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


                    OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
                               OF JUSTICE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                         TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-83
                               __________

         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
                    
55-952                    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

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, June 4, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                               WITNESSES

The Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of 
  Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................     5
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    12

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the 
  Judiciary are listed below.....................................    96

Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
  York, for the record
    An excerpt of the transcript from the interview with Steven 
        D'Antuono, Jun. 7, 2023
    An excerpt of the transcript from the interview with Joseph 
        Bonavolonta, May 4, 2023
    An excerpt of the transcript from the hearing, ``Oversight of 
        the Federal Bureau of Investigations,'' House Judiciary 
        Committee, Jul. 12, 2023
    The transcript from Day 1 of the Special Counsel Robert Hur 
        and President Joseph Biden interview, Oct. 8 , 2023
    The transcript from Day 2 of the Special Counsel Robert Hur 
        and President Joseph Biden interview, Oct. 9, 2023
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for the 
  record
    A letter to the Hon. Merrick Garland, Attorney General, from 
        the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the 
        Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Apr. 30, 2024
    A Management Advisory Memorandum from the Department of 
        Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Notification of 
        Concerns Regarding the Department of Justice's Compliance 
        with Whistleblower Protections for Employees with a 
        Security Clearance, May 7, 2024
Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the 
  recor
    A consolidated case document from the the United States 
        District Court, District of Columbia, Judicial Watch, 
        Heritage Foundation, Cable News Network, Inc. v. U.S. 
        Department of Justice, May 31, 2024
    An article entitled, ``Transcript tampering? DOJ says written 
        record of Biden interview with prosecutors omitted 
        words,'' Jun. 2, 2024, Just The News
    An article entitled, ``DOJ Claims Unprecedented `Deepfake 
        Privilege' in Refusal to Release Biden-Hur Audiotape,'' 
        Jun. 4, 2024, Western Journal
    An article entitled, ``DOJ Refuses to Release Audio of Biden-
        Hur Interview,'' Jun. 3, 2024, American Greatness
    The full transcript entitled, ``Read the Full Transcripts of 
        President Joe Biden's Interview with Time,'' May 28, 
        2024, Time
An article entitled, ``House Ethics panel subpoenas DOJ for Gaetz 
  records,'' May 16, 2024, Politico, submitted by the Honorable 
  Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from 
  the State of California, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Kentucky, for 
  the record
    An Amicus Brief of the former Attorney General Edwin Meese, 
        III, Law Professors Steven G. Calabresi, and Gary S. 
        Lawson from the Supreme Court, United States, United 
        States v. Donald J. Trump
    An article entitled, ``Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in 
        the First Place?,'' Jun. 10, 2024, The Heritage 
        Foundation
An article entitled, ``Trump has threatened dozens of times to 
  use the government to target political enemies,'' May 22, 2024, 
  Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics in Washington (CREW), 
  submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Washington, for 
  the record
An article entitled, ``Merrick Garland, Three Special Counsels 
  and a Justice Department Under Fire,'' Jun. 3, 2024, The Wall 
  Street Journal, submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  California, for the record
An excerpt from Day 1 of the Special Counsel Robert Hur and 
  President Joseph Biden interview, submitted by the Honorable 
  Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
A Staff Report entitled, ``GOP Witnesses: What Their Disclosures 
  Indicate about the State of the Republican Investigations,'' 
  Mar. 2, 2023, Committee on the Judiciary, submitted by the 
  Honorable Deborah Ross, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of North Carolina, for the record
An excerpt from the Special Counsel, Robert K. Hur Report, 
  regarding President Biden's memory, submitted by the Honorable 
  Jeff Van Drew, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from 
  the State of New Jersey, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Kelly Armstrong, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of North Dakota, 
  for the record
    An article entitled, ``The U.S. Attorney's hidden role in 
        undermining DC's gun laws,'' May 6, 2024, DC Crime Facts
    An article entitled, ``Corruption of a Term: The Problematic 
        Nature of 18 U.S.C. 1512c, the New Federal Obstruction of 
        Justice Provision,'' Vol. 57, Iss. 4 (2004), Vanderbilt 
        Law Review
An article entitled, ``House Ethics panel subpoenas DOJ for Gaetz 
  records,'' May 16, 2024, Politico, submitted by the Honorable 
  Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from 
  the State of California, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the 
  record
    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee 
        on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, from the 
        Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, Apr. 22, 2024
    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee 
        on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the 
        Honorable Harriet Hageman, a Member of the Committee on 
        the Judiciary from the State of Wyoming, from the 
        Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte, U.S. 
        Department of Justice, May 31, 2024
An article enitled, ``Cartels infiltrating native reservations 
  with fentanyl: Tribal leader,'' Apr. 21, 2024, News Nation, 
  submitted by the Honorable Harriet Hageman, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Wyoming, for the 
  record

                                APPENDIX

A letter Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Miguel Cardona, 
  Secretary of Education, from Advancing American Freedom, May 7, 
  2024, submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the 
  record
A statement from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the 
  record

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions to the Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, 
  Department of Justice, from the Honorable Barry Moore, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Alabama, 
  Scott Fitzgerald, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Wisconsin, and Victoria Spartz, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Indiana, for 
  the record
    No response at the time of publication

 
                    OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
                               OF JUSTICE

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 4, 2024

                        House of Representatives

                       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 Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Jordan, Gaetz, Biggs, 
McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Bishop, Spartz, Fitzgerald, 
Bentz, Cline, Armstrong, Gooden, Van Drew, Moore, Kiley, 
Hageman, Moran, Lee, Hunt, Fry, Nadler, Cohen, Johnson, Schiff, 
Correa, Swalwell, Lieu, Jayapal, Scanlon, Neguse, McBath, Dean, 
Escobar, Ross, Bush, Ivey, and Balint.
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The Committee will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Oversight of 
the Department of Justice.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McClintock, 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 is now recognized for an opening 
statement.
    Justice is no longer blind in America. Today it's driven by 
politics.
    Example 1. President Trump. Fani Willis opens an 
investigation into President Trump in February 2021, but 
doesn't bring charges until after he announces he is running 
for President. Alvin Bragg said, quote,

        I could not see a world in which I would indict Trump and call 
        Mr. Cohen as a prosecution witness.

That's exactly what he did after President Trump announced he 
was running for President.
    The Attorney General names Jack Smith Special Counsel three 
days after President Trump announces he's running for 
President.
    Four months earlier, before Jack Smith is named as Special 
Counsel, the Biden Justice Department, under Attorney General 
Garland, approved a raid on President Trump's home--something 
we've never witnessed in this great country. This action broke 
every norm in our justice system.
    Don't take my word for it. Former Assistant Director-in-
Charge of the Washington Field Office of the FBI, Steven 
D'Antuono, said this in his deposition to our Committee: Four 
standard processes were not followed.
    (1) The Washington Field Office ran that raid, not the 
Miami Field Office.
    (2) The operation was run out of headquarters, not from an 
assigned U.S. Attorney's Office, as is customary.
    (3) The FBI didn't seek consent before doing the raid.
    (4) The FBI refused to wait for President Trump's attorneys 
to be present before the search was conducted.
    Then, there's Jay Bratt. Mr. Bratt is on the Special 
Counsel team. He met with Biden White House officials multiple 
times, including just weeks before Jack Smith indicts former 
President Trump.
    What's most troubling is what Mr. Bratt did to Stanley 
Woodward. Mr. Woodward represents one of the defendants in the 
documents case. He was summoned by Mr. Bratt to the Department 
headquarters. At the meeting, Mr. Bratt informed Stanley 
Woodward,

        If your guy flips, if your client changes, it could help your 
        chances for that judgeship you are interested in.

Unbelievable.
    Of course, there's the fact that Jack Smith changed the 
sequence of the documents he seized in the raid of the 
President's home. I had to file this with the judge and with 
the court. The physical documents don't match the scanned 
documents. Many people call this ``tampering with evidence.'' 
Jack Smith mishandled the very documents he charged President 
Trump with mishandling.
    Remember what Special Counsel Hur found. On page 1 of his 
report, he said this: ``President Biden knowingly kept 
classified information. President Biden knowingly disclosed 
classified information.''
    Then, on page 231, he told us why President Biden did it. 
Page 231, quote, ``Joe Biden had strong motivations for 
ignoring the procedures for classified information because he 
was writing a book''--a book for which he got paid $8 million.
    President Trump gets charged for allegedly mishandling 
documents, but Jack Smith can mishandle documents, no problem. 
Joe Biden can mishandle documents, no problem.
    Never forget this is the same Department of Justice who 
made David Weiss the Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden case. 
After Mr. Weiss spent 4\1/2\ years investigating President 
Biden's son, and had the sweetheart deal he took to the court 
laughed out of court, he gets named Special Counsel.
    This is the same Department of Justice whose Civil Rights 
Division has done nothing to address the attacks on Jewish 
students at college campuses. This is the same Department of 
Justice who can't tell us who planted the pipe bombs on January 
6th, who leaked the Dobbs draft opinion, and who put cocaine in 
the White House.
    This is the same Department of Justice who told us in a 
memo from the Attorney General himself that moms and dads at 
school board meetings should be investigated; the same 
Department of Justice who said pro-life Catholics are 
extremists; the same Department of Justice who censored 
Americans; and the same Department of Justice who retaliated 
against whistleblowers who came to this Committee and told us 
about these wrongdoings.
    Mr. Garland, we're glad you're here today. We've got lots 
of questions. Many Americans believe there's now a double 
standard in our justice system, and they believe that because 
there is. We're going to have lots of questions about that 
problem.
    With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, I've been in Congress since 1992. My colleagues 
and I, of course, have had our political disagreements in the 
past 30 years. Ultimately, in this Committee we have worked 
together, more often than not, across the aisle to pass 
transformative pieces of legislation intended to help the 
American people--legislation to protect women from domestic 
violence and sexual harassment; legislation to prevent 
discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community; legislation to 
fight racial discrimination and hate crimes; and legislation to 
protect Americans' privacy.
    I am proud of that record of success. I'm proud of how much 
work of substance we have accomplished in this hearing room 
under the leadership of the Chairs of both parties, which makes 
the current Republican House that much more frustrating.
    I've been a Member of this Committee for more than 30 years 
and our work came to a dead stop when the MAGA Republicans took 
over the House and Chair Jordan took the gavel of this 
Committee.
    Don't just take my word for it. Our Republican colleagues 
have said it best.
    Representative Biggs said, quote,

        We have nothing. In my opinion, we have nothing to go out there 
        and campaign on. It's embarrassing.

Representative Roy said, quote,

        I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing--one!--
        that I can go campaign on and say we did. One! Anybody sitting 
        in the complex, you want to come down to the floor and come 
        explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the 
        Republican Majority has done.

I agree wholeheartedly.
    This Committee, once an agent of momentum to move our 
country forward, has become little more than a field office for 
the Trump campaign.
    The Republicans on this Committee have spent $20 million 
taxpayer dollars working to get Trump reelected; $20 million 
dollars on an impeachment inquiry based on statements from a 
witness who turned out to have ties to Russian intelligence; 
$20 million dollars attacking researchers who studied 
disinformation and social media companies who were trying to 
stop disinformation--all in an effort to ensure that Russia can 
do whatever it wants to interfere in the November election. 
Twenty million dollars attacking the work that the Justice 
Department and FBI are doing to keep Americans safe.
    To be clear, this $20-million effort seems nowhere close to 
satisfying MAGA extremists. They want even more money and 
resources wasted on chasing conspiracy theories in defense of 
Donald Trump.
    Here's just a sampling of what MAGA leaders had to say over 
the past few days:
    [Video played.]
    Mr. Nadler. Unfortunately, those are the sentiments that 
govern my Republican colleagues here today.
    This hearing is not an attempt to conduct real, robust 
oversight of the Department of Justice, but rather an attempt 
to flog the Biden Administration's Attorney General and to 
create an outlet to spew more ridiculous conspiracy theories.
    That's why they held a hearing on what they've termed 
``lawfare''--the ridiculous assertion that the Department is 
somehow orchestrating State prosecutions of the former 
President for criminal activity that has been well-documented.
    That's why the day after Trump was convicted on 34 felony 
counts by a jury of his peers, Chair Jordan tried to drag 
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg into this hearing room 
to discredit the lawful outcome of the trial.
    That's why they're making threats against and harassing the 
Fulton County District Attorney. They are trying to intimidate 
her out of going after Trump, or at least to proactively 
discredit any conviction that comes out of the election 
interference prosecution.
    Extreme MAGA Republicans will use every tool they have to 
persecute, harass, and impugn anyone who dares hold Donald 
Trump accountable. That includes the Special Counsel appointed 
by the Attorney General to investigate Trump's role in the 
attacks of January 6th, and his alleged theft of classified 
documents from the White House.
    In service of a convicted felon, they will have totally 
squandered their opportunity to do something meaningful for the 
American people.
    Their failure on these front stands in stark contrast to 
Attorney General Garland's tenure at the Department of Justice, 
which has done vital work in recent years to protect the 
interests of the American people.
    Under your leadership, Mr. Attorney General, the Department 
is protecting consumers by ensuring Ticketmaster can't exploit 
its hold in the entertainment industry.
    It is fighting to reduce violent crime and has helped 
achieve decreasing levels of homicides, gun assaults, and 
burglaries across the country.
    It is combating the fentanyl epidemic, taking tens of 
millions of fentanyl pills off the street every year and 
prosecuting traffickers and dealers.
    It is defending reproductive freedom in light of Roe v. 
Wade's downfall, fighting to keep abortion healthcare and 
medications accessible to American women.
    It is ensuring our election infrastructure is safe and 
secure, so that we have a fully functional, secure, and safe 
election this November without foreign interference. So much 
more.
    This DOJ is doing important work. We have the important job 
of making sure they do that work well.
    Unfortunately, Republicans on this Committee, under the 
Chair's leadership, don't want to help DOJ employees do their 
jobs. They want to stop them from doing any work at all--taking 
them out at the knees, because that's what Donald Trump wants.
    These Republicans don't care what's in the interest of the 
American people. They just care about getting their favorite 
felon back in the White House.
    General Garland, thank you for being here today, and I 
apologize in advance for the wild conspiracies and lies that 
will be told about you today.
    You and I do not agree on everything, but you are a man of 
great character and professional integrity. I take great 
comfort in knowing that nothing my Republican colleagues say 
about you here will change the thoughtfulness and decency that 
mark your leadership of the Department.
    I urge you not to take this process too personally. Their 
desperation has nothing to do with your record as Attorney 
General.
    Thank you for being here, and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection, all other opening 
statements will be included in the record.
    Chair Jordan. We will now introduce today's witness.
    The Honorable Merrick Garland is the Attorney General of 
the United States. He was sworn in on March 11, 2021.
    We welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today.
    We will begin by swearing you in.
    Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witness has answered in the 
affirmative. You may be seated.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you 
summarize your testimony. You've done this several times 
before, Mr. Attorney General. You can start with your opening 
statement.
    Then, I want to point out here at the outset that anytime 
you need a break--we're going to be here; we're going to have 
to go to the floor and vote--anytime you need a break, just 
have your team get a hold of our team, and we'll be happy to do 
that.
    You're recognized for your opening statement.

               STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

                        MERRICK GARLAND

    Attorney General Garland. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking 
Member Nadler, and the distinguished Members of this Committee.
    Since I last appeared before you, the more than 115,000 
employees of the Department of Justice have continued their 
work to fulfill our mission on behalf of the American people--
to keep our country safe, to protect civil rights, and to 
uphold the rule of law.
    Just 10 days ago, we secured the extradition of one of the 
leading sicarios, or assassins, of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of 
the most dangerous drug trafficking organizations in the world.
    Just last month, we secured a 27-year prison sentence for a 
man who attempted to kill NYPD officers in a terrorist attack 
in Times Square in 2022.
    Just the first three months of this year, we charged seven 
members of a hacking group backed by the Chinese government; we 
disrupted a botnet controlled by Russian intelligence services, 
and we seized over $108 million and 500,000 barrels of fuel 
that would have otherwise enabled the government of Iran to 
further support Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups.
    We have continued our work to drive down violent crime--
work that we know is paying off. Last year's historic decline 
in homicides, the largest one-year decline in 50 years, is 
continuing. In the first quarter of this year, we have already 
seen an 18 percent drop in murders. We know we have much more 
to do.
    We have also remained steadfast in our commitment to the 
Justice Department's founding purpose to protect civil rights. 
We have aggressively investigated and prosecuted hate crimes 
that victimize individuals and terrorize entire communities, 
and we have brought justice to the perpetrators of those 
crimes--like the defendant in Florida who attacked two Black 
women because of the color of their skin; the defendant in 
Michigan who defaced synagogues with swastikas; the defendant 
in Missouri who set fire to a community Islamic center; and the 
defendant in Tennessee who committed a series of arsons 
targeting Catholic, Methodist, and Baptist
churches.
    We have worked to protect the reproductive freedoms that 
are protected by Federal law. In Idaho, we sued to ensure that 
women in the State would have access to the emergency care 
guaranteed to them under Federal law.
    We have continued to protect the right to vote and to have 
that vote counted. We successfully challenged a redistricting 
plan in Galveston County, Texas. The District Court recognized 
that the plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by 
depriving the county's Black and Latino voters of an equal 
opportunity to participate in the political process and elect 
the candidate of their choice.
    We have continued to prosecute fraud and we have challenged 
illegal monopolies that drive up prices for consumers. This 
year, we sued to break up Live Nation/Ticketmaster for its 
monopoly of the live concert industry, and we sued Apple for 
monopolizing smart-
phone markets.
    We have also continued to fulfill our responsibility that 
underlies all our work to uphold the rule of law. That is why 
we have worked to combat a worrying spike of threats of 
violence against those who serve the public. Those threats have 
included targeting of Members of Congress, police officers, 
judges, jurors, election workers, and the Justice Department's 
own employees. Let me be clear, if anyone threatens public 
servants with violence, we will hold them accountable.
    We will continue to protect our democratic institutions 
like this one and to bring to justice all those criminally 
responsible for the January 16th attack on our democracy.
    As Attorney General, I will continue to forcefully defend 
the independence of the Justice Department from improper 
influence or interference of any kind, and I will continue to 
fiercely protect the integrity of our criminal investigations. 
Nothing will deter me from fulfilling my obligation to uphold 
the rule of law.
    Fulfilling that obligation includes ensuring that the 
Justice Department respects Congress' important role in our 
democracy. That is why we have gone to extraordinary lengths to 
ensure that the Committee gets responses to legitimate requests 
for information.
    That is why I have provided the Committee with Special 
Counsel Hur's report, why the Special Counsel testified for 
more than five hours, and why we have gone beyond precedent to 
provide the Committee with the transcripts of the Special 
Counsel's interview with the President.
    We have made clear that we will not provide audio 
recordings from which the transcripts that you already have 
were created. Releasing the audio would chill cooperation with 
the Department in future investigations, and it could influence 
witnesses' answers if they thought the audio of their law 
enforcement interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the 
public.
    In response, certain Members of this Committee and the 
Oversight Committee are seeking contempt as a means of 
obtaining--for no legitimate purpose--sensitive law enforcement 
information that could harm the integrity of future 
investigations. This effort is only the most recent in a long 
line of attacks on the Justice Department's work.
    It comes alongside threats to defund particular Department 
investigations--most recently, the Special Counsel's 
prosecution of the former President.
    It comes alongside false claims that a jury verdict in a 
State trial brought by a local district attorney was somehow 
controlled by the Justice Department. That conspiracy theory is 
an attack on the judicial process itself.
    It comes as individual career agents and prosecutors have 
been singled out just for doing their jobs.
    It comes as baseless, and extremely dangerous, falsehoods 
are being spread about the FBI's law enforcement operations.
    It comes at a time when we are seeing heinous threats of 
violence being directed at the Justice Department's career 
civil servants.
    These repeated attacks on the Justice Department are 
unprecedented and they are unfounded. These attacks have not, 
and they will not influence our decisionmaking.
    I view contempt as a serious matter, but I will not 
jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do 
their jobs effectively in future investigations. I will not be 
intimidated, and the Justice Department will not be 
intimidated. We will continue to work, do our jobs free from 
political influence, and we will not back down from defending 
democracy.
    I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of the Attorney General Garland 
follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
    We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions.
    The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from--the Ranking Member--
    Mr. Nadler. I have a unanimous consent request.
    Chair Jordan. Does it have to happen right now?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    Chair Jordan. OK. Well, go ahead.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, there's an allegation made in the 
letter yesterday suggesting that the FBI was somehow involved 
on January 6th. This is ludicrous and you know it's ludicrous 
because witnesses--
    Chair Jordan. Is there an unanimous consent request? Is 
there a unanimous--
    Mr. Gaetz. It's not a proper unanimous consent--
    Mr. Nadler. I have some unanimous consent requests.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt 
from the transcript of the Committee's interview with Steve 
D'Antuono, the former leader of the FBI's Washington Field 
Office that clearly refutes characterizations that the FBI was 
involved in the inciting violence of January 6th.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from--
    Mr. Nadler. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record an excerpt from the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI 
Boston Field Office in which he explains that conspiracies 
about the FBI causing the Capitol insurrection are false and 
concerning.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Nadler. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter an 
excerpt from FBI Director Wray's testimony before the 
Committee, before this Committee, last July where he states, 
quote,

        I will say this notion that somehow the violence at the Capitol 
        on January 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI 
        sources and agents is ludicrous and it's a disservice to our 
        brave, hardworking, dedicated men and women.

    Chair Jordan. Without objection. Without objection.
    The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Attorney General, you've told us that it's a 
dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the Department of 
Justice is communicating with these State and local 
prosecutions against Trump. You can clear it all up for us 
right now. Will the Department of Justice provide to the 
Committee all documents, all correspondence, between the 
Department and Alvin Bragg's office and Fani Willis' office and 
Letitia James' office?
    Attorney General Garland. The offices you are referring to 
are independent offices of State--
    Mr. Gaetz. I get that. I get that. The question is whether 
or not you will provide all your documents and correspondence. 
That's the question. It's because I don't need a history 
lesson.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I'm going to say again, we 
do not control those offices. They make their own decisions--
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, the question is whether you communicate 
with them, not whether you control them. Do you communicate 
with them, and will you provide those communications?
    Attorney General Garland. You make a request. We will refer 
to our Office of Legislative Affairs, and they will respond 
appropriately.
    Mr. Gaetz. See, here's the thing. You come in here and you 
lodge this attack that it's a conspiracy theory that there is 
coordinated lawfare against Trump. Then, when we say, ``Fine. 
Just give us the documents. Give us the correspondence, and 
then, if it's a conspiracy theory, that will be evident.''
    When you say, ``Well, we'll take your request, and then, 
we'll sort of work it through the DOJ's accommodation 
process,'' then, you're actually advancing the very dangerous 
conspiracy theory that you're concerned about.
    Now, you were a judge, once nominated to the highest court 
in our country. When you were a judge, I'm just curious, did 
you ever make political donations to partisan candidates?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. No, you didn't because that would create the 
potential appearance of impropriety.
    Attorney General Garland. I didn't because there's a 
Federal rule barring Federal Judges from making contributions.
    Mr. Gaetz. Oh. Right, but, under that same theory of 
attacks on the judicial process, like shouldn't someone be owed 
a jury of their peers and a judge that's nonbiased, rather than 
getting a judge from your political opponent's donor file?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm well aware that you're not 
asking a hypothetical. You're asking me to comment on a 
verdict, jury verdict, in another jurisdiction which has to be 
respected. I won't comment on it. That case is still ongoing. 
The Defendant--
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Attorney General, I hadn't asked you about 
the verdict yet. We were getting there. I was talking about the 
judge.
    So, let me ask you this question about your time as a 
judge. Was there ever a time when you were a judge when you had 
a family member who was personally profiting off the notoriety 
of a case that was before your court?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm going to say it again. It's 
very clear you're asking me to comment on a case in another 
jurisdiction--
    Mr. Gaetz. No, no. No. Hold on. Hold on. Mr. Attorney 
General, did you ever have a family member profit off the 
notoriety of any case that you sat on?
    Attorney General Garland. I'll say again, you're asking 
me--
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes or no?
    Attorney General Garland. You're asking me to comment on a 
case currently for another--
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, it seems you're connecting the dots, Mr. 
Attorney General. I'm just asking you as to a general 
principle, but you are aware that Judge Merchan's daughter was 
profiting off this prosecution. You are aware that this creates 
the appearance of impropriety. You know the very reason there's 
a Federal rule against judges giving donations is because it is 
the very attack on the judicial process that we're concerned 
about.
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, I don't agree with 
anything you just said, but I'm not going to comment on an 
actual pending court--
    Mr. Gaetz. OK. So, you won't comment on it, Mr. Attorney 
General, but you had no problem dispatching Matthew Colangelo. 
Who's Matthew Colangelo?
    Attorney General Garland. That is false. I did not dispatch 
Matthew Colangelo. That's false. False.
    Mr. Gaetz. Matthew Colangelo became the Assistant Attorney 
General at the very beginning of the Biden Administration; 
without having been Senate-confirmed, goes and gets this senior 
role at the DOJ. Then, after--I believe it's Gupta replaces 
Colangelo--Colangelo makes this remarkable downstream career 
journey from the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC, 
and then, pops up in Alvin Bragg's office to go get Trump. 
You're saying that's just a career choice that was made that 
has nothing to do with the lawfare coordinated by the--
    Attorney General Garland. I'm saying it's false. I did not 
dispatch Mr. Colangelo anywhere.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, do you know how he ended up there?
    Attorney General Garland. I assume he spoke, he applied for 
a job there and got the job.
    Mr. Gaetz. See, you know what? Do you--
    Attorney General Garland. I tell you I had nothing to do 
with it.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, you might not have had anything to do with 
it, but we've got this contemporaneous evidence in Mr. 
Pomerantz's book. So, Pomerantz writes in this book, which I'm 
sure you're aware of, where he says,

        We put together the legal eagles to get Trump. We got all these 
        folks together and we assembled them for that purpose.

