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.

there was absolutely a discussion by leslie wolf that if they were -- if they told investigators or got involved with this, that there would ultimately be issues. you still believe that at this point the entire investigation has moved in the correction -- was handled by the correct discretion? >> mr. weiss has a longstanding prosecutor appointed by mr. trump. he has an outstanding reputation. i have confidence he will proceed as appropriate. at the end of his investigation, he will submit a public report just like mr. durham, just like mr. mueller. he will be available for you to ask him questions about why he did various things that were done. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> what changed? david weiss said, i have not

requested special counsel designation. what happened? >> as i said publically, several days before my announcement, i think three days, mr. weiss had asked to become special counsel. he explained that there were -- he had reached a stage of his investigation where he thought that appropriate. >> what stage is that? >> i promised to give him the resources he needed. >> what stage is that? he reached a stage after five years, what stage? the beginning stage, the middle stage, the end stage, the keep hiding the ball? what stage? >> i would go back to the videotape where i said, i'm not permitted to discuss ongoing investigations. >> isn't that convenient? something changed in 32 days from july 10 to august 11. i think it's two brave whistle-blowers came forward and a judge called bs on a plea deal. that's what i think happened. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chair. the house judiciary committee

has a responsibility of helping to ensure the rule of law. unfortunately, this committee's chairman ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena. a horrible precedent set by this chairman has damaged the credibility of all congressional committees in seeking information from witnesses and damaged the rule of law. attorney general garland, thank you for your public service and for being here today. i would like to start by showing a video of january 6 and ask you some questions about that day. >> we are moving on the capitol ground. i will give you an update. >> multiple capitol injuries!

>> we are still taking sharp objects, missiles. bottles and rocks and chemical fireworks. >> this is officially a riot. >> declaring it a riot. >> attorney general garland, did they charge over 1,100 defendants? >> that's correct.

>> i'm going to stay two facts. the people who showed up on january 6 to attack the nation's capitol were supporters of donald trump. they attacked the capitol, stopped congress from certifying the fact that donald trump lost the election. those two facts were so horrible that some in the right wing media and some republican members of congress could not handle that, so they made up conspiracy theories. in fact, donald trump called january 6 a beautiful day. he said the people who showed up had love in their hearts. a republican member of congress said it was like a normal tourist visit. some republicans have said there were no weapons used on january 6. attorney general garland, were there weapons used in the attack on january 6? >> yes. in the video you saw some of the weapons that were used. there were obviously many more and many hours of video. >> another conspiracy theory is that somehow the fbi actually

orchestrated this attack. i'm go going through some cases that have gone through completion and resulted in sentencing. joe biggs was sentenced to 17 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other counts related to an attack on our nation's capitol. have you seen any shred of evidence that he was an fbi agent? >> no. in fact, joe biggs was a member of the proud boys. this is what connor monroe stated about joe biggs and the proud boys in court. he stated, quote, they saw themselves as donald trump's army, fighting to keep their preferred leader in power no matter what the courts had to say about it. on september 4th, joe biggs stated that he is confident trump will pardon him. he said, quote, i know he will pardon us. we are his supporters. we went there like he asked. i would like to ask you about stewart rhodes who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the

attack on the capitol. have you seen any evidence that stewart rhodes was an fbi agent? >> no. in fact, he was the founder of the oath keepers, a far right paramilitary organization. rhodes asked donald trump to call them up as militia. enrique tarria, have you seen any evidence that he was an fbi agent? >> he was not an fbi agent. >> he was the leader of the proud boys. what happened on january 6 is that donald trump's supporters showed up because he told them to. they marched to the capitol because he told them to. they attacked the capitol because he told them to stop the steal. that's the truth. that's how history is going to record it. thank you for prosecuting those who attacked our nation's capitol. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a slide up here.

