♪ ♪

top of the hour here in the cnn newsroom. thanks for joining us. i'm erica hill. >> i'm jim sciutto. happening now, attorney general merrick garland on capitol hill to testify before the jen at judiciary committee for the first time here. you see senators cruz and holly. he is expected to be hit with a wide range of questions including allegations from republicans as they said that the justice department is being weaponized against conservatives as well as updates into investigations into trump and biden and we'll take you there live as it happens. the annual cpac conference happens today as we get new cnn reporting about what trump's allies are doing to get house republicans in his corner. for 2024, not all of them are there. sdwloo also ahead, closing arguments are expected to begin today in the double murder trial of disgraced former lawyer alex murdaugh. jurors in that case at the crime scene at this hour. we will take you live to south carolina. let's begin this hour with senior legal affairs

correspondent, paula, merrick garland expected to be grilled as jim said on a number of topics. what do we expect to hear? >> this is his first trip to capitol hill and while this hearing is supposed to be about the oversight and the justice department. it is a time-honored tradition when they're fwrilegrilled on t political issues of the day. the justice department is currently investigating both president biden and former president trump for their handling of classified documents. republicans are pushing this idea that the justice department has been, quote, weaponized and likely democrats will also have questions about police use of force and whether garland is doing enough to hold them accountable. garland is hoping to use this hearing as an opportunity, we are told to highlight the work of the rank and file. the justice department has over 100,000 employees. he wants to highlight things that aren't covered under a

special counsel like their work on reproductive rights and that's his highlight to challenge the bread and butter work they do that doesn't really make headlines and the lawmakers will want to be headlines themselves. >> that is generally what we see, paula. thank you. they're pressuring house members to throw their support behind his bid of the gop nomination. some of the members of the maga win appear to be embracing trump's potential opponents. melanie zanona joins us from capitol hill. in some words they prefer the nominee to be someone other than trump. how is that from the republicans you're speaking to? >> you are absolutely right, jim. there is a lot of uncertainty with president trump and the maga wing usually has trump's staunchest supporters on capitol

hill and man u raju and i were reluctant to commit to trump. they're waiting to see who else gets into the race. some admitted that there's concern about trump's electablity and they want to see a fresh face and it's time to move on from trump. i am told there's particular excitement about florida governor ron desantis. he's a founding member of the freedom caucus, a group here of conservative members and he met with a group in florida last week. take a look at what republicans told manu raju yesterday. >> we've got to have someone that can appeal to independent voters, not just republicans, not just democrats and both sides have really not understood the value of those constituents, of those voters and the way that they feel about certain issues. >> you don't think trump can win? >> i see it being uphill.

swing voters, independent voters also want policy, but they also look at comportment and temperament, and i will say they do not like the name calling. >> i supported him when nobody did the first time, but i also know that the reality is i'm running for office, too, and i've never been a big believer in endorsements. i always say you don't pick up friend, just enemies. >> now, to be clear, donald trump still has his fair share of supporters on capitol hill. a number of republicans have endorsed him and these maga members would fall in line if trump ultimately is the nominee. clearly, the pace of endorsements is something on the former president's mind. i am told that some of the people in his orbit have been privately lobbying, and to back trump with the particular focus those members. jim and erica? >> melanie zanona, thanks so much. joining us to discuss, scott jennings, former special

assistant to george w. bush. and senior policy adviser to the obama white house ashley allison. good to have you both on this morning, and scott, you are covering the republican race very closely, i know. beyond the question if it's trump or not trump, does a non-maga candidate have a path to win the nomination or in your view, does the maga wing still control the party? are they most likely to propel if there's an alternative to trump, a candidate to the top? >> oh, sure. i think he can be beaten. i think right now he has to be considered the front-runner. i think trump and desantis are in a different universe than anyone considering the race. one of the things that help trump, of course, being a plurality-type candidate is if you have fragmentation on the field and we're seeing people get in or thinking about getting in. the real question is will people get in by the time iowa and new hampshire and the other states roll around. i think the field will be

smaller than people think and trump got in the mid-40s in the republican primary and the number of people exist to beat him, but it would take a wing of the field to do it. >> it would be interesting to see, too, what the timing is on whether those throw their hat in the wing. >> we know from a democratic perspective, there is set to be a focus on areas where the economy is strong and also this real push and we heard it from the president just this morning in announcing this nomination of julie suh as the nominee for the labor secretary. we know this will be a major focus and we know on the republican side the culture wars are front and center. are democrats doing enough to address that message? >> well, i think the democrats will have to do both. we know the economy is important to republicans, democrats and

