right thing about the effort to discredit you and at the justice department and also how do you manage that and what can you do with of that? >> the federal principles and the prosecution with facts and the law we screen outside inappropriate influences. that iss what we are doing here, protecting the ability to continue to do high-profile sensitive investigations and we will continue to do that. >> it now seems small that the

cases will finish trial last year. whatay does that say about the confidence in the system? >> i will not be able to comment any further. >> shortly after those remarks the house judiciary committee met to consider the congress charges against the attorney general. the resolution was eventually approved along party lines by a vote of 18-15. it now goes to the full house when it will be considered at a time to be determined.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin for the pledge of allegiance to call up the report and move the committee report into the house the clerk will report without objection the report will be considered as read and the

special counsel stated on page one of his report will fully retained materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. he strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules of properly handling the information in his notebooks. he shared some of the classified materials he kept with his ghostwriters writing a book for which joe biden received with $8 million advance and but we had motives and the classified

information. all of this declines to prosecute joe biden because he is, quote, a sympathetic man with a poor memory and that brings us to today. following the report we subpoenaed the transcript and audio recordings for the special counsel's interviews and his ghost writer. they failed to produce the audiotapes to determine whether he appropriately carried out justice by not prosecuting or recommending the recordings are necessary and the transcripts alone are not sufficient evidence of the memory because the white house has a track record faltering the transcripts. just weeks ago during a public speech, president biden read a teleprompter instruction and

stated imagine what we could do next when the white house put out the transcript it didn't include the word. in that case and in this case as well, the video and the audio recording is the best evidence of the words that president biden spoke. the refusal to produce the recordings of the special counsel for his interviews with president biden announced the demand that the committee trust and the department created and produced the transcripts are accurate and complete. transcripts of the personal counsel likely had access to before they were finalized. there was a legal obligation to turn over the request of the materials pursuant to the subpoena. the willful refusal to comply constitutes the contempt of congress. now today this morning we get an 11th hour invocation of

executive privilege exerting for the same reason we need the audio recordings they offer a unique perspective. this doesn't change the fact that the attorney general has hasn't complied with our subpoena. with that i will recognize the ranking member for an opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. 20 million taxpayer dollars, chairman jordan opposes the government spending on everything from feeding children to education and healthcare and has spent 20 million taxpayer dollars in this congress to investigate various conspiracy theories. what exactly has he delivered it to the american people on the $20 million investment, exactly nothing. no evidence that the conspiracies are true, no indictments, no impeachments or any significance the board of

the directors. the political base may stay home next november. so he and the chairman were scrambling through the contempt. he wanted to see him he uncovered wrongdoing by the attorney general. sometimes they've been too responsive in my opinion is the american majority. the chairman was desperately hoping the special counsel would indict president biden's mishandling documents so the

chairman could attack president biden and away from trump's treacherous handling of classified information. of the reality of the special counsel cleared mr. biden of wrongdoing. the chairman hoped he could intimidate for his crimes but donald trump has been charged with mediated felonies. the list goes on and on. the tremendous searches and intimidates, but there just isn't anything there. so what do our republican friends do when the investigation turns up short? simply put, they engage in fantasy. that is what they are doing here today. accusing the attorney general of withholding key evidence. the attorney general substantially complied with every request. the doj has produced 92,000 pages and documents to this congress alone and made dozens of witnesses available for interviews, hearings in briefings before the committee.

as more pages of documents and more witnesses and the trump justice department produced to the committee in four years. with respect to the february 27, 2024 subpoena, the department turned over all the information. there's been no obstruction, only cooperation. this morning the president exerted executive privilege of the audio files at issue and the letter formed in the kennedy the department of justice noted that producing the audio recordings would, quote, raise an unacceptable risk for undermining the department's ability to conduct high-profile criminal investigations in particular investigations that of the white house officials exceedingly important. the chairman claims he needs this to understand the pace and tone of the conversation. this is absurd. in any event for the substantial

concerns expressed by the president and the department. moreover, with respect to the recording an issue in the report, the complete transcript has already been provided to the committee. the only thing that has not been is the reporting itself, which can be easily manipulated. this is not an idle concern. last year we had in the closed door of deposition a manipulated video amplified by republicans on this committee that it contributed to a flat of death threats against him. this isn't really about a policy disagreement within the doj. this is about feeding the base. but don't take my word for it, take it from the chair man's mouth. quote, i'm busting my tail to get a donald trump reelected. quote, we need to make sure donald trump wins. quote, it's so important that we

stay engaged and helped donald trump get back into the white house, and of quote and clearly he needs the germans help to win the white house -- the chair man's help to win the white house. he's been indicted for times right at this very moment he faces 34 charges in new york and new york state court for falsifying business records and making hush money payments to catch and kill information that could be harmful to trump's reelection campaign. he faces 40 charges in a federal court in florida for his mishandling and withholding of classified documents that put national security at a severe risk. four charges in a federal court in washington, d.c. and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and fueling the insurrection of january 6, 2021 of the united states capital. ten charges in georgia state court for attempts to intimidate and force officials to overturn

the election results in the 2020 presidential election. that's not all. we are going to hear a lot about the memory today. republicans will dimension that he is ranked as one of the most successful presidents of our time. he will dimension the once in a generation transformative legislation is ushered into law. they will dimension the special counsel commented to president biden that is, quote, photographic memory. they will just go on and on about a couple of gratuitous contradicted comments in the report that suggest the president has a poor memory. republicans won't show you is the mounting evidence that trump has to hold the office of the president. the late, great hannibal lector can't even begin to understand how republicans have chosen this man as their champion, but they have. now house republicans are paying for it by flocking to the

sidelines of the criminal trial sacrificing their integrity to defend him against the indefensible acts. everybody seems to know that he's unfit for office and that these acts of public humiliation on this path are wrong. more evidence to my colleagues what do they need. trump once said that he could choose someone standing on fifth avenue and would still keep supporters. at least in this chamber it is obviously true. and it truly saddens me. i sat on this body for many years and the ability to fully have disagreements i've never seen members of congress so readily turned the democracy itself to service of one man and never in my life that i would see members of congress readily attack law enforcement to protect the criminal. i never thought i'd see members of congress defend and minimize the attempt as if those that

storm to this building and the trump associates that led them here were somehow patriots, but here we are. i think the chairman knows that this markup will amount to nothing. they pushed on the truly partisan lines and this resolution will do very little other than smear the reputation of garlin who will remain public servant no matter what they say about him today. it may give him something to watch on fox when he gets home from his criminal trial tonight, but it will almost certainly not convinced the department of justice to produce the one remaining question the effort before the contempt resolution will have been a partisan stunt distant to fail from the very start. it's a total waste of time. the american people actually need us to do important work, to fund the government, to secure affordable healthcare, to reduce inflation in housing costs, take

care of children and families and to keep the nation safe. i'm tired of these games and so are the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and yield back. >> the chair recommends himself to explain the the amendment makes the change on page ten of the report and doesn't affect the substance of the report i yield back. there is no ground whatsoever to

withhold of the intake that take must be quite something if the administration, if they decided to exert executive privilege to keep it from the committee in the course of an impeachment inquiry, think about it. the basis for withholding the audio recording when the transcript has been varnished must rest on something about the recording that is distinct from the information contained in the transcript. for example, what if the committee made a request for a different copy of the transcript? that is unlikely to happen but no reasonable person would ask for it either. the president and the white house had contested what was said in the interview, the special counsel in his report predicated his decision not to prosecute an obvious violation

of statute and the president's rating from the classified information to the ghost writer to satisfy the terms of the 8 million-dollar book retainer on his findings the president was elderly and forgetful, in other words he placed tremendous reliance on what is called demeanor evidence. the president and the white house has viciously attacked the special counsel's characterization of the demeanor evidence. that is whether and to what extent the president appeared to have limited capacity as a witness to testify for memory. now the transcripts do not capture demeanor evidence. transcripts are often in perfect especially to convey the timing of question and answer and the his notations among other things. all of that is demeanor evidence. that's the reason among other things that it is absolutely

standard practice in litigation in american courts for the parties to be entitled to record testimony by more than one means. another method for recording the testimony and an addition to that specified in the original notice. pretty straightforward. given that the evidence is contradicted by the special counsel land by the president as to the reason the president has escaped prosecution for an obvious violation of statute, and because the committee sits

and at the impeachment of the president. the committee needs the demeanor evidence the same way any party would in any such matter being litigated and the notion that there is a basis for a claim of executive privilege and what has been articulated by the justice department by the attorney general is that it would be detoured to future white house from cooperating with criminal inquiries because the interview would be made available and therefore it's got to be exposed but the transcripts had already been provided. what possible basis could there be that would impair future white house cooperation with investigations if what the department is contending is just the same information in an audio recording form. that is an incomprehensibly absurd position, and so there's

nothing to it whatsoever. this committee cannot be detoured in proceeding with the resolution in my view, and one can question the motives or attack motives, but it's a straightforward as it can be. it is a simple presentation of demeanor evidence that is important to this committee's investigation, inquiry to the potential president and should be accomplished and done. i'm for it, let's go. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the ranking member is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk will report. i mentioned in the nature of the substitute for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find -- >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment.

>> this adds language from the most recent executive branch to the report. the justice department into the white house vote to the committee to inform us that the president was exerting executive privilege over the audio recordings. this assertion of privilege is used to protect important law enforcement interests and he is the attorney general road, the justice department has a vested interest in protecting materials related. they further explained that producing the audio recordings to the committee would raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the department's ability to conduct similar high-profile criminal investigations in particular investigations that are a cooperation of white house officials is exceedingly important. the white house also asked them to explain the executive

privilege based on the long-standing commitment to protect the integrity, effectiveness and independence of the department of justice and its law enforcement investigations. a chairman jordan claims the recordings to understand things like tone. this is absurd. there is no attempt to explain the reasoning. it in no way overcomes the substantial interest of the law enforcement investigations. what high-profile witness for liver cooperate with law enforcement investigation if they knew the audio files and the conversations were released to committees seeking the finals only purely political purpose? this amendment simply ensures that it is complete and up-to-date. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman from california withdrawals his point of order and the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. >> speaking in opposition, they don't get to choose. they don't get to choose.

we spent a lot of time in the hearing in this room talking about i've been an advocate in the recording interviews and arrests and all of this. it's a pretty known legal precedent and rule and it exists everywhere. the person providing the evidence doesn't get to choose the matter and form that the evidence is provided. and this also happens to be a pattern. five minutes before the hearing we got the transcript. five minutes before this hearing we get the invocation of executive privilege. there is a difference between a transcript and video and audio, and i don't possibly understand the argument of we will release the transcript but we won't release the tapes and that's going to determine whether or not somebody participates in an investigation, which by the way they can be compelled to be done as well. the argument that this is somehow anything other than the doj trying to pick and choose

which pieces of evidence were which parts of evidence are what they determine as the best evidence to our committee is quite frankly not based in any precedent under law. i spent ten years doing this and doing discovery requests. i never asked for permission. i'm entitled to what it is. they don't get to determine what we get. that is not how the system works. and it can't be how the system works because otherwise the people who you are trying to conduct oversight on determine what information you get to conduct that oversight. this is simply not how the separation of powers is set up, or how any legal investigation in any jurisdiction in any form exists anywhere in the country. the audiotape exists. that is the best evidence in which to conduct oversight and

with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to talk about what the committee and the congress is doing to the rule of law. earlier this week we witnessed a spectacle of the highest ranking republican in the country the speaker of the house, someone in line for the presidency standing outside a manhattan courthouse in a hush money payments to a porn * trial gouging for the good character of the defendant. i would imagine if you asked a younger mike johnson some ten or 15 years ago could you ever imagine you would stand outside of a courthouse in a hush money payments to a porn star trial and vouch for the moral character of the defendant, you would never imagine that possible. but like the proverbial frog in

the boiling pot, what we are seeing not just with this speaker but so many of the leadership over the last several years is one surrender of moral authority after another after another. one betrayal of what one stood for by another betrayal and another until you find yourself standing outside of a manhattan courthouse vouching for the moral authority and character of someone who possesses none. not just in the process but here denigrating the very institution of justice. a something the speaker knows is false but willing to repeat and this is where we are on the highest ranking official republican officials is essentially telling the american

people don't trust the system of justice. we see something very similar. we see a republican u.s. attorney brought on to investigate the president and we see him make a report to the congress that there's nothing prosecutable and what he was able to find we see him at the same time failing to make a prosecuted case deciding the next best thing he can do is lob a political great into the report and belittle the president. ..

and why? because her public on this committee have moved from being in the criminal defense firm for the president to being essentially an adjunct of the president's media advertising firm. they want the video for donald trump's campaign commercials. that is where this committee has become the committee on the judiciary. they committee that is centered are supposed to be centered on the rule of law and on justice. what are we doing? we are holding the attorney general of the united states in contempt. and for what? he will not get video material for campaign commercial to this committee. on behalf of a president who was a criminal defendant in a hush money payment to a pouring star case in new york. the first of many criminal trials that he will face. this is where we are. this is where we are.

