Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing 20240703

The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin for the pledge of allegiance to call up the report and move the Committee Report into the house the clerk 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 but like to yield my time. I think the gentleman for yielding. And here we go again for the gentleman, my friends from tennessee and california and maryland, they want us not to have our eye on the ball. They want us to look and we talked about this before this committee and the shiny object over here when you are really in trouble on the other side of the aisle. When youve really got a problem lets go after donald trump. Lets make it a campaign stump speech. Lets talk about what a bad guy he is. Lets talk about all these different issues. That is not why we are here. Again, if we want to have a separate debate a colloquy, a discussion, formal, informal we will do it, im ready to go at it. Think of most of us here are. But that is not the issue. The issue is this committee feels that it needs an audio transcript because the charges, the concerns are so serious. I want everyone to understand we are either in saying our current president is in cognitively impaired, incompetent, unable to stand trial even though he broke the law so the department of justice decides they wont go after him for those reasons. And if that is true we need to hear the audio tape. You are going to be unable to understand if he truly is that cognitively impaired if he truly has those problems. If he cannot deal with these issues. If he did not know what he is doing we are going to learn a lot more. And by the way if it is no big deals the other side says because we have the transcripts, we do have the transcript so why do you care so much about us getting the audio . What is the big deal . Look to the judgment yield for an answer . So to finish this and i will yield. We have the transcript so when we have the audio . We can find out whether he is in that much trouble as the country is in that much trouble. Its got nothing to do with what is going on in york this has to do with whats going on right here in the white house in washington d. C. With this president. Or if he is not cognitively impaired if he is a with that, if he is capable then he broke with the law as a Vice President and asked that u. S. Senator. Not allowed to to classified materials outbreak kept them in the garage by his home, next to a collapsed dog kennel. And then use them out everyone to understand them. Use them, or read them to his ghost writer to use in his multimillion dollar book deal. Was he competent . Did he know hes doing when he made this deal and use these papers to make money on the presidency . That is what we need to know but that is why we are going through all of the spirits got nothing to do with the other stuff. And that is what we need to find out. Was german yield. Ruckus i will in one moment. And that is why it we are having this discussion because of 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 helped through the twotier system of justice again, just like they tried to help his son justice and for the comment not for me. God help us the American People whom ever are watching and listening to this do not have those opportunities. He keeps getting them over and over again, which is it . Its a bad spot for you folks, i get it its a really uncomfortable place to be. But we need to find out the truth and that yield to the gentleman actually guess i will yield to you. Thank you. I want to comment on the following special prosecutor decided there was no reason to prosecute for his own good reasons. He stated them in his report he made what i regard as a gratuitous smear of the present buys Cognitive Impairment we will see. We do not need the transcript to see if the president s cognitively impaired he speaks all the time theyre going to be two debates the American People can decide whether the president s cognitively impaired they can decide whether his opponent is at cognitively impaired they will see plenty of evidence of that in the debates in the campaign. So we do not need the transcript to know why that the presence cognitively impaired or not the evidence to be before the American People for. I reclaim my time. Look, this does not have anything to do with the debate i get it i know everyones going to go on me included. This has to do with the actions that took place regarding classified materials. Either as a special prosecutor said he hasnt cognitively impaired and unfit for trial. Or he knowingly did this and made money off of it. I yield back. A gentleman yields a back the chair it recognize a judgment 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 a speaker. It took i think 19 ballots before this congress back in 2023, january was able to elect a speaker. And then that speaker presided over what is agreed upon by most the people who are observing this committees functions this congresses function. This has been the least a Productive Congress and the history of the country. Many are arguing. 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. In this committee, this committee alone has spent 20 million during this 118th session of congress which began in january of 2023. Investigating President Biden. They suffered the indignity of their leader, former President Trump being indicted for withholding classified documents. That indictment was in july of 2023. During the height of this doNothing Congress not long before this a 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 even people on this committee or buying for the speakership it took three weeks ran through a number of candidates before congress elected mike johnson as a speaker formally of this committee. He has not fared much better. Neither has the house under his reign. Still, nothing accomplished and we get to this point now where after spending 20 million this committee has obsolete nothing to show for it. They tried to pin a classified documents case on President Biden. They had a special counsel, special counsel her spent a lot of money investigating. Could not find anything. How 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 or reference to President Biden having a loss of memory, disparaging him and that was the only thing that republicans could get out of the report. So they made hay of that for a a while. That went away and now it has come back. We are seeking to hold the attorney general in contempt of this committee for refusing to produce an audio file. When you already have the alumnus and document the entire unredacted report the transcript of the interview with the president , even talking to the president ghost writer was an exhaustive investigation. The only thing we can do now is come up with Additional Information to show biden is cognitively impaired that is with this committee is trying to do today according to my friend from new jersey. Get the evidence biden is cognitively impaired this is a political. As they do Nothing Congress is a product of a donothing committee. The American People deserve more they are seeing what is happening. I think theyre going to sweep this committee out of its perch. Democrats would back in control so we can do the work the American People need us to do to keep them safe. And to make sure costs are down but make sure our economy is humming along. Jobs, rebuilding americas with whatthis committee needs to be about. Not a fishing expedition trying to show this president is cognitively impaired with that i yield a backward judgment inspect the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. Thank you mr. Chair. I mean, a lot of the standard listen to the special counsel i think respond to many questions and sitting right there in front of us. I began to wonder kind of what were the conversations behind closed doors . What were the discussions amongst the attorneys on how are we ever going to dismiss the idea the president of the United States holding substantial positions within our government is absolutely secured on his own person, the sensitive documents and then was able to take them back to his residence, move boxes of them in multiple locations. And willingly and knowingly mishandling secret sensitive u. S. Government documents and just dismiss this. With special counsel they just did a raid on the former president s home in florida. Lights and go income securing areas in the residence. And ransacking the place. And now we find out probably a little bit of orchestration and what they wanted those documents to it look like when the photos were taken. I cannot imagine special counsel and his assistance were trying to dismiss by simply saying the president is not all there. We have seen on tv. We see it every day he is completely incompetent firm handling a simple press conference. So that became their way out that became what they thought could justify letting them off the hook. I am not sure where that wouldve gone as criminal prosecution. None of us are ever going to know that. My own personal opinion is that he blew it. He is the one who set this a juxtaposition of the president of the United States who by the way agreed to two