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 united states

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

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

archer told us that hunter sold the appearance of access to then vice president biden. are you confident he has stopped doing that? >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand the question. >> hunter biden associate devin archer told us that hunter sold the appearance of access to then vice president biden. are you confident he has stopped? >> i'm going to say again, all these matters are within the purview of mr. weiss. i have not interfered with them and i have not -- >> if you're confident he has stopped -- so it was a lot of chinese money that was working its way through these shell companies into the accounts of the biden family. so the china initiative was set up during the trump administration at the department of justice to go after the malign influence of the chinese communist party and the biden justice department dissolved the china initiative. does the department have any documents that would detail the basis for why you got rid of the

china initiative that president trump had signed? >> the assistant attorney general gave a long speech which explained that, he testified before congress several times. we would be happy to provide you with -- >> what is the basis? tell us all now, why was the china initiative dissolved? >> we face attacks from four nation states. north korea, china, russia and iran and we need to focus our attention on the broad range of these attacks. >> are you saying that north korea has the same malign influence risk to the united states as the chinese communist party? are you trying to represent some parity there? here is what it looks like. it looks like the chinese gave all this money to the bidens and you guys came in and got rid of the china initiative and it was successful. one of the people you convicted

was a guy named charles lieber, taking $50,000 a no do china's bidding and give them whatever research was being done. >> there are a lot of questions, let me start with the first one about north korea, north korea is a dangerous actor, both kinetically and with respect to -- >> not on par with china. i'm on the armed services committee, mr. attorney general. >> may i answer your question or not? >> answer the question about whether or not you know about all the millions of dollars that -- >> you don't want me to answer about north korea? >> i already know the answer. and so does everyone. they're not the same risk as china. so let's get on to serious questions and serious answers. do you know about the money that moved through the rob walker shell companies, yes or no? >> as i said repeatedly, i have left that these matters to mr. weiss, i've not intruded, i've

not interfered, i have not tried to find out -- >> it is like you're looking the other way on purpose because everyone know this stuff is happening. the china initiative resulted in the convictions of harvard professor, of someone at monday monsanto. now you're sitting here telling me that north korea is the big threat. we got to get to this one thing on january -- did the fbi lose count of the number of paid informants on january 6th? >> let me answer your question about china. china is -- >> i only get five minutes. you already -- january 6th, did you lose count of the number of federal assets? did you lose count and order an audit? >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i get an answer to the question. >> the attorney general can respond. >> china is the most aggressive, most dangerous adversary -- >> mr. attorney general -- >> and we're doing everything

within our power to rebut that, to stop that, to prevent their invasions both kinetic, both -- and through cyberspace and we will continue -- >> if someone gave that answer in your courtroom when you were a judge, you would tell them they were being nonresponsive and ask them to answer the question. >> point of order. >> badgering the witness. >> point of order, please. >> time has expired. >> i was -- i was -- i was -- >> your honor, you want to stick with that? >> i was laughing at -- >> point of order either way. >> i understand that too. >> all right. >> the gentleman asked his question before his time expired, the attorney general did not respond to the question, i was hoping he would answer the question to the confidential human sources on -- >> the question was before that. he was not given a chance to answer. so the witness might have thought -- >> the witness doesn't -- mr. chairman, point of order, the witness does not control the time. >> exactly right. members control the time. if they want to switch their

question and focus on one more question they would like an answer to, i want to give the witness a chance to respond to that final question mr. gaetz asked. someone will ask it, i'm sure. we now recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. i would follow up with a few of the questions that were asked here. did devin archer not say joe biden did nothing wrong? >> i only know about mr. archer from newspaper reports. i want to be clear that i kept my promise to not involve myself in this investigation. >> now stated. he said in -- joe biden did nothing wrong. secondly, did you say that president trump, president trump appointed weiss who then you appointed? >> yes. president trump appointed mr. weiss as the united states attorney. >> that should take care of that issue. and they say the department has been weaponized. wasn't there an investigation of mr. gaetz and you didn't prosecute him?