i first joined this committee, it has been over 20 years ago. michael young michael johnson i could not imagine that committee would engage in the spirits on this if that 20 years ago sebastian it wasn't. we didn't disagree on abortion and guns and whole host of other policy issues. counting democrat or republican on this committee to ever ever d it would been brought so low as to hold an attorney general and contempt because it cannot get a video for campaign commercial when you started given the transcript. this is where we are. moment after moment year after we lose sight on how far we have fallen. any sense of what we are supposed to be about in this committee. i do not imagine anything i have to say will change that i do think every now and then the country needs to be reminded

there is nothing okay about this, there's something to write about that's there is nothing normal about this and we to back to demonstrating some devotion to our constituents and the rule of law and with that i yield backwards judgment yields back the judgment from new jersey is jersey'srecognizable gentleman d for a second? what's not seeking a videotape and audiotape sites want to correct the same as the democrats it hold the attorney general of united states and contempt a couple congress ago i yield back to the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have got to get focused here. the gentleman from california again trying to take our eye off the ball. this is nothing to do this particular issue right here but we are doing with the courthouse in new york city. this is nothing directly to do with what is going on with president trump i would be glad to engage in a colloquy or debate or discussion about how

awful what's happened to president trump's but that is not the issue here right now. and is nothing to do with the campaign. it's not thinking of the fact the speaker did go as he should have to support president trump this is not the issue. it has to do with special counsel her. it has to do with what he said. and by the way he never said it was not prosecutable. he decided not to pursue the charges due to the assessment a jury would find president biden's age and a poor memory and excuse for mishandling those documents. i did not say that. our chairman did not say that. the special counsel from the department of justice said that. the subpoena of the attorney attorneygeneral is necessary bee department of justice has refused to provide the audio recordings of interviews that are crucial for determining the

special counsel assessment of our current president. it is essential for this congress and the american people to determine whether special counsel assessment is accurate or not. i will tell you why. the folks on the other side are in a bind of our commander-in-chief is so incompetent it cannot stand the trail is not to stand trial he is too incompetent for god sake to be the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. i president biden is competent and special counsel assessment was incorrect president biden should face a jury for his crimes of mishandling classified materials. president trump's face and the full weight of the department of justice in his own case on this issue. even though he had the authority to declassify documents because he was the president of the united states when he did it. president biden on the other

hand mishandling classified documents both as a vice president and then as a senator. members of congress, vice presidents, u.s. senators do not get to take classified documents and remove them from the skiff. they don't get to do that. they did not do declassify documents. did not have the authority to declassify with the audio recordings why do we want them? they will reveal whether was correct mishandle classified documents or it will reveal he is incompetent not competent enough to stand trial therefore not competent that's the closest we have we have two choices here competent and he broke the law or incompetent and he is so incompetent he is a bumbling old man he could not stand trial

because they would not be able to do much with them. so we want to find out. it's what we need to know. either way i'll be clear our president is unfit to lead in my opinion and likely why the d.o.j. is hesitant to share it. i will tell you what. probably anyone on this committee if you asked them to share the audio something we said, believe me anything i am saying now you can share anywhere you can share anything the chairman says or any of our esteemed members you are on either side part of their one cosmic they got a reason they are in a bind. and might willing to set the precedent that subpoenas from congress in this committee can be ignored? are you willing to do that? i do not think so. i don't think we want that to happen. are we willing to perpetuate at the president is incompetent a a two-tiered justice system again? we see it again being wielded against the one person but not

another. the answer to the question should be no information requested in the subpoena is crucial. we need the information not just for uncovering whether presidents acted in that manner deserving of impeachment but also because the description of the answers we should not be hiding the answers and the truth from the american people. i don't support this amendment let it loose, give us the information if there's nothing there to worry about you should have no problem letting us note knowletting us see but let the t in. let the sunshine and i yield tobacco gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> think it mr. chairman. i want to address a couple of things quickly before i get to the amendment. by the arguments and hang from the republican side over and

over again is essentially questioning conclusion not to move forward with the prosecution. i did want to remind my colleagues that under mr. barr the department of justice has taken the position that the committee, referencing this incoming house judiciary committee is no legitimate role in debating law enforcement materials with the aim of duplicating criminal inquiry. which is of course they function the constitution and trusts exclusively to the executive branch. to the extent you are arguing you do not agree with his findings and you want to replicate or go through them again, mr. barr argued against that five years ago with respect to the underlying amendment for the amendment to a ns there is a

major problem with moving forward with the language and the amendment. it's based on the predicate and i won't read it to the date the department has refused to produce the audio recordings despite not having invoked any privilege to justify its failure to comply with the subpoena. one of the conclusions it reaches at the end has a justification for moving forward with contempt the attorney general is further invoked no constitutional or legal privilege relieving his obligation to fully respond to the committee subpoena because gentleman yield? like sure. >> are drafting an amendment we understand that has to be dealt with in light of the last minute executive assertion coming from the white house. we drafted an amendment but were running it past house counsel. intend to offer an amendment for the specific language the gentleman cited pickwick so the committee then adopt ranking

members amendment? >> no, we have our own. what's left to take a look at it when he gets here. moving forward on this basis, even if you amend the language in ad that i want to remind the committee whether it is an assertion of executive privilege according to nixon which is the case you all have cited per .jennifer to strike that too. upon receiving a claim or privilege of a chief executive it became further the duty of the district court to treat the subpoena material as presumptively privileged and require special prosecutor to demonstrate the presidential material was essential to the justice of the case. that is because the pending criminal case and moving forward at that point there is an expedited process. we obviously do not have an expedited process here. but just to point out and be clear about this the court said

this is presumptively privileged. and so moving forward as if that is not the case is deeply problematic. one of my colleagues over there a minute ago said something about you do not get to choose. that's exactly what happens when you assert a privilege especially executive privilege. references and the other side with respect to regular civil litigation which is fine i engage in regular civil litigation to this is litigation between article one and article two branches of the united states. constitutional magnitude. rushing through this quickly i think is misguided it. i think it will lead to hopefully a court telling the committee we are going down the wrong track. we are abusing our power for oversight. especially in the instance where we've got special counsel that's already been appointed, has reviewed the issues, has come back and stated clearly there is

insufficient evidence in his view to move forward with the prosecution. i think is especially problematic if we have to take it to court again. there is no evidence of eight refusal to cooperate. in fact you got the exact opposite. above and beyond language on the bar language on the bar letter is clearly met hereto. we've got mr. garland who is not legally required to release the report but he did. he was not required to release the transcript, but he did. as pointed out a minute ago by the ranking member for departments produced 92000 pages of documents. we've had 40 or 50 lawyers in the department of justice come and testify. a couple of them in the middle of a criminal prosecution which is totally unprecedented. so, for these reasons and more i'm urging my colleagues to rethink this approach i think ultimately is going to end up in undermining the ability of this

committee to conduct legitimate oversight at the time of that is appropriate. i've exceeded my time with that i yield back and i think the chairman. >> are gentlemen yield to back the gentleman from alabama's recognize >> thank you i yield to mr. armstrong. >> thank you. a couple of things. for one, i would be happy to argue this. to make colleagues from maryland i wish you would've been your hn may of 2019 because we legitimately as the chairman said healthy attorney general and contempt after asserting privilege it was more than that we held them in contempt for not violating the law. there is a statutory requirement you cannot disclose or integrate testimony. we talk about the path were going down and talk about oversight we don't have to go back to nick we can go back to may of 2019 and so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing about this i would love to get that transcript or audio or video and come back on

here but we are not duplicated criminal proceeding there is no criminal proceeding. we got the answer from where we are at. i would argue this in front of since the yester doing it the running out the clock he could've exerted executive privilege i don't know a week ago, a month ago, six weeks ago. it is a pattern going on with this d.o.j. and this white house comes up to the precipice of when you're actually going to do something then they said the absolute last minute they drop all of this. we have a right to do these things. i fully am aware the difference in a criminal prosecution and civil litigation and a congressional hearing are the same thing. the basic premise of what is the best evidence, what we are entitled to it versus what the opposing side says we are entitled to something the people on my side of the aisle are completely willing to have that conversation with whoever is

independent and neutral arbitrator of those facts pickwick so gentlemen yield? >> sure. >> the best evidence standard which i don't think is necessarily applicable here because not a court proceeding the demeanor evidence fell on the face for the same reason. the point here is with respect to the 6e issue. it can be waived and routinely is as a matter of practice. and it certainly has been for congress i do not know that's a really good analogy. the bottom line here is you guys are arguing you need it for demeanor evidence which again has no applicability here because it does not go to the finding that came from her or the impeachment transcript. altering the transcript is what you have to argue for it affecte chairman argued that. there's obsolete no evidence of that in fact is a certified transcript. this is one i typed it up on the side these are the transcripts

we generate on a routine basis in congress and the department of justice. >> reclaiming my time. that might be someone else's argument, that is not my argument. my argument is if i have the version of going through something and dealing with something i have watched witnesses and this committee and depositions say things because they know have agreed to it not being released on video. how something rereads and how something sounds is different. that is true. i am not arguing -- but can't say what they are entitled are not entitled to give me. i am saying i'm in south of this evidence and i think this hearing is entitled to it. i am willing to have that fight. i have never been in my entire life said you tell me what i get and i will disagree to that. that is not the point regardless of all the other issues you do not get to say at the last minute we are exerting executive privilege because nobody will ever come in voluntarily come

into an investigation ever again because simply release the audio recording instead of the transcript that's going to have a chilling effect. that is a ridiculous argument i don't care what the burden of proof is it's just a ridiculous argument. what's so gentlemen yield again? >> yes. that's an argument that's ray's administration after ministration after administration included by the trump administration on multiple occasions. the assertion of executive it privilege is at least 50 -- 60 years old. that's based on a decision by the executive branch usually the department of justice to make a decision as to what they will turn over what they won't. a basket litigated in court than the court decides. this is exactly how it is supposed to go for. >> executive privilege is usually done whether or not you get the information or not too. i was here i remember when the attorney general came in and said i cannot turn the stuff over because i will be breaking the law. this is not a matter of whether they're turning it over or not we are to have whatever you think it is they are saying were

only going to give the piece of it we what to give it were not going to give you what you guys want that is the fundamental disagreement that exists here. we want the evidence of what happened and the best evidence available. with that i yield back pickwick judgment inspect the judgment from alabama yields back the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> correct thank you mr. chair. i have been despairing the state of our country even more so the state of this committee. and the judiciary the last several months. this committee is becoming the canon committee trump anointed group to support him and defend him with conduct that is not defensible. road blocks should be on trial in florida for his keeping classified records he did not declassify them, he just kept

them. this is a man several barcodes are generic and said art rule of law this was political having people trash it is despicable almost treasonous. and in this committee the hypocrisy this committee would question merrick garland to report a republican to look into president biden's conduct. a man who mr. her said he was here to be question anyone here could have questioned him about the conduct on what mr. biden said away came to that conclusion. he said he was sympathetic elderly man with a poor memory the fact he was sympathetic as what he would not be convicted.

this distinguished from his forthcoming opponent in past opponent who was a despicable mendacious man with a port knowledge of history and government. an important memory to boot. i met his own secretary of state said was a moron. tiller's and said he was a moron. kelly said he admires jon calley's chief of staff said he admires autocrats and dictators and has no conception of the rule of law concern for or democracy in our country. his defense secretary said he is a threat to democracy. jon boulter declared to be unfit to be president. and of course mike pence said they had profound differences. folks coming up here defending what's going on in new york, this is a man his wife gave

birth to his child and he was playing golf and fornicating in nevada rather than being with his wife and newborn child, what an example we have for the american public and for young people. joe biden is i was set at the correspondents dinner a decent man sympathetic at a decent man. the idea one of the gentleman said impeachment hearing we are not at an impeachment inquiry these are things it thrown out there to try to take the facts away that he was twice impeached. and to try to impeach him. what so gentlemen yield? >> biden and netanyahu or both wrong. the hypocrisy i think every republican on this committee voted against holding bar and contempt of one of our members my friend the chairman was cited for contempt because he refused to appear before a committee.

within the generate six and the overthrow of the government. the hypocrisy is and i yield to mr. nadler for i think the general and for yield and want to point out the discussion we heard before about evidence and so forth between mr. armstrong and mr. iv is fit for a criminal trial this is not a criminal trial. this is a dispute between the executive branch and congress. such a dispute congress would show a need for the evidence that we seek. republicans have not made that showing. they have shown no need for these vials. the discussion we heard before is irrelevant it was said with a criminal trial. which is not a criminal trial is a dispute between the executive branch and congress such a dispute congress would show a need for the evidence. republicans have not made that showing. they have not shown any need for

these files that renders this whole thing ridiculous. i think the gentleman fruit yielding and i yield back to him. >> thank you. might last 10 seconds all i can say is god bless america because we need someone of that authority to bless us with the way this committee and these folks have dealt with this case and ruling on constitution of democracy. what's a judgment inspect the gentleman from california is recognized. correct think it mr. chairman's in the discussion is drifted into the manhattan trial i just have to say it is ironic you are my calling from california speak to the integrity of our legal system like most americans i am appalled at our justice system could become so it dangerously politicized. it started with the irs harassing members of the tea party years ago. we had the fbi and intelligence agencies using what they knew it was a completely fabricated story by the clinton campaign

over russian collusion. my colleague played a large role in that was censured by the house for his role in it. then we had the intelligence agency concoct a lie the hunterr biden laptop was a russian hoax that may have decisively affected the outcome of the 2020 election. i know him sham cases against donald trump on the flimsiest of legal grounds. grounds that have never been charged before. what the out his intent to interfere massively with the presidential campaign the sinister nature of these cases is that it does not matter they are falling apart. that is not the points. the point is to drain a trump of his time and resources and throw the election to the democrats. the cornerstone of our justice system is equal justice under law. in matter who we are we are treated the same that is a wide trust just depicted as blindfolded. in each of these cases there seem to be three standards of justice one for donald trump, one for the rest of us and one

for the democrats. that strikes at the heart of the matter before us. the decision to prosecute donald trump for mishandling classified documents and the decision not to prosecute joe biden for the same offense. executive privilege is an important concept and enormous a bearing on separation of powers it goes back to george washington's administration. the discussions a president has with his advisers or subordinates in the executive branch on any manner within the powers of his office are no more the business of the legislative branch and the discussions among members of congress and the business of the executive the president cannot compel congress to divulge deliberations anywhere than congress can compel the president. it is crystal clear to me any official discussion between the president and any subordinate cannot be pierced. but this case is very different. because it is not a conversation between the president and a subordinate of our policy of the discharge of his official

duties. rather it's an interview in the course of a criminal investigation. to meet this is far closer to the nixon tapes the nixon tapes are not conversations part of a criminal investigation the conversations that have bearing on one. the conversation in this case is even further from that route at the executive privilege for this is it interview and a criminal investigation that clearly falls within the legitimate legislative function. it's not only legitimate inquiry it is a vital inquiry. how is it there are two cases involving the handling of classified information that have been treated so radically differently? as president donald trump at absolute authority to declassify material at will as vice president joe biden did not. under the present to records at president trump@absolute discretion to determine what papers to return in the course of his presidency. as vice president joe biden did not. and yet a decision was made to prosecute donald trump and yet

