from the committee in march. and. i listened to all the facts that you -- presented and 14 witnesses as to witness what he said. and then i made a report with the help of the detail members of the committee and told the senators on the same day i was going make a report at the first hearing which we had, which i did, and told them that this was only a starter, that we needed further investigations, but that we had numerous they gave us $60,000. no, i know. and the next appropriation for me was $300,000. and that's all the appropriations that ever were made, about $305,000. so together and that was harry truman and author merle miller from the early 1960s. we're talking with steve drummond, the watchdog. how the truman committee battled corruption and helped win world war two. yes. his book, take us around the country and tell us about some of the investing actions that the committee did. sure. the first one is the one we've mentioned a little bit was army camps truman, very early in the committee's time, wanted t

how those two committees. right. cooperate with one another. that is, could the senate watergate committee provide information that it was gathering in the course of its investigation to a judiciary committee that maybe convened to explore impeachment options? eventually, the house judiciary committee does in 1974 vote and approve three articles of impeachment. that's powerful. speech by barbara jordan of texas. really helps to define the historical context in which this vote is taking place. the last presidential impeachment trial had happened more than a century before when congress when the house had impeached andrew johnson. so 100 years later, the house was now considering these articles of impeach. and barbara jordan, i think, explained so well the gravity of, the moment that members of the house judiciary committee and even the larger house membership felt themselves in this was an extreme, early, powerful and important moment. it was not a moment for partizanship. it was a moment for protect ing the un

how was the committee created? the committee was almost not created and it took quite a bit of pull political maneuvering for it to happen. senator kefauver, in january of 1950 introduced a resolution that would have allowed the senate judiciary committee, presumably under his chairmanship, to essentially create a subcommittee that would have done this investigation into organized crime on democrats in the senate were not very excited about doing this. organized crime was generally considered to be a an urban problem around the country. and democratic politicians were typically the ones who were in charge in in the major cities around the united states. the truman administration was already kind of entering an embattled period, and truman himself had come to political success in kansas city, missouri, under the the watch of a entrenched democratic political machine. so there was this idea that this this hearing was going to not reflect well on democrats around the country. and this was something that would have to

in may of 1965, the committee met aboard the u.s.s. sequoia for a cruise and tour of the potomac river. tours and short trips would become a regular part of the committee's activities. this particular trip spotlighted the history and geography of the potomac and its waterfront and analyzed some of the problems connected with the river. the first lady had challenged her committee to find ways of implementing those beautification projects already underway, boosting those that should be underway and being a catalyst for new undertakings and action program was devised for tackling washington's beautification problems. from the very beginning, mrs. johnson received mail and support from people all over the country and all eyes were on washington for the inspiration that would stimulate similar projects in cities and towns across the land. the many donations of money and plants were handled by a couple of medal committee. the society for a more beautiful national capital. some of the early gifts included a $100,000 grant from the rockefeller

committee. is bad for legislating and relationship development. you are not there to hear the ideas of your colleagues or defend your ideas, just give a speech that you can then throw up on social media. the only way to fix the math, two things the modernization committee proposed and one thing that we did not -- the one we didn't is youof committees people serve on. we did not recommend that. we did recommend that there should not be a congress with more travel days than full days. we should be in session more. the proposal that our vice chair of the committee proposed is in essence a two week on, two week off model. it actually means you are in d.c. more in your district more. it simply means you have fewer travel days. this is really important, to the conflict -- de-conflict the schedule by having block scheduling. you should not be able to be on two committees that meet at the same time. the bipartisan policy thoughtful proposal for how to do block scheduling. it would require committee chai

well, let's look at the committee. it's a 6 to 5 committee. democrats were still in control of the senate. and some of the other democratic members, phil hart, michigan, walter mondale, minnesota. walter huddleston, kentucky. robert morgan of north carolina. and gary hart of colorado. couple of democrats there who did run for president. in fact, one became vice president. that's right. that's right. and walter mondale, contribue portions to this church committee investigate and i think are unfortunately often overlooked. it was he made extraordinary contributions to the committee. he really led the fbi, the section of the committee that explored fbi abuses. and he was intensely involved and engaged in that investigatory endeavor. in fact, i think that a lot of his work on the committee helped to raise it, helped to lead him to that vice presidential nomination in 1976, because he really came out as a proponent for legislative reform to protect america and citizens from being violated, but from having their constitutional rights violated in the