independent voters and the biden administration has done a lot to make sure working class folks, union workers, poor people have a pathway to job security and earning a living wage and we also know that voters want in our schools an opportunity to learn a comprehensive and complete teaching of our history. we know that the majority of voters believe in reproductive rights and what we're seeing right now, we know that voters believe that lgbtq folks should be able to identify and love who they love, and right now we're seeing many folks on the republican side attacking those communities. those folks are also voters and they have families, as well. so the dems are going to have to figure out how to push back and get on offense because there are popular issues with voters whether they identify with a particular community or not. >> scott, let's go back for a

second and put those candidates back on the screen. one candidate who has announced so far, nikki haley and others in that group, scott, sununu, hutchinson and they are all except for desantis and perhaps pompeo, they are all pretty explicitly non-maga candidates and a couple of them have been willing to call out trump personally. do you see a path for them in this cycle winning the republican nomination. can they garner enough votes to take the party back in the direction and i think i might say back in your comments more with a party that you're familiar with and remember? >> i think it depends on desantis. if desantis runs the other non-trump candidates will have a hard time. i think youngkin is interesting and tim scott's message and communication is really in the top tier of this race, but when you look at where the candidates start out in terms of ron

desantis, they're just in a different universe and i don't think it's as much about trump than desantis in terms of his own name, fund-raising and the donors already coming to the table. i think when you're trying to divide the party up into maga or non-maga. people will say i voted for trump twice and i believe in what he did, but i don't think he can win and you'll have to attract a bunch of trump approvers. i don't think anyone will win this nomination as running as a never trumper and they'll run possibly a successful campaign by saying we have to evolve with him because they're really hot. >> let's talk quickly about what's happening in washington. pete aguilar said people over politics. there's a lengthy to-do list, ashley that focuses on the national security and social issues. when you look at all of that and what they're hoping to tackle and the reality of a divided

congress at this point, where do you see opportunities for some bipartisan work? i'll be honest. i'm not as hopeful as some members of congress are. i think kevin mccarthy has made it very clear on what he doesn't want to do for the american people and i think there is an opportunity for that for democrats in washington to continue to call the questions on gun safety, on reproductive rights and on the economy and on the things that american people want their government to deliver and provide for them and let the votes and the roll call who won't even bring the vote to the player and those are republicans. what you're seeing is democrats saying this is our agenda or these are the policies that we really want to deliver for the american people and look who is standing in the way and those people standing in the way happen to be the people elected to the republican party which is a strong message, i think, going into the '24 election cycle.

>> ashley allison -- >> can i comment on that very quickly? >> sure. >> i think there will be a bipartisan movement on china. obviously, there are members of both parties that know it is vital that we stand up to china, economically, strategically. i really do think you will see a strong, bipartisan majority take a strong stance against china, and it could be a bright spot for this congress. >> there is a bipartisan effort to regulate the railway industry. >> scott jennings, ashley allison, thanks so much to both of you. >> still to come this hour, millions of americans will have less money to help put food on the table as a pandemic-era boost to food stamps, as you know, ends today. >> tiktok now cracking down on how much time teens can spend on the app. how the platform is trying to limit screen time. the equal rights amendment.

activist and actress alyssa milano joining us to talk about the next step after the federal judge dismissed the latest effort to add it to the constitution. itivity gum & enamel relieves sensitivity, helps restore gum health, and rehahardens enamel. i'm a bibig advocate of recommmmending things that i know work. bye, bye couough. later chest congestion. hello 12 hours o of relief. 12 hours!! not coughing? hashtag still not coughing?! mucinex dm gives you2 hours of relief from chest congestio and any type of cough, day or nht. mucinex dm. it's comeback season. attorney general merrick garland testifying before the committee expected to defend the agency on a number of investigations. let's listen in to his opening statement. >> the fbi and atf and dea

agents and deputy u.s. marshals put their lives on the line to disrupt threats and respond to crisis, every day the department faces complex threats to our national security, they fiercely protect the civil rights of our citizens, they pursue accountability of environmental harms and prosecute crimes that victimize workers, consumers and taxpayers and they defend our country's democratic institutions, and every day in everything they do, employees of the justice department adhere to and uphold the rule of law that is a foundation of our system of government. thank you for an opportunity to discuss our work. first, upholding the rule of law. when i began my tenure as attorney general i said it would be my mission to reaffirm the norms that have guided the justice department for nearly 50 years. i do it so because those norms matter now more than ever to our

