occasions. >> bill: the ninth shooting involving a dallas police officer this year. >> bill: wow. casey, thank you. a tough job. casey stiegel in dallas. >> dana: you remember we had the mayor of dallas there. it is for a large american city one of the safest. he was on top of that. i'm sure the community is grieving and wanting to nov what else can be done. >> bill: he made the case he made it better. i think he learned a lot on the job. he came in and fired the police chief and put his own people in charge. i have think that's made a big difference for dallas. >> dana: he made sure at all points that the police feel supported by their leadership and that's important not just for dallas but other cities in america will get that, too. a big second hour coming up. fox news alert here. merrick garland arriving on capitol hill. republicans questioning about about his leadership of the

justice department. the list of topics will be pointed questions about possible interference in the years' long investigation into hunter biden. as they gather there welcome to a brand-new hour of "america's newsroom," i'm dana perino. >> bill: i'm bill hemmer. the a.g. garland appears before that committee today for the first time since republicans took control of the house. they want answers now about the hunter biden investigation and how it has been handled by the special counsel david weiss. in light of recent testimony, remember this, by i.r.s. whistleblowers that changed the game on this story, raising concerns about a possible dual system of justice. committee members mike johnson and andy biggs offering a preview of what you are about to hear. >> 65% of americans have a negative view of this department of justice and the reason is because they see every day politicized justice department. the people don't trust merrick garland. he has a lot to answer for. >> the place you will see most of us start is the david weiss

investigation of hunter biden and whether merrick garland was interfering with that. we have had whistleblowers come in and testify their investigation was hindered. david weiss, he is the guy that designed this weak plea agreement that ament matly even a judge says is not appropriate. >> dana: fox news legal editor jason chaffetz and law professor jonathan turley. carey, i remember when they announced merrick garland would be doing the testimony today. it felt like a long time away. so much has happened since then with the i.r.s. whistleblowers this testimony feels timely. merrick garland is taking it not just from republicans who are frustrated but the biden white house and biden allies are starting to see some distance between biden and his attorney general. perhaps it's over this issue. >> uh-huh. yeah, i thought that story was well placed just like the "washington post" story this

morning as well. this is good press for merrick garland. they want the story out there that the tensions have increased between him and the president. the relationship has grown cool as if this is a good message assuring they want to show they're attempting to be independent from the white house. the hearing will be one for the books. on days like this i have a little bit of ptsd when i used to prepare bill barr for these hearings. merrick garland will lean heavily on the fact that he has appointed a special counsel looking into hunter biden. they indict i had reed him last week and special counsel looking into joe biden as well. republicans will say too little too late and not the right guy. it will certainly be contentious. >> bill: professor turley, to you now. a 14-page statement that is prepared for -- i don't think he will read all of it. what would be your expectation as to how far republicans get

today? >> well, the statement from the attorney general is telling in that it says little. we expect that that is going to continue. this is an incredibly important hearing because this is a different context for his comments. the department of justice allowed critical crimes to expire. they allowed the statute of limitations to run according to whistleblowers, they had the ability to extend that statute of limitations but instead let it lapse. so those counts are presumably as dead as dillinger. people will want to ask questions about it and say well, yeah, this mantra that's an ongoing investigation doesn't seem very compelling when you allow these crimes to run. why can't you address those? another area you see is the compareson between the mandate given to jack smith and the mandate given to david weiss. much more limited and

circumspect than what we saw with jack smith. >> bill: jason, you are up first when we get our first break. here is jim jordan, chairman of the committee. >> an investigation that curtailed attempts to interview mr. biden by giving the team a heads-up. investigation that notified mr. biden's defense counsel about a pending search warrant and investigation run by mr. weiss where they told the congress three different stories in 33 days. they told this committee on june 7th david weiss said i have ultimate authority to determine when, where and whether to bring charges. 23 days later june 30th he told this committee actually i can only bring charges in my u.s. attorneys district, the district of delaware. to further confuse matters on july 10th he told senator graham i have not sought special counsel status but had discussions with the department

of justice. investigation run by mr. weiss that negotiated a plea deal that the court designed to accept. a plea deal so ridiculous the judge asked this question quote, is there any precedent for agreeing not to prosecute crimes that have nothing to do with the charges be diverted? the response from the d.o.j. lawyer, i'm not aware of any, your honor. a plea deal so ridiculous the judge asked have you ever seen a diversion agreement where the agreement not to prosecute was so broad that it encompasses crimes in a different case? the response from the d.o.j. lawyer, no, your honor, we haven't. investigation run by mr. weiss that not only had a sweetheart deal rejected but according to the "new york times" there was an even sweeter deal, an earlier deal. a deal where mr. biden would not have to plead guilty to anything. 4 1/2 years and all that and now we get a special counsel. now we get a special counsel and