not to prosecute joe biden. by the joe biden administration. so it bears repeating the foundation of our judicial system is equal justice under law. without this the law it looses l authority it simply becomes broad political force and it is apparent to me we are moving dangerously away from this principle of a quote justice congress because us and is central to play in setting things right before we lose the very principles that define us as a free people. central to this is to understand why these two cases were treated so very differently. the request of the administration is legitimate. the contempt citation for refusal to provide this information is entirely appropriate but with that i yield back. >> else at the gentleman yields back the gentleman from california. i have california then i'll come there. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the house and judiciary committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. unfortunately the actions of this committee chairman and ignoring a bipartisan congressional subpoena has hurt the ability of this committee to get information and hurt the rule of law. it is a height of hypocrisy for the chairman of this committee to try to enforce a contempt subpoena against merrick garland when this chairman himself ignored bipartisan congressional subpoena. now, i have been to a number of proceedings in my time in congress and in the state legislature. i have been a relatively stupid. this proceeding goes beyond stupidity it is a waste of taxpayer resources. why is that? because we have the transcript. we have the transcript of the interview between special counselor robert her and president biden. there is no evidence whatsoever

at this transcript was made up. that it is fake, that has been doctored. this transcript was produced by robert hurd's office. he was appointed by donald trump. he is a republican appointee. the notion that some out this transcript is fake is a wild and insane conspiracy theory to know why things really going on? joe biden stutters is always had a stuttering problem and he was made fun of as a child because he stuttered, his bullied as a kid because he stuttered. he overcame stuttering become president of the united states republicans in the past have used his stuttering to smear him. i think that's what they want to do again with this audio. think that is despicable if republicans are going to go low i'm going to punch back. let's talk about donald trump i agree with the republican integers is that a person cannot stand trial he should not be president of the united states. donald trump has fallen asleep

multiple times his own criminal trial. i am a former prosecutor. i can say that is not normal. i think there may be physical mental health issues that should be investigated. i'm going to tell people in the courtroom are writing about donald trump falling asleep. here's a reporter who is been observing this own reporter observed quote donald trump has nodded off a few times his mouth going slack in his head dripping onto his chest." another reporter said quote donald trump slowly dropped his head his eyes closed, jerked back aboard he adjusted himself in his head droops again, he straightens up leaning back. his head droops for a third time he shakes his shoulders, i can disclose it still has head drops." i have a person is so weak and feeble donald trump was so weak and feeble cannot stay away to

his own criminal trial he cannot be president of the united states. so, instead of going around trying to smear different people why don't we work on a bipartisan basis and issued a matter that to american people bipartisan hearing unless decent bills to fix a broken immigration system. republicans here do not want to do that do not to work in a bipartisan basis they do not want to fix this, why? because donald trump told them not too. how about another issue but let's talk about high prices. prices are high we did get a good report yesterday inflation is slow down. that is good but prices are still high why don't we work on bipartisan basis to look at price gouging? we have companies making record profits once have a hearing on that. why don't we have a hearing on that? republicans don't fix the issue they one as a campaign issue. how about let's do a topic that's not a campaign issue.

artificial intelligence has become a problematic privacy implications, could do amazing things it could also harm us in a variety of ways in terms of what we do hearing on this and this committee? why don't we do that? instead were doing the stupid stuff to try to get audio of a transcript we already have. i gets even worse than that. there is a second committee oversight committee did the exact same hearing on this proceeding. let me put in at least the chairman of that committee did not ignore congressional bipartisan subpoena it might be more appropriate for that committee to do it we should and this proceeding right now i yield back. >> a gentleman yields back the gentleman from texas is recognized for a quick thank you, mr. chairman. after that five minutes of starting to get a little sleepy but like to yield my time. >> i think the gentleman for yielding.

and here we go again for the gentleman, my friends from tennessee and california and maryland, they want us not to have our eye on the ball. they want us to look and we talked about this before this committee and the shiny object over here when you are really in trouble on the other side of the aisle. when you've really got a problem let's go after donald trump. let's make it a campaign stump speech. let's talk about what a bad guy he is. let's talk about all these different issues. that is not why we are here. again, if we want to have a separate debate a colloquy, a discussion, formal, informal we will do it, i'm ready to go at it. think of most of us here are. but that is not the issue. the issue is this committee feels that it needs an audio transcript because the charges, the concerns are so serious. i want everyone to understand we

are either in saying our current president is in -- cognitively impaired, incompetent, unable to stand trial even though he broke the law so the department of justice decides they won't go after him for those reasons. and if that is true we need to hear the audio tape. you are going to be unable to understand if he truly is that cognitively impaired if he truly has those problems. if he cannot deal with these issues. if he did not know what he is doing we are going to learn a lot more. and by the way if it is no big deals the other side says because we have the transcripts, we do have the transcript so why do you care so much about us getting the audio? what is the big deal? look to the judgment yield for an answer? so to finish this and i will yield. we have the transcript so when we have the audio? we can find out whether he is in

that much trouble as the country is in that much trouble. it's got nothing to do with what is going on in york this has to do with what's going on right here in the white house in washington d.c. with this president. or if he is not cognitively impaired if he is a with that, if he is capable then he broke with the law as a vice president and asked that u.s. senator. not allowed to to classified materials outbreak kept them in the garage by his home, next to a collapsed dog kennel. and then use them out everyone to understand them. use them, or read them to his ghost writer to use in his multimillion dollar book deal. was he competent? did he know he's doing when he made this deal and use these papers to make money on the presidency? that is what we need to know but that is why we are going through all of the spirits got nothing to do with the other stuff.

and that is what we need to find out. >> was german yield. >> ruckus i will in one moment. and that is why it we are having this discussion because of this committee has an oversight responsibility and needs to know that. it's not only the committee. most importantly the american people need to know it. we need to know if we have an incompetent incoherent president. or, if we have a president that is being helped through the two-tier system of justice again, just like they tried to help his son justice and for the comment not for me. god help us the american people whom ever are watching and listening to this do not have those opportunities. he keeps getting them over and over again, which is it? it's a bad spot for you folks, i get it it's a really uncomfortable place to be. but we need to find out the truth and that yield to the gentleman actually guess i will yield to you.

>> thank you. i want to comment on the following special prosecutor decided there was no reason to prosecute for his own good reasons. he stated them in his report he made what i regard as a gratuitous smear of the present buys cognitive impairment we will see. we do not need the transcript to see if the president's cognitively impaired he speaks all the time they're going to be two debates the american people can decide whether the president's cognitively impaired they can decide whether his opponent is at cognitively impaired they will see plenty of evidence of that in the debates in the campaign. so we do not need the transcript to know why that the presence cognitively impaired or not the evidence to be before the american people for. >> i reclaim my time. look, this does not have anything to do with the debate i get it i know everyone's going to go on me included. this has to do with the actions that took place regarding classified materials.

either as a special prosecutor said he hasn't cognitively impaired and unfit for trial. or he knowingly did this and made money off of it. i yield back. >> a gentleman yields a back the chair it recognize a judgment from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing is a continuation of what this congress has been about under republican authority since january 3 of 2023. we started out trying to elect a speaker. it took i think 19 ballots before this congress back in 2023, january was able to elect a speaker. and then that speaker presided over what is agreed upon by most the people who are observing

this committee's functions -- --this congresses function. this has been the least a productive congress and the history of the country. many are arguing. my friends on the other side of the aisle on this committee are a part of that. they have spent $20 million investigating president trump. in this committee, this committee alone has spent $20 million during this 118th session of congress which began in january of 2023. investigating president biden. they suffered the indignity of their leader, former president trump being indicted for

withholding classified documents. that indictment was in july of 2023. during the height of this do-nothing congress not long before this a congress expelled the speaker it took so long to elect in january. they put him out in october. and then we went for three weeks even people on this committee or buying for the speakership it took three weeks ran through a number of candidates before congress elected mike johnson as a speaker formally of this committee. he has not fared much better. neither has the house under his reign. still, nothing accomplished and we get to this point now where

after spending $20 million this committee has obsolete nothing to show for it. they tried to pin a classified documents case on president biden. they had a special counsel, special counsel her spent a lot of money investigating. could not find anything. how to write a report that cleared the president from illegally withholding classified documents. and then he was summoned to this committee to deliver the findings of his report which included a derogatory or reference to president biden having a loss of memory, disparaging him and that was the only thing that republicans

could get out of the report. so they made hay of that for a a while. that went away and now it has come back. we are seeking to hold the attorney general in contempt of this committee for refusing to produce an audio file. when you already have the alumnus and document the entire unredacted report the transcript of the interview with the president, even talking to the president ghost writer was an exhaustive investigation. the only thing we can do now is come up with additional information to show biden is cognitively impaired that is with this committee is trying to do today according to my friend from new jersey.

get the evidence biden is cognitively impaired this is a political. as they do nothing congress is a product of a do-nothing committee. the american people deserve more they are seeing what is happening. i think they're going to sweep this committee out of its perch. democrats would back in control so we can do the work the american people need us to do to keep them safe. and to make sure costs are down but make sure our economy is humming along. jobs, rebuilding america's with whatthis committee needs to be about. not a fishing expedition trying to show this president is cognitively impaired with that i yield a backward judgment inspect the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> thank you mr. chair.

i mean, a lot of the standard listen to the special counsel i think respond to many questions and sitting right there in front of us. i began to wonder kind of what were the conversations behind closed doors? what were the discussions amongst the attorneys on how are we ever going to dismiss the idea the president of the united states holding substantial positions within our government is absolutely secured on his own person, the sensitive documents and then was able to take them back to his residence, move boxes of them in multiple locations. and willingly and knowingly

mishandling secret sensitive u.s. government documents and just dismiss this. with special counsel they just did a raid on the former president's home in florida. lights and go income securing areas in the residence. and ransacking the place. and now we find out probably a little bit of orchestration and what they wanted those documents to it look like when the photos were taken. i cannot imagine special counsel and his assistance were trying

to dismiss by simply saying the president is not all there. we have seen on tv. we see it every day he is completely incompetent firm handling a simple press conference. so that became their way out that became what they thought could justify letting them off the hook. i am not sure where that would've gone as criminal prosecution. none of us are ever going to know that. my own personal opinion is that he blew it. he is the one who set this a juxtaposition of the president of the united states who by the way agreed to two presidential debates. but, at the same time we are supposed to believe he's just

not up to standing trial for this. he is not up to actually having an attorney asking poignant questions about what he was doing with the documents. was he aware what were in those boxes that he had all over the place? and now, today, we get a letter from mr. siskel so again i wonder what was going on behind closed doors at the white house yesterday? and the discussions on how are we now going to make sure we protect the president again from having to disclose anything on substance? the paragraph that strikes me is the absence of legitimate need for an audio recording laser barrier likely goal now they are telling congress what our goals are and trying to secure

evidence. as you chop them up, distort the menus and partisan political purposes. it is not part of our process either, right? but you have to run for reelection. so if something like this was actually utilized in that way which is not the committee's intent. but clearly one of the attorneys over the white house dropped the ball when they wrote the paragraph. because it just went from us not being able to do oversight to it now we have come up with the way we are actually going to execute a little bit of a cover-up. we're going to move towards cover-up to make sure these special counsel conclusions are not question beyond what was done in this room when he was here a month ago.

so, mr. chairman this entire day is not only warranted, but the american people see was going on here. we are not going to elected donald trump or the other side of the aisle and the white house is going to elect donald trump and i yield a backward judgment yields a back the chair reckon is a gentleman from california. >> it is nice to see some might call it's on the other side could make it today. i don't know if that means there were not enough seats in the courtroom in new york? i know the oversight committee canceled the hearing was supposed to happen right on this matter so they could be at the presidents try know some members will miss this a vote because they want to be at the presidents trial. i do not think anything could animate the phrase do-nothing congress more than missing votes and canceling hearings to go up and be a spectator at your cult leaders trial that is the definition of do-nothing

congress. but i am here for a celebration because let's raise a glass it is been about two years, two years this week may 12 is when jim jordan our chairman was subpoenaed and asked to comply with his subpoena for his role, his interaction of the former president on generate sixth attack of the capitol. we are 735 days in, it is two years this committee has the nerve. this committee has the temerity to seek a compliance and the attorney general. i think you should not be able to bring any subpoena of another person if you are out of compliance of your own subpoena. that seems to make a lot of sense to me. we will have an amendment to address that a little bit later. but, i want to talk about this particular effort to hold the attorney general and contempt. what is this really about? after all it was donald trump's

appointed prosecutor who the attorney general deputized to be the special counsel here to look at president biden's handling of classified documents it was donald trump prosecutor who cleared president biden. he said there's nothing to see here but although he did not put it in the lead memo for his report there was an exchange he acknowledged an interview with president biden at the special counsel told the president your recall is photographic. he did not say your recall is good for you did not say or recall is decent. the special counsel said your recall is photographic. so what is this really about? this is about you all not accepting the outcome of the 2020 election. you are rooted on the rioters as they sought to attack the cap on january 6. if that was not enough you all went back to the floor marie

litigated the issue is that right to the capitol just eight hours later. many of you go and visit the convicted criminals who assault assaulted the police officer after jail cells. and during a police a week a bunch of officers yesterday testified in the homeland security secretary those officers are heroes those rioters are criminals you call them hostages. the former president calls them hostages. this is entirely but not accepting the outcome of the january six the vote here rooting on the rioters and doing everything you can to try to affect the outcome of the upcoming election. and so then i thought to myself is there a parallel is there another investigation where your side was completely incurious about what that investigation yielded? turns out there was that it happenedrecently turns out sn

your side was investigated for sex trafficking. now you are going to say he was cleared he was clear they dropped the charges. yes the biden attorney general dropped the charges. did not pursue did not bring charges. that is exactly what happened with president biden. but you all it showed no interest to go to the attorney general and say we want to learn more. we want to see the notes and the audio recordings and the evidence of our own colleagues sex trafficking investigation but not a peep from anyone of you. if you wanted to do that, if you wanted to shout just a little bit of consistency i would be willing to entertain that you have a general interest in understanding what happened in that hearing. but that is not what this is about. this is about doing everything to help donald trump you see as your client and your criminal trial sees as a defendant.

