    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
                                   OF JUSTICE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-45
                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    53-649                    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                      ERIC SWALWELL, California
    DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           TED LIEU, California
    VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          J. LUIS CORREA, California
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
    NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    LAUREL LEE, Florida
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
              AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                                     ------

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                         Wednesday, September 20, 2023

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     1
    The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     3

                                    WITNESS

    The Hon. Merrick Garland, Attorney General, United States
      Department of Justice
      Oral Testimony.................................................     6
      Prepared Testimony.............................................     8

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the
      Judiciary are listed below.....................................   105

    Materials submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for
      the record
        A letter from David Weiss, United States Attorney, Jun. 7,
            2023, to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio
        A letter from David Weiss, United States Attorney, Jun. 30,
            2023, to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio
        A letter from David Weiss, United States Attorney, Jul. 10,
            2023, to Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member of the Senate
            Judiciary Committee from the State of South Carolina
        A report entitled, ``Annual Statistical Transparency Report:
            Regarding the Intelligence Community's Use of National
            Security Authorities,'' Apr. 2023, Office of the Director
            of National Intelligence
    A transcript enitled, ``Oversight of the Department of Justice,''
      Mar. 1, 2023, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, submitted by
      the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee
      on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for
      the record
        An excerpt from the transcribed interview of Jennifer Lee
            Moore, Executive Assistant Director, Human Resources,
            Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jun. 2, 2023,
        An excerpt from the transcribed interview of Thomas J.
            Sobocinski, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of
            Investigation, Baltimore Field Office, Sept. 7, 2023
        A Bill H.R. 4272, Jun. 22, 2023, To provide public awareness
            and outreach regarding the dangers of fentanyl, to expand
            the grants authorized under the Comprehensive Opioid
            Abuse Grant Program, to expand treatment and recovery
            services for people with opioid addictions, and to
            increase and to provide enhanced penalties for certain
            offenses involving counterfeit pills.
        A Bill H.R. 30, Jan. 9, 2023, To amend Title 18, United
            States Code, to increase the punishment for certain
            offenses involving children, and for other purposes.
    A letter from Christopher Dunham, Acting Assistant Director,
      Sept. 19, 2023, to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, submitted by
      the Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of California, for the record
    An article entitled, ``She secretly traveled 2,000 miles for her
      WA abortion. Why patients from the South are coming here,''
      Feb. 26, 2023, The Seattle Times, submitted by the Honorable
      Pramila Jayapal, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Washington, for the record
    A fact sheet entitled, ``FACT SHEET: Protecting the Right to
      Vote,'' submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
      Pennsylvania, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Mastercard and Visa's `duopoly' the target
      of a new bipartisan bill that would reform the credit card
      sector,'' Proactive Investors, submitted by the Honorable Lance
      Gooden, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of Texas, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Texas National Guard orders hundreds of
      asylum-seekers on US territory back into Mexico,'' Sept. 19,
      2023, El Paso Times, submitted by the Honorable Veronica
      Escobar, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of Texas, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the
      record
        A letter from Leslie B. Dubeck, General Counsel, District
            Attorney's Office, New York, Mar. 31, 2023, to the
            Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the
            Judiciary from the State of Ohio, the Honorable James
            Comer, Chair of the House Oversight Committee from the
            State of Kentucky, and the Honorable Bryan Steil, Chair
            of the House Administration Committee from the State of
            Wisconsin
        A letter from Fani T. Willis, Fulton County District
            Attorney, Sept. 7, 202, to the Honorable Jim Jordan,
            Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
            Ohio
        A letter from Abbe David Lowell, Counsel, Robert Hunter
            Biden, Sept. 14, 2023, to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair
            of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio,
            the Honorable James Comer, Chair of the House Oversight
            Committee from the State of Kentucky, and the Honorable
            Jason Smith, Chair of the House Committee on Ways and
            Means from the State of Missouri
        An excerpt from the transcribed interview of Thomas J.
            Sobocinski, Sept. 7, 2023
        A letter from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
            Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, the
            Honorable James Comer, Chair of the House Oversight
            Committee from the State of Kentucky, and the Honorable
            Bryan Steil, Chair of the Committee on House
            Administration from the State of Wisconsin, Mar, 20,
            2023, to the Hon. Alvin Bragg, District Attorney, New
            York County
        A letter from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
            Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, the
            Honorable James Comer, Chair of the House Oversight
            Committee from the State of Kentucky, and the Honorable
            Bryan Steil, Chair of the Committee on House
            Administration from the State of Wisconsin, Mar. 25,
            2023, to the Hon. Alvin Bragg, District Attorney, New
            York
        A letter from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
            Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Aug.
            24, 2023, to Ms. Fanny Willis, District Attorney of
            Fulton County
        An article entitled, ``Top IRS official latest witness to
            dispute allegations from Whistleblower on Hunter Biden
            tax case,'' Sept. 20, 2023, CNN

                     QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

    Questions for Attorney General Garland, submitted by the
      Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of Louisiana, the Honorable Lance
      Gooden, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of Texas, the Honorable Harriet Hageman, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Wyoming, the
      Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
        No response at the time of publication

                        OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
                                   OF JUSTICE

                                  ----------

                         Wednesday, September 20, 2023

                            House of Representatives

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan
    [Chair of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Buck, Gaetz,
    Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy,
    Bishop, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, Cline, Gooden, Van Drew,
    Nehls, Moore, Kiley, Hageman, Moran, Lee, Fry, Nadler, Lofgren,
    Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Schiff, Cicilline,
    Swalwell, Lieu, Jayapal, Correa, Neguse, McBath, Dean, Escobar,
    Ross, Bush, Ivey, and Balint.
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. Without
    objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
    time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Oversight of
    the Department of Justice.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to
    lead us all in the Pledge and please stand.
        Mr. Issa. If you will please face whichever flag is most
    appropriate for your direction.
        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. The fix is in. Even with the face-saving
    indictment last week of Hunter Biden, everyone knows the fix is
    in. Four and a half years, 4\1/2\ years, the Department of
    Justice has been investigating Mr. Biden, an investigation run
    by David Weiss, an investigation that limited the number of
    witnesses agents that could be interview; an investigation that
    prohibited agents from referring to the President as the ``big
    guy'' in any of the interviews they did get to do; an
    investigation that curtailed attempts to interview Mr. Biden by
    giving the [inaudible] a heads up; an investigation that
    notified Mr. Biden's defense counsel about a pending search
    warrant; and an investigation run by Mr. Weiss, run by Mr.
    Weiss, where they told the Congress three different stories in
    33 days.
        They told this Committee on June 7th, David Weiss said, ``I
    have ultimate authority to determine when, where, and whether
    to bring charges.'' Twenty-three days later, June 30th, he told
    this Committee actually I can only bring charges in my U.S.
    Attorney's District, the District of Delaware. Then, to further
    confuse matters, on July 10th, he told Senator Graham I have
    not sought Special Counsel status, rather I have had
    discussions with the Department of Justice. An investigation
    run by Mr. Weiss that negotiated a plea deal, that the Federal
    District Court declined to accept, a plea deal so ridiculous
    the judge asked this question, ``Is there any precedence for
    agreeing not to prosecute crimes that have nothing to do with
    the charges being diverted?'' The response from the DOJ lawyer,
    ``I am not aware of any, Your Honor.'' A plea deal so
    ridiculous that the judge also asked ``have you ever seen a
    diversion agreement where the agreement not to prosecute was so
    broad that it encompasses crimes in a different case?'' The
    response from the DOJ lawyer, ``No, Your Honor, we haven't.''
        An investigation run by Mr. Weiss that not only had a
    sweetheart deal rejected, but according to The New York Times,
    there was an even sweeter deal, an earlier deal, a deal where
    Mr. Biden would not have to plead guilty to anything. Four and
    a half years, and all that and now we get a Special Counsel.
    Now, we have a Special Counsel and who does the Attorney
    General pick? David Weiss, the guy who let all that happen. He
    could have selected anyone. He could have picked anyone inside
    government or outside government. He could have picked former
    Attorney Generals, former Special Counsels, but he picks the
    one guy, the one guy he knows will protect Joe Biden. He picks
    David Weiss.
        Here is what the AG said in his August 11th announcement of
    David Weiss as the Special Counsel, ``I am confident that Mr.
    Weiss will carry out his responsibility in an even-handed and
    urgent manner.'' Urgent manner? Every witness we have talked
    to, the two FBI Whistleblowers that came forward, Mr. Shapley,
    Mr. Zeigler; the two FBI agents on the case, Mr. Sobocinski,
    Ms. Holley, they have all said this thing was anything but
    urgent. The FBI said they were frustrated at the pace. Ms.
    Holley said she was frustrated at the pace. Of course, the IRS
    agents, they said, ``the investigation was slow-walked.''
        Even-handed? They limited the number of witnesses that
    could be interviewed. They tipped off the defense counsel about
    a subpoena. The judge said the plea deal was a joke. All that
    is just half the story. There is one investigation protecting
    President Biden. There is another one attacking President
    Trump. The Justice Department has got both sides of the
    equation covered.
        Look at the classified documents case. Spring and early
    summer of last year, the Department of Justice asked President
    Trump to turn over boxes of documents. He does just that. In
    the process, President Trump finds 38 additional documents. He
    tells the Department of Justice. The very next day the FBI
    comes to his home, and he turns them over. Then the Department
    of Justice asked the President to put any boxes he brought from
    the White House to his home in a storage room and secure it by
    locking it. He does that as well. Everything they asked him to
    do he did. Then what does the Justice Department do? August
    8th, last year, they raid President Trump's home. According to
    the FBI agent, Stephen D'Antuono, the Assistant Director in
    Charge of the Washington Field Office, the search was a
    complete departure from standard protocol.
        When we interviewed Mr. D'Antuono, he said first, ``the
    Miami Field Office didn't do the search. They had to send folks
    from D.C.'' He said there was no U.S. Attorney assigned to the
    case. Instead, it was run by D.C. and, in particular, Jay
    Bratt, who is now on the Special Counsel team. He said, ``the
    FBI didn't get President Trump's council's approval before they
    did the search.'' Then Mr. D'Antuono told us he had recommended
    that when the FBI got to Mr. Trump's home, President Trump's
    home, they contacted his counsel, waited for him to get there,
    and do the search together. Of course, the DOJ said no. Then
    who does the Attorney General name as Special Counsel, in that
    case, Jack Smith, the guy who a few years ago, looking for ways
    to prosecute Americans, targeted by lowest learner in the IRS,
    looking to prosecute the very victims of the weaponized
    government, the weaponized IRS.
        Jack Smith, the guy who prosecuted Governor McDonald, only
    to have the Supreme Court overturn that prosecution in a
    unanimous decision, that is the guy--that is the guy that the
    Attorney General of the United States selects as Special
    Counsel. You wonder why four out of five Americans believe
    there are now two standards of justice in our great country.
        Mr. Garland, I anticipate a number of questions on these
    two investigations. Later in the hearing, I expect from
    Republicans you will also get questions about the many other
    concerns the American people have with the Department, the
    school board's memorandum, treating of Catholics, a memo that
    said pro-life Catholics are extremists, the Fifth Circuit
    decision, great decision on the Department of Justice and other
    agencies, censoring Americans' speech, and of course, the FISA
    law that is up for reauthorization this year and how that
    process has been abused and infringes on the rights, privacy
    rights, of the American people.
        Americans believe that today in our country there is
    unequal application of the law. They believe that because there
    is. Republicans are committed to making that change. With that,
    I would yield to the gentleman from New York, the Ranking
    Member for an opening statement.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, at the outset,
    let me make two comments.

        (1) Just about every assertion you made in your opening
    statement has been completely refuted by witnesses who have
    testified before this Committee.
        (2) Far from being favored, many commentators have noted
    that people accused of simple gun possession while under the
    influence of a drug, and that gun was not used in the
    commission of a crime, are rarely, if ever, prosecuted the way
    Hunter Biden is being prosecuted.

        Mr. Chair, one of this Committee's most important duties is
    conducting oversight of the Department of Justice. We are
    called on to ensure that the DOJ uses the enormous amount of
    power it is granted in a fair, just manner that respects the
    civil and human rights of all Americans. The Attorney General
    of the United States oversees issues that affect the lives of
    each and every American. Violent crime, drug trafficking,
    attacks on our civil rights, threats to our national security,
    and environmental crimes all fall under his purview. That is
    why we regularly request that he or she appear before this
    Committee to speak about the work the Department is doing for
    the welfare of the country. This is how we ensure that the
    Department stays accountable to the American people.
        If it were up to the Republicans, Americans would hear
    nothing about any of these substantive issues today. They would
    hear nothing about the rise in domestic terrorism and what the
    Justice Department is doing about it. They would hear nothing
    about what the Department is doing to stop hate crimes and
    prevent gun violence. They would hear nothing about how the
    Department is disrupting efforts by Russia, China, and others
    to interfere in our elections.
        Extreme MAGA Republicans have poisoned our vital oversight
    work. They have ignored our legitimate oversight
    responsibilities and use their power to stage one political
    stunt after another. They have wasted countless taxpayer
    dollars on baseless investigations into President Biden and his
    family, desperate to find evidence for an absurd impeachment,
    and desperate to distract from the mounting legal peril facing
    Donald Trump. They have fought tirelessly to stop efforts to
    fight malign foreign actors trying to influence and manipulate
    Americans through social media. They have unConstitutionally
    interfered in criminal litigation and attempted to bully State
    and local law enforcement officers.
        They have publicized the names of witnesses who did not
    further their political goals, leading to threats of death and
    physical violence against those witnesses and their families.
    They have caused any number of private institutions and
    companies millions of dollars in legal fees as they struggle to
    respond to ridiculous and over-broad requests for information
    and transcribed interviews. They have issued subpoenas for
    show, without making meaningful attempts to get the information
    they seek by consent. They have levied low, baseless personal
    attacks on any prosecutor to bring charges against Donald Trump
    or January 6th rioters. They have attempted to discredit
    investigators who are not hard enough on Donald Trump's
    political opponents.
        They have supported those involved in the deadly attack on
    our Capital on January 6th in an attempt to overthrow a lawful
    election. They have justified conduct that we all know to be
    widely illegal, like the theft of classified materials and
    incitement to violence. Through it all, rather than try to
    unite the country or solve the problems that affect us all,
    they have sought to exploit our divisions for cynical,
    personal, and political gain. That is their goal, division.
    They want to divide this country and make our government appear
    like it is broken because that is when their broken political
    party thrives.
        So, today, I implore the public to see through the sham. I
    have no doubt that you will hear a deluge of conspiracy
    theories and baseless accusations. They will quote freely from
    so-called Whistleblowers who have been broadly discredited or
    contradicted. They will viciously attack Federal law
    enforcement. They will tell you that all 91 criminal charges
    against Donald Trump are part of a conspiracy, despite
    overwhelming evidence of each of Donald Trump's crimes. They
    will attack Special Counsel Weiss who was appointed, let us not
    forget, by Donald Trump for not being hard enough on Hunter
    Biden.
        Republicans will continue doing what they have done for
    years, discrediting anyone who does not serve their political
    goals at any cost. The shame of it is that in this hearing
    room, like on the House floor where are barreling toward a
    government shutdown while my Republican colleagues call each
    other names, we could be working together to put people over
    politics and to solve any number of problems affecting the
    American people.
        More than 30,000 Americans have died from gun violence so
    far this year alone. Guns have become the leading cause of
    death for children ages 1-17, surpassing car accidents.
    Domestic violence extremism and White nationalism are on the
    rise. We are seeing active clubs and other White supremacist
    groups pop up around the country. Antisemitism is at an all-
    time high. Malign foreign actors like Russia, China, Iran, and
    North Korea, are attempting to influence our elections.
        Political rhetoric is causing threats against law
    enforcement officials to skyrocket. Our immigration court
    system is in desperate need of reform. Our election workers
    receive death threats from conspiracy theory driven extremists.
    Fentanyl is filling our streets and poisoning our children at
    historic rates. This list goes on and on and we, the people in
    this room are in a position to do something about it. In fact,
    it is our duty to do something about it, consistent with the
    oath we took when we were sworn in as Members of Congress.
        We could work with the Department of Justice and Attorney
    General Garland to address any number of real substantive
    problems facing the American people. Instead, House Republicans
    will use their time today to talk about long discredited
    conspiracy theories and Hunter Biden's laptop. They will do it
    because they care more about Donald Trump than they do about
    their own constituents.
        I hope my colleagues will see reason and at least attempt
    to work with the Attorney General in good faith. Sadly, on the
    other side of the aisle, reason and good faith seem to be in
    short supply.
        In any event, Mr. Attorney General, I thank you for your
    testimony and thank you in advance for your patience. I yield
    back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Without objection,
    all other opening statements will be included in the record.
        We will now introduce today's witness.
        The Honorable Merrick Garland is the Attorney General of
    the United States. He was sworn in on March 11, 2021. We
    welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today. We will
    begin by swearing you in. Will you please rise and raise your
    right hand.
        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 the witness has answered in the
    affirmative. Thank you. You can be seated, please. Know that
    your written testimony will be entered into the record in its
    entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your
    testimony--you know how this is done, Mr. Garland, you have
    been here before. We want to again thank you for being here.
    You are welcome to give your opening statement.

           STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND

        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry, is this working?
        Chair Jordan. You got it.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you. Good morning, Chair
    Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler, distinguished Members of this
    Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    on behalf of the more than 115,000 employees of the Department
    of Justice.
        Since the Justice Department was founded, it has been
    tasked with confronting some of the most challenging issues
    before the country. Today, we are handling matters of
    significant public interest that carry great consequences for
    our democracy. A lot has been said about the Justice
    Department, about who we are and what we are doing, about what
    our job is and what it is not and about why we do this work. I
    want to provide some clarity.
        First, who we are. The Justice Department is made up of
    more than 115,000 men and women who work in every State and
    communities across the country and around the globe. They are
    FBI, DEA, ATF agents, and United States Marshals who risk their
    lives to serve their communities. They are prosecutors and
    staff who work tirelessly to enforce our laws. The overwhelming
    majority are career public servants, meaning that they were not
    appointed by the President of any party.
        Second, I want to provide clarity about what the job of the
    Justice Department is and about what it is not. Our job is to
    help keep our country safe. That includes working closely with
    local police departments and communities across the country to
    combat violent crime. In fact, today, we are announcing the
    results of a recent U.S. Marshals operation conducted with
    State and local law enforcement. That operation targeted
    violent fugitives and resulted in 4,400 arrests across 20
    cities in just three months.
        Our work also includes combating the drug cartels that are
    poisoning Americans. Last Friday, we expedited Ovidio Guzman
    Lopez, a leader of the Sinaloa cartel from Mexico to the United
    States. He is the son of El Chapo and one of more than a dozen
    cartel members we have indicted and extradited to the United
    States.
        Our job includes seeking justice for the survivors of child
    exploitation, human smuggling, and sex trafficking and it
    includes protecting democratic institutions like this one, by
    holding accountable all those criminally responsible for the
    January 6th attack on the Capital.
        Our job is also to protect civil rights. That includes
    protecting our freedoms as Americans to worship and think as we
    please and to peacefully express our opinions, our beliefs, and
    our ideas. It includes protecting the right of every eligible
    citizen to vote and to have that vote counted. It includes
    combating discrimination, defending reproductive rights under
    law, and deterring and prosecuting acts such as hate crimes.
        Our job is to uphold the rule of law. That means we apply
    the same laws to everyone. There is not one set of laws for the
    powerful and another for the powerless; one for the rich and
    another for the poor; or one for Democrats and another for
    Republicans; or different rules depending on one's race,
    ethnicity, or religion.
        Our job is to pursue justice without fear or favor. Our job
    is not to do what is politically convenient. Our job is not to
    take orders from the President, from Congress, or from anyone
    else about who or what we criminally investigate. As the
    President himself has said and I reaffirm today, I am not the
    President's lawyer. I will add I am not Congress' prosecutor.
    The Justice Department works for the American people. Our job
    is to follow the facts and the law and that is what we do.
        All of us recognize that with this work comes public
    scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate oversight. These are
    appropriate and important given the matters and the gravity of
    the matters that are before the Department. Singling out
    individual career public servants who are just doing their jobs
    is dangerous, particularly at a time of increased threats to
    the safety of public servants and their families. We will not
    be intimidated. We will do our jobs free from outside influence
    and we will not back down from defending our democracy.
        Third, I want to explain why we approach our job in this
    way. The Justice Department was founded in the wake of the
    Civil War and in the midst of Reconstruction with the first
    principal task of bringing to justice White supremacists and
    others who terrorize Black Americans to prevent them from
    exercising their civil rights. The Justice Department's job
    then and now is to fulfill the promise that is at the
    foundation of our democracy. The law will treat each of us
    alike. That promise is also why I am here.
        My family fled religious persecution in Eastern Europe at
    the start of the 20th century. My grandmother was one of five
    children, born in what is now Belarus, made it to the United
    States as did two of her siblings. The other two did not. Those
    two were killed in the Holocaust. There is little doubt that
    but for America, the same thing would have happened to my
    grandmother. This country took her in and under the protection
    of our laws, she was able to live without fear of persecution.
    That protection is what distinguishes this country from so many
    others.
        The protection of law, the rule of law is the foundation of
    our system of government. We are paying this country for the
    debt my family owes for our very lives has been the focus of my
    entire professional career. That is why I served in the Justice
    Department under five different Attorneys General, under both
    Democratic and Republican Administrations. That is why I spent
    more than 25 years ensuring the rule of law as a judge. That is
    why I left a lifetime appointment as a judge and came back to
    the Justice Department 2\1/2\ years ago. That is why I am here
    today. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Attorney General Garland
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. You are
    right, America is the greatest country ever and we are, we on
    this side are very concerned about the equal application of the
    law that you talk about in your opening statement. With that,
    we will move to the five-minute questions, and we will start
    with the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Mr. Weiss, the rule of
    law does distinguish our country, but you have not upheld that.
    You have allowed the rule of law to erode and that is why 65
    percent of the people in this country have no faith in the
    Department of Justice under your leadership. They don't trust
    it. They don't trust you. The reason is because they are
    witnessing every day a politicized Justice Department and a
    two-tiered system of justice.
        For example, they see the DOJ, of course, aggressively
    prosecuting President Biden's chief political rival, Mr. Trump,
    while at the same time they see slow-walking and special
    treatment given to the President's son. That is just a fact
    that everybody can see with their own two eyes.
        I want to focus on that investigation of the Biden family.
    We have many important questions for you today about that.
        Let me just get right to the chase. Has anyone from the
    White House provided direction at any time to you, personally,
    or to any senior officials at the DOJ regarding how the Hunter
    Biden investigation was to be carried out?
        Attorney General Garland. No.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Have you had personal contact
    with anyone at FBI headquarters about the Hunter Biden
    investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't recollect the answer to
    that question, but the FBI works for the Justice Department.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am sorry, I am sorry. You don't
    recollect--you don't recollect whether you have talked with
    anybody at FBI headquarters about an investigation into the
    President's son?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't believe that I did. I
    promised the Senate when I came before it for confirmation that
    I would leave Mr. Weiss in place and then I would not interfere
    with his investigation.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK, did you ever--
        Attorney General Garland. I have kept that promise.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right. Have you had personal
    contact with anybody at the Baltimore Field Office on the
    Hunter Biden matter?
        Attorney General Garland. No.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. On July 10, 2023, U.S. Attorney
    David Weiss told Senator Lindsay Graham,

            I had discussions with departmental officials regarding
            potential appointment under 28 U.S.C. 515, which would have
            allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without
            the partnership of the local U.S. Attorney.

