Jim Jordan Ruthlessly Grills Witnesses About Hunter Biden Probe, Govt Censorship | 2023 Rewind

g l give in again uh judge why wasn't it fixed last year sorry why wasn't it fixed last year I mean the nice lady talked about working in a bipartisan way to fix this problem why wasn't it fixed last year well I don't know solved last year, you talked about the concerns and how we need to work together to solve it. I'm just wondering why it wasn't fixed last year because they didn't need bipartisan support last year Congress controlled everything in the federal government if it's a federal government solution why didn't they fix it right which of the things we're doing today and I appreciate that we are having a dialogue and those dialogues I am all for dialogue.

Overall, I'm all for working together, but they didn't, it's all bipartisan now, they had a first of all, they say there's no problem on the border security board, then they come here and say oh no, no, we have to do it. Work in a bipartisan way to fix it now that we have control of the House of Representatives, but all I'm saying is that last Congress they controlled everything. Joe Joe Biden is a Democrat in the White House, the Senate was controlled by the Democrats and the house was controlled by the Democrats why didn't they fix it so I think that falls more in your corner than mine my corner does because the minority In the last Congress well, all we do is keep the flow going and try to do the best we can with a broken system, but we have nothing to do with fixing the system, so you understand how the United States government works properly, you get a majority in the House of Representatives in the Senate, they approve something that goes to the president, he signs it, they could They did it in the last Congress, they didn't do it well, what a great, what a great opportunity for you, great opportunity and that's why We are having the hearing exactly, so they criticize us in the hearing, they said, why are we starting this Congress with this? hearing so they can't have it all and they can't blame the Republicans when they were in control and you can come here and you can say oh no, now is the time for bipartisanship, we welcome it if we really want to address the problem. the problem that caused Mr. and Mrs.

Dunn to lose their son the problem that Mr. that sheriff hasn't told us about that has changed so dramatically in the last two years that's what we want to address and the rest of my time to the gentleman from Texas Mr. Roy the gentleman for giving in to your good questions um so the user knows when their accounts were suspended or blocked but they don't know when they have some of these gold terms that were under Mr. Bonino and Mr. Kirk is right, Mr. Roth, at the time I worked at Twitter, yes, that's right, so they don't know if they're on the Search Blacklist, they don't know if they're on the Search Blacklist. don't amplify, they don't know that's right.

Twitter did not reveal that you did that to these two accounts. What I want to know is if you knew Mr. Roth, if that was at the behest of someone in the government, gentlemen, time has expired. but please answer the question, no sir, I am not aware of any request, order or demand or anything from the government requesting that a visibility filter be applied to those or any other accounts. The president recognizes the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for relenting. Mr. Roth was there. ever some visibility filtering coded by Twitter employees on specific user accounts. Twitter employees were responsible for building the systems that performed the visibility filtering and then that filtering would have been applied automatically.

I'm asking a very specific question. was the code written in a way that for certain accounts, those unique accounts themselves would be visibility filtering to use your term so that they wouldn't have as much reach or as much influence. The term hardcoding suggests that it was permanent. and immutable and I wouldn't agree with that, no, but it happened. What you're saying is that Twitter employees coded into some of these specific user accounts this ability to filter and limit the reach of that particular post or that particular post. tweet I must say again I wouldn't say they were coded thank you chair recognizes Miss Brown for five minutes thank you chair com I thank the gentleman for giving in uh Mr.

Baker uh Mr. Roth said earlier that he thought it was a waste of It's about time that the FBI sent him accounts that they thought violated Twitter's terms of service and policy. He was simply curious to know if he ever told Twitter executives or FBI acquaintances that the FBI had no legitimate interest in enforcing Twitter policy. Sir, again. I'm going to give you the same answer I gave you before. I think the advice that he was giving internally to people would be covered by attorney-client privilege and that is: Let me, yes, detain Mr. Baker, even though he is testifying by subpoena today.

In any case, he has raised attorney-client privilege to avoid getting into this committee's question. Congress does not recognize the common law attorney-client privilege, so I'm going to allow Mr. Jordan to ask the question again. Well, I have asked two questions. which he has refused to answer, so allow me, Mr. President, if I could, I will ask both of them again. I'll go back to what I asked a couple of minutes ago, top page two of his testimony, you said, quote, I did not improperly destroy or delete any documents on Twitter related to information important to public dialogue.

I'd like to know what you mean that in your mind you correctly deleted and when that occurred, specifically if it took place during the time the Twitter archives were posted. It was first published just a few months ago. Well, again, sir. I think we notified the committee and also had these conversations with Twitter to try to resolve this issue before we came here today. I don't have anything. in writing clarifying for me my ethical responsibilities to my former client with respect to answering questions that I believe fall squarely within attorney-client privilege, so unfortunately I don't think I can go beyond what I already said there, sir, unfortunately , Mr.