how those two committees. right. cooperate with one another. that is, could the senate watergate committee provide information that it was gathering in the course of its investigation to a judiciary committee that maybe convened to explore impeachment options? eventually, the house judiciary committee does in 1974 vote and approve three articles of impeachment. that's powerful. speech by barbara jordan of texas. really helps to define the historical context in which this vote is taking place. the last presidential impeachment trial had happened more than a century before when congress when the house had impeached andrew johnson. so 100 years later, the house was now considering these articles of impeach. and barbara jordan, i think, explained so well the gravity of, the moment that members of the house judiciary committee and even the larger house membership felt themselves in this was an extreme, early, powerful and important moment. it was not a moment for partizanship. it was a moment for protect ing the un

well, let's look at the committee. it's a 6 to 5 committee. democrats were still in control of the senate. and some of the other democratic members, phil hart, michigan, walter mondale, minnesota. walter huddleston, kentucky. robert morgan of north carolina. and gary hart of colorado. couple of democrats there who did run for president. in fact, one became vice president. that's right. that's right. and walter mondale, contribue portions to this church committee investigate and i think are unfortunately often overlooked. it was he made extraordinary contributions to the committee. he really led the fbi, the section of the committee that explored fbi abuses. and he was intensely involved and engaged in that investigatory endeavor. in fact, i think that a lot of his work on the committee helped to raise it, helped to lead him to that vice presidential nomination in 1976, because he really came out as a proponent for legislative reform to protect america and citizens from being violated, but from having their constitutional rights violated in the

using this committee. and using a baseless impeachment supported by donald trump's own allies on this committee to push that information out. as members on this committee have traffic in false evidence that was planted by a russian operative to the fbi and is now in jail for that. all of this is in the service of propping up the criminal enterprise for which donald trump is at the top and has already been twice impeached. rudy giuliani and others have been exposed as they continue to traffic in russian disinformation that not only props up donald trump but it props up vladimir putin himself and his goals back in russia and in ukraine. so i just want to point out here that once again as i said when we had a false impeachment hearing a few months ago that once again -- >> time is expired. time is expired. >> donald trump all over this hearing. >> i just want to state you made a mistake and said that mr. parnas is a republican witness. he is very much your witness. >> i was republican for donald trump. >> pur

government affairs committee was not the most desirable committee for members to be on. it was sort of a place where newer members, first term members, would would end up serving because more experienced, more senior members would want to be on higher profile committees. so the interesting thing about the makeup of the committee and particularly that permanent subcommittee, which did the actual investigations and held the hearings, was that was that all of them, except for one, were first term members, including mccarthy himself. he was still in his first term and at least one case mccarthy, who helped that member get elected in the first place. so everett dirksen was a first term senator from illinois. and mccarthy in 1952 had traveled to illinois and campaigned extensively for dirksen. so the bottom line is, is that these members were on this subcommittee. it was it became pretty quickly divided between the democrats and the republicans. the democrats were led by henry jackson, who was another first term member from jackson, was from washington state. and he and the ot

of the committees.rst of all , we discuss the tasks that the industry faces today after just the twentieth year of the pandemic. if it has not been issued, i will remind you that if we take the composition of the previous government, then two acting ministers are now vying for the positions of deputy prime ministers, this is dmitry patrushev, now... the decree we are talking about today, dated may 7, this is really a list of the main tasks and goals outlined by our president today. the state duma committee on energy also supported the candidacy of the head of the department for the post of this department, sergei sevelev. words of gratitude for today's meeting, to words of gratitude to everyone who participated in this meeting for their unanimous support. my candidacy - and also for the willingness to work as one team for the benefit of our homeland to work in the lower house of parliament, a little later we will get in touch again. yuri, yes, alexandra, thank you, alexandra suvorov from the state duma,

. >> did the committee subpoena hunter biden today? >> the chair recognizes pursuant to the order at the request of the minority witnessed the chair declares the committee in recess for ten minutes, then we will come back and may have to recess again for a vote. conditioned $ billion of american tax money on the firing of the prosecutor pressuring the company hunter biden sat on the board of. by the way was getting paid $1 million a year. today we will learn about that brand. >> the american people are tired of this charade and as i said before my republican colleagues are some fully grasping at straws. while they worked to cut costs of prescription drugs and expand student loan forgiveness and mitigate the threat of gun violence, republican members of congress continue to chase after russian disinformation campaigns from the 2020 election which have been thoroughly debunked again and again. and, as usual, in this committee, we do know who is in charge. it is the bond list, broke bluffer twice impeached and four times indicted and insu

this committee. this committee alone. has spent $20 million during this 118th session of congress which began in january of 2023. investigateing president biden. they suffered the indig dig dignity of their leader, former president trump for being indicted for withholding classified documents. that indictment was in july of 2023. during the height of this do-nothing congress. and not long before this congress expelled the speaker it took so long to elect in january. they put him out in october. and then we went for three weeks while even people on this committee were vying for the speakership. it took three weeks and ran through a number of candidates before this congress elected mike johnson as its speaker, formally of this committee. and he has not fare first-degree much better. neither has the house under his reign. still not accomplished. we get to the point after spending $20 million, the committee has absolutely nothing to show for it. they tried to pin a classified documents case on president biden. they had a spec

