another statute, the justice department defends the constitutionality of statutes construed as constitutional. we believe that statute can be, yes. >> i would like to move on. recently you directed the f.b.i. to coordinate with 14,000 school districts after the national school board association asked you to protect school boards from the imminent threat of parents. along with friends, neighbors and constituents i have attended multiple school board meetings over the last year and have a child in public school yet. very concerned about some of the things going on. yes, some of those school board meetings get heated. are we, my friends, constituents and neighbors, are we domestic terrorists? are we criminals? >> no. again, i don't know the facts that we are talking about but the only way that you are criminals of the few commit acts in violation of the statutes which would mean threats of

violence or actual violence. and i'm sure you haven't done that. >> have states asked for help? the school boards association did but have states asked for help? >> so we have state and local partners for all of our matters and this is an assessment of whether there is a problem and there are federal statutes involved and that there are state statutes involved and we are trying to provide don't like prevent violence and, as a former board member, we call our sheriff's department. and william castle, vice president for facebook out knowingly allowed users to promote on the platform instructing users how to break u.s. immigration law. he said we do allow people to share information about how to enter a company illegally, or

how to be smuggled. other charges pending the mic facebook? >> again we can't under the norms of that apartment discuss whether there are pending investigations, actual investigations -- >> let me help answer you. i understand the answer you are going to get there. title viii u.s. code 1324 makes it illegal for any person to knowingly encourage or induce an alien to come to enter and reside in the united states in violation of law or for individuals to aid or abet illegal entry. i would say you need to take a look at facebook and what they are doing to provide for greater administration that the biden administration intensive foster. let's get down to what happens here, and our biggest city is

milwaukee, wisconsin. you have parents that are silenced. >> the time has expired mr. jeffries. >> thank you mr. chairman and general garland for your leadership, service to the country and your presence here today. earlier today the house bat passed on a bipartisan basis by a vote of 414211 the effective counsel and digital air act which would limit the ability to private communications between detainees and at the custody their attorneys. included in a bipartisan way, and that needs to be addressed, with seeking technical assistant from the department of justice and the b.o.p., i sent a letter to you in that regard yesterday. i ask unanimous consent

mr. chairman that it be entered into the record. and i look forward to your response on working with the department of justice on this issue. voter fraud if proven, is a serious crime that carries a five year prison sentence, is that right? >> i'm not sure about the sentence but yes, if proven it's a serious crime. >> in the apartment of justice is responsible for investigating voter fraud to come is that right? >> yes. >> so your predecessor bill barr public egg acknowledged -- at

the most secure in american history? >> that is a a conclusion of the department of justice and department of homeland security, the fight, despite the fact that there is no evidence of so-called fraud at least 19 states have enacted 33 laws making it harder for everyday americans to vote. and in the aftermath of the january 6th insurrection, instead of running towards democracy there are people throughout this country, some, who have won don't like run away from this democracy and have unleashed on epidemic voter suppression across the land. we ask you a few questions about how these have occurred. how does banning churches and civic groups from giving food and water to voters, some of whom who have been in line for hours prevent or address of

voter fraud? >> i don't want to talk too much about that because that's a subject of our loss against the state of georgia but you have identified a segment of that statute that we have challenged as being unlawful. >> and is restricting the times that someone can cast their vote to business hours when many americans are at work relate in any way rationally to protecting the integrity of our elections? >> let me talk generally about this. i believe that every eligible voter should be eligible to vote and voters, but make it more difficult to vote unless they are absently necessary. the justice department is limited in its ability to bring cases unless they are discriminatory effect. but the general manner would be that everyone should have the ability to vote as readily and easily as possible.

