Chairman, congratulations. Thank you. [indistinct conversations] the committee will come to order. The chairs authorized to declare recess at any time. We welcome everyone to the hearing, oversight of the department of justice. Political interference and threats. Before we begin, i want to remind members we have established a distribution list dedicated to circulating written materials members might want to offer as part of the hearing. If you want to submit materials, send them to the email address previously distributed to your offices and we will circulate them to members and staff as quickly as possible. I want to remind all members the nodance of the office says facetoface is required. Required here is to follow guidance. This is for the health and safety of our staff and loved ones we will return to at the end of the day. I expect all members to wear a mask, except when you are speaking. I but recognize myself for an opening statement. Mr. Chairman, the point of last friday,er william barr announced that Geoffrey Berman was stepping down. This was, of course, untrue. He had not resigned. In a statement, he made clear he had no intention of resigning. And every intention of moving forward with his work, without delay or interruption. He emphasized that point. He wanted to stay on the job to ensure his work would continue. In order to understand the standoff, it is important to note that the work of mr. Bermans office has concluded a number of criminal investigations aimed and individuals close to President Trump, among them michael , Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani, his direct line to kiev. On saturday, mr. Barr attempted to fire mr. Berman directly. Even then, mr. Berman resisted. Only when he was certain that his deputy would take his place is acting u. S. Attorney did he relent and step aside. So what are we to make of these events . If this had been an isolated incident, if the attorney general had simply misjudged the situation and about that mr. Berman would go quietly, then we might chalk this up to simple miscommunication and incompetence. But make no mistake, this was not an isolated incident. The effort to remove mr. Berman is part of a pattern of conduct that began when mr. Barr took office and continues till this day. Mr. Barrs actions made clear in his department of justice the president s allies get special treatment, his enemies, real and imagined, are targeted for scrutiny. And the needs of the American People and the needs of justice are generally ignored. Mr. Barrs practice of using the department a shield the president and his allies go back to the beginning of his tenure. Last year, when the special counsel had completed his investigation, when mr. Barr had the report in hand, but before the public could read it, he blatantly mischaracterized the findings and did so on the president s behalf. Mr. Barr pretended that compelling evidence of obstruction of justice, including evidence at that the president may have lied directly to the special counsel, simply did not exist. His deception seems blatant. But do not take my word for it. The special counsel wrote to mr. Barr directly to complain about the inaccuracies, which lingered uncorrected for weeks. A federal judge later said that mr. Barrs inconsistencies were so misleading and distorted, he questioned his credibility and in turn could not trust the departments assurances about the content of the Robert Mueller report. Mr. Burr has also worked to undermine criminal cases stemming from the special counsels report. Early this year, after the president s associate roger stone was convicted, mr. Barr overruled his career prosecutors and recommended a lighter sentence for President Trumps friend. One of those prosecutors will testified today about that experience. We should be clear about the timeline in the stone case. If nothing else, it helps explain why mr. Berman refused to go quietly over the weekend. In january, mr. Barr removed the u. S. Attorney for the district of columbia and replaced her with his longtime aide. In february, President Trump tweeted his feelings about stones ongoing criminal case. The president was outraged that his friend might be punished for obstructing justice. Quickly thereafter, mr. Barr reached into the case come overruled prosecutors, and submitted a lenient recommendation for mr. Stone. Caseour prosecutors in the immediately withdrew. President trump tweeted his congratulations to mr. Barr. Isolated case wasnt incident either. In may, mr. Barr abruptly reversed the prosecution of Michael Flynn, the former National Security advisor to the president , who pled guilty to lying to the fbi about his conversations with the russian ambassador. Once again, the president tweeted his feelings about the case. Once again, mr. Barr reached into the proceedings come overruled his career prosecutors, misrepresented statements by department officialsand asked the court to dismiss charges against mr. Flynn. Once again, the president tweeted his delight at the outcome. The former federal judge john gleason, appointed by the court the unprecedented motion against mr. Flynn, argued the facts surrounding the motion constitute clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse. Dismisss a decision to that is based on the fact that flynn is a political ally of President Trump. Judge gleason was not alone. Ons after mr. Burr insisted dropping charges against mr. Flynn, almost 2000 former fbi agent and the department of justice officials wrote an open letter calling for his resignation. Now, my republican colleagues may try to explain these events or incidents the way, they may you that his attempts to fire berman were harmless, that flynn and a stone should be excused barrsir crimes, and mr. Attempt to protect the president from criminal liability are necessary to correct a vast conspiracy at the Justice Department. Those excuses ring hollow. There is injustice at the Justice Department, as there is extensive injustice in our Justice System nationwide. We have rightly focused on one major aspect of that injustice in recent weeks. Since the murder of george floyd at the hands of Law Enforcement. But as we prepared to address that injustice on the house floor, in the single largest sweeping package of Police Reforms in our history, i cannot help but notice the members who shout loudest about witchhunts, also stand in opposition to these commonsense reforms. Ask yourselves, what are you saying to the American People when your commitment to justice means you will stand up for stone and flynn and barr, . But go no further . Mr. Barrs work has nothing to do with correcting injustice, he is the president s fixer. He has shown us there is one set of rules for the president s friends commend another set for the rest of us. And to be clear, there are plenty of reasons to be angry with the attorney general. It is unacceptable and that he would order the antitrust division to initiate investigations into industries he and the president do not like , simply because they do not like them. We will have that testimony today. It is dangerous for him to threaten frivolous litigation against state and local officials who are doing their best to contain the epidemic in. Their communities it is irresponsible for him to do in the absence of guidance from the white house or leadership from the president. And it is outrageous that mr. Barr occupy the city with a federal police force, in paramilitary gear, then turn it on Peaceful Protesters in lafayette square, spraying them with teargas and physically knocking them back, all to arrange for an awkward photo op for President Trump. The images from that day or so disturbing, that we cannot blame mr. Barr for trying to avoid responsibly for his role in the event. But please understand that these are merely the symptoms o f underlying disease. We must address his abuse of the department of justice as a weapon to serve the president s private interests. The cancer that we must root out is the decision to place the president s interest above the interests of the American People. When is it today was beat to the extremes to which mr. Burr has reached to carry out the president s bidding. Currentteful to them, department employees, for their bravery in appearing before the committee. This administration has a record of witness intimidation and have no doubt that they will try to exact a price for your testimony, but you are patriots and you have done your duty here today. It gives me hope for what may come at the department of justice, when bill barr is finally removed. I thank the witnesses for being here. And i look forward to your testimony. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. Jordan for his opening statement. Rep. Jordan the department is about correcting injustice. You almost have to laugh at this, they do you have a hearing going after barr and alleging that there is politics there, the very day we get the order from the court of appeals. The order says, dismissing the flynn case, the District Court will grant the motion to dismiss, the District Courts order is vacated. They are not political, they are just right. This is not politics. Again, you almost have to laugh at it. Attorney general holder said he was obamas wingmen. His department attacked investigative journalists. If a risen said this, president there is a whistleblower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, you will have one man to thank, barack obama. Hats not me talking, that is the New York Times, when the Justice Department for obama went after him. We know about operation chokepoint. And even though the chairman always does not want to talk about this, we know how political the Justice Department was in the russian hoax. Remember this, the Obama Biden Department of justice spied on a four american citizens. That is the big thing you have with william barr, the first time he testified he used the word spying, everybody went crazy. But they spied on american citizens associated with a political campaign, an investigation we now know was bogus because we have released all the transcripts from all the people involved in the intelligence community, and they all said there was nothing there. The obama biden Justice Department, in order to spy on those americans, what did they do . They lied it to the fisa court 17 times, they used the famous dossier, the one that jim comey said was fallacious and unverified. They did not say the guy who wrote it was being paid by the Clinton Campaign to put it together. And the used that to get a warrant to spy on a palouse his sin and you think it is no big deal. William barr thinks it is a big deal. That is why they are doing the investigation. You know who else thought it was a big deal . The Inspector General of the Justice Department, michael horowitz, who wrote a 400 page report talking about the 17 lies, talking about the abuses in the comeybiden Justice Department. The judiciary, committee did not even get a chance to ask questions of mr. Horwitz about the report, because the german wont bring him into testified. I do not know if ive ever seen anything like it. A 400 page report written by the Inspector General of the Justice Department, scathing report about the pies a court, and the wont of the committee, w even let him testify. Here is what the u. S. District judge and pfizer presiding judge Rosemary Collier said about the findings in the report, quote, the frequency with which representations made by fbi personnel turned out to be think about that, unsupported. That is a nice way of saying that they lied. Or contradicted by information in the position, with which they withheld information, another way of saying that they lied, calls into question if whether information is reliable. What the judge was saying is you lied to us so many times, how are we supposed to believe anything you bring in front of the court. That was in the report, but jerry nadler will not even let the inspector come to answer our questions and go into detail about the report. Yet today, the day we get the ruling from the court of appeals, the chairman says it is the trump doj that is political. Guess what happened in the final days of the obama administration, guess what else 8 michael3 flynns name. Six people at the treasury department. Everyone. This is between election day and inauguration day. William barr wants to get to the bottom of all this and somehow that is political, when in fact the politics was in the Previous Administration and he is trying to stop it. Here is how we know this was all egypt. C was all a joke. Said he did not see anybody conspiring with the russians. Yet, we had a twoyear investigation. Susan riser, i do not recall anything i would consider evidence. And i do not believe anybody reached a conclusion yet. They had nothing to me . This entire investigation. Some of the powers and said the same thing. All these key people, they all knew there was no predicate for the investigation and it happened, and somehow the bar Justice Department is political. They are not political, they are just right. We saw that with the decision today. Finally, i have never seen anything like this. This is the truth. I have never seen an agency where this happened, the top people, the very same people, the testimony that william barr gave when he talked about, where he talked about spying, he said there was a failure of leadership in the Upper Echelon of the fbi in the previous demonstration. That is the understatement of the year. Leaked memos in order to put the country through what we went through. Andrew mccabe, deputy director, fired. Referred by that same ig for prosecution. Baker, investigate by the u. S. Attorney in connecticut, took information from the d c lawyer. And of course, peter strzok and page, who ran the clinton investigation, who ran crossfire hurricane and crossfire razor, trump russia investigation, they were both kicked off of Robert Muellers team. We know the bias that had against President Trump. We saw it in hundreds of Text Messages that we have now become familiar with. The politics was in the previous demonstration. Barr is doing the lords work, so it doesnt happen again. I will say it in closing again, in a statement a little over a year ago, where he said, if they can do it to a president , they can lied to get a warrant to go after president , go after a major campaign, if they can do it do a president imagine what they can do to you and i, imagine what they can do to the folks we get the privilege of representing back home. That is why this is important. That is why the work bill barr is doing is important. You continue to play your political games, bill barr will get to the truth. I have a parliamentary inquiry. Chairman nadler thank you. Without objection, all other Opening Statements will be included in the record. Without objection, three letters from bradley why sherman, the associate deputy and turn general will be admitted into the record. Mr. Chairman. It is a point of order. What provision of the democrats a new house rules allows for a duly subpoenaed witness to appear and provide testimony by video . Chairman nadler the rousseau provides. I went out and reduce the copy of the subpoena that we have. Chairman nadler the gentleman does not allow for this. The chair has not answered the inquiry. Chairman nadler section four i appeal the ruling of the chair. The witnesses are not allowed to attend by video under the subpoena the german issued. Chairman nadler section four, f 1 under the rules of the house, House Resolution 965 allows subpoenas for remote participation. Required toereby appear before the court. Chairman nadler i will not introduce the witnesses. I appeal the ruling. Mr. Chairman. Chairman nadler the Deputy Attorney general under george w. Bush. He joined the department mr. Chairman. You simply cannot go forward without rules do not matter here. 18 months chairman nadler it was not point of order. I challenge of subpoena that he can appear remotely. I and making it a point of order. I challenge the ruling of the chair. Chairman nadler you cannot appeal i challenge the ruling of the chair. [gavel pounding] chairman nadler donald served here we go again. You cannot overlook that. You cannot interrupt the Proceedings Committee mike people deserve to know the truth. This has nothing to do with the truth. Chairman nadler there has been no ruling of the chair. I made a point of order, you ruled. I appeal the ruling of the chair on not recognizing the rule of order. Nothing changes around here. Chairman nadler we are introducing donald who served under george w. Bush. He joined at the department as an assistant u. S. Attorney and held a number of other positions, including u. S. Attorney and the Eastern District of california, and under president reagan. He previously clerked for Justice Rehnquist and Malcolm Wilkie of the d. C. Circuit judge. After his career in Public Service, he was in private practice and has taught extensively at law schools around the country. He received his b. A. From harvard. And j. D. From Aaron Zelinski is an assistant u. S. Attorney for the district of maryland. Previously coming he served as a special assistant to the u. S. Attorney in the district of columbia, as an assistant special counsel and special counsel Robert Muellers office and as an advisor in the state department. Previously come he clerked for Justice Kennedy before his retirement from the Supreme Court. And for stevens after his retirement, as well as for judge griffith. Rom yceived his b. A. Fo ale. Zelenskys personal counsel is participating in the hearing on the webex software platform. Attorneyes is a trial in the antitrust division of the department of justice. Since joining the department into thousand six, he has served in a variety of roles, including acting chief of staff. In 2015, following a detailed to the white houses president ial personnel office, he joined the office of the associate attorney general, where he had served as counsel and chief of staff. He received his j. D. From stanford and b. A. From yale. Michael mukasey served as a u. S. As the u. S. Attorney general from november 2007 to january 2009, under president george w. Bush. Prior to his Services Attorney general, he served as a judge in the Southern District of new york, becoming chief judge in 2000. Previously come he served as an assistant u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york. He is currently in private practice. He received his law degree from yale, b. A. From columbia college. Of ourome all distinguished witnesses and thank them for their participation. I will begin by squaring you in. Swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are going to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, so help you god . But the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. Let me extend a special welcome sey. Udge muka can we get a vocal, always so was his hand up . I guess not. Chairman nadler each of