dude? dog food in the fridge? it's not dog food. it's freshpet. real meat. real veggies. real weird. he was bad luck anyway. right now on "ana cabrera reports," breaking news from capitol hill, attorney general merrick garland taking the hot seat as we come on the air. he is about to testify before the house judiciary committee in

a hearing that's all but assured to get contentious. we'll bring you that testimony live. plus, a hearing for three of donald trump's 18 co-defendants happening right now in georgia. will they succeed in getting their cases moved to federal court? and president biden meeting with israel's prime minister at the united nations. just minutes from now the agenda and stakes of this meeting between these two world leaders. thanks for being with us, it's 10:00 eastern, i'm ana cabrera reporting from our nation's capital today where any moment now attorney general merrick garland will be testifying before the house judiciary committee. these are live images inside that hearing room and the high pressure, high stakes hearing comes as the justice department is embroiled in multiple special counsel investigations into former president donald trump and another into president biden's son. now, garland is expected to

forcefully push back against republican criticism of the doj according to prepared remarks released this advance, he'll tell lawmakers, quote, our job is to uphold the rule of law and that means that we apply the same laws to everyone. here with us in washington, nbc news justice is and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian, former democratic congressman from new york, john crowley, former adviser to john boehner, adam kinzinger and barbara mcquade. you had a chance to look at his prepared remarks. >> if garland gets the chance, he's going to talk about the good work the doj is doing against corporate crime or fentanyl tracking. we all know he's got a message here. in the remarks i got a chance to take a look at, he's trying to push back against republican criticism that the doj has b

politicized. he said our job is not to take ders from the president, from congress, or from anyone else about who or what to criminally investigate, and he goes on to say i'm not the president's lawyer. and i will also add that i'm not the congress's prosecutor. the justice department works for the american people, and ana, he's also going to push back against the climate of threats against line prosecutors and fbi agents that he's going to say is stemming in part from some of the rhetoric that's coming from some of these very members of congress who are accusing the justice department without evidence of being politicized. >> it looks like merrick garland just sat down. he's expected to read those opening remarks. let's listen in. okay. he hasn't started yet, so we'll keep talking until he begins his opening statement.

maura, let me ask you about what we can expect from republicans? we expect them to bring up the two federal special counsel investigation, the jack smith investigations into the former president, president trump in classified documents case as well ass as well as the election interferes case, the. is this just going to be a free for all for republicans? >> republicans have an opportunity to actually make a case about one of the things that he's going to say in his opening statement as we've seen is that the law is not held differently for those who have privilege or those who have -- he is not going to apply the law differently. republicans are going to hit on that because they look at the hunter biden situation as privileged, and he is in a position where he was able to have this deal made for him, and then the same two days later he goes through a white house state dinner with merrick garland and hunter biden in the same room. it looks bad, whether you're republican, democrat,

independent, it looks bad. >> but it was a plea deal that didn't come to fruition. we've talked to a number of former federal prosecutors and other lawyers who have said actually if anything, hunter biden was treated more harshly in this case. we don't normally see charges like this. >> if i'm sitting at home watching this i'm thinking to myself i wouldn't get that same treatment. i also wouldn't be at a state dinner with the person who was in charge of the doj a couple days later. as republicans have the opportunity to be pragmatic in this situation, they should really heed caution about being snarky or coming on as overly aggressive. but they have an opportunity to hit on this, at least this aspect of the hunter biden situation, and make a case to the american people who are watching it. so they can make that case. the donald trump stuff is going to be a lot harder. >> we're monitoring the hearing and you can see the chairman of the judiciary committee jim jordan is speaking. we will take the comments when merrick garland delivers his

opening remarks. we're just going to keep monitoring this. congressman crowley, what do you expect from democrats? what posture might they offer, do you think offense or defense? >> i think they'll be very much more in a supportive role of the attorney general recognizing it's a tough line to be working right now. i do think that there is a big difference between some of those in addiction, in this case, drugs, the other who has an addiction to power. one who is very self-destructive and can destroy families, that american people understand and know. the other that can destroy countries and i think that's the real difference here in terms of the balance to be brought in terms of the trump issues versus the hunter biden things. it's a very sad life in many respects, and i don't think there's an american family that hasn't dealt with some type of issue that the biden family is going through. >> i guess you could argue that most american families aren't president, most american families don't have a child

