Merrick Garland testifies in House Judiciary Hearing 6/04/24

15,000 employees of the Department of Justice have continued their work to fulfill our mission on behalf of the American people, to keep our country safe, to protect civil rights, and to uphold the rule of law.

(00:13)
Just 10 days ago we secured the extradition of one of the lead sicarios or assassins of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most dangerous drug trafficking organizations in the world. Just last month, we secured a 27-year prison sentence for a man who attempted to kill NYPD officers in a terrorist attack in Times Square in 2022. In just the first three months of this year, we charged seven members of a hacking group backed by the Chinese government. We disrupted a botnet control by Russian Intelligence Services and we seized over $108 million and 500,000 barrels of fuel that would otherwise have enabled the government of Iran to further support Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

(01:01)
We have continued our work to drive down violent crime work that we know is paying off. Last year’s historic decline in homicides, the largest one-year decline in 50 years, is continuing. In the first quarter of this year, we have already seen an 18% drop in murders. We know we have much more to do.

(01:26)
We have also remained steadfast in our commitment to the Justice Department’s founding purpose to protect civil rights. We have aggressively investigated and prosecuted hate crimes that victimize individuals and terrorize entire communities, and we have brought justice to the perpetrators of those crimes. Like the defendant in Florida who attacked two Black women because of the color of their skin, the defendant in Michigan who defaced synagogues with swastikas, the defendant in Missouri who set fire to a community Islamic center, and the defendant in Tennessee who committed a series of arsons targeting Catholic, Methodist and Baptist churches.

(02:10)
We have worked to protect the reproductive freedoms that are protected by federal law. In Idaho, we sued to ensure that women in the state would have access to the emergency care guaranteed to them under federal law. We have continued to protect the right to vote and to have that vote counted. We successfully challenged a redistricting plan in Galveston County, Texas. The district court recognized that the plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by depriving the county’s Black and Latino voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect a candidate of their choice.

(02:48)
We have continued to prosecute fraud and we have challenged illegal monopolies that drive up prices for consumers. This year, we sued to break up Live Nation, Ticketmaster for its monopoly of the live concert industry, and we sued Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets.

(03:06)
We have also continued to fulfill our responsibility that underlies all of our work to uphold the rule of law. That is why we have worked to combat a worrying spike of threats of violence against those who serve the public. Those threats have included targeting of members of Congress, police officers, judges, jurors, election workers, and the Justice Department’s own employees. Let me be clear. If anyone threatens public servants with violence, we will hold them accountable. And we will continue to protect our democratic institutions like this one and to bring to justice all those criminally responsible for the January 6th attack on our democracy.

(03:56)
As Attorney General, I will continue to forcefully defend the independence of the Justice Department from improper influence or interference of any kind, and I will continue to fiercely protect the integrity of our criminal investigations. Nothing will deter me from fulfilling my obligation to uphold the rule of law. Fulfilling that obligation includes ensuring that the Justice Department respects Congress’s important role in our democracy. That is why we have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committee gets responses to its legitimate requests for information. That is why I have provided the committee with Special Counsel Hur’s report, why the Special counsel testified for more than five hours and why we have gone beyond precedent to provide the committee with the transcripts of the Special Counsel’s interview with the president. But we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created. Releasing the audio would show cooperation with the department in future investigations, and it could influence witnesses’ answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public.

(05:20)
Now in response, certain members of this committee and the Oversight committee are seeking contempt as a means of obtaining for no legitimate purpose, sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations. This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department’s work. It comes alongside threats to defund particular department investigations. Most recently, the Special Counsel’s prosecution of the former president. It comes alongside false claims that a jury verdict in a state trial brought by a local district attorney was somehow controlled by the Justice Department. That conspiracy theory is an attack on the judicial process itself. It comes as individual career agents and prosecutors have been singled out just for doing their jobs. It comes as baseless, and extremely dangerous falsehoods are being spread about the FBI’s law enforcement operations. And it comes at a time when we are seeing heinous threats of violence being directed at the Justice Department’s career civil servants. These repeated attacks on the Justice Department are unprecedented and they are unfounded. These attacks have not and they will not influence our decision making.

(06:55)
I view contempt as a serious matter, but I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations. I will not be intimidated and the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence and we will not back down from defending democracy. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you Mr. Attorney General. We will now proceed under the five minute rule with questions. The gentleman from Florida’s recognized.

Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman from the Ranking Members.

I have some unanimous consent requests

That have to happen right now?

No.

Okay. Well, go ahead.

Mr. Chair, there’s an allegation made in a letter yesterday suggesting that the FBI was somehow involved on January 6th. This is ludicrous and you know it’s ludicrous because witness-

Is there a unanimous consent request?

It’s not a proper unanimous consent.

I have some unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the transcript of the committee’s interview with Steven D’Antuono, the former leader of the FBI’s Washington Field office-

Without objection.

… clearly refutes characterizations that the FBI was involved in the inciting violence on January 6th.

Without objection, the gentleman from-

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record and excerpt from the special agent in charge of the FBI Boston Field office in which he explains that conspiracies about the FBI causing the capitol insurrection are false and concerning.

Without objection.

And finally I ask the unanimous consent to enter an excerpt from FBI Director Wray’s testimony before this committee last July where he states, “I will say this notion that somehow the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous and a disservice to our brave, hard-working dedicated men.”

Without objection. Gentleman four is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. Attorney General. You’ve told us that it’s a dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the Department of Justice is communicating with these state and local prosecutions against Trump. You can clear it all up for us right now. Will the Department of Justice provide to the committee all documents, all correspondence between the department and Alvin Bragg’s office and Fannie Willis’ office and Leticia James office?

The offices you’re referring to are independent offices of state-

I get that. I get that. The question is whether or not you will provide all of your documents and correspondence. That’s the question. I don’t need a history lesson.

Well, I’m going to say again. We do not control those offices. They make their own decisions.

The question is whether you communicate with them, not whether you control them. Do you communicate with them and we provide those communications?

You make a request, we’ll refer it to our Office of Legislative Affairs and they will respond appropriately.

But see, here’s the thing. You come in here and you lodge this attack that it’s a conspiracy theory that there is coordinated lawfare against Trump. And then when we say, “Fine, just give us the documents, give us the correspondence, and then if it’s a conspiracy theory that will be evident.” But when you say, “Well, we’ll take your request and then we’ll sort of work it through the DOJ’s accommodation process,” then you’re actually advancing the very dangerous conspiracy theory that you’re concerned about.

(10:08)
Now, you were a judge once nominated the highest court in our country. When you were a judge, I’m just curious, did you ever make political donations to partisan candidates?

No.

No. And you didn’t because that would create the appearance of impropriety.

I didn’t because there’s a federal rule barring federal judges from making contributions.

Right, but under that same theory of attacks on the judicial process, shouldn’t someone be owed, like a jury of their peers and a judge that’s non biased rather than getting a judge from your political opponent’s donor file?

I’m well aware that you’re not asking a hypothetical. You’re asking me to comment on a jury verdict in another jurisdiction which has to be respected. I won’t comment on it. That case is still ongoing. The defendant-

Mr. Attorney General, I hadn’t asked you about the verdict yet. We were getting there. I was talking about the judge. And so let me ask you this question about your time as a judge. Was there ever a time when you were a judge when you had a family member who was personally profiting off of the notoriety of a case that was before your court?

I’m going to say again, it’s very clear you’re asking me to comment on a case in another jurisdiction-

No, no. Hold on, hold on. Mr. Attorney General, did you ever have a family member profit off of the notoriety of any case that you settled?

I’ll say again. You’re asking me-

Yes or no?

You’re asking me to comment on a case currently-

Well, it seems you’re connecting the dots. Mr. Attorney General, I’m just asking you as to a general principle, but you are aware that Judge Merchan’s daughter was profiting off of this prosecution. You are aware that that creates the appearance of impropriety. You know the very reason there’s a federal rule against judges giving donations is because it is the very attack on the judicial process that we’re concerned about.

I’m sorry, I don’t agree with anything you just said, but I’m not going to comment on an action-

Okay, so you won’t comment on it Mr. Attorney General, but you had no problem dispatching Matthew Colangelo. Who’s Matthew Colangelo?

That is false. I did not dispatch Matthew Colangelo. That’s false.

Matthew Colangelo became the Assistant Attorney General at the very beginning of the Biden administration. Without having been Senate-confirmed, goes and gets the senior role at the DOJ. And then after, I believe Gupta replaces Colangelo. Colangelo makes this remarkable downstream career journey from the U.S Department of Justice in Washington D.C and then pops up in Alvin Bragg’s office to go get Trump. And you’re saying that’s just a career choice that was made that has nothing to do with the lawfare coordinated by the-

I’m saying it’s false. I did not dispatch Mr. Colangelo anywhere.

Well, do you know how he ended up there?

I assume he applied for a job there and got the job.

You know what-

I could tell you I had nothing to do with it.

Well, you might not have had anything to do with it, but we’ve got this contemporaneous evidence in Mr. Pomerantz’s book. So Pomerantz writes this book, which I’m sure you’re aware of, where he says, “We put together the ‘legal eagles to get Trump.’ We got all these folks together and we assembled them for that purpose.” And so when we on the Judiciary committee think about attacks on the judicial process, our concern is that the facts and the law aren’t being followed. A target is acquired, here, Trump, and then you assemble the legal of talent from DOJ, Mr. Pomerantz, and you bring everybody in to get him.

I really-

And meanwhile the judge is making money on it. The judge’s family is making money on it for stuff that you yourself wouldn’t do. No one’s going to buy this. No one’s going to believe it. It’s going to create great disruption and I’m saddened by it, because like you, I have given my life to the law. I care deeply about the law and I think that the lawfare we’ve seen against President Trump will do great damage well beyond our time in public service. I see my time’s expired. I yield back.

Ranking Member is recognized for five minutes.

Thank You Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, do you want to respond to anything in Mr. Gaetz tirade?

I think everything he was talking about was a case in another jurisdiction. An independent prosecutor, Mr. Pomerantz… Worked for that independent prosecutor. I don’t know Mr. Pomerantz, I don’t know what’s in his book, but these are decisions made in another office independent of the Justice Department.

Thank you Mr. Attorney General. Last week, as we all know, a jury of his peers convicted former President Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records of the first degree. The case was brought by the Manhattan DA. So it is a state case, not a federal case. I shouldn’t have to ask you this Mr. Attorney general, but since the majority seems to be confused, can you please explain the difference between a state case and a federal case?

Yes. The Manhattan district attorney has jurisdiction over cases involving New York state law completely independent of the Justice Department, which has jurisdiction over cases involving federal law. We do not control the Manhattan district attorney. Manhattan district attorney does not report to us. The Manhattan district attorney makes his own decisions about cases that he wants to bring under his state law.

Thank you. My Republican colleagues seem to believe that the Department of Justice is secretly coordinating the now successful prosecution of former President Trump in New York. Is there any truth to this allegation, and what is your response to this allegation?

The case in New York is brought by the Manhattan district attorney independently on his own volition and on his own determination of what he believed was a violation of state law.

Mr. Attorney General, two weeks ago, this committee took the extraordinary step of holding you in contempt. I want to make some things clear for the record. Since 2022 when the Chairman took over the committee, the Department of Justice has produced over 92,000 pages of documents and made 25 employees available for interviews. We’ve run the numbers. This is more than double the number of documents and exponentially more witnesses than the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice produced to this committee in four years. And with respect to the actual audio recordings sought by the majority, the Department of Justice has produced full and complete transcripts of the conversations memorialized by these recordings. Is that correct?

It is.

There’s been an allegation that the transcripts might have been altered in some way. Is there any truth to that allegation?

There’s no truth to that. The senior career official in the department in a declaration he filed under oath stated that he had compared the audio to the transcript and that transcript is accurate with the exceptions of Us and Ahs, and repetitions of words like I and And. And he consulted with Mr. Hur, the Special Counsel and with the FBI agents in the room, who created the transcript and who agreed that it was an accurate transcript.

Thank you. One more question. Mr. Attorney General. Throughout the 118th Congress, Republicans have made bogus allegations claiming that the Justice Department has been weaponized. Most recently there was an allegation that the FBI was authorized to, quote, “kill” the former president. What impact does this type of rhetoric have on the career prosecutors and law enforcement agents at the Department of Justice?

This is dangerous. It raises the threats of violence against prosecutors and career agents. The allegation is false. As the FBI has explained, the document that’s being discussed is our standard use of force protocol, which is a limitation on the use of force and which is routinely part of the package for search warrants and was part of the package for the search of President Biden’s home as well.

So when former President Trump alleges that this was an assassination attempt against him, he is not telling the truth either knowingly, or as is often the case with him, unknowingly?

I’m just saying that the allegation is not true. This is our standard use of force policy which limits the use of force that agents can use. It is used as routine matter in searches. That was a court-authorized search and it accompanied that package as it routinely does.

Thank you. So in other words, when former President Trump makes that allegation, he is either deliberately lying, or is as often the case, not knowing what he’s talking about. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, there is no blinking of the fact that for the first time in American history we do have a presidential administration that’s working to put its opponent in jail. I mean. That’s a fact. And that, an opponent who’s a former President of the United States. Now as I understand the facts, Jack Smith was the principal player in the IRS targeting of the Tea Party. He has a well-established record of prosecutorial abuse, and yet you appointed him to prosecute the former President of the United States who happens to be running against your boss.

(19:47)
Now this is entirely your work, including approving an unprecedented search of a former president’s home. And though you’ve just maintained that the local prosecutors are independent, it’s the fact that in the Manhattan case, the third ranking official in your department left it to join the local prosecutor’s office to spearhead the New York prosecution. The Atlanta prosecutor strategized for hours with the White House counsel in advance of filing that case, and you’ve just refused Mr. Gaetz request to reveal what communications your department and its employees have had with those local offices. So what are we to make of all of this?

Well, I have to disagree with the characterizations that you’ve made. We’re happy to take into account the requests if you make them to us. That’s the normal process and we will respond to all-

Which characterization do you question?

Well, I disagree with your characterization that this person was sent by my office.

I didn’t say he was sent, but it is rather odd that the third ranking official in your office leaves it to go to a local prosecutor’s office to prosecute this case.

Justice Department had nothing to do with that person going. He was the principal deputy to the third ranking person of the department.

Like Caesar’s wife, it’s important that your department be above reproach, and clearly it’s not. Special Counsel Hur concluded that although there was evidence, President Biden had willfully retained and disclosed classified materials when he was a private citizen, his words. Criminal charges were not warranted because among other things, President Biden is, quote, “sympathetic well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” Do you agree with that decision?

I have said before and I’ll say again, I’m not going to comment. I didn’t comment on Mr. Durham’s special counsel report. I’m not going to comment on Mr. Hur’s. Mr. Hur testified for five hours before this committee.

This is a Department of Justice Matter, you’re the Attorney General, and there’s no prosecution involved with this at this point.

Of course it matters. Mr. Hur explained the rationale for his decision in that case, and he explained the differences between that case and the case involving the former president.

Well, I do want to thank you for your testimony expressing concern for terrorist attacks. We’ve had 5 million illegal immigrants deliberately released into our country with very limited vetting, and while the Border Patrol has been overwhelmed, another 2 million known gotaways have entered as well. Now last year, your FBI director told this committee that he believes this constitutes a massive security threat. Again, his words. Do you agree with that assessment?

I’m never going to be disagreeing with the FBI director, but my recollection, he said that there is a national security of threat of people from known terrorist organizations crossing the border. And the FBI will do everything it can to follow those people if they managed to make it across the border and to ensure that the country is protected.

We could go into that in great detail, but my greatest fear is that we could face a coordinated terrorist attack from elements among the millions who’ve entered this country illegally over the last three years. Is this fear justified?

I am worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack in the country after October 7th. The threat level for us has gone up enormously. Every morning, we worry about this question. We try to track anyone who might be trying to hurt the country. Of course this is a priority, a major priority for the Justice department.

Because of this administration’s policies, you now have millions and millions who have been allowed into this country, or who have evaded the border patrol while they’ve been overwhelmed admitting these millions in. And I worry about the stage is set for something very bad happening in the very near future because of your administration’s policies. It’s reported the president intends to use Section 212F of the Immigration Nationality Act to turn back illegal entries once they reach 2,500 a day. That’s nearly a million a year. So that’s not closing the barn door, that’s keeping it propped open indefinitely. But it is a lower number than your administration’s tolerated so far. Yet for the last three years, three and a half years, the president’s maintained that he has no such authority. So what’s changed other than we’re five months before the election and he’s behind the point?

I’m going to have to refer you to the Department of Homeland Security which is responsible for the border issues. I would say that the best way to protect the border was to pass the bipartisan legislation that was proposed.

It was irresponsible. Well, the bipartisan legislation would’ve forbidden future presidents from using that very authority until legal entries reach 4,000 a day. So don’t be just-

Gentleman’s time. Gentleman’s time has expired. They have called votes on the floor. I think we’ll try to do a couple more questions, then we’ll break for about approximately 15 minutes, Mr. Attorney General, and then we’ll be back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.

Thank you Mr. Jordan, thank you for your attendance here today, General Garland. I’m a little perplexed here. I’d like to ask you a few questions. They’ve raised the fact that this is the first time that there’s been a prosecution a president’s gone after, allegedly gone after his opponent. Has there ever been another time in American history when a president was involved in an insurrection trying to overthrow the government of the United States of America other than January 6th?

The answer is no, but I do not intend to comment on the charges in the prosecution of the former president any more than I would comment on Mr. Hur’s report. I just am not going to comment on matters that are before courts.

Thank you. It was said, somebody quoted that one of the reasons… There was no indictment of President Biden on records, classified records, was because he was considered a sympathetic character. In the Trump case, did anybody consider him a sympathetic character?

Again, I’m going to fall back on my respect for the court process, on the fact that cases are in-

I understand-

… before the judges and I’m just not going to, I just can’t comment.

Mr. Jordan and his opening comments commented on the execution of the search warrant and said it was different in all these different ways. How many classified documents were found pursuant to that search warrant and how many times has there have been an attempt to get those classified documents and they’d been refused to return?

I don’t have in my head the number. That’s all on the public record, including the number of times that efforts were made to obtain through legal process the documents.

This whole hearing is about weaponization of the Justice Department and the suggestion that somehow your department was involved in the prosecution of Donald Trump in the state court in New York. As far as weaponization of the department goes, did the Justice Department indict Senator Menendez?

It’s a matter of public record, yes.

And he’s a Democrat, isn’t he?

I’m assuming the answer is yes.

And Henry Cuellar, the Justice Department indicted him. He’s a Democrat too, isn’t he?

It’s a matter of public record.

So you’ve prosecuted Democrats, and as we speak, Hunter Biden, who is the son of the President, is under trial in Delaware. And so you haven’t weaponized the Justice Department in terms of hiding and protecting Democrats: Menendez, Cuellar, and Hunter Biden.

The Justice Department follows the facts and the law. We prosecute like cases alike and we make decisions about different cases in different ways. We do not allow the political party or the ethnicity or the religion or the race or the wealth or the influence of someone we’re investigating to make a difference in our charging decisions.

I noticed Mr. Gaetz who took you on first is not here now, and that’s unfortunate because he is living testament to the fact and direct evidence that you have not weaponized the Justice Department. He was investigated for sex trafficking and while many expected a prosecution, you chose not to prosecute this very active Republican. Is that true? You did not prosecute him?

I’m sorry. I’m not sure what is in the public record and what’s not, so I’m just not going to comment on that.

