[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: 
                  POLITICAL INTERFERENCE AND THREATS TO 
                  PROSECUTORIAL INDEPENDENCE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-81

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-890                      WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
              
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
               MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee                   Wisconsin
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    Georgia                          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
KAREN BASS, California               KEN BUCK, Colorado
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         MATT GAETZ, Florida
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ERIC SWALWELL, California            ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
TED LIEU, California                 TOM McCLINTOCK, California
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          BEN CLINE, Virginia
J. LUIS CORREA, California           KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, June 24, 2020

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     4

                               WITNESSES

Donald Ayer, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
  Oral Testimony.................................................    19
  Written Testimony..............................................    23
John W. Elias, Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division, U.S. 
  Department of Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................    42
  Written Testimony..............................................    44
Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General, U.S. Department of 
  Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................    52
  Written Testimony..............................................    55
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's 
  Office for the District of Maryland
  Oral Testimony.................................................    61
  Written Testimony..............................................    63

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

A letter from Bradley Weinsheimer to Davis Z. Seide, Government 
  Accountability Project, June 18, 2020, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............    10
A letter from Bradley Weinsheimer to Robert S. Litt, Morrison 
  Foerster, June 22, 2020, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold 
  Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State 
  of New York for the record.....................................    13
A letter from Bradley Weinsheimer to Davis Z. Seide, Government 
  Accountability Project, June 23, 2020, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............    15
A letter from Bradley Weinsheimer to Davis Z. Seide, Government 
  Accountability Project, June 18, 2020, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............    78
A letter from Davis Z. Seide, Government Accountability Project 
  to Bradley Weinsheimer, Associate Deputy Attorney General, June 
  22, 2020, submitted by the Honorable Chair Jerrold Nadler, 
  Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
  York for the record............................................    81
A letter from Bradley Weinsheimer to Davis Z. Seide, Government 
  Accountability Project, June 23, 2020, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............    83
A letter from Robert S. Litt, Morrison Foerster, June 19, 2020 to 
  Bradley Weinsheimer, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, 
  Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
  York for the record............................................    85
A letter from Bradley Weinsheimer to Robert S. Litt, Morrison 
  Foerster, June 22, 2020, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold 
  Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State 
  of New York for the record.....................................    88
Corresponce between Robert S. Litt, Morrison Foerster, and 
  Bradley Weinsheimer, June 22-23, 2020, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............    90
A memorandum entitled ``Additional Requirements for the Opening 
  of Certain Sensitive Investigations,'' from Attorney General 
  William Barr, submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California 
  for the record.................................................    98
A letter from U.S. Department of Justice alumni, submitted by the 
  Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Texas for the record...............   108
A letter from the Office of Professional Responsibility of the 
  U.S. Department of Justice, submitted by the Honorable Doug 
  Collins, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of New York for the record...............................   120
A letter entitled ``DOJ Alumni Statement on the Events 
  Surrounding the Sentencing of Roger Stone,'' submitted by the 
  Honorable David Cicilline, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Rhode Island for the record........   140
A statement from former U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. 
  Attorneys for the Southern District of New York, submitted by 
  the Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California for the record..........   152
A letter to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Assistant Attorney 
  General Stephen E. Boyd, submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan, 
  Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State 
  of Ohio for the record.........................................   170
An article entitled ``I left the Justice Department after it made 
  a disastrous mistake. It just happened again,'' submitted by 
  the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Texas for the record...............   178
A letter from former professionals of the Antitrust Division of 
  the U.S. Department of Justice, submitted by the Honorable Lucy 
  McBath, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of Georgia for the record................................   190
An article entitled ``Barr, Wray and top security officials: Help 
  us protect the 2020 elections and your vote,'' submitted by the 
  Honorable Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Florida for the record.........   198

                                APPENDIX

An article entitled ``10 Top Antitrust Experts Alarmed by 
  Whistleblower Complaint Against A.G. Barr--and Office of 
  Professional Responsibility's Opinion,'' submitted by the 
  Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California for the record..........   206

 
  OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: POLITICAL INTERFERENCE AND 
                 THREATS TO PROSECUTORIAL INDEPENDENCE

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 24, 2020

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:14 p.m., in Room 
CVC-200, Congressional Auditorium, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair 
of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 
Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Richmond, Jeffries, 
Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Correa, Scanlon, 
Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Murcarsel-Powell, 
Escobar, Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, Collins, Buck, Gaetz, Johnson 
of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, 
and Armstrong.
    Staff present: Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Amy 
Rutkin, Chief of Staff; Arya Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight 
Counsel; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member 
Services and Outreach Advisor; Priyanka Mara, Professional 
Staff Member/Legislative Aide; Jordan Dashow, Professional 
Staff Member; Anthony Valdez, Staff Assistant; John Williams, 
Parliamentarian; Chris Hixon, Minority Staff Director; Stephen 
Castor, Minority General Counsel; Katy Rother, Minority General 
Counsel and Parliamentarian; Ella Yates, Minority Director of 
Member Services and Coalitions; Caroline Nabity, Minority 
Counsel; Kyle Smithwick, Minority Counsel; Anudeep Buddharaju, 
Minority Counsel; Michael Koren, Minority Professional Staff 
Member; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Chair Nadler. The Committee on the Judiciary will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recesses of the Committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this afternoon's hearing on 
``Oversight of the Department of Justice: Political 
Interference and Threats to Prosecutorial Independence.'' 
Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we have 
established an email address and distribution list dedicated to 
circulating exhibits, motions, or other written materials that 
Members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. If 
you would like to submit materials, please send them to the 
email that has been previously distributed to your offices, and 
we will circulate the materials to Members and staff as quickly 
as we can.
    I would also remind all Members that guidance from the 
Office of Attending Physician states that face coverings are 
required for all meetings in an enclosed space, such as 
Committee hearings. Everybody attending this hearing is 
required to follow this guidance. This is for the health and 
safety of all of us in this room, including our staff and for 
the loved ones we will return to at the end of the day. I 
expect all Members on both sides of the aisle to wear a mask 
except when you are speaking.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, point of parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. Last Friday without explanation, Attorney 
General William Barr announced that Geoffrey Berman, the United 
States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was 
``stepping down.'' This was, of course, untrue. Mr. Berman had 
not resigned. In his statement, Mr. Berman made clear that he 
had no intention of resigning and every intention of moving 
forward with his work without delay or interruption. He 
emphasized that point. He wanted to stay on the job to ensure 
that his work would continue unimpeded.
    To understand the stakes in this standoff, it is important 
to note that the work of Mr. Berman's office has included a 
number of criminal investigations aimed at investigations close 
to President Trump. Among them, the President's attorney, 
Michael Cohen, the President's Inaugural Committee, and Rudy 
Giuliani, the President's current counsel, campaign advisor, 
and direct line to Kiev. On Saturday, Mr. Barr attempted to 
fire Mr. Berman directly. Even then, Mr. Berman resisted. Only 
when he was certain that his deputy, a qualified career 
prosecutor, would take his place as Acting U.S. Attorney, did 
he relent and step aside.
    So, what are we to make of these events? If this had been 
an isolated incident, if the Attorney General had simply 
misjudged the situation and thought that Mr. Berman would go 
quietly, then we might chalk up this episode to simple 
miscommunication and incompetence. Make no mistake, this was 
not an isolated incident. The effort to remove Mr. Berman is 
part of a clear and dangerous pattern of conduct that began 
when Mr. Barr took office and continues to this day. Mr. Barr's 
action made clear that in his Department of Justice, the 
President's allies get special treatment, the President's 
enemies, real and imagined, are targeted for extra scrutiny, 
and the needs of the American people and the needs of justice 
are generally ignored.
    Mr. Barr's practice of using the Department to shield the 
President and his allies goes back to the beginning of his 
tenure at the DOJ. Last year, when the Special Counsel had 
completed his investigation, when Mr. Barr had the report in 
hand, but before the public could read it, the Attorney General 
blatantly mischaracterized the Special Counsel's findings, and 
he did so on the President's behalf. Among other deceptions, 
Mr. Barr pretended that compelling evidence of obstruction of 
justice, including evidence that the President may have lied 
directly to the Special Counsel, simply did not exist. Mr. 
Barr's deception seems blatant, but don't take my word for it. 
The Special Counsel wrote to Mr. Barr directly to complain 
about the inaccuracies which lingered uncorrected for weeks. A 
Federal judge later said that Mr. Barr's inconsistencies were 
so distorted and misleading, that he questioned Mr. Barr's 
credibility and, in turn, could not trust the Department's 
assurances to the Court about the contents of the Mueller 
Report. Mr. Barr has also worked to undermine the criminal 
cases stemming from the Special Counsel's report.
    Early this year, after the President's associate, Roger 
Stone, was convicted of obstructing justice, Mr. Barr overruled 
his career prosecutors and recommended a lighter sentence for 
President Trump's friend. One of those prosecutors, Mr. 
Zelinsky, will testify today about that experience. We should 
be clear about the timeline in the Stone case. If nothing else, 
it helps explain why Mr. Berman refused to go quietly over the 
weekend.
    In January, Mr. Barr removed the U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Columbia and replaced her with his long-time aide. 
In February, President Trump tweeted his feelings about Stone's 
ongoing criminal case. The President was outraged that Mr. 
Stone, his friend, might be punished for obstructing justice. 
Quickly thereafter, Mr. Barr reached into the case, overruled 
his prosecutors, and submitted a wildly lenient sentencing 
recommendation for Mr. Stone. All four prosecutors involved in 
the case, including Mr. Zelinsky, immediately withdrew. The 
next day, President Trump tweeted his congratulations to Mr. 
Barr.
    The Stone case wasn't an isolated incident either. In May, 
Mr. Barr abruptly reversed course in the prosecution of Michael 
Flynn, the President's former national security advisor, who 
pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with 
the Russian ambassador. Once again, the President tweeted his 
feelings about the case. Once again, Mr. Barr reached into the 
proceedings, overruled his career prosecutors, misrepresented 
statements by Department officials, and asked the Court to 
dismiss the charges against Mr. Flynn, and once again, the 
President tweeted his delight at the outcome.
    Former Federal Judge John Gleason, appointed by the Court 
to account for Mr. Barr's unprecedented motion to dismiss the 
case against Mr. Flynn, argued that, ``The facts surrounding 
the filing of the Government's motion constitute clear evidence 
of gross prosecutorial abuse. They reveal an unconvincing 
effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is 
based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of 
President Trump.'' Judge Gleason was not alone. Days after Mr. 
Barr insisted on dropping charges against Mr. Flynn, almost 
2,000 former FBI agents and Department of Justice officials 
wrote an open letter calling for the Attorney General's 
resignation.
    Now, my Republican colleagues may try to explain these 
incidents away. They may tell you that Barr's attempts to fire 
Berman were harmless, that Flynn and Stone should be excused 
for their crimes, and that Mr. Barr's extraordinary attempts to 
protect the President from criminal liability are necessary to 
correct for a vast conspiracy at the Justice Department. Those 
excuses ring hollow. There is injustice at the Justice 
Department, ladies, and gentlemen, as there is extensive 
injustice in our justice system nationwide.
    We have rightly focused on one major aspect of that 
injustice in recent weeks since the murder of George Floyd at 
the hands of law enforcement officers. As we prepare to address 
that injustice on the House floor in the single largest and 
most sweeping package of police reforms in our country's 
history, I cannot help but notice that the Members who tend to 
shout loudest about hoaxes and witch hunts also stand in 
opposition to these commonsense reforms. Ask yourselves, what 
are you saying to the American people when your commitment to 
justice means that you will stand up for Flynn, Stone, and 
Barr, but go no further?
    No, Mr. Barr's work at the Department of Justice has 
nothing to do with correcting injustice. He is the President's 
fixer. He has shown us that there is one set of rules for the 
President's friends and another set of rules for the rest of 
us. To be clear, there are plenty of reasons to be angry with 
Attorney General Barr. It is unacceptable that he would order 
the Antitrust Division to initiate pretextual investigations 
into industries that he and the President do not like simply 
because they do not like them. Mr. Elias will testify to that 
abuse today. It is dangerous and misguided for him to threaten 
frivolous litigation against State and local officials doing 
their best to contain the COVID-19 epidemic in their 
communities. It is simply irresponsible for him to do so in the 
total absence of guidance from the White House or leadership 
from the President.
    It is outrageous that Mr. Barr occupied this city with a 
Federal police force outfitted in paramilitary gear, and then 
turned that force on peaceful protestors in Lafayette Square, 
spraying them with teargas and physically knocking them back, 
all to arrange for an awkward photo op for President Trump. The 
images from that day are so disturbing that we cannot blame Mr. 
Barr for trying to avoid responsibility for his role in the 
event in the days since. Please understand that these are 
merely the symptoms of an underlying disease. The sickness that 
we must address is Mr. Barr's use of the Department of Justice 
as a weapon to serve the President's petty private interests. 
The cancer that we must root out is his decision to place the 
President's interests above the interests of the American 
people.
    Our witnesses today will speak to the extremes to which Mr. 
Barr has reached to carry out the President's bidding. I am 
especially grateful to Mr. Elias and Mr. Zelinsky, who are 
current Department employees, for their bravery in appearing 
before the committee. This Administration has a record of 
witness intimidation, and I have no doubt that they will try to 
exact a price for your testimony. You are patriots, and you 
have done your duty here today. It gives me hope for what may 
come at the Department of Justice when Bill Barr is finally 
removed. I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look 
forward to your testimony.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Barr Justice 
Department is about correcting injustice. You almost have to 
laugh at this. The very day you have a hearing going after the 
Barr Justice Department and alleging that there are politics 
involved there, the very day we get the order from the United 
States Court of Appeals dismissing the Flynn case. ``The 
District Court is directed to grant the government's motion to 
dismiss the District Court's order. Appointing amicus is hereby 
vacated.'' I mean, they are not political. They are just right. 
Again, you would almost have to laugh if it wasn't so serious.
    Attorney General Holder said he was Obama's wing man. The 
Obama-Biden Justice Department attacked investigative 
journalists. Here is what one of them said. Here is what one of 
them said. James Risen with the New York Times said this: ``If 
a President throws a whistleblower in jail for trying to talk 
to a reporter or gets the FBI to spy on a journalist, he will 
have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: 
Barack Obama.'' That is not me talking. That is James Risen of 
the New York Times when the Justice Department, the Obama-
Holder-Biden Justice Department, went after him.
    Of course, we know about Fast and Furious. We know about 
Operation Choke Point. Even though Chair always doesn't want to 
talk about this, we know how political the Justice Department 
was in the whole Russia hoax, the whole Trump-Russia 
investigation. Remember this: The Obama-Biden Department of 
Justice spied on four American citizens. That is the big thing 
you guys have with Bill Barr, too. The first time he testified 
in front of the Senate, he used the word ``spying,'' and 
everyone went crazy, but he used the word ``spying'' because 
that is exactly what happened. They spied on four American 
citizens associated with the Presidential campaign, an 
investigation we now know was completely bogus because Rick 
Burnell released all the transcripts from all the people who 
were involved in the intelligence community in the previous 
Administrations, and they all said there was nothing there.
    The Obama-Biden Justice Department, to spy on those 
Americans, what did they do? They lied to the FISA Court 17 
times. They used the now-famous dossier, the dossier that Jim 
Comey--not Jim Jordan--Jim Comey said was salacious and 
unverified. They didn't tell the Court the guy who wrote it was 
``desperate to stop Trump.'' They didn't tell the Court the guy 
who wrote it was being paid by the Clinton Campaign to put it 
together. They used that to get a warrant to spy on one our 
fellow citizens, and you guys think that is no big deal.
    Bill Barr understands that is a big deal, and that is why 
John Durham is doing his investigation. Of course, do you know 
who else thought it was a big deal? The inspector general of 
the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz, who wrote a 400-page 
report talking about those 17 lies, talking about all the 
abuses that took place in the Comey-Biden-Obama Justice 
Department. But guess what? This committee, the Judiciary 
Committee, didn't even get a chance to ask questions of Mr. 
Horowitz about that report because Chair won't bring him in to 
testify.
    I don't know if I have ever seen anything like that. A 400-
page report written by the inspector of the Justice Department, 
scathing report about the FISA Court, and the Chair of the 
Judiciary Committee, with the storied history this Committee 
has in protecting people's liberties, won't even let him come 
in and testify. Well, here is what U.S. District Judge and FISA 
Presiding Judge Rosemary Collier said about the findings in Mr. 
Horowitz's report: ``the frequency with which representations 
made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported.'' Think 
about that. Representations made by FBI personnel turned out to 
be unsupported. Do you know what that is? That is a nice way of 
saying they lied, ``or contradicted by information in their 
possession and with which they withheld information detrimental 
to their case.'' ``Withheld information detrimental to their 
case'' is another way of saying they lied. ``Calls into 
question whether information contained in other FBI 
applications is reliable.''
    You put that all in simple English, what Judge Collier was 
saying is you guys lied to us so many darn times, how are we 
supposed to believe anything you bring in front of the Court? 
That was all in that 400-page report from the inspector 
general, but Chair Nadler won't even let Inspector General 
Horowitz come in and answer our questions and go into detail 
about that report. Yet today, the day we get the ruling from 
the Court of Appeals, Chair says it is the Trump DOJ, it is the 
Barr DOJ that is political.
    Guess what else happened in the final days of the Obama 
Administration? Guess what else happened? Thirty-eight 
different people unmasked Michael Flynn's name 49 times. Forty-
nine times. Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Biden unmasked Michael 
Flynn. Six people at the Treasury Department. Holy cow, 
everyone. This is between Election Day and Inauguration Day, 
and Bill Barr just simply wants to get to the bottom of all 
this, and somehow that is political when, in fact, the politics 
was in the previous Administration, and he is trying to stop 
it.
    Here is what these people said. Here is how we know this 
was all a joke. Clapper: ``I never saw any direct evidence that 
the Trump Campaign or someone was conspiring with the 
Russians.'' Jim Clapper said that, and yet we had a 2-year 
investigation by the Mueller team. Susan Rice: ``I don't recall 
intelligence that I would consider evidence.'' Ben Rhodes said 
the same. Sally Yates: ``I don't believe anybody had reached a 
conclusion yet as to whether Russians were conspiring.'' They 
had nothing, yet they go through this entire investigation. 
Samantha Power, same thing.
    All these key people who were unmasking Michael Flynn's 
name all knew there was no predicate for the investigation, and 
it happened, and somehow the Barr Justice Department is 
political? Like I said, they are not political, they are just 
right, and we saw that with the decision today.
    Finally, let me just say this. I have been saying this for 
I don't know how long, but it is the truth. I have never seen 
an agency where this happened. The top people, the very people 
Bill Barr, and that same testimony he gave where he talked 
about spying, he also said this. He said there was a failure of 
leadership at the upper echelon of the FBI in the previous 
Administration. That may be the understatement of the year. Jim 
Comey fired, leaked memos. Leaked memos to get the Special 
Counsel to put our country through what we went through the 
past few years. Andy McCabe, deputy director, fired, referred 
by that same IG for prosecution. Jim Baker, FBI counsel, 
investigated by the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, took 
information from the DNC lawyer. Of course, now-famous Peter 
Strzok and Lisa Page, the individuals who ran the Clinton 
investigation, the midyear exam, ran Crossfire Hurricane, 
Crossfire Razor, the Trump-Russia investigations. They were 
both kicked off Mueller's team. Peter Strzok was fired. We all 
know the bias they had against President Trump. We saw it in 
hundreds of text messages that we are all now too familiar 
with.
    The politics was in the previous Administration. Bill Barr 
is doing the Lord's work trying to clean it up so that it 
doesn't happen again. We have said this before, and I will say 
in closing, Emmet Flood's statement a little over a year ago 
where he said this: We would all do well to remember, if they 
can do it to a President, they can lie to a FISA Court to get a 
warrant to go after a President, to go after a major party's 
political campaign, if they can do it to a President, imagine 
what they can do to you or I. Imagine what they can do to the 
folks we get the privilege of representing back home. That is 
why this is important. That is why the work Bill Barr is doing 
is important. You guys can continue to play your political 
games. Bill Barr is going to get to the truth. I yield back.
    Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Without objection, all 
other opening statements will be included in the record.
    Without objection, three letters from Bradley Weinsheimer, 
the Associate Deputy Attorney General, will be admitted into 
the record.
    [The information follows:]

                      CHAIR NADLER FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. I will now introduce to the--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Chabot. Point of order.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What provision of the Democrats' 
new House Rules allows for a duly-subpoenaed witness to appear 
and provide testimony by video?
    Chair Nadler. The Rules so provide. I will now introduce 
today's--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, the copy of 
the subpoena that we have that was issued to Mr. Aaron 
Zelinsky--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --does not allow for that.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman has not stated a--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The Chair has not answered the 
inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. Section 4(f)(1)--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appeal the ruling.
    Chair Nadler. --allows committees to issue subpoenas--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appeal the ruling of the Chair. 
The witnesses are not allowed to attend by video under the 
subpoena that Chair issued.
    Chair Nadler. Section 4(f)(1) of the Rules of the House 
allows--
    Voice. House Resolution 965.
    Chair Nadler. House Resolution 965 allows committees to 
issue subpoenas for return by remote participation.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The subpoena reads, ``You are 
commanded to be and appear before the''--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. I will now 
introduce today's witnesses.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appeal the ruling of Chair, Mr. 
Chair.
    Chair Nadler. I will now introduce today's witnesses. 
Donald Ayer served as the Deputy Attorney General under 
President George H.W. Bush. He joined the Department--
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, you cannot simply go over a point 
of order when an individual appeals the ruling of the Chair, 
and I am speaking to you, you gavel me down, but this is--
    Mr. Gohmert. Rules don't matter in here apparently.
    Mr. Collins. --18 months. He has appealed the ruling of the 
Chair. At least honor the parliamentary procedure.
    Chair Nadler. There was a ruling. It was not--
    Mr. Collins. Point of order. I challenge the subpoena being 
issued that he can appear remotely. I make a point of order.
    Mr. Cicilline. The Chair--
    Chair Nadler. It is not a cognizable point of order.
    Mr. Collins. I challenge the ruling of the Chair.
    Chair Nadler. You cannot appeal a non--
    Mr. Collins. You just denied my point of order. I challenge 
the ruling of the Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Donald Ayer served as Deputy Attorney General 
in the--
    Mr. Collins. Here we go again. I appealed the ruling of the 
Chair on a point of order. You cannot overlook that.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Collins, you can't interrupt these 
proceedings, and the American people deserve to know the truth.
    Chair Nadler. There was no--
    Mr. Collins. This has nothing to do with the truth. This 
has to do with the ruling of the committee.
    Chair Nadler. There was no ruling of the Chair--
    Mr. Collins. I made a point of order. You ruled. That is a 
ruling.
    Chair Nadler. The point was not cognizable.
    Mr. Collins. Then I appeal the ruling of the Chair on not 
recognizing the point of order.
    Chair Nadler. There is not ruling of the Chair to appeal. 
Donald Ayer served as deputy--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, could I--
    Mr. Collins. Nothing changes around here.
    Chair Nadler. Donald Ayer--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, could I just--
    Chair Nadler. --served as Deputy Attorney General under 
President George H.W. Bush. He joined the Department as an 
assistant U.S. attorney and held a number of other positions, 
including U.S. States Attorney in the Eastern District of 
California, and principal deputy solicitor general under 
President Reagan. Previously, Mr. Ayer clerked for Justice 
William Rehnquist and Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the D.C. Circuit. 
After his career in public service, he was in private practice 
and has also taught extensively at law schools around the 
country. Mr. Ayer received his B.A. from Stanford University 
and his M.A. and J.D. from Harvard University.
    Aaron Zelinsky is an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Maryland. Previously, Mr. Zelinsky served as a 
special Assistant United States Attorney in the District of 
Columbia, as an Assistant Special Counsel in Special Counsel 
Robert Mueller's Office, and a Special Assistant to the legal 
advisor in the State Department. Previously, Mr. Zelinsky 
clerked for Justice Kennedy before his retirement from the 
Supreme Court, and for Justice John Paul Stevens after his 
retirement, and as well as for Judge Thomas Griffith on the 
D.C. Circuit. Mr. Zelinsky received his J.D. and B.A. from Yale 
University. I note for the record that pursuant to section 
4(c)(6) of House Resolution 965, Mr. Zelinsky's personal 
counsel is participating in this hearing on the WebEx software 
platform.
    John Elias is a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice. Since joining the Department in 
2006, he has served in a variety of roles, including acting 
Chief of Staff of the Antitrust Division. In 2015, following a 
detail to the White House's Presidential Personnel Office, he 
joined the Office of the Associate Attorney General, where he 
served in various periods as Counsel, Chief of Staff, and 
Deputy Associate Attorney General. Mr. Elias received his J.D. 
from Stanford Law School and his B.A. from Yale University.
    The Honorable Michael Mukasey served as the United States 
Attorney General from November 2007 to January 2009 under 
President George W. Bush. Prior to his service as Attorney 
General, he served as a judge in the Southern District of New 
York, becoming chief judge in 2000. Previously, he served as an 
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. 
He is currently in private practice. Judge Mukasey received his 
law degree from Yale University and his B.A. from Columbia 
College.
    We welcome all our distinguished witnesses, and we thank 
them for their participation. Now, if you would please rise, I 
will begin by swearing you in.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Chair Nadler. Let the record show the witnesses answered in 
the affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated. Let me extend 
a special welcome to Judge Mukasey, who I well remember from 
my--
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, could we get a vocal from Mr. 
Zelinsky? All we could see was his hand up.
    Chair Nadler. --well remember from our dinners--
    Mr. Collins. I guess not.
    Chair Nadler. Please note that each of your written 
statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. 
Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 
minutes. To help you stay within that time, for those witnesses 
testifying in person, there is a timing light on your table. 
When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute 
to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 
signals your 5 minutes have expired. For Mr. Zelinsky, there is 
a timer on your screen to help you keep track of time.
    Mr. Ayer, you may begin. Your mike.

