[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENTERING THE GOLDEN AGE: ENDING THE
WEAPONIZATION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-7
__________
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
59-420 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey, Chair
BARRY MOORE, Alabama JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas, Ranking
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri Member
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
BRANDON GILL, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
Georgia
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Jefferson Van Drew, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Oversight from the State of New Jersey......................... 1
The Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Texas.............. 4
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 7
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 9
WITNESSES
Chris Swecker, Former FBI Assistant Director, Criminal
Investigative Division
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Testimony............................................. 16
Jonathan L. Fahey, Partner, Holtzman Vogel
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Testimony............................................. 23
Peter Breen, Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation,
Thomas More Society
Oral Testimony................................................. 26
Prepared Testimony............................................. 29
Brendan Ballou, Former Prosecutor, Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Testimony............................................. 37
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Oversight, for the
record......................................................... 61
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
for the record
A letter to the Honorable Pamela Bondi, Attorney General,
United States Department of Justice, Feb. 21, 2025, from
the Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, Ranking Member, House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Summer
Lee, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Federal Law
Enforcement
A Democratic Staff Report entitled, ``President Trump's New
Gilded Age: How Trump's Department of Justice is
Promoting Political and Corporate Corruption to Benefit
His Most Loyal Supporters,'' Feb. 25, 2025, Committee on
the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives
A letter to Mr. Bove, from Hagan Scotten, Assistant United
States Attorney, Southern District of New York, Re:
United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH),
An article entitled, ``School Boards Get Death Threats Amid
Rage Over Race, Gender, Mask Policies,'' Feb. 15, 2022,
Reuters
An article entitled, ``I Don't Want to Die for It: School
Board Members Face Rising Threats.'' Nov. 5, 2021, The
New York Times
An excerpt from a transcribed interview, Jul. 21, 2023,
An article entitled, ``It's too bad that your momma is an
ugly communist whore, if she doesn't quite or resign then
we will kill her, which was on the windshield of a school
board member,'' The New York Times
A photo of a threatening note
A Memorandum, ``Partnership Among Federal, State, Local,
Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement to Address
Threats Against School Administrators, Board Members,
Teachers, and Staff,'' Oct. 4, 2021, from Attorney
General Merrick Garland, Office of the Attorney General
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of
Texas, for the record
The full transcript with Steven D'Antuono, Assistant
Director, FBI's Washington Field Office
An article entitled, ``Donald Trump stored, showed off and
refused to return classified documents, indictments
says,'' Jun. 10, 2023, AP News
A letter to multiple Committees, Apr. 18, 2024, from Michael
E. Horowitz, Office of the Inspector General, Department
of Justice
An article entitled, ``Jim Jordan's new myth, an `anti-
Catholic' FBI,'' Apr. 15, 2023, MSNBC
An article entitled, ``Anti-Catholic FBI memo's origin
revealed as bureau absolved of malicious `intent,' ''
Apr. 19, 2024, Fox News
An article entitled, ``FBI did not send undercover operatives
to join Jan. 6 attack, watchdog says,'' Dec. 12, 2024,
Reuters
An article entitled, ``F.B.I. Didn't Instruct Informants to
Encourage Violence at Capitol, Report Says,'' Dec. 12,
2024, The New York Times
ENTERING THE GOLDEN AGE:
ENDING THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
----------
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:26 p.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jefferson
Van Drew [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Van Drew, Moore, Onder,
Schmidt, Gill, Crockett, Moskowitz, and Johnson.
Also present: Representative Hunt.
Mr. Van Drew. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Ending the
Weaponi-zation of the Justice Department.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State
of Alabama, who is going to lead us in the Pledge of
Allegiance, and then we will remain standing for a moment of
silence.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection, Mr. Hunt of Texas will be
permitted to participate in today's hearing for the purpose of
questioning the witnesses if a Member yields time to him for
that purpose.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Welcome, everyone, to the first hearing of the Subcommittee
on Oversight. Today we are here to shine a light on something
that should be deeply concerning to every single American: How
our justice system was allowed to become weaponized against
political opponents.
Early in his Presidency, Joe Biden told the Nation, ``It is
not my Justice Department. It is the Justice Department.''
Former Attorney General Merrick Garland promised the same
thing. That was their promise. We now know it was a lie.
For the past four years, it was not the people's Justice
Department. It was a political weapon used to go after anybody
the Biden-Harris Administration felt needed to be attacked. Let
me lay it out clearly, case after case, so there is no
confusion about what happened.
Let's start in the great State of New York. Alvin Bragg ran
for Manhattan DA, focused on only one thing, targeting Donald
Trump instead of cleaning up the many problems facing New York
City. After years of searching, he revived a dismissed case
with the help of former DOJ officials and used a shaky legal
theory to turn misdemeanors into felonies.
It wasn't just Bragg. New York's Attorney General, Letitia
James, also made it her mission to go after President Trump.
She campaigned on him. Prosecutors, attorney generals--they
shouldn't campaign on politics. They should campaign on
justice. She campaigned on it, and she promised voters she
would, exact quote, ``get Trump'' before even seeing a shred of
evidence. Sure enough, once in office, she followed through,
twisting civil statutes into weapons for political gain,
targeting not just Trump but his entire family business.
In Fulton County, Georgia, Fani Willis also campaigned on
prosecuting President Trump. She coordinated with a partisan
January 6th Committee and the Biden White House from Georgia
and hired her romantic partner as the lead prosecutor. Couldn't
make this stuff up. I guess office romances can sometimes take
you places. For Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, it was tropical
destinations. It was luxury hotels, all on the taxpayer's dime.
While they were busy enjoying the perks, the cases they were
building against Trump were falling apart under the weight of
conflicts and impropriety because it was pure political
lawfare.
I want to just note no one should run for DA, AG, or any
legal office, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal--
nobody should do this with the sole goal of going after one
political figure. It is not what those jobs are about. That is
not justice. That is vengeance.
Our legal system isn't supposed to be about personal
grudges or political payback. It is about fairness. It is about
impartiality. It is about the rule of law. That is supposed to
be the standard in America. Unfortunately, under President
Biden, that standard wasn't just abandoned at the State level.
It was shattered. It was shattered at the Federal level as
well.
Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed as Special
Counsel. His lead counsel pressured a defense attorney with a
judgeship offered to flip a client. So, if a client flipped, he
would get a judgeship. Smith admitted to altering evidence in
the Mar-a-Lago case, evidence tampering at the highest and most
important level--pure political lawfare.
The FBI conducted an unprecedented raid on Mar-a-Lago, the
home of a former President. They ignored standard protocol.
They didn't wait for President Trump's lawyers to respond. They
didn't use the local field office. They bypassed all typical
legal channels--pure political lawfare.
The FBI also targeted religious institutions. You couldn't
make this up, again. Parents--they labeled traditionalist
Catholics as domestic terrorists, traditional Roman Catholics
as domestic terrorists, and considered spying on their
churches, on their priests, and on their parishioners. Think
about that. I really want everybody to think about it. Forget
the politics for a minute.
The FBI was planning to spy on grandmothers clutching their
rosary beads in prayer, treating them as if they were a
national security threat. If they can do this to Catholic
churches--and this is the important part--what is stopping them
from doing it in any place of worship, to Protestant churches,
to Jewish synagogues, to Muslim mosques, or to Hindu temples?
If it is Catholic churches one day, it could be any of those
another day. It could be you.
If you think that sounds far-fetched, I want you to just
take a look, if you get a chance, at what they did in my home
State, in New Jersey. In New Jersey, the FBI raided the largest
Hindu temple in the Western hemisphere, home to some of the
most peaceful and spiritual people on the face of the earth,
Hindus.
The Biden's FBI stormed the temple. He invaded private
quarters, religious areas, and held guns--they held guns to the
faces of swamis, holy men, some of whom were wearing nothing
but their evening wear, their nightwear, their pajamas. These
are individuals devoted to peace, nonviolence, and prayer, yet
they were treated like dangerous criminals in an aggressive
show of force. It is wrong. It is un-American.
It didn't stop at places of worship. The DOJ also turned
its sight onto parents, moms and dads, grandparents who dared
to speak, who dared to speak up for their children at local
school board meetings. Instead of seeing concerned citizens,
the Biden Administration saw potential domestic threats. They
used counterterrorism resources to monitor and intimidate
parents simply for voicing their concerns about what is
happening to their own children in their own classrooms.
The DOJ even weaponized the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act, the FACE Act, to target prolife advocates. This
doesn't even matter if you're prolife or prochoice. Again, it
could happen to anybody. Take Mark Houck, a peaceful prolife
activist and father of seven kids. In a blatant show of force,
the FBI sent a SWAT team to his home, raiding in a predawn raid
with guns drawn, terrifying his wife and his children.
Whether it is people praying in churches or parents
speaking out at school board meetings, the message from Biden's
DOJ is clear: If you practice your First Amendment rights in
ways they don't like, you will become a target. It could happen
to any one of us. This is pure political lawfare.
The Justice Department slow-walked the investigation into
Hunter Biden, allowing statutes of limitations to expire,
tipping off defense lawyers about search warrants, then
ultimately offering a sweetheart plea deal that nobody else
would ever get. Meanwhile, the DOJ was slow-walking
investigations that might make the President look bad.
The full force of the DOJ was aimed at President Trump and
even worse yet, people that didn't sign up for this--any of his
allies. Just look at the timeline. After announcing his
candidacy, President Trump was indicted four times, twice by
partisan DAs and twice by an unconstitutionally appointed
special counsel.
I am sure my Democratic colleagues will say that it was not
coordinated, but it was. I will say it was pure political
warfare. What I have laid out is just the framework of what the
Judiciary Committee, this Judiciary Committee, uncovered last
Congress. It was the work of this Judiciary Committee and our
Chair, Jim Jordan, that did that.
My colleagues, we will dig deeper into each case. I pledge
to you that this Committee, this Subcommittee, is going to dig
deep and dig hard and find out the real truth. The reason is
not because we want to rehash everything in that ugly, ugly
past. The reason is we never, ever want it to happen again.
It shouldn't matter, it really shouldn't matter, if you are
a Republican or a Democrat or a liberal or conservative. It
could happen to you. I want you to really think about it could
happen at your church. It could happen to your mosque. It could
happen to your synagogue. It could happen to your temple. It
could happen to your cause, whether on the Right or the Left.
It could happen to your beliefs. It is un-American. It is
wrong.
This should never happen again. Our justice system should
be blind to politics, blind to personal beliefs, and focused
solely on fairness and the law. Under Attorney General Pam
Bondi's leadership, this administration, this Congress, and
this Subcommittee are working to restore integrity to the DOJ
for everyone, all of us. We will ensure that never again will
our justice system be used as a political weapon.
I thank our witnesses, all of you, for being here today,
and I look forward to your testimoneys.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. This is my
first time serving as a Ranking Member of a Subcommittee during
a hearing, and I am grateful to be here today. I look forward
to working with you and the rest of this Committee on behalf of
the American people.
Before I was elected to Congress or to the Texas House of
Representatives, I was a public defender and civil rights
attorney by trade. I know about the Department of Justice and
what they are supposed to be doing. I am also very concerned by
a rogue DOJ or one that is not beholden to the American people.
I am very concerned about the DOJ being weaponized by the White
House. I am concerned about the FBI being used for purposes
outside of our domestic security and maintaining peace at home.
So, weaponization of the Department of Justice--this
phrase, the weaponization of government, is something that has
been overly used and repeated by my Republican colleagues. They
use it as a war cry, a battle call to justify dismantling
Federal agencies and the purging of thousands of hardworking,
dedicated Federal servants who swore an oath to protect the
Constitution and the rule of law.
If the purpose of this hearing today is to examine and
expose the weaponization of government, specifically the
weaponization of Department of Justice, then it is essential
that we understand what exactly weaponization means.
Fortunately, history is kind to us.
Last Congress, the House Judiciary Committee held numerous
hearings on this notion of weaponization. In those hearings,
Republicans described weaponization as, quote, ``corruption,''
quote, ``government abuse and political treachery,'' having the
government act, quote, ``against people who were innocent and
did nothing wrong,'' quote, ``targeting people of one political
persuasion.''
