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


                  HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

   SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-78
                               __________

         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
                    
55-746                    WASHINGTON : 2024   


                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
MATT GAETZ, Florida                      Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
CHIP ROY, Texas                          Georgia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ADAM SCHIFF, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             ERIC SWALWELL, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          TED LIEU, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  BECCA BALINT, Vermont
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacancy

                                 ------                                

            SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  LINDA SANCHEZ, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida           GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             DAN GOLDMAN, New York
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
              CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
           CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, May 15, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of Ohio.     1
The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the Virgin Islands........................................     4

                               WITNESSES

Robert J. Costello, Partner, Davidoff Hutchner & Citron LLP
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10
James Trusty, Member, Infra Law
  Oral Testimony.................................................    55
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    59
Gene P. Hamilton, Executive Director, America First Legal
  Oral Testimony.................................................    68
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    70
Jill Wine-Banks, Legal Analyst, MSNBC
  Oral Testimony.................................................    90
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    92

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee 
  on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below   139

Materials submitted by the Honorable Stephen Lynch, a Member of 
  the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Massachusetts, for the record
    A letter to Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, Mar. 20, 
        2023, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio, the Honorble Bryan 
        Steil, Chair of the Committee on House Administration, 
        and the Honorable Jams Comer, Chair, House Oversight 
        Committee from the State of Kentucky
    A letter to Carey R. Dunne, former Manhattan Special 
        Assistant District Attorney, The Law Office of Carey R. 
        Dunne, PLLC, Mar. 22, 2023, from the Honorable Jim 
        Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the 
        Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of 
        Ohio
    A letter from to Mark Pomerantz, former New York County 
        Special Assistant District Attorney, Mar. 22, 2023, from 
        the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, Mar. 25, 
        2023, from the Hon. Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio, the Hon. Bryan Steil, 
        Chair of the Committee on House Administration, and the 
        Honorable Jams Comer, Chair, House Oversight Committee 
        from the State of Kentucky
    A letter to Mark Pomerantz, former New York County Special 
        Assistant District Attorney, Apr. 6, 2023, from the 
        Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
        the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the 
        State of Ohio
    A letter to Matthew Colangelo, Senior Counsel, New York 
        County District Attorney's Office, Apr. 7, 2023, from the 
        Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
        the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the 
        State of Ohio
    A letter to Theodore V. Wells, Jr., and Roberto Finzi, Paul 
        Weis, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison LLP, May 9, 2023, from 
        the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, 
        U.S. Department of Justice, Jun. 1, 2023, from the 
        Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
        the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the 
        State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, 
        U.S. Department of Justice, Jun. 6, 2023, from the 
        Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
        the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the 
        State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, 
        U.S. Department of Justice, Jun. 9, 2023, from the 
        Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
        the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the 
        State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, 
        Fulton County District Attorney's Office, Aug. 24, 2023, 
        from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, 
        U.S. Department of Justice, Aug. 29, 2023, from the 
        Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
        the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the 
        State of Ohio
    A letter to Jeff Zients, Chief of Staff, The White House, 
        Aug. 29, 2023, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of 
        the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the 
        Federal Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to Jack Smith, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of 
        Justice, Sept. 7, 2023, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, 
        Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of 
        the Federal Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, 
        Fulton County District Attorney's Office, Sept. 27, 2023, 
        from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, 
        Fulton County District Attorney's Office, Dec. 5, 2023, 
        from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to Jack Smith, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of 
        Justice, Dec. 21, 2023, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, 
        Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of 
        the Federal Government from the State of Ohio, and the 
        Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of Committee on the 
        Judiciary from the State of Arizona
    A letter to Nathan J. Wade, Esq., Nathan J. Wade, P.C. 
        Attorney at Law, d/b/a, Wade & Campbell Firm, Jan. 12, 
        2024, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, 
        Fulton County District Attorney's Office, Feb. 2, 2024, 
        from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Fani T. Willis, District Attorney, 
        Fulton County District Attorney's Office, Mar. 14, 2024, 
        from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, 
        U.S. Department of Justice, Apr. 30, 2024, from the 
        Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
        the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the 
        State of Ohio
    A letter to Jeffrey Ragsdale, Counsel at the Office of 
        Professional Responsibility, U.S. Department of Justice, 
        May 6, 2024, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the 
        Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
    A letter to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, 
        U.S. Department of Justice, May 8, 2024, from the 
        Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on 
        the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the 
        State of Ohio, and the Hon. Jams Comer, Chair, House 
        Oversight Committee from the State of Kentucky
    A letter to Nathan J. Wade, Esq., Nathan J. Wade, P.C. 
        Attorney at Law, d/b/a Wade & Campbell Firm, May 9, 2024, 
        from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio
A report entitled, ``Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative 
  Promise,'' Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project,'' 
  2023, The Heritage Foundation, submitted by the Honorable 
  Jasmine Crockett, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of 
  Texas, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable John Garamendi, a Member of 
  the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of California, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Fact-Checking What Donald Trump Said 
        in His 2024 Interviews With TIME,'' Apr. 30, 2024, TIME
    An article entitled, ``Trump's bombardment of dishonesty: 
        Fact-checking 32 of his false claims to Time,'' May 4, 
        2024, CNN
    An article entitled, ``Trump has a bunch of new false claims. 
        Here's a guide,'' Mar. 14, 2024, Washington Post
    An article entitled, ``Trump's false or misleading claims 
        total 30,573 over 4 years,'' Jan. 24, 2021, Washington 
        Post
Copies of campaign emails, submitted by the Honorable Kat 
  Cammack, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of 
  Florida, for the record
    Not received at the time of pubication
An article by entitled, ``AFPI Investigates: Progressive 
  Prosecutors Abusing Their Power,'' Jan. 1, 2021, Center for Law 
  & Justice, America First Policy Institute, submitted by the 
  Honorable Russell Fry, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on 
  the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of 
  South Carolina, for the record

 
                  HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 15, 2024

                        House of Representatives

   Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Massie, 
Stefanik, Gaetz, Armstrong, Steube, Bishop, Cammack, Hageman, 
Davidson, Fry, Plaskett, Lynch, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly, 
Garamendi, Garcia, Goldman, and Crockett.
    Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time.
    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on lawfare. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Steube, to 
lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes himself for an opening 
statement. Does anyone believe if President Trump wasn't 
running for President, that he would be facing four criminal 
trials? Fani Willis announced her investigation in February 
2021, but didn't bring charges until 2\1/2\ years later, after 
President Trump announced he was running for President. 
Attorney General Garland named Jackson as Special Counsel three 
days after President Trump announces that he is running for 
President. Alvin Bragg said he could not see a world, ``he 
could see a world in which he would indict President Trump and 
call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness.'' That is exactly 
what he did after President Trump announces he is running for 
President.
    Alvin Bragg brings a case that the Department of Justice 
wouldn't, that the Federal Elections Commission wouldn't bring, 
that his predecessor, Cy Vance, wouldn't bring, and, as Alvin 
Bragg himself said, he wouldn't bring, but then he did, after 
President Trump announced he was running for President. Some 
might call this an all-election interference. Think about it. 
Mr. Bragg is charging President Trump with conspiracy to impact 
the 2016 election. Ms. Willis and Mr. Smith are charging 
President Trump with the conspiracy to interfere with the 2020 
election. It seems to me the conspiracy is between Bragg, 
Smith, and Willis working to interfere with the 2024 race.
    Of course, none of this is new. In 2016, the Government 
spied on President Trump's campaign. You don't have to take my 
word for it. You don't have to take this Committee's word for 
it. John Durham said it. Clinton campaign paid the law firm 
Perkins Coie, who hired Fusion GPS, who hired Christopher 
Steele, a foreigner, who talked to other foreigners, who put 
together the fake dossier which became the basis for the FBI to 
spy on President Trump's campaign. The basis for a whole 
investigation when we saw text messages back and forth from 
folks on the investigation saying, ``we will stop Trump.'' 
Then, of course, it was the Mueller investigation, 19 lawyers, 
41 FBI agents, $30 million to find nothing, no conspiracy, no 
coordination, and none whatsoever.
    Then, it was impeachment. An anonymous whistleblower, no 
first-hand knowledge, it was biased against President Trump who 
worked for Joe Biden. Talks about a phone call and they impeach 
the President of the United States. Then, they raided his home. 
Broke every protocol and every normal procedure again. Don't 
take our word for it. Steven D'Antuono, FBI Assistant Director 
of the Washington Field Office, told us this in his deposition. 
Then, of course, they tried the 14th Amendment. We will just 
keep him off the ballot. The easiest way to win is not to let 
your opponent play. That is what they tried to do. Thank 
goodness the Supreme Court said no to that, 9 to 0 they said no 
to that. Then, of course, after all of that, after he is a 
candidate, as I said, we get all these cases.
    In Georgia, Fani Willis hires her boyfriend, travels to 
D.C. on the taxpayer dime, meets with White House officials, 
January 6th Committee, all in an effort to target President 
Trump. In New York, gag orders placed on President Trump by a 
partisan judge whose daughter is a Democrat fundraiser while 
Michael Cohen, convicted perjurer, is allowed to post anything 
he wants on social media, say whatever he wants. Not to mention 
the guy who is the lead prosecutor for Alvin Bragg, Mr. 
Colangelo, who worked for Leticia James, then worked for the 
Justice Department, then went back to New York to work for 
Alvin Bragg.
    In Florida, we learn that Jack Smith changed, altered the 
order of the classified documents he seized. The physical 
documents don't match up with the scanned documents. Jack Smith 
didn't properly handle the documents he said President Trump 
didn't properly handle. Jack Smith mishandled classified 
information all while charging President Trump with 
``mishandling classified information.'' You can't make this up. 
Some would call that tampering with evidence.
    Today's hearing is about how the law is being used to 
target political opponents, truly about the weaponization of 
the Government, truly about what this Committee has been 
focused on with this Congress. Obviously, President Trump is 
example No. 1. It is about the double standard, one set of 
rules for the politically connected, the other set for the 
people they want to target. Maybe most important, it is about 
where does all this go? Where does it all go? Because if they 
can do it to a President, they can do it to anybody, anyone of 
us, any of our constituents, any American they want to, and 
that is what is frightening. That is what is truly frightening.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here and talking 
about this most critical issue, how the Government, how the 
agencies, how the law is being turned on people that they 
politically disagree with. With that, I yield to the gentlelady 
from Virgin Islands for her opening statement, the Ranking 
Member, Ms. Plaskett.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much. Good morning to everyone 
that is here with us. Thank you for joining.
    Two weeks ago in this same room, we watched as the 
Republican Majority attempted to use the Congressional hearing 
process to intervene in an ongoing Supreme Court case. 
Republicans here did so by suggesting that they were concerned 
about how social media companies are bullied by the Federal 
Government. In turn, these arguments are operating in the 
interest of securing an open season where Russia and China can 
destabilize our democracy at will in the 2024 election.
    By my Republican counterparts causing people to bully 
social media companies, they want to allow any and all foreign 
adversaries to dump lies and misinformation on social media in 
support of a would-be fascist former President. Now you are 
back. Why are we back this time? We are here because former 
President Trump is on trial in New York. That is why we are 
here. On Monday and Tuesday of this week, his former attorney, 
Michael Cohen, delivered devastating testimony implicating 
former President Trump in a hush money payment scheme. His 
former attorney even had audio recordings of Trump talking 
about those payments. Whether we think the trial in New York is 
a big case or a bad case, the truth remains that the facts in 
the case don't help Donald Trump. We are here because Donald 
Trump knows that the evidence against is plentiful and that the 
testimony of, as my teenage daughter says, literal partner in 
crime in this case is harmful to his criminal defense and his 
political prospects.
    It is not that complicated. The truth hurts. Here is why. 
We all know that the former President exacts loyalty from all 
his followers and especially GOP officials and those that work 
for him, blind loyalty and this case is no different. Many of 
them have high tailed it to New York City to show him that they 
are with him and standing with Donald Trump. Trump, in turn, 
demands that every Republican official serve him like the 
incorrigible, degenerate, spoiled brat that he is, and use 
their positions to aid his criminal defense. Even after the 
embarrassment of recent hearings to date, Donald Trump and his 
cronies don't think that the Chair is doing enough.
    We are here today simply because Donald Trump's sycophants 
have been taunting the Members of this Committee on the GOP 
side and judiciary Republicans for not doing anything tangible 
to defend Trump against our judicial system. Lackeys like 
Natalie Winters, a Trump loyalist and an executive producer for 
Steve Bannon's show have been mocking Chair Jordan's leadership 
of the Committee openly. As you can see up there when the House 
Judiciary tweeted, ``imagine actually believing Michael 
Cohen.'' She retweeted and said, ``Imagine actually believing 
@JudiciaryGOP will do anything about it.'' This is one example 
on Monday. She put that tweet up and then Fox's Maria Bartiromo 
and Steve Bannon himself have gotten into the act. Here they 
are.
    [Video played.]
    Ms. Plaskett. We all heard her. It is not enough to set up 
a Committee just called the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government. That is not doing it. We want action. That is why 
we are here today. We are here at the beck and call of Trump 
fanatics and talking heads on cable and internet talk shows in 
the MAGA world, who like Bartiromo and Bannon, go to this 
Committee to act because the purpose of this Select Committee 
is, in fact, to be an arm of the Trump campaign and take his 
orders. Yes, we know, your mad things are not going your way. 
The Republicans are upset because the Justice Department has 
determined that it must prosecute Donald Trump because the 
allegations against President Biden amount to nothing, both at 
the Justice Department and even in this chamber in the House by 
the very Committees Republicans created to investigate 
President Biden.
    This Committee and Republicans are mad because Robert Hur 
himself a Republican political appointee fully and completely 
exonerated President Biden while specifically outlining a 
Republican appointee, outlining the reasons that Donald Trump 
deserved to be prosecuted and President Biden does not. They 
are mad because he had the gumption--I will use that word, to 
tell the truth as to what facts have been shown Trump to have. 
The Committee wants to allege the fact that Donald Trump 
repeatedly and this was a discussion just in the opening 
statement, talking about Jack Smith and what he did with 
classified information. The fact is that Trump didn't just 
mishandle classified information, he hid classified information 
and legally pertinent documents from the FBI and law 
enforcement. Donald Trump ordered his aides to destroy 
documents and then repeatedly lied about doing so. Donald Trump 
even tricked his own lawyers into making false statements on 
his behalf, potentially implicating those lawyers in his 
criminal schemes. That is why Donald Trump is currently facing 
40 charges in a Federal Court in Florida, for knowingly 
mishandling, withholding, hiding, lying, and destroying 
classified documents in a way that put our national security at 
severe risk. That is why he is facing 34 charges in New York 
State Court for falsifying business records and making hush 
money payments to catch and kill information that would be 
harmful to his reputation and his Presidential campaign. That 
is why he is charged with four felony counts including 
conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to 
obstruct an official proceeding for attempting to overturn the 
2020 election. That is why, despite the machinations and 
attempted character assassination of a prosecutor in Georgia, 
that he is charged with ten counts for attempting to intimidate 
election officials while trying to force them to accept the 
slate of false electors, again, part of his efforts to overturn 
an election.
    Trump is charged in these cases because there is sufficient 
evidence to reasonably believe that he committed almost 100 
serious crimes. In this country, no one should be above the 
law. So, just one little legal lesson, I strongly suspect the 
defendant may be watching or his minions or others, no, Donald, 
even a President can't shoot someone on 5th Avenue in broad 
daylight and get away with it. That is not going to happen.
    To my Republican counterparts in the majority, the claim 
that you want to fight a weaponized Executive Branch, you do so 
by calling in far-right witnesses to spew conspiracies about a 
Deep State or by calling witnesses who have testified under 
oath that they literally are missing parts of their brain, and 
another who self-identified is a time traveler from Canada. 
That, my friends, is the Select Subcommittee on the 
Weaponization of the Federal Government, to be the party of law 
enforcement and be led by a man currently facing 100 serious 
charges. We fail to understand that we are playing White 
Knights for the most radical fringes of our society, while 
making frequent references to Big Brother no less. They 
themselves are a growing embodiment of George Orwell's 1984.
    Now, I have said it before and its people don't know, I 
have been a Republican. I was a Republican appointee when some 
of my counterparts were still in high school. I served a 
Republican President. This is not the Republican Party. This a 
cult of personality where Donald Trump exercises totalitarian 
control. This is a Subcommittee that intimidates witnesses who 
disagree with them, questioning Americans' loyalty to their 
country if they don't support Donald Trump's agenda. This 
Subcommittee is using its platform to bully American people 
into believing falsehoods, falsehoods which serve little 
purpose other than to scare every day Americans, spread 
confusion, and attempt to reelect Donald Trump. It is a 
Subcommittee that is taking orders from a disgraced former 
President. I see Members rolling their eyes. They are all 
upset. Don't believe me? You think I am making up that Trump 
directs the actions of this Select Committee and think that 
everyone is not jumping through hoops to please Donald Trump? 
Follow the facts.
    Who was among the select few Donald Trump called on January 
6th while encouraging thousands of rioters to overtake the 
Capitol and steal the election? Individuals from this Select 
Committee. The Members here have refused to answer a subpoena 
related to that call from Trump and the attack on the Capitol. 
Members of Congress said at rally after rally I am busting my 
tail to get Donald Trump reelected. We need to make sure Donald 
Trump wins. It is so important that we stay engaged and help 
Donald Trump get back the White House. That is what Members of 
this Committee said. It is our duty to call that bias and 
hidden agendas of the Committee. Such sham, solely designed to 
serve as like we have said before as the legislative arm of 
Donald Trump's reelection campaign. That is what this Select 
Committee is.
    This Select Committee's efforts are transparent and you 
know what else? They were expensive. Last hearing we talked 
about the $20 million this Committee has spent already on this 
witch hunt. They still have nothing to show for it which 
explains why we are frantically calling last-minute hearings 
over and over again to distract from Trump's criminal trials, 
just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks, 
anything to try to keep Donald Trump happy. What a strategy and 
what an expensive failure.
    I have tried to use this Committee for the good of 
Americans. I have talked to the Chair and others about 
examining moments in our Nation's history when the powers of 
the Federal Government have been abused. We have seen reports 
that the IRS has a real problem of racial bias in its audits. A 
year ago, the IRS admitted that Black taxpayers are audited at 
disproportionately higher rates than other racial groups. Are 
we talking about that weaponization? Is there a discussion 
about that or any other hearing beyond defending Donald Trump 
and his election? No.
    I applaud the DOJ for not giving into political pressure 
and following the facts where they lead. No one is above the 
law, no matter how hard this Committee tries to make it 
otherwise. Thank you and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. All other opening statements will be included 
in the record. We will now introduce today's witnesses.
    Mr. Robert Costello is a partner at Davidoff Hutcher & 
Citron. He was previously a partner at Levy, Tolman & Costello, 
and served as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of the 
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
    Mr. James Trusty is a Member of the Ifrah Law. He 
previously served as prosecutor for 27 years including as the 
Chief of the Organized Crime Section of the Department of 
Justice and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney.
    Mr. Gene Hamilton is the Executive Director, Executive Vice 
President, General Counsel at the America First Legal 
Foundation. He previously served as Counselor to the U.S. 
Attorney General, Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and as a Senate aide.
    Ms. Jill Wine-Banks is an attorney and MSNBC legal analyst. 
She previously served as a Federal prosecutor in the Illinois 
Attorney General's Office and as a General Counsel of the 
United States Army under President Carter.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing 
today. We will 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 are 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. You can now be seated. Thank you. Please know 
that your written testimony will be entered into the record in 
its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you to summarize your 
testimony as best you can, and we will just move right down the 
list, or right down the line, I should say. We will start with 
Mr. Costello.
    Make sure you hit your mic, turn your mic on, and pull it 
real close. Hit the button. See the button there in front? Yes. 
There you go.

                STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. COSTELLO

    Mr. Costello. OK. Thank you. My name is Bob Costello. I 
have been an attorney for 51 years and I am a former Assistant 
U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where I was 
Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. I am not, not now nor 
have I ever been, an attorney for Donald Trump, any of his 
family members, or any of his businesses. I have represented 
quite a number of high-profile individuals, but never Donald 
Trump.
    During the period April 2018-July 2018, I represented 
Michael Cohen. Today, I can talk to you about what Michael 
Cohen told my law partner and me, because Michael Cohen waived 
the attorney-client privilege, at the request of the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The 
reason was Michael Cohen had pled guilty to eight felony counts 
in the Southern District and was seeking to lessen his sentence 
and he thought he could be clever by going into the U.S. 
Attorney's Office and lying about cooperation.
    Michael Cohen went to the U.S. Attorney's Office and 
accused Rudy Giuliani and me of conspiring to obstruct justice 
by tampering with a witness, namely, Michael Cohen. The story, 
which they were floating at the time and his lawyers put out in 
the various newspapers, was that we had dangled a pardon under 
Michael Cohen's nose to keep him quiet so that he wouldn't 
testify against Donald Trump. When I received a call from the 
U.S. Attorney's Office saying, ``Bob, we would like to talk to 
you about your representation of Michael Cohen,'' I said to 
them and I presume that you guys are sitting there with a copy 
of the waiver of the attorney-
client privilege? They said you presume correctly. I told them 
to scan it over to me and once I received it, I would be 
delighted to talk to them, and I did.
    I went down to 1 St. Andrew's Plaza with a lawyer who had 
been the Chief of the Criminal Division when I was Deputy 
Chief, Tom Fitzpatrick, and on the way into the office he said 
to me, ``Bob, aren't you nervous?'' I said ``what for? I am 
going to tell the truth and I have documentary evidence that 
corroborates me six ways from Sunday.'' I said ``there is 
nothing to be nervous about. In fact, I will bet you $10 I will 
have these people laughing within five minutes.'' I won the 
bet.
    I went up and I saw with two Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Tom 
McKay and Nick Rose, as well as two FBI agents whose names, 
unfortunately, I don't remember. We had a grand old time. I 
explained our entire history with Michael Cohen through emails 
and text messages. I explained the many, many lies that Michael 
Cohen told us. Most especially, I told them that when we first 
met Michael Cohen in April 2018, keeping in mine now that I 
read Michael Cohen's testimony from yesterday's trial in New 
York on the way down on the train, and virtually every 
statement he made about me was another lie, a lie that can be 
proven not just by me denying it, but by myself, Jeff Citron, 
or Rudy Giuliani, or emails, or text messages, virtually every 
statement that he made.
    What he tries to do is he picks out, cherry picks certain 
emails or text messages and tries to make them look like 
something else. The story he told yesterday was that Rudy 
Giuliani and I were somehow conspiring to try and keep him 
quiet, to try and keep him from flipping. That is the term we 
use in the trade for cooperating. That is ridiculous. The first 
day that we met with Michael Cohen at the Regency Hotel at his 
request and his email correspondence that shows this, we went 
up there. I had never met Michael Cohen before. I didn't have 
any idea who he was or what sort of problem he was in. I saw 
this guy in a conference room at the Regency Hotel marching 
back and forth like a tiger in a cage. He was absolutely manic. 
He looked like he hadn't slept in four or five days, and he 
knew my partner, Jeff Citron, for 10 years. I didn't know the 
guy. He kept on pounding on the table throughout his speeches 
that day, guys, I want you to know I will do whatever the F-- I 
have to do, I will never spend one day in jail. He had to say 
that at least 10 times, maybe 20. It was his constant litany as 
he walked back and forth.
    So, I said, ``Michael, sit down, we need to discuss what is 
going on here.'' He told us about the raid, that his offices 
had been raided, his home had been raided. He said, ``I didn't 
do anything wrong, guys. I don't know what they are looking 
for. '' I said,

        Michael, the people in the Southern District of New York are 
        very smart people. They got a search warrant for a lawyer's 
        office. You can't do that just by going to the U.S. Attorney. 
        You need to go to Main Justice and get approval from Main 
        Justice. You need to show them that you have proof that the 
        crime has been committed, and that evidence of that crime is 
        going to exist at the site to be examined.

I said so, Michael,

        These people that you did something wrong. What is it? This is 
        protected by attorney-client privilege.

It was until he waived the attorney-client privilege. ``I swear 
to God, Bob, I didn't do anything wrong. In fact, I am 
cooperating with the Special Counsel. I am cooperating with 
Congress.'' Of course, he forgot to tell us that he lied to 
Congress, but that was part and parcel of the way Michael Cohen 
is.
    So, I sat him down and I said,

        Look, Michael, clearly, here, you are not the target. Nobody 
        has ever heard of Michael Cohen. But you are the lawyer for 
        President Trump and clearly, that is their target and let me 
        explain to you how things work. When they get a search warrant, 
        they are looking to gather evidence. They already have evidence 
        against you for something, but you haven't told us what it is 
        and they are going to roll over you. You are just a bump in the 
        road. Their target is Donald Trump. So, I want you to think 
        carefully now.

    By the way, up to this point, he had told us when he 
introduced himself to us, that two nights before he was on the 
roof of the hotel of the Regency Hotel, seriously considering 
jumping off, committing suicide because he couldn't handle the 
pressure of the legal problems that he saw coming his way. What 
he wanted to find out from us that day was his escape route. 
That is what he called it. Guys, you have to tell me what my 
escape route is. What can I do to get out of this? I did.
    My obligation as a lawyer at that point in time was to 
explain to him what his options were. Clearly, one of his 
options was to cooperate and I said to him, I said,

        Michael, the way this works is if you have truthful information 
        about Donald Trump that is clearly what they are looking for. I 
        can have all your legal problems solved by the end of the week.

His response, I swear to God, ``Bob, I don't have anything on 
Donald Trump.'' I said, ``Michael, I want you think carefully 
about this.'' I probably came back to this subject 10 or 20 
times during the two-hour period. Every time I brought it up, 
every time he answered, ``I swear to God, Bob, I don't have 
anything on Donald Trump.'' I said,

        Michael, whatever you have has to be truthful. If you think you 
        can go in there and tell these people lies, you are crazy. It 
        is going to backfire on you. You can't do that. So, do you have 
        anything on Donald Trump?

Probably the fifth or the sixth time I got around to doing 
that, he said, ``Well, I know that money is missing from the 
Trump Inaugural Ball.'' I said, ``Is Donald Trump involved in 
that?'' ``No.'' Does Donald Trump know anything about that? 
``No.'' I said,

        Michael, that is useless. You are not going anywhere with that. 
        You asked me for your escape route. I am telling you your 
        escape route. All you have to do is be truthful if you have 
        some real evidence on Donald Trump.

His litany was the same all the time. ``I don't have anything 
on Donald Trump.''
    This is exactly the opposite to what I saw him say on TV, 
he was telling the Grand Jury in Manhattan and the District 
Attorney's Office. He said, ``I went in there, I believe if my 
memory is correct,'' 20 times including two appearances in the 
Grand Jury, 18 times preparation sessions with the DA's Office. 
I was sitting at home listening to this, and I said that was 
nonsense. That is not what he told Jeff Citron and me.
    I decided at that point in time, I have got to make it 
known to both the defense and the prosecution what the real 
story is, who this guy really is. So, I provided all this 
material to Donald Trump's lawyers and I provided it to the 
Manhattan DA's Office, and I asked for a meeting with District 
Attorney Bragg because I wanted to go in there, let him look me 
in the eye, and let me explain all the stuff that we had on 
Michael Cohen that showed that he is an inveterate liar, the 
guy can't be trusted. Bragg turned me down. What he did say was 
I will let you have a meeting with the Assistant District 
Attorneys.
    Now, when the Trump people--
    Chair Jordan. We need you to--
    Mr. Costello. I am sorry. When the Trump people heard about 
all of this, they insisted as was a right under the law that 
the DA put me before the Grand Jury. So, I was scheduled for a 
Monday. On the Friday before, I gave the DA's Office the 
courtesy of a Zoom conference for about an 1\1/2\ hour. Eight 
Assistant District Attorneys and me on the other end. I 
explained--they didn't ask, really ask me any questions. They 
just said, ``what do you want to say?'' Nice warm greeting to 
somebody who is trying to show them the right path, quietly and 
privately, so that they could correct their error before they 
made it. Here is what happened.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. We will stop there, Mr. Costello. We will get 
back to you during the questions.
    Mr. Costello. Did I run out of my time already?
    Chair Jordan. A little bit. A little bit. A little bit.
    Mr. Costello. I had eight minutes. This says I have 1:38 to 
go or am I 1:38 over?
    Ms. Plaskett. One thirty-eight over.
    Mr. Costello. I am sorry.
    Chair Jordan. That is fine. That is fine.
    Ms. Plaskett. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Point of order.
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Ms. Plaskett. Will the witnesses all be given seven to 
eight minutes? What is that?
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Ms. Plaskett. It's usually five. So, we didn't know that in 
advance to be able to tell the witness--
    Chair Jordan. We are going to give a little extra time. I 
gave you 14--
    Ms. Plaskett. She didn't have time to prepare 8 minutes of 
testimony, opening statement.
    Chair Jordan. Well, she's a smart lawyer. She can probably 
ad lib for a few minutes, if she would like, but that is 
totally up to her.
    Ms. Plaskett. Well, we would like it to be something more 
than ad lib, as we just heard testifying--
    Chair Jordan. We--listened to you talk for 14 minutes and 
14--
    Ms. Plaskett. That's called an opening statement. I'm 
allowed to talk as long as I want.
    Chair Jordan. I know, and I was fine. I allowed you go 14 
minutes and 14 seconds.
    Ms. Plaskett. You can. You have to let me go for 14 
minutes, if that's what I want to do.
    Chair Jordan. Exactly, exactly.
    Ms. Plaskett. You should let us know--
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Trusty, you are recognized for your 
opening statement.
    Ms. Plaskett. The courtesy of advance notice would have 
been helpful.

                   STATEMENT OF JAMES TRUSTY

    Mr. Trusty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Jim Trusty. 
I've been an attorney for 35 years. I spent my first 20 as a 
local and Federal prosecutor in Maryland, and in both roles I 
was fortunate enough to be involved in some fairly complex or 
weighty prosecutions.
    It starts with the usual misdemeanors and routine felonies, 
but I was able to do a ``no-body'' child murder case, as well 
as numerous RICO cases against MS-13. I personally led three 
different penalty prosecutions, as a Federal prosecutor.
    In 2011, I moved over to D.C.--against my better judgment 
maybe--but I came over to the Department to work at Main 
Justice with some other folks that I knew from Maryland and 
became the Chief of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, which 
was a fascinating job that I enjoyed for about 7\1/2\ years.
    I was able to manage a group of prosecutors that handled 
international, national, and regional organized crime cases 
against everything from MS-13 to Barrio Azteca, the Mafia, and 
international white-collar conspiracies.
    I was also during this time a Senior Member of the Attorney 
General's Death Penalty Review Committee, helping the Attorney 
General decide whether to pursue the death penalty against 
folks like the Boston Marathon Bomber and the Charleston church 
shooter, among other numerous lower-profile cases.
    If my memory serves, I served under seven different 
Attorney Generals. In 2017, I left for Ifrah Law, a boutique 
litigation shop, where I've represented everything from 
international gaming institutions to white-collar executives, 
to human trafficking victims, and in 2022, for about a one-year 
period, President Donald J. Trump.
    On August 8, 2022, I became deeply involved in the Mar-a-
Lago case involving President Trump, and I've given significant 
detail in the written statement, which I can't even begin to 
full broach in a summary, but I'll try to hit some highlights.
    I wrote that statement. I took the time to write that 
statement because I think it's important for you and for the 
American people to have specific evidence, to have details to 
support the conclusion that the Department of Justice is acting 
in a weaponized fashion when it comes to a candidate for the 
Presidency of the United States; this is, in fact, lawfare in 
its rawest form.
    The Mar-a-Lago case is plagued with singular moments where 
prosecutors took incredibly aggressive, and I would say, 
prejudicial steps--the likes of which I had never seen in 35 
years of practice on both sides of the aisle.
    The politicization, actually, began with the National 
Archives and Records Administration, whose Director ended up 
making a historic and first-time criminal referral, based on 
his stated concern--his overstated concern--that he had 
received documents from President Trump that were, in fact, 
marked classified within 15 boxes given to him in January 2022.
    The reality is every modern-day President has also turned 
over boxes or groups of materials that included documents 
marked classified, but in this case NARA acted alarmed. Recent 
litigation in the Southern District of Florida has suggested 
that, in fact, the White House helped spur this referral on to 
the Department of Justice.
    Once in the hands of the Department of Justice, the lead 
prosecutor reportedly, according to The Washington Post, fought 
with the FBI to immediately jump to the perch of doing a 
criminal search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. He was talked out of 
that, apparently, in a heated conversation and still relied on 
a criminal enforcement tool, which is a grand jury subpoena, to 
begin this process of gathering documents by force and by use 
of criminal sanction.
    For brevity's sake, I'm just going to highlight three 
examples of what I think are singular treatment of President 
Trump that I document in my written submission.
    The first is the abuse of process in grand jury. Again, 
grand jury is usually fairly opaque to the defense side. We 
don't see everything that happens there, but we had some 
glimpses of the behavior, the threats, and the conduct of 
prosecutors.
    The one I would highlight today was the presentation of Tim 
Parlatore, a former Trump lawyer as well, a friend of mine, who 
went into grand jury and was asked by the Department of Justice 
attorney I think 48 times--I might be off by two or three--but 
48 times he was asked questions that clearly led to an 
invocation of attorney-client privilege.
    Those questions are unethical on their face. A prosecutor 
should not be in front of a grand jury purposefully eliciting a 
known privilege, but they were comfortable with this in this 
setting in Washington, DC, that we are in.
    After 48 times, including Mr. Parlatore telling the 
prosecutor at times, ``What you're doing is unethical. You need 
to stop,'' she said, ``Well, if your client is so cooperative, 
why won't he just waive his privilege?'' Now, that's kind of a 
nice political point or a layman's point, but for lawyers and 
for people that worked in the Department of Justice, they know 
that is flat-out unethical. The idea that you would try to draw 
a negative inference from a legitimate invocation of counsel, 
is an outrageous moment. That's just one that we had visibility 
into.
    Second, I would point to Jack Smith's near obsession with 
having a, quote, ``speedy trial'' in the January 6th case. Now, 
the speedy trial right is derived, historically, from a 
defendant who is incarcerated, who has the pyrrhic victory of 
going to trial a year or two later and being acquitted. The 
question, of course, becomes, ``Well, what do I do with that 
free time? I just served for a year or two.''
    That's why we have a constitutional and statutory speedy 
trial right. It is invoked by defendants or waived defendants 
every day in Federal Court. What you don't see every day in the 
Federal Court is a Federal prosecutor for a nonincarcerated 
defendant insisting on having a speedy trial, when the 
Department of Justice, in fact, has its own guidelines to avoid 
charging decisions and trials on the eve of elections.
    Instead, we had Jack Smith pushing with all his might, 
pushing the Supreme Court to expedite a hearing that was still 
in front of the D.C. Court of Appeals, and only angrily losing 
that battle, apparently, when the Supreme Court took up the 
question of immunity.
    Third, I would point out from my summary is something that 
came from a respected lawyer in Washington, DC, who represented 
Walt Nauta, who I think the Department of Justice viewed as 
kind of the ``keys to the kingdom'' in their investigation into 
President Trump, a person that they were intent on flipping at 
all costs, and eventually charged.
    This lawyer was the subject of an extortionate ploy. I have 
no other way to phrase it than that. He was brought in very 
early into his representation to the Department of Justice, 
where he met with Jay Bratt and about five or six other 
prosecutors in the room.
    Mr. Bratt had a folder open that appeared to be information 
not about Mr. Nauta, but about Mr. Woodward, the lawyer. He 
looked at this, according to Mr. Woodward, and said, ``I see 
that you have a pending application for judgeship with 
President Biden. I don't take you to be a Trump lawyer. I would 
hate to see you blow it. You need to flip Walt Nauta against 
President Trump.''
    That sequence of events, which has not been fully 
investigated to my knowledge or fully litigated, but has been 
presented and has been publicized, is a devastating indictment 
of the willingness of a Department of Justice attorney--with 
others around him--to engage in, essentially, extortion or 
bribery, or whatever you want to call it, or obstruction. The 
enforcers of obstruction, in fact, were willing to obstruct 
justice because of an ``ends justify the means'' mentality.
    So, that brings me to just talk for a couple of minutes 
about what I think the cost of lawfare is and really why I'm 
here, which is not for any sort of personal gain or political 
moment for me. Lawfare in its form with the Department of 
Justice in criminal cases is an effort to manipulate law as a 
way of targeting an individual who's despised by the user.
    Justice and the concept of rule of law rely on honest cops 
and principled prosecutors to follow evidence and to make 
impartial determinations as to accountability. It is evidence-
driven, not animus-driven. That's why I'm here.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Trusty follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Trusty. Appreciate that.
    Mr. Hamilton, you are recognized.