Violent crime in urban areas is decreasing and I thank you for that. Unfortunately, Memphis is not one of the cities where we’ve seen violent crime being reduced, but we’re working on it. It was the second city to join the Violent Crime initiative, which increases federal resources in specific communities, and I thank you for getting your department involved in trying to reduce murders and violent crime in our city, my city. Resources have been helpful based on my conversations with a U.S attorney and our district attorney, and I want to thank you for that. Can you share some of the department’s successes in tackling violent crime?

Oh, yes. As I said in my opening, and I want to be clear, these are not the Justice Department’s successes, these are the country’s successes. Success in fighting violent crime, it relies on our partnership with state and local law enforcement, which really face violent crime the most directly. We operate in support of them and in our ability to bring technological tools and statutes to the fight that they may not have available.

My time’s almost up. I just want to mention one thing, I read yesterday that the chairman of the committee wants to reduce funding to the Justice Department and particularly certain areas. That would be defunding the Justice Department and defunding the opportunity to go after reducing violent crime. And I’m shocked. I yield back the balance of my time.

Excuse me. Gentlemen yields back. Mr. Attorney General, we’re going to take a break now. The votes have been going on for a while on the floor. We will be back in, give or take, 15 minutes more or less. Without the committee, we’ll stand in recess.

Whose one do you think it is?

Committee will come to order. I would ask unanimous consent enter into the record in light of the questioning from the gentleman from Florida, a letter that we sent, the committee sent to the Attorney General on April 30th asking for all communications with Mr. Colangelo, with the Justice Department and the folks in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. So without objection, that will be entered into the record.

(01:04:34)
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from… Oh, by the way, that was April 30th, 2024. So Attorney General’s had plenty of time to respond to what Mr. Gates raised in his question about getting that information. If it’s really no coordination as he alleges, then show us the information or tell us that you don’t have any. Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General on May 15th, 2024, you sent a letter to President Biden recommending he invoke executive privilege on audio recordings of his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. In this letter you claim the precise concern is that executive privilege protects materials related to a closed criminal investigation where disclosure might hamper prosecutorial efforts in future cases. Is that correct? I think you stated that earlier.

Yes.

In this letter you also wrote that you are concerned about the prospect of committees of Congress obtaining confidential records from Justice Department of Criminal Investigative Files for the purpose of addressing highly politicized issues in public committee hearings. Is that correct as well?

Are you citing my letter?

Yeah. In the letter [inaudible 01:05:40].

Yeah, it’s in my letter. That’s correct. Yeah.

Right. So let me go back. In the United States versus Mitchell during the Watergate District court case, John Sirica held that by releasing portions of a subpoenaed recording in transcript form for publication. The president’s claim of confidentiality and that privilege associated with it was no longer valid since the conversations were no longer confidential. You produced the transcripts to this committee, correct?

Yes.

And prior to producing the transcripts to the committee, they were leaked to the press. So based on Mitchell, which is still good law, the recordings are in fact no longer confidential, aren’t they?

Can I respond? I’m sorry. That’s not what Mitchell was about at all. Mitchell was, first of all, about transcripts created by President Nixon, for which there was plenty of reason to believe that they were not accurate. And secondly, it had to do with the confidentiality of communications between Nixon and his staff. And once he provided the transcripts, the court said those communications were no longer confidential. That is not the allegation… That is not what we’re asserting here. Here we’re asserting confidentiality over the audio, not confidentiality, but protection of the audio in a criminal investigation, an interview, not a staff meeting.

Okay, thank you. Let me move on. Your May 15th letter also relies on the argument that producing the audio tapes would affect the department’s ability to obtain vital cooperation and high profile criminal investigations. In particular, in investigations where the voluntary cooperation of White House officials is exceedingly important. Is it your testimony that a White House official would voluntarily cooperate in a criminal investigation only if the Justice Department promises not to release the auto recordings? It doesn’t make any sense.

The longtime experience of the Justice Department is also reflected in the declaration that was filed under oath, is that witnesses want to protect the confidentiality of their communications with the prosecutors during these sensitive interviews. In the Cheney case, the Justice Department made the same claim even with respect to FBI notes about interviews of Mr.

… Mr. Cheney and that special counsel. It’s our view that we need witnesses to be willing to be tape recorded or audio recorded and that they are going to be less willing to do that if they know it’s going to be made public. And the declaration was filed in court on Friday. The senior official stated that he knew of cases right now where people are unwilling to provide audio because they are worried about it becoming public. So the answer is yes, that is our view.

Attorney General, have you listened to the audio recording?

I have not because there’s no reason for me to listen to it in order to make the determinations that I had to make. We had the special counsel describe in detail his explanations for his determinations.

So I mean, I don’t understand how you can sit before the Congressional committee and arbitrate what’s indistinguishable from the transcripts if you’re not even sure what’s on the tapes themselves.

I’m not doing it on my own. I have-

So you’re saying other people have listened to it within the department?

Within the department and the special counsel has listened to it and the special counsel had every interest in ensuring that the transcript that he produced in order to do his investigation would be accurate. Yes, that’s right.

Okay, so let’s go back. So in May 15th letter you also attempt to distinguish the committee’s reliance on the United States versus Nixon. Specifically, you claim that since President Nixon had released only edited transcripts of a portion of the meetings covered by the audio recordings, the Nixon case does not apply. But that was not what the court held regarding the enforceability of the special prosecutor subpoena, was it? I mean that doesn’t match up right now then?

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking, but Nixon, it was well known that Nixon had edited the tapes, edited the transcripts, and he said he had edited the transcripts. That is not what happened here. The special counsel, the FBI agents in a room and the senior career official said that the transcripts matched the audio.

So the court reasoned that the audio recordings would be relevant to show among other things a criminal conspiracy and for other valid potential evidentiary uses for the same material?

In the Nixon case, yes, because there were parts of the transcript in which the conspiracy was disclosed of those communications, parts of the audio in which were not in the transcript. That’s not the situation here. Here-

We don’t know that though, Attorney General. We are unaware because we haven’t heard the tapes. We don’t know if they match up.

Everyone had a genuine reason to believe that those transcripts were not accurate. Here, you have the special counsel-

Time of the gentleman-

… the FBI agents in the room and you have the senior career official in the department all comparing it and finding them to be accurate.

Time of the gentleman has expired. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most Americans have grown sick and tired of this do-nothing MAGA Republican House of Representatives, which has failed to pass a single piece of legislation that lowers costs for families or addresses the southern border issue or other important issues. Instead of attacking real issues that matter, House MAGA Republicans fritter away time with rabbit hole investigations of Dr. Fauci and Hunter Biden while simultaneously spinning webs of lies that seek to create public wrath against anyone who would dare to be involved in any effort to hold convicted felon Donald Trump accountable for his misconduct. The American people can see right through these distraction efforts.

(01:11:42)
Attorney General Garland, thank you for your many years of service to our nation. Among other positions in the federal justice system, you have had an illustrious career as a federal judge, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 through 2021, including as chief judge from 2013 to 2020. And you also served as chair of the executive committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States from 2017 to 2020. So I’m sure that you’ve had a lot of time to think deeply about the importance of judicial impartiality and a functioning democracy.

(01:12:28)
I and 44 other members of Congress have called for Justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves in cases where they cannot be seen as impartial in the case seeking immunity for Donald Trump and others. Justice Thomas’s wife played a major role in the Stop the Steal movement that culminated in the January 6th insurrection and we recently learned that Justice Alito flew flags related to the Stop the Steal movement at both his residential home and his vacation home in 2021 and again in 2023, which directly ties him to the January 6th insurrection to Donald Trump and to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. We urge them to recuse themselves from related cases and Justice Alito last week refused. Then last week, my colleague Jamie Raskin wrote an op-ed arguing that DOJ could petition the other seven justices to require Justice Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. That leads me to this question. Is the filing of such a petition with the Supreme Court something that the Department of Justice is considering?

I’m afraid I’m going to have to give you the same answer I’ve given to other members. The Justice Department can’t comment on matters that are before a court matters you’re talking about before the Supreme Court.

This is, I’m talking in terms of an independent petition not related to any matter pending before the court at this time, but related to those matters.

Justice Department speaks through its filings on matters before the court and that’s all I can say about it.

Well, I’d like for the DOJ to at least consider that possibility. My next question. Public reporting has revealed that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have accepted gifts of luxury travel and lodging from billionaire benefactors and failed to report those gifts as required under federal financial disclosure laws. The Ethics and Government Act provides the Attorney General Authority to investigate and take action against violations of the federal of the financial disclosure laws by members of the federal judiciary even without a referral from the judicial conference. What can you tell us about Department of Justice efforts to investigate those high-profile violations by those two justices?

Afraid I’m going to have to say the same. As I said before, the Justice Department does not comment on whether it investigates or who would investigate, so whether should investigate.

Fair enough.

All of our statements are reflected in court papers.

Fair enough. Threats on the judiciary are increasing and this is frightening to the rule of law. Can you talk about the work that DOJ is doing to address this important issue?

Yes. The threats to the judiciary, threats to prosecutors, threats to law enforcement agents have all spiked significantly, and in some cases have accelerated from threats to actual violence. We have a threats task force engaged in investigating these matters. We intend to aggressively investigate and prosecute threats against our public officials, including members of Congress of which the numbers have actually exploded in the past couple of years. Our democracy cannot continue if the people who make the democracy run are afraid, if they make their decisions based on fear of being threatened or of being assaulted. No democracy can survive under those circumstances and we will do everything we can in our power to investigate, deter, and prosecute anyone who makes threats against public servants.

Time of the gentleman.

Thank you, I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Mr. Garland, why Jack Smith? Why’d you pick him?

Well, I’ve said at the time I appointed Mr. Smith, I explained he was independent, he was a long-time career prosecutor with-

But there are probably other people who you would describe as independent long-time career prosecutor. Why did you pick? This is probably the most high profile, special counsel investigation maybe in American history. You’re going to be investigating a former president, a candidate for president and leading in all the polls and you pick Jack Smith. Most important selection may be ever made from Attorney General when you come to a special counsel. I just want to know why you could have picked former-

Well, I’m telling-

… AGs, deputy AGs, US attorneys, you got all kinds of lawyers in this town, but you picked Jack Smith.

All the people you just mentioned would be political appointees. I appointed somebody who was not a political appointee, somebody who was independent, nonpartisan with a record of career experience as a prosecutor. That seemed to me the perfect resume for making that kind of-

He was a guy, had to bring him back from Europe. He worked at the ICC, worked at the World Court. He was the best pick for the most high profile investigation ever?

He was independent. He was nonpartisan. He had never held a political office. He was never appointed in a political office.

Was he your first choice?

He had a long career as a career prosecutor.

Was he your first choice?

I’m not going to go into the questions.

Did you know him before you picked him?

I did not.

You never worked with him?

I did not.

Did you meet with him prior to announcing his selection and telling him what was going on?

Of course, I did.

What happened in that meeting?

I met with him. I asked him if he would be willing to do this. We talked about my understandings of the role of this office which are on the public record. That’s all.

Did he ask for the job?

This was not a job I don’t think anybody asks for, I’m sorry.

No, but that’s not the question I asked you. I said, did Jack Smith ask for the job?

He did not ask me for the job, no.

Did he convey through someone else that he wanted the job?

I would be surprised if that were the case, but I-

Oh, you don’t know?

No, I don’t know.

So he may have?

I can only tell you what I know. I chose him because he had a record of impartial career experience as a prosecutor. That’s why he was chosen.

Was it impartial when he went after Governor McDonnell?

He was a member. He was-

It was after Governor McDonnell, that case gets appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court unanimously said it was wrong and overturns the conviction?

He was in the public integrity section of the Justice Department, a career position. They made the decisions they thought were warranted and we respect the decision of the Supreme Court.

Did the fact that he was interested in going after the very people who were targeted by the IRS about a decade ago, did that have any influence on your selection? Let’s put up this slide here. This is from Jack Smith to some other folks in the Justice Department and it says, “Could we ever charge a conspiracy to violate laws of the US for misuse of such nonprofits to get around existing campaign finance laws?” Jack Smith was looking to prosecute the very people who were targeted by the Obama IRS.

I don’t know. You have excerpts from an email I’ve never seen. You should know that I-

I’m just asking that this way into your decision. Did you know about this, what Jack Smith was trying to do?

No, I also don’t know if it’s true now.

IRS Commissioner Sarah Ingram oversees this from Jack Smith himself. Let’s discuss tomorrow, but maybe we should try to set up a meeting this week and here’s the response. Here’s the response. “You didn’t get your meeting with Ms. Ingram from the IRS, but she’s sending the head of the Exempt organizations, Lois Lerner, who is known to us.” So Jack Smith meeting with Lois Lerner looking for ways to prosecute the very people who were victims of the Obama IRS. And I’m just asking, did that factor in your decision to name Jack Smith as special counsel?

I didn’t have any idea about the things-

Didn’t know about that?

No. And I don’t know whether they’re true now by looking at this.

Well, they’re definitely true, but you didn’t know about it. But this guy was so important, you have to bring him from Europe back here to go after President Trump, named him as a special counsel. Do you regret the pick?

I’m sorry, I couldn’t.

Do you regret picking him?

No, I do not regret picking him.

Well, his prosecutors aren’t supposed to tamper with evidence and it looks like that’s what he did. He changed the sequence of the documents that he sees from our logo.

I’m sorry, that’s a false characterization, but that is ongoing-

Here’s what he said to the court, Mr. Attorney General. “There are some boxes where the order of items within the box is not the same as in the associated scans.” I mean, he said it. I didn’t say it. He told the court that.

Now you’re asking me to comment on a discovery dispute that’s going ongoing in a court. I don’t know the facts of it and I’m not going to comment on it.

No, this is from Jack Smith filing with the court. He admitted to the court that they tamper with the evidence. He mishandled the very documents he’s charging President Trump with mishandling. And I’m just asking, do you regret picking this guy as the special counsel and the most important special counsel investigation probably in American history?

I’m sorry, I didn’t not hear the words tamper in the statement that Mr. Smith filed. He did not use those words.

Well, let me ask it this way.

I’m going to leave that-

Are you supposed to change the order of the documents that you seize and the physical documents don’t match up with the scanned document? Are you supposed to do that as a prosecutor?

This is a matter in dispute in discovery in that court. And I’m going to leave it for the district court to make a determination after.

I would just say one last thing.

District court makes it-

Not in dispute, this is what he said in the court filing. Jack Smith’s team said that to the judge in the court. By the way, this case is now on basically on hold because they’ve screwed up so many things.

Again, I don’t know whether your description of the facts are true or not true, and I’m not going to intrude in a decision in a district court.

Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

Mr. Attorney General, we appreciate your being here. We appreciate how you have led this department with integrity and discipline and your enormous public service. I appreciate your willingness to sit through this endless cascade of false allegations and conspiracy theories and innuendo. The Chairman began this hearing with a dramatic statement that justice is no longer blind. By that, he means that justice is no longer objective or impartial, that it is suddenly now a respecter of persons in the wrong way. That is, it will distinguish between people based on their position. But of course, the chairman’s real problem is that justice remains no respecter of persons, that you can be the former president of the United States, but if you commit crimes, you’ll be held responsible. That’s his problem. That’s the problem of all my Republican colleagues right now and that is they’re about to nominate a convicted felon and they don’t know how to cope with that.

(01:23:25)
They don’t know how to cope with the justice system that in fact treats Donald Trump the same as it would any other citizen. And so, they have to push these conspiracy theories that they know are patently false and they try to run over you with questions, they won’t let you to answer, won’t let you answer because their whole arguments are utterly insupportable and destructive of our justice system. They care more about this convicted felon than they do the country. I have to say I’m pleased and a bit surprised to see that the flag in this committee is still flying right side up because they want to turn it upside down even as they want to turn our justice system upside down. Let me address the conspiracy theory of the day, which is somehow President Biden through your department has convicted Donald Trump in Manhattan in an effort to weaponize justice against the former president. So let me just ask some basic questions about this phony conspiracy theory. Did you appoint Alvin Bragg to be Manhattan DA?

No.

Of course not. He’s elected. Did you select the jury in that case?

The judge selected the jury.

Well, did you select the judge in that case?

No.

No, of course not. The judge was randomly selected. Did you select the jury in that case?

No.

The jury was actually selected by Donald Trump and his attorneys. Did you reach a verdict in that case?

No.

Did you instruct the jury in that case?

No.

Did you tell the prosecutor what charges to bring in that case?

No.

This was 12 ordinary New Yorkers who weighed the evidence and found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felonies. And instead of celebrating the fact that in this country an ordinary group of jurors, an ordinary group of 12 people can still adjudicate a case involving one of the most powerful people in the country know they would denigrate the whole system, they would tear it down. In the service of this convicted felon, they would tear everything down. They would tear the house of this democracy down around them. They say it’s unprecedented to bring charges against a former president. You’re damn right it’s unprecedented. We’ve never had a president of the United States who was making hush money payments to a porn star and then falsifying business records to cover it up. Yeah, that’s unprecedented.

(01:25:51)
We’ve never had a president withhold classified information and then obstruct the investigation. That is unprecedented. We’ve never had a president incite a violent attack on the capitol. That is unprecedented. And you know what else is unprecedented? The fact that so many leaders of that party are perfectly fine with all of that. In their headlong pursuit of power, they’re perfectly fine with that. They’re going to nominate a convicted felon as their presidential candidate. And they have another conspiracy theory, which is when a search was executed of the President’s residence in Mar-a-Lago, they went in as the President said, “Locked and loaded and ready to take him out.”

(01:26:42)
Yet another dangerous falsehood, and your dedicated public servants of the Justice Department are having their lives threatened because of the irresponsible actions of people on this committee and in the Senate and elsewhere who would endanger the lives of those committed to enforcing law and order even as they claim to be a party of law and order. Mr. Attorney General, I am grateful for your service, for your withstanding all of this. We will get through this because of people like you and the honorable public servants at the Justice Department. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman yields back. The chair recognizes gentleman from Arizona.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, the reality is Mr. Hur, Special Counsel Hur found that then former vice president, President Biden had retained and disclosed classified information. Isn’t that true?

Mr. Hur has presented a long report.

Isn’t that true? I mean, come on. I’m practically quoting right from it. You wouldn’t disagree with that?

I’m not going to comment on his report. He sets forth, I appointed him to investigate the allegations about classified documents.

So the reason that we end up talking over you is because a simple question like that goes unanswered. You’re non-responsive. You’re non-responsive to the question because that is what Mr. Hur found. And then he also found, and you’re not going to like this because I’m going to quote from it. From this, he basically says here that he found Mr. Biden to be sympathetic and here he is, a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. And so, he made a prosecutorial decision that he wasn’t going to prosecute. Are you going to dispute that? You’re not disputing that, are you?

Mr. Hur’s report-

Okay, you’re going to say it stands on its own. Okay, so it stands on it’s on.

Let me answer.

No, because you’re not intent on answering. You want to be non-responsive. You want a filibuster.

I’d like to answer your question.

Do you dispute that? So let’s just face it. Mr. Biden has not been prosecuted, correct?

That’s correct.

And the rationale given by Mr. Hur is because he was a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory and he thought the jury would have sympathy towards Mr. Biden.

That was one of a long list of reasons that Mr. Hur gave for his decision that-

Give me one more reason.

He found that… Look, I don’t want to get into a discussion about this, but I will say one of them was that the president was completely cooperative in this matter.

That’s the reason, huh? Okay. All right.

You asked one of the reasons that was one of the reasons.

The issue that we have here, you don’t want to give us the audio tape. You don’t want us to have the recording. But ultimately, the issue is whether the transcript actually supports the special counsel’s determination. Now, your office has basically pled two things in court, claiming number one, executive privilege, and number two, this kind of interesting novel approach saying deep fakes, AI. Did your staffer who filed that, did they consult with you about the deep fake, AI rationale for not providing the audio to us?