your written statements will be entered into the record. I asked that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help me stay within the time, for the witnesses in person, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches to yellow, you have one minute to conclude testimony. When it turns red, your five minutes have expired. Fror mr. Zelensky, there is a timer on your screen to help you keep track of time. You may begin. Your mic. Good afternoon chairman nadler in members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today. I was privileged to serve under two republican and one democratic president , and i am here because i believe william barr poses the greatest threat in my lifetime to our rule of law. That is because he does not believe in its core principle that nobody is above the law. Since taking office, he has worked to advance his lifelong conviction that the president should hold autocratic powers, including immunity from nearly all checks and balances and being able to get special treatment for himself and friends. The system that he is working to tear down was put in place in the aftermath of the watergate scandals, which involved extensive corruption and caused a loss of trust. After president nixon resigned, edward leiby acted swiftly to restore trust by supporting reforms to prevent abuses, including statutes like the first Inspector General act, expansion of foya, and or the whistleblower protection act. He knew that trust depended on people believing not ours was a government of trust and laws, that had special significance for the department of justice, whose work you saw imbued with a judicial nature. Demandedme powers orderly decisionmaking processes subject to review on multiple levels and free from improper personal considerations or political interference. He emphasized the Critical Role of the dedicated professional staff who would bring zeal and determination integrate concern for fairness and impartiality. This vision has been an inspiration to generations of lawyers. William barrs service has been an attack on edward leibys reforms, indeed on the very idea that a person is above the law. Barr has sought to give the president unlimited powers by overwriting many independent processes that operate important checks on the executive branch. Here are some things he has done. He has worked to defeat any meaningful oversight, either by congress or reviewing the courts, through litigation and his own speeches. He has refused to show up in response to requests to appear before congress. He has worked to undermine congress by litigating the president s right to divert funds to pay for his border wall, which congress refused to fund. He has regularly undermined the authority of independent decisionmaking processes and career professionals whose disinterest he saw as a key element justifying public trust. He has done this by his own statements, such as last march when he whitewashed the extensive findings on obstruction of justice. And last december when he publicly contradicted key conclusions reached by Inspector General horwitz ins election interference probe. He vocally reaffirmed positions advanced in president ial tweets. He has also done by enlisting various political cronies to review into reverse decisions of experienced attorneys, or by simply replacing them and handling members matters of personal interest to the president. This is how he accomplished other reversals in the cases of Trump Associates roger stone and Michael Flynn, urging a much lighter sentence in one case and outright dismissal and the other. In a number of other matters, such as the intake of information from Rudy Giuliani and the investigation of requests during the obama administration, barr has set aside certain subject matter to be handled by people in his political inner circle, rather than by career officials who would deal with them in ordinary courts. He has willingly supported the removal of officials when their attention to duty proves politically inconvenient to the president. The treatment of u. S. Attorneys jesse lewis in the district of columbia and Geoffrey Berman last friday, are blatant examples. So is his voicing support of donald trump during april and may of this year, removing five inspectors general who long served as an important check on executive branch correction. An ever greater extent this spring, you used of the powers of the department of justice to advance the president s political interests and undermine Constitutional Rights in the functioning of our democracy. Consider his apparent role in overseeing Law Enforcement action on june 1 to deny the right of peaceful protest in Lafayette Park, or the frivolous motion filed on friday to deny one day later to a joint publication of john boltons book for disclosing facts embarrassing to the president. Or worst of all his flamboyant media discussions of the facts supposedly unearthed by the special Commission Investigation he is personally conducting with the help of john durham. He has echoed the president s tweets and has characterized the fbi investigation of russian interference as an effort to spy on the drum campaign, and as he put it, one of the greatest travesties in american history. He has hinted that indictments are likely. This conduct is a textbook violation of justice manual rule bars publicch comment on criminal investigation before charges are filed. As wrong is much worse here, barr is using a criminal investigation to produce fodder further Campaign Propaganda mill of the president , even though it is false. His conduct gives cause for great concern about what barmaid do next. And 30 seconds. It needs to be said that bill barr does regularly lie in ways of that impact official action. Along with his continuing media project to make americans believe that the fbi conspired against donald trump, his statements about the Mueller Report and his own role in the events in Lafayette Park come quickly to mind, so does his practice of shrouding himself in the rhetoric and trappings of the rule of law, even as he desecrates and undermines the institutions and that make it possible. To make him his crowning dishonesty of every leiby that a recent article was shown hanging on the wall of his Conference Room as if chairman nadler the witness will conclude. We are way beyond regular order. Chairman nadler the witness can continue. To me, his crowning dishonesty is a portrait of edward leavy man touman chair stop the disruption of this meeting. I cannot hear the witness. This is a very important witness. He is way beyond his time. If there are no rules, then there are no rules about when you commit noise. Can make noise. Chairman nadler the witness will conclude. Mr. Chairman, this is outrageous. Do you have no respect for the rules . Chairman nadler the witness will conclude. He is two minutes beyond concluding and you do not let us have that kind of time. You gavel immediately. You are being grossly unfair. This man has a written statement. He new decoded to five minutes. Knew to cut it to five minutes. Either we have roles or we dont. Chairman nadler the witness will conclude. Bill barr does regularly lie in ways of that impact official action. There is no order in the room. No, there certainly is not. Will you have them removed . Him removed . Chairman nadler the witness will conclude. That is what you said and he didnt. Chairman nadler the gentleman will suspend. The last thing i want to sum up with, the last point i want to make is i think his crowning dishonesty in the face of what he is doing to the Justice Department is the picture that i saw in the New York Times a fee weeks ago, a portrait of edward leavy on the wall of his Conference Room, as though the current incumbent has anything but disdain for his predecessor. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. Is it not appropriate for the chair to exercise discretion in extending the fiveminute rule as the chair sees fit . Chairman nadler it certainly is appropriate. Is it authorized under the rules of this committee . Chairman nadler it certainly is. Callen cannot the chair the sergeant of arms to maintain order winning member of this panel is out of order . We will chairman nadler we will move on. Parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiry. Point of order. Chairman nadler there is no point of order. Here we go again. The gentleman is completely out of order. The point of order is according to the house rules, the chairman cannot change the rule, it has to be fairly implied. That is not what has happened. That. Ot about half of you are ruling on my point of order . Chairman nadler the gentleman has not stated a point of order. I said the rules are being violated by a chairman not following the rules of the house by arbitrarily deciding when the fiveminute rule will be applied and will not be applied. Chairman nadler the chairman has discretion. A waye you not stated of running the committee in 18 months . Chairman nadler the gentleman has not stated a recognizable point of order. You blewearlier and over it. Good afternoon, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member jordan and members of the committee. Im a career attorney with the department of justice. I joined at the department into thousand six, and over the past 14 years i have served under six attorneys general and three president s. I have spent my entire legal career at the department. Although i am a Current Department attorney, my testimony is personal and does not represent the views of the department. Throughout my career in federal service, i have been taught to do the right thing, for the right reasons and in the right way. That is why earlier this year i asked the doj Inspector General to examine whether multiple investigations launched under attorney general william barr were abusive of authority or other misconduct. The first matter i referred to the ig concern to 10 investigations the antitrust division launched into merger activity in the cannabis industry. Even mergers were not close to meeting established criteria for these kinds of investigations, yet these cannabis investigations accounted for a full 29 of the divisions full review of investigations. These kinds of investigations are rare. 2 of the, only 1 to thousands of transactions that come before the division each year get a full review. In the first of the cannabis investigations, the merger the career attorneys examined and determined the transaction did not call for further review. The staff reached the conclusion using the criteria under the merger guidelines at that have guided the division predicted. 