i will start, in october -- or march of '22, mr. weiss was denied the ability to bring charges against hunter biden in the district of columbia. in april of that same year, you testified before the senate appropriations committee that mr. weiss was free to run the investigation without interference from the doj. according to the irs whistle-blower, there was a meeting in october of '22 where mr. weiss said he was not the deciding official on whether charges were filed. we know that because we have handwritten notes from the irs whistle-blowers that was confirmed in an email to people in the meeting. later in january, mr. weiss was denied the ability to bring charges in the central district of california. you testified before the senate judiciary committee in march that he had full authority. that weiss confirmed that to us in june that he had been granted full authority over this matter. then he backed up. he said, well, just kidding. my charging authority is limited

to my home district in delaware. of course, you appoint him as special counsel. why the heck has his story changed over the course of the investigations? >> congressman, i have seen all of the three letters. i read them carefully. they are all consistent with each other. i urge everyone watching this on television or anyone interested to look at those three letters. they are not inconsistent with each other. there's no change in the story. >> you agree he had -- you said this publically, he had ultimate authority. prior to the appointment as special counsel. >> i have explained this repeatedly here. i explained this in another proceeding. i said that mr. weiss would have the authority to bring a case in any jurisdiction in which he wanted to. mr. weiss has confirmed that he had -- he would have that authority. i explained that if he had to bring a case in another jurisdiction, as a matter of mechanics, it would require me

or a delegate of mine to sign a 515 order. that is very common. >> mr. attorney general, forgive me -- >> there was nothing stopping that from happening. >> that's -- when you say -- he wrote a letter on your behalf in june, i have ultimate authority. this is prior to the designation as special counsel. ultimate means you can go wherever you want to. >> ultimate means when -- >> at that point, could he file charges in the district of south carolina? he would not have that ability, correct? he would have to go through that u.s. attorney. that's not all authority. >> all he would have to do is ask me for 515 authority. i would sign it right away. just like when he asked me to be special counsel, within three days i signed that. >> he didn't have ultimate authority. >> he had the authority because i promised he would have the authority. >> but he did not have that authority. here is where i'm going. if he was denied the ability to

bring charges in march of '22 in the district of columbia, if he was deied the ability to bring charges in january of '23 in the central district of california, that's not full authority. these u.s. attorneys operate as gatekeepers. that's not full authority to do much of anything. you know what's remarkable to me? we sit here and we look at this and his story changed so many times. you know whose story hasn't changed? mr. ziggler, the emails that confirm that he said, i don't have -- i'm not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. you know what the response back was from his colleague at work? you covered it all, gary. that is consistent. what mr. weiss has done is this shell game and saying he has authority, he doesn't have authority. these gatekeepers at the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia and in the central district of california,

they would have the gatekeeping authority on whether charges are brought in their jurisdictions. >> i'm sorry -- >> correct? >> those words have no meaning, gatekeepers. mr. weiss said he was never denied authority. i'm the one with the authority to decide who can prosecute in a different jurisdiction. i promised he would have that authority. i do not see any inconsistency here. i was not at the meeting that mr. shapley was referring to. i know what i guaranteed and what mr. weiss said i guaranteed. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> it's a simple question. if he had it, why does he need it? that's the question. you said in your statement on august 11th, you said he will continue -- continue to have the authority to bring charges wherever he decides. how can he continue to have a power you just gave him? that's the question the gentleman from south carolina was asking. if he had it, why does he need it? >> i tried to answer the had the authority and he continued. >> when did he specific -- did

you tell him ahead of time he could get 515 status any time? when did you tell him he could get that? >> i made clear -- >> when? did you tell him at the start of the investigation. >> i made clear from the beginning in my statements to the senate that he would have the authority to make any decisions that he wanted to and bring prosecutions he thought were appropriate. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> attorney general garland, thank you for your service to this country. as somebody trapped in the gallery on january 6, i have to admit it's hard to look at that video and imagine that that happened at our u.s. capitol. i'm deeply grateful you have led this nation towards accountability of all those involved, including the former president. you have done so with full and complete attention to the facts, with a team around that focuses on thorough investigation and with a very clear mission that you have stated over and over

and over again, despite the asked and answered on the other side, that the justice department works for the american people. this is a night and day transformation from a justice department that was used by donald trump for his own political gain. it is my firm belief that we have to hold those accountable who tried to destroy our country, including the former president, or we risk losing our country all together. i thank you for your steadfast leadership. it's sad that this committee has also been transformed into a soapbox for political conspiracy theories, instead of focusing on the important issues the american people care about. that's what i'm going to try to do. i'm going to focus on the critical crisis of reproductive freedom and the efforts to try to strip that from people across this country. as you know, a project of the extreme right wing materialized last year when five

