that's why comcast business de is launching theal. mobile made free event. with our business internet, new and existing customers can get one year of unlimited mobile for free. it's our best internet. powered by the next generation 10g network and with 99.9% reliability. plus one line of free mobile for an entire year. it's the mobile made free event-happening now. get started for just $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get one free line of unlimited mobile. comcast business, powering possibilities.

♪ ♪ we are standing by for fireworks, quite frankly, on capitol hill. what's new, right? but no, a critical hearing. it's officially billed as a standard oversight hearing, but

it has turned into so much more than that even before they all entered the room. attorney general merrick garland getting ready to face a house judiciary committee stacked with some of his harshest critics in congress some of them openly calling for garland to be impeached. his testimony today is the first in the wake of four indictments against former president trump and so much more. >> yeah. it's also the first time garland will testify since hunter biden was indicted, the first time since the plea deal imploded. today's hearing could become, as kate said, contentious because some of the people in that room have called for garland to be impeached. >> we've got an early preview of what we will hear from the attorney general. it's a forceful rebuke of the political bias accusations from those very republicans that john and kate were speaking of. excerpts of garland's prepared remarks says he plans to make at least two things very clear. one of them, quote, i am not the president's lawyer, and i'm not

congress' prosecutor, either. cnn's melanie zanona and evan perez is here as we wait for the hearing to begin. we've been utsch whatting it. a lot of members was congress are there and garland not there yet and give us awe sense of h the temperature is going to be. it's going to be hot. >> it's safe to say temperatures will be boiling. this will be a crucial moment for garland and the doj and it will be a crucial moment for republicans who are under pressure to convince the public and even some of their own members that they need to convince them that this impeachment inquiry into president joe biden is warranted. you see garland has just entered the hearing room and he is sitting down, getting ready for this crucial meeting. hunter biden and the criminal case surrounding him is expected to be a crucial part of that impeachment inquiry. so republicans are really preparing for battle here. they are going to ask a lot of questions about the hunter biden criminal case, and they want to have a lot of questions about

testimony from some irs whistle blowers who have claimed that the u.s. attorney in the case said he did not have ultimate charging authority in that case. they claim that the case was mishandled and the case was politicized, something garland has denied and no doubt will be a huge focus of their line of questioning today and they'll also ask questions about david weiss and the special counsel and the plea deal with huntered bien that did fall apart as mentioned and the criminal indictments to donald trump and a lot of questions and a lot of fireworks and the stakes couldn't be higher. >> as we await for this to get under way. you are looking at the preliminaries right now. we're beyond the preliminaries. >> everyone knows the fix is in. four and a half years -- four and a half years the department of justesice have run an investigation run by david weiss, limited the number of

witnesses agents could interview that prohibited agents as referring him as the big guy in any of the interviews they did get to do. an investigation that curtailed attempts by giving the team a head's up. an investigation that notified mr. biden's defense counsel about a pending search warrant, an investigation run by mr. weiss, run by mr. weiss where they told the kngs three different stories in 33 days. they told this committee on june 7th david weiss said i have ultimate authority to determine when, where and whether to bring charges. 23 days later, june 30th he told this committee, actually, i can only bring charges in my u.s. attorney's district, the district of delaware. to further confuse matters, on july 10th, he told senator graham, i have not sought special counsel status. rather, i've had discussions with the department of justice. an investigation run by mr. weiss that negotiated a plea

deal at the federal district court declined to accept. a plea deal so ridiculous the judge asked this question, quote, is there any precedence for agreeing not to prosecute crimes that have nothing to do with the charges being diverted? the response from the doj lawyer. i'm not aware of any, your honor. a plea deal so ridiculous that the judge also asked have you ever seen a diversion agreement where the agreement not to prosecute was so broad that it encompasses crimes in a different case? the response from the doj lawyer, no, your honor, we haven't. an investigation by mr. weiss that not only had a sweetheart deal rejected and according to "the new york times" there was an even sweeter deal, an earlier deal, a deal in which mr. biden would not have to plead guilty on for anything. four and a half years of that and now we get a special counsel and who does the attorney general pick?