president ial debates. But, at the same time we are supposed to believe hes just not up to standing trial for this. He is not up to actually having an attorney asking poignant questions about what he was doing with the documents. Was he aware what were in those boxes that he had all over the place . And now, today, we get a letter from mr. Siskel so again i wonder what was going on behind closed doors at the white house yesterday . And the discussions on how are we now going to make sure we protect the president again from having to disclose anything on substance . The paragraph that strikes me is the absence of legitimate need for an audio recording laser barrier likely goal now they are telling congress what our goals are and trying to secure evidence. As you chop them up, distort the menus and partisan political purposes. It is not part of our process either, right . But you have to run for reelection. So if Something Like this was actually utilized in that way which is not the committees intent. But clearly one of the attorneys over the white house dropped the ball when they wrote the paragraph. Because it just went from us not being able to do oversight to it now we have come up with the way we are actually going to execute a little bit of a coverup. Were going to move towards coverup to make sure these special counsel conclusions are not question beyond what was done in this room when he was here a month ago. So, mr. Chairman this entire day is not only warranted, but the American People see was going on here. We are not going to elected donald trump or the other side of the aisle and the white house is going to elect donald trump and i yield a backward judgment yields a back the chair reckon is a gentleman from california. It is nice to see some might call its on the other side could make it today. I dont know if that means there were not enough seats in the courtroom in new york . I know the Oversight Committee canceled the hearing was supposed to happen right on this matter so they could be at the president s try know some members will miss this a vote because they want to be at the president s trial. I do not think 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 that is the definition of doNothing Congress. But i am here for a celebration because lets raise a glass it is been about two years, two years this week may 12 is when jim jordan our chairman was subpoenaed and asked to comply with his subpoena for his role, his interaction of the former president on generate sixth attack of the capitol. We are 735 days in, it is two years this committee has the nerve. This committee has the temerity to seek a compliance and the attorney general. I think you should not be able to bring any subpoena of another person if you are out of compliance of your own subpoena. That seems to make a lot of sense to me. We will have an amendment to address that a little bit later. But, i want to talk about this particular effort to hold the attorney general and contempt. What is 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 President Bidens handling of classified documents it was donald trump prosecutor who cleared President Biden. He said theres nothing to see here but although he did not put it in the lead memo for his report there was an exchange he acknowledged an interview with President Biden at the special counsel told the president your recall is photographic. He did not say your recall is good for you did not say or recall is decent. The special counsel said your recall is photographic. So what is this really about . This is about you all not accepting the outcome of the 2020 election. You are rooted on the rioters as they sought to attack the cap on january 6. If that was not enough you all went back to the floor marie litigated the issue is that right to the capitol just eight hours later. Many of you go and visit the convicted criminals who assault assaulted the Police Officer after jail cells. And during a police a week a bunch of officers yesterday testified in the Homeland Security secretary those officers are heroes those rioters are criminals you call them hostages. The former president calls them hostages. This is entirely but not accepting the outcome of the january six the vote here rooting on the rioters and doing everything you can to try to affect the outcome of the upcoming election. And 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 that it happenedrecently turns out sn your side was investigated for sex trafficking. Now you are going to say he was cleared he was clear they dropped the charges. Yes the Biden Attorney general dropped the charges. Did not pursue did not bring charges. That is exactly what happened with President Biden. But you all it showed 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 but not a peep from anyone of you. If you wanted to do that, if you wanted to shout just a little bit of consistency i would be willing to entertain that you have a general interest in understanding what happened in that hearing. But that is not what this is about. This is about doing everything to help donald trump you see as your client and your criminal trial sees as a defendant. To help them win an election i have no interest in playing this game the American People have no interest in playing this game all of this does for those of you who have graced us with your presence animates its a completely doNothing Congress and i yield back. Correct a gentleman yields back the gentleman from texas is my colleague from california leaves. Ive been on this committee long enough to know why we markup contempt. This committee and the committee he referred oversight, we have held people in contempt for not doing things for this committee successfully held in contempt the chief counsel to the president under george w. Bush for not showing up. We, next door held in contempt eric holder for withholding information yet he said he had 200 and some pages ultimately over 10,000 pages turned out to be delivered. What is interesting and very similar is the president s old boss, president obama claimed executive privilege on exactly the day we are about to do this. And ultimately none of the 10,000 pages stood the test under a judge appointed by president obama for executive privilege. The false claim of executive privilege today is just as much a ruse as it was under president obama. That its a piece of history help my colleagues will observe as we hold this attorney general and contempt and i think the jump in for yield in peru i think the gentleman i would note my colleagues are decrying the fact some of our colleagues are in new york but lets remember its happening in new york. We have a clear sham trial being perpetrated by a judge with clear bias. We have a situation the entire thing relies on Michael Cohen to say the least is a convicted felon and has been disbarred hes perjury and various financial crimes. The judge, his own daughter is a known Democratic Political operative has clients including summer democratic colleagues i think even on this committee of including some democratic colleagues who are in fact advising Michael Cohen at this particular moment. All of that is occurring at a time when theyre calling their calling michaelcohen wheng forward allen who is sitting over at rikers but for some reason not bring him forward. One could guess because it would not help. The fact is its all playing out will bootstrapping a federal onto a state crime in order to try to navigate statutes of limitation. It is ridiculous. Its a patently absurd we are seeing unfold with our system of justice. The polarization of it. And now here we sit my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not like we simply want to see the best evidence available. When in fact its not as of my y colleagues talked about try to effectively get a second stab at criminal proceedings. This is an impeachment inquiry. That is inherently not a criminal proceeding it is that unique function of congress under the constitution of the United States. We are investigating very legitimate questions, conflict of interest for the biden family the significant amount of money in its flow to the biden family. The extent to which the present is material is not supposed to have in his possession, which is special counsel firmly pointed out in fact in this committee testified too. And in fact the president and his lawyers have contested special counsels assessment the truth is special counsel in this committee stood behind his foreign test testimony. We have evidence we can see and transcripts. All we are pointing out is it is an impeachment function and a legislative function of this body to be able to use the power to go to the department of justice which was supposed to be overseen by us in the first place by the way. And to say we simply want to see the best evidence because if you look at the terms of the criminal proceeding which is not an impeachment inquiry and is not the legislative function independent unique function in the criminal inquiry carried out. Clearly what you saw for special counsel her was a great deal of dependence on the demeanor of the president. Extraordinary amount of dependence in terms of his determination on whether