                    TESTIMONY OF DONALD AYER

    Mr. Ayer. Good afternoon, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Jordan, and Members of the committee. Thank you very much for 
inviting me to appear today.
    I was privileged to serve in the Department of Justice 
under two Republican and one Democratic President, and I am 
here because I believe that William Barr poses the greatest 
threat in my lifetime to our rule of law and to public trust in 
it. That is because he does not believe in its core principle, 
that no person is above the law. Instead, since taking office, 
he has worked to advance his lifelong conviction that the 
President should hold virtually autocratic powers. That 
includes immunity from nearly all checks and balances and being 
able to accord special treatment to himself and his friends.
    The system that Barr is working to tear down was put in 
place in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals, which 
involved extensive government corruption and caused a 
widespread loss of trust. After Nixon resigned, President 
Ford's Attorney General, Edward Levi, acted swiftly to restore 
trust by supporting reforms to prevent such abuses. These 
included statutes, like FISA, the first Inspector General Act, 
expansion of FOIA, and the Whistleblower Protection Act.
    Levi knew that public trust ultimately depended on people 
believing that ours is a government of laws and not men, in 
which no person is above the law. That had special significance 
for the Department of Justice whose work he saw imbued with a 
judicial nature. Its awesome powers demanded transparent and 
orderly decision-making processes subject to review at multiple 
levels and free from improper personal considerations or 
political interference. Levi emphasized the critical role of a 
dedicated professional staff who would bring zeal and 
determination and a great concern for fairness and 
impartiality. This vision has been an inspiration to 
generations of Department lawyers.
    Bill Barr's service since last February has been a root and 
branch attack on Edward Levi's vision and reforms; indeed, on 
the very idea that no person is above the law. Barr has sought 
to give the President nearly unlimited powers by negating or 
overriding many independent processes that operate as important 
checks on executive branch action. Here are some of the things 
that he has done.
    He has worked to defeat any meaningful oversight, either by 
Congress or by review in the courts, through litigation, legal 
opinions, and his own speeches. He has himself refused multiple 
times to show up in response to requests to appear before 
Congress. He has worked to undermine Congress' appropriation 
power by litigating the President's right to divert funds to 
pay for his border wall, which Congress refused repeatedly to 
fund. He has regularly undermined the authority of independent 
decision-making processes and career professionals, whose 
disinterested integrity Levi saw as a key element justifying 
public trust. He has done this by his own statements, such as 
last March when he publicly whitewashed the Mueller Report's 
extensive findings on obstruction of justice, and last December 
when he publicly contradicted key conclusions reached by 
Inspector General Horowitz and his FBI election interference 
probe. Both times, Barr's intervention vocally reaffirmed 
positions advanced regularly in presidential tweets.
    He has also done it by enlisting various political cronies 
to review and reverse decisions of experienced career 
attorneys, or by simply replacing them in handling matters of 
personal interest to the President. This is how he accomplished 
the reversals of long-held Department positions in the cases of 
Trump associates Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, urging a much 
lighter sentence in one case and outright dismissal in the 
other.
    In a number of other matters, such as the intake of 
information from Rudy Giuliani and investigation of unmasking 
requests during the Obama Administration, Barr has set aside 
certain subject matter to be handled by people in his political 
inner circle rather than by career officials who would deal 
with them in ordinary course. Finally, Barr has willingly 
supported removal of officials when their attention to duty 
proves politically inconvenient to the President. The treatment 
of U.S. Attorneys Jessie Liu here in the District of Columbia 
and of Geoffrey Berman in New York last Friday are two blatant 
examples. So is his standing by and voicing support as Trump, 
during April and May of this year, has removed five inspectors 
general who had long served as an important check on executive 
branch corruption.
    To an ever-greater and quite shocking extent, this spring 
Barr has used the great powers of the Department of Justice to 
advance the President's narrow political interests and gravely 
undermined constitutional rights and the functioning of our 
democracy. Consider his apparent role in overseeing law 
enforcement action on June 1 to deny the right of peaceful 
protests in Lafayette Park, or the plainly frivolous motion 
filed last Friday, and denied one day later, to enjoin 
publication of John Bolton's book for disclosing facts 
embarrassing to the President, or worst of all, I think, are 
his flamboyant media discussions of the facts supposedly 
unearthed by the specially-commissioned investigation he is 
personally conducting with the help of U.S. Attorney John 
Durham. Repeatedly, Barr has echoed the President's tweets and 
conclusively characterized the FBI investigation of Russian 
interference as an effort to spy on the Trump Campaign, and, as 
he put it, ``one of the greatest travesties in American 
history,'' and he has hinted repeatedly that indictments are 
likely.
    This conduct is a textbook violation of Justice Manual Rule 
1-7.400, which bars public comment on criminal investigations 
before charges are filed. Here, though, the wrong is much worse 
as Barr is using a criminal investigation to produce fodder for 
the President's campaign propaganda mill, which can have its 
effect even though it is false. If this conduct, in particular, 
gives cause for great concern about what Barr may do next--just 
another 30 seconds.
    In closing, it needs to be said that Bill Barr does 
regularly lie in ways that impact official action. Along with 
his continuing media project to make Americans believe that the 
FBI conspired against Donald Trump, his statements about the 
Mueller Report, Geoffrey Berman's supposed resignation, and 
Barr's own role in the events in Lafayette Park come quickly to 
mind. So, does his practice of regularly shrouding himself in 
the rhetoric and trappings of the rule of law, even as he 
desecrates and undermines the institutions that make it 
possible? To me, Barr's crowning dishonesty--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Ayer. --is the portrait of Edward Levi that a recent 
New York Times article showed hanging on the wall of his 
conference room as though the current incumbent--
    Chair Nadler. Regular order. The witness will conclude.
    Mr. Gohmert. We are way beyond regular order.
    Chair Nadler. The witness will continue.
    Mr. Ayer. Can I have one more sentence?
    Chair Nadler. By all means.
    Mr. Ayer. Okay. To me, Barr's crowning dishonesty is the 
portrait of Edward Levi that a recent--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I would ask that the 
Sergeant-At-Arms--
    Chair Nadler. The witness will conclude.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. --be called upon to stop the 
disruption of this meeting. I can't hear this witness. This is 
a very important witness.
    Mr. Gohmert. Yeah. Well, he is way beyond--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair has the--
    Mr. Gohmert. If there are no rules about when people can 
talk--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair has the authority--
    Mr. Gohmert. There are no rules about when you can make 
noise.
    Chair Nadler. That is a good point, and the Chair will 
enforce the 5-minute rule. The witness will proceed.
    Mr. Chabot. The Chair is not enforcing the 5-minute rule.
    Chair Nadler. The witness will conclude.
    Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chair, this is outrageous. Do you have no 
respect for the rules whatsoever?
    Chair Nadler. The witness will conclude.
    Mr. Gohmert. He is 2 minutes beyond concluding, and you 
don't let us have that kind of time. You gavel down 
immediately. You are being grossly unfair.
    Chair Nadler. The witness will conclude.
    Mr. Gohmert. This man had a written statement, and he knew 
to cut it to 5 minutes. He couldn't do it. Either we have 
rules, or we don't.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. The witness will 
conclude.
    Mr. Ayer. Thank you.
    Mr. Gohmert. Then we can keep making noise.
    Mr. Ayer. In closing, it needs to be said that Bill Barr 
does regularly lie in ways that impact official actions.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, there is not order in the room. 
There is a banging, and it is disrespectful.
    Mr. Gohmert. No, there is certainly not.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chair, will you have Jean Cooper removed?
    Chair Nadler. The witness will conclude.
    Mr. Gohmert. That is what you said a while ago, and he 
didn't conclude.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. The witness will 
conclude.
    Mr. Ayer. So, I guess the last thing I want to sum up with. 
I have said all the rest of this, but the last point I would 
like to make is that I think his crowning dishonesty in the 
face of what he is doing to the Justice Department is the 
picture that I saw in the New York Times a few weeks ago, a 
portrait of Edward Levi on the wall of his conference room as 
though the current incumbent has anything but disdain for the 
beliefs and achievements of his predecessor. Thank you, Your 
Honor.
    [The statement of Mr. Ayer follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is it not appropriating for the 
Chair to exercise discretion in extending the 5-minute Rule as 
the Chair sees fit?
    Chair Nadler. It certainly is appropriate.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is it authorized under the rules of 
this committee?
    Chair Nadler. It certainly is authorized under the rules of 
this committee.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, then can not the Chair call 
in the Sergeant-at-Arms to maintain order when a member of this 
panel is out of order and disrupts the meeting?
    Chair Nadler. We will move on to the next witness.
    Mr. Collins. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Elias.
    Mr. Collins. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Elias.
    Mr. Collins. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Elias.
    Mr. Collins. Point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. There is no point of order.
    Mr. Collins. How do you know? I've not said one. Here we go 
again.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman is completely out of order, 
Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his point of order.
    Mr. Collins. The point of order is, is according to the 
House Rules, a House Chair cannot capriciously determine the 5-
minute Rule at the whim of what he wants. It has to be fairly 
and impartially applied. That is the according to the House 
Rules, and that is not what has happened.
    Chair Nadler. We are applying the 5-minute Rule as provided 
by the House Rules.
    Mr. Collins. So, you are ruling on my point of order?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman has not stated a point of 
order.
    Mr. Collins. I did State a point of order. I stated the 
point of order is the rules are being violated by a capricious 
Chair who is not following the Rules of the House by 
arbitrarily deciding when the 5-minute Rule will be applied and 
when it will not be applied.
    Chair Nadler. You have not stated a cognizable point of 
order. The Chair has discretion--
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, you have not stated a recognizable 
way of running the Committee in 18 months. So, I mean, that 
is--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman has 
not stated a cognizable point of order. Mr. Elias?
    Mr. Collins. I did earlier, and you blew over it.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. Mr. Elias?

                   TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. ELIAS

    Mr. Elias. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member 
Jordan, and Members of the committee. My name is John Elias, 
and I am a career attorney with the Department of Justice. I 
joined the Department in 2006, and over the past 14 years, I 
have served under six Attorneys General and three Presidents. I 
have spent my entire legal career at the Department. Although I 
am a current Department attorney, my testimony is personal and 
does not represent the views of the Department.
    Throughout my career in Federal service, I have been taught 
to do the right thing for the right reasons in the right way. 
That is why earlier this year I asked the DOJ inspector general 
to examine whether multiple antitrust investigations launched 
under Attorney General Barr were abuses of authority or other 
misconduct. The first matter that I referred to the IG 
concerned 10 investigations that the Antitrust Division 
launched into merger activity in the marijuana, or cannabis, 
industry. These mergers were not even close to meeting 
established criteria for these kinds of investigations, and yet 
these cannabis investigations accounted for a full 29 percent 
of the Division's full review investigations last fiscal year.
    For context, these kinds of investigations are rare. On 
average, only 1 to 2 percent of the thousands of transactions 
that come before the Division each year get a full review. In 
the first of the cannabis investigations, the merger of MedMen 
and PharmaCann, career attorneys examined the proposed deal and 
determined that the transaction called for no further antitrust 
review. Staff reached this conclusion using the criteria under 
the horizontal merger guidelines that have guided the Division 
for decades. However, on March 5th, 2019, Attorney General Barr 
called the Antitrust Division leadership to his office and 
ordered the Division to proceed with a full investigation. The 
Division staff complied, issuing burdensome 15-page subpoenas 
that compelled production of 1.3 million documents from 40 
personnel, all at great expense to the companies. Although the 
Division ultimately found no evidence of antitrust problems, 
the companies abandoned the merger, citing delays in regulatory 
approval.
    The Antitrust Division went on to conduct similar 
investigations of nine other mergers in the cannabis industry. 
Division staff continued to document at the outset the lack of 
any bona fide antitrust issues. In some cases, the companies 
operated in completely different geographies and did not 
compete at all. Nonetheless, the Division continued to issue 
subpoenas and compel productions of millions of documents from 
these businesses. At one point, the office handling agriculture 
became so overwhelmed with cannabis investigations that it had 
to pull in attorneys from the Telecommunications, Media, and 
Technology offices. In response to staff concerns about these 
investigations, the head of the Antitrust Division, Assistant 
Attorney General Delrahim acknowledged at an all-staff meeting 
that the cannabis industry is ``unpopular on the fifth floor,'' 
referring to AG Barr's offices at DOJ headquarters. Personal 
dislike of an industry is not a valid basis upon which to 
ground an antitrust investigation.
    The next investigation that I reported to the IG concerns 
an arrangement announced in July 2019 between California and 
four automakers to limit fuel emissions. After news reports 
indicating that the President was enraged by the arrangement 
and wanted to retaliate, President Trump criticized the deal on 
Twitter. The day after the tweets, Antitrust Division political 
leadership instructed staff to initiate an investigation that 
very day. Ordinarily, decisions of import--here an 
investigation of a $630-billion automobile market--would take 
time and care to evaluate, especially when the action would 
face defenses. In the hurried investigation paperwork, staff 
acknowledged that it had only partially examined public 
information.
    Members of the committee, I have undertaken whistleblower 
activity, and I'm here today because I recognize the imperative 
for law enforcers to operate even handedly and in good faith. I 
reported these matters to the IG because they were evidence 
that our Nation's antitrust laws were being misused. These laws 
have protected American markets and consumers for more than a 
century. The hundreds of career staff at the Antitrust Division 
take this mission seriously and expect DOJ's political 
leadership to as well.
    I thank you for examining these issues and will be happy to 
answer your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Elias follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Attorney General Mukasey?

           TESTIMONY OF HONORABLE MICHAEL B. MUKASEY

    Mr. Mukasey. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Nadler, 
Ranking Member Jordan, and Members of this committee. Thank you 
for inviting me to testify at this hearing. The topic of 
today's hearing--claims of politicization of the Justice 
Department--is serious and important because the fundamental 
duty of the Department is to pursue equal justice under the 
law, and we can and should expect no less. As you may know, I 
was privileged to lead the men and women of the Justice 
Department during the George W. Bush Administration. Before 
that, I served for over 19 years as a district judge in the 
Southern District of New York, and that is the perspective that 
I bring to the testimony today.
    The Department needs capable, experienced, and even-handed 
leadership. Its components and programs have reach across the 
country and across the world. It handles matters as diverse as 
antitrust and anti-terrorism. It takes an experienced lawyer 
and leader to manage such a department effectively, and I 
believe without reservation that William Barr is that kind of a 
leader, and that this country is fortunate that he leads one of 
the most important government departments. I do not have 
firsthand involvement in the particular matters to be discussed 
today, but based on my own experience, I can assure you that 
those are not issues of first impression for the Department or 
for the Federal courts.
    The Justice Department is not politicized because senior 
officials disagreed with the sentencing recommendation for Mr. 
Stone. Trial lawyers in the Department are zealous advocates--
that is their job--but zeal does not confer perfection or 
assure justice. My views on this case are no secret. I set them 
out on a piece written with Attorney General Meese in the Wall 
Street Journal where we pointed out that the sentencing 
guidelines which were adopted in 1987, initially as 
presumptively binding on the courts, have been strictly 
advisory since 2005 under Supreme Court law. Both as a judge 
and as Attorney General, I have declined to follow sentencing 
recommendations from trial lawyers.
    As Attorney General Meese and I wrote, ``Prosecutors are 
supposed to seek Justice, not to play the sentencing guidelines 
like some sort of pinball machine to see how many times they 
can ring the bell, or to try to pressure a judge to impose a 
harsh sentence, and also thereby cast doubt on the competence 
of the government by reading guidelines in a didactic and 
hyper-technical way without applying the one element that must 
be present when you read any law, whether statute or 
guidelines, and that is common sense.'' In a highly-publicized 
and politically fraught case, it was not only proper, but also 
advisable, for the Attorney General to assure that the 
government sentencing recommendations not promote that unworthy 
end.
    The decision to lower the recommendation was reached by 
others in the Department as well, including career lawyers, one 
of whom signed the lower recommendation. Attorney General Barr 
said publicly that he believed Mr. Stone's prosecution was 
warranted and that, with his conviction, that a jail sentence 
was warranted, and that the jail sentence imposed by the judge 
was appropriate. I believe the trial judge agreed that the 
original sentencing recommendation was overly harsh as her 
sentence reflects.
    The Justice Department is not politicized because 
prosecutors dropped charges against General Flynn. In fact, as 
you heard this morning, the D.C. Circuit issued a writ of 
mandamus directing that the prosecution stop. As I understand 
it, the former FBI director talked publicly about having sent 
agents to interview General Flynn without following applicable 
protocols. Not using proper protocols wasn't simply a delicate 
problem of etiquette, like using the fish fork instead of the 
salad fork. It followed the deputy director's assurance to 
General Flynn that he need not have a lawyer present. The 
agents based their investigation on a potential violation of a 
law, the Logan Act, that has never been prosecuted successfully 
since its adoption in the 18th century, that is probably 
unconstitutional, and that no rational person would apply to a 
potential national security advisor in any event. This morning, 
we saw documents showing that that theory was discussed on 
January 4, 2017, at a meeting in the Oval Office, which is to 
say the interview was a pretext for getting General Flynn, as 
one senior FBI official put it, to either lie or admit to 
something that could have him fired.
    The duty of the Department is to do justice, and that does 
not end after a guilty plea, particularly when that plea is 
procured with the threat to prosecute the defendant's son, and 
that is concealed from the Court and the probation department 
so that it would not have to be disclosed to future defendants 
against whom General Flynn might testify. That is a 
particularly gag-inducing feature of this episode, to me as a 
former district judge, that that was being kept from the Court. 
It is not unheard of for a prosecution to be dropped even after 
a guilty plea following the disclosure of new information that 
shows continued prosecution would be a miscarriage of justice.
    There seems to be a tendency these days to read ulterior 
motives into every action of Attorney General Barr. As Attorney 
General Meese and I noted in our article, it is helpful to 
consider a few data points from Attorney General Barr's tenure. 
First, despite his own skepticism about aspects of Special 
Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, he allowed that 
investigation to run its course. Second, he supported the 
decision not to prosecute Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew 
McCabe, a frequent critic of the President, despite evidence 
that not only did McCabe lie when he denied leaking 
information, but that he also berated others for the leaks to 
deflect suspicion from himself. He also--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chair, point of order. We are 
again being disturbed by tapping as the Chair exercises his 
discretion in letting the witness testify beyond the 5-minute 
rule, and I would like for that tapping to stop. If it doesn't, 
I would like for the order.
    Mr. Gohmert. You want somebody removed because they want 
the rules enforced?
    That is amazing.
    Chair Nadler. Gentleman--
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Gohmert, you are not presiding over this 
hearing. Mr. Nadler is.
    Chair Nadler. The Members will--
    Mr. Gohmert. Some of us would like the rules--
    Chair Nadler. The Members will show courtesy to the 
witnesses, Mr. Gohmert. The witness may proceed.
    Mr. Mukasey. Thank you. So far, as the claim that William 
Barr's service is somehow a desecration of Edward Levi's 
service, I should point out that Edward Levi's portrait hangs 
where it hung when I was Attorney General, and that Edward 
Levi's grandson serves proudly as Attorney General Barr's Chief 
of Staff, so that attack is totally unjustified.
    Now, I have come to know Attorney General Barr over the 
years. I have had many discussions with him about the law and 
about public policy issues, and, based on that, I have no doubt 
that the welfare of this country, upheld through the even-
handed application of law to achieve justice, is what motivates 
him and motivates his decisions, and that is all that motivates 
his decisions. I think we are fortunate to have a person of his 
temperament, talents, and convictions in office during this 
difficult time in history. I thank you very much, and thank you 
for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.
    [The statement of Mr. Mukasey follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. We will now proceed under the 5-
minute Rule with questions. Before I recognize myself, Oh, I am 
sorry. We have Mr. Zelinsky on video, and I didn't know that. 
Mr. Zelinsky will now testify.

                TESTIMONY OF AARON S.J. ZELINSKY

    Mr. Zelinsky. Good afternoon, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Jordan, and Members of the committee. In response to your 
subpoena, I am here today to testify about United States v. 
Roger Stone. I apologize for not appearing before you in 
person, and I thank the Committee for allowing me to appear 
remotely today. For family reasons, I should not risk 
infection.
    As Chair mentioned, I'm privileged to serve as an Assistant 
United States Attorney, a non-partisan career prosecutor. Our 
job is to see that justice is done in every case without fear 
or favor, without party or politics. It's unusual for a 
prosecutor like myself to testify about a criminal case, and, 
as outlined further in my written remarks, there may be reasons 
why my testimony will, therefore, be limited in some respects. 
The Department of Justice has cleared me today to discuss 
matters related to the Roger Stone sentencing. Let me now turn 
to the Stone case.
    The first thing that every AUSA learns is that we treat 
every defendant equally and fairly. In the United States of 
America, we do not prosecute people based on politics, and we 
don't cut them a break based on politics either. That wasn't 
what happened here. Roger Stone was treated differently because 
of politics. At the time of these events, February of 2020, I 
was a career Assistant United States Attorney, as I am proud to 
be now. I was not privy to discussions with political 
leadership at the Department of Justice. Everything that 
happened is based on two things: What I saw and what I heard.
    What I saw was that Roger Stone was being treated 
differently from every other defendant. He received breaks that 
are, in my experience, unheard of, and more so for a defendant 
in his circumstances, a defendant who lied to Congress, who 
remained unrepentant, and who made threats against a judge and 
a witness in his case. What I heard repeatedly was that this 
leniency was happening because of Stone's relationship to the 
President, that the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of 
Columbia was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels 
of the Department of Justice, and that his instructions to us 
were based on political considerations. I was told that the 
Acting U.S. Attorney was giving Stone a break because he was 
afraid of the President of the United States.
    I believe that was wrong, and, together with my fellow line 
prosecutors, I immediately and repeatedly said so. 
Unfortunately, our objections were not heeded. First, we were 
pressured to reduce the initial sentencing guidelines 
calculation for Mr. Stone without any clear legal rationale for 
doing so. When we refused to go along, we were instructed 
instead to disregard the guidelines entirely and to recommend 
an unspecified lower sentence for Mr. Stone. I was told that, 
to the best of anyone's recollection, such a recommendation has 
never been made by the Fraud and Public Corruption Section of 
the United States Attorney's Office. When we again refused, we 
were told that we could be fired if we didn't go along.
    I notified the office that I intended to withdraw from the 
case rather than file a memo that was the result of wrongful 
political pressure. While all this was happening, I was 
repeatedly told the Department's actions were not based on the 
law or the facts, but rather on political considerations, Mr. 
Stone's political relationships, and that the acting U.S. 
Attorney was afraid of the President. Shortly after I informed 
the office of my intent to withdraw, office leadership changed 
its position and allowed us to file a sentencing memorandum 
properly calculating the guidelines and seeking a guideline 
sentence. We filed the memo and heard nothing that evening.
    At 2:48 a.m. that morning, the President tweeted that the 
sentencing memo was horrible and very unfair and ``cannot allow 
this miscarriage of justice.'' Later that day, we learned the 
Department was going to issue a new sentencing memorandum 
mischaracter-izing the application of the sentencing guidelines 
and asking for an open-ended downward departure for Mr. Stone. 
We were not allowed to see the new proposed memo. We weren't 
even told who was writing it. At this point, I made the 
difficult choice to resign from the case and my assignment in 
the U.S. Attorney's Office in DC. I resigned because following 
orders would have violated the oath I swore when I took my job.
    To be clear, my concern is not with the sentence Mr. Stone 
received. I'm not here to criticize the judge's sentence or her 
reasoning. My concern is about process. The Department of 
Justice treated Roger Stone differently from everyone else, and 
I was told that the Department cut Roger Stone a break because 
of his relationship to the President.
    I take no satisfaction in publicly criticizing the actions 
of the Department of Justice where I have spent most of my 
legal career. I have always been and I remain proud to be an 
Assistant United States Attorney. It pains me to describe these 
events, but, as Judge Jackson said in this case, truth still 
matters, and so I'm here today to tell you the truth. I would 
be pleased to answer your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Zelinsky follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. We will now proceed 
under the 5-minute Rule with questions. Before I recognize 
myself for questioning, without objection, correspondence 
between our witnesses, Mr. Elias and Mr. Zelinsky, and the 
Department of Justice, in advance of their testimony today will 
be entered into the record. These letters establish the 
parameters in which they are allowed to testify.
    [The information follows:]   

