[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-365PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
------
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Ranking Member
CHRIS STEWART, Utah STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MATT GAETZ, Florida DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOHN GARAMENDI, California
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida COLIN ALLRED, Texas
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
KAT CAMMACK, Florida DAN GOLDMAN, New York
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, February 9, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 1
The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the Virgin Islands........................................ 2
WITNESSES
Panel I
Hon. Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator, Iowa
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Testimony............................................. 10
Hon. Ron Johnson, U.S. Senator, Wisconsin
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Testimony............................................. 18
Hon. Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Hon. Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Testimony............................................. 31
Panel II
Thomas Baker, International Law Enforcement Consultant, former
FBI Agent
Oral Testimony................................................. 37
Prepared Testimony............................................. 40
Jonathan Turley, Professor, George Washington University Law
Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 49
Prepared Testimony............................................. 51
Elliot Williams, Principal, The Raben Group
Oral Testimony................................................. 71
Prepared Testimony............................................. 73
Nicole Parker, Former FBI Agent
Oral Testimony................................................. 79
Prepared Testimony............................................. 82
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee
on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below 126
Materials submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Florida, for the record
A list of past and present clients of The Raben Group
A report submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary
entitled, ``FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures
Indicate about the Politicization of the FBI and Justice
Department,'' November 4, 2022
A letter from Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington,
submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Texas, for the record
APPENDIX
Materials submitted by Senator Ron Johnson from the State of
Wisconsin, for the record
An article entitled, ``We need answers to questions
mainstream media won't ask about Democrats,'' October 10,
2019, The Hill
An article entitled, ``Russian Disinformation Fed the FBI's
Trump Investigation,'' April 10, 2020, Wall Street
Journal | Opinion
An article entitled, ``The Press Versus the President, Part
One,'' Columbia Journalism Rev., January 30, 2023
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
Senator Gary C. Peters from the State of Michigan,
January 2, 2020
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
Senator Gary C. Peters from the State of Michigan,
February 24, 2020
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
the Members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, March 1, 2020
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
Senator Gary C. Peters from the State of Michigan, March
9, 2020
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin and
Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa, to the Minority
Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Chair
Schiff, August 10, 2020
A letter from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, August 10, 2020
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
Inspector General Christopher Wray, October 17, 2020
A letter from the Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin
to Michael E. Horowitz, October 21, 2020
A letter to the FBI Director Christopher Wray and DNI
Director Avril Haines, May 3, 2021
A letter from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa to
Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director
Christopher Wray, July 25, 2022
A letter to General Garland, Director Haines, Director Wray,
and the Inspector General Horowitz, July 26, 2022
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
Inspector General Horowitz, August 23, 2022
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides at the FBI, August 25,
2022
A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
Mr. Zuckerberg, August 29, 2022
A letter from the Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin
to Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray, August
29, 2022
A letter to Attorney General Garland, FBI Director Wray and
Delaware District Attorney Weiss, October 13, 2022
A letter from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa and
Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin, to Delaware
District Attorney David Weiss, October 26, 2022
A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa
entitled, ``Grassley Raises Concerns over Obama Admin
Approval of U.S. Tech Company Joint Sale to Chinese
Government and Investment Firm Linked to Biden, Kerry
Families,'' August 15, 2019
A report by the Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa
entitled, ``Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The
Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns,''
September 23, 2020, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security & Governmental Affairs
A report from the Senate Committee on Finance and Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, November
18, 2020
A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa's
entitled ``Whistleblowers' Reports Reveal Double Standard
in Pursuit of Politically Charges Investigations by
Senior FBI, DOJ Officials,'' July 25, 2022
A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa
entitled, ``Grassley, Johnson on Call on FBI to Explain
Interference in Hunter Biden Investigation,'' August 26,
2022
A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa
entitled, ``FBI Possesses Significant, Impactful,
Voluminous Evidence of Potential Criminality in Biden
Family Business Arrangements,'' October 17, 2022
A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa's
entitled, ``Grassley, Johnson Share Investigative
Material with Prosecutors in Hunter Biden Criminal
Probe,'' February 9, 2023
A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa's
entitled, ``Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The
Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns''
A Floor Statement by Senator Johnson from the State of
Wisconsin and Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa on
the Biden Family Investigation--Part I
A Floor Statement by Senator Johnson from the State of
Wisconsin and Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa on
the Biden Family Investigation--Part II
A Floor Statement by Senator Johnson from the State of
Wisconsin and Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa on
the Biden Family Investigation--Part III
A Floor Statement #1 from Senator Grassley from the State of
Iowa and Senator Johnson from State of Wisconsin
A Floor Statement #2 from Senator Grassley from the State of
Iowa and Senator Johnson from State of Wisconsin
A Floor Statement #3 from Senator Grassley from the State of
Iowa and Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin
A statement from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa's
for the Senate Record entitled, ``Combatting Russian
Disinformation,'' September 16, 2020
A statement from the Honorable Gerry Connolly, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Virginia, for the record
A memorandum from the Attorney General addressing threats against
school board members, submitted by the Honorable John
Garamendi, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of
California, for the record
Testimony of Defending Rights & Dissent, submitted by the
Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the Virgin Islands, for the record
HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Thursday, February 9, 2023
House of Representatives
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:33 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan Chair
of the Subcommittee presiding.
Present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Massie, Stewart,
Stefanik, Gaetz, Johnson, Armstrong, Bishop, Cammack, Hageman,
Plaskett, Lynch, Sanchez, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly,
Garamendi, Allred, Garcia, and Goldman.
Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everyone to this first hearing of the Select
Subcommittee.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Gaetz, to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation,
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes himself for an
opening statement.
On November 18, 2021, an FBI whistleblower discloses to
Republicans on the House Judiciary that the FBI created a
threat tag for parents voicing their concerns at school board
meetings.
On April 26, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses that
the FBI employees are being run out of the Bureau for attending
conservative political events.
On May 11, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses that
dozens of parents with the threat tag designation to their name
are investigated by the FBI. This also happens to be the same
whistleblower who said the FBI leadership, not the rank-and-
file members, the FBI leadership is rotted at its core. His
clearance has been revoked and he has been suspended.
On June 7, 2022, another FBI whistleblower is retaliated
against after giving feedback on an anonymous survey.
On July 27, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses that
agents are pressured to reclassify cases as domestic violent
extremism cases to hit self-created performance metrics.
On September 14, 2022, an FBI whistleblower discloses that
the FBI views the Betsy Ross flag as a terrorist symbol.
On September 19, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses
that the Washington Field Office is deliberately manipulating
January 6th case files to make it appear that domestic violence
extremism is on the rise. He has been suspended.
On November 4, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses
the FBI accepts private user information from Facebook without
the user's consent and information is from only the
conservative side of the political spectrum.
This is only a sampling. In my time in Congress, I have
never seen anything like this. Dozens and dozens of
whistleblowers, FBI agents coming to us, talking about what is
going on, the political nature at the Justice Department. Not
Jim Jordan saying this, not Republicans, not conservatives;
good, brave FBI agents who are willing to come forward and give
us the truth.
This is just the FBI. Americans have concerns about the
double standard at the Department of Justice. Americans have
concerns about the disinformation governance board that the
Department of Homeland Security tried to form. Americans have
concerns about the ATF and what they are doing to the Second
Amendment. Of course, they have concerns about the IRS and the
thousands of new agents who are coming to that organization.
Finally, there are concerns about what we have learned in
the Twitter files, where Big Government and Big Tech colluded
to shape and mold the narrative and to suppress information and
censor Americans.
Over the course of our work in this committee, we expect to
hear from government officials and experts, like we have here
today; we expect to hear from Americans who have been targeted
by their government; we expect to hear from people in the
media; and we expect to hear from the FBI agents who have come
forward as whistleblowers. We think many of them will sit for
transcribed interviews, as one did on Tuesday, and we believe
several of them will come and testify in open hearings.
Finally, we expect to bring forward legislation that will help
protect the American people.
We hope our Democrat colleagues will work with us. The day
the resolution creating this Subcommittee was debated and
passed, though, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Nadler said Democrats would,
quote, fight us ``tooth and nail.''
We hope that attitude changes. We want to work with them.
Protecting the First Amendment shouldn't be partisan,
protecting the Constitution shouldn't be partisan, and
protecting the fundamental principle of equal treatment under
the law should not be partisan.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for her opening
statement.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Chair Jordan.
Nobody disputes the important role of congressional
oversight. I know firsthand how important it is to ask
questions and demand answers of the Federal government.
In the ordinary course of business, that work informs the
legislative process. In extraordinary times, when misconduct in
the Executive Branch threatens to undermine our democratic
institutions, congressional oversight can serve to protect the
integrity of our republic.
For example, I am proud of the role I played as an
impeachment manager in the second impeachment of President
Donald Trump in the aftermath of the attack on the Capitol.
That bipartisan work was both a measure of accountability and a
sign to the American people that Congress had no intention of
being bullied into giving up on a peaceful transfer of power.
There is a difference, my colleagues, between legitimate
oversight and weaponization of Congress and our processes,
particularly our committee work, as a political tool. I am
deeply concerned about the use of this select Subcommittee as a
place to settle scores, showcase conspiracy theories, and
advance an extreme agenda that risks undermining Americans'
faith in our democracy.
Some of today's witnesses would have us believe that the
Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
are part of a deep-state cabal. One even wrote a book
describing the FBI itself as a threat to democracy.
The Department of Justice and the FBI do not always get it
right. History is full of examples of these agencies getting it
very, very wrong. We have colleagues in this Congress who have
been subject to politically motivated, hateful, racist
investigations by our government. It does not logically follow
that every investigation or criminal inquiry by the FBI or the
Department of Justice is political or ideologically based.
In our current climate, with domestic terrorism on the rise
and hate speech normalized by national politicians, the
Department of Justice and the FBI are doing their best to
protect us from sliding into chaos.
This past Monday, the FBI captured two individuals, one a
neo-Nazi leader and founder of an Atomwaffen group, who were
plotting a racially motivated attack on Baltimore's power grid.
They said their goal was to, quote, ``completely destroy this
whole city,'' unquote.
Last week, the FBI infiltrated and disrupted a major cyber-
criminal group extorting schools, hospitals, and critical
infrastructure around the world.
Last summer, the FBI engaged in a mass violent crime
enforcement effort that took nearly 6,000 violent criminals off
of our American streets.
Let's not forget the tremendous work of the FBI and the
Department of Justice after the attacks on our homeland on
September 11, 2001.
Some of my Republican colleagues love to talk about the
threat of violent crime, but they appear oblivious to the fact
that their dangerous rhetoric and baseless accusations against
the Justice Department and FBI, itself, at times pose a direct
threat to those organizations' ability to do the work that they
are doing to protect our communities.
Recent threat bulletins have highlighted a shocking
increase in threats of violence against law enforcement
agencies and a significant uptick after the FBI executed a
search warrant of President Trump's property at Mar-a-Lago.
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has
vehemently denounced what he described as, quote, ``politically
motivated threats that are unprecedented in recent history and
absolutely unacceptable,'' end quote.
Unfortunately, examples of these threats are not hard to
find. Last year, someone threatened to plant a dirty bomb
outside the FBI headquarters. Another attempted to storm the
Cincinnati FBI Field Office while wearing body armor and
carrying an AR-type rifle. A third was arrested after he made a
credible threat, stating, quote, ``every single piece of
[expletive] who works for the FBI in any capacity, from the
director on down to the janitor who cleans their [expletive]
toilets, deserve to die. You have declared war on us, and now
it is open season on you,'' end quote.
These allegations are deeply troubling, and I hope that the
Chair and Members of this Subcommittee will be mindful of the
risks that go hand-in-hand with heated rhetoric.
A rush to accusations and subpoenas without a factual basis
and without any effort to engage with agencies through the
accommodation process flies in the face of due process and
demeans the congressional oversight process. It makes a mockery
of our institution.
As a former prosecutor, I am even more troubled by the
suggestion that this Subcommittee may attempt to investigate
ongoing criminal investigations. As the head of the Reagan
Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote years ago,
granting Congress access to information about active criminal
investigations will, in effect, make Congress a partner in the
investigation, creating a, quote, ``substantial danger that
congressional pressures will influence in the course of the
investigation'' and potentially, quote, ``hamper prosecutorial
decisionmaking in future cases.''
This would not only damage law enforcement efforts, but it
would also shake the public's confidence in the criminal
justice system. I hope not. I suspect much of the
investigations the majority, my Republican colleagues, want to
look into and potentially muck up involve criminal
investigations into former President Donald Trump.
I want to be crystal-clear: My Democratic colleagues and I
will resist any attempt by this Subcommittee to derail ongoing
legitimate investigations into President Trump, any other
President, and others within his orbit.
During the course of this Subcommittee's work, I suspect we
will hear both Members and witnesses describe the events of
January 6, 2021, in ways that simply do not mesh with reality.
When this happens, I would encourage everyone watching today to
review the impeachment record and report of the January 6th
Select Committee, which lays out the true facts in shocking
detail.
I recently sent a letter to the Chair noting that, despite
our policy and political differences, I am hopeful that there
may be matters of investigation within the stated mandate of
this Subcommittee under which we may collaborate. I meant this.
I mean this. I still hope that we can find common ground and
explore it in a bipartisan manner that respects the due process
rights and interests of all involved.
The Chair and his colleagues continually use the moniker of
protecting free speech. That sounds good. I hope they all
recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally
protected--racist, hate, and incitement to violence. I also
hope that the protection of free speech extends to all
Americans. We will see.
I hope that we can use this Subcommittee to conduct
legitimate oversight to help advance policies to address the
real challenges that Americans face every day, rather than
undermine every agent, officer, and prosecutor on the job.
Government abuses of power do not solely rest with the
Executive Branch. It can, and we have seen it, come from the
Legislative Branch as well. On our present course, however,
this exercise seems little more than a political stunt designed
to inject extremist politics into the legislative oversight
function and the justice system. The American people deserve
better than that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the Ranking Member.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
Chair Jordan. We will now introduce our first panel of
witnesses.
Senator Chuck Grassley has represented Iowa in the U.S.
Senate since 1981. He is currently the Ranking Member of the
Senate Committee on Budget. He is former Chair and Ranking
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Finance.
Welcome, Senator Grassley.
Senator Ron Johnson has represented the State of Wisconsin
in the U.S. Senate since 2011. He has served as the Chair of
the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
We welcome you, Senator Johnson.
Representative Raskin. Congressman Raskin has represented
Maryland's Eighth Congressional District since 2017. He
currently serves as the Ranking Member on the Committee of
Oversight and Accountability.
We have with us former Member Tulsi Gabbard, who
represented Hawaii's Second Congressional District for eight
years in the House of Representatives. For nearly 20 years, she
has served our country in the Hawaii Army National Guard and
U.S. Army Reserve, including deployments in Iraq and Kuwait.
We thank all of you for your service.
Our longstanding committee practice is to not ask questions
of our colleagues and former colleagues that appear before us.
In light of that practice, our first panel will have 10 minutes
to deliver their testimony.
Again, we thank you for being here.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 10 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES GRASSLEY
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Chair Jordan and Ranking
Member Plaskett, for this opportunity to appear. I thank you
for inviting me to come here. What I am about to tell you
sounds like it is out of some fiction, spy thriller, but it
actually happened and it happened in our own government.
Congressional oversight is a constitutional demand. We
dedicate our careers to it, I have at least. During the course
of my service, I have ran countless investigations. In the past
few years, I have never seen so much effort from the FBI, the
partisan media and some of my Democratic colleagues to
interfere with and undermine very legitimate congressional
inquiries. It's become a triad of disinformation and outright
falsehoods. As one example, look at Crossfire Hurricane. Bit by
bit, piece by piece, it has been deconstructed and shown to be
a politically motivated investigation, which it was. We all
know now that it was the Democratic National Committee, along
with the Clinton campaign who colluded with the Russians. They
used a former British spy, Fusion GPS, and a law firm, to
create a fake dossier and then tried to cover it up.
Now, the most recent example of this triad at work, our
efforts against my and Senator Johnson's ongoing Biden family
investigation. That investigation started on August 14, 2019,
when I was Chair of the Senate Finance Committee with a letter
that I wrote to the Treasury Department. My letter was about a
questionable financial transaction subject to the Committee on
Foreign Investment that related to a matter involving the Biden
family. As our investigation continued and advanced, Democratic
leadership and partisan media began their attack on our
investigation.
This is where that spy thriller starts to heat up. On July
13, 2020, then Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, then
Speaker Pelosi and then Chair Schiff sent a letter with a
classified attachment to the FBI. That letter expressed a
purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign
disinformation campaign. The letter was targeted at the
Johnson, Grassley investigation.
However, the classified attachment included unclassified
elements that attempted and failed to tie our work to a Russian
agent named Andrii Derkach. Unsurprisingly, those unclassified
elements were leaked to the press to support a false campaign,
accusing Senator Johnson and me of relying on material from a
Russian agent, and thus advancing Russian disinformation.
Of course, it was pure nonsense that the irresponsible
media portrayed this all as the truth. Guess what then? Chair
Schiff claimed, without any evidence whatsoever, that our
oversight work was rooted in Russian disinformation. Of course,
he conveniently left out that our oversight work was actually
rooted in official U.S. Government and Obama Administration
records. Then guess what? Senator Blumenthal also wrote an op
ed in The Washington Post accusing our investigation of, quote,
``Perpetuating Russian disinformation in the U.S. Senate,'' end
quote. Then, guess what? Minority Leader Schumer and then
Ranking Member Wyden tried to offer a resolution in the Senate
disparaging our Biden investigation. They, in a sense, were
basically calling us Russian stooges. Pretty simple, that
violated Senate rules and their efforts, of course, were
appropriately shut down.
On July 16, 2020, mere days after the July 13th letter,
then Ranking Members Wyden and Peters, wrote a letter to me and
Senator Johnson asking for a briefing from the FBI's Foreign
Influence Task Force. Our staff and the Ranking Members' staff
had already--now, remember we had already received a briefing
March 2020 that put the issue to rest. So, why another
briefing? The point being there was no real purpose for another
briefing, let alone a member-level briefing other than to
further undermine our investigation.
Some of our Democratic colleagues weren't interested in
anything but using the briefing to try and destroy our
investigation. At these Democrats' insistence, the FBI caved.
In August 2020, Senator Johnson and I had that infamous
briefing from the FBI that was needless. Then as we had feared,
the contents of that briefing were later leaked to The
Washington Post, even though the FBI had promised us
confidentiality. That leak outrageously and inaccurately
connected that FBI briefing to our investigation in another
effort to falsely label our good government oversight work as
Russian disinformation.
Now, The Wall Street Journal editorial board was on top of
it because that board did the right thing and wrote a piece
about the briefing titled, quote, ``The FBI's Dubious Briefing.
Did the bureau set up two GOP Senators at the behest of
Democrats?'' end of quote.
So, simply put, the briefing was unnecessary and completely
irrelevant to the substance of our investigation. It was only
done because the Democrats wanted to do so they could try and
smear us. The FBI wrongly did their bidding. To this very day
Director Wray refuses to provide Senator Johnson and me, as
constitutional officers, records relating to that briefing,
including the alleged intelligence basis for it. Director Wray
has consistently failed to perform duties required of his
position.
Now, another example of this Democratic disinformation
campaign involved a George Kent, former State Department Deputy
Assistant Secretary. Senator Johnson and I ran a transcribed
interview with George Kent. Before the interview, Democrats
acquired material from that Russian agent, the same one that I
mentioned earlier. At the interview, Democrats, not
Republicans, Democrats asked Mr. Kent about the same material.
Mr. Kent said it was disinformation.
Now, think about that, after all the spears the Democrats
were throwing at the two of us, in the end, it was the
Democrats who introduced Russian disinformation from a Russian
agent into the investigative record as an exhibit. A foreign
agent whom our own intelligence community warned was actively
seeking to influence U.S. politics. Not me or Senator Johnson.
Not our staff. It was the Democrats who inserted disinformation
from the Russians into our official record.
