0 another statute, the justice department defends the constitutionality of statutes construed as constitutional. we believe that statute can be, yes. >> i would like to move on. recently you directed the f.b.i. to coordinate with 14,000 school districts after the national school board association asked you to protect school boards from the imminent threat of parents. along with friends, neighbors and constituents i have attended multiple school board meetings over the last year and have a child in public school yet. very concerned about some of the things going on. yes, some of those school board meetings get heated. are we, my friends, constituents and neighbors, are we domestic terrorists? are we criminals? >> no. again, i don't know the facts that we are talking about but the only way that you are criminals of the few commit acts in violation of the statutes which would mean threats of violence or actual violence. and i'm sure you haven't done that. >> have states asked for help? the school boards association did but have states asked for help? >> so we have state and local partners for all of our matters and this is an assessment of whether there is a problem and there are federal statutes involved and that there are state statutes involved and we are trying to provide don't like prevent violence and, as a former board member, we call our sheriff's department. and william castle, vice president for facebook out knowingly allowed users to promote on the platform instructing users how to break u.s. immigration law. he said we do allow people to share information about how to enter a company illegally, or how to be smuggled. other charges pending the mic facebook? >> again we can't under the norms of that apartment discuss whether there are pending investigations, actual investigations -- >> let me help answer you. i understand the answer you are going to get there. title viii u.s. code 1324 makes it illegal for any person to knowingly encourage or induce an alien to come to enter and reside in the united states in violation of law or for individuals to aid or abet illegal entry. i would say you need to take a look at facebook and what they are doing to provide for greater administration that the biden administration intensive foster. let's get down to what happens here, and our biggest city is milwaukee, wisconsin. you have parents that are silenced. >> the time has expired mr. jeffries. >> thank you mr. chairman and general garland for your leadership, service to the country and your presence here today. earlier today the house bat passed on a bipartisan basis by a vote of 414211 the effective counsel and digital air act which would limit the ability to private communications between detainees and at the custody their attorneys. included in a bipartisan way, and that needs to be addressed, with seeking technical assistant from the department of justice and the b.o.p., i sent a letter to you in that regard yesterday. i ask unanimous consent mr. chairman that it be entered into the record. and i look forward to your response on working with the department of justice on this issue. voter fraud if proven, is a serious crime that carries a five year prison sentence, is that right? >> i'm not sure about the sentence but yes, if proven it's a serious crime. >> in the apartment of justice is responsible for investigating voter fraud to come is that right? >> yes. >> so your predecessor bill barr public egg acknowledged -- at the most secure in american history? >> that is a a conclusion of the department of justice and department of homeland security, the fight, despite the fact that there is no evidence of so-called fraud at least 19 states have enacted 33 laws making it harder for everyday americans to vote. and in the aftermath of the january 6th insurrection, instead of running towards democracy there are people throughout this country, some, who have won don't like run away from this democracy and have unleashed on epidemic voter suppression across the land. we ask you a few questions about how these have occurred. how does banning churches and civic groups from giving food and water to voters, some of whom who have been in line for hours prevent or address of voter fraud? >> i don't want to talk too much about that because that's a subject of our loss against the state of georgia but you have identified a segment of that statute that we have challenged as being unlawful. >> and is restricting the times that someone can cast their vote to business hours when many americans are at work relate in any way rationally to protecting the integrity of our elections? >> let me talk generally about this. i believe that every eligible voter should be eligible to vote and voters, but make it more difficult to vote unless they are absently necessary. the justice department is limited in its ability to bring cases unless they are discriminatory effect. but the general manner would be that everyone should have the ability to vote as readily and easily as possible. >> one of the founding reasons for the department of justice to defensible rights in the nation and in that particular context, i believe it was in -- come a long way and we still have a long way to go. we still see race-based assaults on civil rights taking place today and i would just urge the department of justice as it has been doing in the leadership and it do all that's possible to defend and protect the integrity of the right to vote. let me also just comment, there are some that continue to lie about the election. they are lying about cobeta. they are lying about the department of justice, and general you are a man of great integrity and under your leadership the department of justice is on to a good start. we appreciate what you are doing and keep it up on behalf of the people of the constitution. >> the gentleman yields back. there's a technical issue with the zoom feed so we will at recess for less than 5 minutes to resolve the issue. >> that was very "star trek" sounding. they exited for just a moment, they are going to work out some zoom technical difficulties and some people are getting up to leave so that gives them an opportunity to leave. there have been some moments of contentiousness here and no doubt, a lot of it centering around appearance having been termed as and looked at and targeted as potential terrorists, domestic terrorists in our own country. i am harris faulkner and we have now slid into our live coverage of this on "outnumbered." i'm joined by my cohost emily come upon you and kaylee mcinerney, fox nation host tony laren and former wisconsin congressmen