who does the attorney general pick? david weiss, the guy who let all that happen. he could have selected anyone. he could have picked anyone inside government, outside government, he could have picked former attorney generals, former special counsels but he picks the one guy, the one guy he knows will protect joe biden. he picks david weiss. and here is what the a.g. said in his august 11th announcement of david weiss as the special counsel. quote, i am confident that mr. weiss will carry out his responsibility in an even handed and urgent manner. urgent manner? every witness we've talked to, the two f.b.i. whistleblowers that came forward, mr. shapley, mr. ziegler, two f.b.i. agents have all said the thing was anything but urgent. the f.b.i. said this was frustrated at the pace. frustrated at the pace and of

course the i.r.s. agents they said the investigation was slow walked. and even handed? they limited the number of witnesses that could be interviewed. tipped off defense counsel about a subpoena. judge says the plea deal was a joke. and all that is just half the story. there is one investigation protecting president biden, another one attacking president trump. justice department has both sides of the equation covered. look at the classified documents case. spring and early summer of last year the department of justice asked president trump to turn over boxes of documents. he does just that. in the process president trump finds 38 additional documents. he tells the department of justice very next day the f.b.i. comes to his home and he turns them over. then the department of justice asked the president to put any boxes he brought from the white house to his home in a storage room and secure it by locking it. he does that as well. everything they ask him to do he

did. and then what does the justice department do? august 8th, last year, they raid president trump's home. according to the f.b.i. agent, the assistant director in charge of the washington field office, the search was a complete departure from standard protocol. when we interviewed him he said first the miami field office didn't do the search. instead they sent folks from d.c. there was no u.s. attorney assigned to the case, instead it was run by d.c. and jay bratt now on the special counsel team. he said the f.b.i. didn't get president trump's counsel's approval before they did the search. and then he told us he had recommended that when the f.b.i. got to mr. trump's home, president trump east home, they contacted his counsel. wait for them to get there and do the search together. d.o.j. said no and who does the attorney general name as special

counsel in that case? jack smith. the guy who a few years ago was looking for ways to prosecute americans targeted by the i.r.s. looking to prosecute the very victims of the weaponized government, the weaponized i.r.s. jack smith, the guy who prosecuted governor mcdonald to have the supreme court overturn it in a unanimous decision. that's the guy the attorney general of the united states selects as special counsel. and you wonder why four out of five americans believe there are now two standards of justice in our great country. mr. garland, i anticipate a number of questions on these two investigations later in the hearing i expect from republicans you will also get questions about the many other concerns the american people have with the department. school boards memorandum, treating catholics a memo that said pro-life catholics are

extremist. the fifth circuit decision on the department of other agencies censoring american speech and the fisa law that's up for reauthorization this year and how that process has been abused and infringed on the privacy rights of the american people. americans believe that today in our country, there is unequal application of the law. they believe that because there is. republicans committed to making that change. with that i would yield to the gentleman from new york for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, at the outset let me make two comments. one, just about every assertion you made if your opening statement has been completely refuted by witnesses who testified before this committee. two, far from being favored, many commentators have noted that people accused of simple gun possession while under the

influence of a drug when that gun was not used in a commission of a crime are rarely, if ever prosecuted the ray hunter biden is being prosecuted. one of these committee's most important duties is conducting oversight of the department of justice. called upon to insure the d.o.j. uses the power it's granted in a fair, just manner that respects the civil and human rights of all americans. the attorney general of the united states oversees issues that affect the lives of each and every american, violent crime, drug trafficking, attacks on civil rights, threats to national security and environmental crimes are under his purview and request why they appear before this committee. to speak about the work the department is doing for the welfare of the country. this is how we insure the department stays accountable to the american people.

if it were up to the republicans americans would hear nothing about any of these issues today, nothing about the rise in domestic terrorism and what the justice department is doing about it. they would hear nothing about what the department is doing to stop hate crimes and prevent gun violence nothing about the department is disrupting efforts from russia and china and others to interfere in our elections. they've poisoned the vital oversight work and are using their power to stage one political stunt after another. they wasted countless taxpayer dollars on baseless investigations into president biden and his family. desperate to find evidence for an absurd impeachment and desperate to distract from the mounting legal peril facing donald trump. they are fought tirelessly to stop efforts to fight foreign actors. interfered in criminal