    So, when we on the Judiciary Committee think about attacks 
on the judicial process, our concern is that you--the facts and 
the law aren't being followed. A target is acquired here--
Trump--and then, you assemble the legal talent from the DOJ, 
Mr. Pomerantz, and you bring everybody in to get him.
    Attorney General Garland. I really--I'm--
    Mr. Gaetz. Meanwhile, the judge is making money on it. The 
judge is making money on it, or the judge's family is making 
money on it for stuff that you, yourself, wouldn't do.
    No one's going to buy this. No one's going to believe it. 
It's going to create great disruption, and I am saddened by it, 
because, like you, I have given my life to the law. I care 
deeply about the law, and I think that the lawfare we've seen 
against President Trump will do great damage well beyond our 
time in public service.
    I see my time's expired. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The Ranking Member is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Attorney General, do you want to respond to anything in 
Mr. Gaetz's tirade?
    Attorney General Garland. I think everything he was talking 
about was in a case in another jurisdiction, an independent 
prosecutor. Mr. Pomerantz, worked for that independent 
prosecutor. I don't know Mr. Pomerantz. I don't know what's in 
his book. These are decisions made in another office 
independent of the Justice Department.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Attorney General, last week, as we all know, a jury of 
his peers convicted former President Trump on 34 felony counts 
of falsifying business records to the first degree. The case 
was brought by the Manhattan DA. So, it is a State case, not a 
Federal case.
    I shouldn't have to ask you this, Mr. Attorney General, but 
since the majority seems to be confused, can you please explain 
the difference between a State case and a Federal case?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. The Manhattan District 
Attorney has jurisdiction over cases involving New York State 
law, completely independent of the Justice Department, which 
has jurisdiction over cases involving Federal law. We do not 
control the Manhattan District Attorney. The Manhattan District 
Attorney does not report to us. The Manhattan District Attorney 
makes its own decisions about cases that he wants to bring 
under his State law.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    My Republican colleagues seem to believe that the 
Department of Justice is secretly coordinating the now 
successful prosecution of former President Trump in New York. 
Is there any truth to this allegation? What is your response to 
this allegation?
    Attorney General Garland. It is the case in New York is 
brought by the Manhattan District Attorney independently on his 
own volition and on his own determination of what was, what he 
believed was a violation of State law.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Attorney General, two weeks ago, this 
Committee took the extraordinary step of holding you in 
contempt. I want to make some things clear for the record.
    Since 2022, when the Chair took over the Committee, the 
Department of Justice has produced over 92,000 pages of 
documents and made 25 employees available for interviews. We've 
run the numbers. This is more than double the number of 
documents and exponentially more witnesses than the Trump 
Administration's Department of Justice produced to this 
Committee in four years.
    With respect to the actual audio recordings sought by the 
majority, the Department of Justice has produced full and 
complete transcripts of the conversations memorialized by these 
recordings, is that correct?
    Attorney General Garland. It is.
    Mr. Nadler. There's been an allegation that the transcripts 
might have been altered in some way. Is there any truth to that 
allegation?
    Attorney General Garland. There's no allegation--truth to 
that. The senior career official in the Department, in a 
declaration he filed under oath, stated that he had compared 
the audio to the transcript and that it is an accurate--the 
transcript is accurate with the exceptions of ``uhs,'' and 
``ahs,'' and repetitions of words like ``I'' and ``and.'' He 
consulted with Mr. Hur, the Special Counsel, and with the FBI 
agents in the room, who agreed that the--who created the 
transcript and who agreed that it was an accurate transcript.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    One more question. Mr. Attorney General, throughout the 
118th Congress, Republicans have made bogus allegations 
claiming that the Justice Department has been weaponized. Most 
recently, there was an allegation that the FBI was authorized 
to, quote, ``kill the former President.'' What impact does this 
type of rhetoric have on the career prosecutors and law 
enforcement agents at the Department of Justice?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, this is dangerous. It raises 
the threats of violence against prosecutors and career agents.
    The allegation is false. As the FBI has explained, the 
document that's being discussed is our standard use-of-force 
protocol which is a limitation on the use of force, and which 
is routinely part of the package for search warrants and was 
part of the package for the search of President Biden's home as 
well.
    Mr. Nadler. So, when President, former President Trump 
alleges that this was an assassination attempt against him, he 
is not telling the truth, either knowingly or, as is often the 
case with him, unknowingly?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm just saying that the 
allegation is not true. This is our standard use-of-force 
policy which limits the use of force that agents can use. It is 
used as a routine matter in searches. That was a court-
authorized search, and it accompanied that package as it 
routinely does.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    So, in other words, when former President Trump makes that 
allegation, he is either deliberately or, as is often the case, 
not knowing what he's--either deliberately lying or, as is 
often the case, not knowing what he's talking about.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Attorney General, there's no blanketing of the fact 
that, for the first time in American history, we do have a 
Presidential Administration that's working to put its opponent 
in jail. I mean, that's a fact that an opponent who's a former 
President of the United States.
    Now, as I understand the facts, Jack Smith was the 
principal player in the IRS targeting of the Tea Party. He has 
a well-established record of prosecutorial abuse. Yet, you 
appointed him to prosecute the former President of the United 
States who happens to be running against your boss. Now, this 
is entirely your work, including approving an unprecedented 
search of a former President's home.
    Though you've just maintained that the local prosecutors 
are independent, it's a fact that, in the Manhattan case, the 
third ranking official in your Department left it to join the 
local prosecutor's office to spearhead the New York 
prosecution. The Atlanta prosecutor strategized for hours with 
the White House Counsel in advance of filing that case.
    You've just refused Mr. Gaetz's request to reveal what 
communications your Department and its employees have had with 
those local offices.
    So, what are we to make of all this?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I have to disagree with the 
characterizations that you've made. We're happy to take into 
account the requests, if you make them to us. That's the normal 
process and we will respond to all--
    Mr. McClintock. Which characterization do you question?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I disagree with your 
characterization that this person was sent by my office--Mr. 
McClintock. Which one?
    I didn't say he was sent, but it is rather odd that the 
third ranking official in your office leaves it to go to a 
local prosecutor's office to prosecute this case.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the Justice Department had 
nothing to do with that person going. He was the Principal 
Deputy to the third ranking person in the Department.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, like Caesar's wife, it's important 
that your Department be above reproach and clearly, it's not.
    Special Counsel Hur concluded that although there was 
evidence President Biden had willfully retained and disclosed 
classified materials when he was a private citizen--his words--
criminal charges were not warranted because, among other 
things, President Biden is, quote, ``a sympathetic, well-
meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.''
    Do you, do you agree with that decision?
    Attorney General Garland. I have said it before, and I'll 
say it again, I'm not going to comment. I didn't comment on Mr. 
Durham's Special Counsel Report. I'm not going to comment on 
Mr. Hur's. Mr. Hur testified for five hours before this 
Committee.
    Mr. McClintock. This is a Department of Justice matter; 
you're the Attorney General, and there's no prosecution 
involved with this at this point. So, why won't you comment?
    Attorney General Garland. Of course it matters. Mr. Hur 
explained the rationale for his decision in that case, and he 
explained the differences between that case and the case 
involving the former President.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, I do want to thank you for your 
testimony expressing concern for terrorist attacks. We've had 
five million illegal immigrants deliberately released into our 
country with very limited vetting. While the Border Patrol has 
been overwhelmed, another two million known gotaways have 
entered as well.
    Now, last year, your FBI Director told this Committee that 
he believes this constitutes a massive security threat--again, 
his words. Do you agree with that assessment?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm never going to be disagreeing 
with the FBI Director, but my recollection, he said it; there 
is a national security threat of people from known terrorist 
organizations crossing the border who--
    Mr. McClintock. I've raised--
    Attorney General Garland. The FBI will do everything it can 
to follow those people if they manage to make it across the 
border and to ensure that the country's protected.
    Mr. McClintock. Yes, but, well we could go into that in 
great detail. My greatest fear is that we could face a 
coordinated terrorist attack from elements among the millions 
who have entered this country illegally over the last three 
years. Is this fear justified?
    Attorney General Garland. I am worried about the 
possibility of a terrorist attack in the country. After October 
7th, the threat level for us has gone up enormously. Every 
morning, we worry about this question. We try to track anyone 
who might be trying to hurt the country. Of course, this is a 
major priority for the Justice Department.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, you've got, you've got millions 
because of this Administration's policies, you now have 
millions and millions who have been allowed into this country, 
or who have evaded the Border Patrol while they've been 
overwhelmed admitting these millions in.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the--
    Mr. McClintock. I worry about the stage is set for 
something very bad happening in the very near future because of 
your Administration's policies.
    Now, it's reported the President intends to use Section 
212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to turn back 
illegal entries once they reach 2,500 a day. Now, that's nearly 
a million a year. So, that's not closing the barn door. That's 
keeping it propped open indefinitely. It is a lower number than 
your Administration has tolerated so far.
    Yet, the last three years, 3\1/2\ years, the President's 
maintained that he has no such authority. So, what's changed 
other than we're five months before the election, and Biden--
    Attorney General Garland. I have to refer you to the 
Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for 
border issues. I would say that the best way to protect the 
border was to pass the bipartisan legislation that was proposed 
that--
    Mr. McClintock. You're responsible--well, the bipartisan 
legislation would have forbidden future Presidents from using 
that very authority until illegal entries reached 4,000 a day.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has--
    Mr. McClintock. So, don't be disingenuous, Mr. Attorney 
General.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    They have called votes on the floor. I think we'll try to 
ask a couple more questions, and then, we'll break for about 
approximately 15 minutes, Mr. Attorney General, and then, we'll 
be back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
    Thank you for your attendance here today, General Garland.
    I'm perplexed here. I'd like to ask you a few questions.
    They've raised the fact that this is the first time that 
there's been a prosecution of a President that's gone after, 
allegedly gone after his opponent. Has there ever been another 
time in American history when a President was involved in an 
insurrection trying to overthrow the Government of the United 
States of America other than January 6th?
    Attorney General Garland. The answer no, but I do not 
intend to comment on the charges in the prosecution of the 
former President anymore than I would comment on Mr. Hur's 
report. I just am not going to comment on matters that are 
before the courts.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    It was said, somebody quoted that one of the reasons Mr.--
it was, there was no indictment of President Biden on records, 
classified records--it was because he was considered a 
sympathetic character.
    In the Trump case, did anybody consider him a sympathetic 
character?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I'm going to fall back on 
my respect for the court process and the fact that cases are 
in--
    Mr. Cohen. I could understand--
    Attorney General Garland. --before judges, and I'm just not 
going to--I just can't comment.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Jordan, in his opening comments, commented 
on the, the execution of the search warrant and said it was 
different in all these different ways. How many classified 
documents were found pursuant to that search warrant and how 
many times had there been an attempt to get those classified 
documents and they had been refused to return them?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I don't know the--I don't 
have in my head the number. That's all on the public record, 
including the number of times that efforts were made to obtain 
through legal process the documents.
    Mr. Cohen. This whole hearing is about weaponization of the 
Justice Department and the suggestion that it was somehow your 
Department was involved in the prosecution of Donald Trump in 
the State Court of New York. As far as weaponization of the 
Department goes, did the Justice Department indict Senator 
Menendez?
    Attorney General Garland. That's a matter of public record. 
Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. He's a Democrat, isn't he?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm assuming the answer is yes.
    Mr. Cohen. Henry Cuellar, the Justice Department indicted 
him. He's a Democratic, too, isn't he?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. It's a matter of public 
record.
    Mr. Cohen. So, you've prosecuted Democrats. As we speak, 
Hunter Biden, who is the son of the President, is under trial 
in Delaware. So, you have a weaponized Justice Department in 
terms of hiding and protecting Democrats Menendez, Cuellar, and 
Hunter Biden?
    Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department follows 
the facts and the law. We prosecute like cases alike, and we 
make decisions about different cases in different ways. We do 
not allow the political party or the ethnicity, religion, race, 
wealth, or influence of someone we're investigating to make a 
difference in our charging decisions.
    Mr. Cohen. I noticed Mr. Gaetz, who took you on first, is 
not here now, and that's unfortunate because he is living 
testament to the fact and direct evidence that you have not 
weaponized the Justice Department. He was investigated for sex 
trafficking, and while many expected a prosecution, you chose 
not to prosecute this very active Republican. Is that true? You 
did not prosecute him?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how much, 
what is in the public record and what's not. So, I'm just not 
going to comment on that.
    Mr. Cohen. Violent crime in urban areas is decreasing, and 
I thank you for that. Unfortunately, Memphis is not one of the 
cities where we've seen violent crime being reduced, but we're 
working on it. It was the second city to join the Violent Crime 
Initiative, which increases Federal resources in specific 
communities. Thank you for getting your Department involved in 
trying to reduce murders and violent crime in our city--my 
city. Resources have been helpful, based on my conversations 
with a U.S. Attorney and our District Attorney, and I want to 
thank you for that.
    Can you share some of the Department's successes in 
tackling violent crime?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, yes. As I said in my 
opening--and I want to be clear, these are not the Justice 
Department's successes; these are the country's successes. 
Success in fighting violent crime relies on our partnership 
with State and local law enforcement, which really face violent 
crime the most directly. We operate in support of them and in 
our ability to bring technological tools and statutes to the 
fight that they may not have available.
    Mr. Cohen. My time's almost up. I just want to mention one 
thing.
    I read yesterday that the Chair of the Committee wants to 
reduce funding to the Justice Department, and particularly 
certain areas. That would be defunding the Justice Department 
and defunding the opportunity to go after reducing violent 
crime. I'm shocked.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman--excuse me--the gentleman 
yields back.
    Mr. Attorney General, we're going to take a break now. The 
votes have been going on for a while on the floor. We will be 
back in, give or take, 15 minutes, more or less.
    With that, the Committee will stand in recess.
    [Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m., the Committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 11:25 a.m., the same day.]
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. I would ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record in light of the 
question from the gentleman from Florida, a letter that we 
sent, the Committee sent to the Attorney General on April 30th, 
asking for all communications of Mr. Colangelo with the Justice 
Department and the folks in the Manhattan District Attorney's 
Office. So, without objection, that will be entered into the 
record.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from--oh, by the 
way, that was April 30, 2024, so the Attorney Generals had 
plenty of time to respond to what Mr. Gaetz raised in his 
question about getting that information. If it is really no 
coordination, as he alleges, then show us the information or 
tell us if you don't have any.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General on 
May 15, 2024, you sent a letter to President Biden recommending 
he invoke Executive Privilege on audio recordings of his 
interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. In this letter, you 
claim the precise concern is that Executive Privilege protects 
materials related to a closed criminal investigation where 
disclosure might hamper prosecutorial efforts in future cases.
    Is that correct that you stated that earlier?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. In this letter, you also wrote that you are 
concerned about the prospect the Committees of Congress of 
taking confidential records from Justice Department criminal 
investigative files for the purpose of addressing highly 
politicized issues in public Committee hearings.
    Is that correct as well?
    Attorney General Garland. Are you citing my letter?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes.
    Attorney General Garland. My letter, that is correct, 
right.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. So, let me go back. In the United 
States v. Mitchell during Watergate, a District Court case, 
Judge Sirica held that by releasing portions of a subpoenaed 
recording in transcript form for publication, the President's 
claim of confidentiality and that privilege associated with it 
was no longer valid since the conversations were no longer 
confidential.
    You produced the transcripts for this Committee, correct?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Prior to producing the transcripts to the 
Committee, they were leaked to the press. So, based on 
Mitchell, which is still good law, the recordings are, in fact, 
no longer confidential, aren't they?
    Attorney General Garland. May I respond? I am sorry, that 
is not Mitchell was about at all. Mitchell was, first, about 
transcripts created by President Nixon for which there was 
plenty of reason to believe that they were not accurate. 
Second, it had to do with the confidentiality of a 
communications between Nixon and his staff. Once he provided 
the transcripts, the court said those communications were no 
longer confidential. That is not the allegation--that is not 
what we are asserting here. Here, we are asserting 
confidentiality over the audio--not confidentiality, but 
protection of the audio in a criminal investigation, an 
interview, not a staff meeting.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. OK. Thank you. Let me move on. Your May 
15th letter also relies on the argument that producing the 
audio tapes would affect the Department's ability to obtain 
vital cooperation in high profile criminal investigations, in 
particular, investigations where the voluntary cooperation of 
White House officials is exceedingly important.
    Is it your testimony that a White House official would 
voluntarily cooperate in a criminal investigation only if the 
Justice Department promises not to release the audio 
recordings? That doesn't make any sense.
    Attorney General Garland. The long-time experience of the 
Justice Department, as also reflected in the declaration that 
was filed under oath, is that witnesses want to protect the 
confidentiality of their communications with the prosecutors 
during these sensitive interviews. In the Cheney case, the 
Justice Department made the same claim even with respect to FBI 
notes about interviews with Mr. Cheney and that Special 
Counsel.
    It is our view that we need witnesses to be willing to be 
tape recorded, audio recorded, and that they are going to be 
less willing to do that, if they know it is going to be made 
public. The declaration was filed in court on Friday. The 
senior official stated that he knew of cases right now where 
people are unwilling to provide audio because they are worried 
about it becoming public. So, the answer is yes. That is our 
view.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Attorney General, have you listened to the 
audio recordings?
    Attorney General Garland. I have not because there is no 
reason for me to listen to it to make the determinations that I 
had to make. We had the Special Counsel describe in detail his 
explanations for his determinations.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, I don't understand how you can kind of 
sit before the Congressional Committee and kind of arbitrate 
what is indistinguishable for the transcripts if you are not 
even sure what is on the tapes themselves?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not doing it on my own.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, you are saying that other people have 
listened to it within the Department?
    Attorney General Garland. Within the Department and the 
Special Counsel has listened to it, and the Special Counsel had 
every interest in ensuring that the transcript that he produced 
to do his investigation would be accurate. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. OK, so let's go back. So, in the May 15th 
letter, you also attempt to distinguish the Committee's 
reliance on the United States v. Nixon. Specifically, you claim 
that since President Nixon had released only edited transcripts 
of a portion of the meetings covered by the audio recordings, 
the Nixon case does not apply. That was not what the court held 
regarding the enforceability of the Special Prosecutor's 
subpoena, was it? That doesn't match up right now.
    Attorney General Garland. I am not exactly sure what you 
are asking, but Nixon, it was well known that Nixon had edited 
the tapes, edited the transcripts, and he said he had edited 
the transcripts. That is not what happened here. The Special 
Counsel, the FBI agents in the room, and the senior career 
official said that the transcripts matched the audio.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, the court reasoned that the audio 
recordings would be relevant to show, among other things, a 
criminal conspiracy and for other valid potential evidentiary 
uses for the same material?
    Attorney General Garland. In the Nixon case, yes, because 
there were parts of the transcript in which the conspiracy was 
disclosed of those communications which parts of that audio 
were not in the transcript. That is not the situation here.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. We don't know that though, Attorney 
General. We are unaware because we haven't heard the tapes. We 
don't know if they match up.
    Attorney General Garland. Everyone had a genuine reason to 
believe that those transcripts were not accurate. Here, you 
have the Special Counsel, the FBI agents in the room, and you 
have the senior career official in the Department, all 
comparing it, and finding them to be accurate.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Most Americans have 
grown sick and tired of this do nothing MAGA Republican House 
of Representatives which has failed to pass a single piece of 
legislation that lowers costs for families or addresses the 
Southern border issue or other important issues.
    Instead of attacking real issues that matter, House MAGA 
Republicans fritter away time with rabbit-hole investigations 
of Dr. Fauci and Hunter Biden, while simultaneously spinning 
webs of lies that seek to create public wrath against anyone 
who would dare to be involved in any effort to hold a convicted 
felon, Donald Trump, accountable for his misconduct. The 
American people can see right through these distraction 
efforts.
    Attorney General Garland, thank you for your many years of 
service to our Nation. Among other positions in the Federal 
justice system, you have had an illustrious career as a Federal 
judge, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit, from 1997-2021, including as 
Chief Judge from 2013-2020. You also served as Chair of the 
Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United 
States from 2017-2020, so I am sure that you have had a lot of 
time to think deeply about the importance of judicial 
impartiality in a functioning democracy.
    I and 44 other Members of Congress, have called for 
Justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves in cases where 
they cannot be seen as impartial in the case seeking immunity 
for Donald Trump and others. Justice Thomas' wife played a 
major role in the ``Stop the Steal'' movement that culminated 
in the January 6th insurrection, and we recently learned that 
Justice Alito flew flags related to the ``Stop the Steal'' 
movement at both his residential home and his vacation home in 
2021, and again in 2023 which directly ties him to the January 
6th insurrection, to Donald Trump, and to efforts to overturn 
the 2020 election. We urge them to recuse themselves from 
related cases and Justice Alito last week refused.
    Then last week, my colleague, Jamie Raskin, wrote an op-ed 
arguing that DOJ could petition the other seven Justices to 
require Justice Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. That 
leads me to this question. Is the filing of such a petition 
with the Supreme Court something that the Department of Justice 
is considering?
    Attorney General Garland. I am afraid I am going to have to 
give you the same answer I have given to other Members. The 
Justice Department can't comment on matters that are before a 
court, that is, you are talking about before the Supreme Court.
    Mr. Johnson. This is involving terms of an independent 
petition, not related to any matter pending before the court at 
this time, but related to those matters.
    Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department speaks 
through its filings on matters before the court and that is all 
I can say about it.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I would like for the DOJ to at least 
consider that possibility.
    My next question, public reporting has revealed that 
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have 
accepted gifts of luxury travel and lodging from billionaire 
benefactors and failed to report those gifts as required under 
Federal financial disclosure laws. The Ethics in Government Act 
provides the Attorney General with authority to investigate and 
take action against violations of the financial disclosure laws 
by Members of the Federal Judiciary, even without a referral 
from the Judicial Conference.
    What can you tell us about the Department of Justice's 
efforts to investigate those high-profile violations by those 
two Justices.
    Attorney General Garland. I am afraid I am going to have to 
say the same as I said before. The Justice Department does not 
comment on whether it investigates or who it investigates, or 
who it should investigate.
    Mr. Johnson. Fair enough.
    Attorney General Garland. All our statements are reflected 
in court papers.
    Mr. Johnson. Fair enough. Threats on the Judiciary are 
increasing, and this is frightening to the rule of law. Can you 
talk about the work that DOJ is doing to address this important 
issue?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. The threats to the 
Judiciary, threats to prosecutors, and threats to law 
enforcement agents have all spiked significantly and some cases 
have accelerated from threats to actual violence. We have a 
Threats Task Force engaged and investigating these matters. We 
intend to aggressively investigate and prosecute threats 
against our public officials including the Members of Congress 
of which the numbers have actually exploded in the past couple 
of years.
    Our democracy cannot continue if the people who make the 
democracy run are afraid, if they make their decisions based on 
fear, being threatened, or of being assaulted. No democracy can 
survive under those circumstances, and we will do everything we 
can in our power to investigate, deter, and prosecute anyone 
who makes threats against public servants.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Garland, why 
Jack Smith? Why did you pick him?
    Attorney General Garland. At the time I appointed Mr. 
Smith, I explained, he was independent. He was a long-time 
career prosecutor with--
    Chair Jordan. There are probably other people who you would 
describe as independent and long-time career prosecutors. Why 
did you pick--this is probably the most high-profile Special 
Counsel investigation maybe in American history. You are going 
to be investigating a former President, a candidate for 
President, and leading in all the polls, and you pick Jack 
Smith, the most important selection maybe ever made from 
Attorney General when it comes to Special Counsel. I just ask 
why you could have picked former AGs, Deputy AGs, U.S. 
Attorneys, you have got all kinds of lawyers in this town, but 
you picked Jack Smith.
    Attorney General Garland. All the people you just mentioned 
were political appointees. I appointed somebody who is not a 
political appointee, somebody who was independent, nonpartisan 
with a record of career experience as a prosecutor. That seemed 
to me the perfect resume for making that kind of--
    Chair Jordan. He was the guy, you had to bring him back 
from Europe. He worked at the ICC. He worked at the World 
Court. He was the best pick for the most high-profile 
investigation ever?
    Attorney General Garland. He was independent. He was 
nonpartisan. He had never held a political office. He was never 
appointed to a political office.
    Chair Jordan. Is he your first choice?
    Attorney General Garland. He had a long career as a 
career--
    Chair Jordan. Is he your first choice?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not going to into the 
question--
    Chair Jordan. Did you know him before you picked him?
    Attorney General Garland. I did not.
    Chair Jordan. Did you ever work with him?
    Attorney General Garland. I did not.
    Chair Jordan. Did you meet with him prior to announcing his 
selection telling him what was going on?
    Attorney General Garland. Of course I did.
    Chair Jordan. What happened in that meeting?
    Attorney General Garland. I met with him. I asked him if he 
would be willing to do this. We talked about my understandings 
of the role of this office which are on the public record. That 
is all.
    Chair Jordan. Did he ask for the job?
    Attorney General Garland. This is not a job I think anybody 
asks for. I am sorry.
    Chair Jordan. That is not the question I asked you. I said 
did Jack Smith ask--
    Attorney General Garland. He did not ask me for the job, 
no.
    Chair Jordan. Did he convey through someone else that he 
wanted the job?
    Attorney General Garland. I would be surprised if that were 
the case, but--
    Chair Jordan. You don't know?
    Attorney General Garland. No, I don't know.
    Chair Jordan. So, he may have?
    Attorney General Garland. I can only tell you what I know. 
I chose him because he had a record of impartial career 
experience as a prosecutor. That is why he was chosen.
    Chair Jordan. Was it impartial when he went after Governor 
McDonald?
    Attorney General Garland. He was a Member--
    Chair Jordan. He was after Governor McDonald. That case 
gets appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 
unanimously said it was wrong and overturned the conviction?
    Attorney General Garland. He was in the Public Integrity 
Section of the Justice Department, a career position. They made 
the decisions they felt were warranted and we respect the 
decision of the Supreme Court.
    Chair Jordan. Did the fact that he was interested in going 
after the very people who were targeted by the IRS about a 
decade ago, did that have any influence on your selection?
    Let's put up the slide. This is from Jack Smith to some 
other folks in the Justice Department and it says could we ever 
charge a conspiracy to violate laws of the U.S. for misuse of 
such nonprofits to get around existing campaign finance laws. 
Jack Smith was looking to prosecute the very people who were 
targeted by the Obama IRS.
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know. You have excerpts 
from an email I have never seen. You should know that I sat--
    Chair Jordan. I am just asking did this weigh into your 
decision. Did you know about this--
    Attorney General Garland. No. No. I also don't know if it 
is true now.
    Chair Jordan. IRS Commissioner Sarah Ingram received this 
from Jack Smith himself: ``Let's discuss tomorrow, but maybe we 
should try to set up a meeting this week.'' Here is the 
response. ``You didn't get your meeting with Ms. Ingram from 
the IRS, but she is sending the head of the organization, Lois 
Lerner,'' known to us that Jack Smith met with Lois Lerner 
looking for ways to prosecute the very people who were victims 
of the Obama IRS. I am just asking, did that factor in your 
decision to name Jack Smith as Special Counsel?
    Attorney General Garland. I didn't have any idea about--
    Chair Jordan. You didn't know about that?
    Attorney General Garland. No, and I don't know whether they 
are true now by looking at this.
    Chair Jordan. Well, they are definitely true that you 
should know about it. This guy was so important, you have to 
bring him from Europe back here to go after President Trump, 
name as the Special Counsel.
    Do you regret the pick?
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry?
    Chair Jordan. Do you regret picking him?
    Attorney General Garland. No, I do not regret picking him.
    Chair Jordan. Well, prosecutors aren't supposed to tamper 
with evidence, and it looks like that is what he did. He 
changed the sequence of the documents that he seized from Mar-
a-Lago.
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. That is a false 
characterization, but that is--
    Chair Jordan. Here is what he said to the court, Mr. 
Attorney General.

