but if it will be politically beneficial to them, then they will go down that route. but right now, it doesn't appear happening. >> one at a time. takes on a lot of oxygen out of the room. thanks, guys, for joining us here. thanks for joining "inside politics." much more live coverage of this important hearing. the attorney general under oath answering questions as cnn news central starts right now. "news central" starts right now. forceful review. attorney general merrick garland slapping down republican accusations of political bias in the justice department saying, quote, i am not the president's lawyer. today's contentious hearing, a potential preview of republicans' impeachment inquiry. and you don't know about the boxes. that is what donald trump

reportedly told a close aid to tell investigators at mar-a-lago. what her stunning testimony could mean for the special counsel's case. >> plus, hitting pause. wall street and main street on edge ahead of fed's key decision on interest rates. we're following these sftories and more coming in to cnn "news central." today a house judiciary committee. it is garland's first time testifying on the hill since two federal indictments against former president trump and one against hunter biden. but so far he hasn't said much about those ongoing politically sensitive investigations.

instead, he has forcefully pushed back of political bias within the justice department. >> 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 to criminally investigate. as the president himself has said and i reaffirmed today, i am not the president's lawyer. i will add, i am not congress's prosecutor. >> cnn justice correspondent jessica snyder is tracking this for us. we have heard a lot of tense exchanges. have we learned anything new? >> really, you saw in that opening, we are seeing merrick garland a bit more forceful here than in previous hearings. he is trying to hammer home or insist that he, nor anyone at the justice department has interfered in the special

counsel investigations, whether it is into the former president or, of course, the current president's son hunter biden. and the questions, the accusations, they continue to fly throughout this hearing from republicans because, of course; this is the first time that the attorney general faced congress since the president was indicted twice, the first time he faced congress since hunter biden was indicted on gun charges. here is one exchange where republicans really tried to get information from the attorney general about any communication that he might have had with people involved in hunter biden's case as republicans continue to insist there was interference and, of course, garland insisting there was not. here's the exchange. >> has anyone from the white house provided direction to anyone at any time to you personally or to any senior officials at the doj regarding how the hunter biden investigation was to be carried out? >> no. >> have you had personal contact with anyone at fbi headquarters about the hunter biden

investigation? >> not really. i don't recollect the answer to that question, but the fbi works for the justice department. it's -- >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry. you don't recollect whether you talked with anybody at fbi headquarters about an investigation of 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. >> so you know merrick garland there really trying to toe the line because, of course, he can't disclose anything or talk about any ongoing investigations, which, of course, the special counsel's investigation into the former president is also ongoing. the hunter biden case with the special counsel. so the attorney general trying to forcefully push back, but also he can't talk about these ongoing investigations. and, of course, you know, he leads the justice department, of

which the fbi falls under. so that's why he's really trying to not try to mince words, but he's really trying to toe that line and say there has been no interference, but not being able to talk about specifics, brianna. >> yeah. thank you so much, jess, for keeping an eye on this very fire are hearing for us. boris? >> as we await the resumption of this hearing set to restart at any moment, let's expand the conversation with former fbi director general mcgabe and jed. we saw some fireworks early on. but in terms of substance, has anybody garland said stood out to you, or is this mostly political theater? >> it's very much political theater, i'm afraid. and i have to say that that's not particularly unique. i can tell you from personal experience having testified in front of this committee before, the house judiciary committee,

it is very different from the senate side. it has a reputation for being free willing and aggressive. it is a lot of members typically in the room at the same time. so you expect a pretty wild, you know, broad range of questions on all kinds of things. that being said, ag garland has a very, very narrow area in which we can -- he can move today. he cannot and clearly will not discuss any of the cases that he's getting many questions about, most notably the hunter biden investigation. ongoing investigations have always been beyond the scope of anything the department will discuss. i think he's done an admirable job in holding that line, but he's taking a lot of punches along the way. he has clearly made a decision to be more forceful and speak up in defense of the men and women of the department and the fbi. i think that's a great decision. and i'm sure the workforces appreciate that deeply. >> and some of the punches that you eluded to came from

republicans making claims about special counsel david weiss, specifically his autonomy over the hunter biden probe. i'm wondering how those claims and the perception they're being received with could impact the work of the special counsel. >> yeah. so i think, again, you know, he's -- garland has very little that he can do here. and ironically, the things that they would love to criticism him about, those are the sorts of answers they're trying to lure him into. he's been daft at maintaining he has not interfered in the investigation. he has given david weiss all the resources he needs to make his decisions. they don't seem willing to accept that answer, even though they would be the first time to criticize him for saying or doing anything other than that. i would guess that the folks that are working with and for mr. weiss right now on this investigation are pleased by the fact that the attorney general

