WATCH LIVE: House Judiciary Committee holds hearing on weaponization of government

just be asked to summarize please and do I have my five minutes or do I know you've gone over oh I'm sorry I can I can certainly if the witness could summarize we're always a little lent with the time if you can summize I'll take 10 more seconds sure with increasing ability to monitor not only the actual attention patterns and behaviors of its citizens but to predict those that are most likely the persecution of even potential crime becomes ever more likely if you have nothing to you will have nothing to fear will be the slogan commandeered by those most likely to turn to surveillance to protect and control what was the famous Soviet totalitarian joke attributed to lavrenti Baria head of the secret police show me the man and I'll show you the crime those words were true enough in the time of Stalin's KGB and the police were secret enough then as well but that's nothing compared to what we can and likely will produce now a police so secret that we will not even be able to detect their comp comprehensive and subtle activity monitoring crime so pervasive that everyone under the dictates of the system will have something to hide chairman y uh the gentleman's uh time is expired we now go to Mr Knight for your uh your statement chairman Jordan ranking member plasket and members of the subcommittee it's an honor to be asked to testify my name is Brian Knight and I'm a senior research fellow at the marada center at George Mason University where my research Focus on financial regulation including its use as a tool of broader policy Americans write the story of their lives in their bank accounts to function in a modern economy Americans must create a trail of records that can reveal their movements their religious and political beliefs their sexual preferences health conditions whether they are likely to own a gun or have had an abortion the government can access these records without meaningful due process or the person ever knowing it happened it's perhaps unsurprising then that efforts to expand the use of financial surveillance are increasing while potentially well-meaning these efforts present a pressing threat to Americans privacy and a glaring weakness in our constitutional order that should be addressed recent example of this is federal law enforcement and financial institutions collaborating to share financial records of an unknown number of Americans after January 6 while publicly available information is limited it appears this was a done to identify suspects based on their movement political and religious beliefs and whether they owned a firearm these searches use broad categories many of which relate to lawful sensitive and constitutionally protected activity this was apparently done under the bank secrecy act which allowed the information to be provided without a warrant or any outside check and prevented the targets of the search from being told it happened we only know it occurred because of the testimony of whistleblowers in the work of the subcommittee we do not know how often similar techniques were used in the past and if their use is currently ongoing to add insult to injury it's unclear that the data was even useful and was removed by the FBI though only after it had been shared with at least two field offices now it isn't surprising that after a serious crime and fearing more violence that law enforcement would use every tool available however the way this appears to have happened is emblematic of the serious defects in our protection of Americans privacy enabled by Financial surveillance sadly this isn't the only recent example of the expansion expansive use of financial surveillance their currently efforts to distort the financial system to turn it into a tool to track constitutionally protected Behavior Behavior including Firearms purchases Advocates of this approach argue it will help prevent violence especially mass shootings to be sure this is a noble aspiration however it is unlikely the effort will accomplish its goal while imposing significant costs to privacy trust and the ability of our antim money laundering system to fulfill its legitimate ends as well as encouraging a broader escalation of surveillance as discussed in more detail in my written testimony our problem is that our financial system provides a convenient almost One-Stop shop where without the constitu protections that apply to similar information elsewhere it's too easy for the government to obtain a comprehensive and retrospective though not perfect picture of a person's life without due process a further problem is that the bank secrecy Act is opaque by Design banks are prohibited from alerting the target of a report this prevents most citizens whose information is shared from challenging the law in court removing one of the core means we use to check government excesses Congress has also kept been kept in the dark about the effectiveness of the BSA despite requiring reports revealing the systems Effectiveness be provided by law in fact a bank apparently even refused to share information with the subcommittee based on the bank secrecy act's confidentiality requirements it even appears that the agencies that administer the BSA and use the BSA lack a full or even partial picture of how the information is used how useful it is and how long it takes for government to act on it we have the these problems due to a combination of Technology bad law and bad Supreme Court precedent the latter of which thankfully may be finally coming under question but we cannot and should not rely on the court as discussed further in my written testimony Congress should reform our financial surveillance system especially the bank secrecy act to restore proper protection for Americans privacy importantly and I want to emphasize this this does not mean that law enforcement could not access the information rather it means that the access would be done pursuant to due process to be clear I'm not here to impune anyone's motives but good intentions can pave the road to hell and our history is unfortunately replete with times when motivated by real threats we have violated the rights of Americans often without benefit and to our later regret we should learn from those mistakes and get off the path I fear we're currently taking which will provide us with neither Liberty nor security thank you thank you Mr Knight Mr Tedesco you are recognized for your opening statement chairman Jordan ranking member plaset and distinguished members of the select subcommittee good morning it's an honor to be here my name is Jeremy Tedesco and I serve as senior Council and Senior vice president of corporate engagement for Alliance defending Freedom yesterday this subcommittee released documents that showed that the US Treasury Department's Financial crimes enforcement netw Network colluded with big Banks to monitor their customers to identify domestic threats and shared a list of so-called hate groups published by the hyper partisan Institute for strategic dialogue to help them do so echoing the discredited and morally ban bankrupt Southern Poverty Law Center the ISD list includes ADF where I work as well as other mainstream religious and conservative organizations like family research Council Liberty Council Pacific Justice Institute and Ruth Institute simply put the federal government appears to have swept up Christian and conservative organization organizations in its domestic terrorist drag net the orwellian surveillance of American citizens has no place in a free Society neither does the federal government's weaponization of the finan ccial industry against Peaceable religious and conservative groups our story is just one of many demonstrating The increased rise and threat of viewpoint based debank in 2023 Bank of America closed the long-standing bank account of indigenous Advanced Ministries a Christian nonprofit that helps impoverished widows and children in Uganda the bank also closed the account of a local Tennessee church that donates to that Ministry the bank claimed it no longer wanted to serve their business type and that indigenous advantage exceeded the bank's risk tolerance the bank's abrupt decision created a logistical nightmare for indigenous advance and inflicted real harm on the populations they serve the list goes on JP Morgan Chase debanked the Arkansas family Council for being high-risk and never provided a credible reason for cancelling the account of former US senator Samuel brownback's organization the National Committee for Religious Freedom and Wells Fargo denied Payment Processing to the pro-life group The Ruth Institute because it was a hate group The these Deb banking stories and many more highlight the systemic risk of political and religious bias that pervades the financial industry particularly at the largest banks and payment processors these institutions maintain reputational risk policies that allow them unfettered discretion to punish customers who have in their view problematic political or religious views many also have prohibitions on hate speech and intolerance that require the institution to make subjective and value-based judgments on a customer's viewpoint both types of policies are vague and ambiguous sweep in Broad swaths of content chill constitutionally protected speech and erode economic freedom worse government Regulators can all too easily Shield their outsized power I'm sorry wield their outsized power over financial institutions to pressure them to leverage reputational risk policies hate speech policies and similarly vague language against disfavored views all with virtually no public accountability financial institutions in turn can hide behind that same Shield to discriminate without ever explaining it to the customer regardless of whether the action was prompted by government pressure there is ample evidence of the two collaborate collaborating to censor views they don't like whether it was the doj and FDIC in operation chokepoint the state of New York in NRA versus vulo case currently pending pending before The Supreme Court or the FBI and treasury in recent Revelations from this subcommittee each of these incidents show that the government can and will weaponize the financial Marketplace against Americans for political benefit several factors exacerbate this risk banking Regulators have expansive authority over Banks day-to-day operations and decisions both the government and banks have shown an unsettling willingness to increase data collection practices around customers speech and religious exercise and most banking supervision is shrouded in secrecy the government props up many of these institutions with bailouts subsidies in an anti-competitive chartering system due in part to these benefits the top five banks control 50 over 50% of the market for deposit accounts this only elevates the need to ensure Viewpoint neutrality and the provision of financial services Congress should take action this is an issue that we should all agree on and deserves our utmost attention we cannot continue to let law enforcement regulators and banks that are too big to fail run rough shot over our first amendment freedoms I welcome your questions thank you Mr Tedesco Mr Michelle your Rec ni for five minutes good morning chairman Jordan ranking member of plat members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify today's hearing I'm Norbert Michelle vice president director for Ko's mon Center for monetary and financial Alternatives and the views that I express today in this testimony are mine they should not be construed as representing any official position of the KO Institute in my testimony I argue that it is long past the time for Congress to reaffirm Americans con constitutional rights that guarantee an expectation of financial privacy particularly those secured by the Fourth Amendment excuse me the bank secrecy Act and the any money laundering framework that the government has developed around it are unary wasteful and harmful the typical American is not a terrorist a criminal or a tax cheat and does not want to live among such individuals the typical American does however recognize that the constitution protects all Americans from unreasonable persecution and Limitless invasions of privacy and I'd like to make three main points in support of my position first Congress should not have passed the bank secrecy Act of 1970 it was a much broader Bill than the legislation that its original sponsor promised to deliver and its relationship to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was controversial enough to Spur several legal challenges two of which ended in Split decisions at the US Supreme Court during the 1970s further the bill was so controversial that it spurred Congress to pass pass multiple bills including the right to financial Privacy Act just eight years after passing the bank secrecy act it did so with the explicit intent of countering the very Financial surveillance that the bank secrecy act itself created unfortunately the 1978 bill was so watered down with 20 different exceptions that had failed to live up to its name as a result financial institutions remain responsible for both recordkeeping and Reporting requirements and law enforcement has the authority to obtain Americans Financial records without first obtaining a valid search warrant the so-called thirdparty Doctrine borne largely out of those Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s excuses This legal status by effectively claiming that bank customers have no expectation of privacy from the government once they give their information to the bank much like the dissenting justices of those cases cases I believe this logic defies all reasoning there is simply no sphere of Our Lives that would remain free of government involvement surveillance and control if it were taken seriously second the agencies themselves have failed to demonstrate how the bank secrecy act regime provides a net benefit and it has merely created an information overload for federal agencies through excessive reporting in 2022 for instance financial institutions were required to file over 26 million reports reports with the federal government on customer activity and even though it's been decades since the first suspicious activity report was filed the financial crimes enforcement network still cannot provide data that explains how law enforcement even uses those reports these two points are just the tip of the iceberg difficult as it may be to believe there are virtually no convictions to show for all this regulating and Reporting depending on the federal crime data that we use the per convict ition cost ranges anywhere from $7 million to $178 million and those figures do not include any implicit cost of violating citizens right to financial privacy Banks decisions to terminate or limit customers accounts or Banks refusal to provide Financial Services to certain customers finally personal and financial privacy are pillars of life in a free Society the American system of government was designed with good reason to ensure that individuals do enjoy a private sphere free of government involvement surveillance and control unless there is a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime or conspired to commit a crime people should generally be free to live their lives unmolested and UNS surveilled by the government that is literally why the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures and Americans Financial records should not be an exception to that rule it is of course healthy to debate what private companies should be allowed to do with the data they collect from customers but no American should confuse that debate with