i have never seen the department of justice do that. it is cause for additional concern when i see people having received clemency, now facing the prospect of being prosecuted again, after receiving clemency by a prior president. add all this up with the fact that by the end of this year, we're going to see the expiration of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the department is already chomping at the bit to be asking us to simply reauthorize that. notwithstanding the fact that there are examples of how this has been politicized, how section 702 has been misused. let current standard for warrantless backdoor search of the content of communications of american persons is reasonably likely to return evidence of a crime. but the oh dni's recently declassified semiannual report released on 2022, report all kinds of noncompliant searches. these are just the ones we know about. just the ones that the odni report identified, of a political party, a individual recommended to participate in the fbi citizens' academy, journal

the similarity of the information would demand that the justice department investigate the truth and accuracy of the information. according to -- accordingly, what steps has the justice department taken to determine the truth and accuracy of information provided. congress and the american people have a right to know. >> as the committee knows from my confirmation hearing, i promised to lead -- leave the matter of hunter biden for the district of delaware, who was appointed in the previous administration. any information like that should've gone to that u.s. attorney's office and the fbi squad working with him. i have pledged not to interfere with that investigation. i have carried through on my pledge. sen. grassley: in april, 2022, you testified that the hunter biden investigation was insulated from political interference because it was assigned to, as he just told me, to the delaware attorney's office. that could be misleading because without special counsel authority he could need permission of another u.s. attorney in certain circumstances to bring charges outside the district of

and all of the very dedicated professionals and all of the employees of the department of justice fortheir great work. which they do day in and day out. a lot of it appreciated. i say this is an alumnus of the department of justice, they work that you and your team have done to restore the confidence and trust of the american public and our department of justice, i think, is one of your enduring contributions. let me begin with areas where i think we have a high level of bipartisan agreement. first of all, on the wagner group. senator graham and i are the principal sponsors, along with senator whitehouse of a measure to declare the wagner group a foreign terrorist organization. you would agree that, assuming the state department goes along with us, that it is worthwhile doing? >> -- who runs the, thing is my view a war criminal. maybe that is inappropriate for me to say is a judge, before i get all the. evidence but i think we have more than sufficient evidence at this point, for me to feel that way. and i believe that that group, which is responsible for the attacks on ukrainians in

americans have concerns about the double standard at the department of justice, americans have concerns about the disinformation in governance board the department of tried to form, americans have concerns about the atf and what they're doing to the second amendment. and of course, they have concerns about the irs and the thousands of new agents who are coming to that organization. finally, there are concerns about what we've learned in the twitter files. where big government, big tech, colluded to shape and mold the narrative and disappear s information in censor americans. over the course of our work on this committee, we expect to hear from government officials and experts, like we have here today. we expect to hear from americans who have been targeted by the government. we expect to hear from people in the media. we expect to hear from the fbi agents who have come forward as whistleblowers. we think many of them will set for transcribed interviews, as one did on tuesday. we believe several of them will come and testify in open hearings. finally, we expect to bring forward legislati

of provoking the former president. and all this resulted in very heated battles between the fbi and justice department prosecutors who were advocating a more aggressive strategy to try and retrieve those documents down at mar-a-lago. according to "the washington post" it was only after a series of intense negotiations with justice department prosecutors that the fbi eventually moved forward with its search 467 and all along the way in spite of all the evidencee to the contrary, the fbi continued to give trump and his legal team the benefit of the doubt. "the washington post" reports some fbi field agents wanted to shutter the investigation all together in early june after trump's legal team asserted a diligent search had been conducted. but according to "the washington post," the just department prosecutors continued to push for a search of mar-a-lago. those prosecutors were ultimately vipdicated when the eventual search in august when it uncovered classified documents some top secret fbi and doj investigators didn't have clearance to review them. so how does this new behind the scenes reporting change what we know about

it is also the center of the justice department's own pro bono efforts. the justice department employees every day provide proper legal services. tell veterans philippine sorry forms. switching to -- service members. that's another organizing section of this office. >> according to working with you and with the office. what is one vote shy of having that bill on the law. i look forward to partnering with you and finding ways to reduce the driver's license suspensions and data and he issues. thank, you mister chairman. >> thank you. senator cotton. >> i want to explore the dangerous crisis at our southern border, and your role in closing that crisis. is traditionally reserved for people who face things like religious persecution, prosecutions for their blades. or violence because of the race and ethnicity. internet 2020, when you jane change -- for individuals with significant gang violence in their own country. is that 2021 interpretation still in place? >> it. is it reinstates a previous interpretation that the department has. the same asylum, roles yes.