and fox news contributor, sean duffy. great to have you with us here today. sean, you are the only one of us here today who has actually served on the hill so i want to come to you and get your topline thoughts about where the bristling moments were and are the hottest issue so far. >> sean: first off, it's frustrating for members as they see mayor garland dome academic mayor garland say i can't talk about that because it's a pending investigation or pending lawsuit and they continue to push him. i find what was interesting here harris was, he said i have no idea about this case in loudoun county with this boy dressed as a girl, went into a bathroom and it did incredibly foul and horrible things to a young girl, was moved and went somewhere else. so to come into the country and say you haven't heard about it, i find it unbelievable. the backdrop of this is, merit garland said it the constitution does not protect individuals based on those views. as someone who's had in those seats and has run for congress, we have a wide lane where we let our constituents, and you look at kyrsten sinema, the groups that are organizing against her are following her into bathrooms, and we have to take a step back and go, mr. attorney general, they are way off base to how it works and political opinions and that some of the push that we are getting especially with some republicans off the dais. >> harris: i want to push in just a little bit on what was going on. with a conflict of interest, critical race theory and the connection there with his son-in-law. representative mike johnson, a republican from louisiana had this to say during that exchange and it was testy. watch. >> it was motivated by politics than any pressing law enforcement lead. it also concerns us that your actions may have met him motivated by your family's financial stake. >> i am very familiar with it and i want to be clear once again that there is nothing in this memorandum that it has any effect on the kinds of curriculum that are taught and their vigorous debate, as you mentioned earlier, is the curriculum. at the very curricula that your son-in-law is selling. did you seek ethics counsel before you issued a letter that directly relates to the financial interest of your family, yes or no? >> this memorandum does not relate to the financial interest of anyone. >> i will take that as a no. it's been on a quick thought and then i will come to the couch with kayleigh. >> sean: this relationship should have been disclosed and it wasn't, obviously when you are going after parents who are opposed to critical race theory and your family makes money off of selling critical race theory, this is an eyebrow raiser. >> harris: kayleigh, you know as we watch this, it's so basic. you are asked the question -- and by the way we didn't even play the whole thing, because we don't know how long this break is going to be but it might have been all of 5 minutes that they were given. when you asked whether or not you sought ethics to look at or advice on this and you don't answer the question, what does that tell you? >> kayleigh: it seems evasive and almost guilty. i heard one commentator say why not submit yourself right here and now if you didn't do anything wrong, look into my family. my son-in-law who cofounded this bunny invested in crt ideas and works with school boards, i would love for that board to look at it immediately. not only that but it seems to be hiding behind the "i don't know." he issues this memo on october 4th, so literally within days. he was asked did you coming to get directly with the white house and he said no. did you coordinate with atf, and he said i did not. did others in your department? he headed behind i don't know these are important directions. and we are all in receipt of memorandum, and they solicit the expertise and resources of the u.s. department of justice and federal bureau of investigation, u.s. department of homeland security, u.s. secret service on the assessments regarding the right level risk to public school children, faculty and campuses. that's the exact language that they are using. and yet they want us to believe that there was no targeting of parents. >> kayleigh: we can all see quite plainly that there certainly was but we need to talk about the power of these teachers unions as you mentioned, it's not just about this issue. it's about the vaccination guidelines and they had their hand in all of this in the biden administration has been playing ball. but to go back to kayleigh's point, the lack of transparency from the administration as a whole. >> harris: all right, we will get back to the house judiciary committee and the attorney general america garland now, questioning from the 46 members bipartisan continues now. >> i certainly did, and i worked on it. >> in that memo you issued a directive to the fbi. you directed the fbi to conduct meetings with leaders at all levels of government across the country, and every judicial district to strategize against an alleged trend of "harassment, intimidation and threats of violence." you didn't cite examples to distinguish legitimate first amendment activity from criminal activity, nor certainly examples of a nationwide scope or severity of such acts that constitute a rise or a spike in criminal activity which you alleged in the memo. certainly not one that would not warrant nationwide action by the fbi. here you relied on knowledge which you relied in part, which by the way characterized of this activity nationwide is domestic terrorism and may be some vague awareness of other news reports. this was not the initiation of the investigation, and frankly, the preeminent law enforcement official of the country. other than a brief nod to the concept of first amendment rights, you included no guidance, the fbi should go about legitimate first amendment activity. you've even distanced yourself from the doj's press release on the memo today and it's referenced in the national security division. it's come to this. you directed the fbi to act with speed and meetings in 30 days is what you said. you directed the fbi to have these meetings coordinate by the united states attorneys. 