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 cartels that are bringing

the drugs into the united states, to the networks in the united states, to the streets of america and we will continue to do that with every resource that congress gives us. human smuggling and sex trafficking is abhorrent and they have brought many, many cases on these subjects. the idea of putting sexually explicit material about children on the web is another area that we are continuing to investigate and to prosecute and to ask the social media to take down from their sites. >> gentle lady's time has expired and the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> i guess i'm wondering, mr. attorney general, has anyone told president biden to knock it off with hunter? i mean, you guys are charging hunter biden on some crimes, investigating him on others, and you've got the president bringing hunter biden around to

state dinners. has anyone told him to knock it off? >> our job at the justice department is pursue cases without reference to what's happening in the outside world. >> yes or no? >> so it's a no? >> no one that i know of has spoken to the white house about the hunter biden case. >> i'm wondering then -- okay. i got it. i got it. so hunter biden is selling art to pay for his $15,000 a month rent in malibu. how can you guarantee that the people buying that art aren't doing so to gain favor with the president? >> the job of the justice department is to investigate criminal allegations. we have -- >> are you investigating this? someone who bought hunter biden's art ended up with a prestigious appointment to a federal position. doesn't it look weird that he's become this immediate success in the art world as his dad is president of the united states? isn't that odd? >> i'm not going to comment about any -- >> not going to comment and not

going to investigate. hunter biden associate devon archer said hunter biden sold the appearance of access to then president biden. are you confident he stopped doing that. >> i'm sorry. i didn't understand the question. hunter biden sold the appearance of access to president biden. are you confident he stopped? >> i will say again that all these matters are under the purview of mr. weiss, and i have not interfered -- >> so it was a lot of chinese money that was working its way through these shell companies into the accounts of the biden family so the china initiative was set up during the trump administration at the department of just toys go after the maligned influence of the chinese communist party and the biden justice department dissolved the china initiative.

does tit have any documents for why you got rid of the china initiative that president trump set up? >> the assistant attorney general of the division gave a long speech which explained that. he has testified before congress several times. i would be happy to provide you -- >> just tell us all now, why was the china initiative dissolved? >> what the assistant attorney general said was that we face attacks from four nation states. north korea, china, russia and iran, and we need to focus our attention on the broad range of these attacks. >> are you saying that north korea has the same maligned influence risk as the chinese communist party? are you trying to represent there's parity there? because here's what it looks like, it looks like the chinese gave all this money to the bidens and then you guys came in and got rid of the china initiative and it was successful. i saw one rationale that you guys got rid of the china

initiative because it was racial profiling and one of the guys you convicted was charles leber, a harvard professor who was given $150,000 a month to do china's bidding. are you aware of the millions of dollars that moved through rob walker's shale companies into into the biden family bank accounts. are you aware of that? >> there are a lot of questions that you just asked. let me start with the first one about north korea. north korea is a bad actor -- >> but not on par with china. >> i'm not in the business -- >> it makes you look un -- >> may i answer the question? >> answer the question about whether or not you know -- >> you don't want me to answer about north korea. >> they're not the same risk as china and let's get on to serious questions and serious answers, do you know about the money that moved through rob walker's shale companies or no? >> i have left these matters to

mr. weiss. i've not interfered. i've not tried to find out. >> it's like you're looking the other way on purpose because everybody knows this stuff is happening and people don't pay bribes to not get something in return, right? the china initiative resulted in the convictions of a harvard professor of someone at monsanto, so we were working against the chinese and they paid the by thens and now you're sitting here telling me north korea is the big threat. >> do you want me to answer your question or not? >> the number of paid informants on january 6th? >> i -- i only get five minutes. >> you haven't -- >> on january 6th did you lose the be in of assets? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> did they on. >> let him answer the question. the time has expired and the attorney general can respond. >> china is the most aggressive, most dangerous adversary the

united states faces and we are doing everything within our power to rebut that, to stop that, to prevent their invasions both kinetic and through cyberspace. >> if someone gave that answer in your courtroom if you were a judge you would tell them they were being nonresponsive and direct them to answer the question. >> badgering the witness. >> the time has expired. >> i got it, i was -- i was -- i was -- like your honor, you want to stick with that? >> points of order either way. >> the gentleman asked this question before his time expired and the attorney general would respond to the question about the confidential human sources on january 6th, and he didn't respond to that, and we'll get an answer to that. >> of course, mr. chairman -- there were questions before that he was not give know a chance to understand. >> i understand, but -- >> the witness might have thought -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. the witness does not control the time. >> exactly right.