                 STATEMENT OF GENE P. HAMILTON

    Mr. Hamilton. Thank you. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Plaskett, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank 
you for inviting me to testify on this important matter.
    The American people and American society have flourished 
for nearly 250 years--not because of some accident, but because 
of the grace of God and the brilliance of our Founding Fathers, 
who created a system uniquely designed to foster the ideal 
conditions for individual liberty, human success, and societal 
flourishing.
    The system was always predicated on the continued existence 
of a just and moral society, where action and the pursuit of 
justice and morality would counteract the worst of human 
ambition. It was also predicated on the continued existence of 
a Federal Government strong enough to do what the government 
had consented to in the Constitution, but not so omnipotent as 
to be able to undermine the liberties of the individuals and 
the States. It was also predicated on a recognition that the 
concentration of power in the hands of a few was a recipe for 
tyranny.
    Of course, the mere existence of words on paper alone does 
not guarantee any individual's rights. Rather, it has been 
action, taken by principled people, that fulfills those 
guarantees and secures those individual liberties. Put 
differently, in America, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of 
our Founding Fathers, our Davids have always had a chance 
against our Goliaths.
    Sadly, we live in unprecedented times, where the 
concentration of power in the Federal Government, particularly 
in the Executive Branch under President Biden's leadership, has 
served as the fulcrum through which other powers in society 
oppress the individual and undermine the foundation on which 
our national success resides.
    The Biden Administration, and most notably, the Department 
of Justice, appears to have embarked on a journey of political 
persecution of those with whom it disagrees--with the end 
result being the total social, economic, and political 
domination of the populace.
    Beyond its attempts to silence and imprison its political 
opposition, the Biden Administration has engaged in an 
obsessive-compulsive campaign of division and spoliation of the 
public fisc, based on the immutable characteristics of American 
citizens. Its efforts are incessant and relentless.
    We live in a time in which any attempt even to describe the 
current state of affairs gets labeled as disinformation, 
misinformation, malinformation, and worthy of censorship--or 
worse, content worthy of subjecting an individual to criminal 
prosecution.
    Memes are prosecuted. Business leaders are subjected to 
intrusive investigation solely because of their outspoken 
views. Actual peaceful protestors are imprisoned. All the 
while, violent and repeat criminals run free in major cities 
across the United States.
    In this new and unprecedented world, everyone, including a 
former President of the United States, is threatened by the 
Federal Leviathan and private elites who seek total domination 
and control over every aspect of human life.
    The political persecution of President Trump by the Biden 
Administration is unlawful, unprecedented, and un-American. 
These prosecutions must end.
    Make no mistake, the American people must understand the 
intended impact of the Administration's conspiracy extends far 
beyond any personal consequence to President Trump. Instead, 
the intended result is to chill dissent, silent speech, and 
convince the American people that the weight of the Federal 
Government can be forcefully weaponized against anyone who 
stands in the way.
    President Trump is in the Administration's crosshairs to 
discourage anyone--now or in the future--from challenging the 
Administration's agenda. The Biden Administration must not be 
allowed to indict, and potentially imprison, its political 
opposition with impunity.
    My written statement highlights just three glaring 
problems, examples of lawfare that are being used against 
President Trump.
    (1) The Biden White House granted an illegal special access 
request to allow the Department of Justice to illegally obtain 
access to President Trump's records.
    (2) The Biden Administration is prosecuting President Trump 
based on an erroneous and faulty interpretation of the 
Presidential Records Act, and actually provides individual 
bureaucrats with greater control over their records than 
President Trump.
    (3) The Biden Administration has weaponized a white-collar 
criminal statute for the first time in history to attack 
President Trump and others.
    There's so many more examples. The average American citizen 
residing outside of the Beltway, away from the isolated, 
elitist bubble where ends justifying the means seem to be a 
mantra for many, is tired of watching institutions they once 
trusted violate the law and undermine the critical components 
of the Constitutional and social constructs that made ours the 
greatest country in history.
    The remaining issue, then, is: What must be done? The time 
is now for institutional ambition to counteract institutional 
ambition, for Americans to stand up unafraid and unapologetic 
for the values that they hold dear, and for our Republic to 
reject the radical weaponization of the Executive Branch.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
    Ms. Wine-Banks, you are recognized.

                  STATEMENT OF JILL WINE-BANKS

    Ms. Wine-Banks. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, the 
Members of the Committee, thank you for letting me be here 
today to talk to you.
    My parents raised me to believe in the Office of the 
Presidency and all the Members of Congress, and I still feel 
that way today. They encouraged me to engage in public service, 
and most of my career has been in that.
    Fresh out of law school, I joined the Department of Justice 
as a prosecutor in the Organized Crime Section and carried 
those beliefs with me. I served a short time under President 
Johnson, and then, under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Regardless 
of who the President was, I knew that my job, like that of 
every Federal prosecutor, was to pursue the truth and justice, 
and to assure that everyone was treated equally under the law.
    The rules of the Department of Justice and those of the 
Watergate Special Prosecutor, a team where I served a few years 
after joining the Department of Justice, required the same. 
Those rules require that no investigation be opened without 
reasonable cause; no indictment be brought without a high 
probability of conviction, and that prosecutors speak only 
through the indictment, if there is one. In that process, 
politics and bias have no role.
    Those rules have not changed in the over 50 years since 
then. I think I am the lawyer here with the longest tenure. DOJ 
prosecutors weigh incriminating and exculpatory facts and 
analyze if those facts prove all the elements of a crime beyond 
a reasonable doubt before they decide to indict or not.
    As my mentor and my first supervisor at Justice Chuck Ruff 
said, ``my job was to do justice, not to win cases.'' Today's 
DOJ is doing exactly that.
    Your Committee's website said today's hearing is to examine 
the use of lawfare tactics to weaponize the rule of law. I 
admit I had to look up what ``lawfare'' meant in that context. 
I found out that lawfare was a use of tactics to weaponize the 
rule of law against opponents.
    I have seen no lawfare tactics in today's DOJ or in any of 
the Special Counsels' decisions regarding the cases against 
former President Donald Trump or its decisions about President 
Biden and Vice President Pence. I see no double standard, no 
selective prosecution, and no weaponization.
    If we could just go back to the era of Watergate when facts 
were agreed on, when bipartisanship existed, it would be 
obvious why the Department of Justice was justified in 
investigating Trump, Biden, and Pence, but justified only in 
indicting former President Trump.
    The standards for deciding to prosecute or decline to do so 
were the same for President Biden, former President Trump, and 
former Vice President Pence, but the facts differed so greatly 
that the results had to be different. They were judged under 
the same standard, but the facts made the prosecution decision 
different.
    Let's look at the distinguishing characteristics of the 
case against President Biden and the one against former 
President Trump--in the hope that we might all agree on at 
least some of these facts.
    When NARA discovered that former President Trump possessed 
documents that he should have returned to them when he left 
office, they asked him to return them. He refused. Had he 
voluntarily returned them, he would have avoided prosecution, 
as did President Biden and former Vice President Pence.
    Instead, Mr. Trump returned some, but hid others, even from 
the FBI during their execution of a lawful warrant granted by a 
court. That added the crime of obstruction to those of 
espionage. That conduct shows willfulness and knowledge and 
constituted aggravating factors that required the Special 
Counsel to seek an indictment against the former President, as 
they did for Sandy Berger and General Petraeus, whose 
indictments demonstrate a lack of a double standard or 
selective prosecution. So, too, do the indictments not in 
documents cases, but in other cases against two Democratic 
Members of Congress right now and against the President's son.
    In contrast, the facts of President Biden's possession of 
documents are very different. His staff, not NARA, found the 
documents, informed the President, who then had them 
immediately notify the proper authorities. Biden, then, 
cooperated fully with those officials. He hid nothing, allowed 
numerous searches of all his offices and homes without need for 
a warrant. He returned everything, and even during a national 
crisis created by the attack of Hamas on Israel, President 
Biden sat for lengthy interviews. The former President did none 
of that. He did the opposite.
    The Special Counsel investigating President Biden, Robert 
Hur, a Republican who Trump had appointed as the U.S. Attorney 
for the District of Maryland, concluded no criminal charges 
were warranted and emphasized these and other factual 
distinctions between Trump and Biden--differences that 
undermined any allegation of selective prosecution, double 
standards, or bias. As Hur wrote,

        Trump is in a wholly different category than either Pence or 
        Biden in terms of retention and concealment and destruction.

    In my many years of experience, nothing justifies allowing 
anyone to be above the law and evade accountability for alleged 
criminal conduct, especially a former President who is 
responsible for seeing that our laws are faithfully executed.
    No one is above the law. Accountability is necessary for 
the rule of law and democracy to survive. There is an 
existential danger in not proceeding where an investigation 
reveals facts and evidence of a crime. Doing so only emboldens 
future miscreants.
    I believe that the Department of Justice is making 
investigative and prosecutorial decisions solely based on the 
evidence and the law--not on a preconceived notion or a 
political agenda. I have seen no evidence to the contrary in 
the case against Defendant Trump. He is entitled to due process 
and the presumption of innocence, as are all criminal 
defendants--no more and no less.
    I am thrilled to be here in your search for facts and 
truth. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wine-Banks follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Wine-Banks.
    We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I was told that I had to keep to under five 
minutes and I did that.
    Chair Jordan. No, you didn't.
    Mr. Issa. No.
    Chair Jordan. You went seen minutes and two seconds, but it 
was fine, nonetheless.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    It's one of those funny things about written statements; 
people often come, and they haven't timed them.
    Ms. Wine-Banks, you, obviously, began your career, 
relatively early in your career, with the Watergate 
investigation. Wasn't one of the major things that President 
Nixon was accused of the weaponization of government, using the 
IRS, and so on? Wasn't that part of the final impeachment 
draft?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Right. I was not directly involved in the 
impeachment within the prosecution--
    Mr. Issa. OK. I just--
    Ms. Wine-Banks. --but you are correct the impeachment 
charged misuse of power.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    So, we are exactly where you started your career, ma'am. We 
are seeing the weaponization. Richard Milhous Nixon was 
accused--and there was plenty of evidence--that he thought the 
IRS and other tactics would be perfectly acceptable against his 
political enemies. Here we are again.
    So, one of the questions I'm going to ask--all of you are 
attorneys, is that correct? All of you understand the ethics of 
the American Bar Association. All of you understand the 
question of what can be waived in attorney-client privilege, 
correct?
    I'll go right down. Ms. Wine-Banks, is it, in fact, your 
prerogative to waive attorney-client privilege? Do you have 
that right under the ethics rules?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I do not.
    Mr. Issa. Correct.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Only my client does.
    Mr. Issa. Exactly. Only your client can waive it.
    Mr. Hamilton, the same, right?
    Mr. Hamilton. Correct.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Trusty?
    Mr. Trusty. The same.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Yes, which is why I have a written document 
waiver with me.
    Mr. Issa. So, although you have a waiver from your client, 
your client--well, let's just say Mr. Cohen did not have a 
waiver from President Trump, is that correct?
    Mr. Costello. Absolutely.
    Mr. Issa. Have any of you, either individually or seen 
other people, other attorneys, other than Mr. Cohen, tape their 
client, and then, turn it over for prosecution or other use--
ever? Any of you? Never?
    Mr. Costello. No. No.
    Mr. Issa. Ms. Wine-Banks, it's kind of interesting that 
what hung President Nixon was, in fact, to a great extent, the 
tapes he made, but he made them, correct?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. He made them and they were evidence of 
crime. So, they fall within a crime-fraud exception and they 
proved the crime. They were the actual commission of crime.
    Mr. Issa. Exactly. Thank you very much. Mr. Costellano 
(phonetic)--
    Mr. Costello. Costello.
    Mr. Issa. Costello, I'm sorry. I'll take my reading glasses 
off. I'll do much better.
    We're dealing with an unusual situation. We have a 
President, a former President, who was never charged with any 
crimes until he announced and became the lead candidate to run 
for President, is that correct?
    Mr. Costello. Yes. Quite a coincidence.
    Mr. Issa. Yes, but I don't believe in coincidences 
happening that often.
    Mr. Costello. Neither do I. Neither do you.
    Mr. Issa. So, the question I have for you here today is: 
Have you ever seen uncoordinated a series of State and Federal 
indictments of any candidate or any other person like this, 
where they are indicted in a State they never went to; they're 
indicted for documents that they had in their possession that 
they say they declassified, and that they have a right to 
declassify? They get indicted for a misdemeanor that has 
already run its statute of limitations, but, by linking it to a 
Federal offense, which the State doesn't have the right to 
charge, they make the case and they're now trying that. Have 
you ever seen anything close to that in your decades of 
practice?
    Mr. Costello. No, not at all.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Trusty, have you ever seen so many 
indictments that are novel in how they're put together?
    Mr. Trusty. I have not. I'd maybe use the word 
``inventive.'' Either way, I'm with you on the point.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Hamilton, have you ever seen--and you're 
apparently the junior one here--have you ever seen or 
researched or learned about such a broad array of novel or 
inventive prosecutions as President Trump is dealing with?
    Mr. Hamilton. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Issa. Ms. Wine-Banks, I respect your years of 
practicing as an attorney. Have you ever seen so many charges 
coming, dating back so many years, but only coming to pass at 
this time?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I have.
    Mr. Issa. When did you see them.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Well, let's go back to the fact that it 
takes a long time to investigate; that there was reason for, 
for example, in the New York--
    Mr. Issa. No, I was asking for--I was asking for another 
example. Since you don't have one, let me just close.
    I've been up here for 24 years. I was a soldier when Nixon 
was President. I'm appalled that what began with Watergate as a 
legitimate scandal of the wrongdoing has now become an 
organized weaponization by this President and his Department of 
Justice.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Goldman from New York for his five 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you very much.
    Election interference, huh? That's what this is all about? 
Ms. Wine-Banks, there are four indictments against Donald 
Trump, is that right?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Correct.
    Mr. Goldman. Those, all four of those investigations 
started long before he announced his candidacy for President, 
is that right?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. That is correct.
    Mr. Goldman. In fact, he announced his candidacy for 
President two years before the election just so he could bring 
in three witnesses and the entire Republican Party to say 
election interference, election interference.
    These investigations long predated it, and this was a 
specific and obvious tactic of Donald Trump to be able to make 
a political defense that will never be allowed in a court of 
law, as Mr. Trusty and Mr. Costello know full well. All because 
he wanted to co-opt this notion of election interference 
because he is a candidate.
    Let me tell you what is really election interference. 
Withholding military aid to an ally in the middle of a war to 
coerce and extort a foreign government to investigate a 
political opponent. Welcoming a foreign country to illegally 
interfere in our election and then using that interference for 
his own benefit, as Donald Trump did with Russia in 2016.
    Spend 1\1/2\ year on a completely bogus impeachment 
investigation into the President without finding a single piece 
of evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, the Chair of this Committee 
said the best evidence of President Biden's wrongdoing was a 
completely false accusation planted by Russia just before the 
2020 election. Interesting timing.
    As usual, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are accusing the Democrats of doing all their misconduct 
that they engage in over and over and over in an effort to 
normalize it, in an effort to deflect attention from their own 
wrongdoing. It is right in authoritarian 101 playbook.
    Let's talk about this two-tiered system of justice. Let's 
talk about lawfare.
    Mr. Costello, your entire opening statement, as I heard it, 
was simply to discredit Michael Cohen. Sir, I think you are in 
the wrong place. Michael Cohen is currently on the witness 
stand at a trial in Manhattan.
    If you have information about Michael Cohen's testimony, 
you should talk to Donald Trump and his lawyers to see if they 
want to call you as a witness to impeach Michael Cohen.
    That coming down here, outside of that courtroom while that 
witness is on the stand to try to impeach his credibility and 
his testimony is jury tampering. It is unethical that you are 
trying to discredit a current witness at a current trial who is 
testifying right now outside of that courtroom. You know 
better, and it is shameful.
    Mr. Trusty, you and I worked together at the Department of 
Justice. We had a number of interactions related to organized 
crime. I had no idea what your politics were. I imagine you had 
no idea what my politics were. Because it didn't matter.
    It is very interesting to hear you now nitpick about the 
Speedy Trial Act and about what you claim to be unprecedented 
conduct in Mar-a-Lago.
    I am confident you never came across anyone who refused a 
request to voluntarily return classified materials, who refused 
to comply with a subpoena for those classified materials, and 
who was found to intentionally conceal and hide and obstruct 
justice by concealing those classified documents.
    You have never come across, that is unprecedented I am 
certain, because that is a clear predicate for a search 
warrant. When someone obstructs justice, refuses to comply with 
a subpoena, and Mr. Issa can make up all the facts that he 
wants about declaring it to be classified because he thought it 
or whatever it is. That will be decided in court.
    All these cases will be decided in court by a jury based on 
facts, evidence, and the law. All the Republican Majority is 
trying to do here today is lawfare, is interfere in ongoing 
criminal investigations that our system is perfectly well-
equipped to handle.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back. I now recognized Ms. 
Stefanik for five minutes.
    Ms. Stefanik. Oh, I love being able to respond to the 
novice from New York. First, thank you so much for stating the 
obvious, that political lawfare is in fact election 
interference. That is what we are seeing with the sham Alvin 
Bragg trial.
    Thank you also to the novice freshman member for New York 
highlighting that withholding military aid to an ally for 
political purpose, just like Joe Biden is doing to Israel, 
always grateful for you stepping in it.
    Mr. Costello, in your opening statement, you said that in 
the over 50 years serving as a lawyer, you

        Have never seen the types of politically motivated cases that 
        have been brought in this Presidential election season. These 
        political cases are being used as a weapon of war to damage, 
        defeat, or impede political adversaries and their allies. 
        Instead of political warfare, it is lawfare, a cancer upon our 
        collective judicial system.