As one of my colleagues aptly described, quote,
If you speak up about the abuses you are seeing or are sharing
information that may not fall in line with the political
narrative, you will be suspended without pay, have your
security clearance revoked, or your life will be turned upside-
down. It is pretty clear that the MO is, if you don't comply,
they will retaliate. If you don't agree with their political
agenda, you get suspended. They do it in such a way to deter
others from speaking up and speaking out.
These are not my words. These are not the words of Ranking
Member Raskin or Leader Jeffries. These are the words of
Congressional Republicans. This is what they believe embodies
weapon-ization. I am the first to admit that I don't often
agree with many things that my Republican colleagues say but
wholeheartedly concur with their descriptions here.
What concerns me, however, is the inability of my
colleagues on the other side to connect the dots that are in
front of them, while the rest of America is watching as this
DOJ weaponization takes hold right before our eyes. To be
clear, what we are witnessing happening before us satisfies the
descriptions used by my Republican colleagues.
Corruption--any lawyer with a good head on their shoulders
will tell you that the recent attempt by Trump's DOJ to drop
the corruption case against Mayor Adams is ironically riddled
with corruption itself. This decision to try and drop this case
was never about some flawed argument or approach by the DOJ.
In fact, even Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove in
his February 10th letter to the U.S. attorney for the Southern
District of New York, the office handling the case, stated that
the Department of Justice's attempt to drop this was done,
quote, ``without assessing the strength of the evidence or
legal theories on which the case is based inherent.''
Instead, it is trying to drop the case because Trump's DOJ,
quote,
Is particularly concerned about the impact of the prosecution
on Mayor Adams' ability to support critical ongoing Federal
efforts to protect the American people from the disastrous
effects of unlawful mass immigration and resettlement.
Put differently, the Department of Justice wants Mayor Adams to
give fealty to Trump and also use him to execute Trump's
immigration policy in New York City.
The blatant corruption of this quid pro quo alone should
warrant
the Subcommittee to investigate the current weaponization of
this Department of Justice. This is far from the only example
of weaponization occurring before us.
Next, government abuse and political treachery--make no
mistake. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordering
Brian Driscoll, the then-acting Director of the FBI, to turn
over a list of not just current but also former FBI staff who
were assigned, quote, ``at any time to investigations and/or
prosecutions related to the events that occurred at or near the
U.S. Capitol on January 6th''--it is a clear illustration of
government abuse targeting employees they wrongfully claim are
political adversaries.
In fact, rather than utilize the FBI's time and resources
to protect America from cyber-attacks, terrorism, and other
violent crimes, Trump's DOJ is choosing to spend resources to
build loyalty to Trump. If that is not government abuse, I just
don't know what is.
Third, the view that the government is acting, quote,
``against people who were innocent and did nothing wrong''--for
those of you who may not be familiar, when career prosecutors
and staff at DOJ are assigned to cases, they take these tasks
on not because of power or politics but because it is quite
simply part of the job.
It is rare that prosecutors get every case they want.
Instead, prosecutors and staff are assigned cases because of
their capacity, experience, and expertise. Where we see
commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law, the Trump
DOJ sees reason for retribution.
This has already taken shape in various forms, but notably,
on January 27th, Trump's then-acting attorney general, James
McHenry, fired DOJ officials, those of who which worked on
Federal criminal investigations into Trump. Let me repeat this.
They fired DOJ officials who did nothing wrong. These officials
simply did their jobs.
Now, finally, quote, ``targeting people of one political
persuasion''--while I just briefly touch on this point, I want
to be very clear with the American people. Within the last 35
days, Trump's DOJ has already sent inquiry letters to
Democratic Members of Congress for speaking out and criticizing
Elon Musk.
Our task on this Subcommittee today is to conduct real
Congressional oversight of the Department of Justice because
this notion of weaponization is not simply a threat; it is a
reality. The public is worried. Career attorneys are worried.
Congress is worried. The world is worried. Every day that
passes, the Department of Justice is losing institutional
knowledge and exceptional attorneys because of a blind
arrogance and vengeance.
We owe it to this country to come together to call out
weaponiza-tion happening today, to call out corruption,
government abuse, attacks on innocent people, and the targeting
of people with different political views. We owe it to everyone
to speak the truth, even if the truth is hard to hear. We owe
it to us all to preserve our country's rule of law.
The final point that I will make is that there were a
number of attorneys that were brought up in the Chair's opening
remarks, Attorney General Letitia James of New York as well as
DA Fani Willis. I do want to point out that each of these women
are women that were duly elected in their States, and Fani
Willis was just reelected.
That is not Federal lawfare. That is not the weaponization
of the Federal Government. Both of those women work on the
State law enforcement level. The final point that I will make
is that while they work on State levels, there were only a
certain amount of cases that were able to be tried prior to the
election.
Any cases that did take place, whether they were civil
cases or Federal cases, I do want to point out, regardless of
who brought those cases, those cases ultimately--at least the
ones that did go, they ultimately went to juries. They went to
juries that were full of American citizens, juries that were
not asked, ``Are you going to sit here and support Donald Trump
and his agenda, or do you have some Left-wing agenda?'' They
were given an opportunity to hear the evidence, and they were
able to rule based on the evidence that was presented to them.
I am someone who misses the courtroom every single day, as
I practiced for 17 years before entering into Congress. If we
continue to pretend as if the voices of everyday American
citizens don't matter when they have an opportunity to listen
to both sides of a case and make a decision, then we really are
in for a rude awakening in this country.
One thing that we should do as Members of Congress is we
should preserve our institutions and make sure we build them up
to the point that people have trust. When you walk into a
courtroom, you have no idea who is walking in and who just
decided that they would actually show up for jury duty.
I am here to tell you that I still believe in that
imperfect but beautiful system that we have in this country
known as the jury system. With that, I will yield.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Ranking Member. I will quickly
point out that the President did ask his attorneys for a
neutral venue and was denied during some of those cases, and
Judge Merchan himself was very politically connected,
particularly through his daughter.
However, I did want to make an announcement. This is a one-
time-only appearance, pretty much, here. Kind of scheduling
issues. From now on, for those who come regularly, we will be
in the other room that usually the Judiciary Committee is in.
I now recognize the great Chair of the Full Committee, the
gentleman from Ohio, Jim Jordan, for his opening statement.
Chair Jordan. I don't know about the great part, but thank
you, Mr. Chair.
They could never tell us who planted the pipe bombs on
January 6th. They could never tell us who leaked the Dobbs
opinion. They could never tell us who put cocaine at the White
House. They sure had time for a lot of other things.
On October 2, 2021, they set up a snitch line to report
moms and dads who had the nerve to show up at a school board
meeting and advocate for their son or daughter. On September
23, 2022, 10 unmarked cars pull up to Mark Houck's home,
arresting him in front of his wife and seven children, and what
did he do wrong? What did he do wrong? Pray in front of an
abortion clinic. When some crazy guy comes up and starts
yelling obscenities in his kid's face, he makes sure he deals
with that guy. He went to court. The jury found him not guilty.
On November 18, 2022--the Chair talked about this--raid--
excuse me. Actually, before that, the Summer of 2022, raid on
President Trump's home. President Trump's attorney said, ``You
can come.'' They were working with him. ``No, no, no. We've got
to go raid.'' We had, actually, Mr. Steven D'Antuono, head of
the Washington Field Office, tell us how wrong that was, how
they broke all kinds of protocol.
Two months later, Mr. Garland appoints Jack Smith as
Special Prosecutor. As the Chair pointed out in his opening
statement, the lead prosecutor, Jay Bratt, used the promise of
a judgeship to try to pressure one of the defendant's lawyers.
You are not allowed to do that. We are going to talk to Mr.
Bratt at some point, this Committee. We will have him in for a
deposition.
On January 23, 2023, FBI Richmond Field Office issues a
memorandum where it says if you are a prolife Catholic, you
might be a domestic violent extremist. Can't tell us who put
cocaine at the White House, but you can call Catholics
extremists.
In the Spring 2023, two brave whistleblowers come forward
and tell us about the sweetheart deal that David Weiss was
trying to do for Hunter Biden. Of course, those guys' reward
for coming forward as good, brave whistleblowers was to have
their security clearances taken from them and be retaliated
against.
At 6:01 a.m., March 19, 2024, Brian Malinowski, Little
Rock, Arkansas, highest paid official in the Little Rock
government, runs the Bill and Hillary Clinton Airport. At 6:01,
all these folks show up in the morning. The first thing they do
is put tape on the doorbell cam, and they are coming after Mr.
Malinowski, a warrant to search his home because they believed
he had sold six guns that he wasn't supposed to sell. At 6:01,
tape on the doorbell cam. Fifty-three seconds later, Brian
Malinowski is shot in the head, later dies.
They could have handled that so--the SWAT team and
everything else--just talk to his lawyers. All kinds of ways
you could have handled that to avoid the terrible outcome. We
had Brian Malinowski's spouse was here last Congress. His
lawyer testified--a tragic story because of this Justice
Department, the previous Justice Department, the way they
handled things.
Don't forget December 12, 2024, when the Inspector General
told us about the 26 confidential human sources, who were there
on January 6, 2021. Seventeen went into restricted space, which
they were not authorized to do. Four went into the Capitol,
which they were not authorized to do. None of them were
charged. Two of the four who went into the Capitol were asked
to be there by the FBI.
We got all kinds of questions about that incident, about
those confidential human sources, all kinds of questions we
want answered. Now, thank goodness--and the Chair referenced
this as well. Thank goodness Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Kash
Patel, and Dan Bongino are now going to be running the Justice
Department where we won't have this kind of ridiculous focus on
agencies being turned on the very people they are supposed to
serve.
We sent seven subpoenas today, seven subpoenas that we sent
asking for information about all these issues. We want
everything you got so the American people have answers. Maybe
it is not as bad as I think. One thing I have learned in my
time in Congress with these investigations--every single time,
the only thing we get wrong is it is always worse than we
thought. It is always worse than we thought.
So maybe I will be proven wrong this time. We are going to
get that information. I think the date is March 7th, they are
supposed to have this information back to us.
I want to thank the Chair and the good work I know he is
going to do this Congress, the great work he has done on our
Committee, for having this hearing, taking a look back at what
we saw from this ridiculous previous Justice Department and the
good work I think we are going to see from the folks who are
now running that critical Department and Agency.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very kindly.
Last Congress the Chair of the Committee and the Committee
sent over 150 letters of inquiry, and subpoenas to the DOJ and
the FBI. That is more than two inquiries a week for every week
that we were in session. All that breathless investigation
didn't yield much evidence of weaponization, any more than it
led to the impeachment of Joe Biden, which was the express
objective of it all.
I have good news for all the weaponized sleuths and
gumshoes out there on the Committee.
The Department of Justice and the FBI are now filled with
actual staggering corruption and weaponized lawlessness. We
should get on it immediately. It has only been 36 days since
the beginning of the Administration and we already have a thick
report we are releasing today on the violations of law and the
Constitution that have taken place, the early misdeeds of the
Trump Administration DOJ.
It is true the Federal courts have issued more than 20
temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to try
to stop this governmental crime wave. We cannot maintain a
demure legislative silence, Mr. Chair, about the shocking
weaponized corruption overtaking the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Ten days ago, seven career prosecutors resigned in protest
rather than carry out a corrupt and lawless order from the
Acting Deputy Attorney General and former Donald Trump private
Defense Attorney Emil Bove. He ordered prosecutors in the
Southern District to dismiss for totally political reasons a
major public corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams,
who had been charged, by a unanimous Grand Jury in a 57-page
indictment, with five felony counts of criminal bribery and
soliciting illegal contributions.
Trump ordered DOJ to withdraw the Grand Jury indictment
after Adams traveled to Mar-a-Lago and agreed to back Trump's
political agenda in return.
The Interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon resigned rather
than make her storied office a party to this profoundly corrupt
bargain. She refused to extend prosecutorial favoritism toward
a politician who had been indicted for serious bribery and
corruption charges. Nor would she participate in Mr. Bove's
project to cover up the details of this dirty deal.
Ms. Sassoon is a Republican with impeccable credentials in
the conservative movement. For anyone who might doubt it, a
member of the Federal Society, and a former law clerk to
Supreme Court Justice Scalia, a jurist whom I know the Chair
has repeatedly praised.
Now, in ordinary times we wouldn't have to raise this. Here
we do, because we are living in an atmosphere of political
paranoia. This is a very conservative U.S. attorney who said,
``she could not abide the corruption of the new Trump
Administration's Department of Justice.'' Her resignation
triggered a cascade of further resignations as six other
veteran prosecutors refused in their turn to take part in this
corrupt bargain.
The officials included the Acting Head of the Criminal
Division, several leaders of DOJ's Public Integrity Section,
and the lead prosecutor on the case from the Southern District,
Hagan Scotten, a decorated veteran, and another Republican with
impeccable Right-wing credentials who could not stomach the
thought of joining this plot, and said in a letter to the
agents that, ``I will submit to the record that it will take a
fool or a coward to join this plot against justice.''
The next day an apparently exasperated Mr. Bove demanded
that the career prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section
volunteer one lawyer to sign this disgraceful dismissal order
or there would be a mass firing of all of them. One lawyer, set
to retire, agreed to sign the dismissal to protect his
colleagues from this outrageous threat of collective mass
punishment, something that would be more appropriate to
Stalin's Russia than to the United States of America.
This eye-popping sellout of public integrity and public
safety in New York wasn't even a secret. In a Fox News
interview, Tom Homan, the Border Czar, sat next to Mayor Adams
and explicitly referred to the corrupt bargain saying,
If he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York. We won't
be sitting on a couch, I'll be in his office up his butt
saying, ``Where the hell is the agreement we came to?''
Last Friday, the judge in the case at least provisionally
refused to honor this dirty deal, instead appointing an
independent monitor, Republican Paul Clement, to evaluate what
should be done with the now orphaned five-count criminal
corruption indictment.
Mr. Chair, these facts are shocking: Blatant corruption,
coverup, mass resignations, threats, and coercion. This, can
you imagine what the Republican Members of this Committee would
be saying if that happened under President Biden, if Joe Biden
had done that for the corrupt Democratic Mayor of New York
City? My God.
This toxic sweetheart deal demands a Committee inquiry.
Where is it? It is infinitely worse than any of the flotsam and
jetsam the Committee examined with the brainy intensity of
Lieutenant Columbo in the last Congress.
The Majority has asked no questions, written no letters,
demanded no briefings, or issued no subpoenas on this scandal.
Why not? Why has the cat got your tongue?
Well, this Adams debacle provides us with a whiff of the
raw sewage already overpouring the Department of Justice. They
sacked dozens of prosecutors with superior credentials and
evaluations simply for doing their jobs when they were assigned
to work on the January 6th teams. These people must get their
jobs back under the Civil Service rules, which allow dismissal
and discipline only for poor performance or misconduct. The
majority has not uttered a peep wondering about how such an
appalling violation of the law and professional ethics has come
to pass.
Why not?
Last Congress you investigated the DOJ for allegedly hiring
and firing employees based on political ideology. Nothing came
of it.
Now, DOJ has openly fired dozens of career prosecutors--
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--for the sole reason
that they were assigned to work on the January 6th insurrection
cases, in other words, for doing their jobs in a case that
Donald Trump now considers uncomfortable for him.
How is that remotely acceptable?
Even Trump said on January 7th, in the wake of the vicious,
premeditated attack on our police, and our Congress, and our
Constitution, that it was ``a heinous attack.'' He said,
The demonstrators who had infiltrated the Capitol have defiled
the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in acts of
violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And
to those who broke the law you will pay.
Well, the only people paying now, after his pardons are the
prosecutors and FBI agents they are going after for doing their
jobs because Donald Trump thinks it is too much truth.
In an act of Orwellian revisionism that would make Joseph
Stalin blush, Trump's team wants to punish hardworking
prosecutors and FBI agents for doing the jobs they were told to
do. If this is not weaponization of the Department of Justice,
then what is, Mr. Chair? It is far worse than the imaginary
things floating around last Congress that led nowhere.
When will we have a hearing on what is taking place for
real in the Department of Justice right now? They have hollowed
the career leadership ranks of the DOJ, ravaging the offices
that prosecute public corruption and terrorism. Now we meet Ed
Martin, the new U.S. Attorney of DC, who has already proven
himself to be to legal ethics what Bobby Kennedy is to public
health. He is an election denier who participated in the
insurrectionary mass protests of January 6th, which he joyfully
likened to Mardi Gras on the social media.
Until recently, very recently in fact, into his term of
office he has been a defense lawyer of record in the courts for
numerous January 6th criminal defendants. After taking over the
U.S. Attorney's Office he fired dozens of prosecutors, again
for doing their jobs, for prosecuting January 6th rioters.
The DOJ ethics rules plainly require that he recuse himself
because of this glaring conflict of interest created by his
ongoing representation of private plaintiffs being prosecuted
by the Government. Naturally, the Trump DOJ forced out the
Senior Ethics Official Brad Weinsheimer who would have ruled on
the matter and replaced him with two inexperienced political
appointees who apparently think it is OK not just for the fox
to guard the henhouse, but for the fox to simultaneously
represent other foxes in court who have already ravaged the
henhouse.
Mr. Martin has literally made filings on both sides of
January 6th cases, as defense counsel for participants in the
riot, and now as a prosecutor dismissing the charges against
the same defendants he was representing.
When will there be a hearing on this? This is taking place
right now.
The list goes on. We don't have time to go through
everything that has already happened, but I would encourage the
Chair to please check out our report on that this hearing was
entitled ``Entering the Golden Age: Ending the Weaponization of
the Department of Justice,'' a title that comes just in time to
help us celebrate the 50th anniversary of Saturday Night Live.
Well, perhaps the title is referring to a golden age for
corrupt billionaires, or lawless oligarchs, and violent White
nationalists, but it is no golden age for the Department of
Justice, which is now mired in corruption and lawlessness,
halting prosecutions, disbanding the anticorruption task
forces, and purging veteran prosecutors and agents who are
dedicated to public safety, and have superior performance
evaluations but have run afoul of the new political correctness
imposed on the Department.
Chair Jordan has championed our power under Article I, to
ensure that the Department of Justice upholds the rule of law
for all, without fear of favor. Good for him. I don't need to
quote his eloquent speeches for you on the subject; we know
them well.
So, I ask this Committee to be true to our own beautiful
words. Let's not use our oversight power selectively. Let's
investigate these startling developments so dangerous to
justice in America. Let's start with the dirty deal with Mayor
Adams, which has now put a giant worm in the Big Apple.
Mr. Chair, I would invite you to join us in sending this
letter today to Attorney General Bondi demanding specific
answers on her shocking abuse of prosecutorial power, the
shocking abuse of prosecutorial power that has taken place at
DOJ in the whole Mayor Adams matter.
I would think that the Committee should move very quickly
to have a hearing on this next week.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Real quickly, Pam Bondi will be here for the Committee of
the whole. I am sure Members also will meet some of her staff
and ranking people; they will be at this Committee as well.
I would maintain the attorneys were removed not because
they were doing a great job. Because they weren't doing their
job, and they were involved in lawfare. That is the point.
With that, Mr. Raskin, I believe you wanted to enter
something into the record?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, please. Two things: First, the letter to
Attorney General Bondi.
Second, a new report, ``President Trump's New Gilded Age,
how Trump's Department of Justice is promoting political and
corporate corruption to benefit''--
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection, all other opening
statements will be included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witnesses.
First, Mr. Chris Swecker. Mr. Swecker is a former FBI agent
who retired as the Assistant Director of the Criminal
Investigations Unit. He served with the Bureau for 23 years.
That is a lot. He currently practices law in the great State of
North Carolina.
Mr. Jonathan Fahey. Mr. Fahey is a partner with Holtzman
Vogel, where his practice focuses on investigations and white-
collar criminal defense.
He previously served in various roles in the Department of
Homeland Security and as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Mr. Peter Breen. Mr. Breen is the Executive Vice President
and Head of Litigation at the Thomas More Society, a public
interest law firm focused on Constitutional rights. Mr. Breen
successfully, successfully defended Mark Houck, a prolife
advocate, against FACE Act charges brought by the Biden-Harris
Administration.
Mr. Brendan Ballou. Mr. Ballou is a former Federal
prosecutor. He served with the Justice Department for five
years.
We welcome all our witnesses today and thank them for
appearing here.
We will begin by swearing you in. Please rise. Raise your
right hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
[Witnesses affirm.]
Mr. Van Drew. OK. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
Mr. Swecker, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS SWECKER
Mr. Swecker. Good afternoon, Chair and Ranking Member, and
the Members of the Subcommittee.
It is an honor to appear at this hearing today. As
mentioned, I have over 42 years of active experience in the
criminal justice system as a prosecutor, as an agent, and as an
attorney. That informs my testimony today.
I served under seven FBI directors and seven attorney
generals. While attorney generals are cabinet appointments and
politics goes with the position, this should not be the case
with the FBI director, who has a 10-year term that was designed
to insulate the position from politics.
Indeed, during my 24 years in the FBI, I can attest that
politics did not drive the initiation or conduct of any
investigations, and cases were not pursued for political
purposes.
Sadly, that has not been the case at the DOJ and FBI since
at least 2016.
I am not here to convey my political views. I know how
Federal investigations flow, however, and I know the laws,
policies, and procedures that govern FBI and DOJ operations. I
am familiar with the work of the Committee, this Committee, as
well as the DOJ Inspector General Horowitz, Special Counsel
Durham, and all the relevant investigations from Crossfire
Hurricane to the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Many official actions taken by DOJ and the FBI in the last
eight years were simply wrong. I share the goals of this
Subcommittee that these agencies should never again be used as
political weapons.
The facts speak for themselves. The U.S. DOJ and its
agencies have effectively been used as political weapons. This
has taken the form of selective and hyper-aggressive
prosecutions of political opponents, while slow-walking and
even sabotaging investigations of favored political figures.
There has been coordination with and even funding of State
prosecutions of Donald Trump. There has been use of some of the
most intrusive techniques available against political opponents
of Joe Biden, and injection of personal animus and political
views into investigations and prosecutions.
Much of this weaponization was driven by an entrenched
group of ideologues within the DOJ and FBI, in perfect
alignment with the Biden Administration, that can't be chalked
up to coincidence.
A well-known example is Crossfire Hurricane, a notoriously
unpredicated investigation of the 2016 Trump Presidential
campaign, tainted by four FISA surveillance orders, based on
deliberately false information contained in opposition
research. This was a campaign by an unprecedented infiltration
of the campaign by multiple informants.
Crossfire Hurricane further involved the potential
entrapment of a cabinet-level appointee based on the pretext of
an introductory intelligence briefing. Rather than target the
Russian influencers and protect the unwitting campaign
operatives, the FBI targeted the Trump Presidential campaign
through those operatives.
Note that when similar information was developed about the
Hillary Clinton campaign, she was immediately afforded a
defensive briefing.
Undeterred by the misconduct identified in the DOJ I.G.
Horowitz and Special Counsel Durham reports regarding Crossfire
Hurricane, many of the same DOJ and FBI managers opened and
pursued a classified documents case on the former President and
Presidential candidate culminating in a dawn raid of his
personal residence. This was ostensibly to execute a search
warrant and was conducted despite ongoing negotiations
regarding the declassification and possible return of the
documents.
After the raid, it was disclosed that Biden had squirreled
away classified documents himself.
Another example, the inexplicably tepid DOJ-controlled FBI
investigation of the Biden family influence peddling schemes,
despite the existence of over 170 Bank Suspicious Activity
Reports, multiple witnesses, 20 offshore corporations, 19
million in potentially illicit proceeds from hostile and
corrupt foreign governments, oligarchs, and shadowy
international characters seeking official favors, and a laptop
full of evidence, the investigation languished.