it is also the center of the justice department's own pro bono efforts. he justice department employees every day provide proper legal services. tell veterans philippine sorry forms. switching to -- service members. that's another organizing section of this office. >> according to working with you and with the office. what is one vote shy of having that bill on the law. i look forward to partnering with you and finding ways to reduce the driver's license suspensions and data and he issues. thank, you mister chairman. >> thank you. senator cotton. >> i want to explore the dangerous crisis at our southern border, and your role in closing that crisis. is traditionally reserved for people who face things like religious persecution, prosecutions for their blades. or violence because of the race and ethnicity. internet 2020, when you jane change -- for individuals with significant gang violence in their own country. is that 2021 interpretation still in place? >> it. is it reinstates a previous interpretation that the department has. the same asylum, roles yes. >

of justice in this country. i think it is clear there are two systems of justice. take a look. [video clip] >> has the departmentjustice brought even a single case under this statute? it is a yes-no question. it is not given a speech. >> the job is to defend the lives -- >> so the answer is no. >> to defend the lives of the justices and that is our number 1 -- >> the answer is no. everyone knows it is no. you're not willing to answer question. have you brought a case under this statute, yes or no? >> what we have done is defended the life of the justices -- >> how do you decide which coronal statutes the doj enforces and which one it doesn't? >> the united states marshals know they have full -- >> i recognize you want to give a second speech. how do you decide which statutes you would force and which ones you don't? >> the marshals on the scene make that determination in light of the priority -- >> they do not over whether to prosecute. you, the attorney general, make the determination and you spent 20 years as a judge. justices are afraid for their children's lives. you did nothing to prosecute. >> can answer t

some of today's witnesses would have us believe that the department of justice and the federal bureau of investigation are part of a deep state cabal. warren even wrote a book describing the fbi itself as a threat to democracy. the department of justice and the fbi do not always get a right. history is full of examples of these agencies getting it very, very wrong. we have colleagues in this congress who have been subject to politically motivated hateful, racist investigations by our government. that does not logically follow that every investigation or a criminal inquiry by the department of justice is political or ideologically based. in our current climate, with domestic terrorism on the rise and hate speech normalized by national politicians, the department of justice and the fbi are doing their best to protect us from sliding into chaos. this past monday, the fbi captured two individuals, won a neo-nazi leader and founder of a group who were applauding a racially motivated attack on baltimore's power grid. they said their goal was to, quote, completely destroy this whole city, an

is the position of the department of justice is such laws are unconstitutional? > position is that a categorical across the board prohibitions on certain kinds of surgeries and not others have to be evaluated on a case by case basis and civil rights division will do that with respect to each of the laws that they're talking about when the time comes. >> so the bottom line is -- the four laws of the question. have you looked at the laws in arkansas, mississippi -- and utah? >> i haven't. >> do me a favor. just look at them and get back to me and answer my question. are they constitutional in the eyes of the department of justice? thank you. i did it. three minutes. >> i appreciate the attorney general appearing before the committee. the hearing will remain open for a week. questions for the record may be submitted by senators before 5 pm on wednesday march 8th. attorney general garland, please provide these answers on a timely basis. what, that the hearing is adjourned.

obviously by either the department of justice or the court or somebody in their or orbit. ven about the attack on the judiciary system the due process clause of the constitution, nobody says a thing about it and the department of justice just sits there and looks dumb. leo terrell, i want to thank you. you are always just terrific on these issues. god bless you my friend. >> god bless you great one. looks right, we will be right back. triple action! gets three jobs done at once - kills weeds. prevents crabgrass. and keeps it growing strong. get a bag of scotts triple action today, it's guaranteed. feed your lawn. feed it. ♪ for skin as alive as you are... don't settle for silver. harness the power of 7 moisturizers & 3 vitamins to smooth, heal, and moisturize your dry skin. gold bond. champion your skin. >> tech: when you have auto glass damage, trust safelite. my customer really relies on his car's advanced safety system. [alarm] >> instructor: veer right. [ringing] >> instructor: and slow down. >> tech: so when he got a cracked windshield, he turned to safelite. we're the