2019,r, on march 5, attorney general william barr called the antitrust Division Leadership to his office and ordered the division to proceed with a full investigation. The Division Staff complied, issuing burdensome, 15 page subpoenas that compelled documents from 40 personnel, all at the expense of the companies. Although the division ultimately found no evidence of problems, the companies abandoned the merger. The antitrust division went on to conduct smaller investigations of nine other mergers in the cannabis industry. Division staff continued to document at the outset the lack of bona fide interest issues. In some cases, the companies operated in completely different geographies and did not compete at all. Nonetheless, the division andinued to issue subpoenas compel the production of millions of documents from these businesses. At one point, the office of agriculture became so overwhelmed with investigations and had to pull in attorneys from telecommunications, media and technology offices. In response, the staffs concerns about the investigations, the assistant attorney general, acknowledged at an all staff meeting that the cannabis industry is unpopular on the fifth floor, referring to the doj headquarters. The personal dislike of an industry is not a valid basis upon which to ground an antitrust investigation. The next investigations that i reported concerned an arrangement announced in july of 2019 between california and automakers to limit fuel emissions. After reports at that the president was enraged, he criticized of the deal on twitter. The day after the tweets, antitrust division Political Leadership constructed instructed staff to initiate an investigation that very day. Ordinarily, decisions of and 36 billion investigation would take time to calculate. In a hurried investigation, staff acknowledged it had only partially examined public information. Members of the committee, i have undertaken and am here today because i recognize that the imperative for Law Enforcement to operate in good faith. I recorded and reported these matters to the ig, because they are evidence that our antitrust laws were being misused. The laws have protected american markets and consumers for more than a century. The hundreds of career staff at the antitrust commission take this seriously. I thank you for examining these issues and i will be happy to answer your questions. Your questions. Chairman nadler thank you. General mukasey. Mukasey thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to testify. The topic of the hearing, claims of a little is asian of the Justice Department, is serious and important, because the duty of the department is to pursue equal justice under the law and we should expect no less. As you may know, i was privileged to lead the men and women of the Justice Department during the george w. Bush administration, and before that i served for over 19 years as a district judge in the Southern District of new york. That is the perspective i bring to the testimony today. The Department Needs capable, experienced a leadership, the components reach across the country and of the world, and a handles matters as diverse as antiterrorism and antitrust, and it takes an experienced leader to manage such a department effectively and without reservation. This country that is fortunate that william barr leads one of the most important government department. I do not have firsthand involvement in the particular matters discussed today, but based on my own experience i can assure you those are not issues of First Impressions in the department or from the federal courts. The Justice Department is not politicized because senior officials disagreed with the sentencing recommendations for mr. Stone. Trial lawyers in the department as zealous advocates, that is their job, but zeal does not confer perfection or assure justice. My views on this case are no secret, i set them out on a piece written in the wall street journal, where we pointed out that the sentencing guidelines, adopted in 1987 initially as binding on the courts, have been under Supreme Court law. Both as a judge and attorney general, have declined to follow sentencing recommendations from trial lawyers. As i attorney general, and wrote, prosecutors are supposed to seek justice, not to play the sentencing guidelines at like a pinball machine to see how many times they can ring the bell. Or tractor pressure a judge to impose a harsher sentence, thereby casting doubt on the competence of the government by reading guidelinesin a didactic way. Without applying the one element that must be present when you read any laws, whether statute or guidelines, and that is common sense. Case, itly publicized was not only proper but also advisable for the attorney general to assure that the sentencing recommendations not promote that unworthy end. The decision to lower the recommendations was raised by others as well, including career lawyers, one of whom signed the lobar recommendation. Attorney general william barr said publicly he believed mr. Stones prosecution was warranted and with his conviction, his sentence was warranted. And that the jail sentence was appropriate. I believe the trial judge agreed that the original recommendation was overly harsh, as her sentence reflects. The Justice Department is not politicized because prosecutors dropped charges against a general plan. As you heard this morning, the d. C. Circuit judge issued a writ of mandamus saying that the prosecution should stop. As i understand, former fbi director said he sent agents to interview Michael Flynn without following protocol, and not using proper protocol was not simply a delicate problem of etiquette, like using a fish fork instead of a salad fork, he followed the deputy directors assurance to general plan that he didnt need a lawyer present, and having agents based their investigation on a violation of the law, the logan act, which has never been prosecuted probablylly, is unconstitutional and no rational person would apply to a potential National Security advisor in any event. This might, we saw documents showing that that theory was discussed on january 4, 2017, at a meeting in the oval office, which is to say the interview was a pretext for getting general plan, as one senior fbi official put it, to either lie or admit to something that could not happen. The duty of the department is to do justice, that is not end after a guilty plea, particular when that plea is procured with a threat to prosecute the defendants son, which is concealed from the department so it would not have to be disclosed later. That is a particularly gag it is not unheard of for a prosecution to be dropped even after a guilty plea following the disclosure of new information that shows continued prosecution with miss justice. Mistustice. To be it is helpful to consider a few data points. Skepticism about Robert Muellers investigation, he allowed the investigation to run its course. He supported the decision not to prosecute the former deputy fbi director, a frequent critic of the president , despite evidence he lied and berated others for the leaks to deflect suspicion from himself. Point of order. We are being disturbed by tapping as the chair exercises his discretion in letting the witness testified be on the fiveminute rule. I would like for that tapping to stop. If it does not. I would like for the in order. Youre not presiding over this hearing. The members will show courtesy to the witnesses. The witness may proceed. Thank you. As far as the claim that william barr services somehow a , i should point out these were hung when i was attorney general. He served proudly as attorney general barrs chief of staff. The attack is unjustified. I have had many discussions with general bar about the law and general barr about the law and policy issues. It motivates him and his decisions. That is all that motivates his decisions. I think we are fortunate to have a person with his convictions during this difficult time in history. I thank you very much for your indulgence, mr. Chairman. Thank you. We will now proceed under the fiveminute rule with questions. Ore i recognize myself i am sorry. We have mr. Zelensky on video. Mr. Zelensky will not testify will now testify. Good afternoon. Aboutere today to testify ted states purchased United States versus roger stone. I think the committee