facing felony charges. >> right, no president in my lifetime ever had that. i do think this is unique and sad in many respects as well. it is being adjudicated. the justice department is moving forward with charges that they believe is important. that's important for the american people to understand, no one, not a democrat, not a republican, not a person of power, not the least amongst us is treated any differently under the law. i think that's an important statement. >> that's what we're going to hear from the attorney general here momentarily. let's listen in for just a moment, to some of these opening statements. >> every witness we've talked to, the two fbi whistle-blowers that came forward, the two fbi agents on the case, they've all said this thing was anything but urgent. the fbi said this was -- they were frustrated at the pause. ms. holly said she was frustrated at the pace, and of course the irs agents said the investigation was slow walked

and even handed. they limited the number of witnesses that could be interviewed. they tipped off the defense counsel about a subpoena. the judge says the plea deal was a joke. and all that's just half the story. there's one investigation protecting president biden. there's another one attacking president trump. justice department's got both sides of the equation covered. look at the classified documents case, spring and early summer of last year, the department of justice asked president trump to turn over boxes of documents. he does just that. in the process, president trump finds 38 additional documents. he tells the department of justice the very next day the fbi comes to his home and he turns them over. then the department of justice asks the president to put any boxes he brought from the white house to his home in a storage room and secure it by locking it. he does that as well. everything they ask him to do he did, and then what's the justice department do? august 8th last year they raid

president trump's home. and according to the fbi agent, steven dan twa know, the assistant director in charge of the washington field office, the search was a complete departure from standard protocol. when we interviewed him, he said, first, the miami field office didn't do the search. instead they sent folks from d.c. he said there was no u.s. attorney assigned to the case. instead it was run by d.c., in particular jay bratt who's now on the special counsel team. he said the fbi didn't get president trump's counsel's approval before they did the search. and then mr. dan twa know told us he had recommended that when the fbi got to mr. trump's home, president trump's home, they contact his counsel, wait for him to get there and do the search together. of course the doj said no. and then who does the attorney general name as special counsel l in that case?

jack smith. the guy a few years ago looking to prosecute the very victims of the weaponized government, the weaponized irs. jack smith, the guy who prosecuted governor mcdonald only to have the supreme court overturn that prosecution in a unanimous decision. that's the guy, that's the guy that the attorney general of the united states selects as special counsel. and you wonder why four out of five americans believe there are now two standards of justice in our great country. mr. garland, i anticipate a number of questions on these two investigations, later in the hearing i expect from republicans you will also get questions about the many other concerns the american people have with the department. the school memorandum. the sixth circuit decision, great decision on the department of justice and other agencies

censoring american speech, and of course the fiza law that's up for reauthorization this year and how that process has been abused and infringed on the privacy rights of the american people. americans believe that today in our country there is unequal application of the law. they believe that because there is. republicans are committed to making that -- making that change. with that i would yield to the gentleman from new york, the ranking member for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, at the outsetlet me make two comments. just about every assertion you made in your opening statement has been completely refuted by witnesses who have testified before this committee. two, far from being favored, many commentators have noted that people accused of simple gun possession while under the influence of a drug when that gun was not used in the

commission of a crime, are rarely, if ever prosecuted the way hunter biden is being prosecuted. mr. chairman, one of this committee's most important duties is conducting oversight of the department of justice. we are called upon to ensure that the doj uses the enormous amount of power it is granted in a fair, just manner that respects the civil and human rights of all americans. the attorney general of the united states oversees issues that affect the lives of each and every american, violent crime, drug trafficking, attacks on our civil rights, threats to our national security, and environmental crimes all fall under his purview. that is why we regularly request that he or she appear before this committee to speak about the work the department is doing for the welfare of the country: this is how we ensure the department stays accountable to the american people. if it were up to the republicans, americans would hear nothing about any of these substantive issues today.

they would hear nothing about the rise in domestic terrorism and what the justice department is doing about it. they would hear nothing about what the department is doing to stop hate crimes and prevent gun violence. the department is disrupting efforts by russia, china, and others to interfere in our elections. they've used their power to stage one political stunt after another. they have wasted countless taxpayer dollars on baseless investigation sboos president biden and his family, desperate to find evidence for an absurd impeachment and desperate to distract from the mounting legal peril facing donald trump. they have fought tireless to stop efforts to fight malign foreign actors to trying to influence and manipulate americans through social media. they have unconstitutionally interfered in criminal litigation and attempted to bully state and local law enforcement officers.

