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

china to the labs in mexico to the cartels that are bringing the drugs into the united states, to their networks in the united states, to the streets of america. and we will continue to do that with every resource that congress gives us. human smuggling and sex trafficking are obviously abhorrent. the justice department has task forces on both of these subjects and have brought many, many cases on these subjects. the idea of putting sexually explicit material about children on the web is another area that we are continuing to investigate and prosecute and to ask the social media to take down from their sites. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i'm just wondering, mr. attorney general. has anyone at the department told president biden to knock it off with hunter? you guys are charging hunter biden on some crimes, investigating him on others, you

have the president bringing hunter biden around to state dinners. anyone told him to knock it off? >> our job in the justice department is to pursue our cases without reference to what's happening in the outside world. >> yes or no, have you done that? it's a no? >> no one that i know of has spoken to the white house about the hunter biden case. of course not. >> so hunter biden is selling art to pay for his $15,000 a month rent in malibu. how can you guarantee that the people buying that art aren't doing so to gain favor with the president? >> job of the justice department is to investigate criminal allegations. >> are you investigating this? someone who bought hunter biden's art ended up with the prestigious appointment to a federal position. doesn't it look weird that he has become this immediate success in the art world as his dad is president of the united states? isn't that odd? >> i am not going to comment.

>> not going to comment or investigate. hunter biden associate devon archer told us that hunter sold the appearance of access to then vice president biden. are you confident he has stopped doing that? >> i didn't understand the question. >> hunter biden associate devon archer told us hunter sold the appearance of access to then vice president biden. are you confident he has stopped? >> i will say again that all these matters are within the purview of mr. weiss. i have not interfered with them. >> if you were confident he had stopped you could probably tell us. so it was a lot of chinese money that was working its way through these shell companies into the accounts of the biden family. so the china initiative was set up during the trump administration at the department of justice to go after the malign influence of the chinese communist party and the biden justice department dissolved the china initiative. i'm wondering does the

department have any documents that would detail the basis for why you got rid of the china initiative that president trump had set up? >> assistant attorney general for the national security division gave a long speech and testified before congress several times. >> tell us all now why was the china initiative dissolved? >> assistant attorney general said we face attacks from four nation states. north korea, china, russia, and iran. we need to focus our attention on the broad range of these attacks. >> are you saying that north korea has the same malign influence risk to the united states as the chinese communist party? are you trying to represent there is parity there? here is what it looks like. it looks like the chinese gave all this money to the bidens and then you guys came in and got rid of the china initiative and it was successful. i saw one rationale you got rid

of it because it was racial profiling. one of the people you convicted was a guy named charles leber, harvard professor taking $50,000 a month to do china's bidding and give them whatever research was being done. are you aware of the millions of dollars that moved through rob walker's shell companies from chinese communist party entities into biden family bank accounts. are you aware of that? >> there were a lot of questions that you just asked. let me start with first one about north korea. north korea is a dangerous actor both kineticly and respect to cyber. >> not on par with china. it makes you look unserious to suggest that. answer the question about whether or not you know about all the millions of dollars that moved through -- >> you don't want meh to answer about north korea. >> i already know the answer. they aren't the same risk of china. do you know about the money that moved throughout walker's shell companies yes or no. >> as i said repeatedly i have

left these matters to mr. weiss. i have not intruded. i have not interfered. i have not -- >> you are looking the other way on purpose. everybody knows what stuff is happening. people don't pay bribes to not get something in return, right? the china initiative resulted in the convictions of a harvard professor, someone at monsanto. we were working against the chinese. they paid the bidens. now you tell me north korea is the big threat. one thing on january 6th. did the f.b.i. lose count of the number of paid informants on january 6th? >> let me answer your question about china. >> i only have five minutes. >> you asked me a question and you haven't -- >> did you lose count of the number of federal as sets. >> let him answer the question. >> the attorney general can respond. >> china is the most aggressive,

most dangerous adversary the united states faces and we're doing everything within our power to rebut that, to stop that, to prevent their invasions both kinetic, and through cyberspace and we'll continue. >> if someone gave that answer in your courtroom when you were a judge you would tell them they're being non-responsive and ask them to answer the question. >> point of order. >> badgering the witness. >> point of order. >> time is expired. >> i was -- >> your honor, you want to stick with that? point of order either way. >> i understand that, too. the gentlemen asked the question before the time expired. attorney general did not respond to the gentleman's question but the confidential human sources on january 6th. he didn't respond. i will recognize -- he was not given a chance to answer the question before that. the witness might have thought. >> mr. chairman, the witness