democracy. the health of our democracy requires that the justice department treat like cases alike and that we apply the law in a way that respects the constitution. it requires that as much as possible we speak through our work and our filings in court so that we do not jeopardize the viability of our investigations and the civil liberties of our citizens. the survival of our democracy requires that we stand firmly against attempts to undermine the rule of law both at home and abroad. i am proud of the work that the department has gotten on each of these fronts. we are strengthening the norms that protect the department's independence and integrity. we are securing convictions for a wide range of criminal conduct related to the january 6th attack on the capitol. we are disrupting, investigating and prosecuting violence and threats of violence targeting those who serve the public, and we are working closer than ever

with our ukrainian partners in defense of democracy, justice and the rule of law. we will continue to do so for as long as it takes. second, keeping our country safe. the justice department is using every resource at our disposal to keep our country safe, we are work working to counter, disrupt threats by nation states, terrorist states, radicalized individuals and cyber criminals and together with our partners across the country, we are continuing to combat the rise in violent crime that began in 2020. all 94 of our u.s. attorneys offices are working alongside their state and local partners to pursue district-specific violent crime reduction strategies. the department's grant-making components are providing financial assistance to local law enforcement agencies. at the same time, they are supporting community-led violence intervention efforts and our law enforcement

components are working with state, local, tribal and territorial counterparts to apprehend the most dangerous fugitives and seize illegal drugs and illegal guns. for example, last year, dea and its partners seized enough fentanyl-laced pills and powder to kill every single american. we are also aggressively prosecuting the crimes that inflict economic harm on the american people. we are prioritizing the prosecution of schemes that impact older americans and vulnerable populations as well as schemes involving pandemic and procurement fraud. in our corporate criminal enforcement, we are prioritizing and securing individual accountability, and we are vigorously forcing our antitrust laws. enforcement actions have already resulted in the blocking or abandonment of mergers that would have stifled competition and harmed consumers.

third, protecting civil rights. protecting civil rights was a founding purpose of the justice department and it remains an urgent priority. the department's storied civil rights division has been at the forefront of efforts to protect the right to vote, ensure constitutional policing and enforce federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in all of its forms, but now protecting civil rights is also the responsibility of every justice department employee every single day. we are working across components to combat hate crimes and improve hate crimes reporting. in the wake of the supreme court's decision to overturn roe and casey, the department has pulled together to protect reproductive freedom under federal law and the department recognizes that communities color and low-income communities often bear the brunt caused by

environmental pollution change. -- i am proud of the work of the department's employees, the work they have done to uphold the rule of law to keep our country safe and protect civil rights. the department's career workforce has demonstrated extraordinary resilience after years of unprecedented challenges. they have conducted themselves with the utmost integrity without regard to any partisan or any other inappropriate instances and they have done their work with a commitment to the public we all serve. the employees of the justice department are dedicated, skilled and patriotic public servants. it is my honor to represent them here today. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions. >> thanks, attorney general. you grew up in lincolnwood, illinois, if i'm not mistaken at least part of your life? >> that's true. >> it's not far from highland

park? >> that's also true. >> we know what happened when people of highland park when they gathered for a fourth of july parade. a gunman stood on the roof of a building and fired 83 rounds into the crowd in 60 successes. even the armed good guys, the policemen who were there trying to protect the public had trouble locating that person and sadly, could not have the time to respond to what he had done until it was finished. when he was finished and there was an 8-year-old cooper roberts who will be paralyzed for life. there was a young man, a 2-year-old, aiden mccarthy who became an orphan because both of his parents were killed. seven total lives were lost, 50 people were injured. it is hard for me to imagine that some disciple of originalism believes that our second amendment envision would happen in highland park. to think there is a weapon out

there, a military-style weapon and the rounds and clips available to fire off multiple rounds into innocent crowds just to me makes little or no sense when you read the basic language of the second amendment, and so congress did something, and i want to credit senator corn yn for being a leader in this effort with senator murphy of connecticut to try to pass a bill to make it better. the bipartisan safer communities act addressed issues of straw purchasing which we have discussed before, the terrible death of ella french, a chicago policeman because of the straw purchase made in the state of indiana and this situation with the shootings of innocent individuals in highland park. i'd like to ask you, what have you seen, if anything, this change for the better since we passed our law? >> i think it's a very important law, and i am grateful to the members who sponsored it and to the overall congress that passed it. it's done several things for us.

