveal the answer the truth will out the truth will out now I'd like to leave the land of make belie and talk about something that really matters to my people back home which is the fact that we have a crushing housing crisis in Vermont right now and the last time you sat before this committee uh less than a year ago I applauded your remarks on doj's increased enforcement against corporate crime and in particular doj's actions to take on corporate consolidation price fixing collusion and uh since coming to Congress I've tried to focus a great deal on finding solutions to the nation's housing crisis and in particular um what's happening in Vermont in my home state we saw a 12% jump in home prices over the last year that's twice the national average and the highest yearly increase across all states so part of the problem is lack of Supply Supply but that's not um entirely what's causing skyrocketing home prices it's not just a lack of Supply there's corporate greed at work here too so so-called property management software companies like real page and yardi are making the housing crisis worse by facilitating unwarranted rent hikes by landlords and I will say you don't have to take my word for it you can go right on the homepage of of real page um which boasts that they increase rents for client landlords between 5 and 12% in every Market in which they are coordinating prices so in fact uh one of the software developers told investigative journalists that leasing agents quote had too much empathy compared to computer generated pricing so this is how price fixing cartels operate so I know that doj um is concerned about price fixing they're concerned about this issue and I know you can't speak on the particulars but can you please talk in the abstract about the importance of price competition in markets and the role of antitrust law in maintaining competitions yes um so uh the theory is that if uh suppliers uh uh do not um uh uh collude with each other if they uh offer uh the price that each wants uh uh and those uh customers uh then meet them in an equal Marketplace that will reach an an efficient uh price that will uh be in the best interest of um uh resource allocation and particularly with respect to Consumer prices and do you when they collude when the suppliers collude they uh create a Monopoly price uh which is not good either for the economy in general but it's certainly above the market price and the the kinds of things you're talking about in general price collusion uh which is exacerbated by data collection and logarithms that set um suggested prices that can lead to a price above the competitive price which costs consumers more I thank you so much I see that I'm almost out of time um just want to end by saying what many of my my colleagues have said before me thank you for coming today thank you for willing to answer our questions and um I very much appreciate um the the expertise that you bring to your job thank you so much G lady yields back G lady from Wyoming's recognized uh Mr attorney general are you above reproach I'm not above criticism I'm not sure what what that you mean by reproach but of course you're totally free to criticize me and I expect as American citizens we can criticize you we criticize all of our government employees can't AB absolutely because you've seem to whine quite a bit today about being being attacked or people challenging the decisions that you've made I actually think that Daniel Greenfield a contributor to front page magazine may have said it best when he said that a justice system can survive those who challenge the prosecutors but it can't survive those who prosecute The Challengers which is kind of the situation we're in with the Biden Administration and you at the Helm of the Attorney General's office attorney general Garland in March chairman Jordan and I sent you an oversight letter requesting documents and information following the release of an undercover video indicating that the doj was working with the IRS to use artificial intelligence to surveil bank accounts of Americans in a clearly unconstitutional manner the undercover video featured an IRS official privately admitting that the IRS had been using AI to spy on Americans bank accounts on Moss in real time the IRS official further stated that the Department of Justice and Inspector General control this AI powered warrantless surveillance system not the IRS attorney general would you agree with me that if the federal government were operating this form of financial surveillance program there would be serious Fourth Amendment as well as other statutory and civil rights implications considering that there is no individual probable cause and no search warrants are being obtained I would be stunned if the justice department has the kind of AI capabilities that you're talking about would you agree with learn about this would you agree with me that if they were engaging in that kind of surveillance it would have serious Fourth Amendment implications I can't understand the kind of surveillance that you're talking about Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant if that's what we're doing then of course that would violate the fourth amendment I I okay so I would request that you go back and read the letter that Jim Jordan and I sent to you that might clear up your confusion just a bit I'll be happy to do now while