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


                     HEARING ON THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT 
                              ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-86

                               __________

         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                    
56-097                      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

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, June 13, 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. Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
Commissioner James E. ``Trey'' Trainor III, Federal Election 
  Commission
  Oral Testimony.................................................    14
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    16
Elizabeth Price Foley, Professor of Law, Florida International 
  University, College of Law, BakerHostetler, LLP
  Oral Testimony.................................................    19
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    21
Ambassador Norman L. Eisen, Senior Fellow, The Brookings 
  Institute, Governance Studies
  Oral Testimony.................................................    29
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    31

          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
    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee 
        on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, from Carlos 
        Uriarte, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of 
        Justice, Jun. 10, 2024
    An article entitled, ``Here's what Manhattan District 
        Attorney Alvin Bragg saidabout Donald Trump during his DA 
        campaign,'' Apr. 12, 2023, PolitiFact
Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the 
  record
    An article entitled, ``Former President Donald Trump 
        announces a White House bid for 2024,'' Nov. 16, 2022, 
        CNN
    An article entitled, ``Biden suggests Trump will `not take 
        power' again if he runs in 2024,'' Nov. 9, 2022, The Hill
    An article entitled, ``Manhattan D.A. Hires Ex-Justice 
        Official to Help Lead Trump,'' Dec. 5, 2022, The New York 
        Times
    An article entitled, ``Pomerantz vs. Pomerantz: An Annotation 
        of His Leaked Resignation Letter in Manhattan DA Trump 
        Investigation,'' Feb. 7, 2023, Just Security
    An article entitled, ``Donald Trump again teases 2024 
        presidential bid, saying he'll make a `big announcement' 
        on November 15--the same day Mike Pence's memoir is 
        scheduled to be published,'' Nov. 7, 2022, Business 
        Insider
    An article entitled, ``2 Prosecutors Leading N.Y. Trump 
        Inquiry Resign, Clouding Case's Future,'' Feb. 23, 2022, 
        The New York Times
    An article entitled, ``F.E.C. Drops Case Reviewing Trump 
        Hush-Money Payments to Women,'' May 6, 2021, The New York 
        Times
    An article entitled, ``For prosecutor Bragg, Trump indictment 
        is campaign promise kept,'' Apr. 4, 2023, Washington 
        Examiner
Materials submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Kentucky, for 
  the record
    An article entitled, ``FEC drops investigation into Trump 
        hush money payments.'' May 6, 2021, The Hill
    An article entitled, ``Congress has paid $17 million in 
        sexual misconduct and discrimination settlements,'' Nov. 
        17, 2017, Axios
    An article entitled, ``Congress paid out $17 million in 
        settlements. Here's why we know so little about that 
        money,'' Nov. 16, 2017, CNN Politics
    An article entitled, ``Top White House Ethics Lawyer Norman 
        Eisen Reportedly Destined for Prague Ambassador Post,'' 
        Apr. 15, 2010, Open Secrets
    An article entitled, ``$18.2 Million Congressional Slush Fund 
        for #MeToo Claims,'' Mar. 24, 2021, RealClear Policy
An article entitled, ``A timeline of Donald Trump's election 
  denial claims, which Republican politicians increasingly 
  embrace,'' Sept. 8, 2022, ABC News, submitted by the Honorable 
  Madeleine Dean, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from 
  the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
A court document entitled, ``People's Response to Defendant 
  Donald J. Trump's April 27 Request for a Bill of Particulars,'' 
  The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, May 16, 
  2024, submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Vermont, for the 
  record
An article entitled, ``Trump's private demand to Johnson: Help 
  overturn my conviction,'' Jun. 13, 2024, ABC News, submitted by 
  the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record

                                APPENDIX

An article entitled, ``Biden's #3 Man at DOJ Resigned to Join 
  Alvin Bragg's `Get Trump' Team on November 18, 2022,'' Jun. 12 
  2024, Breitbart, submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Arizona, for the record

 
          HEARING ON THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 13, 2024

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 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, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, 
Cline, Armstrong, Van Drew, Nehls, Moore, Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, 
Fry, Nadler, Lofgren, Cohen, Johnson, Schiff, Swalwell, 
Jayapal, Scanlon, Dean, Escobar, Ross, 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 want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the 
Manhattan District Attorney's Office.
    I apologize, it looks like we're 62 minutes late in 
starting, but we had an important guest who spoke to our 
Republican Conference today.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas 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 will now recognize himself for an 
opening statement.
    The New York County District Attorney's Office began 
investigating President Trump in 2018, six years ago--2018. It 
wasn't Alvin Bragg; it was Cy Vance.
    The Southern District of New York months later concluded 
its investigation into payments made by Michael Cohen and 
determined no charges should be brought against President 
Trump.
    Of course, while this was going on, Alvin Bragg was running 
for the job--vowing to go after President Trump; bragging about 
the number of times he had already sued President Trump. Mr. 
Bragg ultimately wins and takes office in January 2022.
    The first thing he did, the day one memo, a 10-page policy 
memo to his staff instituting progressive, soft-on-crime, 
antivictim policies. Felony armed robbery charges get reduced 
to misdemeanors. He instructed his staff, except for homicides, 
not to seek prison sentences for individuals.
    Guess what came next? Rising crime. During that first year, 
violent crime in Manhattan was at an all-time high. New York 
City saw a 23 percent surge in major violent crimes.
    In fact, we heard from some of these victims of a crime at 
our field hearing up in New York City 13 months ago: A mother 
whose son's murderers were allowed to walk free because of 
Alvin Bragg's soft-on-crime prosecutors. A bodega owner was 
violently attacked. Yet, Bragg's office initially charged him. 
Finally, a father whose son was attacked in Times Square 
because he was Jewish. Bragg offered one of his assailant's a 
sweetheart, slap-on-the-wrist deal, even though he had previous 
run-ins with the law; showed no remorse and was arrested while 
out on bail.
    A few weeks after this day one memo, Alvin Bragg told one 
of his prosecutors, Mark Pomerantz, quote, ``He could not see a 
world in which he would indict President Trump and call Michael 
Cohen as a prosecution witness.'' That's right, after 
campaigning on going after the former President, Alvin Bragg 
gets into office and realizes the case against President Trump 
is ridiculous. That's why the Southern District of New York 
didn't bring it. That's why his predecessor Cy Vance didn't 
bring it. Everybody knew Michael Cohen couldn't be trusted.
    In fact, his former lawyer sat right in this room and told 
us, ``You can't believe what this guy says.'' Michael Cohen has 
lied to Congress; he's lied to the FBI, and he's lied to the 
court. It's not often you can lie to all three branches of 
government, and yet, become the star witness in a prosecution 
of a former President.
    Now, what caused Alvin Bragg to do the 180-degree turn? 
What caused him to change? That Special Assistant District 
Attorney Mark Pomerantz. The guy Alvin Bragg had told he could 
not see a world in which he would indict President Trump and 
call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness, that guy resigned 
in protest of Mr. Bragg's decision not to go after President 
Trump, and his fellow Assistant District Attorney Carey Dunne 
resigned as well, and they leaked their resignation letter to 
The New York Times. After that, the left begins their pressure 
campaign on Mr. Bragg, and suddenly, the, quote, ``zombie 
case'' is resurrected.
    Also, never forget, in November 2022, President Trump 
announced he was a candidate for President of the United 
States. Just a few weeks later, Alvin Bragg hires former Senior 
Biden Justice Department official Matthew Colangelo to come up 
and run the prosecution--someone who had a history of taking on 
President Trump and his family's businesses and had also worked 
for the New York State Attorney General.
    Alvin Bragg, a partisan DA that campaigned on going after 
President Trump, whose newly hired lead prosecutor for the case 
also had a history of taking on President Trump, had their case 
now in front of a partisan judge--a judge who had donated to 
President Biden; who imposed the gag order on President Trump; 
prevented an expert defense witness from testifying, and also 
told the jury they didn't need to reach a unanimous decision.
    There is the fundamental issue: No one knows what the 
Federal crime is. Bragg and Colangelo bootstrapped charges the 
Federal prosecutors declined to bring and do some kind of 
never-seen felony.
    Former Attorney General Robert H. Jackson warned us about 
rogue prosecutors. The former Attorney General said this in a 
speech 84 years ago. The speech was titled ``The Federal 
Prosecutor.'' It applies to all prosecutors though.
    Attorney General Jackson laid out a vision for how 
prosecutors should behave in a fair and just society. He 
stated, quote,

        Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: That he 
        will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick 
        cases that need to be prosecuted. . . . It is here that law 
        enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that 
        of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, 
        being attached to the wrong political views or in the way of 
        the prosecutor himself.

That is precisely what we have here in this situation. Alvin 
Bragg's prosecution of President Trump was personal; it was 
based on politics, and it was wrong.
    We're going to hear from some expert witnesses today who 
will give us details about all that.
    With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for an opening 
statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, we sit here today for one reason and one reason 
only. House Republicans are willing to do just about anything 
to protect Donald Trump from the consequences of his actions.
    On May 30th, a jury of his peers sitting in a State Court 
in Manhattan convicted Donald Trump of 34 counts of falsifying 
business records in the first degree for paying hush money to 
conceal information that could have been harmful to his 2016 
Presidential campaign. Let's see how that all unfolded.
    [Video plays.]
    Mr. Nadler. Let me be clear. This trial was fair and just. 
Allegations to the contrary represent a desperate, evidence-
free attempt to shield Trump from accountability.
    Today, we are going to hear a long list of allegations 
designed to undermine public faith and confidence in the jury's 
verdict. Do not be deceived. These are baseless allegations, 
and we can take them down one by one.
    First, Republicans claim that Judge Merchan was, quote, 
``hand-picked'' to handle the Trump case because he had donated 
$35 to Democrats in the past. This is false. Judges are 
assigned at random in the New York court system. With respect 
to Judge Merchan's $35 donation, the New York Advisory 
Committee on Judicial Ethics issued an opinion saying that he 
need not recuse himself from the case, and there is simply no 
evidence that any of Judge Merchan's rulings were bias in any 
way.
    Second, Republicans claim that the jury's verdict 
convicting Trump was not unanimous. This is absurd. The jury 
instructions plainly stated that, quote, ``Your verdict on each 
count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be 
unanimous. That is, each and every juror must agree to it.'' 
The verdict was unanimous on each of the 34 counts.
    Third, Republicans claim that all of Judge Merchan's 
rulings went against Trump. This is false. In fact, Judge 
Merchan repeatedly ruled for Trump, including a critical ruling 
that required prosecutors to prove willfulness under a 
heightened mens rea standard.
    Fourth, Republicans claim that Judge Merchan prevented 
Trump's expert witness from testifying. This is false. Trump's 
attorneys chose not to call that witness because he could not 
have testified about underlying questions of law, which is role 
solely reserved to the judge.
    Fifth, Republicans claim that Attorney General Garland 
secretly, quote, ``dispatched'' Matthew Colangelo, a former DOJ 
attorney who served as the lead prosecutor on the Trump case, 
to the Manhattan DA's Office, as part of an elaborate ruse to 
plant DOJ prosecutors in State-level offices to attack Donald 
Trump. This is false and utterly absurd.
    Last week, the Attorney General clearly and unequivocally 
told Republicans that they are wrong. The Department of Justice 
has no record of any communication to the contrary, and 
Republicans have not and cannot produce any evidence whatsoever 
to support this nonsensical claim.
    That's the theme for today. Republican attacks, one after 
another, lack any basis in truth or fact. My colleagues across 
the aisle know this, and yet, they repeat their attacks ad 
nauseam, because that is the only play left in their playbook.
    They didn't like the fact that Trump lost in 2020. So, 
lacking facts or evidence to support their claims, they, 
instead, attacked our democratic institutions--basically, 
claiming that the election was rigged and corrupt.
    They didn't like the fact that Trump was indicted for 
mishandling highly sensitive classified documents. So, they 
claimed that Trump declassified them with his mind.
    They didn't like the fact that the FBI had to send in 
agents to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago because of 
concerns that Trump would destroy documents. So, they claimed 
that the lawful execution of a search warrant constitutes a 
raid and a witch hunt.
    Now, they don't like the fact that an impartial jury found 
Trump guilty not once, not twice, but on 34 separate counts. 
So, they are attacking the judicial process--calling it rigged, 
corrupt, and pre-cooked--without a shred of evidence to back 
their allegations.
    Why are they doing this? Why are they sowing doubt on our 
system? Why are they using rhetoric that is guaranteed to 
generate death threats against the judges and jurors and 
prosecutors and police involved in these cases? For one reason 
only, to protect a felon, who I remind you, faces an additional 
37 felony counts related to his mishandling of classified 
documents; four Federal counts for conspiring to launch a riot 
on January 6th, and 13 counts in Georgia for conspiring to 
interfere with the Administration of the 2020 election.
    Within the bounds of our system of laws, there is nothing 
Trump can do to escape a trial in each on each of those counts 
or to escape a sentence if he is found guilty on any of them. 
Trump and his allies know this. So, they are moving heaven and 
earth to undermine the system itself.
    That includes the attempt by our Chair to reach into the 
New York case while sentencing is still pending and drag the 
Manhattan District Attorney before this Committee. That demand 
represents a completely unacceptable abuse of the gavel. It is 
entirely inappropriate for us to interfere with an ongoing 
State prosecution, no matter how much blind loyalty you feel 
you owe to the defendant.
    It is also an effort that smacks of desperation. It seems, 
from the standing of MAGA Republicans these days, that the 
American public has caught on.
    Donald Trump has faced a jury of his peers. Nothing can 
change that. We here will face our constituents in November. We 
should conduct ourselves accordingly.
    I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield 
back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    We will now introduce today's witnesses.
    We have, first, Mr. Andrew Baily, the Attorney General of 
the State of Missouri. Prior to becoming Attorney General, he 
served as a prosecutor and Deputy Counsel, and then, General 
Counsel, to the Governor of Missouri. Attorney General Bailey 
has also served our country in the United States Army.
    The next individual, I would yield to the gentleman from 
Texas to introduce.
    Mr. Roy. It's my honor to introduce Mr. James Trainor, Trey 
Trainor. He's a Commissioner on the Federal Election 
Commission, where he served as Chair of the Commission in 2020. 
Prior to his confirmation, he practiced law for two decades 
with a focus on election law, campaign finance law, and ethics. 
He has also served on the Advisory Board of the Election 
Assistance Commission, and he's a constituent of mine and lives 
about five miles down the road, around the corner from Salt 
Lick BBQ, and like my wife, is a Texas A&M graduate.
    Great to have you here, Trey.
    Chair Jordan. Great to have the Attorney General and the 
Commissioner.
    Next, we have Ms. Elizabeth Price Foley. Ms. Foley is a 
Professor of Law at Florida International University College of 
Law, where she teaches Constitutional law, separation of 
powers, and civil procedures. She is also Counsel at 
BakerHostetler, where she practices Constitutional and 
Appellate law. Ms. Foley is the author of three books on 
Constitutional law published by the Yale, Harvard, and Oxford 
University Presses.
    We have Hon. Norm Eisen. Mr. Eisen is a Senior Fellow in 
Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He previously 
served as U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011-2014. 
We have had Mr. Eisen in front of the Committee numerous times.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing 
today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you all please 
rise and raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you and 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 in five minutes. We'll be a little 
liberal with that, but around five minutes will be great.
    We're going to start. We're going to go right down the 
line, and we'll start with the Attorney General, and then, 
we'll move down the line.
    Mr. Attorney General, you're recognized for five minutes.

              STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDREW BAILEY

    Mr. Bailey. I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking 
Member and distinguished Members of the Committee for having us 
here today.
    The people of the State of Missouri watched in horror as 
the left's direct assault on President Trump manifested itself 
in the form of a corrupt prosecution of the President, which 
resulted in an errant criminal conviction. We are a Nation of 
laws that are supposed to be equally applied. Instead, the left 
has prioritized its hated of President Trump above the rule of 
law. To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump more 
than they love this country.
    The term ``lawfare,'' while apt, fails to adequately convey 
the moral depravity underpinning this strategic attack. The 
Manhattan District Attorney's Office's recent prosecution of 
President Trump represents one of the most morally abhorrent 
volleys in the left's ongoing barrage of lawfare. This 
prosecution was politically motivated and is replete with legal 
errors.
    First, prosecutors are explicitly forbidden from waging 
politically motivated prosecutions. To the extent a prosecutor 
is self-interested in a case, that prosecutor must recuse 
himself. That did not happen in New York. Mr. Bragg was 
previously involved in civil litigation against President 
Trump, campaigned on a promise to prosecute President Trump, 
and then, recruited the third highest-ranking official from 
President Biden's Department of Justice to lead his trial court 
efforts against President Biden's political opponent.
    Second, the indictment charges President Trump with 34 
counts of falsifying business records for making entries in 
records with, quote, ``the intent to commit another crime.'' 
The charge's reference to an unidentifiable other crime 
constitutes a deprivation of due process by denying the 
President a right to be informed of the crimes for which he is 
charged.
    Third, the prosecutor sought an unconstitutional gag order 
in this case. There's a strong presumption against gag orders 
as violative of individual's First Amendment rights of free 
speech. Bear in mind, the right to free speech protects not 
only the speaker, but Americans' right to hear from a 
Presidential Candidate.
    Fourth, the prosecutor perverted the law to meet the facts 
rather than objectively apply the facts to the law. The statute 
at issue prohibits a false entry into a business record. 
However, the financial entries were authentic, in that the 
entities listed received the funds enumerated in the documents. 
The prosecutor illegally bent the law to allege that these 
transactions that were accurately recorded were for some other 
purpose.
    Fifth, the prosecutor failed to correct the court's error 
in instructing the jury that unanimity was not required as to 
the predicate offense that forms the basis for the fallacious 
charges.
    The Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury includes jury 
unanimity as to each element of the offense for which the 
defendant is tried. The prosecutor had an affirmative duty to 
object to this violation of President Trump's Constitutional 
rights.
    Missouri has a unique history that parallels much of what 
recently happened in New York with the exception that systems 
in Missouri countered a rogue prosecutor who filed politically 
motivated cases. In fact, I filed the lawsuit that ultimately 
removed her from office and prevented this kind of lawfare.
    George Soros has repeatedly funded progressive prosecutors 
to wreak havoc on the criminal justice system at every level. 
Not only do they prosecute political opponents, but they refuse 
to prosecute actual violent crimes happening in our 
communities.
    In fact, President Biden's Department of Justice is in 
lockstep with radicals like George Soros and is actively 
funding groups like the Vera Institute that are turning our 
streets into war zones. The Vera Institute, a progressive 
organization dedicated to undermining criminal prosecution in 
the United States, receives tens of millions of dollars in 
Federal funds annually.
    My lawsuit to remove the prosecutor in the city of St. 
Louis uncovered the disastrous relationship between her office 
and the Vera Institute that resulted in more than a 90 percent 
nonprosecution rate of reported crimes.
    Meanwhile, the St. Louis prosecutor had to be disqualified 
from cases in which she was politically motivated. Missouri 
systems worked, in that the judiciary prevented her political 
witch hunts, and my lawsuit removed her from office after she 
neglected to prosecute violent crime.
    The same systems failed in New York. George Soros has 
funded Alvin Bragg's candidacy, and under his watch, the 
Manhattan District Attorney's Office has partnered with the 
Vera Institute. In this case, the judiciary of New York failed 
to disqualify Alvin Bragg from his case against President 
Trump.
    These facts, coupled with the Federal and State 
prosecutions that have yet to play out, display a level of 
collusion never seen before between a corrupt Department of 
Justice and illicitly motivated State prosecutors. I believe 
the investigations and subsequent prosecutions of President 
Trump have been illegally conducted in coordination with the 
Department of Justice. That is why my office demanded 
communications between the DOJ, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, 
Jack Smith, or Fani Willis related to the investigation or 
prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
    To protect the rights of all Missourians who plan to 
participate in the 2024 Presidential Election, the State of 
Missouri has the right to know to what extent the prosecutions 
of prominent Presidential candidates are being coordinated by 
the Federal Government, which is currently run by President 
Trump's primary political opponent.
    The credibility of our criminal justice system has been 
undermined and hangs in the balance. If we are to protect the 
rule of law, we must end the lawfare against President Trump. 
As a Nation, we must affirmatively reject Soros-backed 
prosecutors who refuse to enforce the law and, instead, 
weaponize the criminal justice system to achieve political 
ends. As a Nation, we must eliminate the very institutes' 
influence over the DOJ and our local prosecutors' offices.
    I want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member and 
distinguished Members of the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of The Hon. Bailey follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 
Commissioner, you are recognized for five minutes.

            STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JAMES TRAINOR

    Commissioner Trainor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Jordan, 
the Ranking Member Nadler, and distinguished Members of the 
Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss 
the critical issue of jurisdictional overreach and the 
prosecution of Federal campaign finance law, specifically 
regarding the actions of Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney 
from Manhattan, in this prosecution of former President Donald 
Trump. No less critical, I want to highlight the inaction by 
the Department of Justice to defend Federal jurisdiction in 
this case.
    The Federal Election Campaign Act serves as the bedrock for 
regulating money in our elections. It delineates the 
authorities responsible for enforcing these rules, vesting 
exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Election Commission and 
the Department of Justice. This statutory framework is designed 
to ensure uniform application of campaign finance laws 
nationwide, preventing the creation of fragmented enforcement 
landscape and leveraging the expertise and resources of Federal 
agencies.
    District Attorney Alvin Bragg's decision to pursue charges 
against former President Trump for alleged violations of 
Federal campaign finance laws mark a significant deviation from 
this established legal framework. By doing so, Bragg has 
effectively usurped the jurisdiction that this Congress has 
explicitly reserved for Federal authorities. This overreach 
sets a troubling precedent for the politicization of legal 
proceedings at the State level. The danger here lies in the 
disparate enforcement standards that torture well established 
Federal law processes. As an example, the State Judge in New 
York misinterpreted Federal criminal mental intent standards 
and gave the jury an instruction which read willfully 
contributing campaign contributions. The statutory mental 
intent found in the Federal Election Campaign Act is knowing 
and willful.
    Now, imagine 50 States enacting the crime of campaigning by 
unlawful means and a thousand different State and local 
prosecutors prosecuting Presidents, former Presidents, 
Presidential candidates, and any number of House and Senate 
candidates under varying interpretations of FECA by 
bootstrapping those laws to their States' unlawful means 
criminal code. It is also disturbing in this case what hasn't 
happened over at the Department of Justice. Given the clear 
precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the 
prohibition of State officers prosecuting Federal crimes, it is 
perplexing that Attorney General Merrick Garland and the 
Department of Justice did not intervene in the prosecution of 
Donald Trump. The DOJ's election year sensitivity policy is 
designed to protect the public from being influenced by legal 
proceedings during election year. Had the DOJ zealously 
represented the United States by intervening to protect its own 
jurisdiction and that of the FEC, this issue might not be the 
predominant one of the 2024 Presidential cycle.
    A disclosure on May 31st in unredacted FEC documents 
reveals that the Department of Justice conducted a year-long 
investigation and found no criminal acts committed by former 
President Trump. This revelation underscores the problematic 
nature of Bragg's prosecution and his intrusion on Federal 
jurisdiction, again, the implications for allowing local 
district attorneys to prosecute based on their interpretations 
of Federal campaign finance law are profound. Such actions risk 
eroding the uniformity and predictability that FECA aims to 
provide.
    For me, a larger First Amendment concern is at play here. 
That is the deterrent that this encroachment on Federal 
jurisdiction will have on well-qualified candidates from 
seeking public office. Fearing disparate legal standards based 
on their locality, preserving the centralized enforcement 
mechanism envisioned in FECA is essential to a fair and 
impartial oversight of campaign finance regulations and of our 
elections.
    Alvin Bragg's misguided prosecution of former President 
Trump represents a clear usurpation of Federal jurisdiction. 
Coupled with the DOJ's inaction, it has compounded the issue. 
The dangerous precedent of local prosecutorial overreach in 
matters of Federal concern must be addressed to maintain the 
integrity of our electoral system. We must reaffirm the 
exclusive authority of the FEC and the Department of Justice to 
enforce Federal campaign finance laws, ensuring consistent and 
impartial application across the United States.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity and I look 
forward to your questions.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Commissioner. Ms. Foley, you are 
recognized.
    [The prepared statement of Commissioner Trainor follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                  STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH FOLEY

    Ms. Foley. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler, the Members 
of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to 
testify today. I am going to focus my remarks on due process, 
as a Constitutional lawyer and someone who practices in the 
field. Most of you went to law school, so you remember that due 
process is part of the Constitution that ensures that the 
processes employed to deprive someone of life, liberty, or 
property are fundamentally fair. Of course, we all learned that 
there are twin pillars of due process.
    (1) Is notice and in the criminal context, that means 
notice of the specific charge that you face, as well as the 
issues that are raised therein, in other words, the elements of 
that crime.
    (2) A meaningful opportunity to be heard on those charges.
    Unfortunately, Mr. Trump's New York trial violated both of 
these twin pillars of due process and to explain why, first, I 
have attached a flow chart to my written statement that might 
be helpful as I go along through my oral testimony. I thought I 
would also bring another visual of the Russian nesting dolls to 
give you some sense of the complexity of the theory of 
criminality with which Mr. Trump was faced in New York.
    This first doll represents the actual charges in the 
indictment against Mr. Trump. There were 34 charges of felony 
falsification of business records under New York law. To make 
it a felony falsification, you have to meet all the elements of 
misdemeanor falsification which means you have to have a 
falsified business record with an intent to defraud and then to 
make it a felony, you have an additional that must be proven. 
That additional element is the intent to commit another crime. 
All right?
    So, the next nesting doll is what is that other crime that 
Mr. Trump intended to commit? Well, Mr. Trump wasn't sure, and 
neither were his attorneys, so he asked the New York prosecutor 
for what is called a bill of particulars, saying hey, please 
tell me what that other crime you think it was that I intended 
to commit. The prosecutor interestingly responded and said you 
don't have a right to know. ``We don't have to tell you what 
that specific crime was,'' and oh, by the way, ``without 
limiting the people's theory at trial,'' that is a direct 
quote, in other words, without limiting our ability to change 
our minds during the trial, the other crimes that Mr. Trump may 
have intended to commit, may include one of four things: First, 
New York election law; second, New York tax law; third, 
falsification of other business records, presumably other than 
the 34 with which he was actually charged; and finally, the 
Federal Election Campaign Act, FECA, right?
    Now, if you hear me list those four possibilities as the 
other crimes that Mr. Trump intended to commit, you see that 
they are very different crimes, right? They range from State 
crimes to Federal crimes, from misdemeanors to felonies. Within 
each of those crimes, or statutes, there are different ways to 
commit a crime. So, for example, under New York tax law, tax 
fraud was one of the statutes cited by the New York prosecutor 
and his response to the bill of particulars request. Tax fraud 
can be committed in multiple different ways under that statute. 
There are different kinds of ways to engage in tax fraud.
    FECA, as you probably know, is the Federal Election 
Campaign Act, is a Federal law that is over 100 pages long. If 
you read it, you see that there is lots of different crimes 
embedded in that one mega statute. So, Mr. Trump didn't know 
for sure what was that other crime that the prosecutor thought 
he intended to commit and, in fact, the first time he learned 
what it was, was during the jury instruction when Judge Juan 
Merchan told the jury that the other crime was New York 
election law. OK? That is far too late for due process 
purposes, for purposes of notice, right? That is after all the 
evidence has closed. All right.
    So, then he picked out of those four that were mentioned by 
the prosecutor New York election law. When you look at New York 
election law, you see even further that embedded in it there is 
another predicate. To violate New York election law, you have 
to basically interfere with an election by quote ``unlawful 
means.'' He said well, what does unlawful means? Unlawful means 
that the way that you committed the violation of the New York 
election law was itself unlawful in some way. So, there is a 
second predicate crime buried in there, right? Then you say 
well, how do I know what those unlawful means are? Mr. Trump 
had no notice of what those unlawful means were because 
unlawful means was embedded in the New York election law, which 
he didn't even know was the first predicate for the basis of 
the felony falsification charge.
    The first time Mr. Trump realized what the unlawful means 
could be for the basis of the New York election law was again 
during the jury instructions by Judge Merchan and at that 
point, Judge Merchan instructed the jury and I wish I had three 
of these, but I only have one. I got these in Russia, actually. 
The three means that Judge Merchan pulled out of the sky, 
right, were (1) FECA, again, the Federal election law; (2) 
falsification of other business records, although he didn't 
specify which ones; and (3) this is kind of fascinating, quote, 
``tax laws,'' which Judge Merchan's instructions say ``could 
include not only State law, but Federal tax law, and local tax 
law as well.''
    Now, to make matters worse--
    Chair Jordan. Finish up really quick. I apologize. If you 
can finish up really quick.
    Ms. Foley. Sorry. To make matters worse, Judge Merchan 
instructed the jury that they need not be unanimous in picking 
out which one of these three means by which they could convict 
Trump. This is a travesty of justice. It is clearly a violation 
of due process. If anyone would like to ask me about the 
Supreme Court's decision in Schad on the unanimity of means--
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, point of order. Point of order, Mr. 
Chair.
    Ms. Foley. I would be glad to give further details. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Foley follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The Ambassador is 
recognized for five minutes.