first of all, it has, as you said, established a stand alone crime for purchasing and a stand alone crime for trafficking in illegal weapons. >> are these being prosecuted? >> yes. in both cases we have already brought trafficking cases. i think we already have two gun trafficking cases and several straw purchasing cases as a consequence of this law. in addition -- in addition, the law provided for enhanced background checks for people under 21, and we have largely completed the process of making those possible so that juvenile records that disclose prohibited conduct and make somebody a prohibited possessor would now be identified and that's another thing we've done. that a statute also provided funds under the burden program and additional programs for

violence intervention and for helping states deal with red flag laws so that people who have been subject to a court order barring them from obtaining a gun we would be able to get those kind of systems provided and we've already given out grants in both of those areas. >> senator graham basically challenged me, and i accept the challenge to show as much concern about the gun deaths and show as much concern about fentanyl deaths in this country, and i want to do that. he noted, i believe, and correct me if i'm wrong that the number one cause of death, people 18 to 45 is drug overdose. i don't know if it's fentanyl specifically, but drug overdose, and i know that reality, but the number one cause of death to children under the age of 18 is gun violence in america, too. we can do both. we must do both. let's address the fentanyl issue. we had a hearing in this committee two or three weeks ago

that talked about the social media platform and what they're peddling to americans and particularly to our children across america. there were morthers sitting nea where you are sitting today who brought colored photographs of their children who died because of drug trafficking in social media and there's little to no responsibility accepted by these platforms. it absolves them of civil liability when they broadcast things that harm children whether it's bullying, harassment or something as basic as this choke challenge which unfortunately claims the lives of children, as well. i think there is a general consensus on this committee which is saying something that we need to do something about the social media platforms and i coincidentally had a meeting just a day or two later with anne wigam from the drug enforcement agency. she described for me the sale on the internet and social media platforms of phony drugs as

senator graham made the reference to a person who thought they were buying percocet and bought fentanyl and died as a result of that. >> i asked her, the sellers had valet services where they would physically deliver boxes of these phony drugs to people to their homes to their porches. this is out hand. do you believe we need to do more to control the use of social media platforms that are currently exploiting families of children across america? >> senator, i agree with you and senator graham with respect to how horrible the situation is. i have personally met with the families of children, teenagers and young adults and even the elderly who have taken these pills often thinking that they're taking adderall or oxycodone or percocet, a prescription drug, but when, in

fact, it is filled with fentanyl and as the dea demonstrated, six of the pills are fatal dose that cartels that are creating these pills and that are distributing them within the united states are the most horrid individuals you can imagine, and unfortunately, they are doing it on social media, advertising as if they are prescription pills. so the dea has a program of going out to the social media companies and urging them to advise dea when they see this. >> ms. wigam said when they approach social media and asked for the al ga rhythms, they plead section 230 and refuse. what do we do? >> i think we have to do

something to force them to provide information to search their own platform for sales of illegal drugs. >> i tell you, i mean -- i don't want to put words in your month, but i think section 230 has become a suicide pact. we have basically said to these companies you are absolved of responsibility and make money and they're in it overtime. death results from it and we have a responsibility. the committee spoke to it and we may see it differently on a bipartisan basis and i've spoken to senator graham, and i want to make sure that when we agree it's publicized and we both feel strongly that this committee needs to be a ven ue to take on this issue. i hope we have your support and the support of the president when we do that. >> you certainly have my support to get the social media companies, whether it's civil or criminal to take these kinds of things off their platforms to search for them, and to not ususe

algorithms. >> thank you. senator graham. >> welcome, attorney general. i'll do something different, i'll try to find consensus where we can and see how far go. do you agree that the wagner associated with russia should be a terrorist organization in accordance to u.s. law? >> i think they are an organization that's committing war crimes, an organization that's damaging the united states. i think they've already been designated as a -- as a -- >> criminal -- on. >> tco. >> i want to go up a notch. >> are you okay with that? >> i understand. the way in which determinations are made with respect to terrorist organizations come through the state department. they have to make determinations of what the consequence is for countries that have them. >> do you object to me making them a terrorism -- >> i don't object. i defer in the end to the state

department on this. >> i bet we'll all come together on that one. fentanyl. fentanyl deaths are more than gun and accident deaths combined in the united states, did you know that? >> yes, sir. >> i mean, this is -- how would you describe the fentanyl problem in america? >> it's a horrible epidemic, but it's an epidemic that's been unleashed on purpose by the sinaloa and the new generation jalisco cartels. >> let's just stop and absorb that for a moment. it's a horrible epidemic and kills more people than car wrecks combined. the question is what are we going to do about it? under current law, fentanyl loses the schedule one status by the end of the year, you oppose that, i assume. all fentanyl-related drugs should be scheduled. these mandatory minimums for people dealing with fentanyl. >> i think we have mandatory minimums for people? >> do you think they should be increased?