litigation and attempted to bully state and local law enforcement officers. publicized the names of witnesses who did not further their political goals leading to threats of death and physical violence against those witnesses and their families. they have caused any number of private institutions and companies millions of dollars in legal fees as they struggle to respond to ridiculous and overbroad requests for information and transcribed interviews. they have issued subpoenas for show without making meaningful attempts to get the information they seek by consent. they have levied low, baseless personal attacks on any prosecutor to bring charges against donald trump or january 6th rioters and discredit investigators not hard enough on donald trump's political opponents. they have supported those involved in the deadly attack on the capitol on january 6th in attempt to overthrow an election and justified conduct we all know to be wildly illegal like

the theft of classified materials and incitement to violence. through it all, rather than try to unite the country or solve the problems that affect us all, they have sought to exploit our driggss for political gain. they want to divide this country and make our government appear like it is broken because that's when their broken political party thrives. today i implore the public to see through the sham. i have no doubt you will hear a deluge of conspiracy theories and baseless accusations. they will quote from whistleblowers who have been broadly discredited or contradicted. they will attack federal law enforcement. they will tell you that all 91 criminal charges against donald trump are part of a conspiracy despite overwhelming evidence of each of donald trump's crimes. they will attack special counsel weiss who was appointed let us

not forget by donald trump for not being hard enough on hunter biden. republicans will continue doing what they've done for years, discrediting anyone who does not serve their political goals at any cost. the shame of it is that in this hearing room like on the house floor where we are barreling towards a government shutdown while my republican colleagues call each other name we could work together to solve any number of problems affecting the american people. more than 30,000 americans have died from gun violence so far this year alone. guns have become the leading cause of death for children age 1-17 surpassing car accidents. domestic violence and white nationalism are on the rise. we see active clubs and another white supremacist groups pop up around the country. anti-semitism is at an all time

high. china, russia and north korea are attempting to influence elections. political rhetoric are causing threats against law enforcement officials to skyrocket. our election workers receive death threats from conspiracy theory extremists. fentanyl is filling our streets and poisoning our children at historic rates. this list goes on and on. and we the people in this room are in a position to do something about it. in fact, it is our duty to do something about it. consistent with the oath we took when we were sworn in as members of congress. we could work with the department of justice and attorney general garland to address any number of substantive problems facing the american people. instead, house republicans will use their time today to talk about long discredited conspiracy theories and hunter biden's laptop. they will do it because they care more about donald trump

than they do about their own constituents. i hope my colleagues will see reason and at least attempt to work with the attorney general in good faith. sadly, on the other side of the aisle, reason and good faith seem to be in short supply. in any event mr. attorney general, i thank you for your testimony. thank you in advance for your patience. i yield back. >> all of the opening statements will be included in the record and introduce today's witness mer ache garland is the attorney general of the united states sworn in on march 11, 2021. welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today. will you please rise and raise your right hand? >> do you swear or affirm penalty of perjury the testimony you are about to give is true to the best of your knowledge, information and belief so help you god. let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative. thank you, you can be seated. please know your written testimony is entered into the

record entirely and summarize your testimony. you know how this is done. you've been here before. thank you for being here. we -- you are welcome to give your opening statement. >> is this working? >> you got it. >> thank you. good morning, chairman jordan, ranking member nadler and distincted members of this community. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the 115,000 employees at the department of justice. since the justice department was founded, it has been tasked with confronting some of the most challenging issues before the country. today we are handling matters of significant public interest that carry great consequences for our democracy. a lot has been said about the justice department, about who we are and what we are doing, about what our job is and what it is

not. and about why we do this work. i want to provide some clarity. first, who we are. the justice department is made up of more than 115,000 men and women who work every state and communities across the country and around the globe. they are f.b.i., d.e.a., a.t.f. agents and united states marshals who risk their lives to serve their communities. they are prosecutors and staff who work tirelessly to enforce our laws. the overwhelming majority are career public servants meaning they were not appointed by the president of any party. second, i want to provide clarity about what the job of the justice department is and about what it is not. our job is to help keep our country safe. that includes working closely with local police departments and communities across the country to combat violent crime. in fact, today we are announcing

the results of a recent u.s. marshal's operation conducted with state and local law enforcement. that operation targeted violent fugitives and resulted in 4,400 arrests across 20 cities in just three months. our work includes combating drug cartels that are poisoning americans. last friday, we extradited lopez, a leader of the sinaloa cartel from mexico to the united states. he is the son of el chapo and one of more than a dozen cartel members we have indicted and ex extradited to the united states. our job includes seeking justice for the survivors of child exploitation, human smuggling and sex trafficking. it includes protecting democratic institutions like this one by holding accountable all those criminally responsible

