>> obstruction -- make no, you should note legal history, when it was legislated and why. >> the statute was legislated, a situation to deal with the , the title is the weakness victim -- do you agree with that? -- >> not a discussion, a ct. it was ambiguous but it was legislated. >> you are saying this has been argued -- >> if you have a interpretation that is wrong under the supreme court and the supreme court will reverse this decision do yohave a plan, what will you do with the people who were wrongfully charged? >> the plan is, we will follow the law that the supreme don't

the supreme court will say but we will follow what the supreme court says. >> i yield back. >>gentleman -- that as a seriou matter but i will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutor -- >> the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon, general.lq i want to take a moment and raise some voices that really have not been hurt at this hearing today. i had a chance the church in my neighborhood on sunday, of course, the topic before and after service for some of them was the conviction of donald trump.

they approached me because they know i am an attorney and try to sort through the meaning of the conviction. one of them asked me, donald trump was convicted on criminal charges, i said yes, he still gets run for president, yes. if he wins, he can take office? looks like it. he paused, i got convicted for misdemeanors, i could not get any job, not fast food, not landscaping, but he can still be president? i said, yes, sir. another man approached me and said, i got arrested, i did not get convicted but i got fired immediately. a third man raised this point, when i got out, i could not vote or hold office while on probation but donald trump can go straight

yes, sir, that maybe right. i said, don't forget, he had a jury finding against him in a sexual assault, what kind of job could you get if you had that on the record? they all paused, they were deeply disturbed by the disparity in their lives and the life donald trump is leading . my wife and i got in the car and we were driving home, they do the replay on the radio of "meet the press" and those shows. i heard mr. trump giving a quote about two tiers of justice, it struck me that, there may be two tiers , but if is in a much higher one than the men i were talking with. he is in the highest possible part of thehigh tier.

as ms. bush mentioned, trumpú7■ had millions of dollars to spend on his defense, he hired lawyers from across the country, trial lawyers to handle his appeals and the like, that meant that i was speaking with probably had public defenders who are overworked and underpaid with case files of 200+ clients. i am sure they did not have anybody like the speaker of the house showing up at e trial bringing 20 other plus house members, republican house members to stand outside and make public attacks on the in an obvious and unfortunate attempt to influence the jury. the men i have spoken with, some had gone to jail, they knew that, no matter what happens in this case, or cases coming, the chances of jail ar

slim and none. conversations about the two tiers of justice. having been in this case is, it is nothing like that, even if he doesn't go to jail and is put on probation, you know, what these men had to go through on parole or probation will be different, they will not be can has his mandatory appointment with the probation officer. you will not be delaying national security meetings so he can do a urinalysis test and will not have to get permission from a judge before he flies air force one of a jurisdiction. what the other side arguing, somehow, he is suffering more, he is a martyr, i think is

ridiculous. this is another page out of his soul as a playbook, after he lost and 23 election, he kept saying, there is no way, he has been denied he lost to four years now. he lost 60 cases plus in courts across the country, that rejected his argumentabout election fraud. he lost a sexual assault trial, trial, now he has lost a criminal trial in new york as ■d well. i think it is time he be held accountable my colleagues they will keep arguing to defend him , that is the right, for most people, and the polling data i saw last night suggest otherwise, the time has come for the public to hold accountable and hopefully the republican colleagues who attacked the juries and the like and protect the criminal justice system as a whole, attacked the rule of law, will come back to the senses.