The partisan media and Democrat leadership ought to be
ashamed of themselves for fake information that they spread
about our investigation. So, in the end, they all failed to
stop Senator Johnson and me. On September 23, 2020, Senator
Johnson and I released our first Biden investigation report.
Now, I know there has been a lot of talk in this town about
Treasury records and you ought to pursue them. In that 2020
report, we made public the contents of many Treasury records,
but we didn't stop there. We issued another report, November
18, 2020. Our report exposed extensive financial relationships
between Hunter and James Biden and Chinese nationals connected
to the Communist regime.
More precisely, Chinese nationals connected to the Chinese
government's military and intelligence services. With the new
Congress, of course, Senator Johnson and I transitioned to be
Ranking Members. We hadn't forgotten about what the triad of
partisan media, the FBI, the Democratic leadership did to us.
So, we don't stop. We did what any congressional investigator
worth their salt would do, we gathered even more records to
prove them all wrong. We acquired authentic bank records that
substantiated findings of our previous two reports. They
financially linked Hunter Biden and James Biden to entities and
individuals connected with the Communist Chinese regime. We
also acquired business records with Hunter and James Biden's
signatures, alongside those same Chinese nationals. How were
they supposed to be paid? According to bank records there were
wires from companies linked to the Communist regime.
In three floor speeches, we made those bank records public
and asked this question to our partisan detractors, the same
ones that I mentioned throughout my remarks and maybe a lot of
others: Are these official bank records Russian disinformation?
We also shared hundreds of pages of bank records with U.S.
Attorney Weiss. He failed to respond. Now, as our investigation
continues, whistleblowers approached my office with allegations
that the FBI created an assessment in August 2020, the same
month that the FBI briefed me and Senator Johnson. According to
these whistleblowers, that assessment was used by FBI
headquarters to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden
information as, you might expect, disinformation. As a result,
this scheme allegedly caused investigative activity to entirely
cease. It has been further alleged to me that in September
2020, the same month Senator Johnson and I released our first
report, those FBI headquarters personnel began placing their
analysis of the credibility of reporting related to the Biden
family in what I have been told is a restricted access subfile.
Further allegations to my office involved FBI personnel at
the Washington Field Office, who improperly ordered information
to be closed by the FBI related to Hunter Biden's potential
criminal conduct in October 2020 just before the election, even
though it was verified, or it was verifiable.
Other whistleblower disclosures to my office made clear
that the FBI has, within its possession, very significant,
impactful, and voluminous evidence with respect to potential
criminal conduct by Hunter and James Biden. These disclosures
also allege that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden's business
arrangements and may have been involved in some of them.
We still aren't sure what has been done with this
information. The FBI's track record doesn't create much faith
that the information is going to be followed up on. It is clear
to me that the Justice Department and the FBI are suffering
from a political infection that if it is not defeated, will
cause the American people no longer to trust these storied
institutions. It will also threaten the American way of life.
Unfortunately, what you have heard from me, this story of
government abuse and political treachery is scarier than
fiction, it really happened.
Mr. Chair, your committee here so assembled has an
opportunity to help us write the last chapter in this real-life
drama. You must relentlessly pursue the facts and the evidence.
Senator Johnson and I will do the same and are willing to work
with you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you so much, Senator Grassley.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RON JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Plaskett, Members of the Select Committee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify about my personal knowledge and
experience with Federal agencies being weaponized against U.S.
citizens.
Senator Grassley has just described the most egregious
examples undertaken by multiple actors and agencies to
undermine and sabotage our joint investigations. To begin, let
me be clear, throughout my testimony, I am not talking about
the men and women in government who conduct themselves with
integrity and patriotism.
At the outset, it is important to recognize corrupt
individuals within Federal agencies that I am talking about are
not acting alone. They operate as vital partners of the left-
wing political movement that includes most members of the
mainstream media, Big Tech social media giants, global
institutions and foundations, Democrat Party operatives and
elected officials. As the Twitter files reveal, these actors
work in concert to defeat their political opponents and promote
left-wing ideology and government control over our lives.
My eyes began opening to this reality with the disclosure
of how the Obama Administration weaponized the IRS to harass
Tea Party groups by denying them tax-exempt status.
My personal knowledge and experience with agency corruption
began in 2015 when I became Chair of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. My first
investigation ultimately revealed the extensive editing of
then-FBI Director James Comey of his July 5, 2015, statement
that exonerated Secretary Clinton regarding her use of a
private email server for official business. The edits were
clearly made to downplay the seriousness of her actions.
It is important to note those partisan edits were made by
the same cast of characters in the FBI that would initiate and
drive the corrupt Russian-Trump collusion investigation. During
our investigation of the FBI's involvement in the Russian
collusion hoax, Senator Grassley and I uncovered and made
public highly partisan text messages between FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Strzok's December 15, 2016, text:
Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned,
worried, and political, they are kicking into overdrive. Has
never been given the attention it deserves.
In a 2022 interview with Jeff Gerth, Strzok said he now
believes, quote,
It is more likely the text came not from the CIA but from
senior levels of the U.S. Government or Congress.
Who might those leakers be? Why aren't reporters who
received the leaks outraged at being fed false information? Why
haven't they blown the whistle on the leakers? Why didn't the
mainstream media robustly investigate how they were all duped?
The answer is: They weren't duped. They were complicit in
creating and fostering the political turmoil our country has
been experiencing over the last six years.
Those leaks were a key ingredient in the most destructive
political dirty trick in U.S. history, the creation and
promotion of the false Russia-Trump collusion narrative. To be
most effective, however, that narrative relied on coordination
between government actors and the media, and the left had
allies in the FBI.
Unable to verify the Steele dossier, the FBI offered
Christopher Steele $1 million to provide verification. By
December 2016, the FBI knew--they had investigated Steele's
primary subsource as a Russian spy.
In the main body of the Department of Justice Inspector
General's report on FISA abuse, FBI official Bill Priestap is
quoted as saying the FBI, quote, ``didn't have any indication
whatsoever,'' unquote, of Russian influence on the Steele
dossier.
Our investigation uncovered redacted footnotes to that same
document that completely contradicted that statement. Why would
Priestap's false statement appear in the report, but the truth
be hidden in classified footnotes?
Fourteen months later, in February 2018, the FBI still
briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee that the dossier had
validity.
When the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion, the
left engineered an impeachment of President Trump. The
cooperation between the House Intelligence Committee and the
impeachment whistleblower remains murky. Then-Chair Adam Schiff
originally denied his committee had conduct with the
whistleblower prior to the filing of the complaint, a claim
Schiff later attempted to walk back. The genesis of the
impeachment saga has yet to be fully investigated. It needs to
be.
Prior to the impeachment proceedings, Hunter Biden's
obvious conflicts of interest in Ukraine became public, and
Senator Grassley and I began investigating. We didn't target
Joe and Hunter Biden. Their actions demanded it.
On December 9, 2019, the FBI issued a grand jury subpoena
and took possession of Hunter Biden's laptop from John Paul Mac
Isaac, a computer shop owner in Wilmington, Delaware. As the
FBI left his shop with the laptop, Mr. Mac Isaac recalled one
agent saying, quote, ``It is our experience that nothing ever
happens to people that don't talk about these things,''
unquote.
That statement was the opening salvo in a coordinated
effort over the next 10 months to sabotage any public
revelation of Hunter Biden's laptop or any wrongdoing connected
to the Bidens.
Senator Grassley has provided a number of examples of that
sabotage, and we will release a report that goes into far
greater detail than we have time for today. When available, I
hope everyone will read it.
Perhaps the most egregious and effective act of sabotage
against the truth was the public letter signed by 51 former
intelligence officials that claim the laptop had, quote, ``all
the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,''
unquote.
That letter itself was an information operation that
interfered with and impacted the 2020 Presidential election to
a far greater extent than anything Russia ever could have hoped
to achieve. Each of those intelligence officials needs to be
interviewed to determine how that letter was masterminded.
While we all condemn the violence on January 6th--we all
condemn the violence on January 6th--the fervor in which the
Biden Department of Justice has pursued those protestors and
rioters stands in stark contrast to their lack of interest in
the summer-of-2020 rioters. Serious questions regarding
instances of unequal application of justice and violation of
January 6th defendants due process rights remain unanswered.
SWAT team arrests and treatment of prisoners are legitimate
concerns.
Neither the Senate nor House investigations adequately
explained why the Capitol was so woefully unprepared or how
many Federal agents and informants were in the crowd.
COVID has exposed the awesome power that can be misused by
government officials. The loss of basic freedoms has been
nothing less than breathtaking. Our response to the pandemic
has been a miserable failure. A miserable failure. Over one
million lives lost; the human toll of the economic devastation
caused by shutdowns that did not work; and the loss of learning
and other psychological harms to our children. Federal health
officials denied patients early treatment and, to this day,
refuse to acknowledge the extent of significant injuries caused
by the COVID vaccines.
Emails between Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins reveal how
they intended to use their awesome government authority and
power to accomplish a, quote, ``devastating published
takedown,'' unquote, of scientists who offered a different
approach to handling the pandemic.
Have the emails also revealed Fauci's attempt to hide his
agency's role in funding dangerous research that might have led
to the creation of the deadly coronavirus? We don't know,
because those agencies won't provide the unredacted documents.
Federal health agencies have not been honest or
transparent. I have written over 50 oversight letters, and the
vast majority of the questions I have asked to have either
received an inadequate response or no response at all. I have
requested information that the public has a right to know.
Doctors who have had the courage and compassion to
treatment COVID patients using their off-label prescription
rights have been vilified, censored, and their careers
destroyed. Other health professionals have noticed, toed the
line, and remained silent.
Parents who out of concern for their children questioned
school boards and administrators have been labeled potential
domestic terrorists and must now fear scrutiny from the Federal
law enforcement.
With the release of the Twitter files and the Missouri and
Louisiana lawsuits against the Biden Administration, we are
getting a clearer picture of how active government officials
were in suppressing free speech and controlling the narrative.
It is also becoming obvious that the World Health
Organization has been captured by the Chinese Government, that
global institutions, in general, have been captured by the
left, and that some charitable foundations are exerting far
more power over public policy than should be allowed.
Chair Jordan, Members of the Committee, you have important
work before you. Although you have been generous in granting me
10 minutes to offer my testimony, I have barely scratched the
surface in describing the complexity, power, and destructive
nature of the forces that we face.
Our Founders fully understood that government was necessary
to avoid anarchy, but they also knew that government power was
something to fear. That is why they devised a set of checks and
balances to limit government's power and influence over our
lives.
Ideally, a free press would hold all government officials
equally accountable, but with today's media mostly biased to
the left, congressional oversight is needed now more than ever.
Because the administration is not cooperative and
transparent, Congress needs whistleblowers from agencies
throughout the Federal government. I urge men and women with
integrity to come forward and reveal the truth. Senator
Grassley and I will do everything we can to encourage
bipartisan oversight in the Senate and stand ready to assist
your efforts in any way that we can.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Senator Johnson. We look forward
to your report. We hope that is coming shortly.
I now recognize Representative Raskin for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAIME RASKIN
Mr. Raskin. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and dear
colleagues, our Framers were enlightenment thinkers who wrote
us an enlightenment Constitution. They wanted government to
operate on the basis of facts, science, and common sense, not
ignorance and superstition. They wanted America to usher in an
age of reason.
With the separation of powers, the Framers
constitutionalized Newton's third law of motion, checking every
action with an equal and opposite reaction. Congress, in
Article I, was given the central role of legislating and making
progress for our people.
The oversight function is not specified in Article I, but
the Supreme Court has always said that it is implied--something
necessary and proper for the legislative function. As Madison
famously said, ``Those who mean to be their own Governors must
arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives.''
Dear colleagues, your Subcommittee could conceivably become
part of a proud history of serious bipartisan oversight
stretching from the Teapot Dome investigation, the Boeing
investigation, the Watergate hearings, the tobacco hearings,
and the Select Committee on the January 6th Attack. Or it could
take oversight down a very dark alley filled with conspiracy
theories and disinfor-
mation, a place where facts are the enemy and partisan
destruction is the overriding goal.
Millions of Americans already fear that ``weaponization''
is the right name for this Special Subcommittee, not because
weapon-
ization of the government is its target, but because
weaponization of the government is its purpose.
What is in a name? Well, everything is here. The odd name
of the Weaponization Subcommittee constitutes a case of pure
psychological projection. When former President Donald Trump
and his followers accuse you of doing something, they are
usually telling you exactly what their own plans are. By
establishing a Select Subcommittee on Weaponization, they are
telling us that Donald Trump's followers, who obviously control
this Subcommittee, will continue weaponizing any part of the
government they can get their hands on to attack their enemies,
defined as anyone who stands in the way of their quest for
power.
To be clear, that is not an exclusively partisan operation.
They have proven that they will weaponize the government not
just against the other party, but against anyone who refuses to
bend to the will and whim of one Donald Trump, whether that is
a lifelong Republican State election official, like Georgia
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger; a foreign Head of State,
like President Zelenskyy; a political movement, like Black
Lives Matter; a once-close personal friend and ally of Trump's,
like his personal lawyer Michael Cohen for many years; or even
a sycophantic Trump Cabinet appointee and lifelong Republican,
like Attorney General William Barr, if these people break from
the habits of lying and lawlessness that define life as a camp
follower in the cult of Donald Trump.
If the weaponized MAGA campaign isn't exactly partisan, it
is entirely political, because it has an overriding electoral
focus, and you know what it is: It is all about restoring
Donald Trump, the twice-impeached former President to the
office he lost by seven million votes in 2020 and tried to
steal back in a political coup and violent insurrection against
our constitutional order on January 6, 2021.
You disagree? Well, please, don't take my word for it, as
our Chair might say. Just listen to what Chair Jordan himself
had to say six months ago at the Conservative Political Action
Conference in Dallas, where he was predicting GOP victory in
the 2022 elections and promising that oversight of Hunter
Biden's laptop and the claim that the Federal government is
treating moms and dads, like the ones in this room, like
terrorists would be the centerpiece of the GOP's work in the
White House when they got back into power.
Relaxing with a friendly interviewer, Chair Jordan gave the
game away entirely. Quote, ``All those things need to be
investigated just so you have the truth,'' he said. ``Plus,
that will help frame up the 2024 race, when I hope and I think
President Trump is going to run, and we need to make sure that
he wins.'' ``We need to make sure that he wins.'' This call to
arms for the 2024 Presidential Election was met with wild
applause from the CPAC audience. I urge every Member of this
Subcommittee to go and watch the interview.
Now, of course, a serious bipartisan Committee focused on
weaponization of the government would zero in quickly on the
Trump Administration itself, which brought weaponization to
frightening new levels across the board. Consider just a few
examples I have time for, illustrative of dozens I can provide
the Subcommittee.
First, in a six-week period in 2020, Donald Trump fired or
removed five different Departmental Inspectors Generals simply
for doing their jobs and not caving into Trump's coercive
political demands to cover up different forms of administration
wrongdoing and misconduct.
On April 3, 2020, Trump informed Congress he was firing the
intelligence community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, who
had received a whistleblower complaint in August 2019 about
improper demands made by Trump to Ukrainian President Vladimir
Zelenskyy.
In May 2020, Trump fired Steve Linick, IG of the State
Department, later claiming he had no idea who he was and saying
that he fired him only at Secretary Pompeo's request. That
inspector general was investigating Pompeo's decision to bypass
Congress in sending billions of dollars in arms to Saudi
Arabia.
I don't have time to get into the details of the others,
but, May 20, he fired Mitch Behm, the Transportation Deputy IG.
He relieved of duty Glenn Fine, Acting IG for the Defense
Department. He removed Christi Grimm, the acting Inspector
General of HHS.
Second, breaching the traditional separation between the
President and Department of Justice criminal prosecutions,
Trump and his obliging sycophantic Attorneys General, like Jeff
Sessions and William Barr, repeatedly pressured career
prosecutors to go hard or go soft in particular cases, always
seeking to reward Trump's friends or to punish his enemies.
If ``Weaponization of the Department of Justice'' has any
meaning, this is it.
Consider the egregious case of Gregory Craig, a White House
counsel under Obama who was targeted by the DOJ for alleged
FARA violations and finally indicted on a single count of
making false statements. He was acquitted unanimously by the
jury in less than five hours, and one of his lawyers observed
that the Department of Justice had hounded his client without
any evidence and without any purpose. Former U.S. Attorney
Jeffrey Berman said that Greg Craig never should have been
prosecuted.
Consider the case of Michael Cohen, the President's former
lawyer and confidant for many years. In August 2018, he pleaded
guilty to campaign finance violations over large hush-money
payments he arranged before the 2016 election to keep porn
stars Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal from talking about
sexual affairs they had with Donald Trump. You guys remember
this one. Well, after Barr became Attorney General in February
2019, he worked to kill further investigations related to those
payoffs and suggested that Mr. Cohen's conviction on campaign
finance charges itself be reversed, even though six months had
already passed since Cohen had entered a guilty plea.
Amazingly, after Cohen was in prison for a year and then
being transferred out of prison to home confinement during
COVID-19, Barr and the DOJ intervened to block his transfer
because Cohen would not immediately accept, as a condition of
his ankle bracelet home confinement, not to engage in First
Amendment activities, specifically writing and publishing a
book about Donald Trump or saying anything in public on TV or
in the social media about Donald Trump.
Cohen had already been home for two weeks when this
unconstitutional demand from DOJ appeared. When he and his
attorney dared to ask questions about it, three Federal
Marshals showed up with handcuffs and shackles, and he was
returned to the Otisville Correctional Institute.
There, he spent 16 days in solitary confinement before they
were able to get his case before a Federal District Judge, who
immediately found that Barr's purpose, quote,
. . . in transferring Cohen from release on furlough and home
confinement back to custody was retaliatory in response to
Cohen desiring to exercise his First Amendment rights to
publish a book critical of the President and to discuss the
book on social media.
Can you think of a more egregious example of weaponizing
the Department of Justice for nakedly political purposes than
imprisoning and putting in solitary confinement the President's
own former lawyer simply because he wanted to exercise his
First Amendment rights?
Consider the John Durham investigation. At the urging of
Republicans, including the good Chair, the John Durham special
counsel investigation was set up in 2019 by Barr to try to find
wrongdoing by intelligence or law enforcement agencies in the
origins of the Mueller investigation. We have heard some of the
murmurings about this today.
After four years and millions of dollars spent, the Durham
investigation closed as a total flop without unearthing
anything like the deep-state conspiracy that Republicans have
been denouncing around here for years. It couldn't find
anything of substance to it.
Yet, Barr and Durham kept pressing in clearly abusive ways
I hope your Subcommittee will investigate. One former DOJ
prosecutor, Robert Luskin, a defense lawyer who represented two
witnesses before the Durham probe, told The New York Times he
was shocked. ``This stuff had my head spinning,'' he said.
``When did these guys drink the Kool-Aid, and who served it to
them?''
Amazingly, when prosecutors participating in this wild
goose chase actually came into possession of evidence of a real
offense from Italian Government officials, of a potentially
major financial crime committed by Donald Trump, Durham was
suddenly deputized to investigate it, and the whole
investigation mysteriously disappeared without a trace.
Trump's enablers now want this Subcommittee not to examine
the Durham debacle as a case study in dangerous weaponization
of the justice function but, rather, to pick up the baton from
the defeated and demoralized Durham team and to keep the wild
goose chase going today.
Third, the former President had no qualms about literally
weaponizing our Nation's law enforcement and military against
First Amendment activity for his political purposes. I commend
to you the debacle that took place on June 1, 2020, in
Lafayette Square, where they mobilized an interagency law
enforcement troop and then unleashed them on horseback, with
pepper spray and batons, billy clubs, rubber bullets, against a
totally lawfully present crowd.
Mr. Chair, I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that any
of the investigations that have taken place during the last two
years have been perfect. I am sure they could have been
improved in some ways. That is a legit thing for you to ask.
It is one thing to engage in systematic oversight driven by
a commitment to facts and the truth and something radically
different to set up a platform for a series of hit-and-run
partisan attacks that are just vindictive, vendetta-driven, and
meant to frame up a Presidential campaign in 2024.