why we have the Fourth Amendment the fourth amendment protects us from unwarranted government persecution and that is why Congress should amend the bank secrecy act and restore Americans Fourth Amendment rights thank you and welcome any questions thank you Mr Michelle uh we now go to Mr fenel for five minutes Mr chairman and members of the committee thank you for inviting me here today to answer questions regarding the events that occurred the United States capital on January 6 2021 I would like to tell you that I've forgotten some of the events of that day or that my recollection is not as clear as it once was but that would not be the truth the events of January 6th are as Vivid to me now as when they occurred over 3 years ago while the physical scars of that day have healed the emotional scars remain we are a government of laws not of men I spent nearly two decades as a law enforcement officer trying to enforce the law my career began in the United States capital as a capital police officer and ended when called upon as a metropolitan police officer to protect the capital against a mob of people while much of my career involved dangerous encounters with violent criminals that experience was unlike anything I had experienced I'm here to tell you what happened to me on that day and what I saw and heard happening to fellow officers as for me I was violently grabbed restrained beaten tased all while being called a traitor to my country I was at risk of being stripped of and killed with my own firearm as I heard chance of kill him with his own gun my body camera video captured the violence of the crowd directed towards me during those very brutal moments the portions of the video I have seen remain extremely painful for me to watch but doing so is crucial to fully understand what really happened that day and the extent of the violence during those moments I remember thinking that there was a good chance that I could be killed and my thoughts were of my children who may lose their father while I'm here to share my experience I know that hundreds of other law enforcement officers responded that day they were outnumbered and acted with tremendous bravery to protect the capital and all those present inside who serve our country those officers have sustained injuries both physical and emotional they too have been scarred some visible and some that cannot be seen I think of them often like my partner Jimmy Albright who dragged me to safety while I was unconscious and who drove me to the emergency room though injured himself I think then about Commander Ry KY who like so many of us self- deployed to the capital who organized the defense of the lower West terrrace Tunnel his rally cry do not give up the door echoes through my thoughts I think of all the brave men and women newly Meed officers and those nearly retired who responded to the call of service that day in defense of our nation those who are still on the front lines each and every day to make our city safe and protect our institutions of government I appear today not to give my opinion or analysis or advocate for some action but simply to Bear witness I leave whatever actions to be taken to your wisdom and where we go as a as a nation to the American people I have no agenda or affiliation I do not come with malice in my heart but only a deep love of this country which I know is shared by so many others both young and old both Republican and Democrat and in the process of speaking more importantly listening to each other hopefully we can come together as one nation with shared values of wanting to tomorrow to be better than today with the hope and confidence that we do each and every day excuse me is for the singular purpose of trying to provide a better life for our children and our children's children in generations to come I thank you for your invitation to be here today and the opportunity to speak with you uh thank you Mr fenon we now proceed under the five- minute rule with questions the chair recognizes the gentleman from California for five minutes thank you Mr chairman Fone I I want to express my heartfelt thank you for being here today those of us who were here on January 6th uh in no small part owe you and others a debt of of gratitude for the work you did uh ushering people into uh members of Congress and others into safety uh and I I truly appreciate that and thank you thank you sir if this were only about January 6 that would have been my last comment and we'd be done I'm going to ask a series of questions that I think beg the question of of something Beyond January 6 for all of you if you'd raise your hand are there any of you who think that it would be better if we had the same rules of discovery that China Cuba Russia Iran have from a standpoint of looking for criminals Among Us is there anyone here that would raise their hand I thought not for all of you let's ask some questions and I'll use Mr tadesco as uh as my straw man for a moment with the way the bank secrecy act has been used is there anything that stops an Administration from choosing to look at and gather strip away and get from the major Banks or all the banks all the data of all the citizens and participants in our society in other words simply haul it all in so they have a database for whatever they need to do whether it's January 6th or uh you know somebody driving in town uh and and not paying a parking ticket sure I don't know the bank secrecy act particularly well I know the First Amendment implications of the way in I'm L looking at the Fourth Amendment for a moment uh you know again for the others uh Mr Knight I think you answered on this really there's nothing that would stop an Administration in secret from taking vast amounts potentially all of it uh under current law the only qu question you'd really ask is can you later go to court and say it was excessive and would the court side with you but from a functional standpoint what they ask for at the FBI they get is that correct I believe that's correct representative in fact I think it's even worse than that in the sense that it doesn't necessarily need to be evidence of a crime it could be evidence of some other violation you know a non-criminal violation and also because the target of a suspicious activity report is prohibited from finding out it would actually be very hard for the person to go to court later and challenge it unless they were the subject potentially of a prosecution in which case you're already starting behind the eightball okay so as we stand right now the Fourth Amendment relative to your banking records which don't just say what you spent money on it says where you were because by definition when you put that credit card into the gas pump we know exactly where you were so there's nothing that stops government from finding out not only what you're spending on but where you are and what you're doing is that correct sir that's absolutely correct um and the reason for that is from the Court's perspective those records aren't yours they belong to the bank and therefore you have no protectable privacy right in them but the court recently has been starting to change their thinking on that type of thing well and we're we're hoping to uh spur the court to think more uh through legislation uh summarizing though we're talking mostly about bank records because those are the ones that we have a current example but isn't it true that the FBI and other agencies want the same access to all of your phone records which would include where you are moment by moment and who you talk to is that correct well yes that was an issue in the carpenter case where the where law enforcement tried to pull location data from cell phone towers and the court found that uh customers have a protectable Fourth Amendment right even though those records belong to the phone company not to the customer so in closing for for everyone here if I want to get those kinds of Records on the FBI in the case of your phone records for all practical purposes with there are exent circumstance exceptions but for all practical purposes you need to get a warrant you don't need it for bank records but isn't it true that those records very often provide the same information and thus are equally invasive into not just your first amendment but your fourth amendment reasonable expectation for privacy and the the keeping of your uh files and personal effects I would argue there po potentially more sensitive and provide more accurate information than cell phone towers well uh I for one would close by saying that I don't see a problem getting warrants I don't see a problem getting judges and this committee has a significant role with fisa and other uh cases like that the question is will we amend law so that no matter where the data is being grabbed by the government is being grabbed pursuant to a reasonable expectation that you have a reason to get it and a judge who agrees Mr chairman thank you for holding this hearing and I yield back gentleman yields back the chair recognizes gentleman from Massachusetts thank you Mr chairman thank you Mr chairman I want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify before the committee as evidenced by today's hearing the singular mission of this so-called subcommittee on weaponization and the house Republican leadership appears to be the proliferate ation or ironically the weaponization of false narratives for political purposes combined with the rudderless efforts to develop evidence for the impeachment of President Biden these proceedings have become increasingly bizarre at every turn you know once upon a time we were told that the key to all of this was the hunter Biden laptop that was The Smoking Gun that would solve all of this until then it wasn't then it was getting Hunter by to testify that was going to be the conclusive evidence until at one point he had the courage to walk into a hearing sit in the front row and then all of a sudden Republicans rejected his offer to testify publicly and instead voted to hold him in contempt then it was going to be the testimony of the Republicans top legal expert Witnesses who were going to appear before Congress and offer evidence against President Biden and lay out the legal Theory to justify articles of impeachment but they showed up all of them with great resumés but but with no evidence and they testified under oath under oath that they could not find any evidence that would support or suggest such charges and finally last month the Trump appointed special counsel David Weiss announced that he had indicted chairman Jim Jordan's star Witness former FBI informant Alexander smyrnov for making false statements and fabricating evidence to Federal investigators about President Biden and his family including the Shameless lie that President Biden sought millions in bribes from Ukrainian Energy company barisma when he served as vice president now smof some of you may not remember smof is the guy that chairman Jordan described and I'll give you a quote the Chairman's quote as providing quote the most corroborating evidence the Republicans have close quote in support of impeachment so given that smov is being charged by the Republican Trump appointed special counsel for lying and fabricating evidence and the pathetic show that the Republicans have put on so far that assessment is probably correct he's probably the best they've got now the chairman of this subcommittee is is determined to obscure the facts surrounding January 6th today's hearing appears to be based on the false narrative that conservative Americans and even Bible per purchases are the targets of pervasive and baseless financial surveillance by the federal government it also follows statements made by several house members downplaying the attacks that officer F Fon has has described at the US capital complex as quote acts of vandalism close quote and a normal tourist visit that could could not be further from the truth as reported by the bipartisan select committee on January 6th in its final report our nation endured an Insurrection that specifically sought to violently block Congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election the sheer scale of the mob violence that you saw on the video earlier and the lawlessness that was exhibited that day tested the very fabric of our democracy with riers savagely beating Law enfor Enforcement Officers like officer fon amid repeated crowd chants such as hang Mike Pence shoot him with his own gun the Republican vice president hang Mike Pence that's what makes you an extremist that's what makes you a terrorist not not just your your desire to purchase under the Second Amendment a a a weapon that you're legally entitled to have it also warranted additional investigat investigatory efforts by federal ederal law enforcement authorities to prevent more violence leading up to the 2021 presidential inauguration officer Fon as a former metropolitan police officer could you please tell us how the promulgation of false narratives like this is just a tourist visit or simple vandalism how that distorted description affects your ability to do your do your job thank you for the question well essentially um the distortions mischaracterizations and lies about January 6th uh resulted in um or at least partially played a role in me leaving my job as metropolitan police officer um they have inspired fellow Americans to uh threaten me uh threaten members of my family simply because of uh the statement that I've made about my experience uh both on January 6 2021 and uh in the aftermath um so well well thank you very much my time has expired chairman unanimous consent request I would uh thank you for your service gentleman yields back unanimous consent request Mr chairman me State her request Mr chairman I ask unanimously consent to enter into the record of January 7th 2021 email from the f bi to financial institutions requesting information about Edward farea because he quote claimed to be armed in intending to travel to DC to unleash quote some violence I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a press release from the eastern district of New York announcing Edward floria's sentencing for making threats to kill elected officials like Senator Rafael waro entitled quote Queen's man sentenced to 33 months in prison for posting threats to kill a member of Congress and illegally possessing am ammunition unquote objection thank you gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman uh it it's s just sitting up here listening to yall's testimony it's just absolutely insane the level of the deep State acting to go after pro-life groups proun groups that you Mr Tesco talk the Arkansas pro-life group that now they can't even bank at the bank that they were banking at because of their political beliefs um the information that the chairman put up about people purchasing religious texts and Firearms um all without a warrant I mean you know you go to law school and they teach you constitutional law on the fourth amendment all these things that have to happen in order for the government to get information about you or to search your information and all of this is happening without even the person knowing that it's going on without a warrant without an ability to even to defend themselves in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election the financial crimes enforcement Network finsen at the US Department of Treasury told major Banks to be on the lookout for customers using credit and debit cards for the purchase of legal firearms as a gun owner and a strong proponent of our Second Amendment rights it's appalling that a federal agency would ask private companies to spy on their customers conducting perfectly legal business