and will stand wiyou and the job you and the department of justice have been doing. >> the gentleman from north is >> i have an article dated may objection. a vanderbilt law review article entitled corruption of a term, the problematic nature of 18 usc without objection. >> the german from texas is recognized. >> let's go back to mr. clancy questions. matthew calendula was at one official at the doj before the dawn is that right? >> i don't know anything other than what ison public record, the principal deputy to the

associate attorney general and he joined the case in new york. i don't know how we related timeline to the prosecution. >> does anyone from your department been in touch with mr. colangelo? >> i have not had any communication with him. >> you don't know anyone who has? >> i don't know what others have talked about. >> if i asked for further information and sent you a letter, could i get some of these questions answered? i have asked for correspondence , sent a letter in april but have not received you said in her testimony thatn congress information in -- >> look, i am in favor of transparency, because i believe it will show that these allegations about some kind of

control or collusion between the department and the independent manhattan office are not true. >> with that -- >> we will take back the letter and try to get a response to you. >> to follow up what mr. gates said, will you commit to releasing any communications between your department and the local da office or atlanta with respect to these trump trials? >> look, i would like transparency, in the normal course, if you submitlegislativ will get a response to you. >> one of the problems, we hear you criticizing some of us for being critical's doubly critical and accusing you of two-tier justice, we use the term weaponization of government, we ask you for information and you say we can have it or you dede should not have it. it is difficult when you criticize us but we don't askin

>> i am not criticizing you. we produce 92,000 pages of documents in response to hundreds of requests -- make yohaeories, i will be back testimony but i have printed it. i will ask you to work with us because it is difficult to tamper down some of these claims you say we are making when we don't get information we request from you. >> that is fair. i will work with you to tamper this down. >> we will tamper with if we can get the information. i yield back. mr. jordan? >> i will go back to where i was , a few minutes ago, read from this new story from one week ago today from politico, two sentences, the first two sentences, justice department has agreed to settle a long-running litigation stemming from a decision in 2017

to release to the text messages between two fbi employees involved in the donald trump 2016 presidential campaign, in a notice filed with two federal judges, the justice berman said legal claims that fire fbi agents peter strzok and lisa page brought saying there privacy was violated. i want to be clear, the department is getting ready to pay peter strzok and page money, accurate? >> i wasn't now to where we announce , but we reached settlements based on our litigators assessment of whether we can win the case and the cost if we lose. >>< --■ >> the guy who texted peter strzok, spying on the caaign of donald trump, working on the robert mueller invested team, sent this text message to lisa , went to a walmart and i

could smell the trump supporters. he will get tax dollars from the american people? >> that case was brought under the privacy act, the question is, did the justice berman violate privacy -- >> lisa page said this, trump n right? peter strzok said, no, we will stop it. they are getting money from the taxpayers because you decided that is the right thing p.!to d >> privacy act does not establish between people we like and don't like, information we like, information we don't like, if somebody in the government discloses personal information protected by the privacy act, that is is. >> youthe way the law go after president and you are rewarded. >> a question of the government paying for violating the law.

>> they are going to get a lot of money and we know what they were up to. the chair recognizes the general 84 vermont. >> thank you, i know it has been a long day. i want to start by saying, may the record show, although i am a vermonter, i do not partake in cannabis products, but after today's hearing, i can to actually pop a gummy. y want it is maddening to witness so many of my colleagues seeming to care more about protecting a convicted felon than protecting the rule law. last week, a district week, i was in my home district, i was asked the following questions from people across the political spectrum, republicans and democrats, why do they

protect him? the him is the former president believers? are they apologists? are they scared about what will happen to them if they don't defend the r i don't know. will reveal the answer, but the truth will out. now, i would like to leave the land of make-believe and talk about what matters to my people back home. which is, the fact that we have a crushing housing crisis in vermont right now. the last time you were before this committee less than a year ago, i applauded your remarks

by the doj increased enforcement of corporate crime, in particular the actions to take on corporate consolidation, price-fixing, collusion. since coming to congress, i have tried to focus a great deal on finding solutions to the nation's housing crisis and in particular what is happening in vermont. in my home state, we saw a 12% jump in home prices over the last year, twice the national average and the highest yearly increase across all states of the problem is lack of supply. that is not entirely what is causing skyrocketing home prices. not just the lack of supply, there is corporate greed at work here, too. so-called property management software companies are making the housing crisis work by facilitating unwarranted rate