to help them win an election i have no interest in playing this game the american people have no interest in playing this game all of this does for those of you who have graced us with your presence animates it's a completely do-nothing congress and i yield back. correct a gentleman yields back the gentleman from texas is my colleague from california leaves. i've been on this committee long enough to know why we markup contempt. this committee and the committee he referred oversight, we have held people in contempt for not doing things for this committee successfully held in contempt the chief counsel to the president under george w. bush for not showing up. we, next door held in contempt eric holder for withholding information yet he said he had 200 and some pages ultimately over 10,000 pages turned out to

be delivered. what is interesting and very similar is the president's old boss, president obama claimed executive privilege on exactly the day we are about to do this. and ultimately none of the 10,000 pages stood the test under a judge appointed by president obama for executive privilege. the false claim of executive privilege today is just as much a ruse as it was under president obama. that it's a piece of history help my colleagues will observe as we hold this attorney general and contempt and i think the jump in for yield in peru i think the gentleman i would note my colleagues are decrying the fact some of our colleagues are in new york but let's remember it's happening in new york. we have a clear sham trial being perpetrated by a judge with clear bias. we have a situation the entire thing relies on michael cohen to

say the least is a convicted felon and has been disbarred he's perjury and various financial crimes. the judge, his own daughter is a known democratic political operative has clients including summer democratic colleagues i think even on this committee of including some democratic colleagues who are in fact advising michael cohen at this particular moment. all of that is occurring at a time when they're calling their calling michaelcohen wheng forward allen who is sitting over at rikers but for some reason not bring him forward. one could guess because it would not help. the fact is it's all playing out will bootstrapping a federal onto a state crime in order to try to navigate statutes of limitation. it is ridiculous. it's a patently absurd we are seeing unfold with our system of justice. the polarization of it. and now here we sit my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not like we simply

want to see the best evidence available. when in fact it's not as of my y colleagues talked about try to effectively get a second stab at criminal proceedings. this is an impeachment inquiry. that is inherently not a criminal proceeding it is that unique function of congress under the constitution of the united states. we are investigating very legitimate questions, conflict of interest for the biden family the significant amount of money in its flow to the biden family. the extent to which the present is material is not supposed to have in his possession, which is special counsel firmly pointed out in fact in this committee testified too. and in fact the president and his lawyers have contested special counsel's assessment the truth is special counsel in this committee stood behind his foreign test testimony. we have evidence we can see and transcripts. all we are pointing out is it is

an impeachment function and a legislative function of this body to be able to use the power to go to the department of justice which was supposed to be overseen by us in the first place by the way. and to say we simply want to see the best evidence because if you look at the terms of the criminal proceeding which is not an impeachment inquiry and is not the legislative function independent unique function in the criminal inquiry carried out. clearly what you saw for special counsel her was a great deal of dependence on the demeanor of the president. extraordinary amount of dependence in terms of his determination on whether to pursue charges dependent on how he assessed the demeanor of the president of the united states. that's all this is about chipper it's not political. it is not about something that might show up later for political purposes it is very much to the heart of whether or

not and what the president knew about the materials he had which special counsel firmly acknowledges were illegal for him to possess. the question is, what was his intent? it is critically important for the purposes of this body to determine where we are going to go in an impeachment inquiry or any legislative inquiry to determine what the president demeanor was during that interview i yield back. >> a gentleman yields back.

of documents that have been subpoenaed much of which is publicly available to us to try and fend off exactly this. a contempt citation for failure to comply. you know, the one thing if it were the subcommittee that i chair, it'd be one thing if it were documents subpoenaed at the department of health and human services or education or the ftc about collusion with big tech, about covid information that they tried to limit availability

on the internet. there are so many different ways in which this administration has failed to be accountable, held to be held accountable and fail today provide the information that we've requested that we are not surprised but this is under an impeachment inquiry. actually increases the burden on the administration to show that there is some reason why they should not be providing this i was and the executive does not -- is not applicable here. we have a request for recording as was stated earlier, the white house doesn't get to decide how that information is provided,

which transcript is better, which transcript is appropriate. if we want one transcript, they give us that one. if we want the other one, they have to give us that one. actually that was a conclusion and then her investigation also concluded that vice president biden ignored rules on properly handling classified materials. strong motivations included advance of $8 million that biden had plan to receive for writing a memoir, a book he decided to write, quote, months before leaving office but why has the doj not sought to bring charges against the president for his action, both vice president and the private citizen, well, for one reason special council noted in his report that although

there was sufficient evidence that biden willfully withheld classified information, elderly man with a poor memory, but her knew that to make 8 million-dollar book advance he would need reminders but many reminders are classified and yet he shared them with ghost writer who holds no security hearance as part of the impeachment inquiry in the oversight and the committee sought information among other things, president biden's mishandling of information. attorney general garland not only confirmed that this material has been turned over to the white house and not us. he said this during an

appropriation's testimony but fail today see the hypocrisy in allowing the white house access to these recordings but not the judiciary and oversight committees. so he rejected the notion that doj should release the cordings and said that they needed to remain confidential but at the time had no response as to how to provide the recordings to the white house as to how he provided the recordings to the white house. so these recordings are important to our investigations because of the superior evidence that the transcripts, the recordings provide because transcripts do not capture demeanor evidence and hide verbal slipup from president biden already. if they're already doctoring official transcripts we need the tapes, we need the tapes and they have an obligation to provide themtous. >> i yield back. question

occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, those in favor say aye. those oppose no. [roll call vote]

>> ms. lee? mr. hunt? mr. nadler. mr. nadler votes aye. ms. jackson lee? mr. cohen? mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes aye. mr. lu? mr. correa? ms. dean? ms. dean votes aye? ms. escobar, ms. escobar votes aye. mr. ivy? >> aye.

>> mr. ivy votes aye. you're not recorded. mr. good votes no. mr. chairman, 8 yeas and 17 no's. >> the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from georgia. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk to report. point of order reserved from the gentleman of california. >> amendment to the amendment and the nature of the

substitute. >> i object mr. chairman. >> okay. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute to the committee report for resolution recommending that merrick garland in contempt, the end of second full paragraph, serious concerns of the pettency competency of donald trump. fictional serial killer from silence of the lambs. congratulations, we have people that are being released into our country that we don't want in our country, end quote, mr. trump also confused the city of china with taiwan.

mr. trump -- >> that's the end of the magnet. during a series of march campaign rallies, trump mistook the continue telling the crowd, you know, argentina, great guy, he a trump guy, i love him because he loves trump. anybody that loves me i like them. he also claimed -- made series of unintelligible noises. this is me unintelligible thing. it is not even clear if mr. trump knows which is a political opponent. he confused presidential candidate nikki haley and haley

responsible for capitol security. in october 2023 mr. trump referred to hungarian prime minister as great leader of turkey. serious concerns about mr. trump's mental competency and ability to serve another term as president. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman this contempt report that is being considered today is full of misleading references to president biden's age and mental competency and throughout this hearing today i've heard the false allegation made that special counsel hurd find that biden was incompetent to stand trial that. is not what hurd found. he simply questions the president's memory and to let's

not get it twisted and speaking of, you know, cognitive impairment, the report that we are considering today conveniently omits serious evidence that withstand, donald trump is the only candidate who shows any evidence of competency problems. praised a serial killer from silence of the lambs, the great haniniball. congratulations the great haniball lector, great people being released into our country, we don't want our -- we don't want in our country.

>> silence to have lamb, has anyone ever seen silence of the lamb. wonderful man, president xi of china talking about beijing, they are planes. i could have pressed hillary a lot harder, she either broke up the phone, nobody knows, it is all tone by biden. jimmy -- he's also happy. congratulations, the late great hanniball, we have people being released into the country that we don't want in the country. screaming like a lunatic. >> ladies and gentlemen, that sad display took place just this past weekend with the former president. he appeared to confuse the chinese city of beijing with the self-governing island of taiwan.

it confused jimmy connor famous tennis player to jimmy carter. >> would the gentleman yield? >> no, i won't. this rant is not a singular event. last january at a rally in iowa mr. trump incoherently stated, quote, think of it magnets, end quote. and now all i know about magnets is this, give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets and that's the end of the magnets, end, quote. you know, argentina, great guy. he's a big trump guy. anybody that loves me, i like them, end quote. he also claimed that a poll was a legislative bill calling and called our country the united

stage and he made a series of unintelligible noises when describing himself, this is me. it's not even clear if trump knows which of his political opponents he's running against, mr. trump has mixed up president joe biden and former president barack obama on at least 8 different occasions. he bizarrely mentioned nikki haley with former speaker pelosi inferring that ambassador haley was responsible for capital security. he can't keep straight the names of world leaders. in october of 2023 mr. trump referred to hungarian prime minister víctor orban as, quote, grade leader of turkey, end

quote. their chosen leader, donald trump presents with symptoms which are quite frankly scary. the american people can see through this republican charade, this is just an ugly exercise to hurt president joe biden, let's move on. and with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back, gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> the additional aid that was voted onto go to taiwan would cause the island to tip over in any point in the future. >> you know what, i hope that -- i hope that the island of guam is floating on water and not on diesel fuel. that's the point i was making. and i think that the gentleman my question, my mental acuity but let's look at --

>> relameing my time. >> the gentleman from kentucky. >> he claiming my time. i the upmost respect from my colleague on the other side of the aisle. the point i wanted to make is that statement we make statements tongue-in-cheek that we are metaphorically speaking and that the president most certainly in most of those cases was doing that as we all have republican and testimony contract made statements that if they're taking out of context seem indefensible or ungroundedded, if you will. let me give an example. so the comment on the magnets here, if you give me a glass of water, let met drop it on the magnets. it's tend to have magnets. i've actually heard the president talk about, what he's talking about is electro magnets and discussion whether the

catapults on airport carriers should be electromagnetically driven and it is true that steam is more reliable, that water would not affect the hoses, for instance, but they could -- but salt water could affect wires that are driving electro magnets, so i think it's disingenuous here to offer this and take many things out of context, to take things that were said talk and cheek to take things that were said on the campaign trail and act as if they were meant to be taken literally because we all on both sides of the i'll have said things before that were not meant to be taken literally and with that i yield back. >> i yield, mr. chairman. >> i think the point is well made. no human beings ever said anything exactly right. we all made mistakes, whatever but the fundamental question in front of us was the decision not

to prosecute consistent with the department of justice's commitment to impartial justice? that's the fundamental question? trump, president trump is being prosecuted for las fied documents, joe biden isn't, biden isn't because this is what the special counsel said, he said mr. biden's memory appear today have significant limitations both at the time he spoke in 2017 and as evidence by their recorded conversations and today as evidenced by the recorded interview with our office. that's why we want the audiotape. president trump, is the department being impartial, president trump is being prosecuted. president biden isn't and isn't because of the statement from the special counsel. that statement of the special counsel in light of the case. the elements to have crime have been met.

joe biden, joe biden knowingly kept classified information and knowingly his closed classified information. special counsel told us in his report why joe biden did it. he said he had strong motivations to release classified information because he was writing a book, a book for which he got paid $8 million. so we have motive. we have the elements of the crime but he doesn't get charged and yet president trump does. and so this committee, the committee that oversees the justice department wants to know if they're impartially administering justice and the best way for us to figure all of that out is to get all of the evidence that the special counsel had at his disposal so that we can figure that out and do anything to change the statute that is part of oversight, that's the fundamental question. we can get into what things people say, i've said things taken out of context.

mr. johnson has, we've all said it. so that's not the point. the point is that fundamental question. was it the administration of impartial justice, were they being consistent and that's what we want to know. i yield back.

>> they want to take president biden's comments out of context. so this is projecting, this is exactly what these republicans are known for, they do it, that's what their big cheese does, donald trump, and with that, i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields. >> go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it's not accurate. that's not our goal. >> i have to say, you know, my colleague from georgia raised the point about taking something out of context, there's certainly a concern about that and it's a legitimate one. you know, to not have the audiotape but have the transcript which, again, nobody is actually alleged is incorrect in any way, o, it's not a

verbatim transcript and -- and taking the transcript, the allegations at all. at this point you have to assume that it's actually accurate but i had to get to this point, because i've got so many colleagues talking about the contracts, well, biden wasn't prosecuted but trump was. you should report that laid out of this out but just to remind my colleagues, distinction's between trump case and biden's case, there are serious aggravating facts in the trump case moist notably given chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite according to the indictment he not only refused to return documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it.

he goes on in contrast, mr. biden, turned classified documents of the national archive and sat for voluntary interview, in other words, cooperated with the investigation. that's the distinction and that's the distinction the department of justice draws frequently in making decisions about whether to move forward to criminal prosecution and, you know, the obvious that you guys are ignoring when you thought democrat versus republican, former vice president pence was not prosecuted as well for the same sorts of issues for the same reasons. there's a reason trump sits alone or will sit alone at this criminal trial that's upcoming is because he acted to abinstruct justice and biden and pence did not. i have to say along those lines because there's this ongoing claim that the department to have justice is somehow bias and only going after republicans but

the senator in new jersey, democrat who is about the start a jury trial. i don't know if they are picking the jury or not. they were last time that i looked. to suggest that that for some reason the department of justice is only targeting republicans when it's clear they aren't and then the last point that you all keep kind of avoiding, you guys are making allegations today that you did not confront him with at the time to the extent you raised it, you said, no, i'm not trying to hide anything, i'm not trying to protect the president. we are not trying to slam anything. i did this, i called the balls and strikes as i saw them. and, you know, i think it's a bit of a smear to sort of suggest otherwise and it's a little unfair to do it now when

he's not here when you had a chance to do it when he was here and, you know, i don't know. it's kind of frustrating to me. the judiciary committee is about upholding the rule of law and they have political issues and presidential year and all of that stu but you're deliberately dye torting the facts over and over again and it should really stop, it really should. just one final point on these issues the attorney general here, merrick garland, 92,000 pages that he's produced overrened over presented witnesses to the committee that other ag's would have refused especially lawyers in the middle of investigation and pending trial. all of y'all are ignoring that and even though that you have the verbatim transcripts.

