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

saying occurred during the previous administration. i apologize. >> there was a discussion by leslie wolf if they told investigators or got involved there would ultimately be issues. you still believe that at this point the entire investigation has moved in the correct discretion, handled by correct discretion of the individuals? >> mr. weiss was a long-standing career prosecuted, appointed by president trump, outstanding reputation and he will proceed as appropriate and end of investigation will give a public report like mr. durham and mr. mueller and be available for questions about why he did various things that were done. >> i yield balance of my time. >> what changed, in 2023, mr.

weiss wrote and said i have not requested special counsel designation. what happen in that 31 days? >> as i said publicly, several days before my announcement, i think three days, mr. weiss had asked to become special counsel, explained he had reached stage of his investigation that was appropriate. >> what stage is that? >> i gave him that. >> are we in beginning stage, middle stage, end stage, keep hiding the ball stage, what stage? >> i would go back to the videotape where i said and permitted to discuss ongoing investigation. >> isn't that convenient. something changed 23r july 10 to august 27, a judge called bs on the plea deal. that is what i think happened. chair recognizes the gentleman

from california. >> thank, mr. chairman. house judiciary committee has responsibility of helping to ensure the rule of law. unfortunately this committee chairman ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena. horrible precedence set by this chairman damaged credibility in seeking information from witnesses and damage the rule of law. attorney general garland, thank you for your public service and being here today. i would like to show a video of the january 6 and ask questions about that day. >> boots on the ground here, we are moving on the capitol. i will give you boots on the ground update. >> possible -- [cheering]

[video playing] >> declaring a riot. [video playing] >> attorney general garland, department of justice charged

1100 in connection with the attack on the capitol; correct? >> that is correct. >> i will state two facts. people who showed up on january 6 to attack capitol were supporters of donald trump. they attacked the capitol and stopped congress from certifying fact donald trump lost the election. those two facts were so horrible that some in the right-wing media and some republican members of congress could not handle that so they made up conspiracy theories. donald trump called january 6 a beautiful day. he said people that showed up had love in their hearts. republican member of congress said january 6 was like a normal tourist visit and some republicans said there were no weapons used on january 6. attorney general garland, were there weapons used on january 6? >> yes, in the video you saw some weapons used and obviously many more and many hours of

video. >> another conspiracy video, somehow the fbi orchestrated this attack. i will go through cases that have gone through completion and result in sentencing. joe biggs, sentenced to 17 years for counts related on the nation's capitol. have you seen any shred of evidence joe biggs was an fbi agent? >> no. >> he was a member of the proud boyz. he stated, they saw themselves as donald trump's army, fighting to keep their preferred leader in power. on september 4, joe biggs stated that he is confident trump will pardon him. he said, i know he will pardon us, we're his supporters, we went there like he asked.

ask about stewart rose, sentenced to 18 years for the attack on the nation's capitol. any evidence stewart rose was fbi agent? >> no. >> he was founder of the oath keepers, far right military organization, rose asked donald trump to call them up as militia. enrique toreo, any evidence he was an fbi agent. he was not an fbi agent. >> in fact he was leader of the proud boyz. on january 6, donald trump supporters showed up because he told them to, they marched and attacked capitol because he told them. that is truth and how history will record it. thank you for prosecuting those who attacked our nation's capitol. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back.

recognize gentleman from south carolina. thank you, mr. chairman. i have a slide up here. i'll start, in october of 22, mr. weiss denied ability to bring charges against hunter biden in district of columbia. in april, you testified before senate appropriate committee, mr. weiss could run without interference from d.o.j. there was a meeting in october of '22, mr. weiss said he was not the deciding official. we have handwritten notes confirmed in an e-mail to people in the meeting. later in january mr. weiss was denied ability to bring charges in central district of california. you testified before the senate judiciary committee that he had full authority. that weiss confirmed that to us in a letter in june he had been granted full authority over this matter.