Beer. your claim that the lawyer, you, Mr. President, Mr. Roth, was told by the government that the Biden laptop story was false, no sir, they didn't tell you it was hacked, no sir, they didn't on October 14 2020 Twitter blocks the New York Post story on Hunter Biden, uh, the New York Post story on Hunter Biden and suspends his account the night before FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan emails him. The email says this. I will send you a teleporter link to download 10 documents. It is not like this. spam, please confirm receipt when you receive it 2 minutes later at 6:24 p.m. m. you respond received and downloaded thank you what were those 10 documents?

Twitter did not give me access to my laptop, but Special Agent Chan said publicly and the FBI confirmed that those documents did not relate to Hunter Biden and that is my recollection of them. Were they related to my interactions with Agent Chan and the FBI? It focused almost entirely on what the FBI called malignant foreign interference, things like Russian troll farms and Iranian involvement in the election, not any kind of internal affairs, not the classified information there, sir. I don't have a security clearance, so I wouldn't have received any classified information about who has a security clearance.

I'll go to a second email here. I'm just curious about this. What I am proposing is that within 30 days of the election this is another email to you from Mr. Chan 30 days, you will receive temporary clearances, you choose who they are, who were the people on Twitter who had security, to be honest, sir , I'm not sure and I never ultimately followed through with this plan to get temporary clearances. Did anyone at Twitter have a security clearance? I understand that at least some current or former employees had clearances, but I wasn't sure about that, Miss Gaddy, do you know if anyone took the clearance?

Chan's offer to grant security clearances 30 days before the 2020 election I don't know, so we don't know how many people had security clearances Twitter, do we know Mr. Baker, Mr. Gaddy, Miss Gaddy, does anyone know how many people on Twitter had a security clearance in the 30 days before the election I don't know the answer to that question, scddy, I don't know Mr. Roth, you don't, no sir, how about the last one, Miss Naoli, he knows? No, I mean, it seemed like the offer was just to hand them out like candy. I was just wondering who had them, no one knows, okay, I did, so the FBI didn't tell you it was fake, they didn't tell you it was hacked, and and Mr.

Roth, did the story violate their policies in my opinion on that one? moment? No, no, yes, that's what you said, you said what I would propose, uh, excuse me, you said it's not clearly a violation of our pirated materials policy nor is it clearly a violation of anything else? So I think what a lot of people are wondering is if you didn't violate their policies and you weren't told it was fake, you weren't told it was hacked, why did you take it? It wasn't my personal judgment at the time that it was done, but my supervisor directly communicated the decision to me and ultimately I did not disagree with it enough to They oppose you, you know what you know, I think it happened, Mr.

Rth, I think they were misled, I think they wanted to dig into it , we saw what the president said where he said he knew everyone at White. House is a fascist. I think you guys wanted it removed. I think they meet with these guys every week. We know that's been established on Twitter. They had weekly meetings with Mr Chan and in the run-up to the elections they were sent. all kinds of emails send you documents about James Bond's super secret teleporter, you get information about that. I think they wanted to eliminate it. I think the FBI tricked them and that's the scary part because we were 50.

I mean this. for me it's the real conclusion 51 former intelligence officials five days after you deleted the Biden

hunter

story and blocked the New York Post account five days later 51 former Intel officials send a letter and say the Biden

hunter

story has all the classic characteristics of a Russian information operation, the information operation was executed against you and then, by extension, against the American people and that is the concern, and to Mr. Raskins point out that you are not bound by the First Amendment because They are a private company, okay? Maybe so, but you and your terms of service do not have to comply with the First Amendment.

Would it be correct, Mr. Roth, they don't have to? You've said that in your testimony, what I understand about the first amendment is that it protects people and businesses from the government, it doesn't form how and what in its terms of service, so this is what I want to know, this is what I want to know is this a violation of the first amendment when the government, Mr. Chan, again sends you an email saying We think these accounts need to be examined because they violate their terms of service, which is a different standard, so that the government says their terms of service don't have to comply with the First Amendment, but the government says we don't believe it.

These accounts comply with your terms of service, please delete them. You see a problem there, Mr. Roth, Mr. President. I see a flashing red light. I'm happy to answer the question. Do I think it's a valuable use of the FBI? time no, but I don't see a request for review as a problem under the First Amendment no, I sure do, thank you gentlemen, you are behind the president, recognize Mr. Cley for five minutes, thank you, Mr. President, great, Recognize Mr. Cley for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. President, very good, wow, what happens when you have a hearing and you can't prove your point.