>> one of the founding reasons for the department of justice to defensible rights in the nation and in that particular context, i believe it was in -- come a long way and we still have a long way to go. we still see race-based assaults on civil rights taking place today and i would just urge the department of justice as it has been doing in the leadership and it do all that's possible to defend and protect the integrity of the right to vote. let me also just comment, there are some that continue to lie about the election. they are lying about cobeta. they are lying about the department of justice, and general you are a man of great integrity and under your

leadership the department of justice is on to a good start. we appreciate what you are doing and keep it up on behalf of the people of the constitution. >> the gentleman yields back. there's a technical issue with the zoom feed so we will at recess for less than 5 minutes to resolve the issue. >> that was very "star trek" sounding. they exited for just a moment, they are going to work out some zoom technical difficulties and some people are getting up to leave so that gives them an opportunity to leave. there have been some moments of contentiousness here and no doubt, a lot of it centering around appearance having been termed as and looked at and targeted as potential terrorists, domestic terrorists in our own country. i am harris faulkner and we have now slid into our live coverage of this on "outnumbered." i'm joined by my cohost emily come upon you and kaylee

mcinerney, fox nation host tony laren and former wisconsin congressmen and fox news contributor, sean duffy. great to have you with us here today. sean, you are the only one of us here today who has actually served on the hill so i want to come to you and get your topline thoughts about where the bristling moments were and are the hottest issue so far. >> sean: first off, it's frustrating for members as they see mayor garland dome academic mayor garland say i can't talk about that because it's a pending investigation or pending lawsuit and they continue to push him. i find what was interesting here harris was, he said i have no idea about this case in loudoun county with this boy dressed as a girl, went into a bathroom and it did incredibly foul and horrible things to a young girl, was moved and went somewhere else. so to come into the country and

say you haven't heard about it, i find it unbelievable. the backdrop of this is, merit garland said it the constitution does not protect individuals based on those views. as someone who's had in those seats and has run for congress, we have a wide lane where we let our constituents, and you look at kyrsten sinema, the groups that are organizing against her are following her into bathrooms, and we have to take a step back and go, mr. attorney general, they are way off base to how it works and political opinions and that some of the push that we are getting especially with some republicans off the dais. >> harris: i want to push in just a little bit on what was going on. with a conflict of interest, critical race theory and the connection there with his son-in-law. representative mike johnson, a

republican from louisiana had this to say during that exchange and it was testy. watch. >> it was motivated by politics than any pressing law enforcement lead. it also concerns us that your actions may have met him motivated by your family's financial stake. >> i am very familiar with it and i want to be clear once again that there is nothing in this memorandum that it has any effect on the kinds of curriculum that are taught and their vigorous debate, as you mentioned earlier, is the curriculum. at the very curricula that your son-in-law is selling. did you seek ethics counsel before you issued a letter that directly relates to the financial interest of your family, yes or no? >> this memorandum does not relate to the financial interest of anyone. >> i will take that as a no. it's been on a quick thought and then i will come to the couch

with kayleigh. >> sean: this relationship should have been disclosed and it wasn't, obviously when you are going after parents who are opposed to critical race theory and your family makes money off of selling critical race theory, this is an eyebrow raiser. >> harris: kayleigh, you know as we watch this, it's so basic. you are asked the question -- and by the way we didn't even play the whole thing, because we don't know how long this break is going to be but it might have been all of 5 minutes that they were given. when you asked whether or not you sought ethics to look at or advice on this and you don't answer the question, what does that tell you? >> kayleigh: it seems evasive and almost guilty. i heard one commentator say why not submit yourself right here and now if you didn't do anything wrong, look into my family. my son-in-law who cofounded this bunny invested in crt ideas and works with school boards, i would love for that board to

look at it immediately. not only that but it seems to be hiding behind the "i don't know." he issues this memo on october 4th, so literally within days. he was asked did you coming to get directly with the white house and he said no. did you coordinate with atf, and he said i did not. did others in your department? he headed behind i don't know these are important directions. and we are all in receipt of memorandum, and they solicit the expertise and resources of the u.s. department of justice and

federal bureau of investigation, u.s. department of homeland security, u.s. secret service on the assessments regarding the right level risk to public school children, faculty and campuses. that's the exact language that they are using. and yet they want us to believe that there was no targeting of parents. >> kayleigh: we can all see quite plainly that there certainly was but we need to talk about the power of these teachers unions as you mentioned, it's not just about this issue. it's about the vaccination guidelines and they had their hand in all of this in the biden administration has been playing ball. but to go back to kayleigh's point, the lack of transparency from the administration as a whole. >> harris: all right, we will get back to the house judiciary committee and the attorney general america garland now, questioning from the 46 members bipartisan continues now. >> i certainly did, and i worked