members control the time. if they want to switch their question and focus on one more question that they'd like an answer to, i want to give the witness a chance to respond to that final question. he doesn't respond and someone else will ask it, i'm sure and we'll recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> i'll just follow up questions. >> did devon archer not say that joe biden did nothing wrong? >> i only know about mr. archer from newspaper reports. i want to be clear they kept my promise to not involve myself in this investigation. >> i'll state it. he said joe biden did nothing wrong. secondly, did you say that president trump -- president trump appointed weiss who then you appointed? >> yes. president trump appointed mr. weiss as united states attorney. ? so that should take care of that issue and the department was weaponized and warrant there an investigation of mr. gaetz and

you didn't prosecute him? >> the justice department does not make comments about its investigations. >> not weaponized. that was a beautiful exchange there and it shows we didn't do that. you are the nation's chief law enforcement officer and i appreciate that, and law enforcement is one of our government's fundamental funks. crime is growing too much in this country and in my city of memphis, as well. we need law enforcement to be swift and fair and i want to focus on what actually affects the american people, crime. how do we get smarter law enforcement, and resource of allocations and the right funding for the right programs and see that that happens? memphis' hirings has become more difficult and we lowered our standards to get more officers and that's not the way to do it. and helping us review the policies and procedures and i thank you for doing that, but what can the department of justice do to help see that law enforcement is more efficient

and more effective? >> so the key to this is our partnership and the fbi, the dea and marshals, atf's partnership at every local level with local and state law enforcement, in task forces, in discussions to target the most dangerous criminals in those communities, but at the same time to engage the communities to help engender community trust in law enforcement. everyone who has prosecuted violent crime cases and that includes me, knows that you need the trust of the community in order to get witnesses that we and the justice department are helping state and local colleagues do just that. the funding you described from the cops' office and the office of justice programs allows us to give money to state and local police organizations that are having trouble with recruitment

and retention and promotion of law officers and helps them make their departments respectful of constitutional rights and at the same time effective in the investigation and prosecution of criminal law violations. >> thank you for those activities and the programs through cops. you also reinstated patterns and practices investigations of certain police departments and memphis is one of them and i thank you for doing that. can you share with us how important those pilot programs are and how they can improve policing? >> yes. congress has authorized the justice department to conduct pattern of practice investigations when there is a reasonable -- that there's been unconstitutional pattern and unconstitutional behavior in the police department. we are careful to select those cases where we think there is such a pattern. we make those investigations. we then work with the law

enforcement agencies in the cities. our hope is to come to a consent decree that would lead to a better, more efficient and more constitutional police department. we have been successful in all of our cases to date in reaching consent agreements. >> thank you, sir. you were announced in bringing federal charges against the five officers who killed tyree nichols in memphis, and i thank you for that. we need a federal charge, and we need the department looked at. if there's a shutdown of the federal government how would that affect the department of justice and affect policing and local communities? >> i haven't done a complete calculation on the effects of a shutdown and the difference between which employees are indispensable under the statute and which one is not. it would certainly disrupt all of our normal programs and

including our grant programs to state and local law enforcement and to our ability to conduct our normal efforts with respect to our scope including helping state and locals fight violent crime. >> thank you, sir, and happy new year and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back, mr. mcclintock of california is recognized. >> mr. attorney general, looking again at the appointment of jack smith and david weiss, this double standard of justice couldn't be more glaring. jack smith was deeply involved in the irs scandal that targeted conservative political groups. his malicious prosecution of former governor mcdonald was unanimously overturned by the u.s. supreme court. chief justice rebuked smith directly for attempting to criminalize political activity. you appointed him to prosecute joe biden's chief rival for the

presidency. and then we have the appointment of david weiss. weiss deliberately aloud the statute of limitations to run out on any charges that could have implicated joe biden and influenced peddling. he originally offered hunter biden a sweetheart deal that was ultimately up ended by the court, and he's the one you appointed to pursue the charges that could implicate joe biden. that leaves me to only two explanations, either corruption or incompetence. which is it? >> those are the kind of questions that judges would rule out of order. >> i'm sure you would. which is it? >> look, i said before and i will say again, mr. weiss was the republican appointed united states attorney, appointed by then trump. >> do you at least see the obvious double standard applied in these two appointments? >> mr. weiss was a republican