            STATEMENT OF THE AMBASSADOR NORMAN EISEN

    Ambassador Eisen. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Nadler, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I 
appreciate you inviting me back today for this hearing. You may 
notice that I am not turning my microphone on and off today. It 
is the Jewish holiday of Shavuot and we do not operate 
electronics on our holidays.
    I didn't think I would be come at all, but my rabbi gave me 
permission when I explained the significance of today's 
hearing.
    I was in court throughout the six-weeks plus Manhattan 
criminal trial of former President Donald Trump for interfering 
in the 2016 election and covering it up. I want to make three 
points today.
    First, a jury of Mr. Trump's peers in the city where he 
lived and worked most of his life found him guilty. I spent 
most of the trial watching them and, unlike some in court who 
dozed, they paid extremely close attention throughout.
    The jurors got it right. Witness after witness, formerly 
inside Mr. Trump's orbit, supported both parts of the jury's 
conclusion. First, that Mr. Trump intended to influence the 
2016 election by unlawful means, including in the form of 
$130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels to benefit his campaign, 
over $127,000 in excess of the legal limit. Second, Mr. Trump 
covered it up through 34 false business records that disguised 
the repayment of that excessive contribution as a legal 
expense.
    The jury were not the only ones who got it right. So did 
the judge. I know this may astonish some who were fed a steady 
diet of disinformation about him, but Justice Juan Merchan bent 
over backward to be fair to the defendant. Why should Mr. Trump 
have been allowed, for example, to act in contempt of court by 
violating the gag order no less than ten, ten times before he 
was warned that the eleventh violation would lead to more 
serious consequences. Justice Merchan was judicious on that end 
and many other occasions as I believe the appellate review will 
demonstrate.
    Second, the jury found Mr. Trump lied to voters and covered 
it up with phony documents. Does that sound familiar? It should 
because we saw this pattern repeat in 2020 with the Big Lie 
that Mr. Trump won the election. The false documents in 2020 
were fake electoral certificates that were part of a scheme to 
overturn the legitimate outcome of the election in this body 
with tragic results on January 6th, 2021. Mr. Trump is 
limbering up to try the Big Lie again. He will not commit to 
accepting the 2024 election results unless he wins.
    Third, brings me to my final point, where the real threat 
of the politicization of the justice system and the 
weaponization of government lies. The attacks on the trial and 
verdict by the former President and others are politicizing a 
crime, falsification of business records, that has been 
prosecuted about 10,000 times in New York since 2015. Mr. Trump 
should not be treated any differently, no better, no worse than 
those other defendants who falsified documents. His 
politicization of the case has led to a staggering amount of 
confusion such as that there was no underlying crime specified 
that made his document falsification a felony. Not so. I 
brought an exhibit also, the May 12, 2023, bill of particulars. 
That is their response to the bill of particulars that did 
specify the crime and I have a pile of other documents here 
showing that this happened over and over again.
    As bad as all that is, the worse politicization is the call 
by Mr. Trump and others to baselessly prosecute his adversaries 
in retaliation for the verdict. Just last week, Mr. Trump 
pointed to his own prosecution and then said it is very 
possible it is going to have to happen to them to his political 
opponents. Those words are more chilling because they are not 
isolated to the issue of this trial. We should take them as a 
warning of what is to come should he return to office, starting 
with his promise to be a dictator on day one. That would be the 
real weaponization of government, not Mr. Trump's being held 
accountable by 12 of his fellow citizens. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of the Ambassador Eisen follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. We are here at the hearing on the Manhattan 
District Attorney's Office and the essential ingredient we seem 
to be missing is the Manhattan District Attorney which I guess, 
Mr. Roy, would be a lot like going to the Salt Lick BBQ and not 
getting the moist brisket. To Mr. Jordan's credit, great 
credit, he sent a letter to Mr. Bragg on May 31st, inviting him 
to come participate and we got sort of a nastygram back from 
Mr. Bragg on June 7th.
    Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter into the 
record the June 7th response from AG Bragg.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Gaetz. I am sorry, DA Bragg. In this letter, I am going 
to quote from it Ms. Foley, Bragg says ``This office is 
committed to voluntary cooperation.'' Can you believe that?
    Ms. Foley. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. As the letter continues, ``That cooperation 
includes making the District Attorney available to provide 
testimony on behalf of the office on an agreed-upon date.'' Do 
you believe that?
    Mrs. Foley. I will believe that when I see it.
    Mr. Gaetz. It goes on to say, ``they are evaluating the 
propriety of allowing an Assistant District Attorney to testify 
publicly about the matter.'' Now, that Assistant District 
Attorney is the one who downstreamed from DOJ, right? So, do 
you think they are going to provide Mr. Colangelo here to 
answer our questions?
    Ms. Foley. I would not expect Mr. Colangelo to show up.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you base that opinion on the lawsuit that 
Alvin Bragg filed against Jim Jordan in his official capacity 
in the Committee on the Judiciary?
    Ms. Foley. I saw some of that, yes. I mean look, you have a 
legitimate legislative purpose to be inquiring as to what you 
are doing, so they have no leg to stand on.
    Mr. Gaetz. They are not going to come because we asked, and 
they are not going to come because they say so. We learned that 
by observing our dear friends at the Oversight Committee, 
because this will surprise a lot of Americans. After hearing 
the enthusiasm around oversight of the Biden crime family, we 
never sent a subpoena to Hunter Biden to give live testimony 
before Congress. Let that sink in. The Republican House 
majority has never subpoenaed Hunter Biden for live testimony 
in public. We have never done that. I worry that we are going 
about the same kind of process here. We may end up there in 
July right after sentencing with an empty Alvin Bragg nameplate 
and an empty Matthew Colangelo nameplate. Then we will start 
the process again on letters, subpoenas, and accommodation. I 
have just grown tired of it, and I think you are right, Ms. 
Foley, that this is all professional wrestling. There is no 
real effort to bring these people to bear.
    Mr. Johnson. Will the gentleman yield for--
    Mr. Gaetz. No. One second. I have a motion. Mr. Chair, I 
move under Committee Rule 4 and Clause 2M of House Rule 11, to 
require the attendance and testimony of Alvin Bragg and Matthew 
Colangelo on July 12th to discuss their involvement in the 
Trump prosecution including their offices' coordination with 
Department of Justice.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The Ranking Member is recognized.
    Mr. Nadler. It is a little absurd because Mr. Bragg and Mr. 
Colangelo have already agreed to appear before the Committee on 
July 12th. We have a letter to that effect. There is no point 
requiring them to do what they have already said they are going 
to do. The Committee asked them to appear. They were asked to 
appear today. They made the point that--Mr. Bragg, I should 
say, made the point that he didn't think he should appear 
before the sentencing on July 11th, but he could be available 
thereafter, and he has agreed to come on July 12th.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, this debate is out of order.
    Mr. Nadler. You made a motion. It is not out of order.
    Mr. Gaetz. You have to seek recognition pursuant--you can't 
just inject. I am still on my time. I am still controlling two 
additional minutes of time.
    Chair Jordan. You will get your time back.
    Mr. Nadler. I have a letter here. My point is simple. The 
Committee requested them to appear, Mr. Bragg and Mr. 
Colangelo. They have agreed to appear. They plan to appear on 
July 12th. I don't know what this debate is about. I yield 
back. Oh, I would like unanimous consent to--Mr. Chair--ask 
unanimous consent to introduce into the record a report from 
Fox News headlined--
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Gaetz. I object. I object pending consideration of--
    Chair Jordan. I want to deal with Mr. Gaetz' motion and 
then we will take your unanimous consent.
    Mr. Bragg and Mr. Colangelo have agreed to come on the 
12th. If they don't show up on the 12th, they will be 
subpoenaed. So, I would ask the gentleman if he could withdraw 
the motion. They are coming. We worked hard over the weekend to 
make sure they are coming. If they change their mind, they will 
get a subpoena from the Committee requiring them, compelling 
them to be here. If they choose to go to court on that, I think 
we will beat them in court like we did the first time when we 
got Mr. Pomerantz to come testify in front of--to be deposed in 
front of the--
    Mr. Gaetz. Time then becomes determinative. The problem is 
if we are going to bring these people in, let's go--I have made 
a motion to subpoena these people now pursuant to the rules and 
I want a vote on my motion or I want someone to move to table 
it.
    Chair Jordan. You made the motion to subpoena them for the 
12th?
    Mr. Gaetz. I moved under Committee Rule 4, Clause 2M of 
House Rule 11--
    Mr. Johnson. I move to table. I move to table the--
    Ms. Jayapal. I second that.
    Mr. Gaetz. It is not debatable.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman made a motion, the motion to 
table is not debatable. Those in favor of--the Committee will 
stand in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. The 
gentleman from Florida has two minutes remaining on his five 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I will withdraw my motion based on 
the representations not only that you've made, but that the 
Ranking Member has made in our colloquy previously that Mr. 
Bragg and Mr. Colangelo will be here and willing to answer our 
questions. Ms. Foley, I wanted to come back to you. You made 
mention of this theory of unanimity. I wanted to give you a 
chance to talk about that case law a little bit that you were 
referencing.
    Ms. Foley. Oh, yes. Thanks. In fact, Professor Eisen and I 
were just sort of debating that case, Schad from 1991. So, 
Schad is a case where Arizona had this first degree murder 
statute. To commit first degree murder under that statute, you 
could either have premeditated murder or you can have felony 
murder. The question was whether or not the jury had to be 
unanimous in its conviction under first degree murder, whether 
they had to make a specific finding that it was premeditated, 
or they had to make a specific finding that it was felony 
murder.
    That case is very split. There's, like, a 4-1-4 split among 
the nine justices in Schad. The main plurality written by 
Justice Souter says, well, in a case like that, that statute, 
the Arizona legislature looked at the crime as first degree 
murder and said that if you commit it either by premeditation 
or by during the commission of a felony, you sort of have 
equal, sort of moral culpability to warrant the first degree 
thing. So, you don't--the jury doesn't have to be unanimous as 
to whether it's one or the other, right?
    Along the way at the end of that, they said, oh, a point of 
caution that if the means by which a crime could be committed 
are too capacious, there might be due process problems. Then 
you have a Scalia concurrence that reiterates that concern and 
says if you have sort of an umbrella crime, it will violate due 
process. Then you get four other justices in dissent who are 
even taking a tighter position saying, if it's an element of 
the crime, it must be unanimous.
    Mr. Gaetz. It almost seems like it's--I get the Russian 
nesting dolls. It's almost like a Mr. Potato Head doll, where 
you're sticking the wrong parts on and ending up with quite an 
odd looking legal feature.
    Ms. Foley. Well, yes, and the thing about New York's 
election law is quote ``it can be violated by any unlawful 
means.'' That's the language of the statute. Now, any unlawful 
means, means any unlawful means.
    It can mean a local crime. It could be a State crime. It 
could be a Federal crime as opposed to the Arizona statute, 
which was upheld, only gave you two choices. It was either 
premeditated murder or it was murder in the commission of a 
felony. That's much tighter.
    Mr. Gaetz. I see our time has expired. It sounds like a 
real Constitutional due process issue as applied in this 
prosecution. I yield back.
    Ms. Foley. Correct.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
New York is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker--Mr. Chair. Ambassador 
Eisen, I want to talk about some of the disinformation that's 
been spread about the trial in New York. Republicans have 
attacked Judge Merchan as biased and have suggested that he 
continually ruled against Trump. What is your response to that 
allegation?
    Ambassador Eisen. Mr. Chair, I was present throughout the 
trial. Thought that the conduct of the judge was the exact 
opposite of bias. He was scrupulously fair.
    He upheld dozens and dozens of the objections that were 
articulated by the defense. At times, for example, during the 
testimony of Stormy Daniels when the defense did not object, he 
objected for them, sua sponte, to limit the testimony. I would 
not have allowed Donald Trump to violate the gag order ten 
times as you heard in my opening testimony before threatening 
him, that the 11th would require more dire consequences.
    One of the biggest fights Commissioner Trainor referenced 
this was over willfulness. The judge actually adopted the 
instruction that was proposed by the defendant and his counsel. 
I could give you many, many other examples. I thought it was 
one of the outstanding jobs of judging that I have seen in my 
over three decades in court.
    Mr. Nadler. Now Ambassador, Republicans have alleged that 
it would be impossible for Donald Trump to get a fair trial in 
New York City. Is there any shred of validity to this?
    Ambassador Eisen. I watched that jury, Mr. Nadler. They 
paid close attention. Many of them took notes throughout. They 
included those who said they followed Mr. Trump's statements on 
Truth Social. The notion that a jury of Manhattanites where Mr. 
Trump chose to live and work, where the offenses were committed 
cannot sit is really wrong. I think it's not fair to these 12 
ordinary Americans who perform their duty in our rule of law 
system.
    Mr. Nadler. Republicans have also alleged that Donald Trump 
would never have been charged with felony falsification of 
records if his name were anything other than Trump. In fact, 
this is a common charge in New York. The Manhattan DA's offices 
pursue these case 120 times since Bragg took office. Isn't that 
correct?
    Ambassador Eisen. That's right.
    Mr. Nadler. Is there any--
    Ambassador Eisen. Mr. Bragg has--that's right.
    Mr. Nadler. Is there any evidence at all that Donald Trump 
is being politically and unfairly targeted?
    Ambassador Eisen. Since we're doing exhibits, Professor 
Foley, a trial lawyer. I love exhibits. For my book--I may even 
borrow her nesting dolls at some point if the Chair will 
permit.
    For my book, ``Trying Trump,'' I surveyed almost 10,000 New 
York falsification of business records cases. This is a crime 
that is regularly charged. If you do the FBR in New York, you 
do the time. So, there's nothing unusual here about charging 
false documents.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. MAGA Republicans' attacks on Alvin 
Bragg should not come as a surprise. It's a clear pattern. Just 
look at how Republicans have viciously and baselessly attacked 
Special Counsel Jack Smith who's overseeing the two Federal 
prosecutions against Trump and conducted the investigations 
into Trump's criminal behavior.
    They have desperately tried to discredit Smith to lessen 
the effects the indictments have had on his reelection bid 
despite the mountains of evidence against him. The former 
President called Smith a lowlife who is nasty, rude, and 
condescending, a Trump hating prosecutor, a disgrace to 
America, and a very vulgar profanity that I won't repeat here. 
Even brought Mr. Smith's family into the attacks, saying, 
quote, ``Smith's wife and family despise him much more than he 
does,'' and called Mr. Smith's team thug prosecutors.
    These attacks on Smith clearly mirror the attack on Bragg. 
Why are Republicans going to such lengths to attack these 
prosecutors and what are the benefits of delegitimizing them?
    Ambassador Eisen. Because Mr. Trump is guilty of 
interfering in the 2016 election and covering it up with 34 
false documents. Because the American people understand that is 
a disqualification for a public figure in our country and 
because that pattern was exemplified again in 2020 is a threat 
for 2024. These attacks on prosecutors, juries, judges are of a 
piece with Donald Trump's promise to be a dictator on day one. 
That is why they're pushing back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's--
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
Arizona is recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I'll ask you, Mr. 
Bailey. Do you know why Alvin Bragg originally declined to move 
forward with the prosecution of Donald Trump?
    Mr. Bailey. I believe the reasonable inference to draw is 
that the charged aren't supported by the laws or the facts.
    Mr. Biggs. So, let's talk about a guy named Mark Pomerantz. 
So, Mark Pomerantz and his colleague, Mr. Dunne, resigned from 
the office because they felt that Mr. Bragg was not going to go 
forward with the case. So, he issued a statement.
    An analysis, if you start looking at what Mr. Pomerantz 
said, he said, ``many members of the team did not think that 
they could prove Trump committed crimes.'' He did not think the 
New York State criminal charges advanced by Pomerantz applied 
to Trump's conduct. In his book, he writes, ``many of the 
lawyers were relentlessly negative.''
    There were references to our case as weak. One lawyer 
opined that it had many fatal flaws. Another expressed a view 
that the case may be way out there. It's not the strongest case 
in the world.
    If you go on, there were defectors from the Trump 
investigation. All this is taking place from December 2021 all 
the way through February 2022. Now, why is that important?
    Because I want to get to this, Professor Foley. Because 
there's a timeline issue and you're talking about due process. 
So due process, you've mentioned two pillars.
    I'm going to suggest that if you have a firm prosecution 
and they're looking to find a way to prosecute because it's a 
person as opposed to the case. So, here's the timeline which 
may seem coincidental. This is exactly what happened.
    On November 7, 2022, Trump teases, he says, ``I have a big 
announcement coming up.'' September 9, 2022, at a press 
conference, Joe Biden says, ``we just have to demonstrate that 
he will not take power if he does run, making sure he, under 
legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the 
next President.'' On November 15th, Trump announces his run.
    Now, here's where it gets interesting. On November 18th, 
Matthew Colangelo, No. 3 in the DOJ, resigns. He gives a two-
week notice in a letter, and he's going to end up quitting his 
job at DOJ on December 2nd.
    He's going to work for Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office 
beginning December 5th. Nobody can tell us from DOJ or Alvin 
Bragg how they even--nobody seems to know. Just apparently 
Colangelo just shows up in the office one day.
    , on that same date, November 18th, Merrick Garland 
appoints Jack Smith on two cases against Trump, one in Florida 
and one in Washington, DC.
    Point 3, same day, November 18th, Fani Willis' paramour, 
Nathan Wade, spends eight hours in meetings with White House 
lawyers. It wasn't too long after that the indictments start 
falling into place.
    We can go through those. I wanted to ask you, Ms. Foley, if 
a prosecutorial agency is actually searching for crimes because 
of an individual. They've stated, don't forget Mr. Bragg.
    I'm leaving out all his campaign promises to get Trump. 
Couldn't name any kind of thing that he had done wrong. He's 
going to get Trump. Is that antithetical to the very notion of 
due process in and of itself?
    Ms. Foley. Yes, you ask a really interesting question. Yes, 
the short answer is yes. There is a line of Supreme Court 
jurisprudence beginning with a case called Rochin v. California 
in 1960 which establishes what's called the shocks the 
conscience test for violation on due process.
    You may remember that from law school. It's where your 
stomach got pumped forcibly against his will. Since Rochin was 
decided, there had been other Supreme Court cases. There's one 
called ex rel. Vuitton. There's one called Caperton involving 
judges. This line of jurisprudence under due process says that 
if you can establish that there was bias by a prosecutor, an 
investigator, or a judge that shocks the conscious, it's a due 
process violation as well.
    Mr. Biggs. All right. So, when we start looking at this and 
you realize that there was no theory of the case that seemed to 
work. That's from Mr. Pomerantz's testimony. They couldn't come 
up with a case. You have prosecutors saying we just can't find 
anything here. Then all of a sudden, you get jury instructions 
like you have here. How antithetical to that is to due process?
    Ms. Foley. Well, I think when you piece all those pieces of 
evidence together, they paint a pretty compelling picture of 
bias. Whether or not it would shock the left side of the 
aisle's conscience, I don't know. It certainly would shock me.
    I'm trying to be pretty objective about this. It's a high 
bar to shock someone's conscience. Basically, the idea is if 
you're doing the Attorney General Justice Jackson maneuver of 
picking the man and pinning some crime on him, then yes, I 
would hope that would shock your conscience.
    Ms. Foley. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
Tennessee is recognized.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This Committee has engaged 
in many off the wall, pointless, politically driven hearings in 
this Congress. It seems to be the mode.
    We are in the basic format of trying to do everything we 
can to defend one of the most lawless people in this Nation's 
history, Donald Trump, who has been found civilly liable 
numerous times in New York for tax fraud, for rape, for 
defamation, and for violating the New York State tax laws. Now, 
34 times for a felony and a criminal action for interfering--
business records and interfering in the election of 2016. Now, 
of course, he's got other Federal cases coming in Florida where 
he has his friend, Judge Aileen Conner, Cooper, whatever her 
name is.
    Ambassador Eisen. Cannon.
    Mr. Cohen. Cannon. He's got Georgia and he's got Jack Smith 
on overthrowing the government and January 6th. This Committee 
concentrates on defending him and bringing up his case. We've 
got crime going on in the country.
    We've got immigration problems in the country, problems at 
the border. Nothing is more important that defending the No. 1 
person criminal, civil defendant, and criminal defendant in 
this country in the history that I can remember over the years. 
Nobody has been to court so many times and had so many losses.
    Yet, we defend him here. This is an attack on the rule of 
law and on democracy. It's very, very unfortunate. These are 
political purposes that this Committee has publically, 
aggressively, and despicably tried to intervene in a criminal 
proceeding.
    We are a Nation of laws, and those laws are enforced 
through the judicial system. The Federal Government has 
specific duties and State Governments have specific duties. 
Both are equally bound to satisfy the principles of due process 
and equal justice under the law.
    This is what we're looking at here. We're looking at what 
the GOP has done to try to run this Committee as a Trump legal 
defense team. They just met with Mr. Trump over in the Capitol 
Hill Club.
    I'm sure he did a Harvey Korman impression of you go do 
that voodoo that you do so well when he sent the Klansman and 
the Hell's Angels, and all the other despicable characters 
round up together to go into Rock Ridge. They're here doing 
that voodoo that they do so well. They're losing as Trump and 
his lawyers lost in Manhattan.
    Thirty-four times a felon, and they've tried to say this is 
about you, not about Trump. Well, malarkey. Ambassador Eisen, 
as a general rule, judges interpret the laws and juries are 
finders of fact. Can you please tell us what that means and 
explain it to the people here who might not have an 
understanding of that theory and what happened in New York.
    Ambassador Eisen. The principle that judges interpret the 
law and juries find the facts is a foundational one in our 
American rule of law--Anglo-American rule of law system. The 
reason we ask judges to interpret the law is because they have 
the expertise in what the law means. The reason we ask juries 
to determine the facts is because in the American justice 
system and in its role as a foundation of our democracy, we 
trust the fate of a criminal defendant ultimately to their 
fellow Americans.
    That is exactly what happened here. One of the many canards 
that we've heard, Mr. Cohen, is that of one of Trump's 
witnesses, former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith who I've known 
since we were in law school together. I edited his note to 
prevent him from testifying.
    No, he was welcome to testify. He was free to testify. The 
only limitation was he was not allowed to instruct the jury on 
the law because is the job of the judge.
    Mr. Cohen. You saw Judge Merchan preside over this case?
    Ambassador Eisen. Every day.
    Mr. Cohen. What kind of job--what you saw and what you have 
heard from others--did he perform?
    Ambassador Eisen. I thought that everyone in the case, 
including Donald Trump's own defense lawyers who I praised. I 
wrote a daily trial diary published. I dedicated one to singing 
their praises myself as a--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ambassador Eisen. Merchan was one of the great judges that 
I've seen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Foley, one question. 
Is Trump one of those nesting dolls underneath Putin?
    Ms. Foley. Where? Which?
    Mr. Cohen. That's the ones I've seen. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair, I have some--
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman has a unanimous consent 
request.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. An article from CNN, former President 
Donald Trump announces his White House bid for 2024. An article 
from The Hill, Biden suggests Trump will not take power again 
if he runs in 2024. The New York Times article from December 5, 
2022, Manhattan DA hires ex-Justice official to help lead Trump 
inquiry.
    On February 7, 2023, Pomerantz v. Pomerantz: An annotation 
of his leaked resignation letter in Manhattan DA Trump 
investigation. From Business Insider, Donald Trump again teases 
2024 Presidential bid saying he'll make a big announcement on 
November 15th, same day Mike Pence's memoir is scheduled to be 
published. On February 23rd from The New York Times, two 
prosecutors in the New York Trump inquiry resign clouding 
case's future.
    On May 6, 2021, FEC drops case review in Trump hush money. 
From the Washington Examiner, For Prosecutor Bragg, Trump 
indictment is campaign promise kept. Biden's No. 3 man in DOJ 
resigned to join Alvin Bragg's get Trump team on November 18, 
2022.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. Gentleman from California is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, the 
leftist lawfare didn't start here. I think it started when the 
Democrats used the IRS to target Tea Party volunteers for 
harassment and intimidation in advance of the 2012 Presidential 
election.
    In the 2016 Presidential election, the FBI, the DOJ, and 
our intelligence agencies used their power to legitimize the 
lie that had been concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign 
that Trump was colluding with the Russians despite knowing this 
was a lie. These agencies use their powers to legitimize it, to 
authorize spying on the Trump campaign, and to terrorize its 
supporters. When this failed, they continued to pursue it to 
undermine the Trump Administration, question legitimacy of the 
election, and shook this country apart for more than two years 
before the lie was finally fully exposed to the public thanks 
to the Inspector General's reports.
    Then, we have the 2020 Presidential election. Hunter Biden 
laptop contained emails that clearly documented longstanding 
influenced peddling scheme involving the Biden family in which 
millions of dollars were paid. Yet, 52 high ranking 
intelligence agency officials signed a letter circulated by the 
Biden campaign calling it Russian disinformation.
    Although the DOJ has that computer in its possession and 
knew it was authentic, they suggested otherwise and then used 
their power to pressure social media companies to censor and 
suppress that story. Pollsters have reported that action alone 
could've decisively influenced the 2020 election. Now, we have 
this.
    I'm sorry to inform the Ranking Member. Jack Smith was one 
of the principle figures in the IRS scandal. He had a history 
of prosecutorial misconduct culminating with unanimous reversal 
by the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Yet, he was the one appointed by the Biden Administration 
to try to put their chief political opponent in jail. Biden's 
Attorney General personally approved a raid on a former 
President's home despite strenuous opposition by career DOJ 
officials and by the local field office that would normally 
have had jurisdiction. Alvin Bragg who campaigned by boasting 
he'd prosecute Donald Trump was joined by the No. 3 official in 
the Biden Justice Department.
    Nathan Wade named prosecutor by his paramour, Atlanta DA, 
spent eight hours consulting with the White House Counsel at 
the White House before filing these felony charges, not to 
mention the multiple failed attempts by Democrats to throw 
Trump off the ballot. This Administration and its confederates 
have broken every political norm, every civil tradition, every 
due process protection shielding Americans from the convulsions 
suffered by banana republics. We can now clearly see the full 
power of leftist lawfare.
    We always thought this couldn't happen here, but it has. My 
question is what can be done by Congress, firs, to close this 
Pandora's box and assure that it is never opened again. Mr. 
Bailey?
    Mr. Bailey. I think this body has a duty to erect a wall of 
separation between tech and State to prevent government 
censorship of conservative voices on big tech social media 
platforms. As you pointed out, the Deep State has actively 
suppressed information that interfered with the 2020 election. 
I think that will continue to happen as we move into 2024.
    I think the distinguished member is absolutely right, that 
we've got to stop looking at lawfare in terms of trees and 
start seeing the forest for what it is. It's censorship. It's 
civil suits. It's President Trump being unconstitutionally 
stricken from the ballot in States. It's now criminal charges--
    Mr. McClintock. It's the turning of the most terrifying 
powers that government possesses against its own citizens to 
influence elections. This has been going on now through several 
cycles. Now, it's getting to a whole new level. Mr. Trainor?
    Mr. Trainor. Thank you for the question. I think it really 
comes down to the fact that we have to get away from allowing 
government to be the weapon to interfere in political 
participation.
    Mr. McClintock. How do we do that?
    Mr. Trainor. I had the opportunity last year to testify 
before the House Administration Committee on this very issue of 
how complaints are filed with the Federal Election Commission 
and used to do nothing but go investigate political opponents 
under the guise of the Federal Government conducting that 
legitimate investigation. They ultimately turn out to be 
nothing at all. In fact, the most infamous once that I talked 
about was a gentleman who spent 348 dollars on a Facebook page. 
The allegation against him was that he had spent 23,000 dollars 
on a Facebook page. He spent 3\1/2\ years being investigated.
    Mr. McClintock. Right. Word gets out to anybody else, don't 
even go near the political process because you'll expose 
yourself to this kind of liability. I know tea party 
volunteers--
    Mr. Trainor. Absolutely.
    Mr. McClintock. --today won't go near politics for fear of 
invoking the harassment of the IRS. What really frightens me is 
what happens to our country when Trump--if Trump narrowly loses 
the election and the case is then overturned and repudiated and 
exposed by the higher courts. That could tear our country 
apart. Ms. Foley, final word?
    Ms. Foley. Well, I think there are a few things that at a 
minimum should be done.
    (1) To defund the district attorneys and actors who engage 
in these nefarious acts.
    (2) Congress needs to use its oversight authority. It has 
clear oversight authority under the Civil Rights Act to make 
sure that law is not weaponized to prevent people from 
exercising their First Amendment freedoms and other 
Constitutional rights. I think that is really a pattern that is 
going on today.
    There is mass intimidation through lawfare and other means 
to intimidate especially those on the right from speaking their 
mind, from gathering, assembling, and protesting. Also, to a 
certain extent, we are late to the game as conservatives and 
Republicans, but we have to start engaging in lawfare of our 
own. I think there is various ways, for example, that Mr. 
Trump, if wants to and is--
    Mr. McClintock. My time is us, but I hope we don't do that. 
We must never allow the left to become our teachers.
    Ms. Foley. Well, but there is good lawfare and there is bad 
lawfare.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    The gentlelady from California is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to start off by recognizing that the felony 
convictions of a former President represent a first for our 
country and that is solemn. I don't celebrate these 
convictions. It is disappointing when crimes are committed, but 
it may be even more disappointing when our country's justice 
system gets criticized for political ends. I for one don't 
always agree with the outcome of cases, but I do respect the 
process and especially the public servants who do their jobs.
    Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
claim the verdict against the ex-President is--and these are 
all quotes, ``a travesty,'' ``rigged,'' and ``a sham,'' that 
the jury of peers who assembled to do their civic duty 
delivered a, quote, ``rigged verdict,'' that a defendant 
afforded due process was part of a, quote, ``witch hunt,'' that 
the DA is, quote, ``corrupt,'' the judge is corrupt. Corrupt 
seems to be a big catch-all. I saw a judge that made rulings in 
favor of both the defense and the prosecution and who provided 
clear lawful instructions to the jury.
    Now, some of my colleagues say the Department of Justice, a 
Federal agency that is part of the Biden Administration, 
somehow directed the Manhattan District Attorney to indict Mr. 
Trump in a New York State case.
    Ambassador Eisen, can you please help correct that specific 
fallacy? What jurisdiction was involved with this hush money 
and election interference case, the State of New York or the 
Federal Government?
    Ambassador Eisen. This was a case that was brought by the 
Manhattan District Attorney under New York State law. The 
Federal Government had no role, and that is a fundamental 
misunderstanding, Ms. Lofgren, of our federalism to confuse the 
role. It is a conspiracy theory. The Department of Justice just 
this week debunked that conspiracy theory with the AG issuing a 
letter saying there is no evidence.
    Ms. Lofgren. Right. So, it is fair to say that the Biden 
Administration was not involved in this case?
    Ambassador Eisen. Not whatsoever.
    Ms. Lofgren. OK. Just to make things clear, it is fair to 
say that President Biden himself was not involved in this case?
    Ambassador Eisen. Not involved in this case. Indeed has 
given extraordinary latitude even on the Federal side to his 
own Department of Justice including to prosecute his own son.
    Ms. Lofgren. In addition to muddying the waters about the 
current Administration's involvement, loud criticism, 
ironically from some who say the back the blue, can really 
erode Americans' faith in the justice system. Now, that is a 
problem for basic law and order in our country and I think it 
also puts lives at risk.
    The number of threats targeting Federal judges has more 
than doubled over the last three years, and at the local level 
threats and harassment against local public officials rose last 
year, too.
    Now, Ambassador Eisen, can you please talk about these 
increased threats to public officials as well as distrust in 
the system, how harmful both of those could be to our country's 
independent judiciary and really our democracy?
    Ambassador Eisen. They are devastating, Ms. Lofgren, and 
one of the worst outcomes of the former President's incessant 
flow of disinformation, the attacks that you describe on the 
judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the system is to incite those 
threats. We know that his incitement led to the tragedy of 
January 6th. We saw that in this body.
    The constant flow--when I read the well-founded factual 
predicate for the gag order in this case, the sheer number and 
explosion of threats against the DA--they documented hundreds 
of these threats that were received. It is chilling. That is a 
tragic consequence of Donald Trump's irresponsibility.
    Ms. Lofgren. Can democracy survive if the rule of law is 
eroded?
    Ambassador Eisen. One of the privileges of my life was to 
sit on the dais in the first impeachment of the former 
President between the Ranking Member and Ms. Lofgren. That 
process demonstrated to me that a vibrant rule of law is the 
foundation of a strong democracy. I believe our democracy will 
survive, but we have not seen such a profound internal threat 
as this promise of day one dictatorship since in my view the 
end of Jim Crow or the beginning of the Civil War.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, my time is expired. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    Commissioner Trainor, I want to read from your testimony.