is not only staying out of their work on a day-to-day basis, but maintaining to congress that he is not interfering with what they do. those folks know whether or not their work is being interfered with. whether or not david weiss, they think he's doing a good job or a bad job or being aggressive or not aggressive enough. that's something that every person on that team has a personal opinion about that. but it seems pretty clear, at least at the top levels of the justice department, the attorney general and his staff are not interfering in that case. that's what the ag has said repeatedly today. >> jeff, on the question of public perception, on the politics of this, a recent poll showed that 55% of americans think president biden acted inappropriately in the investigation into his son hunter. so far has this hearing provided anything that might move those numbers? >> it's hard to imagine that it would. i mean, people's views are baked in depending on how you look at this. this has been a partisan hearing, obviously.

no surprise a political theater on both sides. but, look, the attorney general has been trying to walk this line, and he is being, you know, blasted by republicans and also democrats aren't thrilled with him or thrilled with the idea, not necessarily of him, but thrilled with the idea that hunter biden, the investigation carrying on. but, look, there hasn't been anything of substance that has revealed that would change those numbers, i think. but this adds to the discomfort at the white house over this entire situation. they have tried to not talk about it and keep an arm's length from this. but the -- it's going to, you know, be a sound track of this presidential campaign regardless. >> on that note, being a sound track to the political campaign as we head into 2024, did you see any sort of gotcha moment that you anticipate republicans might use in a campaign ad? >> it's hard to imagine. they may use system. it is hard to imagine anything that would move the needle.

merrick garland has testified obviously before many congressional hearings. and he hasn't said very much. he can't say very much. so i think he has patiently sort of listened and taken his grilling and his beating in some respects. >> please standby because we're going to continue following this hearing. we do want to bring you some news just into cnn. special counsel david weiss suz hunter biden should be required to attend his first court appearance on gun charges to promote the public's confidence that he is receiving no special treatment. let's get the latest. what more did special counsel weiss have to say? >> so weiss' office is saying that hunter biden should have to show up in court in delaware when he has his first appearance on these felony gun charges. the reason they're saying this is to show the public that he's not getting any special treatment and that this is -- this is essentially a matter that he should be treated just

like any other defendant. so in their filing to the judge they write an in person hearing is important to promote the public's confidence in this district and in other districts. moreover, the previous arraignment held in connection with this matter was anything but routine because he was not prepared to answer the questions. they had to take several recesses as both hunter biden's team and weiss' team tried to work out issues relating to his plea deal. and ultimately, the judge did not approve a plea deal or a deal on gun possession because she wasn't satisfied with it. biden's lawyers are saying he could do this via a video link or remotely because they're saying he's going to enter a plea of not guilty. this shouldn't take up too much fine. they are saying there are other defendants that have been able to do this by video link and it is an issue for secret service and u.s. marshalls.

but weiss pushing back saying those that didn't show up were either injured or too poor. saying secret service has worked with u.s. marshalls in many jurisdictions and it hasn't been a problem. >> thanks so much for the update. new developments in two criminal investigations of former president trump. a short time ago, the district attorney revealing the pro-trump attorney lynn wood is now, quote, a witness for the state. this is a remarkable turn-around from trump's most vocal supporters. and there are new reports on his alleged mishandling of classified documents at mar-a-lago. abc news and the new york sometimes reporting that molly michael says the former president told her to play dumb about classified material that was stowed away at his florida estate. she says that trump told her, quote, you don't know anything about the boxes. joining us now is cnn legal

analyst michael moore. he's a former u.s. attorney and partner in atlanta. big developments here, but let's begin with lynn wood becoming a state witness. how significant is this in the georgia case against trump? >> well, i'm glad to be with you. it could be significant. what we know really is that he's listed as a witness on the state's disclosure, and they're required to do that to give their discovery paperwork that they have to turn over to each defendant in any case, not just this case a list of what they expect to testify and put up in their case-in-chief, that is their case to prove the allegations that they brought. we don't know if he is simply been sort of an sintegral part f the discussion. they intend to put him on the stand and use him if they have to. but it is significant. it is always significant to see lawyers and former lawyers end

up in cases against the interest of potentially former clients. >> so then how do you think about this in terms of being a state witness, cooperation, having pertinent information? what is the appropriate language to use this? >> well, i mean, right now he's simply listed as a witness for the state. you know, you can have people in housekeeping matters administrative matters also listed as witnesses for the state. we just don't have full disclosure yet about what his role may be. i expect at some point if, in fact, he's cooperating and there has been a deal reached or he's reached some promise to not be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony, he has to turn that over to the defendants and learn more about it as we go forward. again, it is an interesting fact and significant as we see his name appear on the state witness list, we just don't know the extent. but i think probably the breaking news of the day is,

