Transcripts For CSPAN Hearing 20240703

Announcer shortly after those remarks, the House Judiciary Committee met to consider contempt of Congress Charges against attorney general Merrick Garland. The resolution was eventually approved among party lines by a vote of 1815. It now goes to the full house where it will be considered at a time to be determined. Up next, we will show you the House Judiciary Committee as it met to consider the resolution. Wisconsin for the pledge of allegiance to call up the and move the Committee Reported to the house. Erk will report without objection the report will be considered as read and the special counsel stated on page one of his report will fully retained materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. He strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules of properly handling the information in his notebooks. He shared some of the classified materials he kept with his ghostwriters writing a book for which joe biden received with 8 million advance and but we had motives and the classified information. All of this declines to prosecute joe biden because he is, quote, a sympathetic man with a poor memory and that brings us to today. Following the report we subpoenaed the transcript and audio recordings for the special counsels interviews and his ghost writer. They failed to produce the audiotapes to determine whether he appropriately carried out justice by not prosecuting or recommending the recordings are necessary and the transcripts alone are not sufficient evidence of the memory because the white house has a track record faltering the transcripts. Just weeks ago during a public speech, President Biden read a teleprompter instruction and stated imagine what we could do next when the white house put out the transcript it didnt include the word. In that case and in this case as well, the video and the audio recording is the best evidence of the words that President Biden spoke. The refusal to produce the recordings of the special counsel for his interviews with President Biden announced the demand that the Committee Trust and the department created and produced the transcripts are accurate and complete. Transcripts of the personal counsel likely had access to before they were finalized. There was a legal obligation to turn over the request of the materials pursuant to the subpoena. The willful refusal to comply constitutes the contempt of congress. Now today this morning we get an 11th hour invocation of executive privilege exerting for the same reason we need the audio recordings they offer a unique perspective. This doesnt change the fact that the attorney general has hasnt complied with our subpoena. With that i will recognize the Ranking Member for an opening statement. Thank you mr. Chairman. 20 million taxpayer dollars, chairman jordan opposes the Government Spending on everything from feeding children to education and healthcare and has spent 20 million taxpayer dollars in this congress to investigate various conspiracy theories. What exactly has he delivered it to the American People on the 20 million investment, exactly nothing. No evidence that the conspiracies are true, no indictments, no impeachments or any significance the board of the directors. The Political Base may stay home next november. So he and the chairman were scrambling through the contempt. He wanted to see him he uncovered wrongdoing by the attorney general. Sometimes theyve been too responsive in my opinion is the american majority. The chairman was desperately hoping the special counsel would indict President Bidens mishandling documents so the chairman could attack President Biden and away from trumps treacherous handling of classified information. Of the reality of the special counsel cleared mr. Biden of wrongdoing. The chairman hoped he could intimidate for his crimes but donald trump has been charged with mediated felonies. The list goes on and on. The tremendous searches and intimidates, but there just isnt anything there. So what do our republican friends do when the investigation turns up short . Simply put, they engage in fantasy. That is what they are doing here today. Accusing the attorney general of withholding key evidence. The attorney general substantially complied with every request. The doj has produced 92,000 pages and documents to this congress alone and made dozens of witnesses available for interviews, hearings in briefings before the committee. As more pages of documents and more witnesses and the Trump Justice Department produced to the committee in four years. With respect to the february 27, 2024 subpoena, the department turned over all the information. Theres been no obstruction, only cooperation. This morning the president exerted executive privilege of the audio files at issue and the letter formed in the kennedy the department of justice noted that producing the audio recordings would, quote, raise an unacceptable risk for undermining the departments ability to conduct highprofile criminal investigations in particular investigations that of the white house officials exceedingly important. The chairman claims he needs this to understand the pace and tone of the conversation. This is absurd. In any event for the substantial concerns expressed by the president and the department. Moreover, with respect to the recording an issue in the report, the complete transcript has already been provided to the committee. The only thing that has not been is the reporting itself, which can be easily manipulated. This is not an idle concern. Last year we had in the closed door of deposition a manipulated video amplified by republicans on this committee that it contributed to a flat of Death Threats against him. This isnt really about a policy disagreement within the doj. This is about feeding the base. But dont take my word for it, take it from the chair mans mouth. Quote, im busting my tail to get a donald trump reelected. Quote, we need to make sure donald trump wins. Quote, its so important that we stay engaged and helped donald trump get back into the white house, and of quote and clearly he needs the germans help to win the white house the chair mans help to win the white house. Hes been indicted for times right at this very moment he faces 34 charges in new york and new York State Court for falsifying Business Records and making hush money payments to catch and kill information that could be harmful to trumps reelection campaign. He faces 40 charges in a federal court in florida for his mishandling and withholding of classified documents that put National Security at a severe risk. Four charges in a federal court in washington, d. C. And the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and fueling the insurrection of january 6, 2021 of the United States capital. Ten charges in Georgia State court for attempts to intimidate and force officials to overturn the Election Results in the 2020 president ial election. Thats not all. We are going to hear a lot about the memory today. Republicans will dimension that he is ranked as one of the most successful president s of our time. He will dimension the once in a generation transformative legislation is ushered into law. They will dimension the special counsel commented to President Biden that is, quote, photographic memory. They will just go on and on about a couple of gratuitous contradicted comments in the report that suggest the president has a poor memory. Republicans wont show you is the mounting evidence that trump has to hold the office of the president. The late, great hannibal lector cant even begin to understand how republicans have chosen this man as their champion, but they have. Now House Republicans are paying for it by flocking to the sidelines of the criminal trial sacrificing their integrity to defend him against the indefensible acts. Everybody seems to know that hes unfit for office and that these acts of public humiliation on this path are wrong. More evidence to my colleagues what do they need. Trump once said that he could choose someone standing on fifth avenue and would still keep supporters. At least in this chamber it is obviously true. And it truly saddens me. I sat on this body for many years and the ability to fully have disagreements ive never seen members of congress so readily turned the democracy itself to service of one man and never in my life that i would see members of congress readily attack Law Enforcement to protect the criminal. I never thought id see members of congress defend and minimize the attempt as if those that storm to this building and the Trump Associates that led them here were somehow patriots, but here we are. I think the chairman knows that this markup will amount to nothing. They pushed on the truly partisan lines and this resolution will do very little other than smear the reputation of garlin who will remain Public Servant no matter what they say about him today. It may give him something to watch on fox when he gets home from his criminal trial tonight, but it will almost certainly not convinced the department of justice to produce the one remaining question the effort before the contempt resolution will have been a partisan stunt distant to fail from the very start. Its a total waste of time. The American People actually need us to do important work, to fund the government, to secure affordable healthcare, to reduce inflation in housing costs, take care of children and families and to keep the nation safe. Im tired of these games and so are the American People. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and yield back. The chair recommends himself to explain the the amendment makes the change on page ten of the report and doesnt affect the substance of the report i yield back. There is no ground whatsoever to withhold of the intake that take must be quite something if the administration, if they decided to exert executive privilege to keep it from the committee in the course of an impeachment inquiry, think about it. The basis for withholding the audio recording when the transcript has been varnished must rest on something about the recording that is distinct from the information contained in the transcript. For example, what if the committee made a request for a different copy of the transcript . That is unlikely to happen but no reasonable person would ask for it either. The president and the white house had contested what was said in the interview, the special counsel in his report predicated his decision not to prosecute an obvious violation of statute and the president s rating from the classified information to the ghost writer to satisfy the terms of the 8 milliondollar book retainer on his findings the president was elderly and forgetful, in other words he placed tremendous reliance on what is called demeanor evidence. The president and the white house has viciously attacked the special counsels characterization of the demeanor evidence. That is whether and to what extent the president appeared to have limited capacity as a witness to testify for memory. Now the transcripts do not capture demeanor evidence. Transcripts are often in perfect especially to convey the timing of question and answer and the his notations among other things. All of that is demeanor evidence. Thats the reason among other things that it is absolutely Standard Practice in litigation in american courts for the parties to be entitled to record testimony by more than one means. Another method for recording the testimony and an addition to that specified in the original notice. Pretty straightforward. Given that the evidence is contradicted by the special counsel land by the president as to the reason the president has escaped prosecution for an obvious violation of statute, and because the Committee Sits and at the impeachment of the president. The committee needs the demeanor evidence the same way any party would in any such matter being litigated and the notion that there is a basis for a claim of executive privilege and what has been articulated by the Justice Department by the attorney general is that it would be detoured to future white house from cooperating with criminal inquiries because the interview would be made available and therefore its got to be exposed but the transcripts had already been provided. What possible basis could there be that would impair future white house cooperation with investigations if what the department is contending is just the same information in an audio recording form. That is an incomprehensibly absurd position, and so theres nothing to it whatsoever. This committee cannot be detoured in proceeding with the resolution in my view, and one can question the motives or attack motives, but its a straightforward as it can be. It is a simple presentation of demeanor evidence that is important to this committees investigation, inquiry to the potential president and should be accomplished and done. Im for it, lets go. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The Ranking Member is recognized. Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report. I mentioned in the nature of the substitute for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. This adds language from the most recent executive branch to the report. The Justice Department into the white house vote to the committee to inform us that the president was exerting executive privilege over the audio recordings. This assertion of privilege is used to protect important Law Enforcement interests and he is the attorney general road, the Justice Department has a vested interest in protecting materials related. They further explained that producing the audio recordings to the committee would raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the departments ability to conduct similar highprofile criminal investigations in particular investigations that are a cooperation of white house officials is exceedingly important. The white house also asked them to explain the executive privilege based on the longstanding commitment to protect the integrity, effectiveness and independence of the department of justice and its Law Enforcement investigations. A chairman jordan claims the recordings to understand things like tone. This is absurd. There is no attempt to explain the reasoning. It in no way overcomes the substantial interest of the Law Enforcement investigations. What highprofile witness for liver cooperate with Law Enforcement investigation if they knew the audio files and the conversations were released to committees seeking the finals only purely political purpose . This amendment simply ensures that it is complete and uptodate. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. The gentleman from california withdrawals his point of order and the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. Speaking in opposition, they dont get to choose. They dont get to choose. We spent a lot of time in the hearing in this room talking about ive been an advocate in the recording interviews and arrests and all of this. Its a pretty known legal precedent and rule and it exists everywhere. The person providing the evidence doesnt get to choose the matter and form that the evidence is provided. And this also happens to be a pattern. Five minutes before the hearing we got the transcript. Five minutes before this hearing we get the invocation of executive privilege. There is a difference between a transcript and video and audio, and i dont possibly understand the argument of we will release the transcript but we wont release the tapes and thats going to determine whether or not somebody participates in an investigation, which by the way they can be compelled to be done as well. The argument that this is somehow anything other than the doj trying to pick and choose which pieces of evidence were which parts of evidence are what they determine as the best evidence to our committee is quite frankly not based in any precedent under law. I spent ten years doing this and doing discovery requests. I never asked for permission. Im entitled to what it is. They dont get to determine what we get. That is not how the system works. And it cant be how the system works because otherwise the people who you are trying to conduct oversight on determine what information you get to conduct that oversight. This is simply not how the separation of powers is set up, or how any legal investigation in any jurisdiction in any form exists anywhere in the country. The audiotape exists. That is the best evidence in which to conduct oversight and with that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First i want to talk about what the committee and the congress is doing to the rule of law. Earlier this week we witnessed a spectacle of the highest ranking republican in the country the speaker of the house, someone in line for the presidency standing outside a manhattan courthouse in a hush money payments to a porn trial gouging for the good character of the defendant. I would imagine if you asked a younger mike johnson some ten or 15 years ago could you ever imagine you would stand outside of a courthouse in a hush money payments to a porn star trial and vouch for the moral character of the defendant, you would never imagine that possible. But like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot, what we are seeing not just with this speaker but so many of the leadership over the last several years is one surrender of moral authority after another after another. One betrayal of what one stood for by another betrayal and another until you find yourself standing outside of a manhattan courthouse vouching for the moral authority and character of someone who possesses none. Not just in the process but here denigrating the very institution of justice. A something the speaker knows is false but willing to repeat and this is where we are on the highest ranking official republican officials is essentially telling the American People dont trust the system of justice. We see something very similar. We see a republican u. S. Attorney brought on to investigate the president and we see him make a report to the congress that theres nothing prosecutable and what he was able to find we see him at the same time failing to make a prosecuted case deciding the next best thing he can do is lob a political great into the report and belittle the president. And why . Because her public on this committee have moved from being in the criminal defense firm for the president to being essentially an adjunct of the president s Media Advertising firm. They want the video for Donald Trumps campaign commercials. 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 wasnt. We didnt 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. This is where we are. Moment after moment year after we lose sight on how far we have fallen. Any sense of what we are supposed to be about in this committee. I do not imagine anything i have to say will change that i do think every now and then the country needs to be reminded there is nothing okay about this, theres something to write about thats there is nothing normal about this and we to back to demonstrating some devotion to our constituents and the rule of law and with that i yield backwards judgment yields back the judgment from new jersey is jerseysrecognizable gentleman d for a second . Whats not seeking a videotape and audiotape sites want to correct the same as the democrats it hold the attorney general of United States and contempt a couple congress ago i yield back to the gentleman from new jersey. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We have got to get focused here. The gentleman from california again trying to take our eye off the ball. This is nothing to do this particular issue right here but we are doing with the courthouse in new york city. This is nothing directly to do with what is going on with President Trump i would be glad to engage in a colloquy or debate or discussion about how awful whats happened to President Trumps but that is not the issue here right now. And is nothing to do with the campaign. Its not thinking of the fact the speaker did go as he should have to support President Trump this is not the issue. It has to do with special counsel her. It has to do with what he said. And by the way he never said it was not prosecutable. He decided not to pursue the charges due to the assessment a jury would find President Bidens age and a poor memory and excuse for mishandling those documents. I did not say that. Our chairman did not say that. The special counsel from the department of justice said that. The subpoena of the attorney attorneygeneral is necessary Bee Department of justice has refused to provide the audio recordings of interviews that are crucial for determining the special counsel assessment of our current president. It is essential for this congress and the American People to determine whether special counsel assessment is accurate or not. I will tell you why. The folks on the other side are in a bind of our commanderinchief is so incompetent it cannot stand the trail is not to stand trial he is too incompetent for god sake to be the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. I President Biden is competent and special counsel assessment was incorrect President Biden should face a jury for his crimes of mishandling classified materials. President trumps face and the full weight of the department of justice in his own case on this issue. Even though he had the authority to declassify documents because he was the president of the United States when he did it. President biden on the other hand mishandling classified documents both as a Vice President and then as a senator. Members of congress, Vice President s, u. S. Senators do not get to take classified documents and remove them from the skiff. They dont get to do that. They did not do declassify documents. Did not have the authority to declassify with the audio recordings why do we want them . They will reveal whether was correct mishandle classified documents or it will reveal he is incompetent not competent enough to stand trial therefore not competent thats the closest we have we have two choices here competent and he broke the law or incompetent and he is so incompetent he is a bumbling old man he could not stand trial because they would not be able to do much with them. So we want to find out. Its what we need to know. Either way ill be clear our president is unfit to lead in my opinion and likely why the d. O. J. Is hesitant to share it. I will tell you what. Probably anyone on this committee if you asked them to share the audio something we said, believe me anything i am saying now you can share anywhere you can share anything the chairman says or any of our esteemed members you are on either side part of their one cosmic they got a reason they are in a bind. And might willing to set the precedent that subpoenas from congress in this committee can be ignored . Are you willing to do that . I do not think so. I dont think we want that to happen. Are we willing to perpetuate at the president is incompetent a a twotiered Justice System again . We see it again being wielded against the one person but not another. The answer to the question should be no information requested in the subpoena is crucial. We need the information not just for uncovering whether president s acted in that manner deserving of impeachment but also because the description of the answers we should not be hiding the answers and the truth from the American People. I dont support this amendment let it loose, give us the information if theres nothing there to worry about you should have no problem letting us note knowletting us see but let the t in. Let the sunshine and i yield tobacco gentleman from maryland is recognized. Think it mr. Chairman. I want to address a couple of things quickly before i get to the amendment. By the arguments and hang from the republican side over and over again is essentially questioning conclusion not to move forward with the prosecution. I did want to remind my colleagues that under mr. Barr the department of justice has taken the position that the committee, referencing this incoming House Judiciary Committee is no legitimate role in debating Law Enforcement materials with the aim of duplicating criminal inquiry. Which is of course they function the constitution and trusts exclusively to the executive branch. To the extent you are arguing you do not agree with his findings and you want to replicate or go through them again, mr. Barr argued against that five years ago with respect to the underlying amendment for the amendment to a ns there is a major problem with moving forward with the language and the amendment. Its based on the predicate and i wont read it to the date the department has refused to produce the audio recordings despite not having invoked any privilege to justify its failure to comply with the subpoena. One of the conclusions it reaches at the end has a justification for moving forward with contempt the attorney general is further invoked no constitutional or legal privilege relieving his obligation to fully respond to the Committee Subpoena because gentleman yield . Like sure. Are drafting an amendment we understand that has to be dealt with in light of the last minute executive assertion coming from the white house. We drafted an amendment but were running it past house counsel. Intend to offer an amendment for the specific language the gentleman cited pickwick so the committee then adopt Ranking Members amendment . No, we have our own. Whats left to take a look at it when he gets here. Moving forward on this basis, even if you amend the language in ad that i want to remind the committee whether it is an assertion of executive privilege according to nixon which is the case you all have cited per. Jennifer to strike that too. Upon receiving a claim or privilege of a chief executive it became further the duty of the District Court to treat the subpoena material as presumptively privileged and require special prosecutor to demonstrate the president ial material was essential to the justice of the case. That is because the pending criminal case and moving forward at that point there is an expedited process. We obviously do not have an expedited process here. But just to point out and be clear about this the court said this is presumptively privileged. And so moving forward as if that is not the case is deeply problematic. One of my colleagues over there a minute ago said something about you do not get to choose. Thats exactly what happens when you assert a privilege especially executive privilege. References and the other side with respect to regular civil litigation which is fine i engage in regular civil litigation to this is litigation between article one and article two branches of the United States. Constitutional magnitude. Rushing through this quickly i think is misguided it. I think it will lead to hopefully a court telling the committee we are going down the wrong track. We are abusing our power for oversight. Especially in the instance where weve got special counsel thats already been appointed, has reviewed the issues, has come back and stated clearly there is insufficient evidence in his view to move forward with the prosecution. I think is especially problematic if we have to take it to court again. There is no evidence of eight refusal to cooperate. In fact you got the exact opposite. Above and beyond language on the bar language on the bar letter is clearly met hereto. Weve got mr. Garland who is not legally required to release the report but he did. He was not required to release the transcript, but he did. As pointed out a minute ago by the Ranking Member for departments produced 92000 pages of documents. Weve had 40 or 50 lawyers in the department of justice come and testify. A couple of them in the middle of a criminal prosecution which is totally unprecedented. So, for these reasons and more im urging my colleagues to rethink this approach i think ultimately is going to end up in undermining the ability of this committee to conduct legitimate oversight at the time of that is appropriate. Ive exceeded my time with that i yield back and i think the chairman. Are gentlemen yield to back the gentleman from alabamas recognize thank you i yield to mr. Armstrong. Thank you. A couple of things. For one, i would be happy to argue this. To make colleagues from maryland i wish you wouldve been your hn may of 2019 because we legitimately as the chairman said healthy attorney general and contempt after asserting privilege it was more than that we held them in contempt for not violating the law. There is a statutory requirement you cannot disclose or integrate testimony. We talk about the path were going down and talk about oversight we dont have to go back to nick we can go back to may of 2019 and so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing about this i would love to get that transcript or audio or video and come back on here but we are not duplicated criminal proceeding there is no criminal proceeding. We got the answer from where we are at. I would argue this in front of since the yester doing it the running out the clock he couldve exerted executive privilege i dont know a week ago, a month ago, six weeks ago. It is a pattern going on with this d. O. J. And this white house comes up to the precipice of when youre actually going to do something then they said the absolute last minute they drop all of this. We have a right to do these things. I fully am aware the difference in a criminal prosecution and civil litigation and a congressional hearing are the same thing. The basic premise of what is the best evidence, what we are entitled to it versus what the Opposing Side says we are entitled to something the people on my side of the aisle are completely willing to have that conversation with whoever is independent and neutral arbitrator of those facts pickwick so gentlemen yield . Sure. The best evidence standard which i dont think is necessarily applicable here because not a Court Proceeding the demeanor evidence fell on the face for the same reason. The point here is with respect to the 6e issue. It can be waived and routinely is as a matter of practice. And it certainly has been for congress i do not know thats a really good analogy. The bottom line here is you guys are arguing you need it for demeanor evidence which again has no applicability here because it does not go to the finding that came from her or the impeachment transcript. Altering the transcript is what you have to argue for it affecte chairman argued that. Theres obsolete no evidence of that in fact is a certified transcript. This is one i typed it up on the side these are the transcripts we generate on a routine basis in congress and the department of justice. Reclaiming my time. That might be someone elses argument, that is not my argument. My argument is if i have the version of going through something and dealing with something i have watched witnesses and this committee and depositions say things because they know have agreed to it not being released on video. How something rereads and how something sounds is different. That is true. I am not arguing but cant say what they are entitled are not entitled to give me. I am saying im in south of this evidence and i think this hearing is entitled to it. I am willing to have that fight. I have never been in my entire life said you tell me what i get and i will disagree to that. That is not the point regardless of all the other issues you do not get to say at the last minute we are exerting executive privilege because nobody will ever come in voluntarily come into an investigation ever again because simply release the audio recording instead of the transcript thats going to have a Chilling Effect. That is a ridiculous argument i dont care what the burden of proof is its just a ridiculous argument. Whats so gentlemen yield again . Yes. Thats an argument thats rays administration after ministration after administration included by the Trump Administration on multiple occasions. The assertion of executive it privilege is at least 50 60 years old. Thats based on a decision by the executive branch usually the department of justice to make a decision as to what they will turn over what they wont. A basket litigated in court than the court decides. This is exactly how it is supposed to go for. Executive privilege is usually done whether or not you get the information or not too. I was here i remember when the attorney general came in and said i cannot turn the stuff over because i will be breaking the law. This is not a matter of whether theyre turning it over or not we are to have whatever you think it is they are saying were only going to give the piece of it we what to give it were not going to give you what you guys want that is the fundamental disagreement that exists here. We want the evidence of what happened and the best evidence available. With that i yield back pickwick judgment inspect the judgment from alabama yields back the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. Correct thank you mr. Chair. I have been despairing the state of our country even more so the state of this committee. And the judiciary the last several months. This committee is becoming the Canon Committee trump anointed group to support him and defend him with conduct that is not defensible. Road blocks should be on trial in florida for his keeping classified records he did not declassify them, he just kept them. This is a man several barcodes are generic and said art rule of law this was political having people trash it is despicable almost treasonous. And in this committee the hypocrisy this committee would question Merrick Garland to report a republican to look into President Bidens conduct. A man who mr. Her said he was here to be question anyone here could have questioned him about the conduct on what mr. Biden said away came to that conclusion. He said he was sympathetic elderly man with a poor memory the fact he was sympathetic as what he would not be convicted. This distinguished from his forthcoming opponent in past opponent who was a despicable mendacious man with a port knowledge of history and government. An important memory to boot. I met his own secretary of state said was a moron. Tillers and said he was a moron. Kelly said he admires jon calleys chief of staff said he admires autocrats and dictators and has no conception of the rule of law concern for or democracy in our country. His defense secretary said he is a threat to democracy. Jon boulter declared to be unfit to be president. And of course mike pence said they had profound differences. Folks coming up here defending whats going on in new york, this is a man his wife gave birth to his child and he was playing golf and fornicating in nevada rather than being with his wife and newborn child, what an example we have for the American Public and for young people. Joe biden is i was set at the Correspondents Dinner a decent man sympathetic at a decent man. The idea one of the gentleman said impeachment hearing we are not at an impeachment inquiry these are things it thrown out there to try to take the facts away that he was twice impeached. And to try to impeach him. What so gentlemen yield . Biden and netanyahu or both wrong. The hypocrisy i think every republican on this committee voted against holding bar and contempt of one of our members my friend the chairman was cited for contempt because he refused to appear before a committee. Within the generate six and the overthrow of the government. The hypocrisy is and i yield to mr. Nadler for i think the general and for yield and want to point out the discussion we heard before about evidence and so forth between mr. Armstrong and mr. Iv is fit for a criminal trial this is not a criminal trial. This is a dispute between the executive branch and congress. Such a dispute congress would show a need for the evidence that we seek. Republicans have not made that showing. They have shown no need for these vials. The discussion we heard before is irrelevant it was said with a criminal trial. Which is not a criminal trial is a dispute between the executive branch and congress such a dispute congress would show a need for the evidence. Republicans have not made that showing. They have not shown any need for these files that renders this whole thing ridiculous. I think the gentleman fruit yielding and i yield back to him. Thank you. Might last 10 seconds all i can say is God Bless America because we need someone of that authority to bless us with the way this committee and these folks have dealt with this case and ruling on constitution of democracy. Whats a judgment inspect the gentleman from california is recognized. Correct think it mr. Chairmans in the discussion is drifted into the manhattan trial i just have to say it is ironic you are my calling from california speak to the integrity of our legal system like most americans i am appalled at our Justice System could become so it dangerously politicized. It started with the irs harassing members of the tea party years ago. We had the fbi and intelligence agencies using what they knew it was a completely fabricated story by the Clinton Campaign over russian collusion. My colleague played a large role in that was censured by the house for his role in it. Then we had the Intelligence Agency concoct a lie the hunterr biden laptop was a russian hoax that may have decisively affected the outcome of the 2020 election. I know him sham cases against donald trump on the flimsiest of legal grounds. Grounds that have never been charged before. What the out his intent to interfere massively with the president ial campaign the sinister nature of these cases is that it does not matter they are falling apart. That is not the points. The point is to drain a trump of his time and resources and throw the election to the democrats. The cornerstone of our Justice System is equal justice under law. In matter who we are we are treated the same that is a wide trust just depicted as blindfolded. In each of these cases there seem to be three standards of justice one for donald trump, one for the rest of us and one for the democrats. That strikes at the heart of the matter before us. The decision to prosecute donald trump for mishandling classified documents and the decision not to prosecute joe biden for the same offense. Executive privilege is an important concept and enormous a bearing on separation of powers it goes back to George Washingtons administration. The discussions a president has with his advisers or subordinates in the executive branch on any manner within the powers of his office are no more the business of the legislative branch and the discussions among members of congress and the business of the executive the president cannot compel congress to divulge deliberations anywhere than congress can compel the president. It is Crystal Clear to me any official discussion between the president and any subordinate cannot be pierced. But this case is very different. Because it is not a conversation between the president and a subordinate of our policy of the discharge of his official duties. Rather its an interview in the course of a criminal investigation. To meet this is far closer to the nixon tapes the nixon tapes are not conversations part of a criminal investigation the conversations that have bearing on one. The conversation in this case is even further from that route at the executive privilege for this is it interview and a criminal investigation that clearly falls within the legitimate legislative function. Its not only legitimate inquiry it is a vital inquiry. How is it there are two cases involving the handling of classified information that have been treated so radically differently . As President Donald Trump at absolute authority to declassify material at will as Vice President joe biden did not. Under the present to records at President Trump absolute discretion to determine what papers to return in the course of his presidency. As Vice President joe biden did not. And yet a decision was made to prosecute donald trump and yet not to prosecute joe biden. By the joe biden administration. So it bears repeating the foundation of our judicial system is equal justice under law. Without this the law it looses l authority it simply becomes broad Political Force and it is apparent to me we are moving dangerously away from this principle of a quote Justice Congress because us and is central to play in setting things right before we lose the very principles that define us as a free people. Central to this is to understand why these two cases were treated so very differently. The request of the administration is legitimate. The contempt citation for refusal to provide this information is entirely appropriate but with that i yield back. Else at the gentleman yields back the gentleman from california. I have california then ill come there. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The house and Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately the actions of this Committee Chairman and ignoring a bipartisan congressional subpoena has hurt the ability of this committee to get information and hurt the rule of law. It is a height of hypocrisy for the chairman of this committee to try to enforce a contempt subpoena against Merrick Garland when this chairman himself ignored bipartisan congressional subpoena. Now, i have been to a number of proceedings in my time in congress and in the state legislature. I have been a relatively stupid. This proceeding goes beyond stupidity it is a waste of taxpayer resources. Why is that . Because we have the transcript. We have the transcript of the interview between special counselor robert her and President Biden. There is no evidence whatsoever at this transcript was made up. That it is fake, that has been doctored. This transcript was produced by robert hurds office. He was appointed by donald trump. He is a republican appointee. The notion that some out this transcript is fake is a wild and insane Conspiracy Theory to know why things really going on . Joe biden stutters is always had a stuttering problem and he was made fun of as a child because he stuttered, his bullied as a kid because he stuttered. He overcame stuttering become president of the United States republicans in the past have used his stuttering to smear him. I think thats what they want to do again with this audio. Think that is despicable if republicans are going to go low im going to punch back. Lets talk about donald trump i agree with the republican integers is that a person cannot stand trial he should not be president of the United States. Donald trump has fallen asleep multiple times his own criminal trial. I am a former prosecutor. I can say that is not normal. I think there may be physical Mental Health issues that should be investigated. Im going to tell people in the courtroom are writing about donald trump falling asleep. Heres a reporter who is been observing this own reporter observed quote donald trump has nodded off a few times his mouth going slack in his head dripping onto his chest. Another reporter said quote donald trump slowly dropped his head his eyes closed, jerked back aboard he adjusted himself in his head droops again, he straightens up leaning back. His head droops for a third time he shakes his shoulders, i can disclose it still has head drops. I have a person is so weak and feeble donald trump was so weak and feeble cannot stay away to his own criminal trial he cannot be president of the United States. So, instead of going around trying to smear different people why dont we work on a bipartisan basis and issued a matter that to American People bipartisan hearing unless decent bills to fix a broken immigration system. Republicans here do not want to do that do not to work in a bipartisan basis they do not want to fix this, why . Because donald trump told them not too. How about another issue but lets talk about high prices. Prices are high we did get a good report yesterday inflation is slow down. That is good but prices are still high why dont we work on bipartisan basis to look at price gouging . We have Companies Making record profits once have a hearing on that. Why dont we have a hearing on that . Republicans dont fix the issue they one as a campaign issue. How about lets do a topic thats not a campaign issue. Artificial intelligence has become a problematic privacy implications, could do Amazing Things it could also harm us in a variety of ways in terms of what we do hearing on this and this committee . Why dont we do that . Instead were doing the stupid stuff to try to get audio of a transcript we already have. I gets even worse than that. There is a Second Committee Oversight Committee did the exact same hearing on this proceeding. Let me put in at least the chairman of that committee did not ignore congressional bipartisan subpoena it might be more appropriate for that committee to do it we should and this proceeding right now i yield back. A gentleman yields back the gentleman from texas is recognized for a quick thank you, mr. Chairman. After that five minutes of starting to get a little sleepy i would like to yield my time. Thank you the gentleman for yielding. Here we go again. The gentleman, my friend from tennessee and california, maryland, they want us not to have our eye on the ball. They want us to look. Weve talked about this before. The shiny object over here. When you are really in the trouble op the other side of the aisle, when you really have a problem, lets go after donald trump. Lets make it a campaign speech. Lets talk about what a bad guy he is. Lets talk add all of the different issues. Thats not why were here. If we want to have a separate debate, come colloquy, informaam discussion, lets go at it. Most of us here are. Thats not the issue. The issue is this committee feels that it needs an audio transcript because the charges that concerns are so serious. I want everybody to understand. Were either saying that our current president is in cog thattively impaired. If thats true, we need to hear the audio tape. You need to understand if hes truly that cognitively impaired, if he has the issue, if he cannot deal with the issue, if he doesnt know what hes doing, were going to learn a lot of the way. If it nos big deal, because we have the transcripts, we have the transcripts. Why do you care so much about us getting the audio . Whats the big deal . I want the answer . I want to finish this first. I will yield. We already have the transcript. Why dont we have the audio . We can find out whether hes in that much trouble. As a country is in that much trouble. Its got nothing to do with whats going on in new york. This has to do with whats going on here in the white house in washington, d. C. With the president or if he is not cognitively impaired, if hes with it, if hes capable, then he broke the law as Vice President and as a u. S. Senator, not allowed to take the classifies materials out, kept them in the garbage by his home next to the collapsed dog kennel. Then used them. I want everybody to understand that. Then used them, read them to his ghost rider to use in his multimilliondollar book deal. Of the he competent . Did he know what he was doing when he made the deal and used the papers to make money on the presidency . Thats what we need to know. Thats why were going through all of this. Thats what we need to find out. Gentleman yield . I will. One moment. Thats why were having the discussion. This committee has an oversight responsibility and needs to know that. Its not only the committee. Most importantly the American People need to know it. We need to know if we have an incompetent, incoherent president or if we have a president that is being held to the twotier system of justice again just like they tried to help his son. Justice for thee not for me. Whomever is watching and listening to this dont have the opportunities. He keeps getting them over and over again. Which is it . I know it is a bad spot for you folks. It is an uncomfortable place to be. But we need to find out the truth. I yield to the gentleman actually you ill yield to you. Thank you. I want to comment the following. Special prosecutor decided there was no reason to prosecute for his own good reason. He stated them in his report. He sneered the president on the cognitive impairment. Well see. If we dont need the transcript to see if the president is cognitively impaired. The president speaks all the time. Theres going to be two debates. The American People can decide if hes cognitively impair and if his opponent is. They are going to see plenty of evidence of that on the debate to the campaign. We dont need the transcript to know whether the president is cognitively impaired or not. The evidence is going to be before the American People. I reclaim my time. This doesnt have anything to do with the time. It doesnt have anything to do with the debates. Everybody is going to enjoy them. Me included. This is regarding the classified materials. Either as the specific prosecutor said hes cognitively impaired or unfit for trial or knowingly did this and made money off it. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This hearing is a continuation of what this congress has been about under republican authority since january 3 of 2023. We started out trying to elect and it took 19 ballots before this congress in 2023 january was able to elect a speaker. That speaker presided over what is agreed upon by most people who are observing this committees functions as well, the congress functions. This has been the least Productive Congress in the history of the country. Many arguing. And my friends on the other side of the aisle on this committee are a part of that. They have spent 20 million investigating President Trump. 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 doNothing 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 firstdegree 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 special council. Special council heard. They spent a lot of money investigating, couldnt find a thing, had to write a report that cleared the president from illegally withholding classified documents and then he was summoned to this committee to deliver the findings of his report which included a derogatory reference to President Biden being having a loss of memory. Disparaging him. That was the only thing that republicans could get out of heards report. They made hay of that for a while. Then that went away. Now it has come back. Even though were seeking to hold the attorney general in contempt of this committee for refusing to reduce an audio file. When you already have the document, the entire unredacted report, the transcript of the interview with the president , and even talking to the president s ghost writer. It is an exhaustive investigation. The only thing we can do now is come up with Additional Information to show that biden is cognitively impaired. Thats what the committee is trying to do today according to my friend from new jersey. Get the evidence that biden is cognitively impaired. This is political. This is a doNothing Congress. It is the product of a donothing committee. The American People deserve more. And they are seeing what is happening. We can do the work that the American People need us to do to keep them safe and make sure that costs are down and make sure our economy is humming along, jobs, rebuilding america. Thats what the committee needs to be about. Not a fishing expedition trying to show this president is cognitively impaired. And with that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chair. I mean a lot of us sit here and listen to the special council. I think respond to many questions that day, sitting right there in front of us. And i began to wonder, kind of, what were the conversations behind closed doors . Who were the discussions amongst the attorneys on how are we ever going to dismiss the idea that the president of the United States holding substantial positions within our government has absolutely secured on his own person sensitive documents . And then was able to take them back to the residence, move boxes of them to offices, in multiple locations, and obviously, willingly and knowingly mishandling secret, sensitive, u. S. Government documents and just dismiss this. And theres been a conversation with the special council behind closed doors about well, they just did a raid on the former president s home in florida. Lights going and securing specific areas of the residence and really kind of ransacking the place. Now we find out, you know, probably, you know, a little bit of orchestration of what they wanted those documents to look like when the photos were taken. I cant imagine what the special council and his assistants were trying to dismiss by simply saying that the president hes not all there. You know . Weve seen it on tv. We see it every day now. Hes completely incompetent from handling a simple press conference. So that become their way out. That become what they thought could justify let them off of the hook. Im not sure where that would have gone as a criminal prosecution. None of us are ever going to know that; right . I mean my own personal opinion is that they blew it. Because hes the one who set up the juxtaposition of the president of the United States, who by the way, just agreed to two president ial debates, okay, but at the same time were supposed to believe that, you know, he had a few boxes in the garbage. He lost track of them. Hes just not up to standing trial for this. Hes just not up to actually having an attorney ask him poignant questions about what he was doing with the boxes and was he aware what was in the boxes that he had all over the place . And now, today, we get a letter from mr. Siscol. I wonder what was going on behind closed doors at the white house yesterday. In the discussions on how are we now going to make sure that we protect the president again from having to disclose anything of substance. And the paragraph that strikes me is the absence of a legitimate need for the audio recording is a likely goal. Now they are telling congress in what our goals are in trying to secure evidence. Thats to chop them up, disreport them, and use them for partisan political purposes. Thats not part of the process either; right . That you have to run for reelection. Thats utilized in that way. Thats not the committees intent. But clearly one of the attorneys over at the white house dropped the ball when they wrote the paragraph. Because it just went from us not being able to do oversight to now weve come up with a way that were going to execute a little bit of a cover up. Were going to move towards cover up. To make sure the special counsels conclusions are not questioned beyond what was done in the room when he was here a month ago. So, mr. Chairman, this entire day is not only warranted, but the American People see whats going on here. Were not going to elect donald trump. The other side of the aisle in the white house is going to elect donald trump. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. It is nice to see that some of my colleagues on the other side could make it today. I dont know if that means there werent enough seats in the courtroom in new york. But i know that the Oversight Committee canceled the hearing that was supposed to happen right now on this matter so they could be at the president s trial. Some members will miss this vote, because they want to be at the president s trial. I dont think that anything could animate the phrase doNothing Congress more than missing votes and canceling hearings to go up and be a spectator at your cult leaders trial. Thats the definition of doNothing Congress. But im here for a celebration. Because lets raise a glass. Its been about two years. Two years this week. May 12 is when jim jordan, or chairman, was subpoenaed and asked to comply with his subpoena for his role and enteric with the former president on the january 6th attack of the capitol. We are now 735 days in. Its two years. And this committee has the nerve, this committee has the temerity to seek compliance from the attorney general. I dont think he should be able to bring any subpoena of another person if you were out of compliance of your own subpoena. That seems to me to make a lot of sense to me. Well have an amendment to address that later. I want to talk about this particular effort to hold the attorney general in contempt. What does this really about . After all, it was Donald Trumps appointed prosecutor who the attorney general deputized to be the special counsel here to look at the handling of the classified documents. It was Donald Trumps prosecutor who cleared President Biden. He said theres nothing to see here. Although he did not put it in the legal memory poa memo for his report, there was an exchange that he acknowledged in the interview where the special counsel told the president your recall is photographic. He didnt say your recall is god. He didnt say your recall is decent. The special counsel said your recent is photographic. What is this really about . This is about you all not accepting the outcome of the 2020 election. You rooted on the riders as they sought to attack the capitol on january 6th. If that wasnt enough, you went back to the floor and reiterated the issue that brought the riders to the capitol. Many of you go and visit the convicted criminals who assaulted the Police Officer at their jail cells and during police week as a bunch of officers yesterday testified in the Homeland Security hearing those officers are heros and those riders are criminals, you call them host annals. And the former president called them hostages. This is entirely about not accepting the outcome of the january 6 vote here. Rooting on the riders. And doing everything you can to try to affect the outcome of the upcoming election. So then i thought to myself, is there a parallel . Is there another investigation where your side was completely incurious about what that investigation yielded . Turns out there was. Turns out it happened recently. Turns out somebody on your side was investigated for sex trafficking. Now you are going to say, well, he was cleared. He was cleared. They dropped the charges. Yes, the Biden Attorney general dropped the charges. Didnt pursue. Didnt bring charges. Thats exactly what happens with President Biden. But you all have shown no interest to go to the attorney general and say we want to learn more. We want to see the notes and the audio recordings and the evidence of our own colleagues sex trafficking investigation. Not a peep from any one of you. If you wanted to do that, if you wanted to show just a little bit of consistency, i would be willing to entertain that you have a genuine interest in understanding what happened in the hearing. But thats not what this is about. This is about doing everything that help donald trump, who you see as your client, who a new york criminal trial sees as a defendant, to help him win an election. So i have no interest in playing this game. The American People have no interest in playing this game. All this does for those of you who have graced us with your presence, animates it is a completely doNothing Congress. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from texas is recognized. I yield to the gentleman from california. Ill be brief before my colleague from california leaves. Ive been on the committee long enough to know why we mark up contempt. The committee and the committee he referred weve held people in contempt for not doing things. The Committee Held in contempt the chief council to the president under george w. Bush for not showing up. We next door held in contempt eric holder for withholding information that he said he had 200 and some pages, ultimately over 10,000 pages turned out to be delivered. Whats interesting and very similar is the president s old boss, president obama, claimed executive privilege on exactly the day we were about to do this. Ultimately none of the 10,000 pages stood the test under a judge appointed by president obama for executive privilege. So the false claim of executive privilege today is just as much of a ruse as it was under president obama. Thats what i hope as we hold the attorney general in contempt. Thank you. My colleagues are depriving the fact that some of our colleagues are in new york. Whats happening in new york . We have a clear sham trial being perpetrated by a judge with clear bias. We have a situation where the entire thing relied on mwai the Cohen Michael cohen, who just at least is a convicted felon and has disbarred and plenty guilty of perjury and financial crime. The judges own daughter is known democrat political operative. Some of the committee, including some colleagues who are advising michael cohen. All of that is occurring when they could bring forward alan who is sitting in rikers. They are not bringing him forward. One could guess because it wouldnt help. This is all playing out while bootstrapping a federal law into the state crime in order to try to navigate statutes of limitation. It is ridiculous. It is absorb what we are seeing unfold. The politicalization of it. Now here we sit. My colleagues on this side of the aisle dont like that we simply want to see the best evidence available when, in fact, it is not as one of my colleagues talked about trying to effectively get a second stab at criminal proceedings. This is an impeachment inquiry. Thats inherently not a criminal proceeding. It is a unique function of congress. Were investigating very legitimate questions. Conflicts of interest in the biden family. The significant amount of money given to the biden family. The president having material hes not suppose to have in his position. Which special counsel pointed out and in the committee testified to and, in fact, the president and his lawyers have contested special counsels assessment. The truth is in this committee, they stood behind his sworn system. Weve got evidence that we can see in transcripts. But all were pointing out is it is a both impeachment function and legislative function of this body to be able to use the power to be able to go to the president of justice which is supposed to be overseen by us in the first place, by the way. And it is saying, we simply want to see the best evidence, because if you look in the terms of the criminal proceeding which is not an impeachment inquiry and not the legislative function. It is independent and unique function that carried out. They clearly what you saw for special counsel herr was a great deal of dependence on the demeanor of the president. An extraordinary amount of dependence in terms of his determination on whether to pursue charges depending on how he assessed the demeanor of the president of the United States. Thats all this is about. It is not political. It is not about something that might show up later for political purposes. It is very much to the heart of whether or not and what the president knew about the materials that he had which special counsel officially acknowledges and wrote were illegal for him to possess. What was his intent . It is critically important for the purposes of this body to determine where were going to go with impeachment inquiry or legislative inquiry that determined what the president s demeanor was during that interview. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You know, im disappointed strike that. Move to strike the last word. Im disappointed, but im not surprised that were getting a letter from the white house citing executive privilege the day before the hear, the day before the markup. As my colleague from california knows, who is the Ranking Member on subcommittee that i chair, responsivent and accountability to oversight, this is common behavior for this white house. Waiting until the last minute, and then throw either an excuse or a few pages of documents that have been subpoenaed, much of which is publicly available, to us to try to fend off exactly this. A contempt citation for failure to comply. You know, it would be one thing if it were the subcommittee that i chair. It would be one thing if it were documented subpoenaed at the department of health and Human Services or education or the ftc about collusion with big tech, about the covid information that they tried to limit availability on the internet. There are so many different ways in which this administration has failed to be accountable. Failed to be held accountable, and failed to provide the information that weve requested. That were not surprised. This is under an impeachment inquiry. Last year we approved an impeachment inquiry in the body. Which heightened the standard. And actually increases the burden on the administration to show that theres some reason why they should not be providing this information and executive privilege does not is not applicable here. We have a request for a recording. As was stated earlier. The white house doesnt get to decide how that information is provided. Which transcript is better, which transcript is appropriate. If we want one transcript, they give us that one. If we want the other one, they have to give us that one. This investigation is about whether the president willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a president st. That was a conclusion. And then herrs investigation also concluded that vice President Biden had quote strong motivations unquote to ignore the rules for properly handling classified materials. Those strong motivations included. An advantage of 8 million that biden had planned to received from writing his memoir. A book he decided to write months before leaving office. Why has the doj not sought to bring charges for the actions both as Vice President and the private st. . For one reason, special council herr noted there was evidence that he had willfully retain classified information, he wouldnt recommended to take it to trial because the president was a sympathetic elderly man with a poor memory. Herr knew to make the 8 million book advantage, he would need reminders. He shared them with his ghost writers who holds november security clearance. The committee caught information among about among other things President Bidens mishandling of classified information. The doj refuses to provide the committee with the recordings. And attorney general garland not only confirmed that this material has been turned over to the white house, and not us, he said this during an appropriations testimony. But failed to see the hip tock si in allowing the white house access to the recordings, but not the judicial and Oversight Committee. He rejected the notion that the doj should release the recordings. At the time they had no response as to how to provide the recordings to the white house as to how he provided the recordings of the white house. These recordings are important to our investigations. Because of the superior ted that they provide. Transcripts do not capture misdemeanor evidence. Theres evidence they have doctored transcripts. If if they are doctoring official transcripts, we need the tapes. We need the tapes. They have an obligation to provide them to us. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amend offered by the gentleman from new york. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] eight ayes and 17 noes. The noes have it. Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment. Point of order preserved by the gentleman from california. Amendment to the amendment. Objection. I object. Mr. Chairman. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute for the Committee Report for the resolution recommending that the house of representative find for refusing to comply for the committee on the judiciary on page 13 at the end of the second full paragraph and insert. They note serious concern about the competency of donald trump the weekend before they took up the contempt report in a speech delivered in new jersey. He phrased a fictional serial killer the late great hannibal lector. Hes a wonderful man. We have people in our country that we dont want in the country. He confused beijing with the island of taiwan and confused a president with jimmy carter. All i want about mag news is skipping a class of water. Let me drop it. During a series of march campaign rallies, trump had the country of argentina telling the person in the crowd, you know, argentina, great guy. I love him. He loves trump. Anybody that loves me, i love him. He also called our country the United States and made a series of noises when describes himself being boom this is me unintelligible thing. It is not clear if he knows which is political opponents hes running against. Mr. Trump has said President Biden and president obama on at least different occasions. He confused nikki hailey with someonest. Mr. Trump has been confused with respect to foreign leaders. Mr. Trump referred to the Prime Minister as a great leader of turkiye. These examples and more raise concern about his mental competency and ability to serve as another term as president. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentleman, this contempt report that is being considered today is chalked full of misleading references to President Bidens age and his mental competency. Throughout his hearing today, ive heard the false allegation made that special counsel herr found that biden was incompetent to stand trial. Thats not what herr found. He simply questioned the president s memory. Lets not get it twisted. And speaking of, you know, cognitive impairment, the report that were considering today conveniently omits serious evidence that the standard fare for my friends on the other side of the aisle, donald trump is the only candidate that shows any evidence of competency problems. Just this past weekend in the speech in wildwood, new jersey, mr. Trump praised a fictional serial killer, the late great hannibal lector. Hes a wonderful man. Congratulations to the late great hannibal lector. We have great people here that are being released into our country. We dont want our country we dont want in our country. Hear it for yourself. Play the tape. Silence of the lam. Anybody ever seen it . The late great hannibal lector. Hes a wonderful man. Talking about beijing. They have ships circling. They have planes. They dont remember doing anything. I could have pressed hillary a lot harder. She broke up her phone. Nobody even knows if it is all done by biden. Jimmy connors hes also happy. Congratulations. The late great hannibal lector. We have people that are being released into our country that we dont want in our country. Im up here screaming like a lunatic. Ladies and gentlemen, that sad display took place just this past weekend with the former president. He appeared to confuse the chinese city of beijing with the southern governing island of taiwan. He confused jim jimmy connors, a famous tennis player with jimmy carter. Would the gentleman yield . No. I wont. This rant is not a singular event. Last january at a rally in iowa, mr. Trump incoherently speaking think of it, magnets. End quotes. Now all i know about magnets is this. Give me a class of water. Let me drop it on the magnets. Thats the end of the magnets, end quote. During a series of march campaign rallies, mistook the country of argentina for a person, telling the crowd, quote, you know, argentina. Great guy. Hes a big trump guy. He loves trump. I love him. Because he loves trump. Anybody that loves me, i like them. End quote. He also claimed that a poll was a legislative bill and called our country the united stage and made a series of unintelligible noises when described him. Ding, boom, this is me. Bing. This is not even clear if trump knows which of his political opponents hes running against. Mr. Trump has mixed up President Joe Biden and former president obama on eight different occasions. He mixed up nikki hailey with former Speaker Pelosi inferring that ambassador hayley was responsible for capitol security. He cant keep straight the names of world leaders. In october of 2023, he referred to hungarian Prime Minister as the quote great leader of turkiye, end quote. Republicans are intellectually and morally dishonest. Criticize President Biden when they are the chosen leader, donald trump presents with symptoms which are quite frankly scary. The American People can seek through this republican charade. This is just an ugly exercise to hurt President Joe Biden. Lets move on. With that, i yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from kentucky is recognized. I just wonder the gentleman on the other side of the aisle the aid that was voted on would cause the island to tip over at any point in the future. You know what . I hope that yeah. The island of guam is floating on water and not on diesel fuel. Thats the point i was making. And i think that the gentleman might question my mental acuity. Lets look at your leader. Stop claiming my time. Lets look at President Trump. Im reclaiming my time. I have the utmost respect for my colleague on the other side of the aisle. The point i wanted to make is sometimes we make statements tongue in cheek that we are metaphorically speaking and that the president most certainly in most of those cases was doing that. As we all have republican and democrat made statements. If they are taken out of context , seen indefensible or ungrounded, if you will. Let me give an example. So the comment on the magnets. Here. If you give me a glass of water, let me dog it on the magnets, it is the end of the magnets. Ive heard him talking about that. Hes talking about electromagnets. It is a discussion about whether or not the catapults on aircraft carriers should be steam driven or electromagnetically driven. It is true that the steam is more reliable. That water would not affect the hoses, for instance, but they could salt water could affect water that is are driving electromagnets. So i think it is disingenerous here to offer this and take many things out of context to take things that were said tongue in cheek and said on the campaign trail and act as if they were meant to be taken literally, because we all on both sides of the aisle have said things before that were not meant to be taken literally. And with that, i yield back. Gentleman yield. I yield. Thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the point is well made. No human being has ever said anything exactly right. We all make mistakes. The fundamentally question in front of us was the decision not to prosecute consistent with the department of justices commitment to impartial justice. Thats the fundamentally question. President trump is getting prosecuted for a classified documents concern. Biden is. Biden isnt because this is what the special council said. He said mr. Bidens memory appeared to have specific limitations both in 2017 and as evidenced by their recorded conversations and today as evidenced by the recorded interview with our office. Thats why we want the audio tape. President biden is the department being impartial. It is getting prosecuted. We know it is going on in miami. President biden isnt. It is because of the statement from the special counsel. That statement from the special counsel in light of the facts of the case. The elements of the crime has been met. They sat at at the table and told us joe biden knowingly kept classified information and knowingly disclosed classified information. Special counsel told us why joe biden did it. He had strong motivation to release classified information because he was writing a book, a book from which he got paid 8. So we have motive, elements of the crime, he doesnt get charged. Yet President Trump does. The committee, the committee that oversees the Justice Department wants to know if they are impartially administering justice. The best way to figure that out is to get all of the evidence so we can figure that out. See if theres something we need to do to change the specific council statute. Thats the fundamental question. We can get into the things people say. Ive said things that are taken out of context. Mr. Matthew has. Mr. Johnson has. Weve all said it. Thats not the point. The point is the fundamental question. Was it the administration of impartial justice . Were they being consistent . Thats what i want to know. I yield the remainder of my time. Just to add on to the chairmans comment to impartial. If you go back to the Senate Confirmation hearing, im going to conduct Justice Without fear or favor. Hes getting a chance now to live up to those words. Will he provide impartial Justice Without fear or favor to the American People . Thats a question thats before us. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Were out of time. I can go to mr. Ivy. Im sure he will yield you some time. Let me go first. 15 seconds. All right. Go ahead. Thanks to the gentleman. The believes two speakers are concerned about me taking President Trumps comments out of context. This is exactly what they plan on doing if they can get their hands on the audio file. They want to take President Bidens comments out of context. This is projecting. This is exactly what these republics are known for. Thats what the big cheese does, donald trump. With that, ill yield back. Thank you, to the gentleman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thats not accurate. Thats not our goal. You know, ive got to say you know, my colleague from georgia raised the point about taking it out of context. Theres a concern about that. It is a legitimate one. To not have the audio tape, but have the transcript. Which again nobody is actually alleged is incorrect in any way. It is not a verbatim transcript. The person that took the transcript violated her oath of office. I think it does point that you have to assume it is factually accurate. But i had to get to the point though. Ive got so many colleagues over there talking about the contrast, you know, well, biden wasnt prosecuted. Trump was. Herr sat right here. Theres a report that laid all of it out. Herr pointed out the distinctions between trumps case and bidens case. They are clear. There are serious aggravating facts in the trump case, most notably after given chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, he did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents, but enlisted other to destroy evidence and lie about it. He goes on in contrast, mr. Biden is returned the documents, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his home, sat for the voluntary interviews, and coordinated with the investigation. Thats the distinction. Thats the distinction the department of justice draws frequently in making decisions about whether to move forward with the criminal prosecution. The obvious fact that you are ignoring. Democrat versus the republican. Former Vice President pence was not prosecuted for the same sorts of issue. Theres a reason trump sits alone or will sit alone. He acted to ab instruct justice. Biden and pence did not. Ive got to say the book along both lines. Theres the ongoing claim that the president of justice is somehow bias and only going after republicans. The senate in new jersey right now, a democrat who is about to start a jury trial. I dont know if they are still picking the jury or not. They were last time that i looked. Theres an indictment against the democrat in texas right now as well. That just came down. It is a tough argument. It really flies in the face of all of these open cases or cases that are moving forward. To suggest that for some reason the department of justice is only targeting republicans when it is clear they are. Theres the last point you all keep avoiding. Herr sat here and testified. You are making allegations today you did not confront him with at the time. The extend that you raised it. You said, no, im not trying to hide anything or protect the president. Were not trying to slam anything. I did this. The called the balls and strikes as i saw them. You know, it is a bit of a smear to suggest otherwise. It is a little unfair to do it now when hes not here when you had the chance to do it when he was here. And, you know, i dont know. It is frustrating to me. The Judiciary Committee is supposed to be about upholding the rule of law. We have political issues and the president ial year and all of that stuff. You are distorting the facts other and over again. It should stop. It should. Just one final point on the issues. The attorney general here, mayor garland, 90,000 pages hes produced, over and over, presented witnds to the committee that other ags would have refused to commit. Lawyers who were in the investigation or pending trial. Although you are all ignoring that and trying to act like hes on instructing justice. You have the verbatim transcript. Is the Impartial Administration of justice by the Justice Department. It is nothing else. Thats our objective and goal. The best way to figure that out is the evidence. The gentleman referenced when he was here. I did confront him. I laid up the same thing. Did joe biden keep classified information . Yes . Why did he do it . He was writing a book. How much did he get paid for the book . 