    With whom did Mr. Weiss have those discussions?
        Attorney General Garland. I am not going to get into the
    internal deliberations of the Department.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Oh, but you must, sir. This is
    important for us. We have oversight responsibility over your
    Department, and we need these answers.
        Attorney General Garland. It is appropriate and necessary
    for Mr. Weiss to have conversations with the Department. I made
    clear that if he wanted to bring a case to any jurisdiction, he
    would be able to do that. The way you do that is to get an
    order signed by the Attorney General called a 515 Order. I
    promised he would be able to do that and he in his letters made
    clear he understood he would be able to do that.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. Can you tell us about any
    briefings or discussions that you personally have had with Mr.
    Weiss regarding any Federal investigations of Hunter Biden?
        Attorney General Garland. I am going to say again, I
    promised the Senate that I would not interfere with Mr.
    Weiss'--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, you have not--under oath
    today, your testimony is you have not had any discussions with
    Mr. Weiss about this matter?
        Attorney General Garland. Under oath, my testimony today is
    that I promised the Senate I would not intrude in his
    investigation. I do not intend to discuss internal Justice
    Department deliberations whether or not I had them.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Oh, OK. So, your testimony today
    is that you are not going to tell us whether you have had
    discussions with Mr. Weiss?
        Attorney General Garland. My testimony today is I told the
    Committee that I would not interfere. I made clear that Mr.
    Weiss would have the authority to bring cases that he thought
    were appropriate.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK.
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss is--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me stop you--for a second
    time, sir, are you aware that FBI officials have come before
    this Committee, and they have stated that there was a
    cumbersome bureaucratic process that Mr. Weiss had to go
    through to bring charges in another judicial district? Do you
    know that?
        Attorney General Garland. I am not aware, but that is not
    true. There is nothing cumbersome about the process.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, those Whistleblowers are
    lying to us under oath? Those Whistleblowers are lying?
        Attorney General Garland. I didn't say that. Their
    description of the process, cumbersome, is an opinion. It is
    not a fact question. All I have to do is--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK, all right. Let me get to the
    fact. Mr. Weiss has been the lead prosecutor on the Hunter
    Biden case since 2018, correct?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry?
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Weiss has been the lead
    prosecutor on the Hunter Biden since 2018. Now, here is the
    question.
        Attorney General Garland. He has been the lead prosecutor
    since he was appointed by President Trump.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK, let me ask you, why has the
    Justice Department dragged this investigation out for so long?
    Does it really take years to determine if Hunter Biden lied on
    a Federal form related to purchasing a firearm?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss was a long-time career
    prosecutor. President Trump appointed him as--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You are not answering the
    question. Is that standard procedure? Should it take that long
    to make such a simple determination?
        Attorney General Garland. I am answering the question. Give
    me an opportunity to do so.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK.
        Attorney General Garland. He was charged with that
    investigation under the previous administration. He has
    continued. He knows how to conduct investigations and I have
    not intruded or attempted to evaluate that because that was the
    promise I made to the Senate.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The Whistleblowers gave us
    testimony about serious misconduct of the Justice Department in
    regard to the preferential treatment afforded Hunter Biden. Has
    your office requested an investigation into that?
        Attorney General Garland. There are well-known processes
    for how Whistleblowers make their claims. I am a strong
    proponent of Whistleblowers and a strong defender. We have an
    Inspector General's Office. We have an Office of Professional
    Responsibility. That is the way in which complaints and
    Whistleblowers should be and are appropriately handled.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am out of time. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for
    being here today. It is no secret that some of my colleagues
    across the aisle have threatened to shut down the government
    unless and until the FBI and the Department of Justice are
    defunded. One Trump-like Presidential Candidate has said that
    we should abolish the FBI altogether.
        Mr. Attorney General, what would be the impact on America
    of defunding the FBI?
        Attorney General Garland. Defunding the FBI would leave the
    United States naked to the malign influence of the Chinese
    Communist Party; to the attacks by Iranians on American
    citizens and attempts assassinate former officials; to the
    Russian aggression; to North Korean cyberattacks; to violent
    crime in the United States, which the FBI helps to fight
    against; to all kinds of espionage; and to domestic violent
    extremists who have attacked our churches, our synagogues, our
    mosques, and who have killed individuals out of racial hatred.
        I just cannot imagine the consequences of defunding the
    FBI, but they would be catastrophic.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        I want to turn to Mr. Weiss' investigation and the
    authority he has been granted to conduct that investigation
    without interference in whatever way he deems necessary. You
    testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 1st of
    this year that David Mr. Weiss had, quote, ``full authority
    over any investigation concerning Hunter Biden.'' Was that a
    true statement at the time?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Mr. Weiss has full authority
    to conduct his investigation however he wishes, and Mr. Weiss
    has confirmed that in letters to this Committee.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        This authority included ensuring that Weiss would be able
    to bring charges in jurisdictions outside of Delaware, if
    necessary, is that correct?
        Attorney General Garland. I assured Mr. Weiss publicly that
    he would have the authority to bring a case outside of Delaware
    if he thought that was appropriate.
        Mr. Nadler. Does that remain true today?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, that is true today.
        Mr. Nadler. Has it ever been the case over the course of
    this investigation that Mr. Weiss would not have been able to
    bring charges outside of Delaware, if warranted?
        Attorney General Garland. As a matter of my authority, I
    promised he would be able to do that. I think this is apparent
    in the letters exchanged with the Committee and in my last
    previous testimony. For a United States Attorney or a Special
    Counsel, or anyone else, to bring a case outside of his
    jurisdiction, it requires me to sign--it requires me to sign a
    paper called Section 515, and that's the statute which permits
    bringing cases outside of the jurisdiction. I promised that I
    would do whatever was required to enable Mr. Weiss to bring a
    case outside of his jurisdiction, if that's what he thought was
    appropriate.
        Mr. Nadler. I assume it is your understanding that Mr.
    Weiss is fully aware that he could bring charges outside of
    Delaware, if necessary, when you testified on March 1st?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss has said so in the
    letters he sent to this Committee.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Did he ever say or do anything--did he ever say or do
    anything that might make him unsure of where he could bring
    charges?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss' own letters reflect
    that he had never asked me to be a Special Counsel and that he
    understood the process for asking for a signature on Section
    515 form.
        Mr. Nadler. There have been accusations that the handling
    of the Hunter Biden matter is an example of a two-tiered system
    of justice. What's your response to that allegation?
        Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department treats
    everyone alike. Regardless of party, regardless of ethnicity,
    regardless of wealth, everyone is treated alike.
        I understand that people may not understand why particular
    investigations are conducted in particular ways until all the
    facts come out. That's what we have the courts for. All the
    explanations will come out with respect to Mr. Weiss, for
    example, at the end of his period as Special Counsel. One of
    the requirements is that he file a public--a report which I
    have promised to make public to the extent that it's lawful and
    consistent with Department policy. It will explain his
    decisions to prosecute and not to prosecute.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        What are the impacts of Members of Congress making such
    accusations against the DOJ? Do baseless accusations from
    government officials make it more difficult for investigators
    to do their job and effectively investigate the subject?
        Attorney General Garland. Members of the Justice Department
    are strong and tough and able to understand that their job is
    to do the right thing, regardless of any pressures from any
    order. What is dangerous--and I'm not talking about the
    Committee--but what is dangerous is when anyone singles out a
    career prosecutor or a career FBI agent. We know as a matter of
    fact that this kind of singling out has led to threats. This is
    a concern across the board. It is not a concern for anyone in
    particular.
        Mr. Nadler. I think you would have been justified in
    referring to the Committee.
        My time is expired. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Attorney General, you're the only person
    who could ensure that Mr. Weiss had all the necessary
    authority, aren't you?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm the only person who can sign
    an agreement with respect to a Special Counsel. The authority
    to do Section 515 can be signed by other people in the
    Department.
        Mr. Bishop. You are aware, ultimately, though, the
    authority is yours.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. You made the point that you don't take orders
    from the President about such things. You decide, ultimately,
    what the Justice Department will do?
        Attorney General Garland. I announced at the beginning, I
    promised that he would be able to bring whatever cases he
    wants, and I have followed through on that promise. I'm
    permitted to make that kind of promise and I have made it.
        Mr. Bishop. Did you undertake to inform yourself, to
    interact with him sufficient to ensure that he knew he
    possessed that authority? Or that you would see to it that he
    had all the necessary authority?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't think there's any doubt
    that he knew. He has written three letters to this Committee
    indicating that he understood he had that authority.
        Mr. Bishop. You're also aware, though, aren't you, sir,
    that a senior IRS investigator, a Whistleblower, came forward
    and has testified publicly that Mr. Weiss stated that he did
    not have such authority; he was not the decider? Are you aware
    of that?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm aware of the testimony. I was
    not present at any point during that statement.
        Mr. Bishop. Have you--
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss has indicated--Mr.
    Weiss, who was present, has indicated that he had the authority
    and he knew that he had it.
        Mr. Bishop. Subsequent to those developments, though, you
    decided to make Mr. Weiss Special Counsel, which you had not
    done before?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss made clear he had not
    asked me to be Special Counsel until last month, and last month
    I made him Special Counsel.
        Mr. Bishop. Did you have some lack of information that you
    should have had that would have caused you to act earlier to
    make him Special Counsel?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss did not ask to be
    Special Counsel before--
        Mr. Bishop. I understand he didn't ask. You've said that,
    sir. Did you take the necessary steps to inform yourself what
    authority he understood he had or what obstacles he was
    encountering?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss had, as I said from the
    beginning, at the very beginning, that he had authority over
    all matters that pertained to Hunter Biden.
        Mr. Bishop. Have you you learned that he was, in fact,
    deterred by decisions of the United States Attorneys in the
    District of Columbia and the Northern District of California
    from proceeding as he thought best?
        Attorney General Garland. With respect, Congressman, Mr.
    Weiss has said--he has not said that he was deterred. He said
    that he followed the normal processes of the Department and
    that he was never denied the ability to bring a case in another
    jurisdiction.
        Mr. Bishop. Well, what changed, then, Mr. Attorney General?
    What made you decide that it was sufficient to leave him in the
    situation he was until you decided to make him Special Counsel?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss asked for that
    authority, given the extraordinary circumstances of this
    matter, and given my promise that I would give him any
    resources he requested, I made him Special Counsel.
        Mr. Bishop. So, until that time, was it just a matter of
    his predilection or did you--did you undertake to investigate
    and discern what he was doing with his authority and whether he
    had faced any obstacles?
        Attorney General Garland. I did not endeavor to investigate
    because I had promised that I would not interfere with this
    investigation. The way to not interfere is to not investigate
    an investigation.
        Mr. Bishop. Once he requested to be named Special Counsel,
    having not done so over months and months of your tenure, did
    you ask him what had changed--that made him now need to be a
    Special Counsel?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss asked to be made
    Special Counsel. I had promised that I would give him all the
    resources he needed, and I made him Special Counsel.
        Mr. Bishop. When did the Justice Department permit statutes
    of limitations to expire on some of the prospective charges
    against Hunter Biden for tax violations?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything about the
    statute of limitations here. The investigation was in the hands
    of Mr. Weiss to make the determinations that he thought were
    appropriate.
        Mr. Bishop. Are you unaware that the tax statute of
    limitations has been allowed to expire after their having been
    tolling agreements in place?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm going to say again, the
    determination of where to bring cases and which kinds of cases
    to bring was left to Mr. Weiss.
        Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir, I understand that you've said that.
    That's part of the problem. The question is, are you aware the
    statutes of limitations have been allowed to expire while the
    matter was under investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. The investigators were fully
    familiar with all the relevant law--
        Mr. Bishop. I'm not asking for the excuses.
        Attorney General Garland. They--
        Mr. Bishop. I'm asking you whether you are aware of that
    fact, sir.
        Attorney General Garland. I'm going to say again--I'm going
    to say again, and again, if necessary--I did not interfere
    with, did not investigate, did not make determinations--
        Mr. Bishop. See, those are statements in response to other
    questions.
        Attorney General Garland. Well--
        Mr. Bishop. Everybody in the country now knows who's paying
    attention to this; that the Justice Department permitted
    statutes of limitations to expire. Every lawyer who's ever
    practiced understands the implications of allowing statutes of
    limitations to expire.
        Attorney General Garland. Prosecutors--
        Mr. Bishop. Do you now even know, as you sit here, whether
    it occurred or not?
        Attorney General Garland. Prosecutors make appropriate
    determinations on their own. In this case, I left it to Mr.
    Weiss whether to bring charges or not. That would include
    whether to let the statute of limitations expire or not;
    whether there was sufficient evidence to bring a case that was
    subject to the statute of limitations or not; whether there
    were better cases to bring or not.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Attorney General, for being here with us this
    morning.
        As much as we see dirt being thrown in the air, there's a
    lot of misinformation that I think is intended to confuse
    people. I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the
    record three letters from Mr. Weiss that he sent to Congress on
    June 7th, June 30th, and July 10th.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. He said over and over again that he has full
    authority over this case, including the ability to seek Special
    Counsel or Special Attorney status, if needed. Trying to imply
    otherwise is just simply false.
        Mr. Weiss was appointed by then-President Trump. Your
    decision was to leave the Trump-appointed attorney completely
    in charge of this, hands off from you. He makes all the calls
    without interference from the Attorney General, is that
    correct?
        Attorney General Garland. That is correct.
        Ms. Lofgren. So, the idea that you would interfere is
    completely wrong. I would also like to ask--you talked about
    your independence from the President, but also your
    independence from the Congress. Have you ever come across,
    historically, an instance where the Congress of the United
    States tried to or successfully interfered with a prosecution
    initiated by the Department of Justice, based on the facts and
    the law?
        Attorney General Garland. I want to be gentle about the
    word ``interfere,'' but it is, just as a historical example, in
    the case of Iran-Contra, the consequences of actions by the
    Congress were that the Special Counsel's investigation of Iran,
    of Mr. North were dismissed.
        Ms. Lofgren. Correct. Before I go into another question I
    have, I just would like unanimous consent to put into the
    record the Annual Statistical Transparency Report, dated April
    2023. It indicates that the de-duplicated counting method for
    FBI queries of U.S. persons under the Section 702 database
    numbered over 119,000.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to note--and we will work
    with you--this Committee, on a bipartisan basis is very
    concerned about querying of the 702 databases for U.S. persons
    without a warrant. We're not suggesting that the law does not
    permit that, but we are going to visit this issue because it is
    my view that querying the 702 database that has been collected
    without due process, because it relates to foreign individuals,
    is completely wrong in terms of the privacy rights of
    Americans. I am just hoping that we can work successfully with
    you, as we craft requirements for a warrant to do that
    querying.
        I'd like to ask, as we know--and it has been mentioned by
    the Ranking Member--the proposal is, basically, to defund the
    police by the Republicans, to defund the FBI. I am concerned
    that, if we defund the police, as the majority has suggested,
    that really doesn't have an impact on the statute of
    limitations.
        So, if we were to defund the Department of Justice, defund
    the FBI and the police, as has been suggested, what would
    happen with the statute of limitations for cases that you are
    pursuing, if you were not able to actually do that? Would they
    be suspended in any way, or would the criminals get off scot-
    free?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I know in my experience as
    a judge, if I was asked a legal question and I don't know the
    answer, I would go back to the office and study it, and I'll
    have to do that in this case. I don't have the answer.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, I think I do, because there's nothing in
    the statute that allows for the statute of limitations to be
    suspended because the government has been shut down or because
    the police have been defunded through the budget process. I
    just think we ought to take the implications of a shutdown very
    seriously in terms of allowing criminals to get off.
        I see that my time is expired, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair has now recognized himself. Quote, ``Mr. Weiss
    has full authority to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he
    feels it's necessary.''
        That was your response, Attorney General, to Senator
    Grassley's question on March 1, 2023. You just referenced it
    when Mr. Bishop was questioning you.
        The only problem is, he had already been turned down by the
    U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, Mr. Graves. So, he
    didn't have full authority, did he?
        Attorney General Garland. I had an extended conversation
    with Senator Grassley at the time. We briefly touched on the
    Section 515 question and how that process went.
        I've never been suggesting--
        Chair Jordan. My point is really simple. My point's really
    simple, Mr. Garland. You said he had complete authority, but
    he'd already been turned down.
        Attorney General Garland. He can't be--
        Chair Jordan. He wanted to bring an action in the District
    of Columbia, and the U.S. Attorney there said, ``No, you
    can't.'' Then, you go tell the U.S. Senate, under oath, that he
    has complete authority.
        Attorney General Garland. I'm going to say again that no
    one had the authority to turn him down. They could refuse to
    partner with him. They could not--
        Chair Jordan. You can use whatever language. ''Refuse to
    partner'' is turning down.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, it's not the same under a
    well-known Justice Department practice.
        Chair Jordan. Here's why the statute of limitations
    question is important, and Mr. Bishop was getting at it just a
    few minutes ago. Here's why it's important: You let the statute
    of limitations lapse for 2014-2015. Those were the years with
    the felony tax charges where Hunter Biden was getting income
    from Burisma.
        Here are four facts that I think are so important:

        Fact 1: Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma, made
    a lot of money. Got paid a lot of money over those years, a
    couple of million bucks. He wasn't qualified.
        Fact 2: He wasn't qualified to be on the board of Burisma--
    not my words; his words. He said he got on the board because of
    his last name, ``the brand,'' as Devon Archer said when he was
    under oath and we deposed him.
        Fact 3: Burisma executives told Hunter Biden, ``We're under
    pressure. We need help.''
        Fact 4: Joe Biden goes to Ukraine, leverages our tax money,
    the American people's tax money, to get the prosecutor fired
    who was applying the pressure.

        Interestingly enough, that fact is entirely consistent with
    what the confidential human source told the FBI, and they
    recorded in the 1023 form, the same form Mr. Wray didn't want
    to let this Committee and the Congress see.
        That all happened. That all happened. What I'm wondering is
    why you guys let the statute of limitations lapse for those tax
    years that dealt with Burisma income.
        Attorney General Garland. There's one more fact that's
    important, and that this investigation was being conducted by
    Mr. Weiss, an appointee of President Trump. You will, at the
    appropriate time, have the opportunity to ask Mr. Weiss that
    question, and he will, no doubt, address it in the public
    report that will be transmitted to Congress.
        I don't know the answer to those questions--
        Chair Jordan. Did they forget? Did the lawyers just like
    let it--they're just like, ``Oh, darn, we let it''--were they
    careless?
        Attorney General Garland. I expect that won't be what he
    says, but because I promised--
        Chair Jordan. That's not the case. Because, as Mr. Bishop
    pointed out, they had a tolling agreement. They talked to
    Hunter Biden's defense counsel and say, ``Let's extend the
    statute of limitations.'' Then, at some point, they made an
    intentional decision to say, ``We're going to let the statute
    of limitations lapse.'' I want to know who decided that and why
    they did it.
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss was the supervisor of
    the investigation at that time and at all times. He made the
    necessary--appropriate decisions, and you'll be able to ask him
    that question, and he will--
        Chair Jordan. Do you know why they did it? Everyone knows
    why they did it. They may not say it, but everyone knows why
    they did it. They didn't--Burisma--those tax years, that
    statute--that dealt with the--that involved the President. It's
    one thing to have a gun charge in Delaware. That doesn't
    involve the President of the United States, but Burisma, oh,
    my, that goes right to the White House.
        We can't have that. We can slow-walk this thing along. We
    can even extend the statute of limitations, and then, we can
    intentionally let it lapse.
        We know this investigation was slow. Here's what everyone
    said:

    Shapley said, ``DOJ slow-walked the investigation.''
    Ziegler, ``Slow-walking in the approvals of everything. This
            happened at the Delaware's Attorney's Office and DOJ
            tax level.''
    Mr. Sobocinski, the FBI agent, said, ``I would have liked to
            see things move faster.''
    Ms. Holley said the same.

        Every witness we've talked to say this thing was slow-
    walked, and we know why. They slow-walked it long enough to let
    the statute of limitations run, so they wouldn't have to get
    into Burisma.
        Tell me where I'm wrong.
        Mr. Ivey. Will the gentleman yield?
        Chair Jordan. No. I'm asking Mr. Garland the question.
        Attorney General Garland. I think I've tried to make clear
    that I don't know the specifics of the investigation. Much of
    what you are describing occurred during the Trump
    Administration, during a Justice Department appointed by
    President Trump.
        Chair Jordan. No, it didn't. This is 4\1/2\ years, this
    investigation. We're talking the last few years. Your statement
    was just this year, March 1st, to Senator Grassley.
        Attorney General Garland. No. I'm sorry, I was trying to
    respond to your descriptions of what the IRS agent said about
    certain things--
        Chair Jordan. The statute of limitations is six years. That
    lapsed, that lapsed here in the Biden Administration.
        Attorney General Garland. On the statute of limitations, I
    will say again that the explanation for why the statute of
    limitations was lapsed, if it was, has to come from Mr. Weiss.
        Chair Jordan. My time is--but let me ask one last question
    really quick here.
        Who decided that David Weiss would stay on as U.S.
    Attorney?
        Attorney General Garland. This had occurred at--before I
    came, Mr. Weiss had been kept on. I promised the--
        Chair Jordan. No, I didn't say--you can walk all through
    that. I said, ``who decided?'' The White House decided?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss--
        Chair Jordan. They serve at the pleasure of the President,
    right?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss was held--
        Chair Jordan. Joe Biden decided to keep David Weiss as U.S.
    Attorney. You weren't sworn in until March. He was left--maybe
    he was told he was going to stay on in February.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chair, your time has expired.
        Chair Jordan. A pretty fundamental question. Who decided
    David Weiss was going to stay as U.S. Attorney in Delaware?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss was--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chair, your time has expired.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, your time has expired.
        Chair Jordan. I'm waiting for an answer, and then, I'll
    yield.
        Mr. Ivey. Well, you asked the question after your time had
    expired already. Point of order.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman can respond. Then, I'll go to
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss was the Special--U.S.
    Attorney from the District of Delaware when I came on. He had
    been appointed by President Trump. I promised that he would be
    permitted to stay on for this investigation, and that is what
    happened.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady--
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair?
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I believe you misquoted from the
    transcript of the Senate, of the Senate hearing. I'd,
    therefore, ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
    entire transcript of the Senate hearing.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. I didn't misquote what Mr.
    Garland said.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Chair Jordan. Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        None of the Republicans' goals today include solving
    Americans' problems, of which they are concerned of.
        There are many reasons, Mr. Attorney General, that
    prosecutors decline to bring charges. One of those reasons is
    that they don't have any evidence for a conviction. That is the
    justice way. That is just in America.
        So, let me raise these questions and concerns with you
    today.
        As we all know, Republicans have repeatedly alleged that
    the DOJ and FBI are conspiring to shield the Biden family from
    public criticism and giving Hunter Biden special treatment in
    its investigations. They have demonized law enforcement
    officials working with this case at every turn, which has
    directly led to increased threats against FBI officials, law
    enforcement--which they pretend to support.
        I want to place into the record two excerpts from recent
    transcribed interviews, and I would ask that copies be made
    available to you.
        The first is from a June interview with Jennifer Moore,
    FBI's former Executive Assistant Director for Human Resources.
    She told this Committee that the FBI had received so many
    threats that it had to stand up an entire 10-person unit just
    to deal with them. She said it is unprecedented. It is: ''It's
    a number we have never had before.'' Moore testimony on pp.
    202-203.
        The second excerpt is from an interview earlier this month
    with Thomas Sobocinski, the Special Agent in Charge of FBI's
    Baltimore Field Office.
        Here's what he said:

              I joined the FBI 25 years ago. I joined for a reason--to
            protect the American people, uphold the Constitution. I've been
            to war. My family's been in bad places. My kids have been
            evacuated from war zones or quasi-war zones. I've been in some
            bad things. I have accepted that.

              I am solely focused on two things, and they are not mutually
            exclusive. The first is, like every investigation, I want to
            get to a resolution in a fair, apolitical way. The second
            thing--it's becoming more important and more relevant--is
            keeping my folks safe. That part, I have never expected--to
            have to be able to be concerned about keeping family safe. So
            that, for me, this is becoming more and more of a job that I
            have to do and take away from what I was assigned or signed up
            to do, which was to investigate and do these things.

              So, when you talk about potential frustrations with
            communication, I am personally frustrated with anything that
            places my employees and their families in enhanced danger. Our
            children, their children, did not sign up for this.