to pursue charges dependent on how he assessed the demeanor of the president of the United States. Thats all this is about chipper its 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 he had which special counsel firmly acknowledges were illegal for him to possess. The question is, what was his intent . It is critically important for the purposes of this body to determine where we are going to go in an impeachment inquiry or any legislative inquiry to determine what the president demeanor was during that interview i yield back. A gentleman yields back. Of documents that have been subpoenaed much of which is publicly available to us to try and fend off exactly this. A contempt citation for failure to comply. You know, the one thing if it were the subcommittee that i chair, itd be one thing if it were documents subpoenaed at the department of health and Human Services or education or the ftc about collusion with big tech, about 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, held to be held accountable and fail today provide the information that weve requested that we are not surprised but this is under an impeachment inquiry. Actually increases the burden on the administration to show that there is some reason why they should not be providing this i was and the executive does not is not applicable here. We have a request for 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. Actually that was a conclusion and then her investigation also concluded that vice President Biden ignored rules on properly handling classified materials. Strong motivations included advance of 8 million that biden had plan to receive for writing a memoir, a book he decided to write, quote, months before leaving office but why has the doj not sought to bring charges against the president for his action, both Vice President and the private citizen, well, for one reason special council noted in his report that although there was sufficient evidence that biden willfully withheld classified information, elderly man with a poor memory, but her knew that to make 8 milliondollar book advance he would need reminders but many reminders are classified and yet he shared them with ghost writer who holds no security hearance as part of the impeachment inquiry in the oversight and the committee sought information among other things, President Bidens mishandling of information. 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 fail today see the hypocrisy in allowing the white house access to these recordings but not the judiciary and Oversight Committees. So he rejected the notion that doj should release the cordings and said that they needed to remain confidential but at the time had no response as to how to provide the recordings to the white house as to how he provided the recordings to the white house. So these recordings are important to our investigations because of the superior evidence that the transcripts, the recordings provide because transcripts do not capture demeanor evidence and hide verbal slipup from President Biden already. If theyre already doctoring official transcripts we need the tapes, we need the tapes and they have an obligation to provide themtous. I yield back. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, those in favor say aye. Those oppose no. [roll call vote] ms. Lee . Mr. Hunt . Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Jackson lee . Mr. Cohen . Mr. Johnson . Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Lu . Mr. Correa . Ms. Dean . Ms. Dean votes aye . Ms. Escobar, ms. Escobar votes aye. Mr. Ivy . Aye. Mr. Ivy votes aye. Youre not recorded. Mr. Good votes no. Mr. Chairman, 8 yeas and 17 nos. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The gentleman from georgia. Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk to report. Point of order reserved from the gentleman of california. Amendment to the amendment and the nature of the substitute. I object mr. Chairman. Okay. The clerk will read the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute to the Committee Report for resolution recommending that Merrick Garland in contempt, the end of second full paragraph, serious concerns of the pettency competency of donald trump. Fictional serial killer from silence of the lambs. Congratulations, we have people that are being released into our country that we dont want in our country, end quote, mr. Trump also confused the city of china with taiwan. Mr. Trump thats the end of the magnet. During a series of march campaign rallies, trump mistook the continue telling the crowd, you know, argentina, great guy, he a trump guy, i love him because he loves trump. Anybody that loves me i like them. He also claimed made series of unintelligible noises. This is me unintelligible thing. It is not even clear if mr. Trump knows which is a political opponent. He confused president ial candidate nikki haley and haley responsible for capitol security. In october 2023 mr. Trump referred to Hungarian Prime Minister as great leader of turkey. Serious concerns about mr. Trumps mental competency and ability to serve another term as president. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman this contempt report that is being considered today is full of misleading references to President Bidens age and mental competency and throughout this hearing today ive heard the false allegation made that special counsel hurd find that biden was incompetent to stand trial that. Is not what hurd found. He simply questions the president s memory and to lets not get it twisted and speaking of, you know, Cognitive Impairment, the report that we are considering today conveniently omits serious evidence that withstand, donald trump is the only candidate who shows any evidence of competency problems. Praised a serial killer from silence of the lambs, the great haniniball. Congratulations the great haniball lector, great people being released into our country, we dont want our we dont want in our country. Silence to have lamb, has anyone ever seen silence of the lamb. Wonderful man, president xi of china talking about beijing, they are planes. I could have pressed hillary a lot harder, she either broke up the phone, nobody knows, it is all tone by biden. Jimmy hes also happy. Congratulations, the late great hanniball, we have people being released into the country that we dont want in the country. 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 selfgoverning island of taiwan. It confused jimmy connor famous tennis player to 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 stated, quote, think of it magnets, end quote. And now all i know about magnets is this, give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets and thats the end of the magnets, end, quote. You know, argentina, great guy. Hes a big trump guy. Anybody that loves me, i like them, end quote. He also claimed that a poll was a legislative bill calling and called our country the united stage and he made a series of unintelligible noises when describing himself, this is me. Its 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 barack obama on at least 8 different occasions. He bizarrely mentioned nikki haley with former Speaker Pelosi inferring that Ambassador Haley was responsible for capital security. He cant keep straight the names of world leaders. In october of 2023 mr. Trump referred to Hungarian Prime Minister victor orban as, quote, grade leader of turkey, end quote. Their chosen leader, donald trump presents with symptoms which are quite frankly scary. The American People can see through this republican charade, this is just an ugly exercise to hurt President Joe Biden, lets move on. And with that i yield back. Gentleman yields back, gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. The additional aid that was voted onto go to taiwan would cause the island to tip over in any point in the future. You know what, i hope that i hope that 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 my question, my mental acuity but lets look at relameing my time. The gentleman from kentucky. He claiming my time. I the upmost respect from my colleague on the other side of the aisle. The point i wanted to make is that statement we make statements tongueincheek 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 testimony contract made statements that if theyre taking out of context seem indefensible or ungroundedded, if you will. Let me give an example. So the comment on the magnets here, if you give me a glass of water, let met drop it on the magnets. Its tend to have magnets. Ive actually heard the president talk about, what hes talking about is electro magnets and discussion whether the catapults on airport carriers should be electromagnetically driven and it is true that steam is more reliable, that water would not affect the hoses, for instance, but they could but salt water could affect wires that are driving electro magnets, so i think its disingenuous here to offer this and take many things out of context, to take things that were said talk and cheek to take things that were said on the campaign trail and act as if they were meant to be taken literally because we all on both sides of the ill have said things before that were not