the committee has been following up with the Department about this matter for months now the department only replied with a formal response to the committee late last week in the Department's response letter at doj spokesman the Assistant Attorney General Carlos iriarte stated that the department is quote not aware of the department using any AI program that reflects the description in our March 20th letter end quote but saying that the chief AI offer is quote not aware of the department coordinating with the IRS to use AI uh to constitutionally spy on American's fin Financial records is very different from saying unequivocally that the department is not doing so why won't the department just give us a clear answer as to whether it is actually using AI to spy on American citizens Financial records I I'll be happy to take your letter back and and apparently you already have received a letter I'll take it back and we'll see whether we can get you a clearer letter for you I would appreciate that I want to turn to another serious issue uh the infiltration of our tribal communities by the Mexican cartels because of Joe Biden and mayorcas is open border as chair of the subcommittee on Indian and insular Affairs I have heard from tribes Across the Nation about this issue in your test your written testimony you actually mentioned how the department is working with tribal Partners to disrupt cartel Supply chains and that the department is zeroing in on the S aloa and halisco cartels however in April the president of the fort belnap Indian Community testified to the Department's failures stating quote we don't have help from the FBI the border patrol the DEA that has jurisdiction on federal lands which are reservations attorney general gardland his testimony comes from a tribe where the S siloa cartel operates with near impunity in its region drugs have devastated the community reservations have become part of the cartel supply chain and the Mexican cartels are intimidating Americans testifying before for congress yet the FBI and doj are largely absent um The trib's Experience runs in direct contrast to your testimony have you been in in in contact with any of our tribes about the impact that mass illegal immigration human traffick and trafficking and drug smuggling are having on their members not only have I been in contact with the tribes I've been on the reservation in Montana and Alaska the answer to your question is Congress is not giving us money for FBI agents to go into the reservations the so this is congress's fault that you won't do your job this congress's fault this is congress's fault that you won't protect our reservation that you won't protect our reservations from the the consequences of the Biden and mayorcas open border policies that's congress's fault not theirs if you give us money for more FBI you need more money for How about if they just enforce the Border how about if you ask them to enforce the Border time the time of the G lady has expired um the G lady yeld back do Mr I we're out on this side but I I would offer um consent unanimous consent for uh two letters that may address Miss hagman's line of questioning one is dated uh April 22nd 2024 from the Department of Treasury and it's addressed to you Mr chairman it's from Corey Tes who is the acting secretary and the other is she may have reference I'm not sure uh from the Department of Justice uh to you Mr chairman from Mr Yuri Arte has St May 31st 2024 that OB and I would ask for unanimous consent for an article cartel's infiltrating native reservations with fentanyl according to a tribal leader thank you without objection G lady y's back G lady for Florida is recognized good afternoon Mr attorney general uh this committee is well aware of your long tenure as an appell at judge on the DC circuit and your time as an a USA before that and I am sure that you like me care deeply about the public confidence in our court system and specifically our Judiciary and you said something a few moments ago that I think is a very important principle you said that judges put aside their personal views and their political views when they preside and I agree that that is the expectation not that judges don't have personal or political views but that judges set those beliefs aside when they consider and Rule upon cases and that they do so in a way that is impartial and consistent with the law and so I'd like to discuss the recent increase in aspersions being cast at some of our Supreme Court Justices some of which we've heard repeated during this hearing public calls for recusal of justices based on conjecture and conspiracy about their political beliefs and in fact not even the supposed political beliefs of the justices themselves but even more attenuated to the supposed political and personal beliefs of their wives in your view Mr attorney general is it appropriate to attack the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court justices in this way so I'm going to have to say again what I said before which is we have cases before The Supreme Court so I'm not going to be able to comment on this you haven't heard any aspersions cast by me and you won't hear any but um all of our our filings will be done in court and I'll only speak about these matters in court so then let's discuss this not as it relates to the specific justices who have had their integrity