david weiss, the guy who let all that happen. he could have selected anyone, inside government, outside government. he could have picked former attorneys general, former special counsels and he picks the one guy he knows will protect joe biden, he picks david weiss and here's what the ag said in his august 11th announcement of david weiss as a special counsel. quote, i am confident that mr. weiss will carry out his responsibility in an even handed and urgent manner. urgent manner? every witness we've talked to, the two fbi whistle blowers that came forward, mr. slaply and mr. zigler, the two agents on the case, ms. holly. they both said this was everything, but urgent. they were frustrated at the pace. ms. holly said she was

frustrated at the pace and the investigation was slow walked and even handed? they limited the number of witnesses that could be interviewed. they tipped off the defense counsel about a subpoena and the judge said the plea deal was a joke and all of that is just half the story. there's one investigation protecting president biden. there's another one attacking president trump. the justice department's got both sides of the equation covered. look at the classified documents case. spring and early summer of last year, the department of justice asked president trump to turn over boxes of do you mcuments a does just that. he finds additional boxes of documents and the very next day the fbi comes to his home and he turns them over and he asks the department of justice to bring any boxes to his home, in his storage room and secures it by locking it and he does that, as well. anything they asked him to do, he did and then what does the

justice department do? august 8th, last year they raid president trump's home, and according to the fbi agent, stephen dan tonio, the assistant director in charge of the field office the search was a complete departure from standard protocol. when we interviewed mr. d'antuono, he first said the miami field office didn't do the search. he said there was no u.s. attorney assigned to the case. instead it was run by d.c., in particular jay brat who now on the special counsel team. he said the fbi didn't get president trump's counsel's approval before they did the search and then mr. dan are d'antuono told us he recommended that when the fbi got to president trump's home they contact his counsel, wait for him to get there and do the search together. of course, the doj said no, and then who does the attorney general name as special counsel in that case?

jack smith. the guys who a few years ago was looking for ways to prosecute americans and targeted by the irs, looking to prosecute the very victims of the weaponized government, the weaponized irs. jack smith, the guy who prosecuted governor mcdonald only to have the supreme court overturn that prosecution in a unanimous decision. that's the guy -- that's the guy that the attorney general of the united states select as special counsel and you wonder why four out of five americans believe there are now two standards of justice in our great country. mr. garland, i anticipate a number of questions on these two investigations. later in the hearing i expect from republicans you will also get questions about the many other concerns the american people have with the department. the school board's memorandum, a memo that said pro-life catholics are extremists. the 5th circuit decision and the great decision on the department

of justice and other agencies censoring americans' speech and the fisa law that's up for re-authorization this year and thou that process has been abused and infringed on the rights -- the privacy rights of the american people. americans believe that today in our country there is unequal application of the law. they believe that because there is. republicans are committed to making that -- making that change. with that, i would yield to the gentleman from new york the ranking member for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, at the outset let me make two comments. one, just about every assertion you made in your opening statement has been completely refuted by witnesses who have testified before this committee. two, far from being favored, many commentators have noted that people accused of simple gun possession while under the influence of a drug, that gun

was not used in the commission of a crime are rarely, if ever, prosecuted the way hunter biden is being prosecuted. mr. chairman, one of this committee's most important duties is conduct the oversight of the department of justice. you were called upon to ensure that the doj uses the enormous amount of power that is granted in a fair, just manner that respects the civil and human rights of all americans. the attorney general of the united states oversees issues that affect the lives of each and every american, violent crime, drug trafficking, attacks on our civil rights and attacks to our national security and environmental crimes all foul un fall under this purview and that is why we request that he or she appear before this committee to speak about the work the department is doing for the welfare of the country. this is how we ensure that the department stays accountable to the american people.

if it were up to the republicans americans would hear nothing about the rise in terrorism and what the justice department is doing about it. they would hear nothing about what the department is doing to stop rate crimes and prevent gun violence. they would hear nothing about how the department is d disrupting -- they've ignored our legitimate oversight responsibilities and use their power to stage one political stunt after another. they have wasted countless taxpayer dollars into investigations into president biden and his family for an absurd impeachment and desperate from distract from the mounting legal peril facing donald trump. therefore, tirelessly, to stop efforts to trying to influence and manipulate americans through social media. they have interfered in criminal litigation and attempted to bully state and local law enforcement officers.

they have publicized the names of witnesses who did not further their political goals leading to threats of death and physical violence against those witnesses and their families. they have caused any number of private institutions millions of dollars in legal fees as they respond to ridiculous and overbroad requests for information and transcribed interviews. they have issued subpoenas for show without making meaningful attempts to get the information they seek by consent. they have levied low, personal attack against any prosecutor who bring charges against donald trump ore january 6th rioters and they've attacked those not hard enough on donald trump's political opponents. in an attempt to overthrow a lawful election. they have justified conduct that we all know to be wildly illegal like the theft of classified materials and incitement to violence, and through it all,

rather than try to unite the country or solve the problems that affect us all, they have sought to exploit our divisions for cynical, personal, political gain. that is their goal. division. they want to divide this country and make our government appear like it's broken because that is when the broken political party thrives. so today, i implore the public to see through the sham. i have no doubt that you will hear a deluge of conspiracy theories and baseless accusations. they will quote so-called whistle blowers who have been discredited or contradicted and they will viciously attack federal law enforcement and they will tell you that all 91 criminal charges against donald trump are part of a conspiracy despite overwhelming evidence of each of donald trump's crimes and they will attack special counsel weiss who was appointed, let us not forget, by donald trump for not being hard enough on hunter biden.