they have publicized the names of the witnesses who did not further their political goals leading to threats of death and physical violence against those witnesses and their families. they have caused any number of private institutions and companies millions of dollars in legal fees. they have issued subpoenas for show without making meaningful attempts to get the information they seek by consent. they have levied low, baseless personal attacks on any prosecutor to bring charges against donald trump or january 6th rioters. they have attempted to discredit investigators who are not hard enough on donald trump's political opponents. they have supported those involved in the deadly attack on our capitol on january 6th in the attempt to overthrow a lawful election. they have justified conduct that we all know to be wildly illegal like the theft of classified materials and incitement of

violence, and through it all rather than try to unite the country or solve the problems that affect us all, they have sought to exploit our divisions for cynical, personal political gain. that is their goal. division. they want to divide this country and make our government appear like it's broken because that is when their broken political party thrives. so today i implore the public to see through the sham. i have in doubt that you will hear a deluge of conspiracy theories and baseless accusations. they will quote freely from so-called whistle-blowers who have been broadly discredited or contradicted. they will viciously attack federal law enforcement. they will tell you that all 91 criminal charges against donald trump are part of a conspiracy despite overwhelming evidence of each of donald trump's crimes, and they will attack special counsel weiss who was appointed let us not forget by donald trump for not being hard enough on hunter biden.

republicans will continue doing what they've done for years, discrediting anyone who does not serve their political goals at any cost. and the shame of it is that in this hearing room, like on the house floor where we are barrelling towards a government shutdown while my republican colleagues call each other names, we could be working together to put people over politics and to solve any number of problems affecting the american people. more than 30,000 americans have died from gun violence so far this year alone. guns have become the leading cause of death for children aged 1 to 17, surpassing car accidents. domestic violence extremism and white nationalism are on the rise. we are seeing active clubs and other white supremacist groups pop up around the country. anti-semitism is at an all time high. maligned foreign actors like russia, china, iran, and north korea are attempting to influence our elections.

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

constituents. i hope my colleagues will see reason and at least attempt to work with the attorney general in good faith. sadly, on the other side of the aisle reason and good faith seem to be in short supply. attorney general, i thank you for your testimony and thank you in advance for your parks: i yield back. >> all other opening statements will be included in the record. we will now introduce today's witness, the honorable merrick garland is the attorney general of the united states, sworn in on march 11th, 2021, we welcome our witness. thank him for appearing today. we will begin by swearing you in. would you please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you god. >> i do. >> let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative. please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. we ask that you summarize your

testimony. you know how this is done: we want to thank you again for being here. you're welcome to give your opening statement. >> i'm sorry. is this working? >> you got it. >> thank you: >> good morning chairman, ranking member nadler, and distinguished members of this committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the more than 115,000 employees of the department of justice. since the justice department was founded, it has been tasked with confronting some of the most challenging issues before the country. today we are handling matters of significant public interest that carry great consequences for our democracy. a lot has been said about the justice department, about who we are and what we are doing, about what our job is and what it is not and about why we do this

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

conducted with state and local law enforcement. that operation targeted violent violent fugitives and resulted in 4,400 arrests across 20 cities in just three months. our work also includes combatting the drug cartels that are poisoning americans. last friday, guzman lopez, a leader of the sinaloa cartel from mexico to the united states. he is the son of el chapo and one of more than a dozen cartel members we have indicted and extradited to the united states. our job includes seeking justice for the survivors of child exploitation, and sex trafficking. it includes protecting democratic institutions like this one by holding accountable all those criminally responsible for the january 6th attack on the capitol.

our job is also to protect civil rights. that includes protecting our freedoms as americans to worship and think as we please and to peacefully express our opinions, our believes and our ideas. it includes protecting the right of every eligible citizen to vote and to have that vote counted. it includes combatting discrimination, defending reproductive rights under the law, and deterring and prosecuting attacks such as hate crimes. our job is to uphold the rule of law. that means we apply the same laws to everyone. there is not one set of laws for the powerful and another for the powerless. one for the rich and another for the poor, one for democrats and another for republicans or different rules depending upon one's race or ethnicity or reasonable. our job is to pursue justice