        Mr. Attorney General, do you agree that politically charged
    rhetoric claiming that law enforcement agents--and I have many
    questions, if you can be brief--are corrupt and contribute to
    this onslaught of threats against public servants?
        Attorney General Garland. OK. As I said in my opening
    statement, we have had an astounding number of threats against
    public servants over the last several years. I think that when
    career public servants in the Justice Department and election
    workers, and airline crews, when they are singled out, this can
    lead to threats of violence and actual violence.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. We have the actual example of an
    attack on an FBI office by somebody who was incensed by
    political rhetoric. This does happen. We must not allow that to
    happen in this country.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Does the rhetoric regarding the Biden case
    have any basis in reality?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the
    first part.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Does the rhetoric regarding the Biden case
    have any, any basis in reality?
        Attorney General Garland. No, it does not.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. How does this impact FBI and DOJ
    employees' ability to do their work? I think you mentioned,
    specifically, FBI and DOJ employees.
        Attorney General Garland. As I've already said, the agents
    of the FBI and the prosecutors understand that criticism comes
    with their job, and they will continue to do their jobs without
    fear or favor. The idea of threatening their safety or that of
    their families is just abhorrent.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        I assume that provisions have had to be in place to protect
    these agents and their families.
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the
    first part.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I assume that provisions or protections
    have had to be in place to protect these agents and their
    families.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, that's correct.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move on. Thank you very much,
    General.
        Let me move on to the fentanyl crisis. I want to introduce
    H.R. 4272. Let me just put on the record, so that you can
    probably summarize--and I ask for the indulgence of my Chair.
    In any event, that the FBI, the DOJ, are focused, needlepoint-
    focused, if you will, on the crisis of fentanyl. I want to just
    raise that for you, and then, I'm just going to followup with
    one or two other questions, if you would be able to comment on
    these collectively.
        I am dealing with the crisis of human trafficking and the
    prioritizing of America's children. They are under siege. The
    level of child sexual abuse materials generating into human
    trafficking--and I want to put H.R. 30 on the record--indicates
    from ICAC that there are 99,000 IP cases where they're enticing
    children, and maybe only one percent of them being
    investigated. I'd like your comment on that.
        Finally, in the approach of high--of Yom Kippur, to
    emphasize the work that is, hopefully, still being done with
    antisemitism, attacks on immigrants, African Americans, and
    Latinos.
        If you would answer those questions: Fentanyl, the human
    trafficking, and then, domestic terrorism.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, these are all horrendous
    problems propagated by people who are truly evil.
        We are fighting the fentanyl scourge in every possible way,
    starting with the precursors in China to the labs in Mexico, to
    the cartels that are bringing the drugs into the United States,
    to their networks in the United States, to the streets of
    America. We will continue to do that with every resource that
    Congress gives us.
        Human smuggling and sex trafficking are, obviously,
    abhorrent. The Justice Department has task forces on both of
    these subjects and has brought many, many cases on these
    subjects.
        The idea of putting sexually explicit material about
    children on the web is another area that we are continuing to
    investigate and to prosecute, and to ask the social media to
    take down from their sites.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Gaetz. I guess I'm just wondering, Mr. Attorney
    General, has anyone at the Department told President Biden to
    knock it off--with Hunter? You guys are charging Hunter Biden
    on some crimes, investigating him on others. You've got the
    President bringing Hunter Biden around to State dinners. Has
    anyone told him to knock it off?
        Attorney General Garland. Our job in the Justice Department
    is to pursue our cases without reference to what is happening
    in the outside world.
        Mr. Gaetz. Just yes or no. Have you done that?
        Attorney General Garland. That is what we--
        Mr. Gaetz. So, it is a no?
        Attorney General Garland. No one that I know of has spoken
    to the White House about the Hunter Biden case.
        Mr. Gaetz. I am wondering--
        Attorney General Garland. Of course not.
        Mr. Gaetz. OK. I got it. I got it.
        So, Hunter Biden is selling art to pay for his $15,000 a
    month rent in Malibu. How can you guarantee that the people
    buying that art aren't doing so to gain favor with the
    President?
        Attorney General Garland. The job of the Justice Department
    is to investigate criminal allegations. If you have
    information--
        Mr. Gaetz. Are you investigating this? Someone who bought
    Hunter Biden's art ended up with a prestigious appointment to a
    Federal position. Doesn't it look weird that he is making, he
    has become this immediate success in the art world because his
    dad is President of the United States? Isn't that odd?
        Attorney General Garland. I am not going to comment about
    any--
        Mr. Gaetz. Not going to comment, not going to investigate.
        Attorney General Garland. That is right.
        Mr. Gaetz. Hunter Biden's associate, Devon Archer, told us
    that Hunter sold the appearance of access to then-Vice
    President Biden. Are you confident he has stopped doing that?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I didn't understand
    the question.
        Mr. Gaetz. Hunter Biden associate, Devon Archer, told us
    that Hunter sold the appearance of access to then-Vice
    President Biden. Are you confident he has stopped?
        Attorney General Garland. I am going to say again that all
    these matters are within the purview of Mr. Weiss. I have not
    interfered with them. I do not--
        Mr. Gaetz. Yes, but if you were confident that he had
    stopped, you could probably tell us.
        Attorney General Garland. I do not intend to interfere with
    it.
        Mr. Gaetz. Yes, I want to--so it was a lot of Chinese money
    that was working its way through these shell companies into the
    accounts of the Biden family. So, the China Initiative was set
    up during the Trump Administration at the Department of Justice
    to go after the malign influence of the Chinese Communist
    Party. The Biden Justice Department dissolved the China
    Initiative.
        So, I guess I am wondering, does the Department have any
    documents that would detail the basis for why you got rid of
    the China Initiative that President Trump had set up?
        Attorney General Garland. The Assistant Attorney General
    for the National Security Division gave a long speech which
    explained that. He has testified before Congress several times.
    We would be happy to provide you with--
        Mr. Gaetz. What is the basis? Just tell us all now. Why was
    the China Initiative dissolved?
        Attorney General Garland. What the Assistant Attorney
    General said was that we face attacks from four Nation-States,
    North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran, and that we need to focus
    our attention on the broad range of these attacks. Sometimes we
    don't know--
        Mr. Gaetz. Wait a second. Are you saying that North Korea
    has the same malign influence risk to the United States as the
    Chinese Communist Party? Are you trying to represent there is
    some parity there, because here is what it looks like?
        It looks like the Chinese gave all this money to the
    Bidens, and then you guys came in and got rid of the China
    Initiative. It was successful. Like I saw one rationale that
    you guys got rid of the China Initiative because it was racial
    profiling. One of the people you convicted was a guy named
    Charles Lieber, who was a Harvard professor taking $50,000 a
    month to do China's bidding and give them whatever research was
    being done.
        Are you aware of the millions of dollars that move through
    Rob Walker's shell companies from Chinese Communist Party
    entities into Biden family bank accounts? Are you aware of
    that?
        Attorney General Garland. There were a lot of questions
    that you just asked. Let me start with the first one about
    North Korea. North Korea is a dangerous actor, both kinetically
    and with respect to cyber--
        Mr. Gaetz. Not on par with China. I am on the Armed
    Services Committee, Mr. Attorney General--
        Attorney General Garland. I am not in the business right
    now of--
        Mr. Gaetz. OK. It makes you look unserious to suggest--
        Attorney General Garland. May I answer your question or
    not?
        Mr. Gaetz. Answer the question about whether or not you
    know about all the millions of dollars that move through Rob
    Walker's--
        Attorney General Garland. So, you don't want me to answer
    about North Korea.
        Mr. Gaetz. I already know the answer and so does everyone.
    They are not the same risk as China. So, let's get on to
    serious questions and serious answers. Do you know about the
    money that moved through Rob Walker's shell companies? Yes or
    no.
        Attorney General Garland. As I have said repeatedly, I have
    left these matters to Mr. Weiss. I have not intruded.
        Mr. Gaetz. Blissfully ignorant.
        Attorney General Garland. I have not interfered.
        Mr. Gaetz. Blissfully ignorant to these--
        Attorney General Garland. I have not tried to find out what
    he knows.
        Mr. Gaetz. It is like you are looking the other way on
    purpose, because everybody knows this stuff is happening. You
    know what? People don't pay bribes to not get something in
    return, right. The China Initiative resulted in the convictions
    of a Harvard professor, of someone at Monsanto. So, we were
    working against the Chinese. They paid the Bidens. Now, you are
    sitting here telling me that North Korea is the big threat.
        Attorney General Garland. I am--
        Mr. Gaetz. I got to get to this one thing on January 6th.
    So, did the--
        Attorney General Garland. Do you want me to answer your
    question or not?
        Mr. Gaetz. Did the FBI lose count of the number of paid
    informants on January 6th?
        Attorney General Garland. Let me answer your question about
    China.
        Mr. Gaetz. No, I want you to answer this question.
        Attorney General Garland. China is the most--
        Mr. Gaetz. I only get five minutes. You have already sort
    of, I think, screwed the pooch on China.
        Attorney General Garland. You ask me a question. You
    haven't permitted--
        Mr. Gaetz. So, January 6th, did you lose count of the
    number of Federal assets? Did you lose count and order an
    audit?
        Mr. Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Gaetz. I get an answer to the question of did they lose
    count--
        Mr. Nadler. Then let him answer the question.
        Chair Jordan. The time has expired. The Attorney General
    can respond.
        Attorney General Garland. China is the most aggressive,
    most dangerous adversary--
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Attorney General, I think the--
        Attorney General Garland. --that the United States faces,
    and we are doing everything within our power to rebut that, to
    stop that, to prevent their invasions, both kinetic, both, and
    through cyber space. We will continue to do that.
        Mr. Gaetz. If someone gave that answer in your courtroom
    when you were a judge, you would tell them they were being
    nonresponsive--
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair--
        Mr. Gaetz. --and you would direct them to answer the
    question.
        [Crosstalk.]
        Chair Jordan. The time has--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Badgering the witness.
        Mr. Nadler. The point of order has expired.
        Chair Jordan. I got it. I just, I was--
        Mr. Ivey. Do you like Your Honor? Do you want to stick with
    that?
        Chair Jordan. Yes, I was getting laughed at. You called me
    Your Honor.
        Mr. Ivey. Point of order either way.
        Chair Jordan. OK. I understand that, too.
        Mr. Ivey. All right.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman asked his question before his
    time expired. The Attorney General did not respond to the
    gentleman's question. I was hoping he would respond to the
    question about the confidential human sources on January 6th.
    He didn't respond to that. I am sure we are going to get--
        Mr. Ivey. Of course, Mr. Chair, there were eight
    questions--
        Chair Jordan. I now recognize the gentleman--
        Mr. Ivey. --before that he was not given a chance to
    answer.
        Chair Jordan. I understand. But--
        Mr. Ivey. So, the witness might have--
        Mr. Biggs. The witness doesn't--Mr. Chair, point order. The
    witness does not control the time.
        Chair Jordan. Hang on. Exactly right. Members control the
    time. If they want to switch their question and focus on one
    more question that they would like an answer to, I want to give
    the witness a chance to respond to that final question that Mr.
    Gaetz asked. He didn't respond to it. Someone else is going to
    ask it, I am sure.
        We now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. I will just followup a few of
    the questions that were asked here. Did Devon Archer not say
    Joe Biden did nothing wrong?
        Attorney General Garland. I want to be clear. I only know
    about Mr. Archer from newspaper reports. I want to be clear
    that I kept my promise not to involve myself in this
    investigation.
        Mr. Cohen. OK. Now, stated. He said that Joe Biden did
    nothing wrong.
        Second, did you say that President Trump, President Trump
    appointed Weiss, who then you appointed?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. President Trump appointed
    Mr. Weiss as United States Attorney.
        Mr. Cohen. So, that should take care of that issue.
        They say the Department has been weaponized. Wasn't there
    an investigation of Mr. Gaetz, and you didn't prosecute him?
        Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department does not
    make comments about its investigations.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, it just shows you we are not weaponized.
    If we were weaponized, we would have done it. That was a
    beautiful exchange there. It shows we didn't do that.
        You are the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. I
    appreciate that. Law enforcement is one of our government's
    fundamental functions. Crime is growing too much in this
    country and in my city of Memphis as well. We need law
    enforcement to be effective, swift, and fair. I would like to
    focus my questions on what actually affects the American
    people, crime.
        How do we get smarter law enforcement, requiring smart
    resource allocations, not about funding or less funding but the
    right funding for the right programs, and see that this
    happens?
        Memphis, as hiring has become more difficult, we have
    lowered our standards to get more officers. That is not the way
    to do it. The COPS program is helping us review the policy and
    procedures, and I thank you, the COPS program, for doing that.
    What can the Department of Justice do to help see that law
    enforcement is more efficient and more effective?
        Attorney General Garland. So, the key to this is our
    partnership, the FBI, DEA, Marshals, ATFs, partnership at every
    local level with local and State law enforcement, and task
    forces in discussions to target the most dangerous criminals in
    those communities, but at the same time, to engage the
    communities to help engender community trust in law
    enforcement.
        Everyone who has prosecuted violent crime cases, and that
    includes me, knows that you need the trust of the community to
    get witnesses. We, in the Justice Department, are helping our
    State and local colleagues do just that.
        The funding you described from the COPS Office and in the
    Office of Justice Programs allows us to give money to State and
    local police organizations that are having trouble with
    recruitment and retention and promotion of law officers and
    helps them make their departments respectful of Constitutional
    rights and at the same time effective in the investigation and
    prosecution of criminal law violations.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you for those activities, those programs
    through COPS.
        You have also reinstituted patterns and practices
    investigations of certain police departments. Memphis is one of
    them. I thank you for doing that. Can you share with us how
    important those pilot programs are and how they can improve
    policing?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Congress has authorized the
    Justice Department to conduct pattern and practice
    investigations when they have a reasonable belief in the, that
    there has been unConstitutional, a pattern of unConstitutional
    behavior in a police department. We are careful to select those
    cases where we think there is such a pattern. We make those
    investigations. We then work with the law enforcement agencies
    and the cities.
        Our hope is to come to a consent decree that will lead to a
    better, more efficient, and more Constitutional police
    department. We have been successful in all our cases to date in
    reaching consent agreements.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. You were part of announced
    bringing of charges, Federal charges against the five officers
    who killed Tyre Nichols in Memphis. I thank you for that. We
    need that Federal charge. We need our department looked at.
        If there is a shutdown of the Federal Government, how will
    that affect the Department of Justice and affect policing in
    local communities?
        Attorney General Garland. I haven't done a complete
    calculation on the effects of a shutdown and the difference
    between which employees are indispensable under the statute and
    which ones not. It will certainly disrupt all our normal
    programs, including our grant programs to State and local law
    enforcement, and to our ability to conduct our normal efforts
    with respect to the entire scope of our activities, including
    helping State and locals fight violent crime.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Happy New Year.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman, Mr. McClintock, from California, is
    recognized.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Attorney General, looking again at the appointment of
    Jack Smith and David Weiss, this double standard of Justice
    couldn't be more glaring. Jack Smith was deeply involved in the
    IRS scandal that targeted conservative political groups who
    were harassed. His malicious prosecution of former Governor
    McDonnell was unanimously overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Smith directly for attempting to
    criminalize political activity. You appointed him to prosecute
    Joe Biden's chief rival for the presidency.
        Then we have the appointment of David Weiss. Weiss
    deliberately allowed the statute of limitations to run out on
    any charges that could have implicated Joe Biden in influence
    peddling. He originally offered Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal
    that was ultimately upended by the court. He is the one you
    appointed to pursue the charges that could implicate Joe Biden.
        That leads me to only two explanations, either corruption
    or incompetence. So, which is it?
        Attorney General Garland. Those are the kind of questions
    that judges would rule out of order.
        Mr. McClintock. I am sure you would. Which is it?
        Attorney General Garland. Look, I said before and I will
    say again, Mr. Weiss was the Republican appointed United States
    Attorney, appointed by President Trump.
        Mr. McClintock. Do you at least see the obvious double
    standard applied in these two appointments?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss was a Republican
    appointee. Mr. Smith is not registered at either party. His
    entire career was as a career prosecutor.
        Mr. McClintock. I don't care what their party registrations
    are.
        Attorney General Garland. That does not seem like a double
    standard.
        Mr. McClintock. I am not asking what their party
    registrations are. I am asking about their records and how
    those records would commend them to the appointments that you
    made. This is a question of judgment, and it is a question of
    motive. What was motivating you to do this?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Smith had a nationwide
    reputation for integrity and for--
        Mr. McClintock. Oh, please, not a--
        Attorney General Garland. --appropriate prosecution. His
    work can be measured by what he actually has filed. Everyone in
    the country can see the indictments--
        Mr. McClintock. How can you say that after he was so
    heavily implicated in the IRS scandal or the rebuke that the
    Supreme Court gave him and many other examples? Let me go on.
        We have had two IRS Whistleblowers inform Congress of
    attempts by senior Justice Department officials to obstruct the
    criminal investigation into millions of dollars of ill-gotten
    and undeclared income to Hunter Biden.
        They noted several deviations by the Department officials
    from normal process that provided preferential treatment in
    this case to Hunter Biden, a direct quote, including allowing
    the statute of limitations to lapse, requesting IRS and FBI
    management level investigative communications prohibiting
    investigators from referring to the big guy or dad in witness
    interviews, excluding the investigative team from meetings with
    defense counsel, and notifying defense counsel of pending
    search warrants. The U.S. Attorney's Office even tipped off the
    Bidens of an impending search of a storage unit where their
    records were being kept.
        Now, that sounds an awful lot like obstruction of justice
    to me. Was that coming from you or from somebody else?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I don't--was that
    coming from you? I don't understand the question.
        Mr. McClintock. All the actions that your employees took to
    obstruct the investigation of Hunter Biden and the earnings
    that he made and the taxes he failed to declare, their source
    and ultimately who they were paid to.
        Attorney General Garland. I am going to say again with
    respect to the Hunter Biden investigation, that it has been and
    still is in the hands of Mr. Weiss, an appointee of President
    Trump. I don't know about all these allegations. Some of them
    appear to have been from the period when the Attorney General
    appointed by President Trump was still the Attorney General.
        Mr. McClintock. Do these charges trouble you at all?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss will have an
    opportunity to explain the decisions--
        Mr. McClintock. Well, you are the guy in charge. Does this
    trouble you?
        Attorney General Garland. I have intentionally not involved
    myself in the facts of the case, not because I am trying to get
    out of responsibility but because I am trying to pursue my
    responsibility.
        Mr. McClintock. Your FBI Director testified before this
    Committee of an uptick in ``known or suspected terrorists
    coming across the Southern border.'' He told us that the
    Southern border represents a massive security threat. Those
    were his words, a massive security threat. Do you agree?
        Attorney General Garland. I am perfectly happy to align
    myself with the Director of the FBI.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, why is it then that we, senior
    administration rescinds the Trump era orders that had secured
    that border? We have seen an exponential increase in suspected
    terrorists.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
    witness can respond if he chooses.
        Attorney General Garland. The answer to this question about
    immigration law is an extremely long answer. I would defer to
    the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for
    the physical security and that first contact at the border.
    With respect--
        Chair Jordan. Well, we have tried to get answers from him,
    and he doesn't give them to us. So, we were hoping you would.
        I understand, Mr. Attorney General, you have requested a
    short break. So, we will take a short break and resume in five
    minutes.
        Attorney General Garland. OK. Sorry.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Johnson, for five minutes.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Attorney General Garland, great to see you. Thank you for
    your service to the Nation.
        The Nation watches as the Republicans have no answer for
    why they want to focus and obsess on Hunter Biden receiving $2
    million from Burisma after serving on a board that he said he
    was not qualified to serve on. Yet, the Saudi Arabians gave $2
    billion to Jared Kushner, who conducted Middle East strategy
    for his dear old dad, Donald Trump. He got $2 billion for
    something that he is not equipped to do, which is investment
    banking. So, Republicans looking at Hunter Biden instead of
    Jared Kushner, Americans don't understand how that could be.
        They also are increasingly alarmed about the fact that the
    Republicans in control of the House only seem to have three
    objectives.

        (1)  To impeach Joe Biden.
        (2)  To shut down, is to impeach or get rid of Kevin
    McCarthy actually.
        (3)  To shut down the government.

        A subset of that is to defund the DOJ and the FBI for
    trying to hold Donald Trump accountable. So, the American
    people are watching that.
        They also appreciate the fact that you have had a
    distinguished career as a prosecutor and a DOJ official, as
    well as 24 years on the bench. You served on the second highest
    court of the land as a judge for 24 years, the D.C. Circuit
    Court of Appeals. We appreciate your service. You were for
    seven years the lead, you managed that entire office. We thank
    you for that. You also served on the Judicial Council for a
    number of years. So, you are steeped in the rule of law. You
    are a judge extraordinaire.
        As a judge, you never had the occasion to receive a private
    jet travel to an exotic location by a corporate billionaire,
    did you? You can cut your mic on.
        Attorney General Garland. No.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You never received an offer to get
    a ride on a private jet?
        Attorney General Garland. No.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Did you take any vacations at
    exclusive resorts paid for by a billionaire?
        Attorney General Garland. I know these are not hypothetical
    questions. I think--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I mean--
        Attorney General Garland. --this is really not within my
    realm of questions.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You were a judge extraordinaire.
    You know the rules of ethics for judges because your bench had
    to, was covered by a Code of Conduct. Is that not correct?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. All the judges, Federal,
    appellate, and District Judges are covered by the Code of
    Conduct.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You would never have had somebody
    to pay for your godson's tuition to a private school, would
    you?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't want to answer
    these kinds of--at least to me they are hypothetical questions.
    What I would say is that always as a judge, and I have said
    this before and quite publicly and long ago, I always held
    myself to the highest standards of ethical responsibility
    imposed by the Code. That is really all I can answer here.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It is required that judges and
    justices avoid even appearances of impropriety. Isn't that
    correct?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I know you are asking this
    both hypothetically and not hypothetically. All I can say is I
    follow the Code of Judicial Conduct. It includes avoiding
    appearances. That is right.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this question.
    Senator Whitehouse and I sent a letter to you alerting you to
    the fact that we were asking the Judicial Council to refer the
    matter of Clarence Thomas being in violation of the Ethics in
    Government Act to the Justice Department. After that,
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, along with myself and
    others, requested that you take that matter up directly.
        Have you responded to either one of those letters? If not,
    why not? What action have you taken pursuant to those letters?
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman may respond.
        Attorney General Garland. I assume that if you sent the
    letter, we have it. I will speak to the Office of Legislative
    Affairs about where it is at this point.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is the Department investigating--
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Issa.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Good day, Mr. Attorney General. This may be the reason that
    it is good for you to leave the Chief Justice and that group
    before each of us speak, as you would have already heard all
    that.
        I want to thank you personally for your office and your
    engagement to Camp Lejeune and on obviously a vast amount of
    litigation. That is one of the many, many jobs that it falls at
    your feet.
        One of the jobs that falls at our feet here is that we are
    watchdogs of the Executive Branch. You have previously said
    that you are not Congress' attorney. You have said you are not
    the President's attorney. I am assuming that you are neither
    our prosecutor nor our defense attorney, and you are neither
    the President's prosecutor nor defense attorney.
        That is why that today's investigation really does deal
    with the fact that if you are not by definition the President's
    prosecutor, but we have an obligation to see whether or not the
    President or a member of his family or in concert with the
    President's activities, in fact, need to be overseen,
    admonished, or even prosecuted.
        So, I have a couple of questions for you. One of them is
    that you have not said this very much today, but you often say
    I cannot comment on that because it is an ongoing
    investigation. When we ask for information, you very commonly
    say that it is the policy, not the law, but the policy of the
    Department of Justice not to provide information related to an
    ongoing investigation. So far, I am on track. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Garland. I think I have said more than it
    is just a policy. I think the letters we have sent trace it to
    the Constitutional separation of powers, Rule 6(e) of the
    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, et cetera. In general, I
    am in accord with what you are saying.
        Mr. Issa. So, one of the challenges we face is that just a
    matter of weeks ago a Federal Judge found the actions of a now
    special prosecutor to be so outside what he could agree to that
    he pushed back on a plea settlement and nullified it and sent
    the U.S. Attorney going back.
        In light of that, don't you think it is appropriate for
    that portion to be considered a pre-ongoing investigation and
    for Congress to
    legitimately look at the activities leading up that failed plea
    bargain, rather than wait until weeks, months, or years from
    now a case is fully settled?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, so if you will give me a
    chance, first I don't agree with the characterization of what
    happened in the plea. The District Judge performed her
    obligations under Rule 11 to determine whether the parties were
    in agreement as to what each had agreed to and determined that
    they were not. The plea fell apart, as you know. There has been
    another prosecution. So, that leads to the second thing. We are
    in, Mr. Weiss is in the midst of an ongoing prosecution on the
    very matter that you are talking about.
        Mr. Issa. OK. Mr. Attorney General, if we believe, and we
    do at least on this side of the dais, that a pattern of
    behavior is occurring relative to the investigation of Hunter
    Biden, particularly and including while he lived in the Vice
    President's home, while he operated, commingled with the Vice
    President, and even today as he travels with the President.
        So, in light of that, can you agree that, in fact, it would
    be reasonable for us to look at a number of items, including
    and one that I want your answer on, and I know we have limited
    time. Mr. Weiss supposedly had this ability to bring a
    prosecution anywhere. He now explicitly has that ability.
        However, are you concerned, and should we have the right to
    look into the fact that political appointees in California and
    in the District of Columbia refuse to, in fact, cooperate with
    him in those, in the investigation that he was charged with
    doing in Delaware, but which flowed over into their
    jurisdictions? Isn't that, in fact, an example where those
    political appointees of the now-President, that their decision
    not to cooperate with him creates at least an appearance of
    political interference with the investigation of the
    President's son and possibly activities related to the
    President?
        Attorney General Garland. Look, I am happy to answer this
    question in a hypothetical, but not in the specifics because I
    have stayed out of this matter.
        In the hypothetical, it is the normal process of the
    Department that if a U.S. Attorney in one district wants to
    bring a case in another they go to that other district and
    consult. It is perfectly appropriate. They do that to determine
    what the policies are in that district, what the practices have
    been in that district, what the judges are like in that
    district.
        A U.S. Attorney in another district does not have the
    authority to deny another U.S. Attorney the ability to go
    forward. I have assured Mr. Weiss that he would have the
    authority one way or the other. I think Mr. Weiss' letters
    completely reflect that.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. To be continued.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Schiff. Welcome, Mr. Attorney General. Thank you for
    leading the Department with such integrity.
        We met today at a momentous time in our history. The
    country is about to go through a great trial. By this I do not
    mean any of the several trials of the former President, but
    rather a trial of the proposition that we are a Nation of laws
    committed to the rule of law and that no one is above the law.
    It is a proposition well known around the world because it is
    the one essential ingredient in all democracies. We have all
    professed our belief in this principle, but it has never been
    truly tested, not like it is today.
        In this Committee, we are engaged in a portion of that
    trial. The Chair would abuse the power of this Committee by
    trying to interfere in the prosecutions of Donald Trump, by
    trying to use the Committee's power of subpoena to compel
    criminal discovery, in effect making the Committee a kind of
    criminal defense firm for the former President.
        In doing so, the Chair of this Committee would establish a
    very different proposition. Through Mr. Jordan's actions, he
    would establish the principle that the rule of law should apply
    to almost everyone, just not the leader of his party. According
    to this alternate proposition, if you were the President of the
    United States and you lose your reelection you can violate the
    law and Constitution to try to stay in power. If you are
    successful, well then maybe you get to be President for life.
    If you fail, there are no repercussion. This proposition is
    also well known to the world, and it is called dictatorship.
        Mr. Jordan hopes to camouflage his assault on the rule of
    law by falsely claiming that Donald Trump is the victim of
    unequal justice and Hunter Biden its beneficiary. It is a claim
    as transparently political as it is devoid of any factual
    basis. It is cynical, based on the belief that the American
    people cannot discern fact from fiction.
        I am betting on America. History has shown that those who
    bet against her are rarely successful, and more often they end
    up covered with shame. I believe in the rule of law. I thank
    you, Mr. Attorney General, for defending it.
        Let me now turn to some of the false claims asserted by the
    former President and some on this Committee. On Sunday, the
    former President appeared on a national news Sunday program and
    was asked about four indictments and 91 counts facing him. His
    response was Biden indictments, excuse me, Biden political
    indictments. He said the Attorney General indict him.
        Mr. Attorney General, I want to give you a chance to
    respond. Was the President telling the truth or was he lying
    when he said that President Biden told you to indict him?
        Attorney General Garland. No one has told me to indict, and
    in this case the decision to indict was made by the Special
    Counsel.
        Mr. Schiff. So, that statement the President made on Sunday
    was false?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm just going to say again that
    no one has told me who should be indicted in any matter like
    this and the decision about indictment was made by Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you this question about the
    prosecution of Hunter Biden: The prosecutor in that case, Mr.
    Weiss, was appointed not by Joe Biden, but he was appointed in
    the first instance by Donald Trump, is that correct?
        Attorney General Garland. Trump campaign.
        Mr. Schiff. He continued in that position, was he not?
        Attorney General Garland. He was continued in that
    position, yes.
        Mr. Schiff. Mr. Attorney General, can you imagine, can you
    imagine the hue and cry you would hear from my colleagues on
    the other side of the aisle if you had removed him from that
    position? Can you imagine the claims that you had removed a
    prosecutor who was diligently investigating Hunter Biden? Can
    you imagine the outrage they would have expressed?
        Attorney General Garland. I can say that during my
    confirmation hearing I discussed with many Senators on that
    side of the aisle their desire and actual insistence that Mr.
    Weiss be continued to have responsibility for that matter. I
    promised and I said at my confirmation hearing that he would be
    permitted to stay and that I would not interfere.
        Mr. Schiff. Mr. Attorney General, that was exactly the
    right decision. That was the right decision to give the
    American people the confidence that even a prosecutor chosen by
    the former President would continue in the investigation into
    the son of the current President. That was exactly the right
    decision. Exactly the right decision. My colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle would have been screaming if it were
    otherwise. Their attack on you is completely devoid of fact, of
    principle, but I appreciate you doing the right thing for the
    Department of Justice, and more importantly the right thing for
    the American people. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Massie. Attorney General Garland, Elon Musk was a
    Democrat who admittedly supported Biden, but then he became a
    critic of the administration and exposed the censorship regime.
    Now, per public reports the DOJ has opened not one, but two
    investigations of Elon Musk.
        Mark Zuckerberg on the other hand spent $400 million in
    2020, tilting the elections secretly for Democrats. No
    investigations whatsoever.
        To the American public these look like Mafia tactics. You
    pay your money; we look the other way. You get in our way, we
    punish you. The American public sees what these tactics are.
        Now, I want to direct your attention to a video here that
    we are going to play.
        [Video played.]
        Mr. Massie. Peter Navarro was indicted for contempt of
    Congress. Aren't you in fact in contempt of Congress when you
    give us this answer? This is an answer that is appropriate at a
    press conference. It is not an answer that is appropriate when
    we are asking questions. We are the Committee that is
    responsible for your creation, for your existence of your
    department. You cannot continue to give us these answers. Are
    you in fact in contempt of Congress when you refuse to answer?
        Attorney General Garland. Congressman, I have the greatest
    respect for Congress. I also have the greatest respect for the
    Constitution and laws of the United States. The protection of
    pending investigations and ongoing investigations, as I briefly
    discussed in another dialog a few moments ago, goes back to the
    separation of powers which gives to the Executive Branch the
    sole authority to conduct prosecutions. It's a requirement of
    due process and respect for those who are under investigation,
    protection of their civil rights. This has nothing to do with
    respect to Congress.
        Mr. Massie. Well, with all due respect to that, Iran Contra
    was an ongoing investigation and that didn't stop Congress from
    getting the answers. You are getting the way of our
    Constitutional duty. You are citing the Constitution. I am
    going to cite it. It is our Constitutional duty to do
    oversight.
        Now, in that video that was your answer to a question to me
    two years ago when I said how many agents or assets of the
    government were present on January 5th-January 6th and
    agitating in the crowd to go into the Capital and how many went
    into the Capital? Can you answer that now?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer to that
    question.
        Mr. Massie. Oh, last time--you don't know how many there
    were or there were none?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer to either
    of those questions. If there were any, I don't know how many. I
    don't know whether there are any.
        Mr. Massie. I think may have just perjured yourself that
    you don't know that there were any. You want to say that again,
    that you don't know that there were any?
        Attorney General Garland. I have no personal knowledge of
    this matter. I think what I said the last time and--
        Mr. Massie. You have had two years to find out and today--
    and by the way, that was in reference to Ray Epps, and
    yesterday you indicted him. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence?
    On a misdemeanor. Meanwhile you are sending grandmas to prison.
    You are putting people away for 20 years for merely filming.
    Some people weren't even there, yet you got the guy on video.
    He is saying go into the Capital. He is directing people to the
    Capital before the speeches. He is at the site of the first
    breech. You have got all the goods on him. Ten videos. It is an
    indictment for a misdemeanor? The American public isn't buying
    it.
        I yield the balance of my time to Chair Jordan.
        Attorney General Garland. May I answer the question?
        Chair Jordan. I am going to ask one now. We will let the--
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Mr. Massie. Go ahead, but--
        Attorney General Garland. In discovery in the cases that
    were filed with respect to January 6th the Justice Department
    prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the
    question that you're asking. With respect to Mr. Epps, the FBI
    has said that he was not an employee or informant of the FBI.
    Mr. Epps has been charged and there's a proceeding I believe
    going on today on that subject.
        Mr. Massie. The charge is a joke.
        I yield to the Chair.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
    Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Attorney General, my colleague just said
    that you should be held in contempt of Congress. That is quite
    rich because the guy who is leaving the hearing room right now,
    Mr. Jordan, is about 500 days into evading his subpoena. About
    500 days. So, if we are going to talk about contempt of
    Congress, let's get real.
        I mean, are you serious that Jim Jordan, a witness to one
    of the greatest crimes ever committed in America, a crime where
    more prosecutions have occurred than any crime committed in
    America, refuses to help his country? We are going to get
    lectured about subpoena compliance and Contempt of Congress?
    Jim Jordan won't even honor a lawful subpoena? Are you kidding
    me? Are you kidding me? There is no credibility on that side.
        Mr. Attorney General, you are serious; they are not. You
    are decent; they are not. You are fair; they are not. So, I
    welcome you to the law firm of Insurrection, LLP, where they
    work every single day on behalf of one client, Donald Trump.
    They do that at the expense of millions of Americans who need
    the government to stay open, who want their kids safe in their
    schools, and would like to see Ukraine stay in the fight so
    that we don't help Russia. That is the expense that this
    nonsense, this clown show--I would call it a clown show except
    they actually have real responsibilities that affect real
    Americans. It is the difference between one side that believes
    in governing and one side that believes in ruling.
        You have tried to comply with this Committee. In fact, last
    week one of your special agents came here for an interview,
    brought his lawyer, and was told that he couldn't have his
    lawyer present. Mr. Jordan, who tells all of us he knows so
    much about the Constitution, wouldn't afford one of your
    employees with the basic Constitutional rights to have a lawyer
    present. In fact, they threatened to call the Capital Police
    and arrest a lawyer that was brought. Are you familiar with
    that standoff that occurred last week, Mr. Attorney General?
        Attorney General Garland. Generally, yes.
        Mr. Swalwell. Well, your office also sent a letter
    detailing it, that you were willing to comply, but you would
    like him to have a lawyer.
        I would like to submit that to the record with unanimous
    consent.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Swalwell. Who appointed Mr. Weiss?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Trump was the last person who
    appointed Mr. Weiss to the position of U.S. Attorney. I
    appointed him to the position of the Special Counsel last
    month.
        Mr. Swalwell. Who initially appointed John Durham?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Durham was I believe also
    appointed by President Trump, and Mr. Barr appointed him as
    Special Counsel.
        Mr. Swalwell. Again, these guys are so upset that Donald
    Trump's appointed prosecutors aren't doing enough of the
    corruption that Donald Trump wants them to do. So, either they
    are just following the law, or they are not as corrupt, and
    they are not willing to go as far as they think that Donald
    Trump deserves. That is what they are asking to happen here.
        Also, doesn't it seem that they want it both ways when it
    comes to the Special Counsel? A lot of questions suggested that
    the Special Counsel should be independent, but when they didn't
    like the direction of the Special Counsel you were asked why
    you didn't interfere more, or involve yourself more, or
    investigate more. Do you get that sense that they are kind of
    stuck here?
        Attorney General Garland. When I make an appointment
    somebody to be a Special Counsel or a prosecutor, the
    appointment is without respect to what the outcomes of the case
    will be.
        Mr. Swalwell. Your office has made a number of reforms to
    702 targeting foreign nationals, but those reforms have not
    been put into law. Section 702 is also one of the best weapons
    we have to go after fentanyl. Can you tell us if you would
    support putting some of those reforms into law, so we don't
    have to live administration to administration to see if they
    are going to be followed?
        Attorney General Garland. I would. Section 702 provides us
    with the greatest--at least Justice Department every morning--
    the greatest amount of intelligence that we receive about
    dangerous threats to the United States.
        Mr. Swalwell. From foreign nationals?
        Attorney General Garland. From foreign nationals. I am
    quite aware and sensitive to civil liberties concerns with
    respect to the queries, and for that reason I put into place
    and I extended some of those that Mr. Barr had begun at the end
    of his term, and I put further ones in place. Those have led to
    a dramatic reduction in the number of queries and a dramatic
    reduction in the number of noncompliant queries. I believe
    those are appropriate reforms and I would be in favor of
    codifying them, yes.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, and thank
    you for coming and doing something that the Chair is unwilling
    to do, testify to Congress. Yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Fitzgerald.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Attorney General, on August 11, 2023, you
    appointed Mr. David Weiss U.S. Attorney for the District of
    Delaware as Special Counsel overseeing the investigation of
    Hunter Biden. I don't think the question has been asked yet:
    Why did you choose to appoint him as Special Counsel?
        Attorney General Garland. The explanation was given and as
    far--and to the extent I can give an--I'm permitted to give an
    explanation is the one I gave and sent to the Congress, which
    is that Weiss requested it and I promised to give him all the
    resources that he need. He had reached the stage of the
    investigation where he thought it would be appropriate and
    under those extraordinary circumstances, I thought the public
    interest would be served by making him Special Counsel.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. How did Mr. Weiss' name emerge? Who
    recommended him? How was it brought to you or presented to you
    that this would be the best person to be the Special Counsel?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not going to get into
    internal discussions. Mr. Weiss asked that he be appointed as
    Special Counsel. I granted that request and made him Special
    Counsel, but I'm not going to get into internal deliberations
    in the Justice Department.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. I think you said earlier you have had no
    discussion with the White House and certainly the President in
    regard to that. Is that accurate?
        Attorney General Garland. Of course.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. There were no suggestions that came from
    any other level of government on Mr. Weiss?
        Attorney General Garland. No, nothing came from the White
    House. That's right.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. So, on August 20, 2023, the Washington Post
    article claimed that Mr. Weiss worked with Hunter Biden and
    Hunter Biden's late brother Beau Biden. Were you aware that
    there was a relationship there with the Biden family?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not familiar with this. I
    don't know when he did what--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. They worked together on legal cases in
    prior years. You were unaware of that?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not familiar with that.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The article claims it would have been
    inevitable for Mr. Weiss and the President to cross paths in a
    State like Delaware. They knew each other. There was a
    relationship there. You were unaware of any of this before you
    appointed him?
        Attorney General Garland. I was unaware of this, but
    attorneys who are in practice certainly get to know people, so
    it's very difficult anywhere in the country for attorneys not
    to get to know attorneys on other sides of matters.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. You said previously that Mr. Weiss had the
    ultimate authority over the investigation of the President's
    son including prior to his appointment as Special Counsel. You
    stand by that statement, I am sure?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. I didn't--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Just that, in fact, that the ultimate
    authority was still there with Mr. Weiss to make determinations
    on that case.
        Attorney General Garland. You mean still as Special
    Counsel? Yes.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Ms. Fitzgerald. As Special Counsel. So, the buck stopped
    there and that has been determined.
        According to the Whistleblower testimony Mr. Weiss' Deputy
    AUSA Lesley Wolf objected to search warrants of President
    Biden's guest house, denied investigation access to a storage
    unit containing all the documents from the vacated office of
    the law firm.
        Is Lesley Wolf still employed by the Department of Justice?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not going to talk about any
    individuals in the Justice Department. As I said before
    singling out individuals has led to serious threats to their
    safety. I will say that the supervisor of this investigation
    was Mr. Weiss. He's responsible for all the decisions that were
    made. Many of the things that you're saying occurred during the
    previous administration.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. OK. Well, there was absolutely a discussion
    by Lesley Wolf that if they told investigators or got involved
    with this that there would ultimately be issues. You still
    believe that at this point that the entire investigation has
    moved in the correct discretion--was handled by the correct
    discretion of the individuals involved?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss was a long-standing
    career prosecutor who was appointed by President Trump. He has
    an outstanding reputation and I have confidence that he will
    proceed as appropriate. At the end of his investigation he will
    submit a public report just like Mr. Durham, just like Mr.
    Mueller. He will be available for you to ask him questions
    about why he did various things that were done.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. I yield the balance of my time to the
    Chair.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Garland, what changed? On July 10, 2023,
    David Weiss wrote to Senator Graham and said, ``I have not
    requested Special Counsel designation.'' On August 11th, you
    announced that he is now the Special Counsel. What happened in
    that 31 days?
        Attorney General Garland. As I said publicly several days
    before my announcement, I think three days, Mr. Weiss had asked
    to become Special Counsel. He explained that there were--had
    reached the stage of his investigation where he thought that
    appropriate. I had promised--
        Chair Jordan. What stage is that?
        Attorney General Garland. I had promised to give him the
    resources he needed.
        Chair Jordan. What stage is that? He had reached the stage.
    After five years what stage are we in? Are we in the beginning
    stage, the middle stage, the end stage, the keep-hiding-the-
    ball stage? What stage are we in?
        Attorney General Garland. I think this is when I would go
    back to the videotape where I said I'm not permitted to discuss
    ongoing investigations.
        Chair Jordan. Well, isn't that convenient? Something
    changed in 31-32 days from July 10th-August 11th. I think it is
    two brave Whistleblowers came forward and a judge called BS on
    the plea deal you guys tried to get passed. That is what I
    think happened.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The House Judiciary Committee has the responsibility of
    helping to ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately, this
    Committee's Chair ignored a bipartisan Congressional Subpoena.
    The horrible precedent set by this Chair has damaged the
    credibility of all Congressional Committees in seeking
    information from witnesses and damaged the rule of law.
        Attorney General Garland, thank you for your public service
    and thank you for being here today. I would like to start by
    showing a video of January 6th and then ask you some questions
    about that day.
        [Video played.]
        Mr. Lieu. Attorney General Garland, the Department of
    Justice charged over 1,100 defendants in connection with the
    attack on our Capital, correct?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, that's correct.
        Mr. Lieu. I am going to state two facts:

        (1)  The people who showed up on January 6th to attack the
    Nation's Capital were supporters of Donald Trump.
        (2)  They attacked the Capital, stopped Congress from
    certifying the fact that Donald Trump lost the election.

        Those two facts were so horrible that some in the right-
    wing media and some Republican Members of Congress could not
    handle that, so they made up conspiracy theories. In fact,
    Donald Trump called January 6th a beautiful day. He said the
    people who showed up had love in their hearts. A Republican
    Member of Congress said January 6th was like a normal tourist
    visit. Some Republicans have said there were not weapons used
    on January 6th.
        Attorney General Garland, were there weapons used in the
    attack on January 6th?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, in the video you already saw
    the--some of the weapons that were used, and there are
    obviously many more in many, many hours of video.
        Mr. Lieu. Another conspiracy theory is that somehow the FBI
    actually orchestrated this attack, so I am going to go through
    some cases that have gone through completion and resulted in
    sentencing.
        Joe Biggs was sentenced to 17 years in prison for seditious
    conspiracy and other counts related to the attack on our
    Nation's Capital. Have you seen any shred of evidence that Joe
    Biggs was an FBI agent?
        Attorney General Garland. No.
        Mr. Lieu. In fact, Joe Biggs was a Member of the Proud
    Boys. This is what Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe stated
    about Joe Biggs and the Proud Boys in court. He stated, quote,

            They saw themselves as Donald Trump's army fighting to keep
            their preferred leader in power no matter what the law or the
            courts had to say about it.

        On September 4th, Joe Biggs stated that he is confident
    Trump will pardon him. He said, quote, ``Oh, I know he'll
    pardon us. We're his supporters. We went there like he asked.''
        I would like to now ask you about the case of Stewart
    Rhodes who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the attack
    on our Nation's Capital. Have you seen any shred of evidence
    that Stewart Rhodes was an FBI agent?
        Attorney General Garland. No.
        Mr. Lieu. In fact, he was the founder of the Oath Keepers,
    a far-right paramilitary organization. Rhodes asked Donald
    Trump to call them up as militia.
        Then, I would like to ask you about Enrique Tarrio who was
    sentenced to 22 years in the attack on our Nation's Capital.
    Have you seen any evidence that Enrique Tarrio was an FBI
    agent?
        Attorney General Garland. He was not an FBI agent.
        Mr. Lieu. In fact, he was the leader of the Proud Boys.
    What happened on January 6th is that Donald Trump's supporters
    showed up because he told them to. They marched to the Capital
    because he told them to. They attacked the Capital because he
    told them to stop the steal. That is the truth and that is how
    history is going to record it. Thank you for prosecuting those
    who attacked our Nation's Capital. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a slide up here. I
    will start. In October--or March 2022, Mr. Weiss was denied the
    ability to bring charges against Hunter Biden in the District
    of Columbia. In April of that same year, you testified before
    the Senate Appropriations Committee that Mr. Weiss was free to
    run the investigation without interference from the DOJ.
        According to the IRS Whistleblower there was a meeting in
    October 2022, where Mr. Weiss said that he was not the deciding
    official on whether charges were filed. We know that because we
    have handwritten notes from the IRS Whistleblowers that was
    confirmed in an email to people in the meeting.
        Later in January, Mr. Weiss was denied the ability to bring
    charges again against Hunter Biden in the Central District of
    California. You testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee
    in March of this year that he had full authority. Weiss
    confirmed that to us in a letter in June that he had been
    granted, quote, ``full authority over this matter.'' Then, he
    kind of backed up. On June 3rd, he said well, just kidding. My
    charging authority is geographically limited to my home
    district in Delaware. Of course, you appoint him as Special
    Counsel.
        So, why the heck has his story changed so many times over
    the course of these investigations?
        Attorney General Garland. Congressman, I have seen all of
    the three letters. I read them quite carefully. They are all
    consistent with each other and I urge everyone watching this on
    television or anyone who's interested to look at those three
    letters. They are not inconsistent with each other and there's
    no change in the story.
        Mr. Fry. So, but you agree that he had--and you have said
    this publicly that he had ultimate authority prior to the
    appointment of Special Counsel?
        Attorney General Garland. I've explained this repeatedly
    here. I've explained this in another proceeding. I said that
    Mr. Weiss would have the authority to bring a case in any
    jurisdiction in which he wanted to, and Mr. Weiss has confirmed
    that he would have that authority. I explained that if he had
    to bring a case in another jurisdiction, as a matter of
    mechanics it would require me or a delegate of mine to sign a
    515 Order. That is very common.
        Mr. Fry. Mr. Attorney General, forgive me for--
        Attorney General Garland. There was nothing stopping that
    from happening.
        Mr. Fry. Forgive me for a second though. That is--when you
    say you have ultimate--when he wrote a letter on your behalf in
    June, I have ultimate authority--this was prior to the
    designation of Special Counsel--ultimate to mean that you can
    go wherever you want to.
        Attorney General Garland. Ultimate means when--
        Mr. Fry. So, at that particular point, sir, could he file
    charges in the district of South Carolina? He would not have
    that ability, correct? He would have to go through that U.S.
    Attorney. So, that is not full authority.
        Attorney General Garland. All he would have to do is ask me
    for 515 authority and I would sign it right away. Just like
    when he asked me to be Special Counsel within three days, I
    signed that.
        Mr. Fry. So, he didn't have ultimate authority?
        Attorney General Garland. He had the authority because I
    promised that he would have the authority.
        Mr. Fry. He did not have that authority. See, here is where
    I am going: If he was denied the ability to bring charges in
    March 2022, in the District of Columbia, if he was denied the
    ability to bring charges in January 2023, in the Central
    District of California, that is not full authority. These U.S.
    Attorneys operate as gatekeepers, so that is not full authority
    to do much of anything.
        What is remarkable to me, we sit here and we look at this
    and his story has changed so many times. You know whose story
    hasn't changed? Mr. Shapley, Mr. Zeigler, the emails that
    confirm that he said I don't have--I am not the deciding person
    on whether charges are filed. You know what the response back
    was from his colleague at work? Yes, you covered it all, Gary.
    That is consistent.
        What Mr. Weiss has done is this shell game in saying that
    he has authority, he doesn't have authority, but these
    gatekeepers at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of
    Columbia and in the Central District of California, they would
    have the gatekeeping authority on whether charges are brought
    in their jurisdictions--
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry--
        Mr. Fry. --absent that designation, correct?
        Attorney General Garland. Those words have no meaning:
    Gatekeepers, et cetera. Mr. Weiss said he was never denied
    authority. I'm the one with the authority to decide who can
    prosecute in a different jurisdiction and I promised that he
    would have that authority. I do not see any inconsistency here.
    I was not at the meeting that Mr. Shapley was referring to. I
    know what I guaranteed, and I know what Mr. Weiss has said I
    guaranteed.
        Mr. Fry. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time.
        Chair Jordan. It is a simple question: If he already had
    it, why does he need it? That is the question. You said in your
    statement on August 11th--you said he will continue, continue
    to have the authority to bring charges where, when, and
    wherever he decides. So, how can he continue to have the power
    that you just gave him? That is the fundamental question the
    gentleman from South Carolina was asking.
        If he already had it, why does he need it?
        Attorney General Garland. I tried to answer that he had the
    authority and he continued to have the authority.
        Chair Jordan. When did he specifically ask you? Did you
    tell him ahead of time that he could get 515 status anytime?
    When did you tell him that he could get that if he requested
    it?
        Attorney General Garland. I made absolutely clear in--
        Chair Jordan. No. When? Did you tell him at the start of
    the investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. I made clear from the beginning
    in my statements to the Senate that he would have the authority
    to make any decisions that he wanted to and bring prosecutions
    he thought were appropriate.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina
    is expired. The gentlelady from Washington is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Attorney General Garland, thank you for tremendous service
    to this country. As somebody who was trapped in the gallery on
    January 6th; I have to admit it is still hard for me to look at
    that video and imagine that happened at our U.S. Capital. I am
    deeply grateful that you have led this Nation toward
    accountability of all those who were involved, including the
    former President.
        You have done so with full and complete attention to the
    facts with a team around you that focuses on thorough
    investigation and with a very clear mission that you have
    stated over and over and over again despite the asked and
    answered on the other side that the Justice Department works
    for the American people.
        This is a night and day transformation from a Justice
    Department that was constantly used by Donald Trump for his own
    political gain. It is my firm belief that we have to hold those
    accountable who tried to destroy our country, including the
    former President, or we risk losing our country altogether. So,
    I thank you for your steadfast leadership.
        It is just sad that this Committee has also been
    transformed into a soapbox for political conspiracy theorists
    instead of focusing on the really important issues that the
    American people care about. So, that is what I am going to try
    to do. I am going to focus on the critical crisis of
    reproductive freedom and the efforts to try and strip
    reproductive freedom from people across this country.
        As you know a decades-long project of the extreme right
    wing materialized last year when five Republican-appointed
    justices overturned 50 years of precedent that established the
    Constitutional right to abortion.
        As one of the one in four women across this country who has
    had an abortion and who felt compelled to share my story after
    decades because I saw the attacks on the right to abortion and
    what it would do particularly for poor women, for Black and
    Brown and indigenous people across this country I spoke out and
    shared that story.
        In the 22 States where Republicans control the State
    legislature and Governorship today all have moved to restrict
    reproductive rights. More than 25 million women of childbearing
    age now live in States where abortion access has been
    curtailed. In Washington State, my home State, the Seattle
    Times reported that we are seeing increasing numbers of
    abortion patients not only from neighboring Idaho, which we
    knew we would see, but also from other Southern States where
    these restrictions are enforced.
        Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter this Seattle
    Times record--article into the record. ``She traveled 2,000
    miles secretly for her WA abortion. Why patients from the South
    are coming here.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Ms. Jayapal. As our fundamental freedoms are threatened by
    extreme MAGA Republicans in Congress and across the country, we
    trust that the DOJ will initiate investigations and file
    lawsuits to protect reproductive rights.
        With respect to mifepristone, what has the Department done
    to protect access to this very safe abortion drug that women
    can take at home safely and--to end a pregnancy?
        Attorney General Garland. So, the FDA authorized the use of
    mifepristone as safe and effective, and it did it back in 2000.
    That has been challenged, first in a District Court, and we
    defended the FDA in that matter. There was an appeal in the--to
    the Circuit Court, which narrowed the District Court's opinion
    in some ways but allowed it to go forward in other. We have
    filed cert petition, which has been granted in the Supreme
    Court of the United States.
        Ms. Jayapal. Very, very important work. Thank you. My home
    State of Washington has one of the highest rates of religiously
    affiliated hospitals in the country, with our State's insurance
    commissioner's office reporting that in 2021, there were
    several counties lacking even one secular hospital.
        This is an issue under the Emergency Medical Treatment and
    Labor Act when patients in need of abortion care as life-saving
    treatments are denied services under the hospital's policies.
    What is the Department doing to enforce this law mandating that
    every hospital that receives Medicare funds provide, quote,
    ``necessary stabilizing treatment'' to patients, including
    abortion care?
        Attorney General Garland. You are right. This is a Federal
    law. It expressly preempts any inconsistent State law. For that
    reason, we filed a lawsuit in Idaho and one in the District
    Court with respect to an Idaho law that impinged on the rights
    granted under EMTALA. We have filed a number of statements of
    interest in other places, and we are continuing to look at
    where it would be appropriate to intervene.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. You are on record stating that
    women who reside in States that have banned access to
    comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that
    care in States where it is legal. I thank you for that. Can you
    briefly discuss the progress made by the task force and DOJ to
    ensure that pregnant people retain their right to travel?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Look. My view about this
    right to travel is the same as Justice Kavanaugh's in his
    separate opinion. He said this is not a particularly difficult
    question. The right to travel is a Constitutional right, and it
    allows women in a State that bars abortion to travel and obtain
    an abortion in a State in which it is permitted.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Attorney General, for your
    commitment to this issue and to upholding the rule of law in
    our country. Appreciate your service.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the lady has expired.
        The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here today. I
    would like to go back briefly to your remarks regarding the--
    before the Senate when you were confirmed in your promise
    regarding Mr. Weiss. Can you explain to us in a little more
    detail who you promised you would keep Mr. Weiss on this case?
    To whom was that promise made?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, a number of Senators, in
    my meetings with them, asked me to make that promise. I think
    that was discussed in my interchange with a Senator from
    Tennessee, I believe.
        Mr. Bentz. Did that promise that you made lead you to
    believe that even if Mr. Weiss displayed a level of
    incompetence, that you would be precluded from asking him to
    step down or precluded from replacing him?
        Attorney General Garland. Look. When someone asked me to
    make this appointment, they didn't ask me to depend on what the
    outcome was. Mr. Weiss has made his appointment, Mr. --
    decisions, and Mr. Weiss is an experienced Federal prosecutor
    with extensive experience and with sufficient credibility to be
    appointed by President Trump. I just have no grounds for
    interfering here.
        Mr. Bentz. All right. So, you haven't answered the
    question. The question was, really, what level of incompetence
    displayed by a prosecutor under your control would it take for
    you to make a change? Let's move on. The level of incompetence
    I am referring to--and I will just read this to you.
        This is the same Weiss who headed an investigation that was
    trashed by Whistleblowers who alleged that his investigation
    had been fixed from the outset. It's the same Weiss who ran an
    investigation in which agents were allegedly prevented from
    asking about Joe Biden, obstructed in their efforts to pursue
    questions, compromised by tip-offs to the Biden team on planned
    searches.
        It was the same Weiss who reportedly allowed the statute of
    limitations to run out on Hunter's major tax offenses even
    though he had the option to extend it. He was the same Weiss
    who did not indict on major tax felonies and cut a plea deal
    that brushed aside a felony gun charge. It was the same Weiss
    who inked a widely panned sweetheart deal that caused Federal
    Judge--a Federal Judge to balk at and trash a sweeping immunity
    grant language that even the prosecutor admitted had never been
    seen in a previous plea deal.
        So, here is a list of what I would suggest under many
    people's definition would be incompetence. Are you saying that
    this is inadequate for you to have questioned what he was
    doing?
        Attorney General Garland. I am saying that all these are
    allegations. I don't know what the facts of them are. I have,
    as I've explained, stayed out of this investigation. I was not
    present at any of the meetings discussed. Some of the meetings
    occurred under the previous administration, where Mr. Weiss was
    assigned to the matter by the previous Justice Department. I am
    not in a position to comment on them.
        Mr. Bentz. That is too bad. There is a scope of
    investigation memo generally issued when they start these
    things out. Who issued that scope of investigation memo to Mr.
    Weiss? Was it done back on--when he was originally appointed to
    take on the Biden case? Is that when the memo was--telling him
    what he was supposed to do was issued? Is there a scope of
    investigation memo is my question.
        Attorney General Garland. There is a scope of investigation
    with respect to Special Counsel, and that has been publicly
    transmitted to the Chair of this Judiciary Committee and the
    Senate Judiciary Committee.
        Mr. Bentz. Who wrote it?
        Attorney General Garland. Who wrote that scope?
        Mr. Bentz. Yes. Who decided what should be within the scope
    of that investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry?
        Mr. Bentz. Who wrote the memo? Who decided what the scope
    of that--
        Attorney General Garland. I decided what should be in the
    scope. If you will compare that to the scope of many other
    Special Counsels, it basically is modeled on the format that we
    have used in the past, not only in this administration but the
    previous one.
        Mr. Bentz. In your remarks delivered on August 11th, of
    this year concerning the appointment of David Weiss as Special
    Counsel, you say on considering his request as well as, quote,
    ``the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter.''
    Can you tell us what those extraordinary circumstances were?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry.
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Bentz. OK. So, these are your remarks back on August
    11th.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Bentz. It says, ``On Tuesday this week, Mr. Weiss
    advised me that''--I am just quoting from your memo.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Bentz. This is what you said,

            In his judgment, his investigation has reached a stage at which
            he should continue his work as Special Counsel, and he asked to
            be so appointed. Upon considering his request,

    as well as, quote,

             . . . the extraordinary circumstances related to this
            matter,have concluded it is in the best public interest to
            appoint him Special Counsel.