republicans will continue doing what they've done for years, discrediting anyone who does not serve their political goals at any cost. and the shame of it is that in this hearing room that on the house floor where we are barreling towards the government shutdown while my republican colleagues call each other names, we could be working together to put people over politics and to solve the number of problems that affect the american people. more than 30,000 americans have died from gun violence so far this year alone. guns have become the leading cause of death from children age 1 to 17 surpassing car accidents. domestic violence extremism and white nationalism are on the rise. we are seeing active clubs and other white supremacist groups pop up around the country. anti-semitism is at an all-time high. aligned foreign actors like china, iran and north korea are

attempting to influence our elections. political rhetoric are causing threats against law enforcement officials to skyrocket. the immigration court system is in desperate need of reform. our election workers received death threats from conspiracy theories. this goes on and on and we, the people in this room, are in a position to do something about it. in fact, it is our duty to do something about it. consistent with the oath we took when we were sworn in as members of congress. we could work with the department of justice and attorney general garland to address the number of problems facing the american people. instead, house republicans will use their time today to talk about long-discredited conspiracy theories and hunter biden's laptop. they will do it because they care more about donald trump than they do about their own constituents. i hope my colleagues will see

the reason and at least attempt to work with the attorney general in good faith. sadly, on the other side of the aisle, the reason and good faith seem to be in short supply. in any event, mr. attorney general, i thank you for your testimony and thank you in advance for your patience. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and all of the opening statements will be included in the record and we will introduce the witness, honorable merrick garland is the attorney general of the united states. he was sworn in on march 11, 2021. we welcome our witness and thank him, and we will begin by swearing you in. would you please rise and swear your right hand. do you swear under penalty of perjury that it is true to the best of your knowledge and belief so help you god? the witness has answered in the affirmative. thank you. please be seated. please know that your testimony will be entered into the record and you summarize your

testimony, you've been here before. we thank you for being here and you're welcome to give your opening statement. >> i'm sorry. is this working? >> you got it. >> good morning, chairman jordan and ranking member nadler and distinguished members of the committee and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the more than 115,000 employees with the department of justice. since the justice department was founded it has been tanked with confronted with some of the most challenging issues before the country. today we are handling matters of significant public interest that carry great consequences for our democracy. a lot has been said about the justice department, about who we are and what we are doing, about what our job is and what it is not and about why we do this

work. i want to provide some clarity. first, we are. the justice department is made up of 115,000 men and women who work in every state and communities across the country and around the globe. they are fbi, dea, atf agents and united states marshals who risk their lives to serve their communities. they are prosecutors and staff who work tirelessly to enforce our laws. the overwhelming majority are career public servants meaning that they were not appointed by the president of any party. second, i want to provide clarity about what the job of the justice department is and about what it is not. our job is to help keep our country safe. that includes working closely with local police departments and communities across the country to combat violent crime. in fact, today, we are

announcing a recent u.s. marshals operation conducted with local, state law enforcement. that targeted violent fugitives and resulted in 4,400 arrests across 20 cities in just three months. our work also includes combatting the drug cartels that are poisoning americans. last friday we expedited ovidio guzman lopez, a leader of the sinaloa cartel from mexico to the united states. he is the son of el chapo and one of more than a dozen cartel members we have indicted and extradited to the united states. our job includes seeking justice for the victims of child exploitation, human smuggling and sex trafficking and it includes protecting democratic institutions like this one by holding accountable all those criminally responsible for the january 6th attack on the

capitol. our job is also to protect civil rights and that includes protecting our freedoms as americans to worship and think as we please and to peacefully express our opinions, our beliefs and our ideas. it includes protecting the right of every eligible citizen to vote and to have that vote counted. it includes combatting discrimination, defending reproductive rights under law and deterring and prosecuting attacks search as hate crimes and our job is to uphold the rule of law and that means we are to apply the same laws as everyone. there is not one set of laws for the powerful and another for the powerless. one for the rich and another part poor, and one for democrats and the republicans and or different rules depending upon one's race, ethnicity or religion.