transactions it's not like there's a suspicion of criminality going on these are just typical purchases of firearms finson also passed along a report to several large Banks titled bankrolling bigotry an overview of the online funding strategies of American hate groups included among those supposed hate groups is the alliance defending Freedom which is represented before us today by Mr Tedesco I found this characterization curious because the ADF that I know is anything but a hate group ADF defends Americans god-given right to religious liberty in courts around this country but it seems the Biden Administration views advocacy for religious liberty as hate these days that says far more about the administration than it does about ADF President Obama once infamously remarked that many conservative Americans cling to guns or religion and given finsen actions it seems that President Biden's Administration s shares the same hostility for millions of Americans like me who proudly cling to our first and second amendment rights Mr tesca what's your reaction to your organization being identified as a hate group in a report shared by a government agency it's unbelievable that that is being used by the federal government to advise banks on domestic terrorist threats but you know I think the bigger Point here is that the concept of hate is a tool of suppression and on top of that that kind of language hate speech and and similar kinds of vague concepts are permeated throughout the financial industry and are used to shut down events into debank people um JP Morgan Chase has used it several times Arkansas family policy they said was high risk they shut down an event by defense of uh defense of Liberty on behal Donald Trump Jr was speaking at it they shut down that event uh on the basis of a hate policy so we know these policies are being weaponized in the financial industry and again because of the bank secrecy act and a lot of the shrouding of the way regulation happens in the banking context it's really hard to know why are these things happening we just know it's on the rise and it's a real concern well and and one of my colleagues was just saying that this is just a narrative that we're creating a political narrative but you've gone through specific I I if if you want to highlight specifically some of these instances that you're referring to of facts where prolife groups or organizations that are conservative have been debanked by these uh private entities sure the highest profile one is is a former member of uh the Senate Samuel brownback's organization National Committee for Religious Freedom uh JP Morgan Chase canceled that account in 2022 um they gave an escalating in very different reasons um that were contradictory over the next year as scrutiny mounted none of the reasons ever held any weight um interestingly enough they they uh referred to anti-money laundering financing of terrorism a concept called politically exposed persons all of these are within the banking regulations um and I think are used as tools ultimately to suppress people because of their views um again the secrecy and the shrouding of the reasons for the decisions is a huge part of the problem I think that's something Congress needs to address and is there circumstances in which the the consumers may never know that their information was privately disclosed from the bank to the FBI or a government agency yeah I mean this is a huge part of the problem is our clients uh you know to a to a person anytime they go to the bank once they get debanked it's always under some vague policy the only thing the bank will say is high risk or business type or risk tolerance every time they go back and ask for an an answer a specific reason the bank just St stonewalls them so they can't get access to information I only have a couple seconds left so what is your recourse if you do find out so let's say because I basically ticked a lot of those boxes that were referenced Firearms Bibles religious texts so if you do find out that you're information was divulged from the bank that you bank to a government agency do you have any recourse whatsoever to go after the government or the bank it's difficult for consumers who are in that position because they usually don't know it happens if it happens there are consumer complaints you can file with State Attorneys General um there's probably other avenues that people could pursue but I think that's part of the reason why Congress should act to um cordon off some of the um um the secrecy and confidentiality that's happening in the banking industry and also affirmatively require Banks to stop using reputational risk and some of these other vague categories to determine whether they're going to bank with someone thank you all for being here today Mr chairman I have a unanimous consent request I think the chair I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the FBI's situation report sent to financial institutions with respect to an explicit and clear threat on January 16th 2021 with respect to the inauguration I thank the chair from Califor recognized thank you um I thank our Witnesses for being here and I want to examine some of the actual requests that the FBI sent to financial institutions in the wake of the violence that occurred on January 6th 2021 not the overly broad groups that my Republican colleagues are purposely trying to scare Americans into believing that are being surveilled every single day without any crime prevention or crime solving purpose in mind on January 14th 2021 the FBI asked financial institutions for information about Robert Corey lmy who made quote Interstate threats of violence targeting the family of a US Congressman as well as other infer infer furtherance of anti-government anti-authority extremism and I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the uh email dated January 14 2021 from FBI employee to financial institutions into the record lmy ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison for making threatening Interstate Communications against members of Congress and journalists in connection with the 2020 election he sent threatening elect ronic and audio messages to approximately 50 victims he targeted because of their statements about Donald Trump losing the 2020 presidential election he sent messages to a New York City congressman's brother threatening him and the brother's children he sent messages to the family of a journalist and I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the press release entitled California man sentenced to three years in prison for making threats against political officials and journalists relating to the outcome of the 2020 presid presidential election without objection um officer fenon in your experience is it appropriate for law enforcement to use all lawfully available tools in the investigation of somebody who's threatening the family of members of public officials or journalists uh yes ma'am it's not only appropriate it's uh law enforcement's responsibility to do so would it be a dereliction of Duty if you didn't use every lawfully available tool to you to try to prevent a crime from happening or to solve a crime that has already happened uh yes ma'am I believe so thank you the day before the inauguration the FBI requested information about Samuel Fischer who was photographed on the steps of the US capital and is suspected of unlawfully entering Federal property on January 6 2021 the FBI noted that fiser may also have been quote manufacturing trafficking guns in preparation for civil war additionally fiser exposes racially motivated and anti-government extremist ideology end quote the FBI noted that it was quote currently preparing enforcement action and is interested in financial information that corroborates Fishers involvement in Firearms tracking and I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the email from FBI employee to financial institutions about this matter into the record without objection um officer fenon why might law enforcement agencies seek financial information in cases of arms trafficking well I mean outside of the obvious that um potential receipts or purchases made would uh provide evidence that uh in fact the weapons were purchased by a specific individual um my understanding is you know within these particular requests uh it was the FBI seeking voluntary compliance um from a number of banking institutions uh in which their ask was was very specific in that they were looking for individuals who were present on January 6th which I think we can all agree was an incredibly violent assault against law enforcement officers uh those individuals that also had purchased Firearms within the past 6 months uh and uh were or at least there was evidence to support they were planning on returning to the nation's capital uh on January 20th so they they weren't just looking for people based on their beliefs there were three different criterias that they were using that all had to be present in order to do this search is that correct uh that's my understanding yes great Samuel fiser by the way was arrested the very next day and when he was arrested FBI agents found over a thousand rounds of ammunition and several weapons including an illegally modified AR-15 rifle and machetes in his Upper East Side apartment and his car fiser by the way wrote after the capitol Riot quote seeing cops literally run was the coolest thing I've ever seen in my life end quote and I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record that New York Times article entitled dating coach charged in capital Riot gets prison term for gun crime into the record this is a clear example of people committing criminal acts that my colleagues across the aisle are claiming are the victims the innocent victims of surveillance but in reality the FBI was doing their job they were working to prevent threats to the inauguration and to hold January 6th rioter responsible for their criminal actions officer fenon I want to thank you for being here today and I appreciate your willingness to Bear witness to what really happened on January 6 2021 and dis to dispel these overly broad fear-mongering tactics that innocent Americans are being surveil simply because of their beliefs or their religion and with that I yield back the balance of my time gentlem y's back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for five minutes y Mr Jordan I think John Mr Knight do you need a gun registration list if Government Can just just go ask the banks every time some customer purchases a gun well the banks won't know if you purchased a gun per se but your bank records can be a a pretty good though not perfect registration for almost anything my point is it's almost like a backdoor registration right yes one of our one of the challenges is that information highly sensitive information can be accessed through financial records that otherwise is constitutionally protected yeah Dr Peterson do you think uh do you think they're just going to stop uh stop with conservatives my my my history tells us that the cancel culture mob the the surveillance State whatever you want to call it it doesn't just they never are satisfied with just certain people it it always expands and I'll give you an example a few years ago uh Senator Feinstein iconic Democrat senator from the great state of California uh the folks in San Francisco renamed the Diane Feinstein Elementary School they took her name off the school because they found that she said something like 40 years ago that the ccil culture mob didn't like so even a liberal Democrat Senator wasn't good enough for the mob they came after her too and this this is the thing that scares me we've invited probably more Democrat Witnesses in front of this committee than any other committee we invite Democrats to come in and say we respect the First Amendment Second Amendment Fourth Amendment respect the Constitution my concern is it never just stops with certain people it always goes further do you agree with that well the reason I prefaced my remarks with an insistence on nonpartisanship is because the danger posed by this increasing ability of governments and large corporations to collude threatens everyone's Freedom equally and it could well be that at the moment and this is I think the case the Republican Republicans here are trying to make is that the people who are in the sights of that collusion tend to have more conservative leanings but that will shift in a moment when whenever the political Tides shift and we're we're concentrating in this hearing a fair bit on the specific events of January 6th a very partisan issue that produces a very intense partisan divide but we're not addressing the we're not addressing the fundamental issue here directly which is that our new technology enables a mode of surveillance that's so intense and all pervading that no one will escape its purview regardless of their political views no I I I I think that's exactly right and there also seems to me and I'll go to Mr Tedesco there seems to be a a pattern emerging I'm going to take you back to when we first kind of started getting into this issue with the somewhat famous now School boards memorandum from the Department of Justice and I I know you probably remember what I'm talking about here Mr Tedesco but the opening sentence of the Attorney General's uh document this memorandum says in recent months there's been a disturbing spike in harassment intimidation threats of violence against School administrators board members teachers staff and who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools at the hearing where we had the Attorney General I asked him a simple question I said you make that opening statement as the basis for why you need this this this memorandum to go after moms and dads showing up at Schoolboard meetings what was that first sentence based on and he told us it was based on the national school boards Association the memorandum they put out and the same thing happened to you guys because we had some entity here called the what the global disinformation index puts out this information and then the government uses that information as the basis to say you're some terrorist group that is frightening that our because finsen the treasury Department used what some agency put out or not agency some entity put out as a basis to say you guys are some hate group or some terrorist group I find that alarming and particularly the pattern at it I guess two doesn't make a pattern but it sure makes you start to wonder your thoughts Mr Tesco sure the FBI used the splc's report on radical traditional Catholics to Target them as well in the interim between the the the moms for Liberty and parental rights groups and uh and what's going on today I think it's very alarming that the government uses these obviously partisan and discredited third-party you know Arbiters of Truth uh who really are just promoting their own political agenda and trying to do damage to their perceived political enemies um to make decisions about anything let alone sending them to financial institutions as part of some kind of finan financial surveillance scheme some leftwing group says you're you're bad oh then the government's going to use that information to send out to Banks and say you might want to be concerned about this you may want to debank these indiv that is a frightening world and the point is I don't think it's going to be just limited to conservative people in the future because we've already seen examp there were there were people in black lives matter who got targeted during the summer of 2020 when all the protests were happening around the country and I disagree with some of the things a lot of the things that happened that