yes, he is there. but i think there is another shoe to drop. and that is to what extent will he be involved also in the trial of this case. they're claiming there is 150 witnesses they have to put forward. each one of those witnesses is not going to have necessarily the silver bullet in the trial of these defendants, and we don't know yet if maybe he's holding the silver bullet or if he's just an empty cartridge. we will find out as discovery is turned over in preparation for trial. >> turning back to molly michael, the ex-assistant to trump and her claim that trump asked her to play dumb to investigators, trump has already been indicted. actually, michael, if you could just pause with us for just a moment this hearing on capitol hill with merrick garland on the house judiciary committee has started once again. let's listen in. >> do you have any prosecutorial quotas in place? >> no, no.

>> i mean, it is not policy. >> correct, we do not have quotas. >> right. and so would it be consistent with that when you have a prosecutor who said that he wants to prosecute at least 2,000 people who are alleged to have committed a certain type of crime. >> so, look, i think they're referring to the january 6th question. >> i'm just asking you would that be consistent with your office's policy if somebody said we're going to get up to 2,000 people on a particular crime. is that consistent with your policy? >> i think what that was referring to was a prediction of how many more cases would be brought because the court had asked how many more people -- >> you filed a letter with the court saying we are looking at 2,000. we have 1,200 more we will look to get. you're not saying, we want so

many people for tax fraud, federal firearms applications. >> if the court asks us what the likely workload will be based on prosecutions and investigations that are pending, the u.s. attorney is obligated to respond. >> do you guys provide any reference of the number of people you thought you would prosecute who are involved in the 2020 summer riots of the burning of the portland courthouse while there were still people inside the courthouses. you didn't file with the court to say, oh, we think we will have another 300 or 400, whatever it may be because you didn't file those charges, did you? >> i'm sorry. i'm not following. >> i'm sure you're not. >> the number that you are asking about -- >> let me ask you this question. >> the question the court had asked. >> let me ask you this. it may be easier to follow, i suppose. is it the policy of the doj to provide advanced notice to subjects before conducting a search for evidence? >> it totally depends on the

circumstances. >> if the circumstance were that you had a guest house where the u.s. attorney, deputy u.s. attorney saying, well, we suspect there is a lot of evidence there, but we're not going to -- we're not going to really follow that up. we will enclose the attorney from the other side saying we're going to do a search warrant, would that be consistent with your policy? >> again, i know this is no hypothetical, and i don't know the facts of this case and i don't know what happened. and i believe the events you are talking about, as reported in the press occurred under the previous administration. >> no, no, no. no. that event didn't happen under the previous administration. let's talk about that. you keep saying this happened under the previous administration. but let's talk about this for just a moment. you keep saying i don't know what happened there, but i will opine when it happened. do you see the fallacy there? i don't know what happened

because i'm not involved, but it happened under the previous administration. that's so logically fallacious. >> i'm sorry. i'm not following. >> yeah, i know you are not following. so the question is you've got one of your deputy u.s. attorneys calling the attorney on the other side saying, look, there is -- we're going to go to these two places, probably go in the next couple of days and, of course, then ultimately the search warrant is called off. ask that consistent to call off people when you have boxes of information. that's why you got the warrant. that's why you will look. and you give them a head's up. would that be consistent with doj policy? >> i will say again you're asking me to comment about allegations in a particular case -- >> no, i'm not. i'm asking is that consistent with your overall policy? forget delaware and what they

did and that they did that. let's just talk about generic policy. >> i'm sorry. i thought you were talking about mar-a-lago. i may have misunderstood. >> yeah. is it your policy, is that acceptable when you suspect that there are movable items to call up and say we're going to be there to look? >> yeah. there is no policy on this question. the strategy and tactics to be used to preserve evidence are left up to the investigators and offices on the ground. sometimes it can be a serious mistake to call up. sometimes not. >> and here once again, you don't know what happened in the hunter biden case because that's somebody else is doing it. but you can be sure of the timing of when all this took place. that is one of the biggest oddities of your testimony today. i yield back to the gentleman from colorado. >> gentleman's time has expired.

the chair recognizes the gentle lady from pennsylvania. >> thank you for your decades of service to our country, to our constitution and to the rule of law. thank you for putting up with us today. the american people are watching. they know what's going on here. this is a gross misuse of your time, your team's time and our time. it is a shameful circus. it has a goal. the goal is to spew lies and disinformation. ultimately to tear away at the confidence of our independent institutions in your case today our very important department of justice. that's the exact m.o. of a former president. tear away at the confidence of our independent institutions, whether it is our electorate system, the department of justice and independent news media. the american people are watching this sham. but it's not just a circus.