8 million. We laid all of that out. I did confront him. Will the gentleman yield . You confronted him with the facts those facts. Nobody said you are not telling the truth. You are not charging him and upped, because you are trying to protect him. None of you said that. Of course, i confront him with the facts. Thats what you are supposed to do in the hearings. With that, ill yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new jersey. Thank you. I think you really encapsulated what this is about. You are good at this. I mean as a compliment. You are good at it. You are good at politic. Again were speaking about the rally which i happen to be in as you probably know thats in my district, i spoke about it. By the way, you are feeling bad about it. We had a hundred thousand of people from all walks of life from plumbers to pipe fitters and professionals and engineers and doctors and young people and old people. All excited to be there with a hundred thousand people we had no incident, nobody got drunk, nobody got hurt, there were no fights, it was a celebration of america. For an hour and a half, donald trump stood up there. Mostly extemporaneously speaking about a bunch of stuff. Having fun. Sometimes being sarcastic and sometimes being serious and speaking about merica and freedom and whats happening to the country in so many different ways which isnt good. My point is thats not what the hearing is about. Once again, the chairman encapsulated it. You are leading us aspray. Astray. You are good at it. Were debateing about donald trump. You are good at it. We have existing transcripts. We want to know the demeanor of the current president was. You can watch the whole hour and a half on tape. You can look and see. I wish we didnt have to have the hearing either. I just wish they turned it over. Chairman i will in a minute. The chairman wouldnt have called the hearing if simply they had said, yes, you can have the video recordings. You can check out the demeanor. The problem you have, as good at it as you are, the problem that you have is either that he is cognitively impaired and doesnt know whats going on and what hes doing or hes not and he knowingly took all of the classified material out. Then basically sold it to a ghost writer to make 8. I know you are in a tight spot. Thats the reality. So we kind of want to know what it is. So do the American People want to know what it is. They want to know the truth. It isnt a big deal. Tell the truth. It sets you free, man. You can go through this inside out and over and over and over. I know the next speaker on your side is going to have another amendment thats got to do with donald trump. Thats not what this is about. Focus on the ball. Will the gentleman yield . I will yield. I hadnt planned on bringing up donald trump today. You did it. You are the one that came in and said that trump was mistreated because hes on trial. Biden is getting the pass. You brought it up. I want to reclaim my time. No, what i brought up is we were taking our eye off of the ball. We still are. Were into the serious. Theres a serious issue here. By the way, they obviously dont think since you brought it up that donald trump is cognitively impaired. They are prosecuting him in different venues across the country, and politically motivated. I dont want to have that debate now. Ill have that debate with you anywhere and any time that you want to do it. I will yield back my time. Gentleman yield back. I will yield back. Yeah. I would just point out, gentleman, the jack smith mishandled the evidence. We dont want to bring up trump. But in that case, you have the prosecutor that sees the documents and changed the order he sees the documents. They dont match up with the actual scanned documents. Some people might say thats tampering with evidence. Wait a minute. Weve got to hold on here. Will the gentleman yield the irony is, jack smith mishandled documents while hes charging president. You cant make this stuff up. I think in some ways the reference to whats going on with President Trump is entirely appropriate. My time is up. It is recognition. The question occurs on the amendment from the gentleman from georgia. All of those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. No. Opinion of the chair the noes have it. The opinion is not agreed to. Clerk, please call the roll. [roll call] mr. Chairman, 5 ayes and 12 nos. The motion is not adopted. Ms. Dean from pennsylvania. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Amendment to reserved to point of order. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute of the nitty report for resolution recommending that the house of representatives Merrick B Garland in contempt. Without objection. Explain her amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to lay the table and this build on the amendment we just considered. The disinformation coming from the other side of the aisle is so troubling, its funny, but its really much more troubling than anything else. As we all know special counsel has not call today do some competency hearing, he was to find out whether or not President Biden would be charged for mishandling of documents. I refer you to mr. Hurds report, we have every page of it. I forget how big it is, hold on. 35060 pages. Line 1, page 1, this is special counsel hurds finding and he said here to us, sitting right at that table that this was after, quote, rigorous detailed and analysis by him and his group, his staff. Page 1, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. And then i thought very interestingly and i even asked him to reread this to us. The exception is former President Trump, im reading from page 11, again rigorously, thoroughly reported here by special counsel hurd in his conclusive findings. The exception meaning that one person, one president has been charged in misuse of classified documents. Page 11, it is not our role to assess criminal charges pending against mr. Trump but several material distinctions between mr. Trumps case and mr. Bidens case are clear. Youll remember i asked special counsel hurd to read this. Unlike the evidence involving mr. Biden the allegations set forth would present serious aggravating facts as my colleague read also. Most notably continuing in the report after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution. Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. , end quote. So lets talk about the elephant in the room, why do my republican colleagues need this audio file at all after all doj has provided 92,000 documents, plenty to go through, including the transcript to let me hold that up two days worth of testimony, the transcript of the president cooperating in the two days following the attack in israel on october the seventh but this president , this sitting president cooperated fully and completely every word of its testimony is reported here. Do you think the republicans really want to listen to the president s vocal tone . I will give them the benefit of the doubt. It may be they want to do that but not but only because they think they can manipulate President Bidens voice to make it the next trump for president ad. After all they have done it before, take a look. March 2020. Trumps White House Social Media director posted and trump retweeted and edited video that cut off President Bidens sentence to make it sound like President Biden was endorsing trump. Later that year, Steve Scalise shared an edited video of President Biden that falsely made it appear that he was supporting defund the police. And back in 2019, President Trump and Rudy Giuliani both retweeted a manipulated video of Speaker Pelosi that had been doctored to make the speaker appear incompetent. Unfortunately, we know that our chairman, our very chairman had taken part in those phoney manipulations too. I have to admit as a mother and grandmother this next example hurts the most. Last year ms. Nina testified that chairman tweeted manipulated video of her that contributed to Death Threats against her. She was 8 months pregnant while strangers online called her a nazi and told her she should die. She had to attend suspend for a second . I will not yield. Im not asking you to yield. We are citing a i have a point of order. There you go. The i will ask you its 40 seconds. Restore the clock. I have a point of order. You are citing a deposition in your amendment that has not been released in violation of house rules. Let me check with my team. I will make the point that they should release the deposition. We are happy to release the deposition. They are happy to release the deposition. Thank you for restoring my time. We have to strike the language that is citing the deposition that has not been released by house rules. Because you dont want to release it, you dont want to release what mr. Jordan did . I cant release it in realtime . I think you could. Youre the chairman. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry . Yes. Can the chairman make a point of order if so then who rules of the point of order or not . No. The point of order is made by the chairman. Im in charge of enforcing the rules. On your own point of order . Yes. Can someone else be heard on the point of order . Can i speak on the point of order . No. Yes. Mr. Chairman, the sitting chairman of this committee knows that this transcript was from last april, the committee has every ability and has often time to release that. It seems to me and this side of the aisle that it is trying to be withheld in order to protect the chairman from something quite embarrassing. I ask that it be released today. Would the general lady yield . I sure will. Okay. That requires consultation with majority and minority counsel and the fact that you wish that it was released prior to that does not supercede the fact that it is cited deposition that has not been released by this committee is cited in the amendment that is in violation of house rules. Is the irony visible to anybody else here . Anybody else notice the irony here . Mr. Chairman you have the whole transcript here. [inaudible conversations] its fair to say oneminute video that mr. Jordan linked to let me finish. Objection, mr. Chairman. Objection. The gentleman is out of order. The gentleman will suspend. So mr. Jordan relied the gentleman is out of order. Who is out of order . You are, mr. Nadler. Why am i out of order . What am i violating . Its the entire point of the parliamentary inquiry. Im happy to amend my amendment to take out the q a that you do not want revealed because the chairman would be embarrassed by it. I want to be heard on the point of order. Shes disclosed. She being her testimony towards that versus the transcript of the deposition are not the same. But the point there and i think the author of the amendment offered to strike the exact quote but the substance of the statement is public information. The amendment discloses committee record that has not been released in violation of house rules . How about my amended amendment . Im taking out the testimony which this committee, the majority on the committee does not want revealed and i guess i dont even want to ask, can we get the audio of that . [laughter] i mean, if you look at the footnotes, mr. Chairman will the general lady ask for unanimous consent to amend the amendment . I ask for unanimous consent to amend the amendment to take out the language that you dont want revealed. Take out the q a. Is there an objection . Without objection so ordered. Mr. Chairman, i thank you. I think i had 40 seconds but i will take 30. The irony is extraordinary in this committee. Misrepresentation, a finding of incompetence by the former president , when you know this special counsel found we conclude no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. It is absurd that the chairman of this committee who sits in offense to his own subpoena, hundreds and hundreds of days is seeking the voice of the president whose voice he knows very, very well, the testimony is rich and pleat. I ask that my amendment be considered and be honored and passed because otherwise we could see the use of this video, this audio, excuse me, doctored to be deep faked and to be trump. I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment. Thanks so much. Anywhere else seek recognition . Im hesitant to speak because i cant hear you. Im hesitant to speak because, mr. Chairman, because im so so stunned by the amendment proposed by the general lady to get around house rules to disclose documents that have not been released by this committee. Is that how the other side is going to play . That violates general rules of quorum and decency. This committee has been a respected body in this congress and many previous congresses for many years and one to have things that it emphasizes is not just the rule of law, but the balancing of the branches of government when the executive branch overreaches its authority and says, we dont have to hand over these tapes to the legislative branch of government, we should be united in saying, how dare you, we should be united in saying, we represent the people, we are entitled to these tapes, we ask for them, we should get them and to not just say no but to say, the hell to your request and to hell with your rules, to hell with your decorum we are going to make a mess of the rules that have been followed by this committee and others for years and years is just offensive. I oppose this im going to reluctantly, well, the general ladys amendment is im going to oppose the amendment, but im going strenuously oppose. I yield back. I want to point oh out two things, the striking hypocrisy of the majority. Opposing this amendment which simply reveals some records while demanding the release of an audiotape of information thats been released by transcripts and we know the chairman of this committee has doctored audiotapes to make them say what they didnt, in fact, say. This amendment points this out. I would also point out that even if the quotes are taken out of this amendment h has happened and whether or not this amendment passes which it should, but in any event, this is all now in the Public Record so you cant accomplish anything because its out there, the hypocrisy, the dishonesty of the chairman is out there revealed in the text of this amendments whether it passes or not and with that i yield to mr. Ivy. Thank you, mr. Ranking member. I just want to point out a couple of things. One is with respect with the specifics here. In the footnotes, its clearly public information. Jim jordan twitters account. Its not like we made this public. That was already made public by the chairman. Footnote number 2 was the letter from the department of justice. Footnote number 3 is theres 115 plus transcripts from interviews that this committee has done that this committee has refused to dislose and made public so we should do that. All the statements today about the publics right to know and we need the information. With respect to my colleague, this goes specifically to the conversation that we had at our last hearing where i requested email communications between House Republicans majority and the departments and agency that we keep dragging in to produce documents, i move to request the information that wasnt agreed to at the time. So its not my time to yield, but if you want to get upset about her making a statement, my colleague from pennsylvania, where its public information, i think thats incorrect and to say youre offended by it, i think is kind of over the line, but, if we want to turn the page as a committee and you all want to disclose this information, make it public, by all means, lets do it. And i yield back to the gentleman of new york. Anybody seek recognition. Gentleman from georgia. I wanted to tell the rest of the story that is Public Knowledge of what happened as a result of the misleading narratives. After the misleading narratives were spread about her she received tens of thousands of Death Threats, you talk about decency and decorum, manipulated video, you talk about decency and decorum here, my goodness. She had to go to court to obtain restraining order against the individual who repeatedly she was eight months pregnant while strangers online called her a nazi and told her she should die. When a reporter reached out to chairman well, i will skip that part. Staff are responding that was on the boards public face and should be accountable in public. As you see im taking out mr. Jordans role in any of this because he doesnt want anything to be known about his role in this and i really want to honor that. In august of 2020 the current House Majority leader shared an edited video that shared words of activist and portray President Biden appearing to support defunding all of the police even though biden has specifically said that the reforms being discontinued were not the same of getting rid of or defunding the police. I want to just say that it is strange to hear from the other side of the aisle that theyre worried about decency or indecency or decorum, please take a look in the member of your own members what they did to spread misinformation and lies to confuse the public knowingly to say that this somehow special counsels report was about competency, is so shameful. You know thats not what it is about. You just dont like the results to have report. The results of the report being we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter against President Biden. You dont like that, you wish you could have had it another way because youre own candidate is rightly facing charges. With that, i do have one unanimous consent. I ask to enter into the record just so that we can be more complete because the majority doesnt want to reveal the transcript of their conversation with ms. Jankowitz, former biden chief detail, it is from march eighth of last year and it is political. Without objection. And members of this committee on the other side continued to repeat the falsehood that this hearing and this resolution is a part of an impeachment inwiry. The last i heard about impeachment inquiry by this do Nothing Congress as to having spent 20 million in this Committee Investigating President Biden, the last i heard of an impeachment was by the chair of the other committee, the Oversight Committee which is actually been the committee handling impeachment and at that point after they had President Biden had President Bidens son in, hunter to testify and couldnt get anything out of him, the the chair pretty much threw the towel in on he threw in a white towel into the ring. Gave up pretty much on impeachment and now this committee is trying to drag it out of the garbage can and try to trick the American People into believing that this is a part of the impeachment inquiry. It is not its simply an expedition to try to make President Biden look bad in keeping with the report of special counsel hurd who cleared President Biden but nevertheless inserted some unnecessary and derogatory information in there that this committee has seized upon and continue to kick like a dead horse and with that, i yield back. Who seeks recognition . Question is on the amendment. All those in favor aye, all those opposed . No. The nos have it. Roll call has been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Issa . Mr. Gaetz . Mr. Biggs . Mr. Tiffany . Mr. Matthew . Mr. Roy . Mr. Bishop . Mr. Fitzgerald . Mr. Ben says no. Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Gooding . Mr. Van drew . Mr. Moore . Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kylie, mr. Kylie votes no. Mr. Muran . Ms. Lee . Mr. Hunt . Mr. Nadler . Aye. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Jackson lee . Mr. Cohen . Mr. Johnson . Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Schiff . Mr. Swawell . Mr. Lou . Mr. Correa . [roll call vote] ms. Dean . Ms. Dean votes aye . Ms. Escobar. Ms. Bush. Mr. Ivy. Aye. Votes aye. Youre not recorded. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany is not recorded. Mr. Tiffany votes no. Is mr. Roy recorded . Mr. Roy is not recorded. Have spent 20 million this Congress Investigating conspiracy theories and have nothing absolutely nothing to show for it. To date, theyve used this 20 million in taxpayers money to hold ten hearings before the select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government six of which have been on the same topic. Theyve conducted 121 transcribed interviews or depositions with witnesses from over two dozen companies, nonprofits or federal government agencies. Theyve spent 555 hours of staff and with this time in these transcribed interviews and depositions. They sent more than a 60 subpoenas to executive Branch Agencies and private entities. Defining incriminating information on the administration, they repeatedly excoriated and rightwing media for not accomplishing anything this congress. In fact as recently as april 28, 2024, fox news host maria stated, quote, with all due respect people are sick and tired of congressional investigations that go nowhere. People are sick and tired of letters being written and sent to the people that we know are bad and the first place. This is from their own gallery of supporters. To date there is no evidence of any Impeachable Offense committed by President Joe Biden. Theres no evidence of misconduct. The witchhunt will go down in history as a total and complete failure especially when viewed in light of the fact that we are reduced down to seeking verification and erroneous report about the mental acuity. I think that if the committee refuses to the full house it should at least be accurate. A key part of that accuracy is including the details of this projected over the top investigation in the background on the Investigation Section of the report recommending contempt and for that reason i urge you to support this amendment and with that i would yield back. The gentleman still has plaintiff order. At the question occurs offered by the gentleman from georgia. All those in favor . Opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. The gentleman has asked for a recorded vote. Roll call. Roll call. [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will report. Five ayes and 12 noes. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report. Point of order reserved by the gentleman from virginia. Amendment considered as read. The gentlelady from i object. The clerk will report the problem. An amendment the Committee Report for the resolution recommended that the house of representatives find him in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena issued on the judiciary on page three after the paragraph ending when his son died, insert however it is in fact false that he couldnt remember when his son died in the transcript of President Bidens interview President Biden recalls the date of his sons death saying what month did he die, may 30th. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment correct the record regarding the president s recollection of his own son, beau bidens death. And i saw in the markup today a willing above the koran and indecency and doing what is right. I would think this would be an amendment all of us could agree upon. Its about decency and facts and getting the record straight. As i pointed out, President Biden recalled the month his son passed. At the transcript of his fivehour deposition he says what month did he die . Ogata, may 30th, and of quote. I find the mischaracterization of that exchange in a government report to be inaccurate, grotesque and gratuitous. That is nothing to do with the task he was given. It was just a free shot at a father grieving his son. Even more distasteful, the republican attempts to repeat that mischaracterization for political ends. Everybody in this room, everybody in this house must do better. But i suppose indecency is too often the point. In addition to the statements regarding mr. Beau bidens death, he also determined on behalf of the doj that President Biden would not be prosecuted for in properly storing sensitive documents because in truth the same cannot be said for mr. Trump for endangering the servicemembers he was led by leaving classified documents strewn among. On the important point if the president s hearing memory of his own sons death and i urge all members to support this factual correction. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Speaking of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, i want to thank the gentlelady for making my point with her amendment. Not only did the transcripts continue on after her amendment says may 30th, it continues and i will quote the transcript with the question was it 2015 when he died. I also think the gentlelady for making the point that without the audio cant tell how much time passed and the words ogata, may 30th and how it was because he followed that with a question. Was it a question, ogata, may 30th . We dont know because we dont have the recording. Its exactly why we needed. Its why weve requested it over and over again, subpoenaed it and holding the attorney general in contempt because hes not providing because we cant do our jobs for the American People accurately unless we have the most Accurate Information and thats why we need the tapes and why we are pursuing them and holding the attorney general contempt. The gentleman yields back. Thats an interesting explanation but i have to say its hard to figure out how the length of a pause between an answer and a question would have any kind of dispositive merit one way or another. This is hypothetically say for two seconds as opposed to 30 seconds. If its 30 seconds then its an impeachable opens in somehow . Its the basis for legislative action or some kind of impeachment or even if you want to go there because youve got it wrong for about five different versions of why you need this, none of which are included in the report that at least the one you passed out. But lets say hypothetically, what does that prove . Nobody is asserting that mr. Bidens answers were deceitful or disingenuous or anything like that, and of the issues youve raised are potentially the basis for the impeachment of some kind. Its hard to figure out where to go from this from a legitimate standpoint. Im not questioning anybodys integrity over there, but theres a sort of obvious alternative where they want the audio tape so they can use it may be not them personally but somehow it might end up in a video, campaign video, maybe. That supports the efforts to be reelected and. It makes more sense than the explanations ive heard from the other side. The legislative purpose issue, which i havent had much of a chance to touch on yet, but we can do it now its a legitimate legislative purpose for. If you have the transcript and its a verbatim transcript and as ive said earlier. Its asserting that somehow the court reporter, doctor did, fabricated, did anything wrong with it, things like that. Nobodys made an inquiry with respect to the court to ask if she did something inappropriate. He came in and it does divide and you could have asked about that. He never said anything about a doctor transcript either. Is it incomplete when it doesnt include the question that follows the statement of may 30th . I am offering an amendment to add language if you want but the bottom line is from the standpoint of at least having a fuller transcript because there is no doubt the way the report was written at least the one that i dont know what the final one is going to look like because we dont have it yet, but its about as onesided as the document can get so from the standpoint i will say this again because this is going to be the basis. We went through this on the hunter biden version as well. This is going to be what we send to the court, and i hope the department of justice does take this to court because i want to see is litigated and a judge rule on this because i think a majority as we over the line and the way its abusing the authority. But im really not seeing the reasoning behind why its so critical to have the audiotape in a way thats not addressed by the actual transcript, which again nobody has questioned its accuracy. Somebody did sort of throughout that assertion on the fly, but theres no factual basis for it. Nothing certainly sustained. He was here, testified and you could have asked him about it, but nobody did. So not saying anything about a bad faith here, but the only explanation for why you all are making such a big deal about this is you want the audiotape and it might turn up in a campaign and down the road. The question occurs only amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will report. Five ayes and 12 noes. The amendment is not adopted. I have an amendment of the desk. The clerk will report. Point of order from the gentleman by north dakota. Amendment to the amendment to the nature of a substituted to the Committee Report for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find him in contempt of congress. Without objection the amendment is considered red. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I offered this amendment to walk through it briefly. This goes to the issue of the distinctions between the case against mr. Biden and the case against mr. Trump. Thereve been multiple allegations today about from the republican side that somehow the department of justice gave favorable treatment to President Biden. I wanted to offer this amendment to make sure the record is clear and also to make sure not just the record of the discussion today is clear but also that the report that ends up being sent forward and i think is going to be the lead document if this gets to court and again i hope it does, but i think it balances out the one sidedness of the report that the committee has polluted, the republicans have floated. There are on this point special counsel who said this in the report as well. Several distinctions between mr. There are serious aggravating facts and the trump case most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents or avoid prosecution, mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. He turned and classified documents to the National Archives and the department of justice, consented to search of multiple locations including his home, and interview and in other ways cooperated in the investigation. The final point here i think is that unlike the deliberate acts of the former President Trump to retain a concealed classified material from the federal government, the special counsel failed likely inadvertence or mistake. And so as we go on to quote some of the language from the report as well, we find the evidence as a whole insufficient that he maintained the afghanistan documents in the Virginia Home in 2017 for other recovered classified documents the decision to decline criminal charges was straightforward. The evidence suggests mr. Biden didnt willfully retain the documents and they could plausibly have been brought to these locations by a mistake. Unlike President Biden, donald trump intentionally took and concealed of the documents and mr. Trumps actions are extremely serious and warned that 32 counts of willful as he was charged. Former Vice President mike pence faced a similar factual scenario. There were documents found i believe in one of his residences. He turned them over, cooperated immediately and there was no evidence of any type of an effort to obstruct the investigation, hide the documents or anything like that. Certainly didnt ask anybody to move them for him as mr. Trump, i think this was raised in the indictment, has done. I asked that this be included for a point of completeness. We want to make sure we send a document. I would oppose the whole Thing Holding as istated repeatedly tf youre going to forward the document at least send a document that has some sort of semblance of balance to it and i think it shows the efforts to try to present the court with a full take on this issue. As i mentioned earlier this wasnt a place i was expecting to go today. I thought we would focus more on the specifics of the privilege issue. They dont seem to have a strong argument to address it but since you brought this up with mr. Boyd amanda sort of coupled it not only with allegations of misconduct by the Overall Department of justice but specifically mr. Her. I am not going to sit here and essentially slander him for trying to be unfair and cover up for the president. None of that is merited and i dont think there was anything about the report or testimony that would support that. The gentleman from north dakota. It almost passively aggressively proves a point this wasnt substantially similar. If theres a 40 year history of keeping classified documents, 40. Its why the audio is important. In an adversarial way you know what ive never seen for a regular defendant in criminal court . The doj making the plausibility defense over a 40 year history and we talk about disingenuous and all those things if you spend 40 years rubbing Liquor Stores and then cooperated with Law Enforcement, they are not going to not charge you. That is a sentencing factor, thats an obstruction factor if youre going to be maintaining and disclosing classified documents but is a significantly different thing. Only in this world would you go to that place where we will say youve committed the underlining cry and you did it for 40 years but you cooperated to so we will allow you to escape. Thats the difference you spend a lot of time talking about the obstruction charge but we dont spend enough time talking about the egregious nature of the underlining maintaining and disclosing classified documents. Thats the difference and thats the problem is and thats why audio matters because theres a different way and which you do it. If you are telling your ghostwriter in a laughing matter that if youre reading classified documents as hes writing your book, thats different than a lot of different ways. But there is no other scenario and by the way, i would have but we had a five minute ruling and i had a lot of other things to get out but you can talk about the secondary part of the case all day long but i dont think anybody that reads the report looks at the nature. He did it when he was a senator over 45 years. Hed been warned about it and continued to do it. You have to seriously jump through some hoops to get to the inadvertent part of it. Youre talking about maintaining a classified document and if anybody thinks that the information in the report doesnt give a valid reason for that knowingly and willingly, then the question is why wasnt it knowingly and willingly and thats where we are out at in this point. Im going to yield to the gentleman. There is no claim of innocence or finding of innocence that is and how reports work but we keep going past the underlining offense which is the document of that and why wouldnt you cooperated when you have the ability . We dont exonerate what we are going to do is to say the president as an older gentleman is incompetent and we dont think we can get a conviction therefore we are not going to prosecute. To that point, the best evidence rule. Is there any evidence of the recording . Theres a reason for the last five years in congress i have worked with my friends on both sides of the aisle to get to custodial interrogations being recruited by federal Law Enforcement. Completely out of this room its often times i fight with my side of the aisle more than your side of the aisle. The reason you want audio, the reason you want to video into those things is because it is without a doubt the best evidence that exists. As somebody that has been watching this happen from the minority to the majority for five years, there is the equal application of justice part of this answer. We have a guy that was prosecuted the year after he altered an affidavit in front of the court and hes currently practicing law so i see my time is expired and i yield back. The gentlelady from vermont is recognized. I yield my time to the gentleman from maryland. I just want to run through some of the statements made a moment ago. I guess i can work my way backward to some extent. With the statements i share the view about the importance of the federal investigators recording statements but i would make a couple of notes to that. First, there are no videotapes of the grand jury testimony. For example. They are all electronically transcribed by. For use in court, for use to used tocharge for criminal purp, for example for false statements or perjury. I dont disagree with that because in that scenario is the best evidence. Its certainly sufficient for the basis of criminal charges. And with respect to scenarios where you have the transcript and to videotape its the videotape you can use the tape for impeachment purposes. Given the nature of the proceeding, it is incumbent upon us to show. If this goes to court. The burden would be on the committee to show attempt. I dont know how they get you from. That is therefore impeachable which is what is required in the legislative purpose standard. I havent heard of her reason for why its not satisfied. Based on what mr. Her sedan based on the certifications this received at the time that it was recorded and printed. I yield. You are not doing oversight. You are doing overkill. And osuna get the audio, youre going to say i wish we had a video. Then you will get the video and you will say we wanted his health records. We dont know if he was telling the truth or not. You have been thoroughly, and i want to emphasize thoroughly. So youre digging and digging and digging. Its not happening. Youre not impeaching him, you have nothing in the just. I yield. Doja cat. He said he definitely but he couldnt get a conviction because he was a sympathetic character so, what good is it going to do if they get to hear him say he was a sympathetic character and why they thought that and thats not the issue. The issue is did he take the stuff or not. Theres no question about it he took the stuff and for his biographer and they say indictment, its about the fact he is a sympathetic character and he couldnt get a conviction. So we are all on rabbit trails. You should never go off on a rabbit trail. I yield. Just to make a final statement here, the amendment im offering doesnt actually go to that. It goes to the fact the distinction that is drawn between for the mishandling of justice that occurred afterwards. I would hope that we could get a vote from my colleagues on the other side on that amendment. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the gentleman from kentucky . He votes no. The clerk will report. Eight ayes and nine noes. The amendment is not agreed on. Who seeks recognition . The clerk will report. Point of order. Considered as read. The report for the resolution to come play with a subpoena on the judiciary offered by mr. Spall of california. On page six at the end of the paragraph, quote, to further the constitutionally mandated oversight and legislative duties insert any sentence that reads taking into account multiple members of the committee including the chairman remain out of compliance with subpoenas issued. No member of congress will be permitted to vote to hold any other person in contempt of congress until such time they provide the testimony regarding the participation in the planning and execution. This amendment clearly says if youd not responded to your own subpoena, you cant bring a subpoena or seek compliance on anyone else. In the law we call it the unclean hands doctrine or the clean hands doctrine. Its a principle that prevents a party from receiving relief from the court if theyve acted unethically or justly in relation to the matter at hand. In our own its called the wash your hands before dinner doctrine. May 6, 5 and 2yearold are not coming to the dinner table until they themselves have clean hands. There are dirty hands on the other side. Multiple times to members of the committee have been asked to comply with a subpoena to january 6th. One i dont think is here today. I think hes up watching mr. Trumps trial but dont come at us about anyone elses compliance if you are out of compliance into the german a 735 days, 17 hours, 19 minutes and 24 seconds out of compliance with his own subpoena so this amendment would prohibit the chairman or anyone else from bringing compliance or contempt upon somebody for another matter. Point of order being withdrawn. The gentleman from virginia. I think the chairman and the gentleman for his remarks. Ive heard of them a couple of times. And in responding i would say the subpoenas for the members of the committee are no longer in effect because the last congress has finished. We will make that first. We also want to look at the responses that were made by the term into the january 6 committee. The term he never declined to testify. The chairman in fact wrote every time he was asked to testify and with further requests for either statements were further requests for responses from the committee and never received any responses from the committee. Never expressed an unwillingness to testify, so the characterization that he refused is an accurate. And its clear democrats were subpoenaing for political reasons at the time. Chairman thompson stated he pursued these in part to weaken republicans if they took the majority in the future. So, we see through the political motivations of those who issued them to begin with and those who want to make it a political point now. So i opposed the amendment and yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. To my colleague from virginia. A couple of quick things to clarify. In exchange between the chairman and the committee the problem was the germanmade in my view demands that were unusual in response to a subpoena like you tell me how you are going to use the information and give me the information that you have about my, related to the testimony in my coming. So to give the statement. Now lets compare that to what weve got before us with respect to the department of justice and in this particular instance. Not only has there been substantial compliance with respect to i wish i had it in front of me the number of subpoenas and document requests. As i mentioned earlier, some of the witnesses were prosecutors and made investigation who the department is still produced for statements and transcripts here before the committee which is inappropriate and interferes in the efforts by the department of justice in one instance with regards to hunter biden, so lets be clear about that piece peaceand as i mentioned earliery from this compliance standpoint in this particular request there was a report generated that the department wasnt required to turn over but he decided to turn it over anyway on his own initiative with respect to the transcript again theres no requirement he turned that over but he did and he resigned before he gave the testimony that its clear they were not trying to block so from the substantial compliance, this is an outstanding record for the department of justice. I wont go into the contrasting point. Lets be clear about this. The compliance has been extraordinary the executive privilege claim raised by the department has not been addressed certainly not on the legal merits by the republicans in this committee and as i mentioned earlier today, a letter that was dated in 2019 from the Justice Department raising most of the same points that we are talking about today. With respect to the issue of similar acts could be repeated if the white house were given reasons to believe congress were to see each and every document shared with the department. There was no predicate provided already in this instance youve got the transcripts you just want Additional Information. Within the bar the department of justice said the committee articulated any purpose for its request for all of the councils investigative files. The committee has no role with the assembly duplicating the inquiry. Now here the Justice Department gave the transcript and the report into the lawyers to testify about what theyd done. They objected with respect to the molar report and raised all sorts of issues. Those have been addressed in the different forum. But here you are ignoring the compliance thats been provided over and over again. I see im running out of time, but my point here is youve got the substantial compliance in the department of justice. Your record is what it is. We discussed it on multiple occasions but i think its a contrast to that it bears noting in this particular instance especially when we are seeking contempt against the attorney general of the United States. The gentleman from virginia. Unanimous consent to insert three letters from you. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The gentleman asks for a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and nine noes. Thank you, mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment to the amendment. Considered as read. The gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. Thank you. If there were any question about whether todays hearing is a legitimate exercise of congress is legislative oversight powers our colleagues across the aisle have effectively eliminated the possibility with the combined remarks today. They spent hours trying to defend the leaders of their party misstating the conclusions of the special counsels report and smearing the president of the United States with politically inspired lies and innuendo. This markup is in fact nothing more than political theater by the allies in the House Republicans have wasted more than a year of the peoples time and 20 million taxpayer dollars on a blatant act of vengeance. Now rather than admit that they found nothing and had a been embarrassed every step of the way, they are shamelessly plowing ahead. Instead of cutting their losses they are trying to drag the American People and now the attorney general down a rabbit hole of conspiracies and untruths. What we have here today is not a legitimate oversight or effort. Its guided not by the constitution but the calls for the retribution against to the political rival and the complicity of his supporters and its nothing but an attempt to distract from the ongoing criminal trial and to prop up the reelection bid. If its not clear enough already they are not driving the House Republicans impeachment stunt so my amendment adds context of the purposes and parameters of impeachment to this exercise. In the reports, he noted that the walls handling classified material do not apply to a sitting president or Vice President. So even if there were a criminal conduct, which he did not, it could only have applied to the times before joe biden was elected. Even House Republicans long Time Favorite legal scholar testify to be for the Oversight Committee last year that impeachment proceedings for the office conduct unrelated to current actions is controversial and must be approached with abundant action. Launching investigations on that basis would convert impeachment into a rationalization for subjecting officials to limitless inquiries. Theres been no abundant caution and clearly there is no real basis for the claim that they need these audio files besides political theater and the department of justice has rightly pointed out that allowing the House Majority to weaponize investigative materials in this way would pose a strong risk of jeopardizing the willingness of other witnesses to come forward in the future. Ultimately and his colleagues proved time and time again, it has no basis, no evidence and no high crimes or misdemeanors to show for it and today is another attempt after the bogus investigation failed. The American People can see this the way it is and they deserve better. We should have enough of these ridiculous games and get back to working for the American People. I yield back. Point of order is withdrawn. I recognize myself to speak against the amendment. The special counsel could have said that, could have written a report and said we dont prosecute sitting president s. Thats not what he said. It just simply isnt. It was gone through in detail and now we are asking for the best evidence of why it was written that way and with that i will yield back. Anybody seeking recognition . All those in favor . Opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the clerk will call the role [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will record. The amendment is not adopted. Who seeks recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment to the amendment and the nature of the substitute to the report for the isolation recommending the house of representatives find the attorney general in contempt of congress for refusal to comply on the judiciary offered. The amendment is considered as read. The gentlelady reserves a point of order. The chair recognizes myself to explain the amendment. Before the markup session was scheduled to start, the Committee Received letters from the white house and the department of justice and forming as President Biden is invoking executive privilege from producing the audio recording of his. About the validity of the president s assertion, first the president has already waived any potential assertion of executive privilege over the information discussed in his interviews with special counsel. Consistent with the courts decision and usb mitchell which rejected the privilege of her audio recordings whereas here, the president caused. They are no longer confidential. With the president leaked his and his ghost writers transcripts, the ability to invoke executive privilege was no longer existent. The president of the department could have taken steps to but failed to do so when they released them to the press. The subpoena returned and third, even if the indication was valid, which it is not, its usually overcome by the need for this information. The committee has demonstrated a sufficient need for the audio recordings as they are likely to contain evidence and pertinent to the committees impeachment inquiry and legislative oversight. Additionally the recordings sought by the committee cannot be obtained from any place other than the department. Gentleman from maryland is recognized. I have a question. What does the amendment is this language of executive privilege throughout the amendment or what is there . [inaudible conversations] updates the report to the department and president s office on waiving executive privilege. I guess what im specifically asking my recollection is i came across 7 instances where privilege was cited in the report and that was the amendment and the nature of the substitute this morning. Whats been done with those . It updates those privilege to account for the letter that we received this morning. Okay. I have to read through it quickly to see. But the waiver issue, i think, i just wanted to address that because the department specifically spoke to that at may 16th letter to both committees. Finally, the departments disclosure does not constitute a waiver with respect to audio recordings. As i have explained audio recordings what Law Enforcement uses. Disclosures of congress to the recordings we have effect and similar investigations. I think its pretty clear that the waiver has been addressed. I think the assertion and the amendment i havent had a chance to read yet because i only got it 30 seconds actually two minutes ago, two and a half minutes ago, i apologize. I think thats been directly challenged and so im curious about how the report addresses that challenge. Thats raising the letter that i guess a reporter is supposed to be responding to. One is the leaking to have press. We are giving the transcript to the committee is one thing and two leaked to the press and we got the letter from doj this morning. No, this letter im talking about here is from 816. Im saying the amendment is because of the letter we got from today is may 16th. Im sorry, the i havent had a chance to look at the mitchell case. Im not familiar with the executive privilege. Months even years after an initial request has been made because frequently takes a long time for the source of disputes to play out. So i do want to challenge the language in the report with respect to the changes, for example, executive privilege and the claims that they made waiver of the privilege which i dont believe is the case and i think theres been no showing with respect to the contrast between the transcript and the tape and the committee essentially set a deadline here which is not sufficient to time bar the assertion of the executive privilege and with that, i yield back. Anybody else wish to be recognized . Yes, sir. Thank you. I still dont see that the committee has or that the majority has made out legislative or oversight purpose. We keep getting this word of its important that we review the actual audiotape as opposed to the transcript because its important we have important interests we are trying to address so its important, its kind of a lot of word salad that you need an appropriate rule which would be one thats appropriate, so i would just object to the amendment on the grounds that the majority has not made out a clear legislative or oversight purpose unless they are suggesting that theres been some kind of here the department of justice or by the special counsel so i would just say that i dont think theres premises not been met by the majority and i would yield to mr. Ivy. Im taking a look at mitchell now and this was subpoena to John Mitchell who has been the attorney general from the general counsel and i havent had a chance to read this but in the watergate litigation one of the points that was made by the courts repeatedly was that intrabranch disputes were treated differently than disputes between the legislative branch and it looks like here this is also another one of the mid trial requests for the information which has requirement or impact thats not present in the scenario here today. So i would urge the majority to reconsider reliance on this particular case because i think its inapplicable for those reasons and with that i yield back to the gentle lady from pennsylvania. And i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Strike the last word to the amendment. The gentleman is recognized. I just want to say resort to go the phrase word salad when wasnt dont want to accept what we are trying to do, unpredictable. Yeah, we will set whatever you say, we are engaged in oversight and the best evidence is the transcript and the only way we would know if the transcript, the recording, thats the only way we would know if the transcript is inappropriate by comparing it to the recording so sit here and say we havent called into question the transcript when we are 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 kinds of things because these are within our oversight capability and certainly duty. So to ignore all of this and bring all the other peripheral stuff that we had to endure for the last couple of hours is interesting diversion and a lot of fun conversation but the truth of it is we are going oversight, we need the recording. That was proven by the way, when the gentleman from georgia showed an audio of former President Trump. Why didnt he just rely upon his words that were written . No, he wanted us to see the exact words, hear them and compare them and that which was written down. Of course, we need to compare the audio to the written. Thats why we have the rule. The audio. We move to try to do so. I yield back. Last word. General lady is recognized. So im a little confused because we keep hearing, of course, we need to match the audio with the transcript and based on the testimony that her hearing is certified transcript. Its a certified transcript. Talking about needing to match the audio with what is written if it is established that that what has happened. So when we talk about wasting time, this whole conversation in which you bring up over and over again that we need to match these two things, it has been certified. I yield back. General lady from wisconsin is recognized. This came up earlier. Its right here. The absence legitimate need for audio recordings lays barrier likely gold to chalk them up and store them and use them for partisan political purposes. So if theyre identical and should be perceived as identical, then why is it actually in the white houses correspondence. They blew it. They have the wrong one here. Some attorney late yesterday was composing this and basically showed their hand which is they believe its going to be used for political purposes. Well, if the transcript and the recordings are exactly the same, why couldnt just do that with the recordings anyway . It doesnt make any sense at this point. They need to turn it over. They need to turn it over at some point. I yield back. Anybody else seek recognition . General lady from wyoming. The medium at issue is the factor by giving us the transcripts theyve already waived any claim of executive privilege. So there is no legitimate reason to withhold the transcript, to withhold the recordings. We are entitled to them as has already been repeatedly stated. Its the bestevidence rule as the Oversight Committee we are entitled to hear exactly what mr. Hurd heard without the general lady yields . Yes. Adding that point, i think the general lady, i just note that i was kind of digging through my friend mr. Ivy from maryland trying to filter through the letters and find had been set on waiver. The only thing i see is the top of page 7, theres an argument that i note that the departments disclosure of the transcripts to have interview does not constitute a waiver. You are going to read paragraph, once testimony has been released in written form that theres some basis that you could possibly contend that the another version of the testimony and in this case in the form of audio recording. [laughter] its protected from waiver. Theres not just you would think if they want to say theres an argument that theres no waiver they could cite some authorities from some court at some point in history that came close to addressing that issue and making that ruling but there is no such authority and it is absurd. I yield back to the general lady do you want to release that right now . Are you willing to release that to public and show us because this seems really interesting that you subpoenaed, you dont respond, you are upset that the president and his team wont respond to the subpoena. You have the guy on your side who was investigatedded for sexual trafficking and youre not interested at all in subpoenaing or getting any notes to that investigation but you want every part of this investigation and with hunter biden youve done a year plus of instigating him and found nothing and your best wishes are now locked up but you wont give the public any audio recordings or video recordings and i keep hearing this phrase by some driveby lawyers over there of best evidence. Isnt that the best evidence. Why dont you show us what you have and if youre not going to show us what you have, tell us why you wont show the public what you have, i yield back. My good friend from california makes a point and i always take his point seriously. Id like to make a point. The point is this committee back when chairman was the chair asserted that what we are doing an investigation whether its impeachment or an inquiry of case and in the case of german, right behind the Ranking Member, chairman said we have to be the committee that oversees the president. We have to be. We were under richard nixon, we have to be under george w. Bush. To give that up simply because the shoe is on the other foot is to give up the authority of this committee and the importance of what we do, i agree with the gentleman from california that this should not be used for parse and purposes. I think ms. Mr. Fitzgerald said that the accusation falls on its face. Well, lets make sure that the audio isnt release today the public at least until theres a full Committee Voting and until they had an opportunity to see whether glens Additional Information, we probably would have a bipartisan moment but we are not doing that. We are really debating the question of the authority of this committee and just as chairmanwoman grew the respect for this committee and the beats decision which was taken not only through his time but continued and day what we rely on for whether or not someone is to appear before this committee from the white house, we have to do the same thing here. The committees of congress maybe political bodies but so is the white house and, in fact, the other side of the aisle is constantly telling us its the supreme court. If we are political bodies that does not change our constitutional responsibility, so i for one will be voting to hold in contempt if we do not get that which we have asked for under some reasonable terms which have not begun to discuss. That is what we are discussing here today. I hope that the gentleman from california will think again about where this body will be in four, six, eight or ten years just as chairman, chairman before them has asserted that congress has a right and consistently the court at all levels under all types of courts has held those rights to be reasonable if they are, in fact, pursuant to our obligation and our obligation clearly is to oversee the department of justice and i thank the gentleman and yield back. Anybody else seeking recognition. Gentleman from new jersey. Thank you, chairman. Just a few points to be made here. If we get down to the real issue, they are afraid to reveal the demeanor which is the best evidence. Not just what you said, how you said it, did you ramble on, you have cognitive thought here, where you just, you know, not under particular control of what you were saying or doing and thats something the American People deserve to know, its something that we deserve to know and thats point number one, second thing is we know that. So, again, what are we afraid of . Are we afraid to hear the audio why because concerned that its very revealing as far as the cognitive state of this president. Theres no problem. If theres no issue, just send over. We dont have to have this hearing. You know, i think theres a good number of us which we didnt need to have this hearing. It just should have been simpler to say yes, abide by the system, let us look at it and it would be done but it isnt and we have a right to it and theres no executive privilege, theres no protection. The information was already given in the transcript, now, the audio needs to be given too. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from georgia. Thank you. I have some short remarks. I find it to think that fellow members on the other side of the aisle believe that they have the ability to determine whether or not someone is mentally competent by listening to audio recording. I mean, thats all that you want to have is just some audio so that you can probably slice and dice and use it to mislead the public into buying your narrative but the American People are not going for that. They see through the hallowness of this exercise that we are going through today. They know, the only thing you want to do is try to get something to embarrass the president with and this is what youre refused to after spending 20 million of taxpayer money compiling a a data bank of information which reveals no wrongdoing by the president. You are hoping to find something but you didnt and now you are reduced to trying to find evidence that he is somehow unfit, mentally for office when people can see the man doing his job every day. They could see what hes doing, they could see what hes done, they can see him in action, listen to him, we dont need further waste of taxpayer money going down this rabbit hole any further. I ask my colleague to get serious about it. We got stuff that we need to be doing on behalf of the American People as opposed to sitting up here for four hours now debating the solution that you are all offering trying to hold Merrick Garland to account but not turning over and audio file that really has no relevance to what the American People are going through today. Please stop this and lets get to work doing something that benefits the American People and i will yield to the gentleman from tennessee. Thank you, mr. Johnson. I believe that one of the other members on the other side incorrectly said that there was something in her testimony that said that the president was incompetent. He never said that. He never wrote that. No one has said or wrote that. He said he was a sympathetic contractor elderly person who had little problem with their memory. Thats not saying you are incompetent and thats, nobody is suggesting that. The Previous Term we had with president s first two years has been compared to the 1964 Lyndon Johnson era, most effective legislative actions, congressional actions in our countrys history. The quote, unquote, bipartisan transportation bill, jobs and transportation bill, highways bill. The chips act, you name it. Biden got it done. He even got done finally after law gagging moneys for israel and ukraine. Far too late for ukraine to resist the russian expedited attacks, strengthened attacks while ukraine was suffering without the equipment they should have had in these we got money finally we could have had a bill on immigration that the senate would have passed that would have dealt with immigration and not made it a political issue and let all these arguments that you make about these terrible people coming into our country continue to come into our country only if they advanced the opportunity of having a terrible person become the president of the United States again. A person who has been said by more of his colleagues than he does not shouldnt get anywhere the white house again almost all of his cabinet members and the ones that said that have gone to jail, mr. Navarro, contempt, mrn near you. Mr. Cowan went to jail for two years because he did what mr. Trump asked him to do. He went to jail. You lay down with dogs and get up with fleas. Be careful, my colleague. I yield back the balance of my time. When the democrats were in charge of the committee in 2019, as i believe the chairman has mentioned today was it not true that they held the attorney general of the United States, attorney general in contempt or effectively redacting material from the report that he was legally obligate today redact . Yes, it was grand jury transcripts. So thats the standard. Set for democratic colleagues to do what is legally required to do under the law. Yes. Here we are having a conversation about an amendment, i believe, what we are debating in a amendment, an amendment to add language to clarify that we were in receipt of the assertion of executive privilege, that we received a mere minute before we began this markup here today and this amendment asserts privilege and its aasserting privilege after the general lady of wyoming effectively relinquish privilege having provided the transcript and our position is that now we are having have the transcript that we want to be able to look at the actual audio or listen to the actual audio because of to be very specific the assertions by her throughout the entirety of the hurd report that, it was, in fact, the president s demeanor, the way the president was responding or lack of response and im trying to be careful by the way. With all due respect to the assertion made about the gentleman from tennessee that there was some little problems with the memory, i mean, the hurd report is littered and filled with concerns about the nature of the president s memory. I dont even want to go down that road. Hes the president of the United States. Im not looking to dive into that other than as it relates directly to this question about what we can take away from the actual your testimony by the president to mr. Hurd, thats it. Back to recentering the question, all we are doing is debating this amendment and talking about adding the language in about the assertion of executive privilege which we are saying has already been essentially set aside by giving the transcripts and we believe it is our oversight function to simply listen to the audio file. The gentleman agrees with that. The only other part to that i would say it was also leak today the press. It wasnt just given to the committee. Will the gentleman yield . The gentleman from new jersey. Just real quickly, we are alluding to what was exactly said and they didnt want to go forward with the case and the reason they didnt was because biden would be seen as, quoting wellmeaning elderly man with a poor memory, not a little bit of a memory problem, not a little tinny issue, such a big problem that they that it was such a sympathetic case that they wouldnt go forward with the case because the jury would feel bad for him because of the cognitive state. That was an exact quote of what i just read. I yield back. Recognition. I recognize myself real quick. You know, we heard a lot of Different Reasons about impugning what motivations are on this side of the aisle. We have been here for four hours and nobody has ever defended the dojs reason for not turning it over. The reason for not turning it over is somehow its going to have this huge Chilling Effect on all of these witnesses and the volunteering of cooperation with the doj if you somehow release an audio an audio interview versus the transcribed entire view. And i think thats a level of sophistication that quite frankly fails on its face and we talk about waiving the privilege by giving the transcript and leaking it to the press but thats the other part of this which is farceful on its face that somehow we are going to chill all of the doj investigations because of the medium in which we release something to congress after we have already waived the privilege and i think for all of the Different Things for four hours today nobody has ever actually said i can name nine people who would have cooperated except you gave them a transcript instead of an audio recording and because that doesnt exist and its an excuse and it is an excuse that we got one minute before the hearing which is why this amendment is important and so with that, i yield back. The question id just like to remind the committee that donald trump would like to be reviewed by the special counsel and was tape recorded and could have used that and used in campaigns and i think theres the idea that this could be used politically while as far as the legal basis all you need is a transcript. The audio is needed for politics not for information based on what this committees jurisdiction is. And question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye . Aye. All those opposed say no, no. The nos have it. Im sorry. In the opinions the ayes have it. Roll call has been requested. Mr. Jordan . Yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa . Mr. Issa votes yes. Mr. Gaetz . Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany votes aye . Mr. Massi . Mr. Roy . Mr. Le roy votes aye. Mr. Bishop . Mr. Fitzgerald. Aye. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Mr. Klein . Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong . Yes. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Gooding votes yes. Mr. Kylie . Mr. Kylie votes aye. Mr. Muran . Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Nadler . Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson . Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Schiff votes no. Mr. Swawell votes no. Mr. Lou votes no. Ms. Bush . The learning will report. Mr. Chairman, 15 ayes and 11 nos. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Question now is on the adoption of the amendment and the nature of the substitute. This will be followed by vote on reporting the report all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the nature is adopted and quorum being present. The question is mr. Chair. The report as amended. Mr. Chairman, may i raise a point of order . Sure. And i wont insist on it but ordinarily the committee does not do markups when committees bills are on the floor. The Ranking Member is on the floor managing those bills. Hes not asking that the vote be delayed because of the time thats been put in he would vote against it and i just wanted to put on the record why it is rather unusual for us to be meeting and im not even sure but he would vote no and thats why he is not here. And im willing we are willing to wait for the chairman to come back for the final passage. Hes not asking for that. Okay, okay. All those the question is reporting the report as amended, all those in favor say aye . Aye. Those opposed no. The opinion of the chair, the yeas have it. Roll call vote. Roll call being requested, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] mr. Jordan . Yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa . Mr. Matthew . Mt. Roy . Mr. Roy votes aye. Mr. Bishop . Mr. Fitzgerald . Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Gooding votes yes. Mr. Van drew . Mr. Van drew votes yes. Mr. Moore . Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kylie, mr. Kylie votes aye. Mr. Muran . Ms. Lee . Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Hunt . Mr. Frye votes yes. Mr. Nadler . Jackson lee . Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson . Mr. Johnson votes no. Ms. Dean . Ms. Escobar . Ms. Ross . Ms. Bush . Mr. Ivy . We are going let mr. Nadler come and vote on the report. Will commit write will just stand will Committee Just take a break for a second. Once mr. Nadler gets here, we will move legislation. Republican members have food back there if you havent eaten. I dont know if we have enough for the democrats. Youre not recorded. Escobar votes no . Ms. Job or votes no. Mr. Matthew youre not recorded. Is the general lady recorded . Ms. Bush youre not recorded. Ms. Bush votes no. Mr. Bishop votes aye. Mr. Nadler votes no. The ayes have it, the report to be reported to the house members will have two days to submit views without objection the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. We now call one second. Hr7803 to amend title 45, exception and other purposes for purposes of markup. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Issa for an opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In short win for Small Businesses and long overdue. Small businesses may qualify for reduced when filing for patents or trademarks. The Small Business claim entity or micro entity status. For example, firing utility patent is 320. A small entity, however, is charged only 128 and micro entity is charged only 64. I note that those are set by the pt of course and under this bill we will continue to have the patent and Trademark Office set them, however, when Congress Passed the unleash American Innovation act in 2023, a law required the usptr director to impose imputative finds on entities falsely asserting or certifying entitlement to reduced fees. We did that with good intent, however, the finding is three times the reduction of fees. Right now theres no exception provided by law for an entity that made an error in their filing in good faith. Example of good faith is if an employee is mistakenly categorized a contractor. Another example is if a good faith mistake is made regarding the belief as to the number of employees qualifying under the entity. The impact of the imputative finds can be harmful to Small Businesses and if they had no intent we do not want them fined, we want them corrected. The harsh fines may deter them from seeking benefits of micro entities since their status of savings is far less than the possibility of a trouble find. To ensure Small Business to take advantage and reduce fees the bill gives the director authority to waive such penalties if an entity demonstrates they had a goodfaith belief. Im pleased to introduce this bill with my Ranking Member mr. Johnson and i hope we will all sort it. We believe its technical in incorrecting about giving the authority to the pto to waive the fees in a good faith mistake and with that i yield back. The chairman recognizes the Ranking Member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Hr78 to 3 makes minor technical change to give the patent and trademark the flexibility to decide when to penalize applicants with for fee reductions. When Congress Passed the unleashing innovative act, funding package, fiscal year 2023 we did so with the intention of making patents no longer the sport of kings but an opportunity for investors to make a decent living. Innovators should not have to work for a bigtech company, major manufacturer or any other power house industry to be able to file for a patent but that is exactly what often happens. The hurdles associated with obtaining and owning a patent from hiring a lawyer to search for prior art to paying standard application fees prevent individuals seeking patents to interventions. Barriers to entries like this hurt everyone but above all hurt women, minorities that do not have the resources to go it alone. All of talent becomes siloed in just a few companies in just a few industries and perspective creators show their ideas for another day and including increasing discount fees and also imposing penalties and obtain discount. But im sure many here will be shocked to learn Congress Sometimes makes mistakes and creating the new fee waivers and associated penalties for trying for waivers we negligent today consider the applicants too can make honest mistakes in applications. If innovators are too afraid to apply because penalties and honest mistakes can lose of a chance in the patent all the improvements simply not exist. Harm it is exact same people that they are unleashing american innovators act. Individuals and entities that can barely afford the filing fees certainly do not have the Financial Resources to weather a hefty fine. Unlike large entities, losing patent associated within application may very well mean losing everything. Small entities there are the most likely to avoid the risk of applying for the very programs that exist to help them. Hr7803 would correct this minor error. Under this legislation uspto director would no longer be forced to find a goodfaith actor that asserts fee reduction for small or entity status. This will show that everyone has a seat at the table. I thank congressman issa and congressman johnson for their leadership on this legislation along with congresswoman ross, the original sponsor of the unleashing innovators act. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman from georgia is recognized . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im a proud colead on this bill with chairman issa. This bill is a typical fix that would allow tun leashing american inventors act to work as intended, thereby as the title says unleashing the power of americas smaller and mediumsize inventers. The american innovators act lowered the barriers to entry for individual and small inventors by among other things creating a reduction for the application fees for small and micro entities to protect against abuse. The legislation imposed fines on companies that applied to these programs fraudulently but because it failed to give the uspto ability to waive the fines in case of goodfaith mistake, disincentivessed the use of the fee retexas programs for small and medium size entities that were not sure if they qualified. As members of congress it was never our intention to penalize the small and medium size inventors that are vital to our economy and to our invasion landscape but who lack the resources of the mega corporations. The gentleman yields back. Quorum being present. Favorably recording on the bill. All those in favor of recording the bill. The ayes have it, two days to submit without objection the bill would be reported as single amendment in the nature of substitute in incorporating amendments and staff authorized technical and conforming changes. That conclude it is committees business for today. The committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]