>> justice department does not make comments about its investigations. >> we're not weaponized. we're weaponized, we would have done it. that was a beautiful exchange. shows we didn't do that. you're the nation's chief law enforcement officer and i appreciate that. and law enforcement is one of our government's fundamental functions. crime is growing too much in this country and my city of memphis as well. we need law enforcement that is effective, swift and fair. i would like to focus my questions on what actually affects the american people, crime. how do we get smarter law enforcement requiring smart resource of allocations, not about funding or less funding, but the right funding for the right programs and see that that happens? memphis, hiring has become more difficult. we lowered our standards to get more officers. that's not the way to do it. cops program is helping us review the policies and procedures and i thank the cops program for doing that. what can department of justice do to help see that law enforcement is more efficient and more effective?

>> so, the key to this is our partnership, the fbi, the dea, marshals, atf, partnership at every local level with local and state law enforcement and task forces in discussions to target the most dangerous criminals in those communities. but at the same time, to engage the communities to help engender community trust in law enforcement. everyone who is prosecuted violent crime cases and that includes me knows that you need the trust of the community in order to get witnesses and we and the justice department are helping our state and local colleagues do just that. the funding allows us to give money to state and local police organizations that are having trouble with recruitment and retention and promotion of law officers.

and helps them make their departments respectful of constitutional rights and at the same time effective in the investigation and prosecution of criminal law violations. >> can you share with us how important pilot programs are and how they can improve policing? >> congress has authorized the justice department to conduct pattern or practice investigations when there is a reasonable belief that there has been unconstitutional pattern of unconstitutional behavior in a police department. we are careful to select those cases where we think there is such a pattern. we make those investigations, we then work with the law enforcement agencies and the

cities. our hope is to come to a consent decree that will lead to a better, more efficient and more constitutional police department. we have been successful in all of our cases to date in reaching consent agreements. >> thank you, sir. you were part of -- bringing of charges, federal charges against the five officers who killed tyre nichols. if there is a shutdown of the federal government, how will that affect the department of justice and affect policing and local communities? >> i haven't done a complete calculation on the effects of a shutdown and the difference between which employees are indispensable under the statute and which ones are not. it will disrupt all of our normal programs, including our grant programs to state and

local law enforcement and to our ability to conduct our normal efforts with respect to the entire scope of our activities including helping state and locals fight violent crime. >> thank you, sir. happy new year. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. attorney general, looking again at the appointment of jack smith and david weiss, this double standard of justice couldn't be more glaring. jack smith was deeply involved in the irs scandal that targeted conservative political groups, his malicious prosecution of former governor mcdonnell was unanimously overturned by the u.s. supreme court. chief justice roberts rebuked smith directly for attempting to criminalize political activity. you appointed him to prosecute joe biden's chief rival for the presidency. and then we have the appointment

of david weiss. weiss deliberately allowed the statute of limitations to run out on any charges that could have implicated joe biden in influence peddling. he offered hunter biden a sweet heart deal up ended by the court and he's the one you used to pursue the charges that could implicate joe biden. that leads me to two explanations, corruption or incompetence. which is it? >> those are the kind of questions that judges would rule out of order. >> i'm sure you would. which is it? >> as i said before and i'll say again, mr. weiss was the republican-appointed united states attorney, appointed by president donald trump. >> do you at least see the obvious double standard applied in these two appointments? >> mr. weiss was a republican appointee. mr. smith is not registered to

either party, his entire career was as a career prosecutor. >> i'm not asking about their party registrations. i'm asking about their records and how those records would commend them to the appointments that you made. this is a question of judgment and it is a question of motive. what was motivating you to do this? >> mr. smith had a nationwide reputation for integrity and for prosecution. his work can be measured by what he has actually filed. everyone in the country can see the indictments -- >> how can you say that after he was so heavily implicated in the irs scandal? or the rebuke that the supreme court gave him and many other examples? let me go on. we had two irs whistle blowers inform congress of attempts to obstruct the criminal investigation into millions of dollars of ill gotten and undeclared income to hunter

biden and several deviations from department officials that provided preferential treatment to hunter biden, direct quote, including allowing the statute of limitations to lapse, prohibiting investigators from referring to the big guy or dad in witness interviews, excluding the investigative team from meetings with defense counsel and in order to find defense counsel pending search warrants. u.s. attorney's office tipped off the bidens of an impending search of a storage unit where their records were being kept. that sounds an awful like obstruction of justice to me. was that coming from you or from somebody else? >> i'm sorry, i don't -- was that coming from you. i don't understand the question. >> all of the actions that your employees took to obstruct the investigation of hunter biden

