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

service to the american people. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> thank you for being here today. every time i'm in my district, constituents are concerned about the weaponization of government, them being selected because they happen to be conservatives and i think on your watch now, the doj actually is a mid-30s percent approval rating. every time the doj goes after trump his polling goes up. the first question i have, now that we know thanks to an fbi whistle-blower that the fbi received information on americans from bank of america, specifically bank of america sent the fbi a list of customers who made transactions in and around january 6th, 2021. my question is, did the department of justice acquire any geolocation data from january 1st, 2020, through december 31st, 2021?

>> did you say locational data? >> geolocational data. >> i believe everything that was done was disclosed in the public filings in the january 6th cases. i don't have that at my fingertips. this is a matter of public record. >> do you remember any specific analyses that you may have gotten from that data? is there anything in particular you were looking for? did they exercise their rights? did they maybe buy a firearm? >> i don't know anything about the second thing, the purpose i understood of location data was to determine whether people claimed they weren't inside the capitol actually were inside the capitol. >> i guess the question is, to your knowledge, the geolocation data from organizations, to your knowledge, did you receive that from external sources? are you buying that data? >> i don't know the exact answer in general. but i believe with respect to

january 6th, these are the results of subpoena as issued to telephone companies. >> so you subpoenaed the telephone companies and -- >> this requires orders authorized by the court. >> does it concern you that, you know, we talked about the report earlier, that he said that the fbi's activities were somewhat sobering. does that worry you on your watch that the activities the fbi have been called sobering now? >> i'm sorry, i don't understand who calls it sobering? >> john durham in his report. >> who? >> john durham. >> durham? >> yes, sir, i did read the report. all those events are -- had to do with a cross-fire hurricane investigation. >> that was part of it, yes, sir. >> were you concerned when he said it was sobering what the fbi was doing. >> i think mr. durham -- and i just want to make sure that he understands. mr. durham thanked me for not interfering with his investigation. i promised he would be able to

go forward without interference. just as i promised mr. weiss. mr. durham's -- and i did not interfere with his report. his report reported a lack of rigor and another -- a number of other problems with respect to the investigation. i think both the inspector general made a similar comment and director wray has made the same. >> thank you, attorney general. i don't have a lot of time. i want to yield a little bit to the chairman. is it a crime in the u.s. to question an election? >> i'm sorry? >> is it a crime in the u.s. to question an election? >> it's my fault, i can't hear, to request a -- >> is it a crime to question an election in the united states? is it a crime for the u.s. citizens to say, we want to ask about this election, we want to question this election, we want to look into the election. is that a crime when citizens question an election in america now? >> again, i think you're asking not a hypothetical, but something specific -- >> i think that's just general.

i don't think that's specific. elections have been questioned for decades past. is that now a crime in america? >> if you say to ask questions about an -- >> to question an election? to question the results. >> it's not a crime to question an election. >> i question the election results in 2020. and there are a lot of people in america that do. and they question the weaponization of government attacking american citizens. and so you, sir, have an issue with trustworthiness of the american people and with congress at this point. with that, i'm sorry, i'll yield 36 seconds. >> mr. garland, did you consider anyone else when david weiss requested special counsel designation on august 8th? >> mr. weiss asked to be made special counsel and i made him -- i did not consider an alternative. i, of course, to put in an alternative, would have greatly disrupted an investigation that was already -- >> i want to be clear. it was either no special counsel

or if there was a special counsel, it was going to be the guy who presided over the investigation for the previous five years. >> i thought about the -- what the consequences would be both of not appointing him and trying to find somebody else at that time, but there was no other -- >> and you had no concerns -- i mean, the whistle-blowers have brought forward all kinds of concerns. when somebody brought those up, you said those are allegations. they stand up well. but there were two facts that can't be questioned, two facts about the investigation of hunter biden. they let the statute of limitations run, and the plea deal fell apart. so i just was -- i wanted to make clear that the guy who presided over all that was the only guy under consideration for special counsel designation, is that right? >> mr. weiss has -- is a person known for high integrity, for great experience in this -- in a

prosecutor realm -- >> i understand what you're saying there. >> i have no doubts -- >> he was the only one under consideration? >> the question was whether to appoint someone and i thought i will say what the consequences would be of trying to switch horses midstream. but i did not consider any other person. >> on july 10th, he said, i've had discussions with department officials, i've had decisions with departmental officials. and i don't know if this was asked earlier, who did he talk with then? >> i'm sorry. you're talking about the letter that he sent -- >> senator graham. >> again, i'm not going to get into internal deliberations -- >> fine. is there one person who is the point person at the justice department for david weiss as he now is functions as a special counsel in this investigation? >> mr. weiss is now subject to the special counsel regulations which require urgent reporting under certain circumstances, require him to consult with