it's dangerous. and you know that, and you have mentioned that. i believe these fictions and fantasies are dangerous. dangerous for you and the 115,000 public servants with whom you work. dangerous for national security. dangerous for community's security. all at the same time of a looming shutdown. the other side of the aisle cannot govern. and so they have this hearing which was supposed to be oversite and use it as a big distraction because they are failing to govern. imagine if you go into the shutdown. what does it say to our service members, u.s. troops who would be training, fighting without pay and without confidence in this country's governing ability. it's a great distraction. so let me pivot to something i care about and i know you and your department cares about.

it is recovery month. and for families like mine with a member in recovery, every month is recovery month. so i thank you for what you are doing on the fentanyl crisis, the overdose crisis that has claimed 110,000 lives in a single 12-month period. 300 souls a day every day. souls who have died while we are in this hearing every day. what is the department doing to -- to combat the trafficking, to combat the amount of fentanyl on the ground. as dea has said there is enough fentanyl on the ground to kill this entire population multiple times over. fell us about your important work in fentanyl. >> let me begin by saying i share your personal concern and grief over this. i have met with the families of children, of teenagers, elderly

people who have become addicted to fentanyl and who have died from fentanyl. everything you are saying is correct and it's a catastrophe for the country. so as a consequence, the justice department has poured its resources, particularly from dea with fbi assistance as well and with fugitive arrests by the marshall service and with gun tracing by the atf into this entire process by which fentanyl reaches the united states. so we have sanctioned the precursor companies in china. we have indicted some of them for their violations. we have arrested some as far off as in fiji and brought them back to the united states. we have traced the precursors to mexico where they are made into the fentanyl pills, fentanyl

costs about ten cents to make. it can be sold in the street of the united states between $10 and $30. you can see what the enormous profit motive is here. so we must stop the cartels themselves. i have, as i said, traveled to mexico twice in order to work with our counter parts in the military and law enforcement there. >> i thank you for all of that. i want to do anything i can to partner with you on this issue so that we stop losing people. i traveled recently with the foreign affairs committee and met with the extraordinary folks, the top prosecutor and his able team. they were very complimentary of the department of justice and your work. can you tell us about your important role or america's important role in war crimes, especially in light of your powerful history? >> yes. i'm happy to. so i have traveled to ukraine twice and to meet with the

prosecutor general there and i'm going to meet with him this week here. he has met with me several times here. the justice department is pursuing war crimes from russia's unlawful and unjust invasion in ukraine to help investigate war crimes over which we have jurisdiction, to help the prosecutor general in ukraine investigate those prosecutions. i was, i believe, the first cabinet ever to visit the international court of justice and to meet with khan, a chief prosecutor to talk about our cooperation in respect to the investigations that they are doing. i have assigned a justice department prosecutor to the investigatory body that's been set up for the crime of aggression, and she is there now working with the icc and with

them. and i have assigned a prosecutor with the embassy in kyiv to work with our ambassador there. >> i thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing that answer to go on because it is critically important. america is indispensable and your work is indispensable. thank you, sir. >> the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> mr. attorney general, do you support the consent decree that i believe was put in place in the city of minneapolis? >> i'm sorry. do i support the -- >> the consent decree put in place with the police department of minneapolis. >> the one put in place by the federal government? yes. >> yes. >> do you support fewer cops on the street? >> do i support -- >> fewer cops on the street. >> no. >> that's what's happening as a result of what's happened. >> i don't think that's a

consequence of the consent decree. they have been losing police officers for many years. >> do you support more crime? >> do i support more crime? >> yeah. >> no, i don't. >> so there was just a hearing in minnesota, a suburb of minneapolis just, i think, this last week where they were just -- they're beside themselves with the amount of crime that continues in minneapolis since the riots of 2020. and i would point out to you that i had an officer in my district. i live right across the border in wisconsin. or that's where my district begins. a police officer was shot to death as a result of a weak on crime prosecutor in saint paul in minneapolis, minnesota. the guy served only four years for a violent crime. do you think that that's a problem? >> an officer was shot to death? that is certainly not an appropriate sentence. that's outrageous.

let me be clear. we are doing everything we can to assist minneapolis. we have an aggressive district attorney who brought rico cases and has been successful. >> i have a short amount of time here. >> i'm sorry. >> why do you think there is so much fentanyl coming into the country? >> because it costs ten cents to make and it can be sold for $30. >> so a sheriff from arizona sat right where you were at and under oath he said the reason there is such a drastic increase in fentanyl coming into the country is because on january 20th of 2021 open borders policies were announced by president biden. have you expressed concern about those open borders policies that have led to this rapid increase in the amount of fentanyl coming in to our country? >> i can't associate myself with the conclusion reached by the sheriff.