to allow me to appear remotely today for family reasons remotely today, for family reasons, i cannot attend in person. Justiceis to see the done in every case without fear or favor, without party or politics. It is unusual for a prosecutor like myself to testify about a criminal case. There may be reasons why my be limited in some respects. The department of justice has cleared me today to discuss matters related to the roger stone sentencing. Let me now turn to the stone case. The first thing that everyone learns is that we treat every defendant equally and fairly. In the u. S. , we do not prosecute people based on politics or cut them a break based on politics, either. But that is not what happened here. Roger stone was treated differently because of politics. At the time of these events, february of 2020, i was assisting the u. S. Attorney. I was not privy to discussions with the Political Leadership at the department of justice. What happened is based on two things, what i saw and what i heard. What i saw was that roger stone was being treated differently from every other defendant. Received breaks that are unheard of. All the more so for a defendant in his circumstances. The defendant who lied to congress, who remained unrepentant, and made threats against the judge and a witness in his case. Thati heard repeatedly was this was happening because of stones relationship to the president. Wasacting u. S. Attorney receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the department of justice. His instructions to us were based on political consideration. I was told that the acting u. S. Attorney was giving stone a break because he was afraid of the president of the u. S. I believe that was wrong. I immediately and reputedly said so. Our objections were not heeded. When we refused to go along, we were instructed to disregard the recommendntirely and a lower sentence for mr. Stone. I was told to the best of anyones recollection, such a recommendation has never been at the United States attorneys office. When we again refused, we were told we could be fired if we did not go along. I notified the office i intended to withdraw from the case rather than file a memo that was a result of wrongful political pressure. While this was happening, i was repeatedly told the departments actions were not based on the law or the facts, but rather Political Considerations, mr. Stones political relationships, and fear of the president. Shortly after my intent to withdraw, they allowed us to file a memorandum regulating the guidelines. We filed a memo and heard nothing. That morning, the president tweeted the memo was very unfair and cannot allow this miscarriage of justice. We learned the department was going to wish a new sentencing memorandum mischaracterizing the application of the sentencing guidelines and asking for a downward departure for mr. Stone. To feed at allowed new proposed memo. At this point, i made a difficult choice to resign from the case and my assignment in the u. S. Attorneys office in d. C. Resent, because not following orders would violate the oath i took. I am not here to criticize. This is about process. The department of justice rated roger stones treated roger stone differently than everyone else. I was told the department cut roger stone a break because of his relationship to the president. I take no satisfaction in criticizing the part that criticizing the actions of the department of justice. I have always been and will be brought to be a United States attorney. It pains they to describe these events. Jackson said in this case, truth still matters. I will be happy to answer any questions. Will now proceed under the fiveminute rule of questions. Before i recognize myself for questioning, without objection, it will be entered into the record. These letters establish the parameters in which they are allowed to testify. I will now recognize myself for five minutes. A. Zelensky, you recommended sentence of seven to nine years in prison for roger stones felony crimes. Was your recommendation based on Department Guidelines . Yes, it was. Years at theour 14 department, did you believe recommendation was warranted . You,want to correct chairman. Ive been at the department for about six years this november, based on my experience, i did believe the recommendation was warranted. The leadership of the department wanted a lower sentence. When you asked the department why they wanted a below guideline sentence from mr. Stone for mr. Stone, you were told it was political and because the u. S. Attorney was afraid of the president. Is that correct . That is correct. What did you understand that to mean . It to mean that Political Considerations were weighing in the u. S. Attorneys decision, and the concern about the president was driving his decisionmaking process. What were you told could happen to you if you refuse to go along with this recommendation . We were told that we could be fired. Now, you have described treatedthe department roger stone differently than any defendant because of his relationship to President Trump. Is this against the Department Policy . It is. Is it wrong . It is. Is it unethical . It is. You wrote in your written testimony that it pains you to describe these events. Can you explain why it pains you . Oath when i took this job, as did all of my across the country. We are in mentally proud of what we do. We are proud to serve in the department of justice. We are proud to prosecute without fear or favor. To describe an education of responsibility like this an abdication of her facility like this an abdication of responsibility like this is deeply painful. We just heard from mr. Zelensky how the department violated its own policies just to appease the president s whu whims. The department pursue antitrust investigations against the career attorneys to satisfy the political and personal wins of President Trump and Senior Leadership at doj. That is correct. Do you think these investigations are in the best interest of the American People . I do not. Should the department of should the department prioritize investigations that benefit people and set of the president s political vendettas . The department should be using its resources in a way that fulfill their mission, yes. To you,ld like to turn you have decades of experience in Public Service at the highest level of the department of justice. These witnesses confirm that the attorney generals weaponize and government resources. Taxpayer dollars. To pursue investigations that do not in any way benefit americans but advance the president s political agenda. What is the impact on our Justice System if barr is allowed to get away with this . That may correct one thing. I dont have decades. Have a little over one decade. Nonetheless, to enter your question. Hink the question is answer your question. I think the number is there are a finite number of resources to be spent to advance a whole lot of areas of our Justice System. So you are throwing money away. That is the first thing. The more important thing is that by channeling enforcement efforts into an appropriate ofgets for the purpose harassing people, which i think is often what we are dealing with, and also for channeling resources and spending time trying to give a special deals trying to give special deals to other people, you are not only spending money, you are totally undermining public trust in the system. You are creating a situation we are on a worry somethingour way to worse then watergate. Its becoming very transparent many things are being done essentially for things that are completely unrelated to the merits of the case. Mr. Zelensky, you testified and came forward because telling the truth still matters. I, too,e believe the truth still matters. General barr will be held accountable. I recognize a gentleman from ohio. Todays hearing is yet another attempt to smear this president and his administration. My democratic colleagues were shocked and deeply offended that the presidency in the first place. They are still grieving they failed to remove him from office through their phony impeachment debacle. Now they are targeting administration officials, in this case, attorney general barr, for merely acting within the scope of their duties. Where was the outrage when the obamabiden Justice Department investigated journalists . Or when they retaliated against whistleblowers . It is hypocrisy. Most people are going to see right through it. It just shows that the majority will stop at nothing and attempting to distract and harass this president and his administration. Their efforts are particularly disturbing at a time when a Global Pandemic has negatively country us all, and the has been rocked by racial strife and civil unrest. There are other more important things we ought to be focusing our time and attention on. Despite an exemplary career, democrats are now going after attorney general barr. Why . Because he is cleaning up the mess of the Previous Administration and restoring integrity and honor to the doj and the fbi. Messes,g about for the steeleng dossier in the Mueller Investigation led to a lot of our time and taxpayer dollars. Mr. Zelensky, you were part of that mueller came mueller team, werent you . I was. Teamat supposedly unbiased of 17 attorneys consisted of 13 democrats. That doesnt sound very unbiased to me, does it to you . I would disagree with the premise of your question. We are, as i said, career professionals. Prosecutors do our job and we do it regardless of party or politics. 