        They have sat idly by and allowed the State officers to assert 
        Federal jurisdiction where they themselves had taken 
        jurisdiction and couldn't prosecute.

I want you to unpack that sentence for us again really quick.
    Mr. Trainor. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. The 
Department of Justice, all these claims with regard to the 
$130,000 for Ms. Daniels stem from a complaint that was filed 
at the Federal Election Commission following the 2016 election.
    Chair Jordan. Which you guys were investigating?
    Mr. Trainor. We were in the process of investigating that.
    Chair Jordan. The DOJ came to you and said stand down; we 
are taking over, and give us your information?
    Mr. Trainor. They asked us to abate that and several other 
matters.
    Chair Jordan. They, meaning the Southern District of New 
York?
    Mr. Trainor. That is correct.
    Chair Jordan. They took your information and you guys voted 
to stand down and give it to the Federal authority, right?
    Mr. Trainor. That is correct, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. They determined that there was nothing there 
to prosecute other than Michael Cohen--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Trainor. That is correct. They took a very long time in 
doing it, and when they sent it back to us, we had no more 
authority to investigate because they sent it back to us and we 
were barred by the statute of limitations from even 
investigating the normal civil things that we would look at 
with regard to those type of expenditures.
    Chair Jordan. Your point here is they have sat idly by and 
allowed a State officer to assert Federal jurisdiction where 
they themselves had intervened, to use the word, and taken 
jurisdiction from you and concluded there was nothing there 
regarding a Federal statute, right? In a, quote, ``Federal 
crime'' that they come up with somewhere.
    Mr. Trainor. That is correct, Mr. Chair. I don't know what 
role Mr. Colangelo played in that investigation that took place 
when they took it away from the Federal Election Commission. 
Did that investigation and then he later left the office to go 
prosecute this at the State level.
    Chair Jordan. Well, we are going to find that out on July 
12th, when Mr. Colangelo will be sitting in your seat and Mr. 
Bragg will be sitting in Ms. Foley's seat and we will get a 
chance to ask them.
    Ms. Foley, excuse me, the Democrats talk about jury of his 
peers. OK. Fine. That is how our system works. If President 
Trump didn't learn what the unspecified crime was until the 
jury got the instructions from the judge, that sort of changes 
the dynamic a little bit, doesn't it?
    Ms. Foley. Yes, it is not blaming the jury.
    Chair Jordan. Of course.
    Mrs. Foley. The jury has to operate according to the 
instructions provided by the judge. The fruit, the poison here, 
the poison pill are the jury instructions themselves which 
provided the notice, but it came too late for purposes of due 
process. So, yes, you can't correct that through a bad set of 
jury instructions. If there is a due process defect because he 
learned too late, you have to redo the trial, you have to 
reverse the conviction, and then the prosecutor has to decide 
if they want to--
    Chair Jordan. Yes, there is a--
    Ms. Foley. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. I will wait, ma'am. I was an economics major. 
I majored on focused on wrestling, but you had to get a degree. 
I got one in economics. They talk about this opportunity cost. 
If you don't know what the issue is, you miss the opportunity 
to maybe focus in on the issue as the defense counsel, right?
    Ms. Foley. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. That is kind of important particularly when 
you are talking about what kind of sentence they may try to 
impose on the President on July 11th. That is kind of 
important, right?
    Ms. Foley. It is kind of important. I would suggest that 
any Member of this Committee who faced similarly amorphous 
charges, or a loved one, would be absolutely incensed by facing 
these kinds of charges where it was a moving target--
    Chair Jordan. You are not the only Constitutional scholar 
who has raised this concern, this I think huge concern: Mr. 
Dershowitz, Mr. Turley. Other esteemed Constitutional scholars 
have said the same thing.
    Ms. Foley. I am in good company. I think there is a general 
consensus that there are some due process problems here.
    Chair Jordan. You sure are.
    Mr. Attorney General, July 15, 2021, Alvin Bragg,

        I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with 
        Donald Trump and I think it would be hard to argue with the 
        fact that would be the most important, most high-profile case. 
        And I've seen him up front and seen the lawlessness that he 
        could do.