Some of the new rhetoric we have been hearing can be
dangerous, as the Ranking Member was pointing out. After the
execution of a perfectly lawful judicial search warrant in Palm
Beach in August of last year, politicians and media figures
began denouncing the FBI--the whole FBI--and FBI agents in
vitriolic terms. Since then, the FBI and DHS have observed an
increase in violent threats posted on social media against
Federal officials and facilities, including a threat to place a
dirty bomb in front of the FBI headquarters and issuing general
calls for civil war and armed rebellion. We have heard those
calls before in this chamber.
On August 11th last year, a person wearing a tactical vest
and armed with an AR-style rifle and nail gun attempted to
forcibly enter the FBI Cincinnati Field Office. When officers
responded, he fled the scene, and a pursuit followed. During a
prolonged standoff with the FBI, the man fired multiple shots
at Ohio State Highway Patrol.
Mr. Chair, the public is skeptical about this strange new
venture with this strange new name that is being launched,
because so many of the Members involved have done everything
they can to block the January 6th Committee's investigation of
the worst insurrectionary domestic violent attack on an
American election and American Congress in our history. The
public wonders whether Members who refuse to comply with
congressional subpoenas themselves should be issuing
congressional subpoenas to other people.
Oversight must be organized around a comprehensive search
for the truth, truth that will lead to progress, and not around
revenge, which will lead us as a country to chaos and ruin. I
hope the Subcommittee will find a way to embark upon a truly
bipartisan agenda, with all members participating and agreeing
on a common agenda.
I wish you well and Godspeed on behalf of this difficult
venture that you are about to proceed on.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
I can assure the gentleman from Maryland that we will--we
respect the FBI agents, particularly the ones who have come to
us, the dozens who have come to us, and we will focus on the
facts--something I felt was not exactly presented in the proper
way in your testimony.
I understand that the Senator from Wisconsin has a number
of documents he would like to ask to be entered into the
record. So, without objection, those will be entered.
We will get those from you, Senator Johnson.
Chair Jordan. We now turn to our former colleague, the
former Democrat Member from the great State of Hawaii,
Congressman Gabbard.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TULSI GABBARD
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Chair Jordan, Ranking
Member Plaskett, and Members. Aloha. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here to speak with you today.
Benjamin Franklin said, ``Without freedom of thought, there
can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public
liberty without freedom of speech.''
I love our country, and I cherish our God-given freedoms
that are enshrined in the Constitution. Like every one of you,
I took an oath, both as a soldier and as a Member of Congress,
to support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I have had the privilege of serving alongside many of you
in Congress for eight years, representing the people of
Hawaii's Second congressional District, serving on the Armed
Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.
I am honored to be able to continue to serve as a
lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves now for almost 20
years, where during that time I deployed to three war zones and
participated in multiple overseas training exercises where I
had the opportunity to see firsthand what life is like in
countries where there is no First Amendment, where there is no
free press, where government deems itself to be the moral
arbiter to its people, dictating to them what is right and
wrong, what can and cannot be said, who can speak, who cannot,
who is free to worship and who is not.
Now, our Founders understood the importance of enshrining
our God-given freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights
to ensure that, no matter which party or person may be in power
at any given time, our founding documents serve as a reminder
of these freedoms that are guaranteed to every American.
Thomas Paine said, ``He that would make his own liberty
secure must guard even his enemy from opposition, for if he
violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach
to himself.''
We cannot be so shortsighted as to thinking silencing
speech that we don't like today will not result in our own
voices being silenced tomorrow.
The work that you have all been charged with in this
committee affects all Americans, and it is too important to
allow it to fall victim to partisan politics. No matter how
deep your differences, we must all agree to stand on the side
of liberty.
Unfortunately, right now we live in a country where many
Americans are afraid to speak freely, afraid to express
themselves, afraid to actually have real, open dialog and
debate, afraid of losing their job, being canceled, or being
accused of a crime, which could happen if recently introduced
legislation criminalizing so-called hate speech is passed into
law, speech that, no matter how abhorrent, is still protected
under the First Amendment.
Now, this fear and this culture of fear and self-censorship
is not unfounded. We have individuals in our government, often
working through their arms in the mainstream media and Big
Tech, doing exactly what our Founders rejected--trying to
control what we, the people, are allowed to see and say, under
the guise of protecting us from so-called misinformation or
disinformation.
Now, of course, they appoint themselves as the sole
authority and voice of truth of information, backed by the most
lethal force on Earth with the power to target anyone they deem
a threat. They alone are the ones, self-designated, who get to
decide what is true and what is false, what is information and
what is misinformation or disinformation.
They say they are doing this for us, that they are doing
this for our own good, to protect the people. In reality, the
truth is, they think that we are too stupid to think for
ourselves, too stupid to discern for ourselves and to draw our
own conclusions.
Now, idea that we must just blindly accept whatever the
government or those in power tell us is true goes against the
very essence of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were
created as a resounding rejection of the reign of kings,
churches, and authorities.
They tell us we must blindly trust them or face the conse-
quences, even though our government has a long history of lying
to us, the American people.
Just to cite a few examples, we were lied to about the
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which spurred the war that
I and so many served in and so many others sacrificed their
lives in.
They lied for almost two decades claiming success in
Afghanistan, when, in fact, we saw failure after failure after
failure, coming at a great cost to this country.
We saw lies about Vietnam that were revealed in the release
of the Pentagon Papers.
We saw lies about our own government illegally surveilling
Americans.
These are just a few examples. There are many more.
Ranking Member Plaskett talked in her opening comments
about how individuals in the FBI also throughout our country's
history have abused their power, weaponizing those agencies to
advance their own political interests.
This is not and cannot be reduced to partisan fight. The
stakes are too high. We all must recognize our own
responsibility to stand against such abuses.
As we sit here today, the danger is that, if we choose to
reject or challenge whatever those in power declare is the so-
called truth, we are accused of being anti-authority, we are
accused of being a danger to society, accused of spreading
misinformation, and are then targeted, smeared, and called
things like ``Russian asset,'' ``White supremacist,''
``bigot,'' ``racist,'' ``sexist,'' ``extremist,'' ``traitor,''
and so on.
More dangerous than any baseless smear, our own government
institutions, which exist to serve the people, they are being
weaponized against us.
The Department of Homeland Security declared a heightened
domestic terrorism threat due to three factors, the first of
which is, quote, ``the proliferation of false or misleading
narratives which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S.
Government institutions,'' end of quote. They are the ones who
get to decide what those false or misleading narratives are.
Former CIA Director John Brennan said in 2021 that, quote,
Members of the Biden team are now moving in laser-like fashion
to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very
similar to insurgency movements that we have seen overseas--an
unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists,
authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, and even
Libertarians,
Attorney General Garland charged his newly created Domestic
Terrorism Unit with targeting those who hold, quote, ``anti-
authority views.'' That included parents who dared to protest
at board of education meetings, concerned and standing up for
the right for themselves to have a say in their children's
education.
A draft copy of the Department of Homeland Security
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review outlined their intent to
target, quote/unquote, ``inaccurate information'' on a whole
host of topics, to include the origins of COVID, vaccines, the
U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and U.S. support to Ukraine.
Their Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation Team
exists to, quote, ``counter all types of disinformation.'' Once
again, they get to determine what this disinformation is.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed on the ``Joe Rogan
Experience'' podcast recently that Facebook limited the
exposure of the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story just
weeks ahead of the 2020 election, only after talking with the
FBI. Twitter took similar action, but they recently apologized
for doing so, recognizing that their decision was wrong.
The cozy relationship between White House officials, the
Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and Big Tech is now
well-documented and results in private companies, not
restricted by the First Amendment, doing the dirty censorship
work of those in government who are not legally allowed to do
so themselves.
The threat Big Tech monopolies pose to our democracy is
real and serious. I have had personal experience with this.
After the first Democratic Primary Presidential debate in 2019,
I was the most searched candidate of the night. Unfortunately,
and suddenly, my Google Ads account was mysteriously suspended
without any notice or explanation. There were no responses to
our multiple attempts to resolve whatever problem could have
caused this. After some time passed, magically, my account was
reinstated, again, with no explanation or apology.
Their actions limited my ability to connect with voters who
were actively seeking more information about my candidacy and
why I was offering to serve them as President and Commander in
Chief.
This has not only happened to me, but it is also happened
to other candidates running for various offices. Joe Kent
running for Congress in Washington State is one I know
personally of.
This happens all the time, with these Big Tech monopolies
interfering in our democracy by manipulating search results
based on whatever it is that they want the American people to
know about a particular candidate or issue. This should be
concerning to any one of us and all of us.
Now, recently, we have learned that, with the release of
the Twitter files detailed by Matt Taibbi and others, high-
level former FBI and CIA and other government officials were
behind Hamilton 68 and their list of 644 social media accounts
supposedly linked to, quote, ``Russian influence activities''
online.
Now, Hamilton 68's work was widely cited as fact by
institutions like Harvard and Stanford, by mainstream news
organizations across the board, by Members of the House of
Representatives and Senate from both political parties,
including the head of the Intelligence Committee.
The problem is it was false. Twitter, themselves,
determined that the vast majority of counts that Hamilton 68
targeted on this list of 644 were, quote, ``neither strongly
Russian nor strongly bots,'' end quote. They were mostly anti-
establishment American voices from across the political
spectrum. I was one of them.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused me, a
sitting Member of Congress, a soldier, and a candidate running
for President, of being, quote, ``groomed by the Russians.''
Her baseless smear worked as intended. It was something that
was repeated over and over, headline after headline, article
after article, pushed online in every way.
This had the harmful impact that was intended. I could give
you many examples of interactions that I have had with people
throughout that campaign and still today, but I remember one,
in particular, that had an impact.
Just weeks after this statement was made, I was in South
Carolina at a campaign event when an elderly woman came up to
me, and I could tell that she was very disturbed. She came up,
and she put her hands on my shoulders, and she looked into my
eyes, her eyes welling up, hands shaking, and she said, ``Look
me in the eyes. I need to know if you are working for Putin.''
She was serious. I couldn't believe it. I looked her
straight back in the eyes and expressed to her from my heart
how much I love this country, so much that I am willing to die
for it.
More recently, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney accused me of
treason, a crime that is punishable by death under our laws. I
challenged him to back this serious allegation up with
evidence. What was this based on? There was no response, no
explanation, no evidence, and certainly no apology.
Now, these accusations are often shrugged off as, ``Well,
hey, it is politics. People say things about each other all the
time.'' That may be easy for some of you to say, but for
somebody who wears the uniform, this is serious. It is serious
not only to me but to my fellow servicemembers and veterans,
every one of us making a decision at some point in our lives to
raise our right hand, prepared and volunteering to lay our life
down for this country.
What does that mean in reality? It means that, before every
deployment, in our own hearts we have to make peace with the
possibility that we may not come home. It means writing letters
to our loved ones, trying to find the words to express our love
and gratitude, knowing that may be our final goodbye. It means,
for those of us who do come home, doing our best every single
day to honor the great sacrifices of our brothers and sisters
who paid that ultimate price.
This is much bigger than me or any one individual. When
those who dare to challenge the establishment are targeted by
this powerful conglomerate of government, corporate media, and
Big Tech, weaponizing all that they have against the people for
their own selfish gain, it has a dangerous chilling effect on
free speech, and it sends a very powerful message: If you dare
to challenge us, we will come after you.
The more we allow this to happen, we start looking less and
less like a democratic republic and more and more like a banana
republic. Instead of a government ordained to secure these
rights, we are now increasingly facing a government determined
to take those rights away. George Washington warned,
For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments
on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming
consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind,
reason is of no use to us. The freedom of speech may be taken
away, and dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to
slaughter.
We have to stop this insanity and protect these sacred
freedoms, vanquish the fear and self-censorship that is now
pervasive, every one of us taking action to breathe new life
into the open marketplace of ideas that is at the heart of a
thriving democracy, encouraging vigorous and substantive
debate, encouraging people to think for themselves so we can
draw our own conclusions, where we can disagree without
devolving into hate, where we can respect each other as fellow
Americans and treat each other with ``aloha.''
The work you have before you are critical for all these
reasons. The stakes are high. The consequences, for better or
worse, will be long-lasting. For the sake of the American
people, our freedom, and the future of this country we love, I
pray we can set aside our partisan differences and commit to
standing together to defend the constitutional right of every
American to live free.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Ms. Gabbard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Congresswoman Gabbard. We
appreciate those fine remarks.
Congressman Raskin, we thank you for being here.
Senator Johnson, we thank you, as well, for your testimony.
The Committee will stand in recess for five minutes, more
or less, to get ready for the second panel.
[Recess.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
I want to introduce our second panel. We don't have all our
second panel.
Mr. Thomas Baker is an international law enforcement
consultant. He served for more than 33 years as a special agent
with the FBI, including in leadership positions, overseeing
terrorism and other criminal investigations.
Mr. Baker, thank you for being with us.
Professor Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C.
Shapiro Professor of Law at George Washington University Law
School. He has written extensively on topics like
constitutional law and has served as counsel to whistleblowers,
military personnel, judges, Members of Congress, and a variety
of other clients.
Mr. Elliot Williams is a principal in the Government
Affairs and Policy Counsel practice group at the Raben Group.
He has served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice and Assistant
Director for congressional Relations at U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
Ms. Nicole Parker is a former special agent with the FBI.
During her time at the FBI, she worked on various matters,
including securities fraud, violent crime, and the Violent
Crime Fugitive Task Force.
Chair Jordan. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you
please raise your right hand--stand and raise your right hand,
please.
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?
Let the record show that each witness answered in the
affirmative.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you to
summarize your testimony in five minutes. Then we will go
through it, and then we will get to questions.
The microphone's in front of you. You all have done this, I
think, before, most of you. Green means go. Yellow means get
ready to stop. Red means stop. Then we will get to the
questions as quickly as we can.
Mr. Baker, you are recognized first. Again, thank you for
being here.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS BAKER
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Americans have lost faith in the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, an institution they once regarded as the world's
greatest law enforcement agency.
I spent 33 years in the FBI and have continued to be
closely engaged with the Bureau since my requirement. I am
deeply troubled by this loss of faith, not only because of the
challenge and danger it presents to our Nation but, personally,
it breaks my heart.
Specific lapses will be looked into by this panel, but the
big issue is: Why did they happen? What changed? What should be
done?
Culture is where it starts. This widespread deleterious
behavior of the past several years describes a culture, not
just the work after few bad apples.
Robert Mueller, when he was the FBI Director, set out
deliberately to change the culture of the FBI from a law
enforcement agency to an intelligence-driven agency. That had
bad and unintended consequences.
The difference is this: In law enforcement, you spend every
day, consciously or unconsciously, waiting for that day to come
when you are going to raise your right hand before a judge or
before a jury and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.
That is quite different than an intelligence agency that
operates through deceit and deception and their end product is
an estimate. Some would call it a best guess. Guesses aren't
allowed in the courtroom.
Past reforms like the Church and Pike Committees were
necessary. This present Subcommittee is a step in the right
direction. Hopefully its work will be bipartisan, because the
abuses of an intelligence-driven FBI threaten the liberty of
those on the left as well as those on the right.
In 1978, after the Church Committee revelations, reforms
were undertaken. The FBI and the DOJ enacted a series of
Attorney General guidelines for conducting investigations, but
Congress gave us the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Now, however, the use of FISA against U.S. citizens, as
seen in the Carter Page case, has presented a threat to
American civil liberties. FISA suspends the Constitution.
For its first decades, the Foreign Intelligence Act was
used, as its name implies, to surveil foreign agents' resident
in this country. FISA needs to be returned to that original
purpose. That is something that the Congress can fix.
That the FBI colluded with Twitter to suppress free speech
is shocking. What is even more surprising is the FBI's
explanation or denial that they did that.
Over the past few years, when shenanigans were discovered
in the Bureau by the Bureau, the miscreants were shown door.
Director Wray and other FBI leaders, their theme is, ``The bad
apples are no longer with us.'' With the Twitter revelations,
there is not even that usual half-apology but a boldfaced
denial that nothing is wrong.
The First Amendment guarantees free speech. The FBI, by
urging Twitter to sensor speech, which it could not itself do,
was engaging in a perversion of the First Amendment.
For most of FBI history, agents were trained that part of
the FBI's mission was to be a guarantor of the Bill of Rights.
That has now been turned on its head. A renewed emphasis on the
Constitution as a cornerstone of the Bureau's work is what is
called for.
When I was in training as a new agent, we were each given a
pocket copy of the Constitution. We were told to keep it in our
breast pocket and that, if we did that, you would think about
it when interviewing a citizen or when searching someone's
home. If you kept it close to your heart, you wouldn't go
wrong.
For years, when explaining the FBI to various groups, I
would always emphasize that, unlike other countries, the United
States was blessed to have as its domestic security service a
law enforcement agency, an agency rooted in the rule of law.
The United States now may be cursed to have a domestic
intelligence agency with police powers.
We may never get the Bureau back to the culture of a tell-
the-truth law enforcement agency that I lived and loved in the
pre-
9/11 era, but the effort of reform is worth it, noble, and
direly needed.
I thank you all for your efforts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Baker. I appreciate your
testimony.
Professor Turley, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY
Mr. Turley. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Plaskett, Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear
before you to discuss this subject.
It is my sincere hope that there is room for bipartisan
agreement, even in these times, when we talk about the
government's role in regulating speech. We all are here today
because we all have a deep love for this country. We come from
different backgrounds, different parts, but we share that
common article of faith.
I would like to speak to that today. These are difficult
questions that I am going to address, and these are divisive
times, but they transcend politics.
Notably, in yesterday's hearing in the Oversight Committee,
James Baker said that he also thought there might be need for
legislation--this is the former Twitter executive, former FBI
General Counsel. He said there might be need for legislation to
limit the role of the FBI and other agencies in their
relationship with social media companies. I think that this is
true.
One of the reasons that this Committee has a difficult task
before it is that there is a crisis of faith, and it is not
just simply with some of our constitutional values. Polls are
showing that people have a distrust for the Federal government
but also with the FBI.
Twenty percent in a recent poll said that the FBI was the
greatest threat to the country. Only 40 percent of Americans
said that they trust the FBI most of the time. Fifty-three
percent said they felt the FBI was acting politically.
I am not saying that those results are warranted. What I am
saying is, it is a serious problem when the public, large
portions of the public, have that level of distrust.
My testimony that I have submitted to the record goes
through the constitutional and case law that applies to this
issue of when the government goes too far. I say that these are
really very heavily contested questions; there are cases on
both sides. In some of my discussions, I say that actually I
think the social media companies have a better argument, and in
some parts I think that there are legitimate issues here that
might trigger the First Amendment.
There are two different aspects to that analysis. One is
that we do have direct action shown in the Twitter files by
government employees. So, we don't have to get into what I
spend most of my time on, which is agency theory under the
First Amendment. We know that there were dozens of Federal
employees who tagged or targeted particular posts and posters
for possible elimination and suspension.
Now, we can question whether that was a directive or a
partnership or a coordination, but there was direct government
conduct. So, the question for this Committee, first and
foremost, is: Do you want your government in that business? We
can have, I hope, a civil and respectful conversation about
that.
What is interesting about the Twitter files is that they
establish what could be viewed as agency. Now, as I go through
a lot of the cases in the past, courts have really struggled
with this. At what point does a private party become an agent
of the government?
Cases like Page and others say that you can have that; even
if, by the way, the private agent turns down some requests, you
can have that. I go through the various tests that apply.
I also go through three things that are established:
First, this may be the largest censorship system in the
history of our country. Twitter alone reaches 450 million
people. They are 15th on social media. Companies like Facebook
dwarf them in terms of their size. It is a censorship system.
The ACLU has made clear that censorship can be both in
government or private form, and it certainly can be in a
government and private type of coordination.
Second, this is beyond what agencies usually do. This was
not the FBI responding to criticism of the FBI. It was
generally policing this thing called disinformation and
eventually they tagged things like jokes. They tagged just a
ridiculous scope of information that they believed could be
removed.