>> the gentleman yields back. i will just respond briefly. our motivation is exactly what i said five minutes ago. is this the impartial administration of justice by the justice department. it's nothing else. that's our objective, that's our goal and the best way to figure that out is to get all of the evidence. the gentleman from maryland referenced. i did confront him. i laid out the same things. did he knowingly released classified information, yes, why did he do it, because he was writing a book, $8 million, we layed that out. we layed all of that out. i did confront him. >> will the gentleman yield. >> you confronted him with the fact that those facts but nobody says you know what, you're not telling the truth. you're not charging him and you should because you're trying to protect him with that, i will

yield the balance of my time to the gentleman of new jersey. >> thank you, chairman. let me just say that you encapsulate what this is about. you're all good at this, seriously. you are good at it, you're good at politics because, again, we are speaking about the rally which i happened to be and as you probably know it's in my district and by the way probably feeling a little bad about it because we a hundred thousand people that were from all walks of life, from plumbers to pipe fitters, professionals, engineers and architects and doctors, to young people, to old people, all excited to be there with a hundred thousand people we had no incidents, nobody got drunk, nobody got hurt, there were no fights, it was a celebration of america. for an hour and a half donald trump stood up there mostly speaking about a whole bunch of stuff, having a little bit of fun, sometimes being sarcastic, sometimes being very serious and

speaking about america and america freedom and what is happening to our borders, our cities, what's happening to our country in so many different ways that isn't good but my point is that's not what this hearing is about, so once again and the chairman encapsulated it, you're leading as a stray, you're good at it, we are getting into a debate about donald trump and you're damn good at it, we have the existing transcripts and we want to know what the demeanor of the current president was. we know what demeanor of what the trump said, you don't need to do anything. i wish we didn't have to have this hearing either. i just wished they turned it over. i will in a minute. the chairman wouldn't have called this hear if simply they had said, yes, you can have the video recordings, you can actually check out as his

demeanor. the problem that you have, as good as it are is either that he is cognitively impaired and doesn't know what is going on or he's not and he knowingly took all of the classified material out and then basically sold it to a ghost writer to make 8 million bucks and i know that you're in a tight spot but that's the reality and so we kind of want to know what it is and so do the american people know what it is, they just want to know the truth, it isn't a big deal. tell the truth, it sets you free, man. you can go through inside out over and over and i know probably the next speaker on your side is going to have another amendment that's got to do with donald trump but that's not what this is about. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> i hadn't planned on bringing donald trump today, you did it. you are the one that came in and tried to say that trump was mistreated because he's on trial but biden is getting a pass, you

brought it up. >> i reclaim my time. no, what i brought up was that you all -- we were taking our eye off the ball. we still are. we are in this discussion. there's a real serious issue here and by the way they obviously don't think since you brought it up that donald trump's cognitively impaired because they are prosecuting in different venues across the country politically motivated but i don't want to have that debate, man. i will have the debate any time anywhere. >> the gentleman yields back. >> i will yield back. >> i will just point out, the -- jack smith mishandled the evidence. we don't want to bring up trump but in that case you got the prosecutor who sees the documents and change the order that he sees the document, the physical documents don't match up with the actual scanned

documents, the judge says, wait a minute. the irony is, the irony is jack smith mishandled documents while he's charging president trump while mishandling documents. i think reference with what's going on with president trump is entirely appropriate. my time is up. all those in favor say aye? those oppose no. the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. [roll call vote] >> mr. jordan? >> no. >> mr. jordan votes no. [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote] >> the clerk will read. >> mr. chairman, 5 ayes and 12 no's. >> the motion is not adopted. ms. dean from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

>> amendment to -- reserved to point of order. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute of the nitty report for resolution recommending that the house of representatives merrick b garland in contempt. >> without objection. explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to lay the table and this build on the amendment we just considered. the disinformation coming from the other side of the aisle is so troubling, it's funny, but it's really much more troubling than anything else. as we all know special counsel has not call today do some competency hearing, he was to find out whether or not president biden would be charged for mishandling of documents. i refer you to mr. hurd's report, we have every page of

it. i forget how big it is, hold on. 350-60 pages. line 1, page 1, this is special counsel hurd's finding and he said here to us, sitting right at that table that this was after, quote, rigorous detailed and analysis by him and his group, his staff. page 1, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. and then i thought very interestingly and i even asked him to reread this to us. the exception is former president trump, i'm reading from page 11, again rigorously, thoroughly reported here by special counsel hurd in his conclusive findings. the exception meaning that one person, one president has been charged in misuse of classified documents. page 11, it is not our role to assess criminal charges pending

against mr. trump but several material distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. biden's case are clear. you'll remember i asked special counsel hurd to read this. unlike the evidence involving mr. biden the allegations set forth would present serious aggravating facts as my colleague read also. most notably continuing in the report after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution. mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. , end quote. so let's talk about the elephant in the room, why do my republican colleagues need this audio file at all after all doj has provided 92,000 documents, plenty to go through, including the transcript to let me hold that up two days worth of

testimony, the transcript of the president cooperating in the two days following the attack in israel on october the seventh but this president, this sitting president cooperated fully and completely every word of its testimony is reported here. do you think the republicans really want to listen to the president's vocal tone? i will give them the benefit of the doubt. it may be they want to do that but not -- but only because they think they can manipulate president biden's voice to make it the next trump for president ad. after all they have done it before, take a look. march 2020. trump's white house social media director posted and trump retweeted and edited video that cut off president biden's sentence to make it sound like president biden was endorsing trump. later that year, steve scalise

shared an edited video of president biden that falsely made it appear that he was supporting defund the police. and back in 2019, president trump and rudy giuliani both retweeted a manipulated video of speaker pelosi that had been doctored to make the speaker appear incompetent. unfortunately, we know that our chairman, our very chairman had taken part in those phoney manipulations too. i have to admit as a mother and grandmother this next example hurts the most. last year ms. nina testified that chairman tweeted manipulated video of her that contributed to death threats against her. she was 8 months pregnant while strangers online called her a nazi and told her she should die. she had to attend -- >> suspend for a second?

>> i will not yield. >> i'm not asking you to yield. we are citing a -- >> i have a point of order. >> there you go. the -- >> i will ask you -- >> it's 40 seconds. >> restore the clock. >> i have a point of order. you are citing a deposition in your amendment that has not been released in violation of house rules. >> let me check with my team. >> i will make the point that they should release the deposition. >> we are happy to release the deposition. >> they are happy to release the deposition. thank you for restoring my time. >> we have to strike the language that is citing the deposition that has not been released by house rules. >> because you don't want to release it, you don't want to release what mr. jordan did? >> i can't release it in realtime? >> i think you could.

you're the chairman. >> mr. chairman, parliamentary inquiry? >> yes. >> can the chairman make a point of order if so then who rules of the point of order or not? no. the point of order is made by the chairman. >> i'm in charge of enforcing the rules. >> on your own point of order? >> yes. >> can someone else be heard on the point of order? >> can i speak on the point of order? >> no. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, the sitting chairman of this committee knows that this transcript was from last april, the committee has every ability and has often time to release that. it seems to me and this side of the aisle that it is trying to be withheld in order to protect the chairman from something

quite embarrassing. i ask that it be released today. >> would the general lady yield? >> i sure will. >> okay. that requires consultation with majority and minority counsel and the fact that you wish that it was released prior to that does not supercede the fact that it is cited deposition that has not been released by this committee is cited in the amendment that is in violation of house rules. >> is the irony visible to anybody else here? anybody else notice the irony here? >> mr. chairman -- >> you have the whole transcript here.

[inaudible conversations] >> it's fair to say one-minute video that mr. jordan linked to -- let me finish. >> objection, mr. chairman. objection. >> the gentleman is out of order. the gentleman will suspend. >> so mr. jordan relied -- >> the gentleman is out of order. >> who is out of order? >> you are, mr. nadler. why am i out of order? what am i violating? >> it's the entire point of the parliamentary inquiry. >> i'm happy to amend my amendment to take out the q&a

that you do not want revealed because the chairman would be embarrassed by it. i want to be heard on the point of order. she's disclosed. she being -- >> her testimony towards that versus the transcript of the deposition are not the same. >> but the point there and i think the author of the amendment offered to strike the exact quote but the substance of the statement is public

information. >> the amendment discloses committee record that has not been released in violation of house rules? >> how about my amended amendment? i'm taking out the testimony which this committee, the majority on the committee does not want revealed and i guess i don't even want to ask, can we get the audio of that? [laughter] >> i mean, if you look at the footnotes, mr. chairman -- >> will the general lady ask for unanimous consent to amend the amendment? >> i ask for unanimous consent to amend the amendment to take out the language that you don't want revealed. take out the q&a. >> is there an objection? >> without objection so ordered. >> mr. chairman, i thank you. i think i had 40 seconds but i will take 30. the irony is extraordinary in this committee. misrepresentation, a finding of

incompetence by the former president, when you know this special counsel found we conclude no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. it is absurd that the chairman of this committee who sits in offense to his own subpoena, hundreds and hundreds of days is seeking the voice of the president whose voice he knows very, very well, the testimony is rich and pleat. i ask that my amendment be considered and be honored and passed because otherwise we could see the use of this video, this audio, excuse me, doctored to be deep faked and to be trump. i urge all my colleagues to support my amendment. thanks so much. >> anywhere else seek recognition? >> i'm hesitant to speak because

-- >> i can't hear you. >> i'm hesitant to speak because, mr. chairman, because i'm so -- so stunned by the amendment proposed by the general lady to get around house rules to disclose documents that have not been released by this committee. is that how the other side is going to play? that violates general rules of quorum and decency. this committee has been a respected body in this congress and many previous congresses for many years and one to have things that it emphasizes is not just the rule of law, but the balancing of the branches of

government when the executive branch overreaches its authority and says, we don't have to hand over these tapes to the legislative branch of government, we should be united in saying, how dare you, we should be united in saying, we represent the people, we are entitled to these tapes, we ask for them, we should get them and to not just say no but to say, the hell to your request and to hell with your rules, to hell with your decorum we are going to make a mess of the rules that have been followed by this committee and others for years and years is just offensive. i oppose this -- i'm going to reluctantly, well, the general

lady's amendment is -- i'm going to oppose the amendment, but i'm going strenuously oppose. i yield back. >> i want to point oh out two things, the striking hypocrisy of the majority. opposing this amendment which simply reveals some records while demanding the release of an audiotape of information that's been released by transcripts and we know the chairman of this committee has doctored audiotapes to make them say what they didn't, in fact, say. this amendment points this out.

i would also point out that even if the quotes are taken out of this amendment h has happened and whether or not this amendment passes which it should, but in any event, this is all now in the public record so you can't accomplish anything because it's out there, the hypocrisy, the dishonesty of the chairman is out there revealed in the text of this amendments whether it passes or not and with that i yield to mr. ivy. >> thank you, mr. ranking member. i just want to point out a couple of things. one is with respect with the specifics here. in the footnotes, it's clearly public information. jim jordan twitter's account. it's not like we made this public. that was already made public by the chairman. footnote number 2 was the letter from the department of justice.

footnote number 3 is -- there's 115 plus transcripts from interviews that this committee has done that this committee has refused to dislose and made public so we should do that. all the statements today about the public's right to know and we need the information. with respect to my colleague, this goes specifically to the conversation that we had at our last hearing where i requested e-mail communications between house republicans majority and the departments and agency that we keep dragging in to produce documents, i move to request the

information that wasn't agreed to at the time. so it's not my time to yield, but if you want to get upset about her making a statement, my colleague from pennsylvania, where it's public information, i think that's incorrect and to say you're offended by it, i think is kind of over the line, but, if we want to turn the page as a committee and you all want to disclose this information, make it public, by all means, let's do it. and i yield back to the gentleman of new york. >> anybody seek recognition. >> gentleman from georgia. >> i wanted to tell the rest of the story that is public knowledge of what happened as a result of the misleading

narratives. after the misleading narratives were spread about her she received tens of thousands of death threats, you talk about decency and decorum, manipulated video, you talk about decency and decorum here, my goodness. she had to go to court to obtain restraining order against the individual who repeatedly -- she was eight months pregnant while strangers online called her a nazi and told her she should die. when a reporter reached out to chairman -- well, i will skip that part. staff are responding that was on the board's public face and should be accountable in public. as you see i'm taking out mr. jordan's role in any of this

because he doesn't want anything to be known about his role in this and i really want to honor that. in august of 2020 the current house majority leader shared an edited video that shared words of activist and portray president biden appearing to support defunding all of the police even though biden has specifically said that the reforms being discontinued were not the same of getting rid of or defunding the police. i want to just say that it is strange to hear from the other side of the aisle that they're worried about decency or indecency or decorum, please take a look in the member of your own members what they did to spread misinformation and lies to confuse the public knowingly to say that this somehow special counsel's report was about competency, is so shameful. you know that's not what it is about. you just don't like the results to have report. the results of the report being

we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter against president biden. you don't like that, you wish you could have had it another way because you're own candidate is rightly facing charges. with that, i do have one unanimous consent. i ask to enter into the record just so that we can be more complete because the majority doesn't want to reveal the transcript of their conversation with ms. jankowitz, former biden chief detail, it is from march eighth of last year and it is political. >> without objection. >> and members of this committee on the other side continued to repeat the falsehood that this hearing and this resolution is a part of an impeachment inwiry.

the last i heard about impeachment inquiry by this do nothing congress as to having spent $20 million in this committee investigating president biden, the last i heard of an impeachment was by the chair of the other committee, the oversight committee which is actually been the committee handling impeachment and at that point after they had president biden had president biden's son in, hunter to testify and couldn't get anything out of him, the -- the chair pretty much threw the towel in on -- he threw in a white towel into the ring. gave up pretty much on impeachment and now this committee is trying to drag it out of the garbage can and try

to trick the american people into believing that this is a part of the impeachment inquiry. it is not -- it's simply an expedition to try to make president biden look bad in keeping with the report of special counsel hurd who cleared president biden but nevertheless inserted some unnecessary and derogatory information in there that this committee has seized upon and continue to kick like a dead horse and with that, i yield back. >> who seeks recognition? question is on the amendment. all those in favor aye, all those opposed? no. the no's have it. roll call has been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. jordan?

mr. issa? mr. gaetz? mr. biggs? mr. tiffany? mr. matthew? mr. roy? mr. bishop? mr. fitzgerald? mr. ben says no. mr. klein votes no. >> mr. armstrong votes no. mr. gooding? mr. van drew? mr. moore? mr. moore votes no. mr. kylie, mr. kylie votes no. mr. muran? ms. lee? mr. hunt? mr. nadler? >> aye. >> mr. nadler votes aye.