then he backed up june 30 and said, just kidding, my charging authority is geographically to my home district in delaware and you appoint him special counsel. why has his story changed so many times over the course of the investigation? >> congressman, i've seen all three letters, read them quite carefully, they are consistent with each other and i urge everyone watching on television or anyone interested to look at the three letters, they are not inconsistent and no change in the story. >> you said publicly he had ultimate authority prior to appointment of special counsel. >> i have explained this repeatedly here, explained this in another preceding. i said mr. weiss had authority to bring case in any jurisdiction he wanted to and mr. weiss confirmed he had an authority. i explained that if he had to

bring a case in another jurisdiction, as matter of mechanics, it would require me or delagatee, to sign 515 order, that is very common. >> mr. attorney general, forgive me for a second, but when you say you have -- he wrote a letter on your behalf, i have ultimate authority, prior to designation of special counsel. ultimate means you can go wherever you want to, at that point, sir, could he file charges in district of south carolina? he would not have that ability, correct? he would have to go threw that u.s. attorney, so that is not authority. >> all he would have to do is ask for 515 authority and i would sign it, like he asked me to be special counsel, i signed that. >> he didn't have ultimate authority. >> he had authority, i promised he would have authority.

>> but he did not have that authority. here is where i am going, if denied ability to bring charges in march of 2022 in district of columbia, denied ability to bring charges in january of 2023 in central district of california, that is not full authority. these u.s. attorneys operate as gatekeepers, so that is not full authority to do much of anything. what is remarkable to me, we sit here and look at this and his story has changed so many times. you know whose story hasn't changed? mr. shapley. mr. ziegler. i am not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. the response back from his colleague at work, yep, you covered it all, gary. that is consistent. what mr. weiss has done is this shell game saying he has authority, he doesn't have authority, but gatekeepers at

u.s. attorney's office in district of columbia and california would have gatekeeping authority on whether charges are brought in their jurisdictions. correct? >> those words have no meaning, gatekeeper, etcetera, mr. weiss was never denied authority, i have authority to decide who can prosecute in a different jurisdiction and i promised he would have that authority. i do not see any inconsistency here, i was nothe at the mealing mr. shapley is referring to. i know what mr. weiss said i guaranteed. >> it's a simple question, if he had it, why does he need it, that is the question. you said in your statement on august 11, he will continue, continue to have the authority to bring charges where, when and wherever he decides. how can he continue to have a power you just gave him, that is the question the gentleman from south carolina is asking, if he had it, why does he need it?

>> they had the authority and he continued to have authority. >> when did he ask, did you tell him he could get 515 status, when did you tell him he could get it if requested? >> i made clear -- >> when? >> from the beginning in my statement to the senate, have authority to make any decisions he wanted to and bring prosecution he thought was appropriate. >> gentle lady from washington recognized five minutes. >> thank you, attorney general garland, thank you for tremendous service to this country. as somebody trapped in the gallery on january 6, it is hard to look at that video and imagine that happened at the u.s. capitol and i'm deeply grateful you led this nation toward accountability of those involved, including the former president. you have done so with complete attention to facts, with a team around you

that focuses on thorough investigation and with a clear mission that you stated over and over and over again despite asked and answered on the other side that the justice department works for the american people. this is i a night and day transformation from a justice department constantly used by donald trump for his own political gain and it is my firm belief that we have to hold those accountable who tried to destroy our country, including the former president or risk losing our country all together. i thank you for your steadfast leadership. it is sad this committee has been transformed into a soap box for conspiracy -- american people care about. that is what i'm going to try to do, focus on critical crisis of reproductive freedom and effort to try and strip reproductive freedom from people across this country. as you know, decades long

project of extreme right wing materialized when five justices overturned 50 years of precedent that established right to abortion. as one of the one in four women across the country who has had abortion and felt compelled to share my story because i saw attack on right to abortion and what it would do particularly for poor women, for black and brown and indigenous people across this your honor ko, i spoke out and shared that story. in the 22 states where republicans control state legislature, all moved to restrict reproductive rights. more than 25 million women of child-bearing age now live in states where abortion access has been curtailed. in washington state, my home state, seattle times reported increasing number of abortion patients from neighboring idaho, which we knew we would see, and

