[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON COMPLIANCE WITH
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESPONSIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-55
__________
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
54-254 WASHINGTON : 2024
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
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM McCLINTOCK, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota 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
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESPONSIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
TO OVERSIGHT
BEN CLINE, Virginia, Chair
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey ERIC SWALWELL, California, Ranking
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas Member
LAUREL LEE, Florida GLENN IVEY, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, November 30, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Ben Cline, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State
of Virginia.................................................... 1
The Honorable Eric Swalwell, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the
State of California............................................ 3
WITNESSES
The Hon. Christopher Dunham, Acting Assistant Director, Office of
Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Testimony............................................. 8
The Hon. Jeanne Bumpus, Director, Office of Congressional
Relations, Federal Trade Commission
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Testimony............................................. 13
The Hon. Naz Darakoglu, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Testimony............................................. 18
APPENDIX
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight are listed below 39
Materials submitted by the Honorable Ben Cline, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight
from the State of Virginia, for the record
A letter to the Honorable Lina Khan, Chair, Federal Trade
Commission, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Jul.
28, 2023
A letter to the Honorable Lina Khan, Chair, Federal Trade
Commission, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Sept.
5, 2023
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Questions for the Hon. Jeanne Bumpus, Director, Office of
Congressional Relations, Federal Trade Commission, submitted by
the Honorable Ben Cline, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State
of Virginia; the Honorable Nathaniel Moran, a Member of the
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight
from the State of Texas; and the Honorable Laurel Lee, a Member
of the Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to
Oversight from the State of Florida, for the record
Responses to questions from the Hon. Jeanne Bumpus, Director,
Office of Congressional Relations, Federal Trade Commission,
for the record
HEARING ON COMPLIANCE WITH
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT
----------
Thursday, November 30, 2023
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ben Cline [Chair
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cline, Van Drew, Moran, Lee,
Swalwell, and Ivey.
Mr. Cline. All right. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everyone to this hearing of the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight.
As we do in this Committee, we will begin with the pledge,
so if everybody would rise and face the flag.
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.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing, and I want to
also thank Ranking Member Swalwell and Member Lee for being
here as well.
Today, the Subcommittee's going to continue our efforts to
get answers directly from representatives from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Department of State, and the
Federal Trade Commission. We look forward today to engaging
with the witnesses that have appeared to discuss the
productions we have received to date and the status of our
other outstanding requests, as well as the agencies' compliance
with the Committee's subpoenas.
Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, the
Committee has made numerous requests for information and
documents concerning the operations and actions of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The Committee has also issued various
subpoenas to the FBI. To date, the FBI has yet to fully comply
with the Committee's subpoenas, as well as certain requests for
information and documents.
For example, on August 17, 2023, Chair Jordan issued
subpoenas to Attorney General Garland and Director Wray
regarding coercion by the Federal Government to have companies
and groups engage in content moderation. To date, the responses
to these subpoenas have been deficient and overdue.
While the FBI has produced some documents for the Committee
and made some documents available for review, many are publicly
available, duplicative, nonresponsive, or significantly and
substantively redacted.
Relatedly, on April 28, 2023, Chair Jordan issued a
subpoena to Global Engagement Center Special Envoy Rubin to
investigate the nature and extent of the GEC's interactions
with companies and groups over content moderation. GEC's
response to date--less than 1,500 nonpublicly available pages
of documents, which are extremely limited in scope--has been
wholly incomplete and inadequate.
Since the State Department last testified before this
Subcommittee in July of this year, only 290 additional pages
have been produced. This is despite the State Department
representatives proffering that production would be in the tens
of thousands of pages at the least.
As virtually everything that GEC does is related to content
moderation on social media, it's vital that these agencies
produce all relevant documents that the subpoena compels them
to produce so that the Committee has the opportunity to
determine how the FBI, the State Department, and other actors
with which the agencies were communicating with labeled speech
misinformation, disinfor-mation, or malinformation, to
effectuate its takedown from platforms.
It's also important for the Committee to obtain these
documents to ascertain the nature of the relationship between
the Biden Administration and social media companies.
Additionally, the FBI has been deficient in responding to
the Committee on several other important oversight matters. For
example, on March 9, 2022, the Committee requested a briefing
on the status of the FBI's investigation into the pipe bombs
placed at the RNC and DNC headquarters on January 6, 2021.
After receiving a nonsubstantive response from the FBI, the
Committee sent a letter reiterating its request for a briefing
on May 24th and June 14th of this year. The Committee has also
requested documents and information related to the pipe bomb
investigation.
While we look forward to the FBI providing the Committee
with the requested briefing in the coming weeks, we still await
the requested documents and information.
Additionally, the Committee has sent letters to the FBI
requesting documents and information related to its
confidential human source program and information regarding
former Special Agent in Charge Charles McGonigal and the overt
politicization of the FBI. To date, the FBI has not responded
to the Committee's requests.
We are also here to hold the FTC accountable. Since Biden
appointee Lina Khan has begun chairing the FTC in June 2021,
she has advanced a radical agenda, upset the rule of law in
ways that have hurt the American people, mismanaged agency
career staff, and sought to act in ways inconsistent with what
the FTC's legal authorities permit.
Given our oversight responsibilities, the Committee
Republicans have sent the agency 16 letters containing numerous
requests. The Committee has also issued a subpoena to the FTC.
Committee requests have covered a range of topics, such as
Chair Khan's abandonment of long-standing bipartisan antitrust
standards, or the rapid decline in FTC career staff morale and
record staff departures from the FTC. Likewise, in April, over
seven months ago, the Committee subpoenaed Chair Khan for
documents based on the Judiciary Committee and the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government's
report about how the FTC harassed Twitter in the wake of Elon
Musk's purchase of the company.
The FTC has fallen far short in its responses to
Congressional oversight. The agency has routinely failed to
provide status updates requested about document productions.
Even where the FTC has made an effort to produce requested
documents, its responses have been inadequate or raise new
questions.
For example, the FTC has produced thousands of pages of
publicly available documents, hundreds of pages of
nonsubstantive schedules, but is withholding key materials from
the Committee with no sound basis. The FTC has produced only
one publicly available court filing in response to the
Committee's April 12th subpoena. In defiance of the subpoena,
the agency is withholding everything else.
In her interactions with the Committee, Chair Khan has
taken it on herself to question the legitimacy of and seeking
to block Congressional oversight. Congress must make important
decisions about funding the FTC and the scope of the FTC's
authority. The FTC's obstructionist approach to the Committee's
oversight can and should be a factor in Congress' decisions.
The Committee's work here is still underway and will
continue despite the FTC's efforts to frustrate its oversight.
These hearings play a critical role in assisting the Committee
in its oversight obligations, which, in turn, allow the
Committee to examine potential legislative changes within our
jurisdiction. The courts have recognized that Congress' power
to conduct oversight is an indispensable component of our
Article I authority to legislate. Without the information that
the Committee needs from the administration, we cannot do our
jobs for the American people.
Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman
from California, Mr. Swalwell, for his opening statement.
Mr. Swalwell. He's not eating. He's not eating.
``Mar-a-Lago? What the hell, Kevin?''
``They're really worried,'' McCarthy said. ``Trump's not
eating, so they asked me to come see him.''
``What? You went to Mar-a-Lago because Trump's not
eating?'' Liz Cheney responded.
``He's really depressed,'' McCarthy said.
That's why we're here. Trump's not eating, and this entire
Congress has been Jim Jordan and MAGA Republicans feeding
Trump. They're just feeding the beast with the insane hearings
that they're holding all over the Capitol. That's why these
three witnesses have been pulled out of the important work they
do, is because Trump is not eating.
This is not the first feast for the beast. In fact, we've
seen this the whole Congress. We saw the creation of the
Weaponization Committee. There have been multiple
investigations into the investigation of Hunter Biden. There
has been an investigation into the prosecutor who indicted
Hunter Biden. There have been efforts to defund the FBI who
were a part of a raid onto Mar-a-Lago.
There has been an effort to undermine the New York district
attorney's investigation into the former President. They
brought in prosecutors who were a part of that investigation.
There have been letters to Fani Willis in her January 6th
investigation into the former President.