>> i think they have enough ability now to attack this problem. >> would you agree with me that whatever we have is not working? it is not working. >> i agree with that because of the number of deaths that you pointed out. >> just keep an open mind that what we've got on the books is not working. if somebody gave a pill to another person with arsenic or ricin, could they be charged for murder because that will kill you? >> absolutely. >> okay. if someone gave a candy-shaped pill full of fentanyl, could they be charged for murder? >> they can be chargeded with drug trafficking leading to death. i don't think the statute says murder, but it does say specifically aims at that. we have brought prosecutions, i know, having discussed this with the u.s. attorney in colorado and the u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. >> so senator cotton has a proposal to dramatically increase the penalties associated with fentanyl. i would like to work with you and the chairman if we could to

find a bipartisan solution to this problem to create deterrence that doesn't exist. mexican drug cartels, should they be designated foreign terrorist organizations under u.s. law? >> it's the same answer i gave before. they are already designateded in any number of ways and sanctioned -- >> would you oppose some of us making them foreign terrorist organizations? >> i won't oppose it. i want to point out there are diplomatic concerns. we need the assistance of mexico on this. >> is mexico low preshelping us effectively. >> they are helping. >> if this is helping i would hate to see what not helping looks like. we need to up the game when it comes to fentanyl. gitmo, are you familiar with the gitmo prison? >> i haven't been there if that's what you're asking. >> you know that we have foreign terrorists housed there?

>> i certainly do. >> do you agree with me that under the law of war and enemy combatant properly designated can be held to the end of hostilities? >> yes. that's the circuit i was on before in the supreme court. >> do you agree with me that isis and al qaeda is still at war with us? >> yes, i do. >> so do you agree that anybody associated with these organizations could be held indefinitely if they present a risk to the american people. >> i think they could the determination of whether they present a risk is a determination made by the defense department, and legally they could be held as long as there's a risk for the rest of their lives. >> i think they're right. it depends on the fact of the determination. >> do you believe russia is committing crimes against humanity? >> i do. that's a pretty bold statement.

should we court an international court to support crimes of aggression? do you support that idea? >> the united states supports what is now being developed in the hague sponsored by eurojust looking into the possibility of creating that court. there are concerns that we have to take into account with respect to how it will deal with our service members and circumstances and the probate guardrails are up, but we support any number of different ways in which war crime, crimes against humanity and the potential for crimes against aggression -- >> i would like to work with you on that regard. that's something i would do. >> i would love to. >> when it comes to prisons, 1200 prisons are requesting to be sent from a male prison to a female prison? >> i'm not, no. >> okay. what is our policy when it comes to allowing a male prisoner to be transitioned into a female

prison? >> if you're asking of how trans people are being dealt with in the bureau of prisons, my understanding is these are determinations about where they're placed or where people are placed in general and have to deal with individualized determinations regarding the security of that individual and the management of the prison. these are done on a case by case basis. that's my understanding. >> are you aware of any policy guidelines that they use to make that determination? >> i think there is a policy guideline along the lines that i just said. >> i would -- i would like for the bureau of prisons to send it to us. are you concerned that if a biological male could be sent to a female prison that could be a risk to female prisoners? >> every person has to be dealt with with dignity and respect and the determination of safety questions have to be made on an individualized basis and not categorically. >> finally, let's end where we started, fentanyl.

