Merrick Garland Testifies for House Judiciary Committee

Department of Justice. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to lead us all in the pledge. Would you please stand?

If you’ll please face whichever flag is most appropriate for your direction. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. To the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [inaudible 00:00:34]

Chair now recognized himself for an opening statement. The fix is in, even with a face-saving indictment last week of Hunter Biden, everyone knows the fix is in. Four and a half years, the Department of Justice has been investigating Mr. Biden, an investigation run by David Weiss. An investigation that limited the number of witnesses agents could interview. An investigation that prohibited agents from referring to the president as the “big guy” in any of the interviews they did get to do. An investigation that curtailed attempts to interview Mr. Biden by giving the transit team secret a heads-up.

(01:15)
An investigation that notified Mr. Biden’s defense counsel about a pending search warrant. An investigation run by Mr. Weiss, where they told the Congress three different stories in 33 days. They told this committee on June 7th, David Weiss said, “I have ultimate authority to determine when, where and whether to bring charges.” 23 days later, June 30th, he told this committee, “Actually, I can only bring charges in my US attorney’s district, the District of Delaware.” And then to further confuse matters, on July 10th, he told Senator Graham, “I have not sought special counsel status. Rather, I’ve had discussions with the Department of Justice.”

(01:58)
An investigation run by Mr. Weiss that negotiated a plea deal that the Federal District Court declined to accept. A plea deal so ridiculous, the judge asked this question, “Is there any precedence for agreeing not to prosecute crimes that have nothing to do with the charges being diverted?” The response from the DOJ lawyer, “I’m not aware of any Your Honor.” A plea deal so ridiculous that the judge also asked, “Have you ever seen a diversion agreement where the agreement not to prosecute was so broad that it encompasses crimes in a different case?” The response from the DOJ lawyer, “No, your Honor, we haven’t.”

(02:38)
An investigation run by Mr. Weiss that not only had a sweetheart deal rejected, but according to the New York Times, there was an even sweeter deal, an earlier deal. A deal in which Mr. Biden would not have to plead guilty to anything. Four and a half years and all that, and now we get a special counsel. Now we get a special counsel and who does the attorney general pick? David Weiss, the guy who let all that happen. He could have selected anyone. He could have picked anyone inside government, outside government.

(03:09)
He could have picked former attorney generals, former special counsels, but he picks the one guy he knows will protect Joe Biden. He picks David Weiss. And here’s what the AG said in his August 11th announcement of David Weiss as a special counsel, “I am confident that Mr. Weiss will carry out his responsibility in an even-handed and urgent manner.” Urgent manner? Every witness we’ve talked to. The two FBI whistleblowers that came forward, Mr. Shapley, Mr. Ziegler. The two FBI agents on the case, Mr. [inaudible 00:03:48], Ms. Holly. They’ve all said this thing was anything but urgent.

(03:51)
The FBI said they were frustrated at the pace. Ms. Holly said she was frustrated at the pace and of course the IRS agents, they said the investigation was slow walked. And even-handed, they limited the number of witnesses that could be interviewed. They tipped off the defense counsel about a subpoena. The judge says the plea deal was a joke and all that’s just half the story. There’s one investigation protecting President Biden. There’s another one attacking President Trump. Justice Department’s got both sides of the equation covered.

(04:24)
Look at the classified documents’ case. Spring and early summer of last year, the Department of Justice asked President Trump to turn over boxes of documents. He does just that. In the process, President Trump finds 38 additional documents. He tells the Department of Justice, the very next day the FBI comes to his home and he turns them over. Then the Department of Justice asked the president to put any boxes he brought from the White House to his home in his storage room and secure it by locking it. He does that as well. Everything they ask him to do, he did. And then what does the Justice Department do?

(05:01)
August 8th, last year they raided President Trump’s home. And according to the FBI agent Steven D’Antuono, the assistant director in charge of the Washington Field Office, the search was a complete departure from standard protocol. When we interviewed Mr. D’Antuono, he said first, the Miami Field office didn’t do the search. Instead, they sent folks from DC. He said there was no US attorney assigned to the case. Instead, it was run by DC, in particular Jay Bratt, who’s now on the special counsel team. He said the FBI didn’t get President Trump’s counsel’s approval before they did the search.

(05:39)
And then Mr. D’Antuono told us he had recommended that when the FBI got to President Trump’s home, they contact his counsel, wait for him to get there and do the search together. Of course, the DOJ said no. And then who does the attorney general name a special counsel in that case? Jack Smith. The guy who a few years ago was looking for ways to prosecute Americans targeted by Lois Lerner in the IRS, looking to prosecute the very victims of the weaponized government, the weaponized IRS. Jack Smith, the guy who prosecuted Governor McDonald, only to have the Supreme Court overturn that prosecution in a unanimous decision.

(06:22)
That’s the guy that the Attorney General of the United States selects as special counsel. And you wonder why four out of five Americans believe there are now two standards of justice in our great country. Mr. Garland, I anticipate a number of questions on these two investigations. Later in the hearing, I expect from Republicans you will also get questions about the many other concerns the American people have with the department. The school board’s memorandum, treating Catholics, the memo that said pro-life Catholics are extremists.

(06:57)
The Fifth Circuit decision, great decision on the Department of Justice and other agencies censoring American speech. And of course the FISA law that’s up for reauthorization this year and how that process has been abused and infringed on the privacy rights of the American people. Americans believe that today in our country there is unequal application of the law. They believe that because there is. Republicans are committed to making that change. With that, I would yield to the gentleman from New York, the ranking member for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me make two comments. One, just about every assertion you made in your opening statement has been completely refuted by witnesses who have testified before this committee. Two, far from being favored, many commentators have noted that people accused of simple gun possession while under the influence of a drug when that gun was not used in the commission of a crime are rarely if ever prosecuted the way Hunter Biden is being prosecuted. Mr. Chairman, one of this committee’s most important duties is conducting oversight of the Department of Justice.

(08:16)
We are called upon to ensure that the DOJ uses the enormous amount of power it is granted in a fair, just manner that respects the civil and human rights of all Americans. The Attorney General of the United States oversees issues that affect the lives of each and every American. Violent crime, drug trafficking, attacks on our civil rights, threats to our national security and environmental crimes all fall under his purview. That is why we regularly request that he or she appear before this committee to speak about the work the department is doing for the welfare of the country.

(08:53)
This is how we ensure that the department stays accountable to the American people. But if it were up to the Republicans, Americans would hear nothing about any of these substantive issues today. They would hear nothing about the rise in domestic terrorism and what the Justice Department is doing about it. They would hear nothing about what the department is doing to stop hate crimes and prevent gun violence. They would hear nothing about how the department is disrupting efforts by Russia, China, and others to interfere in our elections.

(09:20)
Extreme MAGA Republicans have poisoned our vital oversight work. They’ve ignored our legitimate oversight responsibilities and used their power to stage one political stunt after another. They’ve wasted countless taxpayer dollars on baseless investigations into President Biden and his family. Desperate to find evidence for an absurd impeachment and desperate to distract from the mounting legal peril facing Donald Trump. They have fought tirelessly to stop efforts to fight maligned foreign actors trying to influence and manipulate Americans through social media.

(09:54)
They have unconstitutionally interfered in criminal litigation and attempted to bully state and local law enforcement officers. They have publicized the names of witnesses who did not further their political goals, leading to threats of death and physical violence against those witnesses and their families. They have cost any number of private institutions and companies millions of dollars in legal fees as they struggle to respond to ridiculous and over broad requests for information and transcribed interviews.

(10:23)
They have issued subpoenas for show without making meaningful attempts to get the information they seek by consent. They have levied low, baseless personal attacks on any prosecutor to bring charges against Donald Trump or January 6th rioters. They have attempted to discredit investigators who are not hard enough on Donald Trump’s political opponents. They have supported those involved in the deadly attack of our Capitol on January 6th in an attempt to overthrow a lawful election. They have justified conduct that we all know to be wildly illegal like the theft of classified materials and incitement to violence.

(11:01)
And through it all, rather than try to unite the country or solve the problems that affect us all, they have sought to exploit our divisions for cynical, personal, political gain. That is their goal, division. They want to divide this country and make our government appear like it’s broken because that is when their broken political party thrives. So today I implore the public to see through the sham. I have no doubt that you will hear a deluge of conspiracy theories and baseless accusations.

(11:33)
They will quote freely from so-called whistleblowers who have been broadly discredited or contradicted. They will viciously attack federal law enforcement. They will tell you that all 91 criminal charges against Donald Trump are part of a conspiracy, despite overwhelming evidence of each of Donald Trump’s crimes. And they will attack Special Counsel Weiss who was appointed, let us not forget, by Donald Trump for not being hard enough on Hunter Biden. Republicans will continue doing what they’ve done for years, discrediting anyone who does not serve their political goals at any cost.

(12:11)
And the shame of it is that in this hearing room like on the House floor where we are barreling towards a government shutdown, while my Republican colleagues call each other names. We could be working together to put people over politics and to solve any number of problems affecting the American people. More than 30,000 Americans have died from gun violence so far this year alone. Guns have become the leading cause of death for children aged one to 17, surpassing car accidents. Domestic violent extremism and white nationalism are on the rise.

(12:47)
We are seeing active clubs and other white supremacist groups pop up around the country. Antisemitism is at an all time high. Maligned foreign actors like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are attempting to influence our elections. Political rhetoric is causing threats against law enforcement officials to skyrocket. Our immigration court system is in desperate need of reform. Our election workers receive death threats from conspiracy theory driven extremists. Fentanyl is filling our streets and poisoning our children at historic rates.

(13:22)
This list goes on and on and we the people in this room are in a position to do something about it. In fact, it is our duty to do something about it. Consistent with the oath we took when we were sworn in as members of Congress. We could work with the Department of Justice and Attorney General Garland to address any number of real substantive problems facing the American people. Instead, House Republicans will use their time today to talk about long discredited conspiracy theories and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

(13:54)
And they will do it because they care more about Donald Trump than they do about their own constituents. I hope my colleagues will see reason and at least attempt to work with the attorney general in good faith. Sadly, on the other side of the aisle, reason and good faith seem to be in short supply. In any event, Mr. Attorney General, I thank you for your testimony and thank you in advance for your patience. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today’s witness. The Honorable Merrick Garland is the Attorney General of the United States. He was sworn in on March 11th, 2021. We welcome our witness. Thank him for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?

(14:50)
Let the record show that the witness has answered in affirmative. Thank you. You can be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony. You know how this is done, Mr. Garland. You’ve been here before. We want to again thank you for being here. You’re welcome to give your opening statement.

I’m sorry, is this working?

You got it.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler and distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the more than 115,000 employees, the Department of Justice. Since the Justice Department was founded, it has been tasked with confronting some of the most challenging issues before the country. Today we are handling matters of significant public interests that carry great consequences for our democracy. A lot has been said about the Justice Department about who we are and what we are doing, about what our job is and what it is not.

(15:58)
And about why we do this work. I want to provide some clarity. First, who we are. The Justice Department is made up of more than 115,000 men and women who work at every state and communities across the country and around the globe. They are FBI, DEA, ATF agents and the United States Marshals who risk their lives to serve their communities. They are prosecutors and staff who work tirelessly to enforce our laws. The overwhelming majority are career public servants, meaning that they were not appointed by the president of any party.

(16:38)
Second, I want to provide clarity about what the job of the Justice Department is and about what it is not. Our job is to help keep our country safe. That includes working closely with local police departments and communities across the country to combat violent crime. In fact, today we are announcing the results of a recent US Marshals operation conducted with state and local law enforcement. That operation targeted violent fugitives and resulted in 4,400 arrests across 20 cities in just three months. Our work also includes combating the drug cartels that are poisoning Americans.

(17:21)
Last Friday we extradited Ovidio Guzman Lopez, a leader of the Sinaloa Cartel from Mexico to the United States. He is a son of El Chapo and one of more than a dozen cartel members we have indicted and extradited to the United States. Our job includes seeking justice for the survivors of child exploitation, human smuggling and sex trafficking. And it includes protecting democratic institutions like this one by holding accountable all those criminally responsible for the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

(18:02)
Our job is also to protect civil rights. That includes protecting our freedoms as Americans to worship and think as we please and to peacefully express our opinions, our beliefs and our ideas. It includes protecting the right of every eligible citizen to vote and to have that vote counted. It includes combating discrimination, defending reproductive rights under law and deterring and prosecuting attacks such as hate crimes. And our job is to uphold the rule of law. That means we apply the same laws to everyone.

(18:44)
There is not one set of laws for the powerful and another for the powerless, one for the rich and another for the poor, one for Democrats and another for Republicans. Or different rules depending upon one’s race or ethnicity or religion. Our job is to pursue justice without fear or favor. Our job is not to do what is politically convenient. Our job is not to take orders from the president, from Congress or from anyone else about who or what to criminally investigate. As the president himself has said, and I reaffirm today, I am not the president’s lawyer.

(19:28)
I will add I am not Congress’s prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people. Our job is to follow the facts and the law and that is what we do. All of us recognize that with this work comes public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate oversight. These are appropriate and important given the matters and the gravity of the matters that are before the department. But singling out individual career public servants who are just doing their jobs is dangerous, particularly at a time of increased threats to the safety of public servants and their families.

(20:11)
We will not be intimidated. We will do our jobs free from outside influence and we will not back down from defending our democracy. Third, I want to explain why we approach our job in this way. The Justice Department was founded in the wake of the Civil War and in the midst of reconstruction with the first principle task of bringing to justice white supremacists and others who terrorize Black Americans to prevent them from exercising their civil rights. The Justice Department’s job then and now is to fulfill the promise that is at the foundation of our democracy. That the law will treat each of us alike.

(20:57)
That promise is also why I am here. My family fled religious persecution in Eastern Europe at the start of the 20th century. My grandmother, who was one of five children born in what is now Belarus, made it to the United States as did two of her siblings. The other two did not. Those two were killed in the Holocaust and there is little doubt that but for America the same thing would’ve happened to my grandmother. But this country took her in and under the protection of our laws, she was able to live without fear of persecution. That protection is what distinguishes this country from so many others.

(21:48)
The protection of law, the rule of law is the foundation of our system of government. Repaying this country for the debt my family owes. For our very lives has been the focus of my entire professional career. That is why I served in the Justice Department under five different attorneys general, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. That is why I spent more than 25 years ensuring the rule of law as a judge. And that is why I left a lifetime appointment as a judge and came back to the Justice Department two and a half years ago. And that is why I’m here today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you Mr. Attorney General and you were right. America is the greatest country ever and we on this side I know are very concerned about the equal application of the law that you talked about in your opening statement. With that, we’ll move to five minute questions and we will start with the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.

Thank you. Mr. Weiss, the rule of law does distinguish our country, but you have not upheld that. You have allowed the rule of law to erode and that’s why 65% of the people in this country have no faith in the Department of Justice under your leadership. They don’t trust it. They don’t trust you. The reason is because they’re witnessing every day a politicized justice department in a two-tiered system of justice. For example, they see the DOJ of course aggressively prosecuting President Biden’s chief political rival, Mr. Trump. While at the same time they see slow walking and special treatment given to the president’s son.

(23:27)
That’s just a fact that everybody can see with their own two eyes. I want to focus on that investigation of the Biden family. We have many important questions for you today about that. Let me just get right to the chase. Has anyone from the White House provided direction at any time to you personally or to any senior officials at the DOJ regarding how the Hunter Biden investigation was to be carried out?

No.

Have you had personal contact with anyone at FBI headquarters about the Hunter Biden investigation?

I don’t recollect the answer to that question, but the FBI works for the Justice Department.

I’m sorry. You don’t recollect whether you’ve talked with anybody at FBI headquarters about an investigation of the president’s son?

I don’t believe that I did. I promised the Senate when I came before for confirmation that I would leave Mr. Weiss in place and that I would not interfere with his investigation.

Did you ever…

I have kept that promise.

All right. Have you had personal contact with anybody at the Baltimore Field office on the Hunter Biden matter?

No.

On July 10th, 2023, US Attorney David Weiss told Senator Lindsey Graham, “I had discussions with departmental officials regarding potential appointment under 28 USC section 515, which would’ve allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without the partnership of the local US attorney.” With whom did Mr. Weiss have those discussions?

I’m Not going to get into the internal deliberations of the department.

But you must, sir. This is important for us. We have oversight responsibility over your department and we need these answers.

As appropriate necessary for Mr. Weiss to have conversations with the department. I made clear that if he wanted to bring a case in any jurisdiction, he would be able to do that. The way you do that is to get an order signed by the attorney general qualify 15 order. I promised he would be able to do that and he in his letters made clear he understood he would be able to do that.

Can you tell us about any briefings or discussions that you personally have had with Mr. Weiss regarding any and all federal investigations of Hunter Biden?

I’m going to say again, I promised the Senate that I would not interfere with Mr. Weiss.

Under oath today, your testimony is. You have not had any discussions with Mr. Weiss about this matter?

Under oath, my testimony today is that I promised the Senate I would not intrude in his investigation. I do not intend to discuss internal Justice Department deliberations whether or not I had them.

So your testimony today is you’re not going to tell us whether you’ve had discussions with Mr. Weiss.

My testimony today is I told the committee that I would not interfere. I made clear that Mr. Weiss would have the authority to bring cases that he thought were appropriate. Mr. Weiss’s letter [inaudible 00:26:21]

Let me stop you for a sake of time sir. Are you aware that FBI officials have come before this committee and they have stated that there was a cumbersome bureaucratic process that Mr. Weiss had to go through to bring charges in another judicial district? You know that?

I’m not aware, but that’s not true. There’s nothing cumbersome about the process.

So those whistleblowers are lying to us under oath? Those whistleblowers are lying?

I didn’t say that. Their description of the process is cumbersome as an opinion. It’s not a fact question. All I have to do is sign a section.

All right. Let me get to the fact. Mr. Weiss has been the lead prosecutor on the Hunter Biden case since 2018, correct?

I’m sorry.

Mr. Weiss has been the lead prosecutor on the Hunter Biden case since 2018. Now, here’s the question.

He’s been the lead prosecutor since he was appointed by President Trump.

Let me ask you, why has the Justice Department dragged this investigation out for so long? Does it really take years to determine if Hunter Biden lied on a federal form related to purchasing a firearm?

Mr. Weiss was a long time career prosecutor. President Trump appointed him as the…

You’re not answering the question. Is that standard procedure? Should it take that long to make such a simple determination?

I’m answering the question. Give me an opportunity to do so. He was charged with that investigation under the previous administration. He’s continued… He knows how to conduct investigations and I have not intruded or attempted to evaluate that because that was the promise I made to the Senate.

The whistleblowers gave us testimony about serious misconduct of the Justice Department in regards to the preferential treatment afforded Hunter Biden. Has your office requested an investigation into that?

There are well-known processes for how whistleblowers make their claims. I’m a strong proponent of whistleblowers and a strong defender. We have an inspector general’s office. We have an office of professional responsibility. That is the way in which complaints from whistleblowers should be and are appropriately handled.

I’m out of time, I yield back.

Gentlemen yield’s back. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler. Hey Dan.

Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here today. It’s no secret that some of my colleagues across the aisle have threatened to shut down the government unless and until the FBI and the Department of Justice are defunded. One Trump light presidential candidate has said that we should abolish the FBI altogether. Mr. Attorney General, what would be the impact on America of defunding the FBI?

Defunding the FBI would leave the United States naked to the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party to the attacks by Iranians on American citizens and attempts to assassinate former officials, up to the Russian aggression. To North Korean cyber attacks, to violent crime in the United States, which the FBI helps to fight against. To all kinds of espionage. To domestic violent extremists who have attacked our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, and who have killed individuals out of racial hatred.

(29:34)
I cannot imagine the consequences of defunding the FBI, but they would be catastrophic.

Thank you. I want to turn to Mr. Weiss’s investigation and the authority he’s been granted to conduct that investigation without interference in whatever way he deems necessary. You testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 1st of this year. That David Weiss had “full authority over any investigation concerning Hunter Biden.” Was that a true statement at the time?

Yes. Mr. Weiss has full authority to conduct his investigation however he wishes and Mr. Weiss has confirmed that in letters to this committee.

Thank you. This authority included ensuring that Weiss would be able to bring charges in jurisdiction outside of Delaware if necessary. Is that correct?

I assured Mr. Weiss publicly that he would have the authority to bring a case outside of Delaware if he thought that was appropriate.

Does that remain true today?

Yes, that is true today.

Has it ever been the case over the course of this investigation that Mr. Weiss would not have been able to bring charges outside of Delaware if warranted?

As a matter of my authority, I promised he would be able to do that. I think as apparent in the letters exchanged with the committee and in my last previous testimony. In order for a United States attorney or a special counsel or anyone else to bring a case outside of his jurisdiction, he requires me to sign a paper called section 515. That’s the statute which permits bringing cases outside of the jurisdiction. I promised that I would do whatever was required to enable Mr. Weiss to bring a case outside his jurisdiction if that’s what he thought was appropriate.

And I assume it was your understanding that Mr. Weiss was fully aware that he could bring charges outside of Delaware if necessary when you testified on March 1st.

Mr. Weiss has said so in the letters he sent to this committee.

Thank you. Did he ever say or do anything that might make him unsure of where he could bring charges?

Mr. Weiss’s own letters reflect that he had never asked me to be special counsel and that he understood the process for asking for a signature on us to section 515 form.

There’ve been accusations that the handling of the Hunter Biden matter is an example of a two-tiered system of justice. What’s your response to that allegation?

The Justice Department

… treats everyone alike, regardless of party, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of wealth, everyone is treated alike. I understand that people may not understand why particular investigations are conducted in particular ways until all the facts come out. That’s what we have a court for and all of the explanations will come out with respect to Mr. Weiss, for example. At the end of his period as special counsel, one of the requirements is that he file a report which I have promised to make public to the extent that’s lawful and consistent with Department of Policy. It will explain his decisions to prosecute and not to prosecute.

Thank you. What are the impacts of members of Congress making such accusations against the DOJ? Do baseless accusations from government officials make it more difficult for investigators to do their job and effectively investigate the subject?

Members of the Justice Department are strong and tough and able to understand that their job is to do the right thing regardless of any pressures from any quarter. What is dangerous, and I’m not talking about the committee, but what is dangerous is when anyone singles out a career prosecutor or a career FBI agent and we know as a matter of fact that that kind of singling out has led to threats. This is a concern across the board; it’s not a concern about anyone in particular.

I think you would’ve been justified in referring to the committee. My time has expired. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Attorney General, you’re the only person who could ensure that Mr. Weiss had all the necessary authority. Aren’t you?