13 democrats out of 17. There has been public reporting to that effect. Attorney,mer deputy general rosenstein, your boss, testified before the senate they hadthat he wished chosen a more politically diverse group. You think he has a point dont you think he has a point . I dont think it would be appropriate to choose in politics, that is not with the special counsel did in that circumstance. The special counsel, if they had tried to weigh the politics of the prosecutor when choosing them, that would have been far more deeply problematic than what he did. A coincidental 13 out of 17. Something else i would like to point out that shows there was a deep bias on the mueller team they had given 3000 to republican candidates in the past, but 60,000, 62,000 to democrats. Do you believe that the department of justice, under attorney general barr, has become politicized . As my colleagues on the other side are alleging . As i said, i do not. Would you agree the attorney general has worked to root out politics and bring transparency back into the department . He has spent every effort to try to run the department the way it should be run and conduct investigations on the merits. Do you believe the attorney general makes decisions based upon political calculations or upon the relevant facts and the law . I believe he makes decisions based on the relevant facts and the law. Absolutely. I completely agree. I am almost out of time. Let me conclude with this. Mr. Chairman, this hearing is just another sad attempt by you and the majority to attack this administration. Attorneylly, the general, unfairly. And it is a shame. Because theyre so much other important work we should be engaged in because there is a so much other important work we should be engaged in. With that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Given the appearance of political influence exhibited by and basedistration, on the testimonies presented to us, i am concerned about the integrity of our elections. In february, the attorney general outlined restrictions and policy through campaign related investigations. I would like to make a copy of that memo available in the record. The memo requires no investigations to be opened or initiated of a declared candidate for president or Vice President , etc. This is a departure from Previous Campaign investigation protocol. Having heard from Witnesses Today about the significant political influence affecting the department of justice raises the specter to investigate president ial campaigns could be politically motivated. With the appearance of political influence over investigation into president ial campaigns, brace by this memo raised by this memo, concern you . It does. It is one of the number of things that does. August the, the election is upcoming. It is hugely important. Obviously, the election is upcoming. It is hugely important. The idea that we are not going to be handling a possible investigation related to the selection, we are not going to be handling them in the ordinary course by the professionals were trained to do it, but we are going to have them handled in some special way, which i dont think we know quite how it is. We know it is a number of people mr. Barr has set aside and said we will handle this. This is one of a number of areas he has done this. We know of some. I am afraid there are others that we dont. It gets turned over to someone he can trust and set of someone who was trained in the handling of it. I want to talk about concerns thee eternal attorney general was abusing. In the statesurt have the authority to send states. Ons governing california has applied for and received more than [indiscernible] none have been revoked. As a result, the average cleaner from 99 the 1970s. As we know, the Trump Administration has attempted to curtail californias action. Following that, carmakers in california worked together to emissions that would work for california. This is important. Rateve the highest asthma among children in the United States. A lot of that is because of the i5 and highway 99. Aw thiss announcement, i thought, he is just trying to scare these automakers, to let them know that they are going to have to spend a lot of money if they deal with california, if the law permits them to do so. , initially,ation was or any antitrust concern . Or was it simply an effort by ffle thenistration to mu Auto Companies into not dealing with the state of california . The coincidence and time of the opening of the investigation was the day after the trumped week. Trump tweet. Staff had looked through public if it would see be permissible or not. To answer your question, no, i dont believe there was a proper basis to actually go forward with it. Well, it looks to me like the department announced these investigations and a badfaith manner after the president in a badfaith manner. This matters. Not in an academic way, but it matters to the l ungs of the children in the sit of california. It is a direct example of how misconduct and political corruption in the department of impacts one adverse the people of america, and most specifically in this case, the people of california. I would just like to note, i, too, was around during the watergate matters. Some parallels, but actually, this is worse than watergate, worse than nixon. I see my time is up, i yield back. Mr. Gomert. This is incredible. You call jeff jensen a 20year you callcutor, jeff jensen, a 20year prosecutor, a political crony. You just showed your lack of cleta withur lack of credibility little basis in fact. Rarely, we have anybody with the chip you have on your shoulder come before us. Said bill barr was the first deputy ahead, that was two years after i got into the job. You understand i understand you got fired by thornburg. He said he proved to have exaggerated notions of his responsibility to present my resent my confidence, soon developing a chip on the shoulder, he took actions in conflict with my wishes. Once he sent a letter containing recommendations for corporate sentencing guidelines, now resignation was [indiscernible] hadproved to be the deputy needed from the beginning. I can understand why you would be resentful 30 years later, but hesome point, thoughtfully, will get over his chip. The fact that mr. Zelensky, i was going to ask him questions, i understand family matters. I am grateful to my wife for sticking with me for 42 years today. And there are family matters. She is a lot more fair than we are getting around here. 42 years. Thank you, kathy. Some of us have family matters, too, that are very pressing, but this is very pressing, too. And i will not try to compare those. Mr. Barr has come and testify, and he is coming again soon, so statements that he would not come here, that is just not true. And you know what . I have not heard anybody, any of these three democrat witnesses concern for the Justice Department under president obama going after local Law Enforcement. Why . Because in the opinion of the Justice Department they violated peoples civil rights. And a. G. Barr had the same concern that civil rights were being violated by local an irities, and and if he had no right, administration also have no right. It is absolutely incredible that people can come in here and after the Justice Department, dod wasintel, even paying come all these people were involved in trying to prevent a republican from theseng president , and three witnesses do not have any problem whatsoever with that . History will not judge you the days ahead, whether we get to continue this little experiment in selfgovernment or not, because you have been an accomplice after the fact to what has occurred in the Justice Department, and you are so biased, you cannot even see it. I dont have a lot of questions for people who dont have credibility, have chips on their shoulders. Elias, for heavens sake, you come in here with your complaints it is a shame we do not have a serious hearing. It is just a sideshow. O be called for what it is. If we are concerned about justice, we need to get after the people that created the injustice through the last administration. I yield back. The gentleman kneels back. The gentlelady from texas. Mr. Chairman, i know that we are not here to discuss personal matters of the witnesses. The generalwledge for his presence here today. We have certainly worked together in the past. Let me at knowledge three witnesses let me acknowledge three witnesses. I thank you for your service. I am reminded of the time at the doj when those of us, during the civil rights movement, looked to the doj for the relief of been the assistant attorney general for civil rights. Honest, straightforward, dealing with not the prices, but the bloodshed of the south. In the midst of fighting for freedom. They were a hand that we held onto. I am disappointed that we now face the circumstances of a Drunken Party gone wild. Sadly, the department of justice has gone wild. So i think it is important that moveghlight and begin to on correcting the wildness, the the out of controlness, and work for the American People. We heard today from all of you about the effects of the president s politicization of his Justice Department for his own ends. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to suggest this is not true. They want to cover their ears to this injustice. C. , ask them what jonathan similar to some of you here in his recent oped. If the department truly acted because of the commitments to legal positions, then where is the evidence of those commitments and other cases that do not involve friends of the president . Where are the narcotics cases in which they have filed overruling career prosecutors . Where are the attorneys that would not go quietly into the night . There are none. All of the cases are political cases, friends of the president. Is that because attorney generals regularly led to the American People . When in reality he is being t for prosecuting the president and his circle . Of course not. What the department of justice is doing is an unprecedented erosion of our constitutional system. It has gone wild. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been refused to acknowledge the truth for a while. About lafayette square, they said they did not see it firsthand. It is not acceptable to turn a blind eye to injustice. Thousands of officials are now coming out to speak truth to power. There are literally thousands of who signed a letter. It is a great threat to the administration in this nation and this nation. We are all equal before the law. A person should not be given special treatment in a criminal prosecution. Thousands of department the flynnwrote after prosecution expressing the same sentiment. Yesterday, members of George Washingtons law school did the same. Over 1000 former doj talked about the rule of law. Affidavit is a clear and present danger. I believe it is a clear and present gender. And i believe the attorney general must be held accountable , who yes, has been invited to this committee and has refused over and over again. Are these thousands of people right . Is barr currently a danger to the Constitutional Order rule of law . An evenhanded administrator of justice . Is attorney general barr a current and present danger . Yes, congressman jackson lee. I think he is. That was the theme of what i tried to say before. I think essentially, it is for two reasons. He has a personal belief that the president should be above the law, and he has worked very negatingchieve that by the checks and balances, making the president not accountable, stonewalling the congress, stonewalling the southern imt of new york sorry, the District Attorneys Office trying to do a criminal investigation. So preventing information from coming out. And otherwise, essentially putting the president be on the law. The second thing he is doing, this has accelerated this he is getting involved in a very political wing. Ssentially in using that in a very political way. In using the Justice Department. Comments he made about opening up the country, the activities in lafayette square. The most serious problem i am concerned about is his accelerating recitation of this deeptive about obamagate, state conspiracy, whatever it is. The thing we are hearing from Ranking Member jordan earlier, he is using the fact that he has his own investigation going on as a basis for supposedly facts to assert that these things are true. Number one, i dont believe they are true. More importantly, that is a totally improper misuse of the department of justice. Even if those facts were true, to would be a violation of the Justice Department rules to be reporting to the public on things that he is supposedly finding in that investigation. Submitted look at my testimony, you will see just a y concise, chronicle concise chronicle of the number of times he has gone on television to make these about the in detail things that are going on. One of the ones that i had to chuckle about was on sunday. B. , he actually said he was surprised that the public does not seem to be paying attention to the things that he has been saying about these outrageous things that have been uncovered. He does not understand why people are not paying enough toention to israel or its his reports on the durham investigation. That is gross violation of the Justice Departments policy, even if the facts were true. Which i think they clearly are not. We have a real problem here. The trump misbehavior is accelerating as we get closer to the election. I dont know what is next. But am scared to think about what it might be. To submittedke into the record doj alum statement regarding the sentencing of roger stone and the statement on mr. Flynn and the doj alum statement to the Inspector General. I want to place these at the record at this time. Without objection. As i notified members during the markup, i view the wearing of face masks as a safety issue. It is an important matter for order in the courtroom. I am responsible for preserving order and decorum in this committee. I am requiring staff in this hearing to wear face masks. The chairs authority to enforce the chairs authority derives from one of the house. The chair will simply appalled at the core of the committee by complying with these reasonable safety standards. Whoing that, any member fails to wear a mask will not be recognized. Mr. Collins. Ze i would look to make a couple of statements. Rule 11, you do not have discretion under the fiveminute questionable to continue that. Abouta just and we took political consideration a prosecutor said it. I have a problem going on right now in georgia, where a prosecutor has put political motivations at the heart of going after the Atlanta Police department. Just as was said earlier, it is Never Acceptable to turn a blind eye to unfairness. This needs to stop. Mr. Howard does need to remove himself. And the investigation that has never been done and finished needs to continue so right can be done by all parties. You consider yourself to be aider yourself career professional . Leave my politics at home, yes. As a nonpolitical career stuff, did you give the toast of this committees majority, staff give details to this committees majority . Did you ask it to be detailed to this majority staff . Had a very preliminary conversation. You did have a conversation. Was it to work on antitrust policy . It was. Was it to work on antitrust policy . It was. I may have also asked for oversight at one point with the blessing of the assistant attorney. Nonpolitical career staffer, you are asking to work on impeachment, you wanted to come work for the majority during the impeachment of donald trump. Is that not correct . I understand how that answer would be troubling. I think it was a year prior. I honestly think it was. We were the majority before him. This was to the majority. It was early 2019. We were starting every investigation known to man at that point. You asked to come to this committee. Lets just leave it there. Go to your excellent testimony. Contendof the you that few of the documents produced in response were ever reviewed by antitrust Division Staff. Requests were made for purposes of burdening the company. You cited complaints with the Inspector General. Is that correct . Yes. The office of special counsel handed it to the office. As you are reading, and that letter indicated they conducted a thorough review without merit. Is that not true . They concluded even if the investigation were motivated by animosity, that would still comply with the doj. What did the letter say . The review found support for the response. Ae industry provided challenge, and it was reasonable to seek Additional Information from the industry. Contrary to the whistleblower allegation, the documents provided reflect significant and successful negotiations considering the narrowing of the scope of the sector request. The internal memorandum recommended the closure of the regarding the competitive impact of the proposed orders. Often explaining how the regulators state competitive concerns, undercutting the discussions you had. This is an adjusting one. In your written testimony, you are not conducting interviews of customers. Marijuana is not a schedule one drug. Correct . Is it a schedule one or not . It is on one of them, yes. Youre part of an antitrust and did not know how it was scheduled . Credibility is going downhill quickly here. Mr. Chairman, at this point in time, i am entering into the basically letter clearing anything that was done in doj. I ask it to be submitted into the record. Without objection. The gentleman yields back. Eliasto note that mr. Political inclinations and prospects have absolutely no bearing with the serious allegations he is making about the attorney general. That is the subject of this hearing. Everything else is a personal attack and is a distraction from the corruption he has uncovered in the department. Know why some members may want to change the subject. I hope we focus on the issue at hand. Thank you, mr. Chair. It is interesting how all these things kind of come together. Today, a threejudge federal that the flynn case could be dismissed. The person that wrote that opinion was judge rao. Had been the agency that reviews regulations and does what trump likes best, which is jeopardize the safety air and water of the american and give into industry and profits and pollution. What he was most wellknown for was overriding president obamas regulations on automobile exhaust. She became a judge a year ago. She said today the district ould resultions w in specific harm. If evidence comes to light coming into question the integrity of purpose of an underlying criminal investigation, gives a get of branch must have the authority to decide that for the prosecution is not in the interest of justice. Judge rao, who is supposed to look into the executive branch when what they do is not in the interest of justice . It should have been judge rao. It was one of the three