        There are some boxes where the order of items within the box is 
        not the same as in the associated scans.

I mean he said it. I didn't say it. He told the court that.
    Attorney General Garland. Now, you are asking me to comment 
on a discovery dispute that is ongoing in a court. I don't know 
the facts of it. I am not going to comment on it.
    Chair Jordan. No, this is from Jack Smith filing with the 
court. He admitted to the court that they tampered with the 
evidence. He mishandled the very documents he is charging 
President Trump with mishandling. I am just asking, do you 
regret picking this guy as the Special Counsel in the most 
important Special Counsel investigation probably in American 
history?
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I did not hear the 
words tampered in the statement that Mr. Smith filed. He did 
not use those words.
    Chair Jordan. Well, let me ask it this way.
    Attorney General Garland. I am going to leave that--
    Chair Jordan. Are you supposed to change the order of the 
documents that you seized, and the physical documents don't 
match up with the scanned documents? Are you supposed to do 
that as a prosecutor?
    Attorney General Garland. This is a matter in dispute in 
discovery in that court and I am going to leave for the 
District Court to make a determination. After the court makes 
its--
    Chair Jordan. I just want to say one last thing. Not in 
dispute, this is what he said in the court filing. Jack Smith's 
team said that to the judge in the court. By the way, this case 
is basically on hold because they screwed up so many things.
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know whether your 
description of the facts is true or not true, and I am not 
going to intrude in a decision in a District Court.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Attorney General, we appreciate your being 
here. We appreciate how you have led this Department with 
integrity and discipline. In your enormous public service, I 
appreciate your willingness to sit through this endless cascade 
of false allegations and conspiracy theories and innuendo.
    The Chair began this hearing with the dramatic statement 
that justice is no longer blind. By that, he means that justice 
is no longer objective or impartial, that it is suddenly now a 
respecter of persons in the wrong way, that is, it will 
distinguish between people based on their position. Of course, 
the Chair's real problem is that justice remains no respecter 
of persons, that you can be the former President of the United 
States, but if you commit crimes, you will be held responsible. 
That is his problem. That is the problem of all my Republican 
colleagues right now, and that is they are about to nominate a 
convicted felon and they don't know how to cope with that. They 
don't know how to cope with the justice system that, in fact, 
treats Donald Trump the same as it would any other citizen. So, 
they have to push these conspiracy theories that they know are 
patently false. They try to run over you with answers they 
won't let you answer because their whole arguments are utterly 
insupportable and destructive of our justice system. They care 
more about this convicted felon than they do the country.
    I have to say I am pleased and a bit surprised to see that 
the flag in this Committee is still flying right side up, 
because they want to turn it upside down even as they want to 
turn our justice system upside down.
    Let me address the conspiracy theory of the day, which is 
somehow President Biden through your Department has convicted 
Donald Trump in Manhattan in an effort to weaponize Justice 
against the former President. So, let me just ask some basic 
questions about this phony conspiracy theory.
    Did you appoint Alvin Bragg to be Manhattan DA?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Schiff. Of course not. He is elected. Did you select 
the jury in that case?
    Attorney General Garland. The judge selected the jury.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, did you select the judge in that case?
    Attorney General Garland. No. No.
    Mr. Schiff. Of course not. The judge was randomly selected. 
Did you select the jury in that case?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Schiff. The jury was actually selected by Donald Trump 
and his attorneys.
    Did you reach a verdict in that case?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Schiff. Did you instruct the jury in that case?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Schiff. Did you tell the prosecutor what charges to 
bring in that case?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Schiff. This was 12 ordinary New Yorkers who weighed 
the evidence and found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felonies. 
Instead of celebrating the fact that in this country an 
ordinary group of jurors, an ordinary group of 12 people can 
still adjudicate a case involving one of the most powerful 
people in the country, know they would denigrate the whole 
system, they would tear it down. In the service of this 
convicted felon, they would tear everything down. They would 
tear the house of this democracy down around them.
    They say it is unprecedented to bring charges against a 
former President. You are damn right it is unprecedented. We 
have never had a President of the United States who was making 
hush money payments to a porn star and then falsifying business 
records to cover it up. Yes, that is unprecedented.
    We have never had a President withhold classified 
information and then obstruct the investigation. That is 
unprecedented.
    We have never had a President incite a violent attack on 
the Capitol. That is unprecedented.
    Do you know what else is unprecedented? The fact that so 
many leaders of that party are perfectly fine with all of that. 
In their headlong pursuit of power, they are perfectly fine 
with that. They are going to nominate a convicted felon as 
their Presidential candidate.
    They have another conspiracy theory which is when a search 
was executed of the President's residence in Mar-a-Lago, they 
went in as the President said locked and loaded and ready to 
take him out. Yet, another dangerous falsehood. Your dedicated 
public service of the Justice Department are having their lives 
threatened because of the irresponsible actions of people on 
this Committee, and in the Senate and elsewhere who would 
endanger the lives of those committed to enforcing law and 
order even as they claim to be a party of law and order.
    Mr. Attorney General, I am grateful for your service, for 
your withstanding all of this. We will get through this because 
of people like you and the honorable public servants of the 
Justice Department.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney General, the 
reality is Mr. Hur, Special Counsel Hur, found that then former 
Vice President, President Biden, had retained and disclosed 
classified information. Isn't that true?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Hur has presented a long 
report--
    Mr. Biggs. Isn't that true? Come on. I am practically 
quoting right from it. You wouldn't disagree with that--
    Attorney General Garland. I am not going to comment on the 
report he sets forth. I appointed him to investigate 
allegations about classified documents--
    Mr. Biggs. So, the reason that we end up talking over you 
is because a simple question like that goes unanswered. You are 
nonresponsive. You are nonresponsive to the question because 
that is what Mr. Hur found.
    Then, he also found, and you are not going to like this 
because I am going to quote from it, he basically says here 
that he ``found Mr. Biden to be sympathetic''--here ``he is, 
well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.'' So, he made a 
prosecutorial decision he wasn't going to prosecute. Are you 
going to dispute that? You are not disputing that are you?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Hur's report--
    Mr. Biggs. OK, you are going to say it stands on its own. 
OK.
    Attorney General Garland. Are you going to let me answer?
    Mr. Biggs. No, because you are not intent on answering. You 
want to be nonresponsive. You want to filibuster.
    Attorney General Garland. I would like to answer your 
question.
    Mr. Biggs. Do you dispute that--so let's just face it. Mr. 
Biden has not been prosecuted, correct?
    Attorney General Garland. That is correct.
    Mr. Biggs. The rationale given by Mr. Hur is because he was 
a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory and 
he thought the jury would have sympathy toward Mr. Biden.
    Attorney General Garland. That was a long list of reasons 
that Mr. Hur gave for his decision. That was--
    Mr. Biggs. Give me one more reason.
    Attorney General Garland. He found that--I don't want to 
get into a discussion about this, but I will say one of them 
was that the President was completely cooperative in this 
matter.
    Mr. Biggs. That is the reason, huh? OK. All right.
    Attorney General Garland. You asked for one of the reasons. 
That was one of the reasons.
    Mr. Biggs. The issue that we have here, you don't want to 
give us the audio tape. You don't want us to have the 
recording, but ultimately the issue is whether the transcript 
actually supports the Special Counsel's determination.
    Now, your office has basically plead two things in court, 
claiming (1) Executive Privilege, and (2) that is kind of an 
interesting, novel approach saying fake--deep fakes AI, right? 
Did your staffer who filed that, did they consult with you 
about deep fake AI rationale for not providing the audio to us?
    Attorney General Garland. You are mischaracterizing the 
filing. That was one of, again, a substantial number of 
arguments made in a Freedom of Information--
    Mr. Biggs. Did they consult with you specifically about 
that idea, that notion, where they were going to say something 
like quote this is from the pleading,

        The passage of time and advances in audio artificial 
        intelligence and deep fake technologies only apply concerns 
        about malicious manipulation of audio files.

Did they consult with you about that provision?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not going to talk about 
internal Department deliberations. That was one of a large 
number of explanations in the document you are talking about.
    Mr. Biggs. I am talking specifically about that 
particularized rationale and you don't want to discuss it, 
which is why you are nonresponsive and that is why we need the 
audio. Let me explain why, because your attorney also said that 
you did alter the transcript, and they said it was filler 
words, repeat words, ``and and,'' and ``I, I.''
    Well, you know what, we don't know whether the blank--you 
said there were blank times where there was silence. We don't 
know whether those were one minute long or two minutes long. We 
don't know if he sputtered ``and, and, and, and, and'' because 
those were edited out. We do not know whether this supports and 
substantiates Mr. Hur's findings.
    By the way, you want to rely on Mr. Hur, you need to go 
back and listen to his testimony. Mr. Hur was pretty 
conclusive, there that he had a poor memory. He was not able to 
answer all the questions. Substantively, the transcript may be 
accurate. You know what, the audio would tell us so much more, 
which is why the Supreme Court in the case that you poo-poo'd 
when Mr. Fitzgerald was asking you about, they said look, if 
there is editing that has gone on here, that is the rationale. 
There was editing. Your own office admitted it, but you won't 
admit it today. You have been nonresponsive and that is why we 
need the audio and that is why you are here. I yield back.
    Attorney General Garland. May I respond?
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent--
    Chair Jordan. The Ranking Member is recognized.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter 
into the record the transcript of Special Counsel Hur's 
interviews with President Biden. As you can see in the last 
pages, the transcriber certifies that the transcripts are true 
and correct.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from Arizona 
is recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also submit the 
pleadings in the case of Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of 
Justice.
    A document entitled ``DOJ Claims Unprecedented Deep Fake 
Transcript Tampering DOJ Says Written record of Biden Interview 
With Prosecutor's Omitted Words,'' and ``DOJ Refuses to Release 
Audio of Biden and the Hur Interview.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from 
California is recognized.
    Mr. Swalwell. Before anyone else on the other side saddles 
up and gets on their high legal horses, I just want to remind 
the Committee that the Chair is 754 days into his own subpoena 
defiance.
    Mr. Attorney General, last week, it was reported that House 
Ethics Panel subpoenas DOJ for Gaetz records. It was a May 14, 
2024, political piece. I would like to submit it to the record 
with unanimous consent.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Swalwell. I just want to get this straight. Mr. Gaetz 
wants the Attorney General to reopen and publicize evidence 
from an investigation that a Donald Trump-appointed prosecutor 
closed against President Biden while, at the same time, Mr. 
Gaetz himself is being protected by the same DOJ policy that is 
refusing to voluntarily turn over evidence for Mr. Gaetz's sex-
trafficking investigation.
    Mr. Attorney General, could you just briefly, without going 
into the facts of that case, address why that is the DOJ policy 
as it relates to the current President and any other requests 
about closed investigations?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Without referencing any 
case, we try to protect the law enforcement files of the 
Justice Department so that in future investigations, people are 
willing to cooperate with us.
    We understand Congress' concerns, and we have an obligation 
to assess whether the information that we have provided is 
sufficient to accommodate the legitimate needs of the Congress. 
All the reasons that Congress has given us for why they need 
the audio are satisfied with respect to the tapes. That is all 
the legitimate reasons given, the reasons that relate to 
legislative work of the Committee.
    As to that, we have accommodated by providing the audio. We 
provided Mr. Hur's testimony in full, and we provided Mr. Hur's 
testimony report. We have gone as far as we can go to 
accommodate. We are trying to protect our ability to do 
investigations in this case, and in any other case.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Attorney General, let's set the facts 
straight here. My job is to kind of lead an intervention for my 
colleagues. I think they need it.
    The Attorney General did not prosecute Donald Trump in New 
York. It was the result of Donald Trump's choices. Donald Trump 
chose to live in New York. He chose to commit his crimes in New 
York. He was afforded a right to be tried by his neighbors and 
jurors in New York. He chose that jury in New York working with 
his counsel, and they chose to make him a 34-time-over 
convicted felon.
    Some of the choices the Department has made in the recent 
years is that the President that was first appointed--that 
Donald Trump appointed the U.S. attorney who is investigating 
the current President's son. Donald Trump appointed John 
Durham, who investigated the wild claims made by this Committee 
during the Russia investigation. Donald Trump appointed Robert 
Hur, who was kept on by the Biden Administration.
    Also, you have the right in our country to aid yourself in 
your own defense and talk to investigators. You also have a 
right not to. Mr. Attorney General, did Donald Trump sit down 
for an interview in the Mueller investigation?
    Attorney General Garland. I actually don't know, but I am 
not going to comment on other investigations.
    Mr. Swalwell. He didn't. Did he sit down for an interview 
with investigators prior to the January 6th indictment?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not going to comment on the 
investigations.
    Mr. Swalwell. He didn't. He also didn't sit down for an 
interview with investigators in the classified materials 
indictment. President Biden did sit down for a voluntary 
interview with Robert Hur.
    A jury can't hold it against Donald Trump that he did not 
testify in his own defense in New York, but he promised 
everyone else in the country that he would. You can hold it 
against Donald Trump that he did not testify when you consider 
whether you should so blindly follow every wild claim that he 
makes.
    My colleagues, none of this today that you are bringing 
makes sense--your inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and sycophancy--
unless you are in a cult. Guys, I am starting to think you are 
in a cult. That is your right, but it is not your 
responsibility. I promise you that is not what your 
constituents would want.
    So, if you believe in States' rights except when a jury in 
that State convicts your nominee for President, you might be in 
a cult. If you claim you back the blue, but want to defund the 
police when the police go to your nominee's house to retrieve 
national security secrets, you might be in a cult. If you are 
supporting a guy whose felony convictions prevent him from 
getting a security clearance, you might be in a cult. If the 
guy you are supporting for President has felony convictions 
that prevent him from going to Argentina--
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chair, I move that the gentleman's words be 
taken down.
    Mr. Swalwell. --Australia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, 
China--
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chair--
    Chair Jordan. Time.
    Mr. Swalwell. --Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hong 
Kong, India, Indonesia--
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chair, my motion takes precedent.
    Mr. Swalwell. --Iran, Ireland, Israel, Japan--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Swalwell. --Kenya, Macao, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, 
Nepal, New Zealand--
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes--the gentleman is 
out of order. The time is expired.
    Mr. Swalwell. --Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, 
South Korea, Taiwan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United 
Emirates, and the U.K., you might be in a cult.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes. 
I am asking the gentleman--
    Mr. Massie. I have a unanimous consent request.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman has a unanimous consent 
request.
    Mr. Massie. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the 
record an Amicus Brief by the former Attorney General Edwin 
Meese.
    The question presented is whether private citizen Jack 
Smith lacks authority to represent the United States.
    I also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an 
article titled, ``Was it Legal to Appoint Jack Smith in the 
First Place?'' This is a The Heritage Foundation publication.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Massie. I want to start by reading you the Appointment 
Clause of the Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 6 
states,

        The President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and 
        consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public 
        ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all 
        other officers of the United States whose appointments are not 
        herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by 
        law.

    Are U.S. attorneys nominated by the President and confirmed 
by the Senate, according to this Appointments Clause?
    Attorney General Garland. They are appointed by the 
President and confirmed by the Senate.
    Mr. Massie. Wouldn't you agree that 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?
    Attorney General Garland. I would say that those are not 
the reasons why, and a court has already ruled on the question 
of whether Special Counsels are subject to the Appointments 
Clause in the Mueller case and ruled that they were not. This 
matter is not--
    Mr. Massie. Was Jack Smith nominated by President Biden and 
confirmed by the U.S. Senate?
    Attorney General Garland. You are asking me about a case. 
Again, motions filed--
    Mr. Massie. This is a simple question.
    Attorney General Garland. No, I am not--
    Mr. Massie. Was Jack Smith nominated by President Biden?
    Attorney General Garland. No, he was not.
    Mr. Massie. Was he confirmed by the Senate?
    Attorney General Garland. No, he was not.
    Mr. Massie. When was the Special Counsel statute passed?
    Attorney General Garland. There is no Special Counsel 
statute. There was an independent counsel statute that was 
expired.
    Mr. Massie. So, it expired. So, what gives you the 
authority to appoint a Special Counsel to create--you have 
created an office in the U.S. Government that does not exist 
without authorization from Congress.
    Attorney General Garland. There are regulations under which 
the Attorney General appoints Special Counsel. They have been 
in effect for 30 years, maybe longer, under both parties. The 
matter that you are talking about whether somebody can have an 
employee of the Justice Department serve as Special Counsel, 
has been adjudicated.
    Mr. Massie. You appealed--let me interrupt for a second 
because you appealed to a regulation, a rule, whereas the 
Constitution says ``shall be established by law.'' There's a--
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. The statutes--
    Mr. Massie. Right. You referred to a regulation, not to 
U.S. Code.
    Attorney General Garland. May I answer? The regulation 
cites the two U.S. Code provisions that permit the Attorney 
General's appointment. Attorney General Barr cited the same 
one.
    Mr. Massie. Are you familiar--
    Attorney General Garland. Even Attorney General Meese knew 
that.
    Mr. Massie. OK. Are you familiar with former Attorney 
General Meese's Amicus Brief?
    Attorney General Garland. No. No.
    Mr. Massie. You are not?
    Attorney General Garland. I know that he has filed one 
because I read it in the newspapers, but otherwise I am not 
familiar with it.
    Mr. Massie. Well, he raises some good questions that I 
agree with in there. It seems like you have created an office 
that would require an Act of Congress. Yet, there is not an Act 
of Congress that authorizes that. Even if it didn't require an 
Act of Congress--and you have already admitted that there was 
no Act of Congress that establishes this office--it would still 
require, according to the Constitution, a nomination by the 
President and confirmation by the Senate.
    I want to move on to January 6th. Is it accurate to say 
that the DOJ is on pace to arrest roughly one protester a day 
in 2024, nearly three years after the incident?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know what the pace is. It 
is obvious to arrest and bring to justice people who are 
criminally responsible, and as they are found, they will be 
arrested.
    Mr. Massie. Is your office preparing to drop charges 
against more than 340 January 6ers charged with 1512(c)(2) and 
release dozens from prison on that count if the Supreme Court 
this month reverses how your Department has used that statute 
against them?
    Attorney General Garland. We respect the Supreme Court. 
Whatever the Court rules, we will act appropriately.
    Mr. Massie. So, you will have to drop the charges if the 
Supreme Court says that you did that wrongfully?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not going to answer 
hypotheticals. We will wait and see what the Supreme Court 
says.
    Mr. Massie. What do you say in response to the D.C. 
Appellate Court overturning two excessive sentencing requests 
sought by your office?
    Attorney General Garland. I say that is the United States 
system of justice working. If people think that they have 
inappropriate sentences, they can appeal their sentences. That 
is the way our system works, and we respect the results.
    Mr. Massie. So, you have refused to answer questions before 
us, including my questions, about January 6th on multiple 
occasions here in this Committee. The Inspector General is 
preparing a report. Are you in receipt of that report yet? He 
has promised to examine the role and activity of DOJ and its 
components in preparing for and responding to the events at the 
U.S. Capitol. Are you in receipt of that?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not in receipt of a new 
report. You will have to ask the Inspector General.
    Mr. Massie. Isn't it true that it will go to you, before it 
is released for review?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know about--it will not 
go to me for review. The Inspector General is independent. I 
hope to see it before, but that is up to the Inspector General. 
Let me just remind you I was not the Attorney General on 
January 6th.
    Mr. Massie. Do we have your commitment to release that as 
soon as you see it?
    Attorney General Garland. The determination of the release 
of Inspector General reports is up to the Inspector General. We 
give them independence. Congress demands we give them 
independence.
    Mr. Massie. OK. My time is expired, so we have your 
commitment not to slow down that, the release of that from the 
Inspector General?
    Attorney General Garland. Our Inspector General is a very 
independent person. There is no way I could stop him from doing 
what the law requires.
    Mr. Massie. I yield back.
    Attorney General Garland. I would certainly never do that.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to 
ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Chair of this 
Committee himself ignored a bipartisan Congressional subpoena. 
The actions of this Chair have made it harder for Congressional 
Committees to get information from witnesses and have hurt the 
rule of law.
    Thank you, Attorney General Garland, for your public 
service. I am going to ask you a series of simple questions 
about past concluded cases to get the facts out to American 
people.
    The Department of Justice charged Donald Trump's former 
campaign Chair, Paul Manafort, in a Federal Court with multiple 
felonies. Mr. Manafort was convicted in a Federal Court, 
correct?
    Attorney General Garland. To my recollection of what the 
public record discloses.
    Mr. Lieu. Public records show he was convicted in a Federal 
Court. The Department of Justice charged Donald Trump's former 
Deputy Campaign Chair, Rep. Gaetz, with multiple felonies. Mr. 
Gaetz was convicted in a Federal Court, correct?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, to the best of my 
recollection, that's what the public record discloses.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you. The Department of Justice charged 
Donald Trump's former Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor, George 
Papado-
poulos. Mr. Papadopoulos was convicted in Federal Court, 
correct?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, that is my best 
recollection of the public record.
    Mr. Lieu. You were not the Attorney General at the time, 
correct?
    Attorney General Garland. I was not. No.
    Mr. Lieu. In fact, the Attorney General for those three 
criminal cases was Jeff Sessions, who was nominated by Donald 
Trump. The Department of Justice charged Donald Trump's former 
lawyer, Michael Cohen, with multiple felonies. He was convicted 
in a Federal Court, correct?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, that is my best 
recollection of the public record.
    Mr. Lieu. You were not the Attorney General at the time, 
correct?
    Attorney General Garland. I was not.
    Mr. Lieu. In fact, Michael Cohen had two sets of 
convictions. The Attorney General for Michael Cohen's second 
conviction was Matthew Whitaker, who was also appointed by 
Donald Trump.
    The Department of Justice charged Roger Stone, who was an 
advisor to Donald Trump, with multiple felonies. Roger Stone 
was convicted in a Federal Court, correct?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, to my best recollection of 
the public record.
    Mr. Lieu. The Department of Justice charged Elliott Broidy, 
who was a fundraiser for Donald Trump. Mr. Broidy was convicted 
in a Federal Court, correct?
    Attorney General Garland. Same answer.
    Mr. Lieu. You were not the Attorney General at the time, 
right?
    Attorney General Garland. I was not.
    Mr. Lieu. In fact, the Attorney General for those two 
criminal cases was Bill Barr, who was nominated by Donald 
Trump.
    What these facts show is that the Department of Justice has 
not been weaponized. We have one Department of Justice that 
goes after criminals regardless of party affiliation. These 
Trump associates were convicted under the Administration of 
three Republican attorneys general, each of whom was nominated 
by Donald Trump.
    Trump's campaign manager--felon. Trump's deputy campaign 
manager--felon. Trump's foreign policy advisor--felon. Trump's 
lawyer--felon. Trump's political advisor--felon. Trump's 
fundraiser--felon. It is not the fault of the Department of 
Justice that Donald Trump surrounded himself with criminals. 
Trump brought that on himself.
    One of the things that makes America great is we are ruled 
by the law, not by a cult of personality. I want to thank you, 
Attorney General Garland, and the Department of Justice for 
applying the law without fear or favoritism. I note that as we 
sit here today, the Department of Justice is prosecuting Hunter 
Biden in a Federal Court right now.
    You can't love your country only when the candidate you 
like wins. You can't love law and order except when the 
criminal felon is someone you like. In America, no one is above 
the law, not the rich, not the powerful, not any former 
Presidents, and certainly none of its criminal felon enablers.
    Now, I want to move on to another subject. Our gentleman 
from Arizona on the other side of the aisle gave away the game 
today when he said why he wanted the audio transcript. He said 
we wouldn't know if Joe Biden had said ``and, and, and, and.''
    So, I just want to ask you this question. Special Counsel 
Robert Hur has said that this transcript was accurate; the 
written transcript was an accurate rendition of the audio 
transcript, correct, except for some stutters?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. So, what the gentleman from Arizona wants is that 
transcript audio with the ``and, and, and, and,'' because Joe 
Biden stutters. He has had a stuttering problem his entire 
life. He overcame stuttering. He was made fun of in school. He 
overcame this disability to become President of the United 
States, a leader of the free world. It is despicable that my 
Republican colleagues want to go after him for his stuttering 
problem. They should apologize.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Attorney General, you said earlier today--
you spoke about the Committee's recommendation to the House to 
hold you in contempt. You said,

        But we have made clear that we will not provide audio 
        recordings from which the transcripts that you already have 
        were created.