other southern states where restrictions are informed. article into the record she traveled 2000 miles secretly for her washington abortion, why patients from the south are coming here. >> no objection. >> threatened by extreme maga republicans in congress, we trust that the doj will initiate investigations and file lawsuits to protect reproductive rights. with respect to methprestone, women can take at home safely to end a pregnancy? >> the fda authorized it as safe and effective and challenged in

district court and defended fda in that matter and appeal to circuit court which narrowed district court opinion in some ways but allowed it to go forward in other. we have filed serip tigz in supreme court of united states. very important work. thank you, my home state of washington has one of highest rates of hospitals in country with state insurance company office reporting in 2021 several counties lacking one secular hospital. this issue under the labor act when patients in need of abortion care as life saving treatment are denied services. what is department doing to enforce lawmanidating every hospital provide necessary stabilizing treatment to patients, including abortion care. >> this is federal law.

expressly preempts any state law, we filed lawsuit in idaho and one in the district court with respect to idaho law that impinged on the rights granted and have filed a number of statements of interest in other places and continuing to look at where it is appropriate to intervene. >> thank you, you are on record stating women that banned reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal, i thank you for that. can you discuss progress made by task force and doj to ensure pregnant people retain their right to travel? >> my view about right to travel is the same as justice brett kavanaugh in his separate opinion, he said this is not a difficult question. right to travel is constitutional right and allows a woman in a state that bars abortion to travel and obtain

abortion in a state in which it is permitted. >> thank you for your commitment to this issue and upholding rule of law in our country. >> expired and gentleman from oregon recognized five minutes. >> i would like to go back briefly to your remarks regarding the -- before senate when you were confirmed and you you promised that you would keep mr. weiss on this case? to prom was that promise made? >> to a number of senators in my meetings with them asked me to make that promise. i think that was discussed in my interchange with senator from tennessee, i believe. >> did that promise that you made lead you to believe that even if that mr. weiss displayed level of incompetence, you would be precluded from asking him to step down or precluded from

replacing him? >> look, when someone asks me to make this appointment, tdidn't ask me depending what outcome was. mr. weiss made his decision and he is experienced prosecutor with extensive experience and credibility appointed by president trump, i have no ground interfering here. >> the question is what level of incompetence displayed by a prosecutor under your control would it take for you to make a change? let's move on. the level of incompetence i'm referring to i'll read this to you. this is same weiss who headed investigation that was trashed by whistleblowers who allege his investigation had been fixed from the outset, same weiss who

ran investigation where agents were prevented from asking about joe biden. it was same weiss who reportedly allowed statute of limitation to run identity on hunter biden's major tax offenses and same weiss who did not indict on major tax felony and cut a plea deal and same weiss who inked sweetheart deal that caused a federal judge to trash sweeping immunity grant language prosecutor admitted had never been see in a previous plea deal. there is a list of what i suggest under many people's definition would be incompetence, are you saying that is inadequate to question what he was doing? >> all these are allegations, i don't know the facts of them. i have stayed out of this investigation. i was not present at the

meetings discussed, some meetings were under the previous investigation, mr. weiss was assigned by previous justice department and i'm not in position to comment on them. >> that is too bad tlchl is scope of investigation memo issued when we start these things out, who issued that scope of investigation memo to mr. weiss? was it done when originally appointed to take on the biden case? is that when the memo was issued? is there a scope of investigation memo issued? >> with respect to special counsel and that has been publicly transmitted to the charnl of chairman: of this judiciary committee. >> who wrote it? >> who wrote that scope? >> who decided what should be within the scope of that investigation. >> i'm sorry. >> i decided what should be in the scope, if you will compare to the scope of many other special counsel, basically

modeled on the format we've used in the past. not only in this administration, the previous one. >> in your remarks delivered on august 11 of this year, concerning the appointment of david weiss, upon considering his request as well as extraordinary circumstances related to this matter, can you tell us what the extraordinary circumstances were? >> i'm sorry. >> these are your remarks back on august 11. >> yes, yes. tuesday this week mr. weiss advised me, quoting from your memo, his judgement, his investigation reached stage he should continue his work as special counsel. he asked to be so appointed. upon considering his request upon the extraordinary circumstances related to this matter i comcludeed it is in best interest to appoint him