    I want to begin with Alvin Bragg's weaponized sham trial in 
New York. Isn't it true that in Alvin Bragg's campaign for 
Manhattan DA, Bragg specifically ran on going after President 
Donald Trump?
    Mr. Costello. That is true.
    Ms. Stefanik. Isn't it true that Bragg's predecessor, Cy 
Vance, declined to prosecute President Trump?
    Mr. Costello. That is true.
    Ms. Stefanik. The SEC also did not prosecute President 
Trump.
    Mr. Costello. That is true.
    Ms. Stefanik. The DOJ did not prosecute President Trump in 
this case.
    Mr. Costello. The DOJ, referring to the U.S. Attorney for 
the Southern District--
    Ms. Stefanik. Correct.
    Mr. Costello. Absolutely true.
    Ms. Stefanik. One of the reasons the Southern District of 
New York turned down this case was because the supposed star 
witness, according to Alvin Bragg, Michael Cohen was totally 
``unworthy of belief.'' Isn't that true?
    Mr. Costello. Without a doubt.
    Ms. Stefanik. This is the same Michael Cohen who pled 
guilty to seven counts in an indictment that had absolutely 
nothing to do with President Trump and actually predated the 
first time he met President Trump, correct?
    Mr. Costello. Absolutely true.
    Ms. Stefanik. In fact, this the same Michael Cohen who 
perjured himself to Congress, isn't that true?
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. In fact, when called as a witness in this 
sham trial, Cohen was asked directly if he was honest during 
his testimony to Congress. He said ``no,'' admitting perjury.
    It is not just Bragg's case that is a total sham and 
illegal political lawfare going after Joe Biden's top political 
opponent, Donald Trump. This rock goes deep, all the way up to 
the top and the Oval Office.
    Because when Congress referred this admission of Cohen's 
perjury to Joe Biden's DOJ, isn't it true that the DOJ has 
refused to prosecute?
    Mr. Costello. That is true.
    Ms. Stefanik. Isn't it correct that Michael Colangelo, who 
was the third highest ranking official in Biden's DOJ, was 
transferred to Bragg's office to run this weaponized 
prosecution of President Trump, isn't that true?
    Mr. Costello. Not only true, but it is unheard of.
    Ms. Stefanik. Unheard of. It is a disgrace. Do you agree 
that this weaponization of lawfare goes straight to the top 
with a purpose of helping Joe Biden's failing Presidential 
campaign?
    Mr. Costello. The circumstantial evidence definitely 
supports that.
    Ms. Stefanik. The unconstitutional gag order on President 
Trump from New York Judge Merchan is unprecedented lawfare.
    Mr. Costello. As far as I know, absolutely.
    Ms. Stefanik. Let's go to the daughter of the judge. Isn't 
it true that she is raising millions of dollars off this sham 
case?
    Mr. Costello. Well, I have to say I have read that in the 
media. I don't know it for my own knowledge.
    Ms. Stefanik. It is true.
    Mr. Costello. Thank you.
    Ms. Stefanik. One additional question. I want to talk about 
the rigged and unprecedented jury selection process. Isn't it 
true that Bragg's team asked the jurors if they followed Trump 
on social media?
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. Isn't it true that they did not ask any of 
the potential jurors if they followed Biden on social media?
    Mr. Costello. Or Michael Cohen, yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. Or Michael Cohen. Isn't it true that 87 
percent of the jurors said they voted for Joe Biden?
    Mr. Costello. That is true.
    Ms. Stefanik. Is this unprecedented and lawfared jury 
shopping?
    Mr. Costello. Without a doubt.
    Ms. Stefanik. Without a doubt. Political lawfare for the 
purpose of election interference to go after Donald Trump, do 
you agree?
    Mr. Costello. Totally.
    Ms. Stefanik. This is one of the reasons that Trump's polls 
continue to skyrocket, and it is why President Trump will win 
in 2024 to end the illegal and war weaponization of the justice 
system. Because if they can illegally go after Trump, they can 
go after anyone.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for five minutes.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan started this hearing by saying, ``You can't 
make this stuff up.'' Anyone who has followed this Committee's 
hearings since the beginning knows that that is exactly what 
the Republican Members are doing in this Committee, who have 
been making this stuff up day after day and pushing out 
untruths, from Jewish space lasers to the Big Lie.
    The Big Lie, let's start with that one. The claim that 
Biden lost the election and Trump really won. In spite of the 
fact that Rudolph Giuliani and his crew brought 60 cases in 
five different States, lost every single case, lost every 
single case. Even before Trump-appointed judges, lost every 
single case that they brought for lack of evidence.
    Some of these cases didn't even survive a motion to 
dismiss. There was just no evidence. Yet, my colleagues on the 
other side, including the Chair, Mr. Jordan, continue to push 
that big lie that Trump really won the election.
    Let's talk about Hunter Biden's laptop. We don't talk about 
that. That was the smoking gun, that was the thing that was 
going to prove all these theories about wrongful conduct on the 
part of the President.
    Then, oh and then, there was Alexander Smirnov, who Chair 
Jordan said he represents the most corroborating evidence that 
we have. The most corroborating evidence we have, until he was 
arrested. He was indicted and arrested. He is still in custody, 
your star witness, your star witness. This is baloney.
    Hannah Arendt, who was a historian who was in Germany at 
the time of Hitler's rise, she wrote a book about the origins 
of totalitarianism. She talked about the active, aggressive 
capability to believe in lies. Not just gullibility, but the 
active, aggressive capability to believe in lies.
    Just as in Germany, the time and the truth catch up to all 
those lies. There are some good people on the other side of the 
aisle. I just worry about your reputations and your families' 
reputations about pushing this crap.
    We can disagree about things, but when you are pushing 
stuff like that that is our harmful to our democracy, and you 
are following, of all people, following Donald Trump, dear God. 
Dear God almighty. That is where you are going to--you are 
going to die on that hill? You are going to die on that hill?
    Sometimes when someone accuses you of something that you 
are not doing, they are the ones who are actually doing it. We 
are here today to talk about the so-called weaponization of the 
Federal Government.
    So, I have here a compilation of letters and interventions 
that Chair Jordan has authored and submitted to the four cases 
that are ongoing right now. Three of them are Federal, one of 
them is a State criminal trial. These are all criminal trials 
in which Donald Trump is a defendant.
    So, these all represent either threatened subpoenas or 
attacks on--or other types of legal, I guess you would call it 
lawfare, lawfare. Attacks on the courts, the prosecutors, and 
in some cases witnesses.
    So, even up to last week, Mr. Jordan was calling for the 
investigation of Michael Cohen. Before he is a witness about to 
take the stand, and Chair Jordan went so far to send a letter 
to the Department of Justice demanding that it investigate 
former Trump attorney Michael Cohen for perjury. That was last 
week, before he took the stand.
    Talk about interference with the legal process and lawfare. 
That is what is going on in this Committee. To be honest with 
you, we got--I agree with Maria Bartiromo, her frustration. We 
got better things to do than this circus.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
Florida is recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. From the testimony of Michael Cohen's lawyer, 
Mr. Costello, ``These days you see individuals running for 
prospective office who claim that if you elect me, I will bring 
down this public figure or that public figure who disagrees 
with my political philosophy.

          Understand that to destroy a political rival, you need not 
        convict that person of a crime. All you must do is leak the 
        fact that the individual is being investigated for a particular 
        crime, thereby destroying his or her reputation and causing 
        that individual to incur legal fees to defend themselves.

          The net result is if you can destroy their reputation and 
        bankrupt them with legal fees, you have effectively eliminated 
        or canceled your opposition without ever convicting them of a 
        crime or getting a civil judgment against them.

    Mr. Costello, I just wanted to say, I felt very seen by 
your testimony that was provided to the Committee. I want to 
get back to what Mr. Lynch said previously. That sometimes when 
you are accused of something, it is actually the people 
accusing you who are doing that thing.
    Now, you were accused of illegally dangling a pardon before 
Michael Cohen, right?
    Mr. Costello. Correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. That was a lie.
    Mr. Costello. Absolutely.
    Mr. Gaetz. That accusation could not withstand any scrutiny 
or review from the Southern District of New York, where Mr. 
Goldman worked, where other great attorneys have worked, right?
    Mr. Costello. Where I worked.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right, but that dangling, that accusation of 
dangling something improper. Remember what Mr. Lynch said, ``if 
you are being accused of that, maybe it is the people doing the 
accusing.''
    Now, Mr. Trusty, you described a searing fact pattern 
moments ago. You accused a Department of Justice official of an 
extortionist ploy to dangle a judgeship before a lawyer to get 
that lawyer to betray their client Walt Nauta, right?
    Mr. Trusty. Yes. I have no reason to disbelieve that 
lawyer.
    Mr. Gaetz. Who was the Department of Justice official that 
engaged in that extortionist ploy?
    Mr. Trusty. Well, the lead person in that conversation was 
Jay Brad, who is still currently assigned to the Southern 
District of Florida case.
    Mr. Gaetz. For those of you who have been prosecutors, who 
have dedicated your lives to the rule of law, what does it tell 
us about the shape of the legal system that you have people 
with the ability to do what Mr. Costello laid out in testimony. 
To charge you with a crime, destroy your reputation, bankrupt 
you like they are trying to do to Walt Nauta, a patriot who 
served in our military.
    Then to see--and to hear this claim that they were 
literally trying to compromise the lawyer. How should we 
reflect on a legal system that permits that?
    Mr. Trusty. It is broken. I had a friend of mine from the 
Department of Justice text me not too long ago, and he said it 
is going to take decades for the Department to fix itself. I 
love that place. I worked there; I was a prosecutor for 27 
years.
    I am fearful that we have crossed the Rubicon by being ends 
justify the means, by engaging in selective targeting and 
differential treatment. I don't know how it ends or how it gets 
better, but I am happy to least bring evidence about that 
issue.
    Mr. Gaetz. That is why these hearings are so necessary. I 
think that we would love to stay well-constrained within our 
Article 1 lane, but when we have got this Article 2 process 
that is unloading on political rivals in Article 3 courts, as 
Mr. Costello said,

        The only way to have a check and a balance on that system is 
        for the Congress to step forward and utilize its tools, the 
        most profound being the power of the purse.

Indeed we have powers of impeachment and oversight that are 
important as well.
    Mr. Costello, is Michael Cohen a liar?
    Mr. Costello. That doesn't begin to describe him. He lies 
at every opportunity when it is in his favor. If you had a half 
an hour or five minutes, I could start to list the many lies 
that he told us.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, let's just triage them. Is there a single 
branch of government that Michael Cohen hasn't lied to?
    Mr. Costello. Gee, I think there isn't.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right, you really have to work hard to hit the 
hat trick. It is one thing to lie to investigators. I guess it 
is another thing to lie to Congress. To lie to investigators 
and then Congress and then courts.
    Mr. Costello. Don't forget the judges.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, the judges--
    Mr. Costello. He lied to the judge too, when he pled 
guilty.
    Mr. Gaetz. It is just so odd. It is not every day you see 
someone's former lawyer having to come forward and say I 
regrettably have to inform the Congress, the court, whomever, 
that my own client I am aware is a liar.
    Mr. Costello. Thank goodness he was foolish enough to 
execute the waiver of the attorney-client privilege, because he 
was trying to implicate Rudy Giuliani and myself in a crime, 
which was absurd.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, he even lied about that. He even lied about 
trying to turn on you. I guess his lies are defied by his other 
lies and the writings and the paperwork. This liar should not 
be able to hold our elections hostage. That is why this hearing 
is so critical.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from--
Gentleman from Massachusetts for a point of order. Or unanimous 
consent?
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, I will ask unanimous consent to 
submit a compilation of your statements and letters to the four 
trials in which Donald Trump is currently the defendant.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentlelady from 
Florida is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, you should recuse yourself. These are 
all your letters.
    Chair Jordan. Was that part of the unanimous consent 
request? I didn't hear that, if it was. The gentlelady from 
Florida is recognized.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    My Republican colleagues claimed a two-tiered system of 
justice exists because Trump was indicted for his handling of 
classified documents and exposing our Nation's most guarded 
secrets, while Republican Special Counsel Robert Hur found 
President Biden innocent of any wrongdoing.
    Let's walk through the facts. On May 11, 2022, a year after 
the Archives began repeatedly demanding that Trump turn over 
Presidential records and warned him that they may have to refer 
the matter to DOJ if he did not cooperate, a grand jury issued 
a subpoena for Trump to produce the classified documents in his 
possession.
    Trump's response to his lawyers was, and I quote,

        I don't want anybody looking. I don't want anybody looking 
        through my boxes, I really don't. I don't want you looking 
        through my boxes.

Trump even questioned,

        What happens if we don't respond at all or don't play ball with 
        them? Wouldn't it better if we just told them that we don't 
        have anything here? Well, look, isn't it better if there are no 
        documents?

Does this sound like someone who follows and respects the law? 
I certainly don't think so.
    Ms. Wine-Banks, President Biden didn't refuse to cooperate 
with investigators for a year, correct? Did President--
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did President Biden lie about 
classified documents at his residence, or did his lawyers 
proactively inform the Archives of this fact?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. You have stated it correctly.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Unlike Donald Trump, Joe Biden 
didn't prevent anyone from going through any boxes or materials 
to search for classified documents, correct?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. He welcomed them to his house and his 
offices.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Now, let's contrast how 
Donald Trump acted compared to President Biden.
    On June 2, 2022, even after Trump's lawyer arranged a time 
to go through each box in a specific storage room, Trump 
instructed his valet and codefendant Walter Nauta to move 64 
boxes filled with classified documents from the storage room to 
Trump's residence, where Trump knew his attorney would not be 
searching.
    After Nauta moved these boxes from the storage room to 
Trump's residence, Trump's lawyers, unaware that the boxes had 
been moved, found no classified materials, and certified this 
to the FBI. The FBI relied on the lawyers' certification.
    Seemingly for the moment, Trump duped his own lawyers. All 
that activity took place in my home State of Florida, yet my 
Sunshine State law-and-order colleagues on other side of the 
aisle uttered not a complaint about Trump's obvious coverup of 
criminality and wrongdoing. I know that is shocking to everyone 
here.
    Talk about two tiers of justice. Now, so we are clear about 
this, please share with me, Ms. Wine-Banks, did President Biden 
ever move materials to hide them from his lawyers, according to 
the Hur investigation?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. No.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did he ever instruct anyone else to 
do so for him?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. No.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did he ever attempt to hide 
documents from investigators at all?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. No.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK, continuing on, in another act of 
deception, Donald Trump also, ''attempted to delete security 
camera footage at the Mar-a-Lago Club to conceal information 
from the FBI and grand jury.'' This was after the subpoena had 
been issued, which specifically called for security camera 
footage around the site where the boxes were store.
    President Biden didn't delete security camera footage 
around the sites where classified documents had been stored in 
his home, Ms. Wine-Banks, correct?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. President Biden never attempted to 
delete or dispose of any evidence that he knew investigators 
asked for, correct?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. This isn't a two-tiered 
system of justice. These are just two men who acted very 
differently, one compliant, one criminally obstructive.
    One is an upstanding American civil servant who fully 
cooperated with an investigation, and the other is a man who 
took multiple criminal actions to cover up his intentional 
theft of sensitive public and national security documents.
    Ms. Wine-Banks, prosecuting a President or former President 
comes with many challenges, as you well know as a member of the 
team that prosecuted President Nixon. In your experience, what 
would be the impact on our judicial and democratic systems if 
presidents could never be held accountable?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I think the consequences and the danger of 
that are enormous. I have long believed that a former President 
takes the role of any ordinary citizen and can be held 
accountable.
    I also believe that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion is 
incorrect, and that even a sitting president could be held 
accountable. That there is no possible way that even within the 
outer parameters of a President's responsibilities is the 
commission of crimes. That when the evidence of crimes is 
there, they must be pursued in order to protect our democracy.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Wine-Banks. I think 
it is important to point out that the most clear evidence of 
why we are here on a Wednesday, for the first time, by the way, 
which, not uncoincidentally happens to be the day that the 
court is not in session and make it more likely that defendant 
is watching, that the purpose of this hearing is to witness 
tamper.
    The purpose of this hearing is to try to influence the jury 
to do things that Donald Trump has a gag order to prevent him 
from doing, all with his lackeys here on the other side of the 
aisle aiding and abetting that goal.
    Thank you, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Trusty, did Joe Biden keep classified documents?
    Mr. Trusty. Yes, he did.
    Chair Jordan. Did he knowingly disclose classified 
information?
    Mr. Trusty. It appears that he did to a biographer for 
about an $8 million advance fee.
    Chair Jordan. What was his motive for doing so?
    Mr. Trusty. About an $8 million advance fee.
    Chair Jordan. The $8 million motive to do, to knowingly 
keep and knowingly disclose classified information.
    Mr. Trusty. Correct.
    Chair Jordan. He is getting nothing because he is a 
forgetful elderly gentleman and he is not going to be charged. 
Yet, they are going after President Trump.
    Let me ask you this, I want to go back to where Mr. Gaetz 
was. Who is Stanley Woodward?
    Mr. Trusty. Stanley Woodward is a defense attorney in 
Washington, DC, with a stellar reputation for honesty, very 
intelligent guy. Someone I met during the process of 
representing President Trump.
    Chair Jordan. In the context, Mr. Gaetz was just at, he is 
the one who had the judgeship dangled in front of him, right?
    Mr. Trusty. Exactly. He had a Superior Court Judgeship 
pending at the time, so that wasn't out of thin air. He 
reported it promptly and eventually swore an affidavit to a 
Federal judge.
    Chair Jordan. Here is what the Department of Justice said 
to him, ``Your guy Walt needs to flip. I would hate to see you 
jeopardize your chances for the judgeship.'' It doesn't get 
much plainer than that, does it?
    Mr. Trusty. Does not.
    Chair Jordan. Is that lawfare at its worst?
    Mr. Trusty. Among other words, yes.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, I have never seen anything like that. 
You have worked with Mr. Woodward. He is not necessarily on the 
Republican side of the aisle, is he?
    Mr. Trusty. My best guess is he is not.
    Chair Jordan. He is not. He is a good, honest lawyer, the 
way the Justice Department is supposed to operate.
    Mr. Trusty. He is, and I think he, typical for him being 
the person he is of integrity, he doesn't like being in this 
position. He is probably not thrilled that I am even talking 
about it. The truth is the truth.
    Chair Jordan. The truth is the truth.
    How about this, Mr. Costello: ``I swear to God, Bob, I 
don't have anything on Donald Trump.'' Who said that?
    Mr. Costello. Michael Cohen about 10-20 times.
    Chair Jordan. So, not just once, multiple times he told you 
that while you were his attorney, while you were in 
consultation with your client, he said that multiple times.
    Mr. Costello. He not only said that multiple times, but he 
said that after I said to him, knowing that he was suicidal, 
``Michael, think about this: Isn't it easier to cooperate 
against Donald Trump than it is to kill yourself?'' He still 
said, ``I swear to God, Bob, I don't have anything on Trump.''
    Chair Jordan. When you laid it all out, you said, dude, you 
better cooperate. If you have got something truthful on the 
President, you better let me have it or you are in trouble, and 
he came back with the exact same statement, ``I swear to God, 
Bob, I don't have anything on Trump.''
    Mr. Costello. That is correct. That was my obligation to do 
that, to fully inform him of what his escape route was, as he 
called it.
    Chair Jordan. Then he changed his story, right? Then he 
went on to change his story.
    Mr. Costello. He changed his story. He turned around--and 
he's the only one who can do that. You have to believe Michael 
Cohen, in order to convict Donald Trump, if there's actually a 
crime there, which there isn't but that's an issue for an 
appellate court.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. I want to read another statement, 
another line from your statement. You said, ``Alvin Bragg 
refused my offer.''
    Mr. Costello. Right.
    Chair Jordan. What was the offer?
    Mr. Costello. My offer was to come to his office and sit 
down, let him look me in the eye and see if I'm telling the 
truth when I had all these documents showed that Michael Cohen 
simply was not a reliable witness, that his predecessors in the 
Southern District of New York decided after they spoke to me 
with the FBI that Michael Cohen wasn't reliable. They never 
used him again for anything.
    Chair Jordan. Why wouldn't Alvin Bragg talk to you? Why do 
you think?
    Mr. Costello. You have to ask him that. I talked to eight 
of his assistant DAs.
    Chair Jordan. What was that reception like?
    Mr. Costello. I gave them a Zoom conference interview for 
an hour-and-a-half before I testified in the Grand Jury on 
Monday. Then on Monday when I testified in the Grand Jury they 
did everything in their power not to ask me the questions that 
would elicit the exculpatory information.
    Chair Jordan. Is this the same information you took the 
Southern District of New York?
    Mr. Costello. It is.
    Chair Jordan. They were happy to get it.
    Mr. Costello. Exactly.
    Chair Jordan. What did they decide? What did the Southern 
District--
    Mr. Costello. They decided they did not use my Michael 
Cohen for anything again.
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Costello. They didn't proceed against Donald Trump for 
anything.
    Chair Jordan. They saw what anyone with common sense would 
see, that we can't make this guy our star witness in a 
prosecution. We can't do that. They didn't do it. They didn't 
bring any charges, right?
    Mr. Costello. That's correct.
    Chair Jordan. Even Alvin Bragg understood that. Alvin Bragg 
said, quote,