although, i can certainly commiserate with the concerns -- >> so the sheriff is incorrect? >> look, the cartels in mexico are bringing this -- are causing this drug to be transmitted into the united states, and we were doing everything we can to eliminate that incentive. >> yeah. you're not going to do it doing that. mr. chairman, just so we're real clear here, this is the same answer we received a couple months ago when she was in denial about one of the most reputable sheriffs you will find in the united states sitting down there on that southern border. he sees it every day. he saw it working in 2020 because he told me when i was down there. and now he says, it is not working and it started january 20th of 2021. you can pretend that you're dealing with fentanyl. you're not. because the borders are wide open. do you believe -- i'm going to shift to combatting gun violence. do you believe that a prohibited

person that acquires a gun illegally and disposes of it in a dumpster where a criminal or innocent child could gain access to it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? >> this is no longer a hypothetical question. you are referring to a specific case, which is now in judicial determination before a court of law. it is not appropriate for me to comment on that case. >> so, for the record, mr. chairman, let's understand that the same prosecuting attorney who is now the special counsel gave a sweetheart deal to that person. and, yes, you are correct. we are referring to the president's son. he got a sweetheart deal, and the judge was smart enough to smell a rat when she saw it and she said, you guys go back to the drawing board. that same special counsel is in charge of this investigation. isn't that correct, mr. chairman?

absolutely. i want to close real quickly with this. there was a world naked bike ride in madison, wisconsin a couple months ago. i sent you a letter two months ago asking if you had a problem with that because it exposed a ten-year-old girl by the race organizer, the bike organizers to peddling around madison, wisconsin naked. do you think that's a problem? and why did you not answer our letter from two months ago? >> i'm sorry. i will have to get the office of legislative affairs to get back to you about this. >> does it take two months? >> it sounds like you are asking about a question about state and local law enforcement. we get hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of letters. i'll ask the office of legislative affairs where that is. >> state and local law enforcement will not fact.

it's obvious you will not. i yield. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you again, mr. attorney general for joining us and for your patience with this questions. i'm honored to represent a diverse community in north carolina. wake county has worked to welcome people of all backgrounds, ethnicities and religions. the growth and success of my district and the research triangle park depends on our commitment to celebrating the many cultures that contribute to our community. unfortunately, over the past few years, these varied communities that contributed so much to my state and my district have found themselves under attack. jewish leaders in my district have received threats to themselves and their synagogues as recently as last month. hbcus across our state have locked down in response to bomb

threats. asian americans in north carolina and throughout the country have found themselves facing slurs and threats spurred in large part by the racialized language of the covid-19 pandemic. the southern poverty law center reported in late 2020 that the number of white nationalist groups grew 55% between 2017 and 2019, noting that the rise in hate-based attacks coincides with the growth of the white nationalist movement and the anti-defamation league relatedly found that white supremacists propaganda incidents occurred over 14 times per day on average in 2020 with a total of 5,125 reported cases. nearly twice the number of cases reported in 2019 and the highest number the adl has recorded.

this dangerous trend has continued in the last few years and has recently included as active clubs have been increasing in their number and prominence. these active clubs started popping up in late 2020 and are a network of white nationalist groups that see themselves as fighters in training for an ongoing war against a system they claim is deliberately plotting against the white house. as attorney general, i am deeply interested and concerned about the rise of these clubs, threats of violence and actual violence and wanted to know if you're familiar with these activities and what your department is doing to counter act them. >> so i'm not familiar with the specifics of those clubs, and i will certainly look into what the defendant has been doing in that respect.

very soon after i came in to the department, i saw the spike in hate crime threats that were being made an actual acts of violence. i directed the department to develop a strategy for responding to that. 30 days later, that was pretty much coincident with congress' passage of the covid no hate act. and we have now fulfilled, i think, all of the obligations under that act. we have task forces set up to investigate and prosecute hate crimes both as hate crimes and where they satisfy the requirements as domestic violence extremism or as domestic terrorism. we have brought dozens of cases against people who have made these threats as well as in particular those who have attempted to carry them out.