our job is to pursue justice without fear or favor. our job is not to do what is politically convenient. our job is not to take orders from the president, from congress or from anyone else about who or what we criminally investigate. as the president has said, and i reaffirm today, i am not the president's lawyer. i will add i am not congress' prosecutor. the justice department works for the american people. our job is to follow the facts and the law. that is what we do. all of us recognize that with this work comes public scrutiny, criticism and legitimate oversight. these are appropriate and important given the matters and the gravity of the matters that are before the department, but singling out individual career public servants who are just

doing their jobs is dangerous, particularly at a time of increased threats to the safety of public servants and their families. we will not be intimidated. we will do our jobs free from outside influence and we will not back down from defending our democracy. third, i want to explain why we approach our job in this way. the justice department was founded in the wake of the civil war and in the midst of reconstruction with the first principal task of bringing to justice white supremacists and others who terrorized black americans to prevent them from exercising their civil rights. the justice department's job then and now is to fulfill the promise that it is at the foundation of our democracy that the law will treat each of us alike. that promise is also why i am

here. my family fled religious persecution in eastern europe at the start of the 20th century. my grandmother was one of five children born in what is now belarus, made it to the united states as did two of her siblings. the other two did not. those two were killed in the holocaust. there is little doubt that but for america the same thing would have happened to my grandmother. when this country took her in and under the protection of our laws. she was able to live without fear of persecution. that protection is what distinguishes this country and so many others, the protection of law, the rule of law is the foundation of our system of government. repaying this country for the

debt my family owes. for our very lie has been the focus of my entire professional career and that is why i serve under the justice department under five different attorneys general under both democratic and republican administrations. that is why i spent more than 25 years ensuring the rule of law as a judge and that is why i left a lifetime appointment as a judge and came back to the justice department two and a half years ago and that is why i am here today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. you were right, america is the greatest country ever and we, on this side are very concerned about the equal application of the law that you talked about in your opening statement. with that, we will move to five-minute questions and we will start with the gentleman from louisiana, mr. johnson. >> thank you. the rule of law does distinguish

our country, but you have aloud the rule of law to erode and that is why 65% of the people in this country don't trust it and don't trust you. they witness a politicized, and they see the doj aggressively prosecuting president biden's chief political opponent mr. trump and that's a fact that everyone can see with their own two eyes. we have many important questions for you about that. let me cut to the chase. has anyone from the white house provided direction to you at any time to you personally or to any senior officials at the doj about how the hunter biden investigation was to be carried out? >> no. >> have you had personal contac with anyone at fbi headquarters about the hunter biden

investigation? >> i don't recollect the answer to that question, but the fbi works for the justice department. >> you don't recollect whether you've talked to anybody at fbi headquarters about an investigation about the president's son? >> i don't believe that i did. i promised the senate when i came before it for confirmation that i would leave mr. weiss in place and that i would not interfere with his investigation. >> okay. did you ever -- i have kept that promise. >> all right. have you had personal contact with anyone at the baltimore field office on the hunter biden matter? >> no. >> on july 10, 2023, u.s. attorney david weiss told senator lindsay graham, quote, i had discussions with departmental officials regarding under 20usc section 515 which would allow me to work in the district outside of my own without the partnership of the local u.s. attorney, end quote. with whom did mr. weiss have those discussions? >> i'm not going to get into the internal deliberations of the

department. >> oh, but you must, we have oversight in the department. >> it's appropriate for mr. weiss to have conversations with the department. i made clear that if he wanted to bring a case into the jurisdiction he would be able to do that. the way you do that is you have to get an order called a 515 order and he and his letters made clear he understood he would be able to do that. >> can you tell us about any briefings or discussions that you personally have had with mr. weiss regarding any and all federal investigations of hunter biden? >> i will say again, i promised the senate that i would not interfere with mr. weiss -- >> i'm just -- under oath today your testimony is you have not had any discussions with mr. weiss about this matter? >> under oath my testimony today is that i promised the senate i would not intrude in his investigation. i do not intend to discuss internal justice department deliberations whether or not i had them. >> oh, okay.

so your testimony is you're not going to tell us whether you've had discussions with mr. weiss. >> my testimony today is that i told the committee that i would not interfere. i made clear that mr. weiss would have the authority to bring cases that he thought were appropriate. >> okay. >> all right. >> let me stop -- for a second time, sir. are you aware that fbi officials have come before this committee and they have stated that there was a cumbersome, bureaucratic process that mr. weiss had to go through to bring charges in another district? >> i'm not aware, but that's not true. there's nothing cumbersome about the process. >> those whistle blowers are lying to us under oath? >> i did not say that. their description of the process cumbersome is an opinion. it's not a fact question. all i have to do is sign a section. >> mr. weiss has been lead prosecutor in the hunter biden case since 2016? >> i'm sorry? >> mr. weiss has been the lead prosecutor in the hunter biden case. >> he's been the lead prosecutor