It doesn't take a MENSA candidate to surmise that serious
criminal activity was afoot that extended well beyond a garden
variety tax and firearms case.
The case was plagued by interference by DOJ attempting to
slow walk the investigation past the statute of limitations,
and a deceptive effort to discredit the laptop. It took an
alert Federal judge to expose the clever attempt to implement a
global plea bargain hidden in a plea agreement to a single
firearms charge. The contrast with the multiple scorched earth
investigations targeting Donald Trump should be clear to pretty
much anyone that is being objective.
Since I am running out of time, I ask that you introduce my
full statement into the record.
Thank you.
I want to also add I am not here in any official capacity
for the FBI. As was mentioned, I retired from the FBI, so I am
here as a concerned citizen with some experience.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swecker follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Swecker.
Without objection, we will enter the full statement of all
of you into the permanent record.
Mr. Fahey, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN L. FAHEY
Mr. Fahey. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and the Members
of the Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
My name is Jonathan Fahey, and I am a partner at--
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Fahey, I believe your mike is not on.
Mr. Fahey. Oh, OK. Is it on? OK.
Mr. Van Drew. Some folks might not like that, but we want
to hear you.
Mr. Fahey. OK. You didn't miss anything at the beginning.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fahey. I am a partner of a law firm of Holtzman Vogel.
Most of my career practice in law I served as a prosecutor,
both at a State and Federal level. During this time I had the
opportunity to work with numerous hardworking men and women of
law enforcement and fellow prosecutors.
Because of my experience, I have immense respect for the
members of the law enforcement community who every day make
sacrifices on behalf of all of us, and a lot of times things
that go unnoticed and probably should be recognized more often.
By and large, I found that both State and Federal law
enforcement agents adhere to the highest ethical standards,
they have an unwavering commitment to justice and to public
safety.
My work with fellow prosecutors was similar. I want to
echo, basically echo what Mr. Swecker said. I worked with some
of the finest attorneys of the Eastern District of Virginia. We
worked side by side on cases, big and small. I worked as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney under President Bush 43, President
Obama, and President Trump. During these times, even though
some priorities had changed, I never saw any politicization.
Often I didn't really know what the politics were of my
colleagues, other than occasionally in private conversations.
I was extremely proud of the work I did as a prosecutor. I
am grateful for the opportunity I had to stand up in court to
advocate on behalf of victims, and stand and say my name on
behalf of the United States.
I gained, in addition to that, amazing professional
experiences, many friends in law enforcement, fellow
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and courtroom personnel. It is
an experience I wouldn't trade for anything.
One of the most important things I learned, which I think
is relevant here, is the tremendous responsibility that comes
from being a prosecutor with every decision you make, and how
many people can be affected by those decisions.
Sadly, the last Administration I believe changed the
prosecutor's role and, instead of focusing on public safety
issues, they focused on political agendas and advanced the
political agenda. This manifested itself in many of the cases
the Chair spoke about earlier. It led to a severe distrust in
the criminal justice system and the FBI. Meanwhile, Americans
became less safe because the focus was on political agendas
rather than public safety issues.
One of the most egregious examples that has been referenced
a lot, but I think it is important here, is the investigation
into the school boards or the parents speaking out at the
school boards. This came, the timing of this is critical.
First, it was toward the beginning of the Biden
Administration so it sort of set the tone. The other part is
this occurred in October 2021, when the election in Virginia,
as well as in New Jersey, the most critical issue, most
important issue, was the school issues involving COVID policy
as well as curriculum.
With some information about threats that came in--I think
there is dispute about how it came in, but a lot of information
that may have come in from teachers' unions and things like
that--the Attorney General of the United States created a task
force for these parents that consisted of the Criminal Division
of DOJ, the Civil Rights Division, the National Security
Division, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the
Community Relations Service which I didn't know exists, and the
Office of Justice Programs. He also ordered the U.S. Attorneys,
each U.S. Attorney, to convene meetings with local officials to
supposedly learn more about these threats.
This was within 30 days of his memo, which was early
October. Coincidentally, the election with the biggest issue on
the table was November of that year.
After all this attention, there was not a single Federal
prosecution that was brought as a result. However, the harm to
the system and to the individuals was profound. The specter of
law enforcement investigating what you say at a school board
meeting not only intimidated parents who have spoken up, that
may have wanted to speak up but also marginalized them so other
people that might agree with their stance when they see them
labeled as terrorists, it would have a political impact.
So, that is one of the things I think is most egregious
about the weaponization.
I know my time is near. In all these cases the Department
of Justice had to make decisions, whether it was January 6th,
whether it is the protest outside a Supreme Court Justice's
home, whether or not where to put your resources. Do you put
them into public safety, or do you prosecute the 1,500th person
that came into the Capitol on January 6th, while carjackers
were not being prosecuted, while murderers were not being
investigated fully?
That is really the issue here. The American people suffered
during the last four years, because crime was higher and it was
higher in many respects because the attention was not focused
on what affected the community.
Going forward, I hope this new Department of Justice will
focus on issues from the bottom up, to not politicize anything,
to focus on what affects people day to day on the street,
whether it's fentanyl trafficking, gangs, human trafficking,
and other kinds of violence. I believe if they do that, the
American people will be well served, they will be safer, and
they will restore, this will restore credibility for the
Justice Department and the justice system as a whole.
I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fahey follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Fahey.
Mr. Breen, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF PETER BREEN
Mr. Breen. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and the
Members of the Committee.
As noted before, I am honored to lead the Society's
national litigation team. Our dedicated professionals work in
State and Federal courts across the country to defend the
Constitutional rights and, really, the rights of every
American.
Relevant to today's hearing, as noted, I am proud to have
led the defense of Mark Houck for the Society. Our team has
represented dozens of other prolife Americans against the
unprecedented assault on them by the Biden Department of
Justice. Numerous criminal prosecutions were brought, civil
cases across the country
Now, the Biden DOJ engaged in a systematic campaign to
abuse the power of the Federal Government against prolife
advocates, while that same DOJ ignored hundreds of acts of
vandalism and violence against prolife churches, pregnancy help
centers, and other advocates.
On behalf of our clients in the prolife movement as a whole
we are thankful to President Trump for his recent pardons, and
to the Members of this House who supported that effort. Those
pardons sent a powerful message to the country, and especially
to the millions of Americans in the prolife movement, that the
Federal Government should not be weaponized against Americans
because of their sincere beliefs in the sanctity of human life.
We are grateful as well for the actions of the Trump DOJ,
its Chief of Staff, who issued the memorandum directing the
dismissal of the prosecutions and civil lawsuits against our
clients. That memo highlighted the fact that the Biden DOJ
selectively prosecuted and enforced the law against our folks,
while ignoring the many acts on the other side.
You may have heard some of the stories of these advocates.
There is Paul Vaughn, the Evangelical Christian father of
11 whose children were outside waiting to go to school when
heavily armed Federal agents rolled up, held his kids at bay as
other agents then arrested their father. Paul didn't even block
access to a clinic. He was there to give moral and spiritual
support to those who did. Still, the DOJ charged him with a
FACE Act violation and a felony ``Conspiracy Against Rights.''
While he escaped prison time, others did not.
Because of that ``Conspiracy Against Rights'' felony, we
have had numerous clients who have received multiple-year
prison sentences, especially in Washington, DC.
You heard about Mark Houck, of course. Twenty Federal
agents at dawn directed their guns at him and his family, took
him away in handcuffs. The thing is, we offered to present Mark
to the prosecution. Had he been anybody but Mark Houck, we
would have been allowed to do so. Instead, they spent those law
enforcement resources creating an incredibly dangerous
situation on his front lawn outside Philadelphia.
Now, we did beat the Biden DOJ in the Mark Houck case,
winning that unanimous not guilty verdict from the Phillie
jury. After that win, the DOJ under Biden did not prosecute
another sidewalk counselor.
See, because at the same time, you may not have heard, the
Biden DOJ was investigating numerous other sidewalk scuffles at
abortion facilities coast to coast. We had numerous clients
contacted by the FBI in connection with those incidents. Had we
not won for Mark, and won so definitively and publicly, we are
sure that there would have been a wave of Houck-style
prosecutions, Federalizing minor sidewalk squabbles across the
country.
Now that the President has acted, the DOJ is cleaned out,
and our clients' criminal records are wiped clean, is the
matter concluded? Absolutely not.
Because of the actions of the Biden DOJ, which mirrored to
some extent the actions of the Obama DOJ, the Sword of Damocles
still hangs over prolife advocates. There are long statutes of
limitations on these Federal laws. So, folks remain in fear
that some future administration will twist the law and come
after them. Some of those Biden prosecutions were for actions
under the first, that were taken under the first Trump
Administration.
The DOJ's recent dismissals were ordered on the basis of
selective prosecution, and did not necessarily recognize that
the underlying laws don't apply to the conduct.
So, of course, while we urge the Congress to repeal the
FACE act, which is selectively and illegally enforced, we do
have several other concrete steps that we would recommend.
First, as noted, this Committee is very much needed because
you need, respectfully, to continue to investigate and expose
the misuse of the FBI and DOJ over the past four years against
prolife Americans. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. This
Subcommittee has a lot of light to bring.
Second, we would ask that you urge the Trump Administration
to bring to justice those who committed the violence and
vandalism. If the FACE Act is going to remain on the books, it
should be enforced equally.
Third, there are some very concrete things that the DOJ can
do to properly define the scope of the FACE Act and the
``Conspiracy Against Rights'' statute, and can take far more
written positions on those laws that will help to prevent this
going forward:
(1) Recognize that Congress intended the FACE Act not to
apply to sidewalk squabbles. That was agreed to by Senator Ted
Kennedy. It has been on the record from over 30 years ago. They
agreed to that as part of passing this act. It has been wiped
away and ignored ever since. That needs to be recognized.
(2) We need to make clear the FACE Act's ``physical
obstruction'' doesn't apply to peaceable counseling activity
that does not intentionally obstruct a patient or an abortion
provider. The Biden DOJ advanced a contrary theory, which
mirrored the Obama DOJ before it. The New York Attorney General
is continuing that action right now. That needs to stop.
(3) Again, that recognize that FACE cannot be applied to
others who are not actually blocking the clinic without running
afoul of the First Amendment.
(4) Get rid of this ``Conspiracy Against Rights'' statute
application because its 10-year felony provisions cannot be
applied to prolife advocates at all.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Breen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Breen.
Mr. Ballou, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN BALLOU
Mr. Ballou. Thank you. As mentioned, my name is Brendan
Ballou, I serve in the Justice Department's National Security
and Antitrust Divisions, and for two years was detailed to
prosecute crimes stemming from the attack on the Capitol. It is
important to remember that approximately one hundred and forty
police officers were assaulted by rioters on January 6, 2021.
One officer told me that he feared for his life more that day
than during his entire deployment to Afghanistan in 2001.
Another told me that he texted his family that afternoon
because he expected to die. The work we did was about getting
justice for those officers. Justice is only possible when
Federal prosecutors have credibility, and I want to explain how
the Justice Department built that credibility over many
decades, and how it is being destroyed in a matter of weeks.
After Watergate and the Nixon Administration, Congress and
the Executive built protections to make it less likely that the
Department's powers would be abused. The Offices of
Professional Responsibility and Inspector General were created.
The Department limited communications with the White House, and
FBI officials began regularly testifying before Congressional
Committees like this one.
Investigations into activists were largely ended, and the
Department refocused its energy on public corruption. In the
past month the Administration has largely destroyed these
reforms, and refocused the Department away from prosecuting the
corrupt, and toward favoring friends, and investigating
enemies. To give just a few examples, most obviously the
President pardoned nearly 1,600 rioters who stormed the Capitol
and its grounds in the President's name.
Including rioters whom I helped prosecute, who punched
officers, who dragged them into the crowd, and who speared them
with flagpoles. The acting D.C. U.S. Attorneys threatened
investigations into various perceived enemies of the
Administration, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer,
and former Special Counsel Jack Smith. The Department has
largely stopped enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,
which prohibits bribery, prosecuting cases under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act, which prohibits secret work on behalf
of a foreign power.