You’re mischaracterizing the filing. That was one of, again, a substantial number of arguments made in the freedom of information.

Did they consult with you specifically about that idea, that notion where they were going to say something like, this is from the pleading, “The passage of time and advancements in audio artificial intelligence and deep fake technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files.” Did they consult with you about that provision?

I’m not going to talk about internal department deliberations. That was one of a large number of explanations in the document you’re talking about.

And I’m talking specifically about that particularized rationale and you don’t want to discuss it, which is why you’re non-responsive and that’s why we need the audio. And let me explain why, because your attorney also said that you did alter the transcript. And they said it was filler words, repeat words, and, and, I, I. But you know what? We don’t know whether the blank, they said there were blank times where there was silence. We don’t know whether those were one minute long, two minutes long. We don’t know if he sputtered for and, and, and, and, and because those were edited out. We do not know whether this supports and substantiates Mr. Hur’s findings.

(01:31:47)
By the way, you want to rely on Mr. Hur, you need to go back and listen to his testimony. Mr. Hur was pretty conclusive there that he had a poor memory. He was not able to answer all the questions. Substantively, the transcript may be accurate, but you know what? The audio would tell us so much more, which is why the Supreme Court, in the case that you poo-pooed when Mr. Fitzgerald was asking about, they said, “Look, if there’s editing that’s gone on here, that’s the rationale.” And there was editing. Your own office admitted it, but you won’t admit it today. You’ve been non-responsive and that’s why we need the audio and that’s why you’re here. Yield back.

May I respond?

Gentleman yields back.

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.

Ranking members recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcripts of Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President Biden. As you can see on the last pages, the transcriber certifies that the transcripts are true and correct.

Without objection. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized for unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also submit the pleadings in the case of Judicial Watch versus US Department of Justice.

Without objection.

A document titled DOJ Claims Unprecedented. Deep Fake-

Objection.

Transcript tampering, DOJ says, written record of Biden interview with prosecutors omitted words.

Without objection.

DOJ refuses to release audio of Biden and the Hur interview.

Without objection. The gentleman from California is recognized.

Before anyone else on the other side saddles up and gets on their high legal horses, I just want to remind the committee that the chairman is 754 days into his own subpoena defiance. Mr. Attorney General, last week it was reported that House Ethics Panel subpoenas DOJ for Gaetz records. It was a May 14, 2024 political piece. I’d like to submit it to the record with unanimous consent.

Without objection.

I just want to get this straight. Mr. Gaetz wants the Attorney General to reopen and publicize evidence from an investigation that a Donald Trump-appointed prosecutor closed against President Biden while at the same time Mr. Gaetz himself is being protected by the same DOJ policy that is refusing to voluntarily turn over evidence from Mr. Gaetz’s sex trafficking investigation. Mr. Attorney General, can you just briefly, without going into the facts of that case address why that is the DOJ policy as it relates to the current president and any other requests about closed investigations?

Without referencing any case, we try to protect the law enforcement files of the Justice Department so that in future investigations people are willing to cooperate with us. We understand Congress’s concerns and we have an obligation to assess whether the information that we’ve provided is sufficient to accommodate the legitimate needs of the Congress. All of the reasons that Congress has given us for why they need the audio are satisfied with respect to the tapes. That is all of the legitimate reasons given, the reasons that relate to legislative work of the committee. As to that, we’ve accommodated by providing the audio. We provided Mr. Hur’s testimony in full and we’ve provided Mr. Hur’s testimony report. We’ve gone as far as we can go to accommodate. We’re trying to protect our ability to do investigations in this case and in any other case.

Mr. Attorney General, let’s set the facts straight here. And my job is to kind of lead an intervention for my colleagues. I think they need it. The Attorney General did not prosecute Donald Trump in New York. It was the result of Donald Trump’s choices. Donald Trump chose to live in New York. He chose to commit his crimes in New York. He was afforded a right to be tried by his neighbors, jurors in New York. He chose that jury in New York working with his counsel and they chose to make him a 34-time over convicted felon.

(01:36:14)
But some of the choices the department has made in the recent years is that the president that was first appointed that Donald Trump appointed the US attorney who is investigating the current president’s son, Donald Trump appointed John Durham who investigated the wild claims made by this committee during the Russia investigation, and Donald Trump appointed Robert Hur who was kept on by the Biden Administration. Also, you have the right in our country to aid yourself in your own defense and talk to investigators. You also have a right not to. Mr. Attorney General, did Donald Trump sit down for an interview in the Mueller investigation?

I actually don’t know, but I’m not going to comment on other investigations.

He didn’t. Did he sit down for an interview with investigators prior to the January 6th indictment?

I’m not going to comment on that investigation.

He didn’t. He also didn’t sit down for an interview with investigators in the classified materials indictment. But President Biden did sit down for a voluntary interview with Robert Hur. A jury can’t hold it against Donald Trump that he did not testify in his own defense in New York, but he promised everyone else in the country that he would. You can hold it against Donald Trump that he did not testify when you consider whether you should so blindly follow every wild claim that he makes.

(01:37:32)
My colleagues, none of this today that you are bringing makes sense. Your inconsistencies, your hypocrisy, your sycophancy, unless you are in a cult. And guys, I’m starting to think you’re in a cult. That is your right, but it’s not your responsibility. I promise you that’s not what your constituents would want. So if you believe in state’s rights, except when a jury in that state convicts your nominee for president, you might be in a cult. If you claim you back the blue but want to defund the police when the police go to your nominees house to retrieve national security secrets, you might be in a cult. If you’re supporting a guy whose felony convictions prevent him from getting a security clearance, you might be in a cult. And if the guy you’re supporting for president has felony convictions that prevent him from going to Argentina-

Mr. Chairman, I move that the gentleman’s words be taken down.

… Australia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile-

Mr. Chairman-

China, Cuba-

Time.

… Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hong Kong.

Mr. Chairman my motion takes precedent.

India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Japan.

Time of the gentleman has expired.

Kenya, Macau, Malaysia.

Chair now recognizes-

Mexico, Morocco, Nepal.

Gentleman is out of time.

New Zealand.

The time has expired.

Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Emirates, and the UK, you might be in a cult.

The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes. I’m asking that the gentleman-

I’ve unanimous consent request-

Gentleman has unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an amicus brief by the former Attorney General Edwin Meese.

Without objection.

The question presented is whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States. Also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article titled Was it Legal to Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place? This is a Heritage publication.

Without objection.

I want to start by reading you the Appointment Clause of the Constitution. Article 2 Section 2 Clause 6 states, “The President shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law.” Are US attorneys nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate according to this Appointments Clause?

They are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate.

Wouldn’t you agree that US attorneys are held to the Appointments Clause because they are delegated some part of the sovereign power of the United States, such as the ability to make indictments and charge individuals with crimes?

I would say that those are not the reasons why, and a court has already ruled on the question of whether special consuls are subject to the Appointments Clause in the Mueller case and ruled that they were not. This matter is not-

Was Jack Smith nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the US Senate?

Look, you’re asking me about a case, again, motions filed as you just cited in another-

This is a simple question.

No I’m not-

Is Jack Smith nominated by President Biden?

No, he was not.

Was he confirmed by the Senate?

No, he was not.

When was the special counsel statute passed?

There is no special counsel statute. There was an independent counsel statute that was expired.

So it expired. So what gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel? You’ve created an office in the US government that does not exist without authorization from Congress.

There are regulations under which the Attorney General appoints special counsel, they’ve been in effect for 30 years, maybe longer under both parties. The matter that you’re talking about about whether somebody can have an employee of the Justice Department Service Special Counsel has been adjudicated.

Let me interrupt for a second because you appealed to a regulation, a rule, whereas the Constitution says, “Shall be established by law.”

Yeah, the statutes-

Right, the statute. But you referred to a regulation, not to US code.

May I answer? The regulation cites the two US code provisions that permit the Attorney General’s appointment, Attorney General Barr cited to the same ones.

Are you familiar?

Even Attorney General Meese did that.

All right. Are you familiar with former Attorney

… a general amicus brief?

No.

You’re not?

I know that he’s filed one because I read it in the newspapers, but otherwise I’m not familiar with it.

Well, he raises some good questions that I agree with in there. It seems like you’ve created an office that would require an act of Congress, yet there’s not an act of Congress that authorizes that. And even if it didn’t require an act of Congress, and you’ve already admitted there was no act of Congress that established this office, it would still require, according to the Constitution, a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate.

(01:42:33)
I want to move on to January 6th. Is it accurate to say that the DOJ is on pace to arrest roughly one protester a day in 2024, nearly three years after the incident?

I don’t know what the pace is. The job is to arrest and bring to justice people who are criminally, responsible and as they are found, they will be arrested.

Is your office preparing to drop charges against more than 340 January 6thers charged with 1512(c)(2), and release dozens from prison on that count, if the Supreme Court this month reverses how your department has used that statute against them?

Them, we respect the Supreme Court. Whatever the court rules, we will act appropriately.

So you’ll have to drop the charges if the Supreme Court says that you did that wrongfully.

[inaudible 01:43:24] hypotheticals. We’ll wait and see what the Supreme Court says.

What do you say in response to DC Appellate Court overturning two excessive sentencing requests by your office?

I say that is a United States system of justice working. If people think that they have inappropriate sentences, they can appeal their sentences. That’s the way our system works, and we respect the results.

So you’ve refused to answer questions before us, including my questions about January 6th, on multiple occasions here in this committee, but the Inspector General is preparing a report. Are you in receipt of that report yet? He’s promised to examine the role and activity of DOJ and its components in preparing for and responding to the events at the US Capitol. Are you in receipt of that?

I’m not in receipt of any report. You’ll have to ask the Inspector General.

Isn’t it true that it’ll go to you before it’s released for review?

I don’t know about… It will not go to me for review. The Inspector General is independent. I hope to see it before, but that’s up to the Inspector General. Let me just remind you, I was not the attorney general on January 6th.

Do we have your commitment to release that as soon as you see it?

The determination of the release of Inspector General reports is up to the Inspector General. We give them independence. Congress demands that we give them independence.

Okay. My time has expired, but so we have your commitment not to slow down the release of that from the Inspector General?

Our Inspector General is a very independent person. There’s no way I could stop him from doing what the law requires, and I would certainly never do that.

I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Gentlemen from California is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. The House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately, the chairman of this committee himself ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena. The actions of this chairman have made it harder for congressional committees to get information from witnesses and have hurt the rule of law.

(01:45:26)
Thank you Attorney John Garland for your public service. I’m going to ask you a series of simple questions about past concluded cases to get the facts out to American people. The Department of Justice charged Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort in a federal court with multiple felonies. Mr. Manafort was convicted in a federal court, correct?

To my recollection of what the public record discloses.

Public record shows he was convicted in a federal court. The Department of Justice charged Donald Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates with multiple felonies. Mr. Gates was convicted in a federal court, correct?

Again, to the best of my recollection, that’s what the public record discloses.

Thank you. The Department of Justice charged Donald Trump’s former campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Mr. Papadopoulos was convicted in federal court, correct?

Again, that’s my best recollection of the public record.

You were not the attorney general at the time, correct?

I was not, no.

In fact, the attorney general for those three criminal cases was Jeff Sessions, who was nominated by Donald Trump. The Department of Justice charged Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen with multiple felonies. He was convicted in a federal court, correct?

Again, that’s my best recollection of the public record.

You were not the attorney general at the time, correct?

I was not.

In fact, Michael Cohen had two sets of convictions. The attorney general for Michael Cohen’s second conviction was Matthew Whitaker, who was also appointed by Donald Trump. The Department of Justice charged Roger Stone, who was an advisor to Donald Trump, with multiple felonies. Rogers Stone was convicted in a federal court, correct?

Again, my best recollection of the public record.

Yeah. The Department of Justice charged Elliott Brady, who was a fundraiser for Donald Trump. Mr. Brady was convicted in a federal court, correct?

Same answer.

You were not the attorney general at the time, right?

I was not.

Okay. In fact, the attorney journal for those two criminal cases was Bill Barr, who was nominated by Donald Trump.

(01:47:34)
What these facts show is that the Department of Justice has not been weaponized. We have one Department of Justice that goes after criminals regardless of party affiliation. These Trump associates were convicted under the administration of three Republican attorneys general, each of whom was nominated by Donald Trump.

(01:47:57)
Trump’s campaign manager, felon. Trump’s deputy campaign manager, felon. Trump’s foreign policy advisor, felon. Trump’s lawyer, felon. Trump’s political advisor, felon. Trump’s fundraiser, felon. It is not the fault of the Department of Justice that Donald Trump surrounded himself with criminals. Trump brought that upon himself.

(01:48:22)
One of the things that makes America great is we are ruled by the law, not by a cult of personality. I want to thank you, Attorney General Garland and the Department of Justice, for applying the law without fear or favoritism, and I note as we sit here today, the Department of Justice is prosecuting Hunter Biden in a federal court right now.

(01:48:42)
You can’t love your country only when the candidate you like wins, and you can’t love law and order except when the criminal felon is someone you like. In America, no one is above the law. Not the rich, not the powerful, not any former presidents, and certainly none of his criminal felon enablers.

(01:49:04)
Now I want to move on to another subject. Our gentleman from Arizona on the other side of the aisle gave away the game today when he said why he wanted the audio transcript. He said, “We wouldn’t know if Joe Biden has said, ‘And and and and..'” So I just want to ask you this question. Special Counsel Robert Hur had said that this transcript was accurate, the written transcript was an accurate rendition of the audio transcript, correct? Except for some stutters.

Yes.

Okay. So what the gentleman from Arizona wants is that transcript audio with the “and and and and,” because Joe Biden stutters. He’s had a stuttering problem his entire life. He overcame stuttering. He was made fun of in school and he overcame this disability to become President of United States and leader of the free world, and it is despicable that my Republican colleagues want to go after him for his stuttering problem. They should apologize, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

Mr. Attorney General, you said earlier today… You spoke to the committee’s recommendation to the House to hold you in contempt. You said, “But we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created.” You went on to say that ” certain members” of this committee and the oversight committee are seeking contempt. You’re aware that a majority of this committee has marked up a contempt resolution, aren’t you sir?

“Certain members” includes the majority, yes.

It’s a big difference, isn’t it sir? Isn’t that significant? The fact that a majority of the committee charged by the Congress to inquire into the grounds for impeaching the President of the United States has marked up a contempt resolution. That’s more important than certain members, isn’t it sir? Institutionally. More important.

A majority has sought contempt, yes.

You said that you will not be intimidated. Are you the arbiter?

I’m sorry?

Are you the arbiter? The decider of whether or not those tapes will be provided to this Congress subpoena of its committee to investigate the president?

Constitution requires me to protect the separation of powers and our ability to do investigations in the future. It requires me, and the court proceedings make that clear, to weigh whatever interests you have against the interests of law enforcement. The president has asserted executive privilege, and I have not heard a legitimate legislative reason why the audio is insufficient for any legitimate purpose [inaudible 01:51:47]

You know what demeanor evidence is, don’t you sir?

I’m sorry?

Demeanor evidence. You know what that is. You’ve sat on the bench for decades. You know what demeanor evidence-

I know what demeanor evidence-

Okay.

I know what demeanor evidence is, and I’ve not been shown any reason why audio evidence of demeanor would make a difference in any legislative purpose that you have.

Well, that’s exactly what demeanor evidence is, sir. Observing a witness as they testify. And the way it can be done by this committee is to observe the audio recording of the president testifying to see whether it comports with the transcript or whether it reveals things about his capacity or his veracity or anything else that comes from his demeanor as he is interviewed.

Well, none of the things that you just mentioned are a legislative purpose. I don’t have… You’ve yet to suggest any law that you intend to pass, or are thinking about, in which the audio would make a difference over the transcript.

If a future DOJ concludes… Well, let me ask you this question. What happened to Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon when they decided to defy a subpoena of the Congress?

We received four criminal referrals. Two were prosecuted, two were not. The two that were prosecuted, as the published court opinions made clear-

What will happen to you if your decision is-

May I continue to answer?

No. I know what happened, you know what happened too. Mr. Navarro’s in prison. What will happen to you if your sole determination that you’re not going to cooperate with this committee subpoena is [inaudible 01:53:28]

With respect to the two people you asked, the court made clear they did not comply in any way, did not even appear, and second, there was no executive privilege. Neither of those is true in my case.

If a future Department of Justice follows the facts and the law, as you’re fond of reciting, even to the point of prosecuting a former president, then if your decision is baseless, you should be prosecuted, right?

If, and I hope it will be the case, a future Justice Department follows the law and the decisions of the Office of Legal Counsel… Since the Reagan administration, when there is an assertion of executive privilege, the contempt statute is inapplicable. That’s been a rule through every administration including the Reagan administration. It even reached back to the Eisenhower administration.

Mr. Attorney General-

I hope they will follow the law.

Mr. Attorney General, you have resurrected the Foreign Influence Task Force, and there’s a FBI spokesman recently told media, according to reports, that FBI has returned to facilitating the sharing of information about foreign malign influence with social media companies in a way that reinforces that private companies are free to decide on their own whether and how to take action on that information. A district court has decided that you didn’t do that before. How are you doing that? How are you reinforcing that private companies have their own capacity to decide?

The case that you’re talking about is now under advisement in the Supreme Court of the United States, and I’m not going to comment on any court matter which the court made-

Didn’t ask you to do that. I asked you how you’re reinforcing it. That’s what your spokesman said. You’re reinforcing the private company’s latitude. How are you doing that?

I’m not going to comment on what the district court said. We have the authority, as the Supreme Court just held last week, to persuade. We can’t coerce. So we can provide information that Russia or China or Iran or North Korea is operating on a social media platform-

Why don’t you do it in public?

… and then we leave it to the social media to take it down. I would hope-

Why don’t you do it in public?

I’m sorry?

Why don’t you do that in public, so the public can see what you’re doing?

Well, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t also do it in public.

[inaudible 01:55:37]

[inaudible 01:55:37] everybody in this room would want to know if one of our adversaries is acting as if they were American citizens on a social media.

Yield back.

Time, the gentleman’s expired. The gentle lady from Pennsylvania has a UC, then we’ll come to [inaudible 01:55:54]

I have a brief UC, unanimous consent, request, and it follows directly in line with what was just being asked about. Chairman Jordan has argued that the committee needs this audio file of the President Biden’s interview with DOJ, yet has refused to release the transcripts from the vast majority of more than 130 transcribed interviews that the committee has conducted to date. Even refused to provide copies of the audio and video files of the transcribed interviews and deposition.

Is there a unanimous request in here?

There is.

Okay.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record all of the transcripts, transcribed interviews, that the committee has conducted this congress, so that we can bring that real transparency to the American people.

I object

Gentlemen from North Carolina objects.

And I thank you for releasing the one transcript. [inaudible 01:56:42]

We will release all the transcripts when we complete our investigation.

But one day after I asked for it, you did release-

They have completed their investigation. They won’t give us all the evidence. We will give all that evidence when we’re done with our investigation. The gentleman from Pennsylvania’s recognized.

Thank you.

Attorney General Garland… Over here.

Thank you.

Thank you for your longstanding and honorable service to our country, and for being here today. The American people appreciate the serious work that you and the dedicated members of the Department of Justice do on their behalf every day to protect the rule of law and to protect our communities and our civil rights.

(01:57:16)
Congress, of course, has a legitimate duty to oversee the department’s functions, but it’s pretty clear from the remarks we’ve heard from our Republican colleagues in this hearing that they have not brought us here today in pursuit of that duty. Instead, this hearing appears driven by the desire to curry favor with the disgraced, impeached, indicted, and now convicted former president and their ongoing efforts to legitimize his attacks on American elections, our judicial process, law enforcement, the press, and basically anybody who contradicts or seeks to hold him accountable.