appointee. mr. smith is not registered to either party. >> i'm not asking what their party registrations are. i'm asking about their records and how those records would commend them to the appointments that you made. this is a question of judgment and it's a question of motive. what was motivating you to do this? >> mr. smith had a nationwide reputation for integrity, and for -- >> oh, please. >> not the prosecution. his work can be measured by when he actually has filed. everyone in the country can see the indictments. >> how can you say that after he was so heavily implicated in the irs scandal or the rebuke that the supreme court gave and many other examples? let me go on. we've had two irs whistle blowers inform congress of attempts by senior justice department officials to obstruct the criminal investigation into millions of dollars of

ill-gotten and undeclared income to hunter biden. they noted several deviations by department officials from the normal process that provided preferential treatment in this case to hunter biden including the statute of limitations to lapse and requesting the irs and management level and investigative communications and prohibiting investigators from referring to the big guy or dad and witness interviews, excluding the investigative team for meetings with defense counsel and notifying defense cou counsel of pending search warrants. and the storage units where the records were being kept. that sounds an awful lot like obstruction of just tice to me someone else? >> was that coming from you? i don't understand the question. all of the actions that your employees took to obstruct the

invest investigation of hunter biden and the taxes he failed to declare, their source and ultimately who they were paid to. >> i'm going to say again with respect to the hunter biden investigation that it has been and still is in the hands of mr. weiss an appointee of president trump. i don't know about all of these allegations and some of them appear to have been from the period from when the attorney general appointed by president trump was still the attorney general. >> do these charges trouble you at all? >> mr. weiss will have an opportunity to explain the decisions. >> you're the guy in charge. does this trouble you? >> i have intentionally not involved myself in the facts of the case, not because i'm trying to get out of responsibility, but because i am trying to pursue my responsibility. >> your fbi director testified

before this committee of an uptick in, quote, known or suspected terrorists coming across the southern border. he told us that the southern border represents a massive security threat. those were his words. a massive security threat. do you agree? >> i am perfectly happy to align myself with the director of the fbi. >> why is it, then, that we -- in seeing your administration rescind the trump-era orders that had secured that border? we are seeing an exponential increase in suspected terrorists. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and the witness can respond. >> the answer to this question about immigration law is extremely long answer. i would defer to the department of homeland security which is responsible first physical security and first contact at the border. >> we've tried to get answers from them and they wouldn't give it to us and we were hoping you

would. you requested a short break and we'll take a short break and resume in five minutes. >> okay. sorry. >> we've been listening to the house judiciary committee, and i think the word grilling which is often overused is appropriate and for what we have been seeing so far is attorney general merrick garland has been testifying. >> the general theme has been republicans in this committee including jim jordan who you see there have been asking the attorney general to comment into the investigation of hunter biden, why did you do this? why did you not do that? and the attorney general's response has been basically universally i'm not going to comment on the details of the hunter biden investigation. >> not only that he would not comment that he is purposely not interfering in the investigation because he said he wouldn't and they've been accusing him or the justice department and the white house of doing that. my job is to not interfere and he keeps over and over and over again mentioning that mr. weiss

was arppointed by donald trump,a republican. this has been interesting. i want to talk to you, nick akreman because you teared up at one point and almost no one tears up in these sort of committee hearings because they can get pretty brutal. >> what struck you from this hearing today? >> a couple of things. >> first of all, in terms of the historical example here, this reminded me exactly of what happened with the appointment of archib archibald cox as the first prosecutor. elliott was put in the house judiciary committee and just like merrick garland said, cox and elliott richardson had promised that he would not interfere and archibald cox would have total independence and i think that's what's come out of this, that merrick garland has basically been hands off on both jack smith and on weiss, that he has let them be another archibald cox and

basically have free raineign an special independence which we have not seen since archibald cox so that is a pretty important point. the other fact that i thought was really of significance here is why weiss was appointed as special counsel. and i think what it really comes down to is the fact that he will be able to issue a report. normally, prosecutors do not get to issue reports. they do not get to explain their decisions and i think here it's extremely important because all kinds of issues have been raised about why they didn't indict under the statute of limitations and why they didn't look at other matters and the big issue overhanging this is whether or not hunter biden's name was hunter jones and whether he would have been investigated or charged in the first instance. we don't know that because we don't know the facts of that

investigation or what mr. weiss has looked at and what is good about having him appointed as special counsel is that we will ultimately get the answers to those questions. those were the two big points that came out to me. >> the attorney is with us, as well. what struck you about the republican line of questioning? attorney general, did you know the statute of limitation was running out on certain aspects of the hunter biden investigation? did you speak to david weiss about the hunter biden investigation? >> yeah. really frustrating to watch at times, not fruitful at all in some instances. merrick garland not making any surprises and he stayed very close low to the pre-buttal statement and released prior to the hearing. he said one of the big themes of which was i am not the president's attorney. now it's sad that he has to remind american citizens that

because, you know, i think president trump forgot that. he often referred to bill barr as his attorney, the doj as his doj, but merrick garland coming back time and time again to one saying he can't comment on ongoing investigations, and that's justice department policy and he's not going to get into those specifics and two saying that weiss has always had the authority to move forward with whatever prosecutions he wants to and sees fit. i agree with nick that, you know, the report, the moving of weiss from, you know, to a special counsel is going to be, you know, important in that a lot of these questions, a lot of the answers to these questions will come out in that report. >> let's also bring in evan perez to talk more about this. evan, you've been listening, as well and to state the obvious for our very informed viewers who will already know this, this is political theater.

