0 about a conversation that i'm not -- >> i'm stunned that you can't recall that. so let's talk about afghanistan. the secretary -- undersecretary for defense policy, mr. kael says, isis-k poses a short term external threat al qaeda could launch attacks outside afghanistan within a year or two. do you agree with that? >> i agree that al qaeda has always presented and continues to present a persistent threat to the united states homeland. >> the question is what's changed? you say always. has any recent event changed the likelihood of an attack? >> i don't know. >> you don't know that we withdrew from afghanistan. >> i know we withdrew. i don't no if it will increase the risk from al qaeda or not. >> you are the attorney general of the united states. due to the lack of ability to have eyes and ears on the ground there was testimony and the unreliability of the taliban that an attack on the united states within six months or a year is far more likely after a withdrawal, you're not aware he said that? >> the job of the justice department and f.b.i. is to protect against those attacks in the homeland. >> is that a dynamic of our withdrawal? do you trust the taliban to look at al qaeda >> i don't trust them. >> they will not work with us regarding containing the al qaeda/isis threat. are you aware of that? >> i think there has been inconsistent statements. >> they just literally said that. >> there have been inconsistent statements but their statements are not anything that we can rely on. >> when they tell you to your face we aren't going to help you, do you think they are kidding? do you think they will really tell us? >> isis-k, al qaeda and associated forces continue to be. >> we're talking about the taliban. the taliban has told the united states they will not work with our counter terrorism forces when it comes to al qaeda or isis. what response should we have regarding the taliban when they say that? >> i think we have a number of different tools available >> like what? >> economic sanctions, they need money from the united states states for humanitarian and other reasons. >> the leverage over the taliban is whether or not we give them money? >> the job of the justice department is protecting using the f.b.i. and the national security agencies. >> the national security division is part of our counter terrorism operation, right? >> it is one. >> has anybody from the national security division briefed you about the increased likelihood of attack emanating from afghanistan after our withdrawal? >> every day i'm briefed by the f.b.i. >> my question is specific. has anybody briefed you about the increased likelihood of an attack emanating from afghanistan by isis or al qaeda because of our complete withdrawal? >> we are worried about the risk of attack by -- >> one thing to be worried. has anybody told you the likelihood of an attack is greater because of our withdrawal or not. >> different views about the degrees of likelihood. that doesn't change our posture. >> it doesn't change your posture if you go from a possibility of being attacked to a six month to a year time window of being attacked. >> we have asked for substantial additional funds for our counter terrorism operations. >> is that in light of the withdrawal from afghanistan? >> in light of a lot of changing circumstances in the world. >> let me put a fine point on this. secretary wray has told the world that isis and al qaeda in afghanistan present a threat to our homeland. the taliban has told us they are not going to help us when it comes to policing these groups. the department of defense has said we are six months to a year away from a possible attack by isis and al qaeda. and just seems to me there is not a sense of urgency about this. >> there is a sense of urgency. >> what have you done specifically -- specifically what have you done since our withdrawal in afghanistan to deal with this new threat? >> we have strengthened and increased the efforts of our joint terrorism task forces. i have met with them. >> literally what have you done. put it in writing. write down what you've done. >> i'll be happy to have our staff assess. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, welcome attorney general garland. two topics. the first is executive privilege. we've been through a rather bleak period with regard to executive privilege. i think you would call it the anything goes period in which any assertion of executive privilege no matter how fanciful or preposterous was essentially allowed to stand in very significant departure from the law that has been out there for years regarding executive privilege. and at the same time that the substance of executive privilege was being expanded beyond recognition, the procedure for evaluating executive procedure determinations was completely ignored and this is the procedure that was established by president reagan's white house. so we now have a situation in which there is very substantial destruction and disarray in the area of executive privilege determinations. and as you know, under the reagan memo, the department of justice had a roll kind of as an arbiter to be the honest broker between whatever executive agency was objecting and whatever congressional committee was pursuing information. that role completely fell apart in the last administration and it needs to be rebuilt in some predictable fashion. the role of the courts has become highly problematic because delay is very often -- the courts are now a haven for delay with respect to executive privilege determinations. i think we need to look at that as well. senator kennedy and i had a hearing on the executive privilege problem in the court subcommittee. the department of justice wasn't represented at that hearing. i would like to ask you to detail somebody from the department of justice to talk to senator kennedy and me about this executive privilege problem and work with us on trying to figure out a solution making the role of the department of justice more clear and transparent and perhaps emotion bodying it in rule, regulation or law and try to figure out how to accelerate the courts a way to get quicker decisions. otherwise delay and we lose not because we're wrong but because we're delayed. would you have somebody be our point of contact on that please? i don't mean detail on our payroll but as a point of contact. >> absolutely, of course. >> great. thank you. next i've been pursuing the question of the department's investigation into january 6 since pretty early days starting with a letter in january 8th that asked about the resources being deployed into this investigation and