(01:57:50)
So this isn’t legitimate oversight, it’s political theater and it’s pretty bad theater at that. It’s not the serious work that the American people should expect us to do here, and it distracts from our understanding and oversight of the Department of Justice’s important efforts to protect our national security, to combat violent crime, gun violence, drug trafficking, and fraud, to protect voting rights and reproductive freedoms, to combat hate crimes, and to advance environmental justice.

(01:58:20)
So I would highly recommend that anyone who is actually interested in the Department of Justice’s work to read the statement that you submitted to the committee today, because it contains some important details about the work that the department is doing. I was particularly struck and profoundly troubled by your comments about the extraordinary rise in threats and violence against public servants in our country, ranging from criminal threats against election workers and members of Congress to the January 6th assault on this capitol and our constitutional order. So I’d particularly like to focus on one aspect of those attacks on public servants, and one that has implications for the strength and future of our democratic republic.

(01:59:00)
I’m interested in the Department of Justice’s work to protect those who implement and defend our elections, because in the wake of the 2020 election, and in response to the lies and conspiracy theories embraced by the former president and his lackeys, we’ve seen election officials and poll workers across the country… These are apolitical employees, they’re community volunteers, retirees, neighbors, civic champions. They’ve become targets for threats and violence when they stand up against the lies and seek to hold the former president accountable, because they did their jobs running our elections. And to the extent that these lies and conspiracy theories have been embraced or elevated by members of this congress or committee, shame on them.

(01:59:43)
This isn’t legitimate political discourse. It should not be part of our American public life, because words do have consequences. When leaders embrace misinformation, that’s dangerous, and when they fail to defend our elections from lies and misinformation, that’s dangerous and cowardly. Now, this committee has heard testimony from multiple witnesses, experts in election security, who’ve expressed concern that threats to election workers, which exploded in 2020, will result in fewer people being willing to serve, whether as nonpartisan employees or volunteers. Attorney General Garland, can you comment briefly on the incidents of threats and violence against election workers, why these incidents are dangerous, and if you have any insight on what’s caused this dramatic rise.

So your portrayal, I think, is quite accurate. I’ve been worried about this since 2021, and I’ve been talking about this with our United States attorneys. We created an Election Threats Task Force particularly because we were so worried, and as you say, this is not only about elected election officials, not only about appointed election officials, but about ordinary Americans who show up as poll watchers on a single day during the year to run our elections. Our democracy can’t work if those people fear threats that are urged against them or if there’s actual violence against them.

(02:01:15)
We have brought, I don’t have the exact numbers, but I think it’s creeping up on 20 cases where there have been extraordinarily graphic threats of violence against election workers, and we have received some pretty strong sentences in those cases. Of course, we always balance First Amendment right to criticize, to disagree, but when somebody makes a threat to kill an election worker, to kill members of their family, we respond, and we are going to respond aggressively. Every US attorney has endorsed this position. Every FBI field office has an election security agent whose job it is to be sure that threats against election workers are investigated, deterred and prosecuted.

Thank you. And if there are additional tools that Congress can provide that would help the department in this work, I’d appreciate hearing about it. I see my time has expired. Thank you for your testimony.

Gentle lady yields back, the gentleman from Oregon’s recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Attorney General for being here today. I just have a couple of areas of interest to me at least.

(02:02:38)
The first one has to do with your remarks earlier in the hearing, where you were drawing the distinction between state court and federal court, and you were saying that state court is, quote, “another jurisdiction,” state, quote, “prosecutors are independent.” Third remark, “Prosecutors are completely independent.” Fourth remark, “Actions, decisions, of the state prosecutors are independent and they are taken of their own volition.”

(02:03:03)
What disturbs me about those assertions is what actually happened. I’ll go with the Fai Willis case first, and just mention that her friend spent some eight hours in the White House discussing the case. Her friend, Fani Willis’s friend. And my question to you is, if they’re so independent, why were people who were involved in this state action up talking to the federal folks? How do you explain that?

Well, I don’t know if it’s true. I don’t know anything about that. I don’t know if she was there, what she was talking about. I don’t know anything to support this allegation at all.

I think what I have here on my notes, were you aware that the Fulton County DA Fani Willis’s office coordinated with Special Counsel Smith, the Biden White House, and the Democrat run January 6th committee during her investigation of President Trump? You’re saying you don’t know anything about that?

Yes, I don’t know anything about that. No.

Would it distribute you if that actually happened?

Well, I imagine that if this committee asks a prosecutor for information, or if a prosecutor asks this committee for information, there may be conversations about that information. I think that is relatively routine. I don’t have any idea whether there were any conversations with the special counsel, but it would not be anything wrong with people in different jurisdictions who have evidence obtaining the evidence.

Were you aware that DA Willis hired her friend Nathan Wade to prosecute President Trump, that Mr. Wade met with the Biden White House on two occasions for eight hours?

I don’t know anything about it.

Well again, would that disturb you? And the reason I’m asking this is because it appears that there is this double standard some people refer to as a two tier system, that is, one tier for certain people like President Trump and the other tier for everybody else. And that disturbs me. Would it disturb you if there was a different type of justice being applied to our former president than that which is applied to other defendants?

Of course it would disturb me. There is only one tier of justice. We treat like cases alike. We don’t give any benefit to a powerful person over a non-powerful person, any benefit to a Democrat over a Republican.

I’m not concerned about the defendants getting the benefit so much as I am the prosecutors of the state court coming to the federal folks and basically saying, “Hey, we know you’ve been doing all this work. Here, give us all this material.” Now, maybe that much is fine, but that isn’t what generally happens. Now if you were a former president, you’re going to get a lot of attention, and that’s exactly what’s been happening here, and I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t think the people of the United States think it’s fair that a former president would be ganged up on, if you will, by both the federal government and the state government. That does not seem right. Now you may be [inaudible 02:05:53] and I guess you’re saying that it would be fine if that did happen, but to me it seems like a double standard.

(02:05:57)
I want to shift over to the audio tapes. And you’re a former judge, so you’re very familiar with the best evidence rule. It’s Rule 1002. I went to law school, I remember discussions about, quote, “best evidence,” but you would know it far better than I. You must have dealt with it literally hundreds of times. But the best evidence rule, to we rural practitioners of country law, meant that if you had one piece of evidence [inaudible 02:06:25] an audio tape, you’d be far more likely to want to use it, and perhaps it would be required, as opposed to a transcript. Is that correct?

I respect your experience, but I’m afraid the best evidence rule is not applicable. Best evidence rule is reflected in Rule 1003 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and it provides that a duplicate is admissible for all purposes as an original unless there is a genuine dispute about its authenticity. For the reasons I’ve stated extensively in answers to the other members, there is no genuine dispute about the authenticity of the transcripts. So the best evidence rule simply has no application in this case.

So actually I would agree with you in the sense that we’re not in federal court, but I also want to tell you that the essence of his decision, Mr. Hur’s decision, was that there was a challenge that our president is facing when it comes to his memory and his demeanor, then I have to agree with the gentleman from North Carolina that the audio tapes are the best evidence of exactly how qualified Mr. Hur was in making his decision that he should not prosecute.

(02:07:34)
With that I see my time as exhausted, so I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. The gentle lady from Pennsylvania’s recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Hello Attorney General Garland. I thank you for being here today. I thank 115,000 members of the Department of Justice for your faithful service, and I am sorry for the regrettable conversations that are going on.

(02:07:57)
I’ve served on this committee for the better part of six years. I begged to be on this committee when I ran. There was so much I wanted to work on, like focusing on gun violence, like focusing on the opioid poisoning epidemic, and so many other things having to do with the protection of civil rights and the rule of law. And yet what we’ve observed in this committee in hearing after hearing after hearing, sadly, is misinformation, disinformation, very pointedly with the purpose of tearing down America’s faith in our institutions. This is one such hearing.

(02:08:37)
There are members on this committee who would rather tear down the faith in the independence of the Department of Justice than say that one man is responsible for his behaviors and is being held to account, both civilly and now criminally. Mr. Trump’s behaviors are the reasons they are railing and they are upset. He’s been found guilty of fraud. He’s been convicted on 34 felony counts. And it would be okay if it weren’t so dangerous. That’s what worries me. It is so dangerous what is going on.

(02:09:20)
So let’s be clear. One of the reasons that you’re here today is to say somehow the Department of Justice had something to do with the Manhattan District Attorney bringing the suit and a jury of 12 citizen strangers listening to the evidence, hearing from talented prosecutors and defense attorneys and the judge, and they came back with a clarity of 34 convictions for a former president and a presidential nominee. What role did your department have in that prosecution?

That prosecution was determined by the Manhattan District Attorney, which does not report to us, is not controlled by us, and operates completely independent to the Department of Justice.

Thank you.

(02:10:08)
I also want to respond to a few other dangerous statements. Chairman Jordan said a “kangaroo court,” that’s quoting, convicted President Trump. He’s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Speaker Johnson’s claimed that Democrats cheered this “purely political exercise,” and we heard him in an interview on Fox saying the Supreme Court should break up the conviction, overturn the conviction, and he knows many of the justices personally.

(02:10:37)
Mr. Trump pities himself as a so-called political prisoner. These statements are false, and they are aimed to mislead. They are aimed to inflame. They are dangerous. The nominee, or the would-be nominee, is a convicted felon. What happened is, he was guilty of an unlawful conspiracy to win the 2016 election by falsifying records to cover a tryst with a porn star in the days before the 2016 election.

(02:11:09)
I’m grateful our institutions stood up. I’m grateful to that set of jurors who walked in as strangers and citizens and listened to the evidence and put the law attached to it. But I’m really deeply concerned that our institutions are under attack. Mr. Garland, you talked about in your written testimony the role of the Department of Justice in upholding the rule of law. Can you speak to that a little more?

So, I have devoted my entire career to ensuring that the rule of law is the rule that the Justice Department applies and that the courts apply. That we follow the precedents, that we treat like cases alike, that we do not have enemies or friends, that we do not pay attention to the political parties or the wealth or the power or the influence of the people that we are investigating. That we follow the facts and the law.

(02:12:22)
This is what distinguishes this country from our adversaries, and an attack on the rule of law tears down people’s confidence in the basic fundamental element of our democracy that all people will be treated equal. And I intend to continue to protect the rule of law, to protect the hundred and fifteen thousand career employees of my department to make sure that they can continue to go about their job, which is to do the right thing every day and not to be distracted by outside influences, political or otherwise.

I thank you Mr. Attorney General, and I call upon those-

Gentle lady’s time.

I want to just mention one other thing.

Quickly.

I’m fearful. I’m fearful for the appalling silence of good people on this committee. [inaudible 02:13:19]

Okay, okay. Gentle lady’s time has expired. Mr. Attorney General, we understand you want a break. Can we do one more five minutes and then we’ll take a little break? Would that work? All right. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Attorney General for appearing before the Judiciary Committee. I read a report recently that the DC United States Attorney’s Office had only devoted five percent of resources to January 6th prosecutions. But I’ve also understand from many conversations that the most or all of the United States’ US attorney districts contributed an AUSA or an investigator to the effort. Can you confirm whether the department, across the board, has been providing additional support from other US attorneys’ offices in terms of AUSAs or investigators contributing for the January 6th investigations?

Yes. That’s true, and that began before I became attorney general. That continued after I became attorney general.

So multiple resources across the department have been devoted to that effort, including other districts?

Yes.

Okay.

Because of the significance of an attack on democracy and this body.

The reason I’m asking about that is in terms of the focus of the resources of the department. If staff have put up on the screen… There’s a number of people here that I want to see if you can identify who they are. What we have here in the bottom right-hand corner is a woman named Lizbeth Medina. She was found dead in a bathtub in Texas. Her mom found her hoping to see her in a parade that night. She was killed by Rafael Govea Romero, who was here illegally.

(02:14:46)
On the bottom left-hand corner, you have Laken Riley. She was killed by 26-year-old José Ibarra, arrested by US Customs and Border Protection after he unlawfully entered the United States near El Paso, Texas. Up above you have officers Richard Yarusso, 26, and Officer Christopher Abreu, 26. Both were shot this last weekend by Bernardo Raul Castro-Mata, a 19-year-old Venezuela national apprehended by US Border Patrol after he unlawfully entered the United States near Eagle Pass in July of 2023.

(02:15:19)
What we have is a continued effort by the federal government to fail to secure the border of the United States, and Americans are dying or getting shot, in this case law enforcement getting shot, two young women who are dead. My question for you with respect to the department is, do you believe that Texas has a right to defend itself, and to ensure that people who are in this country are not here illegally, and that we can protect the citizens of Texas from people unlawfully here who are committing crimes to Lizbeth Medina, who’s no longer with us because the federal government refused to do its job?

(02:15:56)
Yet the Department of Justice is suing the state of Texas to stop

…implementation of SB4. So do you say, as the Attorney General of the United States, Texas does not have a right to defend itself and to protect our citizens from murder by people who have come here illegally into the United States?

I say as the Attorney General and as a human being, that my heart goes out to the families that these are terrible, terrible events. I say secondly as the Attorney General, the way to stop people like this from coming into the United States is to give more resources to the Border Patrol so that they can prevent-

Mr. Attorney General. No, no.

You don’t want-

We, the people of Texas… Money’s not going to solve the problem when the Department of Homeland security and the President of the United States refuse to enforce the law, ignore the policies. And Lizbeth Medina would be here alive today if we were following the law. Laken Riley would be here today if we had not released a killer onto the streets of the United States of America through parole policies that this administration is advancing.

(02:16:56)
And the Department of Justice is suing the state of Texas in court, taking valuable resources to go against the people of Texas when Texas simply wants to say that we should have a say in stopping people who are here illegally, arrest them and be able to deal with that on our own terms when the federal government refuses to do its job.

As reflected in our filings in that case, we are in court because the United States Supreme Court in Arizona versus the United States held that states cannot adopt their own immigration-

You’re in court because you’re choosing to try to stop Texas from enforcing the laws that the federal government is refusing to enforce. And by the way, that’s not the same thing as Arizona. But a final question in my last minute. The Department of Justice did not assert privilege with regard to the transcript, correct?

That’s right. [inaudible 02:17:46]

And you articulated a minute ago to my colleague that the best evidence rule says that the transcribed copy is admissible. But how can you claim privilege in the face of not just a legislative inquiry, but a constitutional impeachment inquiry? How can you claim privilege for something that you just testified was effectively the same thing? How can you claim privilege for the audio of the transcript you just testified was the same?

I just testified the words are the same. Sensing an audio is different. You have not given any explanation and there’s nothing in the impeachment resolution that would make a difference with respect to audio-

I respectfully disagree. I would ask you one last question. Is the decision not to prosecute President Biden for effectively the same crime for which DOJ is prosecuting President Trump, is it because DOJ has determined the president is not mentally fit to defend himself and stand trial for his crime, but former President Trump is?

I say again, that’s an inaccurate description of Mr. Hur’s report and I regress on Mr. Hur’s report.

It’s the only assertion he made. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. [inaudible 02:18:48] will take a short break and then we’ll be back in 5, 10 minutes.

(02:18:52)
(silence)

Committee will come to order the gentlelady from Texas recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Garland, right here. First, I want to thank you and every single member of your team for your dedicated public service, for everything that you do on behalf of our country every single day. I know this political environment is toxic and difficult and it’s not just difficult for you and your team, but it’s difficult for your families as well. So I wanted to express my gratitude to you. And I also wanted to provide a very distinct and different perspective on what the State of Texas is doing from what one of my Texas colleagues just described and the way that he described it is really troubling to me.

(02:51:27)
Governor Greg Abbott, under the auspices of what a Republican colleague of mine just described as Texas defending itself, has actually created an incredibly hostile environment for my community of El Paso, Texas and very likely other communities along the Texas-Mexico border. My constituents have seen significant property damage to their property as a result of reckless and dangerous high speed chases. My constituents have been detained illegally under Operation Lone Star and all of these constituents are US citizens, by the way, who are Hispanic and who have been targeted by Operation Lone Star.

(02:52:19)
Most recently, the Texas Attorney General has targeted a nonprofit in El Paso that has long been a partner to the federal government, a partner long before President Biden was in office, a partner to the federal government during former President Donald Trump’s term in office and long before that, and the Texas Attorney General has targeted that nonprofit effectively trying to shut it down for being a partner to the federal government when it comes to migration.

(02:52:58)
And you and I had a meeting a few months ago and I shared with you some of my concerns not just on these issues, but also with regard to Texas Senate Bill 4, which creates a whole new level of immigration enforcement at the state level. Something that apparently my Republican colleagues are championing. Would you please share with us, with the committee and the American public why it is really a terrible consequence for any state, whether it’s Texas or any state, what the challenges are with a state deciding it’s going to create its own immigration process?

Thank you. I’m going to follow my practice of sticking to what we’ve said in the public filings. So what I can say about S.B. 4 is we regard it as an unconstitutional act by the state. The Supreme Court has held that immigration deportation questions are matters for the federal government under the Immigration Naturalization Act and under the Constitution, that every state can’t adopt its own views about deportation, that there are serious law enforcement risks of different law enforcement agencies operating in the same venues. But the important thing is that this is a question of the sovereignty of the United States and of the Constitution. So I can’t say anything more, but this is in litigation and we are doing our best to uphold the Supreme Court’s precedent on this, and it’s a relatively recent precedent.

Thank you, Mr. Garland. I also want to make sure to make you aware that we have gotten reports of some of the Texas National Guards shooting indiscriminately into crowds of migrants on the border, shooting plastic bullets. Want to make sure that you are aware of that in addition to all the other issues that I’ve made you aware of that are occurring in El Paso.

(02:55:10)
I see I’m out of time, but I will continue to communicate with you and your staff the egregious civil rights and human rights violations happening in my community at the hands of Operation Lone Star. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back, and gentlelady from Texas made me think about our other Democrat member from Texas who it’s been announced is dealing with cancer and our thoughts and prayers are with Ms. Jackson Lee, who’s been a great member of this committee for a long, long time. I just thought of that after the gentlelady began her questions. We now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany.

Attorney General, during the department’s criminal investigation of Hunter Biden investigators gave hunters counsel a heads-up regarding their future investigative actions, specifically a pending search warrant. Does the Department of Justice usually tip off the defense counsel ahead of time to warn them that they’ll be executing a search warrant?

You’re asking me about a case that’s in trial as we speak and I’m just not going to comment on it. I think that’s highly inappropriate for me to do.

Oh, this would not be inappropriate at all. Do you warn defense counsel ahead of time? Is this a standard operating procedure for the Department of Justice to notify that you’re going to execute a search warrant?

I think I’ve answered this question before. It depends on the situation. In some circumstances, yes. In some circumstances, no. Generally not, but [inaudible 02:56:39] always-

If I may interrupt. Shortly after the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, you said upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor. Did the Department of Justice give the same courtesy to President Trump’s counsel and warn them about the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago?

Saying the issues are determined on the ground with respect to what people are concerned about on the ground. That issue about Mar-a-Lago is also the subject of a challenge in court and I’m not going to comment about that either.

So one, you notified defense counsel, the other one you didn’t.

I don’t know whether you’re accurately describing what happened in Hunter Biden case or not.

During Special Counsel Hur’s investigation knew whether or not President Biden retained classified documents, he found that President Biden knew the information in his possession was classified; isn’t that correct?

I don’t recall the exact words of Mr. Hur, but they are what they are.

Yeah, I mean he knew the information, Joe Biden knew the information that he had in his possession was classified. I think that’s widely known.