many high-profile hearings are political theater. republicans and democrats, alike, they are known to ask questions that they do not even care to have answers for from whoever is in the hot seat at the time. we are seeing that from republicans here, that's for sure. >> yeah. >> one thing that is interesting is how the cabinet secretary whoever it is of the day and specifically here, merrick garland himself how they react and how they handle the barrage of questions coming at them. what do you see in merrick garland's responses so far? he came out of the gate himself really speaking directly to the questions that have been coming at the department about a two-tiered system of justice. >> yeah, look, kate. a lot of hearings are about the sound bites of the members and they know it will be played on conservative radio and television and that's the point why they ask these questions and

they send them out right after the hearing to show how much they're yelling at the attorney general. what you are seeing from merrick garland is perhaps a little more forceful response than we have seen from him and here today, one of the things that he's been very insistent on is defending his people from some of the attacks because one of the things and you know this watching so many hearings on capitol hill when they go after the cabinet secretary or they go after senior-level officials. one of the interesting things or one of the deplorable things that has happened lately, though is you see members going after lower level people, agents by name and bringing them in, hauling them in for testimony, denying them the right to have their own lawyer in the room. that's what's been happening in some of the recent investigations, and what you heard from merrick garland where

he says singling out career public service who are just doing their job is just dangerous is something that what he's doing is he's speaking to some of his own people at the justice department, at the fbi who are getting these threats. one of the things we've seen recently is that the justice department is redacting the names of agents in some court documents simply because they know what will happen is the names that will be put out there on the former president's social media platform and other social media platforms and then they'll get a barrage of attacks and threats and that's very, very dangerous. we've seen it time and time again in the last year or so, and so i think what you're seeing there from the attorney general is a bit of a forceful pushback at members of congress saying hey, you have to be careful with what you're doing because it's okay to go after me and to go after senior level people, but some of these people are just carrying out their duties and they're just doing their jobs and they don't deserve that. >> yeah. words literally lead to action in some of this regard and

that's the danger here in what we're talking about. evan, stick around. >> i do want to go to sound that you heard that talks about these threats. he was asked from nadler about the dangers that have been caused to the agents, the folks that work and here is what garland said. >>. singling out individual, career public servants who are just doing their jobs is dangerous particularly at a time to the safety of public servants and their families. we will not be intimidated. >> he said we will not be intimidated and we will not back down from defending our democracy. when you hear words like that coming from the attorney general who talked about why he was so thankful to be in the position he was because of his family's experience, what does it tell

you about where we are right now when it comes to this sort of legal process and this committee itself going after him in this way. >> well, it's obviously sad to have to get to this point. his testimony was very heartfelt and very moving in the beginning and then jim jordan just got right in there with these -- with the sound bites and the political theater aspect of it. i think merrick garland held his own. he's always been right down the middle playing it safe and playing it cool and you didn't see much deviation and he got repetitive in his questioning, but he did a fantastic job. >> we're seeing jim jordan sit down and this could start at any moment. i wonder what you can explain what it is that the republicans were trying to get? they were looking for a gotcha moment, and i know a lot of what they're after is to be able to have their questions replayed. >> the d.c. -- >> what is it exactly that they

were trying to imply in some cases because it might be hard for those to follow for those not in the intrick asses of the hunter biden investigation. >> the political appointees at the justice department were interfering in this hunter biden investigation and this is going to be a big feature, guys, in the coming weeks as they pursue their effort to impeach the sitting president and president biden. and what you will hear in the coming weeks are what they believe are examples that they've gotten from testimony from some of these whistle blowers and others will look at documents and so on and what they want to hone in on is this idea that political interfere sense what made the difference in this investigation. >> evan, let me jump in because i want to make sure you make the point before we jump into the hearing. >> hunter biden is facing more charges right now. does that not take away some of