if this drug is killing more americans than car wrecks and gun violence combined, do you believe that the policies we have today in effect are working? >> i've been involved in the problem of drug crime and drug trafficking for more than 40 years including -- >> that's not my question. it's not how long have you been involved. are they working? >> they are not stopping fentanyl from killing americans if that's the question you're asking. >> they're woefully inadequate to the task. >> we are putting all of the resources that congress provides to us to do this. the dea, we are starting at the precursor level and they're sent from china to mexico and working on attacking the labs. >> my time is up. mr. attorney, they're not working and we will help you if you'll work with us to give you more tools. i hope you will meet us in the middle. >> happy to have more tools,

senator. >> before i recognize another colleague i want to apologize in my reference to the dea administrator. her name is ann millgram, and i mispronounced it. for the record i wanted to clarify that. >> thank you, attorney general for being here. i appreciate it. good to see you. methane is probably one of the most dangerous greenhouse gasses we see plumes of it miles long floating across the united states. it takes multiple levels of enforcement, federal, state, local and private to address these massive leaks. what can you tell me you are doing to assure that there is that coordinated multi-juris multi-jurisdictional enforcement in place. >> you are exactly right. we have the benefit of overhead commercial satellites that are actually able to see methane with respect to the infrared spectrum. we are in the process of

establishing a working group between our environment of natural resources division with the justice department, the epa, the interior department and affected u.s. attorneys across the country to make use of the tools, the scientific tools that we have and some of the funding that was provided in the bipartisan infrastructure act. >> that is good news, and i hope that that effort will include advisory participation from state law enforcement, from local law enforcement and from private litigant experts in this space. >> all of our work in the law enforcement field involves partnering with state and local law enforcement. always happy to have expertise provided, but my law enforcement working groups are confined to law enforcement as a general matter. >> i just got a document from an insurance publication that says

i'm just reading here, at least 1,375 climate change related lawsuits have been brought to the united states and these include suits brought by local municipalities and by states and rhode island is one of them as well as shareholder suits. given all of that government litigation taken place in this space. i will ask you, is there anyone looking for doj involvement in that area in the department of justice and if so, who is that person? >> i really don't, as a general matter, i don't want to describe the decision making process and i can assure you that they've taken a very close look at this question, but beyond that i really can't say. >> you may recall that the last time the department of justice took a close look at this question, they got the standard

of decision wrong applied to civil litigation. so i hope that the seriousness of the look that's been taken, what i would like to call an honest look is actually, in fact, taking place because the record from before your time is not very convincing. >> i agree with you, senator that the criminal standard beyond a reasonable doubt is not appropriate for fraud cases. you are correct. >> and -- i'm sorry, for civil fraud cases. >> correct. criminal cases. congress right now is on the wrong side of a bunch of olc opinions that relate to executive privilege, and there are some specific ones that relate to so-called absolute immunity that are on the books at olc that have been specifically rejecteded in quite

forceful language by actual article 3 judges. and yet those olc opinions are still on the books. they are still available to other agencies who are making determinations about whether to block congressional oversight based on those olc opinions -- i would like to ask you -- let me go back a step. olc says they don't ordinarily review opinions of their own even when discredited by article 3 judges unless they've been asked and you're one of the people who can ask them. so i'm asking you, will you ask them to review the olc opinions that are now publicly on the books of the department of justice that have been discredited by specific article 3 judges that relate to absolute immunity. >> so my understanding of the

longstanding process at olc is not to re-evaluate old opinions unless they are now relevant from current controversy. >> that's the problem. >> and i also believe that their process is that if a court of ultimate jurisdiction determines that they are wrong then they will evaluate it. my understanding is -- >> so ketanji brown jackson said the olc opinions were wrong, she's a pretty credible judge, i think. she is now sitting on the united states supreme court, and those olc opinions hang out there for review by other executive agencies even if there's no direct ask to the department that would trigger that olc review. it's sort of like executive branch jurisprudence that sits on its own independent from article 3 jurisprudence and somehow we have to figure out how to connect those two things

because at the moment you have olc opinions that appear to be flat-out wrong by the determinations made by those whose job it is to say what the law is, the article 3 judges and there's no effort to ask them in that fairly unique circumstance to go back and fix it. >> again, i think all of the circumstances you're talking about individual judges and sometimes single judge on a court of appeals and sometimes a judge speaking indicta, if there was a decision by the united states supreme court court that was inconsistent with the court appeals and otherwise there are lots of judges who criticize olc opinions and the justice department as a former judge, that's perfectly appropriate for article 3 judges to do, but we have to allocate our resources to cases where -- which are