I’m the only person who can sign an agreement with respect to special counsel. The authority to do Section 515 can be signed by other people in the department.

You’re aware ultimately though the authority is yours?

Yes.

You made the point that you don’t take orders from the President about such things. You decide ultimately what the Justice Department will do.

I announced at the beginning, I promised that he would be able to bring whatever cases he wants, and I have followed through on that promise. I’m permitted to make that kind of promise and I have made it.

Did you undertake to inform yourself to interact with him sufficient to ensure that he knew he possessed that authority or that you would see to it that he had all necessary authority?

I don’t think there’s any doubt that he knew. He has written three letters to this committee indicating that he understood he had that authority.

You’re also aware, though … aren’t you, sir … that a senior IRS investigator whistleblower came forward and testified publicly that Mr. Weiss stated that he did not have such authority. He was not the decider. Are you aware of that?

I’m aware of the testimony. I was not present at any point during that statement and Mr. Weiss who was present has indicated that he had the authority and he knew that he had it.

Subsequent to those developments, though, you decided to make Mr. Weiss special counsel, which you had not done before.

Mr. Weiss made clear he did not ask me to be special counsel until last month and last month I made him special counsel.

Did you have some lack of information that you should have had that would’ve caused you to act earlier to make him special counsel?

Mr. Weiss did not ask to be special counsel before.

I understand he didn’t ask. You’ve said that, sir. Did you take the necessary steps to inform yourself what authority he understood he had or what obstacles he was encountering?

Look: Mr. Weiss had, as I said from the beginning, at the very beginning, that he had authority over all matters that pertain to under Biden.

Have you learned that he was in fact deterred by decisions of the United States attorneys in the District of Columbia and the northern district of California from proceeding as he thought best?

With respect, congressman, Mr. Weiss has not said that he was deterred; he said that he followed the normal processes of the department and that he was never denied the ability to bring a case in another jurisdiction.

Well, what changed then, Mr. Attorney General? What made you decide that it was sufficient to leave him in this situation he was until you decided to make him special counsel?

Mr. Weiss asked for that authority, given the extraordinary circumstances of this matter and given my promise that I would give him any resources he requested, I made him special counsel.

So, until that time, was it just a matter of his predilection or did you undertake to investigate and discern what he was doing with his authority and whether he had faced any obstacles?

I did not endeavor to investigate because I had promised that I would not interfere with this investigation. The way to not interfere is to not investigate an investigation.

Once he requested to be named special counsel having not done so over months and months of your tenure, did you ask him what had changed that made him now need to be a special counsel?

Mr. Weiss asked to be made special counsel. I had promised that I would give him all the resources he needed and I made him special counsel.

When did the Justice Department permit statutes of limitations to expire on some of the prospective charges against Hunter Biden for tax violations?

I don’t know anything about the statute of limitations here. The investigation was in the hands of Mr. Weiss to make the determinations that he thought were appropriate.

Are you unaware that statutes for limitations have in fact been allowed to expire after there having been tolling agreements in place?

I’m going to say again: the determination of where to bring cases and which kinds of cases to bring was left to Mr. Weiss.

Yes, sir. I understand that you’ve said that; that’s part of the problem. The question is are you aware the statutes of limitations have been allowed to expire while the matter was under investigation?

The investigators were fully familiar with all the relevant law-

I’m not asking for the excuses. I’m asking whether you’re aware of that fact, sir.

I’m going to say again. I’m going to say again and again if necessary. I did not interfere with, did not investigate, did not-

Those are statements in response to other questions. Everybody in the country now knows, who’s paying attention, to this that the Justice Department permitted statutes of limitations to expire. Every lawyer who’s ever practiced understands the implications of allowing statutes of limitations to expire.

Prosecutors-

Do you not even know as you sit here whether that occurred or not?

Prosecutors make appropriate determinations on their own. In this case, I left it to Mr. Weiss whether to bring charges or not. That would include whether to let statute of limitations expire or not, whether there was sufficient evidence to bring a case that was subject to the statute of limitations or not, whether there were better cases to bring or not.

The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Attorney General, for being here with us this morning. As much as we see dirt being thrown in the air, there’s a lot of misinformation that I think is intended to confuse people. I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record three letters from Mr. Weiss that he sent to Congress on June 7th, June 30th, and July 10th.

Without objection.

He said over and over again that he has full authority over this case including the ability to seek special counsel or special attorney status if needed. Trying to imply otherwise is just simply false. Mr. Weiss was appointed by then-President Trump. Your decision was to leave the Trump-appointed attorney completely in charge of this, hands-off from you. He makes all the calls without interference from the Attorney General. Is that correct?

That is correct.

And so, the idea that you would interfere is completely wrong. I’d also like to ask, you talked about your independence from the president but also your independence from the Congress. Have you ever come across historically an instance where the Congress of the United States tried to or successfully interfered with a prosecution initiated by the Department of Justice based on the facts in the law?

I want to be gentle about the word interfere, but it is just as a historical example, in the case of Iran Contra, the consequences of actions by the Congress were that the Special Council’s investigation of Iran, of Mr. North, were dismissed.

Correct. Before I go into another question I have, I just would like unanimous consent to put into the record the annual Statistical Transparency Report dated April of 2023. It indicates that the de-duplicated counting method for FBI queries of US persons under the Section 702 database numbered over 119,000. I would just like to note and we will work with you, this committee on a bipartisan basis is very concerned about querying of the 702 database for US persons without a warrant. We’re not suggesting that the law does not permit that, but we are going to visit this issue because it is my view that querying the 702 database that has been collected without due process because it relates to foreign individuals is completely wrong in terms of the privacy rights of Americans. I’m hoping that we can work successfully with you as we craft requirements for a warrant to do that [inaudible 00:42:56].

(42:56)
I’d like to ask, as we know and it has been mentioned by the ranking member, the proposal is basically to defund the police by the Republicans, to defund the FBI. I’m concerned that if we defund the police, as the majority has suggested, that really doesn’t have an impact on the statute of limitations. So, if we were to defund the Department of Justice, defund the FBI and the police as has been suggested, what would happen with the statute of limitations for cases that you were pursuing if you were not able to actually do that? Would they be suspended any way or would the criminals get off scot-free?

Well, I know in my experience as a judge, if I was asked a legal question and I don’t know the answer, I would go back to the office and study it and I’ll have to do that in this case. I don’t have the answer.

Well, I think I do because there’s nothing in the statute that allows for the statute of limitations to be suspended because the government has been shut down or because the police have been defunded through the budget process. I just think we ought to take the implications of a shutdown very seriously in terms of allowing criminals to get off. I see that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. The chair does now recognize himself. Quote: Mr. Weiss has full authority to bring cases and other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary. That was your response, Attorney General, to Senator Grassley’s question on March 1st, 2023. He just referenced it when Mr. Bishop was questioning you. Only problem is he’d already been turned down by the US attorney in the District of Columbia, Mr. Graves, so he didn’t have full authority. Did he?

I had an extended conversation with Senator Grassley at the time. We briefly touched on the section 515 question and how that process went. I have never been suggested-

My point’s real simple, Mr. Garland. You said he had complete authority but he’d already been turned down. He wanted to bring an action in the District of Columbia and the US attorney there said, “No. You can’t,” and then you go tell the United States Senate under oath that he has complete authority.

I’m going to say again that no one had the authority to turn him down. They could refuse to partner with him. They could not-

You can use whatever language; refuse to partner is turning down.

Well, it’s not the same under a well-known Justice Department practice.

Here’s why the statute of limitations question is important that Mr. Bishop was getting at just a few minutes ago. Here’s why it’s important: you let the statute of limitations lapse for 2014-2015. Those were the years with the felony tax charges where Hunter Biden was getting income from Burisma.

(45:43)
Here are four facts that I think are so important. Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma, made a lot of money, got paid a lot of money over those years, a couple million bucks. He wasn’t qualified. Fact number two, he wasn’t qualified to be on the board of Burisma. Not my words; his words. He said he got on the board because of his last name, the brand, as Devon Archer said when he was under oath and we deposed him. Fact number three: Burisma executives told Hunter Biden, “We’re under pressure. We need help.” Fact number four: Joe Biden goes to Ukraine, leverages our tax money, American people’s tax money, to get the prosecutor fired who was applying the pressure. Interestingly enough, that fact is entirely consistent with what the confidential human source told the FBI and they recorded in the 1023 form, the same form Mr. RAY didn’t want to let this committee and the Congress see.

(46:39)
That all happened. That all happened, and what I’m wondering is why you guys let the statute of limitations lapse for those tax years that dealt with Burisma income?

There’s one more fact, and it’s important, and that is that this investigation was being conducted by Mr. Weiss, an appointee of President Trump. You will at the appropriate time have the opportunity to ask Mr. Weiss that question and he will no doubt address it in the public report that will be transmitted to the Congress. I don’t know the answer to those questions.

Did they forget? Did the lawyers just let it … They’re just like, “Oh, darn. We let it …” Were they careless?

I expect that won’t be what he says, but because I promised-

You know that’s not the case because as Mr. Bishop pointed out, they had a tolling agreement. They talked to Hunter Biden’s defense counsel and said let’s extend the statute of limitations. And then, at some point they made an intentional decision to say, “We’re going to let the statute of limitations lapse,” and I want to know who decided that and why they did it.

Mr. Weiss was a supervisor of the investigation. At that time and at all times, he made the appropriate decisions and you’ll be able to ask him that question and he will-

You know why they did it. Everyone knows why they did it. You may not say it, but everyone knows why they did it. Those tax years that dealt with … that involved the president. It’s one thing to have a gun charge in Delaware. That doesn’t involve the President of the United States. But Burisma? Oh, my. That goes right to the White House. We can’t have that. We can slow walk this thing along. We can even extend the statute of limitations and then we can intentionally let it lapse.

(48:15)
We know this investigation was slow. Here’s what everyone said. Shapley said, “DOJ slow-walked the investigation.” Ziegler: “Slow-walking in the approvals of everything. This happened at the Delaware’s Attorney’s office and DOJ tax level.” Mr. Sobocinski, the FBI agent, said, “I would’ve liked to see things move faster.” Ms. Holly said the same. Every witness we’ve talked to said this thing was slow-walked and we know why. It was slow-walked long enough to let the statute of limitations run so they wouldn’t have to get Burisma. Tell me where I’m wrong.

Will the gentleman yield?

No. I’m asking Mr. Garland the question.

I think I’ve tried to make clear that I don’t know the specifics of the investigation. Much of what you are describing occurred during the Trump administration during an Justice Department appointed by President Trump.

No. It didn’t. This is four-and-a-half years, this investigation. We’re talking about the last few years. Your statement was just this year, March 1st, to Senator Grassley.

No. I’m sorry. I was trying to respond to your descriptions of what the IRS agents said about certain-

Statute of limitations is six years. That lapsed here in the Biden Administration.

On the statute of limitations, I will say again that the explanation for why the statute of limitation was lapsed, if it was, has to come from Mr. Weiss.

My time is up. Let me ask one last question real quick here. Who decided that David Weiss would stay on his US attorney?

This occurred before I came. Mr. Weiss had been kept on. I promised the-

No. I didn’t say … You can walk all through that. I said who decided? The White House decided.

Mr. Weiss-

They serve at the pleasure of the president. Right?

Mr. Weiss was-

Joe Biden decided to keep David Weiss as US attorney. You weren’t sworn in until March. He was told he was going to stay on in February.

Mr. Chairman, your time has expired.

Pretty fundamental question: who decided David Weiss was going to stay as US attorney in Delaware?

Mr. Weiss [inaudible 00:50:10].

Mr. Chairman, your time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, your time has expired.

I’m waiting for an answer.

Well, you asked the question after your time have expired already.

Point of order.

Gentleman can respond. Then, I’ll go to Ms. Jackson Lee.

Mr. Weiss was the Special US attorney from the District of Delaware when I came on. He had been appointed by President Trump. I promised that he would be permitted to stay on for this investigation, and that is what happened.

[inaudible 00:50:38] Chairman.

The gentleman from New York is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I believe you misquoted from the transcript of the Senate hearing. I therefore ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the entire transcript of the Senate hearing.

Without objection, but I didn’t misquote what Mr. Garland said. Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. None of the Republican’s goals today include solving Americans’ problems of which they are concerned. There are many reasons, Mr. Attorney General, that prosecutors decline to bring charges. One of those reasons is that they don’t have any evidence for a conviction. That is the justice way that is just in America.

(51:25)
Let me raise these questions and concerns with you today. As we all know, Republicans have repeatedly alleged that the DOJ and FBI are conspiring to shield the Biden family from public criticism and giving Hunter Biden special treatment in its investigations. They have demonized law-enforcement officials working with this case at every turn, which has directly led to increased threats against FBI officials, law enforcement of which they pretend to support.

(51:54)
I want to place into the record two excerpts from recent transcribed interviews and I would ask that copies be made available to you. The first is from a June interview with Jennifer Moore, FBI’s former Executive Assistant Director for Human Resources. She told this committee that the FBI had received so many threats that it had to stand up and entire 10-person unit just to deal with them. She said it is unprecedented. “It is a number we have never had before.” More testimony on pages 202 to 203.

(52:25)
The second excerpt is from an interview earlier this month with Thomas Sobocinski, the special agent in charge of FBI’s Baltimore Field Office. Here’s what he said: “I joined the FBI 25 years ago. I joined for a reason, to protect the American people, uphold the constitution. I’ve been to war; my family’s been in bad places. My kids have been evacuated from war zones or quasi-war zones. I’ve been in some bad things. I have accepted that I’m solely focused on two things and they’re not mutually exclusive.

(52:51)
“The first is like every investigation: I want to get to a resolution in a fair, apolitical way. The second thing, it’s becoming more important, and more relevant is keeping my folks safe, and that part I’ve never expected to have to be able to be concerned about keeping families safe, so that for me, this is becoming more and more of a job that I have to do and take away from what I was assigned or signed up to do, which was to investigate and do these things. So, when you talk about potential frustrations with communication, I’m personally frustrated with anything that places my employees and their families in enhanced danger. Our children, their children, did not sign up for this.”

(53:31)
Mr. Attorney General, do you agree that politically-charged rhetoric claiming that law enforcement agents … I have many questions, if you can be brief … are corrupt and contribute to this onslaught of threats against public servants?

Okay. As I said in my opening statement, we have had an astounding number of threats against public servants over the last several years. I think that when career public servants in the Justice Department and in election workers and airline crews, when they are singled out, this can lead to threats of violence and actual violence. We have the actual example of an attack on an FBI office by somebody who was incensed by political rhetoric. This does happen. We must not allow that to happen in this country.

Does the rhetoric regarding the Biden case have any basis in reality?

I’m sorry; I didn’t hear that first part.

Does the rhetoric regarding the Biden case have any basis in reality?

No. It does not.

How does this impact FBI and DOJ employees’ ability to do their work? I think you mentioned specifically FBI and DOJ employees.

As I’ve already said, the agents of the FBI and the prosecutors understand that criticism comes with their job. They will continue to do their jobs without fear or favor, but the idea of threatening their safety or that of their families is just abhorrent.

Thank you. I assume that provisions have had to be in place to protect these agents and their families.

I’m sorry; I didn’t hear the first part.

I assume that provisions or protections have had to be in place to protect these agents and their families.

Yes. That’s correct.

Let me move on. Thank you very much, Attorney General. Let me move on to the fentanyl crisis. I want to introduce H.R. 4272, but let me just put on the record so that you can probably summarize, and I asked for the indulgence of my chair, but in any event that the FBI, the DOJ, are focused, needlepoint-focused, if you will, on the crisis of fentanyl. I want to just raise that for you, and then I just want to follow up with one or two other questions if you would be able to comment on these collectively.

(55:56)
I am dealing with the crisis of human trafficking and the prioritizing of America’s children. They are under siege and the level of child sexual abuse materials generating into human trafficking, and I want to put H.R. 30 on the record, indicates from ICAC that there are 99,000 IP cases where they’re enticing children and maybe only 1% of them being investigated. I’d like your comment on that.

(56:20)
Finally, in the approach of Yom Kippur to emphasize the work that is hopefully still being doing with antisemitism, attacks on immigrants and African-Americans and Latinos. If you would answer those questions: fentanyl, the human-trafficking, and then domestic terrorism.

Yeah. These are all horrendous problems propagated by people who are truly evil. We are fighting the fentanyl scourge in every possible way, starting with the precursors in China, to the labs in Mexico, to the cartels that are bringing the drugs into the United States to their networks in the United States to the streets of America. We will continue to do that with every resource that Congress gives us.

(57:11)
Human smuggling and sex trafficking are obviously abhorrent. The Justice Department has task forces on both of these subjects and have brought many, many cases on these subjects. The idea of putting sexually explicit material about children on the web is another area that we are continuing to investigate and to prosecute and to ask the social media to take down from their sites.

The gentlelady’s time has expired. The gentleman from Florida has recognized five minutes.

I guess I’m just wondering, Mr. Attorney General, has anyone at the department told President Biden to knock it off with Hunter? You guys are charging Hunter Biden on some crimes; investigating him on others. You’ve got the President bringing Hunter Biden around to state dinners. Has anyone told him to knock it off?

Our job in the Justice Department is to pursue our cases without reference to what’s happening in the outside world.

Just yes or no. Have you done that?

That is what we do.

It’s a no.

No one that I know of has spoken to the White House about the Hunter Biden case.

I’m wondering then-

Of course not.

Okay. I got it. I got it. Hunter Biden is selling art to pay for his $15,000-a-month rent in Malibu. How can you guarantee that the people buying that aren’t aren’t doing so to gain favor with the president?

The job of the Justice Department is to investigate criminal allegations. You have information-

Are you investigating this? Someone who bought Hunter Biden’s art ended up with a prestigious appointment to a federal position. Doesn’t it look weird that he’s become this immediate success in the art world as his dad as President of the United States? Isn’t that odd?

I’m not going to comment about any specific-

Not going to comment. Not going to investigate.

[inaudible 00:59:03].

Hunter Biden, associate Devon Archer told us that Hunter sold the appearance of access to then-Vice-President Biden. Are you confident he has stopped doing that?

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

Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer told us that Hunter sold the appearance of access to then-Vice-President Biden. Are you confident he has stopped?

I’m going to say again that all these matters are within the purview of Mr. Weiss. I have not interfered with them and I do not-

Yeah. But if you were confident that he had stopped you could tell us-

I do not intend to interfere with it.

It was a lot of Chinese money that was working its way through these shell companies into the accounts of the Biden family. The China initiative was set up during the Trump administration at the Department of Justice to go after the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party and the Biden Justice Department dissolved the China initiative. I guess I’m wondering does the department have any documents that would detail the basis for why you got rid of the China initiative that President Trump had set up?

The Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division gave a long speech, which explained that. He has testified before Congress several times. We’d be happy to provide you with the-

What’s the basis? Just tell us all now. Why was the China Initiative dissolved?

What the Assistant Attorney General said was that we face attacks from four Nation states: North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran, and that we need to focus our attention on the broad range of these attacks. Sometimes we don’t know-

Wait a second. Are you saying that North Korea has the same malign influence risk to the United States as the Chinese Communist Party? Are you trying to represent there’s some parity there? Because here’s what it looks like: it looks like the Chinese gave all this money to the Bidens and then you guys came in and got rid of the China initiative and it was successful. I saw one rationale that you guys got rid of the China initiative because it was racial profiling, but one of the people you convicted was a guy named Charles Lieber who was a Harvard professor taking $50,000 a month to do China’s bidding and give them whatever research was being done. Are you aware of the millions of dollars that moved through Rob Walker’s shell companies from Chinese-Communist-party entities into Biden family bank accounts? Are you aware of that?

There were a lot of questions that you just asked. Let me start with the first one about North Korea. North Korea is a dangerous actor, both kinetically and with respect to cyber-

But not on par with China. I’m on the Armed Services, Mr. Attorney General-

I’m not in the business right now of-

It makes you look unserious to suggest that.

May I answer your question or not?

Answer the question about whether or not you know about all the millions of dollars that moved through the [inaudible 01:01:45].

So, you don’t want me to answer about North Korea.

I already know the answer and so does everyone. They’re not the same risk as China. Let’s get onto serious questions and serious answers. Do you know about the money that moved through Rob Walker’s shell companies? Yes or no?

As I have said repeatedly, I have left these matters to Mr. Weiss. I’ve not intruded. I’ve not interfered.

[inaudible 01:02:04] fully ignorant to these things.

I’ve not tried to find out what he knows.

It’s like you’re looking the other way on purpose because everybody knows this stuff’s happening. You know what? People don’t pay bribes to not get something in return. Right? The China initiative resulted in the convictions of a Harvard professor, of someone at Monsanto.

(01:02:20)
We were working against the Chinese. They paid the Bidens. Now, you’re sitting here telling me that North Korea is the big threat.

I-

I’ve got to get to this one thing on January 6th.

Do you want me to answer your question, or not?

Did the FBI lose count of the number of paid informants on January 6th?

Let me answer your question about China. China is-

I want you to answer this question. I only get five minutes. You’ve already sort of, I think, screwed the pooch on China.

You asked me a question and you haven’t permitted-

On January 6th, did you lose count of the number of federal assets? Did you lose count in order and audit?

The gentleman’s time has expired.

I get an answer to the question: did they lose count?

You won’t let him answer the question. The time has expired. The attorney general can respond.

China is the most aggressive, most dangerous adversary-

Attorney General, I think-

That the United States faces, and we are doing everything within our power to rebut that, to stop that, to prevent their invasions, both kinetic and through cyberspace, and we will continue to do that.

If someone gave that answer in your courtroom when you were a judge, you would tell them they were being nonresponsive and you would direct them to answer the question point.

Mr. Chairman. Point of order, Your Honor.

[inaudible 01:03:20] has expired.

[inaudible 01:03:25] badgering the witness.

Point of order, please.

[inaudible 01:03:26] expired.

I got it. I was … I was … I was …

You like Your Honor? You want to stick with that?

Yeah. I was laughing at you calling me Your Honor.

Point of order, either way.

Okay. I understand that, too.

All right.

But the gentleman asked his question before his time expired. The Attorney General did not respond to the gentleman’s question. I was hoping he would respond to the question about the confidential human sources on January 6th. He didn’t respond to that. I’m sure we’re going to get an answer to that later. Now, I recognize the gentleman-

Of course, Mr. Chairman. There were eight questions before that that he was not given a chance to answer.

I understand. But-

The witness might’ve thought-

The witness doesn’t … Mr. Chairman, point of order: the witness does not control the time.