So, you're just here as a part of an effort to feed the
beast. Jim Jordan, who has assembled this hearing today, and
the other MAGA Republicans are just working every day as
Trump's chef. This isn't ``Top Chef.'' This is the U.S.
Congress. We were sent here to govern. We're not sent here to
work every day on behalf of one person. He's not eating, and
that's why you're here--to feed him.
Then, there is the comical hypocrisy that Jim Jordan would
convene a hearing around anyone's subpoena compliance. You see,
we are now 567 days, 19 hours, 12 minutes, and 35 seconds into
Jim Jordan refusing to comply with the subpoena for his
involvement on January 6th and attack on the Capitol.
You would think that a Member of Congress who has sworn an
oath to defend the Constitution would want to help their
government in the largest investigation the country has ever
taken. The largest investigation with the most indictments, the
most witnesses, the most trials, around a single event, the
Chair of this Committee, who has got a problem with the
subpoena compliance--and we're going to talk about the
overcompliance that we've seen from your agencies--it's just
comical that he would call hearing to complain about you
complying with subpoenas when he, 567 days in, won't even
comply with his own.
These claims--it's clear that what Republicans want to do
to impeach Joe Biden is not working. They can't draw the
straight line between what they think Hunter Biden did and what
they want Joe Biden to have done. They may prove at the end of
this Congress that Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son. That may be
coming. They have not proved anything else, and so they're
trying to draw the foul.
They're going to ask for dozens, hundreds, thousands of
documents, and they're going to hope that you're not going to
respond to one of them, so now they have an obstruction of
justice case to use as a predicate for impeachment.
I also want to talk about the transcribed interviews,
because all of you have sent to this Committee 92 individuals
to be a part of transcribed private interviews--not for the
public to observe, but 92 private transcribed interviews.
Take a guess at how many of those interviews have resulted
in a public hearing. It's zero. It is all theater. It is all to
feed the beast, because Donald Trump's not eating, so they have
to haul these people in. They learn in private that there is no
wrongdoing, and so we never hear about it in public.
Finally, the center of so many of these investigations has
been the current President's son. You would think, after a year
of hearings about the current President's son and the
indictments against the current President's son and the
prosecutors involved in the case of the current President's
son, and the private transcribed interviews around the current
President's son, that you would see the Republicans bring in
for a public hearing the President's son.
So, what happened this week? The Republicans subpoena
Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden says, ``Great. I'll come in. I'll
testify publicly.''
Jim Jordan and James Comer, they can't take yes for an
answer. They don't want him to testify publicly. It's for the
same reason that the other 92 witnesses have never came in. It
is all to just feed the beast, to keep Donald Trump happy.
So, welcome to a post-Thanksgiving meal to feed Donald
Trump, and I introduce to you the chefs, led by top Chef Jim
Jordan and Chef Boy McCarthy, who went down to Mar-a-Lago, in
their effort to keep Donald Trump happy.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. Without objection, all other opening statements
will be included in the record.
I'll now introduce today's witnesses.
Christopher Dunham is the Acting Assistant Director for the
Office of Congressional Affairs at the FBI. In that role, he
leads the office that serves as the Bureau's primary liaison to
Congress.
Ms. Jeanne Bumpus is the Director of the Office of
Congressional Relations at the Federal Trade Commission. Her
office works with Members of Congress and their staffs to
provide information on the Commission's activities and advance
the interests of the Commission in Congress.
The Honorable Naz Darakoglu. Ms. Darakoglu is the Assistant
Secretary of State for the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. She
was confirmed by the Senate on June 16, 2002. The Bureau of
Legislative Affairs coordinates all legislative activity for
the State Department and is the primary intermediary to
Congress.
We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing
today. We'll begin by swearing you in.
Would you please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
The microphone in front of you has a clock and a series of
lights. When the lights turn yellow, you should begin to
conclude your remarks. When the light turns red, your time has
expired.
Please remember to turn on the mics.
Mr. Dunham, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER DUNHAM
Mr. Dunham. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell,
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to come before you again to describe the FBI's
continued efforts to respond to the Committee's oversight
requests.
I'm the Acting Assistant Director of the FBI's Office of
Congressional Affairs. I'm here again voluntarily to answer
your questions. Unlike others who have come before this
Subcommittee, I am not a political appointee, nor am I an
attorney. I spent the entirety of my professional government
life in civil service in support of the FBI's mission.
I agreed to serve as the Assistant Director in an acting
capacity late last year. In this role, I have led a team of
agents and professional staff who are dedicated to working with
Congress on all manner of legislative policy and oversight
issues. As long as I have served in this role, I have been
committed to working in good faith with all Members of this
Subcommittee and the Full Judiciary Committee.
The FBI recognizes the important role of Congressional
oversight. We appreciate that oversight is a critical
underpinning of the legislative process, and we recognize that
it can shed valuable light on the FBI's operations and
stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
By virtue of the FBI's dual law enforcement and
intelligence responsibilities, we work closely with eight
Congressional Committees of jurisdiction, including both House
and Senate Committees who oversee the intelligence community,
and Committees like this one, who oversee the Justice
Department.
In every instance, we strive to provide Congress with
information to support its legislative needs without
compromising our law enforcement and national security efforts,
including our investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities.
The FBI must also, now more than ever, consider the privacy
and safety interests implicated in revealing the identities of
our dedicated line agents and personnel. With these
considerations in mind, we are committed to continuing to
accommodate the Committee's oversight interests.
We understand the purview of this Subcommittee is to
oversee the responsiveness of agencies to the Full Committee's
oversight requests. In this Congress so far, the Committee has
identified well over 50 informational requests for the FBI
across 17 different topics, in addition to requests for dozens
of transcribed interviews.
Since January, the FBI's provided nearly 30 responses to
this Committee, including 22 document productions. More
specifically, since I was here before you in March, the FBI's
produced nearly 2,000 pages of documents and provided dozens of
briefings for Committee Members and staff, including in our
Quantico and Redstone facilities.
During that time, we have also provided 14 FBI witnesses
from multiple FBI divisions, and from literally across the
country, who have come before this Committee to sit for
extensive questioning and transcribed interviews covering a
multitude of topics.
Today, we remain engaged with Committee staff, and the
FBI's actively responding to your requests for documents and
information, including working to supplement our ongoing
productions as we identify additional responsive documents.
We remain optimistic that by working cooperatively, we will
be able to satisfy the Committee's legislative needs while also
safeguarding the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of
our vital law enforcement and intelligence efforts. This, of
course, is at the core of the FBI's mission: To protect the
American people and uphold the Constitution.
I'm happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Dunham follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Dunham.
Ms. Bumpus, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEANNE BUMPUS
Ms. Bumpus. Thank you.
Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jeanne Bumpus, the Director
of the Office of Congressional Relations at the FTC. Thanks for
the opportunity to address the Commission's responses to
requests from the Committee of the Judiciary since the
beginning of the 118th Congress.
The FTC is the only Federal agency with the broad mission
of both protecting consumers and maintaining competition in
most sectors of the economy. Its jurisdiction includes privacy
and data security, consumer fraud, and anticompetitive mergers
and conduct in the pharmaceutical, defense, technology,
hospital, retail food, and other sectors that affect every
American, every day. The FTC's 1,200 public servants work
tirelessly to meet this broad and critical mission.
The Commission is committed to accommodating the
Committee's requests for information consistent with our
obligation to safeguard the independence, integrity, and
effectiveness of our vital work.
Since I last testified before the Subcommittee in March,
the Commission has established a clear responsiveness to the
House Judiciary Committee's wide range and unprecedented number
of oversight requests. The Commission has received 15 letters
with 76 specific requests from the Judiciary Committee, and
we've responded with 29 letters, 20 productions, five
transcribed interviews, a nonpublic briefing, hearing
testimony, and over 8,500 pages of documents.
These are just some of the House oversight requests that
the Commission is currently responding to. In this calendar
year, the FTC has received a total of 25 letters with 133
specific requests from House Committees, and we've responded
with 46 letters, 33 productions, and over 12,000 pages of
documents.