    What were those extraordinary circumstances you are talking
    about?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Look. All the Special
    Counsels, including the appointment by Mr. Barr with respect to
    Mr. Durham, uses those phrases. The reason it uses those
    phrases is because that is in the Special Counsel regulation. I
    have said as much as I can say with respect to that without
    discussing matters relating to a pending investigation. I can't
    discuss matters with respect to a pending investigation for the
    reasons I have said.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from California is recognized.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Garland, I want to welcome you today to this hearing. I
    want to turn our attention to something very interesting. More
    important, the most important thing on Main Street today in my
    district is drug addiction, narcotics, trafficking, and
    fentanyl.
        I am going to quote you. June 23rd of this year, you said,

            The U.S. Government continues to do everything in our power to
            disrupt fentanyl trafficking and to prevent more of our
            communities from being devastated by the fentanyl epidemic.

    You went on to say,

            We are targeting every step of the movement, manufacturing and
            the sale of fentanyl, from start to finish.

        Mr. Garland, I believe that the only thing that cartel
    leaders fear is a United States prison. I want to thank you for
    the good job; you recently extradited Ovidio Guzman Lopez, El
    Chapo's son. Thank you very much for that good job.
        My question is, do you have plans to extradite additional
    cartel leaders from other parts of the world to the United
    States to face U.S. justice and a U.S. prison sentence?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I don't want to get into
    discussions, diplomatic discussions over the matter. Obviously,
    we have indicted the other Chapitos, Chapito being the nickname
    given to the sons of El Chapo.
        Mr. Correa. How many of those?
        Attorney General Garland. Huh?
        Mr. Correa. How many are there of those?
        Attorney General Garland. I am trying to remember. I think
    there may be four more, maybe five. I am not sure exactly. They
    have all been publicly indicted, and of course, we will seek
    the extradition of and the apprehension of everyone we have
    indicted.
        Mr. Correa. The apprehension, the indictment of these
    individuals, requires that you have cooperation from foreign
    countries, especially Mexico, since that is where a lot of
    these cartels are operating. Would you say right now, Mexico is
    cooperating with us in terms of working with your office to
    bring these cartel leaders to justice?
        Attorney General Garland. They have obviously worked with
    us with respect to Ovidio. His apprehension by the Mexicans led
    to the deaths of a significant number of Mexican Marines--
    videos, people fighting back with 50 caliber machine guns and
    the Marines having to use Black Hawk attack helicopters to
    arrest him.
        Mr. Correa. Are these U.S. Marines or Mexican Marines?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry?
        Mr. Correa. United States Marines or--
        Attorney General Garland. No, no. I am sorry. Mexican
    Marines. It is the Mexican Marines who--playing an important
    role in the apprehension of the cartel leaders.
        Mr. Correa. So, Mr. Garland, would you characterize
    cooperation right now with Mexicans as being good, not good?
        Attorney General Garland. I would say cooperation can
    always be better. We have an enormous problem with respect to
    fentanyl coming from Mexico, from its manufacture there, based
    on the precursors coming from China, based on the cartel
    leaders.
        Mr. Correa. How can we, as Members of Congress, help you
    make sure that other countries have a stronger cooperating
    relationship with us? How can we make sure that they cooperate
    to their fullest abilities with you?
        Attorney General Garland. I appreciate that request. I will
    have to think about it some more. I will say that I have
    personally traveled to Mexico twice to try to get cooperation
    with respect to these matters.
        Mr. Correa. How important is FISA and 702 to your job when
    it comes to fighting narco/fentanyl?
        Attorney General Garland. It is very important. Fentanyl
    poses a national security problem for the United States.
        Mr. Correa. So, can you work with us to ensure that we put
    guardrails under--around--put guardrail safety measures on 702
    to ensure that those investigative weapons are not turned
    against U.S. citizens?
        Attorney General Garland. Absolutely. Section 702 is a
    crucial, essential tool, but like all tools, it has to be
    properly controlled. We would be happy to work with Congress to
    make sure that civil liberties are protected.
        Mr. Correa. My last minute, I wanted to turn to the
    antitrust area, the European Union and the Digital Marketing
    Act, which is--Digital Markets Act, which is designed to
    protect consumers in Europe. Yet, it looks like most of their
    focus is on American firms.
        No European companies or other foreign operators in the
    European Union are being targeted. It looks like it is only
    American firms operating in Europe, and it looks like the DOJ
    is working to support the efforts of the Europeans in
    implementing the Digital Marketing Act.
        I have 18 seconds. I am going to submit a written question
    to your office. My focus, my interest, is making sure American
    jobs, American companies, are successful around the globe and
    that they are not in any way hampered from working overseas.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I ran out of time.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Welcome, Attorney General. Following your confirmation,
    Americans were promised they were getting a focused nonpartisan
    to lead their Federal law enforcement. I had my doubts back
    then, and the last two years have more than confirmed, in my
    mind, those fears.
        Never in my life would I have thought that I would see such
    a politicized DOJ. Never in my life would I have thought I
    would see such a Department of Justice that didn't obey their
    own rules. Never in my life did I think I would see the
    egregious investigations conducted under your watch or the
    blatant disregard of the First Amendment by FBI field offices
    under your watch. Never in my life did I think I would see our
    great DOJ turn into a politicized weapon to be wielded by an
    investigation to attack political rivals.
        I still hold the thousands of hardworking staff with high
    regard. Unfortunately, there are some within the Department, in
    my mind, who have betrayed their oaths. For that you must be
    held accountable.
        I hold you accountable for the labeling of parents as
    domestic terrorists standing up for the proper education of
    their own children. I hold you accountable for the anti-
    Catholic memo. Imagine sending agents undercover into Roman
    Catholic churches because they were supposedly domestic
    terrorists. I hold you accountable for unleashing a Special
    Counsel with a history of botched investigations on our current
    President's political rival.
        The Department under your leadership, I am sorry to say--
    and I am sorry to say--has become an enforcement arm of the
    Democratic National Committee. If there is a perceived threat
    to the Democratic Party--the Democratic Party--this DOJ attacks
    every single time. When there are actionable threats against
    conservatives, this DOJ stays put.
        Protesters outside--violent protesters outside--the Supreme
    Court Justice's home--unpunished. Attacks on pro-life centers--
    unpunished. The two-tiered system of justice is clear, and it
    is clear to the American public. The buck stops with the man in
    charge. That man is you. The actions of the DOJ are on you. The
    decline of Americans' trust in our Federal law enforcement is
    on you. The political weaponization of the DOJ is on you.
        Attorney General, I need a simple yes or a no to the
    following, just yes or no, because we don't have much time. Do
    you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists?
    Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. Let me answer you have said in
    that long list of--
        Mr. Van Drew. I am not--
        Attorney General Garland. I will be happy to answer all of
    those.
        Mr. Van Drew. Attorney General, I control the time. I am
    going to ask you to answer the questions I asked.
        Attorney General Garland. Oh, you control time by asking me
    a substantial number of things and then--
        Mr. Van Drew. I didn't ask you those things. I made a
    statement.
        Attorney General Garland. I will answer the--I will--
        Mr. Van Drew. Attorney General, through the Chair, I ask
    you, do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent
    extremists? Answer the question.
        Attorney General Garland. I have no idea what you are--what
    traditional means here.
        Mr. Van Drew. Catholics. Catholics that go to church.
        Attorney General Garland. May I answer your--just the idea
    that someone with my family background would discriminate
    against any religion is so outrageous, is so absurd--
        Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Attorney General, it was your FBI that
    did this. It was your FBI that was sending--and we have the
    memos; we have the emails--was sending undercover agents into
    Catholic churches.
        Attorney General Garland. Both I and the Director of the
    FBI--
        Mr. Van Drew. This is--
        [Crosstalk.]
        Attorney General Garland. --have said that we were appalled
    by that memo.
        Mr. Van Drew. So, then, you agree that they are not
    extremists.
        Attorney General Garland. We were appalled by that memo.
        Mr. Van Drew. Are they extremists or not, Attorney General?
        Attorney General Garland. I think that--
        Mr. Van Drew. Are they extremists or not, Attorney General?
        Attorney General Garland. --everything in that memo is
    appalling.
        Mr. Van Drew. Are they extremists or not? I am asking a
    simple question. Say no if you think that was wrong.
        Attorney General Garland. Catholics are not extremists. No.
        Mr. Van Drew. Was anyone fired for drafting and circulating
    the anti-Catholic memo?
        Attorney General Garland. You have in front of you the
    inspection of divisions, investigations--
        Mr. Van Drew. Just tell me yes or no, please. We have no
    time.
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer to that.
    There is a disciplinary process--
        Mr. Van Drew. OK. Do you agree that parents attending
    school board meetings should be categorized--
        Attorney General Garland. --the Attorney General is not
    permitted to intervene in.
        Mr. Van Drew. OK. Should parents that go to school board
    meetings and are very vocal about their kids' education should
    be--should they be classified as domestic terrorists?
        Attorney General Garland. Of course not, and my memo made
    clear that vigorous objections to policies in schools are
    protected by the First Amendment.
        Mr. Van Drew. So, it is no. The President this week accused
    you--not the President himself, his staff, and it was in the
    The Wall Street Journal and it was leaked out--of mismanaging
    the Hunter Biden probe. Do you agree? Yes or no? It was in a
    The Wall Street Journal article. I am not saying that.
        [Crosstalk.]
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. Do I agree with the
    The Wall Street Journal?
        Mr. Van Drew. Yes, and that--the information they released
    that said you botched this probe.
        Attorney General Garland. I think I have dealt with the
    Hunter Biden investigation in the way--
        Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Chair, I yield my remaining time to you.
        Chair Jordan. I appreciate the gentleman yields back.
        The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Attorney General Garland, for your decades of
    service to the Department of Justice, to our country, and to
    our Constitution. It has been truly honorable service, and I
    think the American public as a whole recognizes that.
        I was struck by and appreciate your opening statement in
    which you made crystal clear your fidelity to the U.S.
    Constitution and the rule of law and your reaffirmation that
    the Attorney General is not the President's lawyer. This is a
    welcome change from the rhetoric and actions of some of your
    predecessors in the last administration when they appeared
    before us.
        As we all should know, the Justice Department works for the
    American people to prosecute crimes, uphold the rule of law and
    Americans' individual rights, and keep our country safe.
    Congress, of course, has a legitimate duty of oversight. The
    blatantly political and misleading rhetoric which we have been
    subjected to today undermines the seriousness of this
    Committee's work and ultimately the legitimacy and core values
    of our American institutions.
        It is painfully obvious to anyone who cares about our
    Constitution that our colleagues have called this hearing not
    to conduct legitimate oversight but to once again defend the
    indefensible actions of the disgraced, twice impeached, and now
    repeatedly indicted in multiple jurisdictions former President
    and to distract from their inability to perform the most basic
    function of Congress, to fund the Federal Government.
        So, they are baselessly accusing the U.S. Department of
    Justice of bias against the former President and his allies. It
    is important to note that those who are noisily and shamelessly
    trying to subvert our justice system are the same ones who seem
    to have both the most to fear from those ongoing investigations
    and the most to gain politically and personally from impeding
    them.
        As others have noted, these attempts now include trying to
    defund the Office of Special Counsel, Jack Smith's office,
    altogether. I, like so many Americans, find this behavior
    contemptible and far beneath what we should expect from our
    country's leaders.
        Mr. Attorney General, why is it so important for both
    upholding the rule of law and maintaining public trust that our
    justice system be able to conduct investigations into
    wrongdoing free from political interference?
        Attorney General Garland. The criminal law can impose
    incredible sanctions on people. It can take away their liberty.
    That means due process has to be followed during investigations
    and that partisan considerations do not play a role. Civil
    liberties and civil rights are protected, and the only way that
    can happen is if prosecutors are permitted to go about their
    work without any external impermissible interventions or
    considerations.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I did want to take the opportunity,
    since this is an oversight hearing, to conduct some actual
    oversight. There was an important topic in your testimony,
    safeguarding the right to vote. During the previous
    administration, I asked department officials in this Committee
    room what actions they were taking on this critical issue, and
    they couldn't answer me.
        So, could you describe the efforts that your Department of
    Justice is taking to protect the right to vote, a fundamental
    pillar of our democracy?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. The Congress, in the form of
    the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, authorized the
    Department to bring cases and to enforce the Constitution of
    the United States with respect to the right to vote. As I am
    sure you know, in the Shelby County case, the Supreme Court
    eliminated one of our tools, Section 5 of the Voting Rights
    Act. We retained Section 2, which the Supreme Court again
    endorsed in its last term.
        So, we have brought cases in a number of jurisdictions
    where we felt the State laws unConstitutionally impinged on the
    right to vote. We have supported private parties when they
    brought those cases, particularly in redistricting cases that
    violated the antidi-lution requirement in Section 2.
        We have a task force with respect to threats against
    election workers because threatening election workers and
    stopping them from going about their work is a significant way
    in which the right to vote can be impinged. That is just a
    sampling.
        Ms. Scanlon. We certainly saw evidence of that in
    Pennsylvania during the last Presidential election. So, we
    really appreciate all those efforts. I find this hearing very
    disturbing in that we have elected officials misleading the
    public, attacking the foundations of our democracy, trying to
    sow distrust on one of the most critical pillars of that
    democracy, the U.S. Department of Justice. It is unacceptable,
    and it is un-American.
        Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter into the
    record a fact sheet on the Department of Justice's work under
    Attorney General Garland's leadership to safeguard Americans'
    right to vote and to protect our election officials and
    workers.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Committee will be in order. Committee will be
    in order. I am going to ask the lady to please--
        [Off-microphone comments.]
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Attorney General, on August 11, 2023, you appointed Mr.
    Weiss Special Counsel. You wrote a letter to the House and
    Senate Judiciary Committees where you cited extraordinary
    circumstances requiring the appointment. You avoided answering
    the question when Mr. Bentz asked you. I'll give you another
    chance to answer it. What were those extraordinary
    circumstances?
        Attorney General Garland. I am afraid I will have to give
    you the same answer I gave before. I have given as much as I
    can give, which is that he thought that the--it had reached the
    stage where it would be appropriate, and I promised him that I
    would give him any resource that he needed and that he asked
    for. To go further--
        Mr. Cline. Well--
        Attorney General Garland. --would go into the pending
    investigation.
        Mr. Cline. OK. Let's talk about that authority. Back on
    March 1st, you told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr.
    Weiss had the full authority to bring cases in other
    jurisdictions if he felt it was necessary. On June 7th, Mr.
    Weiss wrote to the Judiciary Committee, stating you have been--
    he had been granted ultimate authority over the matter,
    including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether
    to file charges.
        By June 30th, he had changed his tune and said that his
    charging authority was geographically limited and it would be
    up to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and then you, to determine
    whether he can partner on the case. If not, he can request
    Special Attorney status from the AG, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 515.
    He had been assured that if necessary, he would be granted 515
    authority in D.C., Central District of California, or any other
    district where charges could be brought.
        Let me ask you, is there some distinct legal authority
    known as Special Attorney status?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry.
        Mr. Cline. Is there some distinct legal authority known as
    Special Attorney status?
        Attorney General Garland. Section 515 permits the Attorney
    General to sign an order to authorize a prosecutor to work in
    another district.
        Mr. Cline. If you had already decided that he had full
    authority, why did you feel it was necessary to sign that
    document?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry.
        Mr. Cline. Why did you feel that--why did Mr. Weiss feel
    that he would need that extra authority if you had conveyed to
    him that he would have all that authority?
        Attorney General Garland. You will have to speak with Mr.
    Weiss about that. I think his three letters are quite clear
    that he understood he would have the necessary authority and
    that no U.S. Attorney could block him.
        Mr. Cline. OK. We asked you earlier about his request for
    this authority, and we need to know who he spoke to about this
    authority and when. Before he asked you in August, he had
    discussions about this with others at the Department. Who did
    he discuss Special Counsel authority with, and when did he do
    that?
        Attorney General Garland. I am not going to discuss
    internal deliberations of the Department. I guaranteed the--
        Mr. Cline. Those aren't--well--
        Attorney General Garland. --Mr. Weiss would have the
    authority that he needed, and the moment he asked for the
    authority, I gave it to him.
        Mr. Cline. Did he discuss it with the Deputy Attorney
    General?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I am not going to get into
    discussions of deliberations within the Justice Department.
        Mr. Cline. That is not a valid Constitutional objection.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, that is a valid
    Constitutional deliberation, and it has to--Constitutional
    objection, and it has to do with the ability of the Justice
    Department to do its communications, just as your deliberations
    with your staff and other Members are protected by the
    Constitution.
        Mr. Cline. Detailing who had conversations and when does
    not implicate the internal deliberations at the Department. The
    substance of those deliberations--simply detailing who and when
    does not implicate those.
        Attorney General Garland. I am not going to get into the
    internal discussions of the Department or who talked to who
    about what. Mr. Weiss has told this Committee that he well
    understood his ability to bring a case wherever he wanted, and
    I have said that he had that ability.
        Mr. Cline. Do you think that the extraordinary
    circumstances that you cited in the appointment have anything
    to do with the June 22nd and July 19th testimony of the
    Whistleblowers Special Agent Shapley and Ziegler?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't think it has anything to
    do with Mr. Shapley. No.
        Mr. Cline. I yield to the Chair.
        Chair Jordan. I appreciate the gentleman yields.
        Mr. Garland, have you or are you investigating who leaked
    the information that appeared in the Washington Post on October
    6, 2022, about this investigation, about the Hunter Biden
    investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. You are saying there was an
    October 2022--
        Chair Jordan. On October 6, 2022, Washington Post writes a
    story about the Hunter Biden investigation. I am wondering,
    have you investigated who leaked the information to the
    Washington Post?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer to that
    question.
        Chair Jordan. Has it been referred to the Inspector
    General? Do you know that?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't want my answer to suggest
    that there is or isn't such an investigation. I know that the
    Inspector General sent a letter to Congress explaining that
    there was--that he had an ongoing assessment with respect to
    the Whistleblowers' charges. I don't know if that's what you're
    referring to.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
        Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for
    holding this hearing.
        Thank you, Attorney General, for your testimony, for
    appearing before us, and for your service to our country. I
    have a great respect for my colleague from Virginia on the
    other side of the aisle.
        I am a bit confused as to why they have zeroed in or
    focused in on this particular letter in such a myopic way. Your
    testimony--and I wrote down words here--that ``the moment he,''
    meaning the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, Mr. Weiss, ``asked
    for the authority, I give it to him'' seems pretty
    straightforward.
        As you said, the letters that Mr. Weiss has written to this
    Committee are publicly available. I would encourage anybody who
    is watching these hearings to certainly review those. As you
    said, clearly, they are consistent with each other in terms of
    reading those letters collectively.
        I think it is important, Mr. Attorney General, to perhaps
    talk a bit about your record and your background in light of
    the various attacks, unfortunately, by my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle. My understanding is that you served as
    a Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United
    States early on in your career. Is that right?
        Attorney General Garland. As my first job being a law
    clerk, yes.
        Mr. Neguse. Your first job out of law school. You later
    on--
        Attorney General Garland. After law clerk.
        Mr. Neguse. After law clerk, of course. You later were in
    private practice.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. You left private practice to become a line
    attorney at the Department of Justice.
        Attorney General Garland. That is right, to be an Assistant
    U.S. Attorney.
        Mr. Neguse. An Assistant U.S. Attorney, a Federal
    prosecutor taking on organized crime cases, drug trafficking
    cases, and violent crimes?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. I don't know about the
    organized crime. Organized drug trafficking, yes.
        Mr. Neguse. Following that service, you served the
    Department of Justice as the principal associate--
        Attorney General Garland. Attorney General.
        Mr. Neguse. Attorney General.
        Attorney General Garland. Deputy Attorney General. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. Deputy Attorney General. This is in the mid-
    90s.
        Attorney General Garland. That is right.
        Mr. Neguse. In that capacity, you supervised a range of
    high-profile cases. Is that right?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. They were high-profile
    cases.
        Mr. Neguse. The Unabomber case?
        Attorney General Garland. The what?
        Mr. Neguse. The Unabomber case.
        Attorney General Garland. Unabomber case. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. The Atlanta Olympic bombings?
        Attorney General Garland. The Olympic bombing. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. The Oklahoma City bombing case?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. That is right.
        Mr. Neguse. You received praise with respect to the--that
    latter investigation from the then Republican Governor of the
    State of Oklahoma. Is that right?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, who was a very good partner
    in the investigation with respect to Oklahoma.
        Mr. Neguse. You then were nominated and appointed to the
    Federal bench, the U.S. District Court of Appeals here in
    Washington, DC, correct?
        Attorney General Garland. For the U.S. Court of Appeals.
    Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. You were confirmed by a bipartisan majority.
    Over 20 Republican Senators voted for your confirmation.
        Attorney General Garland. I will take your word for it. I
    think that is correct.
        Mr. Neguse. You served on the bench for a significant
    period of time, ultimately becoming the Chief Judge.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. That is right.
        Mr. Neguse. You left that position to return to the
    Department of Justice, where you had started your career.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. You were confirmed in the disposition in which
    you now hold on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Attorney
    General, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
    conflated questions about various cases that the Department has
    brought with impugning your integrity. I can assure you that
    the vast majority of the American people don't share their
    opinion and that my constituents, the folks back in Colorado,
    are grateful for your lifetime of service that you have given
    to this country.
        I recognize that this is, I suspect, a frustrating exercise
    in terms of this particular hearing because I suspect that you
    would like to be talking about the prevalence of fentanyl in
    our communities and of the work the Department of Justice is
    doing to interdict it, the gun violence epidemic in our country
    and the work that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies
    are doing to stop it. My hope is that the next oversight
    hearing, perhaps those could be the focus, the bulk of the
    hearing.
        I would be remiss if I didn't say one note about a rule
    that the Department of Justice recently promulgated. As you may
    recall, in March 2021, I sent a letter to the Department of
    Justice requesting that the Department of Justice issue a rule
    regulating stabilizing braces. One of these braces was used, as
    you might recall, in a mass shooting in my community, in
    Boulder, Colorado, where 10 Coloradans tragically lost their
    lives, including one police officer.
        The Department of Justice issued a final rule earlier this
    year on this precise topic. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle have made it their mission to overturn
    this rule. I wonder if you might be able to just elaborate a
    bit on how the rule was drafted and deliberated within the
    Department.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Well, that horrific event in
    Boulder is one of several examples of the use of attachment of
    a semiautomatic pistol to a stabilizing brace intended to
    permit its firing from the shoulder. That violates the rule,
    the Congressional statute, against short-barreled rifles being
    possessed without registration, anything under 16 inches.
        The reason for Congress' statute, which I think probably
    goes back to the Al Capone era, was the power of such a weapon
    and the ability to aim such a weapon when it is shouldered. All
    that was done in this rule was to make clear that if you
    convert a pistol into a rifle designed to be fired from the
    shoulder, you are subject to the registration requirement.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The attorney general has requested a short
    break, so the Committee will stand in recess for a few minutes,
    and then we'll be back for the remainder of our Members'
    questions.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for five minutes.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Sir, is it the policy of your office for U.S. Attorneys to
    use prosecutorial quotas?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I am having a little
    difficulty hearing.
        Mr. Biggs. OK. I will get right on top of this thing. Is it
    the policy of your office for U.S. Attorneys to use
    prosecutorial quotas?
        Attorney General Garland. To prosecute?
        Mr. Biggs. Yes. Do you have any prosecutorial quota system
    in place?
        Attorney General Garland. No. No.
        Mr. Biggs. None whatsoever? That would be an anathema to
    your office, then, right? I mean, it is not policy. So, would
    you be--
        Attorney General Garland. Correct. We do not have quotas.
        Mr. Biggs. Right. So, would it be consistent with that when
    you have a prosecutor who said that they are going to--he wants
    to prosecute at least 2,000 people who are alleged to have
    committed a certain type of crime?
        Attorney General Garland. So, look. I think you are
    referring to the January 6th question.
        Mr. Biggs. I am just asking you, would that be consistent
    with your office's policy if somebody said, ``We are going to
    get--we are going to get up to 2,000 people on a particular
    crime?'' Is that consistent with your policy?
        Attorney General Garland. I think what that U.S. Attorney
    was referring to, was a prediction for how many more cases
    would still be brought because the court had asked how many
    more people--
        Mr. Biggs. Had filed a letter with the court saying, ``We
    are looking at upwards of 2,000. We got 1,200 more that we
    think we are going to get.'' So, you don't do that for anything
    else, right?
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Biggs. Like tax fraud, you are not saying, ``OK, we are
    going to have so many people that we want to get for tax fraud,
    so many people we want to get''--
        Attorney General Garland. We don't have quotas. If a court
    asks us what the likely workload will be based on prosecution's
    investigations that are pending, a U.S. Attorney is obligated
    to respond.
        Mr. Biggs. Did you guys provide any reference of the number
    of people you thought you would prosecute who were involved in
    the 2020 summer riots of the burning of the Portland courthouse
    while there were still people inside those courthouses? You
    didn't file with the court anything, say, ``Oh, we think we are
    going to have another 300, 400,'' whatever it may be, because
    you didn't file those charges, did you?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I am not following. I
    believe that the--
        Mr. Biggs. I am sure you are not.
        Attorney General Garland. The number that you are asking
    about was--
        Mr. Biggs. Let me ask you this question.
        Attorney General Garland. --a projection that the court had
    asked the U.S. Attorney to make.
        Mr. Biggs. Let's switch topics. Maybe this one will be
    easier to follow, I suppose. Is it the policy of the DOJ to
    provide advance notice to subjects before conducting a search
    for evidence?
        Attorney General Garland. It totally depends on the
    circumstance.
        Mr. Biggs. If the circumstance where that you had a
    guesthouse where the U.S. Attorney--Deputy U.S. Attorney
    saying, well, we know that there is--we suspect there is a lot
    of evidence there, but we are not going to really follow that
    up. We are going to--and calls the attorney from the other side
    saying we are going to do a search warrant, would that be
    consistent with your policy?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I know this is no
    hypothetical. I don't know the facts of this case, and I don't
    know what happened. I believe the offense you are talking
    about, as reported in the press, occurred under the previous
    administration.
        Mr. Biggs. No, no, no. No. That event didn't happen under
    the previous administration. Let's talk about that. I mean, you
    keep saying this happened under the previous administration.
    Let's talk about this for just a moment. You keep saying, I
    don't know what happened there, but I am going to opine when it
    happened.
        Do you see the fallacy of that, the inconsistencies?

            I don't know when it happened. I don't know what happened
            because I am not involved. But it happened under the previous
            administration.