since appointmented by donald trump. >> why has the justice department dragged this out for so long? does it take years to determine if hunter biden lied on a federal form related to purchasing a firearm? >> mr. weiss was a longtime career prosecutor. president trump appointed him -- >> you're not answering the question. >> is that standard procedure? should it take that long to make a simple determination? >> i'm answering the question. give me the opportunity to do so. >> okay. >> he was charged with that investigation under the previous administration. he's continued. he knows how to conduct investigations and i have not intruded or attempted to evaluate that because that was the promise i made to the senate. >> the whistle blowers gave us testimony about serious misconduct of the justice department in regards to the preferential treatment afforded hunter biden. has your office requested an investigation into that? >> there are well known processes for how whistle blowers make their claims.

i am a strong proponent of whistle blowers and a strong defender. we have an inspector general's office and we have an office of professional responsibility and that is the way complaints from whistle blowers should be and are appropriately handled. >> i'm out time. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, thank you for being here today. it's no secret that some of my colleagues across the aisle have threatened to shut down the government unless and until the fbi and the department of justice are defunded. one trump presidential candidate said we should abolish the fbi altogether. mr. attorney general, what would be the impact on america of defunding the fbi? >> defunding the fbi would leave the united states naked to the maligned influence of the chinese communist party, to the attacks by iranians on american citizens and attempts to

assassinate former officials, to the russian aggression, to north korean cyber attacks, to violent crime in the united states which the fbi helps to fight against, to all kind of espionage, to domestic violent extremists who have attacked our churches, our synagogues, our mosques and who have killed individuals out of racial hatred. i just -- i cannot imagine the consequences of defunding the fbi, but they would be catastrophic. >> thank you. i want to turn to mr. weiss' investigation and the authority he's been granted to conduct an investigation without interference in whatever way he deems necessary. you testified to the senate judiciary committee on march 1st of this year that david weiss had, quote, full authority over any investigation concerning hunter biden. is that a true statement at the

time? >> yes. mr. weiss has full authority to conduct his investigation however he wishes, and mr. weiss has confirmed that in letters to this committee. >> thank you. this authority included that weiss would be able to bring charges and jurisdictions outside of delaware if necessary, is that correct? >> i assured mr. weiss publicly that he would have the authority to bring a case outside of delaware if he thought that was appropriate. >> does that remain true today? >> yes, that is true today. >> has it ever been the case over course of this investigation that mr. wries woul weiss would not have been able to bring charges? >> i think he was able to do that. it is apparent in the letters exchanged in my committee and in my last previous testimony in order for a united states attorney or special counsel or anyone else to bring a case outside his jurisdiction he

requires me to sign a paper called section 515, that's a statute which permits bringing cases outside of the jurisdiction. i promised that i would do whatever was required to enable mr. weiss to bring a case outside his jurisdiction if that's what he thought was appropriate. >> and i assume it was your understanding that mr. weiss was fully aware that he could bring charges outside of delaware if necessary when you testified on march 1st? >> mr. weiss said so in the letters he sent to this committee. >> thank you. did he ever say or do anything that might make him unsure of where he could bring charges? >> mr. weiss' own letters reflect that he had never asked me to be a special counsel and that he understood the process for asking for a signature on a section 515 form. >> there have been accusations that the handling of the hunter biden matter is a matter of a two-tiered system of justice. what's your response to that allegation? >> the justice department treats everyone alike regardless of

party, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of wealth. everyone is treated alike. i understand that people may not understand why particular investigations are conducted in particular ways until all of the fact comes out and that's what we have a court for and all of the explanations will come out with respect to mr. weiss, for example, at the end of his period as special counsel. the requirements is that he file a report which i have promised to make public. he will explain his decision to prosecute or not to prosecute. >> thank you. what are the impacts of members of congress making such accusations against the doj and baseless accusations from government officials making it more difficult for investigators to do their job and effectively investigate the subject? >> members of the justice

department are strong and tough and able to understand that their job is to do the right thing regardless of any pressures from any order. what is dangerous, and i'm not talking about the committee, but what is dangerous is when anyone singles out a career prosecutor or a career fbi agent and we know as a matter of fact that that kind of singling out has led to threats. this is a concern across the board. it is not a concern about anyone in particular. >> i think you would have been justified in referring to the committee. my time has expired. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. attorney general, you're the only person who could ensure that mr. weiss had all of the necessary authority, aren't you? >> i'm the only person who can sign an agreement with respect to special counsel. the authority to do section 515 can be signed by other people in

the department. >> you were aware, ultimately, though, the authority is yours. >> yes. >> you made the point that you don't take orders from the president and you decide ultimately what the justice department will do. >> i announced at the beginning, i promised that he would be able to bring whatever cases he wants, and i have followed through on that promise. i'm permitted to make that kind of promise, and i have made it. >> did you undertake to inform yourself to interact with him sufficient to ensure that he knew he possessed that authority or that you would see to it that he had all necessary authority. >> i don't think there is any doubt that he knew. he has written three letters to this committee indicating that he understood he had the authority. >> you are also aware, aren't you, sir, that a senior irs investigator, whistle-blower came forward and testified publicly that mr. weiss stated he did not have such authority and he was not the decider. are you aware of that?