hikes by landlords. you don't have to take my word for it, go on the homepage of realpage, which says they increase rents between 5% and 12% in every market where they coordinate prices. a developer told investigator journals that leasing agents had too much empathy compared to computer-generated pricing. this is how price-fixing carts operate. i know that doj is concerned about price-fixing. concerned about this issue. i know you cannot speak on the particulars, but can you please talk in the abstract about the importance of price competition and market and the role of antitrust law in maintaining competition. >> yes. so, the theory is, if suppliers

do not collude with each other, if they offered the price that then meet them in an equal marketplace that will reach an official price which will be in the best interest of resource allocation and particular in respect to consumer prices. when they collude, when the suppliers collude, they create a monopoly price, which is not good for the econom■y in genera and about the marketplace, and what you are talking about in general, price collusion, exacerbated by data collection and logarithms that set suggested prices which can lead to a price above the competitive price which costs consumers more. >> i am almost out of time

want to say what many of my colleagues have said before me, thank you for being willing to answer our questions and i appreciate the expertise■h■r th you bring to your job. thank you so much. >> the gentle lady from wyoming is recognized. >> are you a proper approach? -- are not above criticism, i don't know what you mean but criticize me. >> american citizens to criticize you, we criticize all of our government employees. because you have seem complain quite a bit about being attacked or people challenging the decision you have made. i think that daniel greenfield, magazine thomas said it best when he said, a justice system can't survive those who challenge the prosecutors, but it cannot surve those who prosecute the challengers.

which is the situation we are in with a biden administraon and you at the helm of the attorney general's office. attorney general garland, chairman jordan and i sent you a letter requesting documents and information following the release of an unrcover video indicating that the doj was working wi artificial intelligence to surveil to account of americans in a clearly unconstitutional manner. the undercover video featured an irs official finally admitting that the irs had been bank accounts in moss in real time. the irs official further stated that the department of justice d this ai poweredsurveillance system without a warrant, not the iris. attorney general, would you agree that the federal government if operating in this form of financial surveillance program, there would be serious fourth amendment and other statutory and civil rights implications considering there is no

probable cause and no search warrant being obtained? >> i would be stunned if the justice department -- >> would you agree with me that, if they engaged in that surveillance, it would have serious fourth amendment implications? >> i cannot understand the kind of surveillance you are talking about, fourth amendment, unreasonable search and seizures without a warrant, if that is what they were doing, of course it would violate the fourth amendment. >> i would request you go back and read the letter jim jordan and i sent you which will clear up the confusion. . >> the committee has been following up with the department about this matter for months, you only reply with a formal response late last week, and the department's response letter, a doj spokesperson, the assistant attorney general, stated that the department is "not aware of the department using any ai

program that reflects the deri20th letter." the saying that the chief ai offer is not aware of the department coordinating with the irs to use ai to unconstitutionally spy on amers , is very different from saying unequivocally that the department is not doing so why won't the department just give us a clear answer as to whether it is actually using ai to spy on american citizens financial records? >> i will be happy to take a letter back, you are to have received a letter, take it back and we will see whether we can get you a clearer letter. >> i would appreciate that. i want to turn to another serious issue, infiltration of our communities by mexican cartels because of joe biden and the open border. as the chair of the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs, i have heard from tribes across

the nation on this issue. on the written testimony, you have written how the department is working to disruptns and the zeroing in on the cartels. in april, the president of the bell community stated failures, we don't have help from the fbi, the border patrol, the dea, jurisdiction on federal lands, which are reservations. attorney general garland, his testimony comes from a tribe where the sinaloa cartel operates with near impunity in its region, drugs have devastated the community, reservations have become part of the cartel supply chain, and that mexican cartels are intimidating americans testifying before congress. yet the fbi and doj are largely absent. the tribes experience runs in direct contrast of your testimony. have you been in about the impact that massive illegal immigration, human