does not control the time. >> exactly right. members control the time. if they want to switch their question and focus on one more question they would like an answer to i want to give the witness a chance to respond to that final questions mr. gaetz asked. someone else will ask it i'm sure. we recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> follow up a few of the questions that were asked here. did devon archer not say joe biden did nothing wrong? >> i only know about mr. archer from newspaper reports. want to be clear i kept my promise to not involve myself in that investigation. >> he said joe biden did nothing wrong. secondly, did you say that president trump -- president trump appointed weiss who then you appointed? >> yes. president trump appointed mr. weiss as united states attorney. >> that should take care of that issue. the department has weapon

ayer'sed. wasn't there an investigation of mr. gaetz and you didn't prosecute him >> the justice department was not make comments. >> that was a beautiful exchange there and shows we didn't do that. you are the nation's chief law enforcement officer and i appreciate that. law enforcement is one of our government's fundamental functions, crime is growing too much in this country and my city of memphis as well. we need law enforcement to be effective, swift and fair. focus my questions on what affects the american people, crime. how do we get smarter law enforcement requiring smart resource of allocations not about funding or less funding but the right funding for the right programs and see that that happens? memphis hiring has become more difficult. we've lowered stand orders to arts to get more officers. the cops program is helping us review policies and procedures. what can department of justice

do to help see that law enforcement is more efficient and effective? >> so the key to this is our partnership, the f.b.i., d.e.a., marshals, a.t.f. partnership at every local level with local and state enforcement and task forces in discussions to target the most dangerous criminals in those communities. but at the same time, to engage the communities to help engender community trust in law enforcement. everyone who has prosecuted violent crime cases, including me, knowing that you need the trust of the community in order to get witnesses. and we in the justice department are helping our state and local colleagues do just that. the funding you described from the cops office and the office of justice programs allows us to give money to state and local

police organizations that are having trouble with recruitment and retention and promotion of law officers. and helps them make their departments respectful of constitutional rights and at the same time effective in the investigation and the prosecution of criminal law violations. >> thank you for the programs through cops. you have reinstitute you had patterns and practices investigation of certain police departments. memphis is one of them. thank you for doing that. can you share with us how important those pilot programs are and how they can improve policing? >> yes. congress has authorized the justice department to conduct pattern of practice investigations when there is a reasonable belief there has been unconstitutional pattern of unconstitutional behavior in a police department. we are careful to select those cases where we think there is such a pattern. we make those investigations.

we then work with the law enforcement agencies in the cities. our hope is to come to a consent decree that will lead to a better, more efficient, and more constitutional police department. we have been successful in all of our cases to date in reaching consent agreements. >> thank you, sir. you were part of announced bringing of charges, federal charges against the five officers who killed tyree nichols in memphis. thank you for that. we need that federal charge and we need our department looked at. if there is a shutdown of the federal government, how will that affect the department of justice and affect policing and local communities? >> i haven't done a complete calculation on the effects of a shutdown and the difference between which employees are indispensable under the statutes and which aren't. it will disrupt all of our

normal programs including our grant programs to state and local law enforcement and to our ability to conduct our normal efforts with respect to the entire scope of our activities including helping state and locals fight violent crime. >> thank you, sir. happy new year and i yield back the balance of my time. >> bill: the gentleman mr. mcclintock from california is recognized. >> mr. attorney general looking at the appointment of jack smith and david weiss, this double standard of justice couldn't be more glaring. jack smith was deeply involved in the i.r.s. scandal that targeted conservative political groups to harass. his malicious prosecution of governor mcdonald was overturned by the u.s. supreme court. chief justice roberts rebuked him directly for attempting to criminalize political activity. you appointed him to prosecute

joe biden's chief rival for the presidency. then we have the appointment of david weiss. he allowed the statute of limitations to run out on any charges that could have implicated joe biden in influence peddling. originally offered biden a sweetheart deal that was upended by the court and he is the one you appointed to pursue the charges that could implicate joe biden. that leads me to only two explanation else, either corruption or incompetence. which is it? >> those are the kind of questions that judges would rule out of order. >> i'm sure you would. which is it? >> i said before and i will say again, mr. weiss was the republican appointed united states attorney appointed by president trump. >> do you at least see the obvious double standard applied in these two appointments? >> mr. weiss was a republican