republican-appointed justices overturned 50 years of precedent that established the constitutional right to abortion. as one of the one in four women across this country who has had an abortion and who felt compelled to share my story after decades, because i saw the attacks on the right to abortion and what it would do particularly for poor women, for black and brown and indigenous people across this country, i spoke out and shared that story. in the 22 states where republicans control the state legislature and governorship today, all have moved to restrict reproductive rights. more than 25 million women of childbearing age now live in states where abortion access has been curtailed. in washington state, my home state, the seattle times reported we are seeing increasing numbers of abortion patients not only from neighboring idaho, which we knew we would see, but also from other southern states where the restrictions are enforced. mr. chairman, i seek consent to

enter this seattle times record, article into the record, she traveled 2,000 miles secretly for her washington abortion, why patients from the south are coming here. >> no objection. >> as our fundamental freedoms are threatened by extreme maga republicans in congress and across the country, we trust the doj will initiate investigations and protect reproductive rights. what has the department done to protect access to a very safe abortion drug that women can take at home safely to end a pregnancy? >> the fda authorized the use of mifepristone as safe and effective. it did it in 2000. that's been challenged first in district court. we defended the fda in that matter. there was an appeal to the circuit court.

it narrowed the district court's opinion in some ways, but allowed it to go forward in other. we have filed a petition, which has been granted, in the supreme court of the united states. >> very, very important work. thank you. my home state of washington has one of the highest rates of religiously affiliated hospitals in the country. in 2021, there were several counties lacking even one secular hospital. this is an issue under the emergency medical treatment and labor act, when patients in need of abortion care as life saving treatment are denied services under the hospital's policy. what is the department doing to enforce this law mandating that every hospital that receives medicare funds provide, quote, necessary stabilizing treatment to patients, including abortion care? >> this is a federal law. it expressly pre-empts any inconsistent state law. for that reason, we filed a lawsuit in idaho and one in the

district court with respect to an idaho law that impinged on the rights granted. we have filed i think a number of statements of interest in other places. we are continuing to look at where it would be appropriate to intervene. >> thank you. you are on record stating women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive care must remain free to access that care. can you discuss the progress made by the task force and doj to ensure that pregnant people retain their right to travel? >> my view about this right to travel is the same as justice kavanaugh in his separate opinion. he said, this is not a particularly difficult question. right to travel is a constitutional right and it allows women in a state that bars abortion to travel and obtain an abortion in a state in which it's permitted. >> thank you, attorney general, for your commitment to this and

to upholding the rule of law in our country. appreciate your system. >> the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. attorney general, for being here today. i would like to go back to your remarks regarding the -- before the senate when you were confirmed and your promise regarding mr. weiss. can you explain to us in more detail who you promised that you would keep mr. weiss on this case? to whom was that promise made? >> a number of senators in my meetings with them asked me to y interchange with a senator from tennessee, i believe. >> did that promise that you made lead you to believe that even if mr. weiss displayed a level of incompetent, you would be precluded from asking him to step down or precluded from replacing him? >> look, when someone asked me

to make this appointment, they didn't ask me depending on what the outcome was. mr. weiss has made his appointment -- decisions. mr. weiss is an experienced federal prosecutor with extensive experience and with sufficient credibility to be appointed by president trump. i just have no grounds for interfering here. >> you haven't answered the question. the question was really, what level of incompetence displayed by a prosecutor under your control would it take for you to make a change? let's move on. the level of incompetence i'm referring to -- i will read this to you. this is the same weiss who headed an investigation that was trashed by whistle-blowers who allege his investigation had been fixed from the outset, ran an investigation in which agents were prevented from asking about joe biden, obstructed in their

effort to pursue questions compromised by tip-offs to the biden team. the same weiss who let the statute of limitations run out. it was the same weiss who did not indict on major tax felonies and cut a plea deal that brushed aside a felony gun charge. he inked a widely-panned sweetheart deal that caused a federal judge to balk it. there's a list of what i would suggest under many people's definition would be incompetence. is that inadequate to question what he was doing? >> i'm saying these are allegations. i don't know what the facts of them are. i have, as i explained, stayed out of this investigation. i was not present at any of the meetings discussed. some of the meetings occurred under the previous

administration where mr. weiss was assigned to the matter by the previous justice department. i'm not in a position to comment on them. >> that's too bad. there's a scope of investigation memo issued when they start these things out. who issued that scope of investigation memo to mr. weiss? was it done on -- when he was originally appointed to take on the biden case? is that when the memo was telling him what he was supposed to do was issued? is there a scope of investigation memo? >> with respect to special counsel. that has been publically transmitted to the chairman of this committee and the senate judiciary committee. >> who wrote it? >> who wrote that scope? >> who decided what should be within the scope of that investigation? >> i'm sorry? >> who wrote the memo? who decided what the scope of that -- >> i decided what should be in the scope, if you compare that to the scope of many other special counsels, it is modelled on the format we used in the past.