summer but I also don't like the fact that they're going after liberals either that that is that's a scary thing and then there used to be an agreement and both parties that first amendment activity should be protected Second Amendment activity your right to privacy should be protected but unfortunately now it's gotten way too partis uh with that we will go to the other side the gentle lady from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman for nearly 20 years in this chamber I know I've heard time and again Republicans claim that they back the blue just recently chairman Jordan put out a press release around the law enforcement Appreciation Day resolution which said when it comes to supporting the police quote Republicans put words into action unquote yet when it comes to walking that walk Republicans too often take a seat yes yesterday we took a vote on a bipartisan spending bill that includes funding for our criminal justice programs of the Republican that make up this committee a handful of you voted against it that of course would mean less funding for state and local law enforcement agencies and more criminals on our streets and in our neighborhoods that no vote means no funding for the internet crimes against children program a key law enforcement tool that keeps online Predators away from our children those actions sure don't back the blue and now today Republicans want to Target law enforcement yet again this time they purposefully downplay the heinous violence that injured and traumatized hundreds of cap Capal police officers in the January 6th Insurrection perhaps the most infamous assault on law enforcement in recent American history specifically our Republican colleagues are taking aim at the ability to use Financial records as a tool to prosecute the cou plotters the criminals who attempted to stop the legitimate constitutional transfer of power in Congress these are the very Financial tools that help hold to account the people who tried to overthrow a presidential election officer no officer fenon thank you so much much for repeatedly testifying about your experiences I'm sure it isn't easy as you mentioned to relive these traumatic moments could you describe some of the violence briefly that Capitol police officers were subjected to on January 6th certainly so uh I like many other officers from the Metropolitan Police Department uh self deployed that day uh in that um I Heard distress calls coming out from uh officers who were already deployed at the Capitol complex uh and took it upon myself to respond uh to those calls um for assistance uh when I arrived at the capital uh I made my way to uh the uh what's referred to as the Lower West Terrace tunnel uh in response to a specific distress call coming from uh officers that were defending that tunnel against a uh large group of violent riers that were trying to gain access um thank you when when I entered the tunnel I observed about 40 or 50 uh DC police officers and a few US capital police officers uh attempting to hold back uh the violent mob the officers were being assaulted with a variety of different weapons uh everything from metal poles 2x4s uh aluminum baseball backat uh batons and and uh other police equipment that had been stripped from uh police officers themselves were were then used against officers thank you officer venon thank you I'm sorry I want to just make sure I can get some other items in um I I the video that we saw earlier was disturbing in a video that I don't have time to show you can hear words like traitor being yelled at police officers and shouts like f the blue five police officers who served at the the capital died in the aftermath of the Insurrection officer fenon what's your response to those who say that no police officers were killed by the events on January 6 2021 uh well my thoughts on officer Brian snik uh obviously um Brian sik's cause of death um was ruled unrelated to the capital Riot um that being said I think that good U decent people uh would understand that uh if it were not for his participation in the defense of this capital on January 6th against a violent mob uh Brian snik would be here with us today um I understand I think better than most the um post-traumatic stress that accompanied uh my participation uh in defending the capital on January 6th and then enduring the mischaracterization or lies uh about what I experienced that day from people in positions of power many of whom were here at the capital themselves um I um I understand what brought many officers to uh um taking their own lives and um I I certainly attribute uh their actions uh to their participation in in defense of uh the US capital on January 6 thank you uh Mr chairman uh uh and my Republican colleagues once again I ask that you stop trivializing the violent assault the entire world saw that day both to our democracy and to our law enforcement and please do not cavalierly discard financial information as a law enforcement tool to prevent the next January 6th the necessity of making this tool for law enforcement is even more imperative considering the presidential candidate you support all but promises yet another assault violent or otherwise on our sacred democracy and I yield back gent gent Mr chairman before you go to the next member if I can ask a for unanimous consent request not objection I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the FBI's situation report sent to financial institutions on January 13 2021 which explains in the middle of page two the exact kind of threats that the FBI was trying to prevent leading up to the inauguration that day these were threats to murder members of Congress and start a shooting at the inauguration the exact type of threats the FBI is responsible for for investigating and I quote on 8 January information was received regarding a video posted on an identified website encouraging people to kill senators and Congress members the poster of the video was identified via social media exploitation the video was threatening violence in Washington DC on inauguration day today and advise people to bring guns with without objection we want the FBI to do their job we just want them to do it in a way consistent with the Constitution with that I recognize the gentle lady from New York thank you Mr chairman Mr Knight thank you for your testimony today in 2022 gun ban activists Amalgamated Bank and far-left politicians push for the creation of an unconstitutional Merchant category code to be assigned to Firearms retailers to identify quote suspect purchases and Report purchasing patterns to law enforcement a clear unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights and a clear back door to a gun registry in fact failed New York attorney general Tish James specifically mentioned the importance of labeling gun and ammunition sales as a way to indicate an imminent crime since then some states have banned the code while States like California have mandated it to surveil Americans purchases this is why I introduced the protecting privacy in purchases act with Congress bar and Hudson to put a stop to this code and protect law-abiding Americans from this infringing unconstitutional overreach can you explain how does this code threaten Americans privacy and constitutional rights thank you very much this code and if we were to do similar codes for other sensitive issues risks uh creating a raft of false positives where individuals who are potentially engaging in Second Amendment activity because it's important to know that the MCC doesn't tell you what people buy it just tells you where they buy diet right will be reported to the government as potentially suspicious for no real basis um or or at least not a basis that that is is likely to be reasonable um and that's going to create a database that is available um that could be searched later one of the dangerous things about this financial um database is that or the this these Financial records is that they're retrospective um and even perhaps you know just as bad is that there's precious little reason to believe it would be effective at it stated goal for a host of reasons I can get into if you want yes please expand okay so the problem here is that you won't know what someone buys You're Expecting Banks to correctly identify what is really a Hallmark of violence um you're expecting them to report it promptly You're Expecting law enforcement to then act on it promptly and effectively and so I'd like to point to you know I don't know if they'd like me pointing to it but uh guns down America has a report that Advocates the MCC but if you look at the examples they point to as possible examples where this could have helped it's hard to believe they they would either because there's such a short time frame 12 days there there's a reason to believe I don't see why we believe that that uh you know 12 days would be enough time for law enforcement to act on it because we don't know how fast it takes the government to use any SARS or there's actually it's hard to actually differentiate suspicious activity from legitimate activity rather they look at cases and then work backwards so we don't know what the denominator is we don't know how many false positives there will be also in the the recent report when we look at the Key Bank uh methodology it's very very broad it's very over inclusive and it has its thresholds are such that it's far more than you need to spend to commit a horrible act of violence but less than you'd spend to get a good hunting rifle and scope and so how how confident should we be that we're going to actually get more noise than or signal than noise I don't believe we should be given how little we know about uh how SARS are treated as is I think we should be deeply skeptical and do you believe this is a backdoor to a gun registry I believe it's a back I believe some of its supporters view it as a back door to discourage Firearms purchases well in my district in Upstate New York and Americans across this country are proud uh to stand up for our constitutional rights and understand this is an infringement on our constitutional rights why is my bill so important what's his point Well ma'am um I I think that efforts to efforts to restrict the collection of data at the bank level are the best option we have currently because under current law unless we can reform the BSA once the bank has that data government has that data so preventing the the the uh collection at the bank level is your first best option thank you very much I yield back uh gentleman from Texas is recognized thank you Mr chairman uh I'm going to yield my time to the ranking member but I just wanted to say to officer fenon um I was on the house floor on January 6th we haven't had a chance to talk but I know you have kids um I have my wife is at home with our son Jordan who wasn't yet too she was seven months pregnant uh and you know thanks to your bravery The Bravery of your colleagues and of true Patriots who defended this capital I believe I got to meet my son Cameron so I want to thank you for your service thank you for your bravery I'm sorry you've had to endure so much of this personal attacks to try and undermine uh what you actually did that day but I want you to know that people all across this country know what you did respect you and appreciate your service so thank you I Yi to the ranking member thank you very much Mr aled I believe we all share those sentiments um I want to say that this is not a partisan issue I heard it said that January 6 is a partisan issue I I just want to read something a mob was assaulting the capital in his name these criminals were carrying his banners hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him it was obvious that only President Trump could end this former AIDS publicly begged him to do so loyal allies frantically called the administration but the president did not act swiftly he did not do his job he didn't take steps so federal law could be Faithfully executed in order restored instead according to public reports he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded he kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election even after it was cleared to any reasonable Observer that vice president Pence was in danger even as the mob carrying Trump banners were beating cops and breaching perimeters the president sent a further tweet attacking his vice president predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances members of the mob seems to interpret this as a further inspiration to lawlessness and violence that was the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell this is not partisan and the reason we kept saying this is about January 6 is because it is about January 6 they're trying to expand the scope of what the FBI was trying to do it was not to invade all Americans bank records it was not about a violation of the Fourth Amendment against search and seizure I'm a I've been a practitioner of the law not just a law professor not just someone with a graduate degree from law school but a prosecutor an investigator and you use the tools that you have to prevent crimes from happening because guess what I've shopped in a p Bass Pro Shop plenty of times I read the Bible on a regular basis I happen to be in my family happen to be gun owners but I'm not afraid that the FBI is going to be searching my account because I was also not a rioter on January 6 and I did not purchase a gun in the last 6 months before the inauguration and make plans to come back to attempt to again stop the free and fair election of our government it's getting ridiculous officer fan fenon so sorry officer fenon you saw the violence on January 6 2021 and you saw the individuals you were up close and way too personal with many of them you also unlike many of the people here attended hearings trials and sentencing of many of those individuals based upon the knowledge that you have that many of us here on this dice do not do you know what ideology the January 6 riers embraced and how do you if you do how do you know that I'm sorry ma'am I I can't speak to every single individual that was there that day at the capital I didn't have an opportunity to interview them I was too busy fighting for my life uh that being said uh I was present uh at a number of the sentencing hearings regarding individuals that were specifically uh charged with and later pled guilty to uh violent assaults of uh myself and other officers and many of those individuals um in their plead for uh leniency to the judge at sentencing uh cited the fact that they had been inspired by um and uh by rhetoric used by the former president pres um by misinformation from news media Outlets that led them to believe that the 2020 election had been stolen uh and that it was their patriotic duty to in fact um respond to the capital that day and fight to save their country thank you I Yi back lady y's back gentlem from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes we began this hearing by reciting and Pledge of Allegiance I'd like to begin my questioning by reciting the Fourth Amendment because I think the other side of the aisles kind of forgot some of the terms that are in there the right of the people to be secure in their person's houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized this is in our constitution Mr Michelle can you tell us how the bank secrecy act and exemptions to the right to financial Privacy Act may not be in compliance with the Fourth Amendment or how the implementation of those acts May violate the Fourth Amendment sure uh much like Brian knight uh alluded to a minute ago once the bank or a financial institution has the information the government has it so uh this came up in the early