active cases and that's what olc does. >> well, i will continue to pursue this because i think it is wrong for olc to insist on developing its own jurisprudence that is separate from the independence from what article 3 judges decide and the only way to change which is controlling on the entire executive branch is to get the supreme court to overturn it and then you've created a really lasting obstacle to the proper spr separation of powers. to be continued, attorney general, thank you for being here today. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator white house. senator grassley? >> the fbi's oversight hearing was committed to protecting those who have approached my office about the wrongdoing in the department and the fbi. do you commit to me, this committee and the senate as a whole that any retaliatory conduct against whistle blowers will be disciplined? >> i do, senator, and you know

well more than any other member of this committee that i've been a staunch supporter of whistle blowers under the false claims act during my entire role as a judge, as well. >> i will set up a hypothetical fact pattern for you and ask you to tell me how you would handle it. the justice department and the fbi received information from over a dozen sources. that's the first one. second, those sources provide similar information about potential criminal conduct relating to a single individual, and third, that information was shared with the department of the fbi over a period of years. according to department policy and procedures, what steps would the department take to determine the truth and accuracy of the information provided by those sources? >> i'm sorry, these are whistle blowers? internal sources?

is that what you're saying? i'm not sure. >> it doesn't matter where it comes from, and i want to know if you got that information how would you go about handling it? >> yeah. so reports of wrongdoing are normally reported to whatever the appropriate department component is. it might be u.s. attorney's offices in the district in which it alleged lly took place and i might be for the fbi components and fbi task forces in cases involving whistle blowers and there are specific provisions for making complaints to the inspector general's office or the office of professional responsibility or the inspections division of the fbi. >> recent lawfully protected whistle-blower indicate that the justice department and the fbi had at one time over a dozen sources that provided potentially criminal information

relating to hunter biden. the alleged volume and similarity of the information would suggest that the justice department investigate the truth and accuracy of the information according to -- accordingly, what steps has the justice department taken to determine the truth and accuracy of information provided? congress and the american people, i think, have a right to know. >> as the committee well knows from my confirmation hearing, i promised to leave the matter of hunter biden in the hands of district attorney so any information like that should have gone should or should have gone to that u.s. attorney's offices and the fbi squad that's working with him. i have pledged not to interfere with that investigation, and i have carried through on my

pledge. >> in april 2022 you testified to senator hagerty that the hunter biden investigation was assigned to, as you just now told me to the delaware attorney's office, however that could be misleading because without special counsel authority he could need permission of another u.s. attorney in certain circumstances to bring charges outside the district of delaware. i would like clarification from you with respect to these concerns. >> the u.s. attorney in delaware has been advised that he has full authority to make those kind of referrals that you're talking about or to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it's necessary and i would assure you if he does, i would do that. >> does it lack independent charging authority over certain criminal allegations over the president's son outside of the district of delaware? >> he would have to bring -- if

it's in another district, he would have to bring the case in another district, but as i said, i promise to ensure that he's able to carry out his investigation and that he be able to run it, and if he needs to bring in another jurisdiction he will have full authority to do that. >> if you provided to delaware the special counsel authority, isn't it true that he would need another u.s. attorney to bring charges. >> that's kind of a complicated question. under the regulations, that kind of act he would have to bring to me to the attorney general under the regulations and those kind of charging decisions would have to be brought. i would then have to -- you know, authorize it and permit it to be brought in another jurisdiction and that is exactly what i promise to do here already that if he needs to bring a case in another

jurisdiction he would have my full authority to do that. ? h . >> has the delaware u.s. attorney sought permission from another u.s. attorney's office such as the district of columbia and california to bring charges? if so, was it denied? >> i don't know the answer to that and i don't want to get into the internal elements of decision making by the u.s. attorney, but he has been advised that he is not to be denied anything that he needs and if that were to happen it should ascend through the department's ranks, and i have not heard anything from that office to suggest that they are not able to do everything that the u.s. attorney wants to do. >> well, let me give you my view. weiss, the u.s. attorney from delaware must seek permission from a biden-appointed u.s. attorney to bring charges then a hunter biden criminal investigation isn't insulated from political interference as you publicly proclaim.