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

before this committee of an uptick in, quote, known or suspected terrorists coming across the southern border. and they told us that the southern border represents a massive security threat. those were his words. a massive security threat. do you agree? >> i'm perfectly happy to align myself with the director of the fbi. >> well, why is it then that we -- senior administration resend the trump era orders that had secured that border? there is an exponential increase of terrorists. >> the witness can respond if he chooses. >> this is -- the answer to this question about immigration law is an extremely long answer. i would defer to the department of homeland security, which is responsible for the physical security and first contact at the border. >> we tried to get answers from them, they didn't give them to us, we were hoping you would. i understand mr. attorney general you've requested a short break. we'll take a short break and

resume in five minutes. >> okay, sorry. >> we're taking a short break. we have been watching the testimony of attorney general merrick garland at the house judiciary hearing oversight, the objective here, oversight of the department of justice. there has been a lot of fiery back and forth here to say the least. we heard from congressman jonatan, bishop as well, with jim jordan, matt gaetz, along with many democrats as well. at one point matt gaetz starting off his questioning with saying did the department of justice communicate to biden to knock it off. not necessarily sure what his objective was there. citing polls as well and not knowing the source of some of these pollings. jim jordan starting off his five minutes of q&a and saying four in five americans see a

two-tiered justice system going forward. this is a poll, i want to be clear here, conducted by the trafalgar group. it is a nationwide survey and there have been issues cited with this poll in particular, especially questions into the methodology of this poll, and an apparent bias towards the republican party as well. there was a lot more there as well per david weiss. you got to wonder, and we now know david weiss has been appointed to the special counsel leading the investigation into hunter biden, why it is they're not questioning david weiss versus the attorney general, because certainly they're questioning the independence and the decisions made by the special counsel, now david weiss, overseeing the hunter biden investigation. i want to get into more of this as we're taking a quick break, bring in ryan nobles, just outside the hearing room, nbc justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian as

well, and joyce vance. ryan, what stood out to you? >> well, yes, you're right to point out how a lot of this is politics. a lot of this is just trying on the behalf of house republicans and then house democrats to rebut kind of some of the talking points they have about what they feel the conduct of the justice department is, this suggestion of a two-tiered system of justice. this is something they have been talking about for some time. we didn't expect anything substantive to come out of that. i do think it is important to try and pin down some of the questions that we do have and we did get some insight into that. in particular, about the decision-making that went into making david weiss the special counsel and one of the big open questions that has yet to be fully resolved is this disconnect between the whistle-blowers, two irs agents that testified that there were meetings where david weiss said

he didn't have ultimate authority in bringing charges in the hunter biden case. weiss himself sent two letters to congress refuting that. garland sent a letter to congress refuting that. and under oath garland is refuting that. it is important to keep in mind that there was an exchange there where garland was specifically pressed on whether or not he's actually talked to david weiss about the hunter biden investigation and he refused to answer that question. he instead is retreating back to his overall point that he has specifically gone to great lengths to not insert himself into the hunter biden investigation. now, that is likely not going to be enough for republicans who believe that hunter biden was given preferential treatment in this case. but it remains one of the most, i don't know if interesting is the right word, but it remains one of the open questions about the back and forth over the hunter biden investigation. was he given special treatment, was the thumb of the higher ranks of the justice department

applied, pressure applied to prevent this from going forward? and that is why it led to this position. one of the other big questions republicans this is if he had ultimate authority, what took so long to name him special counsel. and the attorney general didn't really have the specific answer for that. a lot is political rhetoric. there is important things we need to get answers to that we're seeing some of that being talked about today. >> they talked about what took so long, they also repeatedly talked about letting the statute of limitations run out. i want to talk to joyce vance about that in a moment. mr. we do, we knew this would be a contentious hearing from the start. what we have seen so far in the last 90 minutes or so since this started, what is standing out to you right now? >> two quick points for what ryan said. i think one of the reasons merrick garland doesn't want to answer the question about whether he's talked to david weiss is because he almost certainly has because under the statute, under the regulations, he has ultimate authority

over -- over the special counsel in the sense that he can block any move by a special counsel or before weiss was the special counsel he was essentially working for the justice department, so while he's not involved in the day to day decisions, he almost certainly was briefed on major developments in the case. and that's -- that's a sticky thing for him to talk about while all these republicans are attacking the investigation. then in terms of the evidence on whether there is political interference, you have two irs whistle-blowers who they say they believe there was. and then you have fbi personnel who testified before the same committee who said, no, we didn't see any political interference and in my experience, that is normal to have disagreements about investigations between the agents working on the investigations, between the agents and the prosecutors very often agents are dissatisfied with the lack of aggressiveness on the part of the prosecutors who after all are the ones that have to go into court and win the case. but i think the overall picture here is that republicans want to