judges. Maybe the full panel will review it. They should. The other way to do it is impeachment. Impeachment is the process by which the Justice Department and the executive branch are not pursuing the interest of justice. Even if the senate is impotent to see the truth and exercise discretion in keeping with the American Public rule of law, we should pursue impeachment of bill barr, because he is raining terror on the role of love. It is questionable when he is doing. Terror on the rule of law. It is questionable when he is doing. ,ou disparage him because it was an old law that you did not choose to prosecute . It. Ou disparaged i said it was not prosecuted successfully. It was prosecuted twice. In the beginning of the 19th century, both unsuccessfully. It is probably unconstitutional. Barr used to the insurrection act of interfere that interfere with First Amendment rights so he could walk into a church so he can have a photo op with the bible in front of our church. At the secretion of the bible and a desecration of that church. That was in 1807 law. He testified to cases that justice took up concerning areas that otherwise you didnt think were worthy of any trust and investigations. One was cannabis. Wast costa that costa folks a lot of money . Absolutely. Was that cost to folks a lot of money . Absolutely. It all comes back to one place, bill barr does not like marijuana, marijuana is seven times more likely to be enforced against young africanamericans, breeding discontent with police, breeding directions with police, and barr does not care about that type of stuff, because he doesnt like marijuana, that is ok. That is one of the breeding grounds of distrust and africanamericans and police and the. African american contacted problems. Very unfortunate. Brought of the antitrust case with the automobile many fractures. Did mercedesbenz not join in on that case later . That is correct. Why did you think they did not join in on the case . I read news reports the German Government discouraged that from joining because of the doj investigation. I dont have firsthand knowledge of the events. President trump did not like what Governor Newsom did, got his way, and kept mercedesbenz out of it and was able to try to change them from taking the position to be similar. Let me ask you this, mr. Zelensky testified that for the , it was on heard of, noe in stones case, that time, no one in the fraud and public Corruption Center of the come at noes in d. C. Time did he ever recall or anyone recall where the government did not seek guidelines except for trial. Do you know of any time they did not seek guideline representation . No. There is not a case, but bill barr did it. The witness is trying to answer the question. I have the time. This [indiscernible] this is another case where politics is overcoming the rule of law and destroying america. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Questions for mr. Zelensky. Where are you physically located today . I am in my attorneys office. What state is that, sir . The district of columbia. How far are you from where we sit right now . I guess about a halfmile. What is your reason for not appearing here today, sir . Thank you for allowing me to clarify. As a prosecutor, particularly, with the experience, i am hesitant to discuss my family publicly. You have family concerns, is what you said earlier . Have a newborn child, congressman we have a newborn child, congressman. We discussed the matter. Mr. Zelensky, because you are an attorney, you know that having a witness appear for crossexamination in person is much more effective and reliable than one who phones it in. Thent to point out gentleman who showed up from new york, he has quarantine himself after this hearing. Is improper. Man the witness is complying with the rules of the house. There is no dissension between people present physically and people present by video. It is not an appropriate. You dont get to decide how i asked my questions. Yes, i do. Said in your opening, mr. Zelensky, that we dont prosecute people based on politics. Do you investigate people based on politics . No. You couple of questions for related to the report outlining the fbis improper surveillance. You are familiar with that, correct . Have read press reports regarding it. I have read some of the reports. I have not studied it totally. You know what role Christopher Steele played in the fbi . I only know what has been publicly reported and what is th what is in the report. It states we concluded teams received election supports in 2016 with a central and essential role in the decision by the fbi odc support the request targeting carter page as well as of the permit decisionepartment , is that correct . Have no reason to doubt your accurately reading from the report. I have been asked by the department not to discuss matters related to the counsels office. I am happy to go back to the toldtment, as i have been that i should do, to asked them if i can answer your question, and if i am able to, provide an answer at a later time. I am told by the department my testimony today has been cleared only for matters related to the u. S. Versus roger stone. That is pretty convenient. The subpoena that you were issued said that you are hereby commanded to be and appear before the committee on the judiciary. Touching matters of inquiry committed to set committee or subcommittee. Youre not theen Department Committee or subcommittee. We think it is very unfortunate not make europe areas here today, especially since you are half a mile away riskthers took great to be here. This is a very important matter for the country. I think we all agree to that. We have concerned that this is being politicized and that the current Attorney Generals Office is being accused of politicizing something when when he is trying to do was clear up and clean up messes made by the Previous Administration. Many can draw their conclusions. Will the gentleman yield . I will not yield. What theem is not only process, but with the an equal administration of the rules here. But with the way the committees time is being used right now, with all the important issues that are within our scope of jurisdiction, with all the pressing matters facing the country right now. This is a farce. We are really sorry you could not be here for it. Will you yield . I will yield. When you say with all the pressing issues, is there any issue more pressing than the integrity of the administration . My time. Ming we would love to have hearings about the origins of the russia collusion thing you guys wasted the countrys time on for five or six months. I yield back. That your time. The gentleman not your time. The gentlemans time has expired. Thank you mr. Zelensky, mr. Elias, you put duty over country, and you have come to testify today putting your job at risk. Youi think the nation owes both a debt of gratitude coming forward as whistleblowers. Mr. Elias, last summer, the state of california announced that it had reached an agreement with four automakers on air quality standards that would be jumpter than the rules the administration would adopt with the country, correct . Yes. That is correct. President trump in clear that he did not like made clear that he did not like that agreement. Criticized the agreement on twitter, yes. 20, 2019, the New York Times reported he was enraged by californias deal. Mr. Trump apparently called a white house meeting to retaliate because he resented the fact that california and the four automakers would dare to undermine his air quality emissions standards. The next day, august 21, trump went public and threatened the automakers, saying these companies will be out of business if they do not get in line. ,hen the day after those tweets august 22, the Justice Department followed through on that threat. T is when attorney general the assistant attorney general gave an instruction to your division to start an antitrust investigation immediately into those four automakers. Is that correct . That is when the instruction happened, on august 22. Outo the president tweets threats, than the next, the automakers get hit with an antitrust investigation. That is what happened, didnt it . Normally, for significant complicated matters, people but time and attention into assessing they didnt have any time to do that, because the president made the order on august 21, and the investigation began august 22. There was very little time between those two events. Do you you believe the department commits that investigation based on good faith . Belief that they had committed a violation of the antipress laws, or not . The career staff saw some very obvious state action. You really have to twist things to get around those. It did not appear to be in good faith, no. That investigation did not have anything to do with protecting the American People. From anticompetitive behavior. Did it . The career staff who reviewed great concerns about opening it. Especially with people who were charged with actually conducting the investigation. And documented their concerns with the legal underpinning of the case. Eventuale immune from prosecution for something, because you have a legal defense, you should be immune from investigation. Bottomline, it was not a legitimate antitrust investigation. Was it . That is what my complaint alleges. If it had been, the first step would have been for the department to get with california officials and get the facts from those officials, but it never did, even establish