not only in this administration but the previous one. >> in your remarks delivered on august 11th of this year, concerning the appointment of david weiss as special counsel, you say upon considering his request as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter. can you tell us what those extraordinary circumstances were? >> i'm sorry? >> these are your remarks on august 11th. >> yes. >> it says on tuesday this week, mr. weiss advised me that -- i'm quoting from your memo. >> yes. >> in his judgment, his investigation reached a stage at which he should continue his work as special counsel. he asked to be so appointed. upon considering his consider as well as, quote, the extraordinary circumstances related to this matter, end quote, i have concluded it's in the public interest to appoint him special counsel. what were those extraordinary circumstances? >> all of the special counsels,

including the appointment by mr. barr with respect to mr. durham uses those phrases. the reason is because that's in the special counsel regulation. i said as much as i can say with respect to that without discussing matters relating to a pending investigation. i can't discuss matters with respect to a pending investigation for the reasons i have said. >> thank you. yield back. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. garland, i want to welcome you today to this hearing. i want to turn our attention to something very interesting, more important -- the most important thing on main street today in my district is drug addiction, narcotics trafficking, fentanyl. i'm going to quote you june 23rd of this year. you said, the u.s. government continues to do everything in our power to disrupt fentanyl trafficking and to prevent more

of our communities from being devastated by the fentanyl epidemic. you went on to say, we are targeting every step of the movement, manufacturing and the sale of fentanyl from start to finish. mr. garland, i believe that the only thing that the cartel leaders fear is the united states prison. i want to thank you for the good job, you extradited el chapo's son. thank you very much. my question is, do you have plans to extradite additional cartel leaders from other parts of the world to the united states to face u.s. justice and a u.s. prison sentence? >> i don't want to get into discussions -- diplomatic discussions. obviously, we have indicted the others, the sons of el chapo. >> how many are there? >> i'm trying to remember.

maybe four more, maybe five. i'm not sure exactly. they have all been pub welcom -- publically indicted. >> it requires you have cooperation from foreign countries, especially mexico, since that's where a lot of the cartels are operating. would you say mexico is cooperating in terms of working with your office to bring these cartel leaders to justice? >> they have obviously worked with us with respect to the apprehension, which led to the death of mexican marines, people fighting back with machine guns and the marines having to use black hawk attack heldly cop -- helicopters to arrest him? >> u.s. marines or mexican? >> no. mexican marines.

they play an important role in the apprehension of the cartel leaders. >> mr. garland, would you characterize cooperation right now with mexicans as being good, not good? >> i would say cooperation can always be better. we have an enormous problem with respect to fentanyl coming from mexico from its manufacture there, based on the precursors coming from china, based on cartel leaders. >> how can we help you make sure other countries have stronger cooperating relationships with us? how can we make sure they cooperate to their fullest abilities? >> i appreciate that. i will think about it. i personally traveled to mexico to get cooperation with respect to these matters. >> how important is 702 to your job when it comes to fighting

fentanyl? >> it's very important. fentanyl poses a national security problem within the united states. >> can you work with us to assure we put guardrails around -- put safety measures on 702 to assure that those investigative weapons are not turned against u.s. citizens? >> absolutely. 702 is a crucial, essential tool. like all tools, it has to be properly controlled. we would be happy to work with congress to make sure the civil liberties are protected. >> my last minute, i wanted to turn to the antitrust area. the european union. the digital marketing act, which is designed to protect consumers in europe. yet, it looks like most of the focus is on american firms. no european companies or other foreign operators in the european union are being

targeted. if looks like it's only american firms operating in europe. it looks like the doj is working to support the efforts of the europeans in implementing the digital marketing act. i have 18 seconds. i'm going to submit a written question to your office. my focus, my interest is making sure american jobs, american companies are successful around the globe and that they are not in any way hampered from working overseas. thank you very much. mr. chairman, i ran out of time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general. following your confirmation, americans were promised they were getting a focused, non-partisan to lead their federal law enforcement. i had my doubts. the last two years have more than confirmed in my mind those fears. never in my life would i would