Hang on.

Exactly right. Members control the time. If they want to switch their question and focus on one more question that they’d like an answer to, I want to give the witness a chance to respond to that final question that Mr. Gaetz asked. He didn’t respond to it. Someone else is going to ask it, I’m sure. We now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee for five minutes.

Thank you, sir. I just follow up a few of the questions were asked here. Did Devin Archer not say, “Joe Biden did nothing wrong”?

To be clear, I only know about Mr. Archer from newspaper reports. I want to be clear that I kept my promise to not involve myself in this investigation.

Okay. Then, I’ll state it. He said that Joe Biden did nothing wrong. Secondly, did you say that President Trump, President Trump appointed Weiss who then you appointed?

Yes. President Trump appointed Mr. Weiss as United States attorney.

So, that should take care of that issue. And they say the department’s been weaponized. Wasn’t there an investigation of Mr. Gaetz and you didn’t prosecute him?

Justice Department does not make comments about its investigation.

Well, associate, we’re not weaponized. If we were weaponized, we’d had done it. That was a beautiful exchange there and it shows we didn’t do that.

(01:05:11)
You are the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and I appreciate that and law enforcement’s one of our government’s fundamental functions. Crime is growing too much in this country and in my city of Memphis as well. We need law enforcement to be effective, swift, and fair. I’d like to focus my questions on what’s actually affects the American people, crime.

(01:05:32)
How do we get smarter law enforcement requiring smart resource of allocations, not about funding or less funding, but the right funding for the right programs and see that that happens. Memphis, as hiring has become more difficult, we’ve lowered our standards to get more officers. That’s not the way to do it. The COPS program is helping us review the policy and procedures and I thank you, the COPS program, for doing that. But what can Department of Justice do to help see that law enforcement is more efficient and more effective?

So the key to this is our partnership, the FBI, DEA, Marshals, ATFs partnership at every local level with local and state law enforcement in task forces, in discussions to target the most dangerous criminals in those communities, but at the same time to engage the communities to help engender community trust in law enforcement. Everyone who’s prosecuted violent crime cases, and that includes me, knows that you need the trust of the community in order to get witnesses and we and the Justice Department are helping our state and local colleagues do just that. The funding you described from the COPS office and in the Office of Justice Programs allows us to give money to state and local police organizations that are having trouble with recruitment and retention and promotion of law officers and helps them make their departments respectful of constitutional rights and at the same time effective in the investigation and prosecution of criminal law violations.

Thank you for those activities, those programs through COPS. You’ve also re-instituted patterns and practices investigations of certain police departments and Memphis is one of them and I thank you for doing that. Can you share with us how important those pilot programs are and how they can improve policing?

Yes. Congress has authorized the Justice Department to conduct pattern of practice investigations when they have a reasonable belief that there has been a pattern of unconstitutional behavior in a police department. We are careful to select those cases where we think there is such a pattern. We make those investigations. We then work with the law enforcement agencies and the cities. Our hope is to come to a consent decree that will lead to a better, more efficient, and more constitutional police department. We have been successful in all of our cases to date in reaching consent agreements.

Thank you, sir. You were part of being and I announced bringing of federal charges against the five officers who killed Tyre Nichols in Memphis and I thank you for that. We need that federal charge and we need our department looked at. If there’s a shutdown of the federal government, how will that affect the Department of Justice and affect policing in local communities?

I haven’t done a complete calculation on the effects of a shutdown and the difference between which employees are indispensable under the statute and which one’s not. It will certainly disrupt all of our normal programs including our grant programs to state and local law enforcement and to our ability to conduct our normal efforts with respect to the entire scope of our activities, including helping state and locals fight violent crime.

Thank you, sir, and happy New Year and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlemen yields back. The gentleman, Mr. McClintock from California is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, looking again at the appointment of Jack Smith and David Weiss, this double standard of justice couldn’t be more glaring. Jack Smith was deeply involved in the IRS scandal that targeted conservative political groups to harass, his malicious prosecution of former Governor McDonnell was unanimously overturned by the US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts rebuke Smith directly for attempting to criminalize political activity. You appointed him to prosecute Joe Biden’s chief rival for the presidency.

(01:10:02)
And then we have the appointment of David Weiss. Weiss deliberately allowed the statute of limitations to run out on any charges that could have implicated Joe Biden and influence peddling. He originally offered Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal that was ultimately upended by the court and he’s the one you appointed to pursue the charges that could implicate Joe Biden. That leads me to only two explanations, either corruption or incompetence. Which is it?

Those are the kind of questions that judges would rule out of order.

I’m sure you would. Which is it?

Look, I said before and I will say again, Mr. Weiss was the Republican-appointed United States attorney, appointed by President Trump.

Do you at least see the obvious double standard applied in these two appointments?

Mr. Weiss was a Republican appointee. Mr. Smith is not registered to either party. His entire career was as a career prosecutor.

I don’t what their party registrations are. I’m not asking what their party registrations are.

Does that seems like a double standard.

I’m asking about their records and how those records would commend them to the appointments that you made. This is a question of judgment and it’s a question of motive. What was motivating you to do this?

Mr. Smith had a nationwide reputation for integrity and for-

Oh, please. Not here.

… appropriate prosecution. His work can be measured by what he actually has filed. Everyone in the country can see the indictments that he has charged. Those-

How can you say that after he was so heavily implicated in the IRS scandal or the rebuke that the Supreme Court gave and many other examples.

(01:11:47)
But let go on. We’ve had two IRS whistleblowers inform Congress of attempts by senior Justice Department officials to obstruct the criminal investigation into millions of dollars of Ill-gotten and undeclared income to Hunter Biden. They noted several deviations by department officials from normal process that provided preferential treatment, in this case, to Hunter Biden, a direct quote including allowing the statute of limitations to lapse, requesting IRS and FBI management level investigative communications, prohibiting investigators from referring to the big guy or dad in witness interviews, excluding the investigative team from meetings with defense counsel and notifying defense counsel of pending search warrants. The US Attorney’s office even tipped off the Bidens of an impending search of a storage unit where their records were being kept. Now, that sounds an awful lot like obstruction of justice to me. Was that coming from you or from somebody else?

I’m sorry. Was that coming from you? I don’t understand the question.

All of the actions that your employees took to obstruct the investigation of Hunter Biden and the earnings that he made and the taxes he failed to declare, their source and ultimately who they were paid to.

I’m going to say again with respect to the Hunter Biden investigation that it has been and still is in the hands of Mr. Weiss, an appointee of President Trump. I don’t know about all these allegations. Some of them appear to have been from the period when the attorney general appointed by President Trump was still the attorney general.

Do these charges trouble you at all?

Mr. Weiss will have an opportunity to explain the decisions [inaudible 01:13:42]-

Well, you’re the guy in charge. Does this trouble you?

I have intentionally not involved myself in the facts of the case, not because I’m trying to get out of responsibility but because I’m trying to pursue my responsibility.

Your FBI director testified before this committee of an uptick in, quote, “Known or suspected terrorists,” coming across the southern border and he told us that the southern border represents a massive security threat. Those were his words, “A massive security threat.” Do you agree?

I am perfectly happy to align myself with the director of the FBI.

Well, why is it then that we, senior administration rescind the Trump- era orders that had secured that border? We’ve seen an exponential increase in suspected terrorists.

The time of the gentleman’s expired. The witness can respond, if he chooses.

The answer to this question about immigration law is an extremely long answer. I would defer to the Department of Homeland Security which is responsible for the physical security and about first contact at the border with respect-

Well, we’ve tried to get answers from him. He doesn’t give them to us. So we were hoping you would. I understand, Mr. Attorney General, you’ve requested a short break so we’ll take a short break and resume in five minutes.

Okay. Sorry.

The order of the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General Garland, great to see you. Thank you for your service to the nation and the nation watches as the Republicans have no answer for why they want to focus and obsess on Hunter Biden receiving $2 million from Burisma after serving on a board that he said he was not qualified to serve on. But yet, the Saudi Arabians gave $2 billion to Jared Kushner who conducted Middle East strategy for his dear old dad, Donald Trump. He got $2 billion for something that he is not equipped to do, which is investment banking. And so Republicans looking at Hunter Biden instead of Jared Kushner, Americans don’t understand how that could be.

(01:16:25)
And they also are increasingly alarmed about the fact that the Republicans in control of the House only seem to have three objectives. One is to impeach Joe Biden. Number two is to impeach or get rid of Kevin McCarthy actually. And the third is to shut down government and a subset of that is to defund the DOJ and the FBI for trying to hold Donald Trump accountable.

(01:16:57)
So the American people are watching that and they also appreciate the fact that you’ve had a distinguished career as a prosecutor and a DOJ official as well as 24 years on the bench. You served on the second highest court of the land as a judge for 24 years, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. We appreciate your service. You were for seven years the lead. You managed that entire office. We thank you for that. You also served on the judicial council for a number of years and so you are steeped in the rule of law. You are a judge extraordinaire and as a judge you never had the occasion to receive a private jet travel to an exotic location by a corporate billionaire, did you? You can cut your mic on.

No.

You never received an offer to get a ride on a private jet?

No.

Did you take any vacations at exclusive resorts paid for by a billionaire?

I know these are not hypothetical questions and I think this is really not within my realm of questions.

I mean, it’s no. No, I mean you were a judge extraordinaire and you know the rules of ethics for judges because your bench was covered by a code of conduct. Is that not correct?

Yes. All the judges, federal, appellate, and district judges are covered by the code of conduct.

You would never have had somebody to pay for your godson’s tuition to private school.

I don’t want to answer these kind of, at least for me, they’re hypothetical questions. What I would say is that I always as a judge, and I’ve said this before and quite publicly and long ago, always held myself to the highest standards of ethical responsibility imposed by the code. And that’s really all I can answer here.

And it’s required that judges and justices avoid even appearances of impropriety. Isn’t that correct?

Again, I know you’re asking this both hypothetically and not hypothetically. All I can say is I follow the code of judicial conduct and it includes avoiding appearances. That’s right.

Well, let me ask you this question. Senator Whitehouse and I sent a letter to you alerting you to the fact that we were asking the judicial counsel to refer the matter of Clarence Thomas being in violation of the Ethics in Government Act to the Justice Department. And after that, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez along with myself and others requested that you take that matter up directly. Have you responded to either one of those letters and if not, why not? And what action have you taken pursuant to those letters?

The gentlemen may respond.

I assume that if you sent the letter we have it and I’ll speak to the Office of Legislative Affairs about where it is at this point.

Is the department investigating-

The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa.

Thank you. Good day, Mr. Attorney General. And this may be the reason that it’s good for you to leave the chief justice in that group before each of us speak because you would have already heard all that. I want to thank you personally for your office and your engagement on Camp Lejeune and on obviously a vast amount of litigation that is one of the many, many jobs that it falls at your feet.

(01:21:07)
One of the jobs that falls at our feet here is that we are watchdogs of the executive branch. You have previously said that you are not Congress’s attorney and you’ve said you’re not the president’s attorney and I’m assuming that you’re neither our prosecutor nor our defense attorney and you’re neither the president’s prosecutor nor defense attorney. And that’s why today’s investigation really does deal with the fact that if you’re not by definition the president’s prosecutor, but we have an obligation to see whether or not the president or a member of his family or in concert with the president’s activities in fact need to be overseen, admonished, or even prosecuted.

(01:21:57)
And so, I have a couple of questions for you and one of them is that you have not said this very much today, but you often say, “I cannot comment on that because it’s an ongoing investigation.” And when we ask for information, you very commonly say that it is the policy, not the law, but the policy of the Department of Justice not to provide information related to an ongoing investigation. So far, I’m on track. Is that correct?

I think I’ve said more than that’s just the policy. I think the letters we’ve sent trace it to the constitutional separation of powers to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, et cetera. But in general I’m in accord with what you’re saying.

So one of the challenges we face is that just a matter of weeks ago, a federal judge found the actions of now special prosecutor to be so outside what he could agree to that he pushed back on a police settlement and nullified it and sent the US Attorney going back. In light of that, don’t you think it’s appropriate for that portion to be considered a pre-ongoing investigation and for Congress to legitimately look at the activities leading up to that failed plea bargain rather than wait until weeks, months, or years from now a case is fully settled.

Yeah. So if you’ll give me a chance, first I don’t agree with the characterization of what happened in the plea. The district judge performed her obligations under Rule 11 to determine whether the parties were in agreement as to what each had agreed to and determined that they were not. The plea fell apart, as you know. There’s been another prosecution.

(01:23:48)
So that leads to the second thing. Mr. Weiss is in the midst of an ongoing prosecution on the very matter that you’re talking about.

Okay, but Mr. Attorney General, if we believe and we do at least on this side of the dais, that a pattern of behavior is occurring relative to the investigation of Hunter Biden particularly and including, while he lived in the vice president’s home while he operated, commingled with the vice president and even today as he travels with the president.

(01:24:23)
So in light of that, can you agree that in fact it should be reasonable for us to look at a number of items including and one that I want your answer on, and I know we know we have limited time, Mr. Weiss supposedly had this ability to bring a prosecution anywhere. He now explicitly has that ability. However, are you concerned and should we have the right to look into the fact that political appointees in California and in the District of Columbia refused to in fact cooperate with him in investigation that he was charged with doing in Delaware but which flowed over into their jurisdictions. Isn’t that in fact an example where those political appointees of the now president, that their decision not to cooperate with him creates at least an appearance of political interference with the investigation of the president son and possibly activities related to the president?

Look, I’m happy to answer this question in hypothetical but not in the specifics because I have stayed out of this matter.

(01:25:33)
In the hypothetical, it is the normal process of the department that if a US attorney in one district wants to bring a case in another, they go to that other district and consult. It’s perfectly appropriate they do that in order to determine what the policies are in that district, what the practices have been in that district, what the judges are like in that district. But a US attorney in another district does not have the authority to deny another US attorney the ability to go forward. And I have assured Mr. Weiss that he would have the authority one way or the other and I think Mr. Weiss’s letters completely reflect that.

Thank you. To be continued.

The time of the gentleman’s expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California for five minutes.

Welcome, Mr. Attorney General, and thank you for leading the department with such integrity. We meet today at a momentous time in our history. The country is about to go through a great trial. By this I do not mean any of the several trials of the former president, but rather trial the proposition that we are a nation of laws committed to the rule of law and that no one is above the law. It is a proposition well known around the world because it is the one essential ingredient in all democracies. We have all professed our belief in this principle, but it has never been truly tested, not like it is today.

(01:26:55)
In this committee, we are engaged in a portion of that trial. The chairman would abuse the power of this committee by trying to interfere in the prosecutions of Donald Trump by trying to use the committee’s power of subpoena to compel criminal discovery, in effect making the committee a kind of criminal defense firm for the former president.

(01:27:16)
In doing so, the chairman of this committee would establish a very different proposition. Through Mr. Jordan’s actions, he would establish the principle that the rule of law should apply to almost everyone, just not the leader of his party. According to this alternate proposition, if you were the president of the United States and you lose your reelection, you can violate the law and Constitution to try to stay in power. And if you are successful, well then, maybe you get to be president for life. And if you fail, there is no repercussion. This proposition is also well known to the world and it is called dictatorship.

(01:27:55)
Mr. Jordan hopes to camouflage his assault on the rule of law by falsely claiming that Donald Trump is the victim of unequal justice and Hunter Biden its beneficiary. It is a claim as transparently political as it is devoid of any factual basis and it is cynical based on the belief that the American people cannot discern fact from fiction.

(01:28:19)
But I am betting on America, history has shown that those who bet against her are rarely successful and more often they end up covered with shame. I believe in the rule of law and I thank you Mr. Attorney General for defending it.

(01:28:33)
Let me now turn to some of the false claims asserted by the former president and some on this committee. On Sunday, the former president appeared on a national news Sunday program and was asked about four indictments and 91 counts facing him. His response was, “Biden political indictments.” He said to the attorney general, “Indict him.” Mr. Attorney General, I want to give you a chance to respond. Was the President telling the truth or was he lying when he said that President Biden told you to indict him?

No one has told me to indict. And in this case, the decision to indict was made by the special counsel.

So that statement the president made on Sunday was false.

I’m just going to say again that no one has told me who should be indicted in any matter like this and the decision about indictment was made by Mr. Smith.

Let me ask you this question about the prosecution of Hunter Biden, the prosecutor in that case, Mr. Weiss was appointed not by Joe Biden, but he was appointed in the first instance by Donald Trump. Is that correct?

That’s correct.

And he was continued in that position, was he not?

He was continued in that position, yes.

And Mr. Attorney General, can you imagine, can you imagine the hue and cry you would hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if you had removed him from that position. Can you imagine the claims that you had removed a prosecutor who was diligently investigating Hunter Biden? Can you imagine the outrage they would have expressed?

I can say that during my confirmation hearing, I discussed with many senators on that side of the aisle their desire and actual insistence that Mr. Weiss be continued to have responsibility for that matter. And I promised and I said at my confirmation hearing that he would be permitted to stay and that I would not interfere.

And Mr. Attorney General, that was exactly the right decision. That was the right decision to give the American people the confidence that even a prosecutor chosen by the former president would continue in the investigation into the son of the current president. That was exactly the right decision, exactly the right decision, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would’ve been screaming if it were otherwise, but their attack on you is completely devoid of fact, of principle, but I appreciate you doing the right thing for the Department of Justice and more importantly, the right thing for the American people. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky.

Attorney General Garland, Elon Musk was a democrat who admittedly supported Biden, but then he became a critic of the administration and exposed the censorship regime. Now per public reports, the DOJ has opened not one but two investigations of Elon Musk. Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, spent $400 million in 2020 tilting the elections secretly for Democrats, no investigations whatsoever.

(01:32:06)
To the American public, these look like mafia tactics. You pays your money, we look the other way. You get in our way, we punish you. The American public sees what these tactics are. Now, I want to direct your attention to a video here that we’re going to play.

Obviously that’s a significant matter. It is an ongoing criminal investigation and so I’m not going to comment on an ongoing criminal investigation.

Were those pipe bomb’s operable? The ATF is the expert.

Again, it’s an ongoing and criminal investigation, and under longstanding policy. I cannot comment.

As you know, this is a very active ongoing investigation and there are some restrictions on that, but we will do our best to [inaudible 01:32:49]-

Yes. We can handle classified information and we fund your department, and so you need to provide that.

Respectfully, it’s not an issue of classification, it’s an issue of commenting on ongoing criminal investigations, which is something that by longstanding department policy we are restricted in doing. And in fact, the last administration actually strengthened those policies partly because-

That’s not our policy, though, and we fund you. So let’s move on.

I could [inaudible 01:33:15]-

Do you know how-

Yes, I did. So I’m not going to violate this norm of the rule of law. I’m not going to comment on an investigation that’s ongoing.

Peter Navarro was indicted for contempt of Congress. Aren’t you, in fact, in contempt of Congress when you give us this answer? This is an answer that’s appropriate at a press conference. It’s not an answer that’s appropriate, when we are asking questions. We are the committee that is responsible for your creation, for your existence of your department. You cannot continue to give us these answers. Aren’t you, in fact, in contempt of Congress when you refuse to answer?

Congressman, I have the greatest respect for Congress. I also have the greatest respect for the Constitution and laws of the United States. The protection of pending investigations and ongoing investigations, as I briefly discussed in another dialogue a few moments ago, goes back to the separation of powers, which gives to the executive branch the sole authority to conduct prosecutions. It’s a requirement of due process and respect for those who are under investigation, the protection of their civil rights. There’s nothing to do with respect to Congress.

Well, with all due respect to that, Iran-Contra was an ongoing investigation and that didn’t stop Congress from getting the answers and you’re getting in the way of our constitutional duty. You’re citing the Constitution. I’m going to cite it. It’s our constitutional duty to do oversight.

(01:34:50)
Now, in that video, that was your answer to a question to me two years ago when I said, “How many agents or assets of the government were present on January 5th and January 6th and agitating in the crowd to go into the Capitol and how many went into the Capitol?” Can you answer that now?

I don’t know the answer to that question.

Oh, last time … You don’t know how many there were or there were none?

I don’t know the answer to either of those questions. If there were any, I don’t know how many. I don’t know whether there are any.

I think you may have just perjured yourself that you don’t know that there were any. You want to say that again, that you don’t know that there were any?

I have no personal knowledge of this matter. I think what I said the last time and [inaudible 01:35:31]-

You’ve had two years to find out, and today … By the way, that was in reference to Ray Epps and yesterday you indicted him. Isn’t that a wonderful coincidence? On a misdemeanor!

(01:35:41)
Meanwhile, you’re sending grandmas to prison. You’re putting people away for 20 years for merely filming. Some people weren’t even there, yet you’ve got the guy on video who’s saying, “Go into the Capitol.” He’s directing people to the Capitol before the speech ends. He’s at the site of the first breach. You’ve got all the goods on him, 10 videos,

… and it’s an indictment for a misdemeanor. The American public isn’t buying it.

(01:36:04)
I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Jordan.

May I answer the question?

I’m going to ask you one now. We’ll let the gentlemen…

Yeah.

Go ahead, but.

In discovery in the cases that were filed with respect to January 6, the Justice Department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question that you’re asking. With respect to Mr. Epps, the FBI has said that he was not an employee or informant of the FBI. Mr. Epps has been charged and there’s a proceeding, I believe, going on today on that subject.

The charge is a joke. I yield to the chairman.

The time the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

Mr. Attorney General, my colleague just said that you should be held in contempt of Congress, and that is quite rich because the guy who’s leaving the hearing room right now, Mr. Jordan, is about 500 days into evading his subpoena. About 500 days. So if we’re going to talk about contempt of Congress, let’s get real.

(01:37:18)
Are you serious that Jim Jordan, a witness to one of the greatest crimes ever committed in America, a crime where more prosecutions have occurred than any crime committed in America, refuses to help his country, and we’re going to get lectured about subpoena compliance and contempt of Congress. Jim Jordan won’t even honor a lawful subpoena. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? There’s no credibility on that side.

(01:37:47)
Mr. Attorney General, you are serious; they are not. You are decent; they are not. You are fair; they are not. So I welcome you to the law firm of Insurrection, LLP, where they work every single day on behalf of one client, Donald Trump. And they do that at the expense of millions of Americans who need the government to stay open, who want their kids safe in their schools and would like to see Ukraine stay in the fight so that we don’t help Russia. That’s the expense that this nonsense, this clown show, I’d call it a clown show except they actually have real responsibilities that affect real Americans. It’s the difference between one side that believes in governing and one side that believes in ruling.