That is what he said as a candidate. Is that what is the ethics 
of someone who is a member of the bar and running for a 
district attorney's position? Is that how you are supposed to 
conduct yourself in a campaign?
    Mr. Bailey. Absolutely not. That abhorrent statement is an 
incurable impropriety that should have disqualified Alvin Bragg 
from prosecuting that case.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. Not to mention then when he gets the 
job, he looks at the facts, looks at all the evidence and he 
concludes like this case I shouldn't prosecute. I should do 
what the Federal Elections Commission did, not prosecute; what 
the Southern District of New York did, not prosecute; what my 
predecessor Cy Vance did, not prosecute. That is what he wanted 
to do until the political pressure came.
    They talk about us all the time. Pressure came from the 
left. Mark Pomerantz left his job, volunteered--goes and 
becomes an Assistant District Attorney to go after President 
Trump. Then when Alvin Bragg gets there and looks at how crazy 
the case is, Michael Cohen is going to be their star witness, 
he goes this is crazy. I am not doing it. I am not that crazy. 
Then they leak--Pomerantz resigns, leaks the letter, and all 
the left goes crazy and Alvin Bragg says now I am going to do 
what I said during the campaign even though I know it is wrong. 
That is what happened.
    Then they got a judge that went along with all the crazy 
things Ms. Foley's pointed out. That is the story. That story 
is consistent with the facts. That is why we are here today and 
that is why we look forward to Mr. Bragg and Mr. Colangelo 
sitting right where you are at so they can answer our 
questions.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a UC request.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman can State his request.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter 
into the record a letter from the Department of Justice 
confirming that it had no role in the Manhattan trial.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The MAGA Republicans are trying to make the American people 
believe a false narrative, that being that Alvin Bragg, a State 
prosecutor, was somehow manipulated by Federal officials, 
Trump--excuse me, Biden officials, Justice Department, to 
prosecute and persecute Donald Trump. The fact that this 
Committee, the Judiciary Committee, is trying to get Americans 
to buy into this false narrative is concerning. Wouldn't you 
say so, Mr. Eisen?
    Ambassador Eisen. It is deeply concerning. It undermines 
Americans' faith in the rule of law, in the Department of 
Justice, which has been quite independent from President Biden. 
It is baseless. There is no evidence for it. It is debunked. It 
is a conspiracy theory. The Ranking Member just entered the 
proof into the record submitted by the Department of Justice. 
More proof. It is wrong.
    Mr. Johnson. So how does this kind of Federal placing of 
the thumb on a State institution, the Judiciary, the rule of 
law, the prosecution, the justice system of a State--how does 
it come across to State and local officials when the Federal 
Congress, when the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress, 
the House of Representatives is trying to bully them? What 
impact does that have?
    Ambassador Eisen. It doesn't come across well. Fortunately, 
DA Bragg, as he said he would during his campaign--he stated 
that he had--``I don't know where this investigation will go. I 
don't want to prejudge it.'' He maintained independence. I was 
there in court every day. There were no Federal prosecutors 
there calling the shots. They were strictly independent. It 
requires that courage and integrity.
    The pressure is felt on the part of State and local actors. 
Not all of them may show that same independence and they may 
knuckle under and not investigate. With Donald Trump promising 
to be a dictator starting on day one, that means to attack the 
rule of law. We need our State institutions to be stronger. 
That is the American idea of federalism, not to intimidate, 
threaten, or put the thumb on their scales.
    Mr. Johnson. So, when you talk about intimidating and 
threatening behavior by bullies, how does this translate into 
physical threats or the possibility thereof?
    Ambassador Eisen. Just look at the submissions that the DA 
made, or other prosecutors have made in response to this 
disinformation campaign, these attacks led by the former 
President. It opens the floodgates. Mr. Johnson, I don't need 
to tell you, like the we will be wild tweet opened the 
floodgates of January 6th. It is a clear and present danger to 
American democracy.
    Mr. Johnson. When it comes State prosecutions which depend 
on jurors like the 12 brave jurors in the case in New York, how 
do efforts like these that we are going through today affect 
States' abilities to procure juries and jurors to handle or to 
serve on cases in those jurisdictions?
    Ambassador Eisen. It creates a challenge in the--I was 
there also for the voir dire, the jury selection in the 
Manhattan election interference and cover-up trial and you had 
to get hundreds and hundreds of jurors. Half of them chose not 
to serve in part because right from the get-go in part because 
of this climate of intimidation. Several who were selected felt 
they couldn't do it.
    I do salute the jury though and the judge, and I will say 
the lawyers on both sides because they ran a courtroom together 
where those 12 jurors were able freely and fairly to weigh the 
evidence, apply the law to the facts, and find Donald Trump 
guilty without fear or favor.
    Mr. Johnson. Not one of those jurors has chosen to speak 
out, whereas you have had jurors in the Hunter Biden case who 
decided that case speak out. Why is that?
    Ambassador Eisen. They are very smart. It was one of the--I 
do juries for a living, and it was one of the most attentive, 
smartest, engaged, and plugged-in juries. It is smart that they 
are not stepping forward because of this climate of threats and 
harassment. Imagine if the former President were to recover the 
powers of the Oval Office and the Federal Government or if he 
could subvert his DOJ, as he sought to do, turning them on the 
legitimate election results of 2020. The level of intimidation 
that our State and local prosecutors and our jurors, everybody 
involved in the justice system would feel it.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    Ambassador Eisen. My apologies.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Eisen, I just want to make sure--you answered the 
Ranking Member and I want to make sure I heard it correctly, 
that you said President Trump's interference in the 2016 
election.
    Ambassador Eisen. Correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is that correct?
    Ambassador Eisen. That is correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. That he interfered in the 2016 election?
    Ambassador Eisen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. Really quickly, how so?
    Ambassador Eisen. The jury unanimously found in the 
Manhattan case that former President Trump had committed 34 
felony violations of document falsification.
    Mr. Tiffany. You weren't referring to anything else?
    Ambassador Eisen. No, no, no. That is not true. That is 
disin-formation, sir.
    Ms. Tiffany. Yes.
    Ambassador Eisen. To find that they were charged with 
election interference. The underlying crime that made that a 
felony, not a misdemeanor was election interference. Same 
pattern as 2020.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is all about election interference in 
2016 also?
    Ms. Foley, so we heard from the gentleman that is to your 
right that--he said that the DOJ should be viewed as above 
reproach because, look, they prosecuted the President's son. A 
year ago, weren't they cutting a sweetheart deal? Do you recall 
the details of that?
    Ms. Foley. Yes, they were basically just going to let him 
walk for all of them. They already allowed statutes of 
limitations to expire on multiple of the more serious felonies.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, how did that happen that we actually may 
get justice in that case?
    Ms. Foley. Well, look you are right.
    Mr. Tiffany. Wasn't it the judge--that threw out the 
sweetheart deal?
    Mrs. Foley. Yes, you had the judge in Delaware that threw 
out the sweetheart deal, yes. Then, I guess there was egg on 
the Biden Administration's face, so they felt like they had to 
do something, so they pursued these current charges, the gun 
charges and the tax charges. Did they reach the right result? I 
assume so. I didn't follow that trial very much. I think there 
will be an interesting question as to whether the President 
commutes his son's sentence, so we will see.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, also, the gentleman next to you referred 
to--under questioning he said this trial was and jury was 
scrupulously fair. It was outstanding. There was nothing 
unusual. Care to comment on that? You can start with nothing 
unusual.
    Ms. Foley. Well again, I am not blaming the jury here. I 
think the poison came from the behavior of the prosecutors 
hiding the ball and then Judge Merchan giving a cafeteria style 
approach where nonunanimity was allowed on the underlying means 
by which the New York election was violated. I think those are 
clear due process violations. So, it is not the juries' fault. 
They just had junk to work with, so to speak. I was going to 
use another word, but I probably shouldn't.
    Mr. Tiffany. It is almost enough to shock the conscience, 
huh?
    Ms. Foley. It is almost enough, yes. It shocks me. I don't 
know about yours, but--
    Mr. Tiffany. I believe it is correct, and I can be 
corrected on this if I am wrong, but I believe the judge 
contributed to President Biden, the judge in this case. Is that 
common for a case that has a real nexus that the judge would 
contribute and then not recuse?
    Ms. Foley. I have never seen a case like that. Usually, a 
lawyer feels pretty confident if he finds out that the judge 
has overtly expressed preference for one party or another. 
Political contributions to the Biden Administration would seem 
to fit that bill given the political overtones of this case, 
right? This was not an ordinary State prosecution. This was a 
State prosecution that if successful--even though it had been 
turned down at every other level to even proceed as a 
prosecution, if it proved successful it would basically 
interfere with the 2024 Presidential election and possibly 
could not--that interference could not be remedied, could not 
be rectified until after the election. So, it is slam, dunk, 
2024 election interference.
    Mr. Tiffany. It is almost reminiscent of Jack Smith and 
Governor McDonald in Virginia, isn't it?
    Ms. Foley. Right. He got his you-know-what handed to him by 
the Supreme Court on that one.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. I want to get a question into Attorney 
General Bailey here.
    Talk about the overall chilling effect in regard to this. 
In fact, I believe it was Governor Hochul after this charge 
happened went on media in New York and said, ``hey, don't 
worry, this isn't--we are not coming after the rest of the 
businesspeople. This is just Donald Trump.'' Talk about the 
impact of something like this for the long run in the rule of 
law.
    Mr. Bailey. The Constitution is our national identity. 
Those rights codified therein come from God, not man and the 
document is intended to protect us from the government. Yet, 
what we seen time and time again is the government weaponized 
against individuals. It is President Trump today. Who will it 
be tomorrow? That is the problem.
    I think that when you look at the due process issues 
contained in the charging document, ultimately in the jury 
instructions, you look at the inchoate nature of the offenses 
with these ill-defined levels of insinuation, it is as if 
invisible links of chain are necessary to connect the facts to 
criminal liability. It causes the jury to turn into a roving 
commission free to pursue the--whatever facts they want to 
attach liability as they please. The issue there is it 
undermines the rule of law for the rest of us. Who can have 
confidence that we know what is and isn't illegal behavior when 
the court and the prosecutor impanel a roving commission to 
attack a political opponent?
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Schiff. I want to begin by quoting the jury in the 
Manhattan hush money payment trial. ``Guilty, guilty, guilty, 
guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, 
guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, 
guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, 
guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty.'' This 
was what the jury pronounced unanimously on every count.
    My Republican colleagues don't really contest Donald 
Trump's guilt. This is the fascinating thing. Their argument is 
essentially he should he never have been prosecuted, or they 
falsely claim it was a political prosecution, or they falsely 
claim it should have been a misdemeanor, not a felony. They 
don't contest, not really, that Donald Trump was making hush 
money payments to a porn star to hide their affair from voters.
    What they are really saying is they are more than 
comfortable electing, nominating and electing as the President 
of the United States someone making hush money payments to a 
porn star. The party formerly of the moral majority is now I 
suppose hoping to fashion some kind of immoral majority to 
reinstate Donald Trump as President.
    The Presidency, the most powerful office in the world, and 
not the most powerful because of the size of our military, but 
because of the power of our ideas. What is the animating idea 
of a Trump Presidency? It is dictatorship. It is power at all 
costs. This is also tragically the animating idea of the 
Republicans on this Committee. Power at all costs. What else 
can explain what it would profit them to give up their 
political soul but a world of power?
    Ambassador Eisen, I want to ask Historian Eisen a question. 
Is there any period of our history that sheds light on what we 
are going through today? Have we ever seen one party or the 
other so completely abandon oath to the Constitution, 
commitment to truth, commitment to decency, so willing to tear 
down the rule of law, our institutions, our justice system, 
anything that gets in the way of power? Have we ever seen 
anything like this?
    Ambassador Eisen. Three periods come to mind, Mr. Schiff.
    (1) The first is the founding period, and in particular the 
ferment between the Articles of Confederation and the 
Constitution when the Founders and the Framers--famously the 
Federalist Papers passage, you know well, worried about that in 
the period of instability a tyrant would arise. That was 
resolved by one of the fortunate accidents, not just in 
American history, but I dare say in the history of the world, 
George Washington's establishing the tradition of peaceful 
transition that Donald Trump ultimately broke for the first 
time in our history.
    (2) The Civil War period when we had those within who also 
proclaimed that they would not accept American rule of law.
    (3) That period of divisiveness is also found in the post-
Civil War area--Era, the decline of Reconstruction. That 
assault on our Constitutional system that became the Jim Crow 
Era.
    Those are three precedents.
    We see other dangers including here in Congress, the period 
of McCarthyism. Donald Trump represents the most grave danger 
to this country at least since the end of Jim Crow, very likely 
since the commencement of the Civil War and perhaps since the 
founding of our Nation from within.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Ambassador.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Chair Jordan.
    There is an amazing construction of some kind of crime 
here, but when we dig down to the bottom of it and try to find 
out what the underlying crime is, I don't think that has been 
discussed enough, or what the supposed underlying crime is. One 
of the propositions was that hush money should be reported as a 
campaign finance expense.
    OK. If somebody pays their attorney to seal divorce records 
because they may be going to run for office or they are running 
for office, Mr. Trainor, is that a campaign finance expense? Is 
that something you see on the campaign finance reports?
    Mr. Trainor. That is not. It is something that you would 
see--legal fees are often reported, and it has been the 
tradition at the commission in looking at those legal fees that 
we don't question what the attorney/client privilege between 
the candidates and the lawyer of what is needed in those 
particular circumstances.
    Mr. Massie. So, let me use another example. In 1999, Bill 
and Hilary Clinton bought a house in New York, obviously 
influenced the election of the Senate race there in New York 
because they moved into the house so that she could run for 
Senate. Is that a campaign finance expense? Is everything that 
could influence a campaign a campaign finance expense?
    Mr. Trainor. Well, under Mr. Bragg's interpretation it 
would be, but under normal campaign finance law it would not 
be. There are distinct similarities here between the John 
Edwards prosecution in 2008, where he paid over $1 million to 
his mistress to keep her quiet and was prosecuted by the 
Department of Justice for that and was ultimately acquitted on 
one count and had a mistrial on all five counts because the 
jury was given a correct charge as to what the Federal law was. 
In this particular case, the jury was given an incorrect jury 
charge as to what the law is, and they come out with a 
completely opposite ruling.
    Mr. Massie. I asked my campaign finance treasurer if I 
could pay my wife $10,000; she has got more dirt on me than 
anybody else, and then report that as a campaign finance 
expense. He is very fastidious. He manages the finances of at 
least a dozen different campaigns. He looked at me like I was 
crazy. Yet, isn't that sort of the same theory that Alvin Bragg 
had here, that something like that could be reported as a 
campaign finance expense?
    Mr. Trainor. It is very similar to what happened here.
    Mr. Massie. So, Congress has paid over $17 million in hush 
money for sexual misconduct inside of the offices in these 
buildings. What is more is that was taxpayer money, right? The 
allegation is that President Trump paid $130,000 of his own 
money, but here in Congress we have--there may be some on this 
dais--I am for turning loose all these records. Who in here has 
had the taxpayer pay for their sexual misconduct charges, the 
hush money? I bet there are some over there. There may be some 
over here. I don't know. I do know it is taxpayer money. I do 
know not a single penny of it has been turned in as a campaign 
finance expense. Is the FEC going to investigate the $17 
million that Congress has paid to settle behind-closed-doors--
these sexual misconduct allegations?
    Mr. Trainor. Congressman, if a complaint were to come to us 
about it, I am sure it would be thoroughly investigated.
    Mr. Massie. I might file one because it seems like anybody 
could do this.
    Let me just ask this: Is this verdict going to be vacated? 
Attorney General Bailey, what do you think?
    Mr. Bailey. It absolutely should be.
    Mr. Massie. On what grounds?
    Mr. Bailey. Numerous grounds. I think the five grounds I 
laid out in my opening statement provide sufficient 
justification to undermine the credibility of the conviction. I 
think there are additional grounds as well. I think that the 
Constitutional violations, the due process violations, the jury 
unanimity, the Sixth Amendment problem alone. The gag order is 
violative of the First Amendment. I mean, the prosecutorial 
misconduct. Those are--the conviction of replete with legal 
error.
    Mr. Massie. Ms. Foley, do you think this is going to 
vacated, this verdict?
    Ms. Foley. I do. I think eventually it is going to be 
reversed based on legal grounds rather than mixed questions of 
facts and law. So, some of the evidentiary issues, some of the 
bias issues I think they are more difficult to win on appeal 
because the Appellate Courts owe deference on these evidentiary 
determinations of trial judges. Bias is very difficult to win 
on appeal because the judge has so much latitude in deciding 
whether to recuse himself.
    That is why the due process errors are so critical here 
because obviously due process errors are questions of law, and 
they get de novo standard of appellate review. The Appellate 
Courts owe absolutely no deference whatsoever.
    Mr. Massie. So, the irony here is this is going to be 
vacated. This trial was all about trying to influence an 
election using the process as the punishment.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the record three 
documents. One is entitled ``FEC drops investigation into Trump 
hush payments.'' This is from three years ago.
    I would like to introduce a document ``Congress has paid 
$17 million in sexual misconduct and discrimination 
settlement.'' This was in Axios in 2017.
    My third and final document I would like to introduce is 
from CNN, ``Congress paid out $17 million in settlements. Here 
is why we know so little about that money.''
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Swalwell. Just a show of hands for anyone in the room 
who hung out with a felon today?
    Hey, guys, might want to get your hands up. You were 
hanging out with convicted felon Donald Trump. I don't think 
anyone on our side did. That's why we are here.
    Ambassador Eisen, what city did Donald Trump commit his 
crimes in?
    Ambassador Eisen. In New York City is where it all was.
    Mr. Swalwell. Where were the jurors drawn from for Donald 
Trump's trial?
    Ambassador Eisen. From Manhattan.
    Mr. Swalwell. Did Defendant Trump have a say in picking his 
jury?
    Ambassador Eisen. I was there for it. There was a vigorous 
voir dire. His defense counsel was extremely active and, I 
thought, effective.
    Mr. Swalwell. After that jury of his peers, his neighbors, 
deliberated they had to make 34 decisions. Twelve jurors, 34 
decisions.
    What did they say?
    Ambassador Eisen. They decided 34 times that Donald Trump 
falsified documents to cover up his 2016 criminal election 
interference scheme.
    Mr. Swalwell. Four hundred and eight straight times they 
said the word ``guilty.''
    Now, let's, let's transfer or fast forward to another trial 
that took place recently. The President's son Hunter Biden 
tried to plead. Was not able to do that.
    He was found guilty. Actually, I heard your side and Fox 
News celebrating the verdict. Celebrating the idea that a jury 
of his peers found him guilty. So, then when it hurts their 
guy, it is a rigged jury. When it hurts the President's son, we 
celebrate the jury.
    I want to talk a little bit about judicial bias because 
they suggested that there is a bias that occurred in this case.
    Ambassador Eisen, in Donald Trump's other case where he is 
alleged to have stolen national security secrets, who is the 
judge, who appointed the judge to the bench in the Southern 
Florida Federal case?
    Ambassador Eisen. Unlike the Special Counsel in the Hunter 
Biden prosecution, who is a Trump holdover, David Weiss, that 
was a last minute--referring back to our history--midnight 
appointment you can call it by Donald Trump of Judge Aileen 
Cannon.
    Mr. Swalwell. Are you kidding me? Donald Trump is 
complaining about bias in his case, and he is on trial for 
stealing national security documents with a judge that he 
appointed? That is interesting.
    I didn't hear any of you all talking about that.
    Let's talk about the Supreme Court who is deciding whether 
he has absolute immunity and can send the Navy SEALS to kill 
any of his opponents, as he alleges in his arguments that he 
can do.
    One judge is flying an insurrection flag in solidarity with 
the insurrection on January 6th that tried to overturn Donald 
Trump's loss in the 2020 election.
    Another judge's wife was at the President's speech on 
January 6th right before the insurrection occurred.
    Ambassador Eisen, I want to talk about now that he is a 
convicted felon, declared 408 times guilty by his neighbors, 
are convicted felons allowed to hold a security clearance?
    Ambassador Eisen. No.
    Mr. Swalwell. Are convicted felons allowed to serve in the 
military?
    Ambassador Eisen. No.
    Mr. Swalwell. Are convicted felons allowed to visit most 
countries?
    Ambassador Eisen. There is a long list of countries they 
cannot visit.
    Mr. Swalwell. Typically, the terms of probation for a 
convicted felon, do they allow you to hang out with other 
felons?
    Ambassador Eisen. That is prohibited. There are other 
prohibitions, such as gun ownership.
    Mr. Swalwell. That is probably going to be a problem if 
your friends are criminals like Paul Manafort, who is Donald 
Trump's former campaign manager; Vice Chair of the campaign 
Rick Gates; aide to the campaign and convicted felon Roger 
Stone; former White House aide, also convicted, Peter Navarro; 
Steve Bannon, also a convict on his way to jail soon; former 
National Security Advisor, also a convict, Michael Flynn; and 
his accountant Allen Weisselberg, currently in custody right 
now.
    This is the person who you all chose to hang out with this 
morning, delaying the original start time of our hearing, 
because rather than getting work done for people who need us to 
work, you chose a felon over helping families.
    We are going to flip that, and we are going to choose 
families over felons.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Massie. Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Kentucky.
    Mr. Massie. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
    Ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article 
in Open Secrets that says that Ambassador Eisen bundled between 
$200,000 and $500,000 to the Obama campaign. Sounds like he's 
an ambassadonor not an ambassador.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    Ambassador Eisen, a quick question. Is the Biden campaign 
guilty of interference in the 2020 election?
    Ambassador Eisen. No.
    Mr. Roy. Did President Biden say repeatedly and did the 
Biden Administration repeatedly declare the Hunter Biden laptop 
Russian disinformation?
    Ambassador Eisen. I am not an authority on the statements 
or on the laptop--
    Mr. Roy. I mean, come on. Come on. Was that not repeatedly 
stated by the President of the United States and the 
President's campaign?
    For example, did President Biden not say in a debate, Look. 
There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that 
what he is accusing you of is a Russian plan. They have said 
this has all the characteristics. Four, five former heads of 
the CIA, both parties, what he is saying is a bunch of garbage. 
Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani 
together and talk about it.
    That, was that not a central feature of the campaign in 
2020 by President Biden?
    Ambassador Eisen. I do think it is very important to 
distinguish between the vigorous debate that we have seen here 
today, extremely vigorous, and a violation of election law.
    Mr. Roy. Was Hunter Biden, was Hunter Biden convicted this 
week based on evidence contained in that laptop?
    Ambassador Eisen. In part, yes.
    Mr. Roy. Yes.
    Hunter Biden was convicted this week on information that 
was brought out from that laptop which President Biden and his 
campaign repeatedly referred to as disinformation in the 2020 
campaign. So, the former President is or is not guilty or is, 
or is not engaged in activity that could be described as 
election interference?
    Ambassador Eisen. There is a difference between falsifying 
documents to cover up and a scheme to interfere--
    Mr. Roy. Let's talk about that.
    Mr. Eisen. --with an election by--if I may finish my 
sentence?
    Mr. Roy. No, no, no, it is my time. Let me ask--
    Ambassador Eisen. There is a difference between breaking 
the law and political debate.
    Mr. Roy. Let me ask you this.
    OK. So, let me ask you this question. What is the first 
date of a crime that is alleged to have been committed by 
President Trump, the actual date of the crime?
    Ambassador Eisen. The date of the initial crimes was when 
the conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 election was formed 
in August 2015, at Trump Tower when David Pecker, an 
independent witness testified that he, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Trump 
agreed on a conspiracy to violate New York law.
    Mr. Roy. Was it not the crime that Alvin Bragg alleged 
first committed was on February 14, 2017?
    Ambassador Eisen. That is when the--
    Mr. Roy. The actual crime?
    Ambassador Eisen. That is when the coverup occurred.
    Mr. Roy. Was that not--
    Ambassador Eisen. That is a different element of the crime.
    Mr. Roy. Was that not the actual crime? The conspiracy 
began in August 2015.
    The fact of the matter is, and for what? Are NDAs illegal?
    Ambassador Eisen. When an NDA is used to facilitate an 
illegal campaign contribution, over $127,000 in excess of the 
legal limits, yes. It is a means.
    Mr. Roy. Well, as the gentleman--
    Ambassador Eisen. It is an unlawful means.
    Mr. Roy. As the gentleman from Kentucky just pointed out, 
the absurdity of that assertion is plain, based on what he was 
just making in his case.
    The fact is, you have in February 2017, well after the 2016 
election, the first crime that is even referenced in what the 
District Attorney Bragg was doing.
    I would just ask, Mr. Trainor, do you see the problem here 
in terms of the timing?
    Then, can you add an element here in my last minute on the 
extent to which the FEC and the, importantly, the Department of 
Justice, as you alluded to in your testimony, failed to pursue 
this, or not failed, chose not to pursue this?
    Mr. Trainor. Thank you, Congressman.
    The Department of Justice investigated this very 
vigorously. In fact, they asked the Federal Election Commission 
to abate our proceedings for over a year for them to go in and 
investigate this. They investigated all the individuals 
involved in all the money that was being talked about in this 
idea that there was some sort of conspiracy.
    They took it to a Grand Jury and got nothing back from it. 
The only reason that they ultimately concluded to prosecute was 
Mr. Cohen was because he admitted to a crime in a plea deal.
    Then, they bundled all that back up and shifted over to the 
FEC and said, here you go, guys. Your statute of limitations is 
run, you can't investigate anything either.
    Mr. Roy. I see my time has expired.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] The gentlelady from North Carolina 
is recognized for five minutes now.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to 
everybody for being here to testify.
    While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
leveling claims of a partisan prosecution, I am from North 
Carolina, as you just heard, I want to remind the Committee 
that this is not the first time that a former Presidential 
candidate has been indicted for having hush money paid to hide 
an affair from voters.
    Last time in my memory that this happened it was a Democrat 
who was indicted. The charges were brought by a Republican 
Federal prosecutor, George Holding, who, weeks after filing 
those charges resigned to run for the same seat in Congress 
that I now hold. That was in 2011.
    Federal prosecutors charged John Edwards, a former Senator 
from North Carolina, and two time Presidential candidate, for 
soliciting nearly one million dollars from donors, including 
Bunny Mellon, to keep details of his relationship with his 
mistress, with whom he had fathered a child, from coming to 
light.
    Now, while Edwards' defense team argued that his 
prosecution was politically motivated, the Obama Justice 
Department defended the charges, even though they had 
originated with a Republican prosecutor, arguing that the 
Administration had a duty to prevent candidates for high office 
from abusing their power to subvert the integrity of democratic 
elections.
    Now, as you heard earlier, in 2012, a North Carolina jury 
found Edwards not guilty of one count of receiving illegal 
campaign donations, and deadlocked on the other charges.
    I followed the Edwards hush money case, and I also followed 
the Trump hush money case. I don't know how you couldn't have. 
I am confident that if the prosecutors in the Edwards case had 
the type of evidence that the prosecutors in the Trump case 
presented, we would have seen a very different verdict for John 
Edwards.
    The evidence that the prosecutors in the Trump case had was 
the type of evidence that prosecutors dream of finding: A paper 
trail of emails and bank records, a slate of insider witnesses, 
and even recordings of Trump himself discussing the payment.
    So, I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle that these charges against Mr. Trump are not 
unprecedented or baseless, that the verdict is not, as one of 
my colleagues on this Committee recently claimed, comparable to 
the injustice against Black Americans during the Jim Crow era. 
That is disgusting.
    Most importantly, this was not lawyers with the Manhattan 
D.A.'s office or the Department of Justice that convicted Trump 
of these crimes, it was a jury, unanimously, 34 times, and 
quickly
    So, Ambassador Eisen, I would like to ask you, why is it 
important for democracy that Presidents or Presidential 
candidates, no matter what party they come from, be accountable 
for their crimes and not be held to be above the law?
    Ambassador Eisen. Ms. Ross, it is the fundamental American 
idea. We were speaking earlier of the proud history of our 
country, with all our challenges over the centuries. We 
overthrew a system and a king, George III, where one man was 
above the law. In his place we put the Constitution and the 
founding American principle no one is above the law.
    If Donald Trump, as the jury unanimously found, 12 of his 
peers, covered up 2016 conduct of a pattern that we saw again 
in 2020, and we see him limbering up for in 2024, then he 
deserves to be found guilty. If 10,000 other cases, 
approximately, in New York since 2015 have resulted in 
prosecutions, he should not be held to a different standard 
when he falsifies business records to cover up another crime.
    That is what America is. That is why this verdict was so 
important.
    Ms. Ross. Again, Ambassador Eisen, do you think that the 
Obama Administration was correct in not interfering in the John 
Edwards prosecution?
    Ambassador Eisen. I do.
    You correctly point out that case relied on the testimony 
of a former campaign aide, Mr. Young and his wife Cheri. Weak 
witnesses, contrary to what we saw in New York. Witness after 
witness, document after document, an overwhelming factual and 
legal case that will withstand appellate review.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Eisen, what you just stated is so utterly 
and completely absurd it is almost impossible to even respond 
to it.
    This case will be reversed on appeal. The level of 
egregious reversible error that was demonstrated by this judge 
and by the prosecutors is absolutely off the charts. I have 
never in my entire career seen anything even close to it. I 
think you recognize that. I think the vast majority of the 
American people recognize that.
    I really want to focus on the equal protection and due 
process issues that are so clearly evident here. The fact, Mr. 
Eisen, that you keep going back to 2016 and what occurred in 
2016 is extremely important from that standpoint.
    Ms. Foley, is there a due process and equal protection 
aspect to statutes of limitations?
    Ms. Foley. Well, statute of limitations can be, I guess, 
evaded I suppose, in ways that could violate due process or 
equal protection.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, in fact in this circumstance that is 
what you see. We have got a situation where the alleged crime 
was committed in 2016, and they had to bootstrap it to 
something that occurred years later to try to resurrect what 
was really a dead case.
    The way that I looked at statutes of limitations as someone 
who practiced law for well over 30 years is that people have 
memory issues. That is why there is a statute of limitations. 
Do you remember what you were doing on June 13th seven years 
ago or four years ago? I am sure Mr. Ambassador cannot.
    There are statute of limitations because trying to drag 
somebody before a tribunal 5, 7, 10, 12, and 15 years down the 
road, by its very definition, especially if we are talking 
about a potential criminal prosecution where someone is going 
to lose their freedom, do we really want someone getting up and 
being able to say 25 years ago I was attacked in a dressing 
room? I have no evidence. Can't tell you anything about it. 
Don't even know what day of the week it was. Don't know what 
month. Don't know what year. For goodness' sakes, we know what 
happened.
    So, we have the State of New York, and they come in and 
they pass a law saying, well, we are not going to have a 
statute of limitations for this particular crime or this 
particular individual. Wouldn't that be considered a violation 
of this gentleman's due process rights?
    Mr. Trainor. Yes, I think it is part of the overall context 
which, again, kind of shows the political motivation, the 
uniqueness of this case.
    The Ambassador Eisen talks about the 10,000 cases. Well, I 
have read most of those cases, too. None of them approach the 
uniqueness of this case and the obfuscation of the theory here.
    For example, usually the underlying offense that is 
intended to be committed is grand larceny, grand larceny, grand 
larceny, insurance fraud, and things like that; very 
straightforward facts. By making the underlying offense here 
Federal--New York election law, which itself required proof of 
unlawful means, which then hinged on FECA, tax laws, 
falsification of business records, it just got more, and more, 
and more unclear exactly what Mr. Trump was being charged with.
    Ms. Hageman. Intimidating.
    So, all these facts suggest that there is a shock to the 
conscience due process violation here, in addition to the 
notice problems I have pointed out.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, and I think that there is the due 
process issue but, Mr. Bailey, let's turn to you and let's talk 
about the equal protection aspect of it.
    As you have just described Ms. Foley, this is one case 
against one man for one purpose. In fact, the Governor of the 
State of New York has said, ``look, everybody, don't worry. 
Don't worry, we are not coming after you for these kinds of 
fraud claims, we are just going after Donald Trump.''
    Isn't that the antithesis, the antithesis of the foundation 
of our Constitution that is based on equal protection and equal 
application of the law? Have you ever seen anything like they 
have done to Donald Trump in their effort to destroy who they 
perceive to be their political enemy, Mr. Bailey?
    Mr. Bailey. I have never seen such an egregious assault on 
the tenets of equal protection as when government officials in 
the State of New York claim that they are specifically 
targeting one individual and will not use the same laws against 
anyone else.
    I want to go back to the due process issue briefly, because 
everything that is being said here is further amplified by the 
fact that Section 1.7--175.10 of the Code of the State of New 
York, which forms the basis of the 34 charges, has an 
affirmative defense that requires the defendant to get a 
preponderance of the evidence.
    How can he go get his evidence if you bring the claims 
late?
    The Statute of limitations are intended to prevent 
sandbagging of claims.
    Ms. Hageman. Exactly right.
    In this particular circumstance and what we have seen in 
the other persecutions against Donald Trump, they absolutely 
had to violate those basic tenets to go after him.
    It is absolutely an egregious violation of the law. It is a 
level of Constitutional malpractice the likes of which I have 
never seen.
    Ambassador Eisen, I think that if you were being honest you 
would agree with that.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to address two sets of things. One is the repeated 
claim, it is a mantra at this point, about Mr. Bragg vowing to 
go after President Trump, campaigning on going after President 
Trump, leaving out all the campaign promises to get Trump.
    I got to say that I haven't heard anybody specifically 
quote anything about it, except the Chair's quote. I wanted, we 
have been trying to dig this up and see what the factual basis 
is for that reputed allegation because it is very relevant.
    The point about some of you have been saying that this is 
sort of issue No. 1 with respect to proof that this is a 
political prosecution that was inappropriate. As I went through 
all the facts, I kept seeing him say that he wanted to follow 
the facts.
    Now, the quote that the Chair lifted, I have seen him up 
front and seen the lawlessness that he could do, well, that was 
in the context of the 100 prosecutions that had come through 
the State Attorney General's Office. In one instance, leading 
to a $2 million settlement against the Trump Corporation for 
fraud, along the lines of the corporate finding that is $470 
million that has resulted in?
    Then, there is also the sexual assault finding as well in a 
separate court.
    The point that Bragg was making was that he's dealt with 
these cases frequently. He was questioned about this over and 
over again during the campaign. He made statements along the 
lines of these:

        I believe we have to hold him accountable. I haven't seen all 
        the facts beyond the public, but I have litigated it with him, 
        and so I am prepared to go where the facts take me once I see 
        them and hold him accountable.