if the justice department received information that is unlawful and financial payment paid to elected officials or other politically exposed persons and those payments may have influenced policy decisions, would that pose a national security concern and demand a full investigation and when ray was here he seemed to answer that question that it was a national security concern. i want your opinion. >> in the way -- if i follow the question exactly right, if it's an agent of a foreign government asking someone and paying someone to do things to support that foreign government and secret, yes, i definitely think that would be a national security problem. >> okay. my last question is to -- whistle blowers have

confidentially asserted that the doj's public integrity unit -- i think i'm going to leave that question for another round. thank you. >> thank you, senator grassley. >> senator klobuchar. you're listening there to the questioning of the attorney general by both democratic and republican senators on a number of topics, erica. things that stood out were lindsay graham's questions on current sentencing for those caught trafficking in fentanyl given the number of deaths blamed on fentanyl and also the idea of the wagner group which russia is leaning on more and more as a terrorist organization, a step there that has been talk of declaring russia itself a terrorist state which seems like a long shot, but that group seems like the attorney general left it to the state department. >> right. important to point out why he's leaving it to the state department, right? because of all of the diplomatic concerns there. our senior legal affairs

correspondent paula reid has been listening in with us and fentanyl a major part of this to start off. what do we see coming of that? >> in the house and the senate, these can get pretty rowdy because while they're in oversight operations and they tend to be the most politically fraud issues of the day. it is interesting to see the first few rounds of questions from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were pretty sober and focused on the most serious issues face the country today. as you mentioned, fentanyl, we got a lot of questions about that, gun violence and also concerns about social media, whether that helps to increase human trafficking and otherwise puts children in danger. it was 45 minutes before he got a question which was very much expected about president biden's son hunter and the lawmaker drilled down on how exactly this

investigation is being handled. a lot of republicans are asking why the hunter biden investigation is not being handled by a special counsel. the justice department has been pretty consistently clear that they thought it was fully appropriate for a trump-appointed u.s. attorney to stay on and to continue to oversee that investigation and that's what we heard the attorney general say here, but i think as we move through this h hearing, particularly as we get to younger senators you will hear more questions about the politically charged questions especially the cases into former preside vice president biden and former president trump, and it is important to ask these questions as the nation's top law enforcement official. >> we know you'll continue to monitor it for us. paula, appreciate it. thank you. >> this just in. we are learning new detailses about what jurors in the murdaugh trial got to see when they visited the crime scene. closing arguments expected

shortly. we'll go live to south carolina just ahead. starting at just $79.95? the exam a alone is worth... 59 bucks. i mean, people deserve breaks, right? yeah, brakes...! [out of controrol] book an exam today at americasbest.com. we all have a purpose in life - a “why.” no matter your purpose, at pnc private bank we will wo with you every step of the way to helyou achieve it. so let us focus on the how. just tell us - what's your why? if your moderate to severe crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms are stopping you in your tracks... choose stelara® from the start... and move toward relief after the first dose... with injections every two months. stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition, may be possible.

some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. feel unstoppable. ask your doctor how lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options. ♪ experience the capability of the complete line of suvs at the invitation to lexus sales event. my husband and i have never been more active.

shingles doesn't care. i go to spin classes with my coworkers. good for you, shingles doesn't care. because no matter how healthy you feel, your risk of shingles sharply increases after age 50. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care but, shingrix protects. shingrix is now zero dollars for almost everyone. ask your doctor about shingrix today.

two jurors in the alex murdaugh murder trial will return to court from the remarkable visit fresh off an in-person tour of the site where maggie and paul murdaugh were killed. >> the defense and prosecution are expected to begin their closing arguments, so deliberations, depending on how

long those closing arguments take could begin today. diane gallagher is outside the courthouse in south carolina. >> we know more about what the jury saw. share with us what you learned. >> so we've started getting pool notes from the selected members of the media who were allowed to go to the property, as well. they being not be on the mozell property at the same time as the jury, but they did note they got a glimpse of the jury as they were walking around the dog kennel area. there was one member standing at the feed room door and that was the subject of much of the testimony and that is where paul murdaugh was shot and killed. we are told they did about 30 minutes there on the property in total and the majority of which will be spent there near the scene of the murders at the dog kennels, the shed and that part of the property and at the end of the trip they went up to the main house area, but did not go

inside, just to the exterior side to see it and perhaps get an idea of just how far away it is from the kennel areas. judge newman is there in street clothes, also south carolina attorney general as well as two of the defense attorneys on site at the time with them. closing arguments should begin shortly as we get on schedule. >> diana, we appreciate it. thank you. be sure to tune in tonight for the special right here on cnn "inside the murdaugh murders trial" hosted by laura coates. that's tonight right here on cnn. thanks so much to all of you for joining us today. >> i'll let you do it first. >> thank you very much. i'm erica hill. ♪ ♪ hello, everyone. at this hour, the attorney general of the united states in the hot seat facing the senate for the first ti