numerous places within the justice department. >> fine. you're following the statute. but you said there's reporting. who does he report to? >> i'm not going to get -- >> is it you? >> i'm not ultimately responsible -- >> is it -- >> mr. weiss did not have to report to anybody. he was the supervisor and decisionmaker in these matters. >> okay. we have votes on the floor. we're going to have to take another break. we'll get back here as quick as we can and we'll start with the democrats. >> sure. >> the house judiciary committee wrapping up their -- just for a brief moment as the recess from this hearing with merrick garland. i want to bring andrew mccabe in and michael moore with us. also very testy as they are questioning the attorney and very much politicizing the process of this justice proceeding when it comes to

hunter biden and also former president trump. >> a lot of questions about the autonomy of special counsel daniel weiss and his investigation of hunter biden. michael, first to you, in that back and forth with some republicans, specifically i'm thinking of chip roy from texas, what did you make of the attorney general's answers? >> well, it would have been nice if he had been given the opportunity to give an answer. really all we saw was pretty much a circus. and they did not give him a chance to respond to the questions. that's the problem with this. it's not really a fact-finding, it's not an evidence-gathering exercise. it's pure campaign stump speeching from the committee room. and so that's really what happened here. i kind of applaud the attorney general for his patience and for not firing back. i'm not sure he had the temperament to do that. he did try to give responses. he's not allowed. he did a good job of this. he's not permitted to discuss

ongoing matters and he did not do that. but i think he made it very, very clear that he was not going to get into the biden situation. he was not controlling that. there was a special counsel that was involved in it and the reasons for that appointment. we sort of run the gamut of things to talk about. i mean, the problem i think the republicans are having as it relates to hunter biden is that their case is falling apart dealing with their whistle-blowers. and there are problems now that we're finding out with the whistle-blowers and the testimony that was given previously that they're going to have to face. and so they -- try to sort of do triage on their inquiry. i just don't think there was much substance in the questions and certainly sort of the silliness that went back and forth. they really weren't searching for an answer. they just were searching for their own sound bite. >> but they're asking him a question over and over. even though they know he can't answer it, andy, it gives the impression, perhaps, that he's being evasive as he has to give

that answer over and over. having to do with the irs whistle-blowers, we have learned now because of high-ranking internal revenue official is actually disputing claims by one irs whistle-blower about this process of how hunter biden has been really -- the investigation has been conducted. the director of field operations who had some pretty complimentary things to say about gary shaply who is one of the irs whistle-blowers, he also said that things really fell apart between the u.s. attorney weiss and shaply because he said that weiss was feeling as if he was being harassed and he was that he has a tendency to go five-alarm fire on everything. he has a mindset if you don't agree with him, you're incompetent, really poking some holes in what this whistle-blower has been alleging.

>> yeah. that's right. and i have to tell you, i'm not -- you know, i don't know, obviously, i wasn't in the room when these discussions were taking place on the hunter biden case. but i can say from my own experience of having been in many similar rooms many, many times on big, high-profile, hotly charged criminal investigations, it is not uncommon for people on the investigative side to disagree with the people on the prosecutorial side. and to have, like, pitch battles over how aggressively you're going to go forward, what interviews you're going to do, what techniques you're going to use, and typically, the prosecutors get to make the final decisions on those matters. and also very often, agents are frustrated and angry about what they perceive as prosecutors who are limiting their ability to pursue a matter.

anger can spiral into misconceptions of political influence and things like that. it is a very common occurrence between people who agree about the progress of an investigation, and i think one you're seeing now with additional voices coming into this conversation, not just the irs supervisor but also the fbi personnel who were present in some of these meetings and don't remember david weiss saying the things that gary shaply says he said, i think you're starting to see a more nuanced, somewhat shattered view of what actually happened and what david weiss did or didn't say. and let's remember, david weiss has disagreed with the rendition of the events and gone on the letter in writing to letters in congress that he never asked to be a special counsel before and that he wasn't limiting the investigation. so a lot to untangle here. >> to your point about the politicalization, that's sort of what we're learning in this

reporting here, making out in a way if you read into this, he took issue with shaply's decision to characterize justice officials based on the president who appointed him. he said he's seeing things through a political lens. he said, we're supposed to be a nonpolitical organization. just to your point there, andy, what he's saying here really backs that up. >> it does strike me, though, that this decision by batdorof, he describes his behavior as harassment of weiss, he said there was differences, something that you alluded to, andy, but, michael, it is striking that that kind of behavior would lead to his removal if these were just basic agreements. it reads as though it's escalated. maybe not specifically in this case, we obviously don't have specific answers as to what shaply was doing, but in the