You went on to say that,

        Certain Members of this Committee and the Oversight Committee 
        are seeking contempt.

You are aware that a Majority of this Committee has marked up a 
contempt resolution, aren't you, sir?
    Attorney General Garland. Certain Members including the 
Majority, yes.
    Mr. Bishop. It is a big difference, isn't it, sir? Isn't 
that significant, the fact that a Majority of the Committee 
charged by the Congress to inquire into the grounds for 
impeaching the President of the United States has issued has 
marked up a contempt resolution? That is more important than 
certain Members, isn't it, sir? Institutionally more important?
    Attorney General Garland. A Majority has sought contempt, 
yes.
    Mr. Bishop. You said that you will not be intimidated. Are 
you the arbiter?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Bishop. Are you the arbiter, the decider of whether or 
not those tapes will be provided to this Congress at the 
instance--at the subpoena of its Committee to investigate the 
President?
    Attorney General Garland. The Constitution requires me to 
protect the separation of powers and our ability to do 
investigations in the future. It requires me--and court law, 
court proceedings, make that clear--to weigh whatever interests 
you have against the interests of law enforcement.
    The President has asserted Executive Privilege, and I have 
not heard a legitimate legislative reason why the audio is 
insufficient for any purpose, legitimate purpose--
    Mr. Bishop. You know what demeanor evidence is, don't you, 
sir?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Bishop. Demeanor evidence. You know what that is. You 
sat on the bench for decades. You know what demeanor evidence--
    Attorney General Garland. I know what demeanor evidence--
    Mr. Bishop. OK.
    Attorney General Garland. I know what demeanor evidence is, 
and I have not been shown any reason why audio evidence of 
demeanor would make a difference in any legislative purpose--
    Mr. Bishop. Well, that is exactly what demeanor evidence 
is, sir, witnessing--observing a witness as they testify. The 
way it can be done by this Committee is to observe the audio 
recording of the President testifying to see whether it 
comports with the transcript or whether it reveals things about 
his capacity, his veracity, or anything else that comes from 
his demeanor as he is interviewed.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, none of the things that you 
just mentioned are for a legislative purpose. I don't have--
yet, to suggest any law that you intend to pass or are thinking 
about, in which, the audio would make a difference over the 
transcript.
    Mr. Bishop. If a future DOJ concludes--well, let me ask you 
this question. What happened to Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon 
when they decided to defy a subpoena of the Congress?
    Attorney General Garland. We received four referrals, 
criminal referrals. Two were prosecuted. Two were not. The two 
that were prosecuted, as the published court opinion has made 
clear--
    Mr. Bishop. What will happen to you if your decision is 
baseless?
    Attorney General Garland. May I continue to answer?
    Mr. Bishop. No. I know what happened. You know what 
happened, too. They were--Mr. Navarro is in prison. What will 
happen to you, if your sole determination that you're not going 
to cooperate with this Committee's subpoena is--
    Attorney General Garland. With respect to the two people 
you asked, the court made clear they did not comply in any way, 
did not even appear. Second, there was no Executive Privilege. 
Neither of those are true in my case.
    Mr. Bishop. If a future Department of Justice follows the 
facts and the law, as you are fond of reciting, even to the 
point of prosecuting the former President, then if your 
decision is baseless, you should be prosecuted, right?
    Attorney General Garland. If a future--and I hope it will 
be the case--a future Justice Department follows the law and 
decisions of the Office of Legal Counsel, since the Reagan 
Administration, when there is an assertion of Executive 
Privilege, the contempt statute is inapplicable.
    That has been a rule through every Administration, 
including the Reagan Administration. It even reached back to 
the Eisenhower Administration.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Attorney General--
    Attorney General Garland. I hope they will follow the law.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Attorney General, you have resurrected the 
Foreign Influence Task Force. There's an FBI spokesman recently 
told media, according to reports,

        The FBI has returned to facilitating the sharing of information 
        about foreign malign influence with social media companies in a 
        way that reinforces that private companies are free to decide 
        on their own whether and how to take action on that 
        information.

    A District Court has decided that you didn't do that 
before. How are you doing that? How are you reinforcing that 
private companies have their own capacity to decide?
    Attorney General Garland. The case that you are talking 
about is now under advisement in the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and I am not going to comment on any court 
matter, which the Court may--
    Mr. Bishop. I didn't ask you to do that. I asked you how 
you are reinforcing it. That is what your spokesman said. You 
are reinforcing the private companies' latitude. How are you 
doing that?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not going to comment on what 
the District Court said. We have the authority, as the Supreme 
Court just held last week, to persuade. We can't coerce. So, we 
can provide information that Russia, China, Iran, or North 
Korea is operating on a social media platform--
    Mr. Bishop. Why don't you do it in public?
    Attorney General Garland. --and then we'll leave it to the 
social media to take it down.
    Mr. Bishop. Why don't you hold it in public?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Bishop. Why don't you do that in public, so the public 
can see what you're doing?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I am not saying that we 
shouldn't also do it in public.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, I think you should.
    Attorney General Garland. I would hope everybody in this 
room would want to know if one of our adversaries is acting as 
if they were American citizens on a social media.
    Chair Jordan. Time.
    Mr. Bishop. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlemen has expired.
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania has a UC; then we will 
come to--
    Ms. Dean. I have a brief UC, unanimous consent request. It 
follows directly in line with what was just being asked about.
    Chair Jordan has argued that the Committee needs this audio 
file of President Biden's interview with the DOJ, yet has 
refused to release the transcripts from the vast Majority of 
more than 130 transcribed interviews that the Committee has 
conducted to date, even refused to provide copies of the audio 
and video files of the transcribed interviews and depositions--
    Chair Jordan. Is there a unanimous consent request in here?
    Ms. Dean. There is.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Ms. Dean. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
all the transcripts, transcribed interviews, that the Committee 
has conducted this Congress so that we can bring that real 
transparency to the American people.
    Mr. Bishop. I object.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from North Carolina objects.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you for releasing the one transcript.
    Chair Jordan. We will release all the transcripts when we 
complete our investigation.
    Ms. Dean. One day after I asked for it, you--
    Chair Jordan. They have completed their investigation. They 
won't give us all the evidence. We will get all that evidence 
when we're done with our investigation.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon. Attorney General Garland--over here.
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you for your long-standing and honorable 
service to our country and for being here today. The American 
people appreciate the serious work that you and the dedicated 
members of the Department of Justice do on their behalf every 
day to protect the rule of law and to protect our communities 
and our civil rights.
    Congress, of course, has a legitimate duty to oversee the 
Department's functions. It's pretty clear from the remarks 
we've heard from our Republican colleagues in this hearing that 
they have not brought us here today in pursuit of that duty.
    Instead, this hearing appears driven by the desire to curry 
favor with the disgraced, impeached, indicted, and now 
convicted former President and their ongoing efforts to 
legitimize his attacks on American elections, our judicial 
process, law enforcement, the press, and basically anybody who 
contradicts or seeks to hold him accountable.
    So, this isn't legitimate oversight. It is a political 
theater, and it is pretty bad theater at that. It is not the 
serious work that the American people should expect us to do 
here, and it distracts from our understanding and oversight of 
the Department of Justice's important efforts to protect our 
national security, to combat violent crime, gun violence, gun 
trafficking, fraud, to protect voting rights, reproductive 
freedoms, to combat hate crimes, and to advance environmental 
justice.
    So, I would highly recommend that anyone who is actually 
interested in the Department of Justice's work, read the 
statement that you submitted to the Committee today because it 
contains some important details about the work that the 
Department is doing.
    I was particularly struck and profoundly troubled by your 
comments about the extraordinary rise in threats and violence 
against public servants in our country, ranging from criminal 
threats against election workers and Members of Congress to the 
January 6th, assault on this Capitol and our Constitutional 
order. So, I would particularly like to focus on one aspect of 
those attacks on public servants and one that has implications 
for the strength and future of our democratic republic.
    I am interested in the Department of Justice's work to 
protect those who implement and defend our elections because in 
the wake of the 2020 election, and in response to the lies and 
conspiracy theories embraced by the former President and his 
lackeys, we have seen election officials and poll workers 
across the country--these are apolitical employees. They are 
community volunteers, retirees, neighbors, and civic champions. 
They have become targets for threats and violence when they 
stand up against the lies that seek to hold the former 
President accountable because they do their jobs running our 
elections.
    To the extent that these lies and conspiracy theories have 
been embraced or elevated by Members of this Congress or 
Committee, shame on them. This isn't legitimate political 
discourse. It should not be part of our American public life 
because words do have consequences.
    When leaders embrace misinformation, that's dangerous. When 
they fail to defend our elections from lies and misinformation, 
that's dangerous and cowardly. Now, this Committee has heard 
testimony from multiple witnesses, experts in election security 
who have expressed concern that threats to election workers, 
which exploded in 2020, will result in fewer people being 
willing to serve, and whether as nonpartisan employees or 
volunteers.
    Attorney General Garland, can you comment briefly on the 
incidence of threats and violence against election workers, why 
these incidents are dangerous, and if you have any insight on 
what has caused this dramatic rise?
    Attorney General Garland. So, your portrayal is quite 
accurate. I have been worried about this since 2021, and I have 
been talking about this with our United States attorneys. We 
created an Election Threats Task Force, particularly because we 
were so worried.
    As you say, this is not only about elected election 
officials. It is not only about appointed election officials, 
but about ordinary Americans who show up as poll watchers on a 
single day during the year to run our elections. Our democracy 
can't work if those people fear threats that are urged against 
them or if there is actual violence against them.
    We have brought--I don't have the exact numbers, but I 
think it is creeping up on 20 cases where there have been 
extraordinarily graphic threats of violence against election 
workers. We have received some pretty strong sentences in those 
cases.
    Of course, we always balance First Amendment rights to 
criticize, to disagree. When somebody makes a threat to kill an 
election worker, to kill members of their family, we respond. 
We are going to respond aggressively.
    Every U.S. attorney has endorsed this position. Every FBI 
field office has an election security agent whose job it is to 
secure, to be sure that threats against election workers are 
investigated, deterred, and prosecuted.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. If there are additional tools that 
Congress can provide that would help the Department in this 
work, I would appreciate hearing about it. I see my time is 
expired. Thank you for your testimony.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here today. I 
just have a couple of areas of interest, to me, at least.
    The first one has to do with your remarks earlier in the 
hearing where you were drawing the distinction between State 
Court and Federal Court, and you were saying that State Court 
is, quote, ``another jurisdiction.'' State, quote, 
``prosecutors are independent.'' Third remark, ``Prosecutors 
are completely independent.'' Fourth remark, ``Action decisions 
of the State prosecutors are independent, and they are taken of 
their own volition.''
    What disturbs me about those assertions is what actually 
happened--I'll go into the Fani Willis case first and just 
mention that her friends spent some eight hours in the White 
House discussing the case, her friend--Fani Willis' friend.
    My question to you is, if they are so independent, why were 
people who are involved in the State actually not talking to 
the Federal folks? How do you explain that?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know if it is true. I 
don't know anything about that. Don't know if she was there, 
what she was talking about. I don't know anything to support 
this allegation at all.
    Mr. Bentz. I think what I have here on my notes are, were 
you aware that the Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis' office 
coordinated with Special Counsel Smith, the Biden White House, 
and the Democrat-led January 6th Committee during her 
investigation of President Trump? You are saying you don't know 
anything about that?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. I don't know anything about 
that, no.
    Mr. Bentz. Would it disturb you if that actually happened?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I imagine that if this 
Committee asked a prosecutor for information or if a prosecutor 
asked this Committee for information there may be conversations 
about that information. I think that is relatively routine.
    I don't have any idea whether there were any conversations 
with the Special Counsel, but it would not be anything wrong 
with people in different jurisdictions who have evidence 
obtaining the evidence.
    Mr. Bentz. Were you aware that D.A. Willis hired her friend 
Nathan Wade to prosecute President Trump as he met, that Mr. 
Wade met with the Biden White House on two occasions for eight 
hours?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything about that.
    Mr. Bentz. Again, would that disturb you?
    The reason I am asking this is because it appears that 
there is this double standard some people refer to as the two-
tiered system, that is one tier for certain people like 
President Trump and the other tier for everybody else.
    That disturbs me. Would it disturb you if there was a 
different type of justice being applied to our former President 
than that which is applied to other defendants?
    Attorney General Garland. Of course, it would disturb me.
    There is only one tier of justice. We treat cases alike. We 
don't give any benefit to a powerful person over a nonpowerful 
person, any benefit to a Democrat over a Republican.
    Mr. Bentz. I am not so, I am not concerned about the 
defendants getting a benefit, so much as I am the prosecutors 
in a State Court coming to the Federal folks and basically 
saying, hey, we know you have been doing all this work here, 
give us all this material. Now, maybe that much is fine. That 
isn't what generally happens.
    Now, if you are a former President, you are going to get a 
lot of attention. That is exactly what has been happening here. 
I don't think that is fair. I don't think the people of the 
United States think it's fair that a former President would be 
ganged up on, if you will, by both the Federal Government and 
the State Government. That does not seem right.
    You may be doing it. I guess you are saying that it would 
be fine if that did happen. To me it seems like a double 
standard.
    I want to shift over to the audio tapes. You are a former 
judge, so you are very familiar with the best evidence rule. 
It's Rule 1002. I went to law school. I remember the 
discussions about ``best evidence.'' You would know it far 
better than I. You must have dealt with it literally hundreds 
of times.
    The best evidence rule to we rural practitioners of country 
law meant that if you had one piece of evidence, well, I know 
an audio tape, you would be far more likely to want to use it, 
and perhaps it would be required, as opposed to a transcript. 
Is that correct?
    Attorney General Garland. I respect your experience, but I 
am afraid the best evidence rule is not applicable. The best 
evidence rule, as reflected in Rule 1003 of the Federal Rules 
of Evidence and it provides that a duplicate is admissible for 
all purposes as an original, unless there is a genuine dispute 
about its authenticity.
    The reasons I have stated extensively in answers to the 
other Members, there is no genuine dispute about the 
authenticity of the transcripts. So, the best evidence rule 
simply has no application in this case.
    Mr. Bentz. So, actually, I would agree with you in the 
sense that we are not in Federal Court.
    I also want to tell you that when the essence of his 
decision, Mr. Hur's decision, was that there was a challenge 
that our President is facing when it comes to his memory and 
his demeanor--and I have to agree with the gentleman from North 
Carolina that the audio tapes are the best evidence of exactly 
how qualified Mr. Hur was in making his decision that he should 
not prosecute.
    I see my time is exhausted. So, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Hello, Attorney General Garland. I thank you for being here 
today. I thank 115,000 members of the Department of Justice for 
your faithful service.
    I am sorry for the regrettable conversations that are going 
on.
    I have served on this Committee for the better part of six 
years. I begged to be on this Committee when I ran. There was 
so much I wanted to work on, like focusing on gun violence, 
like focusing on the opioid poisoning epidemic, and so many 
other things having to do with the protection of civil rights 
and the rule of law.
    Yet, what we have observed in this Committee in hearing, 
after hearing, after hearing, sadly, is disinformation, 
disinformation, very pointedly with the purpose of tearing down 
America's faith in our institutions.
    This is one such hearing. There are Members on this 
Committee who would rather tear down the faith in the 
independence of the Department of Justice than say that one man 
is responsible for his behaviors and is being held to account, 
both civilly and now criminally.
    Mr. Trump's behaviors are the reasons they are wailing, and 
they are upset. He has been convicted of--he has been found 
guilty of fraud. He has been convicted on 34 felony counts.
    It would be OK if it weren't so dangerous. That is what 
worries me, it is so dangerous what is going on.
    So, let's be clear, one of the reasons that you are here 
today is to say somehow the Department of Justice had something 
to do with the Manhattan District Attorney bringing the suit 
and a jury of 12 citizen strangers, listening to the evidence, 
hearing from talented prosecutors and defense attorneys, and 
the judge, and they came back with the clarity of 34 
convictions for a former President and a Presidential nominee.
    What role did your Department have in that prosecution?
    Attorney General Garland. That prosecution was determined 
by the Manhattan District Attorney, which does not report to 
us, is not controlled by us, and operates completely 
independent of the Department of Justice.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    I also want to respond to a few other dangerous statements.
    Chair Jordan said, ``A kangaroo court,'' that is quoting, 
convicted President Trump. He is the Chair of the Judiciary 
Committee.
    Speaker Johnson has claimed that Democrats cheered this 
purely political exercise. We heard him in an interview on Fox 
saying the Supreme Court should break up the conviction, 
overturn the conviction. He knows many of the Justices 
personally.
    Mr. Trump pities himself as a so-called political prisoner.
    These statements are false, and they are aimed at 
misleading. They are aimed to inflame. They are dangerous.
    The nominee is a convicted felon, or the would-be nominee 
is a convicted felon. What happened is he was guilty of an 
unlawful conspiracy to win the 2016 election by falsifying 
records to cover a tryst with a porn star in the days before 
the 2016 election.
    I am grateful our institutions stood up. I am grateful to 
that set of jurors who walked in as strangers and citizens and 
listened to the evidence, and put the law attached to it.
    I am really deeply concerned that our institutions are 
under attack.
    Mr. Garland, you talked about in your written testimony the 
role of the Department of Justice in upholding the rule of law. 
Can you speak to that a little more?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I have devoted my entire 
career to ensuring that the rule of law is the rule that the 
Justice Department applies and that the courts supply. We 
follow the precedents that we treat like cases alike, that we 
do not have enemies or friends, that we do not pay attention to 
the political parties, the wealth, the power, or the influence 
of the people that we are investigating. We follow the facts 
and the law.
    This is what distinguishes this country from our 
adversaries. An attack on the rule of law tears down this 
confidence in the basic fundamental element of a democracy, 
that all people be treated equal. I intend to continue to 
protect the rule of law, protect the 115,000 career employees 
of my Department to make sure that they can continue to go 
about their job, which is to do the right thing every day and 
not to be distracted by outside influences, political or 
otherwise.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you, Mr. Attorney General, and I call on 
those--
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time.
    Ms. Dean. I want to just mention one other thing.
    Chair Jordan. Quickly.
    Ms. Dean. I am fearful. I am fearful for the appalling 
silence of good people on this Committee.
    Chair Jordan. OK. OK.
    Ms. Dean. We have heard it all.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Attorney General, we understand you want to break. Can 
we do one more for five minutes and then we will take a little 
break?
    Would that work?
    All right. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for appearing 
before the Judiciary Committee.
    I read a report recently that the D.C. United States 
Attorney's Office had only devoted five percent of resources to 
January 6th prosecution. I also understand from many 
conversations that the most or all the United States Attorney--
U.S. Attorney districts contributed an AUSA or an investigator 
to the effort.
    Can you confirm whether the Department across the board has 
been providing additional support from other U.S. Attorneys 
offices in terms of AUSAs or investigators contributing for the 
January 6th investigation?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. That is true. That began 
before I became Attorney General. That continued after I became 
Attorney General.
    Mr. Roy. So, multiple resources across the Department have 
been devoted to that effort, including other districts?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. OK.
    Attorney General Garland. Because of the significance of an 
attack on democracy and this body.
    Mr. Roy. So, the reason I am asking about that is in terms 
of the focus of the resources of the Department. If my staff 
would put up on the screen, there is a number of people here 
that I want to see if you identify who they are.
    What we have here in the bottom right-hand corner is a 
woman named Lizbeth Medina. She was found dead in a bathtub in 
Texas. Her mom found her, hoping to see her in a parade that 
night. She was killed by Rafael Govea Romero who was here 
illegally.
    On the bottom left-hand corner, you have Lakin Riley. She 
was killed by 26-year-old Jose Ibarra, arrested by U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection after he unlawfully entered the United 
States near El Paso, Texas.
    Up above you have Officers Richard Yarusso, 26, and Officer 
Christopher Abreu, 26, both were shot this last weekend by 
Bernando Raul Castro Mata, a 19-year-old Venezuelan national, 
apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol after he unlawfully entered 
the United States near Eagle Pass in July 2023.
    What we have is a continued effort by the Federal 
Government to fail to secure the border of the United States. 
Americans are dying or getting shot. In this case, law 
enforcement getting shot, two young women who are dead.
    My question for you with respect to the Department is do 
you believe that Texas has a right to defend itself and to 
ensure that people who are in this country are not here 
illegally, and that we can protect the citizens of Texas from 
people unlawfully here who are committing crimes to Lizbeth 
Medina, who is no longer with us because the Federal Government 
refused to do its job? Yet, the Department of Justice is suing 
the State of Texas to stop implementation of S.B. 4.
    So, do you say, as the Attorney General of the United 
States, Texas does not have a right to defend itself and to 
protect our citizens from murder by people who have come here 
illegally into the United States?
    Attorney General Garland. I say as the Attorney General and 
as a human being that my heart goes out to the families, that 
these are terrible, terrible events.
    I say, second, as the Attorney General the way to stop 
people like this from coming into the United States is to give 
more resources to the Border Patrol so that they can prevent 
that.
    Mr. Roy. Mr. Attorney General, no. No.
    Attorney General Garland. You don't want to--
    Mr. Roy. We, the people of Texas, money is not going to 
solve the problem when the Department of Homeland Security and 
the President of the United States refused to enforce the law, 
ignore the policies. Lizbeth Medina would be here alive today 
if we were following the law.
    Lakin Riley would be here today, if we had not released a 
killer onto the United States of America through parole 
policies that this Administration is advancing.
    The Department of Justice is suing the State of Texas in 
court, taking valuable resources to go against the people of 
Texas when Texas simply wants to say that we should have a say 
in stopping people who are here illegally, arrest them, and be 
able to deal with that on our own terms when the Federal 
Government refuses to do its job.
    Attorney General Garland. As reflected in our--
    Mr. Roy. In terms of a--
    Attorney General Garland. As reflected in our filings in 
that case, we are in court because the U.S. Supreme Court in 
Arizona v. United States held that States cannot adopt their 
own immigration--
    Mr. Roy. You are in court because you are accusing to try 
to stop Texas from enforcing the laws that the Federal 
Government is refusing to enforce.
    By the way, that is not the same thing as Arizona.
    A final question in my last minute.
    The Department of Justice did not assert privilege with 
regarding to the transcript; correct?
    Attorney General Garland. That is right.
    Mr. Roy. You articulated a minute ago to my colleague that 
the best evidence rule says that the transcribed copy is 
admissible. Right?
    How can you claim privilege in the face of not just a 
legislative inquiry but a constitutional impeachment inquiry, 
how can you claim privilege for something that you just 
testified was effectively the same thing?
    How can you claim privilege for the audio of the transcript 
you just testified was the same?
    Attorney General Garland. I just testified the words are 
the same. Sensing an audio is different. You have not given any 
explanation and there is nothing in the impeachment resolution 
that would make a difference with respect to the audio.
    Mr. Roy. Well, I respectfully disagree.
    I would ask you one last question.
    The decision not to prosecute President Biden for 
effectively the same crime for which DOJ is prosecuting 
President Trump is because DOJ has determined the President is 
not mentally fit to defend himself and stand trial for his 
crime, but former President Trump is?
    Attorney General Garland. I say again, that is an 
inaccurate description of Mr. Hur's report. I would rest on Mr. 
Hur's report.
    Mr. Roy. The only assertion he made.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Committee will take a short break. Then we will be back 
in 10 minutes. Five minutes.
    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 1:12 p.m., the same day.]
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order
    The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Garland, right here. First, I want to thank you and 
every single Member of your dedicated public service, for 
everything that you do on behalf of our country every single 
day.
    I know this political environment is toxic and difficult. 
It is not just difficult for you and your team, but it is 
difficult for your family as well. So, I wanted to express my 
gratitude to you.
    I also wanted to provide a very distinct and different 
perspective on what the State of Texas is doing from what one 
of my Texas colleagues just described. The way that he 
described it is really troubling to me.
    Governor Greg Abbott, under the auspices of what a 
Republican colleague of mine just described as Texas defending 
itself, has actually created an incredibly hostile environment 
for my community of El Paso, Texas, and very likely other 
communities along the Texas-Mexico border.
    My constituents have seen significant property damage to 
their property as a result of reckless and dangerous high-speed 
chases.
    My constituents have been detained illegally under 
Operation Lone Star. All of these constituents are U.S. 
citizens by the way who are Hispanic and who have been targeted 
by Operation Lone Star.
    Most recently, the Texas Attorney General has targeted a 
nonprofit in El Paso that has long been a partner to the 
Federal Government, a partner long before President Biden was 
in office, a partner to the Federal Government during former 
President Donald Trump's term in office, and long before that.
    The Texas Attorney General has targeted that nonprofit, 
effectively trying to shut it down for being a partner to the 
Federal Government when it comes to migration.
    You and I had a meeting a few months ago and I shared with 
you some of my concerns not just on these issues, but also with 
regard to Senate, Texas Senate Bill 4, which creates a whole 
new level of immigration enforcement at the State level, 
something that apparently my Republican colleagues are 
championing.
    Would you please share with us, with the Committee and the 
American public, why it is really a terrible consequence for 
any State, whether it is Texas or any State, what the 
challenges are with a State deciding it is going to create its 
own immigration process?
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
    To follow my practice of sticking to what we said in the 
public filings, so what I can say about, as before, is we 
regard it as an unconstitutional act by the State. The Supreme 
Court has held that immigration and deportation questions are 
matters for the Federal Government under the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act and under the Constitution, that every State 
can't adopt its own views about deportation. That there are 
serious law enforcement risks of different law enforcement 
agencies operating in the same venues.
    The important thing is that this is a question of the 
sovereignty of the United States under the Constitution.
    So, I can't say anything more. This is in litigation, and 
we are doing our best to uphold the Supreme Court's precedent 
on this. It is a relatively recent precedent.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Garland.
    I also want to make sure to make you aware that we have 
gotten reports of some of the Texas National Guard shooting 
indiscriminately into crowds of migrants on the border, 
shooting plastic bullets. I want to make sure that you are 
aware of that, in addition to all the other issues that I have 
made you aware of that are occurring in El Paso.
    I see I am out of time. I will continue to communicate with 
you and your staff the egregious civil rights and human rights 
violations happening in my community at the hands of Operation 
Lone Star.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Texas made me think about our other 
Democrat Member from Texas who has just been announced is 
dealing with cancer. Our thoughts and prayers are with Ms. 
Jackson Lee, who has been a great Member of this Committee for 
a long, long time. Just thought of that back as the gentlelady 
began her questions.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany.
    Mr. Tiffany. Attorney General, during the Department's 
criminal investigation of Hunter Biden investigators gave 
Hunter's counsel a heads-up regarding their future 
investigative actions, specifically a pending search warrant.
    Does the Department of Justice usually tip off the defense 
counsel ahead of time to warn them that they will be executing 
a search warrant?
    Attorney General Garland. You are asking about a case that 
is at trial as we speak. I am just not going to comment on 
that. I think that is highly inappropriate for me to do.
    Mr. Tiffany. Oh, this would not be inappropriate at all.
    Do you warn defense counsel ahead of time? Is this a 
standard operating procedure for the Department of Justice to 
notify that you are going to execute a search warrant?
    Attorney General Garland. I have answered this question 
before. It depends on the situation. In some circumstances yes, 
in some circumstances no.
    Generally, not, but not always.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, let me interrupt--shortly after the FBI 
raid on Mar-a-Lago you said upholding rule of law means 
applying the law evenly, without fear of favor.
    Did the Department of Justice give the same courtesy to 
President Trump's counsel and warn them about the search 
warrant for Mar-a-Lago?
    Attorney General Garland. Same. The issues are determined 
on the ground with respect to what people are concerned about 
on the ground.
    That issue about Mar-a-Lago is also the subject of a 
challenge in court. I am not going to comment about that 
either.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, one you notified defense counsel, the 
other one you didn't?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know whether you are 
accurately describing what happened in the Hunter Biden case or 
not.
    Mr. Tiffany. During Special Counsel Hur's investigation 
into whether or not President Biden retained classified 
documents you found that President Biden knew the information 
in his possession was classified. Isn't that correct?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't recall the exact words of 
Mr. Hur, but they are what they are.
    Mr. Tiffany. He knew the information, Joe Biden knew the 
information that he had in his possession was classified. I 
think that is widely known.
    Attorney General Garland. Again, Mr. Hur testified for five 
hours in front of you. All these questions could be asked of 
him. It is a long report that is on the public record on this 
question.
    I am just not going to comment, just like I didn't comment 
on Mr. Durham's report when you asked me to do that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did then Vice President Biden have the 
authority to declassify the classified documents he illegally 
retained?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Hur addressed any questions 
like that in his report. I know what you are really asking me 
about is the case in Florida. I am just not going to comment on 
matters that are being litigated in court. It is highly 
inappropriate for me to do that.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you can't comment on something that is 
already out there publicly by Mr. Hur, simply, did Vice 
President Biden, then Vice President, did he have the ability 
to declassify classified documents?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Hur--
    Mr. Tiffany. Does any Vice President have the ability to 
declassify classified documents?
    Attorney General Garland. It depends on who the original--
the ultimate theory goes back to an Executive Order that 
depends on the original classification.
    Mr. Tiffany. Let's go ahead. Have any other--
    Attorney General Garland. It is a very long discussion 
about classification.
    Mr. Tiffany. Have any other former Presidents, Vice 
Presidents, or cabinet secretaries retained classified 
information after they left office? Have others done this?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did Vice President Pence have classified 
documents?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Hur recounted the information 
that he had about past--
    Mr. Tiffany. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, did 
she have classified documents?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything more than 
Mr. Hur reported in his report on these matters.
    Mr. Tiffany. How many of those that have had classified 
documents, either a former Vice President like Pence, or 
Secretary of State like Hillary Clinton, how many of them were 
charged with retaining classified information?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Hur explained why he chose 
not to recommend a charge.
    Mr. Tiffany. The answer is none of them were charged.
    How many of them--none of them were charged other than 
President Trump.
    How many of them are currently running for President 
against President Biden?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Hur explained in detail the 
reasons that distinguish the former President's case from the 
current President's case.
    Mr. Tiffany. Was there opposition in the Washington Field 
Office to seeking a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago?
    Attorney General Garland. I am hoping that there is always 
a discussion in field offices about the appropriate approach.
    Mr. Tiffany. Who gave the go-ahead to do the search?
    Attorney General Garland. I know that the reference to the 
special agent that was made earlier left out the conclusion of 
his transcript, which is he thought it was lawful.
    Mr. Tiffany. Who gave the go-ahead to do the search 
warrant, to execute the search warrant on Mar-a-Lago.
    Attorney General Garland. The Magistrate judge in the 
district approved the search warrant.
    Mr. Tiffany. Who ultimately okayed it within the Department 
of Justice?
    Attorney General Garland. I have already said I approved 
the recommendation to seek a search warrant. The search warrant 
application then went to a judge who found probable cause for 
the search for the reasons stated in the affidavit and 
displayed all over the record of the 11th Circuit Opinion.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, classified documents, Biden, no; 
Trump, yes. Counsel notified, Biden, yes; Trump, no. The dual 
system of justice in America.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We are supposed to be here conducting Oversight of the 
Department of Justice. Instead, Republicans are using this 
hearing and this Committee as a legislative arm of the Trump 
campaign.
    This hearing is clearly a desperate attempt to distract the 
American people from the consequences of the former President's 
actions and the fact that no one is above the law, including 
the former President.
    I want to remind my colleagues that this hearing should be 
about the Department of Justice and protecting DOJ's mission to 
uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to 
protect civil rights. It is extremely disturbing to me to see 
Donald Trump campaigning on a promise to overhaul our Nation's 
top law enforcement body so that he can go after his opponents.
    Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter into the 
record an article summarizing an investigation by the ethics 
watchdog, Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics in Washington.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Jayapal. This report found that:

        Since the start of last year, Trump has issued direct or 
        implied threats on Truth Social to use the powers of the 
        federal government to target Joe Biden during a second Trump 
        administration 25 times. Specifically, Trump has threatened him 
        with FBI raids, investigations, indictments and even jail time.

    In contrast, I want to thank you for your tremendous 
service to our country, Attorney General Garland, and to say 
that with you, under the Biden Administration, your Department 
of Justice has shown remarkable independence and integrity in 
the execution of our laws.
    As a committed public servant who has served our Nation's 
top law--who has served as our Nation's top law enforcement, 
and under five attorneys general in both career and noncareer 
positions, can you briefly tell me how Department of Justice 
makes decisions about how to use its investigative and 
enforcement powers, and how we can strengthen those processes 
against political influence in future Administrations?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. After Watergate there was an 
effort to create a set of principles of Federal prosecution, 
which I worked on when I first entered the Justice Department 
as a young lawyer. It sets for the principles.
    It says prosecutions cannot occur unless the prosecutor 
believes that they can, more likely than not they will be able 
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the person; that 
no nonmerit issue can be considered with respect to a 
prosecution, not wealth, not power, not party, not religions, 
or not ethnicity; and that there has to be a Federal purpose 
for the investigation.
    We established lines of independence between the White 
House and the Justice Department, as well as between the 
Congress and the Justice Department, to ensure that political 
considerations are not taken into consideration.
    The principle or work of the rule of law is the career 
workforce of the Department. The agents and the prosecutors who 
do their jobs every day with only one purpose, to do the right 
thing in every case.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Attorney General.
    I want to talk briefly about antitrust because this is an 
area where, under your leadership and the leadership of 
Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, historically a 
bipartisan issue by the way, the DOJ Antitrust Division has won 
victories in court against employers that sought to suppress 
workers' pay and blocked harmful mergers in the airline 
industry. You are working to lower food prices by targeting 
anticompetitive practices and merges in the grocery and meat 
processing industry. The Antitrust Division successfully ended 
a price fixing scheme in DVD and Blue Ray sales, and prevented 
video game companies from suppressing wages in e-sports.
    These are incredible accomplishments. You are also working 
to promote competition in the live music industry. Thank you 
for the recently filed case against Live Nation/Ticketmaster. I 
am proud that Washington's Attorney General has joined that 
case, along with 29 others.
    I was struck by the so-called Ticketmaster flywheel, a 
self-reinforcing business model that traps fans, artists, and 
independent venues in the Ticketmaster ecosystem.
    Can you just explain how that works and why this is so 
important for competition and for lower prices for consumers in 
the live music industry?
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry to have to give you 
the same answer that I gave your colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle.
    We filed the case. We announced the complaint. At this 
point we can't comment on it.
    The answers to your question I think are very well laid out 
in the very extensive complaint that we filed in that matter.
    Ms. Jayapal. I was hoping to be able to brag about it. I 
understand.
    Thank you so much for your service.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
    Mr. Cline. Mr. Attorney General, the public has seen 
through the claims you have made today about fair and impartial 
pursuit of justice. They see that Lady Justice's blindfold has 
slipped off. They need look no further than the treatment by 
your Department of former President Trump and current Defendant 
Hunter Biden.
    I Chair the Subcommittee on Responsiveness and 
Accountability to Oversight. Your office has gone a long way 
toward obstructing our efforts to investigate much of what we 
have talked about today.
    Beyond simply obstructing Congress, did allegations surface 
last year that senior Justice Department officials attempted to 
obstruct the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden's 
numerous alleged tax crimes?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, I didn't understand 
the question.
    Mr. Cline. Did you attempt to obstruct the criminal 
investigation into Hunter Biden's alleged crimes?
    Attorney General Garland. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Cline. According to IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler, 
on October 21, 2021, U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf told 
investigators they would be in ``hot water'' if they 
interviewed Hunter Biden's adult children. The IRS 
investigators were prevented by DOJ from interviewing Hunter 
Biden's other relatives, including the President's brother and 
sister, Hunter Biden's in-laws, ex-wife, and Beau Biden's 
widow.
    Doesn't this depart from standard investigative procedure?
    Attorney General Garland. You ask me if I obstructed? I 
don't know virtually any of the people you just listed other 
than because they have been in the newspaper.
    Mr. Weiss has testified about this matter. Mr. Weiss will 
testify again. When the matter is completed, he will write a 
report. You will be able to examine him for five hours if you 
want.
    I don't know the facts of this matter. I don't intend to 
intrude on Mr. Weiss' investigation.
    It is false that I in any way obstructed Mr. Weiss' 
investigation. That is just false.
    Mr. Cline. Did the DOJ allow the statute of limitations to 
lapse on some of the most serious matters?
    Attorney General Garland. I have testified about this 
before. Mr. Weiss will have an opportunity to explain which 
matters he decided to bring, which matters he decided not to 
bring. I don't know anymore about it than that.
    Mr. Cline. It is not whether he decided to bring charges or 
not, he decided to allow the statute of limitations to lapse on 
the 2014 and 2015 tax returns, even though prosecutors could 
have sought an extension. In fact, defense counsel was willing 
to agree to extend the statute of limitations for these 
charges. Isn't that correct?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know if anything you are 
saying is correct. Mr. Weiss will have to answer those 
questions. I am sure he will be able to when he appears before 
this Committee.
    Mr. Cline. It doesn't seem like you are aware of a lot that 
is going on in your Department.
    Attorney General Garland. That is intentional with respect 
to Mr. Weiss' investigation. That is what an independent 
Special Counsel is about. Attorney General--
    Mr. Cline. When did you appoint the Special Counsel--
    Attorney General Garland. --doesn't intrude.
    Mr. Cline. When did you appoint Special Counsel Weiss?
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry, say again?
    Mr. Cline. When did you appoint Special Counsel David 
Weiss?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't remember the exact date. 
It is a matter of public record.
    Mr. Cline. Isn't it correct that this was after IRS 
whistleblowers like Mr. Shapley exposed numerous instances of 
wrongdoing, including allowing the statute of limitations to 
expire?
    Attorney General Garland. The appointment of Mr. Weiss has 
nothing to do with anything any whistleblower said.
    Mr. Cline. The statute of limitations was allowed to expire 
before your appointment.
    Attorney General Garland. Some of the statute of 
limitations likely expired before I was appointed as Attorney 
General. I don't know the facts here. They have no connection 
to each other.
    Mr. Cline. So, your claim, that it should be you can't 
comment on it, because Mr. Weiss is currently investigating has 
nothing to do with, it is actually the fact that those statute 
of limitations expired before you were appointed and before he 
was appointed; correct?
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry, I am not following 
your question.
    Mr. Cline. All right, well.
    Attorney General Garland. There is no connection between 
whatever happened with the statute of limitations, which I 
don't know about, and my appointment of Mr. Weiss.
    Mr. Cline. Did Special Counsel Weiss receive directions 
from your office regarding the details of the plea deal for 
Hunter Biden?
    Attorney General Garland. When I was nominated to be 
attorney general, two members of the Senate publicly asked me 
to let Mr. Weiss continue in his role to which he had been 
appointed by President Trump. I promised that I would.
    Thereafter, more than a majority of the Republican Members 
of the Senate asked me to appoint Mr. Weiss as Special Counsel.
    Mr. Cline. OK.
    Attorney General Garland. Ultimately, I did appoint him as 
Special Counsel.
    I promised not to intrude. I stuck with my promise.
    Mr. Cline. Let me ask you something you might remember
    On May 23rd of this year, were you in attendance at a State 
dinner for the President of Kenya?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Cline. Did Hunter Biden also attend the dinner?
    Attorney General Garland. From newspaper reports, yes.
    Mr. Cline. Did you and Hunter interact in any way?
    Attorney General Garland. I have never spoken to Hunter 
Biden in my life as far as I know.
    Mr. Cline. I yield the remainder of my time to the Chair.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Is the Department of Justice retaliating against 
whistleblowers?
    Attorney General Garland. No. That would be a violation of 
statute and a violation of our--
    Chair Jordan. Well, the Inspector General seems to think 
you are. I got this Management Advisory Memorandum dated May 
2024, Notification of Concerns Regarding the Department of 
Justice Compliance with Whistleblower Protections for Employees 
with a Security Clearance.
    Attorney General Garland. I have read the Management Memo. 
I think it is a good memo. It doesn't say we have been 
retaliating against anybody.
    It says that there have to be additional protections with 
respect--
    Chair Jordan. It is just, it is just pure coincidence that 
Marcus Allen's security clearance got reinstated today? 
Whistleblower who came in front of this Committee, Democrats 
disparaged this guy, called him a conspiracy theorist. Twenty-
seven months without his security clearance and we find out 
today it has been reinstated?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, sorry, I don't know about 
the facts, anything about the facts of that case. Retaliating 
against, retaliation against whistleblowers is against the law. 
It will be punished.
    Chair Jordan. Three people who have come and talked to this 
Committee as whistleblowers have had their security clearance 
taken. Marcus Allen gets his security clearance put back in 
place today. The Inspector General says he has got concerns, 
doing an investigation as we speak about what is going on.
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. The Management Memo 
you are talking about does not conclude there was any 
retaliation against anybody.
    Chair Jordan. No. It is a notice that he is investigating.
    Ms. Ross. Mr. Chair, regular order.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Garland, over here.
    Attorney General Garland. Oh.
    Mr. Correa. Do you want additional time to answer the 
Chair's questions or comments?
    Attorney General Garland. No. I have answered.
    We do not--there is, it is the policy and the practice if 
somebody has a complaint about whistleblowing to go the 
Inspector General. That is why the Inspector General is 
investigating it.
    The memorandum that the Inspector General issued does not 
say he concluded that anybody retaliated against anybody.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record 
a Wall Street Journal article that appeared yesterday, June 
3rd, titled ``Merrick Garland, three Special Counsels, and the 
Justice Department under fire.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Correa. Mr. Garland, I would ask you after this to go 
back and read this article. It talks about your long and 
distinguished career. I think the article really summarizes it, 
by open quote here, a sentence, it says, ``Garland has been 
driven by one mantra: Follow the facts and the law.'' It is 
about your commitment and your history to the rule of law in 
this country.
    Thank you, sir.
    Today we are talking a lot of issues, very important. This 
is our job, oversight. If I pull back a little bit, think about 
what people back home care about, they care about safe streets; 
eliminating drugs, harmful drugs from our streets; and consumer 
protection.
    So, I want to ask you, can you highlight, talk a little bit 
about your actions, the efforts of the Justice Department to 
reduce violent crime in the United States? More specifically, 
how you work with the local sheriffs or local police 
departments to reduce violent crime in our streets?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. That is an important part of 
our obligation, to protect the American people and America's 
communities.
    In 2021, soon after I became an Attorney General, I saw the 
statistics regarding the spike of violent crime that happened 
during the pandemic. I knew that it was important that we do 
everything we can to drive that number down, both for the 
protection of the individuals who are hurt, but also for the 
people's sense of security in their communities and belief that 
the system will work on their behalf.
    So, we issued a memorandum directing the strategy that we 
know worked and that worked the last time I was in the Justice 
Department when I was a drugs and guns prosecutor, and then 
again when I was a prosecutor in Main Justice. We cooperate 
with, we create task forces with our State and local law 
enforcement partners, sheriffs' offices, and police departments 
so that the Federal Government can bring the benefits of 
advantages it has, sometimes money, technology, or Federal 
statutes.
    The sheriffs' deputies and the officers on the ground can 
bring their knowledge of the community and their knowledge of 
the bad actors so we can take the most dangerous criminals off 
the streets, the repeat shooters, those who are responsible for 
violence, the people running in gangs that cause violence, so 
we can bring cases both against individuals and against 
criminal organizations.
    That strategy has been--
    Mr. Correa. If I can interrupt, I only have a 1\1/2\ 
minutes left.
    Attorney General Garland. OK. The strategy has been 
successful. The homicide rate last year went down, a higher 
decline than in 50 years. It is again going down this quarter 
by somewhere between 18-20 percent.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you for that good work.
    We talk about getting fentanyl off our streets, something 
very important to both sides of the aisle, everybody on Main 
Street. You mentioned in your opening remarks that you put away 
a head of a Sinaloa cartel, one of the kingpins there, 
drugpins. I sit on Homeland Security, and we know one way to 
get there is to take down these cartels put away the 
leadership.
    Can you explain a little bit about what else you are doing 
to go in that direction, to get these what I would call 
terrorists, drug terrorists?
    How do we put them in prison, get them off the streets so 
they won't be organizing and selling drugs, fentanyl, in our 
country?
    Attorney General Garland. So, and the DEA has done 
extraordinary work worldwide to track these cartels and to 
provide the evidence that has led to the indictments of the 
Chapitos, the sons of El Chapo, of El Chapo himself and, as I 
said just last week, the chief sicario, the assassin, and the 
protector of the Sinaloa cartel.
    I have traveled to Mexico several times myself. My deputy 
has traveled several times herself. A DEA group has gone as 
well to persuade Mexican authorities to make extraditions in 
these cases. Specifically, with respect to El Nini I made the 
necessary calls. My counterparts agreed, and they arranged for 
his extradition to the United States.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, sir. I hope you continue the good 
work.
    Mr. Chair, I yield.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for a unanimous 
consent.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have a few articles.
    First, is the full transcript of President Joe Biden's 
interview with Time.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. A town hall talking about the transcript of 
Biden's interview with Time is a mess.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into 
the record the Management Advisory Memorandum from the 
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2406, 7 
May 2024, Notification of Concerns Regarding the Department of 
Justice's Compliance with Whistleblower Protections for 
Employees with a Security Clearance.
    Chair Jordan. With that, recognize the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
    Equal justice for all. You used those words. Like cases 
treated alike. You used those words. All people are treated 
equally.
    Let's just look and review a few things. Let's look at the 
classified documents case. One individual is Vice President of 
the United States, removes documents which he has no right to 
do, Joe Biden. He then removes documents also before he was 
Vice President as a U.S. Senator. No right to do that. Doesn't 
have the right to declassify.
    Yet, a Special Counsel has been appointed. The result of 
that is, well, there is nothing we are going to do because he 
is a kindly older gentleman that has a bad memory, and it 
wouldn't be a good case.
    Yet, at the same time, a President of the United States who 
does have a right to declassify documents removes them, keeps 
them in a secure place, has the right to do it because he was a 
President, and he is indicted.
    Equal justice for all.
    Prosecutor Bragg--and I am going to ask you a question 
about this, just your opinion--he ran for office saying he was 
going to put Donald Trump in jail. Before he saw all the 
evidence. Before he knew everything about the case. Before he 
knew anything, he ran for office saying he was going to put 
another human being in jail and ran on that as his platform.
    Do you believe that it is appropriate for somebody to run 
for prosecutor, and by that, also in Fulton County, Georgia, 
the same thing happened there with a prosecutor, do you think 
it is appropriate, do you think someone who is being 
interviewed for a position when they are going to be appointed, 
or somebody who is running for office, and is going to be 
elected at this level of government in the judiciary should say 
what they want to do as far as putting somebody in jail before 
they have even seen the case?
    Is that appropriate? Yes or no.
    Attorney General Garland. Your description of the Hur and 
Smith cases is inaccurate. I don't know whether your 
description of what the two district attorneys said--
    Mr. Van Drew. Well, then you don't look at the news. Excuse 
me, Attorney General, because I only have a limited amount of 
time.
    Everywhere it was reported, it was if you knew anything you 
knew that Alvin Bragg and also, again, the prosecutor in Fulton 
County, Georgia, they ran on that. That is wrong. That isn't 
equal justice for all. It is wrong.
    This wasn't equal justice for all.
    By the way, I think my rendition of what happened when the 
Special Counsel looked at that is pretty damn accurate. I even 
put the word ``kindly'' in there, kindly, old gentleman, 
forgetful, it wouldn't be a good case for that reason. Those 
are all accurate.
    I want to ask you something else.
    Do you know who Jay Bratt is? I know that you do. He is a 
top aide to Jack Smith.
    I know that you must be aware that Mr. Bratt attempted to 
pressure the defense attorney, a close Trump aide, with a 
judgeship, with a judgeship if the attorney went along with 
Jack Smith's desires and his demands. Are you aware of that?
    Attorney General Garland. I know Mr. Bratt to be an 
excellent lawyer, a longtime career prosecutor, a person of 
high ethics. I know the issue you are talking about is 
disputed. Those facts are disputed in the District Court in 
Florida, and it will be resolved by the judge in that case.
    Mr. Van Drew. Yep. That is why the case was stopped, 
because it is obviously of concern, there is something there.
    Are you aware that on May 3rd, Special Counsel Smith 
himself acknowledged in a court filing that after the FBI 
seized evidence that, in its raid on Mar-a-Lago, that some of 
the evidence was altered, manipulated, or disturbed? Is that 
standard procedure.
    Attorney General Garland. I have not read anywhere where he 
said it was altered or manipulated. So, again, I can't accept 
that characterization. That or a Federal judge.
    Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Attorney General, I want to be 
respectful. Are you living in a bubble here?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not living in a bubble. Your 
characterization is false.
    Mr. Van Drew. Good God, it was in, I mean everybody saw it, 
everybody heard it. Smith himself said it. That is why that 
case was stopped.
    Attorney General Garland. If you can show me where he said 
he manipulated the evidence, I will have a different opinion.
    Mr. Van Drew. You don't like my word, that there was some 
tempering. Absolutely, he said that he had touched the 
evidence. We don't know what level.
    Now, Americans are concerned, God knows what level it is 
and whether we will really know the truth.
    I have got a question about this. Former President Trump, 
as you know, is being dragged through a political travesty. You 
won't agree that it is a travesty orchestrated by Alvin Bragg.
    How is it that a man, Matthew Colangelo, the third highest 
ranking individual in the Department of Justice, takes a pay 
cut and takes a cut in just what it is he does for a living as 
far as prestige, to go and join that case?
    I know you will say you don't have the answer to that 
either.
    Attorney General Garland. I have the answer. I took an 
enormous pay cut to become an Assistant U.S. Attorney. Mr. 
Mueller took an enormous pay cut, both of us as partners in law 
firms, to work for the public good.
    Mr. Van Drew. Your prestige went up.
    Attorney General Garland. Most, many people have a view 
about doing the public good and not caring about how much money 
they make.
    Mr. Van Drew. I am going to yield in a second.
    We were lied to about Catholic churches, we were lied to 
about school board meetings, we were lied to about Russian 
collusion, we were lied to about the sweetheart deal, we were 
lied to about mishandling of classified material, and we were 
lied to about FISA.
    Ms. Scanlon. Point of order.
    Mr. Van Drew. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized for an 
unanimous consent.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes. I have an unanimous consent.
    Republicans have continued to misrepresent the Hur Report, 
saying that President Biden had a poor memory. That is not 
supported by the Special Counsel's own record.
    Ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an excerpt 
from the transcript of Special Counsel Hur's interview with 
President Biden.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. I am reading from the transcript on October 8, 
2023, at page 47, lines 20 to 21, ``You appear to have a 
photographic understanding and recall.''
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Attorney General, it would be inappropriate for you to 
opine on the nature of pending and active prosecutions; 
correct?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. There is a Justice 
Department policy against making those kinds of comments.
    Mr. Neguse. It is a longstanding precedent?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. The reason why I bring that up, I have great 
respect for my colleague from New Jersey. I understand he is 
not a lawyer by training. The world needs good dentists, so it 
is nothing against his career choices.
    I will just simply say I find it shameful to have to 
endure, and I can only imagine how you feel about it, Mr. 
Attorney General, the lectures from some of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle about equal justice under the law 
or adherence to the rule of law to a man who has spent 
virtually his entire career in pursuit of upholding the rule of 
law.
    You talked a bit about your professional background. You 
started at the Department of Justice as a line prosecutor. I 
know you served as a Special Assistant prior to that, but the 
bulk of your early career at the Department of Justice was a 
line prosecutor?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. Drug trafficking, organized crime, and violent 
crime cases?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. You then proceeded to become the principal 
Associate Deputy Attorney General?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Long title.
    Mr. Neguse. Long title, important job.
    In that capacity, you oversaw a series of very important 
criminal prosecutions, including the prosecutions connected to 
the Oklahoma City bombing; is that right?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. You were nominated and you were confirmed on a 
bipartisan basis here in Washington, DC, for the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. You rose to Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals?
    Attorney General Garland. I think that just meant I 
survived my colleagues, yes.
    Mr. Neguse. That may be, Mr. Attorney General. What I can 
say with confidence is that you have a more distinguished 
record with respect to fidelity to the rule of law than any 
Member sitting on the dais here today on either side of the 
aisle.
    I appreciate your integrity, your leadership of the 
Department and, to be candid, your patience during the bulk of 
this hearing which, of course, has focused on virtually every 
issue unconnected to the bulk of the work that is done by our 
Nation's premier law enforcement agency.
    I have been in and out of this hearing. I believe it is 
correct that you haven't gotten any questions about cybercrime, 
let's say, for example?
    Attorney General Garland. That is right.
    Mr. Neguse. Or foreign espionage?
    Attorney General Garland. Right.
    Mr. Neguse. I know during your opening statement you talked 
about the decisive action the Department of Justice is taking 
in coordination with the DEA and the FBI against cartels. Very 
few questions about that today from my colleagues, 
unfortunately, unless I am wrong.
    Attorney General Garland. You are right.
    Mr. Neguse. A litany of work that is being done each and 
every day at the Department of Justice that has a real impact 
on people's lives in terms of keeping our communities safe, 
keeping Americans safe.
    This was supposed to be, I thought, an oversight hearing 
for the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, it has descended 
into a lot of rhetoric about conspiracy theories and the like. 
It is a wasted opportunity to actually engage with you and your 
Department about the issues that the American people care 
deeply about.
    So, I will spend the remaining amount of my time left 
talking about an issue that is deeply important to me, and I 
know an issue that is important to you, which is the scourge of 
gun violence.
    The Department has taken a leadership role under your 
tenure in the last several years, particularly, as it relates 
to implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which is 
a bipartisan bill that this Congress passed, thanks to 
President Biden's leadership. I wonder if you might just opine 
a bit or expound a bit on your work as it relates to gun 
violence?
    Attorney General Garland. The Bipartisan Safer Communities 
Act has been extraordinarily helpful in our effort to combat 
gun violence. It has led to substantial numbers of prohibited 
sales of guns to minors who the statutes prohibit possessing 
because of conduct that they have engaged in.
    It has given us the authority to bring cases for straw 
purchasing that has led to crime guns and to gun trafficking to 
criminals. In those ways, it has helped drive down the numbers 
with respect to gun violence.
    We have set up crime gun intelligence centers so that our 
State and local counterparts can trace guns that are found at 
crime scenes to determine whether they were used by serial 
killers, by serial shooters, to help us find out, run the DNA 
off of the casings so that we can find hits on those people and 
arrest them and prevent them from committing further crimes.
    There are a host of things that the Department has done. 
The principal kind of violence we are worried about in the 
country is gun violence. That is what causes the enormous 
number of deaths we face every year.
    Mr. Neguse. I thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your 
service to our country. I hope you will relay the same to all 
the folks at the Department of Justice.
    I thank the Chair for his indulgence. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Alabama--Oh, excuse me. Unanimous 
consent request from the gentlelady from North Carolina.
    Ms. Ross. Yes. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a March 2, 2023, Democratic staff report from this 
Committee, which shows that the testimony from three former FBI 
employees is false or misleading and funded by MAGA extremists. 
Here you go.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. One of those individuals 
who you falsely labeled that, just got a security clearance 
given back to him in light of the Inspector General's pending 
investigation.
    The gentleman from New Jersey for a unanimous consent.
    Mr. Van Drew. Just a unanimous consent with the exact words 
of what Special Counsel Hur said, which will verify everything 
that I said.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from Alabama 
is now recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Attorney General, what was your understanding of Jack 
Smith's reputation in the legal community?
    Attorney General Garland. A reputation was he had the 
highest reputation for both ethics and skill at being a career 
prosecutor.
    Mr. Moore. Were you aware that individuals who had worked 
with him noted that, and I quote this, ``overzealous prosecutor 
who relies on ethically dubious tactics while investigating or 
prosecuting criminal cases''? Were you aware of that?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know what anonymous 
source you are citing here, but I certainly wasn't aware of it, 
no.
    Mr. Moore. Let me cite another source for you.
    Are you aware that Mr. Smith's conviction against former 
Republican Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, 
whom he accused of accepting payments and gifts in violation of 
Federal corruption laws, was unanimously overturned by the 
Supreme Court? Are you aware of that?
    Attorney General Garland. My understanding is the Supreme 
Court actually changed its view of that particular law. We 
respect the Supreme Court's ultimate determination. That has 
nothing to do with Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Moore. Let me read you a quote from Chief Justice 
Roberts.