the fire behind what they're trying to figure out? >> it's almost as if this was scripted, right? look, they were intent on going here no matter what happened in this investigation, and i think that's what you're getting across right now in these questions. >> yeah. >> it looks like it is about to start up again. let's listen in. all right. maybe they're not. nick, did they -- if that was what they were after did any of it land based on what they asked? sorry, here we go. >> the chairman asking questions and not wanting answers. >> five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, attorney general garland, groea to see you, thank you for your service to the nation. the republicans have no answer

for why they want to focus and obsess on hunter biden receiving $2 million from burisma after serving on a board that he said he was not qualified to serve on, but yet the saudi arabians gave $2 billion to jared kushner who conducted middle east strategy for his dear old dad, donald trump. he got $2 billion for something that he is not equipped to do which is investment banking. so republicans looking at hunter biden instead of -- instead of jared kushner, americans don't understand how that could be, and they also are increasingly alarmed about the fact that the republicans in control of the house only seem to have three

objectives. one is to impeach joe biden. number two is to shut down, and is to impeach or get rid of kevin mccarthy, actually and the third is to shut down government and the subset of that is to defund the doj and the fbi for trying to hold donald trump accountable. so the american people are watching that and they also appreciate the fact that you've had a distinguished career as a prosecutor and a doj official as well as 24 years on the bench. you served on the second highest court of the land as a judge for 24 years, the d.c. circuit court of appeals and we appreciate your service. you were, for serve years the

lead -- you were the -- you managed that entire office. we thank you for that. you also served on the judicial counsel for a number of years. so you are steeped in the rule of law. you are a judge extraordinaire, and as a judge, you never had the occasion to receive a private jet travel to an exotic location by corporate billionaire, did you? >> you've got your mike on. >> no. >> you never received an offer to get a ride on a private jet? >> no. >> did you take any vacations at exclusive resorts paid for by a billionaire? >> i know these are not hypothetical questions, and i think this is really not within

my realm. of course. >> you were a judge extraordinaire and you know the rules of ethics for judges because your bench had to -- was covered by a code of conduct, is that not correct? >> all of the judges are federal, appellate and district judges are covered by the code of conduct. >> you would never have had someone pay for your godson's tuition to a private school? >> i don't want to answer these kind of hypothetic -- >> to me they're hypothetical questions and what i would say is that i was always as a judge -- and i said this quite publicly and a long time ago i held myself to the highest standards of ethical responsibility imposed by the code and that's really all i can answer here. >> and it's required that judges and justices avoid even appearances of impropriety,

isn't that correct? >> i know you're asking this both hypothetically and not hypothetically and all i can say is i follow the code of judicial conduct and it includes avoiding appearances, yes, sir. >> let me ask you this question, senator whitehouse and i sent a letter to you alerting you to the fact that we were asking the judicial counsel to refer the matter of clarence thomas being in violation of the ethics and government act to the justice department and after that representative alexandria ocasio-cortez along with myself and others requested that you take that matter up directly. have you responded to either one of those letters and if not, why not, and what action have you taken pursuant to those letters? >> the gentleman may respond. >> i assume that if you sent the letter we have it and i'll speak to the office of legislative

affairs about where it is at this point. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. attorney general, and this may be the reason that it's good for you to leave the chief justice in that group before each of us speak as you would have heard all that. i want to thank you personally for your office and your engagement on camp lejeune and obviously a vast amount of litigation that is one of the many, many jobs that falls at your feet. one of the jobs that falls at our feet here is that we are watchdogs of the executive branch. you have previously said that you are not congress' attorney, and you've said you're not the president's attorney, and i'm assuming that you neither are prosecutor nor are defense attorney and you are neither the president's prosecutor nor defense attorney and that's why

today's investigation really does deal with the fact that if you are not, by definition, the president's prosecutor, but we have an obligation to see whether or not the president or a member of his family or in concert with the president's activities, in fact, need to be overseen, admonished or even prosecuted. and so i have a couple of questions for you and one of them is that you have not said this very much today, but you often say, i cannot comment on that because it's an ongoing information. you very commonly say that it's the policy, be the law, but the policy of the department of justice not po provide the information related to an investigation and that is on track, is that correct? >> i think i've said it's just a policy. i think the letters we sent traced it to the constitutional separation of powers to rule 6e

and the rules of criminal from seed you are, but in general, i'm in accord with what you're saying. >> one of the challenges we face is that just a matter of weeks ago a federal judge found the actions of now special prosecutor to be so outside of what he could have agreed to that he pushed back on a plea settlement and nullified it and sent the u.s. attorney going back. in light of that, don't you think it's appropriate for that portion to be considered, a pre-ongoing investigation and for congress to legitimately look at the activities leading up to that failed plea bargain rather than wait until weeks, months or years from now a case is fully settled? >> so, give me a chance, first, i don't agree with the cha