These responses are in addition to providing information to
Congress as a regular part of what we do every day. The FTC
works with Members and Committees to provide them with expert,
thoughtful, and timely information, irrespective of party or
position. The FTC devotes significant time and resources to
supporting Congress' needs for information, working with our
bureaus and offices across the agency to respond to requests.
Commission officials and subject matter experts are in constant
communication with Members and Congressional staff.
In this year alone, the FTC has provided technical
assistance on over 100 proposed bills, responded to over 80
Congressional letters, provided about 15 nonpublic and over 80
public briefings about our programs and operations, and
assisted with constituent services and outreach efforts aimed
at helping consumers avoid fraud.
The Commission is eager to continue to share our work and
collaborate with Congress to improve and enhance our service to
the American people.
In conclusion, the FTC recognizes that Congressional
oversight is an important part of our system of government. We
remain committed to working with Congress and with this
Committee in good faith.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bumpus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Ms. Bumpus.
Ms. Darakoglu, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NAZ DARAKOGLU
Ms. Darakoglu. Thank you.
Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, distinguished Members
of this Subcommittee, it's a pleasure to appear before you
again today.
Last, I appeared before this Subcommittee, I cited our
Congressional engagement from 2022 and the beginning of 2023.
So far, in the 118th Congress, the State Department's Bureau of
Legislative Affairs, also known as H, is lined up for another
record-breaking year of Congressional engagement.
Since January, H has supported 88 Congressional hearings,
more than 2,900 briefings and meetings with Members and staff,
responded to more than 1,000 letters from Congress, produced
474 reports to Congress, and facilitated 512 codels and
staffdels around the world.
Regarding our commitment to oversight, the State Department
is currently responding to 29 open and wide-ranging
investigations from six separate House Committees. When I
testified in July, the Department had provided more than 16,000
pages of documents across Committees. We are now up to over
25,500 pages. In response to this Committee's inquiry into the
Global Engagement Center, or GEC, we have produced more than
1,900 pages of documents, up from 1,200 in July.
The GEC's offer to brief Members and staff of this
Subcommittee still stands, and we welcome the opportunity to
further engage with you on GEC's day-to-day work in furtherance
of our national security.
GEC principals have also testified before other House
Committees in a demonstration of the Department's
responsiveness and cooperation with oversight inquiries. As
noted in my previous testimony, the GEC focuses on the
international information space and works to identify, analyze,
and expose harmful foreign disinfor-mation and propaganda
emanating from places like Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. The GEC
does not focus on the domestic information space.
As we continue to make productions and show the breadth and
depth of the GEC's work abroad, we ask that Congress repeal the
termination clause included in the GEC's mandate, so that the
U.S. Government can continue this important effort beyond 2024.
In addition to the GEC request, the Department has provided
Chair Jordan and this Subcommittee with all available
information on three specific visa cases in response to
requests from the Committee. Should there be additional cases
of interest, we look forward to reviewing and responding to
those requests.
Secretary Blinken and the Department's leadership maintain
that Congress is a partner in foreign policy, and we remain
committed to working with you in good faith on your oversight
priorities.
Across all Congressional oversight inquiries, career
Department employees have been pulled off their day-to-day
missions to support the document production and review process.
The Department has also hired more oversight staff to assist
with the growing number of requests.
As we work to respond to more than two dozen requests, I
would be remiss if I did not share the Department's concern
over the House's proposed 14 percent cut to the State
Department and Foreign Operations budget. This drastic cut
would not only hinder the Department's ability to respond to
Congressional oversight in a timely manner, but would also
endanger the Department's national security objectives,
particularly as the United States faces new and enduring
challenges with the People's Republic of China, in the Middle
East in Israel, Ukraine, and beyond.
Of course, not passing the administration's full
supplemental requests touching on these priorities would have a
similar negative effect.
Again, I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me the
opportunity to appear before you again, and I look forward to
your question.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Darakoglu follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Ms. Darakoglu.
Let me begin with a question for Mr. Dunham.
Well, let me just say we will now proceed under the five-
minute rule with questions. I anticipate we'll have two rounds
of questions today.
Mr. Dunham, understanding the FBI's role in censorship on
social media is a crucial part of the Committee's investigation
into the apparent collusion between the Federal Government and
technology and social media companies. On April 18, 2023, the
Committee requested documents and information in furtherance of
its investigation by the FBI.
However, the FBI did not make its first production until
June 21, 2023, over a month after the response to the
Committee's April 18, 2023, request was due.
The entirety of the first production was the publicly
available 386-page deposition transcript of FBI Special Agent
Elvis Chan in Missouri v. Biden.
Why did it take the department over a month to make this
production of one publicly available document?
Mr. Dunham. Mr. Chair, we're working through the requests
that we received in April. We've made four productions already
of 600 pages of documents. We've also been providing
transcribed interviews to the Committee, which our
conversations with staff indicated that was a Committee
priority. So, we had three Senior Executives who came before
this Committee for day-long transcribed interviews to talk
about this very subject.
We have more information in the pipeline that's
forthcoming. I understand the Committee's concerns with
redactions on the documents. We've had some discussions with
Committee staff already to address those concerns.
I think our most recent production provided more limited
redactions. That's my goal, is to provide as limited redactions
as possible in our productions to the Committee. We are bound
by Department of Justice and Executive Branch policies, which
means there are certain areas where we have to be a little more
considerate when we're providing information.
Those areas could be when we're touching on ongoing
investigations or sources and methods or non-SES employees. My
goal is always to provide as much information as possible with
limited redactions, and--
Mr. Cline. All right. Well--
Mr. Dunham. --if there are instances where the Committee
has concerns about those redactions, I'm happy to continue a
dialog so that we can see what the legislative purpose is to
see the information underneath, and we can make accommodations.
We've done that several times already this year when we've been
able to have discussions with the Committee and lift
redactions, and I'm happy to continue this pattern of
accommodation.
Mr. Cline. Well, and there have been a lot of staff
conversations, but the reason that you're here is, in part,
because those staff conversations have not produced the
documents that we have asked for.
This is not--when we ask for redacted or documents without
redactions, it's not a request. It's part of the subpoena. So,
the subpoena explicitly instructs the FBI to produce unredacted
copies of the documents.
So, let's look at this document that's entirely redacted
save for the opening and closing remarks.
Can you articulate what was the reasoning behind the
redaction here?
Mr. Dunham. I can't, as we sit here--
Mr. Cline. Because you can't understand--
Mr. Dunham. --determine the--I'm not--
Mr. Cline. You can't define the document.
Mr. Dunham. I'm not the one that redacts, so I can't--
Mr. Cline. You can't tell.
Mr. Dunham. I can't--as I sit here, I understand the
concern. What I can tell you is that we're striving to provide
documents as limitedly redacted as possible with employees--
Mr. Cline. So, tell me: Why are employees at Twitter and
Facebook, many of whom do not have a clearance of any kind,
able to receive these communications unredacted, but Members of
Congress are not?
Mr. Dunham. I just go back to what I said previously that
we're bound by Department of Justice's and Executive Branch
policies that dictate how we provide information to Congress,
and there are certain areas where we have to be more
considerate and provide redactions. Those conversations that we
have with staff to--
Mr. Cline. Right.
Mr. Dunham. --talk about these redactions are extremely
helpful for us in coming to an accommodation to provide more
information, so I appreciate it.
Mr. Cline. An accommodation with the request actually helps
even more.
So, earlier this week, Committee staff prioritized a list
of documents to be produced in unredacted form to the Committee
by December 8th. You may recall that conversation. It just
happened earlier this week.
Mr. Dunham, can you commit to producing these documents in
unredacted form for the Committee by that deadline?
Mr. Dunham. We are working through those requests now. We
just got them a couple days ago, and we'll work to provide them
as soon as possible.
Mr. Cline. Are you aware that the subpoena requires the
production of a privilege log if the FBI places redactions on
certain documents?
Mr. Dunham. I believe I have read that in one of the
subpoenas, correct.
Mr. Cline. All right. When can the Committee expect that
privilege log?
Mr. Dunham. I don't have a response for you today, but I'll
take that back and see what we can provide.
Mr. Cline. All right. You'd agree that the Committee's
subpoena compels the production of certain categories of
documents, correct?
Mr. Dunham. I believe so.