meant to be taken literally and with that i yield back. I yield, mr. Chairman. I think the point is well made. No human beings ever said anything exactly right. We all made mistakes, whatever but the fundamental question in front of us was the decision not to prosecute consistent with the department of justices commitment to impartial justice . Thats the fundamental question . Trump, President Trump is being prosecuted for las fied documents, joe biden isnt, biden isnt because this is what the special counsel said, he said mr. Bidens memory appear today have significant limitations both at the time he spoke in 2017 and as evidence by their recorded conversations and today as evidenced by the recorded interview with our office. Thats why we want the audiotape. President trump, is the department being impartial, President Trump is being prosecuted. President biden isnt and isnt because of the statement from the special counsel. That statement of the special counsel in light of the case. The elements to have crime have been met. Joe biden, joe biden knowingly kept classified information and knowingly his closed classified information. Special counsel told us in his report why joe biden did it. He said he had strong motivations to release classified information because he was writing a book, a book for which he got paid 8 million. So we have motive. We have the elements of the crime but he doesnt get charged and yet President Trump does. And so this committee, the committee that oversees the Justice Department wants to know if theyre impartially administering justice and the best way for us to figure all of that out is to get all of the evidence that the special counsel had at his disposal so that we can figure that out and do anything to change the statute that is part of oversight, thats the fundamental question. We can get into what things people say, ive said things taken out of context. Mr. Johnson has, weve all said it. So thats not the point. The point is that fundamental question. Was it the administration of impartial justice, were they being consistent and thats what we want to know. I yield back. They want to take President Bidens comments out of context. So this is projecting, this is exactly what these republicans are known for, they do it, thats what their big cheese does, donald trump, and with that, i will yield back. The gentleman yields. Go ahead. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its not accurate. Thats not our goal. I have to say, you know, my colleague from georgia raised the point about taking something out of context, theres certainly a concern about that and its a legitimate one. You know, to not have the audiotape but have the transcript which, again, nobody is actually alleged is incorrect in any way, o, its not a verbatim transcript and and taking the transcript, the allegations at all. At this point you have to assume that its actually accurate but i had to get to this point, because ive got so many colleagues talking about the contracts, well, biden wasnt prosecuted but trump was. You should report that laid out of this out but just to remind my colleagues, distinctions between trump case and bidens case, there are serious aggravating facts in the trump case moist notably given chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite according to the indictment he not only refused to return documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. He goes on in contrast, mr. Biden, turned classified documents of the National Archive and sat for voluntary interview, in other words, cooperated with the investigation. Thats the distinction and thats the distinction the department of justice draws frequently in making decisions about whether to move forward to criminal prosecution and, you know, the obvious that you guys are ignoring when you thought democrat versus republican, former Vice President pence was not prosecuted as well for the same sorts of issues for the same reasons. Theres a reason trump sits alone or will sit alone at this criminal trial thats upcoming is because he acted to abinstruct justice and biden and pence did not. I have to say along those lines because theres this ongoing claim that the department to have justice is somehow bias and only going after republicans but the senator in new jersey, democrat who is about the start a jury trial. I dont know if they are picking the jury or not. They were last time that i looked. To suggest that that for some reason the department of justice is only targeting republicans when its clear they arent and then the last point that you all keep kind of avoiding, you guys are making allegations today that you did not confront him with at the time to the extent you raised it, you said, no, im not trying to hide anything, im not trying to protect the president. We are not trying to slam anything. I did this, i called the balls and strikes as i saw them. And, you know, i think its a bit of a smear to sort of suggest otherwise and its a little unfair to do it now when hes not here when you had a chance to do it when he was here and, you know, i dont know. Its kind of frustrating to me. The Judiciary Committee is about upholding the rule of law and they have political issues and president ial year and all of that stu but youre deliberately dye torting the facts over and over again and it should really stop, it really should. Just one final point on these issues the attorney general here, Merrick Garland, 92,000 pages that hes produced overrened over presented witnesses to the committee that other ags would have refused especially lawyers in the middle of investigation and pending trial. All of yall are ignoring that and even though that you have the verbatim transcripts. The gentleman yields back. I will just respond briefly. Our motivation is exactly what i said five minutes ago. Is this the Impartial Administration of justice by the Justice Department. Its nothing else. Thats our objective, thats our goal and the best way to figure that out is to get all of the evidence. The gentleman from maryland referenced. I did confront him. I laid out the same things. Did he knowingly released classified information, yes, why did he do it, because he was writing a book, 8 million, we layed that out. We layed all of that out. I did confront him. Will the gentleman yield. You confronted him with the fact that those facts but nobody says you know what, youre not telling the truth. Youre not charging him and you should because youre trying to protect him with that, i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman of new jersey. Thank you, chairman. Let me just say that you encapsulate what this is about. Youre all good at this, seriously. You are good at it, youre good at politics because, again, we are speaking about the rally which i happened to be and as you probably know its in my district and by the way probably feeling a little bad about it because we a hundred thousand people that were from all walks of life, from plumbers to pipe fitters, professionals, engineers and architects and doctors, to young people, to old people, all excited to be there with a hundred thousand people we had no incidents, 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 speaking about a whole bunch of stuff, having a little bit of fun, sometimes being sarcastic, sometimes being very serious and speaking about america and america freedom and what is happening to our borders, our cities, whats happening to our country in so many different ways that isnt good but my point is thats not what this hearing is about, so once again and the chairman encapsulated it, youre leading as a stray, youre good at it, we are getting into a debate about donald trump and youre damn good at it, we have the existing transcripts and we want to know what the demeanor of the current president was. We know what demeanor of what the trump said, you dont need to do anything. I wish we didnt have to have this hearing either. I just wished they turned it over. I will in a minute. The chairman wouldnt have called this hear if simply they had said, yes, you can have the video recordings, you can actually check out as his demeanor. The problem that you have, as good as it are is either that he is cognitively impaired and doesnt know what is going on or hes not and he knowingly took all of the classified material out and then basically sold it to a ghost writer to make 8 million bucks and i know that youre in a tight spot but thats the reality and so we kind of want to know what it is and so do the American People know what it is, they just want to know the truth, it isnt a big deal. Tell the truth, it sets you free, man. You can go through inside out over and over and i know probably the next speaker on your side is going to have another amendment thats got to do with donald trump but thats not what this is about. Will the gentleman yield . I will yield. I hadnt planned on bringing donald trump today, you did it. You are the one that came in and tried to say that trump was mistreated because hes on trial but biden is getting a pass, you brought it up. I reclaim my time. No, what i brought up was that you all we were taking our eye off the ball. We still are. We are in this discussion. Theres a real serious issue here and by the way they obviously dont think since you brought it up that Donald Trumps cognitively impaired because they are prosecuting in different venues across the country politically motivated but i dont want to have that debate, man. I will have the debate any time anywhere. The gentleman yields back. I will yield back. I will just point out, the jack smith mishandled the evidence. We dont want to bring up trump but in that case you got the prosecutor who sees the documents and change the order that he sees the document, the physical documents dont match up with the actual scanned documents, the judge says, wait a minute. The irony is, the irony is jack smith mishandled documents while hes charging President Trump while mishandling documents. I think reference with whats going on with President Trump is entirely appropriate. My time is up. All those in favor say aye . Those oppose no. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. [roll call vote] mr. Jordan . No. Mr. Jordan votes no. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] the clerk will read. 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 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 even House Republicans long Time Favorite pet legal scholar, jonathan turley, testified be all for the Oversight Committee last year that impeachment proceedings for preoffice conduct unrelated to current actions is controversial and must be approached with abundant caution. Launch investigations on that basis would convert impeachment into a rationalization for subjecting officials to limitless inquiries, contrary to that advice theres been no abundant caution in this illegitimate process. Clearly there is no real basis for republicans claim they need these audio files besides political theater and the department of justice has pointed out that allowing the House Majority weapon eyes investigative materials in this way would pose a strong risk of jeopardizing willingness of other witnesses to come forward in the future. Ultimately as our colleagues have proved time and again there impeachment stunt has no basis, no evidence and no high crimes or misdemeanors to show for it and today is just another desperate attempt to save face and suck up after their bogus investigation has failed to bear fruit. The American People can see this for what 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. Gentle lady yields back. Deck of order is withdrawn. I will recognize myself to speak against the amendment. Special counsel h you are 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. The report went through in detail and now we are asking for the best evidence of why the report was written that way and with that i yield back. Anybody seek recognition . The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from pennsylvania. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it. I request a recorded vote. Clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] clerk will record. There nine ares and 12 nos. The amendment is not adopted. Who seeks recognition . I have an amendment. Clerk will report. Amendment to the amendment in nature of the substitute for the Committee Report for resolution recommending the house of representatives find attorney general mary garland in contempt of congress for refusing to comply with the subpoena. Without objection. I was ever point of order. Amendment is considered as read. Gentle lady reserves a point of order. Chernow recognizes myself to explain the amendment. A mere two hours before this markup session was scheduled to start the Committee Received letters from the white house and the department of justice informing us President Biden is invoking executive privilege to prevent the department from producing the audio recording of his and his ghostwriters interviews with special counsel hur among other materials. They are concerned 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 the special counsel when he leaked the transcripts of interviews ghostwriters interviews to the press. This conclusion is consistent with the courts decision which rejected a president ial claim of privilege over audio recordings where the president caused to be reduced to transcript form and publish the information in the subpoenaed recordings. The court concluded the executive privilege claim was nonexistent since the conversations are no longer confidential. Accordingly when the president leaked his and his ghostwriters transcripts his ability to invoke executive privilege no longer existed. The president and the department could have taken steps to protect the confidentiality of the transcript but failed to do so when they released them to the press prior to providing them to this committee. Second the assertion of privilege is 3 months late and therefore not valid. To have been timely every new privilege should have been asserted by march 7, 2024, the subpoena return date, third even if the president s indication was valid which it is not it is overcome by the committees need for this information. The committee has demonstrated a sufficient need for the audio recordings as they are likely to contain evidence important to the committees impeachment inquiry and legislative oversight. Additionally the audio recordings sought by the committee cannot be obtained from any place other than the department. Without these audio recordings the committees important legislative work will continue to be stymied by this president and the department of justice, the audio recordings are necessary to evaluate what government reform is necessary within the department. This amends the resolution in light of the president s invalid assertion of executive privilege. However, this assertion does not change the fact the attorney general is in contempt of Congress Today for his failure to turn overall responsive materials to the committees subpoena. I withdraw my point of order. Who seeks to be recognized. Gentleman from maryland is recognized. I have a question. What does the amendment do . Strike the language of executive privilege throughout the amendment . What does it do . I asked my time be stopped. It updates the report to the department and the president s office of waiving executive privilege. What im asking is my recollection is i came across seven instances where executive privilege was cited in the report. For amendment and nature of the substitute this morning. What has been done with those . It updates the, those assertions of privilege to account for the letter we received this morning. We will see. 123. Okay. All right. Let me do this. I will have to read through it quickly to see. The waiver issue i think, i just wanted to to address that because the department specifically spoke to that in its may 16th letter to both committees, i note the departments disclosure of the transcript of the interviews does not constitute a waiver and does not preclude assertion of privilege with respect to the audio recordings. As i have explained, audio recordings have distinct features Law Enforcement uses which implicate privacy interests and risks of misuse to a greater degree than transcript and disclosures congress of the recordings would have a Chilling Effect on future cooperation in similar investigations so i think it is pretty clear that the waiver issue has been addressed, the assertion here and the amendment, havent had a chance to read, 2 and half minutes ago. I think that has been directly challenged. I am curious about how the report addresses that challenge raised in the letter that i guess this report is supposed to be responding to. A couple points. When is leaking to the press in the mitchell case, they leaked it to the press and we got the letter from them this morning. That is why we are acting like this. This letter that im talking about is from may 16th. Im saying the amendment is because of the letter we got. Today is may 16th. I am sorry. That is where im sorry, this is may, this is yesterday, may 15th. Where they raised this point. It was in enclosure yesterday, they didnt send us the letter until this morning. In any event, i am not familiar with the executive privilege being timebarred in cases where it has been raised. In fact, off the top of my head, some of them have been raised months or years after an initial request is been made because frequently it takes a long time for these sorts of disputes to play out. I do want to challenge language in respect to the changes for executive privilege. And claims that they have made waiver of the privilege which i dont believe is the case, and i think there is no showing of need with respect to the contrast between the transcript and the tape and that, the committee set an artificial deadline here which is not sufficient line to time the assertion of executive privilege. With that i yield back. Anybody else wish to be recognized . Gentlewoman from pennsylvania. Strike the last word . Recognized. I still dont see that the committee has or the majority has made out sufficient legislative or oversight purpose, we seem to be getting this word salad of it is important that we review the actual audiotape as opposed to the transcript because it is important because we