a important, legitimate committee? no question. the way he approached his his position as chair of the his commitment to being bipartisan. by all accounts, the work that was done by the staff and by the members behind the scenes in the investigation that led up to the hearings and during the hearings, it was really a very credible effort. and that all began with, in a ways, as i mentioned before, his stature as a war hero and his just demeanor and his strong and close relationships with many of his colleagues in the senate, including some very prominent republicans. he was very close to senator dole, who ultimately, of course, ran ran for president. that kind of those kind of relationships gave him the ability to to work closely. and that, i think, was the public recognize that because of the way these senators operated with each other in public and behind the scenes, applicants on the committee in both the house and senate feel that there was a bipartisan effort as well. i think so. during during the investigation and

a important, legitimate committee? no question. the way he approached his his position as chair of the his commitment to being bipartisan. by all accounts, the work that was done by the staff and by the members behind the scenes in the investigation that led up to the hearings and during the hearings, it was really a very credible effort. and that all began with, in a ways, as i mentioned before, his stature as a war hero and his just demeanor and his strong and close relationships with many of his colleagues in the senate, including some very prominent republicans. he was very close to senator dole, who ultimately, of course, ran ran for president. that kind of those kind of relationships gave him the ability to to work closely. and that, i think, was the public recognize that because of the way these senators operated with each other in public and behind the scenes, applicants on the committee in both the house and senate feel that there was a bipartisan effort as well. i think so. during during the investigation and

this committee. on behalf of a president who is a criminal defendant in a hush money payment to a porn star case in new york, the first of many criminal trials that he will face. this is where we are. this is where we are. you know, i first joined this committee now it's been over 20 years ago. and i suppose like a young mike johnson i could have never imagined this committee would engage in such a thing. it's not as if some 20 years ago, this was a bipartisan bastion of comity. we might and did disagree on abortion and guns and a host of other policy issues, but i don't think any democrat or republican on this committee would have ever manteled it would be brought so low as to hold an attorney general in contempt because it can't get a video for a campaign commercial and already given a transcript. that's where we are. day after day, moment after moment, we lose sight of how far we have fallen in any sense of what we are supposed to be about in this committee and i don't imagine anything i have to s

this committee is the judiciary committee, not the take it for granted committee or we will accept whateveryou say committee, this, we are engaged in oversight exercise and the best evidence is the transcript and the only way we would know if the transcript, i meant the recording, the only way we would know if the transcript is inappropriate is by comparing it to the recording so to say we haven't called into question the transcript when asking for the recording is to ignore the obvious which is we need the recording to see if the transcript is correct, we need to check on these kind of things because these are within our oversight capability and duty. to ignore this and bring together peripheral stuff up that we had to endure the last couple hours is an interesting diversion and a lot of fun conversation but the truth is if we are going to engage in our oversight function, we need the recording and that was proven when the gentleman from georgia showed an audio of donald trump. why didn't he rely upon his words that were written in his amendment, he wanted us to see the exact words, hear t

today's committee hearing. today's hearing opening segments will be open to 10 minutes for the chair in 10 minutes for the ranking member. the chair notes points of order pertaining to the engaging of personalities against the president will not be in order for the duration of today's hearing. given this is a hearing regarding this committee's impeachment inquiry, members must be allowed to speak frankly. the chair that recognizes himself for an opening statement. >> the committee on oversight we are hear from witnesses who previously provided information during our deposition interview phase regarding the biden family business practices in china, ukraine, russia, and other places around the world. at the start of this congress oversight committee investigated what products or service the biden family and their associates were selling that would justify over $24 million in payments. we reviewed e-mails, bank records, text messages, suspicious activity reports at treasury, and other evidence normally compiled du

the armed services committee, education and work force committee and ended on ways and means committee when we did tax reform and was very proud to see that signed into law. in 2018 when i ran for governor in our state, i won and then was re-elected again last year or in 2022 and i am in my second term now. i tell you all of this because i think it's important for you to know that my heart is with the land and it is with our people, but when it comes to policy, that i know what i'm talking about. and i know it because i live it. today i focus of this committee is the danger china poses to american agriculture. over the years, i have witnessed this hostile communist country work to systematically work to take over our food supply chain and decades ago started buying our fertilizer companies, patrolling our ability to access fertilizer and bring it in the united states and then i watched them buy up our chemical companies as i worked on implementation of policies and programs at the state level and federal level. i watched as we sold citizenship to chinese communist members of the commun