for the january 6th attack on the capitol. our job is also to protect civil rights. that includes protecting our freedoms as americans to worship and think as we please. and to peacefully express our opinions, our beliefs, and our ideas. it includes protecting the right of every eligible citizen to vote and to have that vote counted. it includes combating discrimination, defending reproductive rights under law and deterring and prosecuting attacks such as hate crimes. and our job is to up hold the rule of law. we apply the same laws to everyone. there is not one set of laws for the powerful and another for the powerless. one for the rich and another for the poor. one for democrats, and another for republicans or different rules depending upon one's race

or ethnicity or religion. our job is to pursue justice without fear or favor. our job is not to do what is politically convenient. our job is not to take orders from the president, from congress, or from anyone else about who or what the criminally investigate. as the president himself has said and i reaffirm today i am not the president's lawyer. i will add i am not congress's prosecutor. the justice department works for the american people. our job is to follow the facts and the law and that is what we do. all of us recognize that with this work comes public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate oversight. these are appropriate and important given the matters and the gravity of the matters that are before the department.

but singling out individual career public servants who are just doing their jobs is dangerous, particularly at a time of increased threats to the safety of public servants and their families. we will not be intimidated. will do our jobs free from outside influence and we will not back down from defending our democracy. third, i want to explain why we approach our job in this way. the justice department was founded in the wake of the civil war and in the midst of reconstruction with the first principle task of bringing to justice white supremacists and others who terrorized black americans. the justice department's job then and now is to fulfill the promise that it is at the foundation of our democracy, that the law will treat each of oves alike. that promise is also why i am

here. my family led religious persecution in eastern europe at the start of the 20th century. my grandmother was 1 of 5 children born in what is now belarus who made it to the united states. as did two of her siblings. the other two did not. those two were killed in the holocaust and there is little doubt that but for america, the same thing would have happened to my grandmother. this country took her in and under the protection of our laws she was able to live without fear of persecution. that protection is what distinguishes this country from so many others. the protection of law, the rule of law is the foundation of our system of government.

repaying this country for the debt my family owes, for our very lives, has been the focus of my entire professional career. that is why i served in the justice department under five different attorneys general under both democratic and republican administrations. that is why i spent more than 25 years insuring the rule of law as a judge and that is why i left a lifetime appointment as a judge and came back to the justice department 2 1/2 years ago. and that is why i'm here today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, you were right. america is the greatest country ever and we on this side are very concerned about the equal application of the law that you talked about in your opening statement. with that we'll move to five minute questions and start with the gentleman from louisiana, mr. johnson. >> mr. weiss, the rule of law

does distinguish our country but you have not upheld that. you have allowed the rule of law to erode and why 65% of the people in this country don't trust the department of justice and don't trust you. they are witnessing every day a politicized justice department in a two tier system of justice. they see the d.o.j. aggressively prosecuting president biden's chief political rival mr. trump while at the same time they see slow walking and special treatment given to the president's son. it is a fact that everybody can see with their own two eyes. i want to focus on the investigation of the biden family. many important questions for you today about that. let me just get right to the chase. has anyone from the white house provided direction at any time to you personal lily or to any senior officials at the d.o.j. regarding how the hunter biden investigation was to be carried out? >> no. >> have you had personal contact with anyone at f.b.i. headquarters about the hunter biden investigation? >> i don't recollect the answer

to that question but the f.b.i. works for the justice department. >> i'm sorry, you don't recollect whether you've talked with anybody at f.b.i. headquarters about an investigation into the president's son? >> i don't believe that i did. i promised the senate when i came before it for confirmation, that i would leave mr. weiss in place and that i would not interfere with his investigation. i have kept that promise. >> have you had personal contact with anybody at the baltimore field office on the hunter biden matter? >> no. >> on july 10, 2023, weiss told senator graham i had discussions with department officials regarding potential appointment which would have allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without the partnership of the local u.s. attorney. end quote. with whom did mr. weiss have those discussions? >> i won't get into the internal

deliberations of the department. >> you must, sir, this is important for us. we have oversight responsibility over your department and we need these answers. >> as appropriate and necessary for mr. weiss to have conversations with the department. i made clear if he wanted to bring a case to any jurisdiction he would be able to do that. the way you do that is to get an order signed by the attorney general. i promised he would be able to do that and he and his letters made clear he would be able to do that. >> can you tell us about any briefings or discussions that you personally have had with mr. weiss regarding any and all federal investigations hunter biden? >> i will say again i promised the senate i would not interfere with mr. weiss. >> underoath today your testimony is you have not had any discussions with mr. weiss about this matter? >> under oath my testimony today is that i promised the senate i would not intrude in his investigation. i do not intend to discuss internal justice department