Third, what we have here, in terms of what the government's
doing, is what we have seen before. Even if you assume that
this does not create an agency relationship, it is wrong. It is
wrong for the government to be in the business of silencing
citizens. It is wrong.
We saw it during the McCarthy period, where the government
was behind the blacklisting of individuals. We said it was
wrong. It was wrong then; it is wrong now. We have to have that
debate. It has to move somewhere beyond our normal partisan
divisions.
Adlai Stevenson said that, ``when there is a loss of faith
in government we lose everything.'' I hope that Senator
Stevenson's words resonate with Members of this Committee. We
have everything at stake when you have the government involved
in censorship.
So, I thank you again for allowing me to appear, and I look
forward to working with Members on both sides to look at this
issue.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Professor, thank you. Thank you for stating
the gravity of the situation and the question before us.
Mr. Williams, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ELLIOT WILLIAMS
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member
Plaskett, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much
for inviting me to testify today.
My name is Elliot Williams, and over the course of 15 years
I have the honor of serving in all three branches of our
government. Across that time, I worked as both a career
prosecutor and a senior appointee, as both a rank-and-file
employee and in senior management, and in both Republican and
Democratic administrations.
For a major portion of my time in government, I served in
roles tied directly to the relationship between the Executive
and Legislative Branches of government. I served as counsel to
the Senate Judiciary Committee across the building--or across
the courtyard, and helped run legislative affairs at both the
United States Department of Justice and the United States
Customs and Immigration Enforcement, or ICE.
I note that I am here today speaking in my personal
capacity and not on behalf of any employer.
Now, having sat in the seats of the very staff behind you,
alongside some of the very people who are still here today, as
well as in the role of the Executive Branch employee or
official responding to your requests, I can say that each
institution's interests are critically important to creating a
healthy, functioning democracy.
When they collide, it is crucial to recognize that our
institutions are best served by reaching compromises or
accommodations--we are going hear that word again in a moment--
that protect the core interests of each branch of government.
congressional oversight, the reviewing or monitoring or
supervision of Federal agencies and activities, is essential to
good government. It helps ensure that officials who hold the
public trust apply laws fairly and spend their funds wisely--
our funds wisely. It uncovers abuse and uproots waste. It
encourages efficiency and fosters transparency.
Now, this is a two-way street, where Congress ends up
better informed when making its Legislative decisions and the
Executive Branch is in a better position to carry out its
enforcement of our laws.
Now, there is a natural and perfectly reasonable push and
pull of constitutional and legal interests when two branches of
government interact. Too much pushing or pulling from either
side poorly serves the American people and does not serve the
work of the American people.
Now, each branch of government--and I mean the Legislative
and Executive--have a tremendous amount to lose and a lot to
gain in the process. It is in the interest of people at both
ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and across the country that our
institutions and our democracy function properly.
Now, Congress and the Justice Department, both where I
worked for a long time, have recognized this principle. The
Justice Department has attempted throughout the years to
balance satisfying legitimate legislative interests with
protecting the Executive Branch's confidentiality interests.
An obvious example arises when disclosure of case materials
from an open criminal case or a civil case might be disclosed
to the public or to Congress. There might be a significant
public interest in the Justice Department's efforts to protect
those materials.
Likewise, Congress has a very long history of engaging in
responsible oversight--and bipartisan oversight, for that
matter--of the Executive Branch. This means reaching
accommodations that have regularly included narrowing requests
for information, limiting access to information that is
provided by the Executive Branch, or even at times delaying a
congressional investigation until the work of the Justice
Department and the former prosecutions or declinations are
completed.
For instance, here is an example. In the early 2000's, the
House Oversight Committee wanted to obtain documents from
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the
leak of the covert identity of CIA Officer Valerie Plame. They
consulted--this is the Committee, the Oversight Committee--
consulted with the special counsel and agreed to delay
receiving information until after the end of the litigation, or
after the investigation and litigation.
Even then, the Chair of the Committee worked closely with
the special counsel to narrow his requests that the special
counsel agreed would not infringe on his prosecutorial
independence or intrude upon grand jury secrecy, which, as many
of you know, is protected by law under the law.
Both sides here, Congress and the Executive Branch, or the
Justice Department, had interests. They both balanced them for
the good of democracy, the health of our institutions, and
transparency for the American people.
Now, as with any process of negotiation, not every party
will always receive what they seek to recover, nor will they be
able to protect every bit of information they wish to shield.
That is not a bad thing. We will talk about that over the
course of the day.
Needless to say, thank you again for inviting me to
testify, and I look forward to answering any questions you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Ms. Parker, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Parker, hit that button. There you go. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF NICOLE PARKER
Ms. Parker. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for
inviting me to come and respectfully speak to you today.
The people of this country deserve the right to have faith
in those sworn to protect. Faith is the foundation of hope, and
hope can be restored through honest reflection of who we have
become and who we could and should be.
On September 11, 2001, I was working for Merrill Lynch at
the World Financial Center in New York City. I witnessed up
close the horrific deadly terrorist attacks on the adjacent
World Trade Center. My colleagues and I evacuated our building
and were led to safety, thanks to the heroic efforts of NYPD
officers; 2,977 souls were not as fortunate that day.
As I watched the mayhem unfold, to include people jumping
to their deaths, I was shocked, heartbroken. I vowed to God
that I would give back and serve this great Nation. This vow
led me to leave a multibillion-dollar hedge fund in 2009 and
apply to become an FBI special agent.
According to The Wall Street Journal, around 45,000 people
applied to be special agents that fiscal year. About 900 made
the cut, and I was one of them.
After five months of arduous training at the academy in
Quantico, I was a sworn-in special agent, assigned to the Miami
Division. I considered it a very sacred responsibility and was
honored to be entrusted to protect and serve the American
people.
My entire career was spent in the field, where I believed I
could make the strongest impact in rescuing victims and putting
criminals behind bars.
It was my privilege to work alongside the finest and
brightest in the FBI, local law enforcement, and our Federal
partners, participating in the investigations of myriad
criminal cases--the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
shooting in Parkland, Florida; the 2017 Fort Lauderdale Airport
shooting; the Cesar Sayoc pipe bomb case; multimillion-dollar
Ponzi schemes; crimes on the high seas; bank robberies; murders
for hire; sexual assaults; extortions, and more.
Yes, it was physically taxing and emotionally jarring, but
I believed I was making an impactful difference. Every day, I
woke up and I embraced being an FBI special agent--until things
changed.
Over the course of my 12-plus years, the FBI's trajectory
has transformed. On paper, the Bureau's mission remained the
same, but its priorities and governing principles shifted
dramatically. The FBI became politically weaponized, starting
from the top in Washington and trickling down to the field
offices.
Although FBI employees have their First Amendment rights,
they are not at the liberty to allow their personal political
views or preferences to determine their course of action or
inaction in any investigation. Lady Justice must remain blind.
Those that do not uphold these responsibilities cause a
negative ripple effect throughout the agency and the field.
It is as if there became two FBIs. Americans see this, and
it is destroying the Bureau's credibility, causing Americans to
lose faith in the agency and, therefore, the hardworking and
highly ethical agents who still do the heavy lifting and pursue
noble cases. It makes it very difficult for agents to do their
job when the FBI loses the respect of the American people.
There has also been a shift in recruiting practices--a
lowering of the eligibility requirements, which is negatively
impacting the agency's performance.
All of this adds up to a loss of trust in the FBI by many
Americans and low morale among many FBI employees. For many,
becoming a special agent was their calling in life, but now it
is merely a very dangerous and high-risk job with minimal
contentment.
Wary of consequences that come with voicing their
displeasure, these agents keep their heads low. They work hard,
and they stay off the radar, and they count down the days until
they can collect their well-deserved pensions.
For me, distancing myself from egregious mistakes, immoral
behavior, politically charged actions taken by a small but
destructive few FBI employees became exhausting.
Although I was always treated with the highest level of
respect in the Miami Division, I no longer felt that I was the
type of agent that the FBI valued. I began to lose passion for
the career I loved, and peace came as I reflected on the
victims I assisted, the criminals I took off the streets, and I
remembered positive performance reviews, awards, and accolades
I had been given, as I left nothing on the line in my work as a
special agent.
I held out as long as I could, hoping things would improve,
but finally I knew it was time to go. So, less than four months
ago, of my own volition, I made the difficult decision and
quietly walked away from the FBI with an exemplary and spotless
record.
I love the FBI I joined, and I have treasured memories
working alongside remarkable people. I am proud to have served
with honor as a special agent. While I sincerely pray for the
FBI's future success, the FBI's troubles of late were bigger
than anything I could change.
Going forward, I will continue to serve others in our
beloved country while honoring and celebrating the true heroes,
both past and present, of the FBI.
When I was invited to participate in this hearing, my
initial reaction was to decline the request, as there may be
others more capable who would do a much better job than me. Why
would I want to subject myself to the stress of testifying,
putting a target on my back and likely facing public scrutiny?
As I prayed about this invitation--sorry--the thought came
to me: To whom much is given, much is required. I realized that
this is not about me. I have been given the opportunity to
speak up on behalf of numerous current and former Bureau
employees who feel similarly but they do not have a voice.
I am not here today to show favor to any political party. I
am here to stand for the truth based on my experience at the
FBI. In all humility, I hope to make an impact in creating a
stronger agency, which is what Americans deserve.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Parker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Parker. Thank you for your
service.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. I want to echo the Chair. Thank you, Ms.
Parker, for your extraordinary service and your courage for
being here today.
Mr. Turley, I want to start with you.
The Twitter files laid bare for the American people what
you correctly call unconstitutional, quote, ``censorship by
surrogate.''
Matt Taibbi writes, quote, ``Twitter's contact with the FBI
was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary.''
Do you agree with that assessment?
Mr. Turley. I do. What we know on the record so far shows a
relationship that goes beyond this sort of informal exchange of
ideas--
Ms. Stefanik. You are correct.
In fact, isn't it true that, leading up to the 2020
election, Twitter had weekly meetings with not just the FBI,
with DOJ, DHS, and DNI, to conduct this unconstitutional
censorship by surrogate? We know that because of the Twitter
files, correct?
Mr. Turley. Correct.
Ms. Stefanik. It was not just meetings, not just censorship
of stories like the Hunter Biden laptop story. We also now know
that the FBI paid Twitter over $3.4 million of taxpayer funds
to censor these stories before the 2020 election. Is that
correct?
Mr. Turley. That money was paid. Twitter confirmed that.
Ms. Stefanik. The Twitter files are just the tip of the
iceberg, because there is so much more. There was a corrupt
revolving door at the highest levels between the FBI and
Twitter.
Look no further than Jim Baker, former General Counsel at
the FBI, who helped unlawfully investigate Donald Trump in the
2016 election. Or look at Jim Comey's Deputy Chief of Staff,
who became the Director of Strategy at Twitter.
Isn't it true, according to the Twitter files, that there
were so many FBI officials who then went to work at Twitter
that they created their own Slack channel and crib sheet for
onboarding? The Twitter files confirmed that, correct?
Mr. Turley. Correct.
Ms. Stefanik. Are you aware, as the American people are
aware, that, according to polling of the people that were made
aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53 percent would have
changed their vote, including 61 percent of Democrats?
This is the definition of election meddling. It is the
definition of election meddling by the FBI, on behalf of
Democrats, paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. It is collusion, it
is corruption, and it is unconstitutional.
Ms. Parker, I want to go to you next, about your experience
at the FBI. Because this is not just about the Twitter files,
which folks are focused on because of the news it made. It is
about systemic rot in the culture and the politicization of the
leadership of the FBI, and it needs to be rooted out.
Let's take a step back. Let's look at the targeting,
illegally, of parents who wanted to stand up for their kids at
school board meetings.
On September 29, 2021, the National School Boards
Association sent a letter to Joe Biden equating parents at
school board meetings to domestic terrorists.
On October 4th, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a
memorandum to the FBI and U.S. attorneys that the Department
would use Federal enforcement tools to target and prosecute
these parents.
Do you consider parents as domestic terrorists?
Ms. Parker. I do not consider parents as domestic
terrorists. No, I do not.
Ms. Stefanik. No. Neither do the American people.
There is more to this story. It goes back further than that
initial letter on September 29th, because the letter didn't
happen organically. It was solicited. It was solicited by the
White House and by the Secretary of Education. Essentially, the
Biden Administration laid the predicate for which it used to
justify illegally targeting the American people, targeting
these parents.
Is it proper protocol, as a former FBI officer, to set that
predicate, to manufacture the reasoning to justify opening an
investigation?
Ms. Parker. I believe that no one should be targeted for
free speech and that violence should never be tolerated under
any circumstance, but it should definitely not--no one should
be targeted because they want to speak up at a school board
meeting.
Ms. Stefanik. This was a setup. It was this setup--and it
is the real definition of weaponization of the government
against the American people.
It is not just this example of targeting parents at School
Boards Association. It goes back to the opening of Crossfire
Hurricane. It goes back to the faulty FISA application. It goes
back to what we heard on that first panel from Senators
Grassley and Johnson. It goes back to the suppression,
illegally, of the Hunter Biden laptop story, paid for by the
U.S. taxpayers. This corruption needs to be rooted out.
It is not just about protecting the U.S. Constitution. It
is, most importantly, about protecting the American people from
the weaponization of the Federal government against them.
Yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for five
minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Huh. Very interesting.
As a parent of five children, I think having my rights as a
parent is a very sacred trust--a very sacred trust.
Mr. Williams, would you say that, having worked as a
prosecutor, threats of violence against individuals is
something that supersedes an individual simply being a parent?
Mr. Williams. Of course, Madam Ranking Member, threats of
violence are actionable under the law.
Ms. Plaskett. Right.
Mr. Williams. When they come, prosecutors can investigate--
or the FBI or any other investigative agency can investigate
them and prosecute as appropriate.
Ms. Plaskett. Sure.
This one-page DOJ memo that we have made much ado about
says, in its first instance, that the First Amendment-protected
activity should never be subject to prosecution and issues a
concern to legal violence and threats of violence that are made
to school board officials, most of whom are--surprise,
surprise--parents, volunteers who do the unenviable job of
trying to direct their children in their communities'
activities with regard to education--a job most of us,
thankfully, have not had to do.
I am also troubled, I am deeply troubled, by all the events
as well as the increase in violence and threats of violence
against civil servants and Federal law enforcement as we
attempt to weaponize these individuals doing their job. In
fact, we have seen the consequences of this rhetoric over and
over again.
I am also deeply troubled by the idea of Congress, as I
said in my opening statement, using oversight as a weapon to
air a list of political grievances. We seemed to hear much of
that from the first panel especially.
I have been a Member of the House Oversight Committee,
where I saw firsthand how good oversight can help Congress make
better public policy.
Mr. Williams, you have worked in both Congress and the
Executive Branch. Do you agree with me that oversight of the
Federal government is an important legislative process?
Mr. Williams. Absolutely. As Representative Raskin said at
the first panel, the Constitution doesn't explicitly lay out an
oversight mandate, but the legislative mandate of Congress
provides Congress with its ability to engage in oversight.
Oversight is good when it helps the government work better.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Do you agree that congressional oversight is at its best
when it is focused on addressing the real problems that
Americans face every day?
Mr. Williams. The real problems Americans face every day
and making government work better, absolutely, Congresswoman.
Ms. Plaskett. I believe in congressional oversight, and
committee Democrats would be willing to work together to
conduct oversight of matters such as the disproportionate
audits by the IRS of African-American families, recent reports
about former Attorney General Bill Barr and Special Counsel
John Durham.
Mr. Williams, do you agree that congressional oversight
works best when it is bipartisan in nature?
Mr. Williams. Absolutely.
Ms. Plaskett. Have you seen examples of that in bipartisan
investigations?
Mr. Williams. Oh, absolute---
Ms. Plaskett. I know it is so infrequent now. Have you ever
seen any?
Mr. Williams. Absolutely. A great example is in 2016 when
the House Committee on Oversight, led by Republican Chair Jason
Chaffetz and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, worked together on
an investigation, a bipartisan investigation, of the U.S.
Secret Service and the mismanagement and misbehavior there.
It led to bipartisan legislation that made, as I said, the
government work better and Secret Service a more functioning
and more functional organization.
Ms. Plaskett. What about cooperation between the branches
of government? Is it necessary for Congress to be willing to
work with the Executive Branch in investigations?
Mr. Williams. Yes. Vice versa, absolutely, the Executive
Branch should be willing to work with Congress as well.
Ms. Plaskett. Would that first instance be trying to come
to agreement as to when and how documents and information could
be given?
Mr. Williams. Absolutely. The public sees hearings but does
not see the--when the process works properly, there is a back-
and-forth and a give-and-take between the two parties at both
ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, as I said before. Yes, both sides.
Ms. Plaskett. Would you say two weeks into the Congress
issuing subpoenas might be a bit premature for the
investigation and cooperation between those branches of
government?
Mr. Williams. Certainly, Congresswoman, Congress has the
authority to issue subpoenas quickly if they wish. I guess you
get more flies with honey than with vinegar, to be cute, and
working with the other side collaboratively is always going to
be a better approach.
Ms. Plaskett. Vinegar seems to work better on social media,
though, than the honey.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentlelady.
I would just point out; we tried the honey. A hundred
letters we sent in the last Congress. We tried the honey.
Ms. Plaskett. The last Congress.
Chair Jordan. The honey--
Ms. Plaskett. You are now the Chair.
Chair Jordan. The honey didn't work. That is why we sent
the subpoenas.
Ms. Plaskett. You are now in the majority. You should've
tried that first as the Chair of this Committee, not as the
Ranking Member.
Chair Jordan. We tried--we tried that--
Ms. Plaskett. You didn't do that as Chair.
Chair Jordan. --with 100-and-some letters.
Ms. Plaskett. You didn't do that as Chair.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
the State of Wyoming, Ms. Hageman.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Chair Jordan. It is a privilege to
serve on this Select Subcommittee, and I look forward to the
work we have ahead of us.
After over 30 years as a water, natural resource, and
constitutional attorney, I have seen firsthand and fought
against the weaponization of the Federal government against my
fellow Wyoming citizens and the country at large.
Through the testimony of our witnesses today and the points
made by my colleagues, it is clear that the culture and mission
of the FBI and DOJ has changed in a manner which runs counter
to the rights and liberties of the American people.
The purpose of government is to secure our natural rights.
Yet, the testimony we have heard and the information received
from the whistleblowers and other investigative findings has
shown that the FBI's mission has moved from securing those
rights to using them as a predicate for investigating and
surveilling the American people and weaponizing their
government structure against them.
Mr. Baker, in a Wall Street Journal piece you wrote titled,
``The FBI Needs a Wray of Courage,'' you stated that, in
response to Attorney General Garland's memoranda directing the
targeting of American parents, Director Wray should respond by
highlighting that the FBI won't undertake any investigation
based on speech alone.
It is troubling that this statement would even need to be
made. Mr. Baker, do you think your advice was heeded by
Director Wray?
Mr. Baker. In fact, I remember that episode quite clearly.
I wrote that article in October, just days after the
announcement became public. I was in touch with high executives
at the FBI a day or two after that.
They assured me that the FBI would maintain the standard of
only investigating those situations where there was violence
and not investigating free speech. I have to accept the Ranking
Members of the FBI who told me that.
However, my article in The Wall Street Journal still
stands. We needed--the FBI needed, the American people needed--
to hear Director Wray say that publicly, as other FBI Directors
have spoken up to previous Attorney Generals and previous
Presidents. He never did publicly.
The American people need to hear--we wouldn't be having
this discussion today if he clearly stated that we will not
investigate speech, we will only investigate violence. We are
still waiting for that statement.
Ms. Hageman. Okay.
Mr. Turley, from what Mr. Baker just said, we have seen two
issues stemming from this abuse and change of priorities within
the FBI and DOJ. They are either investigating Americans based
upon their constitutionally protected rights or they are
flagging lawful action to which they have political objection.