Another quote during the same interview that the Chair 
referenced:

        You're right. I am being careful, not just because I'm running 
        for office but because every case has to be judged by the 
        facts, and I don't know all the facts.

Another quote, again from Mr. Bragg in a different interview:

        I'll hold him accountable by following the facts where they go.

    Over and over again, he said that he would follow the facts 
and follow the law in reaching his decision about making a 
determination to prosecute or not.
    Another interview after that, this is asking about whether 
he had the ability to prosecute these cases, which is where he 
referenced his prior experience dealing with Mr. Trump and his 
corporations. He said, ``But without talking about what we 
don't know, which is where this is headed, the facts that 
aren't in the public domain.''
    The questioner followed up, ``You can't talk about that?''
    Bragg responded, ``I can't talk about that.''
    He said over, over, and over again that he wanted to follow 
the facts and that he hadn't reached a conclusion about where 
he was going to go. He did reference the previous cases against 
Mr. Trump, and they are legion, and the subsequent cases as 
well.
    I think over, over, and over again he made it clear that he 
had not made a decision about whether to prosecute or not, and 
he hadn't predetermined what he was going to do.
    Really quick. I am running out of time. Professor Foley, 
you raised the issue of the defense being blindsided, 
essentially, by not knowing what the legal theory of the case 
was. In your testimony, written and that you stated today, you 
quoted the response in the people's response to the bill of 
particulars, No. 2.
    You left out a key part of the quote. So, when I took a 
look at it after Ambassador Eisen referenced it, we got a copy 
of it, you quoted page 5. I flipped over to page 6, and it lays 
out bullet points about the specifics of what is going to be 
pursued, and they are bringing it to the attention of the 
offense.

      An agreement on lawfully suppressing negative stories 
about the Defendant before an election to influence the outcome of the 
election.

      Multiple false statements in the business records.

I will skip down.

      Disguising reimbursement payments by doubling them and 
falsely characterizing them as income for tax reasons.

