and i will just -- with all due respect, attorney general mukasey talked about the crawford decision, the indiana decision, and how -- this tells how it's different. he says that the court acknowledged the undeniable fact that voter i.d. laws can burden some citizens' right to vote. it's important for states to implement and administer such laws in a way that minimizes that possibility. he then said, he will not hesitate to use the tools available to us including the voting rights act if these laws, important though they may be, are used improperly to tee nigh the right to vote. that is michael mukasey talking about the indiana/crawford decision. michael mukasey. not eric holder. michael mukasey. >> thank you, mr. lungren. mr. watt is recognized. >> thank you, chairman. let me start by expressing my disappointment that some of my colleagues are spending so much time advancing the notion that we should be disqualifying people from exercising the most

basic right that they have in our democracy. the right to vote. and that -- and this is the judiciary committee in which these arguments are being advanced is just disappointing to me. second, i want to applaud the justice department for some work that they're doing in my congressional district in particular. some very high-level cases, fighting drug trafficking. protecting against child predators. a bunch of money we spent on the c.o.p.s program and the most vigorous supporters of the c.o.p.s program are the most conservative sheriffs in my congressional district because they've been able to access

funding to beef up their law enforcement capacities. so i won't go back to the voting rights part of this because i think i'll get too emotional about that. let me deal with the thing that's under my subcommittee's jurisdiction. the one that i'm the ranking member on. and that's, we made some efforts to try to do something about piracy. we were not successful legislatively, but the problem has not gone away. recent article in the "usa today" notes the proliferation of dangerous counterfeit products that pose safety concerns for the american public. many of these products, including counterfeit pharmaceuticals, are available online and come from foreign sources. in january this year, the department of justice issued indictments against mega upload,

a foreign-based website, that was charged with illegally infringing the copyrights of american businesses. and now i note that some group has -- what's it called? anonymous unleashed a series of cyber attacks in the aftermath of the indictments against mega upload. so now there's a connection between piracy on the one hand and cyber security on the other hand. can you just talk to us about the real threats that we have in that area? both on the piracy side of this issue and on the cyber security and their connections ju, just little bit, so we'll have some background that at least informs the american people how serious the problem is. >> the piracy issue is of -- has a number of dimensions to it. it is an economic issue. it is a jobs issue.

when the theft of our intellectual property, the methods we news to produce things is stolen by other organizations, other countries, it has a direct impact on our economy. there's also a safety factor. health items, medicines, that are produced in a way that are inconsistent with the great standards we have in the united states. then sold back to the united states. or sold in other countries. can put people at risk. the whole question of various parts that can be used in airplanes, other things that are not done in the way, consistent with the way in which our intellectual property standards have done can have a negative impact on safety in that way. the piracy question is one that has economic consequences as well as safety consequences. if one looks at the whole cyber issues, again, these are national security issues. the ability of foreign countries

or organizations to have an impact on our infrastructure, to use cyber tools to ferret out secret information from the united states. all put our nation at risk and is worthy of the attention of, i think, this committee, this congress, and the executive branch. i would hope we would be able to work together to come up with a way in which we can craft tools to deal with what is truly a 21st century problem. >> i thank you. and i -- at the risk of not going over time, like some of my colleagues have, i'll just stop there because any other question i could ask would be well over into the next person's time. so i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. watt. the gentleman from california, mr. issa's, recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general. december 14th, 2010, brian terry was gunned down and we began knowing more about fast and furious shortly thereafter.

but you've said, people representing you have said repeatedly you didn't know about it before that. i've sent you a number of letters. senator grassley sense you a numblot of letters. you said in your opening statement the speaker's letter. the speaker simply asked you for response to two key areas. he did not revoke any subpoenas. however, you implied that we were working together when, in fact, since may 18th, nothing, nothing has come from your department. not one shred of paper. i want to ask you, first of all, today, have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials responsive to the subpoenas? >> we believe that we have bonded to the -- >> no, mr. attorney general, you're not a good witness. a good witness answers the

question asked. so let's go back again. have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials responsible? in other words, have you taken the time to look up our subpoena and find out what material you have responsive to it, or you simply invented a privilege that doesn't exist? >> you say internally -- >> internally. have you pulled all that information? >> we've looked at 240 custod n custodians, viewed 140,000 documents and produced to you about 7,600. >> 140,000 documents. how many documents are responsive but you are withholding at this time? >> we produced 7,600. >> look, i don't want to hear about the 7,600. >> mr. chairman, i would beg to allow -- >> the lady is out of order. >> chairman, parliamentary -- excuse me, mr. chairman, i would beg to allow the attorney general to be able to finish his answer. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> i thank the chairman. >> the attorney general will have more time to do that if we don't have interruptions. >> i would like my time recla