characterization of what happened in the plea. the district judge performed her obligations under rule 11 to determine whether the parties were in agreement, as to what each had agreed to and determined that they were not. it fell apart, as you know, and there's been another prosecution so that leads to the second thing. mr. weiss is in the midst of an ongoing prosecution on the very matter that you're talking about. >> okay. mr. attorney general, if we believe and we do at least on this side of the deus, that a pattern of behavior is occurring relative to the investigation of hunt are biden particularly and including while he lived in the vice president's home, while he operated, co-mingled with the vice president and even today as he travels with the president. so in light of that, can you agree that, in fact, it should be reasonable for us to look at a number of items including and one that i want your answer on, and i know we have limited time.

mr. weiss supposedly had this ability to bring a prosecution anywhere. he now explicitly has that ability. however, are you concerned and should we have the right to look into the fact that political appointees in california and in the district of columbia refuse to, in fact, cooperate with him in those invest -- in an investigation that he was charged with doing in delaware, but which flowed over into their jurisdictions? isn't that, in fact, an example where those political appointees of the now-president that their decision not to cooperate with him creates at least an appearance of political interference with the investigation of the president's son and possibly activities related to the president? >> i'm happy to answer this question in a hypothetical and not in specifics because i have stayed out of this matter.

in the hypothetical, it is the normal process of the department that if a u.s. attorney in one district wants to bring that case to another they go to the other district and consult if it's appropriate and they determine what the policies are in that district and what the practices have been in that district and what the judges are like in that district, but a u.s. attorney in another district does not have the authority to deny, another u.s. attorney the ability to go forward, and i have assured mr. weiss that he would have the authority one way or the other, and i think mr. weiss' letters completely reflect that. >> thank you. to be continued. >> the time of the gentleman has been expired and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> welcome, attorney general, and thank you for leeting the department with such integrity. the count country is about to go through a great trial. by this, i do not mean any of

the trials of the former president and we are a nation of laws committed to the rule of law and that no one is above the law. it is the proposition well known around the world because it is the one essential ingredient in all democracies. we have all professed our belief in this principle, but it has never been truly tested, not like it is today. in this committee we are engaged in a portion of that trial. the chairman would abuse the power of the committee by trying to interfere in the prosecutions of donald trump, by trying to use the committee's power of subpoena to compel criminal discovery and in pafact, making the committee a criminal defense firm for the president. the committee would establish a different proposition. through mr. jordan's actions he would establish that the rule of law should apply to almost anyone, just not the leader of his party. according to this alternate proposition, if you were the

president of the united states and you lose your reelection you can violate the law and constitution to try to stay in power and if you are successful, well, then maybe you get to be president for life. and if you fail, there is no repercussion. this proposition is also well known to the world, and it is called dictatorship. mr. jordan hopes to camouflage his assault on the rule of law by falsely claiming that donald trump is the victim of unequal justice and hunter biden is beneficiary. it is a claim as transparently political as it is devoid of any factual basis, and it is cynical based on the belief that the american people cannot discern fact from fiction. but i am betting on america. history has shown that those who bet against her are rarely successful and more often end up covered with shame. i believe in the rule of law, and i thank you, mr. attorney general for defending it.

let me now turn to some of the false claims asserted by the former president and some on this committee. on sunday the former president appeared on a national news sunday program and was asked about four indictments and a 91 counts facing him. his response was biden indictments. excuse me, biden political indictments. he said to the attorney general -- he said to the attorney general indict him. mr. attorney general, i want to give you a chance to respond. was the president telling the truth or was he lying when he said that president biden told you to indict him? >> no one has told me to indict and in this case the decision to indict was made by the special counsel. >> so that statement the president made on sunday was false? >> just going to say again that no one has told me who should be

indicted in any matter like this and the decision about indictment was made by mr. smith. >> let me ask you this question about the prosecution of hunter biden. the prosecutor in that case, mr. weiss was appointed not by joe biden, but he was appointed in the first instance by donald trump, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and he was continued in that position, was he not? >> he was continued in that position. yes. >> mr. attorney general, can you imagine -- can you imagine the human cry you would hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if you had removed him from that position? can you imagine the claims that you had removed a prosecutor who was diligently investigating hunter biden? can you imagine the outrage they would have expresseded? >> i can say that during my con confirmation hearing discussed with many senators on that side