(01:38:33)
You’ve tried to comply with this committee. In fact, last week, one of your special agents came here for an interview, brought his lawyer and was told that he couldn’t have his lawyer present. Mr. Jordan, who tells all of us he knows so much about the Constitution, wouldn’t afford one of your employees one of the basic constitutional rights to have a lawyer present. In fact, they threatened to call the Capitol Police and arrest a lawyer that was brought.

(01:38:59)
Are you familiar with that standoff that occurred last week, Mr. Attorney General?

Generally, yes.

Well, your office also sent a letter detailing it, that you were willing to comply but you’d like him to have a lawyer and I’d like to submit that to the record with unanimous consent.

Without objection.

Who appointed Mr. Weiss?

Mr. Trump was the last person who appointed Mr. Weiss to the position of US Attorney. I appointed him to the position of special counsel last month.

Who initially appointed John Durham?

Mr. Durham was, I believe, also appointed by President Trump. And Mr. Barr appointed him as special counsel.

And again, these guys are so upset that Donald Trump’s appointed prosecutors aren’t doing enough of the corruption that Donald Trump wants him to do. So either they are just following the law or they’re not as corrupt and they’re not willing to go as far as they think that Donald Trump deserves. That’s what they’re asking to happen here. Also, doesn’t it seem that they want it both ways when it comes to the special counsel? A lot of questions suggested that the special counsel should be independent, but when they didn’t like the direction of the special counsel, you were asked why you didn’t interfere more or involve yourself more or investigate more.

(01:40:21)
Did you get that sense that you’re kind of stuck here?

When I make an appointment somebody be a special counsel or prosecutor, the appointment is without respect to what the outcomes of the case will be.

Your office has made a number of reforms to 702, targeting foreign nationals, but those reforms have not been put into law. 702 is also one of the best weapons we have to go after fentanyl.

(01:40:51)
Can you tell us if you would support putting some of those reforms into law so we don’t have to live administration to administration to see if they’re going to be followed?

I would. Section 702 provides us with the greatest amount, at least the Justice Department, every morning, the greatest amount of intelligence that we receive about dangerous threats to the United States.

From foreign nationals?

From foreign nationals. I am quite aware and sensitive to civil liberties concerns with respect to the queries, and for that reason I put into place and I extended some of those that Mr. Barr had begun at the end of his term and I put further ones in place. Those have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of queries and a dramatic reduction in the number of noncompliant queries. I believe those are appropriate reforms and I would be in favor of codifying them, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. And thank you for coming and doing something that the chairman is unwilling to do, testify to Congress. Yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald.

Attorney General, on August 11th, 2023, you appointed Mr. David Weiss, US attorney for the District of Delaware as special counsel to oversee the investigation on Hunter Biden. I don’t think the question has been asked yet, why did you choose to appoint him as special counsel?

The explanation was given, and to the extent I’m permitted to give an explanation as the one I gave and sent to the Congress, which is that Mr. Weiss requested it, that I had promised to give him all the resources that he need, that he had reached the stage of the investigation where he thought it would be appropriate. And under those extraordinary circumstances, I thought the public interest would be served by making him special counsel.

How did Mr. Weiss’s name emerge? Who recommended him? How was it brought to you or presented to you that this would be the best person to be the special counsel?

I’m not going to get into internal discussions. Mr. Weiss asked that he be appointed as special counsel, and I granted that request and made him special counsel. But I’m not going to get into internal deliberations in the Justice Department.

But I think you said earlier you’ve had no discussions with the White House and certainly the President in regards to that. Is that accurate?

Of course.

With no suggestions that came from any other level of government on Mr. Weiss?

No. Nothing came from the White House, that’s right.

So on August 20th, 2023, The Washington Post article claimed that Mr. Weiss worked with Hunter Biden and Hunter Biden’s late brother, Beau Biden. Were you aware that there was a relationship there with the Biden family?

I’m not familiar with this. I don’t know when he did what-

They worked together on legal cases in prior years. You were unaware of that?

I’m not familiar with that.

And the article claims it would’ve been inevitable for Mr. Weiss and the president to cross paths in a state like Delaware. They knew each other. There was a relationship there. But you were unaware of any of this before you appointed him?

I was unaware of this, but attorneys who are in practice certainly get to know people. Very difficult anywhere in the country for attorneys not to get to know attorneys on other sides of matters.

You said previously that Mr. Weiss had the ultimate authority over the investigation of the president’s son, including prior to his appointment as special counsel. And you stand by that statement, I’m sure.

I’m sorry, I didn’t…

Just that in fact, that the ultimate authority was still there with Mr. Weiss to make determinations on that case.

You mean still as special counsel?

Yes. As special counsel.

Yes.

So the buck stopped there and that’s been determined. According to whistleblower testimony, Mr. Weiss’s deputy, AUSA Lesley Wolf objected to search warrants of President Biden’s guest house, denied investigation access to a storage unit containing all the documents from the vacated office of law firm. Is Lesley Wolfe still employed by the Department of Justice?

I’m not going to talk about any individuals in the Justice Department. As I said before, singling out individuals has led to serious threats to their safety.

(01:45:15)
I will say that the supervisor of this investigation was Mr. Weiss. He’s responsible for all the decisions that were made. Excuse me. Many of the things that you’re saying occurred during the previous administration.

(01:45:32)
I apologize.

Okay. Well, there was absolutely a discussion by Lesley Wolf that if they told investigators or got involved with this, that there would ultimately be issues. You still believe that at this point that the entire investigation was handled by the correct discretion of the individuals involved?

Mr. Weiss was a longstanding career prosecutor who was appointed by President Trump. He has an outstanding reputation, and I have confidence that he will proceed as appropriate. And at the end of his investigation, he will submit a public report, just like Mr. Durham, just like Mr. Mueller, he will be available for you to ask him questions about why he did various things that were done.

I yield the balance of my time to the chairman.

Mr. Garland, what changed? On July 10th, 2023, David Weiss wrote Senator Graham and said, “I have not requested special counsel designation.” August 11th, you announced that he’s now the special counsel. What happened in that 31 days?

As I said publicly several days before my announcement, I think three days, Mr. Weiss had asked to become special counsel. He explained that he had reached a stage of his investigation where he thought that appropriate.

What stage is that?

I had promised to give him the resources he needed.

What stage is that? He’d reached the stage. After five years, what stage are we in? We in the beginning stage, the middle stage, the end stage, the keep hiding the ball stage, what stage are we in?

I think this one I would go back to the videotape where I said I’m not permitted to discuss ongoing investigation.

Well, isn’t that convenient. Something changed in 32 days from July 10th to August 11th. I think it’s two brave whistleblowers came forward and a judge called BS on the plea deal you guys tried to get past him. That’s what I think happened.

(01:47:27)
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(01:47:33)
The House Judiciary Committee has a responsibility of helping to ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately, this committee’s chairman ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena. The horrible precedent set by this chairman has damaged the credibility of all congressional committees and seeking information from witnesses and damaged the rule of law.

(01:47:57)
Attorney General Garland, thank you for your public service and thank you for being here today. I’d like to start by showing a video of January 6th and then I’m going to ask you some questions about that day.

Hey brother, we’re boots on the ground here. We’re moving on to Capitol now. I’ll give you a boots on the ground update here in a few.

Multiple Capitol injuries. Multiple Capitol injuries.

50 to JOCC, we’re still taking metal, sharpened objects, missiles, to include bottles and rocks and hand-thrown chemical grade fireworks. This is now effectively a riot.

1349 hours. Declaring it a riot.

Attorney General Garland, the Department of Justice charged over 1,100 defendants in connection with the attack on our Capitol, correct?

Yes, that’s correct.

I’m going to state two facts. The people who showed up on January 6th who attacked the nation’s Capitol were supporters of Donald Trump. They attacked the Capitol to stop Congress from certifying the fact that Donald Trump lost the election. Those two facts were so horrible that some in the right-wing media and some Republican members of Congress could not handle that, so they made up conspiracy theories.

(01:50:02)
In fact, Donald Trump called January 6th a beautiful day. He said the people who showed up had love in their hearts. A Republican member of Congress said January 6th was like a normal tourist visit, and some Republicans have said there were no weapons used on January 6th.

(01:50:18)
Attorney General Garland, were there weapons used in the attack on January 6th?

Yes. In the video you already saw some of the weapons that were used and there are obviously many more and many, many hours of video.

Another conspiracy theory is that somehow the FBI actually orchestrated this attack, so I’m going to go through some cases that have gone through completion and resulted in sentencing.

(01:50:41)
Joe Biggs was sentenced to 17 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other counts related to the attack on our nation’s Capitol. Have you seen any shred of evidence that Joe Biggs was an FBI agent?

No.

In fact, Joe Biggs was a member of the Proud Boys. This is what Assistant US attorney Connor Monroe stated about Joe Biggs and the Proud Boys in court. He stated, quote, “They saw themselves as Donald Trump’s army, fighting to keep their preferred leader in power no matter what the law or the courts had to say about it.”

(01:51:15)
And on September 4th, Joe Biggs stated that he is confident Trump will pardon him. He said, quote, “Oh, I know he’ll pardon us. We’re his supporters. We went there like he asked.”

(01:51:29)
I’d like to now ask you about the case of Stewart Rhodes who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the attack on our nation’s Capitol. Have you seen any shred of evidence that Stewart Rhodes was an FBI agent?

No.

In fact, he was the founder of the Oath Keepers, a far-right paramilitary organization. Rhodes asked Donald Trump to call them up as militia.

(01:51:50)
Then I’d like to ask you about Enrique Tarrio who was sentenced to 22 years in the attack on our nation’s Capitol. Have you seen any evidence that Enrique Tarrio was an FBI agent?

He was not an FBI agent.

In fact, he was the leader of the Proud Boys.

(01:52:06)
What happened on January 6th is that Donald Trump’s supporters showed up because he told them to. They marched to the Capitol because he told them to. They attacked the Capitol because he told them to stop the steal. That is a truth and that is how history is going to record it.

(01:52:21)
Thank you for prosecuting those who attacked our nation’s Capitol.

(01:52:25)
I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a slide up here.

(01:52:36)
And I’ll start in October or March of ’22, Mr. Weiss was denied the ability to bring charges against Hunter Biden in the District of Columbia. In April of that same year, you testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that Mr. Weiss was free to run the investigation without interference from the DOJ.

(01:52:54)
According to the IRS whistleblower, there was a meeting in October of ’22 where Mr. Weiss said that he was not the deciding official on whether charges were filed. And we know that because we have handwritten notes from the IRS whistleblowers that was confirmed in an email to people in the meeting.

(01:53:11)
Later in January, Mr. Weiss was denied the ability to bring charges again against Hunter Biden in the Central District of California. You testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March of this year that he had full authority, that Weiss confirmed that to us in a letter in June that he had been granted, quote, “full authority over this matter.” But then he kind of backed up. In June 30th, he said, “Well, just kidding. My charging authority is geographically limited to my home district in Delaware.” And of course you appoint him as special counsel.

(01:53:42)
So why the heck has his story changed so many times over the course of these investigations?

Congressman, I’ve seen all the three letters. I’ve read them quite carefully. They are all consistent with each other. And I urge everyone watching this on television or anyone who’s interested to look at those three letters. They are not inconsistent with each other and there’s no change in the story.

But you agree that he had, and you’ve said this publicly, that he had ultimate authority prior to the appointment of special counsel.

I’ve explained this repeatedly here. I’ve explained this in another proceeding. I said that Mr. Weiss would have the authority to bring a case in any jurisdiction in which he wanted to, and Mr. Weiss has confirmed that he would have that authority.

(01:54:29)
I explained that if he had to bring a case in another jurisdiction, as a matter of mechanics, it would require me or a delegatee of mine to sign a 515 order. That is very common.

But Mr. Attorney General-

And there was nothing stopping that from happening.

Forgive me for a second though, but when you say you have ultimate… When he wrote a letter on your behalf in June, “I have ultimate authority.” This is prior to the designation of special counsel. Ultimate, to me, means that you can go wherever you want to.

Ultimate means when-

At that particular point, sir, could he file charges in the District of South Carolina? He would not have that ability, correct? He would have to go through that US attorney. So that’s not full authority.

All he would have to do is ask me for 515 authority and I would sign it right away. Just like when he asked me to be special counsel. Within three days I signed that.

So he didn’t have ultimate authority.

He had the authority because I promised that he would have the authority.

But he did not have that authority. See, here’s where I’m going. If he was denied the ability to bring charges in March of ’22 in the District of Columbia, if he was denied the ability to bring charges in January of ’23 in the Central District of California, that’s not full authority. These US attorneys operate as gatekeepers, so that’s not full authority to do much of anything.

(01:55:55)
And you know what’s remarkable to me? We sit here and we look at this and his story has changed so many times. You know whose story hasn’t changed? Mr. Shapley, Mr. Ziegler, the emails that confirm that he said, “I am not the deciding person on whether charges are filed.” And you know what the response back was from his colleague at work? “Yep, you covered it all, Gary.” That is consistent.

(01:56:22)
What Mr. Weiss has done is this shell game and saying that he has authority, he doesn’t have authority, but these gatekeepers at the US Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia and in the Central District of California, they would have the gatekeeping authority on whether charges are brought in their jurisdictions-

I’m sorry-

… absent that designation, correct?

Those words have no meaning, gatekeepers, et cetera. Mr. Weiss said he was never denied authority. I’m the one with the authority to decide who can prosecute in a different jurisdiction, and I promised that he would have that authority. I do not see any inconsistency here. I was not at the meeting that Mr. Shapley was referring to. I know what I guaranteed and I know what Mr. Weiss has said I guaranteed.

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

It’s a simple question: If he already had it, why does he need it? That’s the question. You said in your statement on August 11th, you said he will continue, continue, to have the authority to bring charges where, when and whether, wherever he decides. So how can he continue to have a power that you just gave him? That’s the fundamental question the gentleman from South Carolina was asking. If he already had it, why does he need it?

And I tried to answer that he had the authority and he continued to have the authority.

When did he specifically ask you? Did you tell him ahead of time that he could get 515 status anytime? When did you tell him that he could get that if he requested it?

I made absolutely clear [inaudible 01:57:44].

No, when? Did you tell me at the start of the investigation?

I made it clear from the beginning in my statements to the Senate that he would have the authority to make any decisions that he wanted to and bring prosecutions he thought were appropriate.

Gentlelady from… The time from the gentleman from South Carolina has expired. The gentlelady from Washington is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General Garland, thank you for your tremendous service to this country. As somebody who was trapped in the gallery on January 6th, I have to admit it’s still hard for me to look at that video and imagine that that happened at our US Capitol. And I’m deeply grateful that you have led this nation towards accountability of all those who were involved, including the former president.

(01:58:24)
You have done so with full and complete attention to the facts, with a team around you that focuses on thorough investigation and with a very clear mission that you’ve stated over and over and over again despite the asked and answered on the other side, that the Justice Department works for the American people.

(01:58:42)
This is a night and day transformation from a Justice Department that was constantly used by Donald Trump for his own political gain. And it is my firm belief that we have to hold those accountable who tried to destroy our country, including the former president, or we risk losing our country altogether. So I thank you for your steadfast leadership.

(01:59:05)
It is just sad that this committee has also been transformed into a soapbox for political conspiracy theorists instead of focusing on the really important issues that the American people care about. And so that’s what I’m going to try to do. I’m going to focus on the critical crisis of reproductive freedom and the efforts to try and strip reproductive freedom from people across this country.

(01:59:29)
As you know, a decades long project of the extreme right-wing materialized last year when five Republican appointed justices overturned 50 years of precedent that established the constitutional right to abortion. As one of the one in four women across this country who has had an abortion and who felt compelled to share my story after decades because I saw the attacks on the right to abortion and what it would do particularly for poor women, for Black and Brown and indigenous people across this country, I spoke out and shared that story.

(02:00:03)
In the 22 states where Republicans control the state legislature and governorship today, all have moved to restrict reproductive rights. More than 25 million women of childbearing age now live in states where abortion access has been curtailed. And in Washington State, my home state, The Seattle Times reported that we are seeing increasing numbers of abortion patients, not only from neighboring Idaho, which we knew we would see, but also from other southern states where these restrictions are enforced.

(02:00:35)
Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to enter this Seattle Times article into the record. She Traveled 2,000 Miles Secretly for Her Washington Abortion. Why Patients From the South are Coming Here.

Without objection.

As our fundamental freedoms are threatened by extreme MAGA Republicans in Congress and across the country, we trust that the DOJ will initiate investigations and file lawsuits to protect reproductive rights.

(02:01:01)
With respect to mifepristone, what has the department done to protect access to this very safe abortion drug that women can take at home safely and to end a pregnancy?

So the FDA authorized the use of mifepristone as safe and effective and it did it back in 2000. That’s been challenged, first in the district court, and we defended the FDA in that matter. There was an appeal to the circuit court, which narrowed the district court’s opinion in some ways, but allowed it to go forward in other. We have filed certain petition which has been granted, I think, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Very, very important work. Thank you. My home state of Washington has one of the highest rates of religiously affiliated hospitals in the country, with our state’s insurance commissioner’s office reporting that in 2021 there were several counties lacking even one secular hospital. This is an issue under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act when patients in need of abortion care as a lifesaving treatment are denied services under the hospital’s policies.

(02:02:14)
What is the department doing to enforce this law mandating that every hospital that receives Medicare funds provide, quote, “necessary stabilizing treatment to patients including abortion care?”

You’re right, this is a federal law. It expressly preempts any inconsistent state law. For that reason, we filed a lawsuit in Idaho and one in the district court with respect to an Idaho law that impinged on the rights granted under EMTALA. We have filed, I think, a number of statements of interest in other places and we’re continuing to look at where it would be appropriate to intervene.

Thank you. You’re on record stating that women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal. I thank you for that.

(02:03:03)
Can you briefly discuss the progress made by the task force and DOJ to ensure that pregnant people retain their right to travel?

Yes, look, my view about this right to travel is the same as Justice Kavanaugh’s in his separate opinion. He said this is not a particularly difficult question. The right to travel is a constitutional right and it allows a woman in a state that bars abortion to travel and obtain an abortion in a state in which it’s permitted.

Thank you, Attorney General for your commitment to this issue and to upholding the rule of law in our country. Appreciate your service.

Time of the lady has expired. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General for being here today.

(02:03:44)
I would like to go back briefly to your remarks regarding before the Senate when you were confirmed and your promise regarding Mr. Weiss. Can you explain to us a little more detail who you promised that you would keep Mr. Weiss on this case, to whom was that promise made?

So a number of senators in my meetings with them asked me to make that promise. I think that was discussed in my interchange with a senator from Tennessee, I believe.

And did that promise that you made lead you to believe that even if that Mr. Weiss displayed a level of incompetence, that you would be precluded from asking him to step down or precluded from replacing him?

Look, when someone asks me to make this appointment, they didn’t ask me depending upon what the outcome was. Mr. Weiss’s made his appointment decisions, and Mr. Weiss is an experienced federal prosecutor with extensive experience and with sufficient credibility to be appointed by President Trump. I just have no grounds for interfering here.

Right. So you haven’t answered the question. The question was, really, what level of incompetence displayed by a prosecutor under your control would it take for you to make a change? But let’s move on.

(02:05:18)
The level of incompetence I’m referring to, I’ll just read this to you. This is the same Weiss who headed an investigation that was trashed by whistleblowers who alleged that his investigation had been fixed from the outset. It’s the same Weiss who ran an investigation in which agents were allegedly prevented from asking about Joe Biden, obstructed in their efforts to pursue questions, compromised by tip-offs to the Biden team on planned searches.

(02:05:40)
It was the same Weiss who reportedly allowed the statute of limitations to run out on Hunter’s major tax offenses, even though he had the option to extend it. It was the same Weiss who did not indict on major tax felonies and cut a plea deal that brushed aside a felony gun charge. It was the same Weiss who inked a widely panned sweetheart deal that caused a federal judge to balk it and trash a sweeping immunity grant language that even the prosecutor admitted never been seen in a previous plea deal. So there’s a list of, what I would suggest under many people’s definition, would be incompetence.

(02:06:17)
Are you saying that that’s inadequate for you to have questioned what he was doing?

I’m saying that all of these are allegations. I don’t know what the facts of them are. I have, as I’ve explained, stayed out of this investigation. I was not present in any of the meetings discussed. Some of the meetings occurred under the previous administration where Mr. Weiss was assigned to the matter by the previous Justice Department, and I’m not in a position to comment on them.

That’s too bad. There’s a scope of investigation memo generally issued when we start these things out. Who issued that scope of investigation memo to Mr. Weiss? Was it done back when he was originally appointed to take on the Biden case? Is that when the memo was telling him what he was supposed to do was issued? Is there a scope of investigation memo is my question?

There’s a scope of investigation with respect to special counsel and that has been publicly transmitted to the chairman of this Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And who wrote it?

Who wrote that scope?

Yeah. Who decided what should be within the scope of that investigation?

I’m sorry?

Who wrote the memo? Who decided what the scope of that-

I decided what should be in the scope. If you’ll compare that to the scope of many other special counsels, it basically is modeled on the format that we’ve used in the past, not only in this administration, but the previous one.

In your remarks delivered on August 11th of this year concerning the appointment of David Weiss as special counsel, you say, upon considering his request as well as, quote, “the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter.” Can you tell us what those extraordinary circumstances were?

I’m sorry, I lost.

Okay, so these are your remarks back on August 11th.

Yes. Yes.

And it says on Tuesday of this week, Mr. Weiss advised me that, I’m just quoting from your memo. This is what he says.

Yes, yes.

In his judgment, his investigation has reached a stage at which he should continue his work as special counsel, and he asked to be so appointed upon considering his request as well as the extraordinary circumstances related to this matter.”” I’ve concluded it’s in the best public interest to appoint him special counsel.

(02:08:29)
What were those extraordinary circumstances you’re talking about?

Yeah. Look, all of these special counsels, including the appointment by Mr Barr with respect to Mr Durham uses those phrases. The reason he uses those phrases is because that’s in a special counsel regulation. I’ve said as much as I can say with respect to that, without discussing matters relating to a pending investigation. I can’t discuss matters with respect to a pending investigation for the reasons I’ve said.

Thank you.

(02:09:03)
Yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(02:09:09)
Mr. Garland, want to welcome you today to this hearing. Want to turn our attention to something very interesting more important. The most important thing on Main Street today in my district is drug addiction, narcotics trafficking, fentanyl. I’m going to quote you June 23rd of this year you said and I open quote, ” The US government continues to do everything in our power to disrupt fentanyl trafficking and to prevent more of our communities from being devastated by the fentanyl epidemic. We went on to say we are targeting every step of the movement, manufacturing and the sale of fentanyl from start to finish.”