In some of your recent writings, you have identified two
very important points from the revelation of the FBI-Twitter
relationship: First, that this relationship is a First
Amendment violation, as it constitutes censorship by surrogate
or proxy; and, second, you also are concerned that you don't
know what is more menacing, the role the FBI played in
Twitter's censorship program or its response to the disclosure
of that role.
The Constitution is a limited-governance document. The
First Amendment identified our God-given right to speak freely
and imposes the restraint that the government shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech.
Mr. Turley, can you explain the implications of the
government relying on private industry to circumvent the First
Amendment?
Mr. Turley. Thank you for that question.
The Supreme Court and lower courts have spent a great deal
of time trying to define when our relationship with a private
party can cross over to a type of agency relationship. That
also applies on the State level through the Fourteenth
Amendment.
In cases like Paige, for example, you have situations where
you have a government official who called an employer to say,
``I don't like what this person said in a public meeting,'' and
that employee was fired. The court said that is government
action, that is a violation of the First Amendment.
One of the things that this Subcommittee has to deal with
is that difficult line, and I admit it is difficult. In these
Twitter files, there is a very disturbing picture that emerges.
You have regular meetings between the FBI and Twitter. They
even offered to give clearances to Twitter officials. You have
complaints among Twitter employees that this is overwhelming in
terms of the number.
What you really see is how insatiable censorship becomes,
that eventually they were doing what appeared to be word
searches and just sending all these postings in for possible
action by Twitter. That included things like jokes and other
things that anyone looking at it would realize that this is not
a nefarious Russian operation.
So, when we talk about surrogate censorship, we are talking
about one of the most serious threats against free speech.
People always say, ``Well, you know, the First Amendment
only applies to the government.'' The First Amendment is not
synonymous with free speech. It deals with one problem of free
speech. What we are talking about with surrogate censorship is
a much greater problem for those of us who value free speech as
a defining right of this country.
Ms. Hageman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Hageman. I will yield back.
Mr. Massie. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming.
Now, I recognize my friend on the other side of the aisle,
Mr. Lynch, who worked successfully and diligently with our late
friend, Walter Jones, to secure the release of 28 pages of the
9-11 document.
Now, I recognize Mr. Lynch for five minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Williams, on August 12, 2022, the FBI and DHS released
a joint intelligence bulletin warning of an increase in
domestic terrorist threats against Federal law enforcement
officials following the search of Donald Trump's offices at
Mar-a-Lago, including, quote, ``a threat to place a so-called
dirty bomb in front of the FBI headquarters and issuing general
calls for civilian war and rebellion.''
On August 9, @judiciaryGOP tweeted:
The IRS is coming for you. The Department of Justice is coming
for you. The FBI is coming for you. No one is safe from the
political punishment in Joe Biden's America.
On that same day, my colleague, Representative Gosar, my
Republican colleague, called the FBI, quote, ``the enemy of the
people'' and tweeted: ``We must destroy the FBI,'' close quote.
Do you share my concerns, as a former FBI employee, about
this type of rhetoric inflaming those who might already be
inclined to do harm to our Federal officers?
Mr. Williams. Mr. Lynch, above all else, I should take a
moment to praise the work of the FBI and the many law
enforcement agencies and individuals that I worked with
throughout my time, 15 years, in government, much of it in law
enforcement. They do work on behalf of the American people and,
frankly, don't sign up for threats or abuse.
So, to answer your question, no, absolutely the threats
hurt and are toxic and corrosive to our democracy.
Mr. Lynch. Is it ever appropriate for American leaders to
encourage violence against another branch of government?
Mr. Williams. The encouragement of violence is never
appropriate, either as a moral matter or under the law, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Now, the FBI has to respond to facts on the ground, and as
recently reported by the Bipartisan Center for Strategic and
International Studies, 28 of the 30 domestic terrorism
fatalities that occurred in 2021 were the result of far-right
terrorist attacks perpetrated by individuals who were--and I am
quoting,
motivated by ideas of racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to
government authority, including procedural overreach related to
protocols following the COVID-19 policies; misogyny, a hatred
based on sexuality or gender identity; and belief in QAnon
conspiracy theory, or opposition to certain policies such as
abortion.
Mr. Williams, could a congressional investigation designed
to spread misinformation suggesting that the government is a
threat actually compromise the safety of American citizens?
Mr. Williams. The important words there were ``designed
to.'' So, of course, a congressional investigation that were
designed to do that would be improper, sir.
Mr. Lynch. As you have raised as well--I was on the
Committee when Mr. Chaffetz, and our dear friend, Elijah
Cummings, conducted those negotiations around investigations of
the Secret Service. I also agree with the former Chair's
instructions around our joining investigations with Walter
Jones.
Could congressional investigations predicated on anti-law
enforcement rhetoric contribute to misinformation that could
lead extremists to target government actors?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. How? Explain that. Go into that a little bit
into this. Rather than yes or no, since you sat in that seat,
explain to the audience.
Mr. Williams. Sure. I think a lot of it is the climate we
are in today. There is a significant risk of harm to an
individual when people are whipped up by what they read and
see. So, certainly, these aren't mere statements. In addition
to being legally actionable, they come at a significant cost,
sir.
Mr. Lynch. At the same time, a unilateral--this Committee
is based on the premise that the American people are under
attack by the Federal government, by the Department of Justice,
by the FBI, by the Department of Homeland Security. That is the
premise on which this Committee was based.
I just regret the impact that this is going to have on
people who might otherwise consider serving in those agencies,
and I just wonder if you have a perspective on that as well.
Mr. Williams. Again, as I said briefly before, people come
to government--in my experience, the vast majority of people I
work with, and frankly, if not all of them, came to serve, came
to treat the rule of law as their guide and serve the American
people.
The fear of threats will chill people's ability, (1) to do
their jobs, but also (2) in terms of recruiting, people will
not want to sign on for a job that will come necessarily with
being threatened or doxed online, sir. So, I absolutely agree
with that statement.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. My time has expired.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, is recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A lot has been said here about the fear of threats, but
what we are concerned about, and the scope of this Committee is
the fear of threats to the American citizens. The reason we use
the term ``weaponization'' is because it is appropriate.
We have so many examples of that across so many Federal
agencies that were designed to serve and protect the American
people and have been used in recent years against them, and it
will take us probably two years to lay that out.
I just want to focus on one that has been mentioned this
morning because the timeline is important, the school board
issue.
On June 22, 2021, Loudoun County parent Scott Smith spoke
out at his local school board meeting, and he was arrested.
On September 29, citing Mr. Smith's arrest as an example,
the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the
Biden Administration requesting Federal law enforcement
involvement in local school board disputes.
Now, here is what is really important. We learned later
that the White House helped the NSBA draft that letter to
itself.
On October 4, Attorney Garland Merrick Garland issued the
now infamous memo directing Federal law enforcement to mobilize
against the parents of school children who protest at their
local school board meetings. He turned the FBI, the U.S.
Attorney's offices, the full weight of the Federal Department
of Justice against the very citizens they were sworn to defend
and protect.
On October 12, we learned that the Loudoun County parent
Scott Smith's daughter was actually sexually assaulted at her
school, and that the school board covered it up, and that was
the reason why that dad showed up to protest.
Nine days later, October 21, happened to be the day
previously scheduled for Attorney General Merrick Garland
himself to appear before our House Judiciary Committee. In that
hearing, as my colleagues will remember, he was forced to
acknowledge before our Committee that the NSBA letter was the
basis of his memo targeting concerned parents, but he refused
to acknowledge the obvious chilling effect that memo involving
the full weight of the Federal law enforcement apparatus would
have on parents' protected First Amendment protected speech.
He also, by the way, refused to commit to a mandatory under
Federal law, mandatory ethics review of his own family's
financial ties to advancing critical race theory in schools,
and its relation to his school board memo and the obvious
appearance of the conflict of interest therein.
I encourage all interested citizens to watch the video of
that hearing. It was pretty contentious.
The very next day, on October 22, after much public outcry,
the NSBA retracted and publicly apologized for its letter
labeling concerned parents like Scott Smith as, quote,
``domestic terrorists.''
In the following weeks, over 20 different State school
board associations severed their ties with the National School
Boards Association.
Our Democrat colleagues have tried to downplay the
importance of this select Committee, and they even criticized
its name as hyperbolic. As this example and so many others
clearly show, key agencies have indeed been weaponized. We are
informed even still today that this memo has not been retracted
by the Attorney General.
Here is the question, Mr. Baker. You were an FBI agent for
33 years and were involved in a lot of the important and noble
work there. You have also said clearly and been vocal about
some of the egregious overreaches you have seen from the FBI
and the DOJ.
In recent years, you have described what has devolved into
a culture of, quote, ``deceit and deception'' involving, quote,
``alarming FBI behavior,'' and you have written that those
abuses threaten the liberties of those on the left as well as
the right.
Professor Turley just cited statistics here today that
there are large numbers of Americans who now distrust the FBI.
Our task here is to determine exactly how that has happened and
how to correct that framework.
Mr. Baker, here is the question. In your testimony you
noted that FBI Director Mueller a couple of decades ago worked
to centralize the FBI, meaning that he centralized all
information and decisionmaking, making that at the FBI
headquarters as opposed to his predecessor's decentralized
model which empowered the field offices instead.
Do you believe the elimination of all those layers of
supervision, review, and independent judgment is a key reason
for all this corruption that we see today and that it is
something that must be reformed and reversed?
Mr. Baker. Yes, in fact I do, Congressman. I don't use the
term ``corruption.'' The term I think is more appropriate that
your colleague, Congresswoman Stefanik, used, the rotten
culture, the culture rot.
Specifically, as regards to centralization, there is no
question about it. Traditionally, the FBI field agent headed an
investigation. He had a field supervisor above him. Above him
was the agent in charge of that office. Only then did the
information and the decisionmaking go to FBI headquarters.
What happened on the Mueller centralized--all that was
eliminated. They ran these key investigations, Hillary Clinton
email investigation, and then the Trump collusion
investigation, out of headquarters, eliminated all these layers
of independent judgment, supervision, gone.
So, you had someone like--somebody mentioned his name
already here--Strzok who not only writes the communication
opening the case, but he also goes the next day to London and
conducts the first interview in the case.
You have McCabe, a Deputy Director, No. 2 in the whole
Bureau, directs the investigation and sends two agents to the
White House to interview General Flynn. No levels of review. It
was bound to end badly.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I am out of time.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
Yes, they had a name for it. It was called a headquarter
special, and the point is it wasn't special so much. It became
the norm.
With that, the Chair now recognizes--
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, could I have a point of order?
There has been a lot of mention of information and
testimony that you have received from whistleblowers. When are
you planning on providing that to the minority?
Chair Jordan. You could have been for the very first
deposition--or excuse me--transcribed interview of
whistleblower. I was there when he testified on Tuesday.
Mr. Goldman. Okay. That is fine. I assume you will turn
those over. You talk about dozens of whistleblowers. When are
we going to get that information?
Chair Jordan. When they testify, when we work with--I will
work with the Ranking Member on that issue.
Mr. Goldman. You don't have any transcriptions of their
interviews?
Chair Jordan. We have the first one, and we have the dozens
who've come and talked to our office.
Mr. Goldman. They talked to your office privately?
Chair Jordan. They talked to Republican staff, right.
Mr. Goldman. They are not transcribed, no notes, no
nothing?
Chair Jordan. The first one happened Tuesday.
Mr. Goldman. No, no. I am not talking about the first one.
I am talking about--
Chair Jordan. The first one happened Tuesday. The next one
happens tomorrow. The third one happens next Wednesday, and we
will continue to do that.
Mr. Goldman. You just said dozens. Do you have notes from
those, or are they just talking to your staff?
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chair, isn't that how whistleblowers
typically work?
Chair Jordan. Well, it is how they are supposed to work. It
is not how they worked in the impeachment that Mr. Goldman was
a part of when Mr. Schiff said he didn't have contact with that
whistleblower but, in fact, he did.
Mr. Goldman. Actually, it worked exactly appropriately
until Mr. Trump did not allow--
Chair Jordan. We are doing it the way we are supposed to do
it, Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. No. You are supposed to turn it over to the
minority.
Chair Jordan. When they come and testify, you will have
access to the transcript, like everyone on the Committee will.
Mr. Goldman. You mean your staff is not going to turn it
over to our staff; we are year just in the dark?
Chair Jordan. No. When the transcript is done, you will get
the transcript.
Mr. Goldman. I mean of the dozens of whistleblowers you
have already talked to that came to talk to your staff.
Chair Jordan. Yes. What do you want me to turn over there?
Ms. Plaskett. Their names.
Mr. Goldman. Notes. Did anyone take notes?
Chair Jordan. I will be happy to talk with the Ranking
Member on how we handle that information.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. All I am telling you is we will schedule each
for a deposition, and we are doing that. You didn't show up for
the first one. You could have been there.
With that--
Mr. Goldman. I didn't know about it.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes--
Ms. Garcia. We didn't have notice.
Mr. Bishop. Cicilline was there.
Chair Jordan. There were Democrat Members at the--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think you need to work on your
schedule.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes, I think, Ms.
Sanchez, the gentlelady from California is recognized.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know from experience how good investigations can really
improve public policy.
In 2009, my investigation shed light on the traumatic brain
injury risk that accompanies professional football, and I am
proud to say that this work changed how football teams, and
more importantly, youth sports leagues address concussions.
I have also seen congressional oversight at its worst. I
served on the Select Committee on Benghazi, and I saw how
politicized and expensive that investigation was. I want to
note, again, that the final report found no new evidence of
wrongdoing.
Mr. Williams, you have handled oversight for both Congress
and the Executive Branch. Based on your experience, what are
the hallmarks of fair and effective congressional oversight?
Mr. Williams. Again, fair and effective oversight is, (1)
does it serve to make government work and function better on
behalf of the American people? Then I would say, (2) is there a
process of accommodation between the branches of government
that are seeking to have information? In my case, that was the
Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, but
any government entity, are they working productively together,
those two things.
Ms. Sanchez. I am glad you raised the issue of
accommodation process.
Can you explain why that is necessary and why the
government can't simply comply with every congressional
oversight request the moment that it is made?
Mr. Williams. Sure. Here is an example, Congresswoman
Sanchez.
It is actually more efficient in many circumstances for the
parties to attempt to come to an agreement prior to, whether it
is issuing subpoenas or going straight to hearings, and so on,
because of the fact that things that are more contentious are
far more likely to end up in litigation and tied up in the
courts for whether it is months or years thereafter. Where, if
the parties had just at the beginning tried to resolve it, like
the judge I clerked for used to say,
Can't you all work this out, would try to work it out up front
and come to some agreement, where not everybody gets what they
were initially asking for, but somehow the process moves
forward.
Ms. Sanchez. Last week, just two weeks after being named
Chair, Mr. Jordan served multiple subpoenas seeking internal
information from the Executive Branch.
In your experience, can it sometimes take time for the
accommodations process to play out?
Mr. Williams. Exactly. As I said, it can take time, but it
is far more productive to end up with a more time-consuming
process up front where everybody ends up getting what they
want.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Now, I am not a prosecutor, but you have been a prosecutor,
correct?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez. The Chair of this Select Committee held a
press conference earlier this week to talk about various
interviews that his staff is conducting.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez. Now, I haven't been able to be in those
interviews, but I want to ask you some things that the
Committee should keep in mind as it moves forward with our work
on this Select Committee.
Could the fact that someone has no firsthand knowledge of
the matters they are discussing impact the credibility of what
they say?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez. What if they vocally advocated conspiracy
theories that have no basis in fact? Should that impact how the
Committee views their testimony?
Mr. Williams. Yes. Openly advocating conspiracy theories
that have no basis, in fact, would have a negative impact on an
open investigation.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Now, I just want to clarify some of the discussion that we
have heard about parents protesting at school board meetings.
People have the right to free speech in this country, but
is that an absolute right?
Mr. Williams. Absolutely. The best example is threats
against other people are not--it is just not protected speech.
Ms. Sanchez. In fact, many of these people who have shown
up at school board meetings have threatened school board
officials with violence or even with death. Isn't that the
reason why they were placed on this--
Mr. Williams. Sure.
Ms. Sanchez. --special sort of monitoring thing, to make
sure that they were not going to carry out those threats of
violence?
Mr. Williams. To be clear, Congresswoman, I am not familiar
with the particulars of each individual case. I can say,
however, based on my experience as a prosecutor, if somebody
threatens somebody else or violated the law in another way in a
manner that could either lead to--the term is ``probable
cause.'' If there is probable cause to believe that an offense
was committed, then certainly law enforcement can take action.
Frankly, if law enforcement oversteps its bounds, there is
a process through the civil rights process or any other way of
dealing with that and addressing it.
Ms. Sanchez. So, again, we have the right to free speech in
this country, but it is not absolute if it includes threats
against other people. It is not just violence that we should be
looking out for, but it is also threats of violence that law
enforcement should be looking out for.
Mr. Williams. Absolutely. It is the threats of violence,
because, to be quite straightforward, threats of violence lead
to violence or can.
Ms. Sanchez. Right. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Williams, wouldn't the American people feel
like this government wasn't so weaponized against them if there
wasn't such a revolving door between Department of Justice
senior officials and lobbying?
Mr. Williams. I don't quite follow the premise of your
question, sir.
Mr. Gaetz. It is pretty easy. There is a revolving door
between senior officials at the DOJ and the lobbying
profession. Do you think that this gives the public more or
less trust?
Mr. Williams. There are rules governing what employment--
and this is based on my understanding after being in government
for 15 years--governing what post-government employment can be.
One, what individual's actions can be once they are employed
elsewhere, but also what they are allowed to--
Mr. Gaetz. Lobbying is influence peddling, and you are the
principal at the Raben Group, which is a lobbying firm. I would
observe the reporting of Project Veritas where Jordan Tristan
Walker, who is a director of research and development, said on
a recording:
One of the things we are exploring is, like, why don't we just
manipulate COVID ourselves, mutate COVID via directed
evolution. Pfizer serves as a revolving door for all government
officials. It is pretty good for industry, to be honest. It is
bad for everyone else in America.
Mr. Gaetz. Pfizer is one of the clients of the lobbying
firm that you are a principal of, isn't it?
Mr. Williams. I do not represent Pfizer. I do not know,
sir--
Mr. Gaetz. You are a principal of the Raben Group, right?
Mr. Williams. No. That is correct. I mean, I--
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter
into the record the clients of the Raben Group, which include
Pfizer.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Gaetz. Not just Pfizer, but Google as well.
In response to the Twitter files, we saw a statement come
from the FBI where they said:
Correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more
than examples of our traditional, longstanding, and ongoing
Federal government and private sector engagements.
Mr. Gaetz. Are there such engagements between the FBI and
Google?
Mr. Williams. When you say, ``such engagements,'' sir, I
don't quite--
Mr. Gaetz. Does Google engage with the FBI, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. I don't work for either Google or the FBI,
sir, so I can't--
Mr. Gaetz. No. Gosh, I would have to again point you to
your own client list that you advertise on your own website,
which includes Google.
Does it surprise you that on the Raben Group's website,
Pfizer and Goggle are clients?
Mr. Williams. It does not surprise me, sir, no.
Mr. Gaetz. The Soros-funded Open Society is one of the
clients as well.
Does that surprise you?
Mr. Williams. Sir, I don't have our client list in front of
me right now. I will--assuming that is what it says, I will
take your word for it.
Mr. Gaetz. I would think that maybe one of the legislative
initiatives we could pursue would be to tighten this revolving
door that folks at Pfizer and folks at big tech seem to freely
acknowledge and which you seem to be the incarnant of the
revolving door.
Mr. Baker and Ms. Parker--
Mr. Williams. Could I respond to that?
Chair Jordan. It is the gentleman's time.
Mr. Gaetz. I want to ensure you both that we have come not
to trash the FBI, but to rescue the FBI from political capture.
It seems as though that political capture was really enhanced
when Robert Mueller took a lot of the authority and power away
from the field offices all over our country and centralized
that power.
Mr. Baker, do you believe that through legislation we might
be able to restore the system of office origin where events
occur, people are able to conduct investigations in the absence
of the influences of Washington, DC?