past, what kind of differences would -- or what kind of behavior would deed to an investigator being taken off of something like this, a case like this? >> well, it may not be in this particular case, it may not be the type of difference as much as it is the person with whom he had the difference. and apparently it was mr. weiss who felt like he was being intimidated and harassed by the whistle-blower. look, i've got great respect for whistle-blowers. i represent them every day. what i fear in this case, though, is that he may be simply being used as a pawn by this republican congress. we know that his supervisor who has come out and refuted mr. shaply's account and has given us this background about what went on at the meeting and the reason he was removed from the case, he was a republican witness that was called in. and so i imagine this was unexpected news to the members

of the committee. but it appears they may have left him out to dry. nothing unusual about people having different reactions, that happens all the time. put five people in a room, whisper something and see how many versions you come out with. that's not really what happened here and you have a large number of credible law enforcement investigative personnel who are saying this is not what went on inside that meeting, at least as far as we know now, their accounts have not been taken away. so i think mr. shaply's problem was in that he tried to see politics in everything, at least according to the reporting, including the motivations of anybody who may have been appointed bay particular administration and he then took that out on the chief prosecutor, the chief law enforcement officer for that district who happened to be in this case mr. weiss who is now special counsel. so he met with the expected

outcome and that is to be removed from his supervisor, to be removed from the investigation, so there could be a peaceful, thorough, and responsive investigation to the evidence they have before. >> michael moore and andy mccabe, if you could stand by. this hearing is not over. and then just something also to point out, boris, congressman ken buck, a republican, as we just heard that hearing, there was discussion about questions of merrick garland, did you decide that perhaps someone else besides david weiss could lead this and he was under a lot of pressure from republicans. buck is saying if garland had made the opposite decision, then he would have been accused of politicalization. with the opposite decision. >> buck, one of the rare republicans on the committee that really didn't go after garland and more so seemed to -- as he has publicly before point out that house republicans don't have the evidence necessary to make the kind of claims that

they have, at least thus far, about president biden being tied to his son hunter's business dealings. we're going to stay on top of these many stories that we're following related to this hear and we'll bring you the hearing as it resumes. we want to get to breaking news on capitol hill. chuck schumer just moved to preempt republican senator tommy tuberville's threat to push through a vote on the leader of the marine corps. tubberville is the single republican senator who has been blocking hundreds of military promotions for months now. he's doing it to protest the pentagon's policy on abortion access specifically the funding of travel to access medical care. >> this is a leave policy, it allows for leave to be granted, sort of guaranteed and also for travel costs for service members, but also for family members to be paid for. we have lauren fox on capitol hill. explain this to us. you had tubberville trying to go around this blockade with a

rarely used maneuver to try to individually confirm this leader of the marine corps and now schumer in a way is sort of caving to him and also maybe calling his bluff. what's happening? >> yeah, summer went to the floor in this surprising move to preempt the actions that were planned from senator tommy tuberville. tubberville had hoped this afternoon to go to the floor, deploy this rarely used tactic to try to put a procedural vote on the calendar of the senate and force democrats to choose whether or not they were going to be the ones to hold up military nominations. chuck schumer went to the floor just a couple hours before that action was expected and made a move himself to advance the nominations of three top military brass. he went to the floor to move forward with three people, the chief of staff for the army, the

marine commandant, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs. he also said he wants to have votes on them this afternoon. a procedural vote. he said if that isn't agreed to, he will be willing to keep the senate in over the weekend to do some of that work. but obviously this was an unexpected procedural action from senator chuck schumer, the majority leader. but he argued he had no choice. here he was on the senate floor. >> besides the most extreme elements of the republican party, no one thinks this is a good idea. and in the face of that opposition, it seems that senator tubberville is becoming more and more desperate to get out of the box he has put himself in. he's desperate to shift the responsibility onto others. but i've made it clear that we will not allow anyone to shift this onto democrats.

