[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]