and as you know, we have a prosecution pending in buffalo with respect to the horrendous killing of black americans in the tops grocery store by an avowed white supremacist. >> thank you very much. and thank you for your efforts in this regard. on a different subject with my last 45 seconds, north carolina also saw the impact of cyber crimes with the colonial pipeline. >> yes. >> and i'd like to know how your office is counter acting any cyber attacks and dealing with people who perpetrate them. >> yes. so we are vigilant to the risk of these kind of cyber attacks. in that case, these were criminal gangs affiliated in russia, resident in russia. fortunately we had available intelligence from section 702, which we were discussing earlier

today. i have to say that's one of the principal sources of our ability to fight these cyber attacks. whether they are criminal or launched by nation states, whether they are attempting to get ransom ware and create ransom or also trying to exfiltrate our information or whether they're trying to prevent our computers from working at all. the justice department has established a cyber task force for this purpose, a ransom ware task force, and we are recently working on crypto currency in exactly the same way. >> time has expired. we have to move quickly. >> thank you. i yield back. >> because we have votes and we have a majority conference. >> i thank the chairman. welcome. and my friend and colleague from colorado outlined your biography

i thought very well. but he left out two points i want to mention. one is not only did you lead the prosecution of the oklahoma city bombing case, but in that case, the death penalty was asked for and actually received. and timothy mcvay was executed. not exactly a democratic priority to seek the death penalty, but you did so because of the rule of law. you did so because of the facts and the law demanded you do so. and you followed the facts and the law in that situation. the other issue i wanted or example in your bioi wanted to point out is my understanding that in your conference room, you have a port rat of elliot richardson. he demanded that the department of justice stay independent from the nixon administration. he had the backbone to stand up to the president of the united states and make sure that the

department of justice would not become the government's lawyer. you put that portrait there soon after you became attorney general because it was a signal. it was a signal to the world that you wanted to be known in the same way that others that had come before you were known. frankly, one of the reasons i respect attorney general barr so much is because after january 6th he made the very difficult decision to walk into the president's office and say the election was not stolen. we looked at this. for that reason, he resigned before january 20th when power was turned over. but mr. attorney general, you are unable to answer some questions here. but i'll answer them for you. do you know what people would have said if you had asked for u.s. attorney weiss' resignation when you became attorney general? i'm sorry, yeah, u.s. attorney general weiss' resignation. they would have said you were obstructing the hunter biden

administration, that you were firing an appointee so that you could appoint a democrat to slowwalk this investigation and lose the leadership of that investigation. if you had made the same investigation because you were frustrated that the prosecution wasn't moving fast enough, they would have again said you were interfering with the prosecution. if you when u.s. attorney weiss asked to become special counsel, if you had the decision then to appoint someone else to special counsel, people would have criticized you because you have been taking someone out of the investigation that knew the facts, that could lead the investigation and put someone in that could have come up to speed and wouldn't have allowed major decisions to be made until they came up to speed. so in three different opportunities where you could have acted, you could have criticized either way whether you acted or did not act in that situation. far from slow walking, really, once the trump administration

decided that that was the person leading the investigation, your hands were tied. you didn't have the opportunity to make a decision on the leadership of that investigation. but speaking of slow walking, i appreciate your reference in your opening remarks, your win opening remarks to the department of justice strongly supports efforts by congress to promote competition in digital markets by prosing legislation to prohibit dominant i don't know line platforms. apple, amazon, facebook and google are monopolies and they have been harming this country and harming competition in that particular market for years. and congress, for five years, has been investigating and offering bills on that subject. they spent $250 million, according to reports in the last congress to defeat those bills. and now we do nothing in this congress to try to deal with that very serious issue.

in fact, there are efforts, i'm told, over in the senate, and i use the word "effort" and "senate" very carefully in the same sentence, but there are efforts in the senate, s-2321, to take $50 million in funding for the department of justice antitrust division, and there would be an 18% cut and to move that money to the general department of justice operations fund to try to further cripple the efforts that are going on in court. the state attorney generals and the antitrust division and federal trade commission are doing a great job jointly in trying to combat the surge of these monopolies. my question to you is will you make sure that the antitrust division is properly funded so it can continue this very serious effort at stopping these monopolies from harming our children, from harming

competition and from further strengthening china's position in this position. >> yes, i absolutely will. and one of the first things i did and the first budget opportunity we had was to ask for more money from the antitrust division than had been given in quite a long time and to ask for the fees that are paid for purposes of merger analysis being given to the antitrust division directly rather than to go into a general fund. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i will just point out to the record that attorney general barr left the trump administration on december 23rd, 2020, not between january 6th and january 20th, 2021. with that, i recognize the gentle lady -- >> mr. chairman, since he entered a monopoly, could i enter into this record this and their target of a bipartisan bill to target this monopoly.