the senate should not have to go through procedural hoops just to please one brazen and misguided senator. but this is where we are. >> the concern for chuck schumer and his argument over the last several months when he's been pressed on why he wouldn't bring these nominations up one by one was it was going to consume the senate, it would take so much floor time to advance more than 300 nominations at this point. but he's saying here that on these top officials, he felt like he had no choice at this point given what tubberville was going to do later this afternoon. obviously, he is imploring his colleagues to stop this from going any further. while chuck schumer had the ability to bring these nominations up one by one, his concern and the concern shared by some republicans was that starting that process, letting the military be politicized in this way was going to be a slippery slope that lawmakers

were going to have a hard time pulling back from in the future. when other lawmakers have issues with pentagon policy. brianna? >> yeah, this is very uncharacteristic for how these kind of policies are dealt with. it's normally not the officers or the service members who are the pawns in this. normally they tyake it up with the civilian leadership. that's the proper channel. thank you. >> these are widely supported nominees and if one single senator holds up their process of confirmation, it could set up a potential precedent for the future. we want to talk about the real-world impact that this could have on service members and their families. let's go to the pentagon now with oren liebermann. what has this meant for military families and what could it mean moving forward? >> a few different things worth pointing out. first, this is very much at the top of the military. so the chairman of the joint chiefs, the nominee, the general will be the top military officer. and this comes nine days before

the retirement of the current chairman, general mark milley. just at the last possible second this is happening, as well as two other spots that are currently empty, the commandant of the marine corps and the chief and staff of the army. general randy george. but there's one other member of the joint chiefs not included in this list. there still will be an empty seat with the joint chiefs. that remains an open question. but as lauren pointed out, there are still more than 300 nominees still pending here. the last update we got was around 318 or 319. so this is just the smallest tip of that. and the effects we've heard from the pentagon on families, the unknowing, the lack of being able to plan for the future, the effect it could have on recruitment as colonels and lieutenant colonels see how the leadership can be held up. that, at least for now, remains in place, with so many nominees

waiting to find out what will happen. if this is only done three at a time, this could still be a painfully long process and all of the issues we've heard from the pentagon on how this effects families and how this effects not just the officers themselves, but those around them, that will still very much be in place here. we heard from the deputy secretary of defense earlier today. here's what she had to say. she said the hold needs to end now. it's unnecessary. it's unprecedented. it's unsafe. it's bad for our military. it's bad for our military families, and it's bad for america. that very much still holds even if they move on three of the top officers in the military later on this afternoon. >> all right. thank you so much for that. obviously we'll be keeping an eye on this. it's quite a development when it comes to the military holds. >> from that breaking news to more breaking news, just moments ago, the federal reserve followed market expectations choosing to keep its benchmark lending rate steady. they will not raise interest rates. so this is going to impact your

credit cards, car loans, mortgages, and a lot more. >> let's get to are a held salomon. what led the fed to take a pause? i think this was expected, but considering all the activity here in recent months, i feel like people are always holding their breath when they wait for the fed's move. >> that's a fair point. but it was widely expected. 99% of traders, economists, the financial community was expecting a pause at this meeting. no surprises there. i want to look back at the last six or so policy meetings and you can see this is the second time that the federal reserve had decided to pause. and there are a few reasons why. inflation is cooling, still higher of its target, but cooling and meaningfully. but also cooling is the job market. we noticed change in this press release that was just released

25 minutes versus the previous meeting. job gains have slowed. compare that to last time when job gains were described as robust. there is some cooling happening in the economy. also this was a meeting where we got what's called a summary of economic projections. it gives you a sense of what policymakers are expecting. i'm not sure if you can see that on the screen. when it comes to the federal funds rate or the benchmark lending rate, another rate hike is expected. i'm not sure the markets are going to love that. but also rates look like they will remain higher for longer. 2024, 2025. here's a big caveat. when you look at other economic indicators, unemployment rate, the fmoc expecting the economy to remain stronger. jay powell expected to peek in about five minutes. i'm going to go listen to that, guys. what we know now is the fed deciding to pause rates for the second time in about six feet

meetings. >> thanks so much for the update. still a lot of news to get to. we speak to the brother of one of the americans released by iran who was imprisoned for more than five years. we'll hear from him and get details on his reunion when we come back. >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? safelite makes it easy. >> tech vo: you can schedule in just a few clicks. anwe'll come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> man: looks great. >> tech:hat's service on your time. schedule now. >>ingers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ and i saved hundreds. with the money i saved, i started a dog walking business. i was a bit nervous at first but then i figured it's just walking, right? [dog barks] oh. no it's just a bunny!

calm down taco. sit duchess. stop! sesame no no. archie! walter don't, no, ahhhh. ahhhhh! you're lucky you're so cute. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ hi, i'm jill and i've lost 56 pounds on golo. hi, i'm barry and i've lost 42 pounds. jill and i are a team. if she tells me to do something, i usually jump on board. golo was doable, it's realistic, and it's something we can do the rest of our lives.