try to pin down garland on the ins and outs of the various investigations. but he's got this shield. they're scoring their talking points and he's falling back on there is nothing else i can say. he wanted to say number one i'm not the president's lawyer. i'm not taking orders from congress about who to investigate and number two, there has been what he called an astounding rise in the level of threats, physical, dangerous threats against line fbi agents and prosecutors and he, without pinning it directly on the republicans, he is suggesting that when you name individual line fbi agents and prosecutors as they have done, and then write stories about them, those people get threatened and their families get threatened and they had to get security. and we reported on this. there has been a huge uptick, a doubling of threats against the fbi since the mar-a-lago raid

and garland is very disturbed about it and he made that point i think pretty strongly. >> so here is exactly what garland said referring to the quote that dilanian just said, i'm not the president's lawyer, i will also add i am not congress' prosecutor. our job is to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead and that is what we do. what seems so confusing to me, joyce, was that on one hand they're saying who appointed david weiss, why is david weiss still on the job, why did this take so long, why did you let the statute of limitations run out. but then also why is he independent and why aren't you overseeing him? right? it is as if they have two objectives that don't necessarily line up with one another. >> right. consistency isn't always a virtue in this kind of questioning. i thought it was reassuring to hear merrick garland reaffirm that doj is independent.

that is something that was not the case with the former president who all too often viewed doj and its resources as tool, political tools for the white house to deploy. that's a good starting point. on the questions that come from republicans, i think people should understand that no attorney general from either party looks forward to these outings on capitol hill. but congress has a legitimate oversight function to perform here. the line the attorney general has to draw is that he cannot talk about the conduct of ongoing criminal cases. and that's the line that merrick garland is trying to draw today. >> sure, so legitimate oversight, absolutely. we all know that. my question is, and kind of jumping off what ken had to say, which is this sticky situation that merrick garland finds himself in, when asked about whether or not he's having conversations with david weiss about the prosecution, the investigation of the president's

son, hunter biden, and why it is that he can't necessarily be transparent in saying, yes, we have had conversations about the plans that david weiss has in moving forward, considering the fact that he was appointed special counsel. >> sure. and that seems like an innocuous sort of question until you think about the larger landscape, which is that doj has to protect its independence in conducting criminal investigations and answer in this case would mean that doj would have to talk about its investigations and deliberations in every criminal case, that they would be opening that up and congress can't be involved in investigations. there is a time and a place for these questions, which garland was clear to say, and because this is a special counsel investigation, david weiss will have to write a written report at the conclusion of his work, congress will have access to him at that point, and these questions can be indulged. the specter of congressional

interference just like the specter of white house interference in the ongoing conduct of criminal investigations is something that risks inserting political considerations in the prosecution. and prosecutions, decisions about who gets indicted and who goes to prison have to be reserved for doj, which moves forward based on the facts and the law, not on any special political considerations. that's foundational to our system of governing. >> what did you make of the questions on the statute of limitations, joyce? >> right, so these are interesting questions. and there has been some suggestion from the baltimore fbi agent who is running the investigative side of this that he thought david weiss may have moved a little bit slowly. agents sometimes criticize prosecutors along those lines. but the reality is it is prosecutors who have to look at the evidence, decide whether there is sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt to win a case at trial before they make a

decision to indict. and some of these charges, particularly the tax ones, i think there has been a consensus among people who looked at the law and the evidence or at least what we publicly know about the evidence and have had real hesitation about whether this is the kind of case that doj indicts and can expect to win. >> so, again, you see the attorney general there taking the seat. this thing is going to get up and going pretty soon, as soon as it gets started we'll go back in. one last thing to you, ryan, as we're watching this begin again, i believe it was -- oh, they're gaveling back in now. so let's listen in. >> -- the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general garland, great to see you, thank you for your service to the nation and the nation watches as republicans have no answer for why they want

to focus and obsess on hunter biden receiving $2 million for -- from burisma after serving on a board that he said he was not qualified to serve on. but yet the saudi arabians gave $2 billion to jared kushner who conducted middle east strategy for his dear old dad, donald trump. he got $2 billion for something that he is not equipped to do, which is investment banking. so republicans looking at hunter biden instead of jared kushner, americans don't understand how that could be. and they also increasingly are alarmed about the fact that the republicans in control of the house only seemed to have three objectives. one is to impeach joe biden.