special counsel. what were the extraordinary circumstances? >> appointment by mr. barr with respect to mr. durham uses those phrases, that is in special counsel regulation. i've said as much as i can say with respect to that without discussing matters relating to a pending investigation. >> thank you. >> gentleman yields back and gentleman from california recognized. >> mr. garland, welcome you to this hearing. want to turn our attention to something interesting, more important, most important thing on main street today is drug addiction, narcotics and fentanyl. june 23rd of this year, you said and i open quote, the u.s. government continue to do

everything in our power to disrupt fentanyl trafficking and to prevent more communities being hit by the fentanyl epidemic. we are targeting every step of the movement, manufacturing and sale of fentanyl from start to finish. go garland, i believe the only thing cartel leaders fear is united states prison. i want to thank you for the good job you extradited lopez, el chapo's son, thank you for that good job. do you have know plas to extradite additional cartel leaders from other parts of the world to the united states to face u.s. justice in u.s. prison sentence? >> i don't want to get into that discussion, diplomatic discussion over the matter, obviously we've indicted the other chapitos, sons of el

chopo. >> how many are there? >> four more, maybe five, not sure exactly, all been publicly indicted and will seek extra extradition. >> cooperation from foreign countries, especially mexico, since that is where cartels are operating. would you say mexico is cooperating in terms of working with your office to bring cartel leaders to justice? >> they have obviously worked with us with receive to ovedio. ovedio's people fighting back with machine guns and marines having to use blackhawk attack helicopters in order to arrest him. >> u.s. marine or mexican

marines? >> mexican marines. mexican maen radios play an important role in apprehension of the cartel leaders. >> mr. garland, would you characterize cooperation with mexicans as being good, not good? >> i would say cooperation can always be better. we have an enormous problem with respect to fentanyl coming from mexico from its manufacture there, based on precursor coming from china and cartel leaders. how can we as members of congress help you make sure other countries have stronger cooperating relationship with us? how can we make sure they cooperate to their fullest ability with you? >> i appreciate that request, i will have to think about and say i personally traveled to mexico twice to try to get cooperation with respect to the matters. how important is fisa and 702

when it comes to fighting narco-fentanyl. >> very important, fentanyl is national security problem. >> can you work with us to put guardrail safety measure on 702 to ensure investigative weapons are not turned against u.s. citizens. absolutely, 702 is a crucial tool, it has to be properly controlled and we would be happy to work with congress to make sure civil liberties are protected. >> my last minute, i want to turn to the anti-trust area, european union and digital marketing act, which digital market act is designed to protect consumers in europe. looks like most focus is on american firms, no european companies or other foreign

operators in the european union are being targeted, only american firms operating in europe and looks like the doj is working to support efforts of the europeans in implementing the digital marketing act. i have 18 seconds, i will submit a written question to your office, my focus and interest is making sure american jobs, american companies are successful around the globe and they are not in any way hampered from working overseas. thank you very much, mr. chairman, i ran out of time. >> gentleman yields back, gentleman from new jersey recognized five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, welcome, attorney general. following confirmation, americans were promised they were getting a focused nonpartisan to lead federal law enforcement. i had doubts back then, last two years have confirmed those

fears. never would i have thought i would see such a politicized doj. never in my life would i thought i would see such a department of justice that didn't obey their own rule. never did i think i would see egregious investigation conducted under your watch or blatant disregard of the first amendment by fbi field officers under your watch. and never in my life did i think i would see our great doj turn into a politicized weapon to be wielded by an investigation to attack political rivals. i still hold thousands of hard-working staff with high regard, but some within the department in my mind have betrayed their oaths and for that, you must be held accountable. i hold you accountable for labeling of parents as domestic terrorists standing up for education of their own children.