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

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

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

lives has been the focus of my entire professional career. that is why i served in the justice department under five different attorneys general, under both democratic and republican administrations. that is why i spent more than 25 years ensuring the rule of law as a judge, and that is why i left a lifetime appointment as a judge and came back to the justice department two and a half years ago, and that is why i'm here today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. attorney general, and you are right, america is the greatest country ever and we on this side i know are very concerned about the equal application of the law that you talked about in your opening statement. with that we will move to five minute questions ask start with the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, you have not upheld that, you have allowed

the rule of law to erode, and that's why 65% of the people in this country have no faith in the department under your leadership, they don't trust it: they're witnessing every day a politicized justice department and a two-tiered system of justice. for example, they see the doj of course aggressively prosecuting president biden's chief political rival, mr. trump, while at the same time they see slow walking and special treatment given to the president's son. that's just a fact that everybody can see with their own two eyes: i want to focus on that investigation of the biden family. we have many important questions for you about this. let me get right to the chase. has anyone from the white house provided direction at any time to you personally or to any senior officials at the doj regarding how the hunter biden investigation was to be carried out? >> no. >> have you had personal contact with anyone at fbi headquarters about the hunter biden investigation. >> i don't recollect the answer to that question, but the fbi

works for the justice department. it's -- >> i'm sorry, you don't recollect -- you don't recollect are whether you've talked with anybody at fbi headquarters about an investigation into the president's son? >> i don't believe that i did. i promised the senate when i came before it for confirmation that i would leave mr. weiss in place and that i would not interfere with his investigation. i have kept -- >> did you ever -- >> i have kept that promise. >> have you had personal contact with anybody at the baltimore field office on the hunter biden matter? >> no. >> u.s. attorney david weiss told senator lindsey graham, quote, i had discussions with which would have allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without the partnership of the local u.s. attorney, end quote. with whom did mr. weiss have those discussions? >> i'm not going to get into the internal deliberations of the department. >> but you must, sir, this is important for us.

we have oversight responsibility over your department, and we need these answers. >> as appropriate necessary for mr. weiss to have conversations with the department. i made clear that if he wanted to bring a case in any jurisdiction he would be able to do that. the way you do that is to get an order signed by the attorney general called a 515 order. he in his letters made clear he understood he would be able to do that. >> okay. can you tell us about any briefings or discussions you personally have had with mr. weiss regarding any and all federal investigations of hunter biden. >> i'm going to say again i promised the senate, that i would not interfere -- >> you have not, under oath your testimony is you have not had any discussions with mr. weiss about this matter? under oath my testimony today is that i promised the senate i would not intrude in its investigation. i do not intend to discuss internal justice department deliberations whether or not i had them. >> oh, okay, so your testimony today is you're not going to

tell us whether you've had discussions with mr. weiss. >> my testimony today is i told the committee that i would not interfere. i made clear that mr. weiss would have the authority to bring cases that he thought were appropriate. mr. weiss's letter to you makes clear -- >> for the second time, are you aware that fbi officials have come before this committee and stated that there was a cumbersome bureaucratic process that mr. weiss had to go through to bring charges in another judicial district? you know that? >> i'm not aware but that's not true. there's nothing cumbersome about the process. >> those whistle-blowers are lying to us under oath. >> i didn't say that. their description of the process is an opinion. it's not a fact question. all i have to do is sign a section -- >> mr. weiss has been the lead prosecutor on the hunter biden case since 2018, correct? >> i'm sorry? >> mr. weiss has been the lead prosecutor on the hunter biden case since 2018? >> he's been the lead prosecutor since he was appointed by

president trump. >> why has the justice department dragged this investigation out for so long? does it really take years to determine if hunter biden lied on a federal form related to purchasing a firearm? >> mr. weiss was a long-time career prosecutor, president trump appointed him as -- >> you're not answering the question. is that standard procedure? should it take that long to make such a simple determination? >> i'm answering the question if you give me an opportunity to do so. >> okay. he was charged with that investigation under the previous administration. he's continued. he knows how to conduct investigations and i have not intruded or attempted to evaluate that because that was the promise i made to the senate. >> the whistle-blowers gave us testimony about serious misconduct at the justice department in regards to the preferential treatment afforded hunter biden. has your office requested an investigation into that? >> there are well-known processes for how whistle-blowers make their

