Break and resume in five minutes. Okay. Sorry. Committee will come to order. Chernow recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson. Five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Attorney general garland, great to see you. Thank you for your service to the nation, and the nation watches as the republicans have no answer for why they want to focus and obsess on hunter biden receiving 2 million for, from burisma after serving on the board that he said he was not qualified to serve on, but yet the saudi arabians gave 2 billion to jared kushner, who conducted middle east strategy for his dad, donald trump. He got 2 billion for something that he is not equipped to do, which is investment banking. And so republicans looking at hunter biden instead of, instead of jared kushner, americans dont understand how that could be. And they also are increasingly alarmed about the fact that the republicans in control of the house only seem to have three objectives. One is to impeach joe biden. Number two is to shut down, is to impeach or get rid of kevin mccarthy, actually, and the third is to shut down government, and a subset of that is to defund the doj and the fbi for trying to hold donald trump accountable. So the American People are watching that, and they also appreciate the fact that you had a distinguished career as a prosecutor and a doj official, as well as 24 years on the bench. You served on the Second Highest Court of the land as a judge with 24 years, the d. C. Circuit court of appeals. We appreciate your service. You were, for seven years, the, the lead you we appreciate your service. You were for seven years the lead you managed that entire office. We thank you for that. You served on the Judicial Council for a couple of years, so you are steeped in the rule of law. You are a judge extraordinaire and as a judge, you never had the occasion to receive a private jet travel to an exotic location by a corporate billionaire, did you . You can put your microphone on. No. You never received an offer to get around on a private jet . No. Did you take vacations at exclusive resorts paid for by a billionaire . I know these are not hypothetical questions. This is really not within my realm of questioning. You were a judge extraordinaire and you know the rules of ethics for judges because your bench had to was covered by a code of conduct. Is that not correct . All of the judges are covered by the court of conduct. You would have never had somebody pay for your godsons tuition to private school. I dont want to answer these hypothetical questions. What i would say is, and ive said this before quite publicly and long ago, i always held myself to the highest standards of ethical responsibility imposed by the code and that is all i can really answer here. It is required judges and justices avoid appearances of impropriety. Is in that correct . Again, i know you are asking this hypothetically and not hypothetically, i follow the code of judicial conduct. Let me ask you this question. The senate, white house, and i sent a letter to you alerting you to the fact we were asking the Judicial Council to refer the matter of Clarence Thomas being in violation of the ethics in Government Act to the Justice Department, and after that, representative cortez along with myself and others requested that you take that matter up directly. Have you responded to either one of those letters, and if not, why not . What action have you taken pursuant to those letters . I assume if you sent the letter, we have it and i will speak to the office of legislative affairs about where it is at this point. The time is expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. Good day, mr. Attorney general. It is good for you to leave the chief justice in that group before each of us speak because he would have heard all of that. I want to thank you personally for your office and engagement. Obviously a vast amount of litigation that is one of the many, many jobs that falls at your feet. One of the jobs that falls at our feet here, we are watchdogs of the executive branch. You have previously said that you are not congresss attorney and not the president s attorney and i am assuming you are neither our prosecutor, defense attorney, neither the president s prosecutor or defense attorney, which is why todays investigation does deal with the fact if you are not by definition the president s prosecutor, but we have an obligation to see whether or not the president or a member of his family or in concert with the president s activities did, in fact, need to be overseen, admonished, or prosecuted. I have a couple of questions for you. One of them, you have not said this very much today, but you often say, i cannot comment on that because it is an Ongoing Investigation. When we ask for information, you say it is the policy, not the law, but the policy not to provide information related to an Ongoing Investigation. So far i am on track, correct . I think ive said more than it is just policy. The letters we sent trays to the constitutional powers, et cetera, but in general, i am in court with what you are saying. One of the challenges we face, just a matter of weeks ago a federal judge found the actions of now special prosecutor to be so outside what he could agree to that he pushed back on a plea settlement and nullified it and said the u. S. Attorney going back. In light of that, dont you think its appropriate for that portion to be considered a pre Ongoing Investigation, and for congress to legitimately look at the activities leading up to that failed plea bargain, rather than wait until weeks, months, or years from now and the case has fully settled . If you would give me a chance. First, i dont agree with the characterization of what happened in the plea. The district judge performed her obligations under rule 11 to determine whether the parties were in agreement, to what each had agreed to appear they determined they had not. The plea fell apart. There has been another prosecution, which leads to the second thing. Mr. Weiss is in