appointee. mr. smith is not a registered to either party. his entire career was as a career prosecutor. >> i'm not asking party registrations. i'm asking about their records and how the records would commend them to the appointment you made. this is a question of judgment and a question of motive. what was motivating you to do this? >> mr. smith had a nationwide reputation for integrity and for appropriate prosecution. his work can be measured by what he actually has filed. everyone in the country can see the indictments he charged. >> how can you say that after he was so heavily implicated in the i.r.s. scandal or the rebuke the supreme court made him and other examples? let me go on. we have had two i.r.s. whistleblowers inform congress of attempts by senior justice department officials to obstruct the criminal investigation into

millions of dollars of ill-gotten and undeclared income to hunter biden. they noted several deviations by department of officials from normal process that provided preferential treatment to hunter biden, direct quote. including allowing the statute of limitations to lapse. prohibiting investigators from referring to the big guy or dad in witness interviews. excluding the team from meetings with defense counsel and notifying defense counsel of pending search warrants. u.s. attorneys office tipped off the bidens of an impending search of a storage unit where records were being kept. that sounds a lot like obstruction of justice to me. was that coming from you or somebody else? >> i'm sorry, was that coming from you? i don't understand the question. >> all of the actions that your

employees took to obstruct the investigation of hunter biden and the earnings that he made and the taxes he failed to declare, their source and ultimately who they were paid to. >> i will say again with respect to the hunter biden investigation, that it has been and still is in the hands of mr. weiss, an appointee of president trump. i don't know about all these allegations. some of them appear to have been from the period when attorney general appointed by president trump was still the attorney general. >> do these charges trouble you at all? >> mr. weiss will have an opportunity to explain the decisions that he made. >> you are the guy in charge. does this trouble you? >> i have intentionally not involved myself in the facts of the case, not because i'm trying to get out of responsibility, but because i am trying to

pursue my responsibility. >> your f.b.i. director testified before this committee of an uptick in known or suspected terrorists coming across the southern border and he told us that the southern border represents a massive security threat. those were his words, a massive security threat. do you agree? >> i am perfectly happy to align myself with the director of the f.b.i. >> why is it, then, that senior administration rescind the trump-era orders that had secured that border? noticing an increase in potential terrorists. >> the answer to this question about immigration law is an extremely long answer. i would defer to the department of homeland security responsible for the physical security and first contact at the border. >> we tried to get answers from

him and we didn't get answers. we were hoping you would. you have requested a short break. well resume in five minutes. >> okay. sorry. >> harris: while they take a short break at a moment when the attorney general of the united states had decided that a question about illegal immigration in this country and the southern border and the surge of people that continue to come across our border in between checkpoints even, some of them we don't know who they are. 1.5 million gotaways at this point. while he decided not to answer that because he said the answer would be too long, they didn't just move on to another topic. they took a break. would love to hear his answers to the questions about the border. meanwhile, we have jonathan turley fox news contributor, george washington university law professor and constitutional law attorney. great to have you in "focus." talk about a hot seat.

merrick garland is in for the longest day of his life in terms of how it must feel. the hot points and most important things that struck you so far. >> well, it's what we expected. first of all the substance of his answers really doesn't exceed what you find in a hallmark greeting card. basically reciting the same line we expected that this is all given to special counsel weiss. there was one thing that i took note of and that is when he was asked whether -- when would these answers be forthcoming, he said they will all be forthcoming from weiss and then he added when he submits his report to congress. now, that is significant because usually a special counsel will not submit the report until largely at the end of the investigation. that would likely be after the election. certainly would run beyond the

impeachment inquiry. that is quite a significant statement if that's what he intended because weiss was scheduled to go before the house to answer questions. and it was right before that occurred that garland made him special counsel. and many of us said that the impact of that could be that it insulates weiss from having to answer these questions. the statement that he just made would suggest, unless he changes it in later questions, that he intends to answer questions much, much later in the form of the final report given to congress. >> harris: so hough would you describe that in terms of what republicans are trying to do? is that the ultimate block mechanism? is it something else? >> this is going to get very serious very quickly. not just an oversight question.