claims. i'm a strong proponent of whistle-blowers and a strong defender. we have an inspector general's office. we have an office of professional responsibility. that is the way in which complaints from whistle-blowers should be and are appropriately handled. >> i'm out of time. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back, the chair recognizes the ranking member mr. nadler. >> thank you, mr. attorney general, thank you for being here today. it's no secret that some of my colleagues across the aisle have threatened to shut down the government unless and until the fbi and the department of justice are defunded. one -- said we should abolish the fbi altogether. what would be the impact on america of defunding the fbi? >> defunding the fbi would leave the united states naked to the malalign influence of the chinese communist party, to

russian aggression, to north korean cyber attacks, to violent crime in the united states, which the fbi helps to fight against, to all kinds of espionage. to domestic violent extremists who have attacked our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, and who have killed individuals out of racial hatred. i just -- i cannot imagine the consequences of defunding the fbi, but they would be catastrophic. >> thank you, mr. weiss's investigation and the authority he's been granted to conduct that investigation without interference in whatever way he deems necessary. you testified to the senate judiciary committee on march 1st of this year that david weiss had called full authority over any investigation concerning hunter biden. was that a true statement at the time? >> yes.

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

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

everyone alike regardless of party, regardless of ethnicity. regardless of wealth. everyone is treated alike. i understand that people may not understand why particular investigations are conducted in particular ways until all the facts come out. that's what we have the courts for, and all of the explanations will come out with respect to mr. weiss, for example, at the end of the period, a special counsel, one of the requirements is that he file a report, which i have promised to make public to the extent that's lawful and consistent with departmental policy. it will explain his decisions to prosecute and not it prosecute. >> what are the impacts of members of congress making such accusations against the doj? do baseless accusations from government officials make it more difficult for investigators to do their job and effectively investigate the subject? >> members of the justice department are strong and tough

and able to understand that their job is to do the right thing regardless of any pressures from any corner. what is dangerous -- and i'm not talking about the committee -- but what is dangerous is when anyone singles out a career prosecutor or a career fbi agent, and we know as a matter of fact that that kind of singling out has led to threats. this is a concern across the board. it is not a concern about anyone in particular. >> i think you would have been justified in referring to the committee, my time is expired. i yield back. >>. chair recognizes gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. attorney general, you're the only person who could ensure that mr. weiss had all the necessary authority, aren't you? >> i'm the only person who can sign an agreement with respect to special counsel. the authority to do section 515 can be signed by other people in

the department. >> you're aware ultimately, though, the authority is yours. >> yes. >> you made the point that you don't take orders from the president about such things. you decide ultimately what the justice department will do? >> i announced at the beginning i promised that he would be able to bring whatever cases he wants, and i have followed through on that promise. i'm permitted to make that kind of promise, and i have made it. >> did you undertake to inform yourself to interact with him sufficient to ensure that he knew he possessed that authority or that you would see to it that he had all necessary authority. >> i don't think there's any doubt he knew. he has written three letters to this committee indicating he understood he had that authority. >> you're also aware, aren't you, sir, that a senior irs investigator, whistle-blower came forward and testified publicly that mr. weiss stated that he did not have such authority. he was not the decider. are you aware of that? >> i'm aware of the testimony.

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

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

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

was left to mr. weiss. >> yes, sir. i understand that you've said that. that's part of the problem. the question is are you aware the statutes of limitations have been allowed to expire while the matter was under investigation? >> the investigators were fully familiar with all of the relevant law -- >> i'm not asking for the excuse. i'm asking whether you're aware of the fact, sir. >> i'm going to say again -- i'm going to say again and again if necessary. i did not interfere with, did not investigate, did not determinations. >> those are statements in response to other questions. everybody in the country now knows who's paying attention to this, that the justice permitted statutes of limitations to expire. every lawyer who's ever practiced -- do you not even know as you sit here whether or not it occurred here or not. >> prosecutors make appropriate determinations on their own: in this case i left it to mr. weiss whether to bring charges or not. that would include whether to