Mr. Baker. There is no doubt Congress can be an advocate
doing a lot of good by having these hearings, this panel. A lot
of these things, though, have to be done internally by the DOJ
and the FBI. There is absolutely a role for Congress looking at
the abuses of Pfizer for one, the abuses of the unmasking for
another, the abuses of the indirect targeting, which actually
the CIA and the NSA do rather than the FBI; but these are all
things Congress can legislate solutions to.
Mr. Gaetz. It seems as though those abuses become more
acute the greater they have a geographic proximity to
Washington, DC. Seems we don't see these abuses with the brave
FBI agents, like Ms. Parker, who I am very grateful served my
fellow Floridians in the Miami Field Office.
Ms. Parker, if we got the decisionmaking more out of
Washington, DC, and into the hands of our field offices where
we have so many patriotic and brave FBI officials, do you think
we would be able to escape this political capture that, quite
literally, drove you out of the bureau?
Ms. Parker. I think that is absolutely critical at this
point in our American history.
When I mentioned in the opening statement, if there are two
FBIs, we in the FBI see it as the field offices, the standard
rank and file. We are typically the agents who just came to the
FBI to serve the country, protect American citizens, and fight
crime. We have no interest in politics. We really have no
interest in promoting many times. Then FBI 2 is kind of more
individuals that are at the headquarters level. Sometimes--
Mr. Gaetz. It seems as though that politics isn't out in
the field office, it is here in Washington, DC. That is precise
what we ought to deconstruct legislatively.
I thank the witnesses. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of
Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Williams, do you want to take about 30 seconds to
respond?
Mr. Williams. It won't even take 30 seconds, Congresswoman.
What I would say is, if we are talking today about what is
within Congress' powers and duties under Articles I of the
Constitution, one such thing is legislation. If Congress wishes
to pass bipartisan legislation either about the Federal
Elections Commission or lobbying requirements, have at it--that
is Congress' role--and work together and do it.
I would support it, and I am sure many people in this room
would.
Mr. Gaetz. Alas, our first bipartisan agreement.
Mr. Williams. I--
Mr. Gaetz. We are in agreement then.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is Okay. Not from you. Thank
you.
First, I want to thank you, Ms. Parker, as a victim of the
Cesar Sayoc bomb package case, along with my staff. I
appreciate your service and the work that you did in the Miami
Bureau.
Mr. Williams, you worked in oversight for a long time, as
you noted, in Congress, for the Executive Branch. You have seen
it at its best and worst. Although the Judiciary Committee has
issued subpoenas over unfounded accusations just two weeks into
this Congress, I know I have serious concerns over their rush
to judgment, like many other Committee actions that are
employed by Republicans for purely political reasons. Their
move also clearly shows that when Republicans are in charge,
they use the levers of power to weaponize government.
So, can you tell us some examples of congressional
oversight that has been abused in that way?
Mr. Williams. Well, what I will say, Congresswoman, is that
when congressional oversight is abused, history doesn't treat
it well. None of us today are the judge or the guide, but
history will be. If, for instance, individuals are targeted,
history will not be the judge of that if Congress is using its
authorities to do so and overstep its bounds beyond its scope
of its Article I authority.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
What can Members of Congress learn from past examples of
the politicization of oversight?
Mr. Williams. I think the past is prologue. By recognizing
that with a large platform as Congress has, it has the
trendability to harm people as much as it does to do good.
Congress ought to perhaps have that in mind when thinking about
how to make government work better.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
In 2015, a Member of Congress, who happens to currently
hold the gavel now in the House, boasted that the Benghazi
Select Committee was effective all because it hurt Hillary
Clinton politically, saying, quote,
Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right. We put
together a Benghazi Special Committee, a Select Committee. What
are her numbers today?
He even bragged in the same statement that because of it, her,
quote, ``numbers are dropping,'' unquote.
During Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, Republicans held
nine investigative hearings focusing on her, including one
where they called her to testify for over 11 hours. That was
clearly politicized and weaponized oversight. Frankly, this
Weaponization Committee itself epitomizes the weaponization of
government.
So, Mr. Williams, is it ever appropriate to turn
congressional oversight authority into a weapon to harm a
political opponent?
Mr. Williams. No.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How can the politicization of
congressional oversight harm the credibility of future
congressional investigations?
Mr. Williams. That is exactly the point I was going to get
to, Congresswoman.
If the public loses its faith in Congress' ability to be a
fair arbiter of oversight disputes, then what does Congress
have ultimately?
So, yes, this is about the integrity of Congress, I think.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
Mr. Turley, turning to you, have you ever worked for
Twitter?
Mr. Turley. No.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have any formal relationship
with the company?
Mr. Turley. No. I just have an account.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have any specific or special
or unique knowledge about the inner workings of Twitter?
Mr. Turley. Nothing beyond the Twitter files and what I
read in the media.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, essentially, your responses to
the questions here today were your own opinion and pure
conjecture?
Mr. Turley. No, I wouldn't say that. They are based--I try
to base them on what we know from the Twitter files.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, but you said that you don't
have any specific or unique knowledge of Twitter, but you spoke
as if you did. You were asked very specific questions about
Twitter's--the way Twitter functions and the decisionmaking
that they make. Yet, you don't have any unique or special
knowledge about Twitter and have never worked for them.
So, this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a
Twitter account user?
Mr. Turley. No. I have come to give legal analysis based on
facts that are in the public domain.
I was really referring to what the--I was asked about the--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time.
Legal analysis is another word for opinion?
Mr. Turley. Well, I would think there is some distinction,
but, yes, it ultimately is an opinion. I believe the question
to me was based on what the Twitter files show, and that was my
reading of the Twitter files.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. Again, that is another way of
describing your opinion being offered, which was represented as
unique and special facts which you don't possess.
Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa.
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, before he goes, may I be recognized
for a unanimous consent request?
Chair Jordan. My apologies. Yes, the gentleman is
recognized for a unanimous consent.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record a
Republican staff report from the Committee on the Judiciary
dated November 4, 2022, entitled, ``FBI Whistleblowers: What
Their Disclosures Indicate,'' and ask that the Committee also
provide a copy to Mr. Goldman, so that he might be able to
review all the staff notes compiled in the report.
Chair Jordan. Without objection, so ordered.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Issa. I thank the Chair.
Dr. Turley, let me just go back--or Mr. Turley, let me just
go back.
How many times have you testified before Congress on behalf
of all of us; dozens and dozens and dozens over my 22 years?
Mr. Turley. I have testified both as a Republican and
Democrat witness over 50 times, approaching 60.
Mr. Issa. So, to use a term of art, you are an expert
witness when it comes to evaluating the Constitution and a
great many laws and their interpretation?
Mr. Turley. That is how I have been called--that is why I
have been called.
Mr. Issa. You teach in that role?
Mr. Turley. I do.
Mr. Issa. Okay. I want to thank you because in my 22 years,
I have seen you representing both sides many times, and
normally treated with the respect that your opinions, based on
your readings or your scholarly work, are generally respected
by both sides of the aisle. I thank you for that.
This Committee is rightfully being talked about--
Subcommittee about weaponization of government, but I just want
to clear up a couple of points.
The previous operation known as Operation Choke Point where
government limited people's ability, actually, to have bank
accounts, that would be weaponization by government, a decision
by government to affect commerce, correct?
Mr. Turley. Well, it certainly affects commerce. There is
no question about that.
Mr. Issa. Okay. It is outside what one would think the
Administrative State has a right to do in any sense? Our
right--our liberties include that right to have commerce not
impinged by based on our political views by our government.
So, in a sense, the weaponization of DOJ isn't new, is it?
It predates this Administration and even the previous one.
Mr. Turley. No, that is true. Some of the darkest chapters
in our history have come from the Department of Justice losing
that independence and objective element that they pride
themselves on. That goes back to the Palmer Raids and even
before then.
Whenever the DOJ and the FBI has lost its way in that
sense, it has come at a great cost to the country, as well as
the Department.
Mr. Issa. Speaking of lost their way, back in 2010, 2012,
with the IRS's targeting of conservative groups headed by Lois
Lerner, that certainly limited the free speech of those
organizations when they were denied their ability to hold
themselves as a not for profits, correct?
Mr. Turley. That had serious free speech implications.
Mr. Issa. So, when we look at the weaponization of
government, we should not limit it to three-letter words over
at DOJ. In fact, we need to look at government broadly and how
it might impinge free speech or our rights to simply have our
liberties.
To that extent, we have covered a lot of the FBI, and that
isimportant, and I am mentioning the IRS. Behind there, I have
a concern about the FBI.
Ms. Parker, I have got to go to you. Is that something that
you think represents the neutralism of simply being law
enforcement, for the FBI basically being able to kneel in
support of Black Lives Matter?
Ms. Parker. That would not be deemed appropriate. They are
wearing their official FBI ballistic vests. Although, like we
have mentioned, FBI agents have the right to my First Amendment
thoughts, but I am not at the liberty to express any of my
political or social opinions while on the job.
I know that in that instance, they were guarding our
national institutions and that we heard they were saying that
they were trying to deescalate the situation. In those
pictures, it appears that there are people smiling, clapping.
It looked very far from deescalation to me. It is not
appropriate to make any sort of potentially political or social
statement while wearing your FBI ballistic vests on official
duty. No, it is not appropriate.
Mr. Issa. In the decades when I served in the Army, we were
warned about, when in uniform, being involved in anything that
appeared to be picking a side. Certainly, they picked a side
there.
I just want to close my questioning, because we are going
to be doing this probably for two years, and ask a question
again, Mr. Turley. We have this question of government and what
it is doing. A lot of people are talking about how Twitter is a
private company, Facebook is a private company. They are all
private companies.
Isn't it fair to say that from a standpoint of statutory
and constitutional history, our government has clearly looked
at entities which convey free speech, newspapers, radio,
television, and has limited the concentration of power and the
concentration of ownership to maintain, although private, an
ability for all, or at least most, free speech to find an
avenue?
Isn't that the history that we are also going to have to
look at when it is concentrated in just a few companies?
Mr. Turley. It is. The fact is that much of our political
dialog now takes place on social media, which has replaced even
telephones as a common form of communication. That is why it is
true that private companies can limit speech. You have to keep
in mind these are communicative companies. These are closer to
the AT&T than they are Starbucks, and that raises a serious
question in terms of not just looking at the government aspect
of coordinating and targeting citizens for possible censorship,
but the control of these companies over speech.
I think that the people that sort of dismiss that are
really losing the fact that this is now much of what is the
marketplace of ideas. The marketplace of ideas is now a digital
marketplace, and it is controlled by these companies.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am so glad my friend from California just brought up Lois
Lerner and the IRS and your comment, Professor Turley, that
this was troubling in terms of targeting a particular point of
view, because, of course, that is not true.
As we learned, the Inspector General, the TIGDA,
deliberately focused only on conservative filters, even though
he was presented with clear evidence that the filters were
nonpartisan. There were liberal filters, lefty filters,
conservative filters, Republican filters, and Democratic
filters. They chose, because they wanted to make a case, that
this was deliberate censorship and targeting by the IRS. Wasn't
true, never was true, false premise.
That is what I worry about right here on this Committee.
The premise is the FBI is tainted; the FBI is doing dirty work.
It is got the hobnail boot of government on the necks of the
American people who are simply trying to express themselves.
Mr. Williams, do you think the insurrectionists, thousands
of them, who came here, many of them armed, that led to five
deaths in the storming of the Capitol, who tried to prevent the
constitutional certification of the counting of the ballots for
the President of the United States on January 6, 2021, do you
think that was nothing more than patriots that got a little
carried away, and they were just expressing their First
Amendment rights, and the FBI shouldn't have been looking at it
and certainly shouldn't be prosecuting people for it?
Mr. Williams. Well, certainly, sir. I believe almost 1,000,
if not over 1,000 people have been charged with crimes in
connection with that day. Several people have now been
convicted by juries, and also with findings that were affirmed
by Federal judges, of seditious conspiracy. That is using force
or threats to impede or delay the execution of the laws of the
United States.
Mr. Connolly. Right. So, I guess I hear you saying we need
to make a distinction between the expression of views, which is
absolutely protected under the Constitution of the United
States, First Amendment, and the use of violence to propound
and propagate those views?
Mr. Williams. That is correct. So, the First Amendment does
not protect the use of violence.
Mr. Connolly. Right. In fact, that is illegal.
Mr. Williams. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. So, when we talk about parents just going to
school boards trying to express their concerns, that is true.
Many parents go. I was a parent with a kid in a school system.
I was a card-carrying PTA member. I, certainly, testified now
and then about the school budget or school issues. I didn't
threaten the lives or families of school board members. I
didn't anonymously threaten violence or let it be known I knew
where they lived and that there would be trouble.
That is a different form of speech, isn't it?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Would it be wrong for the FBI, under some
circumstances, to be called in to look into that for the
protection of elected school board members, and for that
matter, active parents?
Mr. Williams. Both the FBI, or State and local authorities
who, also, have the ability to investigate violent crime, both
do.
Mr. Connolly. So, do you think the FBI is the enemy of the
American people?
Mr. Williams. I do not, in my experience. Look, again, I
was in government for 15 years. I do not.
Mr. Connolly. Do you think that the FBI ought to be
defunded?
Mr. Williams. I do not believe the FBI should be defunded.
Mr. Connolly. So, for example, if they were, the Tampa
Field Office that infiltrated and spent six months embedded in
a network of ransomware gang, Hive, and took it down, Hive is
no longer functioning, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Mr. Williams. It is a very good thing. Look, I was a
prosecutor and a Senior Executive with the Justice Department.
Fighting crime is a good thing, and I think we should all agree
on that.
Mr. Connolly. I see. So, they are not just censoring free
speech; they are actually doing some good things that protect
the American people?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Would you say that characterizes largely
their mission and their function?
Mr. Williams. In my experience of working with the FBI and
other Federal law enforcement for years, absolutely, sir, that
was my experience.
Mr. Connolly. So, we have to put everything in context
here. We can't allow somebody who asserts they are up to no
good because a particular agent, or a couple of agents may be
doing X, Y, and Z, not to taint the entire function and mission
or personnel of the FBI. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Williams. That is a fair statement, correct.
Mr. Connolly. That goes to their other missions,
cybersecurity protection, human sex trafficking, breaking up
those rings, and, for that matter, protecting us from domestic
extremists who are propounding and using violence as a weapon
to further their cause.
Mr. Williams. What is special about the FBI, sir, very
quickly, is that, unlike many other law enforcement agencies,
it has both a counterterrorism element and a law enforcement
element. Now, many people may think those are all one and the
same, but those are actually two different functions.
So, yes, both of those help keep the American people safe.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair and to the witnesses,
thank you.
Mr. Turley, my condolences that you have had to sit through
60 of these, but thank you for doing that.
I look forward to hearing from all of you. Mr. Chair, I
also look forward to hearing from others who are key to this
investigation, Christopher Wray, the Attorney General, former
FBI Director Comey, former CIA Director Brennan. I hope we have
a chance to hear from them as well.
I want to share with you my first experience in this area.
In 2017, as a Member of the House Intelligence Committee, after
months and months of stonewalling, we were finally allowed to
go to the FBI Building and to read the FISA application on
Carter Page.
After reading that application, it was very, very clear to
me the FBI has lied to the FISA courts. The FBI has lied to
Congress, and the FBI has lied to the American people. After
that, I had a similar experience with some CIA documents and
then other agencies.
The result of this is when--Mr. Turley, you talked about
losing the faith of the American people. If an FBI agent called
me today and said they wanted to speak with me, I would never
speak to them, regardless of the topic, without my attorney
present.
By the way, Congress has to reauthorize 702 this year, and
we are a long way away from getting the trust and confidence
because of the subject we are talking about today. We will lose
a valuable tool if many people are simply going to say: We
won't give them that authority. They abuse it.
I would like to focus on the FBI abuse if I could. I would
remind you, Carter Page was an innocent American citizen. The
FBI said he was a Russian spy. It turned out that was not true.
In fact, it turned out that there was zero evidence that he was
a Russian spy. Yet, the FBI IG went and looked at the FISA
application, and this is what they found. Mr. Williams, I hope
you will pay attention to this because I am going to ask you a
question about this. They found 17 significant errors and
omissions. They found 51 wrong or unsupported factual
assertions, including the FBI lawyers who simply made-up
evidence and included it in the FISA application.
Disgusted by this, I would suppose, the IG went and looked
at a random 25 other FISA applications and found significant
inconsistencies and omissions in every one of them.
Mr. Baker, you are a former FBI agent. Do you think that 17
omissions, 51 wrong assertions in a FISA application that, by
the way, if you are going to get one right, don't you think the
one that has targeting the President of the United States would
be one you would be particularly careful of? Yet, they found
that many omissions.
Do you find that a standard acceptable?
Mr. Baker. Of course not, Congressman. In fact, it is
actually even worse than you described. There was exculpatory
information available that was not considered. Some of the
information that was considered we now know from the Steele
dossier was false.
Mr. Stewart. That is right. The list goes on.
Mr. Baker. Even beyond that, the fact is that individual
American, that U.S. person, Carter Page, should not have been
subject to that FISA surveillance because he was an individual
who--this is all in the public record now. He cooperated with
the CIA and the FBI--
Mr. Stewart. That is right.
Mr. Baker. --in its previous investigations.
So, by the guidelines that existed then, he should have
been excluded from FISA. He could have been directly
interviewed.
Mr. Stewart. That is right.
Mr. Baker, I am going to cut you off because you have made
your point.
Mr. Baker. Okay.
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Williams, do you think that, as I have
described to you, 17 omissions, 51 wrong assertions in one FISA
application is professionally done?
Mr. Williams. Sir, I would say that this is a matter that
continues to be of interest to the Justice Department and I--
Mr. Stewart. Just a simple question. Do you find that
acceptable? I would be--I think it is hilarious that you won't
say, no, I don't.
Mr. Williams. What I am saying, sir, is that this is a
matter before Justice Department and Congress that has been
ongoing for years and--
Mr. Stewart. So, you won't answer the question?
Mr. Williams. What I will say is that it makes sense for
you to direct the question to the Justice Department.
Mr. Stewart. I am asking your opinion. I am not asking you
for any insight into their investigation. I am asking for a
simple opinion.
Do you find that acceptable?
Mr. Williams. What I will say as a--
Mr. Stewart. Never mind. You won't answer the question.
Voice. Think he answered.
Mr. Stewart. Because of this, the FBI initiated reforms.
You know what they were? Trainings.
Here are some trainings for Senior FBI officials:
Training No. 1, don't lie to FISA courts.
Training No. 2, don't make things up.
How about training No. 3: Don't hide evidence.
That is what senior officials in the FBI did.
I wish I had more time--I am almost out of time, because I
would come to you and ask--first, Mr. Williams, I would come
back one more time and ask you if you find that acceptable or
not, but we won't waste time with it.
I would ask, how do we restore faith in the FBI? Because we
want to trust the FBI. People say, ``You are going after the
FBI.'' What nonsense. We are trying to protect the FBI. I know
FBI agents who are deeply offended by what they see. They want
us to hold them accountable, and that is what the Committee is
going to do.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It pays to do a lot of listening, and what I have heard is
a lot of discussion about this memo. We really ought to take a
look at it. In fact, it is on the FBI website right now. You
can pull it up as I talk.
Mr. Chair, I would like to enter that memo into the record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Garbarino. Thank you.
So, what do we really have here? I have read the memo. I
recommend we all do. It starts off in the first paragraph
making it perfectly clear that:
(1) The lawful First Amendment protection activity should
never be subject to prosecution. That is the free speech piece
right there in the very first paragraph of the memo.
(2) The actual issue of concern in this memo is the
illegal violence, which has been discussed by several of you,
as totally illegal, or threats of violence.
So, let me be very, very clear here. We have myriad
examples of extraordinary, serious violent threats targeting
school board officials that should be of concern to everyone in
this room and all my colleagues.
Behind me are just three of the written examples that were
of concern to the FBI.
First, quote, ``it is too bad that your mama is an ugly
communist whore. If she doesn't quit or resign before the end
of the year, we will kill her. But first, we will kill you.''