        He could not see a world in which he would indict Trump and 
        call Mr. Cohen as a prosecution witness, but then he changed 
        his mind.

He didn't change his mind until after President Trump was an 
announced candidate for President, which I think underscores 
this fundamental point this is all about politics. That is your 
experience dealing with Mr. Bragg and his team, is that right, 
Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Absolutely. There's no coincidences here. The 
fact that Judge Merchan has had all these cases--and by the 
way, when he finishes with the Donald Trump case, Steve Bannon 
is next. Out of all the judges in New York County, somehow, 
they keep on coming up with the same judge. Coincidence?
    Chair Jordan. I don't think so.
    Mr. Costello. I believe in him.
    Chair Jordan. I think it is all coordinated.
    Let me just in my last eight seconds, Mr. Trusty, let me 
just ask you this: When the prosecution alters the sequence and 
the order of the documents they seized in a raid that broke all 
precedent in what they did, the physical documents don't match 
up with the scanned documents. Is that a problem?
    Mr. Trusty. It is. We view the materials almost like carbon 
dating. You could see dates of newspaper articles, you'd see 
photographs, you'd see an item marked classified. The exact 
context is an important part of the proof for the government as 
well as the defense--for the defense attorneys. So, altering 
that and not being able to retreat back to some sort of 
recreation is a serious problem.
    Chair Jordan. You see the irony, don't you, the irony of 
Jack Smith mishandling documents all the while he is charging 
President Trump with mishandling documents? I don't think that 
is lost on anyone.
    Mr. Trusty. Well, remember it came out in the context of 
correcting a prior statement to the court that there was not a 
problem with mishandling the documents.
    Chair Jordan. Oh, so they--even worse, or even better, I 
guess, it is even--
    Mr. Trusty. Let's go with the worse.
    Chair Jordan. --it would be funnier if it wasn't so true. 
My time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
    Gosh, Ms. Wine-Banks, I am listening to this, and I guess I 
am supposed to be persuaded that the only liar on the platform 
is Mr. Cohen. Now, help me reflect a little bit because I want 
to make sure my memory serves me well. Did the former President 
of the United States, Donald J. Trump--was he found guilty of 
lying and massive fraud by the State of New York?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. So, he lied?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. He did.
    Mr. Connolly. He was found guilty of it?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. So, we can speculate about others, but in 
this case, we have a record. Was he fined for that? He was 
probably given a little slap on the wrist, right?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. They gave him a huge slap on the wrist and 
in one of those cases the judge said that Michael Cohen was 
credible. So, we have that affirmation of his credibility. The 
prosecution doesn't pick the witnesses; the defendant does. 
Witnesses who are cooperating were former coconspirators and 
they do act in furtherance of the conspiracy and in aid of 
their coconspirator, in this case Mr. Trump.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, my, my, my. So, we can have this 
theater about a particular witness and his credibility, but we 
actually have a rendering, a judgment rendered in the court in 
New York in a case brought by the Attorney General of New York. 
Is that correct?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. That is correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Right. Apparently, they are all engaged in a 
conspiracy against this poor innocent former President of the 
United States. Was that same individual, the former President 
of the United States, also found guilty in a different court of 
defamation? Defamation being you liked about somebody.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. He was found guilty?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. He was found guilty of that and of sexual 
assault.
    Mr. Connolly. Of sexual assault? Oh. Well, was he fined for 
that?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Very large fine.
    Mr. Connolly. Another large fine? So, he lied about his 
business and was convicted of committing civil fraud in the 
State of New York and fined almost--well, with interest and 
everything close to a half a billion dollars?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Had to post--had to actually post a bond to 
make good as a surety on that. Is that correct?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. That is correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Now, the title of this Subcommittee, Select 
Subcommittee is ``Weaponization''--the false premise being that 
the Federal Government is all organized to weaponize against 
innocent, especially right-wing victims. Now, if I told you, 
given your background, that someone running for President of 
the United States has said I will be dictator on day one, out 
of his own mouth, and we know that there are plans to create 
huge detention camps that could hold and process millions, not 
thousands, of immigrants in the United States, and they have a 
plan to politicize the 2.2 million Federal employee workforce 
by creating a new schedule, Schedule F, and initially start 
with 50,000 political employees appointed rather than civil 
service career professionals, would I be fair to say that 
sounds like weaponization to me?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. It does. Project 2025 is very scary to me, 
and it includes a weaponization attempt through the Department 
of Justice. It says in plain language that's what they intend 
to do if Donald Trump is reelected.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, if I were to read--I could read a 
series of quotes to you, but I will give--``If I happen to be 
President and see somebody who's doing well and beating me very 
badly, I say go down and indict them. They would be out of 
business. They'd be out of the election.'' You know who said 
that?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. No.
    Mr. Connolly. Donald Trump, ``On day one of my new 
administration I will direct the Department of Justice,'' this 
Department of Justice Mr. Trusty and Mr. Costello want to 
preserve --

        On day one of my administration I'll direct the Department of 
        Justice to investigate every radical district attorney and 
        attorney general for their illegal racist enforcement of the 
        law.

You know who said that?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I'm going to guess it was Donald Trump.
    Mr. Connolly. Does that sound to you like the weaponization 
of the Department of Justice, to go after political enemies or 
perceived opponents?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. It does.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the Chair.
    Mr. Trusty, is it true or do you believe; I am going to ask 
you to speculate on something, that some of these cases are 
going to get overturned even if they do get a prosecution in 
their current venue?
    Mr. Trusty. Yes, I do think that when prosecutors are being 
inventive for historically important prosecutions that they can 
collapse of their own weight. Maybe that is for misconduct in 
Georgia, maybe that's for a novel felonization of misdemeanors 
in New York, but I do think that it puts a lot of pressure on 
the Appellate Courts. They may well get to that point where 
trial judges go along with the game but the Appellate Court 
does not.
    Mr. Massie. So, isn't it a characteristic of lawfare 
sometimes that you don't really care how the case is going to 
end up, that the process is the punishment?
    Mr. Trusty. Sure. Look, for any client it is strain and 
stressful to go through an accusation and a trial. It's got to 
be particularly maddening when you're running for President to 
be going through that, to be tied up in New York courtrooms for 
most of the day. So, yes, it is--there's a win without a win 
for the proponents of lawfare sometimes.
    Mr. Massie. Mr. Hamilton, I want to talk about the Special 
Counsel Office in general. The Appointments Clause of the 
Constitution says,

        The President shall nominate and, with the advice and consent 
        of Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public ministers, 
        and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other 
        officers of the United States.