you now have an impeachment inquiry in the field. part of that inquiry is whether there was an abuse of power, an abuse of office. whether there was influence that benefited the president's son. if the attorney general is saying we aren't going to answer any questions about the issuance of a final report by the special counsel, that is not going to satisfy congress. they have to get answers as part of their impeachment inquiry. so this is going to set up a heck of a confrontation if that is indeed the intended meaning the answer had from the attorney general. >> harris: it better set off some fire. the american people need to know what they need to know before they vote. if what you are saying is the critical questions that had to do with national security. whether or not a president, then vice president joe biden would have been part of a constellation including his son, hunter biden, where access was gained, where favors were done,

what congressman matt gaetz, what he said is so true. you don't give money. you don't do business with people anticipating that you will get nothing in return. no one does business like that. otherwise it is called a favor or a gift. and i don't know if you are doing gifts and favors with the places that were listed for those suspicious activity reports, china, so on and so forth. i don't know if we are in the business of giving stuff away as a country, then vice president joe biden and his son. so if those allegations are not looked at before voting public goes in november of 2024, what should that mean to the nation? >> i think that is really the problem here. the polls show that the american people not only have a record low of trust in the department of justice under merrick garland, but they also believe the president was involved in these business arrangements. we don't know for sure but

that's certainly the public perception. what the attorney general is doing today is only going to magnify those concerns with the public. the backup argument being put forward by many in the media, yeah, they were selling influence and access but just an illusion. what that means they are saying all these corrupt figures were chumps, the bidens fleeced and thought they were buying influences and access but they really didn't get it. how do we know? that's the point of the impeachment inquiry. now what the attorney general's position here is that you have to go ask weiss. then he suggested weiss isn't going to give you any answers until the final report. that's not going to go over well with this congress. >> harris: you said we don't know what happened between the president and his son and those 20 phone calls that have come into evidence now where hunter biden was on the line with

business associates, the then vice president joe biden was on the other end of that line reportedly according to them talking about the weather. so until you can basically get the transcripts of those calls, the only evidence you have is that's a lot of calls with your son with foreign business people on the other end and then you take a look at the timing of the calls, who is visiting the white house and you can start to put together a tapestry of things that you can overlay on what you know to be facts but you are still going to need to know the texture of those phone calls, the words that were said. your best time to get that is when people are feeling pressure and you can bet hunter biden is feeling some pressure right now. joe biden feeling some pressure. very low in the polls, political pressure. but now potentially they won't be able to press in? >> well, that's -- i think the frustration of congress is they are pursuing these questions.

this business about they just talked about the weather, they were on a speakerphone in cafe milano, one of the most popular places in washington. it wouldn't be a call where you would say in a quid pro quo. the point of the call is to show the vice president at that time was just a call away. what congress is 0ing in on, also what archer said, was that on one occasion the ukrainians said we have a deal. do something with this guy shokin, the prosecutor. the response was we'll make a call to d.c. that's the type of thing the house is pursuing. who does the call go to? why did they make the call at that time? five days later vice president biden had his famous ultimatum to fire shokin. they have to pursue those questions. >> harris: when they resume the

hearing, you and i will come back together. right now we have a bit of breaking news. it has to do with the last topic merrick garland said he couldn't talk about. any answers about the border would take too long. we're perched, attorney general. thirsty to know what you think about this situation. i hope somebody reasks the question in the hearing. we are watching live pictures as a massive group of some four now illegal immigrants. the trickle has now gotten to a huge number. they have are passing into eagle pass, texas, unbelievable the numbers we've seen in the last 24 to 72 hours. we've got bill melugin on the ground and bill, i have to say i'm seeing many, many, many more women and children in this group. >> good morning to you. i've been doing this 2 1/2 years at the southern border.

this group behind me is the biggest mass single crossing i have ever seen since i started at fox news. initial count for dps is 4,000 people in the process of crossing illegally. a large majority are single adult men. most telling me earlier from venezuela. let me ask them. venezuela? venezuela. you can hear a lot of venezuela. that's what we've been getting earlier. many migrants telling my producer that they arrived via train in northern mexico, the city directly across from us. you might be able to pull up the fox news drone now. this has been going on for over an hour just a massive long line, illegal crossing shore to shore. i can't see the drone now so i can't tell if there are still people in the water or not. it has been going on non-stop. texas dps troopers telling us the initial count is 4,000 people have just crossed

illegally here into eagle pass. you can see more of them are still streaming in. i cannot stress to you how long this has been going on, for over an hour. a non-stop line again predominantly single adult men from venezuela. we were showing video earlier this morning of venezuelan men on a train riding to the border flying a venezuelan flag saying let us through, let us through. the mexican government stops the trains for a little while. those trains were let through and you can see the result. monday morning we had a similar surge, a group of 2500 controlsed here in the exact same location after they arrived on a train. harris, this is just exploding down here at the southern border. take another look at our ground camera here. none of these people are afraid of the consequences for crossing the border illegally. biden administration has repeatedly said -- >> harris: what would those be? they don't think there are any. they are allowed -- >> you remember when title 42