Pursuing the work of the Kleptocapture Task Force, which
enforce sanctions against Russian oligarchs. The Administration
also threatened to fire the attorneys of the public integrity
section, who prosecuted corrupt politicians. Now, there is an
effort to draw a false equivalency between these actions over
the last month, and those of recent administrations.
Either to argue that what is happening now is nothing new,
or that if it is, it deserves retribution. This attempt at
equivalence, however, is a mistake for two reasons. First, a
weaponized Justice Department endangers anyone involved in
politics, no matter their political persuasion. Since the
President pardoned the Capitol rioters, FBI agents have been
subject to personal and specific threats of violence.
These threats have no party limits, just this weekend at a
conservative political conference speakers considered
insufficiently loyal to the President were threatened, and told
that pipe bombs had been planted in the building.
Second, a weaponized Justice Department corrupts all of
society, makes life harder, and more expensive for people far
from politics.
For instance, The Wall Street Journal reports that
executives at Twitter recently demanded that a company
advertise on its platform, and intimated that the Government
might stop or slow a proposed merger if it did not. This is an
attempt to use the tools of the Justice Department to enrich
one politically connected business, and it is how an oligarchy
is created.
The actions of the past month should concern us all,
largely ending foreign bribery and corruption cases, and
threatening to fire public corruption prosecutors,
investigating political enemies while putting political friends
above the law. These are all efforts to return us to the time
of Watergate, and it harms you no matter your political
beliefs.
The only people who will benefit from these actions will be
billionaire criminals, and for them this will be a golden age.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ballou follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Ballou. We're now going to
proceed under the five-minute rule with questions.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Barry
Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the witnesses
being here today. The Biden-Harris DOJ enabled hyper partisan
prosecutors, in particular, former Special Counsel Jack Smith
to criminalize politics in America. Smith's approach to the
prosecutorial process raised many concerns among experts
related to what his actions would meant to the future of the
DOJ.
In addition to his storied investigations, Smith personally
led, he also coordinated with Fani Willis to help with her
politically motivated prosecution of President Trump. Willis
was also given disproportionate assistance from the January 6th
Committee, receiving records simultaneously with help from us
in Congress and law enforcement.
Meanwhile, Matthew Colangelo, an attorney known for waging
lawfare against Trump during his first term as President, left
the elite position at the Biden-Harris DOJ to work with a
Manhattan district attorney by the name of Alvin Bragg, where
he led the prosecution of President Trump. Mr. Fahey, what are
your thoughts generally on the investigations led by former
Special Counsel Jack Smith?
Mr. Fahey. Generally, they were--I would characterize them
as heavy handed in all respects. You look at this from, which
is sort of the point I was trying to make, is when you are
doing something, when you are focusing on something, you are
not focusing on something else, but it is also heavy handed to
the way other cases are prosecuted by the Justice Department.
The best example of the Jack Smith case is to compare that
to how Robert Hur handled President Biden. You have, just when
you focus on Mar-a-Lago, you have President Biden, who when he
was in the Senate managed to get a hold of classified
information that shows up at his house. When he's Vice
President, he left office and managed to keep classified
information.
He kept this in his home, he kept this at the Biden Center,
I think there was one other location. Robert Hur wrote a report
describing all that, more than ample evidence, he described his
cognitive deficiencies, but there were no heavy-handed measures
taken. It wasn't interview everyone until the cows come home,
and ultimately, he came to a measured decision for conduct that
arguably is more egregious than what President Trump did.
Because President Trump allegedly, all the classified
information that he allegedly had, he was allowed to have it at
the beginning. President Biden at the time was never allowed to
have this information. He was also treated quite a bit
differently, when he turned in the information when it first
came about, which was before the election of 2022, the Justice
Department kept that quiet.
He turns it in through his lawyer, and then he proceeded to
turn in more information over the period of the next couple of
months, I think until about December. Why that is important,
nobody raided his home, nobody did any heavy-handed moves, they
let him turn it in at his convenience, at his leisure, and
ultimately they did a consent search because it seemed like
every time he turned around there is more classified
information in his house.
So, then you compare that to President Trump with they were
negotiating with NARA, they were in a far more secure location
than his garage, and how was that treated? They ran up in his
house, they were searching his wife's, where she keeps her
clothes, and intimate clothing, and things like that to get
items. It was always under the guise of this is so serious to
get these items back because our national security is at risk.
When it was Biden, it was sort of like--
Mr. Moore. In the garage, around the car, in open boxes, it
was fine.
Mr. Fahey. Yes, just swing it by when you have a chance.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sure. So, are you familiar with the 2013
IRS scandal that targeted conservative nonprofit organizations,
are you familiar with that?
Mr. Fahey. The Lois Lerner?
Mr. Moore. Yes, and actually--
Mr. Fahey. I am, but not intimately, yes.
Mr. Moore. Well, I understand Jack Smith actually, he
encouraged the Department of Justice to contact the IRS and
continue that process going after those conservatives wherever
they may be. Mr. Swecker, I know you served with the FBI for
some time, and I appreciate your service. What about the raid
to Mar-a-Lago to you stood out? I know we had some other FBI
officials testify and tell us what they thought, and so as we
look through this process, what about it to you stand out?
Mr. Swecker. Just the fact that they did it at all. There
is a lot of discretion in investigations, there is a lot of
discretion in prosecutions. I was a prosecutor, I was an agent,
and I know it from both angles. I just think it was never in
the best interest of the American public for them, they are
during negotiations where there were a lot of issues that were
being discussed between lawyers.
The information, the documents were secure, and they
weren't going anywhere, unlike Hillary Clinton's server, which
was the most least secure place you could ever store
information, is on a server, anybody can get to it.
Mr. Moore. I thought it was interesting, they handled it
from the Washington Field Office rather than the Miami Field
Office when they raided his home, and I kind of thought that
was rather unusual.
Mr. Swecker. Highly unusual, and that search was conducted
over the objection of the Assistant Director in charge of the
Washington Field Office.
Mr. Moore. With that, Mr. Chair, I'm out of time, I yield
back.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I do have a UC request.
Mr. Van Drew. OK.
Ms. Crockett. I would ask for unanimous consent, I would
like to enter into the record the full transcript with Steven
D'Antuono, I may be saying that incorrectly, Antuono, the
Assistant Director in charge of FBI's Washington Field Office.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, I have got one more,
sorry. I would also like to introduce an article titled
``Donald Trump Stored, Showed Off, and Refused to Return
Classified Documents, Indictments.''
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
Mr. Van Drew. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the
witnesses for your testimony today, let's see. Trump is purging
experienced career civil servants and filling their roles with
inexperienced sycophants who will do whatever they are told to
do no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional the ask, and the
American people are focused on that real threat to our
democracy, and to the rule of law that is poised by this Trump
Administration.
So, they are too smart to be distracted by Republicans'
tired conspiracy theories, and that is exactly what we are
getting today. Now, Mr. Ballou, you are familiar with Danielle
Sassoon, are you not?
Mr. Ballou. I am, sir.
Mr. Johnson. You know here to be a Federalist Society
member?
Mr. Ballou. She is.
Mr. Johnson. A former law clerk to Antonin Scalia?
Mr. Ballou. She is.
Mr. Johnson. Anti-LGBTQ rights, anticivil-rights, a blazing
Right-wing extremist, isn't that correct?
Mr. Ballou. He was an extremely conservative jurist.
Mr. Johnson. No, I am talking about Danielle Sassoon.
Mr. Ballou. I can't speak to Ms. Sassoon's personal
opinions about those specific legal issues.
Mr. Johnson. She is, as you described Justice Scalia, but
even she could not stomach the prospect of being a party to a
quid pro quo in the Eric Adams case, could she?
Mr. Ballou. No, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Dropping charges for illegitimate reasons, she
didn't want to have a hand in that, she was too principled to
participate in that. Because we know that when you drop charges
against someone for an illegitimate purpose, a quid pro quo,
Eric Adams, to force him over a barrel to carry out your
deportation political agenda in return for dropping the charges
against him eventually, but hanging it over his head with a
dismissal without prejudice, she did not want to be a party to
such an illegitimate bargain.
We know that if you drop a charge, you will also institute
charges for political purposes, for illegitimate purposes. Is
that not the essence of weaponizing the Justice Department?
Mr. Ballou. Yes, absolutely, sir. The concern here is that
criminal prosecutions would be used to achieve unrelated policy
objectives in the case of the Eric Adams scandal. The reason
that we don't do that is because the powers of prosecutors are
so vast that once that happens people will follow government
directives not because they want to, or believe in it, but
simply because they fear retribution if they don't.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. In your testimony you talked about
how this administration has corrupted the guard rails that
existed in the Department of Justice with respect to reforms
put in place after the abuse during the Republican Nixon
Administration. You talked about how guard rails have been
destroyed insofar as favoring friends of this administration,
what did you mean by that specifically?
Mr. Ballou. Well, I think we are seeing this in The Wall
Street Journal reporting about potentially X, or Twitter trying
to get advertisers back on their site, and if they don't, well
then the Government will investigate them, and potentially stop
a merger.
Mr. Johnson. This is the Co-President of the United States,
who by the way, was unelected and hails from apartheid South
Africa trying to leverage his position as Co-President to gain
something for his platform that spews mis- and disinformation
publicly.
Mr. Ballou. Yes, when the Government is used in that way,
it harms everybody far from politics, because it increases
prices, and it interferes with the free economy.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I can't think of a greater threat to
democracy than a guy like Elon Musk set free, or set loose by a
President Donald Trump, who was duly elected, but has
outsourced now, and privatized his administration to an
oligarch billionaire, and his other billionaire buddies.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. OK, I am going to recognize myself for five
minutes. Mr. Swecker, when did you first become aware of the
FBI's memo targeting traditional Roman Catholics?
Mr. Swecker. Well, I don't know the exact date, but it was
when it hit the press.
Mr. Van Drew. I don't need the exact date.
Mr. Swecker. As soon as it hit the press, I found out about
it when everybody else did.
Mr. Van Drew. Did you get the opportunity to review the
memo that came from the Virginia Field Office, did you take a
look at it?
Mr. Swecker. I did, I don't remember all the details in it,
but it was a very ill-advised memo.
Mr. Van Drew. Did it strike you in a bad way?
Mr. Swecker. Of course it did, I think it would strike
anybody in a bad way, I am Catholic, not that this matters, but
just singling out a religion, and religious beliefs in the way
that they did. Frankly though, I don't know how much play that
really got further up the food chain, but it was an
incredibly--it just demonstrated incredibly poor judgment.
Mr. Van Drew. We asked the then Attorney General about it,
we asked the then FBI Director about it, they both in essence
apologized, but said it was only limited to the Virginia Field
Office. Then, fortunately there were other whistleblowers, we
got information it wasn't only limited, this was starting to go
throughout the country, thank God we found out about it.
As I said before, my good Hindu friends, men of peace,
human beings of peace that never would do anything harmful, if
it happened to Roman Catholics, and I happen to be Roman
Catholic as well, it can happen to anyone.
Mr. Swecker. I think it does reflect that there were some
ideologues deep in the--it wasn't just the leadership in the
Bureau.
Mr. Van Drew. It does, you can't believe otherwise, I mean
it just didn't make sense, it was shocking for America. Do you
believe the memo infringed on Americans' rights under our
Constitution to some degree?
Mr. Swecker. Absolutely, especially if they had followed
through on it aggressively, like they did other things.
Mr. Van Drew. The memo stated, let me read this, I am
quoting now ``Catalyzing events in which regionally motivated
violent extremists, and radical traditional Catholics.'' I am
not sure what the hell that means, to be honest with you.
Mr. Swecker. They were calling them domestic terrorists
essentially.
Mr. Van Drew. I don't know, I try to go to mass when I can,
I honest to God, I don't see too many--I don't see any domestic
terrorists there. They said they might have a common cause
including legislation or judicial decisions in areas such as
abortion rates, immigration, affirmative action, and LGBTQ
protections. Isn't that their right? Is it typical for the FBI
to dig into something like that?