Mr. Cline. Documents and communications between or among
the FBI and the Executive Branch, correct?
Mr. Dunham. I believe so.
Mr. Cline. All right. Why have no documents or
communications with the White House or other Federal agencies
been produced?
Mr. Dunham. We're working through the productions. Like I
said, we provided four productions already, over 600 pages of
documents. We did prioritize the transcribed interviews, which
we had three executives come up to spend the full day with the
Committee to talk about these issues, and answer questions--
Mr. Cline. All right. Can you commit to produce documents
responsive to this category by December 14th?
Mr. Dunham. I commit that we will provide information as
soon as possible.
Mr. Cline. All right. The Ranking Member is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Dunham, following subpoenas you've received from the
Judiciary Committee Republicans, didn't you offer to meet and
confer with Judiciary Republicans on multiple occasions?
Mr. Dunham. I think my staff has had several offers to meet
and several conversations with staff.
Mr. Swalwell. Today, you are appearing voluntarily to this
hearing?
Mr. Dunham. Correct.
Mr. Swalwell. This is the second time appearing voluntarily
before this hearing. Is that--this Committee. Is that right?
Mr. Dunham. That's correct.
Mr. Swalwell. Has the FBI provided Committee Republicans
with over 1,700 pages of documents?
Mr. Dunham. It is actually over 2,500 pages.
Mr. Swalwell. The FBI has also offered to work with
Committee Republicans to prioritize their document request. Is
that right?
Mr. Dunham. That's correct.
Mr. Swalwell. This included offering in-person review of
nonpublic documents. Is that right?
Mr. Dunham. That's correct.
Mr. Swalwell. Have you seen, on social media, the doxxing
of what you would call non-SES, which is like senior-level
employees--the names of FBI agents and DOJ employees, not by my
Republican colleagues, but by just folks on social media who
have doxxed and put out their public information?
Mr. Dunham. I have. This goes to one of the areas where
we're a little bit more considerate about where we can provide
information. We are bound by the Department of Justice and
Executive Branch policies, which I mentioned previously. Some
of those policies relate to non-SES employees. They feel that
executives are best suited to answer questions and answer for
decisions that are made under their command.
It's not just about those policies. It's also about the
safety of our employees. We've had employees that have been
named by Congressional Committees that have come before
Congressional Committees that have experienced harassment and
threats this Congress. It's not lost on me that, a couple of
weeks ago, a man in Tennessee was arrested, or pled guilty to
conspiracy to kill FBI employees who were working on a January
6th case. We're in a heightened threat environment.
Just last week, the website you're referring to, which had
nonpublic information about our interactions with the
Committee, promotes doxxing. It's got pictures of FBI
employees. It's got their dates of birth, their addresses,
their spouse names. It's ridiculous. It's unacceptable.
So, when I say we're protecting these employees, it's not
some effort to hide the ball; it's to protect them for their
safety and protect them from these threats and harassment that
they've experienced this year.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Dunham.
Ms. Bumpus, welcome. You're also appearing voluntarily
today. Is that right?
Ms. Bumpus. That's right.
Mr. Swalwell. This is your--you're a 17-year career FTC
employee, and you've served under four Republican Chairs and
four Democratic Chairs. Is that right?
Ms. Bumpus. That's right.
Mr. Swalwell. The Judiciary Committee only has jurisdiction
over your antitrust work. Is that right?
Ms. Bumpus. Correct.
Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Darakoglu, welcome back. You have
testified before, and you were unanimously confirmed by the
U.S. Senate. Is that right?
Ms. Darakoglu. That's right.
Mr. Swalwell. You are also voluntarily appearing?
Ms. Darakoglu. Yes.
Mr. Swalwell. Second time before this Committee?
Ms. Darakoglu. Yes.
Mr. Swalwell. Did I hear right that the State Department
has provided more than 1,600 total pages responding to the
House's investigation?
Ms. Darakoglu. It's actually 1,900.
Mr. Swalwell. OK. So, just like the FBI's, it's going up as
we speak.
Ms. Darakoglu. Yes.
Mr. Swalwell. You have also offered numerous times and
through meetings, briefings, and correspondence, to Judiciary
Committee Republicans to meet with them and confer about the
documents they want. Is that right?
Ms. Darakoglu. Yes. We've also provided opportunities to
meet with the Global Engagement Center itself.
Mr. Swalwell. What is the purpose of the Global Engagement
Center?
Ms. Darakoglu. The purpose of the Global Engagement Center
is to identify, analyze, and expose foreign disinformation and
propaganda.
Mr. Swalwell. Why is that a problem for us?
Ms. Darakoglu. It is a major problem, because a lot of that
foreign disinformation and propaganda often targets the United
States.
Mr. Swalwell. Does it draw a distinction between the
Republican Party or the Democratic Party when it presents
itself?
Ms. Darakoglu. While I'm not an expert in disinformation.
From my personal experience, I can tell you that they do not
discriminate between parties.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have prepared remarks, but I'm going to go off them a
little bit. I want to speak about my colleague and friend, Eric
Swalwell's remarks about feeding the beast. I can't let it go.
Do you want to know what the beast is? The beast is the
invasion of people's personal rights, their freedoms. When it's
done by agencies, the beast is even bigger.
The beast is the invasion of their security. The beast is
when we require--when a standing Subcommittee of the Judiciary
Committee requires and requests documentation over and over
again, and we don't get it.
If we weren't concerned about how much of it we were going
to redact, if we weren't concerned that we didn't want the
Committee Members to know, perhaps it would move a whole lot
faster.
This isn't about raw abuse of politics. Quite frankly, this
isn't about Donald Trump or any one individual person. It's
about the misuse of agencies, and we've had an FBI Director who
admitted that it has happened right before this Committee.
We've had an Attorney General who has admitted it. We have John
Durham who did a report on it. We know it exists.
Ben Franklin said, ``Anybody that is willing to give up
freedom for security deserves neither.''
The beast is $42 million that we spent on a secret program
for confidential human sources that has hurt good people.
That's the beast. That's the beast that we fear. That's why we
have so much concern. That's why we have so many requests.
This is serious stuff. It's about the very essence of this
republic.
So, Mr. Dunham, since the beginning of the Biden
Administration, our Committee has been actively engaged in
overseeing the actions of the FBI. In doing so, we have made
numerous requests for documents and information regarding a
number of issues regarding the Bureau's actions, their
activities, and their operations. We have continued issues
obtaining said--such documents. We still have the problem. In
areas where we have gotten particularly little response, I
mentioned confidential human source program, which we know has
gone awry. We've proven that numerous times. Even the FBI's
admitted it.
On September 19th, the Committee wrote to--2023--Director
Christopher Wray seeking clarity on the FBI's use of CHSes.
Despite receiving an estimated $42 million of every man and
woman who pays taxes in this country, the program is pretty
much secretive. It's unacceptable to me. It's unacceptable.
What we do know only comes from select testimony. What we
do know comes from the Durham Report, both of which were highly
critical of the program. This is not a Republican talking
point. It's not a Jeff Van Drew talking point. It is what we
know and have found out. It is a fact.
Given these concerns, I have to wonder why the FBI has not
addressed our requests, and more thoroughly.
So, briefly, because I'm going to run out of time--what
steps have the FBI taken so far to provide the Committee with
the outstanding information requested September 19, 2023,
letter? What have they done? Please bold it out; not a long,
vague thing. I want to know direct answers.
What steps have you taken?
Mr. Dunham. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
So, we've provided some information already on this topic.
Earlier this year, we provided a letter in response to the
Committee that detailed some information about our CHSes. We
had the Assistant Director of our Counterterrorism Division
come up earlier this year and brief the Committee, and he
discussed a--the CHS program a little bit during that briefing.
We had six individuals who were--come before the Committee
for transcribed interviews, who got to this issue of CHSes.
We're aware of the Committee's additional requests, and we're
working through them, and I hope to have information--
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
Mr. Dunham. --as soon as possible.
Mr. Van Drew. So, let me--because I'm a simple guy here,
and so I just want a simple yes or no.
Can you commit to providing the Committee with the
outstanding requests for information contained in the September
19th by December 14th of this year?