Are U.S. attorneys nominated by the President and confirmed by 
the Senate according to the Appointments Clause?
    Mr. Hamilton. In fact, they are.
    Mr. Massie. U.S. attorneys are held to the Appointments 
Clause because they are delegated some part of the sovereign 
power of the United States such as the ability to make 
indictments and charge individuals with crimes. Was Jack Smith 
nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the Senate?
    Mr. Hamilton. He was not.
    Mr. Massie. He was merely given the powers of the Special 
Counsel by Attorney General Garland, wasn't he?
    Mr. Hamilton. That's correct.
    Mr. Massie. I think it is kind of a fallacy that we--
Congress can create this special office and that it will be 
free of any political bias. Do you believe that Special Counsel 
Jack Smith is acting independently of the White House?
    Mr. Hamilton. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Massie. What leads you to believe that he is not?
    Mr. Hamilton. So, it's not only the novel application of 
some of these statutes to former President Trump. Twisting 
statutes that this Congress wrote, twisting the meaning of 
plain language. You have sections like 15(12)(c), interpreting 
the Presidential Records Act in a way that precludes Donald 
Trump from deciding which records are his. There are all kinds 
of different things that he's doing. I would say that the 
manner in which they've been acting, as my colleagues on this 
panel have testified to, the manner in which they have 
conducted themselves in their investigation every step along 
the way, whether it's cataloging evidence or whether it's 
statements to the court and everything in between--Jack Smith 
is acting like a partisan hack. He has a record of that--doing 
so in the past.
    Mr. Massie. According to your reporting Jay Bratt, a top 
aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith, met with the White House 
officials multiple times including just weeks before Special 
Counsel Smith indicted President Trump. It is hard to say that 
he is independent if these meetings are in fact going on, isn't 
it?
    Mr. Hamilton. That's correct.
    Mr. Massie. I think maybe we need a hearing later to talk 
about this office itself and how it has been weaponized.
    I am going to yield my remaining time to the Chair.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Trusty, you have talked about earlier Jack Smith's 
obsession with getting this trial done before--in a speedy 
fashion, I think before the election is--it seems to me that in 
and of itself--all of them are concerned these trials may not 
happen before the--why does that matter? We want justice done 
right. That should be the focus, not some artificial timeline.
    Mr. Trusty. I think the speedy trial demand betrayed the 
political underpinning of the entire process. There's no reason 
for a Federal prosecutor with a nonincarcerated defendant to 
say anything.
    If I could just for a quick sec--the model here--there was 
a real obvious model that would have given us all more faith in 
this process. That is full transparency on behalf of the 
Department of Justice. Coming to court and saying we're turning 
over everything in discovery, we're ready for trial, but, 
judge, you tell us. We'll show up when we need to show up. 
We're here for small ``j'' justice, not capital ``J'' justice, 
as we say at DOJ. That's the problem. That model of 
transparency and openness, not fighting special master 
supervision, not appealing everything, not trashing Judge Canon 
in Florida, that's what we could have had some respect for and 
some belief that the process is playing out fairly.
    Chair Jordan. If you only bring charges after he announces 
for President, then of course you want the trials before the 
election. That seems so obvious I think to anyone with common 
sense. That is what they are trying to do.
    Now, the good news is it is all falling apart. It is all 
falling apart, which when you have these kinds of cases, maybe 
that is what we should have probably expected in the end.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    To the witnesses, good morning. I apologize, I have a 
competing hearing that I have to play dual role here this 
morning.
    While I missed your opening statements, I certainly have 
looked at what you were prepared to testify to. Frankly, I have 
some questions, but I am just still astounded to hear that some 
of my colleagues are questioning the timing of the charges and 
all this poor little Donald Trump got indicted story, their 
claim that there is a two-tier system of justice all because 
the twice-impeached former President was indicted on charges 
for mishandling of classified documents and Biden was not. That 
is the bottom line. Biden and Pence were not. It is ridiculous. 
I don't say that as a Democrat or as a Member of Congress. I 
say that as a former judge responsible for upholding our 
Constitution and the rule of law.
    Apparently, my Republican colleagues need a refresher on 
criminal law. To convict someone of a crime a prosecutor must 
prove each element of that criminal act beyond a reasonable 
doubt. Prosecuting someone under the relevant statutes in these 
cases a prosecutor would have to prove willfulness. Defendants 
would have to have willingly withheld these documents.
    Mr. Hur's report cleared President Biden of wrongdoing, but 
boy, oh boy, did Trump willfully steal and conceal--new mode of 
operation there, steal and conceal his documents. In his words 
when he realized he had the document in his possession, he 
didn't call authorities to come get them, like President Biden 
or Vice President Pence did to correct the problem. No, he 
thwarted every attempt to have Federal prosecutors from coming 
in. Reports say he said, quote, ``What happens if we just don't 
play,'' with investigators and that he didn't want anyone 
getting, quote, ``His documents.'' His documents. He has some 
strange belief that classified documents are his and his only.
    So, he lied to his lawyers, and he lied to the FBI 
pretending he didn't have any more documents when in fact he 
instructed his aide to hide those documents around his unsecure 
property in Florida. We have all seen the pictures. He threw 
them in bathrooms and bedrooms, in a building that had tens of 
thousands of people come through, where 150 members of his 
staff worked.
    This isn't a two-tiered system of justice. It is just the 
criminal justice system evaluating the facts, facts Republicans 
apparently seem uninterested in and want to totally ignore 
because facts aren't what matter to my colleagues across the 
aisle as they have proven today. Regardless of how much they 
try, in America no one is above the law, not even a former 
twice-impeached President.
    Ms. Wine-Banks, you were a prosecutor that worked on the 
Watergate case. As a former prosecutor can you speak to what is 
needed to prove willingness and do you think that it can be 
proven in this case with the classified documents?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Absolutely. I think some of the conduct, 
which all occurred after he was out of office, including the 
concealing of the documents, including telling people to delete 
the video, including everything that he did to make sure that 
things weren't found--he hid documents from his own lawyer by 
moving them from where he knew his lawyer would be searching, 
he caused his lawyer to file a false statement to the FBI about 
here's the documents we have. Those are all evidence of his 
knowledge and his willfulness. He knew he had those documents. 
He knew he didn't want them to be turned over.
    If I could just add, the Presidential Records Act is 
something that was passed as a result of Richard Nixon's 
conduct, and so I'm very familiar with it. It extends to not 
just classified documents, but to all the records of a 
President. So, he was holding many, many documents that should 
have been turned over as a routine matter when he left the 
White House.
    Ms. Garcia. This is opposed to how Vice President Biden and 
former Vice President Pence handled the request?
    Mr. Wine-Banks. That is correct. In the case of Biden the 
Special Counsel investigating concluded that there was no 
evidence of willfulness that could establish beyond a 
reasonable doubt that he had any knowledge or willfulness in 
possessing those documents. There were even specific findings 
about things like his diaries, which have long been held since 
Ronald Reagan was President to be the personal possession. 
Those are personal documents. The President--former President 
Trump tried to say everything is my personal documents. That's 
not how it works. Personal documents are like diaries and 
handwritten notes.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, thank you. I am running out of time, but 
would you say that there really--I don't even know what this--
what are they calling it? Legalfare or--
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Lawfare.
    Mr. Garcia. Does that word even make sense?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Well, I had to look it up. It's not one 
that I had ever heard except in terms of the Lawfare Blog. So, 
I looked it up and I was quite surprised at what its meaning 
was in terms of weaponization. As I was being asked earlier, 
the Project 2025 is the weaponization of government.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, they are talking about this from someone 
whose found--countless and countless and countless of lawsuits 
against contractors, against property owners. He is Mr. Lawsuit 
himself. So, thank you so much for being here today.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Thank you.
    Ms. Garcia. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Costello, I would like--I am over here on 
this end, sir.
    Mr. Costello. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. I want to distinguish something. It is 
extremely bad judgment to put an inveterate well-known liar on 
the stand. It is bad judgment for a lawyer to do that because 
that person is subject to impeachment for his lies. That is 
true, right?
    Mr. Costello. It is true.
    Mr. Bishop. For his lies. That's right, right?
    Mr. Costello. It is true.
    Mr. Bishop. OK. An impeachment for those watching. That's 
when you destroy the credibility of a testifying witness, 
right?
    Mr. Costello. You do. You also destroy the credibility of 
the office which is why we wanted to sit down with Alvin Bragg.
    Mr. Bishop. Absolutely. There's another problem with doing 
that, isn't there? That is to say that the witness might give 
false testimony while on the stand. That's something yet 
further. How many lies did you testify Cohen testified to 
yesterday in New York court?
    Mr. Costello. Well, I only read the section that involved 
me. Virtually every statement that he made about our 
interaction was false.
    Mr. Bishop. OK. Alvin Bragg and his assistants prosecuting 
that case, they're lawyers, right?
    Mr. Costello. They are, yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Lawyers knowingly permit their own witness to 
testify falsely before a court?
    Mr. Costello. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Bishop. Is that just a matter of bad judgment or 
something more?
    Mr. Costello. No, it's a matter of ethics. It's required.
    Mr. Bishop. Are lawyers who do that susceptible to 
punishment for it?
    Mr. Costello. They are susceptible.
    Mr. Bishop. If lawyers do that and they're doing so in the 
course of interfering with an ongoing Presidential election, 
could they be subject to punishment for that?
    Mr. Costello. I would think so, sure.
    Mr. Bishop. I notice that today in the course of this 
proceeding so far, not one Democrat has asked either of you a 
question and allowed you to speak to it.
    Mr. Costello. I not only noticed that, but I noticed that 
after they take cheap shots, they leave.
    Mr. Bishop. Absolutely. Speaking of that cheap shot, Mr. 
Goldman--he's a great lawyer, by the way. So, he knows not to 
ask you a question.
    Mr. Costello. Well, we've had prior dealings. I think he 
does know not to ask me a question.
    Mr. Bishop. I'm sorry. Do you care to respond to what he's 
suggested?
    Mr. Costello. Well, he's suggesting that this is jury 
interference. First, I had nothing to do with the scheduling of 
this hearing. Second, nobody knew when Michael Cohen was going 
to testify.
    The prediction by the media and also by the prosecutors was 
that this was going to be a five- or six-week trial. So, 
according to that, Michael Cohen shouldn't be testifying for 
another week or two. So, to claim that we're just doing this to 
interfere with the jury that's been instructed, of course, not 
to watch proceedings such as this it's ridiculous.
    Mr. Bishop. Absolutely.
    Mr. Costello. It's a cheap shot, and that's why I called it 
that.
    Mr. Bishop. Totally agree, and I'll just observe. When I 
was reading your statement, I noticed that you said you'd been 
practicing law for 51 years. I said, wow, you're going to be 
old.
    Mr. Costello. No.
    Mr. Bishop. What a great head of hair or great--absolutely 
have it all together. You've been practicing law at a high 
level for 51 years. Mr. Trusty, next, you said you were with 
the Justice Department for 27 years. Is that correct?
    Mr. Trusty. I was a prosecutor for 27, 17 at DOJ.
    Mr. Bishop. OK. Prosecutor, 27 years and 17 at DOJ.
    Mr. Trusty. So yes, I'm not as old as Bob.
    Mr. Bishop. No one has attempted to lay a glove on either 
of you. How about Stanley Woodward? Has anybody to your 
knowledge challenged his sworn account of being extorted by Jay 
Bratt, Mr. Trusty?
    Mr. Trusty. No, I also have no evidence of the department 
looking inward about it at all.
    Mr. Bishop. What, indeed, is the recourse. This shouldn't 
come before this Committee as the Members of the Minority have 
said. What, indeed, is the recourse for this? Mr. Trusty?
    Mr. Trusty. I'm not sure. Certainly, disqualification from 
the case which would be a starting point here. There should be 
a robust OPR investigation on the DOJ side. My experience with 
OPR even in some of the worst accusations that were made to 
people in the department was that they geared it to not make 
decisions until after the litigation was closed which was very 
self-serving. I'm a little concerned that the public 
ramifications by way of OPR and DOJ's response might be years 
away.
    Mr. Bishop. That seems to be the problem. No one is ever 
held to account and the process takes years and years and years 
and then ends in a whimper with somebody sending a report 
forth. The problems just keep coming.
    The final--I encourage those who are watching--
unfortunately, I only got 30 seconds left--to read the last 
two--actually, both of your statements are extraordinary. 
Anybody watching this hearing ought to pull those statements up 
and read them word for word. They're magnificent, well drafted.
    The end of yours, Mr. Trusty, in which you characterize 
where the Justice Department is and how much of a problem this 
is and how dangerous it is to the country I think are maybe two 
of the most significant paragraphs I've read while I've been in 
Congress. I encourage people to look at them.
    Mr. Trusty. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir. I tell you appreciate your coming 
here. Both cases, it is an act of service to the country. I 
think the American people are wise to this.
    I know how it's going to go. The only question is what 
comes next. How's this going to be dealt with in the next 
administration? Because be dealt with, it must be. I yield 
back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Well said, 
particularly the reference to the gentleman's written 
testimony. I would encourage everyone to read that. The 
gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I might start since 
the issue of veracity has come up repeatedly here, if I might 
enter into the record three articles that have recently 
appeared dealing with veracity of a former President. One's 
from Time Magazine, another one from--let's see here, yes. Mr. 
Chair, may I enter these into the record?
    Chair Jordan. Well, I think you were going to read--when 
you said Time Magazine, you said two others. Yes, without 
objection.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. I'm just trying to define 
lawfare. Apparently, it has to do with using the Federal 
Government in this case to weaponize or to carry out some 
action against somebody. Now, if someone were to say I will 
appoint a special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt 
President in the history of the United States of America, would 
that be lawfare?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I believe it would.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. If someone were to say, ``if I 
happen to be President and I see somebody who is doing well and 
beating very badly, I say go down and indict them, they would 
be out of business.'' They would be out of the election. Is 
that lawfare?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. That is definitely a violation of 
everything that the Department of Justice stands for. It is 
lawfare. You need to have some evidence to begin an 
investigation, and the President himself has no role in 
directing who the Department of Justice will investigate or 
prosecute.
    Mr. Garamendi. If I may continue, thank you. On day one of 
my new administration, I will direct the Department of Justice 
to investigate every radical DA, attorney general for their 
illegal, racist enforcement of the law. Is that lawfare?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes.
    Mr. Garamendi. Do you know who made those statements? Let 
me tell you.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. OK.
    Mr. Garamendi. Those are direct quotes from the new wannabe 
President, former President Trump. Apparently, he wants to use 
his power as President to weaponize the Department of Justice 
and every other Federal agency to go after his enemies, 
political or otherwise. One of these quotes might be his 
business interest. Would that be inappropriate for a President 
or a wannabe President to make these statements? Even more so 
to do that, should that person become President?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. It would be.
    Mr. Garamendi. Do any of you gentleman disagree that would 
be inappropriate for a President to do any of those three 
things? Gentleman, yes or no? Is it appropriate or 
inappropriate?
    Mr. Trusty. I don't accept the premises fully. So, I'm 
having a hard time with a yes or no.
    Mr. Garamendi. Don't give me that lawyer business.
    The question is those are statements made by the former 
President of the United States as he prepared to become the 
next President. Are those appropriate actions by any President, 
yes or no?
    Mr. Trusty. I don't have an answer for you, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. I thought you might not. Mr. Costello, are 
those appropriate things for any President to do, yes or no?
    Mr. Costello. I don't think that's a yes or no question.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. I knew you would not answer the 
question. I'll ask it one more time. These statements, are they 
appropriate action by any President, yes or no?
    Mr. Costello. I would say they're not appropriate.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Mr. Hamilton, do you want to 
opine on this?
    Mr. Hamilton. Like, my colleague, Mr. Trusty, I reject the 
premise of the question of out of context statements.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. We'll move on.
    Mr. Hamilton. I would say--
    Mr. Garamendi. We're going to move on. Thank you very much. 
That's not all that's been said. If we were to go through the 
various statements, on day one, I would be a dictator. Is that 
appropriate thing for an American President to be or even to 
say he would be? Anybody want to answer that question?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. It is inappropriate.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Hamilton, appropriate for inappropriate 
for--
    Mr. Hamilton. You didn't want to hear me a second ago, so 
why are you asking me now?
    Mr. Trusty. I'll answer. It's humorous. I don't think the 
guy actually thinks he's about to be a dictator.
    Mr. Garamendi. So, you think it's inappropriate to say 
that?
    Mr. Trusty. No, it's humorous. I like humor.
    Mr. Garamendi. Do you like dictators?
    Mr. Trusty. That's not an issue. He served for four years 
as President. I don't remember a dictatorship breaking out?
    Chair Jordan. Time of the gentleman is--
    Mr. Garamendi. No, we're talking about--
    Chair Jordan. Time of the gentleman is expired.
    Mr. Garamendi. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you, Chair Jordan. Thank you to all our 
witnesses for appearing here today. I'm just going to start 
going right down the line with a simple question. When a 
candidate campaigns for office, they make promises, correct? 
We'll start with you, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Correct, obviously.
    Ms. Cammack. Mr. Trusty? Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. Ms. Wine-Banks?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. Wonderful. So, I'm going to dig into what the 
prosecutors and plaintiffs have said about Mr. Trump here 
recently. Alvin Bragg during his campaign for New York County 
District Attorney said, quote,

        I am the candidate in the race who has the experience with 
        Donald Trump. I was the Chief Deputy in the Attorney General's 
        office. We sued the Trump Administration over 100 times, the 
        Muslim travel ban, for family separation at the border, for 
        shenanigans with the census. So, I know how to litigate with 
        him.

In response to another question from a reporter, Bragg said, 
quote,

        We've got two standards of justice, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey 
        Epstein. Being a rich, old, White man has allowed you to evade 
        accountability in Manhattan. That includes Trump and his 
        children.