>> i'm aware of the testimony. i was not present during that statement. mr. weiss, who was present, has indicated that he had the authority and he knew that he had it. >> subsequent to those developments, though, you decided to make mr. weiss special counsel which you had not done before. >> mr. weiss made clear he did not ask me to be special counsel until last month and last month i made him special counsel. >> did you have some lack of information that you should have had that would have caused you to act earlier to make him special counts snell. >> mr. weiss did not ask to be special counsel. >> i understand he didn't ask. you said that, sir. did you take the necessary steps to inform yourself what authority he understood he had or what obstacles he was encountering? >> mr. weiss had, as i said from the beginning, at the very beginning that he had the authority over all matters that pertained to hunter biden. have you learned that he was, in fact, deterred by decisions of

the united states attorneys and the district of columbia and the northern district of california from from proceeding as he thou best. >> mr. weiss said that he was not deterred and he followed the normal processes of the department and that he was never denied the ability to bring a case in another jurisdiction. >> what changed, then, mr. attorney general? what made you decide that it was sufficient to leave him in the situation he was until you decided to make him special counsel. >> mr. weiss asked for that authority given his extraordinary circumstances of this matter and given my promise that i would give him any resources he requested. i made him special counsel. >> so until that time, was it just a matter of hpred election

and whether he faced any obstacles? >> i did not endeavor to investigate because i had promised that i would not interfere with the investigation. the way to not interfere is to not investigate an investigation. >> once he requested to be named special counsel, having not done so over months and months of your tenure, did you ask him what had changed that made him now need to be a special counsel? >> mr. weiss asked to be made special counsel. i had promised that i would to give him all of the resources he needed and i made him special counsel. when did the justice department permit statutes of limitations to expire against hunter biden. >> i don't know anything about the statute of limb gagzs and it was in the hands of mr. weiss to make the determine eggs that he thought was appropriate. >> are you aware that the statute of limitations were expired after tach outs were in

place? >> the permission to which cases to bring was left to mr. weiss. >> yes, sir. are aware that the statutes of limitations were allowed to expire while under investigation. >> the investigators were familiar with all of the relevant law. >> i'm not asking for the excuses, i'm asking whether you were aware of that pack, sir. >> i'll say again and again if necessary, i did not interfere with, did not investigation. >> those are statements in response to other questions. everybody in the country now knows who is paying attention to this that the justice department permitted statutes of limitations to expire. every lawyers when has ever practiced understands the implications of allowing statutes of limitations to expire. do you not even know as you sit here whether it occurred or not? >> the prosecutors made appropriate determinations on their own, and i left it to mr. weiss whether to bring charges

or not and that would include as to whether let statute of limitations to expire or not. whether there was sufficient evidence to bring or not, whether there were cases to bring or not. >> the time has expired. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. attorney general for being here with us this morning. as much as we see dirt being thrown in the air there's a lot of misinformation that i think is intended to confuse people. i would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record three letters from mr. weiss that he sent to congress on june 7th, june 30th and july 10th. >> without objection. >> he said over and over again that he has full authority over this case including the ability

to seek special counsel or special attorney status if needed. you know, trying to imply otherwise is just simply false. mr. weiss was appointed by then president trump. your decision was to leave the trump-appointed attorney completely in charge of this, hands off from you. he makes all the calls without interference from the attorney general, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and so the idea that you would interfere is completely wrong, and i would also like to ask -- you talked about your independence from the president, but also your independence from the congress. have you ever come across historically an instance where

the congress of the united states tried to or successfully interfered with a prosecution initiated by the department of justice based on the facts and the law? >> i want to be gentle about the word interfere, but it is just as a historical example in the case of iran-contra, the consequences of actions by the congress were that the special counsel's investigation of iran -- of mr. north, were dismissed. >> correct. before i go into another question i have, i just would like unanimous consent to put into the record the annual statistical transparency report dated april of 2023. it indicates that the d duplicated counting method for fbi queries of u.s. persons