    That is so logically fallacious.
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I am not following
    what is--
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Biggs. Yes. I know you are not following. So, the
    question is you got one of your Deputy U.S. Attorneys calling
    the attorney on the other side saying, look, we are going to go
    to these two places, probably go in the next couple days. Of
    course, then, ultimately, the search warrant is called off.
        I just want to know, is it consistent to call up people
    and--where you know that they have got boxes of information, or
    you suspect they have boxes of information--that is why you got
    the warrant. That is why you are going to go look. You give
    them a heads-up so they can move those boxes of information.
    Would that be consistent with DOJ policy?
        Attorney General Garland. I am just going to say, again,
    you are asking me actually to comment about allegations in a
    particular case about which I do not know the--
        Mr. Biggs. No, I am not. No, I am not. I am asking you, is
    that consistent with your overall policy? Forget Delaware and
    what they did and that they actually did that. Let's just talk
    about generic policy.
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I thought you were
    asking about Mar-a-Lago. I may not have understood that. I am
    sorry.
        Mr. Biggs. Oh yes. La-de-da. So, we were talking about
    this. When we are talking about your general policy, is it your
    policy, is that acceptable, when you suspect that there are
    movable items, to call up and say, ``We are going to be there
    to look''?
        Attorney General Garland. There is no policy on this
    question. The strategy and tactics to be used to preserve
    evidence are left up to the investigators and offices on the
    ground. Sometimes it would be a serious mistake to call up.
    Sometimes it would not.
        Mr. Biggs. Here, once again, you don't know what happened
    in the Hunter Biden case because that is--somebody else is
    doing it. You can be sure of the timing of when all this took
    place. That is one of the biggest oddities of your testimony
    today.
        I yield back to the gentleman from Colorado.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time is expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Thank you for
    your decades of faithful service to our country, to our
    Constitution, and to the rule of law. Thank you for putting up
    with this day.
        The American people are watching. They know what is going
    on here. This is a gross misuse of your time, your team's time,
    and our time. It is a shameful circus. It has a goal. The goal
    is to spew lies and disinformation, ultimately to tear away at
    the confidence of our independent institutions, in your case
    today, our very important Department of Justice.
        That is the exact MO of a former President: Tear away at
    the confidence of our independent institutions, whether it is
    our electoral system, Department of Justice, the Judiciary, and
    independent news media. The American people are watching this
    sham.
        It is not just a circus. It is dangerous, and you know
    that, and you have mentioned that. I believe that these
    fictions and fantasies are dangerous, dangerous for you and the
    115,000 public servants with whom you work, dangerous for
    national security, dangerous for communities' security,
    dangerous for the rule of law and our Constitution, all at the
    same time of a looming shutdown.
        The other side of the aisle cannot govern, and so they have
    this hearing, which was supposed to be oversight, and use it as
    a big distraction because they are failing to govern. Imagine
    if we go into the shutdown. What does that say to the members
    of your Department? What does it say to our service members,
    U.S. troops who would be training, fighting without pay and
    without confidence in this country's governing ability? It is a
    great distraction.
        So, let me pivot to something I care about and I know you
    and your Department cares about. It is recovery month. For
    families like mine with a member in recovery, every month is
    recovery month. So, I thank you for what you are doing on the
    fentanyl crisis, the overdose crisis, that has claimed 110,000
    lives in a single 12-month period, 300 souls a day every day,
    souls who have died while we were in this hearing every day.
        What is the Department doing to combat the trafficking, to
    combat the amount of fentanyl on the ground? As DEA has said,
    there is enough fentanyl on the ground right now to kill this
    entire population multiple times over. Tell us about your
    important work in fentanyl.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, Congresswoman, let me begin
    by saying I share your personal concern and grief over this. I
    have met with the families of children, teenagers, elderly
    people who have become addicted to fentanyl and who have died
    from fentanyl. Everything you are saying is correct, and it is
    a catastrophe for the country.
        So, as a consequence, the Justice Department has poured its
    resources, particularly from DEA with FBI assistance as well,
    and the fugitive arrests by the Marshals Service and with gun
    tracing by the ATF, into the entire process by which fentanyl
    reaches the United States.
        So, we have sanctioned the precursor companies in China. We
    have indicted some of them for their violations. We have
    arrested some as far off as in Fiji and brought them back to
    the United States. We have traced this--the precursors to
    Mexico, where they are made into the fentanyl pills. Fentanyl
    costs about 10 cents to make. It can be sold on the street in
    the United States between 10 and 30 dollars. You can see what
    the enormous profit motive is here.
        So, we must stop the cartels themselves. I have, as I said,
    traveled to Mexico twice to work with our counterparts in the
    military and law enforcement there.
        Ms. Dean. I thank you for all of that. I want to just pivot
    once. I want to do anything I can to partner with you--
        Attorney General Garland. Appreciate it.
        Ms. Dean. --on this issue so that we stop losing people. I
    traveled recently with the Foreign Affairs Committee to The
    Hague, met with the extraordinary folks, the top prosecutor,
    and his able team. They were very complimentary of the
    Department of Justice and your work. Can you tell us about your
    important role or America's important role in war crimes,
    especially in light of your powerful history?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. I am happy to. So, I have
    traveled to Ukraine twice and--to meet with the Prosecutor
    General there, and I am going to meet with him again this week
    here. He has met with me several times here. The Justice
    Department is pursuing the war crimes from Russia's unlawful
    and unjust invasion of Ukraine to help investigate war crimes
    over which we have jurisdiction, to help the Prosecutor General
    in Ukraine investigate those prosecutions.
        I was, I believe, the first cabinet member ever to visit
    The Hague, the International Criminal Court of Justice, and to
    meet with Karim Khan, who is the chief prosecutor, to talk
    about our cooperation in respect to the investigations that
    they are doing. I have assigned a Justice Department prosecutor
    to the investigatory body that's been set up in The Hague for
    the crime of aggression, and she is there now working with the
    ICC and with Europol and Eurojust. I have assigned a prosecutor
    to the--our embassy in Kiev to work with our investor there and
    work with the prosecutor General's Office there.
        Ms. Dean. I thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing that answer
    to go on because it is critically important.
        America is indispensable, and your work is indispensable.
    Thank you, sir.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the Gentlelady is expired.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
        Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Attorney General, do you support the
    consent decree that I believe was put in place in the city of
    Minneapolis?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. Do I support the--
        Mr. Tiffany. Do you support the consent decree that was put
    in place with the Police Department of Minneapolis?
        Attorney General Garland. The one that was put in place by
    the Federal Government?
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. Do you support fewer cops on the street?
        Attorney General Garland. Do I support--
        Mr. Tiffany. Fewer cops on the street.
        Attorney General Garland. No, I don't support fewer cops on
    the streets.
        Mr. Tiffany. That is what is happening as a result of--
        Attorney General Garland. It is not--I don't think that is
    a consequence of the consent decree.
        Mr. Tiffany. Do you support--
        Attorney General Garland. Minneapolis has been losing
    police officers for many years.
        Mr. Tiffany. Do you support more crime?
        Attorney General Garland. Do I support more crime?
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland. No, I don't.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, there was just a hearing in Minnetonka,
    Minnesota, a tony suburb of Minneapolis, just this last week
    where they were just--they are beside themselves with the
    amount of crime that continues in Minneapolis since the riots
    of 2020.
        I would point out to you that I had an officer in my
    district--I live right across the border in Wisconsin, or that
    is where my district begins. A police officer was shot to death
    as a result of a weak-on-crime prosecutor in St. Paul and
    Minneapolis, Minnesota. The guy served only four years for a
    violent crime. Do you think that is a problem?
        Attorney General Garland. An officer was shot to death.
    That is not--that is certainly not an appropriate sentence.
    That is outrageous. Let me be clear. We are doing everything we
    can to assist Minneapolis. We have a very aggressive U.S.
    Attorney who has brought a number of RICO and VICAR cases--
        Mr. Tiffany. Let me continue. We got a--
        Attorney General Garland. --and extraordinarily successful
    in--
        Mr. Tiffany. I got a real short period of time here.
        Attorney General Garland. Sorry.
        Mr. Tiffany. In regard to disrupting drug networks, why do
    you think there is so much fentanyl coming into the country?
        Attorney General Garland. Because it costs 10 cents to
    make, and it can be sold for 40 dollars.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, Sheriff Mark Dannels from Cochise County,
    Arizona, sat right where you are at a few months ago, and under
    oath, he said the reason there is such a drastic increase in
    fentanyl coming into the country is because on January 20,
    2021, open borders policies were announced by President Biden.
    Have you expressed concern about those open borders policies
    that have led to this rapid increase in the amount of fentanyl
    coming into our country?
        Attorney General Garland. I can't associate myself with a
    conclusion reached by the sheriff, although I certainly
    commiserate with the concern--
        Mr. Tiffany. So, the sheriff is incorrect?
        Attorney General Garland. Look. The cartels in Mexico are
    bringing this--are causing this drug to be transmitted into the
    United States, and we are doing everything--
        Mr. Tiffany. Terrific.
        Attorney General Garland. --we can eliminate that
    incentive.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes. You are not going to do it doing that.
        Mr. Chair, just so we are real clear here, this is the same
    answer we received from Secretary Mayorkas a couple months ago
    when he was in denial about a sheriff who lives--one of the
    most reputable sheriffs you will find in the United States of
    America sitting down there on that Southern border. He sees it
    every day. He saw it working in 2020 because he told me when I
    was down there. Now, he says it is not working, and it started
    January 20, 2021.
        You can pretend that you are dealing with fentanyl. You are
    not, because the borders are wide open. Do you believe--I am
    going to shift to combating gun violence. Do you believe that a
    prohibited person that acquires a gun illegally and disposes it
    in a dumpster where a criminal or an innocent child could gain
    access to it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the
    law?
        Attorney General Garland. This is no longer a hypothetical
    question. You are referring to a specific case, which is now in
    judicial determination before a court of law. It is not
    appropriate for me to comment on that case.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, for the record, Mr. Chair, let's
    understand that the same prosecuting attorney who is now the
    Special Counsel gave a sweetheart deal to that person.
        Yes, you are correct. We are referring to the President's
    son. He got a sweetheart deal, and the judge was smart enough
    to smell a rat when she saw it. She said, ``You guys go back to
    the drawing board.'' That same Special Counsel is in charge of
    this investigation.
        Isn't that correct, Mr. Chair? Absolutely.
        I will close really quickly with this. There was a World
    Naked Bike Ride in Madison, Wisconsin, just a couple months
    ago. I sent you a letter two months ago asking if you had a
    problem with that because it exposed a 10-year-old girl by the
    race organizer, the bike organizers, to pedaling around
    Madison, Wisconsin, naked.
        Do you think that's a problem? Why did you not answer our
    letter from two months ago?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I will have to get--
    ask the Office of Legislative Affairs to get back to you about
    this.
        Mr. Tiffany. Does it typically take two months to be able
    to answer questions like this?
        Attorney General Garland. It sounds like you're asking
    about a question about State and local law enforcement. We get
    hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of letters. I will ask the
    Office of Legislative Affairs where that letter is.
        Mr. Tiffany. State law, local law enforcement, would not
    act. We were hoping you would. It is obvious you are not.
        I yield.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, again, Mr. Attorney General, for joining us and
    for your patience with this questioning. I am honored to
    represent a diverse community in North Carolina. Wake County
    has worked to welcome people of all backgrounds, ethnicities,
    and religions.
        The growth and success of my district and the Research
    Triangle Park depends on our commitment to celebrating the many
    cultures that contribute to our community. Unfortunately, over
    the past few years, these very communities that have
    contributed so much to my State and my district have found
    themselves under attack.
        Jewish leaders in my district have received threats to
    themselves and their synagogues as recently as last month.
    HBCUs across our State have locked down in response to bomb
    threats. Asian Americans in North Carolina and throughout the
    country have found themselves facing slurs and threats spurred
    in large part by the racialized language about the COVID-19
    pandemic.
        The Southern Poverty Law Center reported in late 2020 the
    number of White nationalist groups grew 55 percent between
    2017-2019, noting that the rise in hate-based attacks coincides
    with the growth of the White nationalist movement. The Anti-
    Defamation League relatedly found that White supremacist
    propaganda incidents occurred over 14 times per day on average
    in 2020, with a total of 5,125 reported cases, nearly twice the
    number of cases reported in 2019, and the highest number the
    ADL has ever recorded.
        This dangerous trend has continued in the last few years
    and has recently included--as active clubs have been increasing
    in their number and prominence. These active clubs started
    popping up in late 2020 and are a network of White nationalist
    groups that see themselves as fighters in training for an
    ongoing war against a system they claim is deliberately
    plotting against the White race.
        As Attorney General, I am deeply interested and concerned
    about the rise of these clubs, threats of violence, and actual
    violence and wanted to know if you are familiar with these
    activities and what your Department is doing to counteract
    them.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I'm not familiar with the
    specifics of those clubs, and I will certainly look into what
    the Department has been doing in that respect.
        Very soon after I came into the Department, I saw the spike
    in hate crime threats that were being made and in actual acts
    of violence. I directed the Department to develop a strategy
    for responding to that. Thirty days later, that was pretty much
    coincident with Congress' passage of the COVID NO HATE Act.
        We have now fulfilled, I think, all of the obligations
    under that Act. We have task forces set up to investigate and
    prosecute hate crimes, both as hate crimes, and where they
    satisfy the requirements, as domestic violence extremism or as
    domestic terrorism.
        We have brought dozens of cases against people who have
    made these threats, as well as, in particular, those who have
    attempted to carry them out. As you know, we have a prosecution
    pending in Buffalo with respect to the horrendous killing of
    Black Americans in the Tops grocery store by and about White
    supremacists.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. Thank you for your efforts
    in this regard.
        On a different subject, with my last 45 seconds, North
    Carolina also saw the impact of cybercrimes with the Colonial
    Pipeline.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Ms. Ross. I'd like to know how your office is counteracting
    any cyberattacks and dealing with people who perpetrate them.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, we are vigilant to the
    risk of these kind of cyberattacks. In that case, these were
    criminal gangs affiliated in Russia, resident in Russia.
    Fortunately, we had available intelligence from Section 702,
    which we were discussing a little bit earlier today.
        I have to say that's one of the principal sources of our
    ability to fight these kind of cyberattacks, whether they are
    criminal or whether they are launched by Nation-States; whether
    they are attempting to get ransomware and create a ransom;
    whether they're simply trying--or, also, to--simply trying to
    exfiltrate our information, or whether they're trying to
    prevent our computers from working at all.
        The Justice Department has established a cyber task force
    for this purpose, a ransomware task force, and we are recently
    working on cryptocurrency in exactly the same way.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        We're going to try to move quickly with--
        Ms. Ross. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. --the Attorney General, because we've got
    votes, and then, we've got a--
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, of course.
        Chair Jordan. --majority conference.
        The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
        Mr. Buck. I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Attorney General, welcome.
        My friend and colleague from Colorado outlined your
    biography I thought very well, but he left out two points that
    I'd like to mention.
        One is not only did you lead the prosecution of the
    Oklahoma City bombing case, but in that case the death penalty
    was asked for and actually received. Timothy McVeigh was
    executed--not exactly a Democrat priority to seek the death
    penalty in cases, but you did so because of the rule of law.
    You did so because the facts and the law demanded that you did
    so, and you followed the facts and the law in that situation.
        The other issue I wanted or example in your bio that I
    wanted to point out, it's my understanding that in your
    conference room you have a portrait of Elliot Richardson. The
    reason you have a portrait of Elliot Richardson is because he
    demanded that the Department of Justice stay independent from
    the Nixon Administration. He had the backbone to stand up to
    the President of the United States and make sure that the
    Department of Justice would not become the government's lawyer.
        You put that portrait there soon after you became Attorney
    General because it was a signal. It was a signal to the world
    that you wanted to be known in the same way that others that
    had come before you were known.
        Frankly, one of the reasons I respect Attorney General Barr
    so much is because, after January 6th, he made the very
    difficult decision to walk into the President's office and tell
    the President the election was not stolen; ``We have looked at
    this.'' For that reason, he resigned before January 20th, when
    power was turned over.
        Mr. Attorney General, you're not able to answer some
    questions here, but I'll answer them for you.
        Do you know what people would have said if you had asked
    for U.S. Attorney Weiss' resignation when you became Attorney
    General? I'm sorry, U.S. Attorney. Yes, U.S. Attorney Weiss'
    resignation. They would have said that you were obstructing the
    Hunter Biden investigation; that you were firing a Republican
    appointee, so that you could appoint a Democrat to slow-walk
    this investigation and lose the leadership of that
    investigation.
        If you had made the same decision a year later because you
    were frustrated that the prosecution wasn't moving fast enough,
    they would have, again, said that you were interfering with the
    prosecution.
        If you, when U.S. Attorney Weiss asked to become Special
    Counsel, if you had made the decision then to appoint someone
    else to Special Counsel, people would have criticized you
    because you would have been taking someone out of the
    investigation that knew the facts, that could lead the
    investigation, and put someone in who would have had to come
    up-to-speed on the investigation and wouldn't have allowed
    major decisions to be made until they came up-to-speed.
        So, in three different opportunities where you could have
    acted, you would have been criticized either way, whether you
    acted or did not act in that situation.
        Far from slow-walking, really, once the Trump
    Administration decided that this was the person leading the
    investigation, your hands were tied. You didn't have the
    opportunity to make a decision on the leadership of that
    investigation.
        Speaking of slow-walking, I appreciate your reference in
    your opening remarks, your written opening remarks, to

            The Department of Justice strongly supports efforts by Congress
            . . . to promote competition in digital markets by passing
            legislation to prohibit certain anticompetitive practices by
            dominant online platforms.