(02:09:49)
Mr Garland, I believe that the only thing that cartel leaders fear is a United States prison. I want to thank you for the good job. You recently extradited Ovidio Guzmán Lopez, El Chapo’s son. Thank you very much for that good job. My question is, do you have plans to extradite additional cartel leaders from other parts of the world to the United States to face US justice and a US prison sentence?

Yeah, I don’t want to get into that discussions, diplomatic discussions over the matter, but obviously we have indicted the other Chapitos, Chapito being the nickname given to the sons of El Chapo.

How many of those are there of those?

I’m trying to remember. I think there are maybe four more, maybe five. I’m not sure exactly, but they’ve all been publicly indicted and of course we’ll seek the extradition of and the apprehension of everyone we’ve indicted.

The apprehension, the indictment of these individuals requires that you have cooperation from foreign countries, especially Mexico since that’s where a lot of these cartels are operating. Would you say right now is cooperating with us in terms of working with your office to bring these cartel leaders to justice?

They’ve obviously worked with us with respect to Ovidio. His apprehension by the Mexicans led to the deaths of a significant number of Mexican Marines, Ovidio’s people fighting back with 50 caliber machine guns and the Marines having to use Blackhawk attack helicopters in order to arrest him.

Are these US Marines or Mexican Marines?

I’m sorry.

United States Marines.

No, no. I’m sorry. Mexican Marines. It’s the Mexican marines who are playing an important role in the apprehension of the cartel leaders.

So Mr Garland, would you characterize cooperation right now with Mexicans as being good? Not good?

I would say cooperation can always be better. We have an enormous problem with respect to fentanyl coming from Mexico from its manufacturer there based on the precursors coming from China, based on the cartel leaders.

How can we as members of Congress help you make sure that other countries have stronger cooperating relationship with us? How can we make sure that they cooperate to their fullest abilities with you?

I appreciate that request. I’ll have to think about it some more. I will say that I’ve personally traveled to Mexico twice to try to get cooperation with respect to these matters.

How important is Fizan 702 to your job when it comes to fighting narco, fentanyl?

It’s very important. Fentanyl poses a national security problem in the United States.

So can you work with us to assure that we put guardrails safety measures on 702 to assure that those investigative weapons are not turned against US citizens?

Absolutely. 702 is a crucial essential tool, but like all tools, it has to be properly controlled and we would be happy to work with Congress to make sure the civil liberties are protected.

My last minute I wanted to turn to the antitrust area, the European Union and the Digital Markets Act, which is designed to protect consumers in Europe. Yet it looks like most of their focus is American firms. No European companies or other foreign operators in the European Union are being targeted. It looks like it’s only American firms operating in Europe and it looks like the DOJ is working to support the efforts of the Europeans in implementing the Digital Marketing Act. I have 18 seconds. I’m going to submit a written question to your office, but my focus, my interest is making sure American Jobs, American companies are successful around the globe and that they are not in any way hampered from working overseas.

(02:14:08)
Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I ran out of time.

Gentlemen yields back. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you Mr Chairman. Welcome Attorney General.

(02:14:19)
Following your confirmation, Americans were promised they were getting a focused nonpartisan to lead their federal law enforcement. I had my doubts back then and the last two years have more than confirmed in my mind those fears. Never in my life would I would’ve thought that I would see such a politicized DOJ. Never in my life would I have thought I would see such a Department of Justice that didn’t obey their own rules. Never in my life did I think I would see the egregious investigations conducted under your watch or the blatant disregard of the First Amendment by FBI field offices under your watch and never in my life did I think I would see our great DOJ turn into a politicized weapon to be wielded by an investigation to attack political rivals.

(02:15:11)
I still hold the thousands of hardworking staff with high regard, but unfortunately there are some within the department in my mind who have betrayed their oaths and for that you must be held accountable. I hold you accountable for the labeling of parents as domestic terrorists standing up for their proper education of their own children. I hold you accountable for the anti-Catholic memo. Imagine sending agents undercover into Roman Catholic churches because they were supposedly domestic terrorists and I hold you accountable for unleashing a special counsel with a history of botched investigations on our current president’s political rival.

(02:15:54)
The department under your leadership, I am sorry to say and I am sorry to say, has become an enforcement arm of the Democratic National Committee. If there is a perceived threat to the Democratic Party, this DOJ attacks every single time, but when there are actionable threats against conservatives, this DOJ stays put. Protestors outside, violent protestors outside the Supreme Court justice’s home, unpunished. Attacks on pro-life centers, unpunished. The two-tiered system of justice is clear and it’s clear to the American public and the buck stops with the man in charge.

(02:16:32)
That man is you. The actions of the DOJ are on you. The decline of American’s trust in our federal law enforcement is on you. The political weaponization of the DOJ is on you. Attorney General, I need a simple yes or no to the following, just yes or no because we don’t have much time.

(02:16:52)
Do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists, yes or no?

Let me answer what you’ve said in that long list of… I’ll be happy to answer all of those.

Attorney General, I control the time. I’m going to ask you to answer the questions I asked.

You controlled time by asking me a substantial number of things and let me-

I didn’t ask you those things. I made a statement.

(02:17:12)
Attorney General through the chair I ask you, do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists? Answer the question.

I have no idea what traditional means here.

Catholics.

Let me just-

Catholics that go to church.

May I answer your question?

Yes or no.

The idea that someone with my family background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous, so absurd.

Mr Attorney General, it was your FBI that did this. It was your FBI that was sending and we have the memos, we have the emails, were sending undercover agents into Catholic churches.

Both I and the director of the FBI have said that we were appalled by that memo.

So then you agree that they’re not extremists.

We were appalled by that memo.

Are they extremists or not, Attorney General?

I think that-

Are they extremists or not, Attorney General?

Everything in that memo is appalling.

Are they extremists or not? I’m asking a simple question. Say no if you think that was wrong.

Conflicts are not extremists. No.

Was anyone fired for drafting and circulating the anti-Catholic memo?

You have in front of you the inspection division’s investigation?

Just tell me yes or no please.

I don’t know.

You have no time.

I don’t know the answer to that. There’s a disciplinary process [inaudible 02:18:28].

Do you agree that parents attending school board meetings should be categorized… Should parents that go to school board meetings and are very vocal about their kids’ education, should they be classified as domestic terrorists?

Of course not and my memo made clear that vigorous objections to policies and schools are protected in the First Amendment.

So it’s no.

(02:18:48)
The President this week accused you, not the president himself, his staff and it was in the Wall Street Journal and it was leaked out of mismanaging the Hunter Biden probe. Do you agree? Yes or no. It was in the Wall Street Journal article. I’m not saying that.

I’m sorry. Do I agree with the Wall Street Journal?

Yes and the information they released that said you botched this probe.

Yeah, I think I have dealt with the Hunter Biden investigation and the way I’ve told this [inaudible 02:19:14].

Mr Chairman, I yield my remaining time to you.

I appreciate the gentleman yields back.

(02:19:18)
The gentle lady from Pennsylvania’s recognized.

Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you Attorney General Garland for your decades of service to the Department of Justice, to our country and to our constitution.

(02:19:33)
It’s been truly honorable service and I think the American public as a whole recognizes that. I was struck by an appreciate your opening statement in which you made crystal clear your fidelity to the US Constitution and the rule of law and your reaffirmation that the Attorney General is not the president’s lawyer. This is a welcome change from the rhetoric and actions of some of your predecessors in the last administration when they appeared before us. As we all should know, the Justice Department works for the American people to prosecute crimes, uphold the rule of law and Americans individual rights and keep our country safe. And Congress of course has a legitimate duty of oversight. But the blatantly political and misleading rhetoric which we’ve been subjected to today undermines the seriousness of this committee’s work and ultimately the legitimacy and core values of our American institutions.

(02:20:25)
It’s painfully obvious to anyone who caress about our constitution that our colleagues have called this hearing not to conduct legitimate oversight, but to once again defend the indefensible actions of the disgraced twice impeached and now repeatedly indicted in multiple jurisdictions, former president and to distract from their inability to perform the most basic function of Congress to fund the federal government.

(02:20:53)
So they’re baselessly accusing the US Department of Justice of bias against the former president and his allies. But it’s important to note that those who are noisily and shamelessly trying to subvert our justice system are the same ones who seem to have both the most to fear from those ongoing investigations and the most to gain politically and personally from impeding them. As others have noted, these attempts now include trying to defund the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office altogether.

(02:21:22)
I, like so many Americans find this behavior contemptible and far beneath what we should expect from our country’s leaders. Mr Attorney General, why is it so important for both upholding the rule of law and maintaining public trust that our justice system be able to conduct investigations into wrongdoing free from political interference?

The criminal law can impose incredible sanctions on people, can take away their liberty. That means due process has to be followed during investigations and that partisan considerations not play a role that civil liberties and civil rights are protected and the only way that can happen is if prosecutors are permitted to go about their work without any external impermissible interventions or considerations.

Thank you. I did want to take the opportunities since this is an oversight hearing to conduct some actual oversight and there was an important topic in your testimony safeguarding the right to vote. During the previous administration I asked department officials in this committee room what actions they were taking on this critical issue and they couldn’t answer me. So could you describe the efforts that your Department of Justice is taking to protect the right to vote a fundamental pillar of our democracy?

Yes.

(02:22:52)
The Congress in the form of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act authorized the department to bring cases and to enforce the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to vote. As I’m sure in the Shelby County case, the Supreme Court eliminated one of our tools, section five of the Voting Rights Act, but we retained section two, which the Supreme Court again endorsed in its last term. So we have brought cases in a number of jurisdiction where we felt that state laws unconstitutionally impinged on the right to vote and we have supported private parties when they have brought those cases, particularly in redistricting cases that violated the anti-dilution requirement of section two. We have a task force with respect to threats against election workers because threatening election workers and stopping them from going about their work is a significant way in which the right to vote vote can be impinged. That’s just a sampling.

And we certainly saw evidence of that in Pennsylvania during the last presidential election, so we really appreciate all those efforts. I find this hearing very disturbing in that we have elected officials misleading the public, attacking the foundations of our democracy, trying to sow distrust on one of the most critical pillars of that democracy, the US Department of Justice. It’s unacceptable and it’s un American. Mr Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record a fact sheet on the Department of Justice’s work under Attorney General Garland’s leadership to safeguard American’s right to vote and protect our election officials and workers.

No objection.

Thank you. I yield back.

Committee will be in order. Committee will be in order.

It’s very important…

Vacillated please.

(02:24:55)
Gentlemen, Virginia is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you Mr Chairman. Attorney General…

Thank you.

… on August 11th, 2023, you appointed Mr Weiss’s special counsel. You wrote a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees where you cited extraordinary circumstances requiring the appointment. You avoided answering the question when Mr Ben asked you, I’ll give you another chance to answer it. What were those extraordinary circumstances?

I’m afraid I’ll have to give you the same answer I gave before. I’ve gave as much as I can give, which is that he thought that he had reached a stage where it would be appropriate that I had promised him that I would give him any resource that he needed and that he asked for it and to go further would go into a pending investigation.

Okay. Let’s talk about that authority. Back on March 1st, you told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr Weiss had the full authority to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he felt it was necessary. On June 7th, Mr Weiss wrote to the Judiciary Committee stating he had been granted ultimate authority over the matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges, but by June 30th, he had changed his tune and said that his charging authority was geographically limited and it would be up to the US attorney’s office and then you to determine whether he can partner on the case and if not, he can request special attorney status from the AG pursuant to 28 USC 515 and he had been assured that if necessary he would be granted 515 authority in DC Central District of California or any other district court charges could be brought.

(02:26:33)
Let me ask you, is there some distinct legal authority known as special attorney status?

I’m sorry?

Is there some distinct legal authority known as special attorney status?

Section 515 permits the Attorney General to sign an order to authorize a prosecutor to work in another district.

And if you had already decided that he had full authority, why did you feel it was necessary to sign that document?

I’m sorry?

Why did you feel that… Why did Mr Weiss feel that he would need that extra authority if you had conveyed to him that he would have all that authority?

You’ll have to speak with Mr Weiss about that. I think his three letters are quite clear that he understood he would have the necessary authority and that no US attorney could block him.

Okay. We asked you earlier about his request for this authority and we need to know who he spoke to about this authority and when. Before he asked you in August, he had discussions about this with others at the department. Who did he discuss special counsel authority with and when did he do that?

I’m not going to discuss internal deliberations of the department. I guarantee that-

Those aren’t…

… that Mr Weiss would have the authority that he needed and the moment he asked for the authority I gave it to him.

Did he discuss it with the Deputy Attorney General?

Again, I’m not going to get into a discussions of deliberations within the Justice Department.

That is not a valid constitutional objection.

Well, that is a valid constitutional deliberation. It has to constitutional objection. It has to do with the ability of the Justice Department to do its communications just as your deliberations with your staff and with other members are protected by the Constitution.

Detailing who had conversations and when does not implicate the internal deliberations at the department. The substance of those deliberations simply detailing who and when does not implicate those.

Yeah. I’m not going to get into the internal discussions of the department or who talked to who about what. Mr Weiss has told this committee that he well understood his ability to bring a case wherever he wanted, and I have said that he had that ability.

Do you think that the extraordinary circumstances that you cited in the appointment have anything to do with the June 22nd and July 19th testimony of whistleblowers, special agent shapely and Ziegler?

I don’t think it has anything to do with Mr Shapely. No.

I’ll yield to the chairman.

I appreciate the gentleman. Mr Garland, have you or are you investigating who leaked the information that appeared in the Washington Post on October 6th, 2022 about this investigation, about the Hunter Biden investigation?

You’re saying there was an October 2022.

October 6th, 2022, Washington Post writes a story about the Hunter Biden investigation. I wonder, have you investigated who leaked that information to the Washington Post?

I don’t know the answer to that question.

Has it been referred to the Inspector General? Do you know that?

I don’t want my answer to suggest that there is or isn’t such an investigation. I know that the Inspector General sent a letter to Congress explaining that, that he had an ongoing assessment with respect to the whistleblower’s charges. I don’t know if that’s what you’re referring to.

Time the gentleman’s expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for polling this hearing. Thank you, attorney General for your testimony for appearing before us and for your service to our country. I have great respect for my colleague from Virginia on the other side of the aisle. I’m a bit confused as to why they have zeroed in or focused in on this particular letter in such a myopic way, but your testimony, and I wrote down your words here that the moment he, meaning the Trump appointed US attorney, Mr Weiss, asked for the authority I gave it to him. Seems pretty straightforward and as you said, the letters that Mr Weiss has written to this committee are publicly available and encourage anybody who’s watching these hearings to certainly review those. As you said, clearly they’re consistent with each other in terms of reading those letters collectively.

(02:31:02)
I think it’s important, Mr. Attorney General to perhaps talk a bit about your record and your background in light of the various attacks, unfortunately by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. My understanding is that you served as a special assistant to the Attorney General of the United States early on in your career. Is that right?

It is my first job out of being a law clerk.

Your first job out of law school.

After law clerk.

After law clerk, of course.

(02:31:29)
You later were in private practice?

Yes.

And you left private practice to become a line attorney at the Department of Justice?

That’s right. To be an assistant US attorney.

An assistant US attorney, a federal prosecutor taking on organized crime cases, drug trafficking cases, violent crimes.

Yes. I don’t know about the organized crime, organized drug trafficking, yes.

Following that service, you served in the Department of Justice as the principal associate…

Attorney General.

… Attorney General.

Deputy Attorney General, yes.

Deputy Attorney General. This is in the mid nineties?

That’s right.

And in that capacity, you supervised a range of high profile cases, is that right?

Yes. They were high profile cases.

The Unabomber case.

The what?

The Unabomber case. The

Unabomber case, yes.

The Atlanta Olympic bombing.

The Olympic bombing, yes.

The Oklahoma City bombing case.

Yes, that’s right.

You received praise with respect to the latter investigation from the then Republican governor of the state of Oklahoma, is that right?

Yes, who was a very good partner in the investigation with respect to Oklahoma.

You then were nominated and appointed to the federal bench, the US District Court of Appeals here in Washington DC, correct.

For the US Court of Appeals, yes.

You were confirmed by a bipartisan majority. Over 20 Republican senators voted for your confirmation.

I’ll take your word for it. I think that’s correct.

You served on the bench for a significant period of time ultimately becoming the chief judge.

Yes, that’s right.

You left that position to return to the Department of Justice where you had started your career.

Yes.

And you were confirmed into this position in which you now hold on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.

Yes.

I think it’s unfortunate, Mr Attorney General, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have conflated questions about various cases that the department has brought with impugning your integrity, and I can assure you that the vast majority of the American people don’t share their opinion and that my constituents and folks back in Colorado are grateful for your lifetime of service that you have given to this country. And I recognize that this is, I suspect, a frustrating exercise in terms of this particular hearing because I suspect that you’d like to be talking about the prevalence of fentanyl in our communities and the work that the Department of Justice is doing to interdict it, the gun violence epidemic in our country and the work that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are doing to stop it. And my hope is that the next oversight hearing, perhaps those can be the focus, the bulk of the hearing.

(02:34:05)
I’d be remiss if I didn’t say one note about a rule that the Department of Justice recently promulgated. As you may recall, in 2021, March of 2021, I sent a letter to the Department of Justice requesting that the Department of Justice issue a rule regulating stabilizing braces. One of these braces was used, as you might recall, at a mass shooting in my community in Boulder, Colorado, where 10 Coloradans tragically lost their lives, including one police officer. And the Department of Justice issued a final rule earlier this year on this precise topic. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it their mission to overturn this rule. I wonder if you might be able to just elaborate a bit on how the rule was drafted and deliberated within the department.

Yes. Well, that horrific event in Boulder was one of several examples of the use of attachment of a semi-automatic pistol to a stabilizing brace intended to permit its firing from the shoulder. That violates the rule, the congressional statute against the short barrelled rifles being possessed without registration, anything under 16 inches. The reason for Congress’s statute, which I think probably goes back to the Al Capone era, was the power of such a weapon and the ability to aim such a weapon when it’s shoulder.

(02:35:40)
All that was done in this rule was to make clear that if you convert a pistol into a rifle designed to be fired from the shoulder, you’re subject to the registration requirement.

Thank you, Mr Attorney General. I yield back.

The Attorney General’s requested a short break, so the committee will stand in recess for a few minutes and then we’ll be back for the remainder of our member’s questions.

(02:36:06)
Committee will come to order. The chair now recognize the gentleman from Arizona for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

(02:36:11)
Sir, is it the policy of your office for US attorneys to use prosecutorial quotas?

I’m sorry, I’m having a little difficulty hearing.

Okay, I’ll get right on top of this thing.

(02:36:22)
Is it the policy of your office for US attorneys to use prosecutorial quotas?

To prosecute?

Yeah. Do you have any prosecutorial quotas system in place?

No, no.

None whatsoever. That’d be anathema to your office then, right? I mean, it’s not policy, so would you…

Correct. We do not have quotas.

Right, and so would it be consistent with that when you have a prosecutor who said that he wants to prosecute at least 2000 people who are alleged to have committed a certain type of crime?

So look, I think you’re referring to the January 6th question.

I’m just asking you, would that be consistent with your office’s policy if somebody said, “We’re going to get up to 2000 people on a particular crime,” is that consistent with your policy?

I think what that yesterday was referring to was a prediction for how many more cases would still be brought because the court had asked how many more people have [inaudible 02:37:19].

You filed the letter with the court saying that we’re looking at upwards of 2000. We’ve got 1200 more that we think we’re going to get. So you don’t do that for anything else, right? So you don’t have anything like tax fraud, you’re not saying, “Okay, we’re going to have so many people that we want to get for tax fraud. So many people, we want to get for buying a federal firearms application.”

We don’t quotas. If the court asks us what the likely workload will be based on prosecutions and investigations that are pending, US attorney is obligated to respond.

Did you guys provide any reference of the number of people you thought you would prosecute who were involved in the 2020 summer riots of the burning of the Portland Courthouse while there were still people inside those courthouses? You didn’t ever file with a court or anything say, “Oh, we think we’re going to have another 300, 400,” whatever it may be, because you didn’t file those charges, did you?

I’m sorry, I’m not following. I believe that the-

I’m sure you’re not.

The number that you’re asking about was-

Let me ask you this question.

Objection that the court had asked the attorney to make.

Let’s switch topics. Maybe this one would be easier to follow, I suppose.

(02:38:24)
Is it the policy of the DOJ to provide advanced notice to subjects before conducting a search for evidence?

It totally depends on the circumstance.

If the circumstance were that you had a guest house where the US attorney, deputy US attorney saying, “Well, we suspect there’s a lot of evidence there, but we’re not going to really follow that up. We’re going to,” and calls the attorney from the other side saying, “We were going to do a search warrant.” Would that be consistent with your policy?

Okay. Again, I know this is no hypothetical, and I don’t know the facts of this case, and I don’t know what happened, and I believe the events you’re talking about as reported in the press occurred under the previous administration so.

No, no, no, no. That event didn’t happen in the previous administration. Let’s talk about that. You keep saying this happened in the previous administration, but let’s talk about this for just a moment. You keep saying, “I don’t know what happened there, but I’m going to opine when it happened.”

(02:39:27)
Do you see the fallacy of that, the inconsistencies? I don’t know when it happened, I don’t know what happened because I’m not involved, but it happened under the previous administration. That’s so logically fallacious.

I’m sorry. I’m not following what’s [inaudible 02:39:43].

I know you’re not following. So the question is, you’ve got one of your deputy US attorneys calling the attorney on this side saying, “Look, we’re going to go to these two places, probably go in the next couple of days.” And of course then ultimately

Ultimately the search warrant is called off. I just want to know, is it consistent to call up people where you know that they’ve got boxes of information or you suspect they have boxes of information, that’s why you got the warrant, that’s why you’re going to go look and you give them a heads up so they can move those boxes of information. Would that be consistent with DOJ policy?

I’m just going to say again, you’re asking me actually to comment about allegations in a particular case about-

No, I’m not. No, I’m not. I’m asking you is that consistent with your overall policy? Forget Delaware and what they did and that they actually did that. Let’s just talk about generic policy.

I’m sorry, I thought you were asking about Mar-a-Lago. I may not have understood that. I’m sorry.

Oh yeah, la-di-da. So when we’re talking about this, when we’re talking about your general policy, is it your policy? Is that acceptable when you suspect that there are movable items to call up and say, “We’re going to be there to look”?