We heard from the president in his opening statement that it is wrong for the government to call Twitter and tell it to delete a tweet. I hear that's right, Mr. Roth, I understood that, yes, yes, on May 27, 2020, President Donald J. Trump tweeted and I quote: Republicans feel that social media platforms totally silence conservatives, for right, something that would be news to you, apparently, Mr. Roth, because We are still subject to conservative harassment, we will regulate them heavily, he went on to say, or we will shut them down before we allow this to happen quote unquote. Miss Naari does not sound eerily like a government official telling Twitter that there is a threat. close you if we don't like the content.

I'm not familiar with the tweet you referenced, but if I were to tell you that quote without telling you who said it, it might have some sinister undertones from your point of view. You're still on Twitter we'll shut you down we'll regulate you we'll never let this happen those are pretty strong words yeah that's fine September 8, 2019 at 11:11 pm Donald Trump interrupted two celebrities on Twitter, JohnLegend and his wife Chrissy Tagan, and referred to them as musician John Legend and his dirty wife, in quotes. Ms. Tagan responded to that email at 12:17 a.m. and, according to notes from a conversation with Nai's Strange Council, Your Council, the White House almost immediately afterward contacted Twitter to demand that the Tweet be removed, is that accurate?

Thanks for the question in my role. I was not responsible for receiving any type of government request, however, which was PVE. He went to my supervisors letting us know that we had received something similar or something like a request and in that particular case I remember hearing that we hadI received a request from the White House to make sure that we evaluated this tweet and that they wanted it removed because it was a statement derogatory tone directed towards the president. They wanted it removed. As I remember, they made that request. Yes, I thought that. it was an inappropriate action by a government official let alone the White House, but it wasn't Joe Biden over his son's laptop, it was Donald Trump because he didn't like what Christy Tan said about him, that's right , Yes, that is correct.

Whoa, whoa, have you ever thought that it's appropriate for the President of the United States to direct or otherwise influence a social media company to remove its content? I think it's a very slippery slope Mr. Roth Ms. Gaddy Mr. Baker, any evidence that Joe Biden has ever done that certainly none that I know of no, I don't remember anything like that. I'm sorry that President Biden did what Mr. Joe Biden ever called Twitter, to your knowledge, or the White House at his behest to remove content or urge you to remove content. I don't know the answer to that question, sir.

Well, I'll have to conclude that at least three of the four don't know that there's no evidence that he ever did that, but there's plenty of evidence, Donald. J Trump tried to do that and if we're going to have a hearing on social media misuse and government intrusion into social media content, we have a Rich Target environment, but it's not Joe Biden, it's Donald J. Trump. and of course we don't want to talk about that, we don't want to talk about Russian bots and Russian fabrications using fake Twitter accounts for a political purpose and it's not to help elect Democrats, um, and we don't want to talk about. about four years of Donald Trump manipulating the truth and trying to manipulate social media and threaten it, or directly trying to shape it by removing content because it was critical of him personally, and that's what we should talk about as we go. go ahead is not the topic of today's hearing I yield J yield the chair acknowledge Mr.

Donalds for five minutes uh thank you Mr. President uh very quickly Mr. Roth just 20 seconds maybe I'll ask a quick question to Mr. uh Williams Mr. Williams's statement opening there is Much has been said about Attorney General Garland's October 21, 2021 memo, the opening statement, says the first sentence in recent months there has been a disturbing increase in harassment, intimidation, threats of violence against school administrators and when he testified on October 21, 2021. uh we asked him what the basis was what the evidence was for that statement. Do you remember what the Attorney General said, sir? No longer, I no longer work for the Department of Justice.

I did not advise him and I will remind him. you said it was the letter from the National School Boards Association. Now, do you happen to know what the National School Boards Association did with their letter? What they said about your letter after Mr. after the Attorney General testified. said that we regret and apologize for the letter, so the basis for the attack action involving the federal government and the local school board is important to local authorities, the basis was the letter, that is what the prosecutor cited general and that letter has been withdrawn and the association that sent that letter said: we apologize and we regret having sent.

It seems to me that the Attorney General should resend his memorandum that we have requested for a year and a half. Thanks to the president. I hope Democrats tell us to focus on the future. started in a laboratory it could have happened in nature, but here is the question I keep asking myself: if it could have been a laboratory, it could have been nature, we are supposed to look forward, so why did Dr. Fouy worked so hard for only one? of those theories why it was so important to put one before the other Dr. Barett said oh we should consider all the hypotheses Dr.

Fouch had his his hypothesis how this started we should consider them all but that's not what happened that's definitely not what what happened three years ago if you thought it came from a laboratory if you raised that they called you crazy they censored you on Twitter they blacklisted you on Twitter they even called you crazy the same scientist who at the end of january sent emails to Dr. fouchy and He said it came from a lab, they called him a nutcase, that's right, Dr. Redfield. I think the most annoying thing for me was that Baltimore's son called me racist because I said this came from a Wuhan lab.