whether a task force -- prosecution task force was being set up and so forth and another let february 24th with regard to domestic extremist, violence groups, potential role. we've learned a little bit more now and learned there was a lot of money sloshing around in the background behind the january 6 rally and behind the raid, the riot, in the capitol. for instance, we know that the bradley foundation, which is a big funder, gave money to turning point usa and to public interest legal foundation and it gets more interesting because turningpoint usa has a twin called turningpoint action, which also got money from the judicial crisis network to support the so-called italy gate, the debunked italy gate theory. at the same time the public interest legal foundation had as its director mr. eastman cranking out his fanciful memo for president trump how to overturn the election. the judicial crisis network is the same thing from the honest elections project bringing a fanciful case in pennsylvania regarding election fraud and the judicial crisis network was also funding the republican attorney general's association making robocalls to get people to come to the riot. i don't know what's going on behind all that but i hope the due diligence of the f.b.i. is being deployed not just to the characters who trespassed in the capitol that day and who engaged in violent acts, but that you are taking a look you would properly take at any case involving players behind the scenes, funders of the enterprise and so forth in this matter as well and there has been no decision to say we're limiting this case just to the people in the building that day. we're not going to take a serious look at anybody behind it. >> i'm very limited as to what i can say. i have a criminal investigation going forward. >> please tell me it has been constrained only to people in the capitol. >> the investigation is being conducted by the prosecutors in the u.s. attorney's office and f.b.i. field office. we have not constrained them in any way. >> great. the old doctrine of follow the money, which is a well-established principle of prosecution is alive and well. >> fair to say that all investigative techniques that you are familiar and some maybe that you're not familiar with because they post date your time are all being pursued in this matter. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator cornyn. >> good morning, mr. attorney general. on september 29th, 2021 as you know the national school board association wrote a letter to the president asking him to address the disruptions, confrontations that we've seen at local school boards across the country. parents expressing their concerns about not only the curriculum but also just generally the education of their children in public schools. would you agree that parents have a fund mental right to be involved in their children's education? >> absolutely. this is the job of parents to be involved and this is the role the first amendment to protect their ability to be involved. that's why my memo begins by saying that we respect the right to spirited debate about curriculum, about school policies and about anything like that. >> so it is not just a good idea, it is actually protected by the constitution of the united states, would you agree? >> absolutely. >> on october 4th, a few days later less than a week later after the national school board association wrote this letter, the justice department issued the memo that has already been discussed. why did this rise to the level of a federal concern as opposed to being addressed at the local and state level? >> this arises out of a repeated reports of violence and threats of violence. not only with respect to school boards and school officials and teachers, but as i mentioned earlier, also with respect to secretaries of state and election administrators, judges, prosecutors, senators, members of congress. the justice department has two roles. we assist state and local law enforcement in all ways and we enforce federal laws which prohibit threats of violence in -- by telephone, by email. >> you as a long time federal judge with a distinguished legal career, you understand that not every crime, assuming it is a crime, is a federal crime, correct, >> absolutely. >> unless there is a nexus to interstate commerce they are in the purview of state and local authorities, correct? >> we have authority with respect to the mail, the internet. >> let me give you an example. if somebody says to the school board member if you do that, i'm going to meet you outside and punch you in the nose. is that a federal offense? >> no that's not a federal offense. >> i agree. why in the world would you cite the national security division in this memo is being one of the appropriate entities of the department of justice to investigate and perhaps prosecute these offenses? >> my memo itself doesn't mention the national security division. it is mentioned in another memo that was released by the department. the national security division like all the other law enforcement components cooperates with and is involved in discussions about how to go forward on different kinds of matters. they were involved, for example, in the election threats. they were involved in the threats against judges and prosecutors. they were involved in the hate crimes threats cases. a natural part of our internal analysis. >> let me ask you, did you see the national school board association letter to president biden before you issued your memorandum on october 4th? >> yes, i did. that was part of the reason. their expression at the beginning of that memorandum. >> they raised some of the concerns that you voiced here today, correct? >> they raised some of them. they raised others that i don't agree with and were not included in my memo. >> well, you are aware that on october 22nd, the national school board association apologized for its letter. you are aware of that, aren't you, sir? >> i am. >> it went on to say we regret and apologize for the letter. there was no justification for some of the language in the letter. they acknowledge that the voices of parents should be and must continue to be heard and when it comes to decisions about their children's education, health and safety. you did not apologize for your memorandum of october 4th even though the national school board association did. why didn't you rescind that memorandum and apologize for your -- for the memorandum? >> the core responsibility of the justice department as i said in my opening is protecting americans from violence and threats of violence. >> but you just said not every act