there's been allegations that alvin bragg's office was in contact with the department of justice here in washington d.c. doj officials say this is false. they have nothing to do with that investigation and it's out of purview. bret? >> bret: david spunt, thank you. let's bring in alina hava, attorney for former president trump. thanks for the time. let me start with this. can we say that you been informed of this indictment and do you have the scope of the indictment from the prosecutors? >> no, i do not have the scope. i'm his civil attorney. i found out frankly minutes before it broke that -- of the indictment. but i'm equally as shocked, i would say, as the rest of the world right now. >> bret: we saw and i read the former president's statement here. what is -- you talk to him quite a bit. what is his state of mind about this. >> well, bret,er with all aware that this is probably the most legally pathetic case that we've seen. just knowing the facts that i know them based on comments to the press with people like michael cohen who they're resting their case on, his sentiments are t

i assigned eli rosenbaum who's ahead of our nazi hunting it to be in the justice department to leave what we call our war crimes accountability task force. so that's on that side. on the klepto capture, again, here i met again with the number of the justice ministers windows in ukraine. it's my second visit, and here we are an enormous agreement among the eu countries to locate, freeze and sees assets of russian oligarchs who are facilitating this unlawful and unprovoked attack. we have been quite successful in the amount of money that we have seized and i've already certified or to transfer somf that money to ukraine for rebuilding, which is a first time we have been able to do that kind of work. on the corruption front, i've spoken heart to heart with the prosecutor general along with our ambassador. we have gotten, make clear to them that her own willingness to continue to provide funds depends on them being sure that the funds go to what they should be going to and that, to not be used with respect to corruption. this is alsoh a condition for ultimate admission to the eu. they are

the antitrust division of the department of justice. making certain that we have competitive pricing. or trying to get some semblance of competitive pricing. a.g. garland: yeah, well, i appreciate the question. we have tried, since i have been attorney general, to reinvigorate the trust. -- the antitrust division, to more urgently evaluate mergers and to bring cases against exclusionary behavior by dominant firms. thanks to the, to the merger filing fee legislation that was passed, we have more money that we can use to build up again. the resources of the department. as i mentioned earlier, i was stunned to learn the came to the department that there were fewer lawyers economists in the and economists in the antitrust division than when i first entered in 1979. the department in 1979. that's amazing. in particular when you think of how big the companies are now, so we are doing two things in the merger field. we are doing a very careful scrub and making determinations of whether we should challenge it but what you are talking about is qu

we also know that there was an effort afoot within the trump white house to use the department of justice as an instrument in the effort to overturn the 2020 election. so it's a little bit rich for josh hawley to talk about the politicization of the justice department under this administration given the history. that having been said, the appointments of both of the special counsels are an easy way for merrick garland to say we are taking this out of politics, both of these gentlemen are either the declared candidate for the republican nomination or the incumbent president. it's totally appropriate. >> democrats have been actually -- have criticize the fact that there was a special counsel in president biden's case because those cases were so different. >> correct. i think merrick garland is trying to take himself out of the day-to-day supervision of those cases for the exact criticism that josh hawley plans to level today. >> we see some images now behind senator graham here as he's giving his opening remarks before the swearing in of attorney general garland. andrew, "the washington pos

do, but three of the leading advocates of abolishing the police to senior positions of the department of justice and i'm sorry to say every democrat voted to confirm not one or two in the department of justice. one of those was a george soros backed prosecutor in massachusettsd. who, like the dc city council, put out a list of crimes that she would not allow endangering the citizens she was charged to protect. what wasus her reward for refusg to prosecute violent criminals? president biden nominated her to be the attorney for the commonwealth of massachusetts and every senate democrat voted to confirm her as the u.s. attorney to the chief federal prosecutor in the commonwealth of massachusetts. now, once president biden said he would sign this bill, the political pressure has had enormous impact. this week nevermind what was their response. but simply withdrawing a bill doesn't permanently get rid of it under the home rule act which haallows congress to review legislation that comes out of the dc city council. to permanently stop the harmful bill, congress should proceed and pass the legislation

attorney general merrick garland issuing a scathing critique of the louisville metro police department after the justice department's nearly two-year review of that botched raid where police killed breonna taylor in march 2020. the report found louisville police officers used excessive force and "unlawfully discriminate against black people." we'll talk to breonna taylor's mother. but first, evan perez joins us. what kind of evidence did the justice department gather? >> reporter: this was a scathing report. it goes to show that the louisville police department has been practicing and abusing the black community in that city for many, many years. according to the justice department, they've known for years that the police department was targeting african americans for -- for pretextual police stops, trying to figure out ways to get them to pull over, and then finding additional cars that they could look into. they renamed a crime unit called the viper unit, but continued doing the same things. the city itself looked into some of the practices of the police department targeting african americans, and not