deliberations whether or not i had them. >> okay. so your testimony today is you won't tell us whether you have had discussions with mr. weiss. >> my testimony today is i told the committee that i would not interfere. i made clear that mr. weiss would have the authority to bring cases that he thought were appropriate. mr. weiss's letter to you makes clear. >> are you aware f.b.i. officials are stated that there was a cumbersome bureaucratic process that mr. weiss had to go through to bring charges in another judicial district. >> i'm not aware. it's not true. nothing cumbersome about a process. >> those whistleblowers? >> that is their opinion, not a fact question. all i have to do is sign a section. >> mr. weiss has been the lead prosecutor on the hunter biden case since 2018. he has been the lead prosecutor

on the hunter biden case since 2018. >> since he was appointed by mr. trump. >> why has the justice department dragged this investigation out for so long? does it really taying years to determine if hunter biden lied on a federal form for purchasing a firearm? >> mr. weiss was a long-time career prosecutor. president trump appointed him. >> is that standard procedure? should it take that long to make such a simple determination? >> give me an opportunity to answer the question. >> okay. >> he was charged with that investigation under the previous administration and has continued. he knows how to conduct investigations and i have not intruded or attempted to evaluate that because that was the promise i made to the senate >> the whistleblowers gave us testimony in regards to the preferential treatment of hunter biden. has your office requested an investigation into that? >> there are well-known

processes for how whistleblowers make their claims. i am a strong proponent and defender. we have an office of professional responsibility and that's the way in which complaints from whistleblowers should be and are appropriately handled. >> i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. nadler again. >> thank you, mr. attorney general, thank you for being here today. it's no secret that some of my colleagues across the aisle have threatened to shut down the government unless and until the f.b.i. and department of justice are defunded. one trump-like presidential candidate said we should abolish the f.b.i. all together. what would be the impact on america of defunding the f.b.i.? >> defunding the f.b.i. would leave the united states naked to the malign influence of the chinese communist party, the

attacks by iranians on american citizens, and attempts to assassinate former officials, to russian aggression, to north korean cyberattacks, to violent crime in the united states, which the f.b.i. helps to fight against, to all kinds of espionage, to domestic violent extremists who have attacked our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, and who have killed individuals out of racial hatred. i just cannot imagine the consequences of defunding the f.b.i. but they would be catastrophic. >> thank you. i wanted to turn to mr. weiss investigation and authority he has been granted to conduct that investigation without interference. you testified to the senate judicial committee on march 1st of this year that david weiss had full authority over any

investigation concerning hunter biden. was that a true statement at the time? >> yes, mr. weiss has full authority to conduct his investigation however he wishes and mr. weiss has confirmed that in letters to this committee. >> thank you. this authority included insuring that weiss would be able to bring charges in jurisdictions outside of delaware if necessary, is that correct? >> i assured mr. weiss publicly that he would have the authority to bring a case outside of delaware if he thought that was appropriate. >> does that remain true today? >> yes, that is true today. >> has it ever been the case over the course of this investigation that mr. weiss would not have been able to bring charges outside of delaware. >> i promised he would be able to do that. i think is apparent in the letters exchanged with the committee and my last previous testimony in order for a united states attorney or special counsel or anyone else to bring

a case outside his jurisdiction he requires me to sign a paper called section 515. the statute that permits bringing cases outside of the jurisdiction. i promised that i would do whatever was required to enable mr. weiss to bring a case outside his jurisdiction if that's what he thought was appropriate. >> i assume it was your understanding mr. weiss was fully aware he could bring charges outside of delaware. >> mr. weiss said so in the letters he sent to the committee. >> did he ever say or do anything that might make him unsure of where he could bring charges? >> mr. weiss's own letters reflect he had never asked me to be special counsel and that he understood the process for asking for a signature on a section 515 form. >> accusations that the handling of the hunter biden matter is an example of a two tier system of justice. what is your response to that

allegation >> justice department treats anyone alike regardless of party, ethnicity, wealth. everyone is treated alike. i understand that people may not understand why particular investigations are conducted in particular ways until all the facts come out. that's what we have the courts for and all of the explanations will come out with respect to mr. weiss, for example, at the end of his period as special counsel. one of the requirements is he file a report which i have promised to make public to the extent that is lawful and consistent with department policy. it will explain his decisions to prosecute and not to prosecute. >> thank you. what are the impacts of members of congress making such accusations against the d.o.j.? does it make it more difficult to investigate the subject?