of violence is a federal crime, correct? >> right and not every bit of street crime and the kind of violence that we've been talking about earlier today is also a federal crime but we assist state and locals to help them in their investigations of these kind of matters. every single day in non-federal matters we're partners with our state and local partners. >> mr. attorney general, you have acknowledged that parents have a constitutional right to be heard on the education of their children in public schools. can you imagine the sort of intimidation, the sort of bullying impact that a memorandum from the department of justice would have and how that would chill the willingness of parents to exercise their rights under threat of federal prosecution? did you consider the chilling impact your memorandum would have on parents exercising their constitutional rights? >> the only thing this memorandum is about is violence and threats of violence. and it opens with a statement -- >> my question is did you consider the chilling effect this would have on parents' constitutional rights? >> to say that the justice department is against violence and threats of violence. >> did you consider the chilling effect your memorandum might have on parents exercising their constitutional rights? i think you can answer that yes or no. >> what i considered what i wanted the memorandum to assure people that we recognize the rights of spirited debate. >> mr. attorney general you are a very intelligent and accomplished lawyer and judge. you can answer the question did you consider the chilling effect that this sort of threat of federal prosecution would have of parents exercise of their constitutional rights to be involved in their children's education >> i don't believe it's reasonable to read this memorandum of chilling everyone's rights. it's there threat of violence and the constitutional right to make arguments about your children's education. >> senators are going back and forth for votes during this time and >> let the record reflect the attorney general refused to answer the question. >> let the record reflect the senator from texas is allowed to go over his allotted time. senator klobuchar. >> just to confirm something, mr. attorney general, can you confirm to this committee if you did earlier before the house judiciary committee the purpose of the memo that you were just discussing with senator cornyn is to have meetings to discuss whether there is a problem, to discuss strategies, to discuss whether local law enforcement needs assistance, or doesn't need assistance? is that the purpose of it? >> yes. thank you for making that point, senator. i say that in the memo. that the purpose of the memo is to convene meetings with federal, state, and local, tribal leaders and to facilitate discussions of strategies for addressing threats, to assess the question and to open lines of communication about those threats. >> thank you. i want to move to some other threats and that is a hearing that actually center blunt and i had yesterday. a bipartisan hearing. we both called witnesses before the rules committee. and it was with both republican and democratic election officials, the attorney general of arizona, a republican local official in philadelphia. and they told stories that horrified senators on both sides of the aisle. the philadelphia election official commissioner, local election official had been sent letters basically saying that they were going to kill him and his three kids naming the kids as well as putting his house and his address out there. the attorney general of arizona received a voicemail saying i'm a hunter and i think you should be hunted. you will never be safe in arizona again. could you talk about what is going on with threats against election workers and by the way, we had the republican secretary of state from kentucky talked about the fact that it has been difficult. they are losing in many jurisdictions across the country they don't have enough election workers because people are afraid. we don't have to discuss at length where these threats are coming from. i just want to have election officials and have a functioning democracy. can you provide an update on the election threats task force and talk about the kind of threats we're seeing to election officials? >> yes, senator. very much like the circumstances with respect to the school boards when the national school board association wrote us a letter advising of threats of violence and violence. earlier this year, we received communications from the national association of secretaries of state and the national association of election administrators raising concerns about threats of violence and violence in that area. in that -- soon there after i met virtually unfortunately because of the pandemic, with a large number of election administrators and secretary of states where they recounted these -- the kind of threats that you are talking about. and that led us to establish a task force which again coordinated efforts between the federal law enforcement agencies, u.s. attorneys offices and state and local law enforcement across the country. it is the case that many of those kind of threats can be handled by state and local law enforcement and should be where they are capable of doing that. the federal government has an important role, as you say, in protecting our democracy and protecting threats against public officials. so that is an ongoing task force evaluating threats in that particular area. >> thank you. to another area. chair of the antitrust subcommittee i urged the justice department -- we have a nomination hearing for jonathan cantor that seems to be moving ahead and i support the division's enforcement efforts including i know they are preparing for 18 trials which is the most in decades. and could you talk about the antitrust budgets senator grassley and i passed a bill with support of the members of this committee to add some additional resources to the antitrust division. we've held numerous very iminformative hearings with regard to antitrust. >> the justice department is very much committed, as i said, a key focus of our attention, antitrust enforcement because it is essential for consumer well-being and for the well-being of our citizens. we have aggressively moved in this area. we've already stopped a merger of two of the top three largest international insurance brokers. we have, as you say, continued -- we are in the middle of trials. criminal trials with respect to price fixing and market allocation. we have the ongoing matter involving exclusionary conduct in the google case. we