wayfair has nice prices, so you can have nice things. um kelly? we have champagne taste... on a hard seltzer budget... wayfair's got just what you need! what... y'all this is nice. salad plates? kelly clarkson? i'm fancy now! i have always wanted statement lighting. get nice things at nice prices at wayfair! ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ to give your teeth a dentist clean feeling. start with a round brush head. add power. and you've got oral-b. round cleans better by surrounding each tooth to remove 100% more plaque. for a superior clean. oral-b. brush like a pro.

whenever you're hungry, there's a deal on the subway app. buy one footlong, get one 50% off in the subway app today. now that's a deal worth celebrating. man, what are you doing?! get it before it's gone on the subway app. ♪ i won't let me moderate to severe plaque psoriasis symptoms define me... emerge as you. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 4 months... ...and the majority stayed clearer, at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge as you. emerge tremfyant®. ask you doctor about tremfya®.

♪ a group of americans returned home to their loved ones for the first time in years. the group landing back on u.s. soil yesterday after the release from iranian captivity on monday. we have christiane amanpour who got a chance to talk to a family member of one of those americans. he joins us live. tell us how the namazi family is feeling. >> well, as you say, jubilant, they can't believe it. i spoke to them all. i had the brother of siamek on the air. so close. he's been lobbying for eight years to get siamek out, his father out.

the father was taken and kept for six years as well. released when he was 86 years old. you cannot make up the depth of horror of this story. so when i asked him how he was doing, this was his response. >> i've dreamt of this moment for eight years. and i honestly can't believe it's here. i honestly can't. i've embraced him, i've held him, squeezed him, kissed him and it's just not real. i've dreamt of this and i've woken up from these dreams and i'm hoping it's not another dream. so we're just trying to digest the enormity of being united after eight horrific years of separation, of brutality, of inhumanity, and to, of course, in my case, i had the horrible experience of having not just

siamek but also my dad being held captive. i'm grateful that finally this nightmare has come to an end. >> so you hear it all there. and their mother who stayed almost the whole time in iran while her son and husband was in prison, to keep them knowing that they had somebody there. and she obviously came out with siamek. we saw that departure. but, you know, he talks about the terrible, terrible torture and inhumanity that they suffered in that jail and also siamek is availing himself of the services that the united states government gives to people like him, wrongfully detained, those who have been under these terrible types of pressure and need to re-adjust to life outside. >> listen, we talk about the jub l jub lens, but it's a difficult

path after being imprisoned so long in iran. can you talk a little bit about -- you mentioned the mother and the time she spent there holding vigil, keeping the pressure up. how crucial were his parents in their relentless campaign for his release? >> well, crucial. remember, the father, you know, an elderly and retired unicef -- we're here in the united nations, he worked for unicef and the iranians, we're told, basically what they tell us, the family is they lured him to iran under the false pretext of allowing him to see his son who had been in jail and, you know, the year or more before, they immediately grabbed him, put him in a jail cell and then told -- according to the lawyer, told siamek that the father had died, by the way, and then they waited a week before telling siamek that they were joking and the father already has, you know,

heart and other health complications. he had to leave the prison occasionally to have several operations. it was just traumatic for him, for siamek being tortured about the condition of his father and for the mother on the outside trying to figure out what to do and knowing that all she could do was work very hard to make sure, you know, her -- at least the moral of her son and her husband were raised and kept up. and she stayed and she didn't have to. she wasn't barred from leaving and she stayed. even though sometimes siamek tried to persuade her to leave. she said, no, i'm staying as long as you're here in this jail. >> this beautiful picture of this family reunited, it just brings goosebumps to see them together. thank you so much. it's so important to hear from that family and we appreciate it. boris? >> the house judiciary committee has been grilling attorney general merrick garland all day. he's been defending himself

saying he did not interfere in the investigation into hunter biden and that he was not structured to indict trump. we're going to speak to a member of the committee about all of this when we come back. [clock a] ♪ morning. ♪ ♪ life after student debt is within reach. refi at sofi.com. you could save thousands and get to your goals faster. sofi. get your money right.

what makes a medicare supplement insurance plan, like an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare a good choice for people on medicare? it's smart for you to have now... i'm 65. and later on, for the future you... i'm 70-ish. it's really smart. hey, looking good. you made a great choice for us. with this type of plan, see any doctor or visit any hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks. your healthcare future will have more freedom. i kept our doctor. and when i needed a specialist. no referrals needed, right? bingo. in fact, see any doctor anywhere in the u.s. really smart to have when you travel. when i visit this little cutie in arizona my plan goes with me. ahhh...grandkids. i can't wait.