>> ms. jackson lee? mr. cohen? mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes aye. >> mr. schiff? mr. swawell? mr. lou? mr. correa? [roll call vote] >> ms. dean? ms. dean votes aye? ms. escobar. ms. bush. mr. ivy. >> aye. >> votes aye. >> you're not recorded. mr. issa votes no. >> mr. tiffany. >> mr. tiffany is not recorded.

mr. tiffany votes no. >> is mr. roy recorded? >> mr. roy is not recorded. .. .. ..

have spent $20 million this congress investigating conspiracy theories and have nothing absolutely nothing to show for it. to date, they've used this $20 million in taxpayers money to hold ten hearings before the select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government six of which have been on the same topic. they've conducted 121 transcribed interviews or depositions with witnesses from over two dozen companies, nonprofits or federal government agencies. they've spent 555 hours of staff and with this time in these transcribed interviews and depositions. they sent more than a 60 subpoenas to executive branch agencies and private entities.

defining incriminating information on the administration, they repeatedly excoriated and right-wing media for not accomplishing anything this congress. in fact as recently as april 28, 2024, fox news host maria stated, quote, with all due respect people are sick and tired of congressional investigations that go nowhere. people are sick and tired of letters being written and sent to the people that we know are bad and the first place. this is from their own gallery of supporters.

to date there is no evidence of any impeachable offense committed by president joe biden. there's no evidence of misconduct. the witchhunt will go down in history as a total and complete failure especially when viewed in light of the fact that we are reduced down to seeking verification and erroneous report about the mental acuity. i think that if the committee refuses to the full house it should at least be accurate. a key part of that accuracy is including the details of this projected over the top investigation in the background on the investigation section of the report recommending contempt and for that reason i urge you to support this amendment and

with that i would yield back. >> the gentleman still has plaintiff order. at the question occurs offered by the gentleman from georgia. all those in favor? opposed. in the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. the gentleman has asked for a recorded vote. roll call.

roll call. [roll call]

[roll call] >> the clerk will report. >> five ayes and 12 noes. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report. >> point of order reserved by the gentleman from virginia. >> amendment considered as read. the gentlelady from -- >> i object. >> the clerk will report the problem. >> an amendment the committee report for the resolution recommended that the house of

representatives find him in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena issued on the judiciary on page three after the paragraph ending when his son died, insert however it is in fact false that he couldn't remember when his son died in the transcript of president biden's interview president biden recalls the date of his son's death saying what month did he die, may 30th. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> my amendment correct the record regarding the president's recollection of his own son, beau biden's death. and i saw in the markup today a willing above the koran and indecency and doing what is right. i would think this would be an amendment all of us could agree upon.

it's about decency and facts and getting the record straight. as i pointed out, president biden recalled the month his son passed. at the transcript of his five-hour deposition he says what month did he die? ogata, may 30th, and of quote. i find the mischaracterization of that exchange in a government report to be inaccurate, grotesque and gratuitous. that is nothing to do with the task he was given. it was just a free shot at a father grieving his son. even more distasteful, the republican attempts to repeat that mischaracterization for political ends. everybody in this room, everybody in this house must do

better. but i suppose indecency is too often the point. in addition to the statements regarding mr. beau biden's death, he also determined on behalf of the doj that president biden would not be prosecuted for in properly storing sensitive documents because in truth the same cannot be said for mr. trump for endangering the servicemembers he was led by leaving classified documents strewn among. on the important point if the president's hearing memory of his own son's death and i urge all members to support this factual correction.

>> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> speaking of the amendment. mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentlelady for making my point with her amendment. not only did the transcripts continue on after her amendment says may 30th, it continues and i will quote the transcript with the question was it 2015 when he died. i also think the gentlelady for making the point that without the audio can't tell how much time passed and the words ogata, may 30th and how it was because he followed that with a

question. was it a question, ogata, may 30th? we don't know because we don't have the recording. it's exactly why we needed. it's why we've requested it over and over again, subpoenaed it and holding the attorney general in contempt because he's not providing because we can't do our jobs for the american people accurately unless we have the most accurate information and that's why we need the tapes and why we are pursuing them and holding the attorney general contempt. >> the gentleman yields back. >> that's an interesting explanation but i have to say it's hard to figure out how the length of a pause between an answer and a question would have any kind of dispositive merit one way or another. this is hypothetically say for

two seconds as opposed to 30 seconds. if it's 30 seconds then it's an impeachable opens in somehow? it's the basis for legislative action or some kind of impeachment or even if you want to go there because you've got it wrong for about five different versions of why you need this, none of which are included in the report that at least the one you passed out. but let's say hypothetically, what does that prove? nobody is asserting that mr. biden's answers were deceitful or disingenuous or anything like that, and of the issues you've raised are potentially the basis for the impeachment of some kind.

it's hard to figure out where to go from this from a legitimate standpoint. i'm not questioning anybody's integrity over there, but there's a sort of obvious alternative where they want the audio tape so they can use it may be not them personally but somehow it might end up in a video, campaign video, maybe. that supports the efforts to be reelected and. it makes more sense than the explanations i've heard from the other side. the legislative purpose issue, which i haven't had much of a chance to touch on yet, but we can do it now it's a legitimate

legislative purpose for. if you have the transcript and it's a verbatim transcript and as i've said earlier. it's asserting that somehow the court reporter, doctor did, fabricated, did anything wrong with it, things like that. nobody's made an inquiry with respect to the court to ask if she did something inappropriate. he came in and it does divide and you could have asked about that. he never said anything about a doctor transcript either. is it incomplete when it doesn't include the question that

follows the statement of may 30th? i am offering an amendment to add language if you want but the bottom line is from the standpoint of at least having a fuller transcript because there is no doubt the way the report was written at least the one that i don't know what the final one is going to look like because we don't have it yet, but it's about as one-sided as the document can get so from the standpoint i will say this again because this is going to be the basis. we went through this on the hunter biden version as well. this is going to be what we send to the court, and i hope the department of justice does take this to court because i want to see is litigated and a judge rule on this because i think a majority as we over the line and the way it's abusing the authority. but i'm really not seeing the reasoning behind why it's so critical to have the audiotape

in a way that's not addressed by the actual transcript, which again nobody has questioned its accuracy. somebody did sort of throughout that assertion on the fly, but there's no factual basis for it. nothing certainly sustained. he was here, testified and you could have asked him about it, but nobody did. so not saying anything about a bad faith here, but the only explanation for why you all are making such a big deal about this is you want the audiotape and it might turn up in a campaign and down the road. the question occurs only amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

the clerk will report. five ayes and 12 noes. >> the amendment is not adopted. >> i have an amendment of the desk. >> the clerk will report. >> point of order from the gentleman by north dakota. >> amendment to the amendment to the nature of a substituted to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find him in contempt of congress. >> without objection the amendment is considered red. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i offered this amendment to walk through it briefly. this goes to the issue of the distinctions between the case against mr. biden and the case against mr. trump. there've been multiple allegations today about from the republican side that somehow the department of justice gave favorable treatment to president biden. i wanted to offer this amendment to make sure the record is clear and also to make sure not just the record of the discussion today is clear but also that the report that ends up being sent forward and i think is going to be the lead document if this gets to court and again i hope it does, but i think it balances out the one sidedness of the report that the committee has polluted, the republicans have floated. there are on this point special

counsel who said this in the report as well. several distinctions between mr. there are serious aggravating facts and the trump case most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents or avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. he turned and classified documents to the national archives and the department of justice, consented to search of multiple locations including his home, and interview and in other ways cooperated in the investigation. the final point here i think is that unlike the deliberate acts of the former president trump to retain a concealed classified material from the federal

government, the special counsel failed likely inadvertence or mistake. and so as we go on to quote some of the language from the report as well, we find the evidence as a whole insufficient that he maintained the afghanistan documents in the virginia home in 2017 for other recovered classified documents the decision to decline criminal charges was straightforward. the evidence suggests mr. biden didn't willfully retain the documents and they could plausibly have been brought to these locations by a mistake. unlike president biden, donald trump intentionally took and concealed of the documents and mr. trump's actions are extremely serious and warned that 32 counts of willful as he was charged. former vice president mike pence

faced a similar factual scenario. there were documents found i believe in one of his residences. he turned them over, cooperated immediately and there was no evidence of any type of an effort to obstruct the investigation, hide the documents or anything like that. certainly didn't ask anybody to move them for him as mr. trump, i think this was raised in the indictment, has done. i asked that this be included for a point of completeness. we want to make sure we send a document. i would oppose the whole thing holding as istated repeatedly tf you're going to forward the document at least send a document that has some sort of semblance of balance to it and i think it shows the efforts to try to present the court with a full take on this issue.

as i mentioned earlier this wasn't a place i was expecting to go today. i thought we would focus more on the specifics of the privilege issue. they don't seem to have a strong argument to address it but since you brought this up with mr. boyd amanda sort of coupled it not only with allegations of misconduct by the overall department of justice but specifically mr. her. i am not going to sit here and essentially slander him for trying to be unfair and cover up for the president. none of that is merited and i don't think there was anything about the report or testimony

that would support that. >> the gentleman from north dakota. >> it almost passively aggressively proves a point this wasn't substantially similar. if there's a 40 year history of keeping classified documents, 40. it's why the audio is important. in an adversarial way you know what i've never seen for a regular defendant in criminal court? the doj making the plausibility defense over a 40 year history and we talk about disingenuous and all those things if you spend 40 years rubbing liquor stores and then cooperated with law enforcement, they are not going to not charge you.

that is a sentencing factor, that's an obstruction factor if you're going to be maintaining and disclosing classified documents but is a significantly different thing. only in this world would you go to that place where we will say you've committed the underlining cry and you did it for 40 years but you cooperated to so we will allow you to escape. that's the difference you spend a lot of time talking about the obstruction charge but we don't spend enough time talking about the egregious nature of the underlining maintaining and disclosing classified documents. that's the difference and that's the problem is and that's why audio matters because there's a different way and which you do it. if you are telling your ghostwriter in a laughing matter that if you're reading classified documents as he's writing your book, that's different than a lot of

different ways. but there is no other scenario -- and by the way, i would have but we had a five minute ruling and i had a lot of other things to get out but you can talk about the secondary part of the case all day long but i don't think anybody that reads the report looks at the nature. he did it when he was a senator over 45 years. he'd been warned about it and continued to do it. you have to seriously jump through some hoops to get to the inadvertent part of it. you're talking about maintaining a classified document and if anybody thinks that the information in the report doesn't give a valid reason for that knowingly and willingly, then the question is why wasn't it knowingly and willingly and that's where we are out at in this point. >> i'm going to yield to the gentleman.

there is no claim of innocence or finding of innocence that is and how reports work but we keep going past the underlining offense which is the document of that and why wouldn't you cooperated when you have the ability? >> we don't exonerate what we are going to do is to say the president as an older gentleman is incompetent and we don't think we can get a conviction therefore we are not going to prosecute. to that point, the best evidence

rule. >> is there any evidence of the recording? >> there's a reason for the last five years in congress i have worked with my friends on both sides of the aisle to get to custodial interrogations being recruited by federal law enforcement. completely out of this room it's often times i fight with my side of the aisle more than your side of the aisle. the reason you want audio, the reason you want to video into those things is because it is without a doubt the best evidence that exists. as somebody that has been watching this happen from the minority to the majority for five years, there is the equal application of justice part of this answer. we have a guy that was prosecuted the year after he altered an affidavit in front of

the court and he's currently practicing law so i see my time is expired and i yield back. >> the gentlelady from vermont is recognized. >> i yield my time to the gentleman from maryland. >> i just want to run through some of the statements made a moment ago. i guess i can work my way backward to some extent. with the statements i share the view about the importance of the federal investigators recording statements but i would make a couple of notes to that. first, there are no videotapes of the grand jury testimony. for example. they are all electronically transcribed by. for use in court, for use to used tocharge for criminal purp, for example for false statements

or perjury. i don't disagree with that because in that scenario is the best evidence. >> it's certainly sufficient for the basis of criminal charges. and with respect to scenarios where you have the transcript and to videotape it's the videotape you can use the tape for impeachment purposes. given the nature of the proceeding, it is incumbent upon us to show. if this goes to court. the burden would be on the committee to show attempt.

i don't know how they get you from. that is therefore impeachable which is what is required in the legislative purpose standard. i haven't heard of her reason for why it's not satisfied. based on what mr. her sedan based on the certifications this received at the time that it was recorded and printed. >> i yield. you are not doing oversight. you are doing overkill.

and osuna get the audio, you're going to say i wish we had a video. then you will get the video and you will say we wanted his health records. we don't know if he was telling the truth or not. you have been thoroughly, and i want to emphasize thoroughly. so you're digging and digging and digging. it's not happening. you're not impeaching him, you have nothing in the just. i yield.

>> doja cat. he said he definitely but he couldn't get a conviction because he was a sympathetic character so, what good is it going to do if they get to hear him say he was a sympathetic character and why they thought that and that's not the issue. the issue is did he take the stuff or not. there's no question about it he took the stuff and for his biographer and they say indictment, it's about the fact he is a sympathetic character and he couldn't get a conviction. so we are all on rabbit trails. you should never go off on a rabbit trail. i yield. >> just to make a final

statement here, the amendment i'm offering doesn't actually go to that. it goes to the fact the distinction that is drawn between for the mishandling of justice that occurred afterwards. i would hope that we could get a vote from my colleagues on the other side on that amendment. >> the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland.