i don't think it's one for our committee.he armed services committee out to be holding this and there is a question to make sure the come january 2025 we better be sure we have communication that is clear, compelling and the chain of command. but i do think this, there is no way to resolve response ability of the president, the secretary of defense or the secretary of the army. you may dispute would happen, and i think that is fair, something should happen that trigger the deployment of the national guard sooner so that you could've done your jobs and we wouldn't be having this hearing this morning. with that, you'll back. >> the gentleman yields back and agree with him on the last statement, we need to be prepared for the next time have a january 6 come up, which is in the law. i would also correct the record, i did say the president , the gentleman is correct, that is not in the evidence, the president had peevishly given christopher miller the authority to act, as he stated in his testimony, which was previously submitted

>> that committee is a committee that preexisted. we had the committee for several years. we had already told the investment committee of the board of trustees that we would be beginning the committee and starting the committee up again in september. i was done months before the encampment, so we were going to do that anyway. there is no intent. that is not a board committee. that is an advisory committee. it has faculty and two students that are not necessarily from this group . >> thank you. numerous video shows jewish and other ucla students being denied access to central parts of campus by encampment members who had set up unauthorized checkpoints. in some cases they were questioned on whether they were zionists. why did you feel to immediately clear these checkpoints? >> i heard accounts of students being blocked, and we issued instructions to our staff to make sure that all walkways were free and that they could freely pass without obstruction, and i believe i sent a memo out to the entire community saying that was intolerable and we would not tolerate the blocking o

that is where this committee has become the committee on the judiciary. they committee that is centered are supposed to be centered on the rule of law and on justice. what are we doing? we are holding the attorney general of the united states in contempt. and for what? he will not get video material for campaign commercial to this committee. on behalf of a president who was a criminal defendant in a hush money payment to a pouring star case in new york. the first of many criminal trials that he will face. this is where we are. this is where we are. i first joined this committee, it has been over 20 years ago. michael young michael johnson i could not imagine that committee would engage in the spirits on this if that 20 years ago sebastian it wasn't. we didn't disagree on abortion and guns and whole host of other policy issues. counting democrat or republican on this committee to ever ever d it would been brought so low as to hold an attorney general and contempt because it cannot get a video for campaign commercial when you started given the transcript. t

under oath twice to the house oversight committee and the select committee that he even participated in the call. >> let me underline this, colonel, you are also an attorney. >> use. >> you've got your degree from harvard law school. >> i have no reason to be up here lying and i don't want to go federal prison. >> you understand if you lie to congress title 181001 makes that a crime, is that correct? >> unquestionably, sir. >> you also understand that as a member of the legal establishment that if you were to lie under oath your license to practice law no matter the fact that you have a jd from harvard could be in jeopardy, is that correct? >> i will point out, i was not ath and it doesn't matter. to lie to congress is still a federal crime and i submitted a document stating that these men were liers. no one said anything about it. he was a liar. >> you want the truth to come out? >> no question about it, sir. >> good, bad or ugly? >> exactly. >> is that correct, i heard yes, no, sir. >> we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i have a lot of questions to ask

this committee has established ample evidence. we must move to impeachment and we cannot allow this to stand. i look forward to the references of the department of justice. this is a security issue. they call this the print slings. it is right out of their play will book and they have done in the highest levels of the united states government. >> one is from devon archer testifying that joe biden had nothing to do with any of his business ventures. second is the declassified intelligence committee from the council in march 2021 detailing efforts to interfere in the 2020 u.s. elections. most importantly, the district court decision from new york in the united states versus glamis where he was described as a con artist that wanted to be in business with hunter biden but never was. if i can have those introduced. >> without objection, so ordered. now the chair recognizes mr. gates, from florida. >> you are a serious business person, right? unlike the convicted felon next to you, you have served in the military, correct? you have done

i at the time of the select committee, es? . . , at the time of the select committee, es?t recall whether i did or i didn't. in _ yes? i simply don't recall whether i did or i didn't. in your _ yes? i simply don't recall whether i did or i didn't. in your witness - did or i didn't. in your witness statement. — did or i didn't. in your witness statement, you _ did or i didn't. in your witness statement, you say _ did or i didn't. in your witness statement, you say that - did or i didn't. in your witness statement, you say that you i did or i didn't. in your witness - statement, you say that you have no memory of seeing it. by that, do you mean... i undoubtedly got it but i can't recall its contents now? yes, i think so- — can't recall its contents now? yes, i think so- can _ can't recall its contents now? yes, i think so. can we _ can't recall its contents now? yes, i think so. can we look— can't recall its contents now? yes, i think so. can we look at - can't recall its contents now? yes, i think so. can we look at how - can't recall its contents now? yes, i think so. can