was dropping, secretary mayokas and the biden administration were saying if you cross illegally, you will be subject to removal under title eight. the bedrock of u.s. immigration. a five year asylum ban and deported and removed. >> is that happening? >> the number of people they're deporting is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what's coming across our border. 45,000 migrant incounters. do they look like they're worried about being deported? they're turning themselves in. they won't make this long journey and give themselves out if they think they will get deported. they expect to be released into the united states. when you see how back logged our system is in court dates in 2026 and 2027. they will be mass released. the most chaotic scene since we

had the 20,000 haitians under the bridge in del rio two years ago, september of 2021. this group you are looking at right here, it was even bigger. they are trying to bring in bus after bus after bus to process these people. they can't get them out fast enough. more people are still in the water crossing. i apologize if i talk over you >> harris: we needed to get back to this hearing. bill melugin doing a great job. attorney general for the united states, merrick garland, continuing to testify before the house judicial committee. let's watch. >> was something that he is not equipped to do, which is investment banking. so republicans looking at hunter biden instead of jared kushner americans don't understand how that could be. they also increasingly alarmed about the fact that republicans

in control of the house only seem to have three objectives, one is to impeach joe biden, number two is to shut down -- impeach or get rid of kevin mccarthy actually, and the third is to shut down government and a subset of that is to defund the d.o.j. and the f.b.i. for trying to hold donald trump accountable. so the american people are watching that and they also appreciate the fact that you have had a distinguished career as a prosecutor and a d.o.j. official, as well as 24 years on the bench. you served on the second highest court of the land as a judge for 24 years, the d.c. circuit court of appeals. we appreciate your service. you were for seven years the

lead -- you were the -- you managed that entire office. we thank you for that. you also served on the judicial counsel for a number of years. so you are steeped in the rule of law. you are a judge extraordinaire and as a judge, you never had the occasion to receive a private jet travel to an exotic location by a corporate billionaire, did you? >> no. >> you never received an offer to get a ride on a private jet? >> no. >> did you take any vacations at exclusive resorts paid for by a billionaire? >> i know these are not

hypothetical questions and i think this is really not within my realm. >> you were a judge and you know the rule of ethics for judges because your bench was covered by a code of conduct, is that not correct? >> all the judges that are apple yacht and district judges are covered with the code of conduct. >> you never would have had somebody to pay for your god son's tuition to private school, would you? >> i don't want to answer these hypothetical. to me they're hypothetical questions. i've said this before and quite publicly and long ago. always held myself to the highest standards of ethical responsibility imposed by the code and that's really all i can answer here. >> it is required that judges and justices avoid even appearances of impropriety,

isn't that correct? >> again, i know you are asking this both hypothetically and not. all i can say is i follow the code of judicial conduct and it includes avoiding appearances. >> let me ask you this question, senator whitehouse and i sent a letter to you alerting you to the fact that we were asking the judicial counsel to refer the matter of clarence thomas being? violation of the ethics in government act to the justice department and after that representative alexandria ocasio-cortez, along with myself and others, requested that you take that matter up directly. have you responded to either one of those letters? if not, why not? what action have you taken pursuant to those letters? >> i assume if you sent the

letter, we have it and i will speak to the office of legislative affairs about where it is at this point. >> time of the gentleman expired. the chair recognizes mr. issa. >> good day. this may be the reason that it's good for you to leave the chief justice and that group before each of us speak because you would have already heard all that. i want to thank you personally for your office and your engagement on camp lejeune and obviously a vast amount of litigation that is one of the many, many jobs that falls at your feet. one of the jobs that falls at our feet here is that we are watchdogs. executive branch. you have previously said that you are not congress's attorney. and you have said you are not the president's attorney. and i'm assuming you are neither our prosecutor nor defense attorney and you are neither the president's prosecutor nor

defense attorney. that's why today's investigation really does deal with the fact that if you are not, by definition the president's prosecutor, but we have an obligation to see whether or not the president, member of his family or in concert with the president's activities in fact need to be overseen, admonished or even prosecuted. so i have a couple of questions for you. one of them is that you have not said this very much today but you often say i cannot comment on that because it's an ongoing investigation. when we ask for information, you very commonly say that it is the policy, not the law, but the policy of the department of justice not to provide information related to an ongoing investigation. so far i'm on track, is that correct? >> i think i've said more than it's a policy. i think the letters we sent

trace it to the constitutional separation of powers, rule 6e. federal rules of criminal procedure. in general i am in accord with what you are saying. >> one of the challenges we face is just a matter of weeks ago, a federal judge found the actions of now special prosecutor to be so outside what he could agree to that he pushed back on a plea settlement and nullified it and sent the u.s. attorney going back. in light of that, don't you think it's appropriate for that portion to be a, pre-ongoing investigation and for congress to legitimately look at the activities leading up to that failed plea bargain, rather than wait until weeks, months, or years from now a case is fully settled? >> so if you will give me a chance, first, i don't agree