>> members of the justice department are strong and tough and able to understand their job is to do the right thing regardless of any pressures from any quarter. what is dangerous, i'm not talking about the committee. but what is dangerous is when anyone singles out a career prosecutor or a career f.b.i. agent and we know as a matter of fact that that kind of singling out has led to threats. this is a concern across the board. it is not a concern about anyone in particular. >> i think you would have been justified in referring to the committee. my time is expired. i yield back. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. attorney general. you are the only person who could insure that mr. weiss had all the necessary authority, aren't you? >> i am the only person who can sign an agreement with respect to special counsel.

the authority to do section 515 can be signed by other people in the department. >> you are aware the authority is yours. >> yes. >> you made the point you don't take orders from the president about such thing. you decide ultimately what the justice department will do. >> i announced at the beginning i promised that he would be able to bring whatever cases he wants and i have followed through on that promise. i am permitted to make that kind of promise. >> did you interact with him sufficient to insure that he knew he possessed that authority or that you would see to it he had all necessary authority? >> i don't think there is any doubt he knew. he has written three letters to this committee indicating he understood he had that authority. >> you are also aware a senior i.r.s. investigator came forward and has testified publicly that mr. weiss stated that he did not have such authority. he was not the decider.

are you aware of that? >> i am aware of the testimony. i was not present at any point during that statement. mr. weiss, who was present, has indicated that he had the authority and he knew that he had it. >> subsequent to those developments, though, you decided to make mr. weiss special counsel which you had not done before. >> mr. weiss made clear he did not ask me to be special counsel until last month and last month i made him special counsel. >> did you have some lack of information that you should have had that would have caused you to act earlier to make him special counsel? >> mr. weiss did not ask to be special counsel. >> you have said that, sir. did you take the necessary steps to inform yourself what authority he understood he had or what obstacles he was encountering? >> mr. weiss had, as i said from the beginning, at the very beginning, that he had authority over all matters that pertained to hunter biden. >> have you learned that he was,

in fact, deterred by decisions of the united states attorneys in the district of columbia and the northern district of california from proceeding as he thought best? >> with respect, mr. weiss has not said he was deterred. he said he followed the normal processes of the department and that he was never denied the ability to bring a case in another jurisdiction. >> what changed then? what made you decide it was sufficient to leave him in the situation he was until you decided to make him special counsel? >> mr. weiss asked for that authority given the extraordinary circumstances of this matter and given my promise that i would give him any resources he requested. i made him special counsel. >> until that time, was it just a matter of his predilection or did investigate and discern what he was doing with his authority and whether he had faced any obstacles?

>> i did not endeavor to investigate because i had promised that i would not interfere with this investigation. the way to not interfere is to not investigate an investigation. >> once he requested to be named special counsel, having not done so over months and months of your tenure did you ask him what had changed that made him now need to be a special counsel? >> mr. weiss asked to be made special counsel. i had promised that i would give him all the resources he needed and i made him special counsel. >> when did the justice department permit statutes of limitations to expire on some of the prospective charges against hunter biden for tax violations? >> i don't know anything about the statute of limitations here. the investigation was in the hands of mr. weiss to make the determinations that he thought were appropriate. >> are you unaware that statutes of limitations have been allowed to expire after there having

been agreements in place? >> termination of where the bring cases and which kinds of cases to bring was left to mr. weiss. >> i understand you have said that. that's part of the problem. the question is are you aware that statutes of limitations have been allowed to expire while the matter was under investigation? >> the investigators were fully familiar with all the relevant law. >> i'm asking whether you are aware of that fact, sir. >> i will say again, i will say again and again if necessary. i did not interfere with or investigate or make determinations. >> everybody in the country knows who is paying attention to this. the justice department per misted statutes of limitations to expire. every lawyer who has ever practiced understands the implications of allowing statutes of limitations to expire. do you not know as you sit here whether it occurred or not? >> prosecutors make appropriate determinations on their own. in this case i left it to mr. weiss whether to bring charges

or not. that would include whether to let statute of limitations expire or not. whether there was sufficient evidence to bring a case that was subject to the statute of limitations or not. whether there were better cases to bring or not. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. chair recognizes the lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, attorney general, for being here with us this morning. you know, as much as we see dirt being thrown in the air, there is a lot of misinformation that i think is intended to confuse people. i would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record three letters from mr. weiss that he sent to congress on june 7th, june 30th, july 10th. >> without objection. >> he said over and over again that he has full authority over

this case, including the ability to seek special counsel or special attorney status if needed. trying to imply otherwise is just simply false. mr. weiss was appointed by then president trump. your decision was to leave the trump-appointed attorney completely in charge of this, hands off from you, he makes all the calls without interference from the attorney general. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> so the idea that you would interfere is completely wrong and i would also like to ask, you talked about your independence from the president but also your independence from the congress. have you ever come across

historically an instance where the congress of the united states tried to or successfully interfered with a prosecution initiated by the department of justice based on the facts and the law? >> i want to be gentle about the word interfere. but it is just as a historical example in the case of i iran- iran-contra, the special counsel's investigation of mr. north were dismissed. >> correct. before i go into another question i have, i just would like unanimous consent to put into the record the annual statistical transparency report dated april of 2023. it is indicates that the