have important interest we are trying to address so it is important. It is a lot of word salad kind of like saying you need an appropriate rule which would be one which is appropriate. I would object to the amendment on the grounds that the majority has not made out a clear legislative or oversight purpose unless they suggest there is some kind of chicanery or here in the department of justice or by the special counsel. So i would just say that i dont think there has been the basic premise has not been met by the majority. I would yield to mister iv. I think the gentle lady. I am taking a look at mitchell here. This is a subpoena to john mitchell, attorney general from the special counsel. I havent had a full chance to read this but in the watergate litigation one of the points made by the courts repeatedly was that disputes were treated differently than disputes between the executive branch and legislative branch and it looks like here, this is another one of the midtrial requests for information which has an exigency requirement or impact thats not present in the scenario here today. I would urge the majority to reconsider reliance on this particular case because i think it is inapplicable for those reasons and for that i go back to the gentle lady from pennsylvania. I would yield back. Gentleman from oregon is recognized. Strike last word to the amendment. Gentleman is recognized. Resorting to the phrase word salad when one doesnt want to accept what we are trying to do here is unfortunate but not an predictable. This committee is the Judiciary Committee, not the take it for granted committee or we will accept whatever you say committee, this, we are engaged in oversight exercise and the best evidence is the transcript and the only way we would know if the transcript, i meant the recording, the only way we would know if the transcript is inappropriate is by comparing it to the recording so to say we havent called into question the transcript when asking for the recording is to ignore the obvious which is we need the recording to see if the transcript is correct, we need to check on these kind of things because these are within our oversight capability and duty. To ignore this and bring together peripheral stuff up that we had to endure the last couple hours is an interesting diversion and a lot of fun conversation but the truth is if we are going to engage in our oversight function, we need the recording and that was proven when the gentleman from georgia showed an audio of donald trump. Why didnt he rely upon his words that were written in his amendment, he wanted us to see the exact words, hear them and compare them to that which was written down. Of course we need to compare the audio to the written. That is why we have the best evidence rule, the best evidence is the audio. Thats why we are asking for it. When we dont get it we go to contempt to try to do so. Yield back. Gentle lady is recognized. I am a little confused because we keep hearing of course we need to match the audio with the transcript and my understanding based on the testimony we heard during th hur hearing is it is a certified transcript. If it is a certified transcript, this is a red herring talking about needing to match the audio with what is written. It was established that that is what has happened so when we talk about wasting time this whole conversation in which you bring up over and over and over again that we need to match these two things, it has been certified, we know what is in it. I yield back. The gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. This came up earlier. It is right here. The absence of legitimate need for the audio recording lays bare the likely goal to chop them up, distort them and use them for partisan political purposes. If they are identical and should be perceived as identical, why is that actually in the white houses correspondence . They it, they put the wrong line in here. Some attorney late yesterday was composing this and showed their hand which is they believe it is going to be used for political purposes. If the transcript and the recordings are exactly the same why couldnt you do that with the recordings anyway . Doesnt make 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 . Gentle lady from wyoming. I cant understand why anyone would claim executive privilege when they have already waived it. The issue is the deciding factor, by giving us the transcript they have 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 been repeatedly stated. Its the best evidence rule, as the Oversight Committee we are entitled to hear exactly what mr. Hur heard. Adding that point, thank the gentlelady. I note that i was digging through my friend mister iv from maryland, filtered through the letters to find what had been said about waivers but the only thing i see is the top of page 7, theres an argument i note the departments disclosure of the transoms of the interviews does not constitute a waiver, read that paragraph, find the citation in that paragraph it says one certain testimony has been released in written form that there is some basis you could possibly contend another version of the testimony in this case in the form of an audio recording is protected from waiver. You would think if they wanted to say theres an argument there is no waiver they could cite some authority 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 on its face. Yelled back to the gentlelady. Mister chairman. Gentleman from caliph when you recognized. I find it interesting that in this conversation about will the white house release the audio recording when we are in have a transcript, artie have your guy come and testify and say the president did nothing but did you know you are sitting on 115 transcript, videotapes, audio recordings for your hunter biden investigation you will not release to the public . Do you want to release that right now . Are you willing to release that to the public and show us what you have . This all just seems really interesting that you get subpoenaed, you dont respond, but you are upset that the president and his team wont respond to that subpoena. You have a guy on your side who was investigated for sexual trafficking and you are not interested at all in subpoenaing or getting any notes of that investigation but you want every part of this investigation and with hunter biden, a year of investigating him, you found nothing, your best witnesses are now locked up for lying to the fbi but you wont give the public any audio recordings or video recordings and i keep hearing this phrase by some driveby lawyers over thereof best evidence. Isnt that the best evidence . Why dont you show us what you have . If you are not going to show us what you have, tell us why you wont show the public what you have . Yield back. Gentleman from california is recognized. My good friend from california makes a point and i always take his point seriously. I would like to make a point. The point is this committee, back when chairman conyers was chair of it asserted that what when we are doing an investigation, whether it is an impeachment during inquiry of more general case, in the case of chairman conyers whose picture is practically right behind the Ranking Member, chairman conyers said we have to be the committee that oversees the president , we have to be. Under richard nixon, we have to be under george w. Bush. To give that up simply because now the issue 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 partisan purposes. Mr. Fitzgerald said very well that the accusation is probably false on its face but if the other side were saying lets make sure the audio isnt released to the public at least until there is a full committee voter we had an opportunity to hear it in its entirety and see whether it gleans Additional Information, we probably would have a bipartisan moment but we are not doing that. We are debating the question of the authority of this committee. Just as chairman conyers grew the real respect for this committee in the bates decision which was taken not just through his time but was continued, today is 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 may be political bodies but so is the white house. In fact the other side of the aisle is constantly telling us so is 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 we have not even begun to discuss. That is what we are discussing here today. I hope the gentleman from california will think again about where this body will be in four, six, 8 or 10 years just as chairman conyers, chairman hyde and other chairman before them have asserted that congress has a right and the consistently the court and all levels under all types of courts have held those rights to be reasonable if they are 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 seek recognition . Gentleman from new jersey. Just quickly a few points to be made here. If we get down to the real issue, afraid to reveal the demeanor which is the best evidence here, not just what you said, how you said it, did you ramble on, did you have cognitive thought here, were you just not under any particular control of what you were saying or doing, that something the American People deserve to know, something we deserve to know and thats point number one. Second thing, there is an executive privilege here, it was given up when transcript were given to us. We know that. What are we afraid of . Are we afraid to hear the audio . Why . I think theres concerned that is going to be very revealing as far as the cognitive state of this president. If there is no problem, if there is no issue, just send it over. We dont have to have this hearing. I wish i think theres a good number of us wish we didnt need to have this hearing. It would have been simpler to say yes, abide by the subpoena, give us the information, let us look at it, it would already 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 a transcript, now the audio needs to be given too. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from georgia. I have some short remarks. I find it ludicrous to think my 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 recordings. That is all you want to have is some audio so you can probably splice and dice and then use it to mislead the public into buying your narrative. The American People are not going for that. They see through the hollowness of this exercise we are going through today. They know the only thing you want to do is try to get something to embarrass the president with. This is what you are reduced to after spending 20 million of taxpayer money compiling the databank of information which reveals no wrongdoing by the president. You were hoping to find some 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 can see what he is doing, they can see what he has 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 colleagues to get serious about it. Weve got stuff that we need to be doing on behalf of the American People as opposed to sitting up here for 4 hours now debating the hollowness of a resolution that you are offering trying to hold Merrick Garland to account for not turning over an 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 yield to the gentleman from tennessee. Thank you, most are johnson which i believe one of the members on the other side incorrectly said there was something in the hur testimony that the president was incompetent, he never said that or wrote that. He said he was a synthetic character, elderly person who had a little problem with their memory. Thats not saying you are incompetent. Nobody suggested that. Previous term we had, from the first two years has been compared to the 1964 Lyndon Johnson era as the most effective legislative actions in our countrys history. The ira, the bipartisan transportation bill, jobs and transportation bill, the chips act, you name it. Biden got it done. He even got done finally after lollygagging, 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 but they are still standing. We got the money finally even if it was late because biden put it together and we should have had a bill on immigration that the senate was going to pass that would have dealt with immigration and not made it a political issue to dillydally appear for a year and let all these arguments you make about these terrible people coming into the country continue to come into our country only if they had 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 that he should not get anywhere near the white house again. Almost all of his cabinet members and the ones that havent said that have gone to jail. Mr. Navarro contempt, mr. Bannon going at a prison near you. Mister cohen went to jail for two years because he did what mister trump asked him to do, to work out the hush money payments to the porn star. He went to jail. You lay down with dogs you get up with fleas. Be careful, my colleagues, i yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman from texas is recognized. Thank you, chairman. I like to resent of the conversation for a moment and engage with the colloquy of the chairman on a simple point. 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, william barr, in contempt for effectively redirecting material from the muller report he was legally obligated to read act. It was grand jury transcript. Thats the standard set by our democratic colleagues, to hold somebody in contempt for doing what he was legally required to do under the law. Here we are having a conversation about an amendment to add language to clarify that we were in receipt of the assertion of executive privilege, that we received mayor minutes before we began this markup here today. This amendment asserts privilege and is asserting privilege after having as the gentle lady of wyoming noted, effectively relinquish their claim to privilege, having provided the transcript, and our position is that now, having the transcript that we want to be able to look at the actual audio or listen to the actual audio because to be specific, the assertions by hur that it was in fact, the president s demeanor, the way the president was responding or lack of response. Im trying to be careful by the way. With all due respect to the assertion made about the gentleman from tennessee, there were little problems with the memory. The report is filled with concerns about the nature of the president s memory. I dont want to even go down that road. Is 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 testimony by the president , that is it. Back to recentering the question, we are doing is debating this amendment talking about adding this language about the assertion of executive privilege which we are saying has already been set aside by giving us the transcript and we believe it is our oversight function to simply listen to the audio file. I yield back. The only other part to that i would say is it was also leaked to the press, not just given to the committee. Will the gentleman yield, gentleman from new jersey. Real quickly. We are alluding to what was said and this is right from the court, they didnt want to go forward with the case and the reason they didnt is because biden would be seen as a, quote, wellmeaning elderly man with a poor memory. Not a little bit of a memory problem, not a tiny issue, such a big problem that they felt he was such a sympathetic case and it was so sad, they wouldnt go forward with the case because the jury would feel bad for him because of his cognitive state. Thats an exact quote that i just read. I yield back. Recognition. I recognize myself just real quick. Weve heard a lot of Different Reasons about impugning what motivations are in the side of the aisle but weve been here for four hours and nobody is ever defended the dojs reason for not turning it over. The reason for not turning it over is somehow it is going to have a huge Chilling Effect on all of these witnesses and the volunteering of cooperation with the doj if you release an audio interview versus a transcribed interview. I think thats a level of sophistication the fails on its face in common sense. We talk about waving the privilege by giving the transcript, leaking into the press and all those things but thats the other part of this which is farcical on its face, that somehow we are going to chill all of these doj investigations because of the medium in which we release something to congress after we have already waived the privilege. All 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, it is an excuse that we got one minute before the hearing which is why this amendment is important and with that i yield back. The question i would like to remind the committee at the donald trump refused to be interviewed by the special counsel and if he had been interviewed and taperecorded and they had used that, could have been used in his campaigns. The idea that this could be used politically as far as the legal basis are you need is the transcript which audio is needed for politics, not for information based on what this committees jurisdiction is. Question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the knows have it. I am sorry. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. Rollcall has been requested. [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] clerk will report. There are 15 eyes and 11 knows. The amendment is adopted. The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute followed by a vote on reporting the report, all those in favor say i, the posed no. In the nature of the substitute is adopted. Reported quorum being present. The report is amended mr. Chairman, may i raise a point of order. I wont insist on it but ordinarily the committee does not do markups when committees bills are on the floor, the Ranking Members on the floor managing those bills, hes not asking that the vote be delayed because of the time put in. He would vote against it and i just want to put on the record why it is rather unusual for us to be meeting, not even sure the rules permit it but he would vote no and that is why hes not here. We communicated this to the minority staff, we are waiting for the chair to come back for final passage. Out of deference to the other Committee Members hes not asking for that. The question is on reporting the report is amended. All those in favor say aye. I. Those opposed to know. In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it. Rollcall vote. Rollcall being requested, clerk will call the roll. [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall votes] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] [rollcall vote] have a chance to can you get with the Ranking Member and see what his wishes are and then we will move into mister issas legislation once we get an answer from the Ranking Member. Two minutes, we will let mr. Mandler come here and vote on the report so the committee will stand, committee will take a break. For a second. Corrected by the parliamentarian and once mister nadler gets to your votes, we will move to mr. Issa. Republican members, we have food back there if you havent eaten. Dont know if we have enough for the democrats. There is probably some left. You are not recorded. Miss ross votes no. Miss escobar votes no. Mr. Massey, you are not recorded. Mr. Massey votes yes. Is a gentle lady recorded . Miss bush, you are not recorded. Mrs. Bush votes no. Mr. Bishop votes i. Miss sparks votes yes. The gentleman is not recorded. Mr. Nadler votes no. The clerk will report. Mister chairman, there are 18 eyes and 15 knows. The eyes habit. The eyes abbott. The report is ordered to be reported to house members will have two days to submit views. Without objection staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. We now call up i call up hr 7803 to amend title 35, provide good, safe exception to imposition of certain fines and for other purposes for purposes of markup and the Committee Reported to the house, the clerk will report the bill. Hr 7 the bill to be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california for an opening statement. Thank you, mister chairman. In short, this bill is a win for Small Businesses and long overdue. Right now Small Businesses may qualify for reduced application fees with United States patent and Trademark Office when filing for patents are trademarks. Under 35 usc section 41 and 123, Small Business may came small entity or micro entity status. For example the cost of filing utility patent is 320, a small entity, however, is charged only 128 and a micro entity is only charged 64. I might note those are set by the pto and we will have the patent and Trademark Office set them. When Congress Passed the unleashed American Innovation act in 2023, a law are required the uspto director to impose punitive fines on entities falsely asserting or certifying their entitlement to these reduced fees. We did that with good intent. However, the fine is in the amount not less than 3 times the reduction of the fees, theres no exception provided by law for an entity that made an error in their filing in good faith. An example of good faith error is if an employee is mistakenly categorized as 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 these punitive fines can be harmful to Small Businesses and if they had no intent, we do not want them fines, we want them corrected. Harsh fines may deter them from micro entities since their status of savings is far less than the possibility of a triple fine. To ensure Small Businesses take advantage of reduced fees this bill gives the director authority to waive such penalties if an entity demonstrates a they had a good faith belief. Im pleased to introduce this bill with my Ranking Member, mr. Johnson and hope we will all support it. We believe it is a technical and correcting one by giving the authority to the pto to waive the fees in a good faith mistake. With that i yelled back. Gentleman yields back on the chair recognizes the Ranking Member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Hr 7803 makes a minor technical change, the patent and Trademark Office the flex ability to decide when to penalize bent applicants for fall certification of eligibility and fee reductions. When Congress Passed the unleashing American Innovation act as part of a funding package for fiscal year 23, we did so with the intention of making patents no longer the sport of kings but an opportunity for inventors to make a decent living. You should not have to work for a big tech company, major manufacturer or other powerhouse of industry to be able to file for a patent. But that is exactly what often happens. Financial hurdles associated with obtaining and owning a patent, from hiring a lawyer to paying standard application fees, prevents individuals seeking patents for their inventions. Barriers to entry like these heard everyone but above all they heard women, veterans and minorities often do not have the resources to go it alone. The result is fewer ideas make it out there into the American Innovation space. All our talent becomes siloed in a few companies and a few industries and creators shelve their ideas for another day. Unleashing American Innovation act sought to disrupt the current state of play, make a series of government changes to the way pto works including by increasing discounts on fees to small and micro entities and imposing penalties on certification to obtain the discount. But im sure many here will be shocked to learn Congress Sometimes makes mistakes. In creating these new fee waivers and associated penalties, trying to abuse said waivers, we neglected to consider applicants too can make honest mistakes in their applications. Innovators too afraid to apply for financial exemption because penalties for honest mistakes can lose them a chance at a patent and all our improvements made as well simply not exist. Failing to account for good faith mistakes harms the same people the unleashing American Innovation act sought to help. Individuals and entities that can barely afford filing fees do not have the Financial Resources to whether a hefty fine. Moreover, unlike large entities for these filers the prospect of losing a patent associated with an erroneous application could mean losing everything. Smaller entities therefore are the most likely to avoid the risk of applying for the very programs that exist to help them. Hr 7803 would correct this minor error. Under this legislation, the pto director would no longer be forced to find a good faith factor that erroneously asserts that they are entitled to a fee reduction or small or micro entity status. Allowing honest mistakes in the application process this technical fix will ensure everyone has a seat at the table. I think congressman issa and congress when johnson their leadership on this legislation along with congresswoman ross, the original sponsor of the unleashing american innovators act. I heard members support the bill and i yelled back the balance of my time. All other Opening Statements included in the record, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im a proud coleader on this bill with chairman isa, this bill is a technical fix that would allow the unleashing american inventors act to work as intended thereby as the title says unleashing the power of americas smaller and mediumsized inventors. Of 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, legislation imposed fines on companies that apply to these programs fraudulently but because it failed to give the uspto director the ability to waive the fines in case of a good faith mistake the legislation inadvertently this incentivized the use of the fee reduction programs for small and mediumsized entities that were not sure if they qualified. As members of congress it was never our intention to penalize these small and mediumsized inventors who are vital to our economy and our innovation landscape, but who lack the resources of the megacorporations, this bill would fix the law to allow them to apply for reduced Patent Application fees if they think they might qualify, without fear that they will face a crippling fine. The fix will allow innovation to flourish. Inventors in my hometown of atlanta and all over the country, i urge my colleagues to support it and with that i yelled back. Gentleman yields back. Quorum being present the question is unfavorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye, those opposed no. The eyes have it, the bill is reported favorably, there will be two days to submit views, the bill will be reported, single amendment in the nature of a substitute and staff is authorized for technical and conforming changes. They took it away. That concludes the committees business for today, the committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] if you ever miss any of cspans coverage you can find it anytime online, cspan. Org, videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights, these points of interest markers appear on the righthand side of the screen when you hit pay on select video. This time i makes it easy to get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. Scroll through and spe a few minutes on cspans points of interest. Today on cspan the house is back at 9 a. M. Eastern to consider a resolution thacondemns efforts to defund the police. The measure expresses condolences and appreciation to Law Enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. On cspan2 Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas joins the economic hub of washington dc for a conversation on immigration, the border and cybersecurity policy live at 140 p. M. Eastern. You can watch live coverage on the cspan and video apps or online, cspan. Org