of the aisle their desire and actual insistence that mr. weiss be continued to have responsibility for that matter, and i promised and i said at my confirmation hearing that he would be permitted to stay, that i would not interfere. >> and mr. attorney general, that was exactly the right decision. that was the right decision to give the american people the confidence that even a prosecutor chosen by the former president would continue in the investigation into the son of the current president. that was exactly the right decision. exactly the right decision, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have been screaming if it were otherwise, but their attack on you is completely devoid of fooact, of principle, and i appreciate you doing the right thing for the department of justice and more importantly the right thing for

the american people. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. >> attorney general garland, elon musk was a democrat who admittedly supported biden and then he became a critic of the administration and exposed the censorship regime. now per public reports the doj has opened not one, but two investigations of elon musk. mark zuckerberg, on the other hand, spent $400 million in 2020 tilting the elections, secretly for democrats. no investigations whatsoever. to the american public, these look like mafia tactics. you pay and your money and we look the other way. you get in our way, we punish you. the american public sees what these tactics are. i want to direct your attention to a video here that we're going to play. >> obviously that's a significant maetter and it is a ongoing criminal investigation and i'm not going to comment on

an ongoing criminal investigation. >> were those pipe bombs operable? >> it's an ongoing criminal investigation and i cannot comment. >> we know this is a very active, ongoing investigation and there are some restrictions on that. >> yes. we can handle classified information and we fund your department and so you need to provide that. >> it's not -- respectfully, it's not an issue of classification. it's an issue of commenting on ongoing, criminal investigations which is something by longstanding department of approximately see we are restricted in doing it. the last administration strengthened those policies. >> that's not our policy, though and we fund you, so let's move on. >> i'm not going to violate this rule of law, and imf not going to comment that's ongoing. >> peter navarro was indicted

for contempt of congress, aren't you in fact in contempt of congress when you give us this answer? this is an vanswer that's appropriate at a press conference. we are the committee that is responsible for your creation, for your existence of your department. you cannot continue to give us these answers. aren't you, in fact in contempt of congress when you refuse to answer? >> congressman, i have the greatest respect for congress and i have great respect for the constitution and laws of the united states. the protection of pending investigations and ongoing investigations as i briefly discussed in another dialogue a few moments ago goes back to the separation of powers which gives to the executive branch, the sole authority to conduct prosecutions. it's our requirement of due process and respect for those who are under investigation and the protection of their civil rights. >> well, with all due respect -- >> with all due respect to that,

iran-contra was an ongoing investigation, and that didn't stop congress from getting the answers. you're getting in the way of our constitutional duty. you're citing the constitution and i'm going to cite it. it's our constitutional duty to do oversight. on that video that was your answer to a question to me two years ago when i said how many agents that were assets of the government were on january 6th and agitating the crowd and how many went into the capitol? can you answer that now? >> i don't know the answer to that question? >> last time you don't know how many there were or there were none? >> i don't know the answer to either of those questions if there were any, i don't know how many. i don't know whether there are any. >> i think you may have just perjured yourself that you don't know that there were any? you want to say >> i have no personal knowledge of this matter. i think what i said the last time -- >> you have had two years to find out, by the way, that was

in reference and yesterday you indicted him. isn't that a wonderful coincidence? on a misdemeanor. meanwhile you're sending grandmas to prison. you're putting people away for 20 years for filming. some people weren't even there yet you have the guy saying go into the capitol. he's directing people to the cap capitol. he's at the site of the first breach. you have all the goods on him. ten videos and it's an indictment for a misdemeanor. the american public suspect buying it. i yield the balance of my time to jordan. >> may i answer the question? >> i'm go to ask one now. we'll let the gentleman. >> in discovery in the cases that were filed in respect to january 6th, the justice department and prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking with respect to

that, the fbi has said he's not an employee or informant of the fbi. mr. epps has been charged and there's a proceeding, i believe, going on today on that subject. >> the charge is a joke. i yield to the chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> mr. attorney general, my colleague just said that you should be held in contempt of congress. and that is quite rich because the guy who is lead ing the hearing room right now is about 500 days into evading his subpoena. about 500 days. so if we're going to talk about contempt of congress, let's get real. are you serious that jim jordan, a witness to one of the greatest crimes ever committed in america, where more prosecutors have occurred than any time krooim committed refuse to ep

help this country ask we're going to get lectured about subpoena compliance? jim jordan won't even honor a lawful subpoena? are you kidding me within? there's no credibility on that side. mr. attorney general, you are serious, they are not. you are decent, they are not. you are fair, they are not. so i welcome you to the law firm of insurrection llp, where they work every single day on behalf of one client, donald trump. they do that at the expense of millions of americans who need the government to stay open, who want the their kids safe in schools and like to see ukraine stay in the fight. that's the expense this nonsense, this clown show, accept they have real speedometers that affect real americans. it's the difference between one side that believes in governing and one side that believes in ruling.