duplicated counting method for f.b.i. queries of u.s. persons under the section 702 database numbered over 119,000. i would just like to note, and we will work with you, this committee on a bipartisan basis is very concerned about querying of the 702 database for u.s. persons without a warrant. we're not suggesting that the law does not permit that, but we are going to visit this issue because it is my view that querying the 702 database that has been collected without due process, because it relates to foreign individuals, is completely wrong in terms of the privacy rights of americans and i just am hoping that we can work successfully with you as we craft requirements for a warrant to do that querying. i would like to ask, as we know

and has been mentioned by the ranking member, the proposal is basically to defund the police by the republicans to defund the f.b.i. i am concerned that if we defund the police as the majority has suggested, that really doesn't have an impact on the statute of limitations. so if we were to defund the department of justice, defund the f.b.i. and police has has been suggested, what would happen with the statute of limitations for cases that you are pursuing if you were not able to do that? would they be suspended in any way or would the criminals get off scot-free? >> i know in my experience as a judge if i was asked a legal question that i don't know the answer, i would go back to the office and study it and i will have to do that in this case. i don't have the answer. >> i think i do. there is nothing in the statute

that allows for the statute of limitations to be suspended because the government has been shut down or because the police have been defunded through the budget process. i just think we ought to take the implications of a shut down very seriously in terms of allowing criminals to get off. i see my time is expired, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> chair has recognized himself. mr. weiss has full authority to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it's necessary. that was your response, attorney general, to senator grassley's question on march 1, 2023. you just referenced it when mr. bishop was questioning you. he had already been turned down by the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia mr. graves. he didn't have full authority. >> i had an extended conversation with senator grassley at the time. we briefly touched on the section 515 question and how that process went.

i have never been suggested. >> you said he had complete authority but he had already been turned down. he wanted to bring an action in the district of columbia and u.s. attorney there said you can't. you tell the united states senate he has complete authority under oath. >> no one had the authority to turn him down. they could refuse to partner with him, they could not -- >> refuse to partner is turning down. >> it's not the same under a well-known justice department practice. >> here is why statute of limitations question is important and mr. bishop was getting at a few minutes ago. here is why it's important. you let the statute of limitations lapse for 2014, 2015. those were the years with the felony tax charges where hunter biden was getting income from burisma. four facts are so important. hunter biden was put on the board of burisma. made a lot of money. got paid a lot of money. a couple million bucks. he wasn't qualified to be on the board of burisma. not my words, his words.

he said he got on the board because of his last name. the brand as devon archer said when we deposed him. burisma executives told hunter biden we're under pressure, we need help. fact number four. joe biden goes to ukraine, leverages our tax money, american people's tax money to get the prosecutor fired who was applying the pressure. interestingly enough that fact is entirely consistent with what the confidential human source told the f.b.i. and they recorded in the 1023 form. the same form mr. wray didn't want to let this committee and congress see. that all happened. that all happened. what i'm wondering is why you guys let the statute of limitations lapse for those tax years that dealt with burisma income? >> one more fact that's important and that is that this investigation was being conducted by mr. weiss, an

appointee of president trump. you will at the appropriate time to ask mr. weiss that question and he will no doubt address it in the public report that will be transmitted to the congress. i don't know the answer to those questions. >> did the lawyers like oh, darn, we let it -- were they careless? >> i expect that won't be what he says. because >> you know that's not the case as mr. bishop pointed out they had an agreement and talked to hunter biden's defense counsel and let's extend the statute of limitations and at some point they made a decision we'll let the statute of limitations lapse. who decided that and why they did it, i want to know. >> mr. weiss was the supervisor of the investigation at that time and at all times. he made the appropriate decisions and you will be able to ask him that question and he will -- >> you know why they did it? everyone knows why they did it. may not say it. everyone knows why they didn't it. those tax years, that dealt with

the -- that involved the president. one thing to have a gun charge in delaware. that doesn't involved the president. but burisma goes to the white house. we can slow walk this thing along and extend the statute of limitations and lit it lapse. shapley and d.o.j. slow walked the investigation. ziegler, slow walking. d.o.j. and tax level. the f.b.i. said i would have liked to see things move faster. ms. holly said. every witness said it was slow walked and we know why. slow walked it long enough to let the statute of limitations run so they wouldn't have to get into burisma. tell me where i'm wrong. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'm asking mr. garland the question. >> i don't know the specifics of the investigation. much of what you are describing occurred during the trump

administration, during a justice department appointed by president trump. >> no it didn't. four 1/2 years, we talk about last few years. in your statement was march 1st to senator grassley. >> i'm sorry, i was trying to respond to your descriptions of what the i.r.s. agents said about certain things. statute of licktations is six years. >> i will say again the explanation for why the statute of limitations was lapsed, if it was, has to come from mr. weiss. >> one last question real quick here. who decided that david weiss would stay on as u.s. attorney? >> this occurred before i came, mr. weiss had been kept on. i promised the -- >> you can walk all through that. who decided? the white house decided. the serve at the pleasure of the president, right? joe biden decided to keep u.s.