i hold you accountable for anti-catholic memo, imagine sending agents into roman catholic churches. i hold you accountable for unleashing special counsel with a history of botched investigations on our current president political rival. the department under your leadership, i'm sorry to say and i am sorry to say has become enforcement arm of the democratic national committee. if there is perceived threat to democratic party, the democratic party, this doj attacks every single time. when actionable threat against conservative, this doj stays put. violent protesters outside supreme court justice homes unpunished. attack on pro-life centers, unpunished. two-tiered justice is clear and the buck stops with the man in

charge, that man is you. decline of american trust in our federal law enforcement is on you. the political weaponization of the doj is on you. attorney general, i need a simple yes or no to the following, just yes or no, we don't have much time. do you agree traditional catholics are violent extremists. yes or no. >> let me answer what you said, i am happy to answer all of those. >> i control time, i will ask you to -- >> you control time by asking substantial number of things. >> i didn't ask those things, i made a statement. i ask you do you agree traditional catholics are violent extremists. >> i have no idea what traditional mean here. catholics that go to church. >> may i answer. >> the idea someone with my family background would

discriminate against any religion is outrageous. >> your fbi did this. your fbi that was sending and we have memos and e-mails, sending undercover agents to churches. >> we were appalled by that memo. >> you agree they are not extremists. are they extremists or not? >> everything in that memo >>-- are they extremist or no, say no. >> they are not extremist, no. >> anyone fired for circulating anti-catholic memo. >> you have in front of you -- >> tell me yes or no, we have no time. >> i don't know the answer to that. >> do you agree parents should be characterized as domestic

terrorists? >> of course not, my memo made clear vigorous objection to policy and schools are protected. >> no? >> the president this week accused you, his staff and "wall street journal" and leaked out of mismanaging the hunter biden probe. do you agree? yes or no? in the "wall street journal" article, i'm not saying it. >> do i agree with the "wall street journal"? >> yes, information they released that said you botched this probe? >> i think i dealt with hunter biden investigation -- >> i yield to you. gentle lady yield back and recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you attorney general garland for decades of service to the department of justice, our country and our

constitution, it's been honorable service and i think the american public as a whole recognizes that. i was struck by and appreciate your opening statement you made crystal clear your fidelity to the constitution and rule of law and reaffirmation not the president's lawyer. this is welcome change from rhetoric and action of your predecessors in the last administration when they appeared before us. justice department works to prosecute crime, uphold rule of law and american individual rights and keep our country safe. congress of course has a legitimate duty of oversight, blatantly political and misleading rhetoric undermines seriousness of this work and american institutions. it is painfully obvious to anyone who cares our colleague called this hearing not for

legitimate oversight, to defend the indefensible action of the disgraced, twice impeached and indicted in multiple jurisdictions former president and to distract from their inability to perform the most basic function of congress to fund the federal government. basically accusing u.s. department of justice of bias against the former president and his allies. those who are noisily and shamelessly trying to subvert the justice system have the most to fear from ongoing investigations and most to gain politically and personally from impeding them. as others have noted, these attempts include trying to defend office of special counsel jack smith's office all together. i like so many other americans find this contemptible. mr. attorney general, why is it

so important for upholding rule of law and maintaining public trust that our justice system be able to conduct investigation into wrongdoing free from political interference? >> the law -- the criminal law can impose incredible sanctions on people. can take away their liberty. due process has to be followed and that partisan consideration should not play a role. civil liberty and rights are protected. only way that can happen if prosecutors are permitted to go about their work without any external and permissible intervention or considerations. >> thank you. i did want to take the opportunity since this is oversight hearing to conduct oversight. there was important topic in your testimony safeguarding the

right to vote. during previous administration, i asked what actions they were taking on this critical issue and they couldn't answer, could you describe the efforts your doj is taking to protect the right to vote, pillar of democracy? >> yes, congress in form of voting rights act and civil rights act authorize department to bring cases and enforce constitution of the united states with respect to the right to vote. i'm sure you know in shelby county case, section five was eliminated, bubt we retain section two, supreme court endorsed last term. we have brought cases in a number of jurisdictions we felt state laws unconstitutional impinged on the right to vote and we have supported private parties when they brought cases,

particularly in redistricting cases that violated antidilution requirement of section two. we have a task force with respect to threat against election workers because threatening election workers and stopping them going about their work is significant way in which right to vote can be impinged. that is just a sampling. we saw that in pennsylvania in the last presidential election. we appreciate all those efforts. i find this hearing very disturbing in that we have elected officials misleading the public and attacking democracy trying to sow distrust on most critical pillar of the democracy, u.s. department of justice, it is unacceptable and unamerican. i seek unanimous consent to enter a fact sheet on doj work under attorney garland's --