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] the gentleman from kentucky? >> he votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> eight ayes and nine noes. >> the amendment is not agreed

on. who seeks recognition? >> the clerk will report. point of order. >> considered as read. the report for the resolution to come play with a subpoena on the judiciary offered by mr. spall of california. on page six at the end of the paragraph, quote, to further the constitutionally mandated oversight and legislative duties insert any sentence that reads taking into account multiple members of the committee including the chairman remain out of compliance with subpoenas issued. no member of congress will be permitted to vote to hold any other person in contempt of congress until such time they provide the testimony regarding the participation in the

planning and execution. >> this amendment clearly says if you'd not responded to your own subpoena, you can't bring a subpoena or seek compliance on anyone else. in the law we call it the unclean hands doctrine or the clean hands doctrine. it's a principle that prevents a party from receiving relief from the court if they've acted unethically or justly in relation to the matter at hand. in our own it's called the wash your hands before dinner doctrine. may 6, 5 and 2-year-old are not coming to the dinner table until they themselves have clean hands. there are dirty hands on the other side. multiple times to members of the committee have been asked to comply with a subpoena to

january 6th. one i don't think is here today. i think he's up watching mr. trump's trial but don't come at us about anyone else's compliance if you are out of compliance into the german a 735 days, 17 hours, 19 minutes and 24 seconds out of compliance with his own subpoena so this amendment would prohibit the chairman or anyone else from bringing compliance or contempt upon somebody for another matter. >> point of order being withdrawn. the gentleman from virginia. >> i think the chairman and the gentleman for his remarks. i've heard of them a couple of times. and in responding i would say

the subpoenas for the members of the committee are no longer in effect because the last congress has finished. we will make that first. we also want to look at the responses that were made by the term into the january 6 committee. the term he never declined to testify. the chairman in fact wrote every time he was asked to testify and with further requests for either statements were further requests for responses from the committee and never received any responses from the committee. never expressed an unwillingness to testify, so the characterization that he refused is an accurate.

and it's clear democrats were subpoenaing for political reasons at the time. chairman thompson stated he pursued these in part to weaken republicans if they took the majority in the future. so, we see through the political motivations of those who issued them to begin with and those who want to make it a political point now. so i opposed the amendment and yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. to my colleague from virginia. a couple of quick things to clarify. in exchange between the chairman and the committee the problem was the german-made in my view demands that were unusual in

response to a subpoena like you tell me how you are going to use the information and give me the information that you have about my, related to the testimony in my coming. so to give the statement. now let's compare that to what we've got before us with respect to the department of justice and in this particular instance. not only has there been substantial compliance with respect to i wish i had it in front of me the number of subpoenas and document requests. as i mentioned earlier, some of the witnesses were prosecutors and made investigation who the department is still produced for statements and transcripts here before the committee which is

inappropriate and interferes in the efforts by the department of justice in one instance with regards to hunter biden, so let's be clear about that piece peaceand as i mentioned earliery from this compliance standpoint in this particular request there was a report generated that the department wasn't required to turn over but he decided to turn it over anyway on his own initiative with respect to the transcript again there's no requirement he turned that over but he did and he resigned before he gave the testimony that it's clear they were not trying to block so from the

substantial compliance, this is an outstanding record for the department of justice. i won't go into the contrasting point. let's be clear about this. the compliance has been extraordinary the executive privilege claim raised by the department has not been addressed certainly not on the legal merits by the republicans in this committee and as i mentioned earlier today, a letter that was dated in 2019 from the justice department raising most of the same points that we are talking about today. with respect to the issue of

similar acts could be repeated if the white house were given reasons to believe congress were to see each and every document shared with the department. there was no predicate provided already in this instance you've got the transcripts you just want additional information. within the bar the department of justice said the committee articulated any purpose for its request for all of the council's investigative files. the committee has no role with the assembly duplicating the inquiry. now here the justice department gave the transcript and the report into the lawyers to testify about what they'd done.

they objected with respect to the molar report and raised all sorts of issues. those have been addressed in the different forum. but here you are ignoring the compliance that's been provided over and over again. i see i'm running out of time, but my point here is you've got the substantial compliance in the department of justice. your record is what it is. we discussed it on multiple occasions but i think it's a contrast to that it bears noting in this particular instance especially when we are seeking contempt against the attorney general of the united states. >> the gentleman from virginia. >> unanimous consent to insert three letters from you.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

mr. chairman, there are 12 ayes and nine noes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment to the amendment. >> considered as read. the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you. if there were any question about whether today's hearing is a legitimate exercise of congress is legislative oversight powers

our colleagues across the aisle have effectively eliminated the possibility with the combined remarks today. they spent hours trying to defend the leaders of their party misstating the conclusions of the special counsel's report and smearing the president of the united states with politically inspired lies and innuendo. this markup is in fact nothing more than political theater by the allies in the house republicans have wasted more than a year of the people's time and 20 million taxpayer dollars on a blatant act of vengeance. now rather than admit that they found nothing and had a been embarrassed every step of the way, they are shamelessly plowing ahead. instead of cutting their losses they are trying to drag the american people and now the attorney general down a rabbit hole of conspiracies and untruths. what we have here today is not a legitimate oversight or effort. it's guided not by the

constitution but the calls for the retribution against to the political rival and the complicity of his supporters and it's nothing but an attempt to distract from the ongoing criminal trial and to prop up the reelection bid. if it's not clear enough already they are not driving the house republicans impeachment stunt so my amendment adds context of the purposes and parameters of impeachment to this exercise. in the reports, he noted that the walls handling classified material do not apply to a sitting president or vice president. so even if there were a criminal conduct, which he did not, it could only have applied to the times before joe biden was elected. even house republicans long time favorite legal scholar testify to be for the oversight committee last year that impeachment proceedings for the

office conduct unrelated to current actions is controversial and must be approached with abundant action. launching investigations on that basis would convert impeachment into a rationalization for subjecting officials to limitless inquiries. there's been no abundant caution and clearly there is no real basis for the claim that they need these audio files besides political theater and the department of justice has rightly pointed out that allowing the house majority to weaponize investigative materials in this way would pose a strong risk of jeopardizing the willingness of other witnesses to come forward in the future. ultimately and his colleagues proved time and time again, it has no basis, no evidence and no high crimes or misdemeanors to show for it and today is another attempt after the bogus

investigation failed. the american people can see this the way it is and they deserve better. we should have enough of these ridiculous games and get back to working for the american people. i yield back. >> point of order is withdrawn. i recognize myself to speak against the amendment. the special counsel could have said that, could have written a report and said we don't prosecute sitting presidents. that's not what he said. it just simply isn't. it was gone through in detail and now we are asking for the best evidence of why it was written that way and with that i will yield back. anybody seeking recognition? >> all those in favor? opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair --

the clerk will call the role [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

the clerk will record. >> the amendment is not adopted. who seeks recognition? i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment to the amendment and the nature of the substitute to the report for the isolation recommending the house of representatives find the attorney general in contempt of congress for refusal to comply on the judiciary offered. >> the amendment is considered

as read. the gentlelady reserves a point of order. the chair recognizes myself to explain the amendment. before the markup session was scheduled to start, the committee received letters from the white house and the department of justice and forming as president biden is invoking executive privilege from producing the audio recording of his. about the validity of the president's assertion, first the president has already waived any potential assertion of executive privilege over the information discussed in his interviews with special counsel. consistent with the court's decision and usb mitchell which rejected the privilege of her audio recordings whereas here, the president caused.

they are no longer confidential. with the president leaked his and his ghost writer's transcripts, the ability to invoke executive privilege was no longer existent. the president of the department could have taken steps to but failed to do so when they released them to the press. the subpoena returned and third, even if the indication was valid, which it is not, it's usually overcome by the need for this information. the committee has demonstrated a sufficient need for the audio recordings as they are likely to contain evidence and pertinent to the committee's impeachment inquiry and legislative oversight. additionally the recordings

sought by the committee cannot be obtained from any place other than the department. .. >> gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i have a question. what does the amendment -- is

this language of executive privilege throughout the amendment or what is there? [inaudible conversations] >> updates the report to the department and president's office on waiving executive privilege. >> i guess what i'm specifically asking my recollection is i came across 7 instances where privilege was cited in the report and that was the amendment and the nature of the substitute this morning. what's been done with those? >> it updates those -- privilege to account for the letter that we received this morning.

>> okay. >> i have to read through it quickly to see. but the waiver issue, i think, -- i just wanted to address that because the department specifically spoke to that at may 16th letter to both committees. finally, the department's disclosure does not constitute a waiver with respect to audio recordings. as i have explained audio recordings what law enforcement

uses. disclosures of congress to the recordings we have effect and similar investigations. i think it's pretty clear that the waiver has been addressed. i think the assertion and the amendment i haven't had a chance to read yet because i only got it 30 seconds -- actually two minutes ago, two and a half minutes ago, i apologize. i think that's been directly challenged and so i'm curious about how the report addresses that challenge. that's raising the letter that i guess a reporter is supposed to be responding to. >> one is the leaking to have press. we are giving the transcript to the committee is one thing and two leaked to the press and we got the letter from doj this morning. >> no, this letter -- i'm talking about here is from 8-16.

>> i'm saying the amendment is because of the letter we got from -- >> today is may 16th. >> i'm sorry, the -- >> i haven't had a chance to look at the mitchell case.

i'm not familiar with the executive privilege. months even years after an initial request has been made because frequently takes a long time for the source of disputes to play out. so i do want to challenge the language in the report with respect to the changes, for example, executive privilege and the claims that they made waiver of the privilege which i don't believe is the case and -- i think there's been no showing with respect to the contrast between the transcript and the tape and the committee essentially set a deadline here

which is not sufficient to time bar the assertion of the executive privilege and with that, i yield back. >> anybody else wish to be recognized? >> yes, sir. thank you. i still don't see that the committee has or that the majority has made out legislative or oversight purpose. we keep getting this word of it's important that we review the actual audiotape as opposed to the transcript because it's important we have important interests we are trying to address so it's important, it's kind of a lot of word salad that you need an appropriate rule which would be one that's appropriate, so i would just object to the amendment on the grounds that the majority has not made out a clear legislative or oversight purpose unless they are suggesting that there's been

some kind of here -- the department of justice or by the special counsel so i would just say that i don't think there's premises not been met by the majority and i would yield to mr. ivy. >> i'm taking a look at mitchell now and this was subpoena to john mitchell who has been the attorney general from the general counsel and i haven't had a chance to read this but in the watergate litigation one of the points that was made by the court's repeatedly was that intrabranch disputes were treated differently than disputes between the legislative branch and it looks like here this is also another one of the mid trial requests for the information which has requirement or impact that's not

present in the scenario here today. so i would urge the majority to reconsider reliance on this particular case because i think it's inapplicable for those reasons and with that i yield back to the gentle lady from pennsylvania. >> and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. strike the last word to the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized. i just want to say resort to go the phrase word salad when wasn't don't want to accept what we are trying to do, unpredictable. yeah, we will set whatever you say, we are engaged in oversight and the best evidence is the transcript and the only way we would know if the transcript, the recording, that's the only

way we would know if the transcript is inappropriate by comparing it to the recording so sit here and say we haven't called into question the transcript when we are asking for the recording is to ignore the obvious which is we need the recording to see if the transcript is correct. we need to check on these kinds of things because these are within our oversight capability and certainly duty. so to ignore all of this and bring all the other peripheral stuff that we had to endure for the last couple of hours is interesting diversion and a lot of fun conversation but the truth of it is we are going oversight, we need the recording. that was proven by the way, when the gentleman from georgia showed an audio of former president trump. why didn't he just rely upon his words that were written? no, he wanted us to see the exact words, hear them and compare them and that which was written down.

of course, we need to compare the audio to the written. that's why we have the rule. the audio. we move to try to do so. i yield back. >> last word. >> general lady is recognized. >> so i'm a little confused because we keep hearing, of course, we need to match the audio with the transcript and based on the testimony that her hearing is certified transcript. it's a certified transcript. talking about needing to match the audio with what is written if it is established that that what has happened. so when we talk about wasting

time, this whole conversation in which you bring up over and over again that we need to match these two things, it has been certified. i yield back. >> general lady from wisconsin is recognized. this came up earlier. it's right here. the absence legitimate need for audio recordings lays barrier likely gold to chalk them up and store them and use them for partisan political purposes. so if they're identical and should be perceived as identical, then why is it actually in the white house's correspondence. they blew it. they have the wrong one here. some attorney late yesterday was composing this and basically showed their hand which is they believe it's going to be used for political purposes. well, if the transcript and the recordings are exactly the same,

why couldn't just do that with the recordings anyway? it doesn't make any sense at this point. they need to turn it over. they need to turn it over at some point. i yield back. >> anybody else seek recognition? general lady from wyoming. >> the medium at issue is the factor by giving us the transcripts they've already waived any claim of executive privilege. so there is no legitimate reason to withhold the transcript, to withhold the recordings. we are entitled to them as has already been repeatedly stated. it's the best-evidence rule as the oversight committee we are entitled to hear exactly what mr. hurd heard without -- >> the general lady yields? >> yes. >> adding that point, i think the general lady, i just note

that i was kind of digging through my friend mr. ivy from maryland trying to filter through the letters and find had been set on waiver. the only thing i see is the top of page 7, there's an argument that i note that the department's disclosure of the transcripts to have interview does not constitute a waiver. you are going to read paragraph, once testimony has been released in written form that there's some basis that you could possibly contend that the -- another version of the testimony and in this case in the form of audio recording. [laughter] >> it's protected from waiver. there's not just -- you would think if they want to say there's an argument that there's no waiver they could cite some authorities from some court at some point in history that came close to addressing that issue and making that ruling but there is no such authority and it is

absurd. i yield back to the general lady >> do you want to release that right now? are you willing to release that to public and show us because this seems really interesting that you subpoenaed, you don't respond, you are upset that the president and his team won't respond to the subpoena. you have the guy on your side who was investigatedded for sexual trafficking and you're

not interested at all in subpoenaing or getting any notes to that investigation but you want every part of this investigation and with hunter biden you've done a year plus of instigating him and found nothing and your best wishes are now locked up but you won't give the public any audio recordings or video recordings and i keep hearing this phrase by some drive-by lawyers over there of best evidence. isn't that the best evidence. why don't you show us what you have and if you're not going to show us what you have, tell us why you won't show the public what you have, i yield back. >> my good friend from california makes a point and i always take his point seriously. i'd like to make a point. the point is this committee back when chairman was the chair

asserted that what we are doing an investigation whether it's impeachment or an inquiry of case and in the case of german, right behind the ranking member, chairman said we have to be the committee that oversees the president. we have to be. we were under richard nixon, we have to be under george w. bush. to give that up simply because the shoe is on the other foot is to give up the authority of this committee and the importance of what we do, i agree with the gentleman from california that this should not be used for parse and purposes. i think ms. mr. fitzgerald said that the accusation falls on its face. well, let's make sure that the

audio isn't release today the public at least until there's a full committee voting and until they had an opportunity to see whether glens additional information, we probably would have a bipartisan moment but we are not doing that. we are really debating the question of the authority of this committee and just as chairmanwoman grew the respect for this committee and the beats decision which was taken not only through his time but continued and day what we rely on for whether or not someone is to appear before this committee from the white house, we have to do the same thing here. the committees of congress maybe political bodies but so is the white house and, in fact, the other side of the aisle is constantly telling us it's the supreme court. if we are political bodies that does not change our constitutional responsibility,

so i for one will be voting to hold in contempt if we do not get that which we have asked for under some reasonable terms which have not begun to discuss. that is what we are discussing here today. i hope that the gentleman from california will think again about where this body will be in four, six, eight or ten years just as chairman, chairman before them has asserted that congress has a right and consistently the court at all levels under all types of courts has held those rights to be reasonable if they are, in fact, pursuant to our obligation and our obligation clearly is to oversee the department of justice and i thank the gentleman and yield back. >> anybody else seeking recognition. >> gentleman from new jersey. thank you, chairman. just a few points to be made

here. if we get down to the real issue, they are afraid to reveal the demeanor which is the best evidence. not just what you said, how you said it, did you ramble on, you have cognitive thought here, where you just, you know, not under particular control of what you were saying or doing and that's something the american people deserve to know, it's something that we deserve to know and that's point number one, second thing is -- we know that. so, again, what are we afraid of? are we afraid to hear the audio why because concerned that it's very revealing as far as the cognitive state of this president. there's no problem. if there's no issue, just send over. we don't have to have this hearing. you know, i think there's a good number of us which we didn't need to have this hearing.