reclaimed which was used up by the general lady. >> an additional time. >> mr. chairman, i suggest we take back the time that mr. lungren, the two minutes over his time that he used -- >> you want to give me additional two minutes, i'm fine with it. >> i'm going to give you the 45 seconds i yielded back, but we're going to apply a rule on one side of this -- >> let's get back to regular order. the gentleman from california has the time. the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> isn't it true, mr. attorney general, you've not produced a law after materials withheld, even though our investigators have asked for it? >> i know that -- i'm not sure about that. i know that the -- >> okay. i'm sure you didn't. so let's move on. march 15th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. april 19th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. may 7th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down.

may 17th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. june 2nd, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. july 2nd, the real date of our independence, 2010, obviously, earlier, before brian terry was gunned down. these wiretap applications which we did not subpoena but which were given to us by a furious group of whistleblowers that are tired of your stonewalling indicate that a number of key individuals in your administration, in fact, were responsible for infrastructure contained in here that clearly shows that the tactics of fast and furious were known. they were known and are contained in these wiretaps. i understand you've read these wiretaps since we brought them to your attention. is that correct? >> i have read them and i disagree with the conclusion you just reached. >> so let me go through a very simple line of questioning if i may, mr. attorney general.

james cole, deputy attorney general, has written that the department has a greater obligation than just checking the legal sufficiency and approving wiretap application. he thinks that applications also have to comply with doj policy. is that correct? >> applications have to agree with doj policy? >> that's what he said. >> sure. >> okay. during the transcribed interview, deputy assistant attorney general jason weinstein testified that senior officials approving the wiretap applications do not read the right wiretap applications. is this practice acceptable to you? >> they read summaries of the applications. that is a process that has been used by this administration and by all previous administrations. it is the way in which the office of enforcement -- >> and are you aware that federal -- are federal judges -- >> can i answer my question? the question -- >> no, you've given me a sufficient answer considering the amount of questions i have and the amount of time i have. are you -- you're okay with that practice? you've already answered that. so would you agree senior

officials are responsible for documents they signed? i would assume the answer is yes. so now let me ask you the question. jason weinstein, is he responsible for what is in these wiretaps? >> is he responsible? >> he's a responsible officer under statute. is he responsible for them even if he only read a summary? >> he did not create those affidav affidavits. he did not create the material. he would have been a person, as a deputy assistant attorney general -- >> when congress writes a statute requiring certain individuals be responsible such as jason weinstein, lanny brewer and yourself -- >> regular order, mr. chairman. >> regular order, mr. chairman. >> the attorney general will be able to answer the question. >> he hasn't asked the question. >> i'm halfway through it if you quit interrupting. if in fact if the statute says they're responsible and if in fact they're not read -- >> regular order. >> -- how are the american people to understand -- >> regular order. >> -- who's responsible for what is contained in these --

>> the attorney general will be allowed to answer this question. >> be, in fact -- because anyone of ordinary reading, including the atf director, former director, nelson, anyone reading these, according to him, would have to be sick to their stomach because they'd be immediately aware -- >> do you have a question, mr. chairman? >> so who is responsible, mr. attorney general? >> all right. you really conflated a bunch of things. the responsibility -- >> you delivered so little -- >> regular order, now, mr. chairman, will he be allowed to answer the question now. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer e the question. i'd appreciate no more interruptions. >> the responsibility about which you speak is in fact the responsibility of a deputy assistant attorney general looking at summaries to make sure there's a basis to go into court and to ask that court to grant the wiretap based on a determination that a responsible official makes that probable cause exists to believe that a wire facility has been used in

the commission of a crime. they do not look at the affidavits to see if, in fact, to review all that is engaged, all that is involved in the operation. i have read those things. i have read those. i've read those, i've read wide receiver as well. i can say what has happened in connection with fast and furious was done in the same way as wiretap applications were done under the previous administration in wide receiver. i've looked at the summary. and they acted in a way that's consistent with the practice and the responsibility that they have is defined by the statute. >> thank you, mr. issa. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> mr. chairman, before -- >> does the ranking member wish to speak out of order? >> if i may, please. >> gentleman is recognized. >> i think that the previous questioning was the first note of hostility and interruption of the witness that i think has been uncharacteristic of what we've been doing here so far today.

and i'd like to ask the chair to admonish all the witnesses from here on out to please try to -- all the members from here on out to please allow the witness to finish his answers. >> would the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> you know, i appreciate that there was hostility between the attorney general and myself. i would hope that -- >> just for the record -- >> i would hope that the ranking member would understand that, in fact, most of it was produced by the fact that i have a great many questions and a relatively little period of time in which to get answers. and that for a year and a half, my committee through subpoena and interrogatories has been attempting to get answers for which this witness has basically said he asserts a privilege without -- >> inquiry, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from michigan has the time. >> parliamentary inquiry -- >> can i just make --