under the section 702 database numbered over 119,000. i would just like to note -- and we will work with you and this comm committee on a bipartisan basis, for u.s. persons without a warrant. we're not suggesting that the law does not permit that, but we are going to visit this issue because it is my view that querying the 702 database that has been collected without due process because it relates to foreign individuals is completely wrong in terms of the privacy rights of americans, and i just am hoping that we can work successfully with you as we craft requirements for a warrant to do that. i'd like to ask, as we know, and has been mentioned by the

ranking member, the proposal is basically to defund the police by the republicans, to defund the fbi. i am concerned that if we defund the police as the majority has suggested that really doesn't have an impact on the statute of limitations. so if we were to defund the department of justice and defund the police as has been suggested what would happen with the statute of limitations for cases that you were pursuing if you were not able to actually do that? would they be suspended in any way or would the criminals get off scot-free? >> well, on my experience as a judge if i was asked a legal question and i don't know the answer i would go back to the office and study it and i'll have to do that in this case. i don't have the answer. >> i think i do because there's nothing in the statute that allows for the statute of limitations to be suspended

because the government has been shut down or because the police have been defunded through the budget process, and i just think we ought to take the implications of a shutdown very seriously in terms of allowing criminals to get off, and i see that my time has expired, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. the chair recognizes himself. quote, mr. weiss has full authority to bring cases in urth jurisdictions if he feels it's necessary. that was your response, attorney general to senator grassley's question in 2023, just referencing when mr. bishop was questioning you. only problem is he'd been turned down by the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia, mr. graves. so he didn't have full authority, did he? >> i had an extended conversation with senator grassley at the time. we briefly touched on the section 515 question and how that process went. i've never been suggest -- >> my point is very simple, mr.

garland. you said he had complete authority, but he had been turned down and the u.s. attorney said no, you can't and you go tell the united states senate that he has complete authority. >> i will say again that no one had the authority to turn him down and they could refuse to partner with him. >> you can use whatever language refuse to partner is turning down. >> it's not the same under a well-known justice department practice. >> here's why the statute of limitations question is important that mr. bishop was getting at just a few minutes ago. here's why it's important. you let the statute of limitations lapse for 2014-2015. those were the years with the felony tax charges where hunter biden was getting income from barris ma. he made a lot of money and got paid a lot of money over those years and he wasn't qualified. fact number two, he wasn't qualified to be on the board of burisma, not my words, his words and he got to the board because

of his last name and we deposed him. fact number three, burisma executives told hunter biden, we're under pressure. we need help. fact number four, joe biden goes to ukraine, leverages our tax money. american people's tax money to get the prosecutor fired who was applying the pressure. interestingly enough that fact is entirely consistent with what the confidential human source told the fbi and they recorded in the 1023 form, the same form mr. wray didn't want to let this committee and the congress see. that all happened. that all happened. what i'm wondering is why you guys let the statute of limitations lapse for those tax years that dealt with burisma income? >> there's one more pack that's important and that is that this investigation was being conducted by mr. weiss, an appointee of president trump. he will at the appropriate time

have the opportunity to ask mr. weiss that question and he will no doubt address it in the public report that will be transmitted to the congress. i don't know the answer to those questions. >> did the lawyers -- did they just, like, oh, darn. were they careless? >> i expect that won't be what he says, but because i promised -- >> you know that's not the case because as mr. bishop pointed out they had a tolling agreement. they talked to hunter biden's defense counsel and said let's extend the statute of limitations and then they made an intentional decision to say we'll let the statute of limitations lapse and i want to know who did that and why they did it. >> mr. weiss was in charge of the investigation and he made the appropriate decisions and you'll be able to answer that question. >> everyone knows why they did it. they may wannot say it. that involved the president. it's one thing to have a gun

charge in delaware and that involves the president of the united states and burisma? oh, my, that goes right to the white house. we can't have that, and we can slow walk this thing along and we can even extend the statute of limitations and then we can intentionally let it lapse. here's what everyone said, slaply said, zigler, slow walking and the approvals of everything and this happened at the delaware attorney's office and the fbi agent said i would have liked to see things move faster. ms. holly said the same thing and this thing was slow walked and we know why. you slow walked it long enough to let the statute of limitations run so they wouldn't have to go to burisma. tell me where i'm wrong. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i'm asking mr. garland the question. >> i think i've made clear that i don't know the specifics of the investigation. much of what you said that the