with the characterization of what happened in the plea. the district judge performed her obligations under rule 11 to determine whether the parties were in agreement as to what each had agreed to and determined that they were not. the plea fell apart, as you know. there has been another prosecution. that leads to the second thing. mr. weiss is in the midst of an ongoing prosecution on the very matter you are talking about. >> mr. attorney general, if we believe and we do, at least on this side of the dais, that a pattern of behavior is occurring relative to the investigation of hunter biden, particularly and including while he lived in the vice president's home, while he operated co-mingled with the vice president, and even today as he travels with the president, so in light of that, can you agree that, in fact, it should be reasonable for us to look at a number of items,

including -- one that i want your answer on and i know we have limited time -- mr. weiss supposedly had this ability to bring a prosecution anywhere. he now has that ability. however, are you concerned and should we have the right to look into the fact that political appointees in california and in the district of columbia refused to, in fact, cooperate with him in those invest -- in the investigation he was charged with doing in delaware but which flowed over into their jurisdictions? isn't that, in fact, an example where those political appointees of the now president, that their decision not to cooperate with him creates at least an appearance of political interference with the investigation of the president's son and possibly activities related to the president? >> happy to answer this question and hypothetical but not

specifics because i have stayed out of this matter. in the hypothetical, it is the normal process of the department that if a u.s. attorney in one district wants to bring a case in another they go to that other district and consult. it's perfectly appropriate. they do that to determine what the policies are in that district. what the practices have been in that district and what the judges are like in that district. a u.s. attorney in another district does not have the authority to deny another u.s. attorney the ability to go forward and i have assured mr. weiss that he would have the authority one way or the other. i think mr. weiss's letters completely reflect that. >> thank you. to be continued. >> time of gentleman is expired. recognize the gentleman from california. >> we meet today at a momentous time in our history. the country is about to go through a great trial.

i do not mean any of the several trials of the former president, but rather a trial of the proposition that we're a nation of laws committed to the rule of law and that no one is above the law. it is the proposition well-known around the world because it is the one essential ingredient in all democracies. we have all professed our belief in this principle but never truly tested. not like it is today. in this committee we're engaged in a portion of that trial. the chairman would abuse the power of this committee by trying to interfere in the prosecutions of donald trump, by trying to use the committee's power of subpoena to compel criminal discovery in effect making the committee kind of criminal defense firm for the former president. in doing so, the chairman of this committee would establish a very different proposition. through mr. jordan's action he would establish the principle that the rule of law should apply to almost everyone, just not the leader of his party.

according to this alternate proposition if you were the president of the united states and you lose your re-election, you can violate the law and constitution to try to stay in power and if you are successful, well then maybe you get to be president for life. and if you fail, there is no repercussion. this proposition is also well-known to the world and it is called dictatorship. mr. jordan hopes the cam pledge hills afahd on the rule of law by claiming donald trump is -- it is the claim political as it is devoid of any factual basis. it is cynical based on the belief the american people cannot discern fact from fiction. but i am betting on america, history has shown those who bet against her aren't successful and often covered with shame. i believe in the rule of law and thank you mr. attorney general

for defending it. let me now turn to some of the false claims asserted by the former president and some on this committee. on sunday the former president appeared on a national news sunday program and was asked about four indictments and 91 counts facing him. his response was biden indictments. excuse me, biden political indictments. he said to the attorney general, indict him. mr. attorney general, i want to give you a chance to respond. was the president telling the truth or lying when he said that president biden told you to indict him? >> no one has told me to indict and in this case the decision to indict was made by the special counsel. >> so that statement the president made on sunday was false? >> just going to say again that

no one has told me who should be indicted in any matter like this and the decision about indictment was made by mr. smith. >> let me ask you this question about the prosecution of hunter biden. the prosecutor in that case, mr. weiss, was appointed not by joe biden but he was appointed in the first instance by donald trump, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> he was continued in that position, was he not? >> he was continued in that position, yes. >> mr. attorney general, can you imagine -- can you imagine the hugh and cry you would hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if you had removed him from that position. can you imagine the claims that you had removed a prosecutor who was diligently investigating hunter biden. can you imagine the outrage they would have expressed? >> i can say that during my confirmation hearing, discussed