>> the gentle lady from missouri is recognized. thank you for being here. we are here today to make clear what it means to promote equal justice for every person in this country. attorney general garland, you often speak about your commitment to supporting civil rights and the rule of law. but i have concerns about whether the department under your leadership is doing the absolute most it possibly can to advance these goals. in the limited time i have, i want to share my concerns about specific issues with you directly and to make clear the steps that i believe that the department needs to take. first off, as this hearing has shown, a small number of the defendant's cases get an outside level of attention and politics. but the reality is you preside over most of the federal system of mass incarceration. and every day in courtrooms around the country, including st. louis, prosecutors who ultimately report to you are continuing to disproportionately

prosecute, disproportionately black and brown people before disproportionately low-level immigration and narcotics and firearm offenses. and under your watch, the federal incarceration rate has increased for the first time in nearly a decade. meanwhile, corporate crime enforcement is lower than it was during the trump administration. the department needs to rethink its entire approach to prosecution. but let me also say i thank you for what you are doing with the insurrectionists. and i urge you to take specific steps towards ending mandatory minimums and pros cue toir misconduct waivers, funding federal public defenders, use of clemency power and reporting on disparities in prosecution. i'm deeply concerned about the bureau of prisons. director peters is not doing enough to address the abuse and

mi mismanagement at the bureau. it is shameful that solitary confinement during the biden administration despite the president claiming he supports ending it. we need to see more from the department across the board on bureau of prisons oversight. and you should implement the president's commitment to end solitary confinement once and more while. i'm disheartened that the department has continued to pursue the death penalty. i urge the department to reverse course, including by dismantling the federal death chamber in indiana and advocating for the communation of sentences of everyone on federal death row. i'm also still waiting to see any meaningful progress on the commitments that associate attorney general gupta announced in june '22 around the enforcement of title xi and the

state streets acts. i'm going on and on, but i'm taking my time. i'd also like an update on when the department will respond to the overnight committee democrats and letter from june 2021 about the memo issued by the trump administration's office of legal counsel concerning the equal rights amendment. that deeply flawed memo is preventing the archivist from publishing the equal rights amendment as the 28th amend. . i know that olc issued a clarification after you took office, but the wording was not a clear refeuduation. i urge you to fully withdraw the trump memo which is basically obstructing constitutional gender equality for all. finally, i cannot over state how shocked i am by the protesters, and i urge the department to investigate these obvious violations of civil rights. these may all seem like

unrelated issues. but to me, to my constituents and people most directly advocated, they are interconnected and they speak to whether the department under your leadership will advance justice or pay lip service to it. i don't expect you to comment on all of these issues, but i have a question. will you commit to working with me and my office on these issues, including having your staff promptly, by writing your position and sending that to us, reaching out to us about all of the issues that we just spoke about? >> i'd be happy to have the office of legislative affairs to work with your staff. i will say i could not be prouder of the civil rights record of this department. it is the fundamental basis for why the justice department was founded. we have a history of also being obviously involved in the 1960s when i came to the justice department. >> i'm not disagreeing with any of that. i just want you to understand

where i'm coming from, the things i would like to see. i don't mean to cut you off, but i need to reclaim my time. finally, i want to remind everyone yet again this is what good faith oversight looks like, not the republican play book of running interference for a twice impeached four times indicted white supremacist demagogue who would rather over throw our democracy. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you. on october 21st, 2021 before this committee, i ask you about mr. scott smith, a father in virginia who was arrested at a school board meeting where he questioned the rape of his daughter in the bathroom of >> only familiar to the extent i've read about it in the press. >> you sent a memo directing the fbi and u.s. attorney's offices to address harassment of school boards. yes or no? >> sent a memo to address violence and threats of violence

in connection with school personnel -- >> directed at school boards? >> not directed at school boards. directed at school personnel, school administering -- >> throughout the country as a priority. that followed a letter on september 29th, 2021, from the national school board association to president biden and emails from the national school board association director to the white house in which the white house asked for specific threats. and one of the examples was scott smith. subsequent to our hearing two years ago, 26 states left the national school board association and he resigned on november 23rd of 2021. last week mr. smith was pardoned by governor youngkin. do you think the governor was correct? >> i don't know the facts of the case -- >> have you rescinded the memo that you issued in 2021? yes or no. >> what we're discussing -- >> have you rescinded the memo, yes or no? >> what we're discussing here -- >> does the memo still exist?

yes or no? has it been rescinded? >> the memo is intended to have meetings within 30 days -- >> has it been rescinded? >> the 30 days have finished. nothing has happened in more than a year and a half with respect -- >> but it has not been rescinded, pulled back -- >> there's nothing to resend. >> white house officials discussed this with doj more than a week before the letter was sent. have you apologized? yes or no. >> i testified seven times since that original memo -- >> the first time you're back here since we talked about it? >> i'm sorry? have you apologized for putting that memo out that implemented scott smith as a domestic terrorist, something the governor of virginia has pardoned him from all of these accusations. >> the memo said nothing about him, nothing about parents being terrorists, nothing attending -- >> so the answer is, it's not been rescinded and you haven't