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

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

interfered justice based on the facts and the law. >> i want to be gentle about the word interfere, but it is just as a historical example in the case of iran-contra, consequences of actions by the congress were that the special counsel's investigation of iran -- of mr. north were dismissed. >> correct. before i go into another question i have, i just would like unanimous consent to put into the record the annual statistical transparency report dated april of 2023. it indicates that the d duplicated counting method for fbi queries of u.s. persons under the section 702 database

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

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

shut down or because the police have been defunded through the budget process, and i just think we ought to take -- the imply -- implications of a shutdown very criminally. i see that my time has expired. >> the chair recognizes himself, quote, mr. weiss has full authority to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it's necessary. that was your response attorney general to senator grassley's question on march 1st, 2023, just referenced it when mr. bishop was questioning you. only problem is he'd already been turned down by the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia mr. graves. so he didn't have full authority, did he? >> i had an extended conversation with senator grassley at the time. we briefly touched on the section 515 question and how that process went. i have never been suggested -- >> my point's real simple, you said he had complete authority, but he had already been turned

down: he wanted to bring an action in the district of columbia and the u.s. attorney there said no, you can't and you go tell the united states senate under oath that he has complete authority. >> i'm going to say again that no one had the authority to turn him down: they could refuse to partner with him. they could not -- >> you can use whatever language, refuse to partner is turning down. >> it's not the same under a well-known justice department practices. >> here's why the statute of limitations question is important that mr. bishop was getting at a few minutes ago. you let the statute of limitations lapse for 2014, 2015. those were the years with the felony tax charges where hunter biden was getting income from burisma. hunter biden was put on the board, made a lot of money. got paid a lot of money over those years, couple million bucks. he wasn't qualified, fact number two, he wasn't qualified to be on the board. not my words, his words. he got on the board because of

his last night: executives told hunter biden we're under pressure, we need help. joe biden goes to ukraine, leverages our tax money, american people's tax money to get the prosecutor fired who was applying the pressure. interestingly enough, that fact is entirely consistent with what the confidential human source told the fbi and they recorded in the 1023 form. the same form mr. wray didn't want to let this committee and the congress see. that all happened. that all happened. and what i'm wondering is why you guys let the statute of limitations lapse for thoses la years that dealt with burisma income. >> one more fact that is important and that is that this investigation was being conducted by mr. weiss, an appointee of president trump. you will at the appropriate time have the opportunity to ask mr.

weiss that question and he will no doubt address it in the public report that will be transmitted to the congress. i don't know the answer to those questions -- >> did the lawyers, just, like, oh, darn, we let it -- were they careless? >> i expect that won't be what he says, but because i -- >> you know that's not the case. because as mr. bishop pointed out, they had a tolling agreement. they had -- they talked to hunter biden's defense counsel and said let's extend the statute of limitations and at some point they made a intentional decision to say we're going to let the statute of limiations lapse and i want to know who decided that and why they did it. >> mr. weiss was the supervior of the negotiations. he made the appropriate decisions and you can ask him those questions and he will -- >> you know why he did it. everyone knows why they did it. burisma -- those tax years, that dealt with the -- that involved the president. it is one thing to have a gun charge in delaware.

that doesn't involve the president of the united states. but burisma, oh, my. that goes right to the white house. we can't have that. and we can slow walk this thing along. we can even extend the statute of limitations and intentionally let it lapse and we know this investigation was slow. here's what everyone said, schaaply said, doj slow walked the investigation. ziegler, slow walking in the approvals of everything. this happened at the delaware's attorney's office and doj tax level. the fbi agent said i would have liked to see things move faster. miss holly said the same. every witness we talked to said this thing was slow walked and we know why. it was slow walked long enough to let the statute of limitations run so they wouldn't have to get into burisma. tell me where i'm wrong. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'm asking mr. garland the question. >> i think i tried to make clear that i don't know the specifics of the investigation. much of what you are describing occurred during the trump administration, during a justice department appointed by president trump. >> no, it didn't. this is four and a half years

this investigation, we're talking the last few years. your statement was just this year, march 1st to senator grassley. >> no, i'm sorry, i was trying to respond to your descriptions of what the irs agent said about certain -- >> statute of limitations is six years. that lapsed here in the biden administration. >> on the statute of limitations, i will say again, that the explanation for why the statute of limitation was lapsed, if it was, has to come from mr. weiss. >> let me ask one last question real quick here. who would decide that david weiss would stay on as u.s. attorney? >> this came before i came. mr. weiss was kept on, i promised the -- >> i didn't say -- you can walk through that. i said who decided? the white house decided. they serve at the pleasure of the president, right? >> mr. weiss was -- >> joe biden decided to keep david weiss as u.s. attorney. you weren't sworn in until march. he was --