    Now, you also stated that the first time they knew the 
theory of the case was when jury instructions were read. So, I 
looked at your testimony where you quote the jury instructions. 
Guess what? It mentions all the same things that were 
referenced in the bullet points.
    Election, the law was violated. Federal election law, which 
is No. 2. Falsification of other business records. Three, 
violation of tax laws.
    Professor, well, Ambassador, we are running out of time, 
but I guess I was a little surprised based on your testimony 
when you said that they hadn't given any indication of where 
they were going to go beyond broad references to Federal 
election law, tax law, and the like, when the specific bullet 
points in the bill of particulars response were the same as the 
ones that are referenced in the jury instructions according to 
you written testimony.
    Chair Jordan. Time.
    Mr. Ivey. I see my time has expired. I yield back to the 
Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think Ambassador Eisen was referring to the importance of 
a vibrant rule of law for our democracy. Actually, have 
Constitutional Republic not pure democracy to survive. 
Interestingly enough, when talking about intimidations, 
threatening, and disinformation I would say I am not an 
attorney.
    I am actually a CPA. I have been involved with finance for 
a very long time. I think a lot of Americans should be 
intimidated and worried if they pay bill to attorney and put it 
legal expense, and they can have 34 felony counts for that. 
That is true intimidation. That is the truth of what the law 
is.
    So, that would make anybody very nervous.
    Just talking about 2016, Ambassador, you made statements 
about interference in elections.
    What do you think from your perspective to have Department 
of Justice under President Obama at that time, and you are 
probably familiar with the Durham Report, rushing through 
closing the case for Hillary Clinton without doing any proper 
investigation. Then rushing through to have Russian collusion 
folks against Trump without even vetting any of the 
information. It turned out to be all lies; right? We have a 
report on that.
    So, do you think from your perspective--and then colluding 
to cover up with media like Politico now that want to cover up 
the story. Doesn't it seem like that could be looking like 
interference in election in 2016?
    Ambassador Eisen. No, Ms. Spartz, I don't believe that. 
There was ample evidence to predicate that investigation, 
including the polling data that was passed from Trump Campaign 
Manager Paul Manafort--
    Mrs. Spartz. Yes, but like--
    Ambassador Eisen. To Konstantin Kilimnik--
    Ms. Spartz. No, you just like act you had a report. So, you 
think the Special Prosecutor did not do a good job, that he 
lied in the report? He actually concluded in his report that 
the FBI didn't do its job and it was outrageous. He was 
outraged, what is happening in FBI.
    Ambassador Eisen. He did a--
    Ms. Spartz. It seems strange. Let's go further. The same 
situation with Hunter Biden. In 2020, the same media, political 
reporters, have the story that actually was 50 security, this 
National Security form advisors, that print a story that Hunter 
Biden laptop doesn't exist and give legs to that story and all 
media go that. He is talking the debate.
    This is all former the Department of Justice employees. 
Then, it is going to the election President Biden is a 
candidate at the time using it to cover up and say oh, it 
doesn't exist.
    We know it exists. Doesn't it look strange to you?
    Ambassador Eisen. The Biden Department of Justice empowered 
a Trump holdover U.S. Attorney, David Weiss, to prosecute 
Hunter using--
    Ms. Spartz. No, but I am just saying--
    Ambassador Eisen. The laptop--
    Ms. Spartz. --about laptop--
    Ambassador Eisen. It is the exact opposite--
    Ms. Spartz. --the laptop story--
    Ambassador Eisen. It is an affirmation of the way the rule 
of law works.
    Ms. Spartz. In 2020, doesn't it look strange that this 
appeared before the election and they have disinformation 
campaign, the same political reporters that do it again? 
Doesn't it seem awful strange to you? Doesn't it seem like? It 
is not interference at all.
    I am not going to probably get an answer because you do 
have a double standard. We do have a double standard. Our 
system of justice is broken. That is why Americans are 
intimidated, and they are worried about not existing of the 
rule of law.
    Because we have a rule of law that working to protect now 
the Department of Justice, to protect people that they like. 
This is a political prosecution.
    I am not going into details about the case, but it would be 
intimated for Americans, and it would be very oppressive and 
tyrannical. I couldn't believe, as an American who grew up in 
tyrannical country, that we would be sitting here and the 
system of media collusion with our justice system.
    I think that is very, very sad, and I am very disappointed 
that you cannot tell the truth here. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Would you--the gentlelady yield? The 
gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Spartz. I yield, I yield.
    Chair Jordan. Ms. Foley, Mr. Ivey basically said what you 
told the Committee about the jury instructions, he disagreed 
with that strongly, and but was going to let Mr. Eisen answer 
you. So, I want you to be able to answer for yourself.
    Ms. Foley. Well, thank you, I appreciate that. Yes, that is 
sort of the bait and switch that was going on here. The stuff 
that he talked about on the prosecutor's response was a 
response, and then he flipped the page and saw some of the 
details.
    That is all the response that talks about the first 
predicate, which makes the falsification of business records a 
felony offense. All that information is about this first 
predicate.
    The interesting this is that all that detail on the page 
that he flipped ended up having nothing to do with the first 
predicate for the second predicate, which was the basis for the 
New York election law offense. So, all that detail was useless, 
because all that detail was about this and not this.
    In fact, we didn't even know this was necessary until the 
judge instructed the jury about this New York election.
    Chair Jordan. That is the point.
    Ms. Foley. Right.
    Chair Jordan. That is the point.
    The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from 
Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today. It is 
interesting being here, I will say that. Sixty-two minutes late 
starting what is a faux hearing about the New York DA.
    Chair Jordan. Would the gentlelady just--I apologize, I 
don't like--I think the Attorney General has to leave?
    Mr. Bailey. Yes, thank you, Mr.--
    Chair Jordan. Are you going to pose any questions to the 
Attorney General?
    Ms. Dean. I don't think so, Mr. Bailey.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, we will pause her time, certainly give 
her all her time. I can give you full five minutes back, so you 
can.
    We thank you for being here. I should have pointed out 
earlier we have been at this for a while. If anybody needs a 
break, just obviously let us know.
    I apologize to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. You get 
your full five minutes.
    Ms. Dean. Thanks, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bailey, for your 
participation today.
    Here we are. Mr. Eisen, I think I am going to start with 
you.
    Before I came to Congress, and you might know this about me 
because you and I had the chance to work together on 
impeachment one. As you remember part of a phone call where 
then-President Trump said to a brand-new President Zelenskyy, 
``I will need you to do me a favor, though.'' I had the 
privilege of working with you then.
    I was a teacher before I got here. I know I have told you 
that many times. I told my students you need to convey your 
thoughts with clarity, integrity, honesty, with the facts, not 
misinformation or disinformation.
    We have heard so many outlandish claims in this Committee 
and all over the Hill, sadly, in service of one man. So, I am 
going to, if you permit me--and I am going to give you some 
time, I know there are some things you want to address. If you 
permit me, I will go back to my old professor days, not that I 
did this.
    A little pop quiz, help me correct the record, if you don't 
mind. Here we go. It is about the claims around our 
institutions.
    (1) Donald Trump referring to the 2016 Presidential 
election claimed, ``I won the popular vote if you deduct the 
millions of people who voted illegally.''
    (2) Mr. Eisen, Ambassador Eisen, was that statement that 
millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 Presidential 
election true or false?
    Ambassador Eisen. Like 30,000, over 30,000 other statements 
that the former President has made, false.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    (3) Donald Trump in 2019 referring to the free press, 
claimed, ``Truly they are the enemy of the people.'' Ambassador 
Eisen, is the press the enemy of the people, true or false?
    Ambassador Eisen. Under the First Amendment of the 
Constitution and the proudest traditions, the Fourth EState is 
the pillar of American people, the friend of the American 
experiment. False.
    Ms. Dean. (4) In November and December 2020, Mr. Trump 
claimed, ``I won this election by A LOT, and this fake election 
can no longer stand.'' Ambassador Eisen, did Trump win the 2020 
election?
    Ambassador Eisen. He lost fair and square, and the Big Lie 
that he won is one of the most heinous and dangerous falsehoods 
in our history as a Nation.
    Ms. Dean. That is actually at the crux of this. I was going 
to make that extra credit, was it a fake election. Without 
being flip, you said it much more eloquently.
    (5) Marjorie Taylor Greene, referring to the search at Mar-
a-Lago, claimed, ``The Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to 
assassinate Pres. Trump and gave the green light.'' True or 
false, Ambassador?
    Ambassador Eisen. False. It is a--they were referring to a 
standard term of search warrants that you can also find in the 
search of President Biden's premises.
    Ms. Dean. Strange, thank you for that clarity.
    (6) Chair Jordan claimed District Attorney Alvin Bragg's 
criminal case against Donald Trump was a politically motivated 
prosecution. Ambassador Eisen, true or false?
    Ambassador Eisen. It was, as we say in the legal 
profession, a righteous case. The appeals will prove that. I 
have the receipts here with me to prove it.
    Ms. Dean. (7) Mr. Gaetz claimed Attorney General Garland 
dispatched Matthew Colangelo to prosecute Mr. Trump. Ambassador 
Eisen, is that true?
    Ambassador Eisen. The AG this week issued a letter, it is 
now in the record, definitively debunking that conspiracy 
theory. It is outlandish and false.
    Ms. Dean. In the time I have remaining, I would like to ask 
you, something I have been fighting here on this Committee what 
now feels like the entire 5\1/2\ years I have been on this 
Committee is the disinformation in service to one. In service 
to one who is now a convicted felon.
    It is so dangerous, and yet we hear from the other side of 
the aisle tearing down faith in our institutions, whether it is 
our electoral system, the Department of Justice, the FBI. Some 
on this Committee would like to defund the FBI and the ATF.
    They decry the fact that Americans' faith in our 
institutions is at the lowest low, as they make sure that is 
the reality. What comments do you have about the danger of 
disinformation and misinformation now?
    Ambassador Eisen. We are in a disinformation and a mis- and 
mal-information epidemic. I testified about it in my last visit 
before the Committee. I do have to point out one piece of 
incorrect information that we heard today, that this theory of 
the case was never put before Donald Trump until the closing of 
the jury.
    I have here--not only do we have the responsible 
particulars, but I also have the opposition to the motion to 
dismiss, November 9, 2023, putting forth--may I have the middle 
Russian doll, please?
    Ms. Dean. This one?
    Ambassador Eisen. Here is it. Look at the document. The 
Russian doll is in the document. Here it is, page 25. Please, 
these actions violated Election Law 17.152, conspire to promote 
the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, 
including FECA. The falsifying the records of other New York 
enterprises and--
    Mr. Massie. Remind the witness--
    Ambassador Eisen. Mischaracterizing the nature of the 
repayments for tax purposes.
    Mr. Massie. The witness cannot introduce documents into the 
record.
    Ambassador Eisen. May I? May?
    Mr. Massie. No, sorry.
    Ambassador Eisen. I didn't ask to introduce it.
    Mr. Massie. The gentlelady's--
    Ambassador Eisen. May I return the Russian doll?
    Ms. Dean. May I have unanimous consent?
    Mr. Massie. The gentlewoman is recognized for unanimous 
consent.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Eisen, for 
the demonstration.
    An unanimous consent please for, this is an article, ABC 
News, ``A Timeline of Donald Trump's Election Denial Claims, 
Which Republican Politicians Increasingly Embrace,'' ABC News.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Massie. Recognize the gentlelady for Vermont.
    Ms. Balint. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record ``People's Response to Defendant Donald J. Trump's April 
27 Request for a Bill of Particulars.''
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Now, recognize the gentleman from Oregon for five minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Professor Foley, do you want to respond to the rant we just 
heard?
    Ms. Foley. Yes, if I may have this back? OK. So, this 
opposition to the motion to dismiss, also and he gives one page 
out of context. That paragraph that he is pointing to, these 
actions also violated Election Law Section 17.152.
    In other words, it is just regurgitating exactly what they 
said in response to the requested bill of particulars that the 
underlying offense, the first predicate, could be one of four 
different statutes, all which are very, very different and do 
not provide adequate notice to a defendant.
    Because this is an element of the crime. You have to be 
specific about elements of the crime. That is what the court 
said in Schad.
    Mr. Bentz. So, if I may, thank you for that explanation.
    Ms. Foley. That is why there is a due process--
    Mr. Bentz. To your point, the complexities I think many 
times are a nuisance to those who disagree with you, Professor. 
So, thank you for the details that you share.
    Also, folks earlier on the other side of the aisle suggest 
that this hearing is not necessary because it was a State 
Court, and thus this Committee, being Congress, shouldn't be 
saying anything about it.
    Perhaps you could address that for just a second and 
explain why, in your opinion, you think the Federal Government 
should be concerned about what went on in Alvin Bragg's 
district.
    Ms. Foley. Well, I mean, look, as the Judiciary Committee--
and I assume the Oversight Committee also would have legitimate 
legislative purposes for looking into abuses of power by State 
prosecutors to violate anyone's Constitutional rights.
    That would include intimidation based on gag orders, First 
Amendment violations, due process violations, and equal 
protection violations. All the ones we have talked about are 
ripe for investigation by this Committee and others.
    Mr. Bentz. In fact, if we didn't, we would be derelict in 
our duty when we see a former President being drawn into this 
circumstance, we would have to ask ourselves to come on. So, 
thank you for that.
    Commissioner Trainor, same question to you. Is there a 
Federal reason for us to be looking at a State action such as 
what we observed in Manhattan?
    Mr. Trainor. Unquestionably there is a reason for this 
Committee to investigate this. It goes back to my opening 
statement, where I talked about the fact that the Department of 
Justice did not zealously represent the United States in this 
particular case to go in and defend the jurisdiction that this 
Congress has given through FECA to the Federal Election 
Commission and to the Department of Justice to prosecute those 
crimes.
    Instead, they abrogated that to a local official to 
prosecute.
    Mr. Bentz. Right, and the question would be, and quoting 
the professor from earlier today, to prevent the fractured 
application of the law and disparate justice, double, triple, 
and quadruple standards. This is what we are trying to avoid by 
bringing this issue up at this hearing. Is that correct?
    Mr. Trainor. Absolutely. You can't have 50 different 
standards of what violations of Federal election law. It would 
apply to every Member of this Committee, it would apply to 
Presidents, former Presidents.
    If we are allowed to investigate what goes on in campaign 
finance spending under the guise of how 50 different States 
interpret it, we will never have any equal protection for any 
individual running for political office.
    Mr. Bentz. Right, and you would think that those on the 
other side of the aisle would recognize the danger of opening 
this Pandora's box, so to speak.
    Let me go to another point. Anybody that has tried a case, 
and I have tried many, recognizes that the jury process is 
imperfect. It is a great system, but we have this thing called 
an Appellate Court because it is known that mistakes will be 
made.
    The idea is once they are, you will get another shot at it 
in the Appellate Court. Yet, here we are, we know this is going 
to be appealed. We are holding this hearing today.
    Why is this hearing important when there is an appellate 
process available? Go with you, Professor Foley, first.
    Ms. Foley. Well, again, I think you have a responsibility 
to determine, for example, whether or not Federal funds are 
being used to further lawfare that is designed to be election 
interference.
    I think you have a responsibility to make sure that Civil 
Rights law, Section 1983, and other Federal civil rights 
statutes, are not violated by State prosecutors, especially for 
purposes of political interference.
    At the end of the day, judicial process, even though there 
is a trial, judicial process is not due process, right. 
Otherwise, we would never have any reversals based on due 
process.
    You can have long, elaborate trials with lots of witnesses 
and lots of documents. They have them in Russia and Venezuela 
all the time. They look like trials, they kind of smell like 
trials, but they are not due process-based trials. That is the 
error that occurred here that I think ultimately is going to 
lead to reversal.
    Mr. Bentz. Yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from 
Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for being here. It is 
wonderful to see you, Ambassador Eisen. I want to thank you for 
your incredible commitment to our country, to the rule of law, 
to our democracy. I am very, very grateful for your voice.
    We, this Committee is so important, as you know. There are 
so many critical issues that our Nation is looking to us to 
address. Week after week after week this Committee is 
unfortunately focused on things that don't matter to the 
everyday American.
    Going after various Biden Administration officials, going 
after the President himself, attacking border communities, 
etc., you name it. I look forward to the day that this 
Committee actually produces good work that the American people 
expect us to address.
    This hearing didn't even start on time, and I apologize for 
the incredible delay. My Republican colleagues had to go bend 
the knee and make sure that they provided homage to the person 
that controls the House of Representatives.
    Anyhow, I would like to debunk some of what we have heard, 
and I have some questions for you. Before I ask these 
questions, is there anything that you have heard today that you 
would like to address? It has been just a cascade of 
bizarreness but would love to give you the opportunity to 
respond.
    Ambassador Eisen. When my friend Professor Foley, whose 
work is thoughtful, in an excess, I hope, of enthusiasm, was 
being questioned by Mr. McClintock and suggested that warfare 
should be waged in retaliation, and Mr. McClintock, to his 
credit, said no.
    It gives me hope, Ms. Escobar. This was a legitimate case. 
Any other American who did what Donald Trump did would be 
prosecuted and convicted. We saw that it is false, it is false 
that these issues were raised in the jury for the first time. 
It is normal.
    I have been a criminal law practitioner expert for over 
three decades. It is normal to have alternative prosecution 
theories. Every complex case I have ever had them. Many had far 
more, dozens of counts, under widely disparate laws.
    The prosecution here had alternative theories. They chose 
one. There is nothing untoward about that. That is not going to 
be reversed on appeal.
    So, I could go on, but I am eager to hear your questions.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Ambassador. Before I ask my 
questions, I will say one last thing. There were two trials 
that took place within a span of several weeks.
    The difference between how President Biden and Democrats 
reacted to a guilty verdict in a case against the President's 
son was remarkably different from what we saw in terms of the 
reaction by former President Trump, his family, his allies, and 
acolytes.
    Democrats are not attacking the institutions that are 
important to our democracy. Unfortunately, Republicans are. It 
is devastating to the future of our democracy.
    Ambassador Eisen, what do you make of the claim that Trump 
can appeal his case based on Judge Merchan not recusing 
himself?
    Ambassador Eisen. I think my friend the professor will 
agree with me that this is not going to be one of the grounds 
for reversible error here. I don't think there will be any 
grounds for reversible error.
    Certainly, before he ever had the case, he gave a modest 
$15, exercising his freedom under the First Amendment that we 
all have. Gave another $20, that 15 was to Joe Biden, another 
$20 to other political organizations.
    He asked the judicial authorities. There is a judicial 
opinion. To his credit, he put it out of his own hands. 
Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion No. 2354, May 4, 
2023. No, you don't have to recuse yourself for that when you 
did it years before you got the case.
    Good on Judge Merchan to ask. That is the right answer. No 
reversal there.
    Ms. Escobar. Excellent. Thank you, Ambassador, good to see 
you. I yield back.
    Ambassador Eisen. You.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin is recognized.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thanks for being here today. I know we have been kind of 
going on. I am trying not to rehash anything that has already 
been discussed.
    Commissioner Trainor, is the Manhattan District Attorney's 
Office charged with determining whether someone violated the 
Federal Elections Campaign Act, or FECA?
    Mr. Trainor. No, Congressman, that is exclusive 
jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission and ultimately 
could be referred to the Department of Justice if it is found 
to be criminal.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, certainly not the New York Supreme 
Court either, State Supreme Court.
    Mr. Trainor. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. No. So, as you said, it is the Federal 
Elections Commission. Was President Trump's alleged payment via 
Michael Cohen to Stephanie Clifford referred to the FEC?
    Mr. Trainor. We did have several complaints related to it.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. What did the FEC decide with respect to 
that referral?
    Mr. Trainor. Well, ultimately, we deadlocked on a decision 
related to it, but the real factor in making the determination 
was the fact that the Department of Justice asked us to abate 
those proceedings so that they could conduct an over a year-
long criminal investigation, which they determined there was no 
criminality in.
    Then they sent it back to us, and it was statute of 
limitations barred.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, did the Justice Department also decline 
to charge the former President for charges related to FECA?
    Mr. Trainor. They did.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. So, the two agencies that are 
charged by Congress to determine whether President Trump's 
payment constituted a violation of FECA found no violation and 
took no enforcement action, is that correct?
    Mr. Trainor. That is correct.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. All right, thank you very much.
    Ms. Foley, you argued in a recent Wall Street Journal op ed 
that Judge Merchan likely denied President Trump a meaningful 
opportunity to be heard by denying the testimony of former FEC 
Chair Brad Smith. Can you please elaborate a little bit on 
that?
    Ms. Foley. Yes, there has been a lot of sort of 
misreporting on what happened here. Yes, Judge Merchan, as my 
colleague Mr. Eisen points out, did allow Brad Smith to 
testify.
    The catch was he could not opine at all, either provide his 
opinion or any personal opinion or legal opinion, regarding 
whether or not President Trump's actions had violated FECA, 
which was basically then he was useless. Which is why President 
Trump didn't call him as a witness.
    So, the whole point was President Trump wanted an expert 
witness to put before the jury to show the jury that what he 
had done did not in fact violate Federal election law. He was 
denied that opportunity, and that seems like a rather basic 
thing that he would have the opportunity to be heard on.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you think there was a chance that he 
could have had success on appeal?
    Ms. Foley. Will he have success on appeal of this?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes.
    Ms. Foley. Yes, sure, absolutely. The thing is that, again, 
I agree with Norm on the fact that the bias issues are 
difficult to win because they get deferential standards of 
review. The due process issue is a question of law. It gets de 
novo review, the Appellate Courts get to look at it fresh with 
fresh eyes, no deference whatsoever.
    More importantly, due process issues are issues that the 
Supreme Court can ultimately grant cert in here.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. So, Judge Merchan also ruled that 
Michael Cohen's guilty plea for violating FECA was inadmissible 
at trial. Why do you think he made that ruling? I think we 
know.
    Ms. Foley. Well, because you can't basically taint one 
individual by the guilty conduct of another.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Judge Merchan also ruled that DA Bragg 
could elicit testimony from Mr. Cohen about his guilty plea to 
impeach his credibility as a witness. DA Bragg then repeatedly 
made reference at trial in his office closing arguments to the 
jury about Cohen's FECA guilty plea.
    Did repeatedly subjecting the jury to this testimony 
essentially get around the judge's own ruling that Cohen's FECA 
guilty plea was inadmissible as substantive evidence?
    Ms. Foley. Yes, that should have been reined in. That was 
clearly trying to taint one person through association with 
another who was guilty.
    They also did the same thing I believe with the CFO of 
Trump Organization and made similar comments because he also 
entered a guilty plea. Weisselberg.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Would the gentleman yield? Would the 
gentleman yield?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yield.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you. So, I just want to get this 
straight. The campaign finance expert wasn't allowed to testify 
about campaign finance.
    Ms. Foley. Yes, exactly. The way Judge Merchan tried to 
explain it is he said, well, ``I am the expert of the law.'' 
OK, granted, that is why the judge is there, he is--but--
    Chair Jordan. Brad Smith wasn't allowed to talk about the 
very testimony we just got from Commissioner Trainor--
    Ms. Foley. Precisely.
    Chair Jordan. Well, we are going to give Brad Smith a 
chance to testify in front of this Committee as well. We are 
going to let him tell the Congress and the country what he 
wasn't allowed to tell the court and the jury. Because we think 
that is important.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin was right on target when he 
asked him that question.
    Now, recognize the gentlelady from Vermont.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Before I start my line of questioning, I just have to make 
a comment about something one of my colleagues said earlier on 
the other side of the aisle. There was implication made that E. 
Jean Carroll must have had memory problems, she couldn't 
possibly have remembered what happened to her.
    I just am so incredibly shocked by that statement. I can 
tell you, when someone has been sexually violated, they don't 
forget who did it. A jury found him liable, him being the 
former President, for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean 
Carroll.
    Those are the facts. A jury found that. I just think it is 
shocking that somebody on this Committee would not only attack 
juries, but we are the Judiciary Committee after all--the 
onslaught against juries on this Committee is shocking to me. 
Also, to use time in Committee to further defame E. Jean 
Carroll.
    So, shifting gears here, part of the Republicans' attempt 
to absolve former President Trump for his fraud conviction is 
the claim that former Justice Department official Matthew 
Colangelo was somehow dispatched to the Manhattan District 
Attorney's Office to prosecute Trump. One of my colleagues 
touched on this briefly, but I want to circle back around.
    I have heard my colleagues say, in this hearing and others, 
it was because Mr. Colangelo took a job with the Manhattan DA 
after working at DOJ, and in that--their eyes, this was pay 
reduction or career stepdown. That the only conclusion would be 
that he changed jobs to get Mr. Trump.
    People on this Committee have asked the Attorney General 
specifically how is it that a man, Matthew Colangelo, takes a 
pay cut and takes a cut, and just what is it is he doing for a 
living as far as prestige to go and join that case.
    This part of the theory is very revealing to me. It 
suggests that a person could never change jobs based on 
anything other than money or prestige. It seems that some of my 
colleagues have forgotten that public servants may take other 
things into account when navigating their career.
    Ambassador Eisen, thank you so much for being here. The 
other witnesses, I should have said at the top, thank you for 
your time.
    Are you aware of any evidence that Mr. Colangelo was a mole 
dispatched by General Garland to the Manhattan DA's office?
    Ambassador Eisen. No, there is none. The Attorney General 
has definitively debunked this conspiracy theory with his 
detailed letter that he sent to the Committee.
    For good measure, when I came to work on Committee staff 
with the Ranking Member and with the Chair in the first 
impeachment, I took a substantial pay cut. People are motivated 
by public service. I hope I was in that instance.
    Chair Jordan. I am not sure how much you worked with me, 
but you did work with the Ranking Member.
    Ambassador Eisen. Mr. Chair, notwithstanding--
    Chair Jordan. I don't want to take the gentlelady's time.
    Ambassador Eisen. Notwithstanding our differences, I like 
to think that we have maintained a cordial relationship. We see 
it differently, but we are both trying--
    Chair Jordan. We do.
    Ambassador Eisen. To the best for America. Sorry.
    Ms. Balint. That is all right, that is all right. It is 
important to have conversations. So, you touched on it, but can 
you think of some other reasonable explanations for a lawyer 
taking a job that may not appear to be the next step in their 
career?
    Ambassador Eisen. Mr. Colangelo has a long record of public 
service including in the nonprofit sector. He had previously 
worked with Mr. Bragg in the AG's office.
    When you do have a new DA, he acquired a variety of 
responsibilities when he entered the DA's office. It's an 
opportunity because the Manhattan DA is such an important role 
with New York as an American and global financial center, 
another reason these 34 false records convictions matter so 
much.
    It was an opportunity to have an impact on the public good. 
I like to think that those kinds of motivations come into play.
    Ms. Balint. I think one of the challenges for my 
constituents home watching the work that we do here, watching 
the news, they all tell me they're exhausted.
    They don't want to watch anymore. They don't want to watch 
the news. They don't want to actually know what we're doing 
here anymore because it feels like every single time they turn 
on the news there is another bit of misinformation, another 
conspiracy theory, another nesting doll, as it were, and it 
makes it very difficult to find a way to cut through.
    So, once again, there is no evidence of collusion involving 
Mr. Colangelo. Is that right, Mr. Eisen? Is there any evidence?
    Ambassador Eisen. I hold an empty bottle as the same amount 
of evidence. None.
    Ms. Balint. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. I 
yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlemen from New Jersey is recognized.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ambassador Eisen, just a thought--a comment. I know you 
spoke about the climate of threats, the climate of 
disinformation. I'm going to maintain that is not the climate 
that you're speaking about. You just don't want to hear the 
truth because you don't like it.
    Congresswoman Lofgren, my colleague--a good person--she 
asked, can a democracy survive without the rule of law. Well, 
we know the answer.
    It can't, and that's what makes me sick with what's going 
on because we want to speak, and it's been spoken about often 
here, about what people are thinking, what they're saying.
    Well, I'm a little crazy. So, we get literally thousands 
and thousands of calls and letters and emails, you can imagine, 
every single week. I pick out a handful and I call people back.
    Some are Republicans. Some are Democrats. Some are people 
that don't care about either. You know what a lot of folks are 
telling me, and they're not all hard Republicans. They're 
telling me they're scared and the reason they're scared--and by 
the way, they should be.
    I don't make them feel good. I don't sugarcoat it. I don't 
say, no, nothing to worry about--nothing to see here, because 
they don't believe in equal justice for all, which should be 
for the left and the right.
    It should be for Republicans and Democrats. It should be 
for progressives and libertarians. It should be conservatives 
and liberals. Equal justice for all. That's what is making me 
sick because we don't have it now.
    This is all about politics and money and teaching a 
lesson--the politics of it. The politics of it is we have a 
judge who's a known and strong Democrat, not just because of 
the contributions he made but for other factors.
    His daughter alone is a major operative in the Democratic 
Party, millions of dollars flowing through her hands.
    I tell you what, you wouldn't like it if it was reversed, 
and you had a judge that didn't recuse himself. We should have 
judges and prosecutors that are objective and fair whatever 
political party you are, whatever persuasion you are.
    It's about money because if you follow the money--and 
politics is about money a lot. We don't like to say it, but if 
you follow the money here, huge contributions going to the 
prosecutor coming from the far left, coming from Democrats, and 
he runs for office saying that he's going to get Trump--saying 
that he's going to get Trump.
    You may have one speech where he didn't say that. There 
were plenty of times where he made it clear that he was the guy 
to make sure to go after Trump.
    How unobjective can you be? How wrong is that in the 
American system of jurisprudence? How terrible is that? You 
wonder why people are worried.
    Let's talk about Trump for a second. Everybody else is. 
President Trump--first they tried to impeach him, and they 
didn't have grounds. That didn't work.
    So, then we tried something, and I would hope, Ambassador 
Eisen, that you didn't even agree with this. They tried to take 
him off the ballot. They're scared of this guy.
    They tried to take him off the damn ballot illegally, 
incorrectly, and so the Supreme Court has to come in. Liberals 
and conservatives, some real people from the left on that 
court, and say, man, this is just wrong. That didn't work.
    So, what do you got left? You weaponize the judiciary, the 
only thing you can do, and what's teaching the lesson about. 
What you all--not you guys, but you know what's being done?
    We're teaching--I really mean this--Americans to be afraid 
if they differ, if they speak out, especially if they have, in 
this case, to have a conservative or different viewpoint.
    Talk about those people you speak with on the phone. I do 
it. I really do it because my humble beginnings as a councilman 
and going all through--I've held every damn office you can 
hold, and you know what these people will tell you?
    Some of them are a little nervous about putting signs up. 
They're a little bit nervous about giving a campaign 
contribution because they're afraid they're going to go after 
them because you know what they know. If they went after this 
man, they could go after you.
    Now, the right thing to do here is the judge should have 
recused himself. The right thing is not to have the trial in 
the town with a prosecutor who's made it his aim in life to go 
after him.
    It's wrong, and people are afraid they're going to go after 
your family, your friends, your businesses, your life. 
Politics, money, and teaching a lesson.
    You know what? It's a tale of two prosecutors, and I'm 
running out of time, but I want to ask a question. This is a 
guy who wants to prosecute nonexistent crimes like this one 
but, damn it, he won't prosecute the violent crimes and he 
downgrades them in the city of New York to misdemeanors. He's 
causing people to get murdered and killed--murdered and robbed 
and hurt.
    I'm only going to get one question in here but I'm going to 
squeak it in.
    Commissioner Trainor, can you elaborate on why the FEC 
commission did not move forward with an investigation? I know 
we have talked about this, but I want to hear it again.
    The FEC, who should have been the ones to do it, they said, 
no, we're not going to do it, because they were neutral and 
objective. Why didn't they do it?
    Mr. Trainor. The commission did not move forward with an 
investigation because we were asked to abate that proceeding by 
the Department of Justice.
    The Department of Justice then took over a year to conduct 
a criminal investigation and then when they sent the 
information that they had back to us after they had declined to 
prosecute anyone in the case the statute of limitations had run 
when it came back--
    Mr. Van Drew. Really quick--thank you.
    Ms. Foley, your testimony highlighted significant due 
process violations. Can you just detail that a little? Three 
core due process precepts--noticed meaningful opportunity to 
defend and proof of all relevant facts. We only have a few 
seconds, if you could.
    Ms. Foley. Yes. Lack of adequate notice of the charges and 
the basis of the charges by obfuscating a primary element of 
the felony falsification offense, which required that there be 
another predicate offense that was intended to be committed.
    They obfuscated that until the very end, until the jury 
instructions. Once they identified that in the jury 
instructions it became clear that there was a second predicate 
that was required that Trump never had an opportunity to 
respond to whatsoever, much less have notice of.
    Ms. Scanlon. Point of order, Chair.
    Mr. Van Drew. You know what? I yield back and, Ambassador 
Eisen, damn it, I wish I could have gotten to you.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. We have--
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent.
    Chair Jordan. A unanimous consent request from the Ranking 
Member.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent introduced 
for the record on April 12, 2023, an article from Politifact 
that states, quote,

        We reviewed Bragg's campaign record and found that although he 
        often cited his prior prosecutorial experience with respect to 
        Trump he said he was equipped to inherit the DA's office 
        investigation. He made no promises about any case. He said that 
        although he had access to some publicly available information 
        about Trump's activities he didn't have all the information and 
        wanted to be fair.