        To rebuke Mr. Smith's theory of case writing, our concern is 
        with the broader legal implications of the Government's 
        boundless interpretation of the Federal bribery statute, which 
        did not comport with the text of the statute or the precedent 
        in the court.

Does Mr. Smith's prior boundless interpretation of Federal laws 
concern you?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Smith's case was supported by 
the Justice Department on appeal and then by the Solicitor 
General's Office. We respect the decision of the Supreme Court 
in their interpretation and narrowing of our anticorruption 
statute.
    Mr. Moore. Have you received any briefings from the 
Department, from Jack Smith concerning the prosecution of 
President Trump? Have you received any subsequent briefings?
    Attorney General Garland. Have I received briefings from 
Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. That is part of the Special 
Counsel regulations.
    Mr. Moore. So, I am going to change gears here for a 
second.
    We talk a lot in here about the attack on the rule of law 
and embracing misinformation. Do you see that the American 
people, the number one thing I see when I am touring the 
district, or at least in 2021, not anymore, it is the border, 
but in 2021, Mr. Garland, it was the concern for the 
weaponization of the Government against U.S. citizens?
    What do you think is driving the concern?
    Attorney General Garland. I think when people say over and 
over the word ``weaponization'' it can have an effect on 
people's belief, whether it is founded or unfounded?
    Mr. Moore. Do you think it might be founded based on the 
Durham Report when Durham himself said that he was extremely 
concerned with the way that Comey, FBI Director Lance, and 
those knew that the DNC was driving the Russian collusion 
narrative, and then they went out and opened an investigation, 
do you think those kinds of things, maybe impeaching him twice, 
maybe arresting him, maybe raiding his home, for the first ever 
we have ever indicted a President, do you think maybe those are 
more reasons that people are starting to lose trust in the 
justice system than maybe anything we are saying here on the 
Hill?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Durham was reporting events 
that occurred in an Administration before I was Attorney 
General.
    Mr. Moore. Does it still not erode the credibility of the 
Department of Justice and justice in America, the rule of law, 
when things like what happened last week, stuff that happened 
that have never happened before in the history of the country, 
do you think that maybe has more to do with this than what we 
are saying here?
    Attorney General Garland. When you are referring to last 
week you are referring to a decision by a jury in a State case 
unrelated to the Department of Justice. I am not going to 
comment on that jury verdict.
    Mr. Moore. So, what about $200 million in donations in less 
than maybe 48 hours, do you think maybe that is sending a 
message that maybe the people in America are not living in a 
bubble, maybe we are? Maybe it is not what we are saying, maybe 
it is what we are doing? Maybe that carries more weight, what 
do we say here?
    Attorney General Garland. I do think that what we do is 
more important than what we say. The Justice Department should 
be evaluated by its acts.
    Mr. Moore. It is being evaluated by its acts.
    Attorney General Garland. I think the Justice Department 
acts appropriately. You are talking about fundraising related 
to something that happened in New York.
    Mr. Moore. I am talking about a jury verdict. Anywhere in 
the political world if you are indicated, normally that is 
campaign over. If you are convicted of felonies, you are 
certain you can consider your campaign over.
    Why would the American people, 30 percent who have never 
donated to a campaign, give $200 million to a man that you just 
charged with 34 felonies?
    Attorney General Garland. You are asking me a political 
question that I am not qualified--
    Mr. Moore. I am telling you, sir, we are making the justice 
system political. That is what is going on in America. The 
people are waking up.
    It is not us saying it here. It is not the weaponization of 
Government here, it is the grassroots of America asking us 
those very questions. When you convict, or at least try to 
convict a man and charge a man, and they donate $200 million in 
48 hours, sir, they are sending a signal they have lost all 
trust in this system
    Attorney General Garland. I think we all have a 
responsibility to respect jury verdicts. A failure to respect 
jury verdicts--
    Mr. Moore. It is the way that we arrived at the verdict. I 
think that is the problem. The American people see it, sir. 
Under your watch the system is losing credibility.
    It concerns me for this country and certainly for the 
future of the direction of the Department of Justice.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized.
    Ms. McBath. AG Garland, thank you so much for being here. 
Thank you for all that you have done. I know that you were just 
here in September. I want to commend you for being so 
responsive to your duties and to the American public.
    Being the Attorney General is a very difficult job. Still I 
am proud of the work that you've done thus far and of your 
sound judgment, very sound judgment as you navigate these 
investigations and requests as these decisions will set the 
precedent for Attorney Generals and others that come behind you 
in the future. Of those decisions setting a precedent, I would 
like to focus on a problem plaguing our Nation, just as my 
colleague, Mr. Neguse, did as well, gun violence.
    We have lost thousands of Americans to gun violence. I just 
came from another event and the same, dealing with gun 
violence. Yet, there are officials and others in power that 
continue to push back on just simple commonsense legislation, 
rulemaking, and other efforts that can save the lives of our 
children, and our families and keep our communities so much 
more safe.
    The DOJ just issued a proposed rule to update the 
definition of frame or receiver which would regulate so-called 
ghost guns, the same as traditional firearms. This lifesaving 
rule is now being challenged. The DOJ issued a proposed rule to 
clarify restrictions on short-barreled rifles.
    This lifesaving rule is also being challenged. The DOJ 
published a rule to update the definition of engaged in 
business regarding the sale of firearms. This lifesaving rule 
is also being challenged.
    Now, I'm all for accountability, transparency, and 
protecting our constitutional rights. These challenges are not 
put forth with any of those goals in mind. They are harmful, 
and they're put in place so that the gun lobby can continue 
cashing checks regardless of how many lives in this country 
that we lose every single day.
    Commonsense gun safety legislation does move us to a safer 
America. No law enforcement officer in this country, whether 
they be State, local, or Federal, should be put in danger 
because some of our American leaders fail to see the bigger 
picture of the lives that can be saved and work toward that 
means. In this country, we have teenagers who are just too 
afraid to even go to festivals in their communities anymore or 
parades because they recognize that it's likely a place that 
there might be another mass shooting.
    We have five- and six-year-olds in our classrooms that have 
learned more about active shooter drills than they probably 
have in their own academics. We have an entire generation 
that's growing up thinking that their elected officials don't 
even care to protect them--I hear from them every single day--
and that we're here in Washington only playing politics.
    Everyone here on this Committee should be eager to find 
ways to protect the American public and to eliminate unlawful 
guns and the access and possession of them by people who simply 
should not have them. The steps that the DOJ is taking to 
clarify and protect those around firearms are the steps that we 
truly need to keep our communities safe. We need to get back on 
track and worry about the actual issues that are affecting us 
today.
    So, AG Garland, I sincerely wish that you could be in your 
office today really doing your work. The substantive work that 
you have been duly sworn to do with your team to implement the 
policies that are needed to protect our country and provide law 
enforcement with the tools that they need to track down 
criminals. So, if you were not here today, just tell us what 
work would you actually be doing instead of being here in front 
of us again today and having to be put through the ringer one 
more time?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, it's going to take a long 
explanation. Today--and I know you don't have time for it. The 
day begins with a threat briefing from the FBI and intelligence 
community about the threats this country is facing, both 
outside the United States and inside the United States, threats 
from foreign terrorist organizations, from domestic violence 
extremists, and from people intending to commit hate crimes.
    We spend that time trying to allocate our resources and 
orienting our people so that they can deter, disrupt, and 
prevent those attacks. That's what my morning would be. Looks 
like we're out of time. So, I'm happy to tell you what my 
afternoon would be, if there's more time later.
    Ms. McBath. Once again, I'm so sorry that you're being put 
through this again. Thank you for the work that you and your 
staff and all those that are tasked to support you are doing on 
behalf of the American people. I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. [Presiding.] The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized, Mr. Moran.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair. General Garland, thank you 
for being here today and for your testimony. It will come as no 
surprise to you that my constituents in East Texas were not 
pleased with the ATF under the ultimate authority of the DOJ, 
as you know, which is elected to implement some extremely 
stringent gun control policies.
    My colleague from the other side was mentioning some of 
those. Simply by administrative fiat and rulemaking, this 
includes things like the pistol brace rule that attempts to 
restrict millions of Americans and, in particular, disabled 
veterans from owning a firearm accessory that helps them 
discharge their pistols in a stabilized manner. The frame and 
receiver or the ghost rule as it's known which expands the 
definition of several terms associated with firearms to subject 
them to regulation by the ATF.
    The zero-tolerance policy by the ATF against Federal 
firearm license dealers which really incentivizes those dealers 
not to cooperate with the ATF for fear of reprisal because 
effectively that new rule allows the ATF to revoke the licenses 
of FFLs for simple technical and nonmaterial paperwork. That's 
what I'm hearing from my dealers back home. Finally, a really 
broad application of the, quote, ``engaged in business rule,'' 
which overextended the definition to as the ATF now interprets, 
quote, ``Even a single transaction or offer to engage in a 
transaction when combined with other evidence may be sufficient 
to require a license as an FFL.''
    The rule states that, quote, ``absent reliable evidence to 
the contrary,'' individuals are presumed to be, quote, 
``engaged in the business of dealing in firearms,'' if their 
conduct falls within one of the ATF's specified presumptions. 
Those presumptions are not exhaustive as you know. So, it 
really flips the burden of proof and presumes that Americans 
engage in conduct disfavored by the ATF are breaking the law 
unless they can prove their innocence. That's simply turning it 
upside down. To what extent was your office involved in 
crafting or approving these policies?
    Attorney General Garland. I approved of all those rules. If 
you give me a minute, I'll go through each one so that you can 
explain to your constituents. So, with respect to the brace, it 
does not apply to an arm brace supplied by a disabled person or 
anyone else.
    The statute says if you have a rifle 16 inches or smaller 
intended to be fired from the shoulder, that it has to be 
registered. The shoulder braces which are only used to fire 
from the shoulder turn it into a short-barreled rifle. They 
turn a short-barreled pistol into a short-barreled rifle.
    Mr. Moran. We know there's a short period of time--and I 
think your Department has even admitted a short period of 
time--within which folks had to register. We had millions of 
people across America that were supposed to register, a lot of 
whom were serving overseas at the time and couldn't do it 
within the specified period. In fact, we sent a letter that 
asked your Department to extend the period of time, at least 
extend the period of time within they could register, and you 
guys rejected that.
    Since you reviewed and approved all these, and I know that 
you're crafting these at the behest of the President which is 
certainly your right to do. One of the things I can't wrap my 
head around is the fact that on one hand the Administration is 
saying ``it's cracking down on guns.'' That was a quote.
    Here in D.C., the U.S. Attorney also under your ultimate 
authority actively chooses to let hardened criminals who commit 
crimes with illegal firearms walk away Scot-free from their 
criminal actions. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves, here's what has 
happened in D.C. His office had declined to prosecute 32 
percent of carrying a pistol without a license cases, in 2023, 
up from 15 percent in 2018.
    Sixty percent of those convictions in 2023 were 
misdemeanors which is up from 25 percent between 2018-2021. 
This rose to 48 percent misdemeanor rate in U.S. Attorney 
Graves first full year, and then 60 percent, a record high last 
year. Were you aware of these statistics?
    Attorney General Garland. Mr. Graves is an experienced 
former career prosecutor. It's impossible to make these 
judgments based on numbers. It depends on what the evidence is 
in the cases. My understanding is that those percentages have 
increased now. The information is that the crime rate in the 
District of Columbia in first quarter of this year is now going 
down.
    Mr. Moran. Have you had a discussion about why he's not 
prosecuting more gun crimes here in D.C.?
    Attorney General Garland. He's putting huge priorities into 
prosecuting violent crime in the District of Columbia. The main 
justice has provided assistance from the FBI, ATF, and the 
Marshals as well as Assistant U.S. Attorneys from other 
locations to help him do that.
    Mr. Moran. Well, I find it interesting that he's declined 
to prosecute 30 percent of assault cases with dangerous weapons 
in 2022. He also simultaneously blames the crime lab for a lack 
of prosecution. He takes credit for, quote, ``effectively 
building a makeshift department of forensic science while 
felony drug convictions are down 88 percent since 2017.''
    Drug convictions, as you know, are one of the main ways 
D.C. targets gangs, crews that drive so much of the gun 
violence. I'm frankly in awe that D.C. and the Department has 
allowed him to go in that direction and not call him to the 
carpet for it. We need more prosecutions of the gun crimes here 
in D.C. and elsewhere. I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Ms. Ross. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your 
service. Thank you for your patience. I know it's been a long 
day.
    We all know that the purpose of this hearing is not genuine 
oversight of the Department of Justice, but rather a cynical 
effort to cast doubt on the myriad legal troubles of former 
President Trump. I want to focus instead on a recent issue that 
I believe highlights the value of the Department of Justice and 
the hard work that Federal law enforcement does to keep our 
communities safe. Recently, when speaking with a rabbi in my 
district in Raleigh, North Carolina, I learned that a North 
Carolina synagogue has received violent threats over the past 
month.
    One threat from early May stated,

        Jews don't deserve to live. Jews didn't deserve to be on this 
        earth. I'm going to kill the Jews. I'm coming to the temple to 
        kill all the Jews and the children.