apologized for it? labeling an american citizen a domestic terrorist in a memo and referring to it in a memo that's built on the back of that. now we had this compliments being driven to the civil rights. a man was arrested in front of his wife and children. local authorities investigated found no case. mark was arrested by the fbi for face act violations. the jury met for an hour, he was acquitted. now, when i was in federal court, i don't remember that being my result very often. where we took it to a jury and it was acquitted after an hour. did you investigate this or question the united states attorney why they wasted resources for such an obvious result and can you explain, yes or no, that that was a good use of the department of justice's authority? >> the justice department respects the jury's verdict. the decisions in that case were made by agents and prosecutors

on the ground. >> reporter: you concerned that enforcement of the face act has been biased towards prolivfers and were asking information to track down the information of such prosecutions, but 126 times versus four times for people who dare to question the issue of life. i'll just -- i'll leave that out there. that's the civil rights division at play. meanwhile, we have, you know, the very liberal progressive groups being targeted out as well. we asked for information about how the fbi informant had gone to a liberal group's prolife mealing and yet we didn't get any response from you. i would ask if you respond to our letter we sent back in march asking about the fbi infiltrating such a meeting. >> i don't know what you're referring to. >> are tax cases require

approval no matter what district has venue, yes or no? do tax cases require approval by main justice, no matter what district has venue. yes or no? >> it depends on the circumstances and the example that i know you're referring to -- >> generally speaking, yes. >> not -- >> main justice runs the tax division? >> in the hunter biden -- >> that's not what i'm asking about. i haven't mentioned that guy's name. i asked a simple question. do tax cases require approval by main justice? >> most -- >> as a general matter? >> most of the time, but not when the attorney general has granted authority to a u.s. attorney to do what he thinks is best. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> i recall my -- >> the gentleman's -- >> a minute and a half of -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. the chair now recognizes the

gentle lady from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and attorney general garland, thank you first and foremost for your public service and your dedication to justice. i'm delighted to see you here today. thank you for appearing before us. i represent el paso, texas, a community right on the u.s./mexico border. and so we have been witnessing firsthand the abuses at the hands of governor greg abbott through operation lone star which began in 2021. governor abbott has deployed state resources and texas national guards members to the state's border with mexico and operation lone star has created border management challenges. it's resulted in countless humanitarian and due process violations for migrants. it's harmed guardsmen assigned to the mission.

it's cost the state billions of dollars and it has completely undermined the government's authority over immigration. i sent you a letter in july about abbott's floating barriers. i know that is now -- that case is going through appeal. but we have also learned that the national guard shot -- a guardsman shot at a mexican national across the rio grande and in september, on september 1st, i sent you a letter asking that the doj investigate that. we also know that governor abbott -- we've learned from whistle-blowers, that he has ordered national guardsmen to prevent migrants from turning themselves in to cbp. has ordered that they push back people into mexico and, mr. chairman, i would like to unanimous consent to enter the record an el paso times article

from earlier this year. texas national guard orders hundreds of asylum seekers on u.s. territory back into mexico. >> without objection. >> this in addition to governor abbott separating fathers from their children and their families, it's just egregious what is happening on the border via operation lone star. attorney general garland, are you able to speak to any responses the department has had to governor abbott's blatant undermining of federal immigration authority? >> i can obviously speak on the question. we brought suit under the rivers and harbors act for the interference with navigable waters. that case is still under adjudication in the district court. >> i understand that. there are other issues -- i want to make sure i flag them for you today at this hearing. but would also like for your

folks to take a close look at the investigation that i've requested and i will be sending a follow-up letter after what we learned just this week from the el paso times. >> thank you. >> switching gears. i do want to offer you an opportunity for some rebuttal because what we've seen from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is their penchant for performance for twitter and other news programs. mr. attorney general, we've heard a lot of accusations regarding some u.s. attorney's offices not partnering with mr. weiss and hypotheticals about what that means. can you please explain the difference between partnering with a u.s. attorney's office and acting as a special attorney or special counsel? >> i can talk about it, obviously, in the abstract and the theoretical. it's a normal process of the department if prosecutors from one area of the country and has

a case that has significance in another to speak with the u.s. attorney and the other district to find out what the policies of the district are, to find out what the practices are, to see how judges in that district react to different kinds of charges. sometimes a decision is made to partner together in those investigations. and sometimes a decision is made for the u.s. attorney from the other district to have his or her own people bring those cases. i have personally been involved in i think three of those cases during a period when i was an assistant u.s. attorney. and over my entire career, i have been given 515 authority twice myself for this purpose. it is not -- it is just a mechanical question of what courts require in order to make an appearance. >> thank you so much, mr. garland. again, appreciate your public