Moving on to New York Attorney General James, during the last 
days of her campaign said of Trump, quote, ``Oh, we're 
definitely going to sue him. We're going to be a real pain in 
the ass.'' She would later go on to say, quote, ``I will never 
be afraid to challenge this illegitimate President,'' and said, 
quote, ``What is fueling my soul right now is Trump.'' Mr. 
Costello, is there a financial benefit to making campaign 
promises?
    Mr. Connolly. I'm sure there is. Otherwise, she wouldn't 
have made those promises.
    Ms. Cammack. Mr. Trusty?
    Mr. Trusty. I think that's right.
    Ms. Cammack. Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. Hamilton. Correct.
    Ms. Cammack. Ms. Wine-Banks?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I'm not sure I understand the premise of 
your question. So, I can't answer.
    Ms. Cammack. You cannot answer if there's a financial 
benefit to making campaign promises?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Making campaign promises is to win 
election.
    Ms. Cammack. I'm going to--
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I don't see that as a financial benefit.
    Ms. Cammack. I'm going to stick with you, Ms. Wine-Banks, 
as the Democrat witness here today. Can you answer how much 
money did District Attorney Alvin Bragg raise for his political 
reelection campaign immediately following the announcement of 
34 felony counts against President Trump?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I do not know.
    Ms. Cammack. It's $850,000--$850,000. That's a good chunk 
of cash. Let's go on to the AG, AG James. How much did she 
raise for her political campaign after her civil fraud case 
against President Trump.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I don't know. It has nothing to do with 
whether the charges that she filed were based on the facts and 
evidence and her ability to prove them.
    Ms. Cammack. You and I both know that's nonsense. Come on 
now.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I do not know if that's nonsense. I 
believe--
    Ms. Cammack. Not a soul in this room actually believes 
that. No one will ever believe that. It was $400,000--$400,000. 
We will submit for the record copies of campaign emails 
soliciting donations.
    It almost seems, and I'm just stating the obvious here, 
that the harder they go after President Trump, the more money 
they stand to make. The common thread between all these 
individuals as well as the other cases that President Trump 
faces is that many of the prosecutors suing Trump either have a 
personal vendetta or they seek to gain fame and money from it. 
This isn't hard.
    Those of us here today, we understand politics and what it 
takes to run a successful political operation. Traditionally, 
you want to drain your opponent's resources, drive up their 
negatives in the polls, and you want to keep them from engaging 
with voters. Now, I'm going to ask the million dollar question 
here.
    What better way to do that than to charge your opponent 
with 91 counts, force them to spend millions on a legal 
defense, and tie them up in court to keep them off the campaign 
trail. It's almost like this is a plan. This is a strategy that 
is employed in campaigns all around the country.
    We're seeing it at the highest levels today. Of course, as 
an incumbent, you have the added advantage of using taxpayer 
funded offices, agencies, and officials. We all know that you 
can never go up against the Federal Government because it is an 
endless stream of resources. Isn't that correct, Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Without a doubt.
    Ms. Cammack. Exactly. If that is not what lawfare is, I 
don't know what is. Lawfare by definition is exactly that, 
utilizing the law to take down your political opponents. It is 
an abuse of power. Mr. Trustee, you said earlier in a pretty 
chilling statements that you fear we have, quote, ``crossed the 
Rubicon, that the ends now justify the means.''
    I feel like many Americans agree with you. Heck, if it 
weren't for double standards, I feel like our Democrat 
colleagues in this Administration wouldn't have standards at 
all. I feel that the credibility of our institution is at stake 
here because to your point, the ends somehow have justified the 
means.
    I've pulled some research out of a Harvard Law study that 
suggests that district attorneys pursue crimes and longer 
sentences at higher rates during election years. So, while DA 
Bragg and AG James terms end in 2026 and 2027 respectively, and 
of course DA Willis is facing reelection this fall, is it crazy 
to question whether any of these prosecutors are weighing their 
reelection efforts in their choice as they pursue President 
Trump? Final word to you, Mr. Trusty.
    Mr. Trusty. Right. It's certainly not crazy. I think that 
there's evidence that supports that conclusion. Again, I never 
get to the money part. If you're a prosecutor, you're not 
supposed to be a politician.
    You're not supposed to announce your target first and then 
search for an inventive way to change them with here to for 
unknown crimes in a lot of cases. So, that's the problem for 
me. It's not chasing down all the politics of how they stand to 
gain but that as a prosecutor you have a sacred obligation to 
pursue evidence, not people.
    Ms. Cammack. Absolutely. A predetermined outcome.
    Mr. Trusty. Correct.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you to our witnesses for appearing. My 
time is expired. I yield.
    Chair Jordan. Well done. Gentlelady yields back. The 
gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. This is so 
interesting. A couple of things, I'm just curious to know as 
we're talking about lawyers and the obligations of lawyers and 
whether or not maybe the former President has any idea of what 
good lawyer obligations look like, I'm just going to ask.
    We're going to do--we're not going to play. We're going to 
do Ms. Wine-Banks. Have you heard of any of these lawyers? I've 
got Robert Cheeley, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Matthew 
DePerno, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Michael Farina, Rudy 
Guiliani, and Julia Haller. I've got a long list. Have you 
heard of any of these people?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I have.
    Ms. Crockett. Are you aware as to whether or not any of 
them have faced criminal penalties?
    Ms. Wine-Banks. Yes, and also been disbarred or suspended.
    Ms. Crockett. Oh, yes. OK. So, they've had some issues. 
These are the handpicked lawyers for Trump. I'm assuming that 
you have never been Trump lawyers, Mr. Trustee or Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Trusty. I was for a year.
    Ms. Crockett. Oh, you were? You still have your bar card?
    Mr. Trusty. I'm sorry?
    Ms. Crockett. You still have your bar card?
    Mr. Trusty. Yes, well, unless I get targeted for daring to 
represent a former President.
    Ms. Crockett. You have absolutely done a lot better than 
most that deal with him, so good for you. I also want to make 
sure that we talk about what two tiers really looks like. Mr. 
Trustee, since you've been a prosecutor before, I'm curious to 
know have you ever had a criminal defendant that had over 80 
counts in four different jurisdictions and somehow was not held 
pretrial?
    I know that you talked in your opening about your 
interpretation of what speedy trial looks like. It's really 
only for those that are held pretrial. Last time I checked, 
most of the time, those people held pretrial.
    They don't have anywhere near 80 counts pending against 
them. I'm curious to know in your experience, have you ever had 
someone have over 80 counts pending in four different 
jurisdiction and they were not held pretrial, yes or no?
    Mr. Trusty. Well, no specific recall.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. All right. That's all I--
    Mr. Trusty. I can answer more if you let me.
    Ms. Crockett. You told me no. I understand because I hadn't 
either. So, in addition to that, there's been a gag order since 
we're going to talk about the pending trial that's going on 
right now.
    Have you ever had a defendant that violated a gag order and 
then you went to the judge and the judge didn't lock them up. 
They'd done it at least ten times. I think it's ten. I'm losing 
count right now. Have you ever had somebody violate a--
    Mr. Trusty. In 35 years, I'd never seen a defendant gagged.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. Not my--so you've never had--
    Mr. Trusty. Well, it's hard to get to the second part if 
they're never gagged.
    Ms. Crockett. So, you've never had it. You're absolutely 
right. All right. So, finally, when it comes down to 
intimidating witnesses--because maybe you haven't had gag 
orders. Intimidating witnesses, have you ever had a defendant 
that you were prosecuting, and they were intimidating 
witnesses, and they didn't somehow end up in the clink-clink 
for at least a day or two?
    Mr. Trusty. I've had criminal death penalty prosecutions 
based on witness retaliation. I'm very familiar with gang cases 
and mafia cases. Most of those defendants were already 
incarcerated when they orchestrate some sort of obstruction.
    Ms. Crockett. OK.
    Mr. Trusty. If there's provable physical violence-based 
obstruction, it certainly makes sense that they'd be 
incarcerated.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. Mr. Hamilton, I don't want 
you to feel left out of this conversation. So, I'm going to 
make sure I ask you some questions. Let me know if you're 
having problems answering them because they really should be 
yes or no. Let's see. You're the Executive Director for the 
America First Legal, correct?
    Mr. Hamilton. That's correct.
    Ms. Crockett. All right. America First Legal is a member of 
Project 2025 which is dedicated to creating the playbook for 
the next conservative administration and what it calls the 
project pillars, correct?
    Mr. Hamilton. We are proud contributors to Project 2025.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. Are you familiar with Project 2025's 
mandate for leadership?
    Mr. Hamilton. In fact, I am.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. In fact, you wrote some of the sections 
of this mandate related to the DOJ, correct?
    Mr. Hamilton. Sure did.
    Ms. Crockett. The mandate outlines policy priorities for 
the next conservative President. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hamilton. It does.
    Ms. Crockett. You've done a great job. I just want to let 
you know. All right. So, let's walk through some of the 
provisions of the mandate.
    It calls for eliminating the Department of Education, 
eliminating the Department of Commerce, deploying the military 
for the use of domestic law enforcement against protesters 
under the Insurrection Act of 1807. It also has the repealing 
of Schedule F status for thousands of Federal employees to 
allow a President to replace career civil servants with 
unqualified partisan loyalists. That's probably my favorite of 
it.
    It also prohibits the FBI from combating the spread of 
misinformation and disinformation like Russia and China who are 
actively trying to interfere with American elections. I think 
why or how anybody can support Project 2025. I know that there 
was allegedly a joke about dictators and whether or not that's 
funny.
    In the United States of American, dictatorships are never 
funny. Project 2025 is giving the playbook for authoritarianism 
as well as the next dictator to come in. I know that you are 
doing your jobs here by making sure that hopefully some juror 
turns on and finds some viral moment of you spewing more of the 
nonsense as it relates to the President.
    As practicing lawyers or licensed attorneys, I hope that we 
can all agree that no one gets indicted because someone says 
so. It takes a grand jury. The grand jury is comprised of 
American citizens that sit down and review evidence and they 
make the determination. When and if Trump is convicted, it will 
be a jury of his peers. It won't be the President of the United 
States.
    Chair Jordan. Time. I thought you were going to get to a 
question somewhere in those 90 seconds for Mr. Hamilton after 
you went after his 2025. I will point out the Inspector General 
just released a report that said the FBI retaliated against 
whistleblowers, one of the reasons we do need some changes. 
There was no question there. Mr. Hamilton, if you want to give 
it some kind of response, you're more than welcome to do that.
    Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chair, my only response would be to say 
that there are a great number of policy options that have been 
provided to any future conservative administration through 
Project 2025. It's an attempt to restore the rule of law in 
this country. I reject the Huffington Post style 
characterizations of the recommendations.
    Chair Jordan. All right. Gentlelady yields back. The 
gentlelady from--we'll go to the gentlelady from Wyoming and 
then gentleman from Florida.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I'd ask unanimous consent--
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Excuse me. This is--oh.
    Chair Jordan. I'll get you as soon--after this. Is this 
unanimous consent?
    Ms. Crockett. Yes, unanimous consent to enter the mandate 
for leadership--
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. Without objection. The 
gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you. If it seems like there might 
be a dog in this hunt on the other said, what you need to 
understand is that Mr. Goldman, the novice representative from 
New York, actually does have a personal stake in this case. He 
has stated that he has been involved with the Bragg case, 
helping to prepare Mr. Cohen for his testimony.
    So, he is quite closely aligned with an admitted and 
convicted liar and perjurer. He's also paid the Judge Merchan's 
daughter's firm over 150,000 dollars for her services. So, I 
think we've got quite a conflict of interest from Mr. Dan 
Goldman, the novice representative from New York. Just one 
other thing to keep in mind when considering the hostility from 
the folks on the other side of this aisle is that the Ranking 
Member to this--
    Ms. Plaskett. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I would move to have 
that stricken from the record. I'd have that phrase taken down.
    Ms. Hageman. The Ranking Member was Jeffrey Epstein's 
fixer. So, I think that might give you some idea--
    Ms. Plaskett. Excuse me. I would ask these statements to be 
taken down.
    Chair Jordan. Hang on for a second, gentlelady. The Ranking 
Member is recognized.
    Ms. Plaskett. I would ask that the statements regarding the 
conflict of interest related to Mr. Goldman be stricken down 
from the record, engaging in personal--personalities--
    Chair Jordan. In your 14 minutes and 14 second opening 
statement, you called the former President, the current 
candidate for the office of President of the United States, all 
kinds of names.
    Ms. Plaskett. He's not a Member of this--
    Chair Jordan. I understand he's not a Member. He's a former 
President.
    Ms. Plaskett. That's what I'm asking.
    Chair Jordan. What I'm saying is we should all be careful 
about it. I think the gentlelady from Wyoming was just stating 
facts that are in a news report.
    Ms. Plaskett. She accused him of a conflict of interest on 
the Committee during the hearing. I ask that it be stricken 
down.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's point of order is overruled. 
The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Mr. Hamilton, would you agree that 
gag orders on trial participants were created with the intent 
of securing a defendant's right to a fair trial and ensure 
efficient administration of justice?
    Mr. Hamilton. That's precisely correct. It's, in fact, 
usually intended to prevent the prosecution from making 
extrajudicial statements that are going to be prejudicial to 
the defendant's rights.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Trusty, I think that you testified that in 
all your years of experience, you've never seen a circumstance 
where a defendant had a gag order imposed against them. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Trusty. That's correct.
    Ms. Hageman. Would it be fair to say that whole such an 
order is intended to guarantee a defendant Sixth Amendment 
right, it also at certain times could raise First Amendment 
issues.
    Mr. Trusty. It does.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. In Bragg's political persecution of Donald 
Trump, Judge Merchan instituted an unconstitutional gag order 
against the defendant, President Trump. Yet, Judge Merchan has 
levied no such order against any of the other trial 
participants like Michael Cohen who continued to publicly 
attack Mr. Trump. Mr. Hamilton, is the gag order issued by 
Judge Merchan a significant departure from the normal order of 
business? Does it reveal the First and Sixth Amendment tensions 
which underlie this case?
    Mr. Hamilton. It most certainly does.
    Ms. Hageman. Why does President Trump face such a legally 
questionable gag order in this case? Well, simply put, it's 
because it is a classic example of lawfare being employed by 
Democrats against their political opponent, weaponizing the 
various branches and levels of government, something that we 
have seen in the last eight years that has been absolutely 
shocking to the conscious. DA Bragg resurrected a zombie case 
and is using a novel legal theory which has not even been 
explained to the defendant or the jury.
    He selected Matthew Colangelo, a lead prosecutor, a former 
Biden DOJ official, and DNC consultant and Judge Merchan who 
made campaign donations to President Biden and the Democrat 
party during a 2020 election and whose daughter's firm worked 
for the Biden and now Harris campaigns is overseeing a case and 
imposing speech restrictions on a person Judge Merchan called, 
quote, ``possibly the next President of the United States.'' 
Judge Merchan went so far in the last two weeks as threatening 
to jail a former President and presumptive major party nominee 
for violating an order which infringes on his free speech 
rights. Writing in The Federalist, Tom Crist analyzes how 
lawfare offers benefits and a means of victory regardless of 
the outcome of the courtroom which is causing as much pain as 
possible and treating the defendant like an enemy versus the 
defendant.
    I want that to sink in. Watching Judge Merchan, it is very 
apparent that he is treating President Trump as an enemy, not a 
party and not a defendant. Mr. Hamilton, do you think the gag 
order falls into this playbook and serves an additional lawfare 
benefit for the left, and that it can be used to enact an even 
larger legal burden on Donald Trump for simply exercising his 
right to free speech?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes, I do. In fact, quite frankly, when you 
have a gag order like that or when you have abuses of processes 
like this, as my colleagues have alluded to before, the pain 
the process is the goal. That's really the goal here.
    Whether they get a conviction, whether they get any kind of 
civil fine or judgment, it's not necessarily the ultimately 
objective. The ultimate objective is to cause pain to the 
political opponent. That's what they're doing to Donald Trump.
    Ms. Hageman. One of the things that I have observed as an 
attorney who was a trial attorney for 34 years is that Judge 
Merchan is making such blatant reversible errors. He absolutely 
knows that if there is a conviction in this case, it will be 
reversed on appeal. It's as though he's attempting to do that 
because he knows that no such appeal would actually take place 
prior to November, yet he would have a conviction on the books 
which is the classic and I think in this case exposes the way 
in which they are using lawfare against President Biden--
against President Trump.
    I have never seen a judge make the kind of errors that this 
judge has made in this case before. I think he recognizes that 
if there is a conviction, it would be overturned on appeal. 
That is what our justice system has turned into because of the 
lawfare being waged by the Democrats. It has to end. Thank you 
for being here. With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The Ranking 
Member is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Now, that we've finished with the 
novice Congresswoman from Wyoming, I guess that's what we're 
calling first-year Members of Congress--first term Members. I 
don't know where that came from or what that's supposed to 
mean. Let's move on.
    Instead of name calling, let's just do the work that the 
people have us here for, whether we like individuals or not. It 
sounds ridiculously immature. There was a discussion earlier 
about Jack Smith, and it was alleged that he is engaged in bias 
partisan actions before.
    Is the discussion--I went and looked at some of the cases 
that he has, in fact, taken up in his long career, both in New 
York, Brooklyn, as well as at The Hague. Ms. Wine-Banks, are 
you familiar with former Representative Rick Renzi? He was a 
Republican Member of the House that this Jack Smith prosecuted.
    Are you familiar with the name Senator John Edwards? He was 
a Democrat that Jack Smith also prosecuted Republican member 
Governor Bob McDonald when he was in the office of the 
prosecutor at the International Criminal Court of The Hague, 
many individuals from all world parties and leaders. Are you 
familiar--I don't know if you're familiar with an individual 
named Ronnell Wilson.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I am not.
    Ms. Plaskett. Ronnell Wilson was an individual in New York 
who murdered two New York City Police Department officers. That 
was prosecuted by Jack Smith. He also prosecuted, however, the 
police who brutalize Abner Louima. I'm sure you're familiar 
with that name.
    Ms. Wine-Banks. I am.
    Ms. Plaskett. So, this is an individual who seems to be a 
prosecutor willing to go after anybody no matter what their 
party is if in reviewing and investigating the information they 
believed that person has broken the law. That's what I call a 
good prosecutor, having been one myself. Mr. Hamilton, are you 
aware that Chair Jordan filed multiple amicus briefs in the 
case of Missouri v. Biden now called Murphy v. Missouri?
    Mr. Hamilton. I am.
    Ms. Plaskett. In fact, you are the attorney of record on 
those briefs. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hamilton. I am one of the attorneys.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK.
    Mr. Hamilton. Correct.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Were you provided access to the 
Committee's transcribed interviews and deposition transcripts 
as part of the work and preparation of those briefs?
    Mr. Hamilton. I was provided with, yes, information. 
Absolutely.
    Ms. Plaskett. That included transcribed interviews and 
depositions?
    Mr. Hamilton. I was provided with lots of information. I'm 
not going to get into all the details here because doing so 
would reveal the existence of communications between an 
attorney and a client.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK. That's fine. In your briefs, one of those 
instances of those briefs, you claim that the FBI witness told 
the Committee that the supposed Biden laptop was real, 
``suggesting that the FBI had authenticated it.'' Do you recall 
that?
    Mr. Hamilton. Do you have the brief in front of you?
    Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
    Mr. Hamilton. Could you read it to me, and I'll let you 
know if I recall it.
    Ms. Plaskett. Can you hold the time for me, Mr. Chair?
    Chair Jordan. Sure.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. OK. I'm reading from the brief on 
page 28 of the brief that's listed, Brief Representatives Jim 
Jordan, Kelly Armstrong, Andy Biggs, Dan Bishop, etc., that was 
filed with the court on page 28. It states that, but of course, 
``the FBI knew not just the absence of evidence suggesting any 
foreign connection,'' the FBI knew the laptop was real. Do you 
recall that?
    Mr. Hamilton. I do recall.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK. Do you also recall that when the 
individuals stated, the witness later said that--suggesting 
that the FBI had authenticated it. However, that completely 
ignored the fact that the witness later said in that same 
transcription, that same interview that anyone who claimed that 
the laptop had been authenticated would be, quote, 
``misrepresenting her testimony.'' Do you recall her having 
said that?
    Mr. Hamilton. I can't tell you today if I recall that or 
not.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK. So, your brief suggests that one 
particular nonprofit--well, your brief then does not give the 
whole story by stating that the individual said the laptop was 
real from the FBI, misrepresenting that it had been 
authenticated when she just meant that it existed, not that it 
had been authenticated. Do you know that difference?
    Mr. Hamilton. Are you disputing the reality of Hunter 
Biden's laptop?
    Ms. Plaskett. I'm disputing your brief which makes it seem 
that the authentication of what was in the laptop was there?
    Mr. Hamilton. So, I'm trying to understand where you're 
going. Are you trying--
    Ms. Plaskett. I'm just asking some questions.
    Mr. Hamilton. Are you disputing the contents of Hunter 
Biden's laptop?
    Ms. Plaskett. I am disputing that it's been authenticated 
by the FBI.
    Mr. Hamilton. Is that the purpose of question of me?
    Ms. Plaskett. Do you know if it had been authenticated by 
the FBI?
    Mr. Hamilton. Whether the FBI authenticated it or not--
    Ms. Plaskett. You said it had. You said it had.
    Mr. Hamilton. --the existence of it was authenticated 
because it was real.
    Ms. Plaskett. You said it had in the brief.
    Mr. Hamilton. You're getting into--
    Ms. Plaskett. You said it had in the brief. That's the 
point. Moving on, I could go literally for hours. Your briefly 
wrongly suggests that one particular nonprofit is, in fact, a 
government entity and even includes a graphic from that 
nonprofit website that was cropped to omit language stating 
that the nonprofit is autonomous, meaning it's independent from 
the government. Literally on and on, just like this hearing of 
misrepresentations of the truth. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. I would point out 
that last week, the Committee deposed Mr. Brady Olson, FBI 
agent, who said that at the time, October 2020, the FBI had no 
evidence that the laptop story was a hack and leak operation, 
no evidence. So, they had none, exactly what Mr. Hamilton 
described in his well-written brief.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Steube.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, just to--
    Chair Jordan. One second, Mr. Steube. I understand you have 
a hard stop, Mr. Hamilton. We wanted you to be able to stay for 
any Democrat want to ask you a question. If you got to run, I 
understand. Time is now Mr. Steube's.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you.
    Mr. Hamilton. Thank you.
    Mr. Steube. So, you're taking off? Mr. Hamilton is taking 
off? All right. So, Mr. Costello, I'll just start on page 6 of 
your written testimony. I know the Chair got into what Mr. 
Cohen said about, ``I swear to God, Bob, I don't have anything 
on Donald Trump.''
    Then after that, so I'm at the end of page 6 of your 
written testimony. I just want to walk through this. Through 
further cross examination, Cohen told me that he knew there was 
money missing from the Trump inauguration fund, but that Donald 
Trump had nothing to do with it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Costello. Where are you referencing on page 6?
    Mr. Steube. I'm in your written testimony on page 6 at the 
bottom.
    Mr. Costello. OK. You're referring to what again?
    Mr. Steube. I'll just read it. Through further cross 
examination, Cohen told me that he knew there was money missing 
from the Trump inauguration.
    Mr. Costello. I see where you are now. Thank you.
    Mr. Steube. OK. Then on the next page, end of that first 
paragraph, Cohen decided that while he didn't believe the 
allegation of the Stormy Daniels story that he thought the 
story would be embarrassing for Trump and especially for 
Melania. So, he decided he would take care of it himself.
    Mr. Costello. Absolutely. That is contrary to what this guy 
testified to in court in New York yesterday.
    Mr. Steube. Well, what's not being talked about is your 
next paragraph, like, the reason and his motivation for that. 
So, if you could just walk through that for the Committee.
    Mr. Costello. Obviously, when we started to talk about the 
NDAs, and this is the very first meeting at the Regency Hotel 
when, by the way, Rudy Guiliani was not involved in 
representing Donald Trump at that time. Cohen testified that it 
was a conspiracy between Guiliani and Costello as of this date. 
Totally false.
    In any event, he also said that he didn't discuss the 
Stormy Daniels matter with us, and he certainly did. I 
specifically asked him because he kept on going back saying, 
``I can't believe they're trying to put me in jail for these 
NDAs.'' So, I said, ``Michael, tell me about the NDA. Tell me 
about Stormy Daniels. What did you do?'' He said, ``I got a 
call from a lawyer representing Stormy Daniels who represented 
that she was going to testify that Donald Trump had sex with 
Stormy Daniels.'' Michael Cohen said, ``I didn't believe the 
allegation, but I knew that such an allegation would be 
terribly embarrassing.''
    He said, ``it would be embarrassing.'' He focused on 
Melania Trump. He said, ``I didn't want to embarrass Melania 
Trump, that's why I decided to take care of this on my own,'' 
and went back to that several times. You did this on your own? 
``On my own.'' Did Donald Trump have anything to do with it? 
``No.'' Did you get the money from Donald Trump? ``No.'' From 
any of his organizations? ``No.'' From anybody connected to 
Donald Trump? ``No.''
    Where did you get the money? ``I took out a HELOC loan 
against my property,'' He said. Why would you do that? He said,

        I didn't want anybody to know where I got this money. I didn't 
        want Melania to know. I didn't want my own wife to know because 
        she's in charge of the Cohen family finances. If she saw money 
        coming out of my account, she's ask me 100 questions and I 
        didn't want to answer any of them.