We've been working on it for a while. There is no reason
that we can't do this. You say you have a lot of people on it.
Can you commit to that? Yes or no?
Mr. Dunham. I will commit to providing the information as
soon as we possibly can.
Mr. Van Drew. Can you do it by December 14th?
Mr. Dunham. I have to figure out where the information is
in the pipeline--
Mr. Van Drew. Why can you do it by December 14th? This has
been going on for a while.
Mr. Dunham. I understand that. We've been providing a lot
of responses to the Committee. We've provided 30 responses this
year already on 16 different topics.
Mr. Van Drew. I can give you a commitment. We want it by
December 14th.
Mr. Dunham. I understand that, and I commit to you that
we'll provide it as soon as possible.
Mr. Van Drew. That's not the answer I wanted.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just getting increasingly angry as this hearing goes
forward. I think (a) there is a Groundhog Day feel to this.
I want to make the request, because we had these witnesses
come back that--representing different departments over and
over again, and there is a discussion about efforts to comply
with the subpoenas. The Republicans State their dissatisfaction
with that.
In the process, there is, I would think, communications
between the majority staff and the Departments. Apparently,
minority staff doesn't get included in those.
I'd like to see those, because, frankly, when I looked at
some of these document requests, they're ridiculously
overbroad. The one here from April 18, 2018, No. 1, all
documents and communications from January 1, 2020, to the
present referring or relating to the moderation, deletion,
suppression, restriction, and reduced circulation of content;
the development, execution, or application of companies'
content moderation--how many documents are we expecting to get
from--there should be some limitations on a request that broad.
I've got to say this, too, and it's a little broader than
the context of this hearing, but the effort to comply with the
Republican request for documents and information has gone above
and beyond. Having Weiss come up here to testify in the middle
of a prosecution--a Federal prosecution that the Republicans
clearly want to have go forward, or I would think, and then
asking him questions that no prosecutor should ever be asked in
the middle of a prosecution--you never do that.
The Department of Justice took the extra step and made him
available to come testify. Now, when you didn't like what he
said, now the Committee's issued subpoenas to the next layer of
prosecutors, Ms. Wolf and others.
Same thing with the SES requests, too which I thought was,
again, over the top--it's pretty unusual to have five SES
employees come and testify. Didn't like what they said, I
guess. Then you tried to go and get lower-level staff to
testify. In doing that, apparently, majority staff reached out
directly to people who were represented by counsel at the
Department in violation of bar counsel Rule 4.2.
You got a letter back from Chair Khan on that point, which
I think is good, but I think we need to make sure what we're
trying to do here with the Committee, is use the powers for the
right purposes.
Mr. Chair made a reference to legislative purpose. I don't
know that the Judiciary Committee has any jurisdiction over the
State Department really. The legislative purpose for some of
the things you've requested, like this stuff about morale at
the FTC, I don't really know what the legislative fix would be
for morale issues.
By the way, as somebody who's been on the opposite end of
these kinds of subpoenas, you want to hurt moral for staff?
Have them spend entire days going through files to turn up
documents for stuff that's not relevant to the mission that
they're trying to address, because you know what? The State
Department's--we've got two hot wars we're in the middle of
right now with respect to Ukraine, with respect to Hamas.
There are a lot of other things--Anthony Blinken, I feel
like he's on a plane somewhere every day. We've got--instead of
them addressing those kinds of issues, this is what we're
talking about. Documents for--I guess there is some theory
about pipe bombs or some kind of fake effort or false flag with
respect to the pipe bombs?
I'm looking at this, the January 6th. I think they've had
800 successful prosecutions in that case. Not one witness--not
one case has raised anything about this. In the Homeland
Security, we had something about ghost buses where they are
saying they were false--FBI agents undercover pretending to be
part of the January 6th invasion, and there is not one piece of
evidence to support it.
Eight hundred convictions, pleas, and trials. Nobody has
raised this, and, if they have a right to get it, you know it's
in a criminal case. Same thing with this confidential human
source stuff. If there is a confidential human source that
testifies or has relevant information in a criminal case, it
has to be disclosed.
Where is the evidence of that in the cases that have come
forward? I submit that there is none.
I've run out of time. I guess I'll come back to this on the
second range, or second round, but I would ask, just out of
good faith--
Mr. Cline. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Ivey. --allow us to participate in the meetings and get
the emails that you send. When they come up here to give full
days of meetings to try and figure out how to comply with the
subpoenas, please let us know so we can participate.
Mr. Cline. I would be happy to take that under advisement.
I would also State I think they know how to comply.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Bumpus, I want to talk to you briefly about some very
specific requests to the FTC.
On March 9, 2023, a number of House Judiciary Committee
Members, including myself, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Van Drew, wrote the
FTC concerning its ill-advised current approaches to mergers
and acquisitions. In that letter, the Committee requested
related documents and information.
Later, Chair Jordan and Chair Massie reiterated these
requests on April 5, 2023. It was over seven months ago. There
are still several requests. In particular, Items No. 4 and 7,
which will be the topic of my questions to you today.
As a refresher, Item No. 4 is all documents and
communications referring to or relating to the decision to
withdraw the Trump Administration's 2020 vertical merger
guidelines, and then Item No. 7 is all documents and
communications relating to the FTC's policy concerning early
terminations. Those are the two primary scopes of what I want
to ask you about.
We understand that the FTC has not completed its
productions of those requests. What's the status of the FTC's
document collection and review of those two requests in
particular?
Ms. Bumpus. Congressman, as you're aware, we've made four
productions and have produced over 1,300 pages of documents so
far. We are continuing to review documents and produce them on
a rolling basis.
Mr. Moran. On those two specific requests, can you provide
me with any specific update as to the review and the production
of those documents that are responsive?
Ms. Bumpus. I cannot. As you know, our staff are in regular
contact with staff on the Committee, and we'd be happy to
engage with you on that.
Mr. Moran. All right. What's the reason why you can't
provide me with an update today? I know that's the topic of
some discussion that has been discussed before today's hearing,
so I would expect that you would have been prepared to tell me
when those documents could be produced or how many documents
are left to review.
Can you tell me any of that information?
Ms. Bumpus. Regrettably, I cannot, but I'm happy to take
that back, take your concerns and your priorities back, and we
will continue to work with the Committee.
Mr. Moran. So, how come you weren't prepared to answer that
question today? It seems like a very basic question, and,
frankly, a reasonable question. I'm supposed to be asking about
document production. Those are two requests have been made and
reiterated, not just by the Committee, but by the Chair. You've
been working on them for seven months.
How come you can't tell me the status of that production?
Ms. Bumpus. I can tell you that we are continuing to review
documents. We will continue to produce them on a rolling basis,
and we are happy to continue our regular contact with staff
members on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Moran. On those two specific requests, do you know if
there are actual documents that are being reviewed internally,
potentially responsive to those requests?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know.
Mr. Moran. Do you know who would know at the FTC?
Ms. Bumpus. I'm happy to take that back. Again, I know your
staff are in regular contact with staff at the FTC about all
the productions.
Mr. Moran. With respect to those two requests, Nos. 4 and 7
from that March 9, 2023, letter, do you know if any email
notification or other steps have been taken to notify
individuals at the FTC to preserve materials that may be
potentially relevant and responsive?
Ms. Bumpus. Yes. My understanding is that notices have gone
out to custodians, and documents have been collected and placed
in a central repository.
Mr. Moran. Who is the custodian of that central repository?
Ms. Bumpus. There are many people with access to that
central repository who deposit and review documents.
Mr. Moran. Who would be considered the ultimate custodian
of those records?
Ms. Bumpus. I'm not able to provide that information today,
but we are happy to continue talking to your staff.
Mr. Moran. I'm still curious why you can't tell me who are
the custodian of those records. You've been in the Department
for 17 years. In the Office of Congressional Relations, I would
suspect you would know who the custodian of records is for this
particular production request.
Ms. Bumpus. I don't.
Mr. Moran. Can you find out?
Ms. Bumpus. I am happy to take your request back and I know
your staff, again, talks regularly to our staff, and I will be
happy to get back--
Mr. Moran. No. My question wasn't will you find out. My
question was: Can you find out? Are you able to find out who
are the custodian of those records?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know that there is a single custodian
of those records. Like I said, staff from across the agency
have been collecting records and placing them into the
repository for review.