on it. >> in that memo you issued a directive to the fbi. you directed the fbi to conduct meetings with leaders at all levels of government across the country, and every judicial district to strategize against an alleged trend of "harassment, intimidation and threats of violence." you didn't cite examples to distinguish legitimate first amendment activity from criminal activity, nor certainly examples of a nationwide scope or severity of such acts that constitute a rise or a spike in criminal activity which you alleged in the memo. certainly not one that would not warrant nationwide action by the fbi. here you relied on knowledge which you relied in part, which by the way characterized of this activity nationwide is domestic

terrorism and may be some vague awareness of other news reports. this was not the initiation of the investigation, and frankly, the preeminent law enforcement official of the country. other than a brief nod to the concept of first amendment rights, you included no guidance, the fbi should go about legitimate first amendment activity. you've even distanced yourself from the doj's press release on the memo today and it's referenced in the national security division. it's come to this. you directed the fbi to act with speed and meetings in 30 days is what you said. you directed the fbi to have these meetings coordinate by the united states attorneys. 33 days later i and some 30

adverbs of congress asked for advance notice of these meetings and indications of what content would be shared there. we asked for that response within ten days and that was given the time frame you set forth. are these meetings occurring? >> let me just be clear here. this memo is expressly directed against threats of violence and violence. the federal statutes that are relevant and prosecutors are well aware of where the first amendment line is and this was addressed to prosecutors and members of law enforcement. these are the kinds of statutes that we deal with every single day. they know the line. >> i'm sure you deal with that in this way, are the meetings occurring, do you know? >> i don't know whether they are ongoing but i expect that they are because i asked that they take place. >> so you have not pursued at all to know with the progress is

of your directive to do this within 30 days, you just don't know? >> i don't know whether they have been meetings in every jurisdiction's but i would expect there have been some jurisdictions because that's the purpose of the memo. they have meetings to discuss whether there is a problem, to discuss strategies and discuss with her local law enforcement does need assistance or doesn't need assistance, and that's the purpose of these meetings. >> does not make it worse? these are directed urgently to occur, but what was left in need of the memo accept your use of federal law enforcement moral authority to stigmatize a widespread movement of first amendment activity, at least a significant portion of which is directed as opposed to the ideology of what your son-in-law makes his living? that is the problem. and there is no answer, if you were on the bench you would not

accept an answer from council that simply repeated your opposition to threats of violence nationwide. and, i apologize. >> in fact, he would ask a counsel in response to the point. without having a raft or significant volume of evidence you directed the fbi nationwide concerning a matter on which there is widespread first amendment activity, there is a movement among school parents and that seems to me -- >> gentlemen, your time is expired. mr. sisley name. >> thank you for being here. before i begin i would like to acknowledge the stark contrast, and we saw over and over again evidence of mr. trump's personal

grudges dictating the doj corp. policy and how the department was weaponized and punish those who would speak against him. we hear public officials often speak about how we must ensure justice is blind but it's almost laughable, and manipulated as it was during the trump presidency. and instead understands a solemn obligation to the american people and to the rule of law. and though i disagree with some of the decisions that you made it, i have never had any doubt about your integrity or impartiality and so i think you for your service. my first question mr. attorney general is approximately, actually in 2020, about 6,000 firearms were sold to prohibited purchases because of the charleston loophole where the background check doesn't come back within 72 hours. i have a piece of legislation, the unlawful gun buyer alert

that would require the system to notify the local fbi office in the local law enforcement agency for someone who is -- there was -- he's actually got a gun. that bill is pending in the house but would it be possible for the justice department for you to initiate the palm promulgation of a regulation that would require to share information on the purchases so that we can in fact responded to people who illegally bought guns in the first year. >> we will certainly look into it, we were are certainly interested in closing all loopholes that are prohibited. >> thank you and i will follow up with your staff. cracks me a year ago the judiciary committee released a 450 page report, and this report