        You can't say who they are, but I can. Apple, Amazon,
    Facebook, and Google are monopolies and they have been harming
    this country and harming competition in that particular market
    for years.
        Congress for five years has been investigating and offering
    bills on that subject. They spent $250 million, according to
    reports, in the last Congress to defeat those bills. Now, we do
    nothing in this Congress to try to deal with that very serious
    issue.
        In fact, there are efforts, I'm told, over in the Senate--
    and I use the word ``effort'' and ``Senate'' very carefully in
    the same sentence--but there are efforts in the Senate, S.
    2321, to take $50 million in funding for the Department of
    Justice Antitrust Division, and it would be an 18 percent cut,
    and to move that money to the general Department of Justice
    operations fund to try to further cripple the efforts that are
    going on in court.
        The State Attorney Generals and the Antitrust Division and
    Federal Trade Commission are doing a great job jointly in
    trying to combat the scourge of these monopolies.
        My question to you is, will you make sure that the
    Antitrust Division is properly funded, so it can continue this
    very serious effort at stopping these monopolies from harming
    our children, from harming competition, and from further
    strengthening China's position in this area?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I absolutely will. One of
    the first things I did in the first budget opportunity we had
    was to ask for more money for the Antitrust Division than had
    ever been, had been given in quite a long time, and to ask for
    the fees that are paid for purposes of merger analysis be given
    to the Antitrust Division directly, rather than to go into a
    general fund.
        Mr. Buck. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I would just point out for the record that
    Attorney General Barr left the Trump Administration on December
    23, 2020, not between January 6th and January 20, 2021.
        Mr. Gooden. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Jordan. With that, I recognize the gentlelady--
        Mr. Gooden. Mr. Chair? Could I'm sorry. Since he mentioned
    monopoly, could I also enter into the record this article about
    the Mastercard/Visa duopoly by Proactive and their target of a
    bipartisan bill to reform this monopoly? Could I enter that
    into the record, please?
        Chair Jordan. Yes, without objection, the unanimous consent
    is accepted.
        The gentlelady from Missouri is recognized.
        Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you for being here, Attorney General Garland.
        St. Louis and I are here to make clear what it means to
    promote equal justice for every person in this country.
    Attorney General Garland, you often speak about your commitment
    to supporting civil rights and the rule of law, but I have
    concerns about whether the Department, under your leadership,
    is doing the absolute most it possibly can advance these goals.
        In the limited time I have, I want to share my concerns
    about specific issues with you directly and to make clear the
    steps that I believe that the Department needs to take.
        First, as this hearing has shown, a small number of the
    Department's cases get an outsized level of attention and
    politics, but the reality is you preside over most of the
    Federal system of mass incarceration. Every day in courtrooms
    around the country, including St. Louis, prosecutors who
    ultimately report to you are continuing to disproportionately
    prosecute, disproportionately, Black and Brown people for
    disproportionately low-level immigration and narcotics and
    firearm offenses. Under your watch, the Federal incarceration
    rate has increased for the first time in nearly a decade.
    Meanwhile, corporate crime enforcement is lower than it was
    during the Trump Administration.
        The Department needs to rethink its entire approach to
    prosecution, but let me also say I thank you for what you're
    doing with the insurrectionists. I urge you to take specific
    steps toward ending mandatory minimums and prosecutory
    misconduct waivers and actively supporting alternatives to
    incarceration; funding Federal public defenders; use of
    clemency power, and reporting on disparities in Federal
    prosecutions.
        I'm also deeply concerned about the Bureau of Prisons.
    Director Peters is not doing enough to address the rampant
    issues of abuse and mismanagement at the Bureau, which affects
    both correctional staff and people in custody. It is shameful
    that solitary confinement has increased in the Bureau of
    Prisons during the Biden Administration, despite the President
    claiming he supports ending it.
        We need to see more from the Department across the board on
    Bureau of Prisons oversight, and you should implement the
    President's commitment to end the tortuous practice of solitary
    confinement once and for all.
        I'm also incredibly disheartened that the Department has
    continued to pursue the death penalty, despite the President's
    pledge to end it. I urge the Department to reverse course,
    including by dismantling the Federal death chamber in Indiana
    and advocating for the commutation of the sentences of everyone
    on Federal death row.
        I'm also still waiting to see any meaningful progress on
    the commitments that Associate Attorney General Gupta announced
    in June 2022 around the enforcement of Title VI and the Safe
    Streets Act.
        I'd also like--and I'm going on and on, but I'm taking my
    time--I'd also like an update on when the Department will
    respond to the Oversight Committee Democrats' letter from June
    2021 about the memo issued by the Trump Administration's Office
    of Legal Counsel concerning the Equal Rights Amendment. That
    deeply flawed memo is preventing the Archivist of the United
    States from publishing the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th
    Amendment.
        I know that OLC issued a short clarification after you took
    office, but the wording was not a clear repudiation of the
    Trump era memo. I urge you to fully withdraw the Trump OLC
    memo, which is baselessly obstructing Constitutional gender
    equality for all.
        Finally, I cannot over State how shocked I am by the
    targeting of protestors who oppose the construction of the
    Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, or Cop City, and I urge
    the Department to investigate these obvious violations of civil
    rights.
        These may all seem like unrelated issues, but, to me, to my
    constituents, the countless advocates, and to people who are
    most directly impacted, they are interconnected, and they all
    speak to whether the Department, under your leadership, will
    advance justice or simply pay lip service to it.
        Given the limited time that we have, I don't expect you to
    comment on all these issues. I have a question. Will you commit
    to working with me and my office on these issues, including
    having your staff promptly, by writing your position and
    sending that to us, reaching out to us about all the issues
    that we just spoke about?
        Attorney General Garland. I'd be happy to have the Office
    of Legislative Affairs to work with your staff.
        I want to say I could not be prouder of the civil rights
    record of this Department. It is the fundamental basis for why
    the Justice Department was founded. We have a history of also
    being, obviously, involved in the 1960s. When I came to the
    Justice Department--
        Ms. Bush. I'm going to stop you. I'm not, I'm not
    disagreeing with any of that. I just want you to understand
    where I'm coming from, the things that I would like to see. I
    don't mean to cut you off, but I need to reclaim my time.
        Finally, I want to remind everyone, yet again, that this is
    what good-faith oversight looks like, not the Republican
    playbook of running interference for a twice-impeached, four-
    times-indicted, White supremacist demagogue who would rather
    overthrow our democracy than admit he lost an election.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
        I thank the Attorney General for being here before us
    today.
        On October 21, 2021, before this Committee, I asked you
    about Mr. Scott Smith, a father in Loudoun County, Virginia,
    who was arrested at his school board meeting, where he
    questioned the rape of his daughter in a bathroom in a public
    school there. You said at the time you were unfamiliar with the
    case. Are you now? Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm only familiar to the extent I
    read about it in the press.
        Mr. Roy. You sent a memo on October 4, 2021, directing the
    FBI and U.S. Attorney Offices to address, quote, ``harassment''
    of school boards. Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. Sent a memo to address violence
    and threats of violence in connection with school personnel--
        Mr. Roy. Directed at school boards.
        Attorney General Garland. Not directed at school boards.
    Directed at school personnel, school administrators, board
    members--
        Mr. Roy. Throughout the country, as a priority for the
    Federal Government, for the United States Attorney's Office.
        That followed a letter on September 29, 2021, from the
    National School Boards Association to President Biden and
    emails from the National School Boards Association Director,
    Chip Slaven, to the White House, in which the White House asked
    for specific threats. One of the examples was Scott Smith.
        Subsequent to our hearing two years ago, 26 States left the
    National School Boards Association and Slaven resigned on
    November 23, 2021.
        Last week, Mr. Smith was pardoned by Governor Youngkin. Do
    you think the Governor was correct? Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. Pardon authority belongs to the
    Governor.
        Mr. Roy. You don't have an opinion on whether the Governor
    was correct?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know the facts of the
    case. So, I'm not in a position to make--
        Mr. Roy. Have you rescinded the memo that you issued in
    2021? Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. What we're discussing--
        Mr. Roy. Have you rescinded the memo? Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. What we discuss in here
    occurred--
        Mr. Roy. Does the memo still exist? Is it still going? Yes
    or no? Has it been rescinded?
        Attorney General Garland. The memo was intended to have
    meetings within 30 days.
        Mr. Roy. Has it been rescinded?
        Attorney General Garland. The 30 days have finished.
    Nothing has happened in more than 1\1/2\ years with respect to
    that memo.
        Mr. Roy. It has not been rescinded? It has not been--
        Attorney General Garland. There's nothing to rescind.
        Mr. Roy. Despite evidence that has come out from the
    National School Boards Association Commissioned Report that
    White House officials discussed this with DOJ more than a week
    before the letter was sent--the NSBA apologized--have you
    apologized? Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. I've testified seven times since
    that original memo came out.
        Mr. Roy. It's the first time you're back here since we
    talked about it.
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
        Mr. Roy. It's the first time you're back here in front of
    us. Have you apologized for putting that memo out that
    implicated Scott Smith as a domestic terrorist, something the
    Governor of Virginia has now pardoned him from all these
    accusations?
        Attorney General Garland. The memo said nothing about him,
    nothing about parents being terrorists, nothing about attending
    school boards--
        Mr. Roy. The answer is it's not been rescinded, and you
    haven't apologized for it? Again, that--
        Attorney General Garland. The answer is that's not a--
        Mr. Roy. --that labeling a--labeling an American citizen a
    domestic terrorist in a memo, and referring to it in a memo
    that's built on the back of that.
        Now, we have this compliments being drive to the Civil
    Rights Division. Let's talk about Mark Houck in Pennsylvania, a
    father who was arrested with heavily armed Federal and local
    law enforcement in front of his wife and children--this after
    Mark Houck's lawyers had said he would appear voluntarily.
    Local authorities investigated, found no case. Mark Houck was
    arrested by the FBI for FACE Act violations. The jury met for
    an hour. Houck was acquitted.
        Now, when I was in Federal Court, I don't remember that
    being my result very often. In fact, I don't remember it
    happening at all, where we went, took it to a jury, and it was
    acquitted after an hour.
        Did you investigate this or question the United States
    Attorney why they wasted resources for such an obvious result?
    Can you explain--yes or no--that this was a good use of the
    Department of Justice's authority?
        Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department respects
    the jury's verdict. The decisions in that case were made by
    agents and prosecutors on the ground.
        Mr. Roy. Are you concerned that enforcement of the FACT Act
    has been biased toward pro-lifers over anti-life protestors 126
    to 4, by our count? We're asking information to be able to
    track down the information of such prosecutions, but 126 times
    against pro-lifers versus four times for people who dare to
    question the issue of life.
        Attorney General Garland. I think--
        Mr. Roy. So, I'll leave that out there just to say that is
    the Civil Rights Division at play.
        Meanwhile, we've got the very liberal progressive groups
    being targeted as well. Senator Cruz and I sent a letter to you
    asking for information about how the FBI informant had gone to
    a liberal group's pro-life meeting, and yet, we didn't get any
    response from you. So, I'd ask if you would respond to our
    letter that we sent back in March asking about FBI infiltrating
    such a meeting.
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know what you're
    referring to, but I will ask the Office of Legislative Affairs
    to look into this letter.
        Mr. Roy. Thank you.
        Finally, our tax cases require approval by Main Justice, no
    matter what district has venue. Yes or no? Do tax cases, as a
    general matter, require approval by Main Justice--
        Attorney General Garland. Let me just say--
        Mr. Roy. --no matter what district has venue? Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. It depends on the circumstances,
    and the example that I know you're referring to--
        Mr. Roy. Is it, generally speaking--generally speaking,
    yes.
        Attorney General Garland. Not--
        Mr. Roy. Main Justice runs the Tax Division. Yes or no?
    Main Justice runs the Tax Division?
        Attorney General Garland. In the Hunter Biden case, I
    assured Mr. Weiss that he--
        Mr. Roy. That's not what I'm asking about. I didn't ask
    you--I haven't mentioned that guy's name. I didn't. I, very
    simply, asked a very simple question.
        Attorney General Garland. OK.
        Mr. Roy. Do tax cases require approval by Main Justice as
    a, as a general matter?
        Attorney General Garland. Most of the time, but not when
    the Attorney General has granted authority to a U.S. Attorney
    to do what he thinks is best.
        Mr. Roy. In a turf battle, the Tax Division approves
    changes--
        Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair. Point of order.
        Mr. Roy. I recall my colleague--
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time, the gentleman's time
    has--
        Mr. Roy. --from Texas having a minute and a half of
    additional time.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Roy. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Texas.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Attorney General Garland, thank you, first and foremost,
    for your public service and your dedication to justice. I'm
    delighted to see you here today. Thank you for appearing before
    us.
        I represent El Paso, Texas, a community right on the U.S.-
    Mexico border. So, we have been witnessing firsthand the abuses
    at the hands of Governor Greg Abbott through Operation
    Lonestar, which began in 2021. He, Governor Abbott, has
    deployed State resources and Texas National Guard's members to
    the State's border with Mexico. Operation Lonestar has created
    border management challenges. It's resulted in countless
    humanitarian and due process violations for migrants. Its
    harmed Guardsmen assigned to the mission. It's cost the State
    billions of dollars, and it has completely undermined the
    Federal Government's authority over immigration.
        Now, I sent you a letter, my colleagues and I, from--
    Democratic colleagues from Texas sent you a letter in July
    about Abbott's floating barriers. I know that this is now
    going, that this case is going through appeal.
        We have also learned that the National Guard shot, a
    Guardsman shot at a Mexican national across the Rio Grande. In
    September, on September 1st, I sent you a letter asking that
    the DOJ investigate that.
        We also know that Governor Abbott--we've learned from
    Whistleblowers that he has ordered National Guardsmen to
    prevent migrants from turning themselves in to CBP, has even
    ordered that they push people back into Mexico.
        Mr. Chair, I'd like unanimous consent to enter into the
    record an El Paso Times article from earlier this week. ``Texas
    National Guard Orders Hundreds of Asylum Seekers on U.S.
    Territory Back into Mexico.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Ms. Escobar. This, in addition to Governor Abbott
    separating fathers from their children and their families, it's
    egregious what is happening on the border via Operation
    Lonestar.
        Attorney General Garland, are you able to speak to any
    responses the Department has had to Governor Abbott's blatant
    undermining of Federal immigration authority?
        Attorney General Garland. I can, obviously, speak on the
    buoys question. When we brought suit under the Rivers and
    Harbors Act for the interference with navigable waters, that
    case is still under adjudication in the District Court.
        Ms. Escobar. I understand that. There are other issues, and
    I want to make sure I flag them for you today at this hearing,
    but would also like for your folks to take a close look at the
    investigation that I've requested. I will be sending a followup
    letter after what we've learned just this week from the El Paso
    Times.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
        Ms. Escobar. Switching gears, I do want to offer you an
    opportunity for some rebuttal. Because what we've seen from
    some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is their
    penchant for performance for Twitter and for other news
    program.
        Mr. Attorney General, we've heard a lot of accusations
    regarding some U.S. Attorneys' Offices not partnering with Mr.
    Weiss and hypotheticals about what that means. Can you please
    explain the difference between partnering with a U.S.
    Attorney's Office and acting as a Special Attorney or Special
    Counsel?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I can talk about it,
    obviously, in the abstract and the theoretical. It's a normal
    process of the Department. If prosecutors from one area of the
    country and has a case that has significance in another, to
    speak with the U.S. Attorney in the other district, find out
    what the policies of the district are, to find out what the
    practices are, to see how judges in that district react to
    different kinds of charges.
        Sometimes a decision is made to partner together in those
    investigations, and sometimes a decision is made for the U.S.
    Attorney from the other district to have his or her own people
    bring those cases.
        I have personally been involved in three of those cases
    during the period when I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and
    over my entire career, I have been given 515 authority twice
    myself for this purpose. It is not just a mechanical question
    of what courts require to make an appearance.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Garland. Again,
    appreciate your public service to the American people.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Garland, for being here today.
        Every time I'm in my district, constituents are concerned
    about the weaponization of government; them being selected
    because they happen to be conservatives. I think on your watch
    now the DOJ actually is a mid '30s percent approval rating.
        Every time the DOJ goes after Trump, he goes up in the
    polls. I think the American people are starting to wake up to
    what's going on, and I think it's fairly obvious.
        The first question I have is, I understand now that we know
    that, thanks to an FBI Whistleblower, that the FBI received
    information on Americans from Bank of America. Specifically,
    Bank of America sent the FBI a list of customers who made
    transactions in the days on and around January 6, 2021.
        My question for you is, did the Department of Justice
    acquire any geolocation data from January 1, 2020-December 31,
    2021? Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, did you say locational
    data?
        Mr. Moore. Geolocational data.
        Attorney General Garland. Geolocational. I believe
    everything that was done with respect to geolocational data was
    disclosed in the public findings in the January 6th cases. I
    don't have that at my fingertips, but this is a matter of
    public record.
        Mr. Moore. Do you remember any specific analyses that you
    may have done with that data?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, I can't hear.
        Mr. Moore. Any specific analyses that you may have gotten
    from that data? Was there anything, in particular, you were
    looking for, Mr. Attorney General? Like did they exercise their
    rights? Did they maybe buy a firearm?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything about the
    second thing. The purposes, I understood the location data was
    to determine whether people who claimed they weren't inside the
    Capital actually were inside the Capital.
        Mr. Moore. Well, where did--where did the--I guess the
    question is, to your knowledge, then, where--the DOJ, the geo--
    I'm sorry--the geolocation data from external sources,
    entities, or organizations, to your knowledge, did you receive
    that from external sources or are you buying that data?
        Attorney General Garland. So, I don't, I don't know the
    exact answer in general. I believe, with respect to January
    6th, these were the results of subpoena, as issued to telephone
    companies.
        Mr. Moore. So, you subpoenaed the telephone companies, and
    then, they got the data from outside sources--
        Attorney General Garland. Well, this requires orders
    authorized by the court.
        Mr. Moore. Does it concern you that--you know, we talked
    about Durham's Report earlier--that he said that the FBI's
    activities were somewhat ``sobering''? Does that worry you on
    your watch, that the activities of the FBI have been called
    ''sobering'' now?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
    Who calls it sobering?
        Mr. Moore. John Durham in his report. Did you read his
    report?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, who?
        Mr. Moore. John Durham.
        Attorney General Garland. Durham?
        Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
        Attorney General Garland. I did read the report. All those
    events are or had to do with the Crossfire Hurricane
    investigation. Is that what you're referring--
        Mr. Moore. That was part of it, yes, sir.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Uh-hum.
        Mr. Moore. Were you concerned when he said it was
    ''sobering'' what the FBI was doing?
        Attorney General Garland. I think Mr. Durham--and I just
    want to make sure everybody understands--Mr. Durham thanked me
    for not interfering with his investigation. I had promised he
    would be able to go forward without interference, just as I
    promised Mr. Weiss. Mr. Durham's--and I did not interfere with
    his report.
        His report reported a lack of analytical rigor, and
    another--a number of other problems with respect to the
    investigation. I think both the Inspector General made similar
    comments and Director Wray has made the same.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Attorney General.
        I don't have a whole lot of time. I want to yield a little
    bit to the Chair.
        Is it a crime in the U.S. to question an election?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
        Mr. Moore. Is it a crime in the U.S. to question an
    election? Is that a crime?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, it's my fault. I can't
    hear. To request a what?
        Mr. Moore. Is it a crime to question an election in the
    United States of America? It is a crime--is it a crime for the
    U.S. citizens to say, ``We want to ask about this election. We
    want to question this election. We actually want to look into
    the election.'' Is that a crime when citizens just question an
    election in America now?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I think you're asking not
    a hypothetical, but something specific about just this--
        Mr. Moore. I think this is just general. I don't think
    that's specific. Elections have been questioned for decades
    past. Is that now a crime in America?
        Attorney General Garland. Did you say to ask questions
    about an election? Is that what you--
        Mr. Moore. To question an election.
        Attorney General Garland. To question? No, it's not.
        Mr. Moore. Just to question the results.
        Attorney General Garland. It's not a crime to question an
    election.
        Mr. Moore. Because I questioned the election results in
    2020. There are a lot of people in America that do. They
    question the weaponization of government attacking American
    citizens.
        So, you, sir, have an issue with trustworthiness of the
    American people and with Congress at this point.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I'll yield 36 seconds.
        Chair Jordan. No problem.
        Mr. Garland, did you consider--I just want to go back to
    this question--did you consider anyone else when David Weiss
    requested Special Counsel designation on August 8th?
        Attorney General Garland. No. Mr. Weiss asked to be made
    Special Counsel, and I made him--I did not consider an
    alternative. Of course, to have put in an alternative would
    have greatly disrupted an investigation that was already
    ongoing.
        Chair Jordan. OK. I just want to be clear. He was the only
    one under consideration? It was either no Special Counsel, or
    if there was a Special Counsel, it was going to be the guy who
    presided over the investigation for the previous five years?
        Attorney General Garland. I thought about the possibility--
    what the consequences would be, both of not appointing him and
    trying to find somebody else at that time, but there was no
    other--
        Chair Jordan. You had no concerns--the Whistleblowers have
    brought forward all kinds of concerns. Earlier when someone
    brought those up, you said, ``Well, those are allegations.'' I
    think they stand up well. They've been cross-examined for four
    hours by Democrats in the Oversight Committee.
        There were two facts that can be questioned, two facts
    about the investigation of Hunter Biden.
        Fact 1. They let the statute of limitations run. They let
    it expire.
        Fact 2. The plea deal fell apart.
        So, I just wanted to be, make clear that the guy who
    presided over all that was the only guy under consideration for
    Special Counsel designation. Is that right?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss is a person known for
    high integrity, for great experience in this, in the
    prosecutorial realm, and he was appointed by the President.
        Chair Jordan. Again, you can--that's fine. You can say all
    that. I appreciate what you're saying there.
        Attorney General Garland. I have no doubts about his
    abilities in this area.
        Chair Jordan. He was the only one under consideration?
        Attorney General Garland. The question was whether to
    appoint someone, and I thought, I will say, what the
    consequences would be of, of trying to switch horses in
    midstream. I did not consider any other person, no.
        Chair Jordan. OK. On July 10th, he wrote Senator Graham,
    and he said, ``I've had discussions with departmental
    officials.'' He said, ``I haven't sought Special Counsel
    status, but I've had discussions with departmental officials.''
        Who--and I don't know if this was asked earlier--who did he
    talk with then?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, you're talking about
    the letter that he sent to--
        Chair Jordan. Senator Graham on July 10th.
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I'm not going to get into
    internal deliberations of the Justice Department.
        Chair Jordan. Is there, is there--OK, fine. Is there one
    person, though, who's like the point person at the Justice
    Department for David Weiss as he now is functioning as a
    Special Counsel in this investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss is now subject to the
    Special Counsel regulations, which require urgent reporting
    under certain circumstances; require him to consult with
    numerous places within the Justice Department.
        Chair Jordan. Fine. You're following the statute. God bless
    you.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. That's what's supposed to happen. You said
    there's reporting. Who does he report to?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I'm, I'm not going to get
    into this--
        Chair Jordan. Is it you?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm, ultimately, responsible--
        Chair Jordan. Is it the DAG?
        Attorney General Garland. Mr. Weiss did not have to report
    to anybody. He was the supervisor and decisionmaker in these
    matters.
        Chair Jordan. OK. We have votes on the floor. We're going
    to have to take another break.
        Mr. Attorney General, we'll get back here as quick as we
    can, and we'll start with the Democrats.
        Attorney General Garland. Correct.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order, and the
    gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, General.
    How are you?
        Attorney General Garland. Very well. Thank you.
        Mr. Ivey. Good. I want to point out three things that
    you've said so far today because I want to emphasize these for
    the Committee going forward. One of them was you said, ''We
    will not back down. We will not be intimidated.'' The other
    thing you said too was, ``The way to not interfere with an
    investigation is to not investigate the investigation.''
        Now, I thought that was particularly apropos here because
    this Committee has been doing exactly the opposite. We've been
    under the Chair's leadership investigating prosecutors all over
    the country in the middle of criminal investigations and
    sometimes post-indictment, sometimes pre-indictment. I think in
    effort frankly to derail the prosecutions in those cases.
        I'll start with the one--this is the Alvin Bragg effort.
    The Chair and two other Committee Chairs sent a letter, I think
    two actually, to DA Bragg at the time he was still
    investigating former President Trump for potential prosecution.
    Then after he was indicted, they raised the issue again. The
    concern I had on that front was multiple.
        One was one of the letters that the Committee Chair sent
    was demanding information that potentially would've violated
    State law in New York similar to the Federal grand jury secrecy
    laws that we have in some of the matters that you govern if he
    had complied with what the Committee had demanded. More
    importantly, I thought it was pretty clear cut that it was an
    effort to undermine and derail DA Bragg's investigation. There
    was a similar version of that with DA Willis. I know there'd
    been a lot of calls--
        Chair Jordan. Would the gentleman yield for just a second?
        Mr. Ivey. Not at this point, although I'd be willing to
    make your letters a part of the record at the end. DA Willis in
    Georgia faced similar calls. In fact, there are a number of
    prosecutors across the country--frequently, they're in blue
    jurisdiction cities and red States--where they face pressure
    from usually State officials to curtail the way they're doing
    investigations.
        In some instances, the State AGs have stripped them of
    their authority, even though they've been duly elected by
    citizens in those States. With respect to the Jack Smith
    investigations, at the beginning of the hearing, the Chair
    brought up Trump did everything DOJ asked him to do. Now, this
    is with respect to the search warrant.
        I was appalled at what was said. Frankly, as the record
    bears out both in the indictment and frequently in statements
    made by Mr. Trump himself, there were multiple efforts by the
    Department of Justice to reach out through the attorneys that
    represented Mr. Trump and have him comply and turn over
    documents. He refused to do so.
        In fact, the allegations are he, in fact, moved documents
    and tried to hide them so the Department of Justice couldn't
    get them. That also led to the issue where Mr. Trump's lawyers
    ended up having to provide information and testimony about what
    had happened which is highly unusual. This scenario is highly
    unusual.
        We know that's the case because former Vice President Pence
    and current President Biden had similar issues where they
    complied with the request by Department of Justice, turned over
    the documents. So, you didn't need a search warrant. The news
    here is, I guess, if you don't comply with subpoenas from the
    Department of Justice, they will go get the information.
        They'll get a search warrant and go get it. I know that
    because I've seen that in multiple cases in my career. There's
    no surprise and there's certainly not two tiers of justice with
    respect to what was done in that instance.
        In fact, the fact that they took so long to do it I think
    is based entirely on the fact that he had been President. Then
    with respect to Mr. Weiss because this is the most recent
    version. I get why they're doing it. They want to try and build
    a case to impeach President Biden.
        The Weiss angle seems to be one of the ways they're trying
    to do that. As Congressman Buck said,

            Everything the Department did with respect to Mr. Weiss was
            correct because if the Biden Administration had removed him
            when they came into power, there would've been howls from the
            Republican side that you were derailing the investigation
            because Weiss was already on it.

    If you brought in somebody new, they'd have to start over
    again.
        In fact, the Senate Republicans as you testified earlier
    sought your assurances that you would let him continue going
    forward. As you've testified today, you've done exactly that.
    So, I want to be clear.
        I know the Committee is talking about bringing Mr. Weiss
    into testimony. They brought all these other people into
    testify who were part of an active investigation. It is a
    horrible precedent to be bringing in prosecutors in the middle
    of an investigation that's about to go to trial, that's already
    been indicted.
        That's not the way this Committee should be doing business.
    We should allow prosecutors to move forward. If we get
    questions after the fact, we can raise them as you pointed out.
        Mr. Weiss is going to issue a report at the end. Let's let
    them do their jobs and stop politicizing these cases. With
    that, I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from
    Indiana is recognized.
        Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield to Chair to clear
    the record.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Just two
    responses to the gentleman, my friend from Maryland. He said,
    they'll get a search warrant and go get it unless it's Hunter
    Biden. Then they tip off the defense counsel. We know that
    happened.
        Second, relative to Mr. Bragg, Mr. Bragg sued me, and it
    went to court. Guess what the court said. They said we were
    right and the guy we wanted to talk to, one of his prosecutors,
    came here and testified in this room. So, the court was on our
    side there. I yield back to the gentlelady from Indiana.
        Mr. Ivey. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Spartz. No, I need to get to my question. Sorry.
    Attorney General, you had a very moving statement about your
    grandparents coming here from Belarus to live in the country
    without fear of prosecution.
        I grew up in very similar country, Ukraine now. When I came
    here as a young person, I believed in the value as an American
    not to be afraid of my government. I wanted to tell you and I
    want to share with you and get your thoughts on that.
        Are you aware that a lot of Americans are now afraid of
    being prosecuted by your Department? Are you aware about that?
    Are you aware of that? I'm just saying, are you aware or not?
        Attorney General Garland. I think that constant attacks on
    the Department and saying that--
        Ms. Spartz. It's not attacks. Let me give you an examples.
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know what--
        Ms. Spartz. Talk about January 6th people.
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
        Ms. Spartz. Some people came on January 6th. There probably
    were some people that came on January 6th here that had bad
    intent. A lot of good Americans from my district came here
    because they are sick and tired of this government not serving
    them.
        They came with strollers and their kids, and there was
    chaotic situation because of proper security wasn't provided.
    That's a question that was answered really why. Why we debate
    it for 45 minutes on the floor and didn't stop the debate after
    the people broke into the Capital.
        People came. They were throwing smoke bombs into the crowd
    with strollers with kids. People who showed up, FBI agent to
    people's houses.
        You had in my district, in my town FBI phone numbers all
    over the district. Please call. Call that. People are truly
    afraid.
        I just want to make sure if you're not aware of that. This
    is a big problem, and people are afraid of their own
    government. I'll share some other things.
        We're talking about the justice system. I don't question.
    You're probably not a bad person. I don't know you. I'll tell
    you, you are in charge of the Department.
        People right now feel--I look at Durham Report, and I
    called on the FISA violations. There's millions of Americans.
    It's like KGB but Durham Reports.
        You have a nice playbook. First, let's have a Special
    Counsel and then you don't have to answer any questions here.
    Then, let's extend slow walk investigation on Hillary Clinton,
    on Hunter. Everything is slow walk.
        We move very quick on Donald Trump, but you were very slow
    walk. Then, by the time that investigations ends, statute of
    limitation expired, and all your agents need to be tested for
    amnesia. No one recalls anything.
        OK. You probably should have it as part of your hiring
    policy. So, no one is held accountable which was egregious what
    happened in that report when I read about that. I can't believe
    it happened in the United States of America.
        This is my frustration. I'll be honest with you. Then it's
    very interesting, regardless of what it is. Even people in
    Obama Administration raise concerns, how can President's son be
    serving on corrupt Ukraine oligarchs.
        Do you understand that it actually can undermine the war in
    Ukrainian effort on policy? I think those concerns were raised.
    Obama Administration didn't do anything about it.
        These people are dying right now, and Americans don't trust
    this President. So, I want to ask you one thing. I don't need
    an answer because I know you're not going to.
        I think you're probably a good American and you care. A lot
    of these people are so afraid; they cover up this stuff in your
    Department because they're embarrassed that what we became as a
    country to say what our Department of Justice became. That
    allows Russians to do propaganda and Chinese.
        It allows them to destabilize our country. That is a danger
    to our republic. It is a significant danger. I have just one
    more question for you. I agree on corporate crimes and FISA
    stuff. Even with Democrats that we need to do a better job.
        One more question for you. Do you believe that--you talk
    about the right to vote. Do you believe that only U.S. citizen
    should be voting in this election and doing everything to make
    sure that all the eligible people vote in elections?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes and yes.
        Ms. Spartz. OK. I would like to see that, what you do.
    Thank you. Yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from
    Vermont is recognized for her five minutes.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. General Garland, thanks
    so much for being here today. I know it's been a long day for
    you.
        Now, I'm relatively new to the Committee and I'm still
    getting my feet under me. As far as I can tell what we are here
    today is talking about a lot of conspiracy theories. It's
    frustrating and tedious for those of us in the Committee. I can
    tell you it is absolutely maddening for my constituents back
    home in Vermont. We have so much important work to do to keep
    the government open.
        We're days away from a shutdown. I just want to remind
    folks that we're in this situation because my colleagues across
    the aisle are reneging on a deal that a majority of their
    conference made along with their speaker. That's why we're in
    this situation.
        If they're successful in shutting down the government,
    seniors who rely on Social Security benefits will be impacted.
    Thousands of Medicare recipients and applicants will be
    impacted. Service-members will stop receiving paychecks.
    Veteran services will be curtailed.
        Those are the grim consequences from Republicans inability
    and unwillingness to govern. I needed to start with that. Let's
    do some level setting here.
        Now, let's get to the real work of the DOJ and how Congress
    can help the agency better serve its mission. Gun violence
    continues to plague our Nation. We see the wreckage every day
    on our television sets, on our computers, and in our
    communities.
        As a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, this
    issue is incredibly important to me and so many of my
    constituents. Now, I believe there's actually room for
    bipartisan Congressional action on gun violence, at least in
    some areas. One of those areas, red flag laws.
        It's a great place to start. Vermont is one of 21 States
    that was able to pass red flag laws. These laws are working to
    keep guns out of the hands of people who are in crisis. Yet,
    many States did not even apply for funding from the bipartisan
    Safer Communities Act to better implement red flag laws and to
    raise awareness about the program.
        In June 2021, DOJ published model legislation to help
    States craft their own extreme risk protection order. Now,
    Republicans continue to make unfounded accusations that these
    laws violate civil rights by taking guns away from Americans
    without any due process. Can you explain the due process
    protections that are put into place in the model legislation
    that DOJ proposed?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, and I would start by saying
    of course there's room for bipartisan agreement. The bipartisan
    Safer Communities Act is a very good example. That includes the
    ability to have funding for States that want to craft and put
    into place red flag laws.
        The requirement is that the red flag law includes due
    process protections. So, I don't know every element of the
    model legislation. The general idea is relatives or friends of
    the person have to go to a court and get some kind of
    adjudication that the person is a danger to themselves or to
    others.
        This normally relates to mental illness problems. It may
    relate to some others. So, if a gun is taken away under those
    circumstances, there's then a right to appeal, to have a full
    hearing to adjudicate the question. I can't say I know every
    technicality. I think that's about it.
        Ms. Balint. No, I appreciate that. It's especially
    important to state like my rural States that have real issues
    with the silent killers, domestic violence and also suicide.
    So, these are instances in which red flag laws can really make
    a difference.
        Shifting gears here. I along with Senator Warren and 20 of
    our colleagues recently submitted a comment letter applauding
    the draft merger guidelines and urging agencies to finalize
    them. Corporate concentration remains a pressing problem for
    the U.S. economy, and I fear that we're falling behind in this
    area and American consumers continue to feel the pain because
    of this.
        With the introduction of the draft merger guidelines, how
    does the Department plan to ensure that future mergers and
    acquisitions do not stifle competition or harm consumers?
    Because that's often the pushback that we get.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, obviously, the intention of
    the merger guidelines is to set forth the enforcement policy of
    the Department. Different generations of the guidelines, which
    I hate to say go all the way back to the time when I was in law
    school, have been adopted and/or been helpful to generations of
    judges.
        I had at least two or three merger cases myself where we
    used some of the learning from the merger guidelines. The
    current guidelines reflect really an adjustment to the current
    technology, two-sided platforms, network effects. That simply
    did not exist at the time of the last set of merger guidelines
    was passed.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Attorney General. Just briefly in
    closing, last year you spoke on the subject and said that DOJ's
    enforcement against corporate crime has waxed and waned but
    it's waxing again. That is news to my ears. Thank you so much
    for your service. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
    from Texas is recognized.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Garland, what is a
    confidential human source?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, it's an FBI term. I don't
    know all the technicalities.
        Mr. Nehls. Let me define it for you. It's in your own
    policy here. An individual who is believed to be providing
    useful and credible information to the FBI from any authorized
    information collection activity and from whom the FBI expects
    or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information
    in the future. All right. Whose identity, information, or
    relationship with the FBI warrants confidential handling.
        So, these guys are individuals. You pay them 42 million
    dollars a year. Did you know that? The IG said you're paying
    for these sources 42 million a year. Did you know that?
        Attorney General Garland. I know informants are paid.
        Mr. Nehls. It's 42 million a year. So, do you believe that
    they're credible, they're valuable? The FBI is using these
    guys. We're paying them a lot of money. Would you agree with
    that?
        Attorney General Garland. I agree. Some are more credible
    than others.
        Mr. Nehls. Very good. So, they're credible. You're paying
    them a lot of money. You've got a lot of them out there. So,
    let me paint the picture for America.
        Hunter Biden joins Burisma in 2014. Burisma, very, very
    corrupt Ukrainian energy company. He has no experience in oil
    and gas. I admit, I don't have any experience. I know why I'm
    there. I have a dad.
        I have with me a document called the FD 1023. Have you seen
    this? You're familiar with it?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I have seen it.
        Mr. Nehls. OK. It's used by the FBI everybody in America.
    It's used by the FBI. It is a confidential human source
    reporting document dated June 2020. You're familiar with it.
        In this document, the FBI's confidential human source says
    Burisma, now the corrupt company, needed to keep Hunter on the
    board so everything would be OK. According to the human source,
    they hired Hunter Biden to, quote, ``protect us through his dad
    for all kinds of problems.'' Mr. Garland, does that concern
    you?
        Attorney General Garland. The--
        Mr. Nehls. OK. It should. I got limited time. Remember your
    sources are credible, trustworthy, honest, and valuable. Are
    you familiar with Viktor Shokin?
        Attorney General Garland. The document that you're--
        Mr. Nehls. Who is Mr. Viktor Shokin, sir? I got three
    minutes left.
        Attorney General Garland. Do you want me to answer that?
        Mr. Nehls. Yes, Viktor Shokin, who is he?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know. Do you want me--
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Nehls. He's the prosecutor, folks. He's the prosecutor
    that was--he oversees all the corruption in Ukraine. We know
    there's corruption over there.
        For the American people watching, after a few months--a few
    months after Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board, Viktor
    Shokin was named prosecutor general for Ukraine to target
    corruption. One of his investigations was into Burisma. In this
    FD 1023 document, the human source clarified that Burisma's
    CEO, the man in charge of Burisma said he has many text
    messages and recordings that show he was coerced to make such
    payment to ensure Viktor Shokin was fired.
        As a matter of fact, there were 17 of them. Mr. Garland,
    it's clear Joe Biden wanted Shokin fired so he would stop
    looking into Burisma where Hunter was on the board. Would you
    agree?
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Nehls. All right. Let's let the American people decide.
    Play the clip. Play the clip.
        [Video played.]
        Mr. Nehls. Pay attention, sir. Please.
        [Video played.]
        Mr. Nehls. There you go. Mr. Attorney General, what you
    just saw, it was Joe Biden in his arrogance and role as the
    Vice President of this country saying if you don't fire Shokin,
    the United States isn't giving the one-billion-dollar loan. Why
    would Joe Biden say that as the Vice President? Why would he
    say such a thing? Was it policy? Was it our policy at the time,
    yes or no?
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Nehls. It wasn't. I have documents here, interagency
    policy Committee dated--
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Nadler. Is the gentleman ever going to let the
    gentleman answer a question?
        Mr. Nehls. I'm on my time. Pipe down. Saying Shokin had
    made significant reforms.
        Chair Jordan. Time belongs to the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Nehls. He's made significant reform, Shokin did. As a
    matter of fact, John Kerry says he was impressive. Within a few
    months after Shokin was fired, they appointed a prosecutor that
    said, ``we're not going to look into Burisma anymore.''
        Cancel that. Forget it. We're not looking into Burisma.
    Boom, here comes the million dollars. Joe Biden threatened the
    Ukrainian President and the Prime Minister.
        Everybody can see it, to fire Shokin or the United States
    wouldn't give a billion dollars. If that is not quid pro quo,
    sir, what is? I will tell you what it is, and America agrees
    with me.
        It's bribery and it's impeachable. Are you going to do
    something about it. I bet you're not, and that's why you, sir,
    also need to be impeached. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Attorney General, you were a line Assistant U.S.
    Attorney for years and a Federal Judge after that. You have
    significant experience with the processes surrounding criminal
    investigations. Tell me what's the normal process for obtaining
    and executing a search warrant?
        Attorney General Garland. You go to a Federal Judge. You
    present an affidavit which you believe constitutes probable
    cause. The Federal Judge looks at it, makes a determination of
    whether it does constitute probable cause. He then signs a
    search warrant, and it's then executed.
        Mr. Moran. What's the purpose of a search warrant?
        Attorney General Garland. So, a search warrant is defined
    either to find evidence of a crime for which there has to be
    probable cause that it's in that location.
        Mr. Moran. When executing a search warrant on location that
    may contain evidence of a crime, what benefits are there for
    doing so without notifying the putative defendant or the target
    of the investigation or his attorney ahead of time the
    execution of the search warrant is forthcoming?
        Attorney General Garland. Sometimes you make notifications.
    Sometimes you don't. If you think that the person who had the
    evidence of a crime is obstructing justice or is going to move
    the evidence or secrete it if you warn them in advance, then
    you don't give it. If you don't have those concerns, you may
    give advanced notice.
        Mr. Moran. So, in the instance of not withholding--
    withholding notice, you do so because sometimes they're going
    to actually move the evidence if you give them a heads up,
    correct?
        Attorney General Garland. It's a general hypothetical
    matter, yes.
        Mr. Moran. In most instances in your experience of decades
    of law enforcement, have you seen it more times than not you
    give a heads up to the defendant? Or is it odd to give a heads
    up to the defendant?
        Attorney General Garland. I can't actually make a
    statistical resolution. I think it's the case that the
    government tries to less intrusive methods if they can. If they
    can't, use more intrusive and more emergency methods.
        Mr. Moran. I agree with that. Typically, when you're going
    to execute a search warrant, typically I think people would
    understand this from common knowledge you would not actually
    give the heads up. Would you agree with that?
        Attorney General Garland. I think as a general matter,
    that's correct.
        Mr. Moran. Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley, one of
    the Whistleblowers, testified that AUSA Lesley Wolf told
    investigators, quote,