>> no objection. >> thank you, i yield back. >> committee in order. committee will be in order. [indiscernible] >> ask the lady, please. >> gentleman from virginia recognized for five minutes. >> on august 11, 2023, you appointed mr. weiss special counsel and wrote a letter where you cited extraordinary circumstances requiring appointment, you avoided answering the question when mr. bentz answered it, i will give you another chance, what were those extraordinary circumstances? >> same answer, he thought reached stage where it would be appropriate, i promised him i

would give him any resource he needed and he asked for. to go further, go into pending investigation. >> back on march 1, you told senate judiciary committee mr. weiss had full authority to bring cases in other jurisdictions if necessary. on june 7, mr. weiss wrote to the judiciary committee stating he had been granted ultimate authority over the matter including deciding when, where and whether to file charges and june 30, he changed his tone and said his authority geographically limited and it was up to you and he could request special -- assured he would be granted 515 authority in d.c. where charges could be

brought. is there some distinct legal authority known as special attorney status? >> section 515 permits the attorney general to sign an order to authorize prosecutor to work in another district. >> and if you had already decided he had full authority, why did you feel it was necessary to sign the document? why did you feel -- why did mr. weiss feel he would need that extra authority if you had conveyed that he would have all that authority? >> you will have to speak with mr. weiss about that, i think his three letters are quite clear he understood he would have necessary authority and no u.s. attorney could block him. we asked earlier about his request for this authority and we need to know who he spoke to about this authority and when. before he asked you in august,

he had discussions with other at the department, who did he discuss special counsel authority with and when did he do that? >> i will not discuss internal deliberation of the department. mr. weiss would have the authority he needed and the moment he asked for the authority, i gave it to him. did he discuss it with the deputy attorney general? >> i will not get into discussion or deliberation within the justice department. >> that is not a valid constit constitutional objection. it has to do with ability of justice department to do communication just as your deliberations with your staff and with other members are protected by the constitution. >> detailing who had conversations and when does not implicate the department, simply detailing who is when does not implicate those -- >> i will not get into internal

discussion of the department or who talked to who about what. mr. weiss told committee he understood he could bring a case wherever he wanted and i said he had that ability. >> do you think the extraordinary circumstances you cited have anything to do with june 27 and july testimony of whistleblowers shapley and ziegler? >> i don't think it has anything to do with mr. shapley, no. >> yield to the chairman. >> appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. garland, have you or are you investigating who leaked information that appeared in the "washington post" on october 6 2022 about this investigation, about the hunter biden investigation? >> you're saying an october 2022 -- >> october 6 2022, "washington post" writes about the hunter biden investigation. have you investigated who leaked that information to the

"washington post"? >> i don't know the answer to that question. has it been referred to the inspector general, do you know that? >> i don't want my answer to suggest there is or isn't such an investigation. i know that the inspector general sent a letter to congress explaining he had ongoing assessment with respect to the whistleblower charges. i don't know if that is what you are referring to. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. >> thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this are hadding, thank you, attorney general for your testimony and appearing before us and for your service to this country. i have great respect for virginia and other side of the aisle, i'm confused why they have zeroed in or focused on this particular letter in such a

myopic way. the moment he, meaning trump, appointed u.s. attorney weiss authority i gave it to him. seems straightforward and letters mr. weiss has written are publicly available and encourage anybody watching the hearings to certainly review those as you said, clearly they are consistent with each other in terms of reading the letters collectively. i think it is important, mr. attorney general to talk about your record and your background in light of the various attacks by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. my understanding is that you served as special assistant early in your career, is that right? >> my first job out of being a law clerk. >> after law clerking, you were in private practice. >> yes.