trafficking, and drug smuggling are having? >> not only have i been in contact with the tribes, have been on the reservation in montana and alaska. the answer to your question, congress is not giving out money for fbi agents to go into the reservations. >> this is congress' job that you don't do your job? that you won't protect our reservations, from the consequences of the biden and mayorkas open border policies. that is congress' fault, not theirs? >> if you give us more money for fbi agents. >> help out if they enforce the board, ask them to enforce the border. >> the time for the gentle lady= has expired. the gentle lady yields back. >> we are out on this side, i would offer unanimous consent for two letters that may

address ms. hagan's line of questioning, what is dated april 20 22nd fr the department of treasury, it is from corey tellis, the acting secretary and the other, she may have reference, i'm not sure, from the department of juste may 31, 2024. >> i would ask for unanimous consent for cartels infiltrating native reservations with fentanyl, according to a tribal leader. >> thank you, without objection. >> the young lady yields back. ■ >> good afternoon, mr. attorney general. this committee is well aware of your long tenure of appellate judge on d.c. circuit and before that, i'm sure that you, like me, care deeply about the public confidence in our court system, specifically the judiciary. you said something a few moments ago i think is very

important principle, you said that judges put aside personal views and political views when they preside. i agree, that is the expectation, not that judges don't have personal or judges those beliefs aside when they consider rule upon cases and do so in a way impartial and ■ consistent with the law. i would like to discuss the recent increase in aspersions being cast at some of our supreme court justices. some of which, we have heard repeated during the hearing, public calls for is based on conjecture and the supposedly political beliefs of the justices themselves. but even more attenuated to personal beliefs of their wives. in your view, mr. attorney attack the impartiality and integrity of the supreme court justices in this way?

>> i'll have to say again what i said before, we have cases before the supreme court so i will not be able to comment on this, you have not heard aspersions cast by me and you won't hear any. all of our filings will be done in court and i will only speak about these matterin court to >> let's discuss this not as it relates to the specific justices, who have had their integrity attack today, but more generally in the case of judges presiding. in general, in your experience on the bench, did judges in the d.c. circuit recuse themselves if they believed they had conflict of interest? >> yes. >> in your experience, that they typically adhere to a very high standard of persá7■zonal integrity? >> yes. >> do you have any reason to believe or any personal belief court currently have any issues that would necessitate recusal?

>> you have skipped out of the question i can't answer, i cannot comment on the supreme court, we have cases in the supreme court right now. all the time. >> let's talk about the matter judicial security, not long ago fbi, i questioned him about the lack of fbi resources and focus allocated to threats against the safety of judges and specifically supreme court justices in light of the alarming news in recent times. one of the things he pointed out, in fairness, the u.s. marshals take a large role when it comes to the security of judges. in your role, you have the e both branches there. i would like to know more about what the department is doing related to threats against judges. can talk about. with respect to the justices

themselves, for the first time in history, an attorney general, namely myself, ordered protection for himself or herself and their families at their residence and travel. i have assigned over 70u.s. marshals, who are doing this dail, because of rotations, it has involved almost 1700 marshals across the country to provide immediate protection. with the marshals and fbi investigate threats against the justices this is our highest priority, protection against the judges, threats against justices and judges. i would be happy to provide you with the press releases of our charges. there have been threats against several of the justices and we brought cases against those who would threaten them. we have a lot of judges in the country and we don't have

enough marshals. i'm sorry to say the same thing i said before which is we need more money for the marshals for protection because not only do they protect the justices, they have to protect the judges in courthouses in 94 districts in the united states. >> thank you. i yield the balance of my time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> gentlemen, i yield one minute to you. >> thank you. i thought that was coming at that end. have you looked into who leaked the dobbs draft opinion that the supreme court? has the justice department looked into who was responsible for leaking the dobbs draft opion at the supreme court? >> i believe the supre n intern investigation, they did not ask us to look into that. >> was that something the justice department will look into? >> i think the justices of the supreme court rethe matter to investigation by the