That would seem to me that is a rather clear example of a
violent expression of free speech which is illegal.
Second, behind me is another written: ``This is why Hitler
threw you [expletive] into the gas chamber.''
Third, ``We are coming after you, stinking traitors of
America.''
This is what was out there in public school board meetings.
I would love to show you the videos of those meetings, but we
are not allowed to under the rules apparently.
If we were to do that, we would have a rather clear and
numerous examples of violent threats to school board members,
teachers, and administrators across this Nation.
This memo by the Attorney General, however it came to be,
and that has been discussed here, that maybe somebody suggested
that he take action on this, which is rather common. There are
not one of us on this dais that hasn't been asked by one or
more of our constituents to do something. So, the Attorney
General does. He sends out a memo to the FBI agents across the
country saying, bad things are going on.
Maybe I should just read it.
Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run
counter to our Nation's core values. Those who dedicate their
time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper
education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their
work without fear for their safety.
That is the memo. That is what happened here, is the Director
noting--and I am sure he had more than one source than the
School Board Association--that there were things going on in
our society that were dangerous.
Ms. Parker, you spoke to the difference here between free
speech and violent speech, which is what the FBI Director did.
He said to the agents, ``Pay attention to this and keep track
of it.'' Why? Why did he want them to do that? Because there
were threats, very real threats.
Did any of them materialize? There is evidence that they
did, if you take a look across this country at the number of
public servants that simply decided to not serve because of the
violent threats.
So, as we go about our work here, as we go about looking at
the weaponization of the Federal government, we must be careful
that we don't become a weapon to be used for political
purposes. There clearly, absolutely, is a need to monitor all
Federal agencies, law enforcement, military, on and on. Let's
be very careful that we don't use this Committee as a weapon
for political purposes.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. Massie. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
It occurs to me that we are sitting here in a Committee
that has a fancy name, a different name. There are people
watching our very first hearing and wondering, are these folks
serious? There are people who have spent their careers
dedicated to the service of people in this country working at
the FBI wondering are these folks serious enough that I could
be a whistleblower, that I could come forward and share
information with them and they would actually do something with
it, and that something good could come from it.
I want to let those people who are watching--Ms. Parker and
Mr. Baker, you are an excellent example of people who will come
forward and make a difference. I want to let those people know
that I have come to this city for 10 years with one basic
premise, which is, this is the best country on the planet, best
country that has ever been. It is deeply flawed, but we owe it
to our children to fix it, and that is why I sought to be on
this Committee.
That is why I thank you, Mr. Baker, and you, Ms. Parker,
for being here, and why I invite others who are watching to
please come to us. Find somebody on this dais that you trust
and tell us your story so we can fix it.
Speaking of fixing things, I want to talk about the FISA
program which, Mr. Baker, you have talked about in your
testimony, particularly, the 702 part of it, parts of it that
we are going to reexamine and reauthorize potentially.
On the surface of it, it sounds like a practical legal
concept that you would collect information on foreign targets
who don't have constitutional rights, and you might
incidentally collect information that pertains to U.S. citizens
who do have constitutional rights. Because it was collected
incidentally and not in pursuit of that U.S. person; we will go
look at this data, you know. We will put some policies and
procedures, but the Constitution does not apply here because it
was incidentally collected.
Well, if the incidental collection were small enough, that
might be a valid concept. The problem is, we have collected
millions of exabytes of data. When what you are collecting
incidentally becomes the entire universe, I think you might
need a warrant to go look at that information.
When the number of searches that is done on U.S. persons by
the FBI--I am not talking about CIA, NSA--we know in 2020, it
was over a million searches into this phishing, into this data
base where you don't need a warrant. Then in 2021, it went from
a million to over three million searches. This is problematic,
and I hope we look at this going forward.
Mr. Baker, you mentioned something in your written
testimony I don't think you got a chance to speak about here
today.
Can you tell us what reverse targeting is and why we might
want to be concerned about that?
Mr. Baker. Yes. It is not well-understood, but in a
nutshell, here it is. The CIA and the NSA are forbidden to
target Americans, as you know. They often--and as you have
said, ``the numbers are in the vast numbers where they pick up
Americans most of the time just by incidental collection and
the Americans are not really doing anything wrong.''
If they pick up information that an American is breaking
the law or is somehow a threat to national security, those
other agencies, the CIA and the NSA, are supposed to provide
that information to the FBI for appropriate action. Action can
be taken on it.
In reverse targeting, which John Brennan, during the
Russian collusion thing, acknowledged they were doing, they
would target a foreign person who was close to an American they
were really interested in. Then when they picked up that
information on the American, ah-ha, we got it in incidental
collection, which it was all phony and false. It wasn't
incidental collection at all.
That is another thing that you in the Congress, on both
sides of the aisle, can address and correct. You can make--you
can institute penalties for them pulling this monkey business
like that.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Turley, Professor Turley, I know we don't
have a lot of time, but do you think--and, obviously, private
companies don't infringe the First Amendment until the
government tells them to do it. Do you think that Section 230
gave them some comfort that if they did that, these private
companies, if they sort of--when the government suggested to do
something, that they did it, that they would have a safe
harbor?
Mr. Turley. Well, I do think that Section 230 is becoming
increasingly untenable. It was really designed on the premise
that the social media companies and other platforms were not in
an editing function, that they were simply a forum, a
publisher.
That is clearly not the case. We, obviously, have an
extensive censorship system here that is in place. So, the
premise of 230 I think has largely been discarded.
The implications of what has been created cannot be really
overstated. We are talking about a censorship system that
affects billions of people, and we also have a confirmation in
the Twitter files of the U.S. Government pinpointing people who
should be censored or suspended. That should trouble people,
regardless of your party affiliation, whether you want the
government in that business. I think that is worthy of a
debate.
Mr. Massie. I thank you.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Allred.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have worked hard now in my five years--going into my
fifth year in this body to develop a reputation and a record of
bipartisanship, of working on issues like veterans' healthcare
and benefits, on infrastructure, on paid leave, trying to
improve folks' lives.
To me this Subcommittee and this hearing is a disgrace. It
has nothing to do with helping the Americans struggling. It has
nothing to do helping with families like mine growing up. I was
raised by a single mother. It hass just been an airing of
grievances, of debunked claims and conspiracy theories.
I think most folks watching back home are having a hard
time following some of what you are saying because it goes so
far down the rabbit hole.
Now, before I was elected to Congress, I was a civil rights
lawyer. I served as an appointed lawyer in the Obama
Administration. I believe in Congress' Article I duties to
conduct oversight, and the Executive Branch's responsibilities
to enforce the law and work with us.
That nexus is governed by the accommodation process which
ensures that there is trust and prevents politicians from
meddling in the Department of Justice and into its
investigations.
On January 20, the Justice Department sent a letter to the
Chair saying that,
We share your belief that congressional oversight is vital to
our function of democracy, and we are committed to cooperating
with legitimate efforts to seek information, consistent with
our obligation to protect Executive Branch confidentiality
interests.
It says:
The Department's mission is to independently and impartially
uphold the rule of law, requires us to maintain the integrity
of our investigations, prosecutions, and civil actions and to
avoid even a perception that our efforts are being influenced
by anything but the law and the facts.
Despite that, the Chair of this Committee has sought to
seek numerous documents related to the FBI's ongoing
investigations into the January 6th Capitol insurrection cases
and other domestic terrorist cases, many of which are open
investigations that are ongoing.
Mr. Baker, just to set a tone here, do you agree that the
attack on the Capitol on January 6th was an act of domestic
terrorism?
Mr. Baker. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Allred. Do you agree the attack on the Capitol on
January 6th was an act of domestic terrorism?
Mr. Baker. I don't think I am in a position to judge that.
It was an act of lawlessness. There was a lot of property
destroyed--
Mr. Allred. You are here as an expert, sir.
Mr. Baker. --and there were crimes committed by
trespassing.
Mr. Allred. You are here based on your experience.
Mr. Baker. I don't know if that rises to the level of
terrorism, quite frankly. It might, but I don't know that.
Mr. Allred. Well, what would constitute domestic terrorism
to you, sir?
Mr. Baker. Domestic terrorism is acts of violence to
influence political decisions. That is the--
Mr. Allred. Do you know what we do on January 6th every
four years?
Mr. Baker. January 6th, to me, looked like a riot.
Mr. Allred. It was a seditious conspiracy--
Mr. Baker. It was lawless. It was lawless. There was
property destroyed. There was trespassing. There were people
injured. Those are all crimes.
Mr. Allred. Thankfully, numerous courts and juries have
disagreed with you and have found many of those
insurrectionists guilty. It was an act of domestic terrorism. I
thank you for clarifying for all of us here that you can't
decide whether it was or not.
I want to go to you, Mr. Williams, because I think that we
need to be very careful here. Nobody really wants Members of
Congress or politicians jumping into ongoing criminal
investigations, for many good reasons that I think you lay out
in your testimony.
Can you give us just a few reasons of why it would be a
major problem for criminal investigations to suddenly be
subject to the whim of a politician?
Mr. Williams. I would say three reasons, Congressman
Allred. Thank you for that question.
(1) As articulated in the letter by the Deputy
Attorney General that was quoted by I believe it was
Congressman Raskin earlier, you do not want the public
to get a roadmap for how investigations are going to
play out. That involves tipping off witnesses or
defendants who might be brought into the system.
So, that is point one. You just don't want to give the roadmap.
That is the word used by the Justice Department.
(2) This is a big one--the fear of influence or the
appearance of influence. If a prosecution continues
right after a Member of Congress or someone speaks out,
the public is left with the perception that Congress,
in effect, had its thumb on the scale of a Federal
prosecution. That is problematic.
(3) Finally, everyone is entitled to a presumption of
innocence. The Justice Department takes very seriously
the idea that naming or outing people who are not
themselves yet criminal defendants are incredibly
problematic, dangerous in a profound manner.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Turley, I saw the effort to discredit you by a Member
on the other side sort of go down in flames. I don't think much
else needs to be said about that.
I think what is interesting about what you have written and
then in your testimony about the Twitter files and your
tentative conclusion about what they may indicate is a product
that, first, it bears repeating. You said there that it, quote,
``could well constitute the largest censorship program ever run
by the government'' of the United States.
I think what attracts you is, there is a body of evidence--
it is not accusations; it is evidence--that we would not have
but for the voluntary--maybe extraordinarily unlikely voluntary
act of a very wealthy American who had the will and interest to
purchase that company and then disclose what its files hold.
Here is what has been notable. We didn't get any
information about what the FBI and the CIA and the ODNI and GEC
and all the other agencies are engaged in from those agencies.
The American people wouldn't know but for Elon Musk's
disclosures and the independent journalists who have been using
them.
You have talked a little bit in response to earlier
questions about how there might be enough evidence there, or in
other evidence we might be able to get of it's kind, to suggest
an agency relationship between the United States Government--
the agencies, the FBI--and these social media platforms that
would cross the First Amendment line and violate the rights of
Americans whose content was flagged for taking down.
That may well be, but it seems to me there is another angle
to this. Everybody knows, in the debate over Big Tech, that
these social media platforms have content moderation policies
that are narrower than the First Amendment. They take down
speech as a matter of practice that the First Amendment would
protect if it were a government. In fact, a lot of people say,
``Well, they can do that. They are private businesses.''
The question that gets at me is this: How could the FBI,
which is sworn to protect the Constitution, ever justify using
intense application of its resources, agents, et cetera, to
urge social media platforms to use those standards to take down
speech that the Constitution protects?
Mr. Turley. Yes. This goes to the sort of bifurcated issue
here, legally, that is: You have on one hand the question of
the agency relationship--which, actually, some courts, like the
Eighth Circuit in Dossett, the Sixth Circuit in Paige, have had
analogous cases where they said that there was an agency when a
government official made a call and negative actions were
taken. There is also the direct action. Obviously, Federal
agents are government actors. In these cases, you have the
agency identifying American citizens and others for their
viewpoints and saying, ``We think these people should be
suspended or removed.''
As I say in my testimony, it is a particularly ominous
thing to have the chief law enforcement agency performing this
role, an agency with incredible powers.
This wasn't the normal situation of a public affairs office
where someone says, ``Look, the FBI did this,'' and the public
affairs office say, ``You know what? That was a State raid. We
weren't even in that issue.''
Mr. Bishop. Right. They did it in private.
Mr. Turley. Right. Here, you had the government itself
looking for citizens who should be silenced and targeted. That
is a problem in and of itself, whether it also triggers an
agency relationship. Do we want to go back to the day when
governments created those types of lists?
Mr. Bishop. Let me get you to comment on something else
that I believe is ominous. It is on the charts behind me.
One of the Twitter files disclosures is that Elvis Chan, at
the FBI San Francisco, wrote to a Twitter executive and said,
``My colleagues at the Fort had a query for you.'' Turns out,
they had to tell me, that means Fort Meade, the National
Security Agency, NSA, probably.
A few years ago, Twitter said they would no longer provide
their data feed to members of the IC.
That means intelligence community. He goes on to ask whether
they would--
colleagues at the NSA want to know if they would reconsider
that. Because the NSA would like to vacuum up every word
mentioned on Twitter by American citizens to be analyzed by
computers to figure out what they would make of it.
What about that? You don't comment on that in your column,
but I am curious what your impression is of that.
Mr. Turley. Well, that is another troubling aspect of this
interstitial relationship between the government and social
media companies. Now, on some occasions, the social media
companies said, ``we are not going do that.'' All these
different layers of interaction that the Twitter files refer to
make it harder and harder to discern where the government ends
and the social media company begins.
I want to emphasize that when I talk about the largest
censorship system in history, that is really unquestionable,
right? Even Twitter alone is a massive censorship system. When
you combine the other companies--now, it is privately run. Now
we are looking at how much of that was being directed or
influenced by the U.S. Government.
We are, without question, talking about the world's largest
censorship system. When you add elements like the one that you
talked about, of this sort of interstitial relationship or
cross-pollinization between agencies at social media, it
becomes a very menacing prospect. These companies are
enormously powerful. They control much of our political speech.
As we talk about the dangers to democracy--and I agree with
many of the Democratic Members and the Republican Members about
the need to protect our democracy--that is a threat to
democracy, when you have the ability of people to speak and
control of companies that are using standards that are really
undiscernible.
Yesterday, when we heard the testimony of one of the
Twitter executives, she gave a standard for which they would
decide what could be censored. I wrote about it today on the
blog. That standard defies definition.
I will simply say that the greatest danger to the First
Amendment is the chilling effect, the unknown of when you will
be targeted.
Mr. Bishop. I regret my time has expired, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman yields back.
We now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker--Chair. I just promoted
you this afternoon.
Chair Jordan. I have been called worse.
Ms. Garcia. It did not take 15 rounds of voting to do it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our Ranking Member for her steadfast
leadership in pursuing truth and protecting our democracy.
The Federal government has a long history of weaponizing
its power against minorities, like communities of color,
religious minorities, and immigrant communities. Women,
Latinos, people of color, and religious minorities are the
actual victims of a weaponized government, not billionaires or
politicians with frail egos.
House Democrats spent four years fighting to enhance civil
rights and liberties and stop the weaponization of government
against our most vulnerable communities.
Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
assembled this misnamed and misguided Committee to grandstand
and to try to lecture us all on the weaponization of
government. The American people know that this Committee and
MAGA Republicans are all about ``all show and no substance,''
or, as we say in Texas, ``all hat and no cattle.''
This Committee is designed to inject extremist politics
into the justice system and to shield the MAGA movement from
the legal consequences of their actions. These political stunts
undermine every agent, officer, prosecutor, law enforcement,
and the entire justice system.
We should instead dedicate some time to oversee direct
interference in prosecutions and investigations. We should
instead dedicate our efforts to investigating the abuse of the
President's pardon power by the former, twice-impeached
President. We should instead dedicate time and effort to
investigate the weaponization of the Federal government to
undermine and overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
I hope, Mr. Chair, that we will have followup hearings to
do some of that.
Now, I ask for unanimous consent to enter a letter from the
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington outlining
these and other recommendations for this Committee into the
record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
During the assault on the Capitol, which we have already
discussed, many of us, including myself, were removed from the
floor and evacuated. A lot of things happened. I, for one,
consider it more than just a riot.
Some have suggested that this Committee may try to erase
the truth about the horrible days of that event. The idea of
denying the truth about January 6th is horribly offensive to
me, and I am sure that it is even more offensive to the law
enforcement officers who were on duty that day.
Mr. Williams, I know you are familiar with that day, and
you are familiar with the halls of Congress. You worked on the
Hill, correct?
Mr. Williams. I did, Congresswoman. Thanks.
Ms. Garcia. Were you there on the Hill on January 6th?
Mr. Williams. I was not present on the Hill on January 6th.
Ms. Garcia. Do you know others who were?
Mr. Williams. I certainly do.
Ms. Garcia. Can you understand why it would be offensive to
the people who were there, many, like me, who were on the floor
and got pulled out and had to put--trying to put on a gas mask
and told to hit the floor, and, of course, the many law
enforcement officers who had to rise to the duty?
Can you figure any way that we can defend this if anyone
tries to rewrite what happened that day?
Mr. Williams. It is the second part of your sentence that I
want to pick up on, Congresswoman, because it is not just
former colleagues and friends of mine that were here; it is law
enforcement officers that I know. There simply is no place for
threats against law enforcement in a civil society.
So, yes, I will echo everything you said. It was real. A
thousand people have been charged with crimes. Several have
been convicted of very serious crimes. It was a real event.
Ms. Garcia. So, what is your reaction to the politicization
of January the 6th?
Mr. Williams. I think, as a general matter, Congress works
at its best when working in a bipartisan manner. I think that
becomes even more acute when talking about violent crime or
threats or terrorism, as the word was used here, or even acts
of insurrection.
Ms. Garcia. Right. So, you do agree that it is domestic
terrorism?
Mr. Williams. My former-Federal-prosecutor friend at the
end would share this: There is no domestic Federal terrorism
statute. I want to be careful in how I talk about that.
Now, certainly, there are acts that comprise what would
constitute terrorism--violent crimes and so on--that might fit
under that definition.
Another thing for Congress to consider, if it wishes to, is
to pass a domestic terrorism statute.
Ms. Garcia. All right.
Are any of the investigations contemplated by this
Subcommittee comparable to the scale to the investigation of
the attack on the Capitol?
Mr. Williams. I am sorry. I didn't quite catch the
question, Congresswoman.
Ms. Garcia. Are any of the investigations contemplated by
this Subcommittee comparable in scale to the investigation into
the attack on the Capitol?
Mr. Williams. I am not certain as to what the Committee's
full mandate is. To be clear, what happened on the day of the
Capitol was a historic event that ought never happen again, and
perhaps it is in Congress's interest to work toward that.
Ms. Garcia. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Cammack.
Ms. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can actually answer that question. This Committee is
different in the sense that we allowed our minority party to
appoint their representatives to the panel. So, we will start
there.
Examining the ways that the Federal government abuses its
power when dealing with everyday citizens it sees as
threatening is some of the most powerful and consequential work
that a Member of Congress can do.
During this Federal government's very first Congress, the
Representatives in the House began granting authorities to
Federal agencies. These Members were well-experienced in the
growth and abuses of a tyrannical government.
The inherent quality of all governments is to collect more
power and authority. There is an inverse relationship to the
power of government and the freedom of the individual.
That is why James Madison, along with other like-minded
Members of the House, as well as President Washington,
encouraged the passage of a Bill of Rights--defined, enumerated
rights that citizens of our new Nation could point to when
governments begin to trifle with their lives, their businesses,
or their faith.
They passed the Bill of Rights in the first session of the
first Congress--arguably the most important action ever done by
this body for the American people.
Their actions were revolutionary. No government on Earth
has a founding document that has aged as well as ours. It is
the oldest and least amended constitution in the world.
What we are charged to do on this Committee is defend it
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to ensure that our
citizens' life, liberty, and property are protected from the
warrantless abuses of Federal bureaus and their agents.