                      CHAIR NADLER FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Zelinsky, you recommended a sentence of 7 to 9 years in 
prison for Roger Stone's felony crimes. Was your recommendation 
based on Department guidelines?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes, it was.
    Chair Nadler. Based on your 14 years at the Department, did 
you believe that recommendation was warranted?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I want to correct you, Chair. I have been at 
the Department for just about, it will be 6 years this 
November, but based on my experience, I did believe that the 
recommendation was warranted, yes.
    Chair Nadler. Leadership at the Department wanted a lower 
sentence. When you asked the Department why they wanted a 
below-guideline sentence for Mr. Stone, you were told it was 
``political and because the U.S. Attorney was afraid of the 
President.'' Is that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct.
    Chair Nadler. What did you understand that to mean?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I understood it, as described in my written 
statement, to mean that political considerations were weighing 
in the U.S. Attorney's decision, and that the concern about the 
President was driving his decision-making process.
    Chair Nadler. What were you told could happen to you if you 
refused to go along with this lower recommendation?
    Mr. Zelinsky. We were told that we could be fired.
    Chair Nadler. Now, you have described clearly that the 
Department treated Roger Stone differently than any other 
defendant because of his relationship to President Trump. Is 
this against Department policy?
    Mr. Zelinsky. It is.
    Chair Nadler. Is it wrong?
    Mr. Zelinsky. It is.
    Chair Nadler. Is it unethical?
    Mr. Zelinsky. It is.
    Chair Nadler. You wrote in your written testimony that it 
pains you to describe these events. Can you explain why it 
pains you?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Mr. Chair, I took an oath when I took this 
job, as did all my colleagues who are assistant U.S. attorneys 
across the country. We are immensely proud of what we do, but 
we are proud to serve in the Department of Justice, and we are 
proud that we prosecute without fear or favor. To describe an 
abdication of responsibility like this and this sort of 
contradiction of all the reasons that we have taken these jobs 
is deeply painful to me.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Elias, we just heard from Mr. 
Zelinsky how the Department violated its own policies just to 
appease the President's whims. In your testimony, you described 
a similar pattern. Am I correct that the Department also 
pursued antitrust investigations against the advice of career 
attorneys to satisfy the political and personal whims of 
President Trump and senior leadership at DOJ?
    Mr. Elias. Yes, you are correct.
    Chair Nadler. Do you believe these investigations are in 
the best interests of the American people?
    Mr. Elias. I do not, no.
    Chair Nadler. In your opinion, should the Department have 
prioritized investigations that benefited the American people 
instead of pursuing the Attorney General and President's 
political vendettas?
    Mr. Elias. I think the Department should be using its 
resources in a way that fulfills its mission, yes.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Ayer, I would like to turn to you. You 
have decades of experience in public service at the highest 
levels of the Department of Justice. These witnesses confirmed 
that the Attorney General is weaponizing government resources 
and taxpayer dollars to pursue investigations that do not in 
any way benefit Americans, but instead advance the President's 
personal and political agenda. Briefly, what is the impact on 
our justice system if Barr is allowed to get away with this?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, let me just correct one thing. I don't 
really have decades. I have really had a little over 1 decade. 
Nonetheless, to answer your question, I think the problem is 
that there is a finite number of resources to be spent to 
advance a whole lot of areas of our justice system, and so you 
are throwing money away. That is the first thing. The more 
important thing is that by channeling enforcement efforts into 
inappropriate targets for the purpose, in some cases, of 
harassing people, which I think is often what we are dealing 
with, and also for channeling resources and spending time 
trying to give a special deal to other people, you are not only 
wasting money, but you are totally undermining public trust in 
the system. You are creating a situation.
    I think we are on the way to something far worse than 
Watergate where you had a problem of public distrust because it 
is becoming very transparent that many things are being done 
essentially for reasons that are completely unrelated to the 
merits of the case.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Zelinsky, you testified that you came 
forward because telling the truth still matters. I, too, 
believe the truth still matters, and we will not let this 
conduct stand. Attorney General Barr will be held accountable. 
I recognize the gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today's hearing is yet 
another attempt by the majority to smear this President and his 
Administration. My Democratic colleagues were shocked and 
deeply offended that he won the presidency in the first place. 
They are still grieving that they failed to remove him from 
office through their phony impeachment debacle, and now they 
are targeting Administration officials, in this case Attorney 
General Barr, for merely acting within the scope of their 
duties.
    Where was the outrage when the Obama-Biden Justice 
Department investigated journalists, or when they retaliated 
against whistleblowers, or when they surveilled the Trump 
campaign? It is hypocrisy, and most people are going to see 
right through it.
    It just shows that the majority will stop at nothing in 
attempting to distract and harass this President and his 
Administration. Their efforts are particularly disturbing at a 
time when a global pandemic has negatively impacted us all, and 
the country has been rocked by racial strife and civil unrest. 
There are other more important things we ought to be focusing 
our time and attention on rather than this distraction.
    Despite an exemplary record and career, Democrats are now 
going after Attorney General Barr. Why? Because he is cleaning 
up the mess of the previous Administration and restoring 
integrity and honor to the DOJ and the FBI.
    Now, speaking about messes from the previous 
Administration, Hillary's funding of the Steele dossier and the 
FISA scandal led to the Mueller investigation and the waste of 
a whole lot of our time and taxpayer dollars.
    Now, Mr. Zelinsky, you were part of that Mueller team, 
weren't you?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I was. I was.
    Mr. Chabot. That supposedly unbiased team of 17 attorneys 
consisted of 13 Democrats. That doesn't sound very unbiased to 
me. Does it to you?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I would disagree with the premise of your 
question. We are, as I said, career professionals. Prosecutors 
do our job and we do it regardless of party or politics--
    Mr. Chabot. It was 13 Democrats--
    Mr. Zelinsky. --and we did--
    Mr. Chabot. --13 Democrats out of 17.
    Mr. Zelinsky. There has been public reporting to that 
effect.
    Mr. Chabot. All right. Thank you. Former Deputy Attorney 
General Rod Rosenstein, your boss, I believe, testified before 
the Senate recently that he wished Mueller had chosen a, quote, 
``more politically diverse group.'' Don't you think he has a 
point?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I don't think it would be appropriate to 
choose any prosecutor based on their politics, and that is not 
what the Special Counsel did in that circumstance. In fact, if 
anything, if the Special Counsel had tried to weigh the 
politics of the prosecutors when he was choosing them, that 
would have been far more deeply problematic than what he did, 
which is hiring professionals to do their job.
    Mr. Chabot. I guess it was just coincidental, 13 out of 17.
    Something else I would like to point out that I think 
clearly shows that there was indeed bias on the Mueller team 
was that as a group they had given $3,000 to Republican 
candidates in the past but over $60,000-$62,000 to be exact--to 
Democrats, a 20-to-1 bias in one direction.
    Mr. Mukasey, let me turn to you if I can at this time. Do 
you believe that the Department of Justice under Attorney 
General Barr has become politicized, as my colleagues on the 
other side are alleging?
    Mr. Mukasey. As I said, I do not.
    Mr. Chabot. Would you agree that Attorney General Barr has 
worked to root out politics, in fact, and bring transparency 
back to the Department?
    Mr. Mukasey. I think he has made every effort to try to run 
the Department the way it should be run and to conduct 
investigations on the merits.
    Mr. Chabot. Do you believe that Attorney General Barr makes 
decisions based upon political calculations or upon the 
relevant facts and law?
    Mr. Mukasey. I believe he makes decisions based on the 
relevant facts and the law, and that if he made decisions based 
on political calculations, he would not have made the decisions 
that I alluded to in the last part of my remarks.
    Mr. Chabot. Absolutely. I completely agree with you.
    I am almost out of time so let me conclude with this. Mr. 
Chair, this hearing is just another sad attempt by you and the 
majority to attack this Administration, specifically the 
Attorney General, unfairly, and it is a shame because there is 
so much other important work that we should be engaged in, to 
unite this nation, not to further tear us apart.
    With that I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Given the appearance of 
political influence exhibited by this Administration and the 
AG, and based on the testimonies presented to us, I am 
concerned about the integrity of our elections. In February, 
the Attorney General outlined restrictions and policies for 
campaign-related investigations. I would like to make a copy of 
that memo available in the record.
    [The information follows:]   

                       MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. Now, in part, the memo requires that no 
investigations should be opened or initiated of a declared 
candidate for President or Vice-President, et cetera, absent 
written approval of the Attorney General. This is a departure 
from previous campaign investigation protocol. Having heard 
from witnesses today about the significant political influence 
affecting the Department of Justice, this, at the very least, 
raises the specter that decisions to investigate presidential 
campaigns could be politically motivated.
    Mr. Ayer, does the appearance of political influence over 
investigations into presidential campaigns raised by this memo 
concern you?
    Mr. Ayer. It does, and it is one of a number of things that 
does. Obviously, the election is upcoming, and it is a hugely 
important phase of our national life. So, the idea that we are 
not going to be handling possible investigations relating to 
the election, we are not going to be handling them in the 
ordinary course by even-handed professionals who are trained to 
do it, but we are going to have them handled in some special 
way, which I don't think we really know quite what it is. We 
know that it is a cadre of people that Mr. Barr has sort of set 
aside and said they will handle this.
    This is only one of a number of areas where he has done 
this, and we know of some. I am afraid there are others we 
don't, where whenever there is something sensitive it 
essentially gets turned over to somebody that he can trust, as 
opposed to someone who is a professional, trained, and even-
handed in their handling of it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. I want to talk about 
concerns that the Attorney General is abusing power in a way 
that is quite real to Californians. As we know, the Supreme 
Court has held that due to their stake in protecting their 
quasi-sovereign interest, States have the authority to set 
regulations governing greenhouses gasses. That is a 
Massachusetts v. EPA case from 2007.
    Now, California has applied for and received more than 100 
Clean Air waivers over the past 50 years. None have been 
revoked. As a result, the average car sold nationwide is more 
than 99 percent cleaner than a car from the 1970s.
    Now, as we know, the Trump Administration has attempted to 
curtail California's action, and following that carmakers in 
California worked together to come up with emissions that would 
work for California.
    This is important. This isn't just arcane stuff. I mean, in 
the Central Valley of California we have the highest asthma 
rate among children in the United States, and a lot of that is 
because of emissions on I-5 and Highway 99.
    So, when I saw this, the antitrust announcement, I thought 
he is just trying to scare these automakers, to let them know 
that they are going to have to spend a lot of money if they 
deal with California as the law permits them to do.
    Mr. Elias, the investigation initiated, was there any 
legitimate antitrust concern, or was it simply an attempt by 
the Administration to muscle the auto companies into not 
dealing with the State of California?
    Mr. Elias. So, as I pointed out, the coincidence in time 
with the opening of the investigation was the day after the 
Trump tweets. I think staff had looked through some public 
resources, public laws, to see whether it might be permissible 
or not, and that kind of thing we do all the time and don't 
proceed to a formal, full investigation. So, to answer your 
question, no, I don't believe there was a proper basis to 
actually go forward with a formal investigation.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, it looked to me that the Department 
announced these investigations in really a bad-faith manner, 
after the President publicly threatened these companies for 
disagreeing with his own policies. This matters. It matters not 
in an arcane way or in an academic way. It matters to the lungs 
of the children of the State of California. I think it is a 
direct example of how misconduct and political corruption in 
the Department of Justice has a direct adverse impact on the 
people of America, and most specifically in this case, the 
people of California.
    I would just like to know that I, too, was around during 
the Watergate matter, and I see some parallels. Actually, this 
is worse, worse than Watergate, worse than Nixon.
    I see my time is up, Mr. Chair, so I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Gohmert.
    Mr. Gohmert. This is incredible. Mr. Ayer, you called Jeff 
Jensen, a 20-year career prosecutor, a political crony. By the 
way, do you care to say, into the microphone, what you mouthed 
at me earlier when you had gone over two minutes past your 
time?
    Mr. Ayer. I didn't mouth anything at you, Congressman.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, you just showed your lack of 
credibility, both with Thornburgh and people that have followed 
has a real basis in fact. In fact, rarely have we had anybody 
with a chip you have on your shoulder come before us. 
Thornburgh said he believed that you were really never around. 
He said, ``Bill Barr was the''--and I am quoting--``the first 
deputy I had, and that came when I was two years into the 
job.''
    Anyway, I understand you got fired by Thornburgh. In fact, 
he said, ``Ayer proved''--this is in his book--``Ayer proved to 
have exaggerated notions of his responsibility to resent my 
confidence in Ross, Runkel, and Murray Dickman. Soon developing 
a serious chip on his shoulder, he began taking actions 
independent of, or in conflict with, my wishes. Once he sent a 
letter to Boyden Gray containing recommendations for corporate 
sentencing guidelines that I had not even reviewed. Ayers' 
resignation was announced on May 11th. Bill Barr succeeded him 
and proved to be the deputy I had needed from the beginning.''
    So, I can understand why you would be resentful 30 years 
later, but at some point, hopefully Mr. Ayers will get over his 
chip. The fact that Mr. Zelinsky, I was going to ask him 
questions but--and I understand family matters, and, by the 
way, I am grateful to my wife for sticking with me for 42 years 
today, and there are family matters. Yeah, she is a lot more 
fair than we are getting around here. So, 42 years. Thank you, 
Kathy.
    Some of us have family matters too that are very pressing, 
but this is very pressing too, and I won't try to compare 
those. Mr. Barr has come and testified, and he is coming again 
soon, so statements that he wouldn't come here, that is just 
not true.
    You know what? I have not heard anybody, any of these three 
Democrat witnesses, express any concern for the Justice 
Department under President Obama going after local law 
enforcement. Why? Because in the opinion of the Justice 
Department they violated people's civil rights. AG Barr had 
that same concern that people's civil rights were being 
violated by governors or local authorities, and if he had no 
right to say anything then the Justice Department under Obama 
had no right to pursue local law enforcement either.
    I guess it just, again, testifies to the credibility, or 
the lack thereof, of the people that have been brought before 
us. It is absolutely incredible that people could come in here, 
and after the Justice Department, including the FBI, intel, top 
people--even DoD was paying Stefan Halper--all these people 
were involved in trying to prevent a Republican from becoming 
President, and these three witnesses don't have any problem 
whatsoever with that. History will not judge you kindly in the 
days ahead, whether we get to continue this little experiment 
in self-government or not, because you have been an accomplice 
after the fact to what has occurred in the Justice Department, 
and you are so biased you cannot even see it.
    So, I don't have a lot of questions for people who don't 
have credibility, have chips on their shoulders. Mr. Elias, for 
heaven's sake, you come in here with your complaints. It is 
just a shame we don't have a serious hearing. It is just a 
sideshow, and it ought to be called for what it is, and that is 
why I am. If we are concerned about justice we need to get 
after the people that created the injustice through the last 
Administration.
    I yield back. Hank, I don't have any problem with you doing 
that.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I know that we are not here to 
discuss personal matters of the witnesses. Let me acknowledge, 
General, for your presence here today, Mukasey. We have 
certainly worked together in the past. Let me acknowledge our 
three witnesses, of whom each and every one of you are 
patriots, and I thank you for your service.
    I am reminded of the time at the Department of Justice when 
those of us in the South, during the midst of the Civil Rights 
Movement, looked to the DOJ for the relief of then the 
Assistant Attorney General for civil rights--honest, 
straightforward in dealing with not the crisis but the 
bloodshed of the South, in the midst of fighting for freedom. 
They were a hand that we held onto.
    I am disappointed that we now face the circumstances of a 
drunken party gone wild. Sadly, the Department of Justice has 
gone wild. So, I think it is important that we highlight and 
begin to move on correcting the wildness, the out-of-
controlness, and begin to focus on standing up a Justice 
Department that works for the American people.
    We heard today from all of you about the effects of the 
President's politicization of his Justice Department for his 
own ends. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
like to suggest that this is not true. They want to cover their 
ears to this injustice. So, I would ask them what Jonathan 
Kravis, a career prosecutor with a decade of experience, 
similar to some of you here today, asked in his recent op-ed, 
quote, ``If the Department truly acted because of good faith, 
commitments to legal positions, then where is the evidence of 
those commitments in other cases that do not involve friends of 
the President? Where are the narcotics cases in which the 
Department has filed a sentencing memorandum overruling career 
prosecutors? Where are the other U.S. Attorneys who wouldn't go 
quietly into the night?''
    As Mr. Kravis wrote, ``There are none.'' All the cases are 
political cases, friends of the President. Is that because the 
only cases in the United States that warranted intervention by 
Department leadership happened to involve friends of the 
President? Of course not. Is that because attorney generals 
regularly lie to the American people about U.S. Attorneys 
resigning when, in reality, he is being pushed out for 
prosecuting the President's inner circle? Of course not. 
Remember, Attorney General Barr, it was the President that 
fired him. Remember the President saying, ``I had nothing to do 
with it. I didn't know anything about it.''
    What the Department of Justice is doing is an unprecedented 
erosion of our constitutional system. It has gone wild. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have then refused to 
acknowledge the truth for a while. When asked about Lafayette 
Square they said they didn't see it firsthand. It is never 
acceptable to turn a blind eye to injustice, and thousands of 
former officials are now coming out to speak truth to power. 
There are literally thousands of individuals across Republican 
and Democratic Administrations. Over 2,000 that worked in the 
Department of Justice signed a letter.
    So, it is a grave threat to fair Administration in this 
nation. We are all equal before the law. A person should not be 
given special treatment in a criminal prosecution. Thousands of 
Department officials wrote again after the Flynn prosecution, 
expressing the same sentiment, and yesterday Members of George 
Washington Law School faculty did the same. Over 1,000 former 
DOJ talked about the rule of law.
    I believe it is a clear and present danger, and he must be 
held accountable, the Attorney General, who, yes, has been 
invited to this Committee but has refused over and over again.
    Mr. Ayer, you have served in multiple Administrations in 
both parties. Are these thousands of people right? Is Barr's 
current and present danger to our constitutional order of the 
rule of law--constitutional order, rule of law, and an even-
handed Administration of justice? Is Attorney General Barr a 
current and present danger? Mr. Ayers.
    Mr. Ayer. Yes, Congressman Jackson Lee, I think he is, and 
that was the theme of what I tried to say before. I think 
essentially it is for two reasons. One is that he has a 
personal belief that the President should be above the law, and 
he has worked very hard to achieve that by negating the checks 
and balances in a variety of ways by making the President not 
accountable, stonewalling the Congress, stonewalling the 
Southern District of New York--I am sorry, the District 
Attorney's Office is trying to do a criminal investigation. So, 
preventing information from coming out, and otherwise 
essentially putting the President beyond the law.
    The second thing he is doing, and this has accelerated this 
spring, is getting involved in a very political, essentially in 
using the Justice Department to support the President's 
campaign, and comments he has made about opening up the 
country, the activities in Lafayette Square.
    The most serious problem here that I am concerned about is 
his accelerating recitation of this narrative about, I don't 
know what you call it, Obama-gate or deep State conspiracy or 
whatever it is, the thing that we were hearing from Ranking 
Member Jordan earlier. He is using the fact that he has his own 
investigation going on as a basis for supposed facts, to assert 
that these things are true.
    Number one, I don't believe they are true, but more 
importantly, that is a totally improper misuse of the 
Department of Justice. Even if those facts were true, it would 
be a violation of the Justice Department rules to be reporting 
to the public on things that he is supposedly finding in that 
investigation.
    If you look at my written submitted testimony you will see 
just a very concise chronicle of the number of times he has 
gone on television and on the radio to make these assertions in 
detail about these things that are going on. In fact, one of 
the ones that I had to chuckle about was on Sunday, with Maria 
Bartiromo. He actually said that he was surprised that the 
public doesn't seem to be paying attention to the things that 
he has been saying about these outrageous things that have been 
uncovered. He doesn't understand why people aren't paying 
enough attention to his reports on the Durham investigation. 
Well, that is gross violation of the Justice Department's 
policies, even if the facts were true, which I frankly think 
they clearly are not.
    So, we have a real problem here, and the drum beat of his 
misbehavior is accelerating as we get closer to the election. I 
don't know what is next, but I am scared to think about what it 
might be.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to submit into the record DOJ Alum Statement on Roger 
Stone, DOJ Alum Statement Regarding the Sentencing of Roger 
Stone, and the statement on Mr. Flynn, and DOJ Alum Statement 
to Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General. I ask unanimous 
consent to place these in the record at this time.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
     

                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. As I notified Members during the markup on 
June 17th, I view the wearing of face masks as a safety issue 
and therefore as an important matter of order and decorum. 
Because I am responsible for preserving order and decorum in 
this committee, I am requiring Members and staff attending this 
hearing to wear face masks.
    I came to this decision after the Office of the Attending 
Physician released new guidance requiring masks in Committee 
hearings. The Chair's authority to enforce the preservation of 
order and decorum during Committee proceedings derives from the 
Speaker's enforcement authority under Clause 2 of Rule 1 of the 
House. The Chair would greatly prefer that all present simply 
uphold the decorum of the Committee by complying with these 
reasonable safety standards. Failing that, any member who fails 
to wear a mask will not be recognized.
    I now recognize Mr. Collins.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and I 
would like to make a couple of statements. Number one, there 
may be discretion for the Chair in opening statements, and you 
may enjoy hearing Mr. Ayers talk, but under Rule 11 you do not 
have discretion of under the five-minute questioning rule to 
continue that.
    It is interesting, though, as we are talking about 
political consideration of prosecutors today. In fact, I have a 
really big problem going on right now in Fulton County, 
Georgia, where a prosecutor, it appears, has put political 
motivations in a reelection bid at the heart of going after the 
Atlanta Police Department. Just as was said earlier by the 
gentlelady from Texas, it is never acceptable to turn a blind 
eye to unfairness, and this needs to stop. Mr. Howard does need 
to remove himself. The investigation, which has never been done 
and finished, needs to continue so that the right can be done 
for all parties, as we have been speaking about prosecutorial 
ethics today.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield.
    Mr. Collins. No, I will not.
    Mr. Elias, do you consider yourself to be nonpolitical 
career staff? That was your statement. Correct?
    Mr. Elias. When I go into the Justice Department every day, 
as a career employee, I leave my politics at home, yes.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. That was the same as Mr. Zelinsky, Mr. 
Strzok, Ms. Page, and others have done that.
    Let me ask you a question. As a career staff, being 
nonpolitical, did you ever attempt to get detailed to this 
committee's majority staff?
    Mr. Elias. I, like--
    Mr. Collins. Yes or no.
    Mr. Elias. --people, over time, have explored various 
career options.
    Mr. Collins. Did you, within the last--under this majority, 
ask to be detailed to this majority staff?
    Mr. Elias. I had a very preliminary conversation with--
    Mr. Collins. So, you did have a conversation.
    Mr. Elias. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. Was it to work on antitrust policy?
    Mr. Elias. It was, yes.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. As we have all sworn under oath here, in 
fact, did you not ask to be detailed on the committee's work on 
oversight during impeachment? Is that not correct? Refresh your 
memory.
    Mr. Elias. I may have also asked for oversight at one 
point, with the blessing of Assistant Attorney General.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. So, you asked to come to this committee. 
As a career staffer, nonpolitical career staffer, you were 
asking to be detailed to this Committee to work on impeachment. 
You wanted to come work for the majority during the impeachment 
of Donald Trump. Is that not correct?
    If not--I understand how that answer would be troubling. 
So, if you want to just stop right there--
    Mr. Elias. I actually think it was a year prior. I honestly 
think it was.
    Mr. Collins. Detailed to this majority--we were the 
majority beforehand. This was to the majority.
    Mr. Elias. It was early 2019.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. That's the majority of this staff here, 
and we were starting every investigation known to man at that 
point. In fact, they hired very good attorneys out of New York, 
and I have become friends with them. You asked to come to this 
committee.
    So a little bit of the career staff--let's just leave it 
there. Let's go to your actual testimony today.
    Mr. Elias. Okay.
    Mr. Collins. In your written testimony you contended that 
mergers with cannabis industries were, quote, ``unlikely to 
raise significant competitive concerns.'' You further stated 
that few of the documents produced in response to the subpoenas 
were ever reviewed by Antitrust Division staff. You essentially 
said that the second requests were made for purposes of 
burdening these companies.
    So, you filed, as you stated earlier, a DOJ complaint about 
this with the Inspector General. Is that correct? Yes or no.
    Mr. Elias. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. The Inspector General handed the 
complaint over to the Office of Professional Responsibility for 
the investigation. Correct?
    Mr. Elias. No.
    Mr. Collins. Excuse me?
    Mr. Elias. The Office of Special Counsel handed it to the 
Office of Professional Responsibility.
    Mr. Collins. So, it was handed over and investigated.
    Mr. Elias. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. Is that not correct?
    Mr. Elias. That is correct.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. So, as your reading--and that is fine; 
you can give your half of the story--continuing on, the letter 
of the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Office of 
Professional Responsibility indicated that they conducted a 
thorough review of the claims and concluded they were without 
merit. Is that not true?
    Mr. Elias. So, they concluded that even if the 
investigations were motivated by animosity, that would still 
comply with the DOJ.
    Mr. Collins. So, my answer to my question is yes. In fact, 
what did the letter say? It said from the OPR review, the 
submissions from the whistleblower's counsel and ATR conducted 
its own review of the relevant laws, regulations, rules, 
policies, guidelines governing the issuance of a second 
request, and reviewed publicly available information concerning 
the cannabis industry. OPR's review found support for the ATR's 
response. The cannabis industry provided a unique challenge to 
the Federal and State regulators alike and it was reasonable 
for ATR to seek additional information from the industry 
through its second request process.
    In addition, contrary to the whistleblower's allegations, 
the documents provided by ATR reflect significant and 
successful negotiations among ATR and the cannabis companies 
concerning the narrowing of the scope of the second request.
    Furthermore, the internal memorandum recommended the 
closure of the investigation, stating that ATR staff conducted 
a significant amount of analysis regarding the competitive 
impact of the proposed mergers, and often explained how the 
actions of State regulators offset competitive concerns, 
basically undercutting the very discussion that you had in your 
opening statement.
    The concern even goes on further, and this is an 
interesting one. You wrote in your written testimony that the 
cannabis industry, you refer to the staff, quote, ``were not 
instructed to conduct interviews of customers,'' and that 
marijuana is not a Schedule 1 drug. Correct? Is it a Schedule 1 
or not?
    Mr. Elias. I am not--
    Mr. Collins. That is an easy one.
    Mr. Elias. --sure exactly which schedule it is on, but it 
is on one of them, yes.
    Mr. Collins. You were part of an antitrust in marijuana and 
didn't know how it was scheduled, and then asked to be part of 
this committee?
    Mr. Elias, the credibility of this is going downhill 
quickly here. Mr. Chair, I mean, at this point in time, I am 
entering into the record the letter from the Office of 
Professional Responsibility, basically clearing anything that 
was done in DOJ. I ask that it be committed into the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