department of justice appointed by president trump. >> your statement was just this year march 1st to senator grassley. i'm sorry, i'm trying to respond to your description of what the irs agent said about -- >> the statute of limitations is six years and that lapsed here in the biden administration. >> on the statute of limitations, i will say again, that the explanation for why the statute of limitations was lapsed, if it was, has to come from mr. weiss. >> let me ask one last question quick here. who decided that david weiss would stay on as u.s. attorney? >> this occurred before i came. mr. weiss had been kept on. i promised the -- >> i didn't say, you can walk through that. i said who decided? the white house decided. they serve at the pleasure of the president, right? >> mr. weiss -- >> joe biden decided to keep david weiss as u.s. attorney. you weren't sworn in until

march. >> mr. chairman, your time has expired. >> pretty fundamental question, who decided he would stay on as attorney general. >> chairman, your time has expired. >> i'm waiting for an answer now and i'll yield. >> you asked the question after your time had expired already. point of order. >> the gentleman can respond and i'll go to ms. jackson-lee. >> mr. weiss was the u.s. attorney for the district of delaware when i came on. he'd been appointed by president trump. i promised that he would be permitted to stay on for this investigation and that is what happened. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i believe you misquoted from the transcript of the senate hearing, and i therefore ask unanimous consent to enter the entire record the transcript of the senate hearing. >> without objection, but i didn't misquote what mr. garland said. ms. jackson-lee is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

none of the republicans' goals today include solving americans' problems of which they are concerned of. there are many reasons, mr. attorney general, that prosecutors decline to bring charges. one of those reasons is that they don't have any evidence for a conviction. that is the justice way. that is just in america. let me raise these questions and concerns with you today. as we all know, republicans have repeatedly alleged that the doj and the fibi are conspiring to give hunter biden special treatment in the investigations. they've demonized law enforcement officials working in this case at every turn which has led to increased threats against fbi officials, law enforcement of which they pretend to support. i want to place into the record two excerpts from recent transcribed interviews and i would ask that a copy be made available to you.

the first is from a june interview with jennifer moore, fbi's former executive assistant director for fema. the fbi had received so many threats that it had to stand up an entire ten-person unit just to deal with them. she said it is unprecedented. it is a number we have never had before. more testimony in pages 202 to 203. the second excerpt is from an interview earlier this month with the special agent in charge of the baltimore field office. here's what he said. i joined the fbi 25 years ago. i joined for a reason, to protect the american people, uphold the constitution. i've been to war. my family has been in bad places and my kids have been evacuated from kwaus i war zones and i have accepted that and i am solely focused on two things and not mutually expclusive, and th second thing that's becoming

more important and relevant is keeping my folks safe. that part, i never expected to have to be able to be concerned about keeping family safe so that for me this is becoming more and more of a job that i have to do and take away from what i was assigned or signed up to do which was to investigate and do these things. so when you talk about potential frustrations, and communication, i am personally frustrated with anything that places my employees and their families in enhanced danger, our children, their children did not sign up for this. mr. attorney general do you agree that politically charged rhetoric claiming that law enforcement agents and i have many questions if you can be brief are corrupt and contribute to this onslaught about public servants? >> as i said in my opening statement, we've had an astounding threat against public servants over the last several years. career public servants in the

justice department and election wor workers and airline crews, when they are singled out this can lead to threats of violence and actual violence. >> thank you. >> we have the actual example of an attack on an fbi office by somebody who was incensed by political rhetoric. this does happen. we must not allow that to happen in this country. >> does the rhetoric regarding the biden case have any basis in reality? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear. >> does the rhetoric regarding the biden case have any basis in reality? >> no, it does not. >> how does it affect the fbi and doj employees to do their work? specifically fbi and doj employees. >> as i said, the agents of the fbi and prosecutors understand that criticism comes with our job, and they will continue to

do their jobs without fear or favor, but the idea of threatening their safety or that of their families is just abhorrent. >> thank you. i assume provisions have been put in place to protect these agens and their families? >> i didn't hear the first part. >> i assume the provisions have been put in place to protect these agens and their families. >> let move on to the fentanyl crisis and let me put on the records so that you can summarize and ask for the indulgence of the chair and the fbi and the doj are focused, needle-point focused, if you will on the price of fentanyl, and i want to raise that for you and i want to follow up with one or two other questions if you want to comment on these collectively. i am dealing with the crisis of human trafficking and

prioritizing of america's children. they are under siege and the child of sexual abuse materials generating into human trafficking and i want to put hr-30 on the record indicate that there are 99,000 ip cases where they are enticing children and only 1% of them being investigated and i'd like your comment on that and finally in the approach of high -- of yom kippur to emphasize the work that is hopefully still being done with anti-semitism, attacks on immigrants and african-americans and latinos. if you would answer that question, fentanyl, human trafficking and domestic terrorism. >> these are all horrendous problems propagated by people who are truly evil. we are fighting the fentanyl scourge in every possible way starting with the precursors in china to the labs in mexico, to the cartel