    According to DOJ, several North Carolina synagogues 
received threats like this. Just days later, I spoke with this 
rabbi. The Department of Justice has charged and arrested a 
California man, Kevin Dunlow, for these threats as well as for 
a false bomb threat to the Wake County sheriff's office and a 
threat to an elected official.
    Mr. Attorney General, today we've heard plenty of criticism 
of your office from the other side of the aisle. I wanted to 
share the story to shed light on the good work the Department 
of Justice is doing, work that in the past couple of weeks has 
made a direct impact on public safety in my community. Thank 
you for your diligence, not only in this case of horrific and 
violent anti-Semitism but in addressing threats against other 
communities.
    In addition to the recent uptick in anti-Semitic threats, 
we've seen an increase in threats against Muslim communities 
which is equally troubling. The war in Gaza has heightened 
emotions across the United States. Unfortunately, some of our 
most vulnerable communities are facing the brunt of this 
sentiment which too often has turned into vicious threats of 
violence.
    I want to start by asking you how the case involving Kevin 
Dunlow, the California man who made the threats in this 
district, got put together. Could you walk us through the kind 
of work that you do when you find out about these kinds of 
violent threats?
    Attorney General Garland. I can't walk through that 
specific case. I want to make clear although you're nice to 
give me credit. In fact, all the credit belongs to the career 
prosecutors and the career agents who investigate a case like 
that.
    So, of course, a case like that has to begin with some 
recording of the threat or some electronic version that was 
transmitted by the internet. It takes an enormous amount of 
work to find out who transmitted it. Oftentimes, people attempt 
to hide their origins.
    We have skilled computer analyst who are able to do that. 
It has to be traced back to the source. Then, we have to find 
any other important we have about the person who we suspect, 
and see what else the State and local police have on that 
matter and then try to make an arrest as soon as we can.
    You are right that since October 7th, there's been a 
terrible explosion of anti-Semitic threats, also anti-Arab and 
anti-Muslim threats in this country that make all these 
communities afraid. We regard it as an important element of our 
civil rights work to deter, investigate, prosecute, and to stop 
these threats. This is all in the proposition for the 
Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    Ms. Ross. Since October 7th, have you taken any new steps, 
new strategies to try to deal with these threats?
    Attorney General Garland. So, to the extent there are new 
steps they have to do with meeting with all our U.S. attorneys 
virtually to insist on communications with the local 
communities. That's the way we find out about these threats, to 
publicize our willingness and our duty to investigate them and 
bring them down. So, I say that's the principal things that we 
are doing, that is latching up with our State and local 
partners to find out when threats are made and to go after them 
as soon as we can.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Kiley. Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. You 
testified today that you're not going to comment on a jury 
verdict in a State case. Has that always been your practice as 
Attorney General?
    Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department practice 
is always to say that we respect the verdict of a jury. That's 
our practice.
    Mr. Kiley. OK. So, in 2021, Derek Chauvin was convicted in 
a Minnesota State Court by a jury of several felonies. Did you 
issue a statement after that verdict?
    Attorney General Garland. We always issue a statement after 
the verdict describing what the verdict was--
    Mr. Kiley. No, this is a State case. Did you issue a 
statement following the State court conviction?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. Who is the person 
again?
    Mr. Kiley. Derek Chauvin.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, this was also a Federal 
case.
    Mr. Kiley. Right, but this was before the State, the 
Federal case. We got a verdict from the jury. You issued a--did 
you issue a statement, yes or no?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer to that.
    Mr. Kiley. I have your statement--
    Attorney General Garland. I've always described--we always 
describe the verdict.
    Mr. Kiley. This is a State court decision from a jury, and 
you said,

        While the State's prosecution was successful, I know that 
        nothing can fill the void that the loved ones of George Floyd 
        have felt.

So, you agreed with the decision?
    Attorney General Garland. It's not a question of agreeing. 
It's a question of a verdict occurred.
    Mr. Kiley. OK. You said the prosecution was successful?
    Attorney General Garland. It was successful because it led 
to a successful verdict.
    Mr. Kiley. So, would you say that the prosecution, People 
v. Trump last week, was successful?
    Attorney General Garland. I guess by the definition of when 
somebody brings a case, if they get the verdict they ask for, 
it's successful without commenting on any particular case--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Kiley. You just said successful here. You said that in 
this case the prosecution was successful. So, in a similar 
vein, would you say the prosecution of People v. Trump was 
successful?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm going to say again, you're 
asking me for a tautology. When a prosecutor brings a case and 
a prosecutor wins the case, it is by definition successful.
    Mr. Kiley. What is the case later overturned on appeal. Is 
the prosecution successful?
    Attorney General Garland. We, of course, accept the 
decision on appeal. Then, it's no longer successful.
    Mr. Kiley. So, a successful prosecution is one where you 
get a jury verdict and then it's upheld on appeal?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Kiley. You were very quick the day of the jury verdict 
to say that the prosecution was successful in the Chauvin case. 
Would you say that by that definition in the same way the 
prosecution was successful in People v. Trump?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm not going to comment on that 
case. You can ask me ten different ways.
    Mr. Kiley. Even though you're commenting on other State 
cases. I want to ask you actually about a Federal case, an 
opinion that you wrote in your last year on the D.C. Circuit. 
It was called FEC v. Craig. Do you remember that case?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't.
    Mr. Kiley. Involving former Senator Larry Craig?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Kiley. So, Mr. Craig, of course, had gotten himself in 
trouble for disorderly conduct in an airport bathroom. He used 
campaign funds to fight those allegations. He came into your 
court and said that it was OK do so because it makes the 
allegations go away. That's going to help his campaign.
    You rejected that argument. You ruled that he should've 
used personal funds because the underlying conduct was personal 
in nature. Doesn't that rule of law that you articulated 
expressly contradict the theory of the case in People v. Trump?
    Attorney General Garland. You can again ask me 12 times if 
you want, I'm not going to comment on that case and I'm not 
going to.
    Mr. Kiley. I have your opinion right here. It's a very well 
written opinion.
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. That case is an 
interpretation of the Federal Elections Commission Act. That's 
all we did in that case.
    Mr. Kiley. Right. You're well aware that an interpretation 
of the Federal Elections Commission Act was at the core of the 
prosecution's theory of the case last week. I think the reason 
that are so reticent about commenting here, Mr. Attorney 
General, even though you had a press release the very day of 
the verdict in past cases is because your own very well written 
opinion clearly shows that there was reversible error in this 
case. You testified earlier that you have not made any--
    Attorney General Garland. I appreciate the compliment about 
my case. It has nothing to do--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Kiley. You testified earlier that you have never made 
political contributions. Is that correct?
    Attorney General Garland. While I was a judge, I did not 
make--
    Mr. Kiley. How about before you were a judge?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Kiley. Before you were a judge?
    Attorney General Garland. I think maybe 40 years ago, I 
made a political contribution.
    Mr. Kiley. To whom?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, it's public knowledge. I 
made a contribution to the Mondale campaign.
    Mr. Kiley. OK. If Mr. Mondale had come before you as a 
party, would you have recused yourself or would you have heard 
the case?
    Attorney General Garland. I know now for the 14th time, 
you're trying to ask me--
    Mr. Kiley. No, I'm not. I'm asking you about your own 
campaign contribution to Mr. Mondale.
    Attorney General Garland. No, you're not.
    You're asking me to comment on the judge in the case under 
a different jurisdiction--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Kiley. No, I'm not. I'm asking you about your own 
political contribution that you just said you made. If Mr. 
Mondale who you donated to had come before you as a party, 
would you have recused yourself, yes or no?
    Attorney General Garland. If 20-10 years later or 20 years 
later when I became a judge, it would've not made any 
difference. Judges put aside their political views, their 
personal views. Every Justice of the Supreme Court has 
testified--
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Garland, you testified that you don't regret 
picking Jack Smith. Do you regret picking Robert Hur as Special 
Counsel?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't regret, no.
    Mr. Kiley. You testified that he has a long and 
distinguished career as a prosecutor. Rather you said that when 
you appointed him. Do you stand by that?
    Attorney General Garland. That's a fact.
    Mr. Kiley. You do not dispute his conclusion that President 
Biden willfully retained classified information. is that 
correct?
    Attorney General Garland. That wasn't his conclusion. He 
said there was evidence, but that the evidence did not warrant 
going forward.
    Mr. Kiley. I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from 
Missouri for five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you again, Attorney 
Garland, for being here. St. Louis and I are here today in 
support of our democratic institutions and the rule of law.
    Nearly four years ago, I was barricaded in my office with 
my staff wondering if we would be killed or at least harmed by 
a mob incited by Donald Trump to storm the U.S. Capitol, 
because he could not accept the fact that he lost the 2020 
Presidential Election. In that moment, I thought to myself this 
has to be it. This has to be the moment in our country that 
people finally realize that the extremist MAGA movement is a 
violent cult that will destroy anything in its path all for 
Donald Trump.
    Yet, nearly four years later, here we are again. Far from 
rejecting Donald Trump and his insurrection, the Republican 
party has embraced its role as the party of insurrection. 
Republicans have defended January 6th, attacked the Department 
of Justice for seeking accountability, continued their assault 
on voting rights, and built a pro-insurrection wing of the 
Supreme Court.
    They have also overwhelmingly backed Trump who has been 
convicted of 34 felony criminal charges despite his attacking 
the prosecutor, the judge, and the jurors in the case. Even 
though he still refuses to say he will support the outcome of 
the 2024 election. So, as we sit here today, our democracy is 
in as precarious a position as it was in 2020, if not more.
    Attorney General Garland, I want to thank you. I want to 
talk to you about the ongoing assault on our democracy and the 
rule of law. How does interference by politicians in criminal 
trials harm our democracy and the separation of powers?
    Attorney General Garland. Our criminal justice system 
precedes in the understanding that the decisions will be made 
in the courtroom without political interference in any way. 
Fundamentally, it depends on the respect of the citizenry of 
the judicial processes that occur. People can disagree with the 
results.
    People can challenge results. People can appeal results. We 
respect the judicial process, the judges, the juries, and the 
Appellant Justices. That's a fundamental element of our 
democracy.
    Ms. Bush. How do conspiracy theories and misinformation 
affect the ability of courts to conduct impartial trials?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, it's a broader question and 
I can answer in specifics. I think attacks on--personal attacks 
on judges, personal attacks on juries, personal attacks on 
prosecutors and agents make people afraid to do their job 
according to the merits and according to the law.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. I will say an obvious answer is that 
Republicans are not doing any of this because they care about 
our communities. They care about our country or our democracy. 
They are doing this because they realize their agenda is 
absolutely unpopular. They will do anything to stay in power.
    The Republican party is all about projection. Republicans 
talk about violent crime while inciting violent crime on 
January 6th. Republicans talk about the weaponization of the 
Federal Government as they themselves weaponized it on behalf 
of Donald Trump, including the baseless impeaching 
investigation and these sham committee hearings.
    Republicans talk about the unfairness of the criminal legal 
system while ignoring the actual communities, mostly Black and 
Brown, who are disproportionately targeted by that system and 
don't have high powered attorneys, unlike Donald Trump who has 
used his wealth, his resources, his power to shield himself 
from accountability his entire life. Republicans talk about big 
government and liberty and don't tread on me as they use 
government to rip away the freedoms of women, of LGBTQ+ folks, 
and countless others. Republicans talk about cancel culture as 
they champion violent crackdowns on students who dare to speak 
out about the humanity of Palestinians.
    Republicans talk about unethical judicial overreach despite 
the comical corruption of their extremist Justices. So, while 
Republicans focus on hypocrisy and distraction, my Democratic 
colleagues and I will continue asking the real questions, 
advancing real solutions, and advocating for our communities. 
So, thank you again for being here, Attorney General Garland, 
and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back. The 
gentlelady from Indian is recognized.
    Ms. Spartz. I yield five minutes to gentleman from Ohio.
    Chair Jordan. I appreciate the gentlelady yield. A news 
story last week in Politico, first paragraph,

        The Justice Department has agreed to settle long-running 
        litigation stemming from a decision in 2017 to release to the 
        media text messages between two former FBI employees involved 
        in the probe of Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign.

Are Peter Strzok and Lisa Page going to get a windfall of 
American tax dollars soon here, Mr. Attorney General?''
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. I either didn't hear 
or didn't understand the question.
    Chair Jordan. Are Peter Strzok and Lisa Page going to get a 
windfall of American tax dollars?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry.
    Chair Jordan. Are you in settlement negotiations with Peter 
Strzok and Lisa Page?
    Attorney General Garland. Oh, I don't know what's public in 
that respect or not.
    Chair Jordan. I'm reading from the story. Someone gave it 
to him. I assume it was you guys. The Justice Department has 
agreed to a long-running litigation stemming from a decision in 
2017.
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know whether discussions 
are public or not. In every case when people bring cases 
against the United States, we attempt to settle the case.
    Chair Jordan. Simple question. Are Lisa Page and Peter 
Strzok going to get money from the American taxpayer?
    Attorney General Garland. When that determination is made 
about whether settlement is made in that case, it will be 
announced.
    Chair Jordan. I yield back.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney General, do 
you agree that yours and my job is to protect constitutional 
rights of Americans?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, that's an easy one to agree 
with.
    Ms. Spartz. OK. At least we agree on something. So, let's 
just go a little bit through the rights. I'm going to explain 
to you how a lot of Americans in my district in my observation, 
an interesting observation, do not trust and believe so. This 
is an interesting observation I've noticed that a lot of people 
come with cases.
    They say, I showed up to my house. ATF showed up at my 
house. Never showed up before, law abiding citizens. When I ask 
them, were you in D.C. on January 6th, strangely enough a lot 
of these people usually say yes.
    That really looks very suspicious to me. Let's just talk 
about our amendments. Do you believe under the Second Amendment 
there should be no restriction on the quantity of guns that any 
law-abiding citizen should own? I'm not talking about types, 
five guns, 500 or 5,000. Do you believe there should be no 
limitations on the quantity of guns?
    Attorney General Garland. No limitations on what?
    Ms. Spartz. On the quantity or number, 5, 500, or 5,000 
guns that I can own.
    Attorney General Garland. On the number of guns that people 
can purchase?
    Ms. Spartz. Yes, for my collection.
    Attorney General Garland. I don't think there's any 
statutory--
    Ms. Spartz. Yes, so there is no limitation. So, you agree 
with that, right?
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Spartz. So, if I have as many guns as I want in my 
personal collection, do you think--you have this new rule that 
you celebrated with your ATF director, which I think is very 
dangerous. Do you think there should be limitations on the 
percentage of my collection that I should be able to sell or 
timeframe I can hold a gun? Like, I could buy 10 guns and try 
to shoot them on the range. They're no good and I sold them. 
Should there be any limitations on the timeframe or a 
percentage of how much of my collections I can replace?
    Attorney General Garland. There's an exception in the 
statute for sales from personal collections.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mrs. Spartz. I can sell 500 guns. It shouldn't be a 
problem, right, if I want to if it happens that I just want to 
replace.
    Attorney General Garland. All I can say is there's an 
exception in the statute in the regulations with respect to 
sales from personal collections. I don't know the answer to the 
question about percentages.
    Ms. Spartz. Well, it would be good because American people 
would like to know the answer. Because this creates a lot of 
danger. We'll fall off the ladder because this destroys peoples 
lives, and we already had this situation that happened in 
Arkansas.
    Then on the First Amendment, do you think people have the 
right to be here in January 6, 2021. If they didn't want to do 
anything bad, they just be here in Washington, DC. It's a 
constitutional right for people to be here.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, people have a Constitutional 
right to be in Washington, DC.
    Ms. Spartz. OK. That's right. So, you have--how many 
Americans did you charge Section 1512(c)(2), obstruction of 
justice and convicted?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer. It's 
listed on the web page.
    Ms. Spartz. Yes, so it's several hundred, a lot of people. 
Why this section was legislated? Do you know Section 
1512(c)(2)? What is the reason with the section was legislated?
    Attorney General Garland. It has to do with obstruction 
of--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Spartz. No, it didn't have to do--you should know legal 
history, right? When it was legislated and why.
    Attorney General Garland. You're asking me a question the 
Supreme Court is about to rule on.
    Mrs. Spartz. OK. So, the history. The section was 
legislated for Sarbanes-Oxley in one situation to deal with a 
situation that happened on the financial crimes, right? 
Actually, the title is tampering with the witness, victim and 
informant. Is that correct? Do you agree with that?
    Attorney General Garland. We can have a long discussion on 
the--
    Ms. Spartz. Not a discussion, just the fact, the historic 
fact. It was broad and ambiguous. That was legislated.
    Attorney General Garland. The text of the statute does not 
make the limitation you're saying. All this has been argued in 
the Supreme Court.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Spartz. If your interpretation is wrong on the Supreme 
Court and Supreme Court is going to reverse this decision, do 
you have a plan? What are you going to do with all these people 
that potential wrongfully was charged? Do you have a plan?
    Attorney General Garland. Our plan is that we will follow 
the law that the Supreme Court tells us. We don't know yet what 
the Supreme Court will say. I can assure you we will follow 
what the Supreme Court says.
    Mrs. Spartz. Well, but your ambiguous interpretation 
destroys people's lives. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman 
from--oh, that's right. I apologize. Attorney General has asked 
for a brief break. We'll take a brief break. If we can make it 
five minutes, Mr. Attorney General, that would be great.
    Attorney General Garland. OK, great. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will stand in recess for five 
minutes.
    [Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the Committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 2:39 p.m., the same day.]
    Chair Jordan. The meeting will come to order. The gentleman 
from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, General. I 
wanted to take a moment and raise some voices that really 
haven't been heard at this hearing today.
    I had a chance to go visit a church in my neighborhood on 
Sunday. It was Men's Day. Of course, the topic before and after 
service for some of them was Mr. Trump's conviction. They 
approached me because they knew I am an attorney. They were 
trying to sort through the meaning of the conviction.
    So, one of them asked me, ``So Donald Trump was convicted 
on criminal charges?'' I said ``yes.'' ``He still gets to run 
for President?'' I said ``yes. If he wins, he can take 
office,'' I said, ``it look likes it.'' He paused a second, and 
he said, ``Wow, I got convicted for some misdemeanors, and I 
couldn't even get any kind of job, not fast food, not a 
convenience store, not landscaping, but he can still be 
President?'' I said, ``yes, sir.''
    Another man approached me as well after overhearing part of 
the conversation. He said, ``You know, I got arrested. I didn't 
even get convicted, but I got fired immediately.'' Then a third 
gentleman raised this point. He said, ``When I got out, I 
couldn't vote or hold office as long as I was on probation.'' 
Trump can go straight to the White House. I said, ``yes, sir, I 
think that may be right.''
    I told, them, too, and I said, ``Don't forget, you got a 
jury finding of sexual assault against him as well.'' What kind 
of job could you get if you had something like that on your 
record? They all paused, and I think they were just deeply 
disturbed by the disparity that they saw between their lives 
and the life that Mr. Trump is leading.
    My wife and I got in the car, and we started driving home. 
We caught it on the radio when they do the replay of the ``Meet 
the Press'' and those shows on Lumberg. I heard Mr. Trump 
giving a quote about two tiers of justice and how unequally he 
has been treated.
    It struck me that there may be two tiers of justice. If 
there are, he certainly is in a much higher tier than the 
gentleman I was talking with. In fact, he is in the absolute 
highest possible part of the high tier.
    As Ms. Bush mentioned a few moments ago, Donald Trump has 
millions of dollars to spend on his defense. He hired lawyers 
across the country to be his trial lawyers, to handle his 
appeals and the like. The men that I was talking to probably 
had public defenders who were overworked and underpaid and had 
case files of 200 plus clients.
    I am sure they didn't have anybody like the Speaker of the 
House showing up at their trial, bringing 20 other plus House 
Members, Republican House Members, to stand outside and make 
public attacks on the judge and the prosecutors in an obvious 
and unfortunate attempt to influence the jury.
    The men that I talked to; some had gone to jail. They knew 
that no matter what happens in this case or the cases that are 
coming, the chances of Donald Trump going to jail are slim and 
none.
    So, I really struggle when I hear the conversations that 
are being made about the two tiers of justice stuff, because I 
know just from my experience of having been in these cases that 
it is nothing like that. I also know that even if he doesn't go 
to jail and he is put on probation the things that these men 
had to go through on probation or parole is different than what 
he is going to face.
    They are not going to be delaying cabinet meetings, so he 
can have his mandatory appointment with his probation officer. 
They are not going to be delaying national security meetings so 
he can do his urinalysis test. He is not going to have to get 
permission from a judge before he flies Air Force 1 out of the 
jurisdiction. There are definitely two tiers of justice.
    To the extent that my colleagues on the other side and Mr. 
Trump are arguing that somehow, he is suffering more, he is 
some kind of martyr in this context, I think it is ridiculous. 
To me, this is just another page out of his sore loser 
playbook. After he lost the 2020 election, he kept saying there 
is no way. He has been denying that he lost for four years now.
    He lost the 60 cases plus in courts across the country that 
rejected his arguments about election fraud. He lost his sexual 
assault trial. He lost a corporate fraud trial. Now, he has 
lost a criminal trial here in New York as well. I think it is 
time that he be held accountable.
    Now, my colleagues over there, they are going to keep 
arguing to defend him and that is their right. For most people 
and some of the polling data I saw last night suggests 
otherwise, I think the time has come for the public to hold him 
accountable and hopefully Republican colleagues on the other 
side who attacked the juries and attacked the criminal justice 
system as a whole, attacked the rule of law, will come back to 
their senses, and stand with you and the job that you and the 
Department of Justice have been doing. With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
North Dakota is recognized for unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Chair, I have an article dated May 6, 
2024, called ``DC Crime Facts,'' without objection.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Armstrong. A Vanderbilt Law Review article entitled, 
``Corruption of a Term, the Problematic Nature of 18 U.S.C. 
1512(c), The New Federal Obstruction of Justice Provision.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. Thank you, gentlemen. The 
gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gooden. Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, I want to go 
back to the Mr. Colangelo questions I didn't quite get answers 
with. Is it true that Mr. Matthew Colangelo, who was at point 
the third highest-ranking official at the DOJ, joined Bragg's 
DA office in New York before the Trump prosecution? Do I have 
that right?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything other than 
it is on the public record. He was the principal deputy to the 
Associate Attorney General. He joined a case in New York. I 
don't know how it is related to the timeline to the 
prosecution.
    Mr. Gooden. Has anyone from your department been in touch 
with Mr. Colangelo or ever discussed any of the case about 
President Trump since he left?
    Attorney General Garland. Look, we have 115,000 people in 
the Department. I can speak for myself. I have not had any 
communications with Mr. Colangelo.
    Mr. Gooden. So, you don't know if anyone in the Department 
has?
    Attorney General Garland. As I said, there is 115,000, and 
I don't know what they have talked about.
    Mr. Gooden. So, if I asked for further information and sent 
you a letter, could I get some of these questions answered?
    I have asked for correspondence. I sent a letter back in 
April and haven't received a response. You said in your 
testimony that you have gone to extraordinary lengths to get 
Congress information they request.
    Attorney General Garland. Look, I am in favor of 
transparency, because I believe it will show that these 
allegations about some kind of control or collusion between the 
Department and the independent Manhattan office are not true.
    Mr. Gooden. So, then would you--
    Attorney General Garland. We will take back your letter, 
and we will try to get a response to you.
    Mr. Gooden. Thank you. To kind of followup of what Mr. 
Gaetz said earlier this morning, will you commit to releasing 
any communications between your Department and the local DA 
offices in New York or Atlanta with respect to these Trump 
trials?
    Attorney General Garland. I will commit to--look, I would 
like transparency on this matter in the normal course. If you 
submit your letter, our Office of Legislative Affairs will get 
a response to you.
    Mr. Gooden. Because I think one of the problems here is we 
hear you criticize some of us for being critical and accusing 
you all of a two-tier justice system. We use the term 
weaponization of government. Then when we ask you all for 
information, you tell us we can't have it or you have decided 
that we shouldn't have it.
    So, it is difficult when you criticize us, but we don't get 
the information we are asking for.
    Attorney General Garland. I am not criticizing you. In 
fact, we produced 92,000 pages of documents in response to 
hundreds of requests.
    Mr. Gooden. You have called some of the things we have said 
conspiracy theories. I won't read back your testimony to you, 
but I have printed it since your office posted it online this 
morning. I would just ask you to work with us because it is 
difficult for us to tamper down some of these claims that you 
say we are making. We don't get the information we request from 
you. I will yield--
    Attorney General Garland. That is fair. I would be happy to 
work with you to tamper this down.
    Mr. Gooden. Thank you.
    Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
    Mr. Gooden. Hey, we will tamper away if we can get the 
information we are asking. I yield back.
    Attorney General Garland. I assume that is a verb. I am 
with it.
    Mr. Gooden. That is right. Thank you. Mr. Jordan, I yield 
to you.
    Chair Jordan. I proceed the gentleman. I am going to go 
back to where I was, Mr. Attorney General, a few minutes ago. I 
want to read from this Politico's news story from one week ago 
today. I just want to read two sentences, the first two 
sentences in the article.

        The Justice Department has agreed to settle a long running 
        litigation stemming from a decision in 2017 to release to the 
        media text messages between two former FBI employees involved 
        in the probe of President Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential 
        campaign.

The next sentence,

        In a notice filed with two Federal Judges in Washington on 
        Tuesday, the Justice Department said it had reached settlements 
        of legal claims that fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok and former 
        FBI Attorney Lisa Page brought in 2019 alleging that the 
        disclosure violated their privacy.