   
                       MR. COLLINS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Collins. I yield back.
    Mr. Elias. Mr. Chair, if I could respond?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    I want to note that Mr. Elias' political inclinations and 
job prospects, obviously, have absolutely no bearing on whether 
the serious allegations that he is making about the Attorney 
General are true. That is the subject of this hearing, and 
anything else is merely a personal attack and a distraction 
from the corruption he has uncovered at the department.
    Mr. Collins. It goes directly to intent of the witness.
    Chair Nadler. It is understandable why some Members may 
want to change the subject, but I hope we will focus on the 
issue at hand.
    Mr. Collins. The intent.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Cohen is recognized.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is interesting how all 
these things kind of come together. Today, a three-judge 
Federal panel, district court of appeals here, said that the 
Flynn case could be dismissed, and the person that wrote that 
opinion was Judge Rao. Judge Rao had been at ORIAA, the agency 
that reviews regulations and does what Trump likes best, which 
is jeopardize the safe air and water of the American public and 
give in to industry, profits, and pollution. She did a good job 
of it. The case she was most well-known for was overriding 
President Obama's regulations on automobile exhaust.
    She became a judge a year ago. She said today, ``The 
District Court's actions will result in specific harms to the 
exercise of the Executive branch's exclusive prosecutorial 
power. If evidence comes to light calling into question the 
integrity of purpose of an underlying criminal investigation, 
the Executive branch must have the authority to decide that 
further prosecution is not in the interest of justice.''
    Well, I wonder, Judge Rao, who is supposed to look into the 
Executive branch when what they do is not in the interest of 
justice. Well, it should have been Judge Rao. It was one of the 
three judges, and maybe the full panel will review it. They 
should. The other way to do it is impeachment, and impeachment 
is the process by which, if the Justice Department and the 
Executive branch are not pursuing the interest of justice, is 
the process left. Even if the ultimate trier of the Senate is 
impotent to see the truth and to exercise discretion in keeping 
with the American public and with the rule of law, we should 
pursue impeachment of Bill Barr, because he is reigning terror 
on the rule of law, and it is questionable what he is doing.
    Mr. Mukasey, you said that there was an 1807 law, the Logan 
Act, and you disparaged it because it was an old law. Is that 
correct, that was the one that was used to prosecute?
    Mr. Mukasey. I did not disparage it because it was an old 
law. There are many old laws that are very fine. Our 
Constitution is even older.
    Mr. Cohen. You said that it was 1807, hardly ever used, and 
you disparaged it, in the terminology that--
    Mr. Mukasey. I didn't use the specific date, 1807. What I 
said was it has never been prosecuted successfully. It was 
prosecuted twice, in the 18th and in the beginning of the 19th 
century, both unsuccessfully, and that it is probably 
unconstitutional.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, thank you, sir. I would just note that 
Bill Barr used an 1807 law, the Insurrection Act, to interfere 
with First amendment rights so that the President could march 
through Lafayette Park and do his photo op, holding a Bible in 
front of a church, not quote from the Bible, not lead people in 
prayer, but have a photo op in front of a church--a desecration 
of the Bible and a desecration of that church. So that was an 
1807 law.
    Mr. Elias, you have testified as to cases that justice and 
antitrust took up concerning areas that otherwise, you didn't 
think, and the Justice Department superiors didn't think were 
worthy of antitrust investigations. One was cannabis.
    Mr. Elias. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohen. Does that cost the cannabis folks a lot of 
money?
    Mr. Elias. Absolutely. These subpoenas that get issued that 
require production of millions of documents is very burdensome.
    Mr. Cohen. So, it was harassment by Bill Barr of an 
industry he didn't like. Is that right?
    Mr. Elias. I think that's a fair way to characterize it, 
yes.
    Mr. Cohen. Ironically, that, just like Judge Rao, it all 
comes back to one place. Barr doesn't like marijuana, marijuana 
is seven times more likely to be enforced against young African 
Americans, breeding discontent with police, and breeding 
interactions with police. Barr doesn't care about that type of 
stuff because he doesn't like marijuana so that is okay. That 
is one of the breeding grounds of distrust of African Americans 
and police, and police and African American contact and 
problems. Very unfortunate.
    You also brought up the antitrust case, which brings us 
back here with Judge Rao, on the antitrust with the automobile 
manufacturers. Did Mercedes-Benz not join in on that case 
later?
    Mr. Elias. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohen. Why do you think Mercedes-Benz didn't join in on 
that case?
    Mr. Elias. So, I have read news reports that the German 
government discouraged it from joining because of the DOJ 
investigation. I don't have firsthand knowledge of those 
events.
    Mr. Cohen. So, the likelihood is President Trump, who 
didn't like what Governor Newsom did, got his way and kept 
Mercedes-Benz out of it, and was able to try to change them 
from taking their position to be similar.
    Let me ask, Mr. Mukasey, let me ask you this. Mr. Zelinsky 
testified that for the guidelines where the defendant went to 
trial and remained unrepentant, in his experience it was 
unheard of, especially like in Stone's case and lead-up to the 
trial, we were told at no time, no one in the Fraud and Public 
Corruption Section of the United States Attorney's Office in 
DC, which prosecuted that case, at no time could he ever 
recall, or anyone recall where the government did not seek 
guideline sentencings after trial.
    Do you know of any cases where the Fraud and Public 
Integrity Section did not seek guideline representation?
    Mr. Mukasey. I do not, nor do I know of any cases--
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. You don't, because there is not 
a case. There isn't a case, but Bill Barr did it because 
Trump's friend--
    Mr. Biggs. Point of order. The witness was trying to answer 
the question.
    Mr. Mukasey. That was not a guideline recommendation. It 
was a travesty of a guideline recommendation.
    Mr. Cohen. I have the time, and I don't know who over there 
is playing--I have the time. This is a travesty because--
    Mr. Jordan. Point of order. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    Mr. Cohen. --it was another case where politics is 
overcoming the rule of law and destroying America.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Questions 
for Mr. Zelinsky, if he can hear us on video.
    Mr. Zelinsky, where are you physically located today?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I am in my attorney's office.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What State is that, sir?
    Mr. Zelinsky. It is in the District of Columbia.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So how far are you, 
approximately, from where we sit right now?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I would guess about a half mile.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Hmm. What is your reason for not 
appearing here today, sir?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Well, thank you for allowing me to clarify. 
As a prosecutor, particularly with the experiences that I have 
had in Baltimore, I am reticent to discuss my family publicly--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You have family concerns. Is that 
right? Is that right? That is what you testified earlier.
    Mr. Zelinsky. I have a newborn child, Congressman. My wife 
is a physician, we discussed the matter.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. Fair enough.
    Mr. Zelinsky. I am actually on--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Listen. I just want to--listen, 
it is my time. Hold on. Mr. Zelinsky, because you are an 
attorney you know that having a witness appear and submit to 
cross-examination in person is obviously much more effective 
and reliable than one who simply phones it in. We will leave it 
at that.
    I just want to point out the Honorable Judge Mukasey showed 
up, flew from New York. He has family concerns as well. Many 
people do here as well. In fact, he has got to quarantine 
himself after this hearing because he has a young grandchild 
who is sick with other--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman is improper.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It is my time.
    Chair Nadler. The witness is complying with the rules of 
the House. We make no distinction between people who are 
present physically and people who are present by video.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, it is my time, and it 
is not inappropriate, and you don't get to decide how I ask my 
questions with all due respect.
    Chair Nadler. Oh yes, I do.
    You said in your opening, Mr. Zelinsky, that we don't 
prosecute people based on politics. The question is, do you 
investigate people based on politics?
    Mr. Zelinsky. No.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. A couple of questions for you 
related to Inspector General Horowitz's report outlining the 
FBI's improper FISA surveillance of Carter Page. You are 
familiar with that, correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I have read press reports regarding it. I 
have read some of the report. I have not studied it closely.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Do you know what role Christopher 
Steele played in the FBI's investigation of Carter Page?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I only know what has been publicly reported 
and what is in the Inspector General's report, Congressman.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If you are familiar with the 
report then you must know that it states, at page 359, quote, 
``We concluded that Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of 
Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016, played a 
central and essential role in the decision by the FBI OGC to 
support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter 
Page, as well as the Department's ultimate decision to seek the 
FISA order.'' Does that sound familiar?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I have no reason to doubt that you are 
accurately reading from the report.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What discussions did the Special 
Counsel team have about Christopher Steele?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I have been asked by the 
Department, because of privilege, not to discuss matters 
related to the Special Counsel's Office. I am happy to go back 
to the Department, as I have been told that I should do, to ask 
them if I can answer your question, and if I am able to provide 
you an answer at a later time. I have been told by the 
Department that my testimony today has been cleared only for 
matters related to United States v. Roger Stone.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is pretty convenient. The 
subpoena that you were issued says, ``You are hereby commanded 
to be and appear before the Committee on the Judiciary to 
testify at a hearing touching matters of inquiry committed to 
said Committee or subcommittee, and you are not to depart 
without leave of said Committee or subcommittee.''
    The point is, Mr. Zelinsky, it would be very useful to have 
you here. It would be very useful to have you speaking to the 
full scope of the concerns of this Committee and things that we 
have been working on for a long time. We think it is very 
unfortunate that you could not make your appearance here today, 
especially since you are a half a mile away and others took 
great risks to be here.
    Look, I am not quibbling with you about family concerns, 
but a lot of people have them, and this is a very important 
matter for the country. I think we all agree to that. We have 
concern that this is being politicized, and that the current 
Attorney General's Office is being accused of politicizing 
something, when what he is trying to do is clear up and clean 
up messes that were made by his predecessors, in previous 
Administration.
    Everybody can look at the facts, I guess, and draw their 
own conclusions, but it would be helpful if we were able to--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I won't yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I will not yield, because our 
problem with this is not only with the process, as has been 
stated, with the unequal Administration of the rules here, but 
with the way that this committee's time is being used right 
now. With all the important issues that are within our scope of 
jurisdiction, with all the pressing matters facing the country 
right now, this is a farce, and we are really sorry that you 
couldn't be here for it.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Johnson, will you yield.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I will yield.
    Mr. Cicilline. I would just urge you to consider, when you 
say, ``with all the pressing issues,'' is there any issue more 
pressing than the integrity of the Administration of justice.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yeah, absolutely, I am reclaiming 
my time.
    Mr. Cicilline. I mean, is there anything more important?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Reclaiming my time.
    We would love to have hearings about the origins of the 
Russia collusion thing that you guys wasted the country's time 
on for five or six months, and the sham impeachment. Don't get 
me started because I am out of time. I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Ask John Bolton about the sham impeachment.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Not your time. Not your time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. 
Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Zelinsky, 
and Mr. Elias, you put duty over country, and you have come to 
testify today, putting your job at risk, and I think the Nation 
owes you both a debt of gratitude for coming forward as 
whistleblowers.
    Now, Mr. Elias, last summer the State of California 
announced that it had reached an agreement with four automakers 
on air quality standards that would be stricter than the rules 
the Trump Administration was preparing to adopt for the 
country. Correct?
    Mr. Elias. Yes. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. When California announced that 
agreement, President Trump made clear that he did not like it, 
didn't he?
    Mr. Elias. He did criticize the agreement on Twitter, yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. On August 20, 2019, The New York 
Times reported that he was, quote, ``enraged by California's 
deal,'' end quote. Trump even apparently called a White House 
meeting to plot ways to retaliate, all because he resented the 
fact that California and the four automakers would dare to 
undermine his loosening of air quality emission standards. So, 
the next day, August 21st, Trump went public and he threatened 
the four automakers, saying that these these companies, quote, 
``will be out of business,'' end quote, if they don't get in 
line.
    Then, the day after those tweets, August 22nd, President 
Trump's Justice Department followed through on that threat. 
That is when Attorney General--Assistant Attorney General 
Delrahim gave an instruction to your division to start an 
antitrust investigation immediately into those four automakers. 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Elias. That is when the instruction to open the 
investigation happened, on August 22nd, yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, the President tweets out 
threats, and then the next day the automakers get hit with an 
antitrust investigation. That is what happened, didn't it?
    Mr. Elias. A point I would like to underscore is normally 
for significant, complicated matters, people put time and 
attention into assessing a potential--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You didn't have any time to do that 
because the President made the order on August 21st, and the 
investigation began on August 22nd.
    Mr. Elias. There was very little time between those two 
events, yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Do you believe that the Department 
commenced that investigation based on good faith belief that 
they had committed a violation of the antitrust laws, or not?
    Mr. Elias. So, the career staff who examined it saw some 
very obvious defenses, things called State action, Noerr-
Pennington, and you really have to twist things to get around 
those. So, it did not appear to be in good faith, no.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. That investigation didn't have 
anything to do with protecting the American people from anti-
competitive behavior, did it?
    Mr. Elias. So, the career staff who reviewed it had some 
grave concerns about opening it, especially the people who were 
then charged with actually conducting the investigation. They 
documented their concerns with the legal underpinning of the 
case. If you are immune from eventual prosecution for 
something, because you have a legal defense, you should be 
immune from investigation for having--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The law was clear that the State of 
California was immune.
    Mr. Elias. So, what I describe in my complaint is how staff 
was not given enough time to go through and properly 
understand--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I wish I could give you a chance to 
explain more, but bottom line, it wasn't a legitimate antitrust 
investigation, was it?
    Mr. Elias. That is what my complaint alleges, yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. If it had been, the first step 
would have been for the Department to get with California 
officials and get the facts from those officials, but it never 
did even establish contact with California, did it, before it 
instituted the investigation?
    Mr. Elias. That step is permitted even before an 
investigation. You could have resolved things even before 
opening the investigation. It is correct, yeah, to my knowledge 
they were never contacted.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, what we have here is a clear-
cut case of the Antitrust Division being made to respond to a 
President's tweet the day before, to begin an investigation 
that had no basis in law or in fact. Would you describe that as 
an abuse of authority of the upper echelons of the Justice 
Department?
    Mr. Elias. I did submit my complaint to the IG on the 
grounds that the events here constituted an abuse of authority.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. With that I will yield 
back. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Zelinsky, it seems to 
me you have got just one problem. The judge disagreed with you.
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, as I said, I am not here to 
critique the judge's sentence. We need to follow DoJ--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you write Mr. Zelinsky, a 13-page 
statement for your statement to this committee. You allege all 
kinds of politics. You go after the Justice Department. You go 
after Bill Barr. You go after the President. You file a 
sentencing memo on February 10th, recommending seven to nine 
years. The very next day your boss files a supplemental 
sentencing memo recommending three to four years, and nine days 
later Judge Berman Jackson picks the three-to-four-year 
sentence. So, the judge disagreed with you.
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I don't agree with the premise 
of your question on two levels. The first is the--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, tell me what in that fact pattern is 
wrong. Didn't Roger Stone get 40 months?
    Mr. Zelinsky. The supplemental memo, Congressman, did not 
recommend three to four years. It recommended a sentence of 
incarceration. The supplemental memo also mischaracterized 
other aspects of the guidelines--
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Zelinsky--
    Mr. Zelinsky. --and mischaracterized it--
    Mr. Jordan. --I have looked at the supplemental--I have 
looked at the supplemental memo and it said 37 to 47 months. 
What was the--take away the enhancement. It said 37 to 47 
months. Those were the numbers referred in the memo, and Judge 
Berman Jackson picked 40 months. She didn't pick seven to nine 
years. Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. She sentenced Mr. Stone to 40 months. That is 
correct.
    Mr. Jordan. That is between three and four years, exactly 
what was in the supplemental memo. Did you talk to Bill Barr 
about your concerns?
    Mr. Zelinsky. No. As I stated, I did not talk to the 
Attorney General.
    Mr. Jordan. You didn't talk to the Attorney--did you talk 
to the DAG? Did you talk to the Deputy Attorney General?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I was not provided the opportunity.
    Mr. Jordan. Did you talk to Mr. Shea? Did you talk to the 
U.S. Attorney?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I requested to, but was not given a meeting.
    Mr. Jordan. So, you didn't talk to any of the people who 
ultimately make these decisions, did you, Mr. Zelinsky?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I requested to speak with the U.S. Attorney, 
but I was not allowed.
    Mr. Jordan. I didn't ask you if you requested. I said did 
you talk to them? You didn't talk to the Attorney General, 
didn't talk to the DAG, didn't talk to the U.S. Attorney. Who 
is the supervisor?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Which supervisor are you referring to?
    Mr. Jordan. I am talking about the one you referenced about 
six times in your testimony. Page 2, ``It was told to me at the 
time, by my supervisor in the U.S. Attorney's Office.'' You 
said, ``I was told that the Acting U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Columbia, Timothy Shea, was receiving heavy 
pressure from the highest levels of the Department of 
Justice.''
    On page 10 of your testimony, you say this, ``I was 
explicitly told that the motivation for changing the sentencing 
memo was political and because the U.S. Attorney was `afraid of 
the President.' ''
    Who told you?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Thank you for clarifying, Congressman. I just 
want to be sure that I get the right supervisor because there 
are a couple of supervisors that told me things.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, tell me all their names then.
    Mr. Zelinsky. So, the supervisor for the questions you were 
asking is the supervisor of the Fraud and Public Corruption 
Section at the time in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
    Mr. Jordan. Who?
    Mr. Zelinsky. His name is J.P. Cooney.
    Mr. Jordan. All right. Who else?
    Mr. Zelinsky. At the time in the office there was a first 
assistant, there was a criminal chief. They were all involved 
in these discussions, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Jordan. Did any of them talk to the Attorney General, 
the Deputy Attorney General, or Mr. Shea?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes. My understanding is they did.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, did it--not understanding. Did they, or 
didn't they?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I can only tell you what I know. 
I can tell you, from what I understand.
    Mr. Jordan. It sounds like you don't know much. It sounds 
like you heard stuff that you are now bringing to this 
Committee as fact. So-and-so says to someone what they told 
someone else, and you bring that here as fact. Yet you didn't 
talk to the Attorney General?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman--
    Mr. Jordan. You didn't talk to the Deputy Attorney General, 
and didn't talk to the U.S. Attorney, who made the decision, 
and oh, by the way, the judge sided with their supplemental 
memo, not the memo you signed.
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, as I said, I don't agree with 
the premises of your question, and I am happy to explain 
further involving sentencing. My understanding is that all the 
people I mentioned, those supervisors, were all in meetings 
with Acting U.S. Attorney Shea.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I just--this is as bad the whole 
impeachment, the anonymous whistleblower who had no firsthand 
knowledge, was biased against the President, and who worked for 
Joe Biden. Now, we have a so-called whistleblower with no 
firsthand knowledge, who didn't talk to any of the people who 
make the decisions, and who is obviously biased against the 
Attorney General. It seems just as bad, just as lame as what we 
went through just a few months back.
    It seems to me, as others have pointed out--I know my time 
is winding down--that the real politics here was in some of the 
investigations that took place prior, and when we have some 
time, I would like to get into that as well, Mr. Chair.
    With that I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Deutch?
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Zelinsky, I would 
like to follow up on Mr. Jordan's questions and ask about the 
severity of Roger Stone's crimes. He was convicted on one count 
of witness tampering and six counts of obstructing a 
congressional investigation by making numerous false 
statements. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. He was actually convicted on the one count of 
obstructing a congressional investigation, five counts of lying 
to Congress, and one count of tampering with a witness, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Deutch. What did he lie about?
    Mr. Zelinsky. He lied, as I go over my written remarks, 
about a number of things, including what he was doing in the 
summer of 2016 related to Wikileaks, and what he was telling 
the Trump campaign about it.
    Mr. Deutch. He lied about providing information stolen by a 
foreign government to Trump's campaign. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. He lied about providing information to 
Trump's campaign regarding the Wikileaks material.
    Mr. Deutch. Yes.
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct.
    Mr. Deutch. Right. Were these minor misstatements or did 
they impact the congressional investigation?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Both the judge found at the sentencing, and 
we argued that they profoundly impacted the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence and Investigations.
    Mr. Deutch. The judge found that too. That is helpful. 
Roger Stone communicated with Wikileaks and then lied when he 
said he didn't tell the Trump campaign staff, even Donald Trump 
himself. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Mr. Stone lied about what he told the Trump 
campaign regarding Wikileaks. That is correct.
    Mr. Deutch. Right. What did Roger Stone that threatened a 
witness?
    Mr. Zelinsky. He did a number of things. He had told the 
witness to prepare to die. He had threatened the witness' dog. 
He had threatened to harm the career of one of the witness' 
friends. He had written a slew of nasty messages to the 
witness.
    Mr. Deutch. I know that we have been talking about these 
issues for a while. It is worth pointing out, he told the 
witness to prepare to die. Did it appear that the threats 
worked, Mr. Zelinsky? Did they impact the witness' testimony?
    Mr. Zelinsky. They did.
    Mr. Deutch. Mr. Zelinsky, would you say that these are 
serious offenses?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Deutch. Help us understand. How did you come up with 
the seven-to-nine-year recommendations? Did you follow the 
guideline? Was it at the top or bottom of the range? What were 
the enhancements that increased the sentencing range?
    Mr. Zelinsky. So, in coming to the recommendation we did, 
we do what we do in every case. We consult the PSR which is a 
report that is prepared by the court, we consult the relevant 
Department of Justice policies, and then we look at the 
guidelines for sentencing.
    It is important to understand that the guidelines in this 
case were clear and the applications were readily apparent. It 
was not a tough calculation. After looking at that, what other 
sentences have been, we determine what a reasonable sentence 
would be in this case.
    Mr. Deutch. Normally the Department defends recommendations 
within the guidelines range, don't they?
    Mr. Zelinsky. It is the policy of the Department, and 
reiterated in a memo in 2017, to set guidelines 
recommendations, in general.
    Mr. Deutch. In your written testimony you stated the team 
was pressured to submit inaccurate guidelines calculations that 
would result in a lower sentencing range. What was the nature 
of that pressure, Mr. Zelinsky?
    Mr. Zelinsky. So, there were meetings the Members of my 
team had with leadership at the U.S. Attorney's Office and the 
Acting U.S. Attorney, where he sought to get us not to ask for 
the guidelines that really applied.
    Mr. Deutch. So, after the pressure you submitted your 
sentencing memo. Then the Department leadership submitted a new 
sentencing memo for a lighter sentence. That is very much 
outside the normal practice, in your experience, isn't it?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I think outside of normal practice is not an 
accurate description. Unprecedented and virtually unheard of is 
what I would call it.
    Mr. Deutch. After your sentencing recommendation was 
overruled, you and your entire team withdrew from the case. Why 
did you do that?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Because we took an oath to prosecute without 
fear of favor, and we weren't going to violate our oath.
    Mr. Deutch. Mr. Zelinsky, it was political pressure that 
got Roger Stone a lighter sentence than he deserved. Mr. Stone 
got special treatment because of his connections to the 
President. That is not justice. The rule of law is supposed to 
mean equality under the law. Now, this case is a glaring 
example of Bill Barr corrupting DOJ, undermining equality in 
our legal system, and that is one of the reasons that we are 
here today.
    On Monday you did your job and filed your recommendations 
to hold Roger Stone accountable. In the middle of that very 
night, the President tweeted, and Bill Barr's DOJ snapped into 
action the next day to take pressure off. That, Mr. Zelinsky, 
is not justice.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Johnson?
    [No response.]
    Chair Nadler. Mr. McClintock?
    [No response.]
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Am I recognized, Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Chair, am I recognized?
    Chair Nadler. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So, I do find the setting for this to be deliciously ironic 
on the day that the Circuit Court dismissed the Flynn 
prosecution because, you see, the Flynn case typifies the 
previous Administration's abuse of the process for political 
reasons.
    I mean, you have a political appointee who is attacked, 
leveraged. They went after him for political purposes. Used and 
abused the power and authority that they have.
    In fact, they knew it was bogus all along. I mean, even 
Peter Strzok's notes indicate pretty clearly that Director 
Comey acknowledged that General Flynn's phone calls with 
Ambassador Kislyak appear legit and those were the basis for 
trying to invoke even the Logan Act.
    I mean, that is really kind of the way it is. I thank Judge 
Mukasey for being here today.
    Judge Mukasey, Chair indicated in his opening that he views 
Attorney General Barr as a fixer for President Trump.
    Yet, what we have here is the President--excuse me, 
Attorney General Barr saying that ``President Trump has never 
asked me to do anything in a criminal case,'' and wishes that 
he would stop tweeting because ``it makes it impossible for me 
to do my job.''
    Does that sound like a guy who is a fixer?
    Mr. Mukasey. Not to me, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, how about this? If you heard somebody, say 
this, that ``I am still the President's wing man so I am there 
with my boy,'' does that sound maybe like--if that is coming 
from an attorney general does that sound like somebody who may 
be more of a fixer?
    Mr. Mukasey. I don't know about fixer. If I had ever said 
anything like that when I was Attorney General, I would have 
expected to return to the department and find the building 
empty with a pile of resignations on my desk.
    Mr. Biggs. So, that statement was made by former Attorney 
General Holder. So, my question is, we know that under Attorney 
General Holder, DOJ went after multitudes of investigative 
journalists.
    Judge Mukasey, have you heard, or do you have any 
information whether under William Barr, for whatever reason, 
that he has gone after investigative journalist?
    Mr. Mukasey. I do not.
    Mr. Biggs. Then we know that under that department, that 
Justice Department, they prosecuted whistleblowers. I know 
President Trump has expressed exasperation and disapprobation 
of certain whistleblowers and wished that they were prosecuted.
    Do you know of any prosecutions administered by this 
Administration under William Barr of whistleblowers?
    Mr. Mukasey. I don't. I don't.
    Mr. Biggs. We could go over a whole plethora of these types 
of things. Civil Rights Division, U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights--they dismissed voter intimidation lawsuits.
    I guess my question for you is do you know of any dismissal 
of voter intimidation lawsuits on the part of William Barr?
    Mr. Mukasey. No, although I would have to say I have not 
made a particular study of that area.
    Mr. Biggs. Fair enough. Fair enough.
    I don't know of any. The Fast and Furious issue--in that 
particular situation, Attorney General Holder would not come in 
for over a year to testify. Attorney General Barr has been in 
to testify. He has indicated a willingness to come back and 
then testify.
    The whole plethora of abuses by the previous 
Administration's politicized Attorney General's office leads me 
to ask this question of my colleagues, and I think it has been 
typified of what we have seen here today.
    We have gone through here, there has been running over of 
the minority by the rules. It is really problematic. It really 
is problematic.
    If you want to know why this body, this group, this 
Committee gets out of hand from time to time, people talking 
across each other, I am going to tell you what it is.
    It is when you don't invoke and follow the rules you become 
a little bit chippy, and that is what we have in this 
committee, and it is because we don't have the rules fairly and 
evenly followed.
    That is the crying shame of this, Mr. Chair.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Richmond?
    Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, let me just start by saying that part of our 
colleagues said that the whole hearing is here so that we can 
embarrass the President.
    Let us just be clear. If we wanted to embarrass the 
President, we would sit back and do nothing and just let him 
continue to embarrass himself and say that you should drink 
bleach or disinfectant to cure COVID-19, that he has slowed 
down testing, that it will magically go away, or the absurd 
statement that he has done more for Black people than Abraham 
Lincoln.
    So, in law we just say res ipsa loquitur, which means the 
thing speaks for itself. So instead of trying to embarrass the 
President, we would just let him continue to do it himself.
    What we are here today to talk about is the abuse of power, 
the miscarriage of justice.
    So, Mr. Zelinsky, let me just go to you, and I think that I 
want to follow up on what Mr. Deutch was talking about and that 
is to really understand why Roger Stone got such special 
treatment but make sure we focus on the context of his crime.
    So, what his crime was was lying to Congress about his 
dealings with the Trump campaign, one of the convictions, 
right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That was one of his crimes, yes.
    Mr. Richmond. The summer before the elections, Stone told 
the Trump campaign that he had, quote, ``a plan to save Trump's 
butt'' and he knew how, but to win--``but it wouldn't be 
pretty.''
    Do you recall that?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes, Congressman. I think you have replaced 
the profanity with another one. That is correct.
    Mr. Richmond. Then also, Mr. Zelinsky, what was Mr. Stone's 
plan?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Testimony at trial indicated that this was 
related to Wikileaks.
    Mr. Richmond. Did you find evidence that Stone communicated 
with senior levels of the Trump campaign about Wikileaks 
releasing stolen information about Trump's opponent?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Richmond. In fact, there are dozens of calls between 
Stone and the Trump campaign's top officials, right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct.
    Mr. Richmond. Also, during that time, did you find evidence 
that Stone was talking to Trump directly?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Richmond. In fact, our witnesses also testified that 
they were present when Stone spoke to then candidate Trump, 
right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Mr. Gates testified to that at trial. Mr. 
Cohen testified to that at Congress and Mr. Manafort told that 
to the Special Counsel's office.
    Mr. Richmond. Did you all find any records for these calls?
    Mr. Zelinsky. As I discussed earlier, it is difficult to 
know because we can't get content. We can only see call detail 
records--when calls happened.
    There certainly are calls within that time period. It is 
impossible to know the content. Only the people on the calls or 
anyone that overheard them would know the answer to that.
    Mr. Richmond. Why that is so startling is because President 
Trump's written answers to the Special Counsel he denied 
recalling having any conversations with Stone at all that 
summer and he denied being aware Stone was having any 
conversations with Wikileaks or anyone on his campaign.
    Do you remember that?
    Mr. Zelinsky. You have accurately described the President's 
answers. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Richmond. Mr. Zelinsky, have Roger Stone and Donald 
Trump have been friends for over 30 years?
    Mr. Zelinsky. The evidence introduced at trial showed that 
to be the case, and Mr. Stone--and I believe the President has 
acknowledged that as well publicly.
    Mr. Richmond. So, you found evidence from multiple sources 
that Roger Stone regularly communicated with the Trump campaign 
about the stolen information.
    You also found evidence from multiple sources that Roger 
Stone talked to President Trump, his friend of 30 years, 
directly during this time, and you have phone records 
corroborating all of this.
    Yet, the President doesn't remember speaking to Roger 
Stone. Then when you recommend seven to nine years for Stone's 
crimes, all of a sudden your department gets pressure from the 
top to give Stone an unprecedentedly favorable treatment.
    Is that a correct characterization?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I want to be very careful on how 
you describe the phone records that would give corroboration. 
We have call detail records. They don't give the full universe 
of possible calls because we only have them for the number that 
we have.
    So, for example, a conversation took place on a line that 
we had not subpoenaed or someone else's phone, we wouldn't have 
them.
    As I said before, we do not know the content of the calls. 
We know only what people testified. So, I want to be very 
careful as to what we say about call detail records.
    Mr. Richmond. That is fair. Let me tell you, as a former 
defense attorney and lawyer, it is clear to me what happened 
here.
    Roger Stone got special treatment because he was covering 
up the President's misconduct. An Attorney General made it 
possible. The double standard here is absolutely sinful.
    The president's long-time pal, if you are covering up his 
wrongdoing, you get special favors. If you are peacefully 
protesting brutality, you get tear gas.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The Committee will stand in recess for five minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Nadler. The Committee will come back to order.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First, I want to protest the Chair's continued practice of 
denying seats on the dais to Members of the Committee who have 
cared enough to be personally present out of respect both to 
the Committee process and to the magnitude of the issues before 
us.
    This impedes and diminishes our work as Members of the 
committee, and it is an abrogation of Chair's responsibility to 
maintain fair and equal access to the committee's proceedings 
to all Members of the committee.
    Now, the business at hand. This morning an appeals court 
issued a highly unusual writ of mandamus ordering the trial 
court to dismiss the Flynn case.
    This came about because of overwhelming evidence illegally 
withheld by DOJ prosecutors for years that the prosecution was 
contrived, politically motivated, and directed not by career 
prosecutors but by political operatives at the very highest 
levels of our government.
    Mr. Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, told us she believes 
Mr. Flynn was targeted because he knew exactly the extent of 
corruption in our intelligence agencies and that his 
appointment as national security advisor was a direct threat to 
these forces within those agencies.
    Now, we give to our intelligence and justice agencies the 
most terrifying powers our government possess, the power to spy 
on American citizens, the power to strip people of their 
privacy, of their livelihoods, of their liberty, and to destroy 
their lives and even their families' lives.
    When these powers can be turned against our democratic 
principles and our republican institutions, we forfeit our 
Constitution and all the blessings of liberty that it protects.
    We now know that a cabal of political activists did exactly 
that. They took a document that they knew was false and they 
used it as a pretext to initiate an investigation, accusing a 
presidential candidate of colluding with a foreign power, 
leaked the existence of that investigation in an attempt to 
influence the 2016 presidential election, and having failed to 
do that, then to use it to undermine and obstruct the duly 
elected President of the United States.
    As the truth comes out, and we just saw a bombshell today 
in the Comey notes in the Flynn case, the other shoe is about 
to drop.
    As Tennyson said, ``the wheels of the gods grind slow, but 
they grind exceedingly fine.'' So, now we have a concerted 
effort to undermine these investigations by travesties like the 
proceedings today.
    Attorney General Barr has a responsibility to uphold the 
rule of law, the equal protection of our laws, and the 
impartial Administration of these laws. That is exactly what he 
is doing and that is exactly what makes him such a threat to 
those who abuse their powers and undermine the rule of law.
    Judge Mukasey, what happens if our justice and intelligence 
agencies can target rival candidates on specious grounds? If 
the incoming NSA director can be targeted at the highest levels 
of our government and set up to be maliciously prosecuted? If 
excessive sentences can be sought against politically 
disfavored defendants in direct contravention to sentencing 
guidelines?
    Judge, you have devoted your life to the equal protection 
of the law. What is your assessment of the events that I have 
referenced and where are we going if these bad actors can go 
unchallenged and unpunished?
    Mr. Mukasey. I think the matters you reference are a 
serious threat to the faith that people have to have in the 
functioning of their government in order for this country to 
continue to function.
    I was a great supporter and still am of the intelligence 
community. When people in that community abuse their power, 
that really shakes people's faith in the work product of that 
group and in their government, generally.
    Mr. McClintock. If you are talking to the American people 
right now, what would you tell them that they need to know?
    Mr. Mukasey. Well, how long do we have?
    I don't think that I am in a position to give a long 
discursive presentation on what they need to know. I think they 
are going to find out what they need to know in due course when 
investigations now underway run their course and we will find 
out what happened.
    Mr. McClintock. Are you concerned that there is a concerted 
effort to derail those investigations before they are 
completed, and the truth is out?
    Mr. Mukasey. Well, I don't know about derail because I 
don't think that John--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, these proceedings, for example.
    Mr. Mukasey. These proceedings could have the effect of 
tainting the Attorney General and, through him, John Durham. 
John Durham has been at this for a long time. He had the faith 
of three Attorney Generals at least: Janet Reno, me, my 
successor, and the Attorney General Barr. That is four.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, hopefully, the truth will come out 
and justice will be served. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Jeffries?
    Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Mukasey, I respect you, but these 
proceedings are consistent with the United States Constitution. 
The House is a separate and coequal branch of government.
    We don't work for Donald Trump or any other president. We 
work for the American people. We have a constitutional 
responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-
control executive branch.
    The Attorney General and the Department of Justice under 
his leadership is out of control. The Attorney General works 
for the people. He is not the White House counsel. The Attorney 
General in the Department of Justice should be an agent of 
liberty and justice for all Americans regardless of political 
affiliation.
    Now, Mr. Zelinsky, you testified that in the many cases 
that you have been privileged to work on during your career you 
have never seen political influence play any role in 
prosecutorial decision-making with one exception, United States 
v. Roger Stone.
    Is that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. You were the lead prosecutor on the Roger 
Stone case, which included a variety of different criminal 
charges such as lying to Congress and witness tampering. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I was a lead prosecutor on the Roger Stone 
case.
    Mr. Jeffries. These were serious offenses. Is that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. They undermine the rule of law. True?
    Mr. Zelinsky. True.
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, your prosecution team was pressured by 
the highest levels of the Department of Justice to cut Roger 
Stone a break. Is that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Specifically, you were pressured to ask for a 
substantially lower sentence for Roger Stone than what you 
believe the facts justified. Is that true?
    Mr. Zelinsky. In addition to being pressured to misstate 
the guidelines, yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. You were also pressured to distort the events 
that transpired during the course of the trial. Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Both during the course of the events leading 
up to the trial of Mr. Stone's criminal conduct and some events 
in the trial itself, yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Can you give us one example of the type of 
distortion that you were asked to engage in?
    Mr. Zelinsky. So, for example, involving Mr. Credico, Mr. 
Credico was the witness that was intimidated by Mr. Stone. He 
both testified at trial and submitted a letter after the fact.
    The letter seemed to indicate that he wasn't as worried 
about the witness intimidation, but he had previously testified 
before the Grand Jury and he also said at trial that he was 
concerned about what others might do as a result of Mr. Stone's 
actions.
    We were pressured to say that Mr. Credico had no concerns 
and expressed no worries as a result of Mr. Stone's obstructive 
conduct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, the reason you were pressured to modify 
your overall sentencing recommendation was because of Roger 
Stone's close relationship with President Donald Trump. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is what I was told.
    Mr. Jeffries. You were even warned that if you did not toe 
the line and give Roger Stone special and preferential 
treatment you could, quote, ``lose your job,'' closed quote. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. You also told that the acting U.S. Attorney 
was giving Roger Stone favorable treatment because he was 
afraid of President Trump. Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Notwithstanding this pressure, you refused to 
cut Roger Stone a break and you filed your sentencing 
recommendation, which included seven to 10 years in a proposed 
prison sentence. Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I believe the upper end of the range, the 
guidelines that we filed, it was nine, Congressman.
    Mr. Jeffries. Seven to nine years.
    Just a few hours after your filing, the President tweeted 
that it was, quote, ``Horrible and very unfair situation. 
Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice,'' closed quote. Is 
that true?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. The Department of Justice thereafter quickly 
filed a new sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone that 
reduced the number of years proposed that he would serve in 
prison for his crimes. Is that true?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes. It actually reduced the number of 
potential years to zero because it said that he should have a 
sentence of incarceration, but it provided no information as to 
what that sentence should be.
    Mr. Jeffries. Finally, the Department of Justice gave Roger 
Stone special treatment because of his close relationship with 
President Trump. Is that fair to say?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is what I was told.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Roger Stone should be pardoned. I believe Roger Stone will 
be pardoned, and then this proceeding will look even more 
ridiculous than it does today.
    I fear that my Democrat colleagues tend to behave the worst 
when they are caught. Undoubtedly, the Obama Administration and 
their allies in the Deep State were caught entirely off guard 
by the election of President Trump.
    They believed that their smears and coup attempt against 
him would be like an insurance policy in the event that you die 
before you are 40. They believed he should lose 100,000,000 to 
zero.
    Then, of course, he won, and Democrats were caught yet 
again. This time the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, 
colluding with Russia, utilizing a dossier that we now know had 
its subsources targeted by Russian intelligence.
    That is not a debate point. That is a finding by the 
inspector general. Now we see House Democrats caught yet again 
with a failed impeachment, with a lack of an agenda. As we sit 
here today, America's cities are burning.
    Our monuments are being desecrated. Our history is being, 
presumably, erased by people who are ashamed of the United 
States of America, and we have the audacity to have a meeting 
about the rule of law on a case that is already over, on an 
impeachment that has already failed, when there is real work 
for this Committee to do.
    It is a joke. I yield to Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him 
for his well-stated comments.
    Mr. Zelinsky, you took issue a few minutes ago when I said 
there is just one problem--the judge disagreed with you. I just 
want to read for the Committee for those viewing what Judge 
Berman Jackson said.
    She said, ``I agree with the defense and with the 
government's second memo.'' So, she didn't agree with your 
memo, Mr. Zelinsky. She agreed with the second supplemental 
memo and the defense team for Mr. Flynn.
    You also mentioned a few minutes ago that the supervisors--
in your testimony you said that you were told at the time ``by 
my supervisors in the U.S. Attorney's Office,'' and I didn't 
get those names. So, if you could give me those names I would 
appreciate it, Mr. Zelinsky.
    Mr. Zelinsky. So, Congressman, I had earlier indicated that 
my supervisor, my immediate supervisor in the office, was the 
head of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section. You asked me 
for his name, and I told you it was J.P. Cooney.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay. Your testimony, it says ``my 
supervisors.'' It is plural. J.P. Cooney. Who else?
    Mr. Zelinsky. There was the first assistant in the U.S. 
Attorney's Office.
    Mr. Jordan. That is who?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Alessio. I will have to get back to you. Off 
the top of my head I confess, he is no longer the first 
assistant. So, his last name escapes me at this moment. I will 
tell you immediately when it comes to my mind. Then there is--
    Mr. Jordan. Something this important you can't even 
remember the person's last name who told you. Yet, you are here 
in front of the Committee as a so-called whistleblower where 
Chair of this Committee has said--indicated that he wants to 
impeach Bill Barr. I mean, this is amazing.
    Okay. How about on page 10 where you said, ``I was 
explicitly told that the motivation for changing the sentencing 
memo was political and because the U.S. Attorney was, quote, 
`afraid of the President.' '' Who explicitly told you that?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That was the supervisor of the Fraud and 
Public Corruption Section that I referenced earlier.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Cooney? Or a name you can't remember?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Mr. Cooney.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay. All right.
    Tell me about Joseph Mifsud.
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, if I could for a second, I 
apologize that it took me a moment to come up with the name. 
Alessio--the first assistant's name is Evangelista.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay. So, tell me why the special counsel 
didn't charge Joseph Misfud with lying to the FBI. He lied 
three times.
    You charged everybody else. You charged Gates. You charged 
Flynn. You charged Stone. You charged 13 Russians no one had 
ever seen. We, obviously, know that the Flynn charge was wrong 
as evidenced by what happened today.
    Why didn't you charge Joseph Misfud, who lied to you guys 
back in February of 2017?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I have been told by the 
Department of Justice that my testimony today should adhere to 
the four corners of the Special Counsel's Office report. There 
are privilege issues with going outside of that.
    I would be happy to consult with them, see if they will 
provide me the answer. Then yes, I will answer the question.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you were awful quick just a few minutes 
ago. Here is the sentence: ``Manafort told the Special 
Counsel.'' So, you were fine talking to Democrats about what 
Manafort told the Special Counsel. I am asking you a simpler 
question. Joseph Misfud, the guy who first tells Papadopoulos 
that they have dirt on the Clintons.
    Papadopoulos then tells the foreign diplomat, who tells the 
FBI, and then we get this investigation that takes three years, 
and when you interview him, he lies three times. It is on page 
192 of the Mueller report. I am just asking why you guys didn't 
charge him.
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I want to address your issue as 
to why I discussed what Mr. Manafort said.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman--the time of the 
gentleman--the time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Elias, Mr. Ayer, and Mr. Zelinsky, you are courageous 
American heroes. Because of you and others like you, our 
Justice Department has been the envy of the world. Equal 
justice is a founding principle of our great country. Justice 
is done in every case without fear or favor, without party or 
politics, and we say in our Pledge of Allegiance liberty and 
justice for all. Those words mean something.
    In the face of staggering evidence of corruption, of 
misconduct, of lawlessness, we hear the same refrain from our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``You just don't 
like the President.''
    Of course, the answer is we love our country. We love the 
rule of law. We love our system of justice, and we love the 
integrity of the Department of Justice, and we are deeply 
troubled by the testimony that is being presented today and 
what it says about this attorney general and this president.
    So, Mr. Elias, as a Chair of the Antitrust Subcommittee, I 
am extremely troubled by the testimony that you have provided 
that confirms that the Trump Administration has weaponized the 
department's Antitrust Division to reward friends and punish 
enemies.
    For years public reporting has suggested that the Trump 
Administration has been wielding antitrust in this abusive way, 
from the AT&T Time-Warner merger, which the DOJ sued to block, 
reportedly at the President's direction, to the Sprint-T-Mobile 
merger and Disney Fox transactions, both of which the DOJ 
smoothly approved, despite serious anticompetitive concerns, 
allegedly due to personal ties that the CEOs and investors had 
to President Trump.
    So, Mr. Elias, I had to come back to the facts on why the 
investigation into four major automakers was ever open because 
there seemed to be no evidence to support it.
    In fact, at a Senate hearing last year, the Chief of the 
Antitrust Division told senators, and I quote, ``I have 
nothing'' when he was asked if he had any information of 
misconduct to justify this investigation of automakers.
    Your testimony today seems to confirm without question that 
there was, in fact, simply no basis to support the 
investigation.
    I wanted to be clear. Do you have any evidence that these 
automakers did anything wrong when they agreed to adhere to 
California's strict emission standards?
    Mr. Elias. I believe that--had clear legal defenses for 
what they were doing under well-established procedures.
    Mr. Cicilline. Was there any evidence that this 
investigation would in any way help the American people?
    Mr. Elias. I am not aware of any, no.
    Mr. Cicilline. There is evidence, in your mind, that this 
investigation was opened in bad faith to cater to the 
President's political whims. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Elias. I think the coincidence of time between the 
President's tweets and the instruction the next day to open the 
investigation could lead to the inference that you are 
describing.
    Mr. Cicilline. Am I correct in saying that the 
investigation was ultimately closed without any evidence of 
wrongdoing found, correct?
    Mr. Elias. Correct.
    Mr. Cicilline. Now, your testimony makes clear to me that 
this investigation was meritless. It had nothing to do with 
protecting the American people or American consumers and 
everything to do with helping the President retaliate against 
automakers and support the President's feud against a specific 
state.
    What is worse, the Attorney General used taxpayer money to 
do this.
    Mr. Elias, you have described an entire division writing a 
memo, an all-staff meeting, weeks and weeks of work. Given this 
investigation was clearly not about protecting the interests of 
the American people, am I correct that it still required the 
expenditure of significant resources?
    Mr. Elias. It did require some staff time, some attorney 
time, and was a use of funds that did not ultimately yield a 
real violation.
    Mr. Cicilline. So, rather than pursuing meritless 
investigations in support of the President's personal vendetta, 
the resources could have been used and better spent elsewhere. 
Do you agree?
    Mr. Elias. I certainly agree, yes.
    Mr. Cicilline. Finally, Mr. Elias, what has been the effect 
on morale in your division, given that the Attorney General is 
pursuing investigations based on the President's tweets and not 
on what is best for the American people?
    Mr. Elias. Well, I do know that in the Federal Employment 
Viewpoint Survey, which surveys employees every year, the 
Antitrust Division is now ranked 404 out of 420.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Ayer, I would like to turn to you for a moment.
    The President is, of course, free to pursue an anti-
environment agenda within the confines of the law. There is a 
line between the department prioritizing executive policies and 
prosecuting companies and individuals solely to retaliate 
against the President's perceived political enemies.
    Can you just please describe the difference between the 
department prioritizing an Administration's policies and what 
happened here, and what effect does it have on our justice 
system and democratic institutions if the President uses the 
department to attack those he disagrees with without legal 
cause?
    Mr. Ayer. The whole premise of a system of justice is that 
it will be brought to bear on the facts as they are and proceed 
pursuant to the best assessment that hard thinking and hard 
work can bring to it in terms of what action is appropriate.
    The citizens of the country need to have trust that things 
are being done in an evenhanded way for good reasons. The 
problem comes when there starts to be a widespread sense of 
concern or doubt that the government is actually taking an 
often-harsh action, sometimes punitive and criminal actions, 
other times civil enforcement actions or otherwise in civil 
cases acting in a way to help someone for special reasons that 
are totally unrelated to the public interest or any evenhanded 
considerations.
    Then trust breaks down, as it did after Watergate and that 
is not a place we want to be as a country because order starts 
to deteriorate.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent 
request.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his unanimous 
consent request.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent that this letter signed by over 1,100 former U.S. 
Attorneys and Justice Department officials, both Republicans 
and Democrats, which strongly condemns President Trump and 
Attorney General Barr's interference in the fair Administration 
of justice and calls on the Attorney General of the United 
States to resign, be made part of the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]