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

anti-catholic memo. imagine sending agents into roman catholic churches. i hold you accountable for unleashing a special counsel on our current president's political rival. the department under your leadership, i'm sorry to say, has become an enforcement arm of the democratic national committee. if there's a perceived threat to the democrat party, this doj attacks every single time. when there are actionable threats against conservatives, this doj stays put. protesters outside the supreme court justice's home unpunished. attacks on pro-life centers, unpunished. the two-tiered system is clear to the american people. the buck stops with the man in charge. that man is you. the actions of the doj are on

you. the decline of americans' trust in our federal law enforcement is on you. the political weaponization of the doj is on you. attorney general, i need a simple yes or no to the following. just yes or no. we don't have much time. do you agree that traditional catholics are violent extremists, yes or no? >> let me answer what you said in that long list -- i will be happy to answer all of those. >> i control the time. i'm going to ask you to answer the question. >> you control time by asking me a substance number of things. >> i didn't ask you those things. i made a statement. attorney general, through the chair, i ask you, do you agree that traditional catholics are violent extremists? >> i have no idea what traditional means here. >> catholic. catholics that go to church. >> may i answer your question? >> yes or no? >> the idea that someone with my family background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous, so

absurd -- >> mr. attorney general, it was your fbi that did this. it was your fbi that was sending -- we have the memos. we have the emails. were sending undercover agents into catholic churches. >> both i and the director of the fbi said we were appalled by that memo. >> you agree that they extr extremists? are they extremists or not? >> everything in that -- >> are they extreists or not? say no if you think -- >> catholics are not extremists? >> was there anyone fired for circulating that? >> you have in front of you the inspection division's investigation -- >> yes or no? >> i don't know -- >> we have no time. >> i don't know the answer. >> do you agree parents attending school board -- should parents that go to school board

meetings that are vocal about their kids' education, should they be classified as domestic -- >> of course not. my memo -- >> it's no? the president accused you -- not the president himself. his staff. it was in the "wall street journal" and leaked out of mismanaging the hunter biden probe. do you agree? it was in the "wall street journal" article. >> i'm sorry, do i agree with the "wall street journal"? >> yes. on the information that said you botched this probe? >> i think i have dealt with the hunter biden investigation in the way i told -- >> i yield my remaining time to you. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general garland, for your decades of service to the department of justice, to our country, and to our constitution. it has been truly honorable service.

i think the american public as a whole recognizes that. i was struck by and appreciate your opening statement in which you made clear your fidelity. as we all should know, the justice department works for the american people to prosecute crimes, uphold the rule of law and americans' individual rights and keep our country safe. congress, of course, has a legitimate duty of oversight. the blatantly political and misleading rhetoric which we have been suggestsubjected to undermines this committee's work and the core values of our american institutions. it's pain it wilfully obvious o colleagues called this hearing not to conduct oversight but to once again defend the

indefensible actions of the disgraced twice impeached and now repeatedly indicted in multiple jurisdictions former president. and to distract from their inability to perform the most basic function of congress, to fund the federal government. they are accusing the u.s. department of justice of bias against the former president and his allies. it's important to note that those who are noisily and shamelessly trying to subvert our justice system are the same who have both the most to fear from those ongoing investigations and the most to gain politically and personally from impeding them. as others have noted, these attempts include trying to de-fund the office of special counsel, jack smith's office, all together. i like so many americans find this behavior contemptible and far beneath what we should expect from our country's leaders. mr. attorney general, why is it so important for both upholding the rule of law and maintaining

public trust that our justice system be able to conduct investigations into wrongdoing free from political interference? >> the law -- criminal law can impose incredible sanctions on people. can take away their liberty. that means due process has to be followed during investigations and that partisan considerations not play a role. civil liberties and civil rights are protected. the only way that can happen is if prosecutors are permitted to go about their work without any external, impermissible interventions or considerations. >> thank you. i did want to take the opportunity to conduct some actual oversight. there was an important topic in your testimony, safeguarding the right to vote. during the previous