There’s no policy on this question. The strategy and tactics to be used to preserve evidence are left up to the investigators and officers on the ground. Sometimes it would be a serious mistake to call up, sometimes it would not.

And here once again, you don’t know what happened in the Hunter Biden case because that’s… somebody else who’s doing it. But you can be sure of the timing of when all this took place. That is one of the biggest oddities of your testimony today. I yield back to the gentleman from Colorado.

The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.

Thank you Mr. Attorney General. Thank you for your decades of faithful service to our country, to our constitution, and to the rule of law. Thank you for putting up with this today. The American people are watching. They know what’s going on here. This is a gross misuse of your time, your team’s time and our time. It is a shameful circus. It has a goal. The goal is to spew lies and disinformation ultimately to tear away at the confidence of our independent institutions, in your case today, our very important Department of Justice. That’s the exact M.O. of a former president, tear away at the confidence of our independent institutions whether it’s our electoral system, the Department of Justice, the judiciary, and independent news media. The American people are watching this sham, but it’s not just a circus. It’s dangerous. And you know that and you have mentioned that. I believe that these fictions and fantasies are dangerous.

(02:42:41)
Dangerous for you and the 115,000 public servants with whom you work. Dangerous for national security, dangerous for communities’ security, dangerous for the rule of law, and our constitution. All at the same time of a looming shutdown. The other side of the aisle cannot govern. And so they have this hearing, which was supposed to be oversight and use it as a big distraction because they are failing to govern. Imagine if we go into the shutdown. What does that say to your members of your department? What does it say to our service members, US troops who would be training, fighting without pay and without confidence in this country’s governing ability? It’s a great distraction.

(02:43:29)
So let me pivot to something I care about and I know you and your department cares about. It is recovery month. And for families like mine with a member in recovery, every month is recovery month. So I thank you for what you are doing on the fentanyl crisis, the overdose crisis that has claimed 110,000 lives in a single 12-month period, 300 souls a day every day. Souls who have died while we were in this hearing every day. What is the department doing to combat the trafficking, to combat the amount of fentanyl on the ground? As DEA has said, there’s enough fentanyl on the ground right now to kill this entire population multiple times over. Tell us about your important work in fentanyl.

Congresswoman, let me begin by saying I share your personal concern and grief over this. I have met with the families of children, of teenagers, of elderly people who have become addicted to fentanyl and who have died from fentanyl. Everything you’re saying is correct and it’s a catastrophe for the country. So as a consequence, the Justice Department has poured its resources, particularly from DEA with F B I assistance as well and with fugitive arrests by the Marshall Service and with gun tracing by the ATF into the entire process by which fentanyl reaches the United States. So we have sanctioned the precursor companies in China.

(02:45:13)
We have indicted some of them for their violations. We have arrested some as far off as in Fiji and brought them back to the United States. We have traced these precursors to Mexico where they are made into the fentanyl pills. Fentanyl costs about 10 cents to make. It can be sold on the street in the United States between $10 and $30. You can see what the enormous profit motive is here. So we must stop the cartels themselves. I have, as I said, traveled to Mexico twice in order to work with our counterparts in the military and law enforcement there.

I thank you for all of that. I want to just pivot once and I want to do anything I can to partner with you on this issue so that we stop losing people. I traveled recently with a Foreign Affairs committee to The Hague, met with the extraordinary folks, the top prosecutor and his able team. They were very complimentary of the Department of Justice and your work. Can you tell us about your important role or America’s important role in war crimes, especially in light of your powerful history, family history?

Yes, I’m happy to. So I’ve traveled to Ukraine twice to meet with the prosecutor general there and I’m going to meet with him again this week here and he has met with me several times here. The Justice Department is pursuing the war crimes from Russia’s unlawful and unjust invasion of Ukraine to help to investigate war crimes over which we have jurisdiction, to help the prosecutor general in Ukraine investigate those prosecutions. I was, I believe, the first cabinet member ever to visit The Hague, the International Criminal Court of Justice, to meet with Karim Khan, who is the chief prosecutor, to talk about our cooperation in respect to the investigations that they are doing. I’ve assigned a Justice Department prosecutor to the investigatory body that’s been set up in The Hague for the crime of aggression and she’s there now working with the ICC and with Europol and Eurojust and I’ve assigned a prosecutor to our embassy in Kyiv to work with our ambassador there and to work with the Prosecutor General’s Office there.

I thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing that answer to go on because it is critically important. America is indispensable and your work is indispensable. Thank you, sir.

Time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

Mr. Attorney General, do you support the consent decree that I believe was put in place in the City of Minneapolis?

I’m sorry, do I support the-

Do you support the consent decree that was put in place with the Police Department of Minneapolis?

The one that was put in place by the federal government?

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Do you support fewer cops on the street?

Do I support?

Fewer cops on the street?

No, I don’t support fewer cops on the streets.

That’s what’s happening as a result of what’s happening-

I don’t think that’s a consequence of the consent decree. Minneapolis has been losing police officers for many years-

Do you support more crime?

Do I support more crime?

Yeah.

No, I don’t.

So there was just a hearing in Minnetonka, Minnesota, a tony suburb of Minneapolis just I think this last week where they were just… they’re beside themselves with the amount of crime that continues in Minneapolis since the riots of 2020. And I would point out to you that I had an officer in my district… I live right across the border in Wisconsin or that’s where my district begins. A police officer was shot to death as a result of a weak on crime prosecutor in St. Paul in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Guy served only four years for a violent crime. Do you think that that’s a problem?

If an officer was shot to death, that is certainly not an appropriate sentence. That’s outrageous. Let me be clear. We are doing everything we can to assist Minneapolis. We have a very aggressive US attorney who’s brought a number of RICO and VICAR cases [inaudible 02:49:44] extraordinary successful-

I got a real short period of time here.

I’m sorry.

In regards to disrupting drug networks, why do you think there’s so much fentanyl coming into the country?

Because it costs 10 cents to make and it can be sold for $30.

So Sheriff Mark Dannels from Cochise County, Arizona sat right where you were at a few months ago and under oath he said the reason there is such a drastic increase in fentanyl coming into the country is because on January 20th of 2021, open borders policies were announced by President Biden. Have you expressed concern about those open borders policies that have led to this rapid increase in the amount of fentanyl coming into our country?

I can’t associate myself with the conclusion reached by the sheriff, although I can certainly commiserate with the concern.

So the sheriff is incorrect?

Look, the cartels in Mexico are causing this drug to be transmitted into the United States and we were doing-

Terrific.

Everything we can to eliminate that incentive.

Yeah, you’re not going to do it, on doing that. Mr. Chairman, just so we’re real clear here, this is the same answer we received from Secretary Mayorkas a couple months ago when he was in denial about a sheriff who lives… one of the most reputable sheriffs you’ll find in the United States of America sitting down there on that southern border, he sees it every day. He saw it working in 2020 because he told me when I was down there and now he says it is not working and it started January 20th, 2021. You can pretend that you’re dealing with fentanyl. You are not because the borders are wide open. Do you believe… I’m going to shift to combating gun violence. Do you believe that a prohibited person that acquires a gun illegally and disposes it in a dumpster where a criminal or an innocent child could gain access to it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

This is no longer a hypothetical question. You’re referring to a specific case which is now in judicial determination before a court of law. It’s not appropriate for me to comment on that case.

So for the record, Mr. Chairman, let’s understand that the same prosecuting attorney who is now the special counsel, gave a sweetheart deal to that person and yes, you are correct. We are referring to the President’s son. He got a sweetheart deal and the judge was smart enough to smell a rat when she saw it and she said, “You guys go back to the drawing board.” That same special counsel is in charge of this investigation. Isn’t that correct Mr. Chairman?

Absolutely.

I’m going to close real quickly with this. There was a World Naked Bike Ride in Madison, Wisconsin just a couple months ago and I sent you a letter two months ago asking if you had a problem with that because it exposed a 10 year old girl by the race organizer, the bike organizers to pedaling around Madison, Wisconsin naked. Do you think that’s a problem? And why did you not answer our letter from two months ago?

I’m sorry. I’ll have to ask the Office of Legislative Affairs to get back to you about this.

Does it typically take two months to be able to answer questions like this?

I know it sounds like you’re asking about a question about state and local law enforcement. We get hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of letters. I’ll ask the Office of Legislative Affairs where that letter is.

State and local law enforcement would not act. We were hoping you would. It’s obvious you’re not. I yield.

Gentlemen yields back. The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you again Mr. Attorney General for joining us and for your patience with this questioning. I’m honored to represent a diverse community in North Carolina. Wake County has worked to welcome people of all backgrounds, ethnicities and religions. The growth and success of my district and the Research Triangle Park depends on our commitment to celebrating the many cultures that contribute to our community. Unfortunately, over the past few years, these very communities that have contributed so much to my state and my district have found themselves under attack. Jewish leaders in my district have received threats to themselves and their synagogues as recently as last month. HBCUs across our state have locked down in response to bomb threats. Asian-Americans in North Carolina and throughout the country have found themselves facing slurs and threats spurred in large part by the racialized language about the Covid-19 pandemic.

(02:54:52)
The Southern Poverty Law Center reported in late 2020 that the number of white nationalist groups grew 55% between 2017 and 2019, noting that the rise in hate based attacks coincides with the growth of the white nationalist movement. And the Anti-Defamation League relatedly found that white supremacist propaganda incidents occurred over 14 times per day on average in 2020 with a total of 5,125 reported cases, nearly twice the number of cases reported in 2019 and the highest number the ADL has ever recorded. This dangerous trend has continued in the last few years and has recently included as active clubs have been increasing in their number and prominence. These active clubs started popping up in late 2020 and are a network of white nationalist groups that see themselves as fighters in training for an ongoing war against a system they claim is deliberately plotting against the white race. As Attorney General, I am deeply interested and concerned about the rise of these clubs, threats of violence and actual violence, and wanted to know if you’re familiar with these activities and what your department is doing to counteract them.

I’m not familiar with the specifics of those clubs and I’ll certainly look into what the department’s doing in that respect. Very soon after I came into the department, I saw the spike in hate crime threats that were being made and then actual acts of violence. I directed the department to develop a strategy for responding to that. 30 days later, that was pretty much co-incident with Congress’s passage of the Covid No Hate Act and we have now fulfilled, I think, all of the obligations under that act. We have task forces set up to investigate and prosecute hate crimes both as hate crimes and where they satisfy the requirements as domestic violent extremism or as domestic terrorism. We have brought dozens of cases against people who have made these threats as well as in particular those who have attempted to carry them out. And as you know, we have a prosecution pending in Buffalo with respect to the horrendous killing of Black Americans in the Tops grocery store by an avowed white supremacist.

Thank you very much and thank you for your efforts in this regard. On a different subject with my last 45 seconds. North Carolina also saw the impact of cyber crimes with the Colonial Pipeline. And I’d like to know how your office is counteracting any cyber attacks and dealing with people who perpetrate them.

Yeah, so we are vigilant to the risk of these kinds of cyber attacks. In that case, these were criminal gangs affiliated in Russia, resident in Russia. Fortunately we had available intelligence from Section 702, which we were discussing a little bit earlier today. I have to say that’s one of the principle sources of our ability to fight these kinds of cyber attacks, whether they are criminal or whether they are launched by nation states, whether they are attempting to get ransomware and create ransom, whether they’re simply trying or also… simply trying to exfiltrate our information or whether they’re trying to prevent our computers from working at all. The Justice Department has established a cyber task force for this purpose, a ransomware task force, and we are recently working on cryptocurrency in exactly the same way.

Time of the gentlelady has expired. We want to try to move quickly-

Thank you. I yield back.

Attorney General, because we got votes and then we got to-

Of course.

Majority conference. The gentleman of Colorado is recognized.

I thank the chairman. Mr. General, welcome and my friend and colleague from Colorado outlined your biography. I thought very well, but he left out two points that I’d like to mention. One is not only did you lead the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing case, but in that case the death penalty was asked for and actually received and Timothy McVeigh was executed. Not exactly a Democrat priority to seek the death penalty in cases, but you did so because of the rule of law. You did so because the facts and the law demanded that you did so and you followed the facts and the law in that situation. The other issue I wanted… or example in your bio that I wanted to point out is my understanding that in your conference room you have a portrait of Elliot Richardson. And the reason you have a portrait of Elliot Richardson is because he demanded that the Department of Justice stay independent from the Nixon administration.

(03:00:27)
He had the backbone to stand up to the President of the United States and make sure that the Department of Justice would not become the government’s lawyer. You put that portrait there soon after you became Attorney General because it was a signal. It was a signal to the world that you wanted to be known in the same way that others that had come before you were known. And frankly, one of the reasons I respect Attorney General Barr so much is because after January 6th, he made the very difficult decision to walk into the President’s office and tell the President, “The election was not stolen. We have looked at this.” And for that reason he resigned before January 20th when power was turned over. But Mr. Attorney General, you’re unable to answer some questions here, but I’ll answer them for you. Do you know what people would’ve said if you had asked for US Attorney Weiss’s resignation when you became Attorney General? I’m sorry, US Attorney.

(03:01:25)
Yeah, US Attorney Weiss’s resignation. They would’ve said that you were obstructing the Hunter Biden investigation, that you were firing a Republican appointee so that you could appoint a Democrat to slow walk this investigation and lose the leadership of that investigation. If you had made the same decision a year later because you were frustrated that the prosecution wasn’t moving fast enough, they would’ve again said that you were interfering with the prosecution. If you… when US Attorney Weiss asked to become special counsel, if you had made the decision then to appoint someone else to special counsel, people would’ve criticized you because you would have been taking someone out of the investigation that knew the facts that could lead the investigation and put someone in who would’ve had to come up to speed on the investigation and wouldn’t have allowed major decisions to be made until they came up to speed.

(03:02:18)
So in three different opportunities where you could have acted, you would’ve been criticized either way, whether you acted or did not act in that situation. Far from slow walking, really once the Trump administration decided that that was the person leading the investigation, your hands were tied. You didn’t have the opportunity to make a decision on the leadership of that investigation. But speaking of slow walking, I appreciate your reference in your opening remarks, your written opening remarks. “The Department of Justice strongly supports efforts by Congress to promote competition in digital markets by passing legislation to prohibit certain anti-competitive practices by dominant online platforms.” You can’t say who they are, but I can. Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google are monopolies and they have been harming this country and harming competition in that particular market for years. And Congress for five years has been investigating and offering bills on that subject.

(03:03:21)
They spent $250 million according to reports in the last Congress to defeat those bills. And now we do nothing in this Congress to try to deal with that very serious issue. In fact, there are efforts I’m told over in the Senate, and I use the word effort and Senate very carefully in the same sentence, but there are efforts in the Senate S2321 to take $50 million in funding for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and it would be an 18% cut and to move that money to the General Department of Justice Operations Fund to try to further cripple the efforts that are going on in court. The State Attorney Generals and the Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission are doing a great job jointly in trying to combat the scourge of these monopolies. My question to you is, will you make sure that the Antitrust Division is properly funded so it can continue this very serious effort at stopping these monopolies from harming our children, from harming competition and from further strengthening China’s position in this area?

Yes, I absolutely will, and one of the first things I did in the first budget opportunity we had was to ask for more money for the Antitrust Division than had ever been given in quite a long time and to ask for the fees that are paid for purposes of merger analysis be given to the Antitrust Division directly rather than to go into a general fund.

Thank you. I yield back.

I would just point out for the record that Attorney General Barr left the Trump Administration on December 23rd, 2020, not between January 6th and January 20th, 2021. With that I recognize the gentlelady-

Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, since he mentioned monopoly, could I also enter into the record this article about the MasterCard Visa duopoly by Proactive and their target of a bipartisan bill to reform this monopoly? Could I insert that into the record please?

Without objection, unanimous consent it’s accepted. Gentlelady from Missouri is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for being here, Attorney General Garland. St. Louis and I are here today to make clear what it means to promote equal justice for every person in this country. Attorney General Garland, you often speak about your commitment to supporting civil rights and the rule of law, but I have concerns about whether the department under your leadership is doing the absolute most it possibly can to advance these goals. In the limited time I have, I want to share my concerns about specific issues with you directly and to make clear the steps that I believe that the department needs to take. First off, as this hearing has shown, a small number of the department’s cases get an outsized level of attention in politics. But the reality is you preside over most of the federal system of mass incarceration.

(03:06:26)
And every day in courtrooms around the country, including St. Louis, prosecutors who ultimately report to you are continuing to disproportionately prosecute disproportionately Black and Brown people for disproportionately low level immigration and narcotics and firearm offenses. And under your watch, the federal incarceration rate has increased for the first time in nearly a decade. Meanwhile, corporate crime enforcement is lower than it was during the Trump administration. The department needs to rethink its entire approach to prosecution. But let me also say I thank you for what you’re doing with the insurrectionists. And I urge you to take specific steps towards ending mandatory minimums and prosecutory misconduct waivers and actively supporting alternatives to incarceration, funding federal public defenders, use of clemency power and reporting on disparities in federal prosecutions. I’m also deeply concerned about the Bureau of Prisons. Director Peters is not doing enough to address the rampant issues of abuse and mismanagement at the Bureau, which affects both correctional staff and people in custody.

(03:07:37)
It is shameful that solitary confinement has increased in the Bureau of Prisons during the Biden administration, despite the President claiming he supports ending it. We need to see more from the department across the board on Bureau of Prisons oversight and you should implement the President’s commitment to end the torturous practice of solitary confinement once and for all. I’m also incredibly disheartened that the department has continued to pursue the death penalty despite the President’s pledge to end it. I urge the department to reverse course including by dismantling the federal death chamber in Indiana and advocating for the commutation of the sentences of everyone on federal death row. I’m also still waiting to see any meaningful progress on the commitments that Associate Attorney General Gupta announced in June 22 around the enforcement of Title VI and the Safe Streets Act. I’d also like to… and I’m going on and on, but I’m taking my time.

(03:08:38)
I’d also like an update on when the department will respond to the Oversight Committee Democrats’ letter from June 2021 about the memo issued by the Trump Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel concerning the Equal Rights Amendment. That deeply flawed memo is preventing the Archivists of the United States from publishing the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment. I know that OLC issued a short clarification after you took office, but the wording was not a clear repudiation of the Trump era memo. I urge you to fully withdraw the Trump OLC memo, which is baselessly obstructing constitutional gender equality for all. Finally, I cannot overstate how shocked I am by the targeting of protestors who oppose the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center or Cop City, and I urge the department to investigate these obvious violations of civil rights.

(03:09:32)
These may all seem like unrelated issues, but to me, to my constituents, to countless advocates and to people who are most directly impacted, they are interconnected and they all speak to whether the department under your leadership will advance justice or simply pay lip service to it. Given the limited time that we have, I don’t expect you to comment on all of these issues, but I have a question. Will you commit to working with me and my office on these issues, including having your staff promptly by writing your position and sending that to us, reaching out to us about all of the issues that we just spoke about?

I’d be happy to have the Office of Legislative Affairs to work with your staff. I want to say I could not be prouder of the civil rights record of this department. It is the fundamental basis for why the Justice Department was founded. We have a history of also being obviously involved in the 1960s when I came to the Justice Department-

And I’m going to stop you. I’m not disagreeing with any of that. I just want you to understand where I’m coming from, the things that I would like to see. I don’t mean to cut you off, but I need to reclaim my time. Finally, I want to remind everyone yet again that this is what good faith oversight looks like. Not the Republican playbook of running interference for a twice impeached, four times indicted white supremacist demagogue who would rather overthrow our democracy than admit he lost an election. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

Thank the chairman, thank the Attorney General for being here before us today. On October 21st, 2021 before this committee, I ask you about Mr. Scott Smith, a father in Loudoun County, Virginia, who was arrested at a school board meeting where he questioned the rape of his daughter in a bathroom in the public school there. You said at the time you were unfamiliar with the case. Are you now? Yes or no?

I’m only familiar to the extent I’ve read about it in the press.

You sent a memo on October 4th, 2021, directing the FBI and US Attorney offices to address quote, “harassment,” and quote, “of school boards.” Yes or no?

I sent a memo to address violence and threats of violence in connection with school personnel.

Directed at school boards?

Not directed at school boards, directed at school personnel, school administrators-

Throughout the country is a priority for the federal government for the United States Attorney’s Office. That followed a letter on September 29th, 2021 from the National School Board Association to President Biden and emails from the National School Board Association Director Chip Slaven to the White House in which the White House asked for specific threats. And one of the examples was

… Was Scott Smith. Subsequent to our hearing two years ago, 26 states left the National School Board Association and Slaven resigned on November 23rd, 2021. Last week, Mr. Smith was pardoned by Governor Youngkin. Do you think the Governor was correct? Yes or no?

Pardon authority belongs to the Governor.

You don’t have an opinion on whether the Governor was correct?

I don’t know the facts of the case, so I’m not in a position to make-

Have you rescinded the memo that you issued in 2021? Yes or no?

What we’re discussing occurred-

Have you rescinded the memo? Yes or no?

What we discussing here occurred-

Does the memo still exist? Is it still going? Yes or no? Has it been rescinded?

The memo was intended to have meetings within 30 days-

Has it been rescinded?

The 30 days have finished. Nothing has happened in more than a year and a half with respect to that memo.

It has not been rescinded. It has not been pulled back.

There’s nothing to rescind.

Despite evidence that has come out from the National School Board Association commissioned report that White House officials discussed this with DOJ more than a week before the letter was sent. The NSBA apologized. Have you apologized? Yes or no?

I’ve testified seven times since that original memo-

Well, it’s the first time you’re back here since we talked about it.

I’m sorry.

It’s the first time you’re back here in front of us. Have you apologized for putting that memo out that implicated Scott Smith as a domestic terrorist, something the Governor of Virginia has now pardoned him from all of these accusations?

The memo said nothing about him, nothing about parents being terrorists, nothing about attending school boards.

The answer is it’s not been rescinded and you haven’t apologized for it.

The answer is that’s not an-

Again, labeling an American citizen a domestic terrorist in a memo and referring to it and a memo that’s built on the back of that. But now we had this compliments being driven to the Civil Rights Division. Let’s talk about Mark Houck in Pennsylvania. A father who was arrested with heavily armed Federal and local law enforcement in front of his wife and children. This after Mark Houck’s lawyers had said he would appear voluntarily. Local authorities investigated, found no case. Mark Houck was arrested by the FBI for FACE Act violations. The jury met for an hour, Houck was acquitted. Now, when I was in Federal court, I don’t remember that being my result very often. In fact, I don’t remember happening at all, where we went and took it to a jury and it was acquitted after an hour. Did you investigate this or in question the United States attorney why they wasted resources for such an obvious result and can you explain, yes or no, that that was a good use of the Department of Justice’s authority?