It was clear after talking to him for several days after that, 
whenever we talked, on the phone or in my office, that he kept 
on bringing up the subject that he felt he was betrayed by not 
being brought down to Washington, DC. This guy thought, he said 
to me, ``that he should've been Attorney General of the United 
States or at least the Chief Assistant to the President.''
    Ludicrous, but that's what he thought. He was very angry 
about that. He wanted to do something to put himself back into 
the inner circle of Donald Trump. That's why he took care of 
this on his own.
    There had to be motivation. Michael Cohen is always working 
for things that benefit him. That's what he was doing here. 
That's completely different to what he said that he told the 
grand jury. That's completely different to what he's testifying 
to in New York. Nobody has heard this side of the equation.
    Mr. Steube. Which is important that you're talking about 
that today. I'm now on page 8. We're going to keep going from 
where you were in your written testimony. The point is when 
Michael Cohen was presented with the opportunity to implicate 
Donald Trump in exchange for eliminating his own enormous legal 
problems, he repeatedly said he had nothing truthful on Donald 
Trump.
    Mr. Costello. Yes, why is that important? It's important 
because this guy literally was suicidal at the moment. He's 
saying, ``guys, I need you to tell me what my escape route is. 
How do I get out of this oncoming legal deluge that I see 
coming my way?'' So, I said, ``look, it's simple. If you look 
at what happened here, the U.S. attorney went to great lengths 
to get a search warrant for your law office. They had to go to 
main justice. They think you have something.'' Remember, he's 
telling us, I didn't do anything illegal. Counts 1-7 that he 
pled guilty to had nothing to do with Donald Trump.
    He said, ``I didn't do anything illegal. I've been 
cooperating with the Special Counsel. I've been cooperating 
with Congress.'' Didn't tell us that he lied to Congress. I 
said, ``Michael, isn't it easier if you have something 
truthful?'' I kept on repeating that. It's got to be truthful. 
Don't make something up.
    If you have something truthful on Donald Trump, isn't it 
easier for you to cooperate against Donald Trump than it is to 
kill yourself? The answer is obvious. So, when they claim that 
I was trying to shut up Michael Cohen, it's exactly the 
opposite. I was on that first day telling him, here's your 
escape route if you have truthful information. He didn't.
    Mr. Steube. At this time, you were his attorney which is 
why he made all these admissions?
    Mr. Costello. Yes, he makes these claims that we were never 
his attorney. I can show you emails and text messages and phone 
calls where he kept on saying, ``Bob, you guys are on the team. 
But I don't want to announce it now.''
    He had McDermott Will & Emery going through documents here 
in Washington, DC. He said, ``I don't want to announce it 
now.'' We didn't give him a retainer agreement the first time 
we met him at the Regency Hotel.
    We gave him a retainer agreement when he came to our 
offices. He came to our offices, and that he kept on saying, 
``well, I can't deal with this now.'' This guy slow played us. 
There's no question about it.
    I told the partner in charge of this, he's slow playing us. 
Get rid of this guy. He's never going to come up with the 
money. He's a bad penny. He's just going to keep on coming 
back.
    So, it wasn't my call because it was his client, not my 
client. So, that's why Michael kept on calling me, and I was 
giving him the advice that I should've given him all along, 
truthful advice. Nobody was pressuring him. I was giving him 
the straight facts as I knew them.
    Mr. Steube. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
North Dakota is recognized.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield to you.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Mr. Trusty, 17 years at the Department of Justice, 
did the raid on Mar-a-Lago follow normal process?
    Mr. Trusty. I don't believe so.
    Chair Jordan. You know who agrees with you? The Assistant 
FBI Director of the Washington field office because we deposed 
him. I just want to walk you through and say what you see or 
saw squares with what Mr. D'Antuono testified to in a 
deposition in front of the Committee.
    The Miami field office did not conduct the search. It's 
folks from Washington who came down and did the search. Is that 
unusual?
    Mr. Trusty. I would think so. You'd normally have at least 
some local component.
    Chair Jordan. The Department did not assign a U.S. attorney 
to head up the investigation. They ran it out of the field 
office. They ran it out of Washington, DC. Is that unusual?
    Mr. Trusty. I'm not sure it's unusual for DOJ attorneys to 
kind of assume authority in a vacuum. So, my understanding is 
Jay Bratt was involved from day one and that continued through 
the search warrant obviously.
    Chair Jordan. Right. Normally, would the U.S. attorney be 
assigned to it in most cases?
    Mr. Trusty. Yes, eventually they would show up for court. I 
don't think that part of the process they were an active 
partner.
    Chair Jordan. Did the FBI seek consent before they 
conducted the research?
    Mr. Trusty. No, actually the last thing that President 
Trump said when he allowed FBI agents in Mar-a-Lago in June was 
anything you need, let me know. The only communication that 
came from DOJ after that was a request to put a padlock on the 
door where they knew the boxes were. Then, the next thing we 
know--
    Chair Jordan. Which the President complied with?
    Mr. Trusty. Which he did immediately. Two months later, 
there's a search warrant.
    Chair Jordan. Then did the FBI wait--when they got on 
premise, had it secured, did they wait for President Trump's 
legal team to be there and accompany them on the search?
    Mr. Trusty. There were requests by representatives of 
President Trump to be in the vicinity of the search. Those were 
denied. That is a right of law enforcement. They don't have to. 
For a cast of this historical precedence, consistent with my 
earlier remarks, some transparency, some openness would've been 
probably a valuable moment lost here.
    Chair Jordan. No kidding. Talk to me about in your 
testimony two other things. You mentioned the Fourteenth 
Amendment. This, to me, struck me as just absolutely craziness 
that they're going to go to State Courts and try to keep the 
President off the ballot. Tell me your thoughts on this crazy 
concept.
    Mr. Trusty. Well, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed to 
end the nonsense of the disqualification litigation. They never 
really reached the due process which would've been a hornets 
nest of going State by State and saying, how did they conduct 
these expedited trials? The fact that always grabbed me and 
maybe this goes back to having a bad sense of humor was in 
Colorado, they literally put a sociologist on the witness stand 
to say when President Trump said go peaceful and patriotically, 
I know from my Ouija Board or whatever else he consults that he 
really means be violent and attack the cops.
    That was considered admissible information in a hearing 
designed to take a Presidential candidate off a ballot. So, I 
wanted the Supreme Court to get the due process and join me in 
laughing at that. They never got there.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. What he said, I've concluded, means 
exactly the opposite. The court accepted that as evidence. 
Thank goodness the Supreme Court said 9 to 0 this is crazy.
    I want to read one other thing from your testimony which I 
just found amazing. You briefly touched on it earlier. You 
said, if this is a grand jury situation. In the grand jury, the 
prosecution said to Mr. Parlatore, ``If the President is being 
so cooperative, why won't he waive his attorney-client 
privilege?'' The fact that they asked that question in grand--
again, maybe as crazy as the whole Fourteenth Amendment 
argument.
    Mr. Trusty. Again, nothing I'd seen in 35 years. It was an 
overaggressive moment of asking the grand jury to draw a 
negative inference from a lawful invocation of attorney-client 
privilege. That's just black letter unethical for a prosecutor 
to do.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, scary, scary stuff that we see going on 
all to go after their political opponent. We can go on with 
example after example. The one before, dangling the judgeship 
in front of a lawyer representing when you got Jay Bratt and 
the DOJ there.
    It's just, again, we can go on and on. I want to thank you 
both for testifying and would yield back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the Chair. I thank our witnesses. I 
regret that I didn't have the chance to dialog with Mr. 
Hamilton, but I thank you guys for being here and staying a 
little longer than we thought the hearing would run.
    One of the most influential books that I've read is a short 
book called, ``The Law by Frederic Bastiat.'' He was a French 
philosopher in the 1800s. He predates Karl Marx, and he was 
addressing the socialists.
    So, they're already trying to weaponize the law. This book 
about the law was, in fact, all about how the law was corrupted 
and perverted from its proper use of defending freedom and 
property rights to a form of corruption, legal plunder as he 
termed it. One of the quotes from the book is he says, ``When 
law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the 
cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing 
his respect for the law.''
    I think that's where the American people are. They see that 
the law has been corrupted and perverted. They see at best a 
two-tiered system of justice.
    One of the most common questions probably every Member of 
Congress gets, certainly when I talk to my closest friends, we 
all get this question. Congressman, when is someone going to 
jail? Now, to be fair, when the Democrats ask it, they want to 
know when a Republican is going to jail. When the Republicans 
ask, generally they want to know when a Democrat is going to 
jail.
    The reality is people are seeing that there's one standard 
that they would be held to, and another that's being applied to 
others, political enemies overwhelmingly, and political rivals. 
It's the weaponization of law, lawfare. The tip of the spear of 
this is Donald Trump.
    Donald Trump, they mocked when he said that they were 
spying on his campaign. Lo and behold, they were spying on his 
campaign. They said that the Russia collusion thing was all 
fake.
    They funded a 30-plus million-dollar investigation into 
Donald Trump with the Mueller Report. People still think that's 
what he was impeached for. It was a nothingburger, no crime, no 
action.
    In fact, to the extent there was a crime, it was done by 
firms like Perkins Coie that rigged this whole hoax. It was 
against our national intelligence community that weaponized 
their trusted position in the intelligence and law enforcement 
community to spy on the Presidential campaign of Donald Trump. 
Now, we see election interference in a different way in this 
campaign.
    We've got a case where we've seen whether it's Alvin Bragg, 
Letitia James, others, that campaign on a platform for election 
of going after Donald Trump. Fani Willis raised money off her 
criminal case against President Trump. Finally, Mr. Costello, I 
enjoyed your dialog. Would you agree that these prosecutors 
are, in fact, politically motivated in their targeting of 
Donald Trump?
    Mr. Costello. Without a doubt.
    Mr. Davidson. You think about the case in New York, Alvin 
Bragg's case. What is the crime? To the extent there was a 
crime, how does it relate to Donald Trump? Could you elaborate?
    Mr. Costello. Nobody knows what the crime is. They've taken 
a misdemeanor which is barred by statute of limitations, and 
tried to turn it into a felony by saying the misdemeanor was 
used to cover up an additional crime, the felony. It's hinted 
that the felony that they're trying to cover up is election 
interference.
    Election interference for the 2016 election they claim was 
caused by false entries made in 2017. Now, how do you influence 
the 2016 election with 2017 allegedly false entries? They say, 
because I was puzzled by this, it's a conspiracy.
    Really, said I, ``I went and I pulled the indictment. 
There's 34 or 38 counts, no conspiracy count, one defendant, 
Donald Trump. It's absurd.''
    Mr. Davidson. The whole case is. Yet, in spite of that and 
in spite of the fact that the world sees through this, we're 
all wondering whether or not we'll get a not guilty verdict to 
the extent we get a verdict. We don't trust that the law is 
actually going to be administered impartially.
    We're not sure that you can get an impartial trial of his 
peers, a jury of his peers. This is the thing. Our criminal 
statutes are designed to protect the defendant. We've seen a 
clear abuse of the law.
    We've seen, as I point out, nothing new under the sun. It's 
not like Bastiat was the first person to discover this. We've 
seen the first thing basically. Don't hurt people. Don't take 
their stuff because humans have a hard time with that.
    We started appointing someone to be the judge. Who is the 
one in the right, and who is the one in the wrong? People see 
through this and they're going to see it on November 5th.
    I just trust that this country is worth defending. I 
applaud the people that are standing up against injustice. Mr. 
Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. Well done. The 
gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Here's what I think is 
abundantly clear. The Democrats will do and are doing 
everything in their power to keep President Trump off the 
ballot or from winning.
    Nothing is off the table. Things I never imagined or even 
thought was remotely possible are now happening in the United 
States of America. You name it, and they're doing it.
    They're taking the decision away from voters by outright 
stripping his name off the ballot. Of course, the Supreme Court 
rightfully intervened there. You have unelected Secretaries of 
State, unaccountable judges making these decisions.
    They spied on his campaign as we've talked about. They 
abused FISA, fabricated documents, and relied on a paid for 
campaign dossier to spy on his campaign, again, falsely 
alleging that there was some Russian collusion which has been 
debunked over and over again. The most egregious yet, we have 
not one, not two or three, but four politically motivated cases 
that are happening all around the country.
    Again, it's to keep him off the campaign trail. It's to 
smear his reputation, and it's to drain him of resources. This 
is a targeted, this is a meticulous effort and plan of attack 
to usurp the will of the people.
    Again, at the expense of our own institutions, that's most 
troubling to me as a lawyer is that we're using Article 1 to 
attach him. We're using Article 2 to attack him. Now, we're 
using the courts.
    These local prosecutors should be focused on cleaning up 
their streets, cleaning up their communities, stopping people 
from getting shot on the subways, and prosecuting real crimes 
for goodness sakes. We don't have that here. We have Donald 
Trump, right? Let's go after him. Mr. Chair, I'd like to enter 
into the record an article by America First Policy Institute 
called, ``Progressive Prosecutors Abusing Their Power.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Fry. In Georgia, Fani Willis brought charges against 
President Trump immediately when he announced his reelection. I 
guess there's so much bandwidth in her jurisdiction that she 
can take taxpayer funneled vacations with her lover and ignore 
real crime that is happening, because there's just not much to 
do in Georgia. That kind of belies the case.
    We have, quite frankly according to this article, top five 
Georgia crime capital with the rate of 30.5 crimes per 100,000 
residents. In 2022, larceny was the highest offense of Fulton 
County with 19,509 thefts recorded. Alvin Bragg waited five 
years to criminally indict President Trump on 34 counts of 
falsifying business records.
    Again, going around the statute of limitations to create 
some weird, nuanced, and novel way to prosecute an alleged 
crime, not to mention he hired the former No. 3 official in 
Biden's DOJ who has been paid for by the DNC to be a top 
prosecutor of the case. Meanwhile, during Bragg's first year as 
DA, data showed the conviction rate--Mr. Costello, you would 
probably know this--of only 51 percent for serious felony 
charges. That's not really good, is it, a conviction rate at 51 
percent?
    Mr. Costello. That's awful.
    Mr. Fry. Misdemeanor convictions went from 53 percent down 
to 28 percent. I would think that would be, like, a fireable 
offense if I was electing somebody to be my prosecutor.
    Mr. Costello. That's true. The Governor of New York could 
do that, but she hasn't.
    Mr. Fry. Our rule of law I think needs to be restored. I'm 
deeply troubled by the ways in which Democrats are attacking 
the institutions of our country and of course our former 
President of the United States, who is now running and is the 
lead candidate and the presumptive nominee for the Republican 
party. I introduced this Congress the No More Political 
Prosecutions Act, which would allow someone like President 
Trump to remove his case in State court to a Federal Court at 
his discretion if he wanted to. Why might that be important, 
Mr. Trusty?
    Mr. Trusty. Well, I think as we're seeing play out in front 
of us, there's political bias that's demonstrated before people 
are even in office. A desire to carry the torch against 
President Trump in this case, maybe get a few visits to the 
White House along the way. Ultimately, it's the genie getting 
out of the bottle.
    The reason why--and I haven't studied your legislation. The 
reason that concept makes sense to me is because maybe it is 
the tip of the spear. There's a whole spear behind the tip. The 
very people that are OK with politicized DOJ maybe feeling very 
differently 5, 10, 30, 60 years from now. I think we're at that 
pivotal moment where we have to take action to reform the 
lawfare that's taking place around us.
    Mr. Fry. In the case of Alvin Bragg, right, he campaigned 
on going against President Trump. Is that correct?
    Mr. Trusty. That's my understanding.
    Mr. Fry. In fact, I think one of our colleagues on this 
Committee, Mr. Goldman fundraised for him in that effort. So, 
now we have a case that apparently again there's no crime in 
the District of Manhattan. We're going after President Trump. 
Why would jury pools be a reason why this legislation might be 
important, the jury pool in Manhattan as opposed to a Federal 
Court? What are the differences, and why might that be 
attractive so somebody who had served our country as President 
or Vice President?
    Mr. Trusty. It's a wider net when you have a Federal jury 
pool in terms of who the base of folks are. What you're looking 
for is not a perfect microcosm of the United States at any 
given moment. I've tried cases where we had people from the 
Eastern Shore of Maryland and the Western parts of Maryland and 
all points in between. So, you get all sorts of different 
philosophies and backgrounds. That's understood.
    Mr. Fry. I'm limited to the last question, though.
    Mr. Trusty. Sorry.
    Mr. Fry. Oftentimes, too the voir dire process in Federal 
Court is much more robust than State Court. Might that be 
attractive to somebody who served as President?
    Mr. Trusty. Yes, it tends to be a pretty rigorous process. 
I've had death penalty prosecutions where weeks were spent 
picking a jury. High profile defendants are going to have 
probably more protection, general rule, but more protection 
going through the voir dire process in a Federal case.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Trusty. Mr. Chair, I yield my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. I just want to 
point out one quick thing and then I'll give the Ranking Member 
a chance to say something before we close our hearing. I was 
struck by what you just said there a few minutes ago, Mr. 
Trusty.
    You said--you talked about the tip of the spear. There's a 
spear behind the tip. I always remind folks that the mob is 
never satisfied.
    Right now, oh, there's people saying--the left is saying, 
go after President Trump. We think it's ridiculous what's going 
on. They'll come for everybody at some point.
    We have seen the examples. Slightly different context, but 
the cancel culture mob a few years ago said Dianne Feinstein 
wasn't even good enough for them because she said something 35, 
40 years ago.
    The Dianne Feinstein Elementary School in San Francisco is 
no longer named Dianne Feinstein Elementary School because of 
something she said 40 years ago. So, the mob's appetite to go 
after whoever is never ever satisfied. That, to me, is the 
larger point.
    What they're doing to President Trump is so wrong. What it 
means for all of us, the 330-some million in this country, what 
it potentially means for any and all of us is what scares me 
the most. Ranking Member is recognized.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief this 
time. I know that we have some attorneys here who have had 
storied careers and their work. One of them, as Wine-Banks 
stated, that she believed that former President Trump is a more 
existential threat to our democracy than Richard Nixon was.
    When I look at some of the statements that President Trump 
has made and we're concerned about DOJ, the Department of 
Justice, where I was so honored to be a member of that team. 
With individuals who when I got there in 2001 had been there 
since Robert F. Kennedy had hired them as honors graduates from 
law school. Just an incredible place.
    We have a President who I don't think it's a joke when he 
says things--or humorous when he says things like,

        I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most 
        corrupt President in the history of the United States, Joe 
        Biden and the entire crime family.

If he says,

        If I happen to be President and see somebody who's doing well 
        and beating me badly, I say go down and indict them.

When his own former Chiefs of Staff and others say that he is 
going to be a threat to this democracy.
    We don't want to talk about Trump, and we don't want to go 
after him. Let's use this Committee time to shore up those 
agencies that are, in fact, going to be there as guard rails to 
ensure that all of us are treated equally under the law. I 
yield back.
    Chair Jordan. There's a reason all four cases are falling 
apart. That's because they're ridiculous cases and never 
should've been brought. I want to thank our witnesses for being 
here today.
    Ms. Wine-Banks, thank you. Mr. Trusty, thank you for your 
good work and the outstanding testimony. Mr. Costello, the same 
for you. We appreciate you taking the time to share the truth 
with this Committee.
    With that, that concludes today's hearing. We thank our 
witnesses again. 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, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/By Event.aspx?EventID=117301.

                                 [all]