administration i asked what actions they were taking on this critical issue. they couldn't answer me. could you describe the efforts that your department of justice is taking to protect the right to vote, a fundamental pillar of our democracy? >> yes. congress in the form of the voting rights act and the civil rights act authorize the department to bring cases and to enforce the constitution of the united states with respect to the right to vote, as i'm sure you know, in the shelby county case, the supreme court eliminated one of our tools, section 5 of the voting rights act. but we retained section 2, which the supreme court endorsed in its last term. we have brought cases in a number of jurisdictions where we felt state laws unconstitutionally impinged on the right to vote. we have supported private parties when they have brought those cases, particularly in redistricting cases that

violated the anti-delusion requirement of section 2. we have a task force with respect to threats against election workers, because threatening election workers and stopping them from going about their work is a significant way in which the right to vote can be impinged. that's just a sampling. >> we certainly saw evidence of that in pennsylvania during the last presidential election. we really appreciate all those efforts. i find this hearing disturbing in that we have elected officials misleading the public, attacking the foundation of our democracy, trying to sow distrust on one of the most critical pillars of that democracy, the u.s. department of justice. it's unacceptable and unamerican. mr. chair, i seek unanimous consent to enter into the record a fact sheet on the department of justice's work under attorney general garland's leadership to safeguard americans' right to vote and protect our election officials and workers.

>> without objection. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. we ask the lady to please -- the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general -- >> thank you. >> on august 11, 2023, you appointed mr. weiss special counsel. you wrote a letter to the house and senate judiciary committees where you cited extraordinary circumstances requiring the appointment. you avoided answering the question. i will give you another chance. what were the extraordinary circumstances. >> i will give you the same answer i gave before. i gave as much as i can give, which is that he thought that he reached a stage where it would be appropriate. i promised him that i would give him any resource he needed.

to go further would go into a pending investigation. >> let's talk about that authority. back on march 1, you told the senate judiciary committee that mr. weiss had the full authority to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he felt it was necessary. on june 7, mr. weiss wrote to the judiciary committee stating you had been -- he had been granted ultimate authority over the matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges. by june 30th, he changed his tune and said that his charging authority was geographically limited and it would be up to the u.s. attorney's office and then you to determine whether he can partner on the case. if not, he can request special attorney status. he had been assured if necessary, he would be granted 515 authority in d.c., central district of california, or any other district where charges could be brought. let me ask you, is there some

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

who did he discuss it with and when did he do that? >> i'm not going to discuss internal deliberations of the department. i guaranteed he would have the authority he needed. the moment he asked for the authority, he gave it to him. >> did he discuss it with the deputy attorney general? >> i'm not going to get into discussions of deliberations. >> that's not a valid constitutional objection. >> that is a valid constitutional objection. it has to do with the ability of the justice department to do its communications just as your deliberations with your staff and other members are protected by the constitution. >> detailing who had conversations and when does not implicate the internal deliberations at the department. the substance of those deliberations simply detailing who and when does not implicate those -- >> i'm not going to get into the internal discussions of the department or who talked to who about what. mr. weiss has told this

committee he well understood his ability to bring a case wherever he wanted. i have said that he had that ability. >> do you think that the extraordinary circumstances that you cited in the appointment have anything to do with the june 22nd and july 19th testimony of whistle-blowers, special agent shapley and ziggler? >> i don't think it has anything to do with mr. shapley, no. >> i yield to the chairman. >> appreciate. mr. garland, have you or are you investigating who leaked the information that appeared in the "washington post" on october 6, 2022, about this investigation, about the hunter biden investigation? >> you are saying there was an october 2022 -- >> october 6, 2022 "washington post" writes a story about the hunter biden investigation. have you investigated who leaked that information? >> i don't know the answer to that question.

>> has it been referred to the inspector general? do you know that? >> i don't want my answer to suggest that there is or isn't such an investigation. i know that the inspector general sent a letter to congress explaining that there was -- he had an ongoing assessment with respect to the whistle-blower charges. i don't know if that's what you are referring to. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. >> i thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing. thank you, attorney general for your service to the country. i have respect for my colleague from virginia. i'm a bit confused as to why they have zeroed in on this particular letter in such a myopic way. your testimony -- i wrote down the words.