Today, we are answering the call to investigate and
ultimately stop the litany of dangerous and unconstitutional
actions. Truthfully, the list is exhausting, and I am sure that
there is far more than we can address here today or even in the
two-years that we have.
So, while Washington, Madison, and Jefferson are no longer
here to help guide us in this body, their spirit lives on. It
is absolutely crucial that we, today, take up this mantle. It
is the work that will be done by this Committee, not as
Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans, that is
important and will live on.
Mr. Williams, you just told this Committee, ``to be cute,''
quote, ``you get more flies with honey than vinegar.''
On your Twitter feed, you called on the January 6th Select
Committee to publicly hammer and shame former Deputy Attorney
General Jeff Clark on everything that he attempted to plead the
Fifth about.
Is that your version of honey or vinegar?
Mr. Williams. That is my version of stating, when an
individual has provided--
Ms. Cammack. No, no, no.
Mr. Williams. Well--
Ms. Cammack. Just honey or vinegar.
Mr. Williams. --I don't think it is a binary.
Ms. Cammack. Okay.
Mr. Williams. If you look at the context of all my tweets--
Ms. Cammack. All right. You also just told Representative
Sanchez a few minutes ago that one of hallmarks of good
oversight is bipartisan and it is designed to, quote, ``improve
government process,'' end quote. You went on to say that
threats are not protected speech.
You yourself were extraordinarily critical of Justice Brett
Kavanaugh, going so far as to say publicly on your Twitter
feed--and you were not shadow banned, however, when you said
this--that the FBI dropped the ball when vetting him.
When there was an assassination attempt on his life, you
were unusually quiet. Up to that point, you had tweeted about
him 17 times.
I hope you, along with our Democratic colleagues, would
agree that violence in political discourse is unacceptable. I
would encourage you to do better.
That is a statement, not a question. Moving on.
Professor Turley, the Constitution was written to limit the
power of the Federal government and to protect the rights of
citizens, yes or no?
Mr. Turley. Yes.
Ms. Cammack. You have written extensively about the abuses
of the Federal government. Would you say that these abuses
occur within a variety of different agencies, yes or no?
Mr. Turley. Yes.
Ms. Cammack. Are there not massive national security
implications as a result of the extensive amount of warrantless
data collection by the Federal government agencies, coupled
with the disastrous track record that they have of leaks and
breaches, that Americans are not only being targeted
domestically by the agencies, but also by bad actors and
foreign actors?
Mr. Turley. Well, there are massive constitutional concerns
there with the collection of data. There are no question about
that.
Ms. Cammack. With all the breaches and leaks--
Mr. Turley. Yes. That is a problem.
Ms. Cammack. --here is a national security implication, is
there not?
Mr. Turley. There can be.
Ms. Cammack. Thank you.
It is publicly documented, the reference of use-of-force
capabilities, within a litany of different agencies, including
the Department of Education, the IRS, HHS, even the EPA.
Can you detail why the capability, coupled with extensive
warrantless data collection efforts of these agencies, should
concern everyday Americans and why agencies like the Department
of Education and the EPA are purchasing millions of dollars'
worth of ammunition and tactical ballistic gear?
Mr. Williams. Well, I testified earlier on the use of
national security letters and other means to get information
below the warrant level, and that covers a huge amount of
information that the government has gathered. I thought there
was actually fairly bipartisan support on that, that Democratic
and Republican Members were equally concerned about the
circumvention of warrants in that sense.
I think it is a very serious problem. To the credit of
social media companies, they actually have pushed back on this.
I mean, one of the things in the Twitter files that I noted was
that some of that dealt with these types of efforts to get
access to social media companies.
Most of the time, these companies are really hamstrung when
they get these letters--and there is a lot of them--to turn
over this information, and citizens are unaware of that.
A lot of what we have that we could hold most dearly in
terms of private information is now on our cell phones, it is
now on the cloud. The government has really targeted the cloud.
They are going after the cloud with non-warrants.
In the previous hearing, I was really gladdened, because
Democrats and Republicans joined together and said, ``This is a
problem.'' I think it still is a problem.
Ms. Cammack. I appreciate it.
My time has expired. I yield.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a Committee menacingly called the ``Weaponization
of the Federal Government.''
Mr. Turley, have you ever worked for the Federal
government?
Mr. Turley. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. What did you do?
Mr. Turley. I did a couple years, off and on, with the NSA
as a lowly intern. I also worked in the Legislative Branch in
various capacities. I represented Congress in court. I was--
Mr. Goldman. That is not working for the Federal
government. You were an intern. Okay.
Mr. Turley. Well, no, I wasn't an intern. I was
representing them in--
Mr. Goldman. I understand. You were an intern at NSA. That
is the extent of your Federal government experience.
Mr. Turley. No. I think Congress is part of the Federal
government, and--
Mr. Goldman. You represented Congress. You didn't work for
Congress.
Mr. Turley. Well, they paid me. That is my standard.
Mr. Goldman. Okay.
Mr. Turley. I also worked for--
Mr. Goldman. All right.
Mr. Turley. I also worked in the--
Mr. Goldman. I am going to reclaim my time. Let's move on,
because I have a lot to cover.
You have commented a lot on the First Amendment today. Do
you think that Special Counsel Mueller's indictment of members
of Russian intelligence for interfering with the 2016 election
through social media was improperly charged?
Mr. Turley. Well, it depends--I have to look at which case
you are talking about. I supported Mueller's appointment as
special counsel, and I--
Mr. Goldman. I am talking about the indictment.
Mr. Turley. Yes, I wouldn't say--I don't remember being
upset with those indictments.
Mr. Goldman. Okay.
Mr. Turley. I--
Mr. Goldman. Well, what they did and what they alleged is
that Russia interfered in our election through using speech via
social media.
Mr. Turley. Right.
Mr. Goldman. Now, do you think that the First Amendment
protects people from making death threats against Federal
officials across State lines?
Mr. Turley. No. If it is--
Mr. Goldman. Does the First Amendment protect someone from
yelling ``fire'' in a movie theater?
Mr. Turley. Well, unfortunately, that one is not yes or no,
because that is become a mantra for people. It is the Holmes-
Schenck line. Holmes himself walked back on--
Mr. Goldman. All right. All right.
Mr. Turley. Holmes and--
Mr. Goldman. We don't need a law class here.
You do agree, though, don't you, that the First Amendment
does not protect all speech?
Mr. Turley. No, there are limits to speech. All
Constitutional rights have limits.
Mr. Goldman. Right.
Mr. Baker, I want to turn to you. When did you retire from
the FBI?
Mr. Baker. I retired from FBI employment in--about 20 years
ago. I--
Mr. Goldman. 1999, right? That is the year.
Mr. Baker. Yes. I have continued to be engaged with the FBI
on a number of levels since then.
Mr. Goldman. Okay. So, you retired two years before 9/11,
right?
Mr. Baker. That is correct.
Mr. Goldman. All right. Are you aware that one of the
reasons that 9/11 occurred was that the FBI and the
intelligence community did not coordinate sufficiently? Would
you agree with that?
Mr. Baker. That was the conclusion of the September 11th
Commission, and it is very valid, I think.
Mr. Goldman. So, you read that, like I did, and that has
all the information that you had--
Mr. Turley. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. --because you were not at the FBI.
Mr. Baker. What has happened--
Mr. Goldman. It is as a result 9/11 that the Department of
Homeland Security was created, right?
Mr. Baker. A year or two after that, yes.
Mr. Goldman. Yes. So, you never worked in conjunction with
the Department of Homeland Security when you worked for the
FBI, right?
Mr. Baker. I was working as a consultant during most of
those years--
Mr. Goldman. When you worked for the FBI, when you were
paid by the FBI as a special agent, did you work with Homeland
Security?
Mr. Turley. No. It didn't exist.
Mr. Goldman. Okay.
You never investigated foreign interference in our
elections, did you?
Mr. Baker. No, I personally did not.
Mr. Goldman. You have no experience investigating Russia's
efforts to interfere in our elections through cyber-attacks and
social media, do you?
Mr. Baker. Other than what I have studied and researched.
Mr. Goldman. Okay. In 1999 when you left, did smartphones
exist?
Mr. Baker. Of a sort.
Mr. Goldman. Really?
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. What?
Mr. Baker. Well, we had phones. We had phones with--
Mr. Goldman. Smartphones. Do you know what a smartphone is?
Mr. Baker. We had--
Mr. Goldman. Okay.
Mr. Baker. Well, I--
Mr. Goldman. Did you ever do any search warrants for
emails?
Mr. Baker. Search warrants for?
Mr. Goldman. Emails.
Mr. Baker. No, I did not.
Mr. Goldman. Yes.
Mr. Baker. I have done--
Mr. Goldman. Did you ever investigate domestic extremism?
Mr. Baker. Actually, yes. I investigated the Ku Klux Klan
on many occasions.
Mr. Goldman. Good.
Mr. Baker. I was--
Mr. Goldman. Did you ever investigate any insurrections on
the Capitol?
Mr. Baker. No. There was none.
Mr. Goldman. Okay.
I appreciate your service, sir. You would agree that a lot
of has changed in the FBI in the 23 years since you left,
correct?
Mr. Baker. Good and bad. I have stayed engaged on a number
of levels--
Mr. Goldman. One last question, sir, for you. I read that
your opening statement is actually an excerpt from your book.
Is that right?
Mr. Baker. Well, it covers some of the same territory, yes.
Mr. Goldman. All right. Well, next time, make sure you give
us a heads-up, and we can set up a table for you to have a book
signing after this.
Ms. Parker, really quick, do you think that you speak for--
you said that Americans are concerned about the FBI. Do you
think you speak for every American?
Ms. Parker. I do not speak for every American. As a special
agent who is been out in the field trying to conduct my job, it
is very difficult when we don't have the buy-in of the American
people. A lot of Americans do not trust the FBI anymore because
of recent--
Mr. Goldman. Right.
Well, unfortunately, my time is about up, but I will also
say to you that I worked in the Department of Justice for 10
years alongside a lot of FBI special agents, and their biggest
concern and the most damage to the morale of the FBI occurred
after Donald Trump started attacking the FBI because he was
being investigated by the FBI.
That is what this Subcommittee is all about.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I
disagree with his conclusion.
I will now recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr.
Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Shouting ``fire'' in a crowded theater was dicta in a 1919
case by Schenck. It was overruled in 1969 by Brandenburg and
put in an imminence requirement. So, if we are going to
continue to use it in this setting, whether it is the Twitter
yesterday or the hearing here yesterday, let's at least get the
law right.
Second, as somebody who spent the first 10 years of my life
defending criminal cases in both State and Federal court, I
think the genesis of the Garland memo is incredibly important.
The point of the coordination between the DOJ, the Department
of Education, and the National School Boards Association was
designed to create a Federal nexus.
Local school board incidents are prosecuted locally. We
elect local sheriffs, we elect local prosecutors, we elect
local judges. Only by fabricating a domestic terrorism nexus do
you create a position where you can prosecute those cases in
Federal court.
I don't want to talk about that, because I think we do have
to talk about things more than the First Amendment.
The timestamp data provides an intimate window into a person's
life, revealing familial, political, professional, religious,
and sexual associations. Only the few without cell phones could
escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.
Those are quotes from the Supreme Court's majority opinion
in U.S. v. Carpenter. While Carpenter is a limited ruling
addressing warrantless monitoring of cell site locations under
the Fourth Amendment, the Court began considering whether the
law needs to adjust to a digital world with extensive data
collection and the analytical tools to operationalize that
data.
The Federal government has realized the value of the
massive amounts of commercial consumer data that is freely
available on the open market. The data is produced to inform on
aggregate population levels, but it also generates leads that
produce investigations into individuals.
In 2020, the CDC purchased cell phone location data from a
data broker to monitor whether or not people went to church
during quarantine.
In 2020, the DOD obtained consumer data from a Muslim
prayer app.
In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security purchased cell
phone location data to make enforcement decisions on the U.S.-
Mexican border.
In the summer of 2020 and the turn of the year in 2021, DOJ
obtained cell phone location data on Black Lives Matter
protests and every cell phone in and around the Capitol on
January 6th.
In 2022, several law enforcement associations publicly
opposed a bipartisan data privacy bill because it would disrupt
the ability to easily obtain certain consumer data.
In 2023, just this week, the IRS proposed comparing a
waiter's reported income from tips to the tip data that is
submitted by their employing restaurant.
You may agree with some of these, you may disagree with
some of these, but here is the thing: None of these third-party
data acquisitions required a warrant.
The amount of data available, either directly or through
third parties, is both astounding and terrifying. Combine that
with the advance in technology like AI, facial recognition, and
more that will allow aggregation, analysis, and an
identification, and we are fast approaching a surveillance
State, with no assurances, other than the promises of our
government, that it will not abuse this tremendous
responsibility.
Pegasus spyware, FISA abuses, alleged COVID vaccine data
bases, and even home temperature controls have already shown
that the trust alone is not enough.
Orin Kerr, a law professor and Fourth Amendment expert, has
suggested that when technological change or societal practice
significantly alters the balance of power in favor of the
government, the law must change.
Kerr calls it an ``equilibrium adjustment.'' The Carpenter
opinion referred to it as ``not mechanically applying to the
third-party doctrine.'' I would call it ``ensuring the Fourth
Amendment can survive the 21st century.'' Mr. Turley, do you
think we need legislative reforms in Congress suggesting this
aggregate collection of data?
Mr. Turley. I do.
Congress has struggled with this in the past. The courts
have struggled with it. In Carpenter, the Court said that you
couldn't get just cell phone locational data without a warrant.
It kept alive the Smith v. Maryland third-party standard with
that exception. Roberts, in that opinion, said, look, this is a
serious--this is a serious amount of data that is highly
personal for individuals and it triggers the warrant
requirement.
You also had the Court, in Jones, with the GPS decision in
2012, where that was actually observable movement of a car, and
the Court still said, you know what, this needs to have a
warrant.
So, the courts have been trying to get their hands around
this thing, but it hasn't really materialized in protection.
So, that falls to Congress, as to what you can do about it. I
think there is a lot you can do about it. You can restrict
these Federal agencies. You can force them to satisfy a higher
standard.
I honestly think that there would be general agreement in
both parties that it is--right now, it is sort of--the cloud is
the wild, wild West. People are grabbing stuff from the cloud.
These companies have complained to you over and over again.
I testified with a couple of these executives, and I was really
sort of shocked by the desperation in their voices. They were
saying, ``We need your help. We need you to come in and give us
something here so that we can say no.''
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
Professor, censorship isn't just done willy nilly. There
are always a purpose, an objective, some kind of motive for why
some people want other people to not be able to speak. Is that
fair?
Mr. Turley. Yes. The government often says that it is
neutral in targeting people, but it is still a content-based
decision, and--
Chair Jordan. It might--
Mr. Turley. Yes.
Chair Jordan. I would just say, and might sometimes that
motive be political?
Mr. Turley. It can be, yes.
Chair Jordan. Yes. It seems to me that is what happened.
I want to go to--I mean, we saw this 10 years ago, 12 years
ago, when the IRS was targeting people of one political
persuasion, limiting their free speech rights. I think we have
seen it now with what the Twitter files have exposed.
I really liked the term you used in your op-ed, and I think
you may have said it today or someone said it earlier, when you
were talking about this agency principle, this ``censorship by
surrogate,'' and how dangerous that can be.
I think you said it--maybe I got this from your op-ed
earlier, but you said, it is one thing if Mr. Smith calls up
Twitter and says, I don't like what Mr. Jones is saying about
me or whatever. It is an entirely different matter when it is
the U.S. Government telling Twitter, we have got concerns about
these specific accounts--which we know is what happened, again,
based on the Twitter files.
Mr. Turley. Yes. It does irk me to see people say, ``Well,
the U.S. Government was just acting like any citizen.'' The
U.S. Government isn't any citizen. The FBI isn't your neighbor.
The FBI has subpoena authority. They have search authority.
They have weapons. They are the largest law enforcement agency
in the United States. So, when they perform this task, it is
different.
There are lots of things that are more menacing when done
by the government. That is one of the reasons the Court has
allowed for this type of agency relationship to trigger things
like the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment.
This is not a new problem. In the Fourth Amendment area, it
was an old technique for officers to get private security or to
get campus police or others to conduct a search. The courts
said, look, if they are doing that at your direction or your
behest, those are agents as well.
Chair Jordan. Yes. It is menacing when it is done by the
government; it is even more menacing when it is done by the
Federal government.
Mr. Turley. Uh-huh.
Chair Jordan. That is what we have here. We have the FBI--I
think Mr. Armstrong made a great point when he said, okay, if
parents are doing some things wrong at the local level, then
local law enforcement will handle that. It is an entirely
different matter when you set up a Federal apparatus where
neighbors can report their neighbor or people can report
someone in their community to the Federal government.
Again, from whistleblowers, over two dozen parents had an
FBI agent visit them, come see them, call them on the phone,
investigate them, based on that process that was put in place.
I want to go to the fundamental question. Why is the
government--in the case of the Twitter files, why is the FBI
sending a list of accounts and names to Twitter, telling
Twitter, ``We think these accounts violate your terms of
service''? That is sort of the fundamental question here. Why
in the world are they doing that?
That, to me, you used the term ``wrong'' in your opening
statement. You have used the term ``menacing'' a number of
times in today's questioning. That, to me, is as scary as it
kind of gets.
Mr. Turley. Well, it is interesting. In the Twitter files,
that was the same question that a Twitter executive said.
Chair Jordan. Yep.
Mr. Turley. At one point, he said, ``What gives? I mean,
basically, the FBI is telling us that our terms of service are
violated by all these people. What is their role, essentially,
and what is our role?'' It was an honest moment.
That same question is reflected where even Jim Baker
yesterday--
Chair Jordan. Yep.
Mr. Turley. --has said, I think we might need legislation,
that I think that there is a need, given what has happened, to
limit the FBI and other agencies.
Chair Jordan. So, when even someone at Twitter who worked
for the FBI says that, would you describe that as--would you
use the term ``targeting,'' would you use the term
``weaponization,'' of that process we just talked about?
Mr. Turley. Well, there are no question that they are
targeting posters. They are sending the names and accounts for
Twitter to take action on.
By the way, this idea that, ``Well, Twitter could say no,''
that is not the standard under these tests. I gave you the four
tests that the courts use.
Chair Jordan. Yep.
Mr. Turley. You can say no and still be an agent overall in
that relationship.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
As you point out in your testimony, your written testimony,
this targeting is not just limited to what we have learned in
the Twitter files, not just this direct attack on the First
Amendment. We have seen it in different--we saw it with the
dossier. We have seen it with the treatment of classified
documents. You have referenced that, the different standards.
You have referenced that in your statement. Of course, we have
seen it with the school boards situation.
I have got just 20 seconds. I will maybe pose a quick
question to Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams, the opening statement--there have been a lot
of talk about the memorandum from Attorney General Garland on
October 21, 2021. The opening statement, he said, the very
first sentence: ``In recent months, there has been a disturbing
spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence
against school administrators.''
When he testified on October 21, 2021, we asked him what
was the basis, what was the evidence for that statement. Do you
remember what the Attorney General said?
Mr. Williams. Sir, I don't. I don't work for the Justice
Department anymore, didn't advise him on it, and I--
Chair Jordan. Well, I will remind you. He said it was the
letter from the National School Boards Association.
Now, do you happen to know what the National School Boards
Association did with their letter, what they said about their
letter after the Attorney General testified?
Mr. Williams. Sir, I do not.
Chair Jordan. They rescinded it. They said, ``We regret and
apologize for the letter.''
So, the basis for the targeting action involving the
Federal government and local school board matters and local law
enforcement matters, the basis was the letter--that is what the
Attorney General cited--and that letter has been pulled back,
and the association who sent that letter said, ``We apologize
and regret that we sent it.''
It seems to me the Attorney General should rescind his
memorandum, which we have called for now for a year and a half.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here. I know it was
a long day, and I appreciate you staying the whole time. I was
tempted to give you a--I was looking to give you a restroom
break, but I thought we could get through it. So, I appreciate
your patience and your great testimony.
With that, the first Subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115442.