Again, Mr. Hur testified for five hours in front of you and all these questions could be asked of him and a long report that’s on the public record on this question. I’m just not going to comment. Just like I didn’t comment on Mr. Durham’s report, when people asked me to do that.

Did then Vice President Biden have the authority to declassify the classified documents he illegally retained?

Mr. Hur addressed any questions like that in his report. I know what you’re really asking me about is the case in Florida and I’m just not going to comment on matters that are being litigated in court. It’s highly inappropriate for me to do that.

So you can’t comment on something that’s already out there publicly by Mr. Hur? Simply did Vice President Biden, then vice president, did he have the ability to declassify classified documents?

Mr. Hur-

Does any vice president have the ability to declassify classified documents?

It depends on who the original… I mean the ultimate theory goes back to an executive order that depends on the originator of the classification-

Let’s go here. Have any other-

This is a very long discussion about classification.

Have any other former presidents, vice presidents or cabinet secretaries retained classified information after they left office? Have others done this?

I don’t know. Mr. Hur-

Did Vice President Pence have classified documents?

Mr. Hur recounted the information that he had about past-

The former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, did she have classified documents?

… know anything more than Mr. Hur reported in his report on these matters?

How many of those that have had classified documents either a former vice president like Pence or secretary of state like Hillary Clinton, how many of them were charged with retaining classified information?

Mr. Hur explained why he chose not to recommend [inaudible 02:59:45]-

The answer is none of them were charged. None of them were charged other than President Trump. How many of them are currently running for president against President Biden?

Mr. Hur explained in detail the reasons that distinguished former president’s case from the current president.

Was there opposition in the Washington field office seeking a search warrant of Mar-a-Lago?

I’m hoping that there was always discussion in field offices about the appropriate approach.

Who gave the go ahead to do the search?

I know that the reference to the special agent that was made earlier, left out the conclusion of his transcript, which is he thought it was lawful.

Who gave the go ahead to do the search warrant to execute the search warrant on Mar-a-Lago?

Magistrate judge in the district approve…

(03:00:35)
… White House and the Justice Department as well as between the Congress and the Justice Department to ensure that political considerations are not taken into consideration. But the principle bulwark of the rule of law is the career workforce of the department, the agents and the prosecutors who do their jobs every day with only one purpose to do the right thing in every case.

Thank you, Attorney General. I want to talk briefly about antitrust because this is an area where under your leadership and the leadership of Assistant General Jonathan Kanter, historically a bipartisan issue by the way, the DOJ Antitrust Division has won victories in court against employers that sought to suppress workers pay and blocked harmful mergers in the airline industry. You’re working to lower food prices by targeting anticompetitive practices and mergers in the grocery and meat processing industry. And the Antitrust Division successfully ended a price fixing scheme in DVD and Blu-ray sales and prevented video game companies from suppressing wages in eSports. These are incredible accomplishments and you’re also working to promote competition in the live music industry. Thank you for the recently filed case against Live Nation, Ticketmaster, proud that Washington’s Attorney General has joined that case along with 29 others.

(03:05:38)
And I was struck by the so-called Ticketmaster flywheel, a self-reinforcing business model that traps fans, artists, and independent venues in the Ticketmaster ecosystem. Can you just explain how that works and why this is so important for competition and for lower prices for consumers in the live music industry?

Well, I’m sorry to have to give you the same answer that I gave your colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We filed a case, we announced the complaint that at this point we can’t comment on it. But the answers to your question I think are very well laid out in the very extensive complaint that we filed in that matter.

I was hoping to be able to brag about it, but I understand and thank you so much for your service. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Gentlemen from Virginia is recognized.

Mr. Attorney General the public has seen through the claims you’ve made today about fair and impartial pursuit of justice. They see that Lady Justice’s blindfold has slipped off and they look no further than the treatment by your department of former President Trump and current defendant Hunter Biden. I chair the subcommittee on responsiveness and accountability to oversight and your office has gone a long way towards obstructing our efforts to investigate much of what we’ve talked about today. But beyond simply obstructing Congress did allegations surface last year that senior Justice Department officials attempted to obstruct the criminal investigation in Hunter Biden’s numerous alleged tax crimes?

I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question.

Did you attempt to obstruct the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged crimes?

Absolutely not.

According to IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler on October 21st, 2021, US Attorney Lesley Wolf told investigators they would be in “hot water” if they interviewed Hunter Biden’s adult children and IRS investigators were prevented by DOJ from interviewing Hunter Biden’s other relatives including the president’s brother and sister, Hunter Biden’s in-laws, ex-wife and Beau Biden’s widow. Doesn’t this depart from standard investigative procedure?

You asked me if I obstructed. I don’t know virtually any of the people you just listed other than because they’ve been in the newspaper. Mr. Weiss has testified about this matter. Mr. Weiss will testify again when the matter is completed. He will write a report. You’ll be able to examine him for five hours if you want. But I don’t know the facts of this matter and I don’t intend to intrude on Mr. Weiss’s investigation. But it is false that I in any way obstructed Mr. Weiss’s investigation. That’s just false.

Did the DOJ allow the statute of limitations to lapse on some of the most serious [inaudible 03:08:28]-

I’ve testified about this before. Mr. Weiss will have an opportunity to explain which matters he decided to bring, which matters he decided not to bring and I don’t know any more about it than that.

Well, it’s not that he decided to bring charges or not. He decided to allow statute of limitations to lapse on the 2014 and 2015 tax returns even though prosecutors could have sought an extension and in fact, defense counsel was willing to agree to extend the statute of limitations for these charges; isn’t that correct?

I don’t know if anything you’re saying is correct. Mr. Weiss will have to answer those questions, and I’m sure he will be able to when he appears before this committee.

It doesn’t seem like you’re aware of a lot that’s going on in your department-

That’s intentional in all with respect to Mr. Weiss’s investigation. That’s what an independent special counsel is about, the attorney general doesn’t intrude-

When did you appoint Special Counsel Weiss?

I’m sorry. Say again?

When did you appoint Special Counsel David Weiss?

I don’t remember the exact date. It’s a matter of public record.

Isn’t it correct that this was after IRS whistleblowers like Mr. Shapley exposed numerous instances of wrongdoing including allowing the statute of limitations to expire?

The appointment of Mr. Weiss has nothing to do with anything any whistleblower said.

The statute of limitations was allowed to expire before your appointment.

Some of the statute of limitations likely expired before I was appointed as attorney general. I don’t know the facts here. They have no connection to each other.

So your claim that you can’t comment on it because Mr. Weiss is currently investigating has nothing to do with, it’s actually the fact that those statutes limitations expired before you were appointed and before he was appointed, correct?

I’m sorry, I’m not following the question.

All right-

There’s no connection between whatever happened with the statute of limitation, which I don’t know about, and my appointment of Mr. Weiss.

Did Special Counsel Weiss receive directions from your office regarding the details of the plea deal for Hunter Biden?

When I was nominated to be attorney general, two members of the Senate publicly asked me to let Mr. Weiss continue in his role to which he had been appointed by President Trump, I promised that I would. Thereafter, more than a majority of the Republican members of the Senate asked me to appoint Mr. Weiss as special counsel. Ultimately I did appoint him as special counsel. I promised not to intrude and I stuck with my promise.

Let me ask you something you might remember. On May 23rd of this year, were you in an attendance at a state dinner for the president of Kenya?

Yes, I was.

Did Hunter Biden also attend the dinner

From newspaper reports, yes.

Did you and Hunter interact in any way?

I have never spoken to Hunter Biden in my life, as far as I know.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Chairman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Is the Department of Justice retaliating against whistleblowers?

No. That would be a violation of statute and a violation of our-

Well, the Inspector General seems to think you are. I got this management advisory memorandum dated May 2024, notification of concerns regarding the Department of Justice compliance with whistleblower protections for employees with a security clearance.

I’ve read the management memo. I think it’s a good memo. It doesn’t say we’ve been retaliated against anybody. It says that there have to be additional protections with respect-

Is it just pure coincidence that Marcus Allen’s security clearance got reinstated today? Whistleblower came in front of this committee. Democrats disparage this guy, called him conspiracy theorist, 27 months without his security clearance. And we find out today it’s been reinstated.

I’m sorry, I don’t know anything about the facts of that case. Retaliate against whistleblowers is against the law and it will be punished.

Three people have come and talked to this committee as whistleblowers have had their security clearance taken. Marcus Allen gets his security clearance put back in place today and the Inspector General says he’s got concerns doing an investigation as we speak about what’s going on.

I’m sorry, the management memo that you’re talking about does not conclude there was any retaliation against anybody. I read the memo, it doesn’t say that-

No. And you’ll notice that he’s investigating-

Mr. Chairman, regular order.

The gentleman from California is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Garland, over here.

Oh.

Do you want additional time to answer the chairman’s questions or comments?

No, I’ve answered. It is the policy and the practice if somebody has a complaint about whistleblowing to go the Inspector General, that’s why the Inspector General is investigating it. The memorandum that the Inspector General issued does not say he concluded that anybody retaliated against anybody.

Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a Wall Street Journal article that appeared yesterday, June 3rd, titled Merrick Garland, Three Special Counsels and a Justice Department Under Fire.

[inaudible 03:13:18]

And Mr. Garland, I’d ask you after this to go back and read this article. It talks about your long and distinguished career. I think the article really summarizes it by, open quote here, a sentence, it says “Garland has been driven by one mantra. Follow the facts and the law.” It’s about your commitment and your history to the rule of law in this country. Thank you, sir.

(03:13:45)
Today we’re talking about a lot of issues, very important. This is our job, oversight. If I pull back a little bit, think about what people back home care about. They care about safe streets, eliminating drugs, harmful drugs from our streets, consumer protection. So I’m going to ask you, can you highlight, talk a little bit about your actions, the efforts of the Justice Department to reduce violent crime in the United States and more specifically how you work with our local sheriffs, our local police department to reduce violent crime in our streets?

Yes, that is an important part of our obligation to protect the American people and America’s communities. In 2021, soon after I became an attorney general, I saw the statistics regarding the spike of violent crime that happened during the pandemic. And I knew that it was important that we do everything we can to drive that number down, both for the protection of the individuals who are hurt, but also for the people’s sense of security in their communities and belief that the system will work on their behalf.

(03:14:56)
So, we issued a memorandum directing the strategy that we know worked and that worked in the last time I was in the Justice Department when I was a drugs and guns prosecutor and then again when I was a prosecutor in Maine Justice. We cooperate with, we create task forces with our state and local law enforcement partners, sheriff’s offices and police departments so that the federal government can bring the benefits and advantages it has, sometimes money, sometimes technology, sometimes better statutes. And the sheriff’s deputies and the officers on the ground can bring their knowledge of the community and their knowledge of the bad actors. So we can take the most dangerous criminals off the streets, the repeat shooters, those who are responsible for violence, the people running in gangs, that violence that we can cases both against individuals and against criminal organizations. That strategy has been-

If I can interrupt you, I only have a minute and a half left.

Okay. Strategy has been successful. The homicide rate last year went down higher decline than in 50 years and it is again going down this quarter by somewhere between 18 and 20%.

Thank you for that. Good work. We talk about getting fentanyl off our streets, something very important to both sides of the aisle, everybody on Main Street. And you mentioned in your opening remarks that you put away head of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the kingpins there, drugpins. I sit on Homeland Security and we know one way to get there is to take down these cartels, put away the leadership.

(03:16:45)
Can you explain a little bit about what else you’re doing to go in that direction, to get these what I would call terrorists, drug terrorists, how do we put them in prison, get them off the street so they won’t be organizing and selling drugs, fentanyl, in our country?

So the DEA has done extraordinary work worldwide in order to track these cartels and to provide the evidence that has led to the indictments of the Chapitos, the sons of El Chapo himself. And as I said just last week, the chief Sicario, the assassin and protector of the Sinaloa Cartel. I’ve traveled to Mexico several times myself. My deputy has traveled several times herself. The DEA group has gone as well to persuade the Mexican authorities to make extraditions in these cases. Specifically with respect to El Nini, I made the necessary calls, my counterparts agreed and they arranged for his extradition to the United States.

Thank you, sir. And I hope you continue the good work. Chairman, I yield.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for unanimous consent.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a few articles. One is the full transcript of President Joe Biden’s interview with TIME.

Without objection.

Townhall talking about, The Transcript From Biden’s Interview With TIME Is a Mess.

Without objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask you name’s consent to enter into the record, the management advisory memorandum from the Department of Justice office of the Inspector General 24067 May 2024. Notification of Concerns Regarding the Department of Justice’s Compliance with Whistleblower Protections for Employees with a Security Clearance. With that, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey.

Thank you, Chairman. Equal justice for all, you use those words. Like cases treated alike, you use those words. All people are treated equal. Let’s just look and review a few things. Let’s look at the classified documents case. One individual is Vice President of the United States, removes documents which he has no right to do, Joe Biden. He then removes documents also before he was vice president as a US senator, no right to do that. Doesn’t have the right to declassify. Yet a special counsel’s appointed. And the result of that is that, well, there’s nothing we’re going to do because he’s a kindly older gentleman that has a bad memory and it wouldn’t be a good case.

(03:19:36)
And yet at the same time, a President of the United States who does have a right to declassify documents, removes them, keeps them in a secure place, has the right to do it because he was a president and he’s indicted. Equal justice for all. Prosecutor Bragg, and I’m going to ask you a question about this, just your opinion. He ran for office saying he was going to put Donald Trump in jail. Before he saw all the evidence. Before he knew everything about the case, before he knew anything, he ran for office saying he was going to put another human being in jail and ran on that as his platform.

(03:20:18)
Do you believe that it’s appropriate for somebody to run for a prosecutor and by that also in Fulton County, Georgia the same thing happened there with the prosecutor, do you think it’s appropriate, do you think someone who’s being interviewed for a position when they’re going to be appointed or somebody who is running for office and is going to be elected at this level of government and the judiciary should say what they want to do as far as putting somebody in jail before they’ve even seen the case? Is that appropriate, yes or no?

Your description of the Hur and Smith cases is inaccurate. I don’t know whether your description of what the two district attorneys said-

Well then you don’t look at the news. Excuse me Attorney General, because I only have limited amount of time. Everywhere. Everywhere it was reported. It was if you knew anything, you knew that Alvin Bragg and also again the prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia, they ran on that. And that’s wrong. That isn’t equal justice for all. It’s wrong. And this wasn’t equal justice for all.

(03:21:24)
And by the way, I think my rendition of what happened when the special counsel looked at that is pretty accurate. I even put the word kindly in there, kindly, old gentlemen, forgetful, it wouldn’t be a good case for that reason. Those are all accurate.

(03:21:40)
But I want to ask you something else. Do you know who Jay Bratt is? I know that you do. He’s a top aide to Jack Smith. And I know that you must be aware that Mr. Bratt attempted to pressure the defense attorney of a close Trump aid with a judgeship, with a judgeship, if the attorney went along with Jack Smith’s desires and his demands. Are you aware of that?

I know Mr. Bratt to be an excellent lawyer, a longtime career prosecutor, a person of high ethics. And I know the issue you’re talking about is disputed. Those facts are disputed in the district court in Florida and it will be resolved by the judge in that case.

Yeah. And that’s why the case was stopped because it’s obviously of concern. There’s something there. Are you aware that on May 3rd, Special Counsel Smith himself acknowledged in the court filing that after the FBI seized evidence on its raid on Mar-a-Lago, that some of the evidence was altered, manipulated, or disturbed? Is that standard procedure?

I not read anywhere where he said it was altered or manipulated. So again, I can’t accept that characterization. I’m not going to comment on proceedings before a federal judge-

Mr. Attorney General, I want to be respectful manner, are you living in a bubble here? I mean-

I’m not living in a bubble, but your characterization is false-

… good God. I mean, everybody saw it. Everybody heard it. Smith himself said it. That’s why that case was stopped.

If you can show me where he said he manipulated the evidence, I’ll have a different-

You don’t like my word that there was some tampering and absolutely he said that he had touched the evidence and we don’t know what level and now Americans are concerned, God knows what level it is and whether we’ll really know the truth.

(03:23:21)
And I got a question about this, former President Trump, as you know, was being dragged through a political travesty, and you won’t agree that it’s a travesty, orchestrated by Alvin Bragg. How is it that a man, Matthew Colangelo, the third-highest ranking individual in the Department of Justice, takes a pay cut and takes a cut in just what it is he does for a living as far as prestige to go and join that case? And I know you’ll say you don’t have the answer to that either.

I have the answer. I took an enormous pay cut to become an assistant US attorney. Mr. Mueller took an enormous pay cut. Both of

(03:23:59)
Many-

… Us as partners in law firms to work for the public good. Many people have a view about doing the public good and not caring about how much money they make.

I’m going to yield in a second, but we were lied to about Catholic churches, we were lied to about school board meetings, we were lied to about Russian collusion, we were lied to about-

Point of order.

…the President’s sweetheart deal, we were lied to about mishandling of classified-

Time of gentleman-

…materials, we were lied to about FISA and I yield back.

Point of order.

Time of gentleman has expired. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized for unanimous consent.

Yes, I have a unanimous consent. Republicans have continued to misrepresent the Hur report as saying that President Biden had a poor memory and that’s not supported by the Special Counsel’s own record. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt from the transcript of Special Counsel Hur’s interview-

Objection.

…with President Biden. I’m reading from the transcript on October 8th, 2023 at page 47, lines 20 to 21: “You appear to have a photographic understanding and recall.” I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, it would be inappropriate for you to opine on the nature of pending and active prosecutions, correct?

Yes. There’s a justice department policy against making those kind of comments.

It’s a longstanding precedent.

Yes.

The reason why I bring that up, I have great respect for my colleague from New Jersey. I understand he’s not a lawyer by training and the world needs good dentists, so it’s nothing against his career choices, but I will just simply say I find it shameful to have to endure and I can only imagine how you feel about it, Mr. Attorney General, the lectures from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about equal justice under the law or adherence to the rule of law to a man who has spent virtually his entire career in pursuit of upholding the rule of law.

(03:26:04)
You talked a bit about your professional background. You started at the Department of Justice as a line prosecutor. I know you served as a special assistant prior to that, but the bulk of your early career at the Department of Justice was a line prosecutor.

Yes.

Drug trafficking, organized crime, violent crime cases.

Yes.

You then proceeded to become the principal Associate Deputy Attorney General.

Yes.

Is that correct?

Long title.

Long title, important job. And in that capacity you oversaw a series of very important criminal prosecutions, including the prosecutions connected to the Oklahoma City bombing. Is that right?

Yes.

You were nominated and you were confirmed on a bipartisan basis here in Washington DC to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yes.

You rose to Chief Judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

I think that just meant I survived my colleagues. Yes.

That may be, Mr. Attorney General, but what I can say with confidence is that you have a more distinguished record with respect to the fidelity to the rule of law than any member sitting on the dais here today on either side of the aisle. And I appreciate your integrity, your leadership of the department, and to be candid, your patience during the bulk of this hearing, which of course, has focused on virtually every issue unconnected to the bulk of the work that is done by our nation’s premier law enforcement agency. I’ve been in and out of this hearing, I believe it’s correct that you haven’t gotten any questions about cyber crime, let’s say, for example.

That’s right.

Fair enough. Or foreign espionage.

Right.

Right. I know during your opening statement you talked about the decisive action that the Department of Justice is taking in coordination with the DEA and the FBI against cartels. Very few questions about that today from my colleagues, unfortunately. Unless I’m wrong.

You’re right.