>> you left private practice to become line attorney at the doj. >> that is right, to be assistant u.s. attorney. >> a federal prosecutor taking on organized crime cases, violent crimes. >> i don't know about organized crime, organized drug trafficking, yes. >> you served as principal associate deputy attorney general. this is in the mid-90s, you supervised range of high-profoil cases, is that right? >> yes, they were high profile cases >>. unibomber case? >> yes. olympic bombing, yes. >> oklahoma city bombing case? >> yes, sir. you received praise with the latter investigation from the then republican governor of the state of oklahoma, is that right? >> yes, a very good partner in the investigation with respect to oklahoma. >> you then were nominated and

appointed to the federal bench, u.s. district court of appeals; correct? >> yes. confirmed by bipartisan majority. >> i will take your word for it, i think that is correct. >> you served on the bench for significant period of time becoming chief judge. >> that is right. >> you left that position to return to doj where you started your career. >> yes. >> you were confirmed into this position that you hold on bipartisan base in the senate. >> yes. >> i think it is unfortunate mr. attorney general, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have know coflated questions about various cases the department has brought with impuning your integrity and i can assure you that the vast majority of the american people don't share their opinion and that my constituents and folks

in colorado are grateful for your lifetime of service given to this country and i recognize this is i suspect frustrating exercise in terms of this particular hearing. i suspect you would like to be talking about the prevalence -- >> kayleigh: we've been watching attorney general merrick garland testifying on capitol hill this afternoon. we heard him insist that special counsel weiss had ultimate and final authority, he was questioned as to why got that status five years in and he said he would not comment. leslie wolf, he would not comment on her employment status. this is "outnumbered," here with harris faulkner and emily compagno, joining us former state department spokesperson, morgan ortagus and stuart

varney. perhaps one of the most stunning moments of the attorney general testimony came into and a half hours in, a lot of questions and the question turned to the american people to catholics being targeted in churches, to pro-lifers, to school board members, parents going to meetings and it took the attorney general of the united states a minute to say that catholics are not extremists, take a listen. >> the doj is on you. attorney general, i need a simple yes or no to the following, just yes or no, we don't have much time. do you agree traditional catholics are violent extremists answer the question. >> i have no idea what traditional means here. >> catholics that go to church. >> may i answer. >> yes or no. >> idea someone with my family

background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous, so absurd -- >> mr. attorney general, your fbi did this. your fbi was sending and we have the memos and e-mails, sending undercover agents into catholic churches. >> both i and fbi have said that we were appalled by that memo. so you agree they are not extremist. >> we were appalled. >> extremists or not, attorney general? >> everything in that memo -- >> are they extremist or not, simple question, say yes or no. >> catholics are not extremists, no. >> kayleigh: he is attorney general of the united states, religion is protected class under american law. >> emily: relying on christopher wray comment when he said he was

appalled. the memos led to action. actions were taken with our tax dollars to that effect. the fact he did not deny it from instant one rather than making us sit through is surprising. why can't you defend the american people and defend religious belief catholics and say not under my watch and never again. >> kayleigh: it is worth mentioning, the memo came from the fbi, christopher wray. he said he is appalled by the memo, so, too is the attorney general. they just went to break and one notable contract, when you flipped, there is crisis going on at the border. there was brief panel about immigration, vast majority about this, hunter biden, important topic, immigration and lack of enforcement is something. >> harris: when mayor garland

was pitched a question, he said my answer would be too long. they took a break. there was video playing opposite, i don't know if anybody is allowed to have their phone. we have had 4000 people across into eagle pass, texas today. that is a town of people in itself. among them mostly males coming in to the country but many children, many women at this point. we had a drone up, you could see them coming via the water, on land, everywhere, they are coming in, the border is open. it was a bit of irony and bad timing for merrick garland not to talk about the border because his answer might be too long. i don't know if he could have approached what was going on anyway. to vet mamany people. he has to make sure we are safe