                      MR. CICILLINE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. Mr. Cline?
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here.
    Mr. Zelinsky, I wish you were here in person, but I want to 
ask you in particular. You have already been asked about the 13 
and the 17 attorneys and the Special Counsel team registered 
Democrats.
    What was Andrew Weissmann's role in the Special Counsel 
investigation?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Andrew Weissmann was a senior assistant 
special counsel, I believe, was his title.
    Mr. Cline. Were you aware that Weissmann sent an email to 
then Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates saying he was, quote, 
``So proud and in awe,'' end quote, of her after she disobeyed 
President Trump? Were you aware of that?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I am familiar with that press report, yes.
    Mr. Cline. Do you think this email compromised the 
appearance of an independent investigation?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I think that the attorneys in the Special 
Counsel's office did our job, and we did our job fairly and 
truthfully.
    Mr. Cline. So, you don't think that that email compromised 
the appearance of an independent investigation?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I think the investigation was independent and 
I am not able to comment beyond the confines of the report. I 
can tell you, Congressman, that we did our jobs and we followed 
the law.
    Mr. Cline. So, what did Special Counsel Mueller do after 
finding out that Weissmann emailed that he was so proud and in 
awe of Deputy Attorney General Yates? He didn't remove him, 
correct?
    I am sorry. Remove for--
    Mr. Zelinsky. I want to be very careful.
    Mr. Cline. No. Remove Weissmann.
    Mr. Zelinsky. I want to be very careful, Congressman, for 
the same reason that I referenced earlier.
    I have to go to the department to be able to talk about 
matters that are outside the scope of the Special Counsel 
office's report and receive their permission to do so.
    The government has--the Department of Justice has given me 
permission today to discuss matters related to the Stone 
sentencing. They have not given me permission to discuss 
internal matters in the Special Counsel's office that are 
outside the scope of the four corners of the Special Counsel 
office's report.
    If you would like, I can go to the department, and I will 
ask them for permission to answer your question.
    Mr. Cline. You have spoken to things that you have read in 
the press or seen in the public sphere, correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I have confirmed, yes.
    Mr. Cline. You have spoken to earlier today. So, are you 
aware that Weissmann agreed to host a fundraiser for candidate 
Joe Biden's victory fund?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I have read press reports to that effect.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Are you aware of unauthorized press leaks 
coming out of the Special Counsel's office?
    Mr. Zelinsky. No.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Has the Justice Department Office of 
Inspector General ever contacted you about unauthorized leaks 
to media?
    Mr. Zelinsky. They have not.
    Mr. Cline. Are you aware if Justice Department Office of 
Inspector General has contacted anyone else at the Special 
Counsel's office about unauthorized leaks to the media?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I am not.
    Mr. Cline. All right.
    With that, I am going to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Mukasey, I want you to take a look at this chart up 
here because this is, in my mind, what politics at the Justice 
Department looks like.
    ``Hillary should win 100,000,000 to zero.''
    ``Trump is not ever going to become president, right?''
    That is from Lisa Page to Peter Strzok. Peter Strzok 
responds, ``No. No, he is not. We will stop it.''
    Now, this is not just any old person saying, ``We will stop 
it.'' This is Peter Strzok, deputy head of counterintelligence 
at the FBI and the guy who ran the investigation into Hillary 
Clinton, code name Mid-Year Exam, and ran the investigation 
Crossfire Hurricane into the Trump-Russia--so-called Trump-
Russia collusion.
    That is what politics at the Justice Department looks like, 
not what the Democrats are serving up today.
    Your response, Mr. Mukasey?
    Mr. Mukasey. Well, that is not the only exchange, I think, 
that suggests politics. In fact, there is one that hasn't 
gotten very much attention that occurred on the night that Ted 
Cruz withdrew, and Donald Trump became the only candidate for 
the Republican nomination.
    There was an exchange where one said to the other, ``I 
can't believe this guy is going to be the nominee,'' and the 
response was, ``This raises the pressure to terminate MYE.'' 
MYE was code for Mid-Year Exam.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah, Mid-Year Exam.
    Mr. Mukasey. How the candidacy of Donald Trump could raise 
the pressure to terminate MYE has been something that has 
mystified me ever since I saw that.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. No kidding. It shouldn't matter who the 
candidate is for the other party determining what, how, when, 
and why you close an investigation, finishing an investigation, 
or what you do in an investigation.
    Mr. Mukasey. Right.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Thank you very much.
    Yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Zelinsky, on July 24 of last year, 
Special Counsel Mueller described in his testimony to this 
Committee that there were identified gaps in his investigation 
that he could not account for.
    Do you recall that testimony?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I do.
    Mr. Swalwell. That includes lies, deletion of text 
messages, and obstruction of justice. Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is what the Special Counsel's office 
report says, yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. In our federal system, defendants are 
rewarded for accepting responsibility early in the proceedings 
for their sentence. Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct.
    Mr. Swalwell. Did Mr. Stone go to a jury trial?
    Mr. Zelinsky. He did.
    Mr. Swalwell. Was he convicted at trial?
    Mr. Zelinsky. He was.
    Mr. Swalwell. Was he also found to have lied to the judge 
during pretrial proceedings?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. You made a recommendation with your team as 
to what the sentence should be. The President tweeted, and the 
sentence was ultimately lowered. Is that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is accurate.
    Mr. Swalwell. So, we have a pattern here. President Trump 
tweets. Friends are protected. We saw that with National 
Security Advisor Flynn. He had secret conversations with the 
Russians before he was national security advisor, lied to Vice-
President Pence, lied to the FBI, and twice admitted that he 
had lied, and pleaded guilty.
    Then comes Trump. He tweets repeatedly that this never 
should have happened and, Mr. Zelinsky, the Flynn case has been 
dropped by the recommendation of the DOJ. Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is my understanding from what I have 
read in the press.
    Mr. Swalwell. Donald Trump does not only protect his 
friends, he actually punishes his enemies. Michael Cohen, 
former lawyer to President Trump, charged with counts of tax 
fraud and false statements.
    Pleads guilty early in the proceedings. Testifies to 
Congress, and nine days before his sentencing, Donald Trump 
tweets that Cohen wants zero days in prison. He should serve 
his full and complete sentence. Michael Cohen was sentenced to 
three years. Is that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I don't remember Mr. Cohen's precise 
sentence. I have no reason to doubt what you are saying.
    Mr. Swalwell. So, Mr. Zelinsky, you are a career 
prosecutor. You just want to follow the evidence.
    How does it make you feel as a prosecutor and how does it 
make your colleagues feel when you see that your hard work and 
the evidence is being sidelined for political preferences?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, in the wake of the Stone 
sentencing motion, I heard from many Assistant United States 
Attorneys throughout the country, many of whom I did not know, 
about how disappointed they were with what had happened.
    Mr. Swalwell. Why were you disappointed?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I was disappointed because we took an oath to 
do our job, to follow the law, to follow the department's 
policy and to do what is right, and what happened here was 
wrong.
    Mr. Swalwell. Has Attorney General Barr ever publicly 
mischaracterized findings from the Mueller report?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I can speak to the Special Counsel's office's 
report. I have not been authorized by the department to 
characterize the Attorney General's comments on it.
    I can ask the Department of Justice whether or not I will 
be given authority to answer that question, and if permitted I 
will come back to you and answer.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Zelinsky, you give us hope. You have come 
forward. You are currently working in the Administration, and 
you are doing it in the spirit of people like David Holmes, who 
testified during the impeachment inquiry, currently working as 
a political officer. People like Bill Taylor, people like 
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, and, of course, former officials 
like Fiona Hill and Marie Yovanovitch.
    I hope that your courage today to talk about the political 
preferences shown in this prosecution inspires and begets 
future witnesses to come forward. You did, ultimately, withdraw 
from the case and leave the D.C. office. Can you tell us why 
you did that?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I did that because what had happened was 
wrong and I did not want to be a part of what had happened, and 
so I withdrew.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a bipartisan letter from 159 former Southern District of 
New York prosecutors expressing their extreme concern about the 
resignation/firing of Mr. Berman in the Southern District.
    I would yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