attacked today but more generally in the case of Judges who are presiding now in general uh in your experience on the bench did judges in the DC circuit recuse themselves if they believed they had a conflict of interest yes and in your experience did they typically adhere to a very high standard of personal Integrity yes and do you have any reason to believe uh or any personal belief that uh the justices of the Supreme Court currently have any issues that would necessitate their recusal so you've now skipped over to the question which I said I wouldn't be able to answer I can't comment about the Supreme Court we have cases in the Supreme Court right now and and all the time so let's talk about the matter of judicial security so not long ago we had director Ray of the FBI appear before this committee and I questioned him about the uh lack of FBI resources and focus being allocated to threats against the safety of judges and specifically Supreme Court justices in light of some of the alarming news uh in recent times and one of the things that he pointed out In fairness was that the US Marshals take a large role uh when it comes to the security of Judges but in your role you have the unique opportunity to actually oversee both uh branches there so I'd like to know more about what the department is doing related to threats against judges okay fair fair enough so this is one I can talk about um um with respect to the justices themselves uh for the first time in history an attorney general namely myself ordered that every Justice get 247 uh protection for himself or herself and their families at their residents and on their travel so I've assigned over 70 US Marshals who are uh doing this daily but because of rotations it's involved almost 1,700 Marshals across the country to provide immediate protection now the FBI both the marshals and the FBI investigate threats against the Justice this is in our highest priority ban banned protection against the judges uh protection against threats against justices and judges and and I'll be happy to provide you with the press releases of our uh charges we there have been um threats against several of the justices and we have brought um uh cases against those who have threatened them um we have a lot of judges in the in the country and uh we don't have enough Marshals um so I'm sorry to say the same thing I said before which is we need more money for the marshals uh for protection because not only do they protect the justices they have to protect the judges in cour houses in 94 districts in the United States thank you Mr chairman I yield the balance of my time G lady yields back the gentleman from South Carolina is recognized Mr chairman I yield one minute to you sir oh thought that was coming at the end thank I think gentlem for El have you looked uh Mr attorney gent have you looked into um who leaked the do's draft opinion at the at the Supreme Court Sor has the Justice I'm sorry has the justice department looked into who was responsible for leaking the do's draft opinion uh from at the Supreme Court no I believe the Supreme Court did its own internal investigation they didn't ask us to look into that yeah but we don't know who did I'm just asking is that something that the justice department will look into I think if if the if the justi of the Supreme Court refer the matter for investigation by the justice department was anyone in the Justice Department involved in the leak of the uh Do's draft opinion you asked whether the invol justice department was involved is anyone at the justice department involved in that leak I can't imagine how that could happen that's an internal document within the Supreme Court the Justice asking I'm just asking I I would be stunned I yield back to the gentleman thank you Mr chairman um Mr Gates talked about Mr Colangelo earlier Mr Colangelo was acting associate attorney general for the justice department under President Biden prior to your arrival is that understanding that's right and he was is that considered to be the third highest ranking official within the doj yes okay what did he do prior to his uh service with the Department of Justice I didn't know Mr Colangelo before my understanding was he had once been in the Civil Rights Division I don't know his resume would it surprise you to know that he was the deputy director for the Obama Biden administration's National Economic Council wouldn't surprise me or not surprise me I don't I don't I don't were you aware also that he worked for the New York attorney general Leticia James for a period of time I've read that in the paper okay would it surprise you to know that he was paid thousands of dollars by the DNC for political Consulting in 2018 so that I have no idea about so I think the issue that that that we're having is that it looks like that this particular gentleman his whole mission seems to be prosecuting a president he started off with Leticia James he has a stint with the Department of Justice and then Mr Gates kind of talked about this earlier normally if you're if you're going for something you start out at a DA level and then you might move to the Department of Justice like it's an elevation he has gone backwards why is that you think let me just set forth the whole thing here if I can okay I I I know Mr Colangelo because of his service in the department he's highly ethical person and excellent