>> i'd like to yield to the attorney general at this point, please. >> well, with all due respect to chairman issa, he says there's hostility between us. i don't feel that. you know? i understand he's asking questions. i'm trying to respond as best i can. i'm not feeling hostile at all. i'm pretty calm. i'm okay. >> let me assure the gentleman from michigan that the attorney general will be allowed to answer future questions and the gentlewoman from california is recognized for her questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. attorney general. thank you for being here with us. when you were last before us in december, i asked you about a case involving the seizure of a domain name called the jazzone.com for alleged copyright infringement. in december you said you were unfamiliar with the case but you would certainly look into it and get back to me. since that hearing, not only

have i not heard from you, but new details have surfaced, and, therefore, i'd like to revisit the issue. to refresh everyone's memory, the jazzone is a blog. it's a blog dedicated to discussion of hip hop music. and in november of 2010, the domain name of the site was seized as part of issa's operation in our sites and on an application by prosecutors in your department. after the government seized the domain name, the owners filed a request for the government to return it to them and under the law the government had 90 days to initiate a full forfeiture proceeding against the domain or else return the property. however, in this case, that deadline passed with no action. when the website's lawyer inquired with the department's lawyers, he was told the government had filed an extension but under seal. the website was given no notice

and they were never given an opportunity to appear in court and to respond. and i have talked to the representative of the website and he assures me that he made diligent efforts to try and actually appear and make his case. the -- when he asked for proof that the extension existed, your department's lawyers basically said they'd have to trust them. now, this happened two more times. finally in december last year, more than a year after the original seizure, the government decided it didn't, in fact, have probable cause to seize, to support the seizure and return the domain. now, we now have unsealed court records and we know that i.c.e. and your department were waiting for the recording association of america which made an initial allegation of infringement, to provide detail, apparently proof. and i've reviewed the affidavit, which i'd ask unanimous consent to put into the record.

that in september of 2011, 10 months after the seizure, the i.c.e. agent was still waiting for information from riaa to give probable cause. now, here's the concern i have. blogs are entitled to first amendment protection, and i think it's the law that you have to have probable cause before you seize things. you can't seize things, have secret proceedings in the federal court, and then a year later come up with probable cause. so here's my question for you. it looks to me -- and i say another issue as to websites, i mean, this isn't like a car that's going to disappear or a bag of cocaine. it's a website. so the evidence can be completely preserved even without seizures. so i think the issue of seizure does need to be visited with us.

but i want to know what the department's posture is. if an i.c.e. agent is behaving recklessly in an investigation, as it seems to be in this case. don't the prosecutors in your department have an obligation to reject fallty affidavits? do you think the ex-party process that was included here is proper and consistent with the first and fifth amendments to seize the tomain that has first amendment protection for a year without any opportunity for the owner to be heard? >> the -- as with all domains that are seized, or were seized, i guess operations in our sites, i believe the seizure that you referenced was conducted pursuant to lawful, a lawful court order and the procedures that the department followed in that case including the ex-party procedures you mentioned who were consistent with the statutes that authorized the seizure and forfeiture and also

due process protections that those statutes provide. >> so you're suggesting that the representation which turned out to be false under the initial affidavits which under the ini affidavits which i would ask to be made a part of the record, those false affidavits were sufficient to have exparty communications sealed and secret proceedings in the federal court to suppress the speech for over a year? >> clearly if material was submitted that was false in an underlying affidavit. >> at least misleading. >> misleading. that would not be an appropriate basis for action on behalf of the government. the these sure of forfeiture of properties is a powerful tool that the government has that has to be used judicially to the extent that there are problems along the lines you described that would be of great concern. we should not be in court trying to do the kinds of things that i have described here.

domain name seizures. if underlying material is not consistent with the facts that's something we shouldn't be doing. >> last december, you were going to get back to me, i know you have many things to do, but i would appreciate i'll ask again, if i could get a report on this specific case and certainly as my colleague has mentioned there are important issues that need to go on. i do not disagree with that. we have to be very careful about the first amendment and the fifth amendment. >> thank you. without objection the document that the gentleman referred to will be entered. >> i have a apartmentment taryn quirery. i appreciate it very much. the gentleman from california in his statement about his own subpoena mentioned today he did not require wiretaps. and in the con terpt citation