   

                      MR. SWALWELL FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Reschenthaler?
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to 
thank all the witnesses for being here today, especially those 
who had the decency to do so in person. So, thank you.
    I am once again just absolutely disappointed but not 
surprised that my colleagues across the aisle are continuing to 
waste our time chasing ghosts rather than working for the 
American people.
    To assert that AG Barr, who is a serious law enforcement 
officer--he has a sterling reputation--to run around and say 
that he is interfering, he is running political interference 
for the President, it is absolutely laughable.
    AG Barr is cleaning up what are the ruins of the Obama/
Biden DOJ. In particular, he is cleaning up from Jim Comey, who 
weaponized and politicized the FBI.
    If you doubt me, just look at the treatment of former 
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Those were political 
abuses. That was political gamesmanship that was orchestrated 
by FBI Director Comey and what I call his merry band of Never 
Trumpers.
    Comey's FBI used the Logan Act. For those of you that don't 
know, the Logan Act is highly problematic and, frankly, it is 
likely unconstitutional.
    The Logan Act makes it illegal for U.S. citizens to engage 
in unauthorized foreign diplomacy and, despite this, the FBI 
used it, this archaic act, to set up General Flynn, even though 
they knew that he would never be charged with the obscure 
offense.
    In fact, since its enactment, the Logan Act has only been 
used twice to prosecute individuals, one in 1802 and one in 
1852, and both were acquitted.
    So, then why use this to go after Flynn? Well, according to 
the handwritten notes, the FBI's goal was, quote, ``Truth/
admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get 
him fired,'' end quote.
    Around the same time the FBI was doodling these notes to 
set up Michael Flynn, around that same time former Secretary of 
State John Kerry was holding meetings with the Palestinian 
Authority. Senator Dianne Feinstein had dinner with the Iranian 
foreign minister. Yet, neither of those individuals were even 
questioned about Logan Act violations.
    So, clearly, the charges against Flynn were politically 
motivated, and I should note that just this morning an appeals 
court ruled that General Flynn--the appeals court ruled in 
General Flynn's favor, ordering the dismissal of that case.
    So, even if the DOJ recognized Logan Act's futility, 
informing the FBI that it was not in support of using the law 
to entrap--still use the law to entrap General Flynn.
    An FBI lawyer, in fact, testified before Congress and said 
the DOJ viewed the Logan Act as, quote, ``untested'' and that 
the Logan Act would leave the DOJ vulnerable to, quote, 
``substantial litigation risk,'' unquote.
    That didn't stop Director Comey from using it to attempt to 
sabotage the Trump transition team.
    So, if my Democrat colleagues want to accuse someone of 
politicizing the DOJ, they should start with Director Comey.
    Mr. Zelinsky, what is your view of the Special Counsel's 
office toward the Logan Act?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I am sorry to sound like a 
broken record, but I have been told by the Department of 
Justice that there are deliberative process concerns with the 
discussion in the Special Counsel's office and what transpired 
there outside the confines of the report.
    I am happy to discuss the Special Counsel's office's report 
and I am happy to go to the department and ask them--
    Mr. Reschenthaler. All right, Mr. Zelinsky. I am going to 
reclaim my time.
    How do you explain the discrepancy then between the 
treatment of General Flynn and that of Secretary Kerry and 
Senator Feinstein?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I would need to consult with the 
Department of Justice before answering that question. If you 
would like I can ask--
    Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. I am going to reclaim my 
time.
    Let us just switch gears and talk about Mueller's probe. I 
was following it in the news and it seemed like there were a 
lot of leaks during that time.
    Did you talk to the press during the Mueller investigation?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Never.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Do you know anybody that talked to the 
press?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I am sorry. I am not quite sure I heard your 
question. Do I know of any person that has ever talked to the 
press or do I know anyone in the Special Counsel's office?
    Mr. Reschenthaler. That was working on--yeah, that was 
working on the investigation. Did you know anybody on that team 
that was talking to the press?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Aside from our press relations professional, 
no.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Judge, in your time at the DOJ, did you 
ever use the Logan Act?
    Mr. Mukasey. I am sorry?
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Did you ever use the Logan Act?
    Mr. Mukasey. No.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Why not?
    Mr. Mukasey. I was never aware of any situation that could 
conceivably have been covered by it and had I been, I would 
have been hesitant to use it because, number one, I believe it 
is unconstitutional.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield my time. My time has expired.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chair Nadler.
    Let me set context for why we are even here today. We are 
here because the Russians sweepingly and systematically hacked 
our elections in 2016. Roger Stone coordinated with Wikileaks, 
who had the emails that Russian hackers stole from the Hillary 
Clinton campaign.
    Roger Stone also coordinated with Members of the Trump 
campaign and spoke to Donald Trump himself. The Trump campaign 
embraced the stolen emails, planned their campaign messaging 
based on the Russian hack, and then, after Roger Stone was 
convicted of multiple crimes, Bill Barr's Department of Justice 
intervened to lower the sentencing recommendation.
    That is a perversion of justice. I am a former prosecutor, 
and it is clear to me that the only reason we are able to take 
the extraordinary step of locking people in prison is because 
the people believe our processes are fair and based on the 
facts.
    One of the greatest dangers to democracy is when the people 
start believing that prosecutions are tainted based on who the 
defendant happens to know and, unfortunately, under Bill Barr's 
Department of Justice, friends of Donald Trump get breaks and 
special favors from the Department of Justice that no ordinary 
American could ever get.
    So, my questions are for Mr. Zelinsky.
    Mr. Zelinsky, before you worked at the Department of 
Justice you clerked for Judge Thomas Griffith of the D.C. 
Circuit. He was nominated by a Republican president, correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct. He was nominated by 
President George W. Bush.
    Mr. Lieu. Then you clerked also for Chief Justice Anthony 
Kennedy, who also was nominated by a Republican president, 
correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. President Reagan. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. Before you could become a United States Attorney, 
you had to take an oath and that oath was to the United States 
Constitution, correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. When I became an Assistant United States 
Attorney, as required by law I took that oath. I actually had 
to take a similar oath on a number of occasions for various 
federal jobs that I have held, including the clerkships you 
just mentioned, Congressman.
    Mr. Lieu. So, your client is not Donald Trump or Bill Barr. 
It is the Constitution of the United States and the American 
people. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. On behalf of the American people, you and other 
career prosecutors submitted a sentencing memo of seven to nine 
years for Roger Stone. Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That accurately describes the sentencing 
memorandum, yes.
    Mr. Lieu. When Judge Jackson reviewed that recommendation, 
did she think it was supported by the record?
    Mr. Zelinsky. She did. She said that the sentencing memo 
that we had filed complied with all law, relevant DOJ policy 
and practice, and was supported by the record.
    Mr. Lieu. After you submitted that sentencing 
recommendation, the President of the United States went nuts 
and said it was horrible, unfair, and then another memo was 
submitted by people above you.
    Were you told why they submitted that memo of a lower 
sentencing recommendation?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I was told that the U.S. Attorney was taking 
action because he was afraid of the President. As I discussed, 
I was told that earlier. Then I was told that there was heavy 
political pressure from the highest levels of the Department of 
Justice to cut Roger Stone a break.
    Mr. Lieu. Did any career line Assistant U.S. Attorney sign 
that lower sentencing recommendation?
    Mr. Zelinsky. None.
    Mr. Lieu. In the memo you had submitted initially, were you 
asked to remove portions about Roger Stone's misconduct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. We were.
    Mr. Lieu. Is that unusual?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I have never had it before in my experience.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay. Now, Mr. Mukasey has said that an attorney 
general can certainly ask for a sentence below the sentencing 
guidelines.
    To be clear, that is not your problem with what happened. 
It is not that something was asked below the sentencing 
guidelines.
    It was the process, right, where the reason it was done was 
because Roger Stone was a friend of Donald Trump, and the 
acting U.S. Attorney was scared of the President. Isn't that 
right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is one of the problems. There were also 
flaws in the sentencing--second sentencing memorandum that I 
believe should not have been submitted as well besides the 
recommendation itself.
    Mr. Lieu. Do you believe those flaws were done because 
Roger Stone is a friend of Donald Trump?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I was told that the acting United States 
Attorney was taking the actions that he was because he was 
afraid of Donald Trump.
    I was not told why the second sentencing memorandum was 
done the way it was because by the time it was filed, I had 
withdrawn from the office and I was not given the ability to 
review the materials nor was I told who was writing it.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
    My last question, ``In United States of America we do not 
prosecute people because of their politics.'' That is what you 
wrote. You also wrote, ``And we don't cut them a break because 
of their politics either.''
    Was Roger Stone cut a break because of his connection to 
Donald Trump?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is what I was told and that is what 
appears to have happened, to me.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Raskin?
    [No response.]
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Raskin?
    [Pause.]
    Chair Nadler. Unmute your microphone.
    [Pause.]
    Chair Nadler. Okay. Ms. Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Zelinsky, let us make this very simple for the American 
people. You testified today that you were told that the 
motivation for lessening the sentence for Roger Stone, the 
President's long-time friend, was because the U.S. Attorney was 
afraid of President Trump.
    Is that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Correct, among other things.
    Ms. Jayapal. In other words, sir, the Justice Department 
leadership based a sentencing recommendation not on the rule of 
law, not based on whether Roger Stone deserved the recommended 
sentence, but simply to appease the President.
    Is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is what I was told.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Zelinsky.
    I can see why the U.S. Attorney was afraid to go against 
the President. U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said that his 
investigations, including the President's close inner circle, 
would continue without fear or favor, and now he is gone.
    The rules are clear. The rules of this President and 
Attorney General Barr are clear--that is, give the President's 
friends special treatment, keep your job. Dare to pursue 
justice, dare to follow the law, dare to hold the President's 
friends accountable and you will be removed.
    Mr. Zelinsky, you went ahead with your sentencing 
recommendations in spite of these pressures and threats. Can 
you tell us why?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Because it was the right thing to do.
    Ms. Jayapal. You were there to do the right thing, and I 
appreciate that and your coming forward to discuss this.
    Mr. Elias, I would like to switch topics and go back to the 
department's investigation of at least 10 cannabis companies to 
make sure we understand why you consider these to be sham 
investigations, investigations predicated on the personal 
interests of the Attorney General and the President rather than 
the facts or a desire to protect American consumers.
    Approximately how many DOJ staff were pulled to work on 
these sham investigations?
    Mr. Elias. Congresswoman, there were dozens of staff--
attorneys, paralegals, economists, and others who worked on 
these various cases.
    Ms. Jayapal. These companies produced 1.3 million documents 
from the files of 40 employees at the DOJ's request. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Elias. That was just from the first of the 10 mergers, 
yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, potentially, 10 times that if the same 
numbers were applied.
    When the DOJ received these documents, is there any 
evidence that the entirety of these documents were even 
reviewed?
    Mr. Elias. I think a very small number of the documents 
were reviewed.
    Ms. Jayapal. A very small number. In one of the reviews 
some documents were never even uploaded. Is that correct?
    Mr. Elias. They were uploaded after the closing process had 
been initiated as if they were irrelevant to the investigation 
and its process.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, there were requested enormous resources. 
Taxpayer dollars were used. These documents were never really 
looked at. They weren't relevant to the investigations.
    So, to be clear, at Attorney General Barr's direction, the 
department expends countless taxpayer resources to force 
companies to ultimately produce millions of pages of evidence 
and then doesn't even look at or upload some of that evidence 
before admitting there is a violation.
    Now, Mr. Elias, given your experience in public service, 
have you ever seen anything this extreme, using taxpayer 
dollars to conduct an investigation over the course of months 
on an entire industry and not even uploading evidence before 
admitting that there is no violation?
    Mr. Elias. In my experience, which includes 14 years at the 
Justice Department at many different levels of the Antitrust 
Division, no, I have never seen anything like that.
    Ms. Jayapal. Can you explain to the American people why is 
that so concerning?
    Mr. Elias. It is concerning because the investigations and 
the work of the Antitrust Division need to be done in good 
faith.
    They need to be done evenhandedly both for the sake of 
everybody involved and for the sake of the public's perception 
of the rule of law and that the Justice Department is being 
above board with everything calling balls and strikes as they 
truly are.
    So, for it to disregard the usual standards in the law on 
what counts for an antitrust investigation is improper and an 
abuse.
    Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Elias, you are just saying that the 
Justice Department should be pursuing justice.
    Mr. Elias. Yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. I want to thank you for your bravery in coming 
here today.
    We all have to ask ourselves what this means for what we do 
not even know. This is a pattern that has been consistent.
    Bill Barr lied to the American people about the Mueller 
report. He ordered the military to tear gas peaceful protestors 
just so the President could have a photo-op and now is using 
the power of the Justice Department for corrupt purposes in 
these instances that we are investigating today.
    If he is doing all these things, what else is happening 
that we don't even know about? Bill Barr appears to be a 
henchman for the President's likes and dislikes, not the 
Attorney General of the United States pursuing equal justice 
under the law.
    He has abandoned his responsibility to uphold the 
Constitution. He is no longer working for the American people, 
and we must stop that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Raskin?
    [No response.]
    Chair Nadler. Okay. Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, I care about the rule of law. I care about the 
oath of office that I have taken and that we have all taken, 
and what it means to take that oath of office to heart.
    Mr. Zelinsky, first, congratulations on the birth of your 
child. I also want to thank you for being a nonpartisan career 
prosecutor who treats people equally and fairly.
    Now, I believe that those would be welcome words, 
especially during this time in our Nation when we are seeing 
civil unrest in all 50 states, a Justice Department that treats 
people equally and fairly.
    We know that most people in our country don't have a fixer 
with the title Attorney General.
    Mr. Zelinsky, in your testimony, I think it is so important 
that we keep our eye on the ball. We have heard so many 
distractions here today, but I am committed to keeping my eye 
on the ball, to work hard to make sure that we do create a more 
perfect system of justice.
    Mr. Zelinsky, in your testimony you stated that political 
pressure resulted in the virtually unprecedented decision to 
override the original sentencing recommendation and the filling 
of a new sentencing memorandum that included statements and 
assertions at odds with the record and contrary to the 
Department of Justice policy.
    You went on to say that in the Fraud and Public Corruption 
Section of the United States Attorney's Office for the District 
of Columbia, you could never recall--you couldn't even recall a 
case where the government did not seek a guideline sentence 
after trial.
    Mr. Zelinsky, is that correct?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That is correct. Nor could anyone else in the 
U.S. Attorney's Office recall such a situation.
    Ms. Demings. So, to be clear, that you could not recall it 
and nor could anybody else in that office recall it either. Is 
that what you just said?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you, Mr. Zelinsky.
    Mr. Mukasey, during your confirmation hearing you said, and 
I appreciate these words, quote ``I served in the department 
and the U.S. Attorney's Office in SDNY 35 years ago. I was 
never asked what my politics were. I did not know the politics 
of the men and women there and still do not. And it did not 
matter. It had nothing to do with our job, nothing to do with 
the way we did it and could not have anything to do with the--
and cannot have anything to do with the jobs of the people in 
the Justice Department today.''
    As we find ourselves in this very critical moment, Mr. 
Mukasey, do you stand by your statement?
    Mr. Mukasey. I do.
    Ms. Demings. Could you please explain to me why you do not 
feel that the Roger Stone case has anything--the decisions that 
have been made in that case have nothing to do with politics 
and have nothing to--do not compromise your position here today 
and the statement that you made during your confirmation?
    Mr. Mukasey. Because the initial sentencing recommendation 
was wildly inappropriate, notwithstanding that it resulted from 
a mechanical application of the guidelines.
    The only person who determined the sentence in that case 
was the judge. She could have sentenced the defendant to any 
term of imprisonment or no term of imprisonment.
    She chose to sentence him to a term of 40 months, which was 
within the second recommendation. That second recommendation 
changed nothing so far as the bottom-line result because the 
judge is the only person who determines the sentence.
    Ms. Demings. Do you believe that the President nor the 
Attorney General, who has been acting more like the President's 
personal bodyguard and his fixer, have not engaged in politics 
as it pertains to the President's friends?
    Mr. Mukasey. I can't speak for the President. The President 
is, by definition, a political--
    Ms. Demings. Based on your professional decision, political 
or professional experience, do you believe the President has 
engaged in a political way as it pertains to sentences or what 
happens to his friends?
    Mr. Mukasey. The Attorney General himself criticized the 
President for tweets that he--
    Ms. Demings. So, that is a yes?
    Mr. Mukasey. It is a maybe. Go ahead.
    Ms. Demings. Do you believe the Attorney General has 
engaged in politics in carrying out the President's wishes?
    Mr. Mukasey. Short answer is no.
    Ms. Demings. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you very much.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This is the most devastating testimony I have ever seen, an 
Attorney General of the United States corrupting the rule of 
law in pursuit of a political agenda for the President of the 
United States.
    All of America can right now see exactly what is going on. 
The Attorney General, acting not as a champion of the rule of 
law or the Constitution but, rather, as a sycophant and a 
consigliere for Donald Trump, has decided to go out and 
undermine cases, derail cases, and kill cases that affect 
Donald Trump's chosen ones, despite overwhelming evidence 
against them and despite guilty pleas by some of them.
    Now, it is going to take us a long time to sort out the 
full litany of unregistered foreign agents and liars and felons 
and frauds who have gotten a ``get out of jail free'' card by 
Attorney General William Barr at the behest of Donald Trump, 
and we should track all of that down.
    More immediately, America faces two problems where Attorney 
General Barr is, again, threatening the rule of law and 
justice, and one is the public health response to the pandemic, 
which has now cost more than 120,000 Americans their lives, and 
the other is the fall election, which is the people's 
opportunity to speak if allowed to do so without election 
interference by foreign powers or by the government of the 
United States itself in an effort to intimidate and repress the 
vote.
    So, I want to come to Mr. Ayer. In your testimony, you 
testified that Attorney General Barr has worked to, quote, 
``create an authoritarian president,'' and I wrote down some of 
your basic points here.
    We, obviously, don't have time to get into all of them. You 
say he undermined the work of independent fact finders, such as 
the FBI. He ignored and trampled Congress's powers under the 
appropriations clause.
    He categorically stonewalled congressional oversight and 
State criminal subpoenas. He attacked and undermined the 
inspectors general. He used political cronies to review and 
decide issues of special interest to the President.
    He reversed government positions in the Stone and Flynn 
prosecutions. He used the DOJ as a tool of the President's 
reelection campaign. He directed law enforcement forces to 
violate the First amendment rights of peaceful protestors in 
Lafayette Square, and on and on, all the way to sacking 
Geoffrey Berman just a day or two ago.
    Among these things you mentioned almost in passing, that 
the Attorney General had tried to provide an echo to the 
President by likening public health orders by legitimate 
politically elected authorities in America, governors and 
mayors, to house arrest, and he said that he would work to 
jawbone the governors into rolling back public health orders 
put in place as the only mechanism we have to try to lower the 
death count and control this out of control pandemic, which is 
now ravaging Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Louisiana, 
Arkansas, large areas of the South and the West right now.
    What is the problem with the Attorney General deciding he 
wants to jawbone the governors and likening their policies to 
house arrest, which we all know is completely phony?
    Mr. Ayer. Thank you for that.
    Chair Nadler. Your microphone, sir.
    Mr. Ayer. The whole issue of how you deal with public 
health problems, obviously, there is a role for the Federal 
Government and one that has not been performed terribly well in 
terms of coordinating overall supplies.
    The basic decision-making with regard to how you are going 
to make the particular decisions of what people need to do, 
they are very local and they are very unique to local areas.
    The judgments I think everybody recognizes, basically, are 
to be made at the State and the local level in terms of when to 
open, how much, in what ways, et cetera.
    What appears to have happened here, and it didn't just 
happen once, it appears to have happened several times--is that 
Mr. Barr, and he really does appear to be echoing statements 
that the President has periodically tweeted and made about 
opening up.
    Obviously, the President has been very intense about 
wanting to get everything opened up. So, Barr has echoed that 
and essentially threatened--he has threatened to jawbone.
    He has also, in connection with the question about churches 
and whether churches are going to be treated in a certain way 
and are they somehow being treated less favorably than others, 
they have actually gone to court in some of those instances.
    Now, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge a couple of 
weeks ago regarding one restriction on a church in California, 
and I have not heard anything about the Justice Department 
actually filing anything in connection with opening up issues 
concerning churches.
    He continues to talk about the need to open up. 
Fundamentally, it is ironic to have a Republican Administration 
intruding so far into such a sensitive core local government, 
State government, question as local public health regulations 
dealing with the particularities of a case.
    So, that is really--
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Ayer.
    I want to ask you one other question, if I might, which is 
simply he has also provided an echo for the President, who has 
voted himself by mail in New York and in Florida and whose 
party encourages its Members to go out and vote by mail, but he 
has echoed the President in saying there is something wrong 
with voting by mail and he has alleged that voting by mail 
makes us vulnerable to foreign influence by counterfeit 
ballots.
    Is that an appropriate role for the Attorney General of the 
United States?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, I think it is not and especially it is not 
because it appears to be something that there is absolutely no 
truth in at all.
    There are five states that do nothing but vote by mail and 
every other State--I think virtually every other State uses 
vote by mail somewhat substantially.
    So, the idea that we are going to throw cold water on the 
notion that we should use vote by mail it is just disreputable, 
and it is entirely inappropriate. It really isn't his job 
anyway. If there were some law enforcement function, there it 
might be.
    Basically, he is just echoing the President, which is 
something he does more and more, and, frankly, my worry is that 
he is going to do it more and more in the weeks and months 
ahead as we get closer to the election.
    Mr. Raskin. Do you think he is acting more like a campaign 
operative than like the Attorney General of the United States?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think 
he is, in fact, acting as an advocate for whatever fantasies 
the President wants to advance, one of which is this Obamagate 
nonsense that the Members of this Committee spew out as well, 
and he is now doing this.
    The worst thing about it is he is doing it with the 
backdrop of an investigation which he has in his pocket, and 
nobody knows what that investigation is supposedly going to 
come up with.
    He is hinting that he has terribly incriminating things 
that he has found, and no one else is in a position to say he 
is wrong. He is wrong.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Lesko?
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize. I was in 
the Rules Committee hearing and I am here physically. So, 
unlike Members that are on both committees that are virtual, I 
have to actually physically come down here.
    Just from the short time I have been here, boy, it sure 
does sound like this is political speech going on here, but I 
yield my time to Mr. Jordan, the rest, the balance of my time.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
    Mr. Mukasey, I want to read a statement to you from January 
of 2017 and get your response to it. It says, well I am going 
to ask you a couple of questions about it.
    What is our goal: Truth, admission, or to get him to lie so 
we can prosecute him or get him fired?
    First, Mr. Mukasey, do you happen to know who wrote that?
    Mr. Mukasey. The name escapes me at the moment, but it was 
a senior FBI official.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah, right. The director of FBI's 
Counterintelligence Division, Mr. Priestap, wrote that wrote 
this just prior to the interview of General Flynn and what I 
want to know is, is that the kind of motivation that typically 
exists with investigators? Is their goal to get someone fired, 
to prosecute them? I thought the goal was to get to the truth.
    Mr. Mukasey. That is supposed to be the goal.
    Mr. Jordan. Do you have concerns about that, Mr. Ayer just 
said it was nonsense to be concerned about things like this. I 
think the term he used was, we were spewing out things that 
were nonsense.
    This doesn't seem to me to be nonsense to be concerned 
about a senior official at the Justice Department, an important 
player in the investigation that was going on at the time that 
Peter Strzok was leading, it doesn't seem to me to be nonsense.
    Mr. Mukasey. You're asking me whether I agree?
    Mr. Jordan. I am asking you to comment. Go right ahead.
    Mr. Mukasey. Okay. If that wasn't the--the point is that 
wasn't an isolated example; it was one example among many and 
that phenomenon of it being one among many, it is the many 
parts that I think is the real concern.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah, the many parts. Couple that with the 
statements we just talked about a few minutes ago that I asked 
you about, that the two people in the FBI working under Mr. 
Priestap, one of them under Mr. Priestap, one under from Mr. 
McCabe, the statements they had relative to the investigation, 
two important investigations. So, it is the combination of all 
of that.
    How about this fact that 38 people unmasked Michael Flynn's 
name 49 times? Just the volume and the number of different 
people, does that concern you, Mr. Mukasey?
    Mr. Mukasey. Well, people who unmask are supposed to State 
the reasons and I don't know what reasons they stated, but the 
sheer number is, would be of some interest.
    Mr. Jordan. In any of your time in working in government, 
did you ever see anything like that in your experience?
    Mr. Mukasey. I did not. I was actually, truthfully not 
involved in unmasking decisions or discussions, so I can't say 
whether it, whether and to what extent it happened, but it's 
supposed to happen only when it's necessary.
    Mr. Jordan. Your first impression as a former Attorney 
General of the United States, you see 49 different times, 38 
people in a short time span. You get 6 people at Treasury, for 
goodness' sake, 6 people at Treasury Department unmasking 
Michael Flynn's name, not just Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Biden, 
not just those individuals.
    Mr. Mukasey. I want to know more about what the nature of 
their interest is and why it was necessary to disclose the 
identity of a U.S. citizen.
    Mr. Jordan. I do, too. I do, too.
    Mr. Elias, have you ever disclosed internal Department of 
Justice documents, including documents that might be privileged 
or confidential to anyone outside of the department?
    Mr. Elias. I don't believe I have done that. I did produce 
my Inspector General complaint to this Committee in response to 
its subpoena to appear here today, but that was a document that 
was my words and not--
    Mr. Jordan. Why the hesitation? I mean it is fine if you 
have got the complaint relative to a so-called whistleblower, 
but what, is there a hesitation because there are other 
documents you have disclosed?
    Mr. Elias. I am hesitating only because I want to be 
absolutely sure that I am being truthful, and I cannot--
    Mr. Jordan. Did you give any documents to United States 
senators, Democrat senators?
    Mr. Elias. I am fairly confident that I have not done, that 
other than my whistleblower complaint. I don't believe that 
I've given other, I don't believe I've given internal documents 
to--
    Mr. Jordan. Have you ever worked at the White House?
    Mr. Elias. I was on detail as a career Justice Department 
Attorney to the White House.
    Mr. Jordan. What years? What time frame?
    Mr. Elias. It was 2015, the first half of 2015.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Does the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Jordan. Oh, I have unanimous consent. I apologize, Mr. 
Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Correa?
    Mr. Jordan. Can I do a unanimous consent?
    Chair Nadler. Oh, the gentleman will State his unanimous 
consent letter.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I have a letter from the Justice Department to Senator 
Whitehouse from Assistant Attorney General Boyd, dated June 
19th, 2020.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]  