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

department of justice. >> that's right, to be an assistant u.s. attorney. >> a federal prosecutor, taking on organized crime, drug trafficking, violent crimes? >> yes. i don't know about organized crime. organized drug trafficking, yes. >> following that service, you served in the department of justice as the principal associate -- >> attorney general -- deputy attorney general. >> this is in the mid '90s. >> that's right. >> you supervised a range of high profile cases, is that right? >> yes, they were high profile cases. >> unibomber? >> yes. >> olympic bombing. >> yes. >> oklahoma city bombing. >> yes. >> you received praise with respect to the latter investigation from the then republican governor of the state of oklahoma, is that right? >> yes. who was a very good partner in the investigation with respect to oklahoma. >> you then were nominated and appointed to the federal bench,

u.s. district court of appeals in washington, d.c., correct? >> for the u.s. court of appeals, yes. >> you were confirmed by a bipartisan majority, over 20 republican senators voted for your confirmation. >> i will take your word for it. >> you are served on the bench for a significant period of time, ultimately becoming the chief judge. >> that's right. >> you left that position to return to the department of justice where you had started your career. >> yes. >> you were confirmed into this position in which you now hold on a bipartisan basis in the senate? >> yes. >> it's unfortunate, mr. attorney general, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have conflated questions about various cases that the department has brought with impugning your integrity. i can assure you the vast majority of the country don't agree with that.

we are grateful for your lifetime of service. i recognize this is i suspect a frustrating exercise in terms of this hearing, because i suspect you would like to talk about the prevalence of fentanyl in our community and the work the department of justice is doing, the gun violence epidemic in our country and the work the fbi and other law enforcement agencies are doing to stop it. my hope is the next oversight hearing perhaps those can be the focus of the bulk of the hearing. i would be remiss if i didn't say one note about a rule that the department of justice recently promulgated. in 2021, march of 2021, i sent a letter to the department of justice requesting that the department of justice issue a rule regulating stabilizing braces, one of the braces used in a mass shooting in my community in boulder, colorado, where ten people lost their lives, including one police officer. the department of justice issued a final rule earlier this year

on this precise topic. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it their mission to overturn this rule. i wonder if you might be able to elaborate on how the rule was drafted and deliberated within the department. >> yes. that horrific event in boulder is one of several examples of use of attachment of a semiautomatic pistol to a stabilizing brace intended to permit its firing from the shoulder. that violates the rule -- the congressional statute against short barreled rifles being possessed without registration. anything under 16 inches. the reason for congress's statute, which i think probably goes back to the al capone era, was the power of such a weapon

and the ability to aim such a weapon when shouldered. all that was done in this rule was to make clear that if you convert a pistol into a rifle designed to be fired from the shoulder, you're subject to the registration requirement. >> thank you, mr. attorney general, i yield back. >> attorney general requested a short break, so the committee will send a recess for a few minutes, and then we'll be back for the remainder of our members' questions. >> good day, i'm andrea mitchell in new york, you have been watching a contentious house judiciary oversight hearing with testimony from attorney general merrick garland who's been pushing back when he has a moment to do so, against months of public attacks by house republicans about the hunter biden investigation. joining me now is nbc senior capitol hill correspondent garrett haake, former u.s.

attorney harry litman, and anthony coley, former senior adviser to attorney general garland in the justice department. garrett, this hearing has been very heated at times. let's sum up what we've learned so far. >> well, i think the big takeaway is merrick garland would really like house republicans to believe that he really seriously is not involved in the hunter biden investigation. the decision to set up david weiss as a u.s. attorney to continue investigating it was made before his tenure, and that ever since then he has been as hands off as possible. several republican lawmakers have tried to get him to admit to other conversations or other work on the margins or probed his curiosity or lack thereof into elements of the hunter biden case or what's become the outline of their case, they're trying to make an impeachment inquiry into president biden. garland has steadfastly denied -- or excuse me, president biden. garland has steadfastly denied he's had any involvement in any of those issues and has tried to

stay on the fairway here essentially and not got drawn off onto those tangents for several hours now. >> and harry litman, are you concerned that general garland had difficulty answering some questions about possible interactions with the fbi and david weiss who was a holdover, he had kept him on as a trump-appointed u.s. attorney in delaware, precisely because he said that he was not going to interfere politically and wanted to have the republican appointee continue this investigation. >> i don't think he had difficulty, andrea, and his answers were very consistent. however, in many cases the questioners refused to take no for an answer, causing him to have to say again and again and trying to get him to veer into improper areas. there's a real kangaroo court aspect to it. the questioners know that what they're posing really is not

accurate, isn't legitimate, and so he varies sometimes from slightly fatigued feeling about here we go again to at times really showing his dander and pushing back hard. but basically his refrains, i think have been very consistent and steady, even if system of the republicans have been trying to probe more deeply to areas that he just can't go into. >> and just wanted to play something that he said from his opening statement about what his role is as the attorney general and as an independent branch of government trying, actually, to reestablish the independence of the justice department from the white house, which had been breached on many occasions in the previous administration. let's watch. >> our job is not to take orders from the president, from congress, or from anyone else about who or what to criminally investigate.