you have tried to comply with the committee, in fact, last week one of your special agents came here for an interview, brought his lawyer and was told that he couldn't have his lawyer present. mr. jordan, who tells all of us he knows so much about the institution wouldn't afford one of your employees with the basic constitutional rights to have a lawyer present. in fact, they threaten to call the police and arrest a lawyer, are you familiar with that? >> generally, yes. >> your office sent a letter details that you were willing to comply, and i'd like to submit that to the record with anonymous consent. >> without objection. >> who appointed mr. weiss? >> mr. trump was the last person who appointed mr. weiss to the position of u.s. attorney. i appointed him to the poshl of special counsel. >> who appointed john durham? >> i believe also appointed by

president trump. and mr. barr appointed him to special counsel. >> these guys are so upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors aren't doing enough of the corruption that donald trump wants him to do. so either they are just following the law or they are not as corrupt and they are not willing to go as far as they think donald trump deserves. that's what they are asking to happen here. doesn't it seem they want the it both ways? a lot of questions suggested that the special counsel should be independent, but when they didn't like the direction of the special counsel, you were asked why you didn't interfere more or investigate more. did you get that sense that you're stuck here? >> when they amake the appointment, the prosecutor, the

appointment is without respect in what the outcomes of the case will be. >> your office has made a number of reforms to 702, targeting foreign nationals. but those are forms have not been put into law. 702 is also one of best weapons we have to go after fentanyl. can you tell us if you would support putting some of those reforms into law so we don't have to live administration to administration to see if they are going to be followed? >> section 702 provides us with the greatest -- the justice department every morning the greatest amount of intelligence that we receive about dangerous threats to the united states. >> from foreign nationals? >> from foreign nationals. i'm quite aware and sensitive to civil liberties concerns with respect to the queries. and for that reason, i put into place and extended some thoefz

at the end of term and those have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of queries and a dramatic reduction in the number of noncompliant inquiries. i believe those are appropriate reforms. and codifying them. and thank you for coming and doing something that the chairman is unwilling to do. testify to congress. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chairman recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. >> attorney general, on august 11th, 2023, you appointed mr. david weiss u.s. attorney for the district of delaware as special counsel overseeing the investigation of hunter biden. i don't think the question has been asked yet, why did you choose to appoint him as special counsel? >> the explanation was given to the extent i am permitted to give an explanation is the one i gave and sent to the congress, which is that mr. weiss requested it.

i promised to give him all the resources this he needed. to reach the stage of the investigation it would be appropriate. and i thought the public interest would be served to make him special counsel. >> who recommended him? how was it brugt to you or presented to you that this would be the best person to be the special counsel? >> i'm not going to get into internal discussions. mr. weiss asked that he be appointed as special counsel. and i granted that request and made him special counsel, but i'm not going to get into internal deliberations. >> you have had no discussions with the white house and certainly the president in regards to that. is that accurate? >> of course. >> suggestions that came from other level of government? >> nothing came from the white house. >> so on august 20 of 2023, "the

washington post" article claimed that mr. weiss work ed with hunter biden and beau biden. were you aware there was a relationship there with the biden family? >> i'm not familiar with this. i don't know when -- >> they worked together on legal cases in prior years. you were unaware? >> i'm not familiar with that. >> the article would have claim it is would have been inevitable to cross paths in a state like delaware. they knew each other. but you were unaware of this? >> i was unaware of this. attorneys who are in practice certainly get to know people. it's very difficult for attorneys not to get to know attorneys on other sides matters. >> you said previously he had authority over the investigation of the president's son, including prior to his appointment as special counsel. you standby that statement? >> i'm sorry. >> just that there was that the

ultimate authority was still there with mr. weiss to make determinations on that case. >> you mean still as special counsel, yes. >> the buck stopped there. that's been determined. according to whistleblower testimony, mr. weiss' deputy objected to search warrants of the guest house, denied access to a storage unit containing all the documents from the the vacated office of the law firm. is leslie wolf still employed by the department of justice? >> i'm not going to talk about any individuals in the justice department. as i said before, singling out individuals has led to serious threats to their safety. i will say the supervisor of this investigation was mr. weiss. he's responsible for all the decisions that were made. excuse me. many of the things you're saying occurred during the previous administration. i apologize.