number two is to shut down -- is to impeach or get rid of kevin mccarthy, actually. and the third is to shut down government and a subset of that is to defund the doj and the fbi, for trying to hold donald trump accountable. so the american people are watching that and they also appreciate the fact that you have had a distinguished career as a prosecutor, and a doj official as well as 24 years on the bench. you served on the second highest court of the land as a judge for 24 years, the d.c. circuit court of appeals. we appreciate your service. you were for seven years the lead -- you were the -- you

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

>> you were a judge extraordinaire and you know the rules of ethics for judges because your bench had to -- was covered by a code of conduct, is that not correct? >> all the judges, federal, appellate and district judges are covered by the code of conduct. >> would never have had somebody to pay for your god son's tuition to private school? >> i don't want to answer these kind of -- hypothetical questions. what i would say is that i always as a judge, i said this before and quite publicly, and long ago, always held myself to the highest standards of ethical responsibility imposed by the code. and that's really all i can answer here. >> and it is required that judges and justices avoid even appearances of impropriety, correct? >> i know you're asking this

both hypothetically and not hypothetically. all i can say is i follow the code of traditional conduct and that includes avoiding appearances, right. >> let me ask you this question, senator whitehouse and i sent a letter to you alerting you to the fact that we were asking the judicial counsel to refer the matter of clarence thomas being in violation of the ethics in government act to the justice department. and after that, representative alexandria ocasio-cortez with myself and others requested that you take that matter up directly. have you responded to either one of those letters, and if not, why not? and what action have you taken pursuant to those letters? >> the gentleman may respond. >> i assume if you sent the letter, we have it and i'll speak to the office of legislative affairs about where it is at this point.

>> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. issam. >> thank you. this may be the reason it is good for you to leave the chief justice and that group before each of us speak as you would have already heard all that. i want to thank you personally for your office and your engagement on camp lejeune and on obviously a vast amount of litigation that is one of the many, many jobs that falls at your feet. one of the jobs that falls at our feet here is that we are watchdogs of the executive branch. you have previously said that you're not congress' attorney and not the president's attorney. i'm assuming that urb neither our prosecutor nor our defense attorney and neither the president's prosecutor nor defense attorney. and that's why today's investigation really does deal with the fact that if you're not

by definition the president's prosecutor, but we have an obligation to see whether or not the president or a member of his family or in concert with the president's activities in fact need to be overseen, admonished or even prosecuted. and so i want to -- i have a couple of questions for you. one of them is that you have not said this very much today, but you often say i cannot comment on that, it is an ongoing investigation. when we ask for information you very commonly say that it is the policy, not the law, but the policy of the department of justice not to provide information related to an ongoing investigation. so far i'm on track, correct? >> i think i've said more than that's just policy. i think the letters we sent traced it to the constitutional separation of powers to rule 6e

of the federal rules of criminal procedure, et cetera. but in general, i'm in court with what you're saying. >> one of the challenges we face is just mater of weeks ago a federal judge found the actions of now special prosecutor to be so outside what he could agree to that he pushed back on a plea settlement and nullified it and sent the u.s. attorney going back. in light of that, don't you think it is appropriate for that portion to be considered, a, pre-ongoing investigation. and for congress to legitimately look at the activities leading up to that failed plea bargain rather than wait until weeks, months or years from now, a case is fully settled? >> so, if you'll give me a chance, first, i don't agree with the characterization of what happened in the plea. the district judge performed her

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

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

normal process of the department that if a u.s. attorney in one district wants to bring a case in another, they go to that other district and consult. it is perfectly appropriate. they do that in order to determine what the policies are in that district, what the practices have been in that district, what the judges are like in that district. but a u.s. attorney in another district does not have the authority to deny another u.s. attorney ability to go forward and i have assured mr. weiss that he would have the authority one way or the other. and i think mr. weiss' letters completely reflect that. >> thank you. to be continued. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> welcome, mr. attorney general, and thank you for leading the department with such integrity. we meet today at a momentous time in our history. the country is about to go through a great trial. by this i do not mean any of the several trials of the former president, but a trial of the