nothing is being done by the justice department. some ofou commenting on former president trump and other issues when it comes to justice department practices. this is james, republican line. caller: good morning. our justice department i do not think it is democrat or republican, i think they have their own mindset on what they do. a few years ago, senator schumer made a comment in new york that when trump was speaking about the fbi he recommended not doing that because they have ways to get you. i found that odd. he did not say if they broke the law, simply of the government wanted you. here he sits on judicial's -- these people are there to represent us. the justice department does not do that. our justice department, the way i see it, is a runaway train. host: you brought up the thing from the past, how would you give an illustration of the current day? caller: listen to the callers, they keep saying president trump breaking the law, he should be in jail and so forth. what law did he break? he did no more than maxine warner did, no more

the department of justice waited until the last minute to tell the defense team their own witness wasi informant. laura, this is one of at least 10 to 15 fbi informants who have been embedded in the proud boys months before january 6th and now afterwards as well. >> how many of them were actually working the crowd even before they enter the capitol or while they were in the capitol at all. do we know an exact number if there were any? >> we don't know a lot of details, laura. both of the department of justice and thanks to judge tim kelly have been successful in concealing details of the roles of these fbi informants in this group. we do know from "the new york times" 2021 that at least one informant was with the group and the initial breach of the exterior barriers of the grounds went towards the capitol building with some of these proud boys and even went inside the building as well. so, laura, what this is starting to look like is the whitmer's hoax. you know what, laura, if this case, this seditious conspiracy case is so cut and dry, such a no brainer, why did the fbi and departme

this department of justice refuses to enforce the law. ar from that hearing that his political staff had the marshals decide to whether or not arrest someone. but under our system of justice, marshals are police officers. they have zero prosecution authority. the only prosecution authority in the federal law is in the department of justice with the prosecutor. merrick garland is the one who made the decision we are not going to prosecute here and by the way, these nuts put up pictures of themselves also see media. we are not talking master criminals. they've confessed to the crime, they could be found easily, but merrick garland agrees with the protesters. he does not like the dobbs decision. he supports roe v. wade and what is shocking for someone who spent 20 years as a judge, he is willing to be complicit with the left wing violent mob threatening the lives and families of the justices because he supports their political agendas. that is incredibly dangerous. >> let's take stock of who merrick garland has gone after and who has refused

that is one of those things where the department of justice got a special counsel to get involved simply because they're so concerned about the almost political liability that comes with assuming like duties --that is politicized. host: you mention the department of justice. they have a division that is overseeing the attorneys and staff to follow what goes on and the results of congressional ethics committees? guest: they do. they have a public integrity division and they have people who specialize in internal government functions. if it is an elected official, and appointed official, a bureaucrat, someone who is working for the government and getting a taxpayer of the paycheck, they would look into that matter. host: one more call, lee in new york, republican line. caller: hi. first off, when dianne feinstein was accused of insider trading she said it's not my phone my husband did it, that i called about asg. it seems like a social, governing thing that companies are being forced to put part of their money into that because --i don't really know why. it seems to be an awful thing. the

. >> i asked you quote, will you commit to this committee that under your leadership the department of justice will not target the political opponents of this administration? your answer, quote, absolutely. it is totally inappropriate for the department to target any individual because of their politics or their position in a campaign. that was your promise just a few months ago. i'm sorry to say you have broken that promise. >> dana: that was more than a year ago. the committee will have plenty of ground to cover today. jason chaffetz ahead with reaction. david spunt starting us off on capitol hill. >> attorney general taking a seat behind me ready to answer those questions. he said multiple times he wants to keep politics out of the d.o.j. he will find himself in quite a political quagmire with a polarized senate facing questions from both sides of the aisle. today's hearing is a hearing. an annual hearing that goes over the oversight of the department of justice but as you said he will go over separate topics, whatever senators want to ask. expect questions about his appointment of two spec

but the department of justice said let's import first amendment principles into this analysis. incitement to imminent lawless activity or violence with a likelihood of such violence occurring is not protected by the first amendment. so the department of justice said if it is not protected by the first amendment, it shouldn't be protected by absolute immunity. and therefore and what they said and i'm going to read it is that a court considering a claim seeking to hold a president liable for violence, allegedly connected with his speech, should deny absolute immunity only if the speech viewed objectively and in context both encouraged imminent private violence and was likely to produce such violence. here, yes, it is encompassing of the case. but they're trying to avoid answering more difficult cases that might come in some other case. >> so let me play the speech and the results because i think one of the lenses through which we examine everything that happens at doj, you know this better than anybody, is through everything that has been presented to us as a public in large part