don't worry about surprise medical bills, either... you'll know up front about how much your care will cost. and knowing your expenses makes planning your financial future easier. i'm glad my husband and i can use our savings to do the things we want to do. i'm glad i don't have to shop for a new plan every year. that's right. once you enroll, your coverage is guaranteed for as long as you keep this plan. have questions? call unitedhealthcare now to talk with a licensed insurance agent or producer. they know a lot about what makes these plans smart now and really smart later. or just ask for this free guide. benefits and rates in one place so it's easy to compare options. year to year, 94% of members renew their plan. and medicare supplement plans with the aarp name are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp... meeting the high standards of service and quality. so give unitedhealthcare a call today. and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare. [dogs bark]

winnie! look at you! thanks again for looking out for me. hey, we're in this together. an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare. smart now, really smart later.

so right now on capitol hill, we are in a break from testimony that attorney general merrick garland has been giving to the house judiciary committee. it's gone on for several hours and it's been led by some of his most vocal republican critics. they're accusing him of interferes in the hunter biden

investigation and they peppered him with questions about that probe. in response, he rejected claims of bias at the justice department. we're joined now by a democrat who was in that hearing, madeleine dean joins us. were you satisfied with how the attorney general answered your questions and those of your republican counterparts? >> boris, good to be with you. and you know and you're reporting that we are in extraordinarily serious times in this country and around the world and we need serious people to deal with these things. we have a responsibility of oversight with the attorney general. but that's not what you saw today. you saw the republicans using this as a sham hearing in order to attack the attorney general and his integrity and his independence all around hunter biden. this was absolutely the bidding

of the former president in order to tear down the country's confidence in our independent institution, tearing at the very fabric of our democracy. was i satisfied with what mr. garland said? absolutely. but i -- i was embarrassed to be anywhere near the dripping lies and indecency and insults and misinformation that was being spewed by the other side. >> i want to get your perspective on a certain strain of attack. we're kind of accustomed to partisan attacks against higher level officials, garland being one who has been threatened with impeachment. some lawmakers are gone after remember fbi agents, they've threatened to cut off the agency's funding. how do you feel about those attacks and those threats? >> it's absolutely madness. that's what i said in my opening statement for my time with the attorney general.

this is extraordinarily dangerous and these folks know it. the attorney general and his statement talked about the 115,000 men and women of the department and justice and the important work that they do every day putting themselves on the line. this is extraordinarily dangerous to them, their lives are threatened, they had to open an office just to analyze the threats against their personnel. we know how dangerous this can be. after all, it's sad, but the very department that we were just talked to, of course, is involved in the prosecution of those who came to attack us. members of congress. so it's very, very dangerous what is being done and i want to contrast that with where we should be. we are about to shut this government down. let me correct that. we are not. democrats have been here month after month as the republican majority and the speaker of the house can't get anything done. we passed legislation, mr. mccarthy entered into a deal that was codified in legislation to fund this government. think of the harm that will

happen if they shut this government down due to their dysfunction and their witch-hunt against the current president and his son. >> i do want to ask you about the shutdown. there's one aspect of the testimony that i wanted to dig deeper on. garland was asked about testimony from devon archer. he's a former business associate of hunter biden who reportedly told congress that the president's son was trying to sell, quote, the illusion of access to his father. for instance, during phone calls with business partners, he did also say, archer, that president biden never discussed business dealings on the calls. i'm wondering, aside from any legal implications, would you say that the selling of that illusion of access by a family member of a vice president or president is prohibit or ethical? >> again, boris, i have to admit, that is a mischaracterization as i understand it of what mr. archer said. but think of what we should be

doing. that's why in my questions with the attorney general, i focused on two areas. i would love to have focused on more. but i talked about fentanyl and every day in this country, people are dying and being poisoned by fentanyl. 300 people a day. i also focused on war crimes in ukraine. so these lies and half truths and things about the son of a president that are absolutely not accurate and not appropriate for the attorney general to be talking about, he has a special prosecutor doing this investigation. it's inappropriate for the attorney general to speak about those things. we should be focused on the very serious -- go ahead. >> i wanted to clarify something you said, devon archer saying to congress that hunter biden was trying to sell the illusion of access to his father is a mischaracterization? >> yes, because i believe he was interviewed and he said he did nothing wrong. you can take that for what it's