with many senators on that side of the aisle, their desire and actual insistence that mr. weiss be continued to have responsibility for that matter and i promised and i said at my confirmation hearing that he would be permitted to stay and that i would not interfere. >> mr. attorney general, that was exactly the right decision. that was the right decision to give the american people the confidence that even a prosecutor chosen by the former president would continue in the investigation into the son of the current president. that was exactly the right decision. exactly the right decision and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have been screaming if it were otherwise. but their attack on you is completely devoid of fact, of principle but i appreciate you

doing the right thing for the department of justice and for the american people. >> attorney general garland, elon musk was a democrat who supported biden. he became a critic of the administration and exposed the censorship regime. per public reports the d.o.j. has opened two investigations of elon musk. mark zuckerberg on the other hand spent $4 hundred million in 2020 tilting the elections secretly for democrats. no investigations whatsoever. to the american public these look like mafia tactics. you pay your money, we look the other way. you get in our way, we punish you. the american public sees what these tactics are. i want to direct your attention to video here that we are going to play. >> obviously that's a significant matter. an ongoing criminal investigation and i won't

comment on an ongoing criminal investigation. >> were these pipe bombs operable? atf is the expert. >> again it's an ongoing criminal investigation and under longstanding policy i can't comment. >> we know this is an active ongoing investigation and there are some restrictions on that. >> we can handle classified information and we fund your department and so you need to provide that. >> it's not respectfully an issue of classification but an issue of commenting onion going criminal investigations, something by longstanding department policy we are restricted in doing and in fact the last administration actually strengthened those policies partly because >> that's not our policy. let's move on. >> so i'm not going to violate this form of rule of law and not going to comment on an investigation that's ongoing. >> peter navarro was indicted for contempt of congress.

aren't you, in fact, in contempt of congress when you give us this answer? this is an answer that's appropriate at a press conference. it is not an answer that's appropriate when we're asking questions. we are the committee that is responsible for your creation, for your existence of your department. you cannot continue to give us these answers. aren't you in fact in contempt of congress when you refuse to answer? >> congressman, i have the greatest respect for congress and the greatest respect for the constitution and laws of the united states. the protection of pending investigations and ongoing investigations, as i briefly discussed in another dialogue a few moments ago, goes back to the separation of powers which gives to the executive branch the sole authority to conduct prosecutions. it's a requirement of due process and respect for thieves who are under investigation and

protection of their civil rights. >> with all due respect to that, iran-contra was an ongoing investigation and didn't stop congress from getting the answers. you are getting in the way of our constitutional duty. you are citing the constitution and i will cite it. it is our constitutional duty to do oversight. in the video that was your answer to a question to me two years ago when i said how many agents or assets of the government were present on january 5th and six and agitating in the crowd to go into the capitol and how many went in? can you answer that now? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> last time you don't know how many there were or there were none? >> i don't know the answer to either of those questions, if there were any. i don't know how many. i don't know whether there are any. >> i think you may have perjured yourself you don't know that there were any? you want to say that again you don't know that there were any? >> i have no personal knowledge of this matter. i think what i said the last

time -- >> you have had two years to find out and by the way that was in reference -- yesterday you indicted him on a misdee money more. you are putting people away for 20 years nor merely filming. some people weren't there but you have a guy on video saying go into the capitol before the speech ends. at the site of the first breach. you have all the goods on him. ten videos an indictment for a misdemeanor. the american public isn't buying it. >> may i answer the question? >> i will ask one now. we'll let him -- >> in discovery in the cases that were filed with respect to january 6th, the justice department prosecutors provided whatever information they had

about the question that you are asking. with respect to mr. epps, the f.b.i. has said he was not an employee or informant of the f.b.i. mr. epps has been charged and there is a proceeding, i believe, going on today on that subject. >> the charge is a joke. i yield to the chairman. >> time of the gentleman expired. recognize the gentleman from california. >> my colleague just said you should be held in contempt of congress. and that is quite rich because the guy who is leaving the hearing room right now, mr. jordan, is about 500 days into evading his subpoena. about 500 days. if we'll talk about contempt of congress, let's get real. are you serious that jim jordan, a witness to one of the greatest crimes ever committed in america, a crime where more prosecutions have occurred than any crime committed in america,

refuses to help this country and we get lectured about contempt of congress? jim jordan won't honor a lawful subpoena. are you kidding me? are you kidding me? there is no credibility on that side. mr. attorney general, you are serious, they are not. you are decent, they are not. you are fair, they are not. so i welcome you to a law firm of insurrection llp where they work every day on behalf of one client, donald trump. and they do that at the expense of millions of americans who need the government to stay open, who want their kids safe in schools and would like to see ukraine stay in the fight so we don't help russia. that's the expense this nonsense and clown show except they actually have real responsibilities that affect real americans. it's the difference between one side that believes in governing