the report said decades of flawed jurisprudence made it impossible to get courts to stop harmful mergers. courts have become fixated on market defamation litigation even though the firm engages market power. i know you cannot ask for support without a lengthy white house process but my question is, do you think congress should update the antitrust laws to give authorities additional tools and courts additional guidance in how to ensure free and fair competition in the digital economy? >> we are supportive of updating the antitrust laws. and those exclusionary policies, and it has been -- i also asked

for in the fy22 budget for additional personnel in the division so that we can aggressively police this area. one particular problem is there are huge new numbers of merger filings and for us to possibly review the competitive or anticompetitive nature of those filings we will need additional people and additional assistance. >> we are fighting hard to make sure we have additional resources to get this work done. in march, the u.s. court of appeals, the judge would explain that the jurisprudence over the last four decades has contribute it to under enforcement. she told the subcommittee that legislative changes to the statutes may be aunt -- antiquated practices do not go on redressed or otherwise ineffective. can you identify for us and if you can't do it today, the challenges the department are

the particular types of categories, because of those challenges and what additional tools or authorities does the department need to overcome those challenges and aggressively enforce antitrust laws? >> i'm not in a position to specify those now but the staff will get back to you. i'm happy to do that. >> finally, i am grateful for all of your work to make sure that school board meetings and teachers and school staff are kept safe, and the notion that, we made reference to the peaceful sit in that we conducted, and that gun violence education and complete that to a violent insurrection that results in the death of five people in an effort to undermine my democracy was i think

disgraceful and with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. attorney general i'd like to direct your attention to the easel behind me. the first painting is a claude monet. >> i'm sorry, i can't read any of the words. >> you don't need to, just look at this beautiful painting, it still stood at christie for $7,000. claude monet was the founder of the impressionist movement, something i didn't know until i researched it. the second painting is a deep d. it sold for $500,000. the third painting, as a hunter biden. you may recognize this painting. >> i don't recognize the painting. the hunter died in painting sold for $500,000 also. you may think that such an exclusive, that he would have a

background artistic training for example. but you would be wrong if he thought that. and you might think that he had some sort of apprenticeship with a world renown artists but you would be wrong again if you thought that. or perhaps that he has been selling his work for years and unfortunately you would be wrong. it turns out that in 2019 hunter biden couldn't find a gallery to list his art. and what happened in 2020 but that changed all that is his dad became president of the united states. so a piece of art that hunter biden sells from the average american home. it's so suspicious that the obama administration ethics czar tweeted on july 10th of this year, hunter biden should cancel this art sale because he knows the prices are based on his dad's job. same on potus if he doesn't ask hunter to stop. by the way mr. attorney general, this is the same hunter biden is

being investigated by your department and the irs for tax fraud. selling fakes or having a fake skill set is nothing new to hunter biden. in his dad was vice president hunter biden received $50,000 a month from the ukrainian oligarch to sit on the board of an energy company. what was hunter biden's background in energy? nada, nothing, zilch. his daddy got off of air force two in china, hunter biden became an a private equity guru and you might ask what his background was with pacific rim investments, and with his dubious track record, inquiring minds, my question. why would any art gallery would want to sell half hunter biden's art? well he had his covert

releasable loan more than doubled by the biden administration, and this particular art gallery received by far the largest sba disaster loan. as an aside mr. attorney general, the member who represents the tenth congressional district is none other than chairman nadler. mr. attorney general, who buys hunter biden's art? who benefits? what benefits do they receive from the biden administration? the american people want to know. i have sent a letter to the department of justice before your 10-year asking them to appoint a special counsel for hunter biden. i have today sent a letter to you and i'm asking you now, will you appoint a special counsel to investigate hunter biden? >> i'm not for the same reason that i'm not able to respond to questions about investigations

of the former president or of any one else. i'm not able to discuss any investigations pending or otherwise with respect to any citizen of the united states. >> mr. attorney general, i've worked for the department of justice for 15 years and you are allowed to tell us whether you will appoint a special counsel. you may not tell les what are you are investigating are not investigating a particular matter but you are allowed to tell us whether you will appoint a special counsel and that's my question. >> apparently i just received the letter today from you and we will be taking it under advisement but i wasn't aware that you had sent me a letter. >> okay, i appreciate it. mr. chairman, i yield back but i would first like to place into the record to articles, one from the second from the new york post, art gallery -- covered loan records show.