Justice Department respects the jury’s verdict. The decisions in that case were made by agents and prosecutors on the ground.

Are you concerned that enforcement of the FACE Act has been biased towards pro-lifers over anti-life protestors? 126 to 4 by our count. And we’re asking information to be able to track down the information of such prosecutions. But 126 times against pro-lifers versus four times for people who dare to question the issue of life. So I’ll leave that out there just to say that is the Civil Rights Division at play. Meanwhile, we’ve got the very liberal progressive groups being targeted as well. Senator Cruz and I sent a letter to you asking for information about how the FBI informant had gone to a liberal group’s pro-life meeting and yet we didn’t get any response from you. So I’d ask if you’d respond to our letter that we sent back in March asking about FBI infiltrating such a meeting.

I don’t know what you’re referring to, but I will ask the Office of Legislative Affairs to look into this letter.

Thank you. Finally, our tax cases require approval by Main Justice no matter what district has venue? Yes or no? Do tax cases as a general matter-

Let me just-

… Require approval by Main Justice-

… Say-

… No matter what district has venue? Yes or no?

… It depends on the circumstances. In the example that I know you’re referring to-

Is it generally speaking, yes?-

Not-

… Main Justice runs tax division, yes or no? Main Justice runs the tax division?

In the Hunter Biden case, I assured Mr. Weiss that he-

That’s not what I’m asking about. I didn’t ask it. I haven’t mentioned that guy’s name. I didn’t. I very simply asked a very simple question. Do tax cases require approval by Main Justice?

Most-

As a general matter?

… Of the time, but not when the Attorney General has granted authority to a US attorney to do what he thinks is best.

And in a turf battle, a tax division approves changes-

Mr. Chairman, point of order.

I recall my colleague-

Gentleman’s time is-

… Having a minute and a half of additional time.

Gentleman’s time is expired.

[inaudible 03:16:32].

The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Texas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Attorney General Garland, thank you first and foremost for your public service and your dedication to justice. I’m delighted to see you here today. Thank you for appearing before us. I represent El Paso, Texas, a community right on the US-Mexico border and so we have been witnessing firsthand the abuses at the hands of Governor Greg Abbott through Operation Lone Star, which began in 2021. Governor Abbott has deployed state resources and Texas National Guards members to the state’s border with Mexico. And Operation Lone Star has created border management challenges. It’s resulted in countless humanitarian and due process violations for migrants. It’s harmed guardsmen assigned to the mission. It’s cost the state billions of dollars and it has completely undermined the Federal Government’s authority over immigration.

(03:17:41)
I sent you a letter, my colleagues and I, Democratic colleagues from Texas, sent you a letter in July about Abbott’s floating barriers. I know that that case is going through appeal, but we have also learned that a guardsman shot at a Mexican national across the Rio Grande. And in September, on September 1st, I sent you a letter asking that the DOJ investigate that. We also know that Governor Abbott, we’ve learned from whistle-blowers that he has ordered National Guardsmen to prevent migrants from turning themselves in to CBP, has even ordered that they push people back into Mexico.

(03:18:27)
And Mr. Chairman, I’d like unanimous consent to enter into the record an El Paso Times article from earlier this week. “Texas National Guard orders hundreds of asylum seekers on US territory back into Mexico.”

Objection.

This, in addition to Governor Abbott separating fathers from their children and their families, it’s just egregious what is happening on the border via Operation Lone Star. Attorney General Garland, are you able to speak to any responses the department has had to Governor Abbott’s blatant undermining a Federal immigration authority?

I can obviously speak on the [inaudible 03:19:10] question, when we brought suit under the Rivers and Harbors act for the interference with navigable waters, that case is still under adjudication in the district court.

I understand that. There are other issues and want to make sure I flag them for you today at this hearing, but would also like for your folks to take a close look at the investigation that I’ve requested and I will be sending a follow-up letter after what we’ve learned just this week from the El Paso Times.

Thank you.

Switching gears, I do want to offer you an opportunity for some rebuttal because what we’ve seen from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is their penchant for performance for Twitter and for other news programs. Mr. Attorney General, we’ve heard a lot of accusations regarding some US attorney’s offices not partnering with Mr. Weiss and hypotheticals about what that means. Can you please explain the difference between partnering with a US attorney’s office and acting as a special attorney or special counsel?

I can talk about it, obviously, in the abstract and the theoretical, it’s a normal process of the department. If prosecutors from one area of the country and has a case that has significance in another, to speak with the US attorney and the other district, to find out what the policies of the district are, to find out what the practices are, to see how judges in that district react to different kinds of charges. Sometimes decision is made to partner together in those investigations and sometimes a decision is made for the US attorney from the other district to have his or her own people bring those cases. I have personally been involved in, I think, three of those cases during the period when I was an Assistant US Attorney and over my entire career, I have been given 5 15 authority twice myself for this purpose. It is just a mechanical question of what courts require in order to make an appearance.

Thank you so much, Mr. Garland. Again, appreciate your public service to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from Alabama is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Garland for being here today. Every time I’m in my district, constituents are concerned about the weaponization of government, them being selected because they happen to be conservatives and I think on your watch now the DOJ actually is a mid-30s percent approval rating. And every time the DOJ goes after Trump, he goes up in the polls. I think the American people are starting to wake up to what’s going on and I think it’s fairly obvious. And the first question I have is… I understand now that we know, thanks to an FBI whistleblower, that the FBI received information on Americans from Bank of America. Specifically Bank of America sent the FBI a list of customers who made transactions in the days of on and around January 6th, 2021. My question for you is did the Department of Justice acquire any geolocation data from January 1st, 2020 through December 31st, 2021? Yes or no?

I’m sorry, did you say locational data?

Geolocational data.

Geolocational. I believe everything that was done with respect to Geolocational data was disclosed in the public filings in the January 6th cases. I don’t have that at my fingertips, but this is a matter of public record.

Do you remember any specific analyses that you may have done with that data?

I’m sorry, I can’t hear.

Any specific analyses that you may have gotten from that data? Was there anything in particular you were looking for, Mr. Attorney General? Like did they exercise their rights? Did they maybe buy a firearm?

I’m sorry. I don’t know anything about the second thing. The purpose, as I understood, the location data was to determine whether people who claim they weren’t inside the Capitol actually were inside the Capitol.

Well, I guess the question is to your knowledge then. The geolocation data from external sources, entities or organizations. To your knowledge, did you receive that from external sources or are you buying that data?

I don’t know the exact answer in general, but I believe with respect to January 6th, these were the results of subpoena as issued to telephone companies.

So you subpoenaed the telephone companies, then they got the data from [inaudible 03:23:45]?-

Well, this requires orders authorized by the court.

We talked about Durham’s report earlier that he said that the FBI’s activities were somewhat sobering. Does that worry you, on your watch, that the activities of the FBI have been called sobering now?

I’m sorry, I didn’t understand. Who calls it sobering?

John Durham in his report. Did you read his report?

I’m sorry, who?

John Durham.

Durham?

Yes, sir.

I did read the report. All those events had to do with the crossfire hurricane investigation, is that what you’re [inaudible 03:24:19]?-

That was part of it, yes, sir?

Yes.

Were you concerned when he said it was sobering what the FBI was doing?

I think Mr. Durham, and I just want to make sure everybody understands, thanked me for not interfering with his investigation. I had promised he would be able to go forward without interference just as I promised Mr. Weiss. Mr. Durham and I did not interfere with his report. His report reported a lack of analytical rigor and a number of other problems with respect to the investigation. I think both the Inspector General made a similar comments and Director Ray has made the same.

Thank you, Attorney General. I don’t have a whole lot of time, I want to yield a little bit to the Chairman. But is it a crime in the US to question an election?

I’m sorry. [inaudible 03:25:04]

It a crime in the US to question an election? Is that a crime?

I’m sorry. It’s my fault, I can’t hear. To request a what?

Is it a crime to question an election in the United States of America? Is it a crime for the US citizens to say, “We want to ask about this election, we want to question this election. We actually want to look into the election.” Is that a crime when citizens just question an election in America now?

Again, I think you’re asking, not a hypothetical, but something specific about a specific-

I think that’s just general. I don’t think that’s specific. Elections have been questioned for decades past. Is that now a crime in America?

Did you say to ask questions about an election? Is that what you said?-

To a question an election.

To question. No, it’s not.

Just to question the results.

It’s not a crime to question an election.

Because I questioned the election results in 2020 and there are a lot of people in America that do and they question the weaponization of government attacking American citizens. And so you, sir, have an issue with trustworthiness of the American people and with Congress at this point. With that, Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, I’ll yield 36 seconds.

No problem. Mr. Garland, I just want to go back to this question, did you consider anyone else when David Weiss requested special counsel designation on August 8th?

No. Mr. Weiss asked to be made special counsel and I did not consider an alternative. Of course, to have put in an alternative would’ve greatly disrupted an investigation that was already ongoing.

Just want to be clear, he was the only one under consideration? It was either no special counsel or if there was a special counsel, it was going to be the guy who presided over the investigation for the previous five years?

I thought about what the consequences would be, both of not appointing him and trying to find somebody else at that time, but there was no other-

And you had no concerns? The whistleblowers have brought forward all kinds of concerns. Earlier when someone brought those up, you said, “Well, those are allegations.” I think they stand up well, they’ve been cross-examined for four hours by Democrats in the oversight committee. But there were two facts that can be questioned. Two facts about the investigation to Hunter Biden. Fact number one, they let the statute of limitations run, they let it expire. And fact number two, the plea deal fell apart. So I just wanted to make clear that the guy who presided over all that was the only guy under consideration for special counsel designation, is that right?

Mr. Weiss is a person known for high integrity, for a great experience in the prosecutorial realm and he was appointed by the President.

That’s fine. You can say all that. I appreciate what you’re saying there. But-

I have no doubts about his abilities in this area.

… He was the only one under consideration.

The question was whether to appoint someone and I thought I will say what the consequences would be of trying to switch horses in midstream, but I did not consider any other person, no.

On July 10th, he wrote Senator Graham and he said, “I’ve had discussions with departmental officials.” He said, ” I haven’t sought special counsel status, but I’ve had discussions with departmental officials.” And I don’t know if this was asked earlier. Who did he talk with then?

I’m sorry. You’re talking about the letter that he sent to?

Senator Graham on July 10th.

Again, I’m not going to get into internal deliberations of the Justice Department.

Fine. Is there one person, though, who’s the point person at the Justice Department for David Weiss as he now is functioning as a special counsel in this investigation?

Mr. Weiss is now subject to the special counsel regulations which require urgent reporting, under certain circumstances require him to consult with numerous places within the Justice Department.

Fine, you’re following the statute. God bless you. That’s what is supposed to happen. But you said there’s reporting. Who does he report to?

Again, I’m not going to get into these-

Is it you?

I’m ultimately responsible.

Is it The Dag?

Mr. Weiss did not have to report to anybody. He was the supervisor and decision maker in these matters.

We have votes on the floor. We’re going to have to take another break, Mr. Attorney General. We’ll get back here as quick as we can and we’ll start with the Democrats.

Sure.

Committee will come to order. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, General, how are you?

Very well, thank you.

Good. I want to point out three things that you’ve said so far today because I want to emphasize these for the Committee going forward. One was you said, “We will not back down. We will not be intimidated.” And the other thing you said too was, ” The way to not interfere with an investigation is to not investigate the investigation.” Now, I thought that was particularly apropos here because this Committee has been doing exactly the opposite. We’ve been, under the Chairman’s leadership, investigating prosecutors all over the country in the middle of criminal investigations and sometimes pre-indictment. I think in an effort, frankly, to derail the prosecutions in those cases. And I’ll start with the one. This is the Alvin Bragg effort. The Chairman and two other Committee Chairs sent a letter, I think two actually, to DA Bragg at the time he was still investigating former President Trump for potential prosecution.

(03:30:20)
And then after he was indicted, they raised the issue again. And the concern I had on that front was multiple. One was, one of the letters that the Committee Chair sent was demanding information that potentially would’ve violated state law in New York, similar to the Federal Grand Jury secrecy laws that we have in some of the matters that you govern, if he had complied with what the Committee had demanded. But more importantly, I thought it was pretty clear cut that it was an effort to undermine and derail DA Bragg’s investigation. There was a similar version of that with DA Willis. I know there’ve been a lot of calls-

Would the gentleman yield for just a second?

Not at this point, although I’d be willing to make your letters a part of the record at the end of the… Da Willis and Georgia face similar calls. In fact, there are a number of prosecutors across the country, frequently are in blue jurisdictions, cities in red states where they face pressure from usually state officials to curtail the way they’re doing investigations.

(03:31:32)
And in some instances, the state AGs have stripped them of their authority even though they’ve been duly elected by citizens in those states. And then with respect to the Jack Smith investigations, at the beginning of the hearing, the Chairman brought up Trump did everything DOJ asked him to do. Now, this is with respect to the search warrant, and I was appalled at what was said. Frankly, as the record bears out both in the indictment and frequently in statements made by Mr. Trump himself, there were multiple efforts by the Department of Justice to reach out through the attorneys that represented Mr. Trump and have him comply and turnover documents. He refused to do so. In fact, the allegations are he, in fact, moved documents and tried to hide them so the Department of Justice couldn’t get them.

(03:32:25)
And that also led to the issue where Mr. Trump’s lawyers ended up having to provide information and testimony about what had happened, which is highly unusual. But this scenario is highly unusual and we know that’s the case because former Vice President Pence and current President Biden had similar issues, but they complied with the request by the Department of Justice, turned over the documents. And so you didn’t need a search warrant. But the news here is, I guess, if you don’t comply with subpoenas from the Department of Justice, they will go get the information, they’ll get a search warrant and go get it. And I know that because I’ve seen that in multiple cases in my career. There’s no surprise and there’s certainly no two tiers of justice with respect to what was done in that instance. In fact, the fact that they took so long to do it, I think is based entirely on the fact that he had been President.

(03:33:18)
And then with respect to Mr. Weiss, because this is the most recent version and I get why they’re doing it, they want to try and build a case to impeach President Biden. The Weiss angle seems to be one of the ways they’re trying to do that, but as Congressman Buck said, everything the department did with respect to Mr. Weiss was correct because if the Biden administration had removed him when it came into power, there would’ve been housed from the Republican side that you were derailing the investigation because Weiss was already on it and if you brought in somebody new, they’d have to start over again. In fact, the Senate Republicans, as you testified earlier, sought your assurances that you would let him continue going forward and as you’ve testified today, you’ve done exactly that.

(03:34:01)
So I want to be clear, I know the committee’s talking about bringing Mr. Weiss into testimony. They brought all these other people in to testify who were part of an active investigation, but it is a horrible precedent to be bringing in prosecutors in the middle of an investigation that’s about to go to trial, that’s already been indicted. That’s not the way this Committee should be doing business. We should allow prosecutors to move forward. If we got questions after the fact, we can raise them, as you pointed out, Mr. Weiss is going to issue a report at the end. Let’s let them do their jobs and stop politicizing these cases. With that, I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Gentle lady from Indiana is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to Chairman to clear the record on some issues.

I thank the gentle lady for yielding. Just two responses to the gentleman. My friend from Marilyn, he said they’ll get a search warrant and go get it. Unless it’s Hunter Biden. Then they tip off the defense counsel. We know that happened. Second, relative to Mr. Bragg, Mr. Bragg sued me and it went to court and guess what the court said? They said we were right and the guy we wanted to talk to, one of his prosecutors, came here and testified in this room. So the court was on our side there. Yield back to the gentle lady from Indiana.

Will the gentle lady yield?

No, I need to get to my question. Sorry.

All right.

Attorney General, you had a very moving statement about your grandparents coming here from Belarus to live in the country without fear of prosecution. I grew up in very similar country, Ukraine now, and when I came here as a young person, I believed in the value, as an American, not to be afraid of my government, but I wanted to tell you, and I want to share with you and get your thoughts on that. Are you aware that a lot of Americans are now afraid of being prosecuted by your department? Are you aware about that? Are you aware of that? I’m just saying, are you aware or not?

I think that constant attacks on the department and saying that-

It’s not attacks. Well, let me give you an example.

I don’t know what-

We talk about January 6th people-

I’m sorry?

There are some people came on January 6th. There probably was some people that came on January 6th here that had bad intent, but a lot of good Americans from my district came here because they’re sick and tired of this government not serving them. They came with strollers and the kids and there was chaotic situation because the proper security wasn’t provided. That’s a question that was answered really why, why we debated for 45 minutes on the floor and didn’t stop the debate after the people broke into the Capitol, but these people came. They were throwing the smoke bombs into the crowd with strollers with kids. People showed up, FBI agents, to people’s houses. You had in my district, in my town, FBI phone numbers all over the district. Please call.

(03:37:08)
Call that. People are truly afraid. I just want to make sure, if you’re not aware, that you are, and this is a big problem when people are afraid of their own government, and I’ll show you some other things. We’re talking about justice system. I don’t question you. You’re probably not a bad person. I don’t know you, but well, I’ll tell you, you are in charge of the department and people right now feel… I look at Durham report and I call on the rights of violations of various of millions Americans’ right, it’s like KGB, but when I read Durham reports, you have a nice playbook. First, let’s have a special console and then you don’t have to answer any questions here. Then let’s extend slow walk investigation on Hillary Clinton, on Hunter. Everything is slow walk. We were very quick on Donald Trump, but you were very slow walk.

(03:38:00)
Then by the time that investigation ended, statute of limitation expired and all of your agents need to be tested from [inaudible 03:38:08]. No one recalls anything. You probably should have as part of your hiring policy. So no one held accountable, which was egregious what happened in that report, when I read with them, I can’t believe it happened in the United States of America. This is my frustration, I’ll be honest with you. Then it’s very interesting. Regardless what it is. Even people in Obama administration raise concerns. How can President’s sons be serving on corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs? Do you understand that it actually can undermine the one Ukrainian effort on policy? I think this concerns were raised. The Obama administration didn’t do anything about it. These people are dying right now and Americans don’t trust this President. So I want to ask you one thing. I don’t need answer because I know you’re not going to, but I think you probably good American and you care.

(03:39:03)
And a lot of these people are so afraid they cover up this stuff, I think in your department because they’re embarrassed that what we became as a country, to say that what our Department of Justice became, that allows Russians to do propaganda in Chinese. It’s allows them to destabilize our country. That is danger to our republic. It is significant danger. And I have just one more question for you. And I agree on corporate crimes and [inaudible 03:39:29] stuff, even with Democrats, that we need to do a better job. One more question for you. You talk about rights to vote, but do you believe that only US citizens should be voting in this election and doing anything to make sure that only eligible people vote in elections?

Yes and yes.

I would like to see that what you do. Thank you. Yield back.

Gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Vermont is recognized for her five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. General Garland, thanks so much for being here today. I know it’s been a long day for you. Now, I’m relatively new to the Committee and I’m still getting my feet under me, but as far as I can tell, what we are doing here today is talking about a lot of conspiracy theories and it’s frustrating and tedious for those of us in the Committee, but I can tell you it is absolutely maddening for my constituents back home in Vermont. We have so much important work to do to keep the government open. We’re days away from a shutdown, and I just want to remind folks that we’re in this situation because my colleagues across the aisle are reneging on a deal that a majority of their conference made along with their speaker. That’s why we are in this situation. If they’re successful in shutting down the government, seniors who rely on social security benefits will be impacted.

(03:40:44)
Thousands of Medicare recipients and applicants will be impacted. Service members will stop receiving paychecks. Veteran services will be curtailed. Those are the grim consequences from Republican’s inability and unwillingness to govern. I needed to start with that. Let’s do some level setting here. Now, let’s get to the real work of the DOJ and how Congress can help the agency better serve its mission. Gun violence continues to plague our nation. We see the wreckage every day on our television sets, on our computers, and in our communities. As a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, this issue is incredibly important to me and so many of my constituents. Now, I believe there’s actual room for bipartisan congressional action on gun violence, at least in some areas. One of those areas, Red Flag Laws. It’s a great place to start. Vermont is one of 21 states that was able to pass Red Flag Laws.

(03:41:43)
These laws are working to keep guns out of the hands of people who are in crisis, and yet many states did not even apply for funding from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to better implement Red Flag Laws and to raise awareness about the program. In June 2021, DOJ published model legislation to help states craft their own extreme risk protection order. Now, Republicans continue to make unfounded accusations that these laws violate civil rights by taking guns away from Americans without any due process. Can you explain the due process protections that are put into place in the model legislation that DOJ proposed?

Yes, and I would start by saying, of course, there’s room for bipartisan agreement. And the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is a very good example, and that includes the ability to have funding for states that want to craft and put into place Red Flag Laws. The requirement is that the Red Flag Law include due process protections. So I don’t know every element of the model of legislation, but the general idea is the relatives or friends of the person have to go to a court and get some kind of adjudication that the person is a danger to themselves or to others, just normally relates to mental illness problems. It may relate to some others. And so if a gun is taken away under those circumstances, there’s then a right to appeal to have a full hearing in order to adjudicate the question. I can’t say I know every technicality, but I think that’s about it.

No, I appreciate that. And it’s especially important to states like mine, rural states that have real issues with the silent killers, domestic violence, and also suicide. And so these are instances in which Red Flag Laws can really make a difference. Shifting gears here, I, along with Senator Warren and 20 of our colleagues recently submitted a comment letter applauding the draft merger guidelines and urging agencies to finalize them. Corporate concentration remains a pressing problem

… for the U.S economy, and I fear that we’re falling behind in this area, and American consumers continue to feel the pain because of this. With the introduction of the draft merger guidelines, how does the department plan to ensure that future mergers and acquisitions do not stifle competition or harm consumers? Because that’s often the pushback that we get.

I think obviously the intention of the merger guidelines is to set forth the enforcement policy of the department. The different generations of the guidelines, which I hate to say it, go all the way back to the time when I was in law school, have been adopted and/or have been helpful to generations of judges. I’ve sat on at least two or three merger cases myself, where we use some of the learning from the merger guidelines. And the current guidelines reflect really an adjustment to the current technology, two- sided platforms, network effects. That simply did not exist at the time of the last set of merger guidelines were passed.

Thank you, Attorney General. Just briefly in closing, last year, you spoke on the subject and said that DOJ’s enforcement against corporate crime has waxed and waned, but it’s waxing again. That is news to my ears. Thank you so much for your service. I yield back.

The gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Garland, what is a confidential human source?