Supreme Court in the early Court challenges it came up in the Supreme Court cases uh that eventually those cases eventually went to the Supreme Court in that you have effect we effectively have a law that is a blank check for the federal government or for law enforcement to obtain all of your information simply without a warrant so without probable cause they do not have to get a warrant they do not have to show probable cause to get the warrant they they have to give an oath or affirmation no to a judge no uh no they have to go to the bank yeah so it it seems to me that these uh these acts they're not just uh out of date but they're outside of the Constitution um Mr Knight you began your opening statement by characterizing some of the things that the government could know or infer about you based on how you spend your money could you elaborate on that or reiterate what what are the things that government can know or infer based on purchasing habits government can know almost everything about about you with a relatively High degree of confidence they know where you live they can figure out where you work they can figure out potentially things like your sexual orientation they can figure out or at least have a high degree of not of of you know accuracy in guessing what your interests are they can figure out or have a high degree ingressing what your religion is what you know political beliefs you support and they can fig you know potentially figure out at least have a better than average chance of knowing whether or not you own a firearm they can also potentially know if you've had an abortion and it's worth noting that after the Dos decision there was a lot of concern raised about the sensitivity of medical information that would be available under the bank secrecy act in a state that prohibits or severely restricts abortion and so I I just really want to drive home the point that this is not a left or right thing or an r or D thing this is a situation where everyone has sensitive information that is potentially accessible with basically no due process Dr Peterson why are you such a lite why don't you Embrace artificial intelligence and facial recognition so and massive computer surveillance and cameras on every street corner so that we could all be safer well because there's tremendous danger in too much security there if if the emerging collusion between government and Corporation gigantic Corporation continues in the manner that it is continuing there won't be anything that you do that can't be used against you and will be used against you in very short order and the concerns that are expressed here about the local consequences of that let's say with regards to January 6th seem to me to fail to take into account the much broader threat that lurks underneath that everyone should be attending to like we we're in danger of eliminating the private sphere entirely that's already happening in places around the world particularly in China which is why I made reference to that that technology is at hand and it appears as though both giant governments and giant corporations are utilizing it in every way that they can manage and it's generally it's often motivated by the claim that that's forestalling an immediate proximal threat right well that's a short-term justification for engaging in a tremendous long-term danger and it should be perceived as dangerous to those on the left who are politically committed because it will be the politically committed who are first identified by such systems is is it true that you have a PhD yes well then why did the Canada decide that you needed more education can you tell us about that well one reason the entire trans script of an interview that I did with Joe Rogan was submitted as evidence with regards to the unacceptability of My Views what I was doing primarily in that interview that was criticized was questioning the validity of the economic models of economic collapse that were stacked upon the unstable models detailing out climate change 100 years into the future that was deemed in Canada sufficient to proceed with complaints against me with regards to my professional competence to serve as a licensed psychologist that was only one of many Anonymous complaints that were fostered directly in relation to my political views well I thank you for showing up today I think they may use your testimony as evidence that your re-education has not been successful I yield back to the chairman well done uh gentleman Yi's back the gentleman from Virginia is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr Knight you uh come from the mar Center uh funded generously by the coch brother as was the KO Institute um and I of course represent George Mason University where you located uh I have a simple question for you the Republican conference chair Elise stefanic recently said people who are being imprisoned for crimes committed during January 6 are hostages do you agree yes or no that the people who have been arrested tried convicted sentenced and are serving those sentences are in fact hostages I have not studied that my initial inclination is no and if I can elaborate I have not re I have not read all the transcripts of all the convictions but I will assume the answer thank you I I just find it interesting you can aine about uh amendments to the Constitution and infringements and warrants but you haven't really looked at the issue of whether people who committed crimes in January 6 are hostages or not thank you for that moral equivocation officer fenon do you maybe you don't want to equivocate what do you think I mean I'm listening to my colleagues I'm listening to this testimony and apparently you got it wrong on January 6 there were peaceful citizens simply protesting on behalf of their first second and fourth amendment rights carrying Bibles uh who had just assembled peacefully to express themselves here in the capital isn't that what you encountered on January 6th that couldn't be further from the truth I mean my encounter was uh was brutal it was violent uh it involved a number of individuals restraining me beating me uh at least one individual while I was being restrained beaten uh subjecting me to uh electroshock from a taser device on my neck um uh all the while resulting in injuries I sustained as a traumatic brain injury as well as a heart attack H so Mr Tesco talked about among other things law enforcement running roughshod uh over citizens you know simply expressing the first and second amendment rights I had the impression that you know law enforcement that day apparently was violently seizing Bibles of good Christians who were simply trying to exercise their their faith because we were targeting them for their faith is that what happened on January 6 listen I responded to the capital that day uh for no other purpose than to uh assist fellow officers uh who were calling out for help uh I didn't care about the location the capital building itself and quite frankly I didn't give a about the members of Congress I just came here because cops needed help that was it we'll pretend you didn't say that first part um by the way just an oh by the way because we've heard some interesting testimony again uh in your law how long were you in law enforcement 20 years 20 years in those 20 years were you ever made aware of any effort by the FBI or law enforcement in general to surveil the financial information of individuals because of their beliefs or views because that's what we're being led to believe has an occurrent no and I worked uh in collaboration real loud and clear 20 years of experience did have you ever experienced what they're describing no no would you find that odd if you did stumble upon it yes why uh because it violates the very principles of uh law enforcement upholding the Constitution uh and respecting Americans rights so I'm going to I'm going to run out of time I just first of all I cannot tell you how much even though I am a member of Congress I was on the floor on January 6 I heard it I saw a lot I cannot imagine what you've gone through and how you were still living through PTSD my office was attacked last May and we're still living through PTSD and it was violently attacked um and I can only imagine and you were a hero and you know no matter what the attempts may be of some to minimize diminish or even fabricate what really happened in January 6 I assure you there are a number of us who will continue to fight for the truth to make sure the American people know exactly what happened and that we won't equivocate about whether criminals who are justifiably in jail for their crimes that day are not hostages they're criminals they violated the law and I cannot think of a more significant breach of the Constitution than a violent attempt to prevent the free exercise of an election being counted here in the capital I yield back thank you chairman thanks um for the witnesses being here today and you know we're here to talk about uh apparently a range of things that don't involve the topic of the hearing and I think that's disappointing Freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed and we have an opportunity to do that few of the rights protected by our Constitution are more infringed than the right to privacy my colleague Mr Massie read the actual text of the Fourth Amendment and Mr Peterson Dr Peterson you referenced kind of what a lot of people might wish it said it does not say that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear it says that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy it doesn't say you have an expectation of complete secrecy um the reasonable expectation of privacy is guarded by due process warrants and subpoenas for US citizens you might not know that many of the members of this committee are part of something really rare in Congress which is a nonpartisan view we've got divisions that don't break on party lines on privacy there are Republicans and Democrats who want to roll back the Patriot Act what a beautiful name but it's being used to violate American citizens rights to privacy we have one of the rarest things possible you have Mr Jordan and and Mr Nadler in complete agreement on how to reform the foreign intelligence surveillance act and frankly the foreign intelligence surveillance act part works pretty well it's the domestic surveillance act well there isn't one because the fourth amendment guard s it it says you're supposed to get a warrant and we're covering a giant hole here not about January 6th what about the bank secrecy act and third party Doctrine things that are being abused weaponized against the citizens of this country now they don't have all these same safeguards in Canada and Dr Peterson you've experienced some of the consequences of not having the safeguards that we have in this country um I wonder if you could elaborate on on how consequential it is to have the safeguards we do have here on privacy and speech well I know that my colleagues on the psychological front and on the medical front in Canada are increasingly frightened of making any of their political opinions known in any form whatsoever because governmental agencies usually of the mid-level bureaucratic sort have been empowered as a consequence of our lack of First Amendment rights to intervene as they see fit in relationship to stated opinion political or otherwise and it's not good it's seriously not good and there's new legislation coming up also reflecting that lack of proper constitutional protection that will make even the suspicion that a crime may be committed punishable that's Bill C63 which is pending before the Canadian these are dangerous ideas and I I I appreciate that you highlighted how China's using it and frankly there are people in the United States pushing for a central bank digital currency that at the core is a violation of privacy it is really the one ring to rule them all it is a massive amount of coercive power and at the root of it is is the surveillance capability and a lot of that M Mr Knight you've highlighted with the consequences of the bank secrecy act and I just wonder you know a couple of you have highlighted the the cost benefit ratio Mr Michelle uh as well maybe you could highlight the consequences of the bank secrecy act and and uh how we might reform it so that we can accomplish the uh stated goal of safety but in a more constitutional framework how do you speak to that I think what we've seen in this hearing is that one of the big consequences is that people blurred a distinction between not being able to access information or being able to access information subject to Due Process there's no reason to believe that the um in convictions obtained after January would be impossible without getting a warrant or information subject to one of the exceptions to the warrant provision for exent circumstances we also have to worry about the fact that information is being collected is very collectible if you are worried about your political opponents having power why do you want this available to them thank you uh you know Mr Michelle you mentioned the uh third party Doctrine and the hazard of that I mean frankly um I I reminded of um a story that's disputed whether it was fully accurate or not but when Nikita kushev became the leader for the Soviet Union he was pointing out how brutal the regime had been under Stalin and someone from a large crowd yelled to him why didn't you do anything and here he is the dictator of the Soviet Union everyone knowing the kind of power that he could wield and he said who said that I demand to know who said that and everyone got quiet and he let it stay quiet for a very long time and he said that's why because you know the course of power of the state now I would submit that the police state powers that have existed in previous eras of history are minor compared to the capabilities that we have when you link that to the consequences of the unmitigated third party Doctrine can you lay out for us what's at stake well it it literally means that any time you engage in any commercial transaction you are effectively saying okay I don't have due process anymore which is rather insane uh it turns the concept completely on its head that we all have due process so I think we have a really incredible burden to to produce legislation that does reclaim the F the freedom that has been surrendered and I hope we continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to deliver that reform I yield back gentl yeld back I have a unanimous consent from Mr chairman I have a unanimous consent request uh entitled this is an FBI liaison information report entitled domestic violent extremists embolden in aath of Capitol breach it cites uh online rhetoric regarding the 20 January presidential inauguration with some calling for unspecified Justice for the January 6 shooting by law enforcement of an individual at the Capitol building and another positing that quote many armed individuals would return on 19 January according to open source reporting without objection thank you J from California is recognized thank you Mr chairman just hold one second if you could we we'll stop your time I should have mentioned if any of you need a break just let us know we be if you have to run to the restroom or anything like just let us know we've been get going out this two hours we probably got a half hour to go if you can find but if you need a break just let let us know we'll go there I apologize gentleman's recognize no problem Mr chairman uh it's unfortunate that this hearing is tended to focus on January 6th and the inaugural that followed two weeks later because there is a legitimate question about the Gathering of information mostly by private sector businesses and