    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Chair Jordan. Let me just real quickly say we have 15 
minutes left--Ms. Scanlon, and two on our side. I have to jump 
out for a meeting, but I wanted to thank each of you for being 
here.
    Mr. Eisen, I certainly did not work with you when you were 
trying to impeach the President of the United States, but let 
the record show I have allowed you to hawk your book at the 
Committee hearing and didn't object to that one bit.
    Ms. Foley, Commissioner Trainor, we do appreciate your 
being here and your testimony as well. Thank you for being here 
since 10 o'clock this morning. We appreciate it.
    I'm going to let the next Governor of North Dakota Chair 
the remainder of the hearing, and we'll go to Ms. Scanlon for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    As the Chair acknowledged, we didn't start at 10. We 
started nearly an hour late or just over an hour late because 
he and his Republican colleagues had prioritized a meeting with 
Donald Trump over a Committee hearing and presumably they 
received their latest marching orders to weaponize 
congressional power against our criminal justice system because 
that's what we're seeing here today. It's outrageous.
    Over and over again this Congress we have seen House 
Republicans set aside congressional work--the people's 
business--to do the former President's bidding, as he seeks to 
avoid justice and accountability for his numerous misdeeds.
    Their Members, including the House Speaker, have spent 
hours injecting themselves into these State Court proceedings 
and standing outside the Manhattan courthouse instead of 
working on legislative business to serve the American people.
    They don't seem to understand that they were elected to 
serve their constituents, not the disgraced, twice impeached, 
and now convicted leader of the party.
    So, why are we here in today's hearing? Because two weeks 
ago a jury of Donald Trump's peers--12 American citizens--found 
him guilty of criminal conduct. Now, those jurors were selected 
by both the prosecution and Mr. Trump.
    Those jurors considered all the evidence presented to them 
by the prosecution and by the former President, not just the 
evidence or as is so often the case the alternative facts that 
are selectively presented by social media, cable pundits, or 
political spin doctors including some of those here today.
    Because unlike our political sphere that's how our justice 
system works. The jurors performed their civic duty. They did 
their job, and when they applied the law to the evidence, they 
determined that the former U.S. President was guilty of 34 
felonies.
    Now, having a former President found guilty of criminal 
conduct is a sad day for our Nation but it's sadder still that 
the former President is using his allies here on the Hill to 
attack our courts and undermine the rule of law and that 
Members of Congress are debasing themselves and this 
institution to embrace his conspiracy theories and lies.
    Unfortunately, these attacks on the very foundations of our 
government to prop up the former President have become the norm 
for their party. When Donald Trump couldn't bend journalists' 
coverage to his will MAGA Republicans echoed his attacks on the 
free press.
    When American voters rejected Donald Trump's first 
reelection bid MAGA Republicans helped him sow chaos, 
confusion, and conspiracy theories to drive his attempts to 
overturn that election.
    Now, when a New York State jury trial has resulted in 
Donald Trump's first criminal conviction MAGA Republicans are 
attacking the State's prosecutor, the judge, the witnesses, and 
the jury, and as several other criminal cases against the 
former President head to trial House Republicans are 
introducing legislation to fire prosecutors, to defund the 
Department of Justice, and to deny States the authority to 
prosecute crimes committed in their jurisdictions.
    Disturbingly, we now see this pattern of behavior anytime 
anyone tries to hold the former President accountable for his 
words or actions.
    House Republicans have been trying to interfere in the New 
York State case since its inception even though such 
interference violates both our Constitutional separation of 
powers and our Federalist system.
    Every step of the way House Republicans have attempted to 
insert the Federal Government into a purely State and local 
matter without any credible pretense of jurisdiction and 
they're continuing their outrageous, unproven accusations 
against the Manhattan District Attorney's office with this 
hearing.
    Republicans say that they're the party of law and order, 
until their chosen candidate for President is convicted, and 
they claim to support States rights until a State court rules 
in a way that they dislike.
    The truth is that America is built on the idea that no one 
is above the law including former Presidents and their allies, 
and these shameless attempts to subvert our most fundamental 
American institutions threaten the rule of law that our country 
is built on.
    So, Ambassador Eisen, why is it dangerous for Members of 
Congress to try and influence the outcome and attack the 
legitimacy of a criminal court and a free and fair trial, and 
how does it threaten judicial independence?
    Ambassador Eisen. The genius of the American project lies 
in our federalism, our checks and balances, the laws, starting 
with the Constitution that reinforced staying in your lane.
    When I worked in the White House it was the first rule, 
stay in your lane, and that's the rule for a functioning 
democracy as well.
    There's no place, just like there was no place for Donald 
Trump to tell Brad Raffensperger in January 2021 just, quote, 
``Find 11,780 votes.'' There's no place for Congress to be 
meddling in these State prosecutions.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, and I see my time is expired, 
although there has been a fairly loose gavel. I'd ask--
    Ambassador Eisen. Mr. Armstrong is even more generous than 
Chair Jordan.
    Ms. Scanlon. I would just ask unanimous consent to 
introduce an article from this morning's Politico entitled 
``Trump's private demand to Johnson help overturn my 
conviction.''
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Armstrong. [Presiding.] The gentleman from South 
Carolina is recognized.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Foley, did Alvin Bragg's indictment actually articulate 
a provable felony offense?
    Ms. Foley. Did the indictment? No. The indictment was about 
as generic as you could get. One of the primary elements is the 
intent to commit another crime.
    The indictment said nothing, nothing about that, and he 
provided a statement of facts that accompanied the indictment. 
That also said nothing about what that other crime was.
    Mr. Fry. Why do you suppose that was, that it omitted that?
    Ms. Foley. I think to the extent that you want to convict 
someone to the--you hide the ball, you obfuscate, and that 
keeps the defense counsel on their toes. They don't know what 
evidence to put forward to the jury. It's an ever-moving 
target. It makes it very difficult to defend if you're a 
defense counsel.
    Mr. Fry. How does that impact the jury instructions in the 
end? You talked about that, but I want you to discuss that 
again.
    Ms. Foley. Yes. Well, you don't know until the end--if you 
don't know until the end what exactly the first predicate is 
you don't know who to put on the stand. You don't know what 
evidence to put forward.
    The only reason he tried to bring forward Brad Smith, for 
example, the former FEC Chair, was because Alvin Bragg kept 
hinting that maybe one of the bases for the first predicate was 
the FECA violation.
    So, we kind of knew that. So, he tried to get a witness to 
say something about that and he was denied. So, it was just an 
exercise in futility for Trump to try to defend this case 
because it wasn't clear exactly what he was being charged with.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    Just changing gears a little bit, who is Matthew Colangelo?
    Ms. Foley. Well, he was, what, the No. 3 guy in the 
Department of Justice.
    Mr. Fry. Correct. What is his current title? What does he 
do now?
    Ms. Foley. He's on Alvin Bragg's prosecutorial team. I'm 
not sure exactly what his title is.
    Mr. Fry. A State DA.
    Ms. Foley. Yes, State DA. That's correct.
    Mr. Fry. Is it unusual to see somebody go from, what, the 
No. 3 position at the Department of Justice to a State District 
Attorney?
    Ms. Foley. I know some other Members of the Committee have 
suggested, well, you do it out of the goodness of your heart 
because you're a public servant and all that jazz, and I'm sure 
that's true.
    At the same time, it's exceedingly unusual for that to 
happen--for you to take a downward movement in your career, and 
because of the unusual nature of it makes you go, hmm.
    Mr. Fry. Yes. I think it raises questions and I think the 
American people see that. I think polling consistently shows 
that the American people believe that the prosecution of 
President Trump in Manhattan was more about politics than it 
was about some violation of the law.
    Of course, we have seen that, right. District Attorney 
Bragg campaigned on going after a certain individual, not some 
violation
of the crime. It was identify the man and then go after the 
crime, and I think that's incredibly alarming just for the 
justice system broadly.
    Is it fair to say that as a former DOJ official that Mr. 
Colangelo would have high-level contacts within the Biden 
Department of Justice?
    Ms. Foley. Oh, undoubtedly, and I hope if he does actually 
show up before the Committee that there are a lot of vigorous 
questions about that.
    Mr. Fry. If there was or continues to be some sort of 
coordination between the Department of Justice based on those 
contacts and the District Attorney's office what effect would 
that have on a case?
    Ms. Foley. It would have a tremendous effect. It would be a 
huge advantage for someone from the Department of Justice to 
sort of implant themselves in a State prosecution which 
involves State crimes, obviously, only because it would benefit 
his former boss, the person for whom he worked.
    Again, it would just sort of reemphasize the impression, 
the suspicion, that this is a politically motivated 
prosecution.
    Mr. Fry. I think that's why it's important, too. Let me--
are you aware that Members of Congress have the ability to 
remove cases from State Court to Federal Court?
    Ms. Foley. Yes.
    Mr. Fry. Judges, same thing?
    Ms. Foley. Mmm-hmm.
    Mr. Fry. There's a bill that I've introduced called the No 
More Political Prosecutions Act, which would allow that to 
happen. Why might a President or a former President want to 
remove the venue from a State district case to a Federal 
jurisdiction?
    Ms. Foley. Well, the hallmark of Federal judges as opposed 
to State judges is they're appointed for life with the advice 
and consent of the Senate whereas State judges are generally 
elected and so they're more political creatures by nature.
    They wear the robes of legislators to a certain extent 
because they do have to stand for election. So, you hope to get 
neutrality--the political independence from a Federal Court.
    Mr. Fry. In your experience does is the jury selection 
process more robust at the Federal level than it is at the 
State, generally speaking?
    Ms. Foley. Yes, absolutely. The voir dire is much more 
extensive. The judge controls that process much more in terms 
of making sure abuses don't take place.
    So, I would assume that, in general, the Federal judicial 
process is much tighter and less loosey goosey, I guess is the 
way I'd put it, than a State process.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Ms. Foley. I see my time has expired, 
Mr. Chair, soon to be Governor of North Dakota. With that, I 
yield.
    Mr. Armstrong. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
    No, the gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    When a Democrat gets convicted of a crime it's called 
political retribution. When a Republican gets convicted of a 
crime it's called justice.
    This is the justice system that the American people have 
seen and come to expect over the course of the past few years, 
Soviet style show trials to persecute political enemies.
    I keep hearing my colleagues on the left say no one is 
above the law and Trump is being treated like anyone else would 
be, and we're talking about Trump's conviction only. Is that 
true?
    In the American justice system, we do find that we target, 
then look through the entire life of history to find a crime, 
any crime that can be used against them, and then contort the 
law to convict that target.
    That's what the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg did, and how do we 
know this? That's what he campaigned to do. Do you know who 
else campaigned for that? Leticia James, and then they 
delivered on their promises.
    The No. 3 guy in the Department of Justice, Matthew 
Colangelo, even left a high profile job, as you just 
articulated, ma'am, in the DOJ to work for a local DA's office 
with Alvin Bragg. That's weird.
    So, from now until Election Day Democrats will keep calling 
President Trump a convicted felon and that's because Alvin 
Bragg delivered for his team.
    Now, we're talking about a man in President Trump who is 
the most investigated person in our country's history and the 
only thing that Alvin Bragg could bring up was a zombie crime 
that no one else wanted to prosecute.
    Speaking of that zombie crime, I and the American people 
are still waiting to hear what the underlying crime actually is 
and no one can tell us that. The left keeps touting themselves 
as the gatekeepers of democracy and that they are the adults in 
the room and can impartially administer justice.
    I know this doesn't have to do with the Manhattan DA's 
office. I understand that. I'd like to highlight a few 
political prisoners of the Justice Department.
    While Joe Biden and his team are scaring people into 
thinking that Donald Trump will put people in jail, Joe Biden 
is already putting political enemies in prison that we know of.
    Let's start with the 74-year-old economist Peter Navarro 
who served in the Trump Administration. Do you know where he is 
currently? Peter Navarro is currently sitting in a jail cell in 
Miami for not complying with the subpoena from the Democrat-led 
January 6th Committee.
    How about Steve Bannon? He has to surrender himself by July 
1st or he will be arrested. His crime? Not complying with a 
subpoena from a Democrat-led January 6th Committee.
    Now, let's talk about Eric Holder. Oh, that's right. He 
never went to prison. The DOJ decided not to prosecute him 
after he ignored a Congressional subpoena during the 
investigation into the Fast and Furious scandal.
    Does anyone find that hypocritical? Because Lord knows I 
do. What about the Attorney General Merrick Garland? He was 
just held in contempt by the House yesterday and how many 
Democrats are going to jump on the side of Lady Justice now?
    I have a prediction. Nobody. In our 250-year history we 
haven't had this problem until Joe Biden was sworn into office, 
but now we're witnessing the Democratic Party persecuting and 
jailing their political opponents including the former 
President, our party's nominee and likely the 47th President of 
these United States of America.
    Biden is right when he says democracy is on the ballot this 
November. The only problem is that Joe Biden is on the wrong 
side of history. I hope and pray that Alvin Bragg and Colangelo 
will show up to testify before this Committee next month. We 
have asked them, and we shall see.
    Because the American people deserve oversight, we deserve 
better, and we deserve accountability. I know it's been a long 
day for you all but thank you so much for being here. I really 
appreciate it and I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you.
    Mr. Armstrong. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
    Mr. Cline. I thank the Chair.
    On May 30th, Donald Trump was found guilty after years of 
lawfare by the radical left and this is the result of a justice 
system that has been abused and used against the former 
President for quite some time.
    Ms. Foley, can you explain for us what the primary 
jurisdiction doctrine is?
    Ms. Foley. Primary jurisdiction doctrine is that Federal 
offenses are generally adjudicated in Federal Court.
    Mr. Cline. The purpose of this doctrine is to allow an 
agency of competent jurisdiction to review the facts to 
determine if there was in fact a violation of the laws that the 
Federal agency administers, correct?
    Ms. Foley. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. The theory underlying the doctrines that 
Congress has designated these Federal agencies to adjudicate 
such questions because the agencies have a special competence 
and expertise over factual and legal questions within its 
designated mandate, correct?
    Ms. Foley. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. Was the primary jurisdiction doctrine implicated 
in the Manhattan criminal case against President Trump?
    Ms. Foley. I'm going to assume so, and I would defer to 
Commissioner Trainor on this. FECA is not my area of law, but 
what I will say is having looked at the FECA statute in 
preparation for this testimony I'm shocked that there's been no 
preemption argument here.
    Mr. Cline. Commissioner Trainor?
    Mr. Trainor. I would agree with Professor Foley on that. 
The whole purpose of my testimony was to highlight the fact 
that the jurisdiction that was asserted here is jurisdiction 
that belongs to the Federal Election Commission that could 
ultimately then refer to the Department of Justice.
    Mr. Cline. Do you believe the Justice Department should 
have intervened to protect both the FEC's jurisdiction and its 
own?
    Mr. Trainor. Without question.
    Mr. Cline. Did the Justice Department intervene?
    Mr. Trainor. They did not. They only intervened in the 
Federal Election Commission's investigations.
    Mr. Cline. So, in other words, the Biden Justice Department 
allowed the Manhattan DA's office to usurp both the Justice 
Department and the FEC's jurisdiction, correct?
    Mr. Trainor. Absolutely.
    Mr. Cline. Tell us why is that problematic.
    Mr. Trainor. Well, it's problematic because it sets up a 
system--well, first and foremost, it allowed the judge to get 
the law wrong in this particular case and issue a jury charge 
that had to do with willful contributions as opposed to knowing 
and willful contributions which is what the law requires to be 
proven.
    In a larger picture it sets up a standard where you can 
have 50 different States trying Federal election crimes under 
various standards.
    Mr. Cline. Judge Merchan neither stayed nor dismissed the 
case on primary jurisdiction grounds, did he?
    Mr. Trainor. He did not.
    Mr. Cline. In fact, he along with the 12 residents of New 
York County decided that issue, correct?
    Mr. Trainor. They did.
    Mr. Cline. Do you believe that the Trump conviction will be 
vacated on the primary jurisdiction grounds?
    Mr. Trainor. I think that's definitely a possibility.
    Mr. Cline. All right, thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
    All right. I just want to bookend this thing a little bit 
and we know this. The first Federal prosecutor decided not to--
or declined prosecution. Commissioner Trainor told that. The 
first DA--Manhattan DA didn't prosecute and then Alvin Bragg 
actually campaigned on prosecuting it.
    At the core this is false business record entries were used 
to cover up a conspiracy to promote an election by unlawful 
means. So, the filing of false records is a misdemeanor--the 
two-year statute of limitations.
    The New York conspiracy is a misdemeanor, two-year statute 
of limitations. By combining those two you get to where you can 
actually create the felony with statute of limitations.
    Outside of anything else and talking about political/not 
political this is an unbelievably aggressive use of 
prosecutorial discretion. So, the charged offense is the 
falsifying business records. The predicate offense is the New 
York concealing a conspiracy to interfere.
    Here's where my question comes in, and this is--I've 
actually read all the jury's selections. The unlawful means is 
where we get this grab bag, right, Ms. Foley?
    Ms. Foley. Yes, that's where we get three possibilities 
instructed by the--
    Mr. Armstrong. Basically pick.
    I went through the jury instructions and here's my 
question. What elements of any of those predicate claims are 
unlawful? Conspiracy in and of itself is--so if you charge a 
second offense driving under the influence usually the sentence 
for a second offense is different than a first offense.
    To get to the second offense you have to prove the first 
offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Ms. Foley. Right.
    Mr. Armstrong. Now, in those types of cases it's a 
certified record of a court judgment. You just put it in the 
record. I've objected to just about everything that's ever been 
put into court when I was doing this. It's impossible to object 
to that.
    So, when we're talking about these unlawful offenses and 
these three pictured things and dealing with the New York 
misdemeanor statute that when you combine with the other 
misdemeanor statute you end up getting to this felony and 
passed it to your statute of limitations.
    Was the jury required to prove any of those underlying 
elements beyond a reasonable doubt to any of those crimes? 
Because I'm talking about the Fifth Amendment and the due 
process part of that.
    Ms. Foley. No, and in fact, based on the instructions we 
don't even know which of those possible three areas of law the 
jury decided--
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes, I've read it.
    Ms. Foley. --because they didn't have to be unanimous. It's 
really more than three laws too, by the way, because the tax 
laws that he instructed the jury on could include local, State, 
and Federal tax laws.
    By the way, the mention of local or Federal tax laws had 
never been made at all before at most, right. The prosecution 
had mentioned the possibility of State tax laws as being the 
first predicate, not second.
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes. I'm actually into the third layer of 
this because unlawful means--I'm just thinking of--I've never 
defended a case in New York. I just never practiced in New 
York.
    I have defended cases in State Court and I've defended 
cases in Federal Court and I'm thinking about arguing against a 
case when you--I made my living on if there were seven elements 
of a crime.
    Winning one of them--like, I don't need to win all seven. I 
got to get proof beyond a reasonable doubt on one of the seven 
elements and they're not laid out anywhere in this whole 
process, are they?
    Ms. Foley. No. That's the problem. You don't know how the 
jury got to where they got at the end. In fact, you didn't even 
know how they could get there until they were instructed, and 
then once they were instructed because they could pick and 
choose which of the unlawful means they wanted to base the New 
York election law violation on you have absolutely no idea why 
President Trump was guilty of a felony based on theories of two 
different misdemeanors.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, I'm glad you said that because I was 
busy and doing all these things and I tend to not listen to the 
cable news rhetoric and all these different things because I've 
actually been in there and I think they get it wrong a lot.
    I get through it, I read it, and I'm just thinking how do 
you possibly do this and that's where I'm frustrated, and I'm 
frustrated with the rhetoric today too, because I've been 
criminal of the Administration of Justice since 2003 when I got 
sworn into the North Dakota bar.
    I've introduced bills on exculpatory evidence, recording 
interrogations, crack parity in sentencing, acquitted conduct, 
all these things, often times working with the other side of 
the aisle.
    The nearest I can think of--and I agree with you and I 
appreciate you saying it earlier. The jury's only as good as 
the instructions they get. I do not criticize the jury.
    I get a little frustrated--political demographics and all 
that. I've dealt with that. I don't criticize the jury.
    Nearest I can figure out anybody who criticizes Judge 
Merchan or Judge Bragg--DA Bragg--is causing our criminal 
justice system to come crumbling down and democracy itself is 
going to fail.
    Judge Cannon, Judge Alito, and Judge Thomas are completely 
on limits. You can do that whenever you want. So, I think what 
it really means is if you don't agree with me, you're a danger 
to democracy. If you agree with me, you're perfectly 
acceptable.
    With that, I yield back.
    All right. This concludes today's hearing. We thank our 
witnesses for appearing before the Committee today.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses 
or any additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:36 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=117426.

                                 [all]