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

you can violate the law and constitution to try to stay in power and if you are successful, well, then, maybe you get to be president for life. and if you fail, there is no repercussion. this proposition is also well known to the world and it is called dictatorship. mr. jordan hopes to camouflage his assault on the rule of law by falsely claiming that donald trump is the victim of unequal justice and hunter biden is beneficiary. it is a complain transparently as political as it is devoid of any factual basis. and it is cynical, based on the belief that the american people cannot discern fact from fiction. but i am betting on america, history has shown that those who bet against her are rarely successful and more often they end up covered with shame. i believe in the rule of law and i thank you, mr. attorney general, for defending it. let me now turn to some of the

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

indicted in any matter like this and the decision about indictment was made by mr. smith. >> let me ask you this question about the prosecution of hunter biden. the prosecutor in that case, mr. weiss, was appointed not by joe biden, but appointed in the first instance by donald trump. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and he was continued in that position, was he not? >> he was continued in that position, yes. >> and mr. attorney general, can you imagine, can you imagine the human cry you would hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if you removed him from that position? can you imagine the claims you had removed a prosecutor who was diligently investigating hunter biden, can you imagine the outrage they would have expressed? >> i can say that during my confirmation hearing, discussed with many senators on that side of the aisle, their desire and

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

the chairman recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. >> attorney general garland, elon musk was a democrat who admittedly supported biden but became a critic of the administration and exposed the censorship regime. now the doj opened not one, but two investigations of elon musk. mark zuckerberg on the other hand spent $400 million in 2020 tilting the elections, secretly for democrats. no investigations whatsoever. the american public, these look like mafia tactics. you pay your money, we look the other way. you get in our way, we punish you. the american public sees what these tactics are. and i want to direct your attention to a video here that we're going to play. >> obviously that's a significant matter, it is an ongoing criminal investigation and so i'm not going to comment on an ongoing criminal investigation. >> were those pipe bombs

operable? >> again -- >> the atf is the expert. >> again, it is an ongoing criminal investigation and under long-standing policy i cannot comment. >> we know this is a very active ongoing investigation and there are some restrictions on that. but we -- >> we can handle classified information and we fund your department and so you need to provide that. >> it is not -- respectfully it is not an issue of classification, it is an issue on commenting on ongoing criminal investigations, which is something that by long-standing department policy we are restricted in doing and in fact the last administration actually strengthened those policies, partly because -- >> that's not our policy, though. we fund you so let's move on. >> i'm not going to violate the norm of rule of law and comment on an investigation that is ongoing. >> peter navarro was indicted for contempt of congress. aren't you in fact in contempt of congress when you give us this answer?

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

with all due respect to that, iran/contra was an ongoing investigation and that didn't stop congress from getting the answers. and you're getting in the way of our constitutional duty. you're citing the constitution. i'm going to cite it. it is our constitutional duty to do oversight. in the video, that was your answer to a question to me two years ago when i said how many agents are assets of the government were present on january 5th and january 6th and agitating in the crowd to go into the capitol and how many went into the capitol, can you answer that now? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> last time you don't know how many there were or there were none? >> i don't know the answer to either of those questions, if there were any, i don't know how many, i don't know whether there are any. >> are any. >> you may have perjured yourself that you don't know there were any? you want to say that again that you don't know there were any? >> i have no personal -- >> you have had two years to find out. by the way, that was in

reference to ray epps. on a misdemeanor. you are sending grandmas to prison, putting people away for 20 years for filming. some people weren't there, yet you got the guy on video who is saying, go into the capitol. he is directing people before the speech ends. he is at the site of the first breach. ten videos. it's an indictment for a misdemeanor? the american public isn't buying it. i yield the balance of my time to chairman jordan. >> may i answer the question? >> i'm going to ask one now. >> go ahead. >> in discovery in the cases were filed with respect to january 6, the justice department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question that you are asking. with respect to mr. epps, the fbi said he was not an employee

or informant of the fbi. mr. epps has been charged. there's a proceeding, i believe, going on today on that subject. >> the charge is a joke. i yield to the chairman. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> mr. attorney general, my colleague just said you should be held in contempt of congress. that is quite rich, because the guy who is leaving the hearing room, mr. jordan, is about 500 days into evading his subpoena. about 500 days. if we're going to talk about contempt of congress, let's get real. jim jordan, a witness to a crime where more prosecutions have occurred than any crime committed in america refuses to help america and we will be lectured about contempt of