the like and then the government accessing that information it's a it's a worldwide phenomena and it is something that we should be focusing on unfortunately what's happened here in this hearing is that we've taken the January 6th issue the insurrection the violence the harm that came to officer Fone and others uh and morphed it into a larger question of our civil liberties um that's unfortunate but here we are uh using this hearing to somehow um degrade the violence and the Insurrection itself and the ultimate effort to destroy our democracy so I think we have to stay with that a few seconds um officer Fon just a couple of questions I want to get clear um do you have the number of insurrectionist riers that have been charged and found guilty correct you know that you the number is I think over 1100 uh that's my understanding close to 1,200 uh in this process was any information developed that indicated there might be future violence for example at the inaugural uh yes that's my understanding from uh uh speaking to those involved in the investigation does do any of the witnesses disagree with that okay and based on this is it reasonable for the federal government FBI and other agencies to to investigate certain individuals in an effort to prevent future violence is that a reasonable thing for the government to do again I don't even I don't only think it's reasonable I think that it's a a requirement now do any of you disagree that it would be reasonable for the federal government to investigate those who were involved and the threats that there might be future violence is that something that the FBI and others should do I would disagree with that to some degree it depends on how they do it because because thank you quite well made not not okay yeah so the the notion of continued investigation based upon information received uh as a result of the conviction and investigations of those that were involved in the Insurrection the rioting uh would be reasonable so now we get down to the point and this is where this hearing really got off off track and it's unfortunate uh to equate this issue of our personal civil liberties and privacies with the January 6 Insurrection we need to divide these two issues uh there's no doubt we had an Insurrection there's no doubt we had a riot there's no doubt that officer you were injured along with 140 other officers the film that was shown earlier clearly demonstrates that and your own testimony we thank you for your U your work that day I think I agree with Mr connley uh you may not think it important to protect us but we certainly thought and we thank you for having done so but the reality is that uh it was an extraordinary serious event in America's history it was the single largest assault on police ever in the history of this nation now based upon that where do we go put that over here and then Mr chairman if you would um put all of that aside and stop trying to protect uh Mr Trump or anybody else that was involved in that Riot and that Insurrection and let's get down to the issue of protecting our civil liberties there are multiple examples that could be used and evidence that could be used to get to that point some of it presented by the witnesses today unfortunately wrapped up in the January 6th and the uh the insurrection and the uh subsequent question of the inaugural I do note as I drove here this morning that a new fence has been put around the Capitol building now this speaks to all of our safety and why is it that in America today we have the need for a new 7 foot high fence around the capital on the day that the president arrives to give his State of the Union so I think I'll just leave it there um with the seconds left and Mr chairman if you would put aside your desire to go after um and protect the president and get down to the issues that are really critically important for all of us I would appreciate it and I think this country would also G gentlemen Ys back gent from W is's recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman we've been focusing on how technological platforms and advancement further fuels the weaponization of the federal government in collaboration with big corporations against the American people at least that was the intent of this hearing and it is the intent of the folks on this side of the aisle today it is how developments in financial technology have aided the surveillance of the American people and during our last hearing we focused on how AI is expanding the monitoring and suppression of speech today I want to focus on a on new reporting which connects the financial surveillance and AI together last month journalist James O'Keefe posted a report alleging that the IRS and doj were utilizing AI technology to assist with the surveillance of American bank accounts these allegations are that AI can access bank accounts and look inside those accounts versus just seeing activities in the account this surveillance by the IRS is being done without a warrant and it is being done in coordination with the doj just two months before this Revelation fin sen informed us in staff briefings that Banks were beginning to deploy AI technology in their business models meanwhile we are watching Google's Geminis failures from its politically biased model which Google co-founder Serj Brin called left leaning which I believe is pretty much the understatement of the year in the report released by this subcommittee last night we document how the FBI and Finn sen reported information to assist Financial surveillance which C uh which certain Americans B on certain Americans based on Strictly conservative ideas Mr Knight you noted that we are limited to speak on what has been reported related to the financial surve surveillance regime because so little is known by the public in Congress the timeline that I just describe provides little de detail but it does show that this area is developing very quickly and rais further concerns about federal agencies undertaking draget surveillance using Financial records based on what we know so far about the coordination between the financial sector and federal government does the addition of AI into this equation cause even greater concern regarding the scope and scale of financial surveillance that we can expect to occur in the future so I believe it does for several reasons one to the extent that it makes something less expensive you'll get more of of it two to the extent that AI is not well tuned either intentionally or unintentionally you're going to get the risk that you're going to not only have more false positives but also that it's going to start selecting for information that may not be appropriate three there's concern and I don't want to overblow the concern but it does exist that AI tends to be opaque and this regime is already opaque enough so if the Great and Powerful Oz is spitting out records that it considers suspicious and you don't know why and we can't assess how appropriate it is that's obviously very problematic and so I think that we do need to be cautious and and I would say one distinction between this and and maybe some other areas is here we're talking about feeding information to the government so there are constitutional implications here that don't necessarily exist in other areas doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious in other areas but we should be especially cautious here I appreciate your response and I think that you're actually spoton also of concern with the evolution of AI in relation to uh this is the this Liberty infringing regime that we're dealing with right now the Biden Administration is the fact that it remes removes human accountability um what we have learned so far is that the information we have so far came from a paper trail from a government employee yet with AI that paper trail is going to disappear Mr Michelle what could another what could another layer of secrecy achieved by dis replacing Human Action with AI do to further erode our liberties and basic guarantees of privacy well I mean at first I would just caution that uh Banks and financial institutions have been using technology at at an increasing rate for a very long time and the problem still the bigger problem is the principle and if we guarantee due process and we guarantee that law enforcement needs a warrant to get that information then I think that's a better place uh but aside from that yes the better and the broader the technology allows people to reach or the finer detail that it allows people to get then obviously the the more of it you're going to get but I think Brian is right in that it's going to make it less more efficient and less costly so you'll get more of it but again the principle of the Fourth Amendment the due process that's what's key here thank you I appreciate that with that I yield back gentle lady yields back the gentle lady from California's recogniz or Texas excuse me I'm sorry Texas please there's a huge difference thank you uh thank you Mr chairman and um thank you to all the witnesses are here this morning on the morning of January 6 I joined my colleagues in the house to certify the historic election of President Joe Biden and vice president K Harris but that day quickly became a dark day in our nation's history within hours the capital was overrun by domestic terrorist IST sent there by President Trump I don't mean terrorists in some academic or legal or political science definition I mean I was terrified my staff with me was terrified and many of my colleagues around me both Democrat and Republican because this is not a partisan issue we're also terrified now some of my colleagues have already forgotten the violence and Terror that we all experienced together and we've heard some of the comments they think they should be called hostages they think they should be treated as Patriots well there were terrorists plain and simple in my books I learned for the first time that there are gas masks underneath our seats on the house floor designed to keep us from chemical or biological attacks when I was told to put one on imagine we were told to put on gas masks my colleagues and I on the floor were hiding between seats barricading doors and some of us calling their families as the mob grew louder and more terrifying they were pounding at the door trying to get in where's Nancy hang Mike Pence where's Nancy where's Nancy they set up Gallows to prevent them from coming in the intentions of these terrorists were clear overturn the election and kill the Democratic elected leaders they believed stood in their way anyone who claims this was not a terrorist attack a violent insurrection is simply not facing real reality and as one Witnesses said they're just plain and simple lying even in California they would call that lying despite every truth here we are today more myths and more misleading information given to the American people well officer Fone thank you for being there and also for Having the courage to come to testify today and to reminding us all about the truth of that day some colleagues wrapped themselves in blue life's matter flags for social media and throw it in the trash for the officers who watched over our democracy I will never getet what I saw and felt that day and without your sacrifice and some of those who died that day or were injured that day defending the Constitution and all enemies foreign and domestic so officer F while law enforcement kept us safe inside the capital outside the building you were fac amazing staggering odds reports indicate that the west side of the crowd numbered officers 58 to1 one officer their requested backup at least 17 times in 78 minutes did you and your colleagues ever get the sense that you were defending democracy that day that's not anything that that uh those thoughts never cross my mind um you know again like I said I I responded to the C Capital um heating distress calls coming from fellow officers uh and when I was fighting I I was more concerned with my own Survival and that of uh my colleagues than um you know the totality of of uh what that day would would later come to represent right as you reflect now do do do you do do you see the connection do you see what really was happening that day it was not just the violence of the mob but it was an attack on everything that we stand for as a country uh yes ma'am that's my assessment thank you uh many members of publicly spoken about and recorded memories of their experiences and we know that many many members of Congress have struggled with trauma from that day we know that you have is it possible and I know it it may may bring a lot of emotion but is it possible for you to share with with us on what you have dealt with personally as the after effect facts uh of that day sure I mean initially I think there was just the um the experience of the day itself uh the level of violence um and for me u in my personal experience I think what was so difficult to deal with was uh you know the first time in my law enforcement career and I work narcotics so it's to say that uh I've experienced a few things um I had never been completely um I had lost all control of my own Survival in those moments and it was only because of uh a few individuals in the crowd uh and the efforts of law enforcement that I was able to survive that and so uh that level of vulnerability for me as an officer uh was more than um uh than I could deal with um you know in the after math there was uh criticism from you know internal criticism on behalf of other officers in the department uh that made the experience uh much more difficult um and then eventually the you know mischaracterizations the lies about what happened that day lies about me specifically um and who I was or or what role I played uh at the Capitol on January 6th um you know inspiring threats against myself and and members of my family um I mean in a way I think it's impossible to uh for me at least to fully resolve that trauma because you know even in attending this hearing today I Reed threats um and so you know how do you um H how do you resolve that when it's it's ongoing well I'm sorry that it happened and and uh thank you for your courage and thank you for coming and and sharing with us today yield back Gally yields back chair recognized himself U Mr Michelle if if the government's going to go get information from Banks and understand what happened in this particular situation and in other situations the government goes to the bank and says I want the name of the customer who's making purchases in a certain daytime and I want the name of the customer who may have bought a firearm at any time if they're going to do that do you think they need to get a warrant first do I think they should yes well yes Mr Tedesco do you think they need to get a warrant to do that yes Mr Knight yes Mr Peterson yes Mr phenone do you think they need to get a warrant I apologize could you repeat the question government government goes to a bank and says I want the name of the customer who made purchases on these specific dates and may have bought a firearm at any time should there be a warrant requirement before the bank has to be compelled by the government to give that information should there be a warrant requirement first I mean in my experience I always sought voluntary compliance um it's less paperwork uh that being said if if if I was unable to wait wait voluntary compliance correct how's it voluntary this is the third party the bank's giving it no if I go to the bank and request certain information regarding an investigation that I'm participating just saying in a fundamental sense do you think there should be a warrant requirement before some financial institution hands over the name of the customer based