Mr. Swecker. Not the FBI I served under. Actually, Chris
Wray made a lot of mistakes, but he apologized for that one, I
think that is the one that got away, it should never even have
been--
Mr. Van Drew. I think they were even shocked that they had
that level of an ideologue actually and I believe that they
were being sincere. I know that the Attorney General at the
time almost cried, maybe he did a little bit actually. Do you
think the FBI needs stricter control over how these bulletins
are created and distributed, hopefully they will now?
Mr. Swecker. I do. A lot of it is judgment based, and it is
who you hire, and the examples that are set at the top of--in
this case the FBI. There is no substitute for just good
judgment as things--I saw a lot of junk come out of a squad
room, reports and that sort of thing, and if you are at the
supervisory level, you just cancel that out, you squelch it
right there.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. So, I am going to ask the three of you,
Mr. Swecker, Mr. Fahey, Mr. Breen, some real quick questions,
it is something I always like to do, I like to get to the
point, it is either yes or no, not a long answer to this, and I
will start with you, Mr. Swecker. Do you believe the DOJ was
weaponized against political opponents, yes or no?
Mr. Swecker. Yes, I think there are many examples of that.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Fahey?
Mr. Fahey. Yes, I do.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Breen?
Mr. Breen. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Van Drew. Should Federal law enforcement agencies
surveil parents at school board meetings? Yes or no, Mr.
Swecker?
Mr. Swecker. No.
Mr. Fahey. No.
Mr. Breen. No.
Mr. Van Drew. Was it appropriate for a DOJ official to
pressure a defense lawyer with a judgeship offer? Yes or no,
Mr. Swecker?
Mr. Fahey. If that happened, no.
Mr. Van Drew. It did, we have--
Mr. Fahey. Yes, I have heard information, I just don't know
definitively, but yes.
Mr. Breen. Correct, outrageous.
Mr. Van Drew. Is it acceptable for the FBI to categorize
certain religious groups in the way that they did? Yes or no?
Mr. Swecker. No.
Mr. Fahey. No.
Mr. Breen. Absolutely not.
Mr. Van Drew. I think everybody, God help us, agrees on
that one, even my friends on the other side of the aisle here
might. Do you believe there is currently, or was currently,
that there was a twotiered system of justice in America? Yes or
no?
Mr. Swecker. Yes, many examples of that.
Mr. Van Drew. There are so many.
Mr. Fahey. Yes.
Mr. Breen. Yes, and we lived through it.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. I think it makes our point, and I
am almost out of time myself.
Ms. Crockett, the Ranking Member--I am sorry, Mr.
Moskowitz.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate it. Thank
you, gentlemen, for coming to today's hearing entitled
``Entering the Golden Age.'' Probably named it that because the
price of eggs are the price of gold, but here we are. Chair
Drew mentioned something, he said, ``the people's Justice
Department,'' I actually think that is very important.
Unfortunately, the D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin disagrees with
him, because he calls himself Trump's Attorney, his own words
in his own statements.
He doesn't say the people's attorney, he doesn't say the
Justice Department's attorney, he said he's President Trump's
lawyer. So, it seems to me that those two things are not
accurate. Mr. Swecker, you think a U.S. attorney is the
President's attorney, or the Department of Justice's attorney?
Mr. Swecker. The people's attorney.
Mr. Moskowitz. The people's attorney, OK.
Mr. Swecker. The President has a White House counsel.
Mr. Moskowitz. Right, OK, so I just wanted to clear that
up, maybe someone should send a quick email to Ed Martin, maybe
we can get someone in DOGE to do that, they like emailing
people with like five things to do. Maybe like someone could
say hey, Mr. Martin, of the five things to do, No. 1, make sure
you know who your client is, it is America, not the President.
You know he's also sending letters to Members of Congress,
are you aware of that, Mr. Fahey?
Mr. Fahey. Yes, I think if you are referring to the Chuck
Schumer letter, yes.
Mr. Moskowitz. No, he is sending letters to Members of the
House asking them to clarify statements.
Mr. Fahey. When he made those statements, or--
Mr. Moskowitz. Yes, which is weird, because literally that
same week he sent a letter, this Committee literally held a
whole hearing on free speech, right?
Mr. Fahey. Right.
Mr. Moskowitz. Then all of a sudden the D.C. attorney is
sending letters asking Members of Congress to clarify.
Mr. Fahey. Those are tricky situations, the Schumer thing,
if that was not Chuck Schumer, and just a regular person
outside of the Supreme Court, I believe that person would at
least be investigated for threats, whether or not it comes out.
Those are tricky, but I don't think those are so clear cut,
because there is--you don't have a free speech right to
threaten people, threaten justices--
Mr. Moskowitz. No, of course not.
Mr. Fahey. So, I don't see--I see your point, and that may
be how it breaks out, but I don't think it is inappropriate to
look a step further in those types of things.
Mr. Moskowitz. We hear a lot about weaponization, and my
colleagues across the aisle, they are the bravado party, we can
admit that, right? The Republicans just have a lot more bravado
than Democrats, and I am OK admitting that. They seem to just
not want to--they are like coy on this one. They are not
interested in ending the weaponization of the DOJ, they want to
continue it.
In fact, the deep State gave them a bad idea, and they are
going to run with it. In fact, not only are they going to run
with it, man, they are going to do it even better than the deep
State. They just hired pacifist Dan Bongino, right? Dan
Bongino, that seems to be very against this idea that we want
to end weaponization. Dan, who says Americans are having a cold
war among themselves, who says that the only thing that matters
is power, a system of checks and balances, hah, that is a good
one.
That doesn't seem to be someone that wants to end the
weaponization, it seems someone who is going to be given power,
and wants to continue the weaponization. I have a question,
will you gentlemen all come back in let's say a year, and give
us your assessment of whether or not we have ended the
weaponization? We will do just a quick OK, you are here now,
and then like a year later you will come back, and we will be
like by the way, mission accomplished.
We will get a big banner, we will fly a plane, and mission
accomplished. Or will you come back and admit you know, it
looks like it is continuing to go on. OK, not all at once.
Mr. Fahey. Depending on the scheduling, sure.
Mr. Moskowitz. Sure, we don't have to pick a date now, it
is fine.
Mr. Swecker. I thought it was a rhetorical question, but
yes, we will come back.
Mr. Moskowitz. It was rhetorical, OK, fair, someone was
paying attention. So, there has got to be at least one of my
colleagues who can get in front of the camera, and be the tough
guy, and just be like we are not ending the weaponization, no,
no, no, the deep State started it, we are going to run with it,
because we have already seen that. In the appointments in the
first couple of weeks, I don't need honesty because we are in
Congress.
What I want is we already know, the American people know,
they know this, we don't need to hide, just tell the American
people what they know, revenge tour is coming, we are going to
have tour dates, we are going to show up, we are going to play
arenas, but the DOJ revenge tour is coming. Thank you.
Mr. Van Drew. OK, two things. First, I would love to have
you back in a year, let's try to make that a date, it may not
be exactly one year, it could be 11 months, it could be 13
months--
Mr. Moskowitz. I don't think they want to come, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Van Drew. I think--let me ask--I think you scared them
a little bit. I bet you would be willing to come, including
you, Mr. Ballou.
Second, really quick Mr. Moskowitz, I love your sense of
humor, you have got to always have a sense of humor as you go
through things, you are pretty good at it.
Mr. Moskowitz. That is true, I agree.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent. I
would like to introduce for the record the letter from the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General related to
the Richmond memo that stated we did not find evidence saying
anyone ordered--
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Objected to find a link between racially
motivated--
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. OK. I would also like to introduce an article
titled, ``Jim Jordan's New Myth, an Anti-Catholic FBI.''
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. The final one I would like to introduce is an
article from Fox News noting that the FBI was absolved of
malicious intent in the Catholic memo incident.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you.
Mr. Van Drew. Some people wrote a bad memo.
Anyhow, I now recognize the gentleman from the great State
of Missouri, Dr. Onder.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for
coming today. Mr. Breen, on September 23, 2022, the FBI raided
the home of your client, Mark Houck, following an indictment
charging FACE Act violations based on an alleged shoving
incident that took place where he was defending his son near an
abortion clinic. Mr. Breen, if my memory serves right, other
prosecutors had looked at that case, the Houck case prior to
the SWAT team raid, could you refresh my memory on that?
Mr. Breen. Yes, Congressman. In fact, it had been
prosecuted through the State level system, and the charges were
dropped because the complaining witness refused to show up. In
fact, he had gone on vacation one time, one time he actually
went to the abortion facility to escort, and when Mark arrived,
they went to court, he wasn't there, Mark arrived, said, ``Did
you enjoy your morning at court?'' This guy was the complaining
witness.
So, that was looked through there, but even on the Federal
side, they had started in front of a grand jury and went
fallow, it just stopped. Then the Dobbs leak hits, all this,
and we watched it then restart up, and they get out an
indictment. So, it was clearly something that was related to
trying to make a point on abortion, not because he had actually
committed a crime.
Mr. Onder. Right, so dropped on the State level, dropped on
the Federal level, then resurrected, and then did your client
do something violent, or threaten someone, or something to
merit twenty-five SWAT officers that morning?
Mr. Breen. No, and in fact I can show you the email from my
colleague, who was a former Federal prosecutor for 15 years in
Arizona. He had corresponded with the local U.S. attorney who
had requested response. Said, ``hey, if you want, we will
present him, we are glad to, he is represented, certainly no
need, there wasn't a need to send 25 officers.'' For heaven's
sakes, you send one or two to the door and knock on it if you
really want to go arrest him.
Mr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Breen. This was outrageous, and we have seen video of
it, I mean--
Mr. Onder. Maybe talk to his lawyer and ask him to appear
in court.
Mr. Breen. Right, and this was our thing. Our local lawyer
said if this guy was anyone but him, he would have been brought
in to present. They let people that are much, much more
dangerous and violent present. Mark did something, and we found
out after we went into the case, we realized no one had gone
back into the legislative history of the FACE Act.
Senator Kennedy and Senator Durenberger literally on the
floor of the Senate cut a deal, and said we are not getting in
the middle of the sidewalk squabbles.
Mr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Breen. I have got to tell you, as a good Republican, we
don't like legislative history, it is a thing for the
Republicans, I am a former legislator, I love legislative
history. For heaven's sakes, for you guys, I mean you guys in
the Congress did this, so I think you should be asserting your
rights to say stop it.
Mr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Breen. You are expanding this law beyond our intent.
Mr. Onder. Right, right. So, if Mark Houck wasn't the kind
of defendant, the suspect that would merit this kind of
treatment, this must have been the Department of Justice
sending a political message on abortion.
Mr. Breen. Main Justice sent people into the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and look, Philadelphia is a rough
area. In fact, our trial judge, who is an experienced
prosecutor, is a former Pennsylvania Attorney General, he said,
I have never in my time on the bench had main Justice send
someone out to prosecute a case in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Onder. Well, let me talk about another case of a very
dangerous criminal defendant. You might be familiar with Mr.
Houck, on January 23rd, President Trump announced the pardons
for 23 prolife advocates. One of these was Eva Edl, who at 89
years old faced a sentence of up to 11 years in Federal prison.
Eva was a Soviet concentration camp survivor who was charged
with singing and praying from her wheelchair at the entrance to
an abortion facility.
In 2022, at least 26 prolife advocates faced Federal
charges for FACE Act violations. The same year pregnancy
research centers experienced serious attacks, firebombings, and
yet to my knowledge did not face any FACE Act prosecutions from
the Biden Justice Department, am I correct on that?
Mr. Breen. Yes, Congressman. I have specifically in mind a
client in upState New York firebombed their facility, took them
half a million dollars to rebuild it, and they told them we
can't figure out who did it, and we can't get any answers from
the police, we couldn't even get our surveillance video back.
It just, it was outrageous when you look at the amount of
Federal resources that are spent on our clients, that they
couldn't even find these terrorists, actual, literal domestic
terrorists.