    So, again, I just want to be clear that the Department is 
getting ready to pay Peter Strzok and Lisa Page some money. Is 
that accurate?
    Attorney General Garland. I wasn't aware that we had 
announced it. All I can say is we reached settlements based on 
our litigators' assessment of whether we can win the case and 
how much it will cost if we lose the case. That is the way we 
decide on reaching settlements.
    Chair Jordan. Just to be clear, the guy who texted, Peter 
Strzok, who was involved in the spying on President Trump's 
campaign, who was then involved--worked on the Muller 
investigative team and sent this text message to Lisa Page, 
just went to a Southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL, in all 
capitals, ``I could SMELL the Trump support.'' That guy is 
going to get tax dollars from the American people?
    Attorney General Garland. That case is brought--he brought 
a case under the Privacy Act. The question is, did the Justice 
Department violate the Privacy Act?
    Chair Jordan. Lisa Page said this in a text message to 
Peter Strzok. ``Trump is not ever going to become President, 
right?'' Peter Strzok's response, ``no, no, he's not. We'll 
stop it.'' These two individuals are going to get a windfall of 
money from the American taxpayers because you decided that's 
the right thing to do?
    Attorney General Garland. The Privacy Act doesn't 
distinguish between people we like, and people we don't like, 
information we like, and information we don't like. If somebody 
in the government discloses personal information protected by 
the Privacy Act, that is the way the law is.
    Chair Jordan. Wow. Jeepers, you can go after a President, 
and you get rewarded for doing so according to the Justice 
Department.
    Attorney General Garland. It is not a question of reward. 
It is a question of the government paying for violating the 
law.
    Chair Jordan. They are going to get a lot of money. I know 
that this is what they said. We know what they were up to.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Vermont.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Attorney 
General Garland for being here today. I know it's been a very 
long day. I just want to start by saying, may the record show 
that although I am a Vermonter, I do not partake in cannabis 
products. After today's hearing, I could understand why someone 
might want to actually pop a gummy.
    It is maddening to witness so many of my colleagues seeming 
to care more about propping up and protecting a convicted felon 
than protecting the rule of law.
    Last week was a district week. So, I was back in my home 
district. I got asked the following questions a lot. This was 
from people from across the political spectrum, Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents. They are all asking me the same 
questions. Why do they protect him? The him in question is, of 
course, the former President. They ask me, are they true 
believers? Are they apologists? Are they enablers? Are they 
just scared about what is going to happen to them if they don't 
defend the former President? I don't know. I do know history is 
going to rebill the answer. The truth will come out. The truth 
will come out.
    Now, I would like to leave the land of make believe and 
talk about something that really matters to my people back 
home, which is the fact that we have a crushing housing crisis 
in Vermont right now. The last time you sat before this 
Committee less than a year ago, I applauded your remarks on 
DOJ's increased enforcement against corporate crime, and in 
particular DOJ's actions to take on corporate consolidation 
price fixing collusion.
    Since coming to Congress, I have tried to focus a great 
deal on finding solutions to the Nation's housing crisis and, 
in particular, what is happening in Vermont.
    In my home State, we saw a 12 percent jump in home prices 
over the last year. That is twice the national average and the 
highest yearly increase across all States. So, part of the 
problem is lack of supply. That is not entirely what is causing 
skyrocketing home prices. It is not just the lack of supply. 
There is corporate greed at work here, too.
    So, so-called property management software companies like 
RealPage and Yardi are making the housing crisis worse by 
facilitating unwarranted rent hikes by landlords. I will say, 
you don't have to take my word for it. You can go right on the 
home page of RealPage, which boasted--they increased rents for 
client landlords between 5-12 percent in every market in which 
they are coordinating prices.
    So, in fact, one of those software developers told 
investigative journalists that leasing agents, ``had too much 
empathy'' compared to computer generated pricing. So, this is 
how price fixing cartels operate.
    So, I know that DOJ is concerned about price fixing or 
concerned about this issue. I know you can't speak on the 
particulars. Can you please talk in the abstract about the 
importance of price competition in markets and the role of 
antitrust law maintaining competitions?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, the theory is that if 
suppliers do not collude with each other, if they offer the 
price that each wants, and those customers then meet them in an 
equal marketplace that will reach an efficient price that will 
be in the best interest of resource allocation and particularly 
with respect to consumer prices.
    Ms. Balint. Do you--
    Attorney General Garland. When they collude, when the 
suppliers collude, they create a monopoly price, which is not 
good either for the economy in general, but is certainly above 
the market price and the kinds of things you are talking about 
in general, price collusion, which is exacerbated by data 
collection and logarithms that set suggested prices, that can 
lead to a price above the competitive price, which costs 
consumers more.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you so much. I see that I am almost out 
of time. I just want to end by saying what many of my 
colleagues have said before me. Thank you for coming today. 
Thank you for being willing to answer our questions, and I very 
much appreciate the expertise that you bring to your job. Thank 
you so much.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady 
from Wyoming is recognized.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Attorney General, are you above reproach?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not above criticism. I am 
not sure what you mean by reproach, but, of course, you are 
totally free to criticize, and I expect you will.
    Ms. Hageman. Yes. As American citizens, we can criticize. 
We can criticize all our government employees can't we?
    Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
    Ms. Hageman. Because you seemed to whine quite a bit today 
about being attacked or people challenging the decisions that 
you have made.
    I actually think that Daniel Greenfield, a contributor to 
Front Page magazine, may have said it best when he said that, 
``a justice system can survive those who challenge the 
prosecutors, but it can't survive those who prosecute the 
challengers,'' which is kind of the situation we are in with 
the Biden Administration, and you at the helm of the Attorney 
General's office.
    Attorney General Garland, in March, Chair Jordan and I sent 
you an oversight letter requesting documents and information 
following the release of an undercover video indicating that 
the DOJ was working with the IRS to use artificial intelligence 
to surveil bank accounts of Americans in a clearly 
unconstitutional manner.
    The undercover video featured an IRS official privately 
admitting that the IRS had been using AI to spy on Americans' 
bank accounts en masse in real time. The IRS official further 
stated that the Department of Justice and Inspector General 
controlled this AI powered warrantless surveillance system, not 
the IRS.
    Attorney General, would you agree with me that if the 
Federal Government were operating this form of financial 
surveillance program, there would be serious Fourth Amendment 
as well as other statutory and civil rights implications 
considering that there is no individual probable cause and no 
search warrants are being obtained?
    Attorney General Garland. I would be stunned if the Justice 
Department has the kind of AI capabilities that you are talking 
about.
    Ms. Hageman. Would you agree with me that if we do--
    Attorney General Garland. We are doing everything we can to 
learn about this.
    Ms. Hageman. Would you agree with me that if they were 
engaging in that kind of surveillance, it would have serious 
Fourth Amendment implications?
    Attorney General Garland. I can't understand the kind of 
surveillance that you are talking about. The Fourth Amendment 
prevents unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. 
If that is what we are doing, then, of course, that would 
violate the Fourth Amendment.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. So, I would request that you go back and 
read the letter that Jim Jordan and I sent to you. That might 
clear up your confusion just a bit.
    Attorney General Garland. I will be happy to do that.
    Ms. Hageman. Now, while the Committee has been following up 
with the Department about this matter for months now, the 
Department only replied with a formal response to the Committee 
late last week. In the Department's response letter, a DOJ 
spokesman, the Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte, 
stated that, ``The Department is not aware of the Department 
using any AI program that reflects the description in our March 
20 letter.''
    Saying that the Chief AI Officer is ``not aware'' of the 
Department coordinating with the IRS to use AI to 
unconstitutionally spy on Americans financial records is very 
different from saying unequivocally that the Department is not 
doing so. Why won't the Department just give us a clear answer 
as to whether it is actually using AI to spy on American 
citizens' financial records?
    Attorney General Garland. I will be happy to take your 
letter back and apparently you already have received a letter. 
I will take it back, and we will see whether we can get you a 
clearer letter for you.
    Ms. Hageman. I would appreciate that. I want to turn to 
another serious issue, the infiltration of our Tribal 
communities by the Mexican cartels because of Joe Biden and 
Mayorkas' open border.
    As Chair of the Subcommittee on the Indian and Insular 
Affairs, I have heard from Tribes across the Nation about this 
issue. In your written testimony, you actually mention how the 
Department is working with Tribal partners to disrupt cartel 
supply chains and that the Department is zeroing in on these 
Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels. However, in April, the President, 
at a Fort Belknap Indian Community, testified to the 
Department's failures stating,

        We don't have help from the FBI, the Border Patrol, the DEA 
        that has jurisdiction on Federal lands, which are reservations.

    Attorney General Garland, his testimony comes from a Tribe 
where the Sinaloa cartel operates with near impunity in its 
region. Drugs have devastated the community. Reservations have 
become part of the cartel's supply chain, and the Mexican 
cartels are intimidating Americans testifying before Congress, 
yet the FBI and DOJ are largely absent.
    The Tribe's experience runs in direct contrast to your 
testimony. Have you been in contact with any of our Tribes 
about the impact that mass illegal immigration, human 
trafficking, and drug smuggling are having on their members?
    Attorney General Garland. Not only have I been in contact 
with the Tribes, I have been on the reservation in Montana and 
Alaska. The answer to your question is Congress is not giving 
us money for FBI agents to go into the reservations. That 
principal--
    Ms. Hageman. So, this is Congress' fault because you won't 
do your job?
    Attorney General Garland. It is Congress' fault--
    Ms. Hageman. It is Congress' fault that you won't protect 
our reservation--
    Attorney General Garland. I will do my--
    Ms. Hageman. --that you won't protect our reservations from 
the consequences of the Biden and Mayorkas open border 
policies? That's Congress' fault not theirs?
    Attorney General Garland. If you give us money for more FBI 
agents for the reservation--
    Ms. Hageman. Oh, you need more money for FBI agents?
    Attorney General Garland. --they will go to the 
reservation.
    Ms. Hageman. How about if they just enforce the border? How 
about if you ask them to enforce the border?
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 
gentlelady yields back. Does Mr. Ivey have an unanimous 
consent?
    Mr. Ivey. We are out on this side. I would offer unanimous 
consent for two letters that may address Ms. Hageman's line of 
questioning. One is dated April 22, 2024, from the Department 
of Treasury, and it is addressed to you, Mr. Chair. It is from 
Corey Tellez who is the Acting Secretary.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Ivey. The other is--she may have referenced, I am not 
sure--from the Department of Justice to you, Mr. Chair. It is 
from Mr. Uriarte. It is dated May 31, 2024.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Hageman. I would ask for unanimous consent for an 
article, ``Cartels Infiltrating Native Reservations with 
Fentanyl According to a Tribal Leader.''
    Chair Jordan. Thank you. Without objection. The gentlelady 
yields back. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.
    Ms. Lee. Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. This 
Committee is well aware of your long tenure as an Appellate 
Judge on the D.C. Circuit and your time as an AUSA before that. 
I am sure that you, like me, care deeply about the public 
confidence in our court system and specifically our judiciary.
    You said something a few moments ago that I think is a very 
important principle. You said that judges put aside their 
personal views and their political views when they preside. I 
agree that is the expectation. Not that judges don't have 
personal or political views, but that judges set those beliefs 
aside when they consider and rule on cases and that they do so 
in a way that is impartial and consistent with the law.
    So, I would like to discuss the recent increase in 
aspersions being cast at some of our Supreme Court Justices, 
some of which we have heard repeated during this hearing. 
Public calls for recusal of Justices based on conjecture and 
conspiracy about their political beliefs and in fact not even 
the supposed political beliefs of the Justices themselves but 
even more attenuated to the supposed political and personal 
beliefs of their wives.
    In your view, Mr. Attorney General, is it appropriate to 
attack the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court 
Justices in this way?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I'm going to have to say 
again what I said before, which is we have cases before the 
Supreme Court. So, I'm not going to be able to comment on this. 
You haven't heard any aspersions cast by me and you won't hear 
any. All of our filings will be done in court, and I'll only 
speak about these matters in court.
    Ms. Lee. So, then, let's discuss this not as it relates to 
the specific Justices who have had their integrity attacked 
today, but, more generally, in the case of judges who are 
presiding.
    Now, in general, in your experience on the bench, did 
judges in the D.C. Circuit recuse themselves if they believed 
they had a conflict of interest?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. In your experience, did they, typically, adhere to 
a very high standard of personal integrity?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. Do you have any reason to believe or any personal 
belief that the Justices of the Supreme Court currently have 
any issues that would necessitate their recusal?
    Attorney General Garland. So, you've now skipped over to 
the question, which I said I wouldn't be able to answer. I 
can't comment about the Supreme Court. We have cases in the 
Supreme Court right now and all the time.
    Ms. Lee. So, let's talk about the matter of judicial 
security. So, not long ago, we had Director Wray of the FBI 
appear before this Committee, and I questioned him about the 
lack of FBI resources and focus being allocated to threats 
against the safety of judges, and specifically, Supreme Court 
Justices, in light of some of the alarming news in recent 
times.
    One of the things that he pointed out, in fairness, was 
that the U.S. Marshals take a large role when it comes to the 
security of judges. In your role, you have the unique 
opportunity to actually oversee both branches there.
    So, I'd like to know more about what the Department is 
doing related to threats against judges.
    Attorney General Garland. OK. Fair, fair enough. So, this 
is one I can talk about.
    With respect to the Justices themselves, for the first time 
in history, an Attorney General--namely, myself--ordered that 
every Justice get 24/7 protection for himself or herself and 
their families at their residents, and on their travel. So, I'm 
assigned over 70 U.S. Marshals who are doing this daily. 
Because of rotations, it's involved almost 1,700 Marshals 
across the country to provide immediate protection.
    Now, both the Marshals and the FBI investigate against the 
Justices. This is in our highest priority band, the protection 
against the judges--protection against threats against Justices 
and judges. I'd be happy to provide you with the press releases 
of our charges. There have been threats against several of the 
Justices, and we have brought cases against those who have 
threatened them.
    We have a lot of judges in the country, and we don't have 
enough Marshals. So, I'm sorry to say the same thing I said 
before, which is we need more money for the Marshals for 
protection. Because not only do they protect the Justices, but 
they also have to protect the judges and courthouses in 94 
districts in the United States.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my 
time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
    Mr. Fry. Mr. Chair, I yield one minute to you, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Oh, I thought that was coming to the end. 
Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Have you looked at, Mr. Attorney General, have you looked 
into who leaked the Dobbs draft opinion at the, at the Supreme 
Court?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
    Chair Jordan. Has the Justice--I'm sorry--has the Justice 
Department looked into who was responsible for leaking the 
Dobbs draft opinion at the Supreme Court?
    Attorney General Garland. Oh, I believe the Supreme Court 
did its own internal investigation. They didn't ask us to look 
into that.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, but we don't know who did it. I'm just 
asking, is that something that the Justice Department will look 
into?
    Attorney General Garland. I think that the Justices of the 
Supreme Court refer the matter for investigation by the Justice 
Department.
    Chair Jordan. Was anyone in the Justice Department involved 
in the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion?
    Attorney General Garland. You asked whether that involved--
the Justice Department is involved?
    Chair Jordan. Was anyone at the Justice Department involved 
in that leak?
    Attorney General Garland. I can't imagine how that could 
happen. That's an internal document within the Supreme Court. 
The Justice Department--
    Chair Jordan. Just asking. I'm just asking.
    Attorney General Garland. I would be stunned.
    Chair Jordan. I yield back to the gentleman.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Gaetz talked about Mr. Colangelo earlier. Mr. Colangelo 
was Acting Associate Attorney General for the Justice 
Department under President Biden prior to your arrival. Is that 
my understanding?
    Attorney General Garland. That's right. That's right.
    Mr. Fry. He is that considered to be the third highest-
ranking official within the DOJ?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Fry. OK. What did he do prior to his service with the 
Department of Justice?
    Attorney General Garland. I didn't know Mr. Colangelo 
before. My understanding was he had once been in the Civil 
Rights Division. I don't know his resume.
    Mr. Fry. Would it surprise you to know that he was the 
Deputy Director for the Obama-Biden Administration's National 
Economic Council?
    Attorney General Garland. It wouldn't surprise me or not 
surprise me. I don't, I don't, I don't--
    Mr. Fry. Were you aware, also, that he worked for the New 
York Attorney General, Letitia James, for a period of time?
    Attorney General Garland. I've read that in the paper. OK.
    Mr. Fry. Would it surprise you to know that he was paid 
thousands of dollars by the DNC for political consulting in 
2018?
    Attorney General Garland. So that, I have no idea about.
    Mr. Fry. So, I think the issue that we're having is that it 
looks like that this particular gentleman, his whole mission 
seems to be prosecuting the President. He started off with 
Letitia James. He has a stint with the Department of Justice.
    Then, Mr. Gaetz kind of talked about this earlier. 
Normally, if you're, if you're going for something, you start 
out at a DA level, and then, you might move to the Department 
of Justice. Like it's an elevation. He has gone backward. Why 
is that you think?
    Attorney General Garland. Let me just set forth the whole 
thing here, if I can. OK?
    I know Mr. Colangelo because of his service in the 
Department. He's a highly ethical person and an excellent 
lawyer. The Associate's Office supervises the Civil Division, 
the Civil Rights Division, and the Antitrust Division. That 
office does not supervise any of the criminal components that 
supervised the investigation, the criminal investigations of 
Mr. Trump.
    Mr. Fry. Don't you think, though, Mr. Attorney General, 
that his career choices, the path that he has chosen, at a very 
least, poses the perception of an ethical issue for the 
Department of Justice?
    Attorney General Garland. No. I don't see how it poses any 
issue for the Department of Justice. He's not an employee of 
the Justice Department. The Justice Department did not send him 
to New York. Those decisions in New York are made by the DA of 
New York.
    Mr. Fry. Well, fair to say, but we have the Manhattan DA--
headline: ``Manhattan DA Hires Ex-Senior DOJ Official as Office 
Investigates Trump.''
    Another one from The New York Times: ``Manhattan DA Hires 
Ex-Justice Official to Help Lead Trump Inquiry.''
    Now, you might not have had anything to do with that, but 
the perception is--and the American people perceive--that the 
Department of Justice is intimately engaged with this. In my 
last minute here, here's the issue that I've heard people say--
    Attorney General Garland. I think that--
    Mr. Fry. --and polling shows this consistently--that the 
American people believe that the prosecution of President Trump 
is more about politics than it is about any violation of the 
law.
    In the DOJ's own words, its mission consists of 
``independence and impartiality, honesty and integrity.''
    At your Senate confirmation hearing in 2021, you said,

        The Department will be under my protection for the purpose of 
        preventing any kind of partisan or other improper motive in 
        making any kind of investigation or prosecution.

    Since that time, the DOJ has obstructed this Committee's 
impeachment inquiries; allowed the statute of limitations to 
expire on Hunter Biden's 2014 tax records, and the crimes 
therein; slow-walked the prosecution of Hunter Biden, as 
testified to by whistleblowers.
    You wouldn't allow investigators to follow Department 
protocols. You've limited witness testimony here in this 
Committee, as we try to provide oversight. You've limited the 
scope in what they can actually say and the number of 
witnesses, and instructed two of the employees to disregard 
this Committee's own subpoena.
    You refused to comply with the subpoena regarding the audio 
tapes; hence, the contempt--the regrettable and unfortunate 
contempt that we have to bring. You appointed Jack Smith to 
prosecute Trump, despite his very interesting career of losing 
cases and targeting political opponents. Then, you sanctioned a 
raid on Mar-a-Lago.
    The concern that we have is that you're either asleep at 
the wheel or you're intentionally allowing the Department and 
the agents therein to engage in political prosecution of their 
opponents.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    To close our day the Governor of the great State of North 
Dakota, Mr. Armstrong.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I feel like I sometimes have a unique space, particularly 
on this side of the aisle, in that I've been trying to be a 
good-natured pain in the Department of Justice's rear end my 
entire adult life.
    Since I've been here, I've worked on things about law 
enforcement's use of third-party data brokers, geofence 
warrants, civil asset forfeiture reform, acquitted conduct, and 
exculpatory evidence, SAPR supervision, and BOP oversight.
    I've fought for extra money for public defenders. When Mr. 
Ivey is talking about those guys he was talking to in church, I 
was the guy at counsel table with them.
    Attorney General Garland. I could not hear and maybe--
    Mr. Armstrong. Oh, I'm sorry. I was just saying, I spent a 
significant portion of the early part of my career as a public 
defender and dealing with that.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, I take this stuff seriously. Earlier 
today, you said,

        It is our view that audio recordings are essential and people 
        are less likely to participate if they know those are going to 
        be turned over. It will have a chilling effect on the 
        cooperation of future witnesses. It's happening right now.

Career DOJ officials have told you that, correct?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. The second part of that is, when you want 
to--and the reason I know this is--and I hate the fact that, 
oftentimes, to get answers to some of these questions, we have 
to go to these highly political and profiled cases.
    We introduced the FAIR Act, and we had all but one Member 
of this Committee vote for it. That is requiring the Department 
of Justice to record--DOJ, ATF, FBI, DEA, and the Marshals 
Service--to record custodial interrogations and noncustodial 
interrogations.
    We know that the DOJ interviewed Paul Manafort four times 
and never interviewed him.
    By the way, it's not only the DOJ. When we sat in a 
deposition, Hunter Biden's lawyers requested that it wasn't 
audio-recorded or video-recorded. Now, I have my suspicion why, 
and I think it's because things read differently than they 
sound.
    In 2004, the FBI issued a report in favor of recording 
interviews because of the following benefits:
    (1) Reduced court time for officers to appear in 
suppression hearings.
    (2) Improved court efficiency with fewer pretrial motions 
to suppress statements and confessions.
    (3) Officer efficiency due to no longer needing to review 
and piece together notes from interviews.
    (4) Reduction in lawsuits stemming from frivolous claims of 
misconduct.
    In 2014, this is all before you were the Attorney General, 
but you're in the big chair and we're allowed, so we get that--
President Obama created a presumption that interviews of 
Federally detained persons should be electronically recorded.
    The problem was--and the reason we introduced this bill 
is--the DOJ's determination of ``in custody'' was after 
arraignment before trial in a Federal building.
    So, my question to you which we can start with is, why, if 
they're so essential for you to record them that it will chill 
extra--or chill future cooperation--the recording, in and of 
itself, has no benefit. It has benefit to your guys. When you 
don't have to turn it over, you are arguing that recordings are 
essential. You and I both know in a criminal case that, if you 
have the recording, I'm going to eventually get it, as the 
defense attorney.
    So, I'm trying to figure out what your guys' policy is on 
recording of interviews and recording of witnesses. Because if 
it was what it really says it was, we wouldn't have had to 
introduce the FAIR Act.
    Attorney General Garland. I'll say there are very few 
things that are before my time, but that one does seem to have 
been before my time. I don't know the answer to the policy 
about recording. Personally, I think recording interviews is a 
very good thing to do--for all the reasons that you say. Of 
course, as a Former Defense Attorney, you know that the 
defendant has to agree to the recording of the interview.
    Mr. Armstrong. We've been a part of it in this Committee, 
too. I get the Rules of Evidence in a criminal case are 
different than an adversarial between the Department of Justice 
and Congress.
    Our frustration--and my personal frustration is, whenever 
you're in an adversarial system, the other team doesn't get to 
determine what is the best evidence. I'm not talking about the 
best evidence rule. We've had that conversation forever.
    It's fine, but when we know it exists and we ask for it, 
and then some of this is timing, too, and with all due respect 
to everybody, we get the transcript the day before the first 
hearing. We get Executive Privilege put into place, literally, 
the morning of the contempt hearing, and we're looking at it 
and saying, ``Listen, we know it exists. We want it.''
    You're saying that there's some political reason for us not 
getting it. I will argue at the rooftops--that the real 
political reason is to not give it to us. Because anybody in 
any determination of fact anywhere in the country knows that, 
if you have audio or video, that is better than a transcript. 
If you have a transcript, that's better than notes.
    That's what the Committee is trying to get here, and that's 
what the Committee is being stonewalled from, when we know it 
exists. That's why we're so frustrated.
    I personally believe that there's a very, very specific 
reason that Executive Privilege was instituted the morning of 
the hearing. Because the difference between this and a criminal 
case is we actually have a potential time clock and that's the 
November election.
    With that, I yield back.
    Attorney General Garland. Could I respond? Do you have time 
for a response?
    Chair Jordan. Yup, yup.
    Attorney General Garland. Sorry.
    Mr. Armstrong. I'm the only one left.
    Attorney General Garland. I like talking to you and this 
seems like a good conversation, if you don't mind. So, two 
things.
    (1) With respect to the timing, since the Clinton 
Administration 30 years or so ago, it's been standard that 
assertions of Executive Privilege occur right before the vote 
to provide the constitutional accommodation process as much 
time to run as possible. So, that's the answer to that thing.
    (2) The answer to the other is the Supreme Court has said 
that,

        To protect the separation of powers under the Constitution, the 
        Congress has to have a legitimate legislative purpose for the 
        things that it's requesting.

    What I am still not seeing--I understand why you'd rather 
see the audio, hear the audio, than listen--than read the 
transcript, but I still do not understand a legislative 
purpose. I can't see how listening to the audio will make any 
difference with respect to any legislation you have in mind.
    If you want to have a statute that requires Special 
Counsels to turn over audio all the time to the Congress, you 
can pass that without listening to this audio. I don't see--
there's no element of the impeachment resolution that will 
change with respect to information on the audio. The words are 
the same on the transcript as the audio. That's my explanation.
    Mr. Armstrong. I am actually excited to see potentially how 
that gets turned out in the more respectful way.
    By the way, it would really--actually, in this current 
political environment, I'm not sure if it would help or it 
would hurt.
    The FAIR Act is a really good piece of legislation and your 
support would be helpful.
    With that--
    Attorney General Garland. I'll look into whether we're 
following the FAIR Act or not. That's a very good point.
    Mr. Armstrong. Your career DOJ officials are following it, 
I promise you.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    That concludes today's hearing.
    We want to thank the Attorney General for, for being here 
and for the several hours that he testified.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witness or 
additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117383.

                                 [all]