and i thought about at that time what the purpose of the department of justice. and we go back to the conference in the department in this building there is in the corner a portrait of frederick douglass and that was given to the justice department in 1961 by a group of african-american. now, frederick douglass and as you all know, was a 19th century civil rights pioneer year after he escaped from slavery in the mid 1840s, frederick douglass went on a tour with various abolitionists to, england, when he was in, he spoke very passionately about his vision for the united states of america and he was treated very differently in england than he was treated here. and many people in england to persuade frederick douglass to stay in england make his act the rest of his life. england don't go back to the united states. there's massive race discrimination, there's massive oppression of african-americans. there's slavery. the country is hopeless. don't go back. frederick douglass rejected their returned to the united states and spent roughly the next 50 years of his life fi

but at the same time, the biden administration then said its china initiative and the department of justiceo go after this research theft was racist. look, we all make the distinction between these students and researchers and the dictatorship that is their economy, but those are the types of things that we have to continue to get after and to move this process forward. >> john: all right. we'll see if anybody takes up the challenge. congressman michael waltz of the great state of florida, thanks for your thoughts, thanks for being with us. there are couples that started off their marriage perfectly happy but end up getting divorced, and maybe this is one of those cases. >> jacqui: china has been surprisingly bipartisan issue in the recent congress, hopefully it continues that way, it seems to by all the evidence we are reporting be a significant threat, but what strikes me about where this increased scrutiny over tiktok which absolutely should be looked at, so many other technologies china has. state and local police headquarters using chinese-made drones, surveiling large swaths of the co

of the day. the justice department is currently investigating both president biden and former president trump forir handling of classified documents. republicans are pushing this idea that the justice department has been, quote, weaponized and likely democrats will also have questions about police use of force and whether garland is doing enough to hold them accountable. garland is hoping to use this hearing as an opportunity, we are told to highlight the work of the rank and file. the justice department has over 100,000 employees. he wants to highlight things that aren't covered under a special counsel like their work on reproductive rights and that's his highlight to challenge the bread and butter work they do that doesn't really make headlines and the lawmakers will want to be headlines themselves. >> that is generally what we see, paula. thank you. >>> they're pressuring house members to throw their support behind his bid of the gop nomination. some of the members of the maga win appear to be embracing trump's potential opponents. melanie zanona joins us from capitol hill. in some words they

a politicized department of justice faces the wrath of senator ted the cruz. why didn't the attorney general take action against the illegal protesters in front of the supreme court justices' homes? senator cruz is on the show. and so is jim jordan. senator rick scott, how coyou save social security without raising taxes and cutting benefits? and, yes, we do have a royal update. harry and meghan booted from frogmore college and, guess what? prince andrew may move in. thursday, march the 2nd, 2023. "varney & company," the all-star edition, is about to begin. ♪ ♪ i feel good today ♪ stuart: i feel good. not the james brown version. thomas rett's version. a look at sixth avenue, new york. kind of miserable weather today, but it's winter, isn't it? let's get to tesla. they held their big investor day in austin. elon musk presented his master plan part three. the stock is down 7%. [laughter] why is the stock down? lauren: are well, long on sincation -- inspiration, short on detail. it's a lofty pitch for a green world. how do we get there? musk said tesla's goal so

then she retires she files the decision under seal leak under 60 minutes obviously by ther department of justiceerious they are even though t an attack on the judiciarycess system of the due process of th, constitution, nobody says a damn thing about it in the department of justice just sits there and looks down.nk leo terrell i want to thank you you are terrific on these issues, god bless you my friend. >> god bless you. >> we'll be right back. precisely orchestrate nearly 600,000 vehicles passing through their uk port every year. don't just connect your business. (dock worker) right on time. (vo) make it even smarter. we call this enterprise intelligence. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv the new chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, gen