            Optics were a driving factor in the decision not to request a
            search warrant for the guest house at the Biden's Delaware
            residence where Hunter Biden had stayed for a time.

    AUSA Wolf further told the investigators that, quote,

            There was more than enough probable cause for the physical
            search warrant there, but the question was whether the juice
            was worth the squeeze.

    She further said, quote,

            A lot of evidence in the investigation would be found in the
            guest house of former Vice President Biden, but there is no way
            investigators will get that approved.

        Now, do you agree with Ms. Wolf that the optics of an
    investigation should be the driving factor in law enforcement
    decisions when investigating potential crimes?
        Attorney General Garland. I have to say again as I said
    before. Singling out Assistant U.S. Attorneys is a dangerous
    matter. The supervisor of that case is Mr. Weiss.
        He is the one who made decisions in that case. He is the
    one who can answer questions as to whether those things
    happened or whether they didn't.
        Mr. Moran. So, let's take her out of the equation then.
    Let's just take the statement generally. Do you believe that
    the optics of an investigation should be a driving factor in
    law enforcement decisions as to whether or not to execute a
    search warrant or not?
        Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department has
    standards for its work and improper considerations are not part
    of those. The only questions are those driven by the facts and
    the law.
        Mr. Moran. Mr. Shapley also testified that AUSA Wolf
    objected to a search warrant IRS investigator's requested for a
    storage unit purportedly containing all the documents from the
    vacated office of the law firm owned by Hunter Biden.
    Investigators scheduled a call with U.S. Attorney Weiss who
    agreed they could search the storage unit if it remained
    abandoned for 30 days. Immediately after the call,
    investigators learned that AUSA Wolf had reached out to Hunter
    Biden's defense counsel to tell them about the storage unit,
    effectively ruining investigator's chance to access potentially
    critical evidence. In your experience and you said earlier this
    is not the typical thing that happens, correct?
        Attorney General Garland. Once again, I don't know anything
    about these allegations. I don't know whether they are correct
    or not. These are questions most appropriately put to Mr. Weiss
    at the appropriate time and to be covered in his report if he
    thinks that's the appropriate way to resolve that.
        Mr. Moran. Can you conceive of a reason why Mr. Weiss or
    Ms. Wolf would have given a heads up to Hunter Biden's legal
    team that the search of the storage unit was forthcoming?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not going to get into
    hypothe-ticals about this.
        Mr. Moran. For somebody that was involved in the
    investigation at that point who was literally delaying
    obtaining potential evidence in the case, do you think it was
    appropriate that she was involved in the negotiation of the IRS
    deal with Hunter Biden?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not actually following the
    question. Assistant U.S. Attorneys who participate in an
    investigation also participate in prosecutions. Is that what
    you're asking?
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Moran. Attorney General, I appreciate your time here
    today. I'm concerned that these facts are just some examples of
    what's been going on here where--I apologize. I know my time is
    out. I yield back. Thank you for your time.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for unanimous
    consent.
        Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I had my five
    minutes. I would ask for the unanimous consent to offer some
    exhibits.
        First, I would offer District Attorney Bragg's March 31,
    2023, letter in response to the Committee.
        I would offer the letter from Attorney Abbe Lowell, Hunter
    Biden's attorney, to the Committee of Judiciary Oversight Ways
    and Means dated September 14, 2023, and its attachments.
        I would offer the letter from Ms. Willis to the Chair on
    September 7, 2023.
        I would offer this article from CNN, Annie Grayer, ``Top
    IRS Official Latest Witness to Dispute Allegations from
    Whistleblower on Hunter Biden Tax Case.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Jordan. You bet.
        The gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman.
        Ms. Hageman. We have been investigating very serious
    charges made about your department and other elements of the
    Biden Administration which allege ignoring the law to protect
    political allies from being held accountable for their
    wrongdoing. One aspect of this allegation brought by two very
    credible Whistleblowers from the IRS demonstrates a strategy of
    delaying criminal investigation into Hunter Biden and blocking
    any investigations into the corruption of Joe Biden.
        The Whistleblower testimony notes that U.S. Attorney David
    Weiss in November 2022, allowed the statute of limitations to
    expire even though Hunter Biden's attorney had already agreed
    to extend the statute on the 2014-2015 charges, which charges
    included an attempt to evade or defeat taxes and the fraud and
    false statements related to the $1 million that Burisma paid to
    Hunter Biden while his father was Vice President.
        During a recent transcribed interview with the Committee
    FBI officials from the Baltimore Field Office refused to answer
    questions about the expired 2014-2015 tax charges because they
    were allegedly part of a, quote, ``ongoing investigation.''
        Are the tax charges related to these years in fact part of
    an ongoing investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I have no familiarity with
    the details of this particular investigation with--
        Ms. Hageman. OK. So, you don't know one way or the other?
        Attorney General Garland. That's right. I left it to Mr.
    Weiss.
        Ms. Hageman. All right. So, how are charges for which the
    statute of limitations has already expired part of an ongoing
    investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't know anything
    about this case in--
        Ms. Hageman. So, why would charges that have already
    expired because of the statute of limitations be part of an
    ongoing investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. To answer in the hypothetical,
    because I don't know the facts, often charges from previous
    times are used as part of an ongoing investigation to inform
    information about intent, about patterns and practices.
        Ms. Hageman. For other investigations? So, are there other
    investigations into Hunter Biden where this information may
    become relevant?
        Attorney General Garland. I think it's a matter of public
    record that there is tax investigation of Mr. Hunter Biden with
    respect to other years. I don't think that--
        Ms. Hageman. Beyond the 2014-2015?
        Attorney General Garland. Beyond the ones that are--where
    this--that you're referring to I think he--
        Ms. Hageman. Mr. Garland--
        Attorney General Garland. --Mr. Weiss has already said that
    during the plea proceedings.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Garland, is it standard operating
    procedure in your Department of Justice for prosecutors to
    allow the statute of limitations to expire on very serious
    crimes when the potential defendant has already agreed to an
    extension?
        Attorney General Garland. So, as I said before there's no
    standard operating procedure here.
        Ms. Hageman. OK.
        Attorney General Garland. --This is a--
        Ms. Hageman. Maybe there should be.
        Attorney General Garland. Well this--
        Ms. Hageman. This is an oversight hearing. Maybe there
    should be. Maybe you should adopt standard operating procedures
    to avoid this kind of circumstance. Would you agree?
        Attorney General Garland. No.
        Ms. Hageman. OK.
        Attorney General Garland. Because it's left to the--
        Ms. Hageman. According to one of the IRS--
        Attorney General Garland. --discretion of--
        Ms. Hageman. You have answered my question. Thank you.
    According to one of the IRS Whistleblowers, quote,

            The purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 tax years
            sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed
            material facts.

        How can Americans trust an investigation run by a Special
    Counsel who by allowing the statute of limitations to expire
    irreversibly, quote, ``sanitized the most criminal conduct and
    concealed material facts''?
        Attorney General Garland. The prosecutor in question is an
    experienced veteran career prosecutor who was appointed by
    President Trump.
        Ms. Hageman. We have no reason to trust him, do we?
        OK. How much in terms of taxes would Hunter Biden have owed
    on the $1 million he was paid by Burisma?
        Attorney General Garland. Well as you can imagine since I
    don't know anything about the facts of the case, I can't answer
    that question.
        Ms. Hageman. Probably about $400,000. Isn't that right? You
    can do the math. You know the tax code.
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything about the
    facts of this case so, I'm not able to do the math to apply it
    to facts I don't know.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. By failing to pay the taxes on those ill-
    gotten gains, what would the typical penalty have been, for
    example, if it was someone who didn't have the last name of
    Biden or a D behind their name?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. These are all
    questions you'll have to direct to Mr. Weiss and that Mr. Weiss
    will direct in his final--
        Ms. Hageman. By allowing the statute of limitations to
    lapse did Mr. Weiss effectively gift the tax money Hunter Biden
    owed for the 2014-2015 tax years to Mr. Biden?
        Attorney General Garland. To say again the decisions about
    whether--in this area and whether these allegations are correct
    are ones that Mr. Weiss will be able to answer.
        Ms. Hageman. Mr. Garland, one of the things you have done
    over and--repeated over and over and over again is to point out
    that Mr. Weiss was appointed as U.S. Attorney by President
    Trump--
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Ms. Hageman. --as thought that somehow inoculates him from
    criticism by us. Is that really how this game is played, that
    if someone is appointed by a Republican that they are supposed
    to be on the Republican team, or if they are appointed by a
    Democrat, they are on the Democrat team? You were appointed by
    Mr. Biden, weren't you? Are you on the Democrat team?
        Attorney General Garland. Let me just be clear. The point
    that he was appointed by a Republican counteracts the claim
    that this was a partisan decision to benefit Democrats.
        Ms. Hageman. He remained as a member of the Department of
    Justice.
        Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Jordan. The time of the--
        Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady is expired.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized again for a
    unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to offer into
    evidence the testimony, or segments of the testimony of Thomas
    Sobocinski dated September 7th. It was taken here before this
    Committee. It goes to the de-confliction issue with respect to
    Hunter Biden's security detail and the search warrant
    executors.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Ivey. Thank you.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    California.
        Mr. Gooden. Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. Do
    believe Christopher Wray is a competent Direct of the FBI?
        Attorney General Garland. I think Mr. Wray is a person of
    the highest integrity for whom I have great admiration, who has
    extraordinary experience, both as a career prosecutor--
        Mr. Gooden. Thank you.
        So, you certainly don't think he would knowingly give false
    testimony to this Committee, do you?
        Attorney General Garland. I am sure that he would not.
        Mr. Gooden. Are you aware that Director Wray a couple
    months ago in sworn testimony implicated you in a sweeping
    abuse of power?
        Attorney General Garland. I doubt he would characterize
    whatever he said in that way.
        Mr. Gooden. Well, he testified about the school board memo
    that you issued on October 4, 2021, in which you mobilized
    Federal law enforcement powers against American parents. Now,
    of course, you didn't put it quite like that. Instead, you
    found a pretext which is stated right here in the first line of
    the memo:

            In recent months there has been a disturbing spike in
            harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against
            school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.

    What was your basis for making that claim?
        Attorney General Garland. I will say again as I've
    testified numerous times in response to exactly the same
    question that I saw numerous reports in the press of violence
    and threats--
        Mr. Gooden. You saw reports in the press and so you decided
    to instigate a nationwide law enforcement initiative?
        Attorney General Garland. If I may be permitted to answer
    the question?
        Mr. Gooden. Please.
        Attorney General Garland. Numerous reports in the media of
    violence and threats of violence against school personnel of
    all kinds. We received--
        Mr. Gooden. Did you consult with the FBI director?
        Attorney General Garland. We received a letter from the
    National Association of School Boards reporting--
        Mr. Gooden. Yes, that letter contained anecdotes. It didn't
    contain data of an increase. Did you yes or no consult with the
    FBI Director before issuing the memo?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't believe I spoke with the
    FBI Director, no.
        Mr. Gooden. Why not? Why wouldn't you consult with the FBI
    Director?
        Attorney General Garland. Because the purpose of the memo,
    as is very clear from the memo, is to ask the FBI to assess the
    situation, to hold meetings, and to determine whether--
        Mr. Gooden. Mr. Attorney General, you started with a
    conclusion that there was an increase in threats. Now, if you
    had bothered to consult with the FBI Director here is what he
    would have said: This is from his sworn testimony, that he was
    not aware of any such evidence.
        So, my question to you, sir, sitting today is can you
    substantiate your claim that there was an increase? Of course,
    there will always be criminal--sporadic criminal activity in
    all quarters of society, but your claim was there was an
    increase. Can you substantiate that sitting here today?
        Attorney General Garland. I can substantiate that by the
    reports in the press of violence and threats of violence and by
    the letters sent by representatives of thousands--
        Mr. Gooden. That is a no. You are giving us anecdotes. I am
    asking you if you have data. You also said in your memo that
    you were committed to using the Department's authority and
    resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they
    occur, and prosecute them when appropriate. Were there any such
    prosecutions?
        Attorney General Garland. The emphasis should be there on
    when appropriate, and there were no such prosecutions. That's
    good news, not bad news.
        Mr. Gooden. There were no prosecutions. In fact, Director
    Wray said there were no arrests, there were no charges. So, you
    have no data to show us that there was any increase. You didn't
    even bother to consult with the FBI Director. Then there were
    no resulting prosecutions even though you said that they were
    coming. So, I have to ask you now, in retrospect was there a
    compelling law enforcement justification for the memo?
        Attorney General Garland. I think you're mischaracterizing
    the memo. The purpose of the memo was to hold meetings, to open
    lines of communication with States and--
        Mr. Gooden. So, is that a no? Yes or no, was there a
    compelling law enforcement justification for the memo?
        Attorney General Garland. I believe there was a reason to
    ask for those contacts to be made with State and local law
    enforcement.
        Mr. Gooden. Well, the FBI Director disagrees with you. When
    I asked--
        Attorney General Garland. Well, that's not what the FBI
    Director said--
        Mr. Gooden. Look at it right here, Mr. Attorney General.
    When asked do you have any reason to dispute the conclusion
    that there was no nationwide law enforcement justification, he
    said, ``he didn't.''
        Attorney General Garland. Either he didn't see the reports,
    or he didn't see the National Association of School--
        Mr. Gooden. This is a transcript. I have sent you this
    transcript, Mr. Attorney General. So, my question is this: Will
    you retract the memo? By that, I mean issue a formal document
    to the effect that it is no longer operative?
        Attorney General Garland. I will not because there was
    absolutely nothing wrong with the memo as I have testified
    several times already to you.
        Mr. Gooden. Even though your own FBI Director says there
    was no justification for it you will not retract it?
        Attorney General Garland. The memo is mine. It's my
    decision whether it's necessary to make assessments like this.
    I asked the Bureau to make these assessments and the other--
        Mr. Gooden. Are you familiar with the concept of a chilling
    effect?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. I didn't--
        Mr. Gooden. Are you familiar with the concept of a chilling
    effect?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm very familiar and that's the
    very reason--
        Mr. Gooden. How would you define a chilling effect as it
    relates to First Amendment--
        Attorney General Garland. That is the very reason why the
    second sentence of the memo says that--
        Mr. Gooden. Please tell me what you consider to be the
    definition of a chilling effect.
        Attorney General Garland. That memo has no chilling effect.
        Mr. Gooden. I didn't ask you your opinion on whether the
    memo has one. I asked you what is a chilling effect?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm telling you that the second
    sentence of that makes clear that--
        Mr. Gooden. I have read the full memo. I am asking you what
    do you define a chilling effect as?
        Attorney General Garland. A chilling effect is when--people
    exercise a First Amendment rights are chilled by coercive
    activity by the government, which did not occur here.
        Mr. Gooden. So, here--
        Mr. Ivey. Mr. --
        Mr. Gooden. --moms and dads.
        Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair--
        Mr. Gooden. You and I--
        Mr. Ivey. --point of order with respect to the time.
        Chair Jordan. Yes.
        Mr. Ivey. Point of order.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time is expired, but it was a
    pretty darn important question when the Attorney General of the
    United States can't define what a chilling effect is, so I
    thought I would let it go a few seconds.
        Mr. Nadler. The Attorney General did define what a chilling
    effect is and said it didn't occur here.
        Chair Jordan. I don't think he defined it. He just
    dismissed it.
        The gentleman's time has expired. I thought it was a very
    important five minutes.
        We now recognize the gentlelady from Florida for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Lee. Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General.
        Attorney General Garland. Good afternoon.
        Ms. Lee. I would like to return to the earlier discussion
    about FISA process and the FISC. A number of the Members of
    this Committee and of my community are gravely concerned about
    the well-documented abuses of the FISA process and within the
    FISC proceedings.
        In declassified opinions from the FISC in 2018-2019 the
    Presiding Judge Boasberg admonished the FBI stating there still
    appears to be widespread violations of the querying standard by
    the FBI and that there appears to be a fundamental
    misunderstanding of some FBI personnel about what the standard
    reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information
    means.
        Mr. Attorney General, what measures has the FBI instituted
    since that time to ensure that these abuses are stopped?
        Attorney General Garland. So, we're talking about FBI FISA
    Section 702--
        Ms. Lee. Yes, sir.
        Attorney General Garland. --which is a central part of our
    ability to find out what foreign Nation States, foreign
    terrorists are trying to do in the United States. I read--when
    I first came into the Justice Department as Attorney General, I
    read the opinions you talked about, and they deeply concerned
    me. I agreed when I looked into it that there was a
    misunderstanding by operators as to--an analyst as to what the
    query standards were. So, one of the very first things I did
    was send a memo to the FBI directing the way in which the
    Justice Department, particularly the FBI, did the querying be
    examined and that corrections be made.
        This was an extension of a memorandum that Attorney General
    Barr had likewise, after he read similar concerns, sent to the
    FBI at the end of 2020.
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Attorney General, in addition to other things
    the ultimate adjustments included additional attorney oversight
    requiring FBI users to affirmatively opt to search the 702
    database, updated guidance and training, and enhanced approval
    requirements, correct?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, ma'am. All that's true and
    the consequence was a 93-percent drop in the number of U.S.
    person queries.
        Ms. Lee. Nonetheless, Mr. Attorney General, you would
    agree, would you not, that there is continued needs to review,
    analyze, and make additional improvements and safeguards to
    ensure that we don't continue seeing these abuses?
        Attorney General Garland. I do agree.
        Ms. Lee. In fact, in recent weeks we saw even President
    Biden's intelligence advisory board make recommendations that
    we continue to revise 702 oversight and restrictions including
    a recommendation to direct the DNI and the Attorney General to
    research potential technological enhancements to the current
    oversight framework.
        Tell me what technology might modernize and improve
    oversight of the 702 process.
        Attorney General Garland. One of the technologies that has
    already worked very effectively is the change from an opt-out
    to an opt-in set of queries. So, you have to first, indicate
    that you are looking in 702 and not just across the board of
    the FBI holdings. You have to use a drop-down window which
    explains why you are going to do this. It's easy for us--
        Ms. Lee. Did that window require the user to input
    narrative text?
        Attorney General Garland. That's right. That's right.
        Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Are
    there other technology-specific changes that you would
    recommend?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I'd like to consider that
    more. There are various kinds of auditing programs using
    technology. The National Security Division, the Justice
    Department has done some of that. The FBI actually, at the
    request of Attorney General Barr, began an auditing program
    like that. FBI Director Wray, who also agrees that this kind of
    noncompliance shouldn't continue put that auditing program into
    effect within the Justice Department.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
        I yield the balance of my time to the Chair.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
        Mr. Garland, in David Weiss' letter to Senator Graham on
    July 10th of this year he says this:

            I was assured that I would be granted Special Counsel authority
            if it proved necessary and this assurance came months before
            the October 7, 2022, meeting referenced throughout the
            Whistleblowers' allegations.

    How was that assurance given and who gave it?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. I think he was talking
    about 515 Authority. Is that what you're--I'm reading the
    letter now. He's not talking about Special Counsel authority.
    It says that I was--
        Chair Jordan. 515 Authority. OK.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, yes.
        Chair Jordan. Same difference.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. Well, not the same difference, but the same
    fundamental question.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, yes. I understand your
    point, yes.
        Chair Jordan. He is making the point that he was assured
    that this was--he could get this status and that status came--
    that assurance, excuse me, came before October 7, 2022.
        How was that assurance given and who gave it?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I made that clear in my
    direction and that was transmitted to him.
        Chair Jordan. So, you told him that--
        Attorney General Garland. No, I'm--
        Chair Jordan. --back before October 7th that he would
    have--
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not going to get into exactly
    the deliberation of the Department, but I--
        Chair Jordan. There are three simple questions: How is it
    given? Who gave it? When was it done?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I understand. I gave
    directions from the beginning that he would be able to bring a
    case whenever/wherever he wanted to. That direction he heard
    obviously, and he confirms that here.
        Chair Jordan. I went a little over time, so I told the
    Ranking Member I would extend to him a few seconds or minutes
    if he wanted to say a few more things or ask a few more
    questions and then we will--
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Let me just ask the Attorney
    General--Mr. Attorney General, you have been asked many
    questions here which you were not permitted to answer. People
    asked the question and just asked another question, didn't
    permit you to answer. Is there anything you would like to say
    in answer to anything that you think should be made clear or
    added?
        Attorney General Garland. Look, I'm grateful for the
    opportunity. I just again want to assure the American public
    and this Committee that the Justice Department follows the rule
    of law. It enforces the law equally without regard to persons
    and without regard to parties and that we do the best we can to
    follow the facts and the law.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Attorney General, we appreciate you being
    here. The Committee--maybe I have to do something official. I
    guess anyone that wants to add something to it, they can submit
    that for the record.
        With that, the Committee is adjourned.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
    docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116381.

                                     [all]