Mr. Onder. So, again, aggressive, aggressive prosecutorial
action against prolifers, none against actual arsonists, and
domestic terrorists. Would that be a politicization of the
Justice Department?
Mr. Breen. Absolutely, that is a politicization, and it is
one that can be fixed with the new DOJ, and under the guidance
of this Subcommittee.
Mr. Onder. Thank you.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from the great State of Maryland, Mr. Raskin, the Ranking
Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We have decades
of excellent government law enforcement experience represented
at the table. Unfortunately, I have only got five minutes.
So, I want to go very quickly. I want to ask a few yes or
no questions. I will start with Mr. Ballou, and I will go down.
In your time as a prosecutor, have you been aware of any
case where prosecutors have been fired or otherwise disciplined
in office for having worked on a particular case that they were
assigned to before January 6th?
Mr. Ballou. Not until the last month.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Fahey--Mr. Breen, you are not a prosecutor,
is that what you said?
Mr. Breen. No, just an attorney.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr. Fahey, in your years of government law
enforcement, were you aware of any prosecutors whoever were
disciplined, or demoted, or fired because they had worked on a
particular case before January 6th?
Mr. Fahey. Just for being assigned to a case? Or, beyond
that? I know of people that may have been disciplined by their
work on a case.
Mr. Raskin. I am not talking about misconduct on a case,
yes.
Mr. Fahey. Just by being assigned, no.
Mr. Raskin. By virtue of being on a team.
Mr. Fahey. I don't know of any.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr. Swecker, did you ever encounter that in
your many years on the FBI?
Mr. Swecker. Not based on mere assignment of a case. I will
note that at the end of an administration, U.S. Attorneys
routinely submit their resignations and usually are fine.
Mr. Raskin. In terms of line prosecutors, civil service
lawyers, you are not--or FBI agents rather, you are not aware
of any--OK. Let me continue with you for a second.
Have you heard of a case where participation as an FBI
agent in a particular case is grounds for dismissal or demotion
just for having worked on a particular case?
Mr. Swecker. No. Absent misconduct.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr. Ballou, back to you. So, a number of
attorneys, around two dozen have been sacked just because they
worked on a particular case.
Even if they are civil service people, which means you
can't be fired for political reasons, you can only be fired for
poor performance or misconduct, but all the dozen attorneys who
worked for Jack Smith, and a dozen attorneys were fired on the
very first day, because they had worked on the January 6th
prosecution.
Will you describe what you think the lawfulness of that is?
Then also, what effect will that have on morale and cohesion
within the ranks of lawyers who work at the Department of
Justice.
Mr. Ballou. It certainly seems unlawful, in that these
people were being fired not because of misconduct, but because
of simply the cases that they were working on. Essentially,
viewpoint discrimination.
The effect is profound. These attorneys weren't just
working on the January 6th cases, they were working on other
cases within the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office.
Mr. Raskin. It is not viewpoint discrimination based on any
of the viewpoints that they had. We have no idea what their
viewpoints were, at least viewpoints based on the people who
have come into the office who think that somehow it is a badge
of stigma or shame to have worked on a particular case.
Mr. Ballou. Precisely.
Mr. Raskin. There were six thousand FBI agents who worked
on January 6th, which was the most massive violent mob attack
on U.S. Congress, and the peaceful transfer of power, and the
Vice President, in American history.
What do you think about the idea that somehow there was an
attempt to demonize and vilify people for having done their
jobs in working on it?
Mr. Ballou. Yes. I think if they are demonized, if they are
fired, it is going to be devastating for the FBI, because these
are folks that are working on counterterrorism,
counterespionage, and other cases.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. So, Mr. Fahey, one other question for you.
Do you think that the idea of sacking all these lawyers simply
because of having worked on a particular case, will promote
public safety in the District of Columbia, or undermine public
safety in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Fahey. If people are being fired just for the--I know
the hypothetical. I don't know why individuals were fired, and
if it was their conduct, or things that were interrelated.
Overall, the morale is going to be far higher, because
morale is rock bottom at DOJ, rock bottom at the FBI under the
prior administration.
Mr. Raskin. In the last four weeks, I agree with you on
that.
Mr. Fahey. No, no, no. During the prior administration. If
you talk, if you bring in some law enforcement agents--
Mr. Raskin. I would love a separate hearing on that. We
will get back to you on that one.
Mr. Fahey. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Ballou--
Mr. Fahey. You have got to talk to them, because they are--
Mr. Raskin. All right. We will have your back, I promise. I
would love nothing more.
Mr. Fahey. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Ballou, let me come back to you. I have
heard, I was there on January 6th. So, I know that was
something that really happened.
Officer Brian Sicknick really died from strokes that he had
based on the violence visited on him, and being sprayed in the
face with noxious chemicals. He is buried at Arlington National
Cemetery.
I will take anyone with the Sicknick family over there to
see him. This is not some kind of a mirage. This really
happened.
One hundred and forty of our officers were smashed in the
face with Confederate battle flags, Trump flags, broken
furniture, steel pipes, and you name it. There were heart
attacks and traumatic brain injury.
I have got constituents who have never recovered from the
wounds that took place there. Sergeant Gonell had to leave
there.
When we talk about it, when I hear about the prosecution
and vilification of parents, of mothers and fathers. Hey, I am
a father. My kids went to public school. That doesn't sound
very good to me.
So, I try to get to the bottom of this, because I have been
hearing about it for five years now. I ask myself, what are
they talking about?
So, I got the memo, which was from Attorney General Merrick
Garland. It begins, I don't have time to read the whole thing,
there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation,
and threats of violence against school administrators,
teachers, board members, and staff.
The words mother or father don't appear. The word parents
doesn't appear here. There is all this propaganda about some
prosecution of parents based on absolutely nothing. This is
just made up out of thin air.
So, I will submit this for the record, the memo that all
this goes back to, Mr. Chair. Thanks so much.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Schmidt from the great State of Kansas. I have got to remember
that.
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It will be on the exam
at the end. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, thank you for convening this hearing. Thank you
to the witnesses, who I know have covered a wide range of
subject matters today.
I had a couple of questions regarding the school board
matter, which I am not sure has been focused on perhaps as much
as I might have thought it would have been.
This is, of course, the matter from 2021, where the
National School Board Association oddly, in my view, requested
that the President of the United States initiated a Federal law
enforcement investigation of, in effect, parents who had shown
up at a variety of school board meetings around the country.
In my view, understandably, they were distressed by some
very difficult and ill-advised decisions that were made
regarding masking, regarding shutting kids out of school,
regarding a variety of other very unusual practices that
occurred during the Covid period, and wanted to express their
views on that to their locally elected officials who were
making those decisions, perhaps much as we are doing here in a
different scale.
It struck me as very odd that we had, at the time, this
private association asking for a Federal law enforcement
investigation and that they directed their request to the
President of the United States.
So much so that, at the time, I was serving as Attorney
General in Kansas, and about three weeks after that request
came in and the Department of Justice had directed, as I
recall, some of the local offices to take certain actions in
terms of responding to threats was their top line, rather an
odd assertion, given that there weren't any actual threats
asserted in the request.
A group of 17, I believe, State Attorneys General wrote to
the President and to the then U.S. Attorney General, Mr.
Garland, on October 18th, and asked them, in effect, what are
you doing and why are you doing it?
We expressed in that, a concern that they were being asked
to intervene in what we called a quintessentially local issue,
which is public safety in the room of a public governing body
that was local.
We asked that the President, and the then Attorney General,
and others under their direction, take our point of view, that
local authorities were perfectly capable of handling any
threats in these local meetings, as they do each and every day
all over the country, without this sort of fanfare. There were
then some additional steps and the School Board Association, as
I recall, backed off a bit of what they had asked for.
Then, about a week after that, on October 26th, a smaller
but still substantial group of 14 of us, followed up with a
second letter to the President and to the Attorney General,
asking that they take a look at the School Board Association's
actions, and how those requests that were very odd, had come to
pass.
So, a handful of questions for our witnesses. I will start
with Mr. Swecker, but perhaps also Mr. Fahey, in the course of
all this, it came to light that there had been conversations
between people at the White House and the School Board
Association, functionally consulting on the drafting of this
letter that then requested that Federal law enforcement
investigation.
In your experience, is that ordinary for the White House to
be involved with a third-party outside organization, in asking
that Federal law enforcement engage on a matter?
Mr. Swecker. I can't come up with any examples of it during
my tenure. The most disturbing thing about it, was that it was
rolled out as a national initiative.
It wasn't just an isolated instance where someone came in
and said, I am going to set up a bomb in this meeting. It was
people just like city council meetings, and county commission
meetings, and boards of trustee meetings across the country,
that is where people exercise their First Amendment rights.
Clearly, this went way, way beyond that, in the form of a
national level initiative.
Mr. Schmidt. Have you ever seen anything like it?
Mr. Swecker. No.
Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Fahey?
Mr. Fahey. I have never seen anything like it. Another
thing that is striking about this, if you look at DOJ and they
put together a task force on things like drug trafficking,
terrorism, and human trafficking, it is usually major things.
This was all of a sudden, whatever information they had,
they nationalized this with a task force and every U.S.
Attorney elevating it to a level. I am sure, you all know,
threats are fairly common. I am sure what you do, and I dealt
with them all the time at the U.S. Attorney's office.
The idea that anything would have risen to this level, was
really, it just shows that it was political in nature. Because,
as you know, the issue of the day of that November election,
both in New Jersey as well as Virginia, was that educational
issue.
Mr. Schmidt. Did any Federal prosecutions result from this
use of resources?
Mr. Fahey. My understanding was none. That is the other
thing, if you put that much resources into it, the fact that
you would come up with nothing, it just shows that there
probably was nothing there to begin with.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. May I just have a UC request?
Mr. Van Drew. Yes. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. There are four articles. First, Reuters,
``School Boards Get Death Threats Amid Rage Over Race, Gender,
Mask Policies.'' That is February 15, 2022.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Second, ``I Don't Want to Die for It--School
Board Members Face Rising Threats.'' The New York Times,
November 5, 2021.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Third, a transcript with a former DOJ official
describing death threats.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Fourth, this note that appeared in The New York
Times, ``It's too bad that your momma is an ugly communist
whore, if she doesn't quite or resign then we will kill her,
which was on the windshield of a school board member.''
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Van Drew. I will now recognize the Ranking Member from
the great State of Texas, Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I just want to
level set on a few things, because my head has been spinning
from some of the testimony that we have heard today.
So, just to level set really quickly. All of you have been
involved with the criminal justice system in some way at some
point in time in your lives.
As it relates to January 6th, I just want to be clear, if
anyone was incarcerated because of what happened on January
6th, they either went to trial, or they entered pleas of
guilty.
Is that true or false? I will start with you, Mr. Swecker.
Mr. Swecker. I really don't know.
Ms. Crockett. OK. That is fine. Mr. Fahey?
Mr. Fahey. Well, there would be--
Ms. Crockett. Yes or no, Mr. Fahey. I ain't got that much
time.
Mr. Fahey. Well, it is not a yes or no. There were--
Ms. Crockett. OK. Then, I will move on.
Mr. Fahey. There were people who were incarcerated
pretrial--
Ms. Crockett. I am going to reclaim my time.
Mr. Fahey. So, that is a separate category.
Ms. Crockett. I am going to reclaim my time.
Mr. Fahey. The people that were sentenced and incarcerated,
yes.
Ms. Crockett. OK. Thank you. Mr. Breen?
Mr. Breen. Yes, assuming that this was the process.
Although, I understand the trials were not fair.
Ms. Crockett. Oh, interesting. OK. Mr. Ballou?
Mr. Ballou. Every January 6th defendant who was
incarcerated was charged or found guilty.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. It is interesting that we
are not having a conversation around January 6th. We are
talking about school boards. We are talking about people that
never ended up being arrested.
We are talking about the process seemingly working, because
there were people that felt like there should be an
investigation, but ultimately, they did not feel like there was
anything that warranted going forward.