>> is there an objection? >> the gentleman yields back. >> general garland, you may not get these four hours back but you may get some art history credit for today. you had a job before becoming a judge which i think is the best job in the world, you were a prosecutor. and when you wear a prosecutor for the department i imagined that there were times where witnesses where you had lawfully subpoenaed it did not show up to court. do you recall that according? and they had a bench warrant brought in? >> that generally did not get that far but yes, that's true. and today as we sit here in this room and it dozens of courtrooms across america, your prosecutors have that right as a witness if oh witness does not come into ask for a warrant for that

witnesses arrest? >> you are asking me about a particular case and what i can say is what the department has said about this on the record, which is if the house of representatives votes to refer criminal contempt matter to the department, we will review it and act according to the law and effects as the principles of prosecution require. >> general garland, you would agree that a subpoena lawfully issued by an article to administrator could be treated the same as a subpoena lawfully issued by article one. >> since we are really now talking about a very specific case, i don't want to get into the law. >> i just want to say if a congress at any point in time issues in article one subpoena do you agree that generally that should be treated the same as an article to subpoena? >> does different law for both.

>> in 1873, the office of legal counsel outlined the members for indicting the sitting president, 27 years later that memo was updated to reaffirm that principle. 21 years later we have seen a former president test the bounds of presidential authority and i'm wondering, would you commit to revisiting that principle whether or not a president while sitting should be indicted? >> the office of legal counsel, when they've been reviewed and reaffirmed by the attorney general and assistant attorneys general's of different parties, it's extremely rare. we have the same kind of respect for our precedents and it, i think it's also we would not normally be under consideration unless there was an actual issue arising and i'm not aware that issue arising now.

we don't want to make a commitment on this question. >> in general, should a former president should that be investigated during the department of justice. i don't want to make a discussion about any former president or anything else, but they were limited to acts while the other person was in office and that all i can say. >> much of that decision be made only after investigation takes place rather than deciding beforehand that a general principle that we are not going to investigate a former president at all? >> we should be very close with a mind that we do not intend to cross. we always look at the facts and the law in any manner before making the determination. >> i wanted to follow-up and

ask, does the recent pennsylvania decision which has been vacated and we argued change your offices reasoning and thinking, and it would you think to re-examining the doj posture and such cases? >> i -- what you are speaking. i have a lot of cases in my head but that one doesn't come up. >> last year's pennsylvania state appeals court held the, and they commit to re-examining the new cases that come in. >> a department of justice has taken it to court to defend that statute as constitutional and i don't see a ground for changing our mind. i expect that the considerations and the judges in the pennsylvania state court were brought to the attention of this. >> and in the beginning you

referenced the january 6 prosecutions and on behalf of my law-enforcement family an end the law-enforcement officers who work in this building, i want to thank you for continuing to pursue those investigations and arrests. >> general, i appreciate you waving at me. >> thank you for being here. right. i think we all agree that no one should be above the law and recent reports had former president clinton in california, he felt ill and it was also reported that he had been there to raise money for the clinton foundation. in 2017 and then attorney general jeff sessions launched a probe to scrutinize whether donors to the clinton foundation had been given special treatment by hillary clinton, when hillary clinton was secretary of state.

this investigation wound down in january of 2020. in september 2020 press reports indicated that special counsel during steam was seeking information on the fbi handling of the clinton foundation investigation. during her confirmation hearing, and special counsel durham would have sufficient staff and other resources to complete that investigation. now obviously you've had more than six months on the job, can you commit to allowing this special counsel durham's investigation to proceed and obviously be free from any political influence? >> it's -- the money in the fiscal year and mr. durham is continuing so you can readily

assume his budget has been approved. we don't normally make a statement about those things but, and that's the regulation which requires approval of the budget for the next fiscal year. and you would know if you weren't continuing to do his work. >> i will take that as a confirmation that the investigation is continuing into the clinton foundation and i think that's important. >> i am not determining what he's investigating. >> very good. another thing that came up during the confirmation hearing, and that would be under your "protection" for the purpose of becoming any kind of partisan or improper motive, and i think