Well, it’s an FBI term. I don’t know all the technicality but it’s-

Here, let me define it for you. It’s in your own policy here.

Okay.

An individual who is believed to be providing useful and credible information to the FBI from any authorized information collection activity, and from whom the FBI expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information in the future, and whose identity information, or relationship with the FBI warrants confidential handling. So these guys are individuals, you pay them $42 million a year. Did you know that? The IG said you’re paying these sources $42 million a year. Did you know that?

I know informants are paid, yes.

It’s $42 million a year. So do you believe that they’re credible, they’re valuable. The FBI’s using these guys, we’re paying them a lot of money. Would you agree with that?

I agree. Some are more credible than others.

Very good. So they’re credible. You’re paying them a lot of money, you got a lot of them out there. So let me paint the picture for America. Hunter Biden joins Burisma in 2014. Burisma very, very corrupt Ukrainian energy company. He has no experience in oil and gas. He admits it. He says, “I don’t have any experience. I know why I’m there, I have a dad.” I have with me a document called the FD-1023. Have you seen this? You’re familiar with it?

Yeah, I have seen it.

Okay. It’s used by the FBI, everybody in America. It’s used by the FBI. It is a confidential human source reporting document, dated June 2020. You’re familiar with it. In this document, the FBI’s confidential human source says, “Burisma,” now the corrupt company, “Needed to keep Hunter on the board so everything would be okay.” And according to the human source, they hired Hunter Biden to “protect us through his dad for all kinds of problems.” Mr. Garland, does that concern you?

The-

Okay, it should. I got limited time. Remember, your sources are credible, trustworthy, honest, and valuable. Are you familiar with Viktor Shokin?

The document that you’re talking-

Who was Mr. Viktor Shokin? Sir, I got three minutes left.

You want me to answer that?

Yeah. Viktor Shokin, who is he?

I don’t know. Do you want me to answer the first question?

Okay. He’s the prosecutor, folks. He’s the prosecutor, he oversees all the corruption in Ukraine. We know there’s corruption over there. For the American people watching, a few months after Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board, Viktor Shokin was named Prosecutor General for Ukraine to target corruption and one of his investigations was into Burisma. In this FD-1023 document, the human source clarified that Burisma’s CEO, the man in charge of Burisma said he has many text messages and recordings that show he was coerced to make such payment to ensure Viktor Shokin was fired. Matter of fact, there was 17 of them. Mr. Garland, it’s clear, Joe Biden wanted Shokin fired so he would stop looking into Burisma, where Hunter was on the board. Would you agree?

That-

All right, let’s let the American people decide. Play the clip. Play the clip.

I remember going over convincing our team, or others too convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over I guess the 12th, 13th time to Kyiv and I was supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from-

Pay attention, sir, please.

[inaudible 03:48:51] that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn’t. So they said they were walking out the press conference said, “No.” I said, “We’re not going to give you the billion dollars.” They said, “You have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said…” I said, “Call him.” I said, “I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.” I said, “You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here.” And I think it was what? Six hours I looked and I said we’re leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid.

There you go. Mr. Attorney General, what you just saw there was Joe Biden in his arrogance and role as the vice president in this country saying, if you don’t fire Shokin, the United States isn’t giving the $1 billion loan. Why would Joe Biden say that as the vice president? Why would he say such a thing? Was it policy? Was it our policy at the time, yes or no? It wasn’t. I have documents here. Inter-agency policy committee dated October 15th-

Point of information, is the gentleman ever going to let the general answer the question?

Saying Shokin… I’m on my time, pipe down. Saying Shokin had made significant reform-

Time belongs to the gentleman from Texas.

He’s made significant reforms, shokin did. Matter of fact, John Kerry says he was impressive. And within a few months after Shokin was fired, they appoint a prosecutor that said, “We’re not going to look into Burisma anymore. Cancel it, forget it. We’re not looking into Burisma.” Boom, here comes the million dollars. Joe Biden threatened the Ukrainian president and the Prime minister, everybody can see it. They fire Shokin or the United States won’t give the billion dollars. If that is not quid pro quo, sir, what is? I will tell you what it is and America agrees with me. It’s bribery and it’s impeachable. Are you going to do something about it? I bet you not. And that’s why you sir also need to be impeached. I yield back

Time of the gentleman has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Moran.

Attorney General, you were a line assistant U.S. Attorney for years and a federal judge after that. You have significant experience with the processes surrounding criminal investigations. Tell me, what’s the normal process for obtaining and executing a search warrant?

You go to a federal judge, you present an affidavit which you believe constitutes probable cause. The federal judge looks at it makes a determination of whether it does constitute probable cause. He then signs a search warrant and it’s then executed.

And what’s the purpose of a search warrant?

Purpose of a search warrant is to either to find evidence of a crime for which there has to be probable cause that it’s in that location.

When executing a search warrant on a location that may contain evidence of a crime, what benefits are there for doing so without notifying the putative defendant or the target of the investigation or his attorney ahead of time, that execution of the search warrant is forthcoming?

Sometimes you make notifications, sometimes you don’t if you think that the person who has the evidence of a crime is obstructing justice or is going to move the evidence or will secrete it if you warn them in advance, then you don’t give it. If you don’t have those concerns, you may give advance notice.

So in the instance of not withholding notice, you do so because sometimes they’re going to actually move the evidence if you give them a heads-up, correct?

As a general hypothetical matter, yes.

In most instances, in your experience of decades of law enforcement, have you seen that more times than not, you give a heads-up to the defendant or is it odd to give a heads up to the defendant?

I can’t actually make a statistical resolution. I think it’s the case that the government tries to use less intrusive methods if they can, and if they can’t, use more intrusive and more emergency methods?

I agree with that. But typically when you’re going to execute a search warrant, typically I think people would understand this from common knowledge, you would not actually give the heads up. Would you agree with that?

I think as a general matter, that’s correct.

IRS Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley, one of the whistleblowers testified that AUSA Lesley Wolf told investigators, “Optics were a driving factor in the decision not to request a search warrant for the guest house at the Bidens’ Delaware residence where Hunter Biden had stayed for a time.” AUSA Wolf further told the investigators that, “There was more than enough probable cause for the physical search warrant there, but the question was whether the juice was worth the squeeze.” And she further said, “A lot of evidence in the investigation would be found in the guest house of former Vice President Biden, but there is no way investigators will get that approved.” Now do you agree with Ms. Wolf, that optics of an investigation should be the driving factor in law enforcement decisions when investigating potential crimes?

I have to say again, as I said before, singling out Assistant U.S. Attorneys is a dangerous matter. The supervisor of that case is Mr. Weiss. He is the one who made decisions in that case. He is the one who can answer questions as to whether those things happened or whether they did.

. So let’s take her out of the equation then. Let’s just take the statement generally, do you believe that optics of an investigation should be a driving factor in law enforcement decisions as to whether or not to execute a search warrant or not?

The Justice Department has standards for its work and improper considerations are not part of those. The only questions are those driven by the facts in the law.

Mr. Shapley also testified the AUSA wolf objected to a search warrant IRS investigators requested for a storage unit purportedly containing all the documents from the vacated office of the law firm owned by Hunter Biden. Investigators scheduled a call with U.S. Attorney Weiss who agreed that they could search the storage unit if it remained abandoned for 30 days. But immediately after the call, investigators learned that AUSA Wolf had reached out to Hunter Biden’s defense counsel to tell them about the storage unit, effectively ruining investigator’s chance to access potentially critical evidence. In your experience, as you said earlier, this is not the typical thing that happens, correct?

Look, once again, I don’t know anything about these allegations. I don’t know whether they’re correct or not. These are questions most appropriately put to Mr. Weiss at the appropriate time and to be covered in his report if he thinks that’s the appropriate way to resolve them.

Can you conceive of a reason why Mr. Weiss or Ms. Wolf would’ve given a heads-up to Hunter Biden’s legal team that the search of the storage unit was forthcoming?

I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about this.

For somebody that was involved in the investigation at that point who was literally delaying obtaining potential evidence in the case, do you think it was appropriate that then she was involved in the negotiation of the IRS deal with Hunter Biden?

I am not actually following the question. Assistant U.S. Attorneys who participated in the investigation also participated in prosecutions? Is that what you’re asking?

Attorney General, I appreciate your time here today, but I’m concerned that these facts are just some examples of what’s been going on here where-

Time.

I apologize, I know my time’s out. I yield back. Thank you for your time.

Time of the gentleman’s expired. The gentleman from Maryland’s recognized for unanimous consent.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I guess I had my five minutes. I would ask for the unanimous consent to offer some exhibits. First I would offer-

Without objection.

District Attorney Braggs March 31st, 2023 letter in response to the committee.

Okay. Without objection.

I would offer the letter from attorney Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden’s attorney to the Committee of Judiciary Oversight and Ways and Means dated September 14th, 2023 and its attachments.

No objection.

I would offer the letter from Ms. Willis to the chairman on September 7th, 2023.

Without objection.

And I would offer this article from CNN Annie Grayer, top IRS official latest witness to dispute allegations from whistleblower on Hunter Biden tax case.

No objection.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

You bet. The gentle lady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman. Here we go.

We have been investigating very serious charges made about your department and other elements of the Biden administration which allege ignoring the law to protect political allies from being held accountable for their wrongdoing. One aspect of this allegation brought by two very credible whistleblowers from the IRS demonstrates a strategy of delaying criminal investigation into Hunter Biden and blocking any investigations into the corruption of Joe Biden. The whistleblower testimony notes that U.S. Attorney David Weiss in November, 2022 allowed the statute of limitations to expire even though Hunter Biden’s attorney had already agreed to extend the statute on the 2014 and 2015 charges, which charges included an attempt to evade or defeat taxes and the fraud and false statements related to the million dollars that Burisma paid to Hunter Biden while his father was vice president.

(03:58:18)
During a recent transcribed interview with the committee, FBI officials from the Baltimore field office refused to answer questions about the expired 2014 and 2015 tax charges because they were allegedly part of a “ongoing investigation”. Are the tax charges related to these years in fact part of an ongoing investigation?

Again, I have no familiarity with the details of this particular investigation.

Okay. So you don’t know one way or the other?

That’s right. I left them up to Mr.Weiss.

All right, so how are charges for which the statute of limitations have already expired part of an ongoing investigation?

Again, I don’t know anything about this case in-

So why would charges that have already expired because of the statute of limitations be part of an ongoing investigation?

To answer in the hypothetical because I don’t know the facts, often, charges from previous times are used as part of an ongoing investigation to inform information about intent, about patterns and practices-

For other investigations? So are there other investigations into Hunter Biden where this information may become relevant?

I think it’s a matter of public record that there is a tax investigation of Mr. Hunter Biden with respect to other years. I don’t think that-

Beyond the 2014 and 2015?

Beyond the ones that you are referring to, I think-

Okay. Mr. Garland-

Mr. Weiss has already said that during the plea proceeding.

Okay. Mr. Garland, is it standard operating procedure in your Department of Justice for prosecutors to allow the statute of limitations to expire on very serious crimes when the potential debt defendant has already agreed to an extension?

So as I said before, there’s no standard operating procedure here. This is a-

Okay. Maybe there should be, if this is an oversight hearing, maybe there should be. Maybe you should adopt standard operating procedures to avoid this kind of a circumstance. Would you agree?

No.

Okay.

Because it’s left to this the discretion of-

You’ve answered my question, thank you. According to one of the IRS whistleblowers, “the purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 tax years sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts.” How can Americans trust an investigation run by a special counsel who by allowing the statute of limitations to expire, irreversibly “sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts?”

The prosecutor in question is an experienced veteran career prosecutor who was appointed by President-

And we have no reason to trust him, do we?

By President Trump.

Okay. How much in terms of taxes, would Hunter Biden have owed on the $1 million he was paid by Burisma?

As you can imagine, since I don’t know anything about the facts of the case, I can’t answer that question.

Probably about $400,000. Isn’t that right? You can do the math. You know the tax code.

I don’t know anything about the facts of this case, so I’m not able to do the math to apply it to facts I don’t know.

And by failing to pay the taxes on those Ill-gotten gains, what would the typical penalty have been, for example, if it was someone who didn’t have the last name of Biden or a D behind their name?

I’m sorry, these are all questions you’ll have to direct to Mr. Weiss and that Mr. Weiss will address in his final-

By allowing the statute of limitations to lapse, did Mr. Weiss effectively gift the tax money Hunter Biden owed for the 2014 and 2015 tax years to Mr. Biden?

To say again, the decisions about whether in this area and whether these allegations are correct are ones that Mr. Weiss will be able to answer.

Mr. Garland, one of the things you have done and repeated over and over and over again is that to point out that Mr. Weiss was appointed as U.S. Attorney by President Trump.

Yes,

As though that somehow inoculates him from criticism by us. Is that really how this game is played? That if someone is appointed by a Republican, then they’re supposed to be on the Republican team or if they’re appointed by a Democrat, they’re on the Democrat team? You were appointed by Mr. Biden, weren’t you? Are you on the Democrat team?

Let me just be clear. The point that he was appointed by a Republican counteracts the claim that this was a partisan decision to benefit Democrats.

Time of the gentle-

He remained as a member of the Department of Justice-

Mr. Chairman?

Time of the gentle lady has expired. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized again for a unanimous consent request.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to offer into evidence, the testimony or segments of the testimony of Thomas Sobocinski dated September 7th. It was taken here and before this committee. It goes to the deconfliction issue with respect to Hunter Biden’s security detail and the search warrant-

Without objection.

Executors. Thank you.

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.

Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. Do you believe Christopher Wray is a competent director of the FBI?

I think Mr. Wray is a person of the highest integrity for whom I have great admiration who has extraordinary experience both as a career prosecutor-

Thank you. And so you certainly don’t think he would knowingly give false testimony to this committee, do you?

I am sure that he would not.

Are you aware that Director Wray a couple of months ago in sworn testimony, implicated you in a sweeping abuse of power?

I doubt he would characterize whatever he said in that way.

Well, he testified about the school board memo that you issued on October 4th, 2021 in which you mobilized federal law enforcement powers against American parents. Now, of course you didn’t put it quite like that. Instead, you found a pretext which is stated right here in the first line of the memo. In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. What was your basis for making that claim?

I will say again as I’ve testified numerous times in response to exactly the same question, that saw numerous reports in the press of violence and threats-

You saw reports in the press and so you decided to instigate a nationwide law enforcement initiative?

If I may be permitted to answer the question?

Please.

Numerous reports in the media of violence and threats of violence against school personnel of all kinds. We received-

And did you consult with the FBI director?

We received a letter from the National Association of School Boards reporting-

Yes, that letter contained anecdotes. It didn’t contain data of an increase. Did you, yes or no, consult with the FBI director before issuing the memo?

I don’t believe I spoke with the FBI director. No.

Why not? Why wouldn’t you consult with the FBI director?

Because the purpose of the memo as it’s very clear from the memo, is to ask the FBI to assess the situation, to hold meetings, and to determine whether this was-

Mr. Attorney General, you started with a conclusion that there was an increase in threats. Now, if you had bothered to consult with the FBI director, here’s what he would’ve said. This is from his sworn testimony, that he was not aware of any such evidence. So my question to you, sir, sitting here today is can you substantiate your claim that there was an increase? Of course there will always be sporadic criminal activity in all quarters of society, but your claim was there was an increase. Can you substantiate that sitting here today?

I can substantiate that by the reports in the press of violence and threats of violence and by the letter sent by representatives of thousands-

That’s a no. You’re giving us anecdotes. I’m asking you if you had data. You also said in your memo, that you were committed to using the department’s authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate. Were there any such prosecutions?

The emphasis should be there on when appropriate and there were no such prosecutions and that’s good news, not bad news.

There were no prosecutions and in fact, director Wray said there were no arrests, there were no charges. So you have no data to show us that there was any increase. You didn’t even bother to consult with the FBI director and then there were no resulting prosecutions even though you said that they were coming. So I have to ask you now in retrospect, was there a compelling law enforcement justification for the memo?

I think you’re mischaracterizing the memo. The purpose of the memo was to hold meetings to open lines of communication with state and local-

So is that a no yes or no? Was there a compelling law enforcement justification for the memo?

I believe there was a reason to ask for those contacts to be made with state and local law enforcement.

Well, the FBI director disagrees with you. When I asked him-

That’s not what the FBI director said.

Look at it right here, Mr. Attorney General. When asked, do you have any reason to dispute the conclusion that there was no nationwide law enforcement justification? He said he didn’t.

Either he didn’t see the reports or he didn’t see the National Association of School-

This is a transcript, I’ve sent you this transcript, Mr. Attorney General. So my question is this, will you retract the memo and by that I mean issue a formal document to the effect that it is no longer operative?

I will not because there was absolutely nothing wrong with the memo as I have testified several times already here.

Even though your own FBI director says there was no justification for it, you will not retract it?

The memo is mine. It’s my decision whether it’s necessary to make assessments like this and I asked the Bureau to make these assessments and the other-

Are you familiar with the concept of a chilling effect?

I’m sorry, I didn’t-

Are you familiar with the concept of a chilling effect?

I’m very familiar and that’s the very reason-

How would you define a chilling effect as it relates to First Amendment-

That is the very reason why the second sentence of the memo says that-

Please tell me what you consider to be the definition of a chilling effect.

That memo has no chilling effect.

I didn’t ask you your opinion on whether the memo has one. I’m asking you what is a chilling effect?

I’m telling you that the second sentence of that makes clear-

I’ve read the full memo. I’m asking you, what do you define a chilling effect as?

A chilling effect is when people’s exercise of First Amendment rights are chilled by coercive activity by the government, which did not occur here.

So here, we’re dealing with moms and dads-

Mr. Chairman-

You and I are public officials.

Point of order with respect to the time. Point of order.

That the gentleman’s time has expired. But it was a pretty darn important question when the Attorney General of the United States can’t define what a chilling effect is. So I thought I would let it go a few seconds.

The Attorney General did define what a chilling effect is and said it didn’t occur here.

I don’t think he defined it, he just dismissed it. The gentleman’s time has expired. I thought it was a very important five minutes. We now recognize the gentle lady from Florida for five minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General.

Good afternoon.

I’d like to return to the earlier discussion about FISA process and the FISC. A number of the members of this committee and of my community are gravely concerned about the well-documented abuses of the FISA process and within the FISC proceedings. In declassified opinions from the FISC in 2018 and 2019, the presiding Judge Boasberg admonished the FBI stating, “There still appears to be widespread violations of the querying standard by the FBI and that there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of some FBI personnel about what the standard reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information means.” Mr. Attorney General, what measures has the FBI instituted since that time to ensure that these abuses are stopped?

So are we talking about FBI FISA section 702?

Yes, sir.

Which is a central part of our ability to find out what foreign nation states, foreign terrorists are trying to do in the United States. When I first came into the Justice Department as Attorney General, I read the opinions you talked about and they deeply concerned me. And I agreed when I looked into it, that there was a misunderstanding by operators and analysts as to what the query standard was. So one of the very first things I did was send a memo to the FBI directing that the way in which the Justice Department and particularly the FBI did the querying be examined and that corrections be made. This was an extension of a memorandum that Attorney General Barr had likewise after he read similar concerns sent to the FBI at the end of 2020.

And Mr. Attorney General, in addition to other things, the ultimate adjustments included additional attorney oversight, requiring FBI users to affirmatively opt-in to search the 702 database, updated guidance and training, and enhanced approval requirements, correct?

Yes ma’am. All that’s true And the consequence was a 93% drop in the number of U.S. person queries.

Nonetheless, Mr. Attorney General, you would agree or would you not, that there are continued needs to review, analyze, and make additional improvements in safeguards to ensure that we don’t continue seeing these abuses?

I do agree.

In fact, in recent weeks, we saw even President Biden’s Intelligence Advisory Board make recommendations that we continue to revise 702 oversight and restrictions including a recommendation to direct the DNI and the Attorney General to research potential technological enhancement to the current oversight framework. Tell me what technology might modernize and improve oversight of the 702 process?

One of the technologies that has already worked very effectively is to change this from an opt-out to an opt-in set of queries. So you have to first of all, indicate that you are looking at 702 and not just across the board of the FBI holdings. You have to have a dropdown window which explains why you are going to do this. It’s easy for us-

Does that window require the user to input narrative text?

That’s right, that’s right.

All right. Thank you Mr. Attorney General. Are there other technology specific changes that you would recommend?

Well, I’d like to consider that more. There are various kinds of auditing programs using technology. The national security division of Justice Department has done some of that. The FBI actually at the request of Attorney General Barr, began an auditing program like that. FBI Director Wray, who also agrees that this kind of non-compliance shouldn’t continue put that auditing program into effect within the Justice Department.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I yield the balance of my time to the chairman.

The gentle lady for yielding. Mr. Garland, in David Weiss’s letter to Senator Graham on July 10th of this year, he says this, “I was assured that I would be granted special counsel authority if it proved necessary.” And this assurance came months before the October 7th, 2022 meeting referenced throughout the whistleblower’s allegations. How was that assurance given and who gave it?

I’m sorry. I think he was talking about 515 authority. I’m reading the letter now. He’s not talking about special counsel authority. It says that I was assured-

515 authority, okay.

Yeah.

Same difference. Well, not same difference, but same fundamental question.

I understand your point, yeah.

He’s making the point that he was assured that he could get this status and that status came… That assurance, excuse me, came before October 7th, 2022. How was that assurance given and who gave it?

Yeah, I made that clear in my direction and that was transmitted to him.

So you told him that back before October 7th, that you would-

No, I’m not going to get into exactly the deliberation of the department, but-

Three simple questions. How was it given? Who gave it? When was it done?

Yeah, I understand. I gave a direction from the beginning that he would be able to bring a case whenever, wherever he wanted to. And that direction he heard obviously, and he confirms that here.

I went a little over time. So I told the ranking member, I’d extended him a few seconds or minutes if he wanted to say a few more things or ask a few more questions and then we’ll-

Thank you. Let me just ask the Attorney General. Mr. Attorney General, you’ve been asked many questions here, which you were not permitted to answer. People ask the question and just asked another question, and didn’t permit you to answer. Is there anything you’d like to say in answer to anything that you think should be made clear or added?

Look, I’m grateful for the opportunity. I just again, want to assure the American public and this committee that the Justice Department follows the rule of law. It enforces the law equally without regard to persons and without regard to parties, and that we do the best we can to follow the facts in the law.

Thank you.

Mr. Attorney General, we appreciate you being here in the committee maybe have to do something official. I guess anyone who wants to add something to it, they can submit that for the record. With that, the committee is adjourned.

Thank you.