33 days later i and some 30 adverbs of congress asked for advance notice of these meetings and indications of what content would be shared there. we asked for that response within ten days and that was given the time frame you set forth. are these meetings occurring? >> let me just be clear here. this memo is expressly directed against threats of violence and violence. the federal statutes that are relevant and prosecutors are well aware of where the first amendment line is and this was addressed to prosecutors and members of law enforcement. these are the kinds of statutes that we deal with every single day. they know the line. >> i'm sure you deal with that in this way, are the meetings occurring, do you know? >> i don't know whether they are ongoing but i expect that they are because i asked that they take place. >> so you have not pursued at all to know with the progress is of your directive to do this within 30 days, you just don't know? >> i don't know whether they have been meetings in every jurisdiction's but i would expect there have been some jurisdictions because that's the purpose of the memo. they have meetings to discuss whether there is a problem, to discuss strategies and discuss with her local law enforcement does need assistance or doesn't need assistance, and that's the purpose of these meetings. >> does not make it worse? these are directed urgently to occur, but what was left in need of the memo accept your use of federal law enforcement moral authority to stigmatize a widespread movement of first amendment activity, at least a significant portion of which is directed as opposed to the ideology of what your son-in-law makes his living? that is the problem. and there is no answer, if you were on the bench you would not accept an answer from council that simply repeated your opposition to threats of violence nationwide. and, i apologize. >> in fact, he would ask a counsel in response to the point. without having a raft or significant volume of evidence you directed the fbi nationwide concerning a matter on which there is widespread first amendment activity, there is a movement among school parents and that seems to me -- >> gentlemen, your time is expired. mr. sisley name. >> thank you for being here. before i begin i would like to acknowledge the stark contrast, and we saw over and over again evidence of mr. trump's personal grudges dictating the doj corp. policy and how the department was weaponized and punish those who would speak against him. we hear public officials often speak about how we must ensure justice is blind but it's almost laughable, and manipulated as it was during the trump presidency. and instead understands a solemn obligation to the american people and to the rule of law. and though i disagree with some of the decisions that you made it, i have never had any doubt about your integrity or impartiality and so i think you for your service. my first question mr. attorney general is approximately, actually in 2020, about 6,000 firearms were sold to prohibited purchases because of the charleston loophole where the background check doesn't come back within 72 hours. i have a piece of legislation, the unlawful gun buyer alert that would require the system to notify the local fbi office in the local law enforcement agency for someone who is -- there was -- he's actually got a gun. that bill is pending in the house but would it be possible for the justice department for you to initiate the palm promulgation of a regulation that would require to share information on the purchases so that we can in fact responded to people who illegally bought guns in the first year. >> we will certainly look into it, we were are certainly interested in closing all loopholes that are prohibited. >> thank you and i will follow up with your staff. cracks me a year ago the judiciary committee released a 450 page report, and this report the report said decades of flawed jurisprudence made it impossible to get courts to stop harmful mergers. courts have become fixated on market defamation litigation even though the firm engages market power. i know you cannot ask for support without a lengthy white house process but my question is, do you think congress should update the antitrust laws to give authorities additional tools and courts additional guidance in how to ensure free and fair competition in the digital economy? >> we are supportive of updating the antitrust laws. and those exclusionary policies, and it has been -- i also asked for in the fy22 budget for additional personnel in the division so that we can aggressively police this area. one particular problem is there are huge new numbers of merger filings and for us to possibly review the competitive or anticompetitive nature of those filings we will need additional people and additional assistance. >> we are fighting hard to make sure we have additional resources to get this work done. in march, the u.s. court of appeals, the judge would explain that the jurisprudence over the last four decades has contribute it to under enforcement. she told the subcommittee that legislative changes to the statutes may be aunt -- antiquated practices do not go on redressed or otherwise ineffective. can you identify for us and if you can't do it today, the challenges the department are the particular types of categories, because of those challenges and what additional tools or authorities does the department need to overcome those challenges and aggressively enforce antitrust laws? >> i'm not in a position to specify those now but the staff will get back to you. i'm happy to do that. >> finally, i am grateful for all of your work to make sure that school board meetings and teachers and school staff are kept safe, and the notion that, we made reference to the peaceful sit in that we conducted, and that gun violence education and complete that to a violent insurrection that results in the death of five people in an effort to undermine my democracy was i think disgraceful and with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. attorney general i'd like to direct your attention to the easel behind me. the first painting is a claude monet. >> i'm sorry, i can't read any of the words. >> you don't need to, just look at this beautiful painting, it still stood at christie for $7,000. claude monet was the founder of the impressionist movement, something i didn't know until i researched it. the second painting is a deep d. it sold for $500,000. the third painting, as a hunter biden. you may recognize this painting. >> i don't recognize the painting. the hunter died in painting sold for $500,000 also. you may think that such an exclusive, that he would have a background artistic training for example. but you would be wrong if he thought that. and you might think that he had some sort of apprenticeship with a world renown artists but you would be wrong again if you thought that. or perhaps that he has been selling his work for years and unfortunately you would be wrong. it turns out that in 2019 hunter biden couldn't find a