there are many people that i interact with on a regular basis back in my congressional district, and it appears that when we have tackled and it's been about election integrity measure is a life initiatives, and that's what's been discussed many times here today, the silencing of parents that are very upset about what's going on. they said one thing and me that a commitment in your confirmation hearings but and i'm wondering if you could respond to that. >> on the last point i'm sure you can insure your constituents

that they are not trying -- of the justice department is not trying to shield their, whatever objections i want to make to the school boards. our only concern is violence and threats of violence so if you could make that clear to your constituents perhaps that would help on that question. and there are different views and they disagree with my determinations and there are some from the republican party that will disagree with our determinations and my failings and civil cases. that comes with the territory and that's what happens when to the attorney general. i'm doing my best to ensure that we make decisions upon the facts and the law and when i said i would protect my people from partisan influence with respect to the investigations and prosecutions, i meant that and i

will continue to do that. regardless of which side of the aisle is criticizing me for it. >> earlier members said he was concerned about the previous administration weapon icing doj. earlier i said, i would certainly hope that they would be much more sensitive. >> your time is expired. >> you chairman nadler. thank you for your house in a public service. i went to the board member. the disturbing death threats. the lack of concern by my republican colleagues for the safety of teachers and school officials and school board members is dangerous, disgusting and utterly shameful. thank you attorney general garland for seeking to protect

americans and threats of violence. might you ask some questions about racial and ethnic profiling. in 2014 and 2015, asian-americans were wrongfully arrested by the department of justice and charged with alleged spying for china, and months later all their charters were dropped but not after their lives were ruined and they incurred massive legal bills. as we looked into these cases the only thing that was the same with all of them is the defendants happened to look like me. they happen to be asian-american. in response then attorney general loretta lynch ordered implicit bias training for all her law-enforcement agents and prosecutors at the department of justice. my question to you is, will you commit to implementing implicit bias training at the department of justice? >> i thank you for your comments, i know you know and i'm greatly attuned to this problem and that's why the very first memorandum i issued when i

came to the justice department was to investigate hate crimes on a nationwide basis, particularly against the api community and that's why we have made all the changes required by the no hate act. most of them before the act was even passed because we were ready on that route. there is no excuse for this discrimination and the obligation of the justice department to protect people. >> thank you. >> let me tell you that a study came out that showed this problem was wider than we feared a period it is conducted by the sling to the south texas college of law and the findings are deeply disturbing. the study showed that one in three americans accused of espionage were falsely accused.

they found that asian defendants were punished twice as severely as nonasian defendants and it showed the department of justice issued press releases much more frequently under these cases if the defendant happens to have it and asian name versus a western name. so i will ask you again. well you commit to implementing implicit bias training that then attorney general lynch had directed at the department of justice? >> so my understanding was that that was required by -- i can't remember, the no fear act, i can't remember the name. in the bar on doing such training was rescinded by the president in an executive order i think i'm a very first day of the new administration. so of course, we will go ahead with what was required of the statute including implicit bias training.

so the case of the professor who also wrongfully accused us of buying from china. the evidence against them so from z that a federal judge dismissed the case in a rule 29 motion. i'm a former prosecutor and i know of those motions are rarely if ever granted. the judge found that even doing all evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational jury could conclude that the defendant violated the law. >> if we look at one of the darkest periods of our nation's history over 100,000 americans who happen to be of japanese descent were interned because our government could not figure out the difference between the imperial army of japan and americans who happened to be of japanese descent. i'm asking the department not to repeat that similar type of mistake and i'm asking you, if you would look into the china initiative that is not putting undue pressure on the department to wrongfully target people of

asian descent. >> internment of japanese americans. that's it terrible stain on the american people and american government and american history. i can assure you that that kind of racist behavior will not be repeated. there is a new general for the national security division is pending confirmation. sure that when he is confirmed which hopefully will be in the next few days and leave the next few weeks, we will review all of the activities in the department and his division and make a determination of which cases to pursue and which ones not. i can assure you that cases will not be pursued based on discrimination, but only on facts justifying them. >> at the time of the gentleman has expired. >> can ask unanimous consent to enter three documents into the