worth. this was interviews that the republican majority was trying to spoke out a witch-hunt around hunter biden. there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the president. that's what we know. and what the attorney general did today was to say it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the investigations that are ongoing. let's face it, it was a trump appointed attorney general, mr. weiss, who began the investigation during the trump administration. they have been searching for four or five years to try to find some wrongdoing. they haven't done it. the republicans demanded that a special counsel be appointed, merrick garland made him special counsel as soon as he asked for that. and now the republicans don't like this trump-appointed prosecutor because he hasn't done more to connect some wrongdoing to the president. there's just no evidence there. no shred of evidence. >> i will say, the reporting indicated that archer told congress, again, the president's son was trying to sell the

illusion of access, not actual access to the then-vice president. we appreciate your time. we're going to get back to the hearing now which is ongoing. the house judiciary committee asking questions of the attorney general, may reerrick garland. >> the allegations are he, in fact, moved documents and tried to hide them so the department of justice couldn't get them and that led to the issues where mr. trump's lawyers ended up having to provide information and testimony about what had happened which is highly unusual. but this scenario is highly unusual. we know that's the case because former vice president trump -- or pence and current president biden had similar issues, but they complied with the request by the department of justice, turned over the documents and you didn't need a search warrant. but the news here is, i guess, if you don't comply with subpoenas from the department of justice, they will get the

information, they'll get a search warrant and go get it. i know that because i've seen that in multiple cases in my career. there's no surprise and there's certainly no tiers of justice with respect to what was done in that instance. in fact, the -- the fact that they took so long to do it i think is based entirely on the fact that he had been president. with respect to mr. weiss, because this is the most recent version, i get why they're doing it. they want to build a case to impeach president biden, the weiss angle seems to be one of the ways they're trying to do that. as congressman buck said, everything the department did with respect to mr. weiss was correct. because if the biden administration had removed him when it came into power, there would be howls from the republican side that you were derailing the investigation because weiss was already on it and if you brought in somebody new, they would have to start over again. the senate republicans sought your assurances that you would let him continue going forward

and you've done exactly that. i want to be clear. i know the committee is talking about bringing mr. weiss into testify. they've brought all of these other people to testify who were part of an active investigation. but it is a horrible precedent to be bringing in prosecutors in the middle of an investigation that's about to go to trial, that's already been indicted, that's not the way the committee should be doing business. we should allow prosecutors to move forward. if we got questions after the fact, we can raise them, as you pointed out, mr. weiss is going to issue a report at the end, let's let them do their job and stop politicizing these cases. with that, i yield back. >> the gentle lady from indiana is recognized. >> i yield to the clhairman. >> they'll get a search warrant and go get it unless it's hunter biden. then they tip off the defense counsel. we know that happened. second, relative to mr. bragg,

mr. bragg sued me and it went to court. guess what the court said, they said we were right and the guy we wanted to talk to, one of his prosecutors came here and testified in this room. so the court was on our side there. i yield back to the gentle lady from indiana. >> will the gentle lady yield? >> i need to get to my question. i'm sorry. attorney general, you had a very moving statement about your grandparents coming here from belarus to live in the country without fair prosecution. i grew up in very similar country, ukraine now, and when i came here as a young person, i believed in the value as an american not to be afraid of my government. but i wanted to tell you and i want to share it with you and get your thoughts on that. are you aware that a lot of americans are now afraid of being prosecute by your

department? are you aware about that? are you aware of that? i'm just -- are you aware or not? >> i think that constant attacks on the department and saying -- >> it's not attacks. let me give you an example. we talk about january 6th people -- some people came on january 6th. there are probably some people that came on january 6th here, you know, that had bad intent. but a lot of good americans from my district came here because they're sick and tired of this government not serving them. they came with strollers and the kids and there was a chaotic situation because the proper security wasn't provided, that was a question that was answered why, why would you debate it for 45 minutes on the floor and didn't stop the debate after people broke into the capitol. people came, they were throwing the smoke bombs into the crowd with strollers with kids. people who showed up, you know,

fbi agents, you have in my district, in my town, fbi phone numbers all over the district, please call, please call them. people are truly afraid. and this is a big problem when people are afraid of their own government and i'll share some other things. we're talking about justice system. i don't question -- you're probably not a bad person. you're in charge of the department. and people right now feel -- i look at the durham report and i called on millions of americans, it's like kgb. but we have this -- you have a nice, you know, playbook, first, let's have a special counsel and then you don't have to answer any questions here. then let's extend slow walk investigation on the hillary clinton, on hunter, everything is slow walked. we move quick on donald trump,

but you were slow walking. by the time, you know, that investigation and its statute of limitations expired and all of your agents have amnesia. so no one held accountable which was egregious what happened in that report when i read it. i can't believe it happened in the united states of america. this is my frustration. i'll be honest with you. then it's very interesting, you know, regardless of what it is, even people in the obama administration raise concerns. how can the president's son be serving in corrupt ukraine and the oligarchs. i think the concerns were raised and the obama administration didn't do anything about it. these people are dying right now and americans don't trust this president. so you -- i want to ask you one thing, you know, as you -- i don't need an answer because i