and one side that believes in ruling. you've tried to comply with this committee. in fact last week one of your special agents came here for an interview, brought his lawyer, and was told that he couldn't have his lawyer present. mr. jordan, who tells all of oves he knows so much about the constitution, wouldn't afford one of your employees with the basic constitutional rights to have a lawyer present. they threatened to call the capitol police and arrest a lawyer that was brought. are you familiar with that stand-off that occurred last week, mr. attorney general? >> generally, yes. >> your office also sent a letter detailing it you were willing to comply and like him to have a lawyer and submit that to the record with unanimous consent. >> no objection. >> who appointed mr. weiss? >> mr. donald trump was the last position who appointed him to u.s. attorney. i appointed him to special counsel last month. >> who appointed john durham?

>> mr. durham was also appointed by president trump. and mr. barr appointed him as special counsel. >> these guys are so upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors aren't doing enough of the corruption that donald trump wants them to do. either they are just following the law or they are not as corrupt and not willing to go as far as they think that donald trump deserves. that's what they are asking to happen here. also, doesn't it seem they want it both ways when it comes to the special counsel? a lot of questions suggested that special counsel should be independent but when they didn't like the direction of the special counsel you were asked why you didn't interfere more or involve yourself more or investigate more? do you get the sense that they are kind of stuck here? >> when i make an appointment of somebody to special counsel or

prosecutor, the appointment is with respect without the outcomes of the case will be. >> your office has made a number of changes to foreign nationals. those reforms aren't put into law. 702 is one of the best weapons we have to go after fentanyl. can you tell us if you would support putting some of those reforms into law so we don't have to live administration to administration to see if they'll be followed? >> i would. section 702 provides us with the greatest amount -- at least the justice department every morning the greatest amount of intelligence that we receive about dangerous threats to the united states. >> from foreign nationals. >> from foreign nationals. i'm quite aware and sensitive to civil liberties concerns with respect to the queries and for that reason i put into place and

extended some of those that mr. barr began at the end of his team and put further ones in place. those have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of queries and a dramatic reduction in the number of non-compliant queries. i believe those are appropriate reforms and i would be in favor of codifying them, yes. >> thank you, mr. attorney general and thank you for coming and doing something the chairman is unwilling to do, testify to congress. yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognize as the chair from wisconsin. >> attorney general, on august 11, 2023, you appointed mr. david weiss, u.s. attorney for the district of delaware as special counsel overseeing the investigation of hunter biden. i don't think the question has been asked yet why did you choose to appoint him as special counsel? >> the explanation was given to the extent i can give and permitted to give is the one i

gave and sent to congress. mr. weiss requested it and i promised to give him all the resources he needed. under those circumstances i thought the public interest would be served by making him special counsel. >> who recommended him? how was it brought to you or presented to you that this would be the best person to be the special counsel? >> i'm not going to get into internal discussions. mr. weiss asked that he be appointed as special counsel. and i granted that request and made him special counsel but i won't get into internal deliberations in the justice department. >> you said earlier you have had no discussions with the white house and certainly the president in regards to that, is that accurate? >> of course. >> no suggestions that came from any other level of government on mr. weiss? >> nothing came from the white house, that's right.

>> on august 20, 2023, the "washington post" article claimed that mr. weiss worked with hunter biden and hunter biden's late brother, beau biden. were you aware there was a relationship there with the biden family? >> i'm not familiar with this and i don't know when he -- >> they worked together on legal cases in prior years. you were unaware of that? >> i'm not familiar with that. >> article claims it would have been mr. weiss and the president to cross paths. you were unaware of this? >> i was unaware of this. attorneys who are in practice certainly get to know people. very difficult anywhere in the country for attorneys to not get to know other attorneys. >> you said mr. weiss had the ulitis mat authority of the investigation into the president's son prior to his appointment as special counsel and you stand by that statement,

i'm sure? that, in fact, there was -- the ultimate authority was still there with mr. weiss to make determinations on that case? >> still as special counsel, yes. >> the buck stopped there and that's been determined. according to leslie wolf objected to storage unit containing documents from the vacated office. is wolf still employed by the department of justice? >> i will not talk about any individuals in the justice department. like i said before, singling out individuals has led to threats to their safety. mr. weiss is responsible for all decisions that were made. excuse me. many of the things you are