>> your time has expired. >> pretty fundamental question. who decided that david weiss would stay as u.s. attorney in delaware? >> your time has expired. >> i'm waiting for an answer now and -- >> well, you asked the question after your time expired already. point of order. >> gentleman can respond and i'll go to miss jackson lee. >> mr. weiss was the special -- u.s. attorney from the district of delaware when i came on. he had been appointed by president trump. i promised he would be permitted to stay on for this investigation and that is what happened. >> gentleman from new york's recognized. >> i believe you misquoted from the transcript of the senate, of the senate hearing. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the entire transcript of the senate hearing. >> without objection. but i didn't misquote what mr. garland said. miss jackson lee from texas recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. none of the republicans' goals

today include solving americans' problems of which they are concerned of. there are many reasons, mr. attorney general, that prosecutors declined to bring charges. one of those reasons is that they don't have any evidence for conviction. that is the justice way. that is just in america. let me raise these questions and concerns with you today. as we all know, republicans have repeatedly alleged that the doj and fbi are conspireing to shield the biden family from public criticism and giving hunter biden special treatment in its investigations. they have demonized law enforcement officials, working with this case at every turn, which has directly led to increased threats against fbi officials, law enforcement of which they pretend to support. i want to place into the record two excerpts from recent transcribed interviews and ask that copy be made available to

you. first is from a june interview with jennifer moore, fbi's former executive assistant director for human resources. she told this committee that fbi had received so many threats that it had to stand up an entire ten-person unit to deal with them. she said it is unprecedented. it is a number we have never had before, more testimony pages 202 to 203. the second excerpt from an interview earlier this month with thomas sobasinski, in charge of baltimore's fbi field office. here is what he said. i joined the fbi 25 years ago, i joined for a reason, not to protect the american people, uphold the constitution. i've been to war. my family has been in bad places. my kids have been evacuated from war zones, quasi war zones, i've been in some bad things, i've accepted that. i'm solely focused on two things and not mutually exclusive. the first is like every investigation, i want to get to a resolution and a fair and apolitical way. second thing, it is becoming more important and relevant, keeping my folks safe.

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

department and in election workers and airline crews, when they are singled out, this can lead to threats of violence and actual violence. we have the actual example of an attack on an fbi office by somebody who was incensed by political rhetoric. this does happen. we must not allow that to happen in this country. >> does the rhetoric regarding the biden case have any basis in reality? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the first part. >> does the rhetoric regarding the biden case have any basis in reality? >> no, it does not. >> how does this impact fbi and doj's ability to do their work? specifically fbi and doj employees? >> as i already said, the agents of the fbi and the prosecutors understand that criticism comes with their job and they will thin to do their jobs without

fear or favor. but the idea of threatening their safety or that of their families is just abhorrent. >> thank you. and, i assume that provisions have had to be in place to protect these agents and their families. >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the first part. >> i assume provisions or protections had to be in place to protect the agents and their families? >> yes, that's correct. >> let me move on to the fentanyl crisis and i want to introduce hr 4272. let me just put on the record so that you can probably summarize and i ask for the indulgence of my chair, but in any event, that the fbi, the doj, are focused needle point focused, if you will, on the crisis of fentanyl. i want to raise that for you and then i want to follow up with one or two other questions, if you would be able to comment on these collectively. i am dealing with the crisis of human trafficking and prioritizing of america's children. they are under siege.

and the level of child sexual abuse materials generating into human trafficking and i want to put hr 30 on the record indicates that there are 99,000 ip cases where they are enticing children and maybe only 1% of them being investigated. i would like your comment on that. and finally, in the approach of high -- of yom kippur to emphasize the work that is still being doing with anti-semitism, attacks on immigrants and african americans and latinos. if you would answer those questions, fentanyl, human trafficking and 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 u