in this country. there is backlog, we need judges at the border, we need everything down there. all hands on deck. there are nations of people coming, we've seen people from senegal, east africa, we have not seen that before in this stream of people. previous to that, arizona had record number of people coming over. that was primarily through the tunnels drug movement, now more people. >> kayleigh: that is right, important topics, also for 2-1/2 moments a moment from adam schiff i want to play, him talking about indictments and whether these are joe biden indictments as alleged by the former president. take a listen. >> on sunday, the former president appeared on national news sunday program and was asked about four indictments and 91 counts facing him. he said to the attorney general,

indict him. mr. attorney general, give you chance to respond. was the president telling the truth or lying when he said president biden told you to indict him? >> no one has told me to indict and in this case, decision to indict was made by the special counsel. >> that statement the president made on sunday was false? >> kayleigh: attorney general was clear, morgan, and said that was decision of jack smith, the special counsel. he said that repeatedly. something i'm surprised republicans did not bring up, floeshg times article from rogers. the president, president biden has continue on the trump indictment, according to "new york times." he does have opinion, in the past mr. biden said mr. trump pose threat to democracy and should be prosecuted for his role in the events of january 6

and told confidantss he wanted merrick garland to stop acting like a ponderous judge and take action. that should be put on record. attorney general, did you read that, did you see criticism of you? >> i didn't know you were going to bring up that article. this is how they make it known. we have "new york times" piece, the president and his team signalling to garland through their favorite newspaper they wanted him to take action. we saw other publications that biden is unhappy that garland appointed special counsel to go after him. now the latest gun charge. remember the first day, day one of president trump administration in 2017 said we begin impeevement. they didn't have control of the

house. it is clear with 91 counts that there is an agenda to keep president trump off the indictment. like the case of colorado, trying to keep him off the ballot and that is what we're going to see fighting over the next year until election. >> kayleigh: we will take you back to the hearing in just a moment, stuart, you have a big night with dana perino, the second debate. they were going to talk anti-trust and economy and you said, they only have one minute. you will explore them? >> we will explore them and we will explore in detail and depth immigration and the border, that is what you were talking about. right before i sat on this set an hour ago, we were running video from el paso, texas, eagle pass, texas, 4000 people, mostly

single men rushing across the border. before that, monday with 2000, on sunday it was 2700. it is shame it didn't come up today, it could have. >> kayleigh: i wish we could put you in charge of the questions. >> i would have pursued parental terrorism angle and the catholicism angle. we have weedy stuff about the special counsel, i want to hear what merrick garland and his fbi had done to the people of this your honor country. we have got there, that was the fire in the hearing today. >> harris: i would have asked about soft on crime policy, we've seen violent crime particularly against law enforcement this past week. where the top attorney stands on toughening up and if he's picked

up the phone and talked to das like george gascon. i mean not just on police officers, wider public, where he stands on that. >> fentanyl was mentioned, by one questioner and brushed off fairly quickly, that should have been in depth. how many hundred thousand americans have died from fentanyl coming across the border. >> and a beautiful boy at a day care, we don't know the circumstance yet, it is a tragedy when we have children dying of the fentanyl epidemic. i want on the record here, we don't have time to play the sound bite, on the special counsel and why five years in, all of a sudden, did weiss seek special counsel status, there is a lot to

opinion, the fact in an american's questions will not be answered. all the millions of questions we have why justice is not served and tax dollars are pilfered all over the place, why the biden family enjoys a level of protection, none of that matters. always answered by an ongoing investigation so we will never learn the truth. i'm in a pessimistic mood. a nexus between what you were saying harris and the hunter situation. out of the doj says you prosecute the felony. a misdemeanor and felony available, you prosecute the felony. and to your point, why are not only the d.a.'s pursuing the felonies and states, but why not seeing it from the doj. >> a lot of questions, and i know our congressmen and women will have more for the attorney general. thanks to everyone for joining us. dvr the show. but for now, "america reports." >> sandra: fox news alert, attorney general merrick garland wi