know you're not going to, but i think you're probably a good american and you care and a lot of the people are so afraid to cover up this stuff, i think in your department because they're embarrassed that what we became as a country to say that what our department of justice became. that allows russians to do propaganda and chinese. it allows them to destabilize our country. that is danger to our republic. it is significant danger. and i have one more question for you. i agree on corporate crimes even with democrats that we need to do a better job. one more question for you, do you believe that, you know, you talk about rights to vote, but do you believe that only u.s. citizens should be voting in this election and doing anything to make sure that only eligible people vote in the elections? >> yes and yes. >> okay, i would like to see that, what you do. thank you, yield back. >> the gentle lady from vermont is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much for being here today. i know it's been a long day for

you. i'm relatively new to the committee and i'm still getting my feet under me. as far as i can tell, what we are doing here today is talking about a lot of conspiracy theories and it's frustrating and tedious for those of us in the committee, but i can tell you, it is absolutely maddening for my constituents back home in vermont. we have so much important work to do to keep the government open. we're days away from a shutdown. i just want to remind folks that we're in this situation because my colleagues across the aisle are reneging on a deal that a majority of their conference made along with their speaker, that's why we're in this situation. if they're successful in shutting down the government, seniors who rely on social security benefits will be impacted, thousands of medicare recipients and applicants will be impacted, service members will stop receiving paychecks. veteran services will be curtailed. those are the grim coinsequence

from the republicans inability to governor. i need to start with that. let's do some level setting here. let's get to the real work of the doj and how congress can help the agency better serve its mission. gun violence continues to plague our nation. we see the wreckage every day on our television sets, on our computers and in our communities. this issue is incredibly important to me and so many of my constituents. now i believe there's actual room for bipartisan congressional action on gun violence, at least in some areas. one of those areas, red flag laws. it's a great place to start. vermont is one of 21 states that was able to pass red flag laws. these laws are working to keep guns out of the hands of people who are in crisis. and yet many states do not even apply for funding for the bipartisan safer communities act and to raise awareness about the program.

in june 2021, doj published model legislation to help states craft their own order. republicans continue to make unfounded accusations that these laws violate civil rights by taking guns away from americans without any due process. can you explain the due process protections that are put into place in the model legislation that doj proposed? >> yes, and i would start by saying, of course, there's room for bripartisan agreement. and that act is a good example. and that includes the ability to have funding for states that want to craft and put into place red flag laws. the requirement is that the red flag law include a due process protections. so i'm not -- i don't know every element of the model of legislation, but the general idea is, relatives or friends of the person have to go to a court

and get some kind of adjudication, that the person is a danger to themselves or to others. normally relates to mental illness problems. it may relate to some others. and so if a gun is taken away under those circumstances, there's then a right to appeal, to have a full hearing in order to adjudicate the question. i can't say i know every technicality, but i think that's about it. >> i appreciate that. and it's especially important to states like mine, rural states that have real issues with the silent killers, domestic violence and also suicide. these are instances in which red flag laws can really make a difference. shifting gears. i along with senator warren and 20 of our colleagues submitted a comment letter urging agencies to finalize them.

corporate concentration remains a pressing problem for the u.s. economy and i fear that we're falling behind this this area and american consumers continue to feel the pain because of this. with the introduction of the draft merger guidelines, how does the department plan to ensure that future mergers and acquisitions do not stifle competition or harm consumers? because that's often the b pushback that we get. >> obviously the intention of the merger guidelines is to set forth the enforcement policy of the department. different generations of the guidelines which -- i hate to say it -- go all the way back to the time when i was in law school, have been adopted and/or been helpful to generations of judges. i sat on two or three merger cases myself where we used some of the learning from the merger guidelines and we were -- the current guidelines reflect really an adjustment to the

current technology, two-sided platforms, network effects, that simply did not exist at the time of the last set of merger guidelines were passed. >> thank you, attorney general. just briefly in closing, last year you spoke on the subject and said that doj's enforcement against corporate crime has waxed and waning, but it's waxing again. that's news to my ears. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. garland, what is a confidential human source? >> well, it's a -- it's an fbi term. i don't know all the technicality. >> let me define it for you. it's in your own policy here. an individual who is believed to be providing useful and credible information to the fbi from any authorized information collection activity and from whom with the fbi expects or intends to obtain useful and credible information in the future. whose