I can tell you for sure that we as Americans watched in
despair, because we did not know what was going to happen on
January 6th. As a result, over a thousand people were arrested
and/or convicted.
The first day, the first priority that the sitting
President had, was to release these criminals. So, while we are
talking about whether or not we are going to be safe, I want to
clarify, these weren't little innocent folk that were running
around and were persecuted as it was made out to be.
In fact, we know that the day after one of those defendants
got out, he was rearrested on a firearm's charge. We know that
soon after another defendant got out, he was arrested for child
solicitation.
We know that after another one got out, he was actually
killed by law enforcement in a confrontation. We know that
after another one got out, she was sentenced because of a fatal
car crash that she caused.
So, I want to be clear, in this country we should believe
in law and order. I am going to be honest, because much like
Mr. Breen, the only time that I ever entered a criminal
courthouse, was in defense of someone. In defense of the
accused.
It is because I believe in the Constitution. I believe that
everyone has the right to due process. As a defense attorney, I
should show up ready, and I am hoping that the system works.
I will say hoping. Nothing on this earth is perfect. One of
the things that I actually used to take a lot of issue with,
was the fact that I did believe that there was a two-tier
justice system.
This is not something that the Black community somehow woke
up and said, ``oh, this is a new thing.'' Although we are
talking about it, and we are meaning it in different ways.
All of a sudden, you had somebody with more power than
arguably anyone in the world, somehow Lady Justice found him
too. I say Lady Justice somehow found him, because it was the
grand juries that had to indict him.
Then, ultimately, he was found guilty of 34 counts of
felonies, at least in one courthouse. We know that the other
cases never proceeded for various reasons. We also know that
when he entered into civil courthouses, he was found liable for
various things.
Listen, I don't want to have the American people get it
twisted. I don't want them to be confused and believe that just
because somebody is a prosecutor or just because somebody
brings a case, that somehow that is weaponization.
If they bring it forward and if the justice system works
the way that it is supposed to be, Mr. Breen, you talked about
how your client was found not guilty. I am guessing that you
accepted that jury's verdict.
Mr. Breen. Certainly.
Ms. Crockett. You accepted that jury's verdict for your
client?
Mr. Breen. Absolutely correct.
Ms. Crockett. OK. OK. I want to--I have got to move onto a
few other things really quickly.
Christopher Wray, Mr. Ballou, do you know who that is?
Mr. Ballou. Yes.
Ms. Crockett. Was Christopher Wray appointed by Joe Biden?
Mr. Ballou. No. He was appointed by President Trump.
Ms. Crockett. He was appointed by President Trump. Now,
Christopher Wray, for those that don't know, was the head of
the FBI.
Christopher Wray, was he fired by Joe Biden just because
Joe Biden was a Democrat that came in?
Mr. Ballou. No.
Ms. Crockett. In fact, Christopher Wray left the FBI when
Trump threatened to fire him. Christopher Wray still had time
on the clock, didn't he?
Mr. Ballou. He did.
Ms. Crockett. So, any prosecutions that took place, they
actually took place under the Wray FBI department. Is that
correct?
Mr. Ballou. That is correct.
Ms. Crockett. OK. The last thing, Mr. Chair, I am out of
time. Just really quick. The last thing that I want to ask,
because we have talked about the Mayor of New York.
Is he a Democrat or a Republican?
Mr. Ballou. He is a Democrat.
Ms. Crockett. He was prosecuted under a Democratic DOJ or a
Republican DOJ?
Mr. Ballou. A Democratic DOJ.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. I will yield. Thank you so
much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Van Drew. You are welcome, Ranking Member.
Really quickly, if it wasn't for this Committee and what we
revealed, about parents, happening to parents in schools, and
what happened to parishioners in churches, by whistleblowers,
God knows what would have happened.
It was just, it was the work actually that we did here. So,
the justice system, again, was not working at that time.
With that, I will yield to the Chair of the Committee as a
whole, Mr. Jordan from Ohio.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Swecker, how long
have you been at the FBI?
Mr. Swecker. Twenty-four years.
Chair Jordan. Twenty-four years, distinguished career?
Mr. Swecker. I like to think so.
Chair Jordan. I think so too. Assistant Director of the
Criminal Division. That is a pretty darn important position you
held.
Mr. Swecker. Right.
Chair Jordan. In that time at the FBI, did you ever deal
with confidential human sources?
Mr. Swecker. Yes.
Chair Jordan. On a regular basis?
Mr. Swecker. Yes.
Chair Jordan. What can you tell me--well, let's frame it
this way, 26 of them were there on January 6, 2021. We know
that at least 17 of them did something they weren't authorized
to do.
Is that typical?
Mr. Swecker. I wouldn't say it is atypical. Informants are
generally in the criminal mix, so they often find themselves in
places where there are crimes taking place, yes.
Chair Jordan. So, it was OK for them to do something they
weren't authorized to do on January 6th?
Mr. Swecker. No. There is a process for the FBI to
authorize ordinary criminal activity. It has to be in, they are
very structured about how they handle informants.
If an SAC, a Special Agent in Charge, authorizes ordinary
criminal activity, it is going to be in the file.
Chair Jordan. According--have you read the Inspector
General's report on these 26 confidential human sources?
Mr. Swecker. Not the entire report.
Chair Jordan. According to the Inspector General, they were
not authorized to do so.
Mr. Swecker. Right.
Chair Jordan. They were not authorized to enter the
restricted space.
Mr. Swecker. Right. Correct.
Chair Jordan. Certainly, not authorized to go into the
Capitol.
Mr. Swecker. Right.
Chair Jordan. We know 17 entered restricted space, four
went in the Capitol. Yes. How does it normally work?
Do you think these guys were--I am just asking as an
expert, 24 years, Assistant Director of the Criminal Division,
do you think these guys were paid for what they were involved
with, or what they did, or what they witnessed, how they
informed, whatever they did on the 6th, do you think they were
paid by the taxpayers?
Mr. Swecker. By the time they are formally vetted
informants, they generally are paid to be where they are.
Chair Jordan. So, certainly the two, or is it fair to say
the two who were asked to be there by the FBI that particular
day, were probably on the payroll?
Mr. Swecker. I would say yes. I think that is a good guess.
Chair Jordan. OK. So, they were being paid by the taxpayer,
most likely being paid by the--well, to be fair, most likely
being paid by the taxpayer.
They went, two of these four, went into the Capitol, who
were being paid, or who were asked to be there. So, they are
asked to be there by the FBI, they are likely being paid, and
they did something they weren't allowed to do.
Mr. Swecker. Right.
Chair Jordan. Why was it that every time Christopher Wray,
the Director of the FBI, came in front of the Committee over
the last several years, and we would ask, we would have some,
Republican Members would ask him about any confidentials, why
was he so reluctant to just say yes, they were there?
Mr. Swecker. It was an embarrassing thing for the Bureau
for the public to know that they had that many informants on
the premises.
Chair Jordan. So, there is no procedure, nothing
prohibiting from him telling us. We are not asking for their
names. We are not asking him to identify them.
Mr. Swecker. Right.
Chair Jordan. We certainly know we understand that is part
of your investigative techniques and tactics.
Mr. Swecker. Right.
Chair Jordan. There was nothing prohibiting Christopher
Wray from telling us, yes, there were confidential human
sources there that day.
Mr. Swecker. There was nothing prohibiting that I know of.
Chair Jordan. He went out of his way to make sure we
couldn't get that information. Then, we didn't get that
information, frankly, until after the election, four years
later.
He didn't need to wait four years to tell us what they knew
on January 7th.
Mr. Swecker. Right.
Chair Jordan. Well, actually, they knew on January 6th,
because they asked him, they asked some of these people to be
there.
Mr. Swecker. It is pretty extraordinary, because my mind
goes to prevention. If they had that many informants out there,
what were they doing, and why weren't they reporting on what
was going on ahead of time? Why didn't the FBI take steps to
prevent what happened?
Chair Jordan. Because if these guys were helping and
actually doing what they were supposed to do, we might have
prevented some of the things that took place that day, is what
you are saying.
Mr. Swecker. Absolutely.
Chair Jordan. Yes. OK. Mr. Fahey, is it appropriate for the
Special Counsel, Mr. Jay Bratt, to say to a defendant's
counsel, to say that we didn't know you were a Trump guy, and
we knew, we thought you would do the right thing? We understand
you are interested in this judge position?
Is that appropriate behavior from someone in the Special
Counsel saying to a defendant's counsel?
Mr. Fahey. That would be highly inappropriate.
Chair Jordan. That is as bad as it gets, isn't it?
Mr. Fahey. That would seem, I don't recall anything even
remotely comparable or even hearing of anything along those
lines.
Chair Jordan. Stanley Woodward, who just happened to--
Mr. Fahey. I know if he is--and it is shocking to me when I
hear it. It was only until I heard it multiple times that it
was definite.
Chair Jordan. It was one of the many things that were
shocking about this Special Counsel. The idea today, in this
Special Counsel case in Florida, they mixed up this, the stuff
that they got, they screwed it up and had to file with the
court, oh, the classified documents that we said Mr. Trump,
that President Trump mishandled, we actually mishandled.
They had to file that with the court, didn't they?
Mr. Fahey. Yes. That is sort of the irony of it all, of
holding one standard to President Trump, and a lower standard
not only for them, but also for President Biden.
Chair Jordan. One last question for the three of you. Why
all the predawn raids?
What they did to Mr. Houck. What they did to Brian
Malinowski. Let's assume even, I am not sure if Brian
Malinowski did anything wrong.
Let's assume he did. He had six firearms; sold six firearms
he wasn't supposed to sell. Why in the world would you knock on
his door, have ten cars pull up, coordinate with local police,
put the tape on the doorbell cam, and do what they did, which
resulted in his loss of life. Why would you do that?
We will start with Mr. Breen since you have not answered
anything yet.
Mr. Breen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Look, the outrageous
thing too, so they overdo it. I have got to tell you, I asked
for body cam footage from the feds. They are not wearing their
body cams. They are not on.
The only people I could get it from was from the
Pennsylvania State Police. They gave me a full video of the
incident.
Chair Jordan. Yes. You are talking about Mr. Houck. You are
talking about Mark Houck, the case you had.
Mr. Breen. Yes, yes. For Mark Houck.
Chair Jordan. I understand. I understand.
Mr. Breen. You can't even figure out what these folks are
doing? They taped the Ring doorbell. It is amazing.
Chair Jordan. Well, they did the same thing. The point is,
the consistency, and they did the same thing with Mr.
Malinowski.
Mr. Houck was acquitted by the jury, found not guilty by
the jury. Mr. Malinowski wound up dead.
Mr. Breen. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Because he thought he was being robbed. He
defended his home. Then was shot in the head and died, died a
few hours later. It was terrible what happened.
The interesting thing about the Malinowski case? They were
surveilling him for weeks. They were all set to do this raid
predawn still, the week before. They found out he wasn't there.
They were going to get firearms. He doesn't need to be
there. Why in the world would you do that and jeopardize life?
Of course, the worst thing happens.
Mr. Swecker, would you? That is not how it is supposed to
operate, is it?
Mr. Swecker. No. Most of the time you do a couple of hours
of surveillance. You get the routines down. You catch them
walking out to the car when they are unaware.
Maximum drama is the only thing that you could say.
Chair Jordan. Yes. The only explanation could be that,
because they followed him. They could have went to the airport
where he worked, where everyone knew him. It was so ridiculous.
Mr. Chair, I thank you for this hearing. I thank you and I
yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair. That concludes today's
hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before us and the
time they spent.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair? I had two UCs. I am sorry.
Mr. Van Drew. Go ahead. Let's do it.
Mr. Crockett. Thank you. I would ask for unanimous consent
to enter into the record, an article from Reuters, ``FBI Did
Not Send Undercover Operatives to Join January 6 Attack,''
Watchdog Says.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Crockett. As well as an article from The New York
Times, ``FBI Did Not Send Informants to Encourage Capitol
Rioters.''
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Crockett. Thank you so much.
Mr. Van Drew. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on Oversight can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117924.
[all]