we want access to any documentation between the department of justice and the manhattan da office. there have been numerous members of alvin bragg's team who have left in prominent fashion who have been focused solely on going after president trump. the other piece i would note is as much as i have been critical of the mainstream media in years past that many of you know, even the washington post has pointed out that this is a zombie case the department of justice passed upon, the southern district of new york passed upon, and now you have the most radical da imaginable going after president trump and doing the bidding of joe biden. >> what did president trump say to you? >> i talked about our efforts on the oversight committee. we talked about how when i have heard from supporters across the country is that he has never been in a stronger position in terms of rallying support. i think you will see his poll numbers go up. i think it is interesting to watch the other potential republican candidates, both announced and not, how they have responded. this is important to speak up agains

we want access to any documentation between the department of justice and the manhattan da office. there have been numerous members of alvin bragg's team who have left in prominent fashion who have been focused solely on going after president trump. the other piece i would note is as much as i have been critical of the mainstream media in years past that many of you know, even the washington post has pointed out that this is a zombie case the department of justice passed upon, the southern district of new york passed upon, and now you have the most radical da imaginable going after president trump and doing the bidding of joe biden. >> what did president trump say to you? >> i talked about our efforts on the oversight committee. we talked about how when i have heard from supporters across the country is that he has never been in a stronger position in terms of rallying support. i think you will see his poll numbers go up. i think it is interesting to watch the other potential republican candidates, both announced and not, how they have responded. this is important to speak up agains

president you better have an indisputable crime. , very weak.ead verye is not coming from thent department of justice it'll comm

department, of our city government, really with the entire community. and we are both committed to embracing reform and improvement, to work collaboratively with the united states department of justicecollaboratively with the entire city of louisville so that we can have a police department that is the model for all across america. one that everyone trusts regardless of who they are. that is what we're striving for. >> mayor, your comments yesterday, you said many of these people in your community, quote, spoke out and they felt dismissed or devalued. we just played for you what breonna taylor's mom said, but there were and are so many people in louisville who were dismissed. one woman told doj in this investigation that she had told the police over and over again about this detective who was extorting sex from her daughter and they didn't believe her. and it turns out he was. and it turns out five years later after potentially other victims that this was actually addressed. will people be believed now? >> i certainly hope so. to those whose voices were not heard over the past several years, over the past decades, yesterday was an important day. the united states department of justi

of the justices and their families was an obvious product of political bias. do you agree with roe v. wade, you disagree with the dobbs decision and the department of justice under this president was perfectly happy to refuse to enforce the law and allow threats of violence and those threats finally materialized with nicholas roski 26 old man from california who traveled across the country was arrested outside the home of justice capitol with a handgun, a knife and burglary tool and said he came back to kill justice kavanaugh because he was outraged by the opinion. of course you are prosecuting the individual for attempted murder in a single case to enforce the law for the department of justice to lock doesn't apply for an opinion we don't like. >> when the dogs draft was leaked, it is something no attorney general in the history of the department is ever done before for the first time in history, i ordered united states marshals 24/7 to defend every -- >> is a judge you are familiar with that. >> i am -- >> as the department of justice, have you brought a single case against any of these protesters justices under section 207? >> you asked wheth

is he coordinating with federal agencies including the united states department of justice? and third, is he encroaching on the federal domain of enforcing federal election laws? i think these are pretty straightforward questions that not only congress should know the answer to but the american people deserve to not answer to. >> elizabeth: so that's the standing you guys are saying for why he should be -- do you think any of the committees will subpoena him >> we're having conversations between jim jordan and james comer and myself as to what our next steps will be. i'd like him though to just turn the tide here and come forward and explain pretty straightforward questions with a direct federal nexus. in particular when the federal government is providing public safety grants to da's across the country including the manhattan da, mr. bragg' office, are these funds being used for the purposes that they were intended for , for public safety or for a partisan purpose? it's all the more important when we see progressive district attorneys across the country refusing to prosecute

even the department of justice, which congress does have oversight authority over, would not give anynformation on ongoing investigations or prosecutions. that is fundamental to the separation of powers. this now is even further removed. this is a state district attorney, state prosecutors office. so, congress has no jurisdiction. and they're digging as much as they possibly can to create some possible legislative purposes that you need in over for congress to have jurisdiction. but it's clearly just an effort for them to put one man over the rule of law. and as our second president, john adams, has said, our country is based on the rule of law, which means we are a government of laws, not man. and sadly, my republican colleagues seem to think the opposite. >> we have to squeeze in a commercial break here. when we come, back i want to ask you about what robert costello said about you, named you when he came out of the manhattan grand jury on monday, when he went in there trying to testify in a way that would help donald trump. we'll play for you what he said about you, and get your re