justice departmejustice department involved with the leak of the dobbs draft opinion? >> asking whether the justice department wainvolved? >> was anybody from the justice department involved? >> i can't imagine how that could happen, that is internal cument within the supreme court. >> i'm just asking. >> i would be stunned. >> i yield back toleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gates talked about mr. calendula earlier, acting associate attorney general for the association of the president biden, was that the third-highest ranking official within the doj? >> yes. >> what did he do prior to his service with the department of justice? >> i did not know him before, my understanding he was once on the civil rights division, i don't know his resume. >> would it surprise you to use

the deputy director for the ob■%a/biden demonstration national economic council? >> it would not surprise me or >> real where he worked for the new york attorney general letitia james for a period of time? >> i have rein the paper. >> would it surprise you know he was paid thousands of dollars by the d.o.c. for poli >> i have no idea. >> i think the issue we are having is it looks like this particular gentleman■,, his who mission seems to be prosecuting the president. he started off with letitia james, he has a stint with the department of justice, and mr. gates talked about this eayou're going for something, you start out at the d.a. levelmight move to the department of justice like it is an elevation coming up gone backwards, why is that, do you think? >> let me set forth the whole thing, i know mr. colangelo

because of his service in the department, highly ethical person and excellent lawyer. the associates office that provides this, civil divisions, antitrust division, that office does not supervise any of the criminal components that supervise the investigation, the criminal investigations of mr. trump to >> attorney general, his career choices, the path he has chosen, at the very least, ethical issue for the department of justice? >> no, i don't see how it poses any issue for the department of justice, he is not an employee of the justice department, the justice department did not send him to new york. those decisions in new york are made by the d.a. of new york >> fair to say, we have manhattan d.a. hires x senior doa official.

another one from the new york times, hires x justice official to help lee trump inquiry. you might not have had anything to do with that but the perception is, the american prebuilt perceived the department of justice is i think my last minute here, here is the issue i think people say, polling shows this consistently, the american people believe the prosecution of president trump is more about politics than it is about any violation of the law.■@ the doj's own words, the mission consists of independence and impartiality, honesty and integrity, at your senate confirmation hearing in 2021, yosaid the department will be under my protection for the purpose of preventing any kind of partisan or other improper motive in making any kind of investigation or prosecution. but since that time, the doj has obstructed this committee's

impeachment inquute of limitati run, to expire on hunter biden's 2014 tax records and the crimes therein, slow walk the prosecution of hunter biden as testified to by whistleblowers. you would not allow investigators to follow department protocols. you have limited witness testimony here in this committee trying to provide oversight, you limited the scope in what they can say and the number of witnesses and instructtwo of the employees to disregard this committee's own subpoena. you refuse to comply with the subpoena regarding audiotapes, hence the cont. contempt we have to bring pointed jack smith the despite very interesting career of losing cases and targeting use sentient the raid on mar-a-lago and the concern we have is, that you arasleep at the wheel or you are intentionally allowing the department and the agents therein to engage in clinical prosecution of their opponents. thank you and i yield back.

>> that gentn governor of the great state of north dakota. >> thank you. i feel like i have a unique space, particularly on this side of the aisle, i've been trying to be a good-natured pain in the department of justice's rear-ended my enti adult life. i have worked on things about law enforcement use of third- party data broken's, geo-fence warns, forfeiture reform, acquittal conduct, exculpatory evidence, oversight fought for extra money for public defenders and talking about those guys, talking to a church, i was at the counsel table with him. i spent a significant portion of the early part of my career as public defender and dealing with that so i take this stuff seriously.

