[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.