Mr. Moran. Is it a large number of staff, or just a limited
number of staff that is the custodian or has access to that
depository?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know the numbers. I'm happy to take
that back.
Mr. Moran. Would you say it is more than 50?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know.
Mr. Moran. Is there anything you can tell me about that
document production today?
Ms. Bumpus. Nothing more than I've already said.
Mr. Moran. My request would be, in the next 17 seconds
before we let you go, or before I let you go is: Next time you
come--those are really important questions. I'll probably ask
you similar questions next time.
I'd like to know who is in charge, the custodian of
records. I'd also like to know, as it relates to items that
have not been produced, what the status of that production is.
That's useful information that we need as the Committee to make
decisions on this side of the dais, and it would be helpful in
reaching a conclusion as to our document requests.
So, I would make that request of you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Bumpus. Thank you.
Mr. Cline. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start here today: Some of our colleagues today have
questioned why we have these hearings, why we've continued to
have these hearings, why we've done this more than once. In the
line of question and answer that we just heard, we were getting
the answer to that loud and clear.
It's simple, because we have been requesting documents and
subpoenaing documents and requesting information, and we still
don't have it. If the documents responsive to the subpoenas had
been provided, if the information responsive to the requests
had been provided, we wouldn't be here.
This hearing is only necessary because we do not have the
responsive documents and information that have been requested
of these agencies.
I would like to start here with Ms. Naz Darakoglu.
On March 22, 2023, the Committee wrote to GEC Special Envoy
Rubin requesting documents and information related to the
nature and extent of the agency's interaction with technology
companies and third-party groups over content moderation and
the censorship of speech on social media and other platforms.
This information was subsequently subpoenaed on May 22, 2023,
and also the subject of discussion at a prior hearing of this
Subcommittee in July.
To date, the State Department's production has been
incomplete. The documents produced are limited to the work that
the GEC has done to identify foreign mis- and disinformation
promoted by various news outlets and platforms, as well as
coordination with third-party fact checkers, but we have less
than 1,800 pages of nonpublicly available documents, much of
which is not wholly related to the underlying request.
So, I'd like to start there. The Committee's subpoena
compels the production of multiple categories of documents. For
example, the production of certain documents and communications
between the GEC and third-party entities, such as the Stanford
University's Election Integrity Partnership, correct?
Ms. Darakoglu. [Nonverbal response.]
Ms. Lee. OK. We don't have any documents yet related to, or
communications with, the EIP or Election Integrity Partnership,
and the failure to produce those communications is particularly
of interest to the Committee. There are only a few known
custodians. The timeframe is known. There shouldn't be any
concern about privilege, because this relates to a third-party
entity.
You noted in your opening testimony that the focus really
was on foreign actors and not domestic, which of course is one
of the key issues that we're trying to get to the bottom of is:
What was the nature of this relationship and the why? So, it
would really add a lot of transparency to one of the core
questions.
So, could you tell me why there hasn't been more
information produced on that subject, and what timeline can we
expect additional compliance there?
Ms. Darakoglu. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I will note that I personally review every tranche the
Subcommittee receives, and seven tranches have been produced,
so I can tell you several of those tranches did have
information with third-party entities, because I have seen them
myself.
In terms of Stanford and others, I'm happy to get back to
you, but just to say we have been producing responsive
documents, and 1,900 pages of such have been provided to this
Committee. You've referenced 1,800 pages that are not public.
Just to point out, 1,800 out of the 1,900 are not public, so we
are completely responsive.
On Stanford, in particular, I'm happy to get back and see
what we have.
Ms. Lee. Is it a reasonable goal for all of you to provide
those documents to us--those responsive documents by December
14th?
Ms. Darakoglu. So, I have to say, as the Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs, it is my responsibility to
be responsive to all of you. If I closed out this search at any
point without knowing the full universe, that would not be
adhering to my responsibility to be responsive. So, I have to
say we're going to continue searching. We are going to continue
providing documents to all of you on a rolling basis, and I do
not want to put a timeline on it, because we're going to
continue providing what we see as we get it.
Ms. Lee. So, your testimony with us today is that the
efforts to continue to search and locate those documents are
ongoing, and you'll be providing us a rolling production?
Ms. Darakoglu. Yes.
Ms. Lee. OK. So, do we know to a certainty one way or the
other whether there are more documents, or is it something that
further investigation and review is required to even make that
determination?
Ms. Darakoglu. I think we can confidently say, or I can
confidently say that there are more documents.
Just to point out one example, there were nine requests in
the original letter that you referenced. One of them is all
documents and communications from January 1, 2020, to the
present referring or relating to misinformation,
disinformation, or malinformation. These are broad scopes. We
are working with your staff continually on prioritization. Yes,
I think it's fair to say, with a request like this, there are
more documents out there.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
My time has expired. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Cline. All right. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Bumpus, as you know, on March 10, 2023, the Committee
wrote to Chair Khan raising concerns that the FTC was abusing
its authority in investigating Twitter. The Committee requested
relevant documents and communications. The Chair refused to
comply voluntarily with the Committee's requests.
Therefore, on April 12, 2023, the Committee issued a
subpoena to Chair Khan for the relevant information.
Notwithstanding that subpoena, and the Committee's subsequent
accommodation and followup communications with the FTC, Chair
Khan remains noncompliant with the subpoena.
Her justification for failure to produce FTC documents and
yours today are unpersuasive.
First, the FTC has produced one document, a single document
in response to the subpoena, correct?
Ms. Bumpus. That's my understanding. Sorry. I understand we
produced a document at the end of September.
Mr. Cline. Are you aware that this document was already
publicly available?
Ms. Bumpus. Yes.
Mr. Cline. So, the document that you produced, the only
document that you've produced in response to the subpoena, was
a publicly available document.
Do you think that is compliance? Is that under your
definition of compliance?
Ms. Bumpus. Mr. Chair, as you know, the request implicates
an active law enforcement investigation. The Commission has
provided several nonpublic responses and a lengthy and very
detailed nonpublic briefing.
Mr. Cline. Not responding to the subpoena.
Ms. Bumpus. This is responsive materials to the subpoena.
We have addressed your interests and addressed your concerns
through our nonpublic responses, written responses, and through
the nonpublic briefing.
Mr. Cline. You would not be here if you had addressed my
interests and the needs of this Committee.
Now, you have said that the FTC has identified custodians
who may have documents responsive, and the FTC has taken steps
to preserve documents responsive to the subpoena, correct?
Ms. Bumpus. That is my understanding.
Mr. Cline. OK. It's my understanding that the FTC has
deleted former employee documents. Is that correct?
Ms. Bumpus. I know that is a concern, and I know that is
the subject of correspondence with your Committee.
Mr. Cline. You can confirm that the FTC has deleted former
employee documents?
Ms. Bumpus. I think it is addressed in our--we addressed
your concerns in our correspondence.
Mr. Cline. Is that a yes?
Ms. Bumpus. I believe that we did delete emails of former
employees.
Mr. Cline. Has the FTC taken any steps to preserve
documents of former employees who left the agency during the
pendency of this investigation?
Ms. Bumpus. My understanding is that we are preserving
former employees' emails, and we are seeking to preserve
appropriate documents.
Mr. Cline. As you know, Congress can withhold agency
funding when an agency ignores oversight requests, let alone a
subpoena.
Do you agree that the FTC's noncompliance with this
subpoena should have significant repercussions for the agency?
Ms. Bumpus. We are attempting to be responsive in light of
the fact that this is an ongoing--
Mr. Cline. You're failing to be responsive. You're failing.
So, your stonewalling, your noncompliance today is, quite
frankly, insulting to this Committee and insulting to the
American people who we represent. We expect more from you.
It is unfortunate that you are here again, because we
strive, through our Committee conversations, our staff
conversations, to actually work behind the scenes to get the
information that we've requested without having to resort to
these hearings.
We understand that it takes time from your schedule. We
understand that it takes time from the staff behind you. The
American people are demanding these documents, are demanding
this information, are demanding accountability, and we are the
branch of government that must ensure compliance, that must
ensure that those Executive Branch agencies that fail to comply
are held accountable.