A litany of work that’s being done each and every day at the Department of Justice that has a real impact on people’s lives in terms of keeping our community safe, keeping Americans safe. This was supposed to be, I thought, an oversight hearing for the Department of Justice and, unfortunately, it has descended into a lot of rhetoric about conspiracy theories and the like.

(03:28:35)
I think it’s a wasted opportunity to actually engage with you and your department about the issues that the American people care deeply about and so I will spend the remaining amount of my time left talking about an issue that’s deeply important to me, and I know an issue that’s important to you, which is the scourge of gun violence. And the department has taken a leadership role, under your tenure in the last several years, particularly as it relates to implementing the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was a bipartisan bill that this Congress passed thanks to President Biden’s leadership. And I wonder if you might just opine a bit or expound a bit on your work as it relates to gun violence.

The bipartisan Safer Communities Act has been extraordinarily helpful in our effort to combat gun violence. It’s led to substantial numbers of prohibited sales of guns to minors, who the statutes prohibit possessing because of conduct that they have engaged in. It’s given us the authority to bring cases for straw purchasing that’s led to crime guns and to gun trafficking to criminals and, in those ways, has helped drive down the numbers with respect to gun violence.

(03:29:53)
We have set up crime gun intelligence centers, so that our state and local counterparts can trace guns that are found at crime scenes to determine whether they were used by serial killers, by serial shooters, to help us find out… To run the DNA off of the casings, so that we can find hits on those people and arrest them and prevent them from committing further crimes. There’s a host of things that the department has done, but the principle kind of violence we’re worried about in the country is gun violence, and that’s what causes the enormous number of deaths we face every year.

I thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your service to our country and I hope you’ll relay the same to all the folks at the Department of Justice. And I thank the chairman for his indulgence, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, gentleman from Alabama… Oh, excuse me. Unanimous consent request from gentlelady from North Carolina.

Yes. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record of March 2nd 2023, Democratic staff report from this committee which shows that the testimony from three former FBI employees is false and misleading and funded by MAGA extremists. Here you go.

Without objection. One of those individuals who you’ve falsely labeled that just got a security clearance given back to him in light of the Inspector General’s pending investigation. The gentleman from New Jersey for unanimous consent.

Just the unanimous consent with the exact words of what Special Counsel Hur said, which will verify everything that I said.

That objection. Gentleman from Alabama is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, what was your understanding of Jack Smith’s reputation in the legal community?

Reputation was he had the highest reputation for both ethics and skill at being a career prosecutor.

Were you aware that individuals who had worked with him noted that, and I quote this, “overzealous prosecutor who relies on ethically dubious tactics while investigating or prosecuting criminal cases.” Were you aware of that?

I don’t know what anonymous source you’re citing there, but I certainly wasn’t aware of it. No.

Let me cite another source to you. Are you aware that Mr. Smith’s conviction against former Republican Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, whom he accused of accepting payments and gifts in violation of federal corruption laws, was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court? Are you aware of that?

Yeah. My understanding from that is the Supreme Court actually changed its view of that particular law. We respect the Supreme Court’s ultimate determination. That has nothing to do with Mr. Smith.

Let me read you a quote from Chief Justice Roberts. He rebuked Mr. Smith’s theory of case writing. “Our concern is with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute, which did not comport with the text of the statute or the precedent in the court.” Does Mr. Smith’s prior boundless interpretation of federal laws concern you?

Mr. Smith’s case was supported by the Justice Department on appeal and by the Solicitor General’s office. We respect the decision of the Supreme Court in their interpretation and narrowing of our anti-corruption statute.

Have you received any briefings from the department, from Jack Smith, concerning the prosecution of President Trump? Have you received any subsequent briefings?

Have I received briefings from Mr. Smith?

Yes.

Yes. That’s part of the Special Counsel regulations.

I’m going to change gears here for a second. We talk a lot in here about the attack of the rule of law and embracing misinformation. Do you see that the American people… The number one thing I see when I’m touring the district, or at least in ’21, not anymore, it’s the border, but in ’21, Mr. Garland, it was a concern for the weaponization of the government against US citizens. What do you think is driving the concern?

I think when people say, over and over, the word weaponization, it can have an effect on people’s belief, whether it’s founded or unfounded.

Do you think it might be founded based on the Durham Report, when Durham himself said that he was extremely concerned with the way that Comey, FBI director Lynch and those, knew that the DNC was driving the Russian collusion narrative and then they went out and opened an investigation, do you think maybe those kind of things, maybe impeaching him twice, maybe arresting him, maybe raiding his home, for the first time ever we’ve actually indicted a president, do you think maybe those are more the reason that people are starting to lose trust in the justice system than maybe anything we’re saying here on the hill.

Mr. Durham was reporting at events that occurred in an administration before I was Attorney General.

But does it still not erode the credibility of the Department of Justice and justice in America, the rule of law, when things like what happened last week start to happen, that have never happened before in the history of the country? Do you think that maybe has more to do with this than what we’re saying here?

When you’re referring to last week, you’re referring to a decision by a jury in a state case unrelated to the Department of Justice. I’m not going to comment on that jury verdict.

What about $200 million in donations in less than maybe 48 hours, do you think maybe that’s sending a message that maybe the people in America are not living in a bubble, maybe we are? Maybe it’s not what we’re saying, maybe it’s what we’re doing. Maybe that carries more weight, what we do, than what we say here.

I do think that what we do is more important than what we say and I think the Justice Department should be evaluated by its acts and I think the Justice Department-

It is being evaluated by its acts.

…acts appropriately. You’re talking about fundraising related to something that happened in New York.

I’m talking about a jury verdict. Anywhere in the political world, if you’re indicted, normally that’s campaign over. If you’re convicted of felonies, you are certainly… You can consider your campaign over. Why would the American people, 30% who had never donated to a campaign, give 200 million to a million dollars to a man that you just charged with 34 felonies.

You are asking me a political question that I am not qualified to answer.

I’m telling you, sir. We’re making the justice system political. That’s what’s going on in America and the people are waking up. It’s not us saying it here, not the weaponization of government here, it’s the grassroots of America asking us those very questions. And when you convict a man, or at least try to convict a man, and charge a man, and they donate $200 million in 48 hours, sir, they’re sending a signal they have lost all trust in this system.

I think we all have a responsibility to respect jury verdicts and a failure to respect jury verdicts-

It’s the way that we arrived at the verdict. I think that’s the problem, and the American people see it, sir, and under your watch the system is losing credibility. It concerns me for this country and certainly for the future of the direction of the Department of Justice. And with that Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back

Gentlemen yields back. The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized. Hey, Kelly.

AG Garland, thank you so much for being here, and thank you for all that you have done, and I know that you were just here in September, and I want to commend you for being so responsive to your duties and to the American public. Being the Attorney General is a very difficult job and, still, I am proud of the work that you’ve done thus far and of your sound judgment, very sound judgment, as you navigate these investigations and requests, as these decisions will set the precedent for attorney generals and others that come behind you in the future.

(03:37:16)
And of those decisions setting a precedent, I would like to focus on a problem plaguing our nation just as my colleague, Mr. Neguse, did as well, gun violence. We have lost thousands of Americans to gun violence. I just came from another event in the same dealing with gun violence, yet there are officials and others in power that continue to push back on just simple common sense legislation, rulemaking, and other efforts that can save the lives of our children and our families and keep our community so much more safe.

(03:37:54)
The DOJ just issued a proposed rule to update the definition of frame or receiver, which would regulate so-called ghost guns, the same as traditional firearms. And this life-saving rule is now being challenged. The DOJ issued a proposed rule to clarify restrictions on short-barreled rifles. This life-saving rule is also being challenged. The DOJ published a rule to update the definition of “engaged in business” regarding the sale of firearms and this life-saving rule is also being challenged.

(03:38:33)
Now, I’m all for accountability and transparency and protecting our constitutional rights, but these challenges are not put forth with any of those goals in mind. They are harmful and they’re put in place so that the gun lobby can continue cashing checks regardless of how many lives in this country that we lose every single day.

(03:38:58)
Common sense gun safety legislation does move us to a safer America and no law enforcement officer in this country, whether they be state or local or federal, should be put in danger because some of our American leaders fail to see the bigger picture of the lives that can be saved and work towards that means.

(03:39:21)
But in this country, we have teenagers who are just too afraid to even go to festivals in their communities anymore or parades because they recognize that it’s likely a place that there might be another mass shooting. We have five and six-year-olds in our classrooms that have learned more about active shooter drills than they probably have in their own academics. And we have an entire generation that’s growing up thinking that their elected officials don’t even care to protect them. I hear from them every single day, and that we’re here in Washington only playing politics. And everyone here on this committee should be eager to find ways to protect the American public and to eliminate unlawful guns and the access and possession of them by people who simply should not have them.

(03:40:17)
The steps that the DOJ is taking to clarify and protect those around firearms are the steps that we truly need to keep our community safe. We need to get back on track and worry about the actual issues that are affecting us today. AG Garland, I sincerely wish that you could be in your office today, really doing your work, the substantive work that you have been duly sworn to do with your team to implement the policies that are needed to protect our country and provide law enforcement with the tools that they need to track down criminals.

(03:40:53)
If you were not here today, just tell us what work would you actually be doing instead of being here in front of us again today and having to be put through the wringer one more time.

It’s going to take a long explanation, but today, and I know you don’t have time for it, but the day begins with a threats briefing from the FBI and intelligence community about the threats this country is facing both outside the United States and inside the United States. Threats from foreign terrorist organizations, from domestic violence extremists, from people intending to commit hate crimes and we spend that time trying to allocate our resources and orienting our people so that they can deter and disrupt and prevent those attacks. That’s what my morning would be, but it looks like we’re out of time, so I’m happy to tell you what my afternoon would be, if there’s more time later.

Once again, I’m so sorry that you’re being put through this again, but thank you for the work that you and your staff and all those that are tasked to support you are doing on behalf of the American people. I yield back.

Gentleman from Texas is recognized. Mr. Graham.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Garland, thank you for being here today and for your testimony. It will come as no surprise to you that my constituents in East Texas are not pleased with the ATF under the ultimate authority of the DOJ as you know, which has elected to implement some extremely stringent gun control policies. My colleague from the other side was mentioning some of those.

(03:42:25)
Simply by administrative fiat and rulemaking, this includes things like the pistol brace rule that attempts to restrict millions of Americans, and in particular disabled veterans, from owning a firearm accessory that helps them discharge their pistols in a stabilized manner. The frame and receiver, or the ghost rule as it’s known, which expands the definition of several terms associated with firearms in order to subject them to regulation by the ATF, and the zero tolerance policy by the ATF against federal firearm licensed dealers, which really incentivizes those dealers not to cooperate with the ATF for fear of reprisal because, effectively, that new rule allows the ATF to revoke the licenses of FFLs for simple technical and non-material paperwork. That’s what I’m hearing from my dealers back home.

(03:43:11)
And finally, the overly broad application of the “engaged in business” rule, which overextended the definition to, as the ATF now interprets, “even a single transaction or offer to engage in a transaction when combined with other evidence maybe sufficient to require license as an FFL.” The rule states that, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, individuals are presumed to be “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms if their conduct falls within one of the ATFs specified presumptions” and those presumptions are not exhaustive as you know.

(03:43:42)
It really flips the burden of proof and presumes that Americans engaged in conduct disfavored by the ATF are breaking the law unless they can prove their innocence. And that’s simply turning, I think, it upside down. To what extent was your office involved in crafting or approving these policies?

I approved all of those rules and, if you give me a minute, I’ll go through each one, so that you can explain to your constituents. With respect to the brace, it does not apply to an arm brace applied by a disabled person or anyone else. The statute says if you have a rifle, 16 inches or smaller, intended to be fired from the shoulder, that it has to be registered. The shoulder braces, which are only used to fire from the shoulder, turn it into a short-barreled rifle. They turn a pistol, a short-barreled pistol, into a short-barreled rifle-

Wee know that there’s a short period of time and I think your department has even admitted a short period of time within which folks had to register and we had millions of people across America that were supposed to register, a lot of whom were serving overseas at the time and couldn’t do it within the specified period. And, in fact, we sent a letter that asked your department to extend the period of time, at least extend the period of time within which they could register, and you guys rejected that.

(03:44:58)
But since you reviewed and approved all these, and I know that you are crafting these at the behest of the President, which is certainly your right to do, one of the things I can’t wrap my head around is the fact that, on one hand, the administration is saying it’s “cracking down on guns,” that was a quote, but here in DC, the US attorney, also under your ultimate authority, actively chooses to let hardened criminals who commit crimes with illegal firearms walk away scot-free from their criminal actions.

(03:45:24)
Under US Attorney Matthew Graves, here’s what has happened in DC. His office has declined to prosecute 32% of the carrying-a-pistol-without-a-license cases in 2023, up from 15% in 2018. 60% of those convictions in 2023 were misdemeanors, which is up from 25% between 2018 and 2021. This rose to 48% misdemeanor rate in US Attorney Graves first full year and then 60%, a record high last year. Were you aware of these statistics?

Mr. Graves is an experienced former career prosecutor. It’s impossible to make these judgments based on numbers. It depends on what the evidence is in the cases. My understanding is that those percentages have increased now and that my information is that the crime rate in the District of Columbia in the first quarter of this year is now going down.

Have you had a discussion about why he’s not prosecuting more gun crime here in DC?

He is putting huge priorities into prosecuting violent crime in the District of Columbia, and the main justice has provided assistance from the FBI, ATF and the Marshals, as well as assistant US attorneys from other locations to help him do that.

I find it interesting that he’s declined to prosecute 30% of the assault cases with dangerous weapons in 2022. He also simultaneously blames a crime lab for a lack of prosecution, but he takes credit for “effectively building a makeshift department of forensic science” while felony drug convictions are down 88% since 2017.

(03:47:04)
Drug convictions, as you know, are one of the main ways DC targets gangs, crews that drive so much of the gun violence. I’m frankly in awe that DC and the department has allowed him to go that direction and not called him to the carpet for it. We need more prosecution of those gun crimes here in DC and elsewhere. I yield back.

Gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your service and thank you for your patience. I know it’s been a long day. We all know that the purpose of this hearing is not genuine oversight of the Department of Justice, but rather a cynical effort to cast out on the myriad legal troubles of former President Trump.

(03:47:53)
I want to focus instead on a recent issue that I believe highlights the value of the Department of Justice and the hard work that federal law enforcement does to keep our communities safe. Recently, when speaking with a rabbi in my district in Raleigh, North Carolina, I learned that a North Carolina synagogue had received violent threats over the past month. One threat from early May stated, “Jews don’t deserve to live, Jews didn’t deserve to be on this earth. I’m going to kill the Jews. I’m coming to the temple to kill all the Jews and the children.”

(03:48:32)
According to DOJ, several North Carolina synagogues received threats like this. Just days later I spoke with this rabbi, and the Department of Justice had charged and arrested a California man, Kevin Dunlow, for these threats, as well as for a false bomb threat to the Wake County Sheriff’s office and a threat to an elected official.

(03:48:59)
Mr. Attorney General, today we’ve heard plenty of criticism of your office from the other side of the aisle. I wanted to share this story to shed light on the good work the Department of Justice is doing. Work that, in the past couple of weeks, has made a direct impact on public safety in my community. Thank you for your diligence, not only in this case of horrific and violent anti-Semitism, but in addressing threats against other communities.

(03:49:31)
In addition to the recent uptick in anti-Semitic threats, we’ve seen an increase in threats against Muslim communities, which is equally troubling. The war in Gaza has heightened emotions across the United States and, unfortunately, some of our most vulnerable communities are facing the brunt of this sentiment, which too often has turned into vicious threats of violence. I want to start by asking you how the case involving Kevin Dunlow, the California man who made the threats in this district, got put together? Could you walk us through the kind of work that you do when you find out about these kinds of violent threats?

I can’t walk through that specific case and I want to make clear that, although it’s nice to give me credit, in fact, all the credit belongs to the career prosecutors and the career agents who investigate a case like that. Of course, a case like that has to begin with some recording of the threat or some electronic version that it was transmitted by the internet. It takes an enormous amount of work to find who transmitted it. Oftentimes, people attempt to hide their origins, but we have particularly skilled computer analysis who are able to do that. It has to get traced back to the source, then we have to find any other information we have about the person who we suspect, to see what else the state and local police have on that matter, and then try to make an arrest as soon as we can.

(03:51:10)
You are right that, since October 7th, there’s been a terrible explosion of anti-Semitic threats, also anti-Arab, anti-Muslim threats in this country that make all of these communities afraid and we regard it as important element of our civil rights work to deter and to investigate and to prosecute and to stop these threats. This is all in the proposition for the department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

And, since October the 7th, have you taken any new steps, new strategies to try to deal with these threats?

To the extent there are new steps, they have to do with meeting with all of our US attorneys virtually to insist on communications with the local communities, that’s the way we find out about these threats, to publicize our willingness and our duty to investigate them and bring them down. I say that’s the principle things that we are doing, that is lashing up with our state and local partners to find out when threats are made and to go after them as soon as we can.

Thank you. And I yield back.

Gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. You’ve testified today that you’re not going to comment on the jury verdict in a state case. Has that always been your practice as Attorney General?

The Justice Department’s practice is always to say that we respect the verdict of a jury. That’s our practice.

Okay. In 2021, Derek Chauvin was convicted in a Minnesota State court, by a jury, of several felonies. Did you issue a statement after that verdict?

Yes. We always issue a statement after the verdict describing what the verdict was-

No, this was a state case. Did you issue a statement following the state court conviction?

I’m sorry, who was the person again?

Derek Chauvin.

This was also a federal case.

Right. But this was before the federal case and we got a verdict from the jury and you issued a statement. Did you issued a statement? Yes or no?

I don’t know the answer to that.

I have your statement right here.

We always describe the verdict.

This is a state court decision from a jury and you said, “the state’s prosecution was successful. I know that nothing can fill the void that the loved ones of George Floyd have felt.” You agreed with the decision.

It’s not a question of agreeing, it’s a question of a verdict occurred.

Okay. But you said the prosecution was successful.

It was successful, because it led to a successful verdict.

Would you say that the prosecution of the People v. Trump last week was successful?

I guess by the definition of when somebody brings a case, if they get the verdict they ask for, it’s successful. Without commenting on any particular case and certain-

You just said successful here. You said that, in this case, the prosecution was successful, so in a similar vein, would you say the prosecution of People v. Trump was successful?

I’m going to say again, you’re asking me a tautology. When a prosecutor brings a case and the prosecutor wins the case, it is by definition successful.

What if the case is later overturned on appeal, is the prosecution successful?

We, of course, accept the decision on appeal and then it’s no longer successful.

A successful prosecution is one where you get a jury verdict and then it’s upheld on appeal?

Yes.

You were very quick, the day of the jury verdict, to say that the prosecution was successful in the Chauvin case. Would you say that, by that definition, in the same way, the prosecution was successful in People v. Trump?

I’m not going to comment on that case. You can ask me 10 different ways. I’m not-

Even though you’re commenting on other state cases. I want to ask you, actually, about a federal case, an opinion that you wrote in your last year on the DC circuit. It was called FEC v. Craig, do you remember that case?

I don’t. But if you-

Involving former Senator Larry Craig?

Yes.

Mr. Craig, of course, had gotten himself in trouble for disorderly conduct in an airport bathroom and he used campaign funds to fight those allegations and he came into your court and said that it was okay to do so because, if he makes the allegations go away, that’s going to help his campaign.

(03:55:10)
But you rejected that argument. You ruled that he should have used personal funds because the underlying conduct was personal in nature. Doesn’t that rule of law, that you articulated, expressly contradict the theory of the case in People v. Trump?

You can, again, ask me 12 times if you want about to comment on that case and I’m not going to.