on certain purchases they may have made say in a general sense yes you think there should be yes that's great because your colleagues don't think so now let me go to this do you think Mr Michelle that if it can't do a warrant do you think there should be at least a notification so should at least the bank say hey Mr Smith the FBI just asked me for all your purchases on a certain date and they want to know if you've ever bought a gun do you think that the bank should at least tell their customer their customer who they're supposed to serve do you think they should at least be compelled to tell them that yeah yes Mr tadesco yes Mr Knight yes with reasonable exceptions for an ongoing criminal case fair enough Mr Peterson they should get a warrant should get a warrant back to the first thing Mr Fone again with exceptions for criminal investigations we got we got agreement on the panel we the first time we've had that this morning Mr Mr um Mr Dr Peterson I want you to talk about the the Deb the debank issue we saw so much of and how that was particularly I guess with the truck ERS and and how that's cuz I see it coming I see it coming here and it frightens me I want you to talk about what took place in Canada and if if it in any way impacted you well there was a essentially a workingclass protest against the covid Lo extensive length of the covid lockdowns and one consequence of that was that Canadians who participated even by donating to the protest and even by donating small amounts to the protest had their bank accounts seized by seized in consequence of a collusion between the banks and the government that was extrajudicial that was recently deemed unconstitutional despite the fact that we don't have strong First Amendment claims so this happened it the government is currently maneuvering in Canada to make the possibility of such collusion a certainty across multiple po actual and potential domains of of so-called harm particularly in relationship to government defined hate yes this is this is absolutely coming and it's facilitated by the kinds of advancements in technology that we talked about today yeah we know it's coming because we've seen the this what what do they call it the liaison information report from the FBI to the bank saying possibly include firearm legislation the easing of immigration status new limits on public land and discontent with renewed measures to mitigate the spread of covid-19 so the very issue the very issue that these truckers were debanked in Canada is the very thing the government is saying to Banks we need to be we need to look at this as well that single issue that is again what frightens me so much and and and frankly when you're getting this information if you're going to get it why you should be compelled to get the warrant before you go you go get it Mr Mite Jump Right In I want to I want to clarify one part of my answer um to the second question about notification y the right to financial Privacy Act I think does a good job of this where notification can be delayed but you have the the government has to go to a court and get permission to delay I think if we're going you sh the burden I mean the burd the burd is where it should be on the government to go go go get it from a court absolutely and and I do believe that there should be a warrant requirement uh so the so the notification would only be delayed that event in this world we're now in we we the full committee as I said I think I mentioned may have mentioned earlier on the fisa reauthorization we' have said the same thing if you're going to go search an uh American citizens based on their phone number their email address in this hay stack of information that's out there if you're going to do that go get a warrant and we're having the same fight there but it it seems to me that that that getting a warrant fourth amendment constitutional uh right is how it has to be uh how it has to be handled my time is expired y to the ranking member thank you very much um I thought it was very telling that Mr Knight said that yes going after bank records would be inappropriate except in a criminal investigation oo criminal investigation that's what the FBI was doing was involved in a criminal investigation with a warrant he's for no not with a warrant it's not necessary to have a warrant go back to criminal procedure you don't always need a warrant when you have have voluntary um authorization and everyone who opens a bank account is told when they open their bank account that the information may be disclosed to law enforcement now if we want to change that rule in the consumer protection laws then we need to do that but until that they have a reasonable expectation that law enforcement May disclose that information because once you are banking with a banking institution that information in that record belongs to the banking institution it doesn't solely belong to you anymore when you are using a bank in that banking institution and they have given disclosure now if we want to make it an affirmative disclosure where an individual has to specifically check off the box that allows them to be aware of it when they're opening a bank then that's something else but you do not need a warrant you can have voluntary disclosure because under our law presently the banks have possession and ownership of that information now the other thing that I think you have talked about is are we worried about that that this is only going to happen to the um on conservatives no I'm I'm I'm also concerned if that were if the FBI were to do overreach I am concerned with that and I do understand that this is something that law enforcement does and that we need to be careful about what they do I just find it very interesting that you all are uh my colleagues Mr uh are our one of our Witnesses Mr fenon is not a colleague of ours and is giving his opinion as a law enforcement officer sir was there something else that you wanted to add within the context of this particular investigation um one of the reasons why I believe that uh the FBI would have sought uh voluntary compliance as opposed to applying for a warrant is the sheer magnitude of the event you had literally thousands of people who participated on the attack on the capital on January 6th and in an abundance of caution and really the responsibility of the FBI and those other investigating agencies uh is to ensure that that violence does not occur again uh at our inauguration uh which was only about two weeks uh after that and so I think it wholly appropriate uh as you just said it's completely within our uh capabilities as law enforcement agencies to seek voluntary compliance uh from these institutions to investigate criminal Acts or potential criminal acts thank you so there was an eminent threat on the American people on the Homeland that being individuals who said they were going to come back and finish the job that they had started on January 6 to try and stop the in the placement of Joe Biden as president of the United States now there's a lot of things we could have hearings on you Mr chair you have not sat down with me at any point in time like we do in other committees and talk about what are the things that we can agree on that we want to you came to my office one time and we had a discussion and I gave you a list of things that I would like to have a hearing on you completely ignored me in that your team doesn't even give us testimony until till the very last minute that they have to you do not even let us know the subjects of hearing sometimes I find out about what we're going to hear uh hearing is going to be on on Twitter you are not operating as a fair dealer in this so don't try that here in front of everybody I am concerned about things I'm concerned about what will happen if Donald Trump does get reelected because on November 9th 2023 in a Univision interview he said if I happen to be president and I see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly I say go down and indict them they would be out of business they'd be out of the election on November 11th and 2023 at a Veterans Day rally I can't believe he was at a Veterans Day rally after what he says about those of our men and women in uniform he said we pledge to you that we will root out the Communist Marxist fascist and radical left thugs that live like Vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections he seem to be a threat to the first the fourth a whole bunch of amendments but you're not going to try and have a hearing on him in this weaponization of the federal government which we know that Donald Trump is going to use for his own dictatorial narcissistic failing failing in business failing in presidency failing in life self gent lady y's back the gentleman from North Dakota is recognized so there's a carjacking outside of 7-Eleven in downtown Washington DC and the cop calls the CEO of Bank America and says I need every person in your bank who's ever bought a gun anytime anywhere it's an ongoing criminal investigation everything everywhere all at once won the Oscar last year for the best movie but it's not the standard for Fourth Amendment warrant and I think this is about as important of a hearing as we can have because if they're doing it members of Congress members of congress's Staff reporters who are engaging in all of this imagine what's going on at another time by the way the Supreme Court agrees with me wouldn't and we'll get into that in a little bit when the Bank of America provided the FBI a list of people who made Financial transactions with their Bank of America card in Washington DC between January 5th and January 7th 2021 the practice of sweeping up thousands of Americans without probable cause and specify in a search for specific suspects is inconsistent with the specificity requirement of the fourth Fourth Amendment and the entire Criminal Justice System considering how many Americans use Bank of America credit or debit cards this list must included thousands of people this list almost certainly included members of Congress their staff who were performing constitutionally mandated functions as well of report as well as reporters who were engaged in First Amendment protected activity countless of other individuals were swept into this surveillance without probable cause the list included people who had a history of purchasing a firearm at any time which is a constitutionally protected activity so we likely have violations of the first second and fourth amendment the fact that Americans data is handed over to the feds unofficial Expedition by the banking industry because their customers were present in a particular region or purchased the constitutionally protected item is unacceptable and I reject any argument that this financial information is subject to third party Doctrine and therefore an exception to the Fourth Amendment and I've been arguing this for years the third party exception in the modern economy threatens to make the Fourth Amendment irrelevant the fourth amendment is it survived telephoto lenses drones listening devices tracking devices the fourth amendment has proved to be incredibly resilient but this is the place this is the place where Congress has to act because the and the Supreme Court seems to agree with that concern based on Carpenter vus Mr Michelle the majority opinion and Carpenters stated that the cell site location information is quote detailed encyclopedic and effort effortlessly compiled is the financial transaction data that was released here any less detailed encyclopedic and effortly compiled in relation to a fourth amendment legal analysis I don't believe can you imagine any judge in the country who would make a probable cause finding to authorize a search W for all of this detailed financial information on this many people with this set of facts no Mr Tesco no there's also similarities with this in USV chaty a federal court found that a geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment geofence warrants are a practice where law enforcement seeks location data on any device within a specific time and geographic region where a crime took place the court found that it is insufficient for law enforcement to obtain the data based solely on information that a suspect possessed a cell phone where in while in the general area of a CRI where a crime was committed beyond the Court's concern with probable cause it highlighted that no judicial review whatsoever was attained and law enforcement has unchecked discretion to seize the more intrusive data Mr Michelle are those the same concerning factors presented with the financial data that was turned over the Federal government in this case yes Mr Tesco yes Mr Knight it sounds very similar my colleagues across the aisle have raised many concerns about broad violations of privacy Financial or technological institutions in trafficing private user data revealing it to government authorities in fact during an energy and commerce hearing debate on comprehensive data pracy there were several amendments to prohibit the collection of Ja location data on facilities such as planned parenthood that ban the D that transfer of that data to uh to law enforcement or to government authorities and we know that the CDC was collecting data to see if people were going to church during quarantine Church during quarantine this conversation how we deal with this is the fundamental question we have to answer as we move forward and you can we can talk about January 6 in the event and we can talk about all of that but there were thousands of innocent people that went to Bass Pro Shops in Virginia in the two days before and after January 6th doesn't matter how bad you think the event was or where it was or whatever you cannot get a warrant on somebody for exercising their constitutional rights and if you can't get a warrant for somebody to do it then we have to create a situation where Banks and large corporations or anybody else or third part of data Brokers by the way are allowed to sell that information and law enforcement is allowed to obtain it without get getting a warrant this is a fundamental question it's a perfect place to have it in this hearing and it is exactly what happened in this case and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from New York is recognized thank you Mr chairman just to follow on uh with my my colleague from North Dakota uh the notion that subpoenas are not sufficient to get information and that every uh ounce of evidence must be obtained by a search warrant has of course been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court over and over and over and this hearing the reason why as Mr Armstrong says we are talking about January 6th is because as I understand it this hearing was initially spurred on by an FBI whistleblower who is not here testifying today the one who ostensibly had the information about alleged wrongdoing is not here to stand in front of us to testify under oath to be questioned by members of both sides I want Mr Knight I I want to ask you a a hypothetical let's say that there's a riot and an attack on our democracy on a particular day um we'll just call it January 6 for the purpose of this hypothetical let's say that the FBI has information that an individual was near the site of the riot that day and let's say that the FBI had evidence that that individual purchased a firearm in the past 6 months and let's say that the FBI had evidence that that same person planned to return two weeks later to interfere with another Democratic process involving the president of the United States is it actually your testimony here today to say that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the FBI to seek bank records for that individual me