                       MR. JORDAN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

    Chair Nadler. Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Mr. Elias, we have talked a lot about the politicization of 
the DOJ to serve the President's interests instead of--
    Chair Nadler. Your microphone?
    Ms. Scanlon. Oh, I am sorry. I am just not close enough.
    You testified you believe the DOJ initiated certain 
investigations of the cannabis in California car industries 
because those industries were unpopular with the Attorney 
General Barr and the President and that you believed that this 
improper targeting undermines the public's perception of the 
DOJ as a fair administrator of justice.
    So, this is essentially an allegation that instead of using 
the Justice Department to protect the rule of law and the 
American people, the Attorney General is using the DOJ to 
pursue the political whims of the President and expending 
public resources to retaliate against the President's enemies.
    Did you try to report those concerns to anyone and, if so, 
what happened?
    Mr. Elias. So, I've reported those concerns to the Office 
of Special Counsel, the Office of the Inspector General, and to 
Congress and there was a referral by the Office of Special 
Counsel to the Department. They found the initial review of the 
facts to be concerning enough that they thought the agency 
should investigate.
    I should clarify, as a technical matter, there's a second 
whistleblower here and it was her complaint that came in just 
before mine that was referred, and the Department sent it to 
the Office of Professional Responsibility which conducted a 
review and it came back with a report that, to my knowledge, 
was first circulated last night that I have read and that had a 
number of issues that I was questioned about by Mr. Collins, 
Representative Collins earlier.
    What's curious about that report is it says that even if 
the allegations are true, even if these investigations were 
motivated by animus and not by bona fide law enforcement 
reasons, then there's still no problem, that that's not a 
violation of rules or regulations. That's very concerning to me 
because it seems so self-evident that if your sole motivation 
is animosity, that is impermissible.
    If there is no Rule or regulation, then there's sort of one 
missing because it's obviously wrong.
    Ms. Scanlon. So, essentially, the investigation that 
occurred didn't address your underlying complaint, which was 
that these investigations were politically motivated; it just 
found that no other laws were violated?
    Mr. Elias. I think that's more or less correct, but it did 
say that even assuming they were politically motivated, that 
that's not a problem, which is perplexing to me coming from the 
Office of Professional Responsibility.
    Ms. Scanlon. So, it is kind of like the argument that if 
the President has the power to pardon someone, it doesn't 
matter why he has pardoning someone, even if it is an improper 
use of that power.
    Mr. Elias. I think that's a great analogy.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Mr. Zelinsky, you testified about another way that 
President Trump had weaponized the Department of Justice at the 
expense of Americans by using the Attorney General to help save 
his friends from punishment. You referred specifically to the 
case of Roger Stone, who was convicted on 7 counts of 
obstructing justice, making false statements to investigators, 
and tampering with witnesses.
    When you reported your concerns that the Department was 
letting the President's political considerations interfere in 
the Stone sentencing, what were you told?
    Mr. Zelinsky. As I said in my statement, we reported our 
concerns on multiple occasions, but we were told that we could 
be fired if we didn't go along with it and that we were told 
that this is not the hill to die on.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Our U.S. Attorneys take an oath to 
protect and defend the Constitution and to prosecute without 
fear or favor, but we have been hearing testimony about 
attorneys like Mr. Zelinsky and others resigning, rather than 
violate those principles. I think it is important that the 
American public know that this is not normal.
    Mr. Ayer, you have served in Democratic and Republican 
Administrations. Have you ever seen this many career officials 
express alarm about the politicization of the Department with 
no actions taken? Why is this such a problem?
    Mr. Ayer. I have not ever seen the number of letters that 
have been filed by--and I think we're up, we're certainly in 
the thousands now of people protesting--I've never seen 
anything remotely like it in my entire life. That's one of the 
reasons, that's one measure, it's only one. It's one of the 
reasons I say, I think, I've never in my lifetime been in as 
great of fear for the future of our rule of law as I am now 
because it is happening across the board in a lot of areas and 
the people who know that system and are part of it realize how 
serious this problem is.
    Ms. Scanlon. I mean, I think it is worth noting that where 
political corruption of the Department of Justice is coming 
from the top, from the President and the Attorney General, that 
resignation is the only way that career attorneys can ring the 
alarm bells and we have to them.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Correa?
    Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Flynn and Stone case both seem to follow a pattern. 
Attorney General Barr gives special treatment to the 
President's friends who break the law.
    Mr. Zelinsky, your colleague Jonathan Kravis, who was also 
assigned to the Roger Stone case, resigned from the Department 
after 10 years because he said, quote, ``he believed that the 
Department had abandoned its responsibility to do justice in 
the Roger Stone case.''
    Mr. Zelinsky, do you agree with that assessment?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I do.
    Ms. Garcia. So, Mr. Kravis wrote that after the Stone case, 
the Department did the same thing with Michael Flynn; again, 
putting, quote, ``political patronage that hindered the 
Department's commitment to the rule of law.''
    Mr. Kravis went on to say that prosecutors are not trained 
to comment on the sentencing, and it was, quote, ``not easy for 
him to do so.''
    You also have said it pains you to have to describe these 
events. As a former judge, I can sympathize. Public servants 
are trained not to speak out, to let investigations and facts 
speak for themselves, but the Department's actions were so 
shocking, such an affront to impartial justice that all of you 
have been brave enough to come forward and we thank you.
    Mr. Kravis explained why, because if Barr is able to get 
away with all of this, it will, quote, ``have lasting damage to 
our institutions.''
    I would like to read a copy of his op-ed, which, Mr. Chair, 
I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record.
    [The information follows:]   