I have your opinion right here. It’s a very well written opinion.

I’m sorry. That case is an interpretation of the Federal Elections Commission Act. That’s all we did in that case.

Right. And you’re well aware that an interpretation of a Federal Elections Commission Act was at the core of the prosecution’s theory of the case last week. I think the reason that you are so reticent about commenting here, Mr. Attorney General, even though you had a press release the very day of the verdict in past cases is because you know your own very well-written opinion clearly shows that there was reversible error in this case. You testified earlier that you have not made any-

I appreciate the compliment about my case, but it has nothing to do with-

You testified earlier that you have never made political contributions. Is that correct?

While I was a judge, I did not make-

How about before you were a judge?

I’m sorry?

Before you were a judge?

I think, maybe 40 years ago, I made a political contribution.

To whom?

It’s public knowledge I made a contribution to the Mondale campaign.

Okay. And if Mr. Mondale had come before you as a party, would you have recused yourself or would you have heard the case?

And I know, now, for the 14th time, you’re trying to ask me-

No, I’m not. I’m asking you about your own campaign contribution to Mr. Mondale.

No, you’re not. You’re asking me to comment on the judge in the case under a different jurisdiction.

No, I’m not. I’m asking you about your own political contribution that you just said you made. If Mr. Mondale, who you donated to, had come before you as a party, would you have recused yourself, yes or no?

If 10 years later or 20 years later, when I became a judge, it would’ve not made any difference. Judges put aside their political views, their personal views, every justice of the Supreme Court has testified-

Mr. Garland, you testified that you don’t regret picking Jack Smith. Do you regret picking Robert Hur as a Special Counsel?

I don’t regret. No.

And you testified that he has a long and distinguished career as a prosecutor, rather, you said that when you appointed him, do you stand by that?

That’s a fact.

And you do not dispute his conclusion that President Biden willfully retained classified information. Is that correct?

That wasn’t his conclusion. He said there was evidence, but that the evidence did not warrant going forward.

I yield back.

Chair recognizes the gentle lady from Missouri for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again, Attorney Garland, for being here. St. Louis and I are here today in support of our democratic institutions and the rule of law. Nearly four years ago, I was barricaded in

In my office with my staff, wondering if we would be killed or at least harmed by a mob incited by Donald Trump to storm the US Capitol because he could not accept the fact that he lost the 2020 presidential election. In that moment, I thought to myself, like, this has to be it. This has to be the moment in our country that people finally realize that the extremist MAGA movement is a violent cult that will destroy anything in its path, all for Donald Trump. And yet, nearly four years later, here we are again, far from rejecting Donald Trump and his insurrection. The Republican Party has embraced its role as the party of insurrection. Republicans have defended January 6th, attacked the Department of Justice for seeking accountability, continued their assault on voting rights, and built a pro-insurrection wing of the Supreme Court.

(03:58:58)
They have also overwhelmingly backed Trump, who has been convicted of 34 felony criminal charges, despite his attacking the prosecutor, the judge, the jurors in the case, and even though he still refuses to say he will support the outcome of the 2024 election. So as we sit here today, our democracy is in as precarious a position as it was in 2020, if not more. Attorney General Garland, I want to thank you, but I want to talk to you about the ongoing assault on our democracy and the rule of law. How does interference by politicians in criminal trials harm our democracy and the separation of powers?

Our criminal justice system proceeds on the understanding that the decisions will be made in the courtroom without political interference in any way. And fundamentally, it depends on the respect of the citizenry, of the judicial processes that occur. People can disagree with results, people can challenge results, people can appeal results, but we respect the judicial process, the judges, and the juries and the appellate justices. That’s a fundamental element of our democracy.

And how do conspiracy theories and misinformation affect the ability of courts to conduct impartial trials?

Well, that’s a broader question and I can answer in specifics. I think personal attacks on judges, personal attacks on juries, personal attacks on prosecutors and agents make people afraid to do their job according to the merits and according to the law.

Thank you. I will say an obvious answer is that Republicans are not doing any of this because they care about our communities, they care about our country, or our democracy. They are doing this because they realize their agenda is absolutely unpopular, and they will do any to stay in power. The Republican Party is all about projection. Republicans talk about violent crime while inciting violent crime on January 6th. Republicans talk about the weaponization of the federal government as they themselves weaponize it on behalf of Donald Trump, including the baseless impeachment investigation in these sham committee hearings. Republicans talk about the unfairness of the criminal legal system while ignoring the actual communities, mostly black and brown, who are disproportionately targeted by that system and don’t have high-powered attorneys, unlike Donald Trump, who has used his wealth, his resources, his power to shield himself from accountability his entire life.

(04:01:57)
Republicans talk about big government and liberty and don’t dread on me as they use government to rip away the freedoms of women, of LGBTQ+ folks, and countless others. Republicans talk about cancel culture as they champion violent crackdowns on students who dare to speak out about the humanity of Palestinians. Republicans talk about unethical judicial overreach despite the comical corruption of their extremist justices. So while Republicans focus on hypocrisy and distraction, my democratic colleagues and I will continue asking the real questions, advancing real solutions, and advocating for our communities. So thank you again for being here, Attorney General Garland, and I yield back.

The gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Indiana is recognized.

I yield one minute to the gentlemen from Ohio.

I appreciate the gentle lady yielding. A news story last week in Politico. First paragraph: “The Justice Department has agreed to settle long-running litigation stemming from a decision in 2017 to release to the media text messages between two former FBI employees involved in the probe of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.” Are Peter Strzok and Lisa Page going to get a windfall of American tax dollars soon here, Mr. Attorney General?

I’m sorry, I either didn’t hear or didn’t understand the question.

Are Peter Strzok and Lisa Page going to get a windfall of American tax dollars?

I’m sorry?

Are you in the settlement negotiations with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?

Oh, I don’t know what’s public in that respect or not.

I’m reading from the story someone gave it to them. I assume it was you guys. “The Justice Department has agreed to a long-running litigation stemming from a decision in 2017.”

I don’t know whether discussions are public or not. In every case, when people bring cases against the United States, we attempt to settle the case.

Simple question: are Lisa Page and Peter Strzok going to get money from the American taxpayer?

Well, when that determination is made about whether settlement is made in that case, it will be announced.

I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, do you agree that yours and my job is to protect constitutional rights of Americans?

Yes, that’s an easy one to agree with.

Okay. At least we agree on something. So let’s just go a little bit through their rights, and I want to explain to you how a lot of Americans in my district, in my observation or interested observation, do not trust and believe so. And this is an interesting observation. I’ve noticed that a lot of people that come with cases and they say the FBI showed up to my house, ATF showed up to my house, never showed up before law-abiding citizens. When I asked them, Were you in DC on January 6th? Strangely enough, a lot of these people usually say yes. And that is really, it looks very suspicious to me. But let’s just talk about our amendments. Do you believe under the Second Amendment there should be, do you agree no restriction on the quantity of guns that any law-abiding citizen should own? I’m not talking about types. Like five guns, 500, or 5,000. Do you believe there should be no limitations on quantity of guns?

No limitations on what?

On the quantity, on number. Number. 500 or 5,000 guns that I can own.

On the number of guns that people can purchase?

Yeah.

I don’t-

Yeah, for my collections.

I don’t think there’s any statutory-

Yeah. So there is no limitation. So you agree with that, right?

I don’t think there is any-

If I have as many guns as I want in my personal collection, do you think, you have this new rule that you celebrated with your ATF director, which I think is very dangerous, do you think there should be limitations on percentage of my collections that I should be able to sell or timeframe I can hold the gun? I could buy 10 guns and try to shoot them in the range. They’re not good, and I went and sold them. Should be there any limitations on the timeframe or percentage of how much of my collections I can replace?

There’s an exception in the statute for sales from personal collections.

So I can do as many. I can sell 500 guns, so it shouldn’t be a problem, right? If it happens that I just want to replace.

All I can say is there’s an exception in the statute and the regulations with respect to sales from personal collections. I don’t know the answer to the question about percentages.

Well, it would be good because American people would like to know the answer because this creates a lot of dangerous and will fall off the ladder because this is called destroy people’s life. And we already had the situation that happened in Arkansas. But then another, on the First Amendment, do you think people had the right to be here in January 6th of ’21? If they didn’t want to do anything bad, they just be here in Washington, DC, do you think it’s a constitutional right for people to be here?

Yes. People have a constitutional right to be in Washington DC.

That’s right. So how many Americans did you charge with section 1512(c)(2) obstruction of justice and convicted?

I don’t know the answer, but it’s listed on the webpage.

Yeah, so it’s a several hundred. A lot of people. Why this section was legislated? Do you know the section 1512(c)(2), what is the reason that the section was legislated?

It has to do with obstruction of a-

No, it didn’t has to do. You should know legal history, right? When it was legislated and why.

Okay, you’re asking me a question the Supreme Court’s about to rule on.

Okay, so the history, the section was legislated for Sarbanes-Oxley. It was an Enron situation to deal with the situation that happened on the financial crimes, right? And actually, the title is tampering with a witness, victim, and informant. Is that correct? You agree with that?

We can have a long discussion on the text.

Not a discussion. It just is a fact, a historic fact. It was broad and ambiguous, but that was what was legislated.

The text to the statute does not make the limitation. You’re saying all of this has been argued in the Supreme Court. We respect the decision-

Okay, is argued. And if your interpretation is [inaudible 04:07:56] under the Supreme Court and Supreme Court is going to reverse this decision, do you have a plan? What are you going to do with all of these people that potentially wrongfully was charged? Do you have a plan?

Our plan is that we will follow the law that the Supreme Court tells us. We don’t know yet what the Supreme Court will say. I can assure you we will follow what the Supreme Court says.

Well, but your ambiguous interpretation destroys people’s life. I yield back.

The gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from… Oh, that’s right. I apologize. The Attorney General has asked for a brief break. We’ll take a brief break. If we can make it five minutes, Mr. Attorney General, it’d be great.

Okay, great. Thank you.

The committee will stay in recess for five minutes.

(04:08:36)
(silence).

(04:08:36)
We got to get started [inaudible 04:16:58] back in here. The committee will come to order. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, General. I wanted to take a moment and raise some voices that really haven’t been heard at this hearing today. I had a chance to go visit a church in my neighborhood on Sunday. It was men’s day, and of course, the topic before and after service for some of them was Mr. Trump’s conviction. And they approached me because they know I’m an attorney, and they were trying to sort through the meaning of the conviction. And so one of them asked me, “So Donald Trump was convicted on criminal charges?” I said Yes. “And he still gets to run for president?” And I said yes. “If he wins, he can take office.”

(04:17:47)
I said, It looks like it. And he paused a second. He said, “Wow, I got convicted for some misdemeanors, and I couldn’t even get any kind of job. Not fast food, not a convenience store, not landscaping, but he can still be president.” And I said, Yes, sir. Another man approached me as well. After overhearing part of the conversation, he said, “I got arrested. I didn’t even get convicted, but I got fired immediately.” And then a third gentleman raised this point, he said, “When I got out, I couldn’t vote or hold office as long as I was on probation, but Trump can go straight to the White House.” And I said, Yes, sir, I think that may be right. And I told him too, and I said, Don’t forget, he got a jury finding of sexual assault against him as well. What kind of job could you get if you had something like that on your record? And they all paused, and I think they were deeply disturbed by the disparity that they saw between their lives and the life that Mr. Trump is leading. And my wife and I got in the car, and we started driving home and caught on the radio, and they do the replay of the meet the press and those shows on Bloomberg. And I heard Mr. Trump giving a quote about two tiers of justice and how unequally he’s been treated. And it sort of struck me that there may be two tiers of justice, but if there are, he certainly is in the much higher tier than the gentlemen I was talking with. And in fact, he’s in the absolute highest possible part of the high tier.

(04:19:29)
And as Ms. Bush mentioned a few moments ago, Donald Trump had millions of dollars to spend on his defense. He hired lawyers from across the country to be his trial lawyers to handle his appeals and the like. The men that I was talking to probably had public defenders who were overworked and underpaid and had case files of 200 plus clients. And I’m sure they didn’t have anybody like the Speaker of the House showing up at their trial, bringing 20 other plus House members, Republican House members, to stand outside and make public attacks on the judge and the prosecutors in an obvious and unfortunate attempt to influence the jury. The men that I talked to, some had gone to jail. But they knew that no matter what happens in this case or the cases that are coming, the chances of Donald Trump going to jail are slim and none. So I really struggle when I hear the conversations that’s being made about the two tiers of justice stuff because I know, just from my experience of having been in these cases, that it’s nothing like that.

(04:20:46)
And I also know that even if he doesn’t go to jail and he’s put on probation, the things that these men had to go through on probation or parole is different than what he’s going to face. I mean, they’re not going to be delaying cabinet meetings so he can have his mandatory appointment with his probation officer. They’re not going to be delaying national security meetings so he can do his urinalysis test, and he’s not going to have to get permission from a judge before he flies Air Force One out of the jurisdiction. There’s definitely two tiers of justice. But to the extent that my colleagues on the other side and Mr. Trump are arguing that somehow he’s suffering more, he’s some kind of martyr in this context. I think it’s ridiculous. To me, this is just another page out of his sore loser playbook. After he lost the 2020 election, he kept saying there’s no way. He’s been denying that he lost for four years now. He lost to 60 cases plus in courts across the country that rejected his arguments about election fraud.

(04:21:51)
He lost a sexual assault trial. He lost a corporate fraud trial. Now he’s lost a criminal trial here in New York as well. And I think it’s time that he be held accountable. Now, my colleagues over there, they’re going to keep arguing to defend him, and that’s their right. But I think for most people, and some of the polling data I saw last night suggests otherwise, I think the time has come for the public to hold him accountable, and hopefully, Republican colleagues on the other side who attack the juries and the like, attack the criminal justice system as a whole, attack the rule of law will come back to their senses and stand with you and the job that you and the Department of Justice have been doing. And with that, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The gentlemen from North Dakota is recognized for [inaudible 04:22:40] consent request.

Mr. Chairman, I have an article dated May 6th, 2024 called [inaudible 04:22:45] Crime Facts, without objection.

Without objection.

And a Vanderbilt Law Review article titled Corruption of a Term: The Problematic Nature of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), the New Federal Obstruction of Justice Provision.

Thank you. Without objection. Thank you, gentleman. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, I want to go back to the Mr. Colangelo questions that I didn’t quite get answers with. Is it true that Mr. Matthew Colangelo, who was at one point the third-highest ranking official at the DOJ, joined Bragg’s DA office in New York before the Trump prosecution? Do I have that right?

I don’t know anything other than it’s on the public record. He was the principal deputy to the Associate Attorney General, and he joined the case in New York. I don’t know the related timeline to the prosecution.

Has anyone from the department, your department, been in touch with Mr. Colangelo or ever discussed any of the case about President Trump since he left?

Look, we have 115,000 people in the department. I can speak for myself. I have not had any communications with Mr. Colangelo.

So you don’t know if anyone in the department has?

As I said, there’s 115,000 and I don’t know what they’ve talked about.

So if I asked for further information and sent you a letter, could I get some of these questions answered? I’ve asked for correspondence. I sent a letter back in April and haven’t received a response. You said in your testimony that you’ve gone to extraordinary lengths to get Congress information they request.

Yeah, look, I’m in favor of transparency because I believe it will show that these allegations about some kind of control or collusion between the department and the independent Manhattan office are not true.

So then would you-

I’ll take back your letter and we’ll try to get a response to you.

To follow up with what Mr. Gate said earlier this morning. Will you commit to releasing any communications between your department and the local DA offices in New York or Atlanta with respect to these Trump trials?

Look, I would like transparency on this matter. In the normal course, if you submit your letter our office of legislative affairs will get a response to you.

Because I think one of the problems here is we hear you criticize some of us for being critical and accusing you all of a two-tier justice session. We use the system, we use the term weaponization of government, but then when we ask you all for information, you tell us we can’t have it or you’ve decided that we shouldn’t have it. So it’s difficult when you criticize us, but we don’t get the information we’re asking for.

I’m not criticizing you. And in fact, we produced 92,000 pages of documents in response to hundreds of requests.

You’ve called some of the things we’ve said conspiracy theories. I won’t read back your testimony to you, but I’ve printed it since your office posted it online this morning. And I would just ask you to work with us because it’s difficult for us to tamper down some of these claims that you say we’re making when we don’t get the information we request from you all. I’ll yield the balance-

That’s fair. I’d be happy to work with you to tamper this down.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Hey, we’ll tamper away if we can get the information we’re asking. I’ll yield back to-

I assume that’s a verb, but I’m with it.

That’s right. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. I’ll yield to you.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I’m going to go back to where I was, Mr. Attorney General, a few minutes ago. I’m going to read from this Politico news story from one week ago today. I just want to read two sentences, the first two sentences in the article. “The Justice Department has agreed to settle a long-running litigation stemming from a decision in 2017 to release to the media text messages between two former FBI employees involved in the probe of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.” Next sentence: “In a notice filed with two federal judges in Washington on Tuesday, the Justice Department said it had reached settlements of legal claims that fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page brought in 2019 alleging that the disclosure violated their privacy.” So again, I just want to be clear that the department is getting ready to pay Peter Strzok and Lisa Page some money. Is that accurate?

I wasn’t aware that we’d announced it. All I can say is we reached settlements based on our litigators’ assessment of whether we can win the case and how much it will cost if we lose the case. That’s the way we decide on reaching settlements.

Just to be clear, the guy who texted Peter Strzok, who was involved in the spying on President Trump’s campaign, who was then involved, worked on the Mueller investigative team and sent this text message to Lisa Page, just went to a Southern Virginia Walmart. ” I could SMELL,” in all capitals. “I could SMELL the Trump support.” That guy’s going to get tax dollars from the American people?

He brought a case under the Privacy Act. The question is, did the Justice Department violate the Privacy Act by disclosing-

Lisa Page said this in a text message to Peter Strzok, “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right?” Peter Strzok’s response. “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” And these two individuals are going to get a windfall of money from the American taxpayers because you decided that’s the right thing to do.

The Privacy Act doesn’t distinguish between people we like and people we don’t like, information we like and information we don’t like. If somebody in the government discloses personal information protected by the Privacy Act, that’s the way the law is.

So you can go after a president and you get rewarded for doing so according to the Justice Department.

Its not a question of reward, it’s a question of the government paying for violating the law.

They’re going to get a lot of money and I know that this is what they said. We know what they were up to. The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Vermont.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Attorney General Garland, for being here today. I know it’s been a very long day, and I just want to start by saying, may the record show that although I’m a Vermonter, I do not partake in cannabis products. But after today’s hearing, I could understand why someone might want to actually pop a gummy. It is maddening to witness so many of my colleagues seeming to care more about propping up and protecting a convicted felon than protecting the rule of law. And last week was a district week. So I was back in my home district and I got asked the following questions a lot. And this was from people from across the political spectrum, Democrats, Republicans, independents. They asked me the same questions, “Why do they protect him?” And the him in question is, of course, the former president. And they asked me, “Are they true believers? Are they apologists? Are they enablers? Are they just about what’s going to happen to them if they don’t defend the former president?”

(04:29:56)
I don’t know. But I do know history is going to reveal the answer. The truth will out. The truth will out. Now I’d like to leave the land of make believe and talk about something that really matters to my people back home, which is the fact that we have a crushing housing crisis in Vermont right now. And the last time you sat before this committee, less than a year ago, I applauded your remarks on DOJ’s increased enforcement against corporate crime and, in particular, DOJ’s actions to take on corporate consolidation, price-fixing collusion. And since coming to Congress, I’ve tried to focus a great deal on finding solutions to the nation’s housing crisis and, in particular, what’s happening in Vermont. In my home state, we saw a 12% jump in home prices over the last year. That’s twice the national average and the highest yearly increase across all states.