i am not the president's lawyer. i will add i am not congress's prosecutor. the justice department works for the american people. we will not be intimidated. >> anthony coley, you know the man very well. you worked for him. one of the things that the congressman tried to put in the record at least, that he had a lengthy career as a prosecutor at justice, the oklahoma city bombings, the atlanta olympic bombings, a number of big cases was eventually not only a federal judge but the appeals court and then chief judge there right under the supreme court, and what of course he didn't mention had been nominated by president obama for the supreme court but never even got a hearing because of what mitch mcconnell as republican leader did at the time. so his record of public service, lifelong record was something that the republicans did not introduce but that at least democratic congressmen introduced it. >> that's exactly right, andrea.

i think what we saw today was an attorney general who was prepared and ready to fight back, push back against these spur yes, sir allegations against this department. what also happened here, i think if i had to come up with one word to describe what we all just saw is tension. it's not just tension between democrats and republicans, but it's tension between the nature of criminal investigations and the nature of political investigations. criminal investigations, prosecutors follow the facts. the facts tell prosecutors where to go. with political investigations, members of congress often start with the end in mind, right? and then they try to conduct an investigation to fill in the blanks to get the objective that they want. that's what's happened here, after months and months and months of trying to draw some type of connection between hunter biden and the biden family and the illicit activity

they come up with nothing. and that's what's on display, and i think the american people are going to look through that. >> there has been a lot of smoke because of what was really the botched plea agreement, david weiss's statement when there was an agreement that the investigation was still continuing leading to a lot of implications and a lot of attention that has been reported recently behind the scenes between the white house and the attorney general for the way he's handled the hunter probe and also the probe into the president's classified documents case. >> i scratch my head every time i see these type of anonymous quotes coming from the white house for two reasons. number one, the white house has one job right now, and that is to get joe biden reelected, which i support. the other thing here too is that the fact just don't match what these anonymous white house officials are saying. on the first case with joe biden and this special counsel looking into these classified documents, three things happened.

on three different occasions from november 2nd through the first week of january, the president and his team voluntarily turned over classified documents. not once, not twice, not three times. that's more than enough evidence and background for this attorney general to appoint a special counsel. and with regard to the second special counsel that was appointed, people rightly note that david weiss was originally appointed by donald trump, but what has gotten lost in this conversation is that this white house affirmatively asked or decided that weiss be kept on. that's their prerogative. u.s. attorneys are presidentially appointed and that's their right to do that. that's gotten lost in all of this conversation. >> a lot of other things have been lost as well. anthony, thank you so much. garrett, thank you. and as ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy addressed the u.s. security council, noticeably absent was sergey

lavrov, the foreign minister. he had been scheduled to speak there later. joining me now is retired admiral, james stavridis. let's talk about the highlights, let's be asking how we're taking aim at the u.n. security council at russia asking for reparations to rebuild ukraine and demanding the complete withdrawal of russian forces. >> i think it was a bravero performance by zelensky. he advanced real gratitude for all the help he's gotten, and number three, he kept coming back to the war crimes that we've seen committed by russia. he's trying to shock the conscience of the world. i think he did a brilliant job. >> and he's going to be in washington doing a briefing for congress.

he's been very effective in these venues. there has been pushback about the funding, but he is going to do that, samantha power is going to brief them as well on the congressional aid for humanitarian relief. they've announced for rebuilding and getting food to ukraine. we'll have a lot more on that tomorrow. thank you so much, admiral stavridis in this abbreviated edition, we brought you the hearing, though, all of it, and it will continue as well. that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports" just quickly pointing out that prime minister netanyahu met with president biden today, and for the first time alluded to something that is happening behind the scenes. we'll have a lot more reporting on that, which is a developing agreement with saudi arabia, would recognize israel and end arab, israeli disputes. israel wants it. the white house is thinking about it, we'll have a lot more coming up on that. "chris jansing reports" starts right now.