it just should have been simpler to say yes, abide by the system, let us look at it and it would be done but it isn't and we have a right to it and there's no executive privilege, there's no protection. the information was already given in the transcript, now, the audio needs to be given too. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you. i have some short remarks. i find it to think that fellow members on the other side of the aisle believe that they have the ability to determine whether or not someone is mentally competent by listening to audio recording. i mean, that's all that you want to have is just some audio so that you can probably slice and dice and use it to mislead the public into buying your narrative but the american

people are not going for that. they see through the hallowness of this exercise that we are going through today. they know, the only thing you want to do is try to get something to embarrass the president with and this is what you're refused to after spending $20 million of taxpayer money compiling a -- a data bank of information which reveals no wrongdoing by the president. you are hoping to find something but you didn't and now you are reduced to trying to find evidence that he is somehow unfit, mentally for office when people can see the man doing his job every day. they could see what he's doing, they could see what he's done, they can see him in action, listen to him, we don't need further waste of taxpayer money

going down this rabbit hole any further. i ask my colleague to get serious about it. we got stuff that we need to be doing on behalf of the american people as opposed to sitting up here for four hours now debating the solution that you are all offering trying to hold merrick garland to account but not turning over and audio file that really has no relevance to what the american people are going through today. please stop this and let's get to work doing something that benefits the american people and i will yield to the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. johnson. i believe that one of the other members on the other side incorrectly said that there was something in her testimony that said that the president was incompetent. he never said that. he never wrote that. no one has said or wrote that. he said he was a sympathetic

contractor elderly person who had little problem with their memory. that's not saying you are incompetent and that's, nobody is suggesting that. the previous term we had with president's first two years has been compared to the 1964 lyndon johnson era, most effective legislative actions, congressional actions in our country's history. the quote, unquote, bipartisan transportation bill, jobs and transportation bill, highways bill. the chips act, you name it. biden got it done. he even got done finally after law gagging moneys for israel and ukraine. far too late for ukraine to

resist the russian expedited attacks, strengthened attacks while ukraine was suffering without the equipment they should have had in these we got money finally -- we could have had a bill on immigration that the senate would have passed that would have dealt with immigration and not made it a political issue and let all these arguments that you make about these terrible people coming into our country continue to come into our country only if they advanced the opportunity of having a terrible person become the president of the united states again. a person who has been said by more of his colleagues than he does not shouldn't get anywhere the white house again almost all of his cabinet members and the ones that said that have gone to jail, mr. navarro, contempt, mrn

near you. mr. cowan went to jail for two years because he did what mr. trump asked him to do. he went to jail. you lay down with dogs and get up with fleas. be careful, my colleague. i yield back the balance of my time. >> when the democrats were in charge of the committee in 2019, as i believe the chairman has mentioned today was it not true that they held the attorney general of the united states, attorney general in contempt or effectively redacting material from the report that he was legally obligate today redact? >> yes, it was grand jury

transcripts. >> so that's the standard. set for democratic colleagues to do what is legally required to do under the law. >> yes. >> here we are having a conversation about an amendment, i believe, what we are debating in a amendment, an amendment to add language to clarify that we were in receipt of the assertion of executive privilege, that we received a mere minute before we began this markup here today and this amendment asserts privilege and it's aasserting privilege after the general lady of wyoming effectively relinquish privilege having provided the transcript and our position is that now we are having have the transcript that we want to be able to look at the actual audio or listen to the actual audio because of to be very specific the assertions by her throughout the entirety of the hurd report

that, it was, in fact, the president's demeanor, the way the president was responding or lack of response and i'm trying to be careful by the way. with all due respect to the assertion made about the gentleman from tennessee that there was some little problems with the memory, i mean, the hurd report is littered and filled with concerns about the nature of the president's memory. i don't even want to go down that road. he's the president of the united states. i'm not looking to dive into that other than as it relates directly to this question about what we can take away from the actual -- your testimony by the president to mr. hurd, that's it. back to recentering the question, all we are doing is debating this amendment and talking about adding the language in about the assertion of executive privilege which we are saying has already been essentially set aside by giving the transcripts and we believe

it is our oversight function to simply listen to the audio file. the gentleman agrees with that. the only other part to that i would say it was also leak today the press. it wasn't just given to the committee. will the gentleman yield? the gentleman from new jersey. just real quickly, we are alluding to what was exactly said and they didn't want to go forward with the case and the reason they didn't was because biden would be seen as, quoting well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, not a little bit of a memory problem, not a little tinny issue, such a big problem that they -- that it was such a sympathetic case that they wouldn't go forward with the case because the jury would feel bad for him because of the cognitive state. that was an exact quote of what i just read.

i yield back. >> recognition. >> i recognize myself real quick. you know, we heard a lot of different reasons about impugning what motivations are on this side of the aisle. we have been here for four hours and nobody has ever defended the doj's reason for not turning it over. the reason for not turning it over is somehow it's going to have this huge chilling effect on all of these witnesses and the volunteering of cooperation with the doj if you somehow release an audio -- an audio interview versus the transcribed entire view. and i think that's a level of sophistication that quite frankly fails on its face and we talk about waiving the privilege by giving the transcript and leaking it to the press but that's the other part of this which is farceful on its face that somehow we are going to

chill all of the doj investigations because of the medium in which we release something to congress after we have already waived the privilege and i think for all of the different things for four hours today nobody has ever actually said i can name nine people who would have cooperated except you gave them a transcript instead of an audio recording and because that doesn't exist and it's an excuse and it is an excuse that we got one minute before the hearing which is why this amendment is important and so with that, i yield back. >> the question -- >> i'd just like to remind the committee that donald trump would like to be reviewed by the special counsel and was tape recorded and could have used that and used in campaigns and i think there's the idea that this could be used politically while as far as the legal basis all you need is a transcript. the audio is needed for politics

not for information based on what this committee's jurisdiction is. and question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> all those opposed say no, no. the no's have it. i'm sorry. in the opinions the ayes have it. roll call has been requested. >> mr. jordan? >> yes. >> mr. jordan votes yes. mr. issa? mr. issa votes yes. mr. gaetz? mr. tiffany. mr. tiffany votes aye? mr. massi? mr. roy? mr.le roy votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. fitzgerald. >> aye. >> mr. fitzgerald votes aye.

mr. klein? mr. klein votes aye. mr. armstrong? >> yes. >> mr. armstrong votes yes. >> mr. gooding votes yes. mr. kylie? mr. kylie votes aye. mr. muran? ms. lee votes yes. mr. hunt. mr. nadler? mr. cohen votes no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. mr. schiff votes no. mr. swawell votes no. mr. lou votes no.

ms. bush? >> the learning will report. >> mr. chairman, 15 ayes and 11 no's. >> the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. question now is on the adoption of the amendment and the nature of the substitute. this will be followed by vote on reporting the report all those in favor say aye. aye. those opposed no.

the ayes have it and the nature is adopted and quorum being present. the question is -- >> mr. chair. >> the report as amended. >> mr. chairman, may i raise a point of order? >> sure. >> and i won't insist on it but ordinarily the committee does not do markups when committees bills are on the floor. the ranking member is on the floor managing those bills. he's not asking that the vote be delayed because of the time that's been put in he would vote against it and i just wanted to put on the record why it is rather unusual for us to be meeting and i'm not even sure but he would vote no and that's why he is not here. >> and i'm willing -- we are willing to wait for the chairman to come back for the final passage. he's not asking for that. >> okay, okay. >> all those -- the question is reporting the report as amended, all those in favor say aye?

aye. those opposed no. the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it. >> roll call vote. >> roll call being requested, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] >> mr. jordan? yes. >> mr. jordan votes yes. >> mr. issa? >> mr. matthew? mt. roy? mr. roy votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. fitzgerald? mr. fitzgerald votes aye. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. gooding votes yes. mr. van drew? mr. van drew votes yes. mr. moore? mr. moore votes yes. mr. kylie, mr. kylie votes aye.

mr. muran? ms. lee? ms. lee votes yes. mr. hunt? mr. frye votes yes. mr. nadler? jackson lee? mr. cohen? mr. cohen votes no. >> mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. >> ms. dean? ms. escobar? ms. ross? ms. bush?

mr. ivy?

>> we are going let mr. nadler come and vote on the report. will commit write will just stand -- will committee just take a break for a second. once mr. nadler gets here, we will move legislation. republican members have food back there if you haven't eaten. i don't know if we have enough for the democrats.

>> you're not recorded. >> escobar votes no? ms. job or votes no. mr. matthew you're not recorded. >> is the general lady recorded? ms. bush you're not recorded.

ms. bush votes no. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. nadler votes no. >> the ayes have it, the report to be reported to the house members will have two days to submit views without objection the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. we now call -- one second.

hr7803 to amend title 45, exception and other purposes for -- purposes of markup. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. issa for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in short win for small businesses and long overdue. small businesses may qualify for reduced when filing for patents or trademarks. the small business claim entity or micro entity status. for example, firing utility

patent is $320. a small entity, however, is charged only 128 and micro entity is charged only $64. i note that those are set by the pt of course and under this bill we will continue to have the patent and trademark office set them, however, when congress passed the unleash american innovation act in 2023, a law required the usptr director to impose imputative finds on entities falsely asserting or certifying entitlement to reduced fees. we did that with good intent, however, the finding is three times the reduction of fees. right now there's no exception provided by law for an entity that made an error in their filing in good faith. example of good faith is if an employee is mistakenly categorized a contractor. another example is if a good

faith mistake is made regarding the belief as to the number of employees qualifying under the entity. the impact of the imputative finds can be harmful to small businesses and if they had no intent we do not want them fined, we want them corrected. the harsh fines may deter them from seeking benefits of micro entities since their status of savings is far less than the possibility of a trouble find. to ensure small business to take advantage and reduce fees the bill gives the director authority to waive such penalties if an entity demonstrates they had a good-faith belief. i'm pleased to introduce this bill with my ranking member mr. johnson and i hope we will all sort it. we believe it's technical in incorrecting about giving the authority to the pto to waive the fees in a good faith mistake

and with that i yield back. >> the chairman recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. hr78 to 3 makes minor technical change to give the patent and trademark the flexibility to decide when to penalize applicants with for fee reductions. when congress passed the unleashing innovative act, funding package, fiscal year 2023 we did so with the intention of making patents no longer the sport of kings but an opportunity for investors to make a decent living. innovators should not have to work for a big-tech company, major manufacturer or any other power house industry to be able to file for a patent but that is exactly what often happens. the hurdles associated with obtaining and owning a patent from hiring a lawyer to search for prior art to paying standard application fees prevent individuals seeking patents to

interventions. barriers to entries like this hurt everyone but above all hurt women, minorities that do not have the resources to go it alone. all of talent becomes siloed in just a few companies in just a few industries and perspective creators show their ideas for another day and including increasing discount fees and also imposing penalties and obtain discount. but i'm sure many here will be shocked to learn congress sometimes makes mistakes and creating the new fee waivers and associated penalties for trying for waivers we negligent today consider the applicants too can make honest mistakes in

applications. if innovators are too afraid to apply because penalties and honest mistakes can lose of a chance in the patent all the improvements simply not exist. harm it is exact same people that they are unleashing american innovators act. individuals and entities that can barely afford the filing fees certainly do not have the financial resources to weather a hefty fine. unlike large entities, losing patent associated within application may very well mean losing everything. small entities there are the most likely to avoid the risk of applying for the very programs that exist to help them. hr7803 would correct this minor error. under this legislation uspto director would no longer be forced to find a good-faith actor that asserts fee reduction

for small or entity status. this will show that everyone has a seat at the table. i thank congressman issa and congressman johnson for their leadership on this legislation along with congresswoman ross, the original sponsor of the unleashing innovator's act. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a proud colead on this bill with chairman issa. this bill is a typical fix that would allow tun leashing american inventors act to work as intended, thereby as the title says unleashing the power of america's smaller and medium-size inventers. the american innovators act lowered the barriers to entry

for individual and small inventors by among other things creating a reduction for the application fees for small and micro entities to protect against abuse. the legislation imposed fines on companies that applied to these programs fraudulently but because it failed to give the uspto ability to waive the fines in case of good-faith mistake, disincentivessed the use of the fee retexas programs for small and medium size entities that were not sure if they qualified. as members of congress it was never our intention to penalize the small and medium size inventors that are vital to our economy and to our invasion landscape but who lack the resources of the mega

corporations. >> the gentleman yields back. quorum being present. favorably recording on the bill. all those in favor of recording the bill. the ayes have it, two days to submit without objection the bill would be reported as single amendment in the nature of substitute in incorporating amendments and staff authorized technical and conforming

changes. that conclude it is committee's business for today. the committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> the justice departments is formally begun process of reclassifying marijuana lser drug. if approved the rule would move marijuana fro current classification alongside heroin and lsd and make it 3 substance,

the associated press points now that the current plan would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use. friday on cpan the house is back at 9:00 a.m. eastern to consider a resolution that condemns efforts to defund the police. a measure also expresses condolences and appreciation to law enrcement officers killed in the line of duty and on c-span2, homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas join it is economic for conversation on immigration, the border and cybersecurity policy. that's live at 12:40 p.m. eastern. you can also watch live coverage on the c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> sunday on q&a, the university of maryland, baltimore county and author of the resilient university talks about the role of college and handling of

campus protests over the war in gaza and political involvement in further education. >> people think that education is where they have expertise because we all graduated from high school and college. that's not true. there is something of expertise and we need to respect, ask questions and make suggestions but never should people have the kind of influence that says you to do what i've hoesen to do. >> the resilient university, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on free c-span now app. >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight.

>> we will win because we are united. ukraine america and the entire free world. [applause] >> c-span, powered by cable. >> up next, federal communications commission chair jessica and commissioner brandon carr testify on the fcc's 2025 budget request, they addressed the importance of