(04:31:07)
So part of the problem is lack of supply, but that’s not entirely what’s causing skyrocketing home prices. It’s not just a lack of supply. There’s corporate greed at work here too. So, so-called property management software companies like RealPage and Yardi are making the housing crisis worse by facilitating unwarranted rent hikes by landlords. And I will say, you don’t have to take my word for it, you can go right on the homepage of RealPage, which boasts that they increase rents for client landlords between five and 12% in every market in which they are coordinating prices. So in fact, one of the software developers told investigative journalists that leasing agents “had too much empathy compared to computer-generated pricing.” So this is

… is how price fixing cartels operate, so I know that DOJ is concerned about price fixing. You’re concerned about this issue, and I know you can’t speak on the particulars, but can you please talk in the abstract about the importance of price competition in markets and the role of antitrust law in maintaining competitions?

Yes. So the theory is that if suppliers do not collude with each other, if they offer the price that each wants and those customers then meet them in an equal marketplace that will reach an efficient price that will be in the best interest of resource allocation and particularly with respect to consumer prices.

Do you… I apologize.

When they collude, when the suppliers collude, they create a monopoly price, which is not good either for the economy in general, but is certainly above the market price. The kinds of things you were talking about in general, price collusion, which is exacerbated by data collection and logarithms that set suggested prices, that can lead to a price above the competitive price which costs consumers more.

I thank you so much. I see that I’m almost out of time. Just want to end by saying what many of my colleagues have said before me. Thank you for coming today. Thank you for be willing to answer our questions, and I very much appreciate the expertise that you bring to your job. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Gentle lady yields back. Gentle lady from Wyoming’s recognized.

Mr. Attorney General, are you above reproach?

I’m not above criticism. I’m not sure what you mean by reproach, but of course, you’re totally free to criticize me and I expect you will.

Yeah, as American citizens we can criticize you. We criticize all of our government employees-

Absolutely.

… because you’ve seemed to whine quite a bit today about being attacked or people challenging the decisions that you’ve made. I actually think that Daniel Greenfield, a contributor to Front Page Magazine may have said it best when he said that a justice system can survive those who challenge the prosecutors but it can’t survive those who prosecute the challengers, which is the situation we’re in with the Biden Administration and you at the helm of the Attorney General’s office. Attorney General Garland, in March, Chairman Jordan and I sent you an oversight letter requesting documents and information following the release of an undercover video indicating that the DOJ was working with the IRS to use artificial intelligence to surveil bank accounts of Americans in a clearly unconstitutional manner.

(04:34:56)
The undercover video featured an IRS official privately admitting that the IRS had been using AI to spy on Americans’ bank accounts en masse in real time. The IRS official further stated that the Department of Justice and Inspector General controlled this AI-powered warrantless surveillance system, not the IRS. Attorney General, would you agree with me that if the federal government were operating this form of financial surveillance program, there would be serious Fourth Amendment as well as other statutory and civil rights implications considering that there is no individual probable cause and no search warrants are being obtained?

I would be stunned if the Justice Department has the kind of AI abilities that you’re talking about. We’re doing everything-

Would you agree with with me-

… we can to learn about this.

Would you agree with me that if they were engaging in that kind of surveillance it would have serious Fourth Amendment implications?

I can’t understand the kind of surveillance that you’re talking about. Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. If that’s what we’re doing, then of course, that would violate the Fourth Amendment. I-

Okay, so I would request that you go back and read the letter that Jim Jordan and I sent to you that might clear up your confusion just a bit.

I’ll be happy to do that.

Now while the committee has been following up with the department about this matter for months now, the department only replied with a formal response to the committee late last week. In the department’s response letter, a DOJ spokesman, the Assistant Attorney General, Carlos Iriarte stated that the department is, quote, “not aware of the department using any AI program that reflects the description in our March 20th letter,” end quote. But saying that the chief AI offer is, quote, “not aware of the department coordinating with the IRS to use AI to unconstitutionally spy on Americans’ financial records,” is very different from saying unequivocally that the department is not doing so. So why won’t the department just give us a clear answer as to whether it is actually using AI to spy on American citizens’ financial records?

I’ll be happy to take your letter back and apparently you already have received a letter. I’ll take it back, and we’ll see whether we can get you a clearer letter for you.

I would appreciate that. I want to turn to another serious issue, the infiltration of our tribal communities by the Mexican cartels because of Joe Biden and Mayorkas’ open border. As chair of the subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, I have heard from tribes across the nation about this issue. In your written testimony, you actually mentioned how the department is working with tribal partners to disrupt cartel supply chains and that the department is zeroing in on the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels. However, in April the president of the Fort Belknap Indian community testified to the department’s failures stating, quote, “We don’t have help from the FBI, the border patrol, the DEA that has jurisdiction on federal lands, which are reservations.”

(04:37:54)
Attorney General Garland, his testimony comes from a tribe where the Sinaloa Cartel operates with near impunity in its region. Drugs have devastated the community. Reservations have become part of the cartel supply chain and the Mexican cartels are intimidating Americans testifying before Congress, yet the FBI and DOJ are largely absent. The tribe’s experience runs in direct contrast to your testimony. Have you been in contact with any of our tribes about the impact that mass illegal immigration, human trafficking and drug smuggling are having on their members?

Not only have I been in contact with the tribes, I’ve been on the reservation in Montana and Alaska. The answer to your question is Congress is not giving us money for FBI agents to go into the reservations. The princi-

Oh, so this is Congress’ fault that you won’t do your job.

Is Congress’ fault-

This is Congress’ fault that you won’t protect-

I will do my-

…. that you won’t protect our reservations from the consequences of the Biden and Mayorkas open border policies. That’s Congress’ fault, not theirs?

If you give us money for more FBI agents for the reservations-

Oh, you need more money for FBI agents?

… they will go to the reservations.

How about if they just enforce the border? How about if you ask them to enforce the border?

The time the gentle lady has expired. The gentle lady yields back. Does Mr. Ivey have-

We’re out on this side, but I would offer-

Unanimous consent?

… unanimous consent for two letters that may address Ms. Hageman’s line of questioning. One is dated April 22, 2024 from the Department of Treasury and it’s addressed to you, Mr. Chairman. It’s from Corey Tellez who is the-

Objection.

… acting secretary and the other is, she may have referenced, I’m not sure, from the Department of Justice to you, Mr. Chairman. It’s from Mr. Iriarte as stated May 31, 2024.

Objection.

I would ask for unanimous consent for an article cartels infiltrating Native reservations with fentanyl according to a tribal leader.

Thank you. Without objection. Gentle lady yields back. Gentle lady from Florida is recognized.

Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. This committee is well aware of your long tenure as an appellate judge on the D.C. circuit and your time as an AUSA before that. I am sure that you, like me, care deeply about the public confidence in our court system and specifically our judiciary. You said something a few moments ago that I think is a very important principle. You said that judges put aside their personal views and their political views when they preside. I agree that that is the expectation, not that judges don’t have personal or political views, but that judges set those beliefs aside when they consider and rule upon cases and that they do so in a way that is impartial and consistent with the law.

(04:40:50)
So I’d like to discuss the recent increase in aspersions being cast at some of our Supreme Court Justices, some of which we’ve heard repeated during this hearing, public calls for recusal of justices based on conjecture and conspiracy about their political beliefs. In fact, not even the supposed political beliefs of the justices themselves, but even more attenuated to the supposed political and personal beliefs of their wives. In your view, Mr. Attorney General, is it appropriate to attack the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court Justices in this way?

So I’m going to have to say again what I said before, which is, we have cases before the Supreme Court, so I’m not going to be able to comment on this. You haven’t heard any aspersions cast by me, and you won’t hear any. But all of our filings will be done in court, and I’ll only speak about these matters in court.

So then let’s discuss this not as it relates to the specific justices who have had their integrity attacked today, but more generally in the case of judges who are presiding. Now in general, in your experience on the bench, did judges in the D.C. circuit recuse themselves if they believed they had a conflict of interest?

Yes.

In your experience, did they typically adhere to a very high standard of personal integrity?

Yes.

Do you have any reason to believe or any personal belief that the justices of the Supreme Court currently have any issues that would necessitate their recusal?

Well, so you’ve now skipped over to the question which I said I wouldn’t be able to answer. I can’t comment about the Supreme Court. We have cases in the Supreme Court right now and all the time.

So let’s talk about the matter of judicial security. So not long ago we had Director Wray of the FBI appear before this committee, and I questioned him about the lack of FBI resources and focus being allocated to threats against the safety of judges and specifically Supreme Court Justices in light of some of the alarming news in recent times. One of the things that he pointed out in fairness was that the US marshals take a large role when it comes to the security of judges, but in your role you have the unique opportunity to actually oversee both branches there. So I’d like to know more about what the department is doing related to threats against judges.

Okay, fair enough. So this is one I can talk about. With respect to the justices themselves, for the first time in history, an attorney general, namely myself, ordered that every justice get 24/7 protection for himself or herself and their families at their residence and on their travel. So I’ve assigned over 70 U.S. Marshals who are doing this daily, but because of rotations, it’s involved almost 1700 marshals across the country to provide immediate protection. Now both the marshals and the FBI investigate threats against the justices.

(04:44:01)
This is in our highest priority, banned protection against threats against justices and judges. I’ll be happy to provide you with the press releases of our charges. There have been threats against several of the justices and we have brought cases against those who have threatened them. We have a lot of judges in the country and we don’t have enough marshals. So I’m sorry to say the same thing I said before, which is, we need more money for the marshals for protection because not only do they protect the justices, they have to protect the judges in courthouses in 94 districts in the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time.

Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to you, sir.

Oh, thought that was coming at the end. Thank you. I think gentleman for yielding. Mr. Attorney General, have you looked into who leaked the Dobbs draft opinion at the Supreme Court?

I’m sorry?

Sorry, has the Justice Department looked into who was responsible for leaking the Dobbs draft opinion at the Supreme Court?

No, I believe the Supreme Court did its own internal investigation. They didn’t ask us to look into that.

Yeah, but we don’t know who did. I’m just asking is that something that the Justice Department will look into?

I think if the Justices of the Supreme Court refer the matter for investigation by the Justice Department-

Was anyone in the Justice Department involved in the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion?

You asked whether the Justice Department was involved?

Was anyone at the Justice Department involved in that leak?

I can’t imagine how that could happen. That’s an internal document within the Supreme Court, the Justice Department-

I’m just asking. I’m just asking.

I would be stunned.

Okay. I yield back to the gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gaetz talked about Mr. Colangelo earlier. Mr. Colangelo was Acting Associate Attorney General for the Justice Department under President Biden prior to your arrival. Is that my understanding?

That’s right. That’s right.

Is that considered to be the third-highest ranking official within the DOJ?

Yes.

Okay. What did he do prior to his service with the Department of Justice?

I didn’t know Mr. Colangelo before. My understanding was he had once been in the Civil Rights division. I don’t know his resume.

Would it surprise you to know that he was the deputy director for the Obama Biden Administration’s National Economic Council?

Wouldn’t surprise me or not surprise me.

Were you aware also that he worked for the New York Attorney General Leticia James for a period of time?

I’ve read that in the paper.

Okay. Would it surprise you to know that he was paid thousands of dollars, the DNC for political consulting in 2018?

So that I have idea about.

I think the issue that we’re having is that it looks like that this particular gentleman, his whole mission seems to be prosecuting a president. He started off with Leticia James. He has a stint with the Department of Justice. Then Mr. Gaetz talked about this earlier. Normally, if you’re going for something, you start out at a DA level and then you might move to the Department of Justice like it’s an elevation. He has gone backwards. Why is that you think?

Let me just set forth the whole thing here if I can. Okay? I know Mr. Colangelo because of his service in the department. He’s a highly ethical person and an excellent lawyer. The Associate’s office supervises the Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, the Antitrust Division. That office does not supervise any of the criminal components that supervise the criminal investigations of Mr. Trump.

Don’t you think, though, Mr. Attorney General, that his career choices, the path that he has chosen at least at a very least poses the perception of an ethical issue for the Department of Justice?

No, I don’t see how it proposes any issue for the Department of Justice. He’s not an employee of the Justice Department. The Justice Department did not send him to New York. Those decisions in New York are made by the DA of New York.

Well, fair to say, but we have Manhattan DA headline, “Manhattan DA hires ex-senior DOJ official as office investigates Trump.” Another one from The New York Times, “Manhattan DA hires ex-justice official to help lead Trump inquiry.” Now you might not have had anything to do with that, but the perception is, and the American people perceive that the Department of Justice is intimately engaged with this. I think in my last minute here, here’s the issue that people say and polling shows this consistently that the American people believe that the prosecution of President Trump is more about politics than it is about any violation of the law. In the DOJs own word’s, its mission consists of independence and impartiality, honesty and integrity. At your Senate confirmation hearing in 2021, you said, “The department will be under my protection for the purpose of preventing any kind of partisan or other improper motive in making any kind of investigation or prosecution.” But since that time,

(04:49:22)
The DOJ has obstructed this committee’s impeachment inquiry. It’s allowed the statute of limitations to run, to expire on Hunter Biden’s 2014 tax records and the crimes therein, slow walk the prosecution of Hunter Biden as testified to by whistleblowers. You wouldn’t allow investigators to follow department protocols. You’ve limited witness testimony here in this committee as we try to provide oversight. You’ve limited the scope in which they can actually say and the number of witnesses and instructed two of the employees to disregard this committee’s own subpoena. You refused to comply with the subpoena regarding the audio tapes, hence the contempt, the regrettable and unfortunate contempt that we have to bring. You appointed Jack Smith to prosecute Trump despite his very interesting career of losing cases and targeting political opponents. You sanctioned a raid on Mar-a-Lago. The concern that we have is that you’re either asleep at the wheel or you’re intentionally allowing the department and the agents they’re in to engage in political prosecution of their opponents. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. To close our day-

Thank you, Mr.-

… the governor of this great state of North Dakota-

Thank you-

… Mr. Armstrong.

… Mr. Chairman. I feel like I sometimes have a unique space, particularly on this side of the aisle, in that I’ve been trying to be a good-natured pain in the Department of Justice’s rear end my entire adult life. Since I’ve been here, I’ve worked on things about law enforcement’s use of third party data brokers, geofence warrants, civil asset forfeiture reform, acquitted conduct and exculpatory evidence, Safer Supervision, BOP oversight. I’ve fought for extra money for public defenders. When Mr. Ivey was talking about those guys he was talking to in church, I was the guy at council table with him.

Not here, maybe-

Oh, I’m sorry. I was just saying I spent a significant portion of the early part of my career as a public defender and dealing with that, so I take this stuff seriously. Earlier today you said it is our view that audio recordings are essential and people are less likely to participate if they know those are going to be turned over. It will have a chilling effect on the cooperation of future witnesses. It’s happening right now and [inaudible 04:51:46] DOJ officials have told you that, correct?

Yes.

But the second part of that is when you want to, and the reason I know this is, and I hate the fact that oftentimes in order to get answers to some of these questions, we have to go to these highly political and profile case. But we introduced the Fair Act, and we had all but one member of this committee vote for it and that is requiring Department of Justice to record DOJ, ATF, FBI, DEA and the Marshall Service to record custodial interrogations and non-custodial interrogations. We know that the DOJ interviewed Paul Manafort four times and never interviewed him. By the way, it’s not only the DOJ. When we sat in a deposition, Hunter Biden’s lawyers requested that it wasn’t audio recorded or video recorded. Now I have my suspicion why, and I think it’s because things read differently than they sound.

(04:52:41)
But in 2004, the FBI issued a report in favor of recording interviews because of the following benefits: reduce court time for officers to appear in suppression hearings, improve court efficiency with fewer pretrial motions to suppress statements and confessions, officer efficiency due to no longer needing to review and piece together notes from interviews, reduction in lawsuits stemming from frivolous claims of misconduct. In 2014, and this is all before you were the Attorney General, but you’re in the big chair and we’re less, so we get that President Obama created a presumption that interviews of federally-deplaned person should be electronically recorded.

(04:53:18)
The problem was, and the reason we introduced this bill is the DOJ’s determination of in custody was after a arraignment before trial in a federal building. So my question to you, which we can start with is why if they’re so essential for you to record them that it will chill extra or chill future cooperation, the recording in and of itself has no benefit. It has benefit to your guys, but when you don’t have to turn it over, you are arguing that recordings are essential. But you and I both know in a criminal case that if you have the recording, I’m going to eventually get it as the defense attorney. So I’m trying to figure out what your guys’ policy is on recording of interviews and recording of witnesses, because if it was what it really says it was, we wouldn’t have had to introduce the Fair Act.

Well, like you say, there are very few things that are before my time, but that one does seem to have been before my time. I don’t know the answer to the policy about recording. Personally, I think recording interviews is a very good thing to do for all the reasons that you say. But of course, as a former defense attorney, you know that the defendant has to agree to the recording of the interview.

We’ve been a part of it in this committee too, and I get the rules of evidence in a criminal case are different than an adversarial between the Department of Justice and Congress. But our frustration and my personal frustration is whenever you’re in an adversarial system, the other team doesn’t get to determine what is the best evidence. I’m not talking about the best evidence rule. We’ve had that conversation forever, but it’s fine. But when we know it exists and we ask for it, and then you say… and some of this is timing too. With all due respect to everybody, we get the transcript the day before the first hearing. We get executive privilege put into place literally the morning of the contempt hearing. We’re looking at it and saying, “Listen, we know it exists, we want it.” you’re saying that there’s some political reason for us not getting it.

(04:55:20)
But I will argue, and I will argue at the rooftops, that the real political reason is to not give it to us because anybody in any determination effect anywhere in the country knows that if you have audio or video that is better than a transcript. If you have a transcript, that’s better than notes. That’s what the committee is trying to get here. That’s what the committee is being stonewalled from when we know it exists, and that’s why we’re so frustrated. I personally believe that there’s a very specific reason that executive privilege was instituted the morning of the hearing because the difference between this and a criminal case is we actually have a potential time clock, and that’s the November election. With that, I yield back.

Could I respond? You have time for a response?

Yep. Yep.

Sorry.

[inaudible 04:56:08]

I know, but I like talking to you and this seems like a good conversation, if you don’t mind. So two things. One, with respect to the timing, since the Clinton Administration 30 years or so ago, it’s been standard that assertions of executive privilege occur right before the vote in order to provide the constitutional accommodation process as much time to run as possible. So that’s the answer to that thing. The answer to the other is the Supreme Court has said that in order to protect the separation of powers under the Constitution, the Congress has to have a legitimate legislative purpose for the things that it’s requesting and what I’m still not seeing.

(04:56:49)
I understand why you’d rather see the audio, hear the audio and listen than read the transcript, but I still do not understand a legislative purpose. I can’t see how listening to the audio will make any difference with respect to any legislation you have in mind. If you want to have a statute that requires special councils to turn over audio all the time to the Congress, you can pass that without listening to this audio. There’s no element of the impeachment resolution that will change with respect to information on the audio. The words are the same on the transcript as the audio. That’s my explanation.

I am actually excited to see potentially how that gets turned out in the more respectful way. By the way, actually, in this current political environment, I’m not sure if it would help or it would hurt, but the Fair Act’s a really good piece of legislation and your support would be helpful. With that, I yield back.

I’ll look into whether we’re following the Fair Act or not. That’s a very good point.

Your career DOJ officials are following you. I promise you.

Gentlemen yields back. That concludes today’s hearing. I want to thank the Attorney General for being here and for the several hours that he testified. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.