So, I ask you again, can you confirm that the FTC will
comply with the subpoena and provide the documents requested?
Ms. Bumpus. We will continue to attempt to meet the
Committee's informational needs consistent with protecting our
law enforcement equities and we will continue to review our
ability to share additional information.
Mr. Cline. All right. The gentleman from California is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. I'm having a hard time understanding where
all this is going. We're in December now, and 92 individuals,
many from your agencies, have come in for secret, nonpublic, no
video recording interviews, and not a single one of them has
come to a public hearing, has testified publicly about any of
the claims that they're making.
So, after 92 people come in and we're almost in December
and nothing is coming to public light, that's how you conclude
that this is just an effort to feed the beast, that Donald
Trump is not eating, and that he wants his allies in Congress
to just bring in his enemies and to torment them.
Then we see you can't make this public. These people don't
have anything that add up to what Donald Trump is alleging. So,
we just go through this exercise.
It's a little bit concerning because the FBI isn't tasked
with small responsibilities. They're only in charge of taking
on terrorism, public corruption, child exploitation, white
collar crime, fraud, and kidnapping.
Instead, they're dealing with this nonsense to just satisfy
a petty, aggrieved former President who has many of my
colleagues, as I said, just working as his chefs. This is a
buffet for the former President, to just make him happy.
The greatest example is Hunter Biden. These guys have
literally, in this room, put up pictures of nonconsensual nudes
of Hunter Biden to embarrass the former--to embarrass the
current President. That's the length that they will go. He
says:
Hey, I'll come in, you can show your pictures, you can
embarrass me. There's not going to be any lines between what
you think I've done and what you think my dad has done.
Now, they don't want to do it. It just shows a complete lack of
seriousness.
I actually think this Congress is more like the WWE, it's
like pro wrestling, because so many of these folks, when the
cameras aren't on, when we're not in the, quote ``ring,'' they
come up to me, they pay me and my colleagues compliments.
Don't take my word for it. Talk to Mr. Ivey or anyone else
on this Committee. They mock the former President. You see that
in Liz Cheney's book, the number of these guys who mock the
former President.
When the lights and cameras are on, we're in that ring,
they got to take the steel chair, swing it around, because
they're doing it on his behalf.
To the American public, they can't tell the difference,
that it's just for entertainment for these folks. These folks
think that the American public are fans and that this is just
entertaining and we're keeping the chief entertainer, Donald
Trump, happy.
These folks aren't fans. They're constituents. They want us
to work on making healthcare affordable. They want us to
address the global crisis that could come to America. They want
us to have more security on every corner in America so that
we're safe in our communities. They want their college to be
affordable. They want breathing room in their personal
finances.
So, it is a little maddening that all of you are dragged in
here for what is really just, as I said, more feeding of the
beast, this pro wrestling exercise, where, I promise you, when
we're not in front of the lights and camera, these guys are
going to roll their eyes at Donald Trump. They don't like him,
but they do this because they need him and his fans to stay in
office.
I'm sorry that the important work that you're doing for all
our constituents, including their constituents, is affected and
delayed and held up because we have to feed the beast.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I think the gentleman is a fan of WWE. I can
assure him Congress is not WWE. If it is, then this
administration is the equivalent of ``The Sopranos.''
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
This has been a very colorful meeting today. It's part of
my personality, I can't let things go. So, let's be clear. This
is not about WWE. It's not about Donald Trump. It's not about
any of these things.
It's about a concern--let's really get down to the real
essence and the nub of that agencies have information that
reveals that there are problems in some of the things that they
did.
This is not far-fetched, this is not fabricated, this is
not something untrue. We know, for example, that the FBI had a
plan to send undercover agents into traditional Roman Catholic
churches. The FBI Director apologized for it, said it was
wrong.
We know, for the truth, that there was no Russian
collusion. The Attorney General said that was true. The Durham
Report, which was objective, not done by a Republican or a Dem,
just an objective report, showed that they used confidential
sources, namely Igor Danchenko, who is a bad international
actor, and paid him American tax dollars, and it was all false.
Those are just two brief, small examples.
So, the reason we're doing this, the reason this is
important, is because we are trying to get information that
occurred within agencies, whether it be the FBI, whether--and,
again, it goes across the board into many different agencies.
The misuse of FISA, by the way, that's something that a
traditional liberal should be concerned about, the misuse of
FISA. Because guess what, hundreds of thousands of times they
were invading people's personal lives and getting information
on every Jack and Jill in the country.
People don't like that. We're a free country. That's a mark
of a totalitarian country.
So, it boils down to those specific facts. We're being
specific here. You guys are busy and you're doing a lot of
important work. I realize that. You're busy. You're not
forthcoming with the information because, quite frankly, and I
believe this to my very core, there's information there that
you don't want us to know.
So, the work of this Committee is important because we need
to have that information to get to the truth. It's good for all
of us to know what the truth is.
You know what, a trick in politics is to get people's eye
off the ball, about a feast, about Donald Trump, about feeding
the beast. It's none of that. It's just that we want specifics.
We've been specific. We want specific information. Turn it over
and you don't have to be here.
Guess what, this whole Committee is busy. We don't want to
be here either. We're not getting the stuff we need, and we're
going to keep doing it over and over again, and you're probably
going to be told over and over again to do everything you can
to talk around it. We're going to keep asking the questions
because it is our job, because we want to keep this a free
country, and it really does boil down to that.
So, in any event, Ms. Bumpus, as you know, the Committee
also wrote the FTC on February 14, 2023, requesting documents
and communications related to the FTC's noncompete rulemaking.
We haven't heard back in nine months. I know we're all
saying here there's an effort to do this, but it's been nine
months.
Has the FTC completed its collection of documents? Please
just, yes or no.
Ms. Bumpus. My understanding is that we are still producing
documents on a rolling basis. We've produced almost 6,000 pages
to date, and we've made eight productions.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. You haven't completed it.
Do you know how much remains?
Ms. Bumpus. I do not.
Mr. Van Drew. OK.
Specific questions were asked today of all of you by
Congressman Moran and Congresswoman Lee. I would hope that next
time when you're in--because you're going to be here again--
that when you come again you can answer the specific questions
that were asked today.
The FTC completed its review of the documents it collected.
Has it completed its review? I know the answer is ``no'' from
what you've told me, correct?
Ms. Bumpus. That's correct.
Mr. Van Drew. When does the FTC expect to complete the full
production of documents in response to the February 14th
letter?
If you asked me when I expect at least--we're not even
going to lock you in but say, gee, this is when I expect it
would be done, this is what we believe unless there's something
that happens that we don't anticipate--can you give me a date,
a timeframe, or any information?
Ms. Bumpus. I'm sorry, I can't.
As you know, the Committee has sent us 15 letters. It's
made 76 requests. I know this is a priority. Other oversight
Committees also believe that their requests are priorities. We
are attempting to meet all these demands while continuing to do
the work of the agency.
Mr. Van Drew. Well, thank you. Some of those are
duplicative, so when you answer our questions, you're going to
be answering other people's questions.
Again, Mr. Moran, Ms. Lee, and I think the Chair, of
course, we've all asked specific questions. There's no reason
you can't come back next time--sorry to say there will be a
next time, I believe it's up to the Chair--with specific
answers.
I thank you for being here today. You're nice people.
Really quickly, to Congressman Swalwell, sure, I'm going to
be nice when I see you. We're all colleagues. We disagree
profoundly to the core on everything that we believe.
Nevertheless, we're still human beings, and you can still like
people but thoroughly disagree with them.
I yield back.
Mr. Swalwell. I'm offended on your behalf for the
``Sopranos'' comment as a Representative of New Jersey.
Mr. Van Drew. That's right. I didn't even go into that New
Jersey remark. Thank you.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I'm a little surprised by the ``Sopranos'' comment.
Seems like the Trump family would be a lot closer to ``The
Sopranos'' than the Biden family, but we'll leave that to the
side for the moment.
I agree with Congressman Van Drew with respect to Section
702. I would also note that not only does it go to the heart of
protecting the country, as we heard from the testimony here
from Chair Wray, and I believe from the Attorney General not
that long ago, and I heard it in Homeland Security as well.