the ongoing prosecution on the very matter you are talking about okay, but mr. Attorney general, if we believe that a pattern of behavior is occurring relative to the investigation of hunter biden particularly and including while he lived in the Vice President s home, while he operated, comingled with the Vice President , and even today as he travels with the president. In light of that, can you agree that, in fact, it should be reasonable for us to look at a number of items including, and one that i want your answer on even though i know we have limited time, mr. Weiss supposedly had the ability to bring a prosecution anywhere and explicitly has an opportunity, however are you concerned and should we have the right to look into the fact that political appointees in california and in the district of columbia refused to in fact cooperate with him and those in that investigation he was charged with doing in delaware, which flowed into their jurisdictions . Isnt that an example of political appointees of the present, that their decision not to cooperate with him creates at least an appearance of political interference with the investigation of the president , his son, and possibly activities related to the president . I am happy to answer this question in the hypothetical, but not the specifics because i have stayed out of this matter. In hypothetical, it is the normal process of the department that if a u. S. Attorney wants to bring a case in another district, it is perfectly appropriate. They do that in order to determine what the policies are. Practices have been in that district. A u. S. Attorney in another district does not have the authority to deny another u. S. Attorneys ability to go forward and i have assured mr. Weiss that he would have the authority one way or the other and i think mr. Weiss letters completely reflect that. Gentleman, the time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Welcome, mr. Attorney general. We meet today at a momentous time in our history. The country is about to go through a great trial. By this i do not mean any of the trials of the former president , but rather a trial that propositions we are committed to the rule of law and no one is above the law. It is a proposition well known around the world because it is the one essential agreement and all democracies. We have all professed our belief in this principle but it has never been truly tested, not like today. In this committee, we are engaged in a portion of that trial. The chairman would abuse the power of this committee by trying to interfere in the prosecutions of donald trump, by trying to use the committees power of subpoena to compel criminal discovery and making the committee a kind of criminal defense firm for the former president. In doing so, the chairman would establish a very different proposition. Through mr. Jordans actions he would establish the principle the rule of law should apply to almost everyone, just not the leader of his party. According to this alternate proposition, if you were the president of the United States and you lose your reelection, you can violate the law and constitution to try to stay in power, and if you are successful, maybe you get to be president for life and if you fail, there is no repercussion. This proposition is well known to the world and it is called dictatorship. Mr. Jordan hopes to camouflage his assault in the rule of law by falsely claiming donald trump is the victim of unequal justice and hunter biden is beneficiary. It is a claim as transparently political as it is devoid of any factual basis. It is cynical based on the belief the American People cannot discern fact from fiction , but i am betting on america. History has shown those who bet against her are rarely successful and more than often end up covered in shame. I believe in the rule of law and i thank you, mr. Attorney general, for defending it. Lets turn to the false claims asserted by the former president and some in this committee. On sunday, the former president appeared on a National News sunday program and was asked about four indictments and 91 counts facing him. His response was, biden political indictments. You said to the attorney general you said to the attorney general, indict him. Mr. Attorney general, i want to give you a chance to respond. Was the president telling the truth or lying when he said President Biden told you to indict him . No one has told me to indict and in this case the decision to indict was made by the special counsel. That statement the president made was false . I am just going to say again, no one has told me who should be indicted in any matter like this and the decision about indictment was made by mr. Smith. Let me ask you this question about the prosecution of hunter biden. The prosecutor, mr. Weiss, was appointed not i joe biden, but appointed in the first instance by donald trump. Is that correct . Thats correct. He was continued in that position, was he not . He was continued, yes. Could you imagine the cry you would hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if you removed him from that position . Could you imagine the claims that you had removed the prosecutor who was diligently investigating hunter biden . Could you imagine the outrage they would have expressed . I can say during my confirmation hearing discussed with many senators on that side of the aisle their desire and actual insistence that mr. Weiss be continued to have responsibility for that matter and i promised, and i sat at my confirmation hearing, that he would be permitted to stay and i would not interfere. Mr. Attorney general, that was exactly the right decision. That was the right decision to give the American People the confidence that even a prosecutor chosen by the former president would continue the investigation into the son of the current president. That was exactly the right decision. Exactly the right decision. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have been screaming if it were otherwise. But their attack on you is completely devoid of fact, of principle, but i appreciate you doing the right thing for the department of justice and more importantly, for the American People. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. Elon musk was a democrat who admittedly supported biden but became a critic of the administration and exposed the sensors are censorship regime. The doj has opened not one, but two investigations into elon musk. Mark zuckerberg spent 400 million in 2020 tilting the elections secretly for democrats. No investigations whatsoever. To the American Public, these look like mafia tactics. We look the other way. You get in our way, we punish you. The American Public sees what these tactics are and i want to direct your attention to a video here that we are going to play. Obviously that is a significant matter. It is an ongoing criminal investigation and i will not comment on an ongoing criminal investigation. Where the pipe bombs operable . Again, it is an ongoing criminal investigation and i cannot comment. We know this is a very active , Ongoing Investigation but there are restrictions. We find your department, so you need to provide that. Respectfully it is not an issue of classification. It is an issue of commenting on ongoing criminal investigations, which is something that by Longstanding Department policy we are restricted from doing. The last administration strengthened those policies. We fund you, so lets move on. I will not violate the rule of law and comment on an investigation that is ongoing. Peter navarro was indicted for contempt of congress. Arent you, in fact, contempt of congress when you give us this answer . This is an answer appropriate at a press conference, not appropriate when we are asking questions. We are the committee responsible for your creation, for your existence of your department. You cannot continue to give us these answers. Arent you in fact in contempt of congress when you refuse to answer . Congressman, i have the greatest respect for congress, for the constitution, and the laws of the United States. The protection of pending investigations on an Ongoing Investigation, as i briefly discussed in another dialog a few moments ago, goes back to the separation of powers which give to the executive branch the Sole Authority to conduct prosecutions. It is our requirement to do process and respect for those under investigation and protection of their civil rights. With all due respect with all due respect to that, the investigation was ongoing and that didnt stop congress from getting answers. You are getting in the way of our constitutional duty. You are citing the constitution. I will fight it. It is our constitutional duty to do oversight. In the video, that was your answer to me two years ago. When i asked how many agents of the government were present on january 5th and january 6th and how many went into the capitol, can you answer that now . I dont know the answer to that question. Last time, you dont know how many there were or there were none . If there were any, i dont know how many. I think you might have just perjured yourself that you dont know how many. You dont know if there were any . I have no personal knowledge of this matter. Youth had two years to find out. By the way, yesterday you indicted ray apps. Is and that a wonderful coincidence . On a misdemeanor meanwhile you are sending grandmas to prison. You are sending people away for years for a felony. This guy says go into the capitol and hes directing people into the capitol. Hes at the site of the first breach. Youve got all of the guns on him, 10 videos and it is an indictment for a misdemeanor . The American Public isnt buying it. I yield the rest of my time. We will let the gentleman yeah. Go ahead. In discovery in the cases filed with respect to january 6th, the Justice Department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question you are asking. With respect to mr. Epps, the fbi said he was not an employee or informant of the fbi. Mr. Epps has been charged and there is a proceeding going on today i believe on that subject. The charge is a joke. I yield to the chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Mr. Attorney general, my colleague said you should be held in contempt of congress and that is quite a rich because the guy leaving the hearing right now, mr. Jordan, is about 500 days into evading his subpoena about 500 days, so if we are going to talk about contempt of congress, lets get real. Are you serious . Jim jordan, a witness to one of the greatest crimes ever committed in america, a crime more prosecutions have occurred than any crime committed in america refuses to help his country and we get lectured about subpoena compliance . Jim jordan wont even honor a lawful subpoena . Are you kidding me . Are you kidding me . There is no credibility on that side. Mr. Attorney general, you are serious. They are not. You are decent. They are not. You are fair. They are not. I welcome you to the law firm of insurrection llp, where they work every single day on behalf of one client, donald trump. They do that at the expense of millions of americans who need the government to stay open, who want their kids safe in their schools and they want to see ukraine in the fight so we dont have to help russia. That is the expense of this nonsense, this clown show. They have real responsibilities that affect real americans. The difference between one side that believes in governing and one side that believes in ruling. Youve tried to comply with the committee. In fact, last week one of your special agents came here for an interview, brought his lawyer, and was told he couldnt have his lawyer present. Mr. Jordan tells us about the constitution , wouldnt afford one of your employees one of the most basic constitutional rights, to have a lawyer present. In fact, they threatened to call Capitol Police. Are you familiar with that standoff that occurred last week, mr. Attorney general . Generally, yes. Your office sent a letter detailing that you werent willing to comply. I would like to send that to the record. Objection. W