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

last week one of your secretary -- special agents came here and brought his lawyer and was told he couldn't have his lawyer. mr. jordan wouldn't afford one of your employees the right to have a lawyer present. they threatened to arrest a lawyer that was brought. are you familiar with that standoff that occurred last week? >> generally, yes. >> your office sent a letter detailing it that you were willing to comply, that you would like him to have a lawyer. i would like to submit that. >> without objection. >> who appointed mr. weiss? >> mr. trump was the last person who appointed mr. weiss to the position of u.s. attorney. i appointed him to the position of special counsel last month. >> who initially appointed john durham? >> mr. durham was, i believe, also appointed by president

trump. mr. barr appointed him as special counsel. >> they are so upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors aren't doing enough of the corruption that donald trump wants them to do. either they are just following the law or they are not as corrupt as not willing to go as far as they think that donald trump deserves. that's what they are asking to happen here. doesn't it seem they want it both ways when it comes to the special counsel? a lot of questions suggested the special counsel should be independent but when they didn't like the direction of the special counsel, you were asked why you didn't involve yourself more or investigate more. do you get the sense that you are stuck here? >> when i make an appointment somebody to be a prosecuor or special counsel, the appointment is without respect to what the outcomes of the case will be.

>> your office has made a number of reforms to 702, targeting foreign nationals. but those reforms have not been put into law. 702 is one of the best weapons we have to go after fentanyl. can you tell us if you would support putting some of those reforms into law so we don't have to live administration to administration to see if they will be followed? >> i would. section 702 provides us with the greatest amount -- at least the justice department every morning, the greatest amount of intelligence that we receive about dangerous threats to the united states. >> from foreign nationals? >> from foreign nationals. i am quite aware and sensitive to civil liberties concerns with respect to the queries. for that reason, i put into place and i extended some of those that mr. barr began at the end of his term. i put further ones in place.

those have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of queries and a dramatic reduction in the number of non-compliant queries. i believe those are appropriate reforms, and i would be in favor of codifying them, yes. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. thank you for coming and doing something the chairman is unwilling to do, testify to congress. yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. fitzgerald. >> attorney general, on august 11, 2023, you appointed mr. david weiss u.s. attorney for the district of delaware as special counsel overseeing the investigation of hunter biden. i don't think the question has been requested yet. why did you choose to appoint him as special counsel? >> the explanation was given to the extent i can give -- i'm permitted to give an explanation as to one i gave and sent to congress, which is that mr. weiss requested it. i proppromised to give him all

resources he needed. he reached the stage of the investigation where he thought it would be appropriate. under those extraordinary circumstances, i thought the public interest would be served by making him special counsel. >> who recommended him? how was it brought to you or presented to you that this would be the best person to be the special counsel? >> i'm not going to get into internal discussions. mr. weiss asked that he be appointed as special counsel. i granted that request and made him special counsel. i'm not going to get into internal deliberations in the justice department. >> you said you had no discussions with the white house and certainly the president in regards to that? >> of course. >> no suggestions that came from any other level of government? >> nothing came from the white house, that's right. >> on august 20, 2023, "the washington post" article claimed

mr. weiss worked with hunter biden and hunter biden's late brother. were you aware there was a relationship with the biden family? >> i'm not familiar with this. i don't know when -- >> they worked together on legal cases in prior years. you were unaware of that. >> i'm not familiar with that. >> the article claims it would have been inevitable for them to cross paths. there was a relationship. you were unaware of this. >> i was unaware of this. attorneys in practice get to know people. it's very difficult anywhere in the country for attorneys not to get to know attorneys on other sides. >> you said that mr. weiss had the ultimate authority over the investigation of the president's son, including prior to his appointment as special counsel. you stand by that statement? >> i'm sorry, i didn't -- >> 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. that's been determined. according to whistle-blower testimony, mr. weiss' deputy objected to search warrants of president biden's guesthouse, denies access to a storage unit containing documents fromvacate. >> i'm not going to talk about any individuals in the justice department. as i said before, singling out individuals has led to a serious threat to their safety. i will say the supervisor of the investigation was mr. weiss. he is responsible for all the decisions that were made. excuse me. many of the things that you are saying occurred during the previous administration. i apologize. >> okay.