uh lawyer his uh uh the associates office supervises the Civil Division the Civil Rights division the antitrust division uh um that office does not supervise any of the uh the criminal components that supervise the investigation the criminal investigations Mr Trump don't don't don't you think though Mr attorney general that the his career choices the path that he has chosen at least at a very least poses the perception of an ethical issue for the Department of Justice no I I don't see how it poses any issue for the Department of Justice he's not an employee of the justice Department justice department did not send him to New York he um those decisions in New York are made by the da of New York well fair to say but we have a you know Manhattan da headline Manhattan da hires ex senior doj official as office investigates Trump another one from the New York Times Manhattan da hires ex Justice official to help lead Trump inquiry now you might not have had anything to do with that but the perception is and the American people perceive the Department of Justice is intimately engaged with this and I think in my last minute here here's the issue that I think that people say the and polling shows this consistently that the American people believe that the prosecution of President Trump is more about politics than it is about any violation of the law in the doj's own words its Mission consists of Independence and impartiality honesty and integrity at your Senate confirmation Hearing in 2021 you said the department will be under my protection for the purpose of preventing any kind of partisan or other improper motive in making any kind of Investigation or prosecution but since that time the doj has obstructed this committee's impeachment inquiry it's allowed the statute of limitations to run uh to expire on Hunter Biden's uh 2014 tax records and the crimes therein slow walk the prosecution of Hunter Biden as testified to by whistleblowers you wouldn't allow investigators to follow Department protocol you've limited witness testimony here in this committee as we try to provide oversight you've limited the scope in which they can actually say and the number of witnesses and instructed two of the employees to disregard this committee's own subpoena you refused to comply with the subpoena uh regarding the audio tapes hence the contempt the regrettable and unfortunate contempt that we have to bring you pointed Jack Smith to prosecute Trump despite his very interesting career of of losing cases and targeting political opponents you sanctioned a raid on moral Lago and the concern that we have is that you're either asleep at the wheel where you're intentionally allowing the department and the Agents therein to engage in political prosecution of their opponents thank you and I yield back gent yields back close our day to be governor of the great state of North Dakota thank you Mr chairman uh I feel like I sometimes have a unique space particularly on this side of the aisle in that uh I've been trying to be a good-natured pain in the department of Justice's rear end my entire adult life uh and since I've been here I've worked on things about law enforcement's use of third party data Brokers geofence warrants civil asset forfeiture reform acquitted conduct uh and exculpatory evidence sapr supervision Bop oversight um I fought for extra money for public defenders and when Mr Ivy's talking about those guys he was talk he was talking to in church I was the guy at Council table with them so uh not here oh I'm sorry I was just saying like I spent significant portion of the early part of my career as a public defender and dealing with that so I take this stuff seriously and I uh earlier today you said it is our view that audio recordings are essential and people are less likely to participate if they know those are going to be turned over it will have a chilling effect on the cooperation of future Witnesses it's happening right now and career doj officials uh have told you that correct yes um but the second part of that is when you want to uh and the reason I know this is and I hate the fact that often times in order to get answers to some of these questions we have to go to these highly political and profile case but we introduced The Fair Act and we had all but one member of this committee vote for it and that is requiring Department of Justice to record doj ATF FBI DEA and the Marshall service to record custodial interrogations and non-custodial interrogations and we know that the doj interviewed Paul maniford full times and never interviewed him by the way it's not only the doj when we sat in a deposition uh Hunter Biden's lawyers requested that it wasn't audio recorded or video recorded now I have my suspicion why and I think it's because things read differently than they sound but but in 2004 the FBI issued a report in favor of recording interviews because of the following benefits reduce Court time for officers to appear in suppression hearings improve Court efficiency with fewer pre-trial motions to suppress statements and confience officer efficiency due to no longer needing to review and piece together notes from interviews reduction in lawsuits steming from frivolous claims of misconduct and in 2014 and this is all before you were the Attorney General but you're in the big chair and we're we're last so we get that uh President Obama