                       MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Garcia. He said in his op-ed that he found it so 
compelling that it echoes the testimony today, Mr. Zelinsky. He 
said, and I quote, ``In the Stone and Flynn cases, the 
Department undercut the work of career employees to protect an 
ally of the President, an abdication of the commitment to equal 
justice under the law.''
    Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not 
on the defendant's political connections; in other words, when 
the Justice Department makes decisions based not on facts and 
law, but a defendant's political connections, it betrays our 
system of justice.
    Mr. Zelinsky, do you agree with this assessment?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I agree with the assessment about what the 
Government needs to do, what it should do, and the acts of--I 
just want to be very clear, Congresswoman, I am not authorized 
to, nor do I seek to comment on the developments in the Flynn 
case.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    Mr. Elias, do you agree with the assessment?
    Mr. Elias. Would you repeat the question?
    Ms. Garcia. The question is: In the op-ed, Mr. Kravis says 
that in the Stone and Flynn cases, the Department undercut the 
work of career employees to protect an ally of the President, 
an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. 
Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on 
the defendant's political connections.
    So, do you agree with that assessment?
    Mr. Elias. I think with the general proposition that 
prosecutors have to make their cases based on their assessments 
of the facts and the law and not personal connections, yes, I 
agree with that.
    Ms. Garcia. Okay. Mr. Ayer, do you agree with that 
assessment?
    Mr. Ayer. Yes, I do.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, I do, as well, and that is, and what is 
worse is that what Attorney General Barr did the prosecutors 
who were brave enough to speak out, he publicly condemned them, 
despite knowing that they could not defend themselves. Mr. 
Kravis wrote that these actions, quote, ``send an unmistakable 
message to prosecutors and agents. If the President demands, we 
will throw you under the bus.''
    Mr. Elias, what has been the effect on morale to think the 
Attorney General will, at the President's whim, throw employees 
under the bus?
    Mr. Elias. Well, when you look at morale in the Antitrust 
Division, as reflected in the viewpoint survey, we are arranged 
404 out of 420.
    Ms. Garcia. Four hundred and four out of 420?
    Mr. Elias. Yes, for agency subcomponents.
    Ms. Garcia. So, you are down at the bottom?
    Mr. Elias. Yes.
    Ms. Garcia. All right. Mr. Zelinsky, how unique is this for 
a Department to provide special treatment to a favorite friend 
and ally of the President over the recommendations of career 
attorneys?
    Mr. Zelinsky. It is, in my experience, unheard of.
    Ms. Garcia. It is unheard of.
    Well, it is unheard of, and we have also seen what he has 
done recently to Berman. The President and this Attorney 
General have tried to send a warning to anyone who wants to 
speak out against the President, to anyone who is willing to 
stand up to them: We will throw you under the bus.
    Well, thanks to the brave testimony of some of our 
witnesses today, the President's tactics didn't work. The truth 
was exposed. The truth still matters.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. [Presiding.] Thank you.
    Now, Mr. Neguse is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to each 
of the witnesses for their testimony today.
    I want to just first clear something for the record. 
Attorney General Mukasey, this is not your first time 
testifying before the House Judiciary Committee; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Mukasey. I believe that's correct, yes.
    Mr. Neguse. In fact, when you were Attorney General under 
George W. Bush, you testified to the Judiciary Committee twice; 
is that your recollection?
    Mr. Mukasey. Yes, to at least two oversight hearings.
    Mr. Neguse. If I am not correct--I believe it is correct 
and you can correct me if I'm wrong--but your predecessor 
Alberto Gonzales, when he was Attorney General, he testified 
before the House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing; 
is that correct?
    Mr. Mukasey. I have no idea and I--
    Mr. Neguse. I can tell you--
    Mr. Mukasey. --I have no basis to challenge that, I just, I 
remember my own appearances. I don't know about his.
    Mr. Neguse. I can tell you that it is accurate.
    I can also tell you, Attorney General Mukasey, that 
Attorney General Ashcroft testified before the House Judiciary 
Committee 4 times for oversight hearings. Attorney General 
Holder, Attorney General Janet Reno, they all have testified 
before the House Judiciary Committee.
    The only Attorney General who has not in modern times 
testified before this Committee for an oversight hearing is 
William Barr; are you aware of that?
    Mr. Mukasey. Yes, and I am also aware of the reason. He was 
supposed to testify, and that appearance was cancelled by the 
Chair, I believe, because of the onset of the COVID virus.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I will tell you that is not entirely 
accurate because there were prior requests for the Attorney 
General to appear before our Committee that declined, but 
nonetheless, I guess, I would tell you this, Attorney General 
Mukasey, do you know, or can you name the last Attorney General 
who declined to appear before the House Judiciary Committee 
before Bill Barr?
    Mr. Mukasey. No, I don't. I believe--
    Mr. Neguse. I can tell you who it is. It is Bill Barr when 
he was Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush.
    So, while I appreciate you being here and I certainly 
respect your service and I think, obviously, our friends on the 
other side of the aisle decided to call you here so that you 
could defend the Attorney General, is within their purview, but 
I think it is important for the Attorney General of the United 
States to come in before this Committee and testify. While I am 
appreciative of the fact that it appears, based on the news 
today, that the Attorney General will appear before the 
committee, I think this Committee needs to be prepared to use 
the compulsory process and inherent contempt, if necessary, to 
ensure that the Attorney General appears before this committee.
    Now, I want to talk a little bit about something that we 
have not yet discussed today, which is the actions of the 
Attorney General regarding the peaceful protests in Lafayette 
Square.
    Mr. Ayer, as you are aware, at the direction of the 
Attorney General, peaceful protesters were forcibly removed 
from Lafayette Square after federal officers in riot gear fired 
gas, pepper spray, and stun grenades into the crowd.
    Now, Attorney General Barr has claimed this was all 
preplanned and unrelated to the President wanting a picture on 
the church steps, but the accounts of many officials contradict 
that, including the D.C. Police Chief, who stated, and I will 
quote, ``We heard that there was going to be an unscheduled 
potential movement.'' Just a few minutes later, our teams on 
the ground learned that chemical munitions were going to be 
used. The munitions were deployed minutes later.
    The timing, itself, makes clear this was no coincidence, as 
well. The clearing of the area began just after 6:30 p.m. and 
President Trump left the White House for the church around 7:02 
p.m.
    So, Mr. Ayer, would you agree--Aver [sic], I am so sorry--
would you agree, based on the facts that the Attorney General's 
order to forcibly remove the protesters was not to protect 
public safety or uphold the rule of law, but so the President 
could get a photo-op in front of the church on Lafayette 
Square?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, I obviously wasn't there and I didn't--I 
did watch it on TV. I guess I can't go quite that far, but I 
can go to the point of saying that Mr. Barr's several follow-up 
discussions have not covered him in glory. He's changed his 
story. The last thing that I understand is that he admits that 
he ordered the troop movement, but he said he did it, at least 
this is what I remember, he said he did it at 2:00 in the 
afternoon and that the photo-op wasn't until, like you said, 
early in the evening, and so he couldn't possibly have ordered 
it in order for the photo opportunity because he didn't know 
about it at the time; however, he was there at the time.
    He obviously could have unordered if he had wanted to. He 
also made rather strange comments related to what sort of eye 
irritants were used. He tried to make some meaningful 
distinction between pepper balls or pepper spray or whatever it 
is and tear gas on the ground that one wasn't a chemical 
irritant.
    The whole discussion of him, to me--what exactly he ordered 
when, I'm not sure, but the one thing I'm absolutely sure of is 
that (A) he was the one that ordered it and (B) his handling of 
it was such as to give us all enormous basis to distrust 
everything he says.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, let me ask the question in this way. In 
all your years of public service, have you ever seen the 
Attorney General of the United States order the Park Police to 
violently clear with tear gas, peaceful protesters?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, I haven't seen it, but I can't tell you for 
sure it never happened, but I'm certainly not familiar with it, 
nor am I so familiar with instances where the Attorney General 
himself has assumed the role of sort of field marshal ordering 
police and troops around. I've never seen that. I'm not saying 
it necessarily hasn't happened, but I'd love someone to tell 
me.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Ayer. Your time is up.
    Mr. Neguse. I yield back.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
    Before I recognize Representative Buck, let me just remind 
every member of this Committee and people that are walking into 
this room, that the guidelines have been set forth by the 
Office of the Attending Physician and the House speaker, that 
Members need to be wearing masks, and Chair stated earlier very 
clearly that Members will not be recognized if they are not 
wearing masks.
    Now, Mr. Buck, I will recognize you, but Mr. Jordan, I find 
it incredibly disrespectful that you have been sitting here 
next to Chair without wearing a mask. You are putting other 
people's lives and their families in danger.
    Mr. Jordan. Every time I speak with Chair, I put a mask on. 
I maintain social distance.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Mr. Buck, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Jordan. The unmasking this Committee should be 
concerned about is the unmasking that took place at the end of 
the Obama Administration.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Mr. Buck, would you like your 5 
minutes?
    Mr. Buck. I yield to Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    That is the unmasking we should be concerned about, 20-38 
different people, 49 different times, 6 people at Treasury, 6 
people at Treasury unmasking Michael Flynn makes no sense.
    I do think it is important to get back on the record here, 
the Attorney General was scheduled. As Mr. Mukasey said, the 
Attorney General was scheduled to be here. The Attorney General 
was scheduled to be here in March, and I believe he is coming 
next month, so he will be here to answer all of our questions.
    I wish the Committee would be as focused on getting 
Inspector General Horowitz here, as I said in my opening 
statement.
    Let's go back to where I was earlier, Mr. Mukasey. I want 
to look at something we learned today and view it in the 
context of that statement from Mr. Priestap where he said, what 
is our goal, to get him fired, to get him prosecuted, to get 
him to lie?
    I want to view it in light of what we have learned today 
that took place just a few weeks prior to that. January 4, 
2017, we learned today that former President Obama, James 
Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden, and Susan Rice discussed the 
transcripts of Michael Flynn's calls and how to proceed further 
against him. Mr. Obama himself directed, quote, ``the right 
people to investigate Flynn''--I am reading from the supplement 
that was in front of the Court last night, which helped them, 
make their decision--this, this caused former FBI Director 
Comey to acknowledge the obvious, General Flynn's phone calls 
with Ambassador Kislyak appear legitimate.
    Together Peter Strzok's notes, it appears that the vice-
president then personally raised the idea of the Logan Act. We 
have already discussed the Logan Act and how ridiculous that 
was and the vice-president raising that at the time that he 
did.
    What I want to look at is this idea that Comey says there 
is nothing wrong with the phone calls between Mr. Flynn and 
Ambassador Kislyak and yet 20 days later, and then also, at 
that time, the FBI was ready to drop any proceedings, any case 
against General Flynn, but they decided not to. They decided to 
do basically what Mr. Priestap said, they decided to go after 
him, try to get him to lie, try to set him up.
    20 days later, Jim Comey, again, his words, not ours, Jim 
Comey sneaks two guys into the White House, I think you 
referenced this in your opening statement, sneaks two guys into 
the White House, doesn't follow proper protocol, doesn't notify 
the White House counsel. That is the part that alarms me, and I 
think should alarm any citizen.
    Your thoughts on all that?
    Mr. Mukasey. Well, I've seen the summary of the Strzok 
notes that you mentioned. That just came out today, I believe 
and the timing, as you say, is disturbing.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah, it sure it. It sure is.
    Mr. Zelinsky, you mentioned those two names, Mr. Cooney and 
then give me the other name one more time, because I want to 
ask you a few questions about these individuals.
    Mr. Zelinsky. Yes, sure, Congressman.
    I believe the name that you're looking for is the former 
first assistant for the U.S. Attorney's Office. As I indicated 
earlier, his name is Alessio Evangelista.
    Mr. Jordan. Evangelista, okay.
    Now, how many times, how many conversations did you have 
with these two individuals about the Stone case?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I just want to be clear before I answer that, 
these are not all the supervisors that I spoke with.
    About the Stone case, I would say I spoke to them dozens, 
if not, 50 times.
    Mr. Jordan. How about the sentencing recommendation in the 
Stone case?
    Mr. Zelinsky. At least a dozen times.
    Mr. Jordan. After February 10th, after you filed it, or 
before?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Prior to February 10th--I'm sorry, you're 
asking prior to the filing--
    Mr. Jordan. No, no, no. Look, you filed it on the 10th, 
there is a supplement the next day, the judge decides the 
supplement is the right way to go, not your approach.
    After February 10th, you said you spoke to Mr. Cooney and 
Mr. Evangelista about this, and they indicated that it was 
politics that were driving it.
    I am asking you how many conversations did you have with 
these two individuals after the 10th about the sentencing 
issue?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Congressman, I want to be very careful 
because I want to truthfully answer your questions to the best 
of my abilities.
    I did not have any conversations with Mr. Evangelista 
following the filing of our memo. The conversation that I 
outlined in my statement had, was with the head of the Fraud 
and Public Corruption Section.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay. That is when they told you that it was 
politics that was driving the decision to change the sentencing 
recommendation; is that right?
    Mr. Zelinsky. That was one of the times. I had previously 
been told--
    Mr. Jordan. Who did they get the information from that they 
passed on to you? Who told them that it was politics driving 
it?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I just want to be clear, again, Congressman, 
when you say, ``them,'' it was the head of the Fraud and Public 
Corruption Section--
    Mr. Jordan. Okay. Who told him or her?
    Mr. Zelinsky. --I talked to about the conversation.
    Mr. Jordan. Who told Mr. Cooney, whoever that person is?
    Mr. Zelinsky. I know that he was in meetings with senior 
leadership. I do not know the source of his information.
    Mr. Jordan. So, you don't know where he got it. He told 
you. You didn't talk to Barr, you didn't talk to the DAG, you 
didn't talk to Mr. Shea, but he told you and, therefore, it has 
to be true.
    Chair Nadler. [Presiding.] The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Ms. McBath?
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I just have to say that I am extremely troubled by the 
events that occurred in our country and more so by what we have 
been hearing today. I am heartened that our Nation has decided 
that they want to come together, but to come together, we need 
trust and we need trustee in our justice system.
    Some of my colleagues have suggested that you, our 
witnesses today, have come forward to testify for political 
reasons and I do not believe that to be the truth. I believe 
that you are brave, independent public servants who have 
stepped forward to simply tell the truth. So, I would like to 
give each of you an opportunity, very briefly, just to tell us 
why you are testifying today.
    Mr. Elias, how long have you been a public servant and what 
other roles have you held?
    Mr. Elias. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I have been a public servant since 2006 and I've held a 
variety of roles at the DOJ, including two stints as a trial 
attorney, a Special Assistant in the Office of Operations, I 
was in the associates office with a few different roles there, 
as well.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    So, why did you feel after all your years of public service 
that it was so important for you to come and testify before us 
today?
    Mr. Elias. I looked at what was happening, which was unlike 
anything I had ever seen before, and it didn't feel like a good 
faith calling of balls and strikes that I had been used to 
seeing. I care very much about the antitrust laws, their even-
handed enforcement protecting consumers, and also the 
Institution of the Antitrust Division, where I have spent my 
entire legal career.
    When I saw these abuses, I thought that the public should 
get to know about them, so that's why I stepped forward.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Elias. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Zelinsky, I would like to ask the same questions to 
you. You have spent most of your career in the Department of 
Justice. Why did you feel so strongly about complying with our 
subpoena and coming before us today, as well?
    Mr. Zelinsky. Because I took an oath to do so.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    Mr. Ayer, most of us are very familiar with your very 
extensive career in public service and we are grateful to you 
for your service, but can you briefly explain why you felt the 
need to come forward today.
    Mr. Ayer. Yes. So, in the 10 or 11 years that I was in the 
Department in 4 different positions, I was really inspired by 
the experience I had in a place where people really went to 
work to do the right thing and processes had been put in place, 
a system was working, people had a great deal of respect for 
each other and for the purpose and it worked very well.
    In the time I was there, I kind of moved up through various 
positions and ended as Deputy Attorney General and it became 
clear fairly quickly really why it worked so well and it was 
because of everybody being dedicated and these procedures being 
in place.
    I've known Bill Barr actually for about 4 years. I've never 
known him well, but I've always known that he was a person who 
had this idea that he really thought the President ought to be 
virtually an autocrat. I don't know where he got it, but that's 
his view.
    Ms. McBath. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Ayer. I was fearful when he got nominated this time, 
given that President Trump would like to be an autocrat, too, 
and when he began doing the things he started doing, I became 
extremely concerned, so I--
    Ms. McBath. Okay.
    Mr. Ayer. --have done what I could in terms of writing 
articles, and I will continue to.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much for that.
    What concerns me about the testimony that we have heard 
today is that career public servants are telling us, what they 
are telling us, they are supporting facts and evidence and 
corroborating testimony that the Attorney General is pursuing 
cases based on political vendettas and not to protect 
Americans.
    I hope that the Attorney General would be here today and I 
hoped to be able to ask the Attorney General about his actions, 
attempting to reverse the ACA. I had hoped to ask him about 
what he plans to do to prevent gun violence from increasing 
during this crisis. I had hoped to ask him about the plans to 
ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health 
care.
    He did not show up, so we need, now more than ever, we need 
to come together, but we also need answers. It is in times like 
these that when we are in crisis like this, these are the kinds 
of times that define us. These are the moments that define us.
    So, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to submit a letter 
for the record from 33 former Antitrust Division employees who 
write that Mr. Elias is, and I quote, ``a person of integrity 
and a person who speaks the truth and fights to do what is 
right,'' end quote.
    They also State that Mr. Elias is, and I quote again, 
``respected throughout the Department of Justice for his candor 
and his commitment to justice,'' end quote.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]   

                       MR. McBATH FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    There is keep concern that the Attorney General is using 
the Department of Justice to punish the President's personal 
and political adversaries. Such actions are a blatant abuse of 
our constitutional system.
    Perhaps even more troubling is that in doing so, the 
Department of Justice's resources are not being used to protect 
the American people. Our witnesses have provided evidence here 
today that the Attorney General is pursuing meritless 
investigations simply to appease the President.
    Mr. Elias, in your testimony, you mentioned the Department 
of Justice's investigation into four automakers in California 
who was trying to implement stricter air-quality emission 
standards than those that the Environmental Protection Agency 
was going to adopt; in other words, you wanted to help clean 
our air.
    Is it correct to State that the Department of Justice used 
immense resources, including dozens of attorneys and staff, to 
pursue these investigations, even when career staff told 
leadership that there was no need to further pursue these 
investigations?
    Mr. Elias. So, the DOJ did use dozens of attorneys for the 
cannabis investigations that are also featured in my complaint. 
The emissions investigation was a smaller staff. Yes, public 
resources were used in pursuit of that investigation.
    Mr. Stanton. Does that seem like an appropriate allocation 
of resources to you, to commandeer immense Department resources 
for investigations that career officials said were no longer 
necessary?
    Mr. Elias. That appeared to be, to me, a gross misuse of 
resources between these various investigations and that's why I 
made that allegation to the Inspector General and asked him to 
investigate gross misuse of resources.
    Mr. Stanton. Would it be fair to say that these 
investigations detracted from the legitimate work these 
attorneys could and should have been doing?
    Mr. Elias. If these attorneys are working on that, that 
does take them away from anything else that they could be doing 
that would potentially further the mission of the Antitrust 
Division.
    Mr. Stanton. Using Department resources to appease others' 
activities fails to protect American consumers; in fact, such 
actions actively harm Americans by weakening the Department's 
ability to prosecute legitimate antitrust claims.
    The American people would much rather see the Department of 
Justice investigate issues of grave, grave concern to us all, 
for example, companies seeking to price gouge Americans by 
making them pay more for essential health products in the 
middle of a pandemic. Back in April, my colleague Congressman 
Ruben Gallego and I brought to light a price-gouging chain 
taking place in Arizona. The City of Phoenix Fire and Police 
Departments were being charged nearly 600 percent more than the 
usual prices for N95 masks during a pandemic.
    Such egregious and completely unacceptable behavior 
requires the Department of Justice to use all its resources to 
enforce our laws. What I find so troubling is that while the 
Department of Justice is spending time on illegitimate 
investigations, it could be working to fight real injustices in 
our system. Americans deserve a Department of Justice that 
serve the people and treats all of defendants equally under the 
law, regardless of who they know or their political 
affiliations, and above all, they deserve a Department of 
Justice that follows the law.
    The testimony today continues to reiterate the urgent need 
for the Attorney General to appear before this committee. I 
look forward to having Attorney General Barr here in July 
because Congress and the American people have serious questions 
that need immediate answers.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Dean?
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I thank all the testifiers, all 4 of our testifiers for 
coming before us. I admire your sense of duty. I admire your 
giving of your time and your public service. America is 
counting on you. They are counting on Congress. They are 
counting on you. I thank you for coming before us.
    Mr. Ayer, I would like to go into a little bit more, 
something that Jamie Raskin, Representative Raskin brought up. 
The testimony today that most of you have delivered has 
confirmed what we have feared; that the Department of Justice 
is being used by the President and the Attorney General as a 
partisan political tool. It appears that Attorney General 
Barr's actions towards States among the coronavirus pandemic is 
part of this perversion of justice. We are in a pandemic. We 
are in a political year, an election year.
    On April 17th of this year, the President tweeted, and I 
quote, ``Liberate Minnesota!'' exclamation point. Quote, 
``Liberate Michigan!'' exclamation point. In all caps, 
``LIBERATE VIRGINIA AND SAVE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT; IT IS UNDER 
SIEGE,'' end quote.
    Shortly thereafter, Attorney General Barr publishing a memo 
appointing the Assistant Attorney General for civil rights and 
the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan 
to investigate States stay-at-home. Needless to say, that broad 
order included Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia; the states 
the President had politically targeted.
    Mr. Ayer, Professor Ayer, is it standard practice for an 
Attorney General to bring action against states based on a 
President's political exclamations?
    Mr. Ayer. No, of course it's not, and I think in this 
instance, it's particularly unsuitable when the nature of the 
problem is really a genuine local problem that varies from 
place to place.
    The patterns that you point out of Mr. Barr acting 
sometimes right after, but in any event, totally in a consonant 
manner with, somewhat intemperate at times, political 
expressions, usually tweets by the President, it doesn't just 
happen in this area. It's happening in a lot of different 
areas.
    The one I'm the most concerned about is the one that 
relates to this Obama-gate nonsense that's being spewed by the 
President and Bill Barr is echoing it, now in TV appearances 
that are running about every 10 days. He goes on Fox News, and 
he talks about his investigation and how people are going to 
get charged, and I don't know what's next.
    Ms. Dean. I have seen that. I fear what is next.
    Even more concerning is that AG Barr has made clear that he 
will use his powers to strong-arm states into doing what he 
wants, regardless of the law. White House health experts 
publicly emphasize that removing stay-at-home orders 
prematurely, these are the health experts, prematurely, could 
lead to avoidable death and suffering. Barr has, as my 
colleague raised, threatened to jawbone governors, that is his 
word, who follow these public health recommendations.
    Mr. Ayer, in your written testimony you explain that quote, 
and I will quote you, ``conduct limitations to protect the 
public safety in a health crisis is uniquely within the 
province of the State and municipal government and their 
choices that are highly local and tragically difficult.''
    Did you believe that the Department of Justice review of 
state's challenges, Attorney General Barr's challenges stay-at-
home orders was motivated by a legitimate concern or 
constitutional overreach?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, I think it was constitutional overreach. I 
think it was a solution to a problem that didn't exist because 
the President wanted that interference to occur. That's what I 
think.
    Ms. Dean. It is certainly not my grandfather's Republican 
party who believed states' rights were very important to 
protect, particularly, in the area of public health.
    You even said that Chief Justice Robert wrote that our 
Constitution principally entrusts the safety and health of the 
people to the politically accountable officials to the states 
to guard and protect; is that correct?
    Mr. Ayer. That is right.
    Ms. Dean. At the height of the global pandemic that 
shuttered 50 states, the President and the Attorney General 
conspired to use the might of the Department of Justice to 
punish states who took necessary actions.
    With my remaining time, just very briefly, do you believe 
Mr. Barr is fit to continue serving as Attorney General, yes or 
no?
    Mr. Ayer. No, I absolutely don't.
    I wrote an article about 6 or 8 months ago saying that and 
it is gotten nothing but worse.
    Ms. Dean. Finally, Mr. Zelinsky, I, too, thank you for 
being with us. I have to tell you it is not lost on me that in 
this Committee we have hit a new low when Members on the other 
side of the aisle, mostly Members who will refuse to wear a 
mask, attempt to paint you, they failed, but attempt to point 
you in some negative light for staying in a remote location to 
protect a newborn child.
    I will say to you what we believe on this side of the aisle 
is thank you for your duty, for your service, for protecting 
your family and your newborn baby, and I think the only thing 
we should have in regard to your reason for not being here is 
congratulations on the birth of your baby.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Ayer, I want to focus on Barr's handling of 
investigations into election interference. In Florida, we have 
serious concerns about the security of our elections.
    The Russian Government hacked Florida's election system in 
2016 and it is crucial that we ensure the integrity of the 
election process in November. Attorney General Barr is not 
doing anything to make this happen. He called the special 
counsel's investigation into Russia's interference, quote, 
``one of the greatest travesties in American history'' and said 
that investigators were trying to, quote, ``sabotage the 
presidency,'' end quote.
    Let's be clear, the special counsel's investigation 
confirmed that Russia attacked our elections. Several people 
were indicted, including Members of the Trump campaign for 
lying about their involvement into Russia.
    The intelligence community and the Senate Intelligence 
Committee also confirmed the Russian hacking. Even Attorney 
General Barr said, quote, ``I am confident that Russians 
attempted to interfere in the election,'' end quote.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to enter into the record this op-ed 
published in USA TODAY by Attorney General Barr on February 19, 
2020.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                  MS. MUCARSEL-POWELL FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    In the statement with FBI Director Wray, Barr lists Russia 
as a current threat. It says that an informed and discerning 
public is a resilient public, meaning we need to tell the 
public about Russia's threat.
    AG Barr's words mean nothing because he is not here to tell 
the public anything. He and the President would rather attack 
the investigations into interference than protect our elections 
and prevent Russian interference.
    In March, AG Barr dropped the two-year-long prosecution of 
a Russian company charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S. 
Government. The company was organizations a social media 
campaign to interfere in the Presidential election and is run 
by a man referred to as Putin's chef, because of his proximity 
to Vladimir Putin.
    Mr. Ayer, does it concern you that the Attorney General is 
dropping investigations of Russian companies who have harmed 
us?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, I don't know the facts of the cases that 
you're talking about, so I can't comment specifically. It does 
bother me a lot that there--I'm not aware that there's very 
much being done to deal with the problem of Russian 
interference in our election and it seems to me there ought to 
be just an enormous priority on that, just as there should be 
an enormous priority on figuring out how people are going to be 
able to vote with the coronavirus.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Ayer.
    So, I'd like to see the priorities somewhere other than the 
wrong direction, which is some of the areas he's talking about.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    The Attorney General knows that Russia is a threat, but he 
is dropping prosecutions against Russians who attacked us. What 
message does it send to other foreign threats like China or 
Iran if our Attorney General won't hold Russia accountable?
    Mr. Ayer, you wrote in your written testimony that AG Barr 
was, quote, ``actively undermining and subverting the role of 
independent fact-finders who were put in place precisely so 
that the public can have trust in our justice system.''
    Can you briefly explain this to us?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, it's a couple of different levels of 
activity. One is, you know, the statements he made with regard 
to the Muller investigation, basically whitewashing the 
findings with regard to obstruction; that was the biggest 
single part. He just misleads us about it.
    In December when the IG investigation by Horowitz of the 
Russian-interference investigation came out and they found that 
it was properly predicated and there was no bias in the 
oversight of it, Barr immediately went public, and I think went 
on the media and announced he disagreed with that.
    So, he actively intervenes and undermines conclusions, but 
he also acts to replace, to override, he has these processes 
that he's put in place, including his own investigation, 
duplicative investigation of the Russian interference, and then 
these little things that come along like doing intake of 
information from Rudy Giuliani; well, we'll just handle that 
in-house. We won't let the career people deal with that.
    Ms. Dean. Yes.
    Mr. Ayer. There's a bunch of those.
    Ms. Dean. I share your concern.
    This should not be about party politics. The stakes are way 
too high, and we should all be focused on protecting the 
integrity of our elections, Mr. Ayer, but when the integrity of 
law enforcement is corrupted, when men place themselves above 
the rule of law, nations fail.
    I can tell you that because I have witnessed it firsthand 
in Latin America; governments filed with corruption devolve 
into chaos when politics are injected into the justice system. 
People lose their faith in their leaders, and I don't want that 
to happen in the United States of America.
    William Barr's actions has taken the Department of Justice 
down that path. His conduct is corrupt, dangerous, and it must 
be stopped.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Escobar?
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to close today by going back to what happened in 
Lafayette Square. On June 1st, Americans were shocked as they 
watched an incredible scene unfold. Here, in Washington, DC, 
peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square came together in 
protest, demanding change after watching graphic video of 
George Floyd's murder.
    They came together in protest demanding change because of 
our country's horrific history of police brutality linked to 
racism, and on June 1st, while they peacefully stood in 
Lafayette Square, these peaceful protesters were overcome by 
mounted law enforcement and tear gas.
    Protesters, Members of the media, Americans watching this 
at home were all stunned and wondered why. Moments later, as 
the President sauntered over to St. John's Episcopal Church, 
the story became clearer.
    We now know that in Lafayette Square, Attorney General 
Barr's Department engaged in these tactics, forcibly removing 
protesters with tear gas and pepper spray, using stinger-ball 
grenades, not to uphold the rule of law, not to protect 
Americans, but because the President wanted to pose for a 
picture; in other words, Attorney General Barr used the powers 
of the Justice Department to help the President's campaign film 
an ad.
    The President, rather than understand why he should feel 
shame for this, praised the horrific treatment of these 
protesters, tweeting, quote, ``the protesters, agitators, 
anarchists, Antifa, and others were handled very easily by the 
Guard, D.C. Police, and SS, great job,'' end quote.
    There was immediate nationwide outrage, including 
condemnation of this egregious abuse of power by Archbishop 
Wilton Gregory, General Jim Mattis, former Joint Chief of Staff 
Chair Martin Dempsey, and Chair Colin Powell, and a number of 
others.
    It couldn't be clearer that Attorney General Barr, as the 
President's chief enabler is willing to lie and corrupt the 
Department so that he can protect and promote the President's 
personal and political interests at all costs.
    We have heard today how Barr weaponized the Department of 
Justice to retaliate against states the President doesn't like.
    We have also heard today how the Department is granting 
special favors to defendants who break the law, all because the 
U.S. Attorney was afraid of President Trump, and he has reason 
to be afraid.
    We heard today what happens to prosecutors who stand up, 
like Mr. Zelinsky, and say, this is wrong. They are told to get 
in line, or you will lose your job, and we have seen how true 
that actually is.
    U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said his office would conduct 
its investigations without fear or favor; investigations that 
we know go to the heart of the President's inner circle, and 
what happened to him? He was fired.
    We have confirmed today what we have known all along, the 
Attorney General is willing to corrupt our government, ignore 
our rule of law and do whatever it takes to keep Trump in 
power, including subverting the upcoming elections.
    Barr will lie to the American people if it helps the 
President achieve his goals. He cannot and should not get away 
with this.
    Mr. Ayer, I would like to end by asking you, with your 
decades in office as a public servant, what happens to our 
democracy if we do not hold Barr accountable? Can you describe 
what the effect is on the American people's perception of the 
Justice Department is our Attorney General is allowed to place 
the President's wishes above our rule of law?
    Mr. Ayer. Well, I don't want to get too apocalyptic, but I 
think if you want just a real-life microcosm of it, I think you 
go back and you look at what happened in Watergate. In 
Watergate, we had a real failure. We had, and I won't go 
through all the facts, and some of you remember it and some of 
you don't, but the Justice Department failed, and the 
government justice system failed and we were very, very lucky 
to have President Ford nominate Edward Levi as the Attorney 
General and he saw the problem.
    The problem is one of trust. Not surprisingly when the 
Justice Department and the justice system becomes 
untrustworthy, and that's the problem that we're talking about 
here today, when it becomes untrustworthy, guess what? People 
don't trust it.
    When people lose trust in the Government, and they lose 
trust in the law, then you don't have law, then you have 
lawlessness, and you go from there and you know what ends up 
happening. So, it's very important that we recognize what's 
happening now.
    What's happening now is much worse than what happened in 
Watergate, much worse. It's across the board, it's a systematic 
effort to undo the checks that were put in place in Watergate 
and others that existed in the Constitution, and we need to do 
something about it. People need to stand up now and demand that 
something be done about it.
    This guy has got to go, and we need to get back on the 
track of having a system of justice where we care about doing 
it right and being fair even-handed.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Ayer.
    Sadly, this hearing demonstrates that Mr. Barr isn't the 
only enabler of President Trump. He, unfortunately, has way too 
many. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    This concludes today's hearing. We thank all our witnesses 
for participating.
    Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 
to submit additional written records, written questions for the 
witnesses, or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
  

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]