earlier today, you said it is our view audio recordings are essential and people less likely to participate if they know this will be turned over. it will have a chilling effect on the cooperation of future witnesses. it is happening right now with doj officials have told you that, correct? >> yes >> the second part of that is, when you want to, the reason i know this is, i hate that often times in order to get answers to some of these questions, we have to go to these hily political profile case, we introduced the fair act and we had all but one member of this committee vote for it and that requires the e to record doj, fbi, dea, and the marshall service to record interrogations and noncustodial interrogations. we know the doj interviewed paul manafort four times and

never interviewed him. by the way, not only the doj, we said in the deposition, hunter biden's lawyers requested it was not audio recorded or video recorded. i have my suspicion why, i think it is because things read differently than i found. a ret in favor of recording interviews because of the following benefit reduce court time for officersat suppression hymns, improve court efficiency with your pretrial motions to suppress statements, officer efficiency due to no longer needing to meet and piece together notes from interviews, reduction in lawsuits titling from frivolous claims of misconduct and in 2014, this is before you were the attorney general but you are in the big chair and we get that, president obama traded up presumption interviews of federal person should be electronically recorded. the problem was, the reason we introduce the bill, the doj's determination of in custody was after arraignment before triañl on a federal building area my question to you, which we can start with, why, if they are so

essential for you to it will c cooperation, the recording in and of itself has no benefit. it has benefit to your guys but when you don't have to turn it over, you are arguing recordings are essential. you and i both know in a criminal case, if you have the recording, i will eventually get it as the defense attorney. i'm trying to figure out what your policy is on recording of interviews and recording of witnesses? if it was what it says it was, we would not have had introduced the fair act. yo things before my time but that one does seem before my time, i don't know the answer to the policy about recording. personally, i think recording interviews is a very good thing to do for all the reasons that you say. as a former defense attorney, you know the defendant has to agree to the recording of the interview.

>> would have been a part of it in this committee tocome i get the rules of evidence in criminal case are different from adviser ariel between the department of justice and congress but our frustration and my personal frustration is whenever you are in adversarial system, the other team does not get to determine what is the best evidence. i'm not talking about the best evidence rule, we have that conversation forever. it is fine but when we know it exists and we ask for it, then you say, some of this is timing, with all due respect, we get the transcript the day before the first hearing, we get executive for which put into place lirally the morning of the contempt hearing saying, listen, we know it exists■n, we want it. you're saying there is some political reason for us not getting it but i will argue, i will argue at the rooftops, that the real political reason is to not give it to us. affect

anywhere in the country knows if you have audio or video, that is better than a transcript. if you have a transcript, that is better than notes and that is wh the mmittee is time to get here and what they're stonewalled from when we know it exists and that is why we are so frustrated. i personally believe ther specific reason executive privilege was instituted the morning of the hearing, because the difference between this and a criminal case is we actually have potential timeclock. without i yield back. >> could i respond? >> yes. >> sorry, i like talking to you and this seems like a good conversation, if you do■n'o thi timing, since the clinton administration 30 years or so ago, it has been before the vote in order to provide the institutional accommodation process as much that is the answer to that.

the answer to the other is, the supreme court has said■, in order to protect the separation of powers under the constitution, congress has to have legitimate legislative purpose for the things that requesting. what i'm still not seen, understand why you would rather see the audio, hear the o ill do not understand the legislative purpose i can't see how listening to the audio will make any difference, with respect to any legislation you have in mind. if you want a statute that requires specl to turnover audio all the time to the congress, pass that without listening to this audio. i there's no resolution that will change with respect to information on the audio. words are the same and the transcript is the audio, that is my explanation to

>> i'm excited to see potentially how that turns out, by the way, in this current political environment, i'm not sure if it would help is a real piece of legislation and your support would be helpful. >> i will looke fair act, that is a good point. >> your current doj officials are following it, i promise. >> the german yield back. that convinces him, i want to thank the attorney general for being here and the several hours he testified wijection, a five legislative days to submit additional questions for the witness or additional materials to the record, without objection, the hearing is adjourned. e■s■ about 20 minute.