created a presumption that interviews of federally depl persons should be electronically recorded the problem was and the reason we introduced this bill is the doj's determination of in custody was after arraignment before trial in a federal building so my question to you when which we can start with is why if they're so essential for you to record them that it will chill extra or chill future cooperation the recording in and of itself has no benefit I mean it has benefit to your guys but when you don't have to turn it over you are arguing that recordings are essential but you and I both know in a criminal case that if you have the recording I'm going to eventually get it as the defense attorney so what I'm trying to figure out what your guys's policy is on recording of interviews and recording of witnesses because if it was what it really says it was we wouldn't have had to introduce the Fair Act well like you say uh there there are very few things that are before my time but that one does seem to have been before my time I don't know the answer to the policy about recording personally I think recording in interviews is a very good thing to do uh for all the reasons that you say but of course as a former defense attorney you know that the defendant has to agree to the to the recording of the interview we've been a part of it in this committee too and I get the rules of evidence in a criminal case are different than an adversarial between the Department of Justice and Congress but our frustration my personal frustration is whenever you're in an adversarial system the other team doesn't get to determine what you DET what is the best evidence and I'm not talking about the best evidence rle we've had that conversation forever but it's fine but when we know it exists and we ask for it and then you say I mean and some of this is timing too and with all due I mean with all due respect to everybody we get the transcript the day before the first hearing we get executive privilege put into place literally the morning of the tempt hearing and we're looking at it and saying listen we know it exists we want it and you're saying that there's some political reason for for us not getting it but I will argue and I will argue at the rooftops that the real political reason is to not give it to us because anybody in any determination of fact anywhere in the country knows that if you have audio or video that is better than a transcript if you have a transcript that's better than notes and that's what the committee is trying to get here and that's what the committee is being stonewalled from when we know it exists and that's why we're so frustrated and I personally believe that there's a very very specific reason that executive privilege was was instituted the morning of the hearing because the difference between this and a criminal case is we actually have a potential time clock and that's the November election and with that I yeld back could I respon you have and time for response yep yep sorry I know but I I like talking to you and this seems like a good conversation if you don't mind so two things one with respect to the timing uh since the Clinton Administration 30 years or so ago it's been standard that uh assertions of executive privilege occur um uh right before the vote in order to provide the Constitutional accommodation process as much time to run as possible um so that's the answer to that thing the answer to the other is the Supreme Court has said that in order to protect the separation of powers under the con institution the Congress has to have a legitimate legislative purpose for the things that it's requesting and what I'm still not seeing I understand why you'd rather see the audio hear the audio than listen than read the transcript but I I still do not understand a legislative purpose I can't see how listening to the audio will make any difference respect to any legislation you have in mind if you want to have a statute that requires special councils to turn over audio all the time to the Congress you can pass that without listening to this audio um and I don't see there's no element of the uh impeachment resolution that will change with respect to information on the audio the words are the same on the transcript as the audio that's my explanation I am actually excited to see potentially how that gets turned out in a the more respectful way by the way it would really actually in this current political environment I'm not sure if it would help or it would hurt but the fair Act is a really good piece of legislation and your support would be helpful and with that I'll look into whether we're following the fair act or not that's a very good point your career doj officials are following I promise you gentleman Yi's back that for e e e e

Channel: CNBC Television

Views: 28,810

Keywords: CNBC, business news, finance stock, stock market, news channel, news station, breaking news, us news, world news, cable, cable news, finance news, money, money tips, markets, nyse, investing, traders, trading, stock trading, dow, s&p 500, stock charts, live markets, stocks to buy, stocks to trade, stocks and bonds, stocks and crypto, stocks explained, markets live, markets news, markets cnbc, markets explained, investing in stocks, investing 101, investing basics

Id: tndfMr1gClg

Length: 310min 44sec (18644 seconds)

Published: Tue Jun 04 2024