weiss as u.s. attorney. he was told he could stay on until february. pretty fundamental question. who decided david weiss would stay at u.s. attorney in delaware >> chairman, your time has expireed. >> you asked the question after your time was expired already. point of order. >> gentleman can respond. >> mr. weiss was the u.s. attorney for the district of delaware when i came on. appointed by president trump. i promised he could stay on for this investigation and. >> mr. chairman i believe you misquoted from the transcript of the senate hearing. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the entire transcript of the senate hearing. >> without objection. ms. jackson lee from texas.

>> mr. chairman, none of the republicans' goals today include solving americans' problems of which they are concerned of. there are many reasons, mr. attorney general, that prosecutors decline to bring charges. one of those reasons is that they don't have any evidence for a conviction. that is the justice way. that is just in america. let me raise these questions and concerns with you today. as we all know, republicans have repeatedly alleged that the d.o.j. and f.b.i. are conspiring to shield the biden family from public criticism and giving hunter biden special treatment in its investigation. they have demonized law enforcement officials working with this case at every turn which has led to increased threats against f.b.i. officials, law enforcement that they pretend to support. i want to place to the record two excerpts from recent

transcribed interviews and copies be made available to you. first is from a june interview with jennifer moore, f.b.i.'s former executive assistant director for human resources. f.b.i. received so many threats it had to stand up an entire 10-person unit just to deal with them. it is unprecedented. it is a number we have never had before. the second excerpt is from an interview earlier this month with thomas, the special agent in charge of f.b.i.'s baltimore field office. here is what he said. i joined the f.b.i. 25 years ago for a reason, to protect the american people. up hold the constitution. i've been to war and my kids have been evacuated from war zones. i've been in some bad things. i have accepted that. i am totally focused on two things the first is like every investigation i want to get to a resolution and a fair apolitical way.

the second thing becoming more important and more relevant is keeping my folks safe. that part i've never expected to have to be able to be concerned about keeping family safe so that for me this is becoming more and more of a job that i have to do and take away from what i was assigned or signed up to do which was to investigate and do these things. when you talk about potential frustrations with communication, impersonally frustrated with anything that places my employees and families in enhanced danger. our children, their children did not sign up for this. do you agree that politically charged rhetoric claiming law enforcements agents are corrupt and contribute to this onslaught of threats against public servants? >> as i said in my opening statement, we have had an astounding number of threats against public servants over the last several years. i think that when career public

servants in the justice department and in election workers and airline crews, when they are singled out, this can lead to threats of violence and actual violence. we have the actual example of an attack on an f.b.i. office by somebody who was incensed by political rhetoric. this does happen. we must not allow that to happen in this country. >> does rhetoric regarding the biden case have any basis in reality? >> i didn't hear the first part. >> does the rhetoric regarding the biden case have any basis in reality? >> no. >> how does it affect the ability to do the work. f.b.i. and d.o.j. employees. >> as i've already said, the agents of the f.b.i. and the prosecutors understand that

criticism comes with their job. and they will continue to do their jobs without fear or favor. but the idea of threatening their safety or their families is just abhorrent. >> thank you. and i assume that provisions have had to be in place to protect these agents and their families. >> i didn't hear the first part. >> i assume provisions or protections have been put to place to protect agents and their families. let me move onto the fentanyl crisis and let me just put on the record so that you can probably summarize and i ask for the indulgence of my chair. in any event, that the f.b.i., the d.o.j., are focused needle point focused, if you will, on the crisis of fentanyl. i want to follow up with 1 or 2 other questions if you would be able to comment on these collectively. i am dealing with the crisis of

human trafficking and prioritizing of america's children. they are under siege. the level of child sexual abuse materials generating into human trafficking. i want to put hr30 on the record, indicates that there are 99,000, i.p. cases where they are enticing children and only 1% of them being investigated. i would like your comment on that. finally in the approach of high yom kippur to emphasize the work that is still being done with anti-semitism, attacks on immigrants and african-americans and latinos. if you would answer those questions. fentanyl, human trafficking and then domestic terrorism. >> these are all horrendous problems propagated by people who are truly evil. we are fighting the fentanyl scourge in every possible way starting with the precursors in