What's interesting, though, is that there's bipartisan
legislation pending to address 702, which expires, I believe,
at the end of December, and we haven't had a hearing on it.
We keep doing these kinds of hearings, and then these other
kind of hearings where I think they're off on tangents about
other things.
It would be nice to try and address--and by the way,
Director Wray testified in Homeland Security there were four
other provisions that are set to expire that he thinks are
important for national security reasons that we need to
address. No hearings here in Judiciary, no hearings here on
Homeland Security either with respect to those issues.
So, I hope, since I assume all of us are interested in
national security, especially of that nature, we can get around
to having a hearing on that. Maybe we can squeeze it in between
one of these production hearings that we keep having.
With respect to the legislative purpose issue, we've got
pending legislation for 702. I don't know that I've seen any
legislation that's come out of the 11 months of hearings we've
been having on these kinds of issues. So, I look forward to
that.
If there is a legislative purpose, let's get to it, let's
get the legislation out.
One other comment, too. I worked on the Senate Whitewater
hearings, and when I first got there the Democrats were in the
majority. After that election that came up in 1994, I was on
the minority staff. No matter which side I was on, the two
staffs worked together to deal with these kinds of document
productions.
Matter of fact, before these subpoenas went out, the
minority staff, whichever it was, Democrat or Republican,
depending on the time, had a chance to review it and raise
concerns or questions about it.
So, I think the subpoena I mentioned earlier, I think we
certainly would've raised concerns about that before it was
sent out because, as I said, it was tremendously overbroad.
By the way, it didn't have an end date either. So, when all
of you say you're going to do rolling productions, I guess
that's understandable, because there's no deadline for when the
production is supposed to terminate and potentially new
documents could've been generated. So, I think you have to be
careful about making some sort of date commitment.
Just to mention this as well, in court context, civil or
criminal, rolling productions are understood, and so the rules
of discovery and productions are written in a way that
contemplate the fact that parties produce what you can, but
there may be documents that you find later, certainly in
agencies as large as yours, and the number of demands that
you're facing from across all these House Committees. So, I
would hope that we could keep that in mind.
I think at the end of the day, I would say this: We have a
lot of very urgent matters that we could be addressing, and I
hope that we can get to them.
As I mentioned, there's a hot war going on with respect to
Hamas. I would note that, maybe it was two weeks ago, that this
bin Laden letter surfaced that became viral.
One of the things that we heard in the testimony in the
Homeland Security Committee was there's a sensitivity or
concern about lone wolf terrorism being generated here in the
United States by these kinds of online outreach efforts.
We know that Hamas and other terrorist organizations engage
in that sort of thing, and, frankly, they've been successful
with that.
We also know from testimony from the FBI and the Department
of Justice and Homeland Security that the domestic terrorism
threat is bigger than foreign terrorism threat here in the
United States.
So, it would be good if we allowed agencies that are trying
to address these kinds of things--at CISA, at Homeland
Security, I think your agency has some oversight with respect
to this on the foreign side.
These are important times to allow you to do that work, and
tying your hands at a time when I think--well, actually, I
don't have to say ``I think.'' The FBI Director testified that
there's heightened risk of that kind of terrorism taking place.
Seems like a bad idea to me and puts the American people at
risk.
So, I hope that we can get to the point where we're
addressing those kinds of critical issues that have that
deadline and do some of that work here in the Committee.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Well, I feel like we need to start here again.
There have been numerous hearings on the subject of FISA
and 702. In the Crime Subcommittee we've had two full hearings
on that subject.
In fact, the Judiciary Committee and its various
Subcommittees have hearings every single week on urgent and
important substantive issues.
We are here today because it is also important and
significant and meaningful that when a Committee of the U.S.
Congress asks for documents or information from an agency, that
we get a response.
It is not nonsense when the U.S. Congress requests
documents and that request is ignored. It is not nonsense when
we conduct a hearing to get compliance with a subpoena or a
document request and we are slow-walked or we are stonewalled.
One of our important functions here is to ensure that we
are providing accountability, oversight, and transparency for
the American people. That is one of the important functions
that we have.
To suggest that the work of this Committee is somehow
unimportant or a waste of time is to absolutely miss the
fundamental principle that the role of Congress is to ensure
that we are providing that accountability and transparency.
That is why we were here. If we received the documents we
requested immediately on submission of the subpoena, a hearing
would be unnecessary. We haven't, and so we continue.
I'm familiar with the concept of a rolling production. In
fact, I'm a former judge. I'm very familiar with what happens
in the context of document production and discovery.
The difference is, if we were in a courtroom, in a standard
courtroom, and we requested documents and they weren't received
by a deadline, you know what we would do? We would have a
contempt hearing.
If in that instance there still wasn't compliance, there's
an escalating range of sanctions that get imposed by a judge.
So, we are here, and we work with you, and we will continue
to work with you in good faith in an effort to find what
exists, to do so in a meaningful and reasonable way, to
appreciate your compliance, and to work with you when there is
more that we need.
It is abjectly incorrect to insinuate that this hearing,
that our purpose here today, that our continued purpose in
having these hearings, if it continues to be necessary, is
insignificant.
What we are doing here today is the foundation of providing
transparency and accountability, and we will continue to have
these hearings for as long as it takes.
Mr. Dunham, this Committee has requested documents from the
FBI related to a couple of different categories that I would
like to address with you here today.
One relates to pipe bombs that were placed at the RNC and
the DNC headquarters in January 2021. The second is documents
related to former Special Agent in Charge Charles McGonigal in
the alleged politization of the FBI. So, let's begin there.
On February 2, 2023, the Committee wrote a letter to
Director Wray requesting documents and information related to
the indictment of Mr. McGonigal, the former special agent in
charge. Has the FBI searched for documents responsive to this
request?
Mr. Dunham. We provided an initial response earlier this
year. It was a classified response, providing information about
security steps that we took to mitigate national security
concerns.
As you're aware, the investigation is still ongoing to the
point where Mr. McGonigal has not been sentenced yet, so there
are still some of those Department of Justice considerations
that we are bound by.
I understand that the Committee has additional requests for
information, and I'm happy to continue to provide information.
Once the issue is adjudicated, I'm happy to see what else we
can provide as well.
Ms. Lee. Explain for us, if you would, the distinction in
what you will be able to produce prior to adjudication and
post-adjudication and why.
Mr. Dunham. I'll have to take that back. I'll have to talk
with the folks that are closest to this, closest to the case,
and see what information we can provide.
Ms. Lee. All right. Please, if you would, will be something
that is a subject in a future hearing, should we reconvene on
the subject.
With respect to the pipe bomb investigation, what steps has
the Bureau taken so far to provide the Committee with
outstanding information that was requested in the June 14,
2023, letter?
Mr. Dunham. Sure. So, I was disappointed that we offered a
briefing a couple weeks ago, we weren't able to make schedules
work. I believe we have a briefing scheduled for December 12th,
a couple weeks from now.
We provided an initial response last Congress on this that
went to the heart of what we've done so far on the case, as
best we could. We provided an updated response to Congress.
This is one of those areas where, I mentioned earlier,
we're bound by Department of Justice and the Executive Branch
policies where we have considerations we have to make when
things touch on ongoing investigations. The pipe bomb is very
much still ongoing.
We've been able to make significant accommodation for the
Committee to get this briefing scheduled. I hope it satisfies a
lot of your questions. We'll be waiting and standing by for any
questions that are not answered, to take those back and see how
we can accommodate the Committee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentlelady for her comments, for
reminding us of the tools that were at her disposal, some of
which are at our disposal in this body.
That concludes today's hearing. As with the hearings we've
had over the past year, I'm disappointed in the answers that
have been given, the lack of clarity, and a commitment to
produce the documents that we've requested.
As we near the one-year anniversary of the establishment of
this Subcommittee, we have to consider whether additional
action must be taken to hold accountable those offices, those
officials who are refusing to comply and engaging in what is
essentially the obstruction of justice.
Mr. Ivey. Mr. --
Mr. Cline. The gentleman is not recognized.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight
can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent .aspx?EventID=116616.
[all]