record? the first is a study a reference called racial disparities and espionage act prosecution, and the second is an article entitled professor acquittal is china initiative out of control. and of the final document is a letter from 177 stanford faculty members, and harms american competitiveness. dated september 8, 2021. >> without objection the gentleman yields back mr. bentz. b: thank you, it's her attorney general for being here today. let me begin by saying i was disappointed with your memo regarding school boys and parents first because i come it like you, and the parent of two wonderful kids and i have attended too many school board meeting's account. i attended many more as an eight-year member of school boards, really long years i might add. and i can assure you that i welcomed parents involvement and

i appreciated their attendance and i listen to them carefully. the fact that they took the time to be there after long days at work spoke volumes about how much they care for their kids and now no one condones violence, no one condones intimidation. but what has been repeatedly sent today is that your memo is far too aggressive, far too loose in his language and far too likely to chill the parental participation that we on school boards did so much to encourage. i would encourage a supplemental memo. second, this goes to the assertion that the memo that the steadfast commitment to protect all people from united states united states, violence and threats of violence and other forms of intimidation and harassment, this goes to the prioritization of the activation in your department and we have a situation he won in oregon that will be copied across the united states. that regards the growing of cannabis on an almost

unbelievable industrial scale. based in large part to the replaceable part of the miserable suffering of thousands if not tens of thousands of people coming across the border illegally and then pressed into indentured servitude by cartels. this is not me making this up, this is coming from any number of law enforcement agencies in oregon. we will not go into the challenges on the border, other than i wish we had a border. i also want to say that the people coming across by the thousands are being put to work in situations that are immensely bad. and the fbi by the way i've spoken with but your department needs to be doing something about it at all the levels that they can. i've attempted, each time i go through one of the horrible things are happening to these people to refer back to memo regarding the school board because it seems to me there's been a missed prioritization. we are talking about thousands of people that are in these inhuman living conditions.

the size of the problem is almost unbelievable. based on estimates for law enforcement in jackson and josephine counties in oregon, the amount being illegally raised and sold across united states and just one of these counties exceeds 13.5 billion. and just one of my counties, i have 36 counties, $13.5 billion mr. attorney general, on the backs of people. humans down like human beings -- and their immigration. i want to mention that the creation of this situation doesn't just harm these folks right across the border, and harms the community. we've had people come in and tell us about going shopping down at the local supermarket and seeing folks where a big bulky codes and under the coats they can see ak-47s. the guy is trying to take care

of the water being stolen by these cartels and they have come up to these water masters and said, you know what, i'm invisible. you can't see me. that's threat, that's intimidation and that's a cut that is referred to in your memo regarding parents. i would just suggest, the order just issued a week or so ago declaring and emergency because of this situation and finally photos of the squalid living conditions in the video of the valley showing thousands of hoop houses, many of which are illegal. >> mr. attorney general, in your memo you said directing the federal bureau of investigation to convene meetings with federal local leaders and state leaders within 30 days of this

memorandum and each federal judicial district, they have until november 3rd to have these meetings. how many meetings have taken place? >> i don't know the answer. i'm sure that they there have been meetings but i don't know how many have occurred. >> any idea how many? >> was so much urgency that five days after political organization, five days later you do a memo talking about a disturbing spike and harassment and violence an end how many -- >> your time has expired. >> attorney general garland, thank you for your service to america which is a point of special pride. right-wing violence is still a lethal threat to american micro c. they came to the capital when it

qui nguyen on followers, three presenters, militia men, they stormed the capital of the united states and injured more than 140 police officers. breaking their noses, breaking their necks, breaking the vertebrae and taking their fingers, causing traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress syndrome. and now with all of the whitewashing by donald trump, he said his mob, and that is more akin to a tourist visit, this permission of violence is giving license to the darkest impulses in white right wing politics,

not what we saw in lansing, michigan, which was a dress rehearsal for the generally six attack but also in schools and school boards across the country. here are the headlines. school boards association reaches out to the fbi for help as threats and violence hit meetings. they faced death threats and here's another one, a california teacher is hospitalized after his allegedly attacked by a parent over face mask on the first day of school. and here's one. an angry parents allegedly ripped off a teacher's mask. it's not the only physical altercation of mass in schools and i'm limited by time here but there are cases like this all across the country. now i would like to ask you this question, mr. garland.