ask a clarifying question sure so at least based upon the public information I have available they do not know on an individualized basis that people were planning to return to cause violence and I think that's a distinction that's worth that's fine I I I agree with you that's not in the hypothetical they just knew they were going to return I believe you you said something along the lines of evidence that they were coming back to to interfere you're right let's just say that do you still do you think the Fourth Amendment prohibits the FBI from getting bank records for that individual if they don't know that they are going to commit violence I think that's an easy warrant to get a warrant yeah I think that would be an easy warrant to get from a judge so you so you're now saying that you need to get a warrant for bank records I am saying you should have to get a warrant for bank records the status you do not you disagree then you disagree with the Supreme Court which has upheld the constitutionality of the bank secrecy act so if you'd like to talk about the the Supreme Court precedent in the bank secrecy act I think that Carpenter which is a far more recent case point points to some very strong questions about the constitutionality of the bank secrecy act I've written something about it I'm happy to S to your office I understand and by the way I I agree I mean but Carpenter also demonstrates that the Supreme Court is evolving and is evolving on the fourth amendment and there's no question and I will tell you as a former prosecutor if I had that predication I would fire off a subpoena to that bank every single day 10 out of 10 times Well respectfully sir it doesn't seem like they even move to move on because I I I think it's it's absolutely absurd that we are sitting here trying to make an argument that somehow the fourth amendment is being violated when there is specific Reasonable Suspicion about every individual who whose bank records were obtained because they bought a gun they were at the Insurrection and they were going to come back the fact of the matter is we are once again here on a completely sham rationale there was no First Amendment or Fourth Amendment violation around January 6th this is simply another effort to whitewash what happened on January 6th one of the members of the committee calls those who were convicted of crimes hostages while there are actual American hostages sitting in Gaza right now under captivity of a terrorist organization and we're supposed to equate the people sitting in jail who uh who rioted and attacked this Capital we're supposed to equate them with these hostages Mr chairman you continually say that it used to be that both parties agreed with the First Amendment it didn't used to be it is it Remains the case we all agree with the first First Amendment but the problem is that the first amendment is not absolute it does not protect any single thing anyone says and there are limits and that's important and what this committee has been trying to do for the last year and a half is to chill the federal government from monitoring what is going on on social media and and otherwise out there so that misinformation and disinformation can run rampant in onon musk social platform and every other social platform so that they the Republicans can benefit from it in November's election that is why this committee exists the time of the gentleman and we have gotten no evidence to support any of these allegations chair the chair recognized the gentleman from South Carolina uh I yield to the chairman such time as he may I I appreciate that I think the gentleman from New York just said that we're trying to chill the federal government I I don't know if it's ever been said that way it's always the government trying to chill Americans rights and chill American I've never seen anything I've never seen anything like but guess what you know who was opposed to how the FBI in the Bank of America did this thing when they asked for this information you know who was opposed to it three FBI agents the guys on the case George Hill Bon balant Steve Jensen all testified to the committee that it was wrong and guess who else said it was wrong Chris Ray said this we recalled this information to avoid even the appearance of any kind of overreach so even the FBI who was systematically violated America who's this FBI who said if you're a pro-life Catholic you're an extremist if you're a parent going to a school board meaning you're a terrorist even the FBI said this is ridiculous and they pulled back three agents testified so I mean and and somehow the federal the government is the one who chills American speech when they pressure big Tech to censor when they ask Banks to give him that's chilling speech and we've seen it first Mr Dr Peterson seen it in his own country and now it's coming here that's what we're concerned about I yeld back to the gentleman thank you for you thank you chairman and I I would Echo that I'm glad that Thomas Massie started off with a recitation of the Fourth Amendment because that's really why we're here and and while the other side wants to relitigate j6 the title of the hearing is about financial Sur uh surveillance of American citizens this is deeply troubling that if you are a Catholic that cares about your child's education and you shop at Gander Mountain that you are like prime suspect under some sort of weird uh rubric in a government surveillance operation I think that the Supreme Court in looking at this when they were looking at the BSA in a concurring opinion said uh justice pal and Justice Blackman said Financial transactions can reveal much about a person's activities associations and beliefs at some point government intrusion upon these areas would implicate legitimate expectations of privacy moreover the PO potential for abuse is particularly acute whereas here the legislative scheme permits access to this information without invocation of the judicial process so Mr tadesco how do we get here and at what point or how do we get to a point where big Banks can just freely hand over this information to the federal government well I think the biggest concern from our perspective is the systemic censorship risk within the banking industry that is really um uh a product of the oversight and pervasive regulatory Authority that bank supervisors have over Banks if you think about the top five banks have uh 50% of the bank deposit Market in the United States you see that there's a concentration of power in the banking industry with just a few banks that are heavily regulated and because of the secrecy around Bank supervision the reasons why people are debanked and why these kinds of things are occurring is shrouded and so it's a huge problem the censorship risk is real in the financial industry sector who would you consider to be the biggest victims of this surveillance operation I think it's the American citizens and I think it's a bipartisan issue even our even the um uh some of the Democrats in this chamber and the Senate sent letters to the big Banks just a few weeks ago talking about drisking they call De banking drisking we're talking about the same thing uh of Arab Americans Muslim Americans in including because of their religious donations and donations to charity so it's a bipartisan issue and I think all should be concerned about it and try to work together for Solutions no I 100% agree with you and and you know what what do you think right now under the BSA under the current structure what is the remedy for Americans well there there isn't there is none right there is no mechanism for judicial review right so Americans cannot protest a bank who is ostensively in arm of the government at this point they cannot protest the disclosure of their financial transactions to the federal government there's no mechanism for that is there that's right and so that and obviously they don't have any knowledge that their their data was collected to begin with do they yeah I think one of the scariest thing I things I heard at this hearing was what Mr Michelle said once the bank has the data the government has the data right Can you hire a private security firm to search somebody's house without a warrant I don't think so no no you have to have a warrant so what is the difference here it's a big risk and it needs to be fixed you so you you would articulate let me ask you the panel this do you think that under the current BSA or other laws that that that it would be wise given given where we are from a technological standpoint do you think it would be wise to revisit the BSA or the other laws to provide that protection for Americans privacy sir well there was some concerns expressed earlier about what might happen in the aftermath let's say of Donald Trump's election with regards to uh political belief and anything that facilitates the collision between government and giant Corporation and enables that kind of information gathering will absolutely be used in that way that's why I made comments earlier regarding this as a bipartisan issue once this capability exists and it's being magnified now it will be used in all directions so the people at risk will be politically active vocal Americans The Silent Ones Will Remain relatively safe but anyone who speaks and briefly do you all think that that we should examine we should absolutely examine it agree yes definitely yes gentle gentleman's time has expired the Gent lady from Florida is recognized Mr chair I have a point of order in your last statement you said that Steve Jensen of the FBI opposed the collection of this information for banks that's a misrepresentation of his testimony approprate said that the information was noted would you release the transcript so that we can hear what Mr not an appropriate point of order and the gentle lady knows that but she continues to try to ask question that is you interject I don't think I've raised one point of order today you interject all the time lady from Florida is recognized all the time thank you Mr chairman you know I'm actually just I continue to be stunned by the big government Advocates that we come across and the ones that serve in this very chamber uh they're not even hiding it anymore they're saying the quiet part out loud they want dependency they want control and the disregard for the Constitution and the oath that many of my colleagues actually all of my colleagues have taken uh and violated it's just it's so disturbing to me many people know probably as evidenced by what is on the the face of of my iPad that I detest big government and I detest big Tech the two combined have proven to be a lethal combination when it comes to Liberty and freedom because quite frankly we know that the mo of big Tech and big big financial institutions combined with big government it's to erode and evade Americans constitutional rights and we're here today because of a blatant Fourth Amendment violation where big Banks colluded with big government to turn over data that didn't belong to them to Target Americans innocent Americans because in this country it is still a fact that you are innocent until proven guilty despite what everyone is trying to do and flip that around now Dr Peterson it's good to see you again I couldn't help but notice your reaction when my colleague was talking about the First Amendment uh not being absolute and so I do want to give you the opportunity to weigh in and respond to that um I couldn't I couldn't help but notice your reaction but before I do I am really glad that you have been talking about the um social credit system that the CCP the the Chinese Communist Party utilizes I I am literally around the corner in a classified briefing while right now talking about the use of big Tech and how it is targeting uh American citizens in fact this very morning I have been inundated in my office with phone calls from Tik Tok users who have been denied access to the app because they live in my congressional district and until they call my office and demand that I do not take adverse action against the app that they cannot use it talk about big Tech directing Behavior I think that we are on a very dangerous path and I want to give you my time to really lay out in the most succinct way possible the danger the dangerous Nexus of big Tech big government and financial institutions that seek to weaponize that information against Americans and I know you are more than capable of doing that in two minutes and 30 seconds I I don't think people understand the degree to which they are profiled online and to which their virtual representation is now a iconic representation of them nor do they understand that they have have no rights whatsoever to that representation so for example let's say we turn our information about our purchasing habits over to the bank when we open a bank account 30 years ago that wasn't such a big problem with AI systems it's a problem that's so big you can't imagine it I mean I'm certain that I my staff could find the data online to absolutely predict your voting patterns with 95% accuracy you have no idea what sort of digital footprint that you're you're leaving behind you and there are almost no protections for that and so now that and you also asked about the First Amendment yes well we have very weak Free Speech Protections in Canada and I can tell you that is not going well and so the combination in my country the combination of that and the in invasive technology that we're producing at a rate that is Beggars the imagination um produces a threat to the Integrity of sovereign citizens iens ship the likes of which has not yet been experienced right and that's what this committee should be concentrating on like it's very interesting to watch it because it devolves continually into discussion of a a a particular event serious though that event was it's like no matter how serious that event was it pales in comparison to the potential severity of the issue that we're attempting to point to with regards to our testimony the these artificially intelligent systems can do things you can't imagine and not only can they they are and they will and that will be abetted by the collusion between large corporations and government and it's certainly the case that the people who stand on the left especially with regards to their what would you say skepticism of large corporations which is oftenly often perfectly warranted should be utterly terrified about this man you did that in less time than I thought well I get right once today no I appreciate that and I think you have seen it front and center certainly we all watched in horror as the trucker bank accounts were were seized were shut down who protested the mandates and people think that that's such a far away concept but we have seen that here with people who have been given ultimatums of jab or job and we've seen ways that they've been targeted and and positioned in ways that are just unamerican and unconstitutional so thank you all to our Witnesses for being here today I appreciate you guys in the fight against weaponization and we're seeing it more and more every day Mr chairman with that I yield gent yields back this concludes today's hearing we thank our Witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today I apologize I do have to run out to another thing but uh we really appreciate the discussion that you all brought uh in the analysis that you brought today without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record without objection the hearing is adjourned e yeah I am

Channel: The Hill

Views: 46,472

Keywords: House judiciary, weaponization of federal government

Id: SyOfIFBXGyY

Length: 137min 20sec (8240 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 07 2024