the wiretap application document the extensive involvement of the criminal device. >> would the gentleman woman state her question. >> my question is did anyone review with the justice department before this hearing. >> that is not -- >> whether this leaked information will harm the department's able toy to bring justi justice. >> that is not -- >> it refers to questioning of mr. issa. >> mr. jackson, we're going to have to deduct this from your time if you continue. >> i hope that we have reviewed this. >> gentleman from california mr. forbes is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, general, thank you for being here today. i think despite all the rhetoric we know that this committee is not asking you to break the law regarding what you say to congress. as you know, it doesn't matter if you appear in congress seven times or 70 times if when you're asked if you say i don't know to

the questions that are most pertinent or it doesn't matter if you supply 7,000 pages or documents or 700,000 pages if they're not proper papers to answer key questions. i want to begin where you begin. that was the standard that you said that you have in the department which is that every action is guided by law and facts and nothing else. i think i stated that correctly. is that fair? >> certainly when we're at our best, that's what happened. >> we know that every cabinet secretary doesn't adhere to that standard. in fact, we have in a paper today the fact that several cabinet members were required to come to a meeting at the democratic national committee headquarters where the campaign manager of the top strategist for the campaign, the kmektive director of the democratic national committee was there telling them the actions that they should take and four items to help the president win

re-election regarding the campaign structure, the importance of the electoral college and the importance of staying on message. the question i want to ask you this morning is i know that you're familiar with david axelrod obama's top campaign strategy and to the best of your knowledge, has mr. axelrod or anybody on his behalf or on behalf of the campaign had any cushions with you or members of the justice department regarding actions that you should or should not take messaging that you should or should not make or hiring decisions that you should or should not support? >> absolutely not. i mean, they're -- one of the things that i like a great deal about my interaction with people in the white house is that they take their lead from the president is that they have respected what i would -- i call a wall that has to exist between the justice department and the political operation that goes on in the white house. i have not had any of that kind

of intersection. >> there have been some publications. at least in one book that claims that you and mr. axelrod had some type of confrontation when he was trying to get you to hire someone. you were saying that's not accurate you never had any meetings with him regarding hiring decisions at the department of justice. >> no. we talked about not a hiring decision, ways in which we might improve the ability of the justice department to respond to political attacks that were coming my way. david axelrod and i are close friends. we have a close relationship. he's a person i respect a great deal. we worked together on the campaign while he was at the white house. he's never done anything that i would consider inappropriate. >> but then what you're saying is you have had contact with mr. axelrod campaign strategist about how you should handle different attacks come to you as attorney general, correct?

>> there's a political dimension to the job that i have as attorney general. the reality is that i don't sit up in an ivory tower and just do law enforcement. i am the subject of attacks. i'm a person whofts seen by some as pretty controversial. and there are times, at least that time when i was looking for help in that regard. >> so you have had those discussions. did he ever try to encourage you to hire or put any particular person at the department of justice? >> no. >> with fast and furious there's been a lot of discussions about it. we know that's a big item not just for us, but the ambassador of mexico has said that that operation which took place under your watch has poisoned the mexican people and really put a strain on strides we've made in two successive administrations in the united states. he's been concerned that the investigation hasn't been completed. have you ever had any consultation with the white house or anyone with the campaign or with mr. axelrod

about messaging related to fast and furious? >> about messaging with regard to fast and furious? >> comments that were made, how you were going to message it? >> we certainly talked about the way in which we could deal with the interaction between the justice department and congress about ways in which we would -- >> but nothing about press messaging at all? >> well, i mean in terms of trying to get a message out that was consistent with the facts and make sure that it was done in an appropriate way, i've had conversations like that with people in the white house council. >> just two other quick questions. i know that you filed actions against arizona, south carolina, utah and alabama all republican governors. my time is out. would you give us a list of any similar actions of the similar profile you filed against any democratic governor -- states with democratic governors and also the final thing is, if

you'll let us know if you had any relationship or meetings with the white house and members of the campaign about any of the messaging or any of these actions that took place on that my time has expired. if you looked at these states -- make sure you let us know the contacts you have with mr. axelrod regarding the messaging or anything that might come regarding those actions.

>> thank you mr. forbes, the gentle lady from texas is recognized. >> i thank the attorney general for his service. i just wanted to add what i don't think very quickly that was in the introduction of the attorney general and then my series of questions mr. general without any disrespect will be not toward you, but questioning so i get a series of questions in. i did note that you were a deputy attorney general under the bush administration and you continued to serve through the time that you were appointed under president obama. is that correct? did you remain during that time? >> a little known fact. i was george bush's first attorney general. >> i think that should be made clear for the record because you've had a continuous public kfs commitment. you were in the private sector for a moment. but between judgeship and the superior court that i understand you were appointed by president ronald reagan at that time.