you've been vilified and castigated by numbers of this committee for your responsiveness to the national school board association, the members of school boards across the country who are reporting this dramatic uptake and violence against school board members and education administrators, other parents who have the temerity to go to a school board meeting wearing a mask. did you tell the school board administration to reach out to you? did you coach them to reach out to the fbi? >> no. >> the letter signed by the an sba president viola garcia, and that's an sba executive director and ceo chip slaven said, americans public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat. did you write those words or tell them to write those words? >> no.

>> did you violate any rule of ethics or any rule of law by responding to this clamor across the country to try to restore some column and some peace to the schools of america? >> no i didn't, i followed my duty as i saw it. >> i noticed that it not a single sentence in your memo is violating anyone's rights. not one. and they follow the difference between conduct and speech. would you care to re-edify our colleagues about what the first amendment protects and what it doesn't protect? >> while the supreme court is quite clear that the first amendment protects spirited, vigorous, argumentative and even complaining about what the

school boards are doing or what their teachers are doing, even in the most aggressive terms. they are not allowed to do is threaten people with the death or serious bodily injury. the so-called true threats a line of cases. >> do you think that it's going to be important for us to confront violence against public institutions whether it's the united states congress as we count electoral congress votes or whether it's against governors, or against school board members who maybe don't even get paid. why is it important if you agree that it is for us to defend public institutions, public leaders and public process against violence, intimidation, threats and attacks? >> mr. chairman, the point of

order, mr. askin asked to be taken down, we don't allow personal attacks under the rules. >> i'm sorry, who did i refer to as cultlike? >> and required. >> i said that andrew clyde was in a religious cult? >> yes. cultlike. it's a derogatory clarification that's not allowed allowed under the rules. >> i will wait for direction under the chair but -- >> could we have regular order? i would ask everyone to avoid engaging in personalities and the time for the gentleman is expired. >> mr. chairman, can you rule on port of order, it's rule 17 clause four, standing rules of the house. >> it would not be timely, it would be -- i did raise it at the time.

>> mr. mcclintock. >> no, mr. mcclintock, mr. mcclintock -- >> it's applied to -- but just so we can get on with our business. >> as i said, people should -- >> i'm quite fine with that mr. chairman. >> i'm just trying to follow the rules. >> mr. mcclintock -- you said enough, and engaging personalities. mr. mcclintock. >> i think the real concern about a lot of parents is they exit -- they are being tracked it down by the fbi where a rap on the door may be of the s.w.a.t. team in the morning because i simply happen to be there. that is a serious form of intimidation. whether it was intended or not

let's clear the fact that it's having and i think you need to be sensitive about that but i want to talk about the news we received yesterday that we have seen the highest number of arrests of people illegally crossing our border in the history of our country. 1.7 million arrests this year. it is a federal crime to cross the border outside of a port of entry, is it not? >> yes, it's a misdemeanor, that's true. >> and at the justice department doesn't make those arrests, those are made by homeland security. >> the justice department is responsible for prosecuting them, so -- you know exactly how many people you are prosecuting from the riot, but up to 1.7 million who have illegally crossed our border committing a

federal crime and it doing so? >> i don't have that number on the top of my head but i'd be happy to have my staff get back to you. >> do you think that might have something to do with the fact that our border is now being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants, who tell reporters that they would consider making that change under the trump administration? >> i think there are a substantial number of issues driving migration toward the united states from the pandemic. >> if you ask the migrants they will tell you specifically what's driving it and they can do it, they can get in. and not fear prosecution from you. gallup tells us there are about 42 million living in latin america and the caribbean who intended to coming to the united states and a lot of people come each year on temporary visas but then they fail to leave when those visas expired. and again it's in violation of federal