Dr. repto. uh you ran the CDC and you were on the coronavirus task force, is that correct? It was formed on January 29, 2020. It's that right. Two days later, Dr. Fouchy receives an email from Dr. saying what virus seems designed and is not consistent with evolution. The theory is that accurate, as I understand it, I know he shared that email with you, by the way, Dr. Redfield, no, as a member of the task force as head of the CDC, he shared that email with you. The next day, February 1st, is not good. Dr. Gary sends Dr. Fouchy another email saying: I don't know how this happens in nature, but it would be easy to do in a lab.

If he shared that email with you. Dr. Redfield, you didn't see any of those emails. you are the head of the CDC even though you are on the corona virus task force that was formed only 2 days 3 days before Not 3 days after Dr. Anderson and Dr. Gary who told us it came of a laboratory and sent emails to Dr. Fouchy saying Dr. Fouchy did not let Dr. Redfield see three days later, they changed their position 180 degrees. The question is why, Mr. Wade, why would they change their position so quickly when the only intervening event is a conference call with Dr.

Fouchy, the guy who didn't do it? Let Dr. Redfield see the same emails that had been sent to him. Dr. Redfield had a CDC on the coronavirus task force. Why would they change his position? Dr. Way or Mr. W. Well, this question is at the heart of the matter. What is relevant? It seems to me that there is no new scientific evidence that we can see that was available between these dates, January 31st and February 4th. There is nothing new. I think you should move on, so you should ask if there were other guys. of influence available now, it is true that Dr.

Fouy and Dr. Far in London were very powerful research officials and between them they control. I read your testimony. I saw that yes. So why don't you go over to Chase and tell them what he really thinks? I think it was the reason. I don't know what the reason was. I didn't know what the reason was. Well, no, go ahead, go ahead. I'll let you tell why I read your testimony. I think you said it in your testimony. Also maybe you were lucky to say it here, but go ahead, if you're looking at the timeline of May 21, just a few weeks after na Med, the nation's medical article, came out, two of the email signatures original email to Dr. foui who is Dr.

Anderson and Dr. Gary received a $9 million grant so there are 9 million reasons they changed their minds. I knew it would come to that. I read it last night, 3 months later, 3 days after they say it came from the lab they changed their position in the only intervening events a conference call with Dr. fouchy and Dr. Collins again a call saying that Mr. Redfield was not allowed him to run the CDC and the coronavirus task force and then three months later Shazam, they get $9 million from Dr. Fouchy, well, isn't it something, isn't it something, that's why we want talk to these guys, so President Winst wants to bring in Dr.

Anderson and Dr. Gary and ask them a series of questions. can we get to the bottom of this so we can move on and deal with this here's the key question look no I'm not I'm just a common sense guy from Ohio well I majored in wrestling in college but I got a degree in economics, you're supposed to get a degree when you go to college, I got one in economics and one of the things they talk to you about is something called opportunity cost, so when you spend your time doing I'm sure The country believes in only one of these theories: You could have been doing what Dr.

Redfield was doing in our government, trying to figure out how we deal with this virus and what Dr. Fouchy was doing. He was trying to cover his ass and everyone. knows it and that's a part that bothers us because this is the highest paid guy in our government getting all kinds of money to tell us things that weren't accurate because now we know that our tax dollars went to a lab in China, a lab who was not prepared to code a lab that was doing gain of function research and that's where this definitely came from and Dr.

Fouchy had to prove that no, no, you can't let that news spread and it's That's why he did what he did with exclusion. of a brilliant guy who ran our CDC kept him out of the loop probably could have hurt America, that's what bothers us all and that's why Mr. President, this hearing is so important and we got to the end of it. that really happened, I give up, uh, Mr. Shellberg, I want to go to the Twitter archives, part seven. I related a lot of what you put there in my opening statement and I want to give you as much time as you want because I'm I'm going to read the first sentence because something caught my attention when I read the first sentence in files number 7 of Twitter, the FBI and Biden's laptop.

You say this how the FBI and intelligence community debunked factual information about Biden's foreign business dealings, both afterward. and before the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14, 2020 and what caught my attention was the way he framed it because he did it the opposite of what is normally said, normally I would say that the prayer would be read abroad. business deals before and after, but I guess he did it for a reason because in fact, I think in the next sentence he says that social media companies debunk leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after, he uses the usual form in the second prayer, but in the first one.

The phrase stands out to me because you were trying to emphasize the previous component of that statement and I want you to explain to us why you said that because when I read it it was certainly an operation, both before and after, as you said after and before, thank you. you, Mr. President, read the entire series of events. I don't know to what extent the influence operation targeting pre-b, the Hunter Biden laptop, was coordinated. I don't know who was involved, but what we saw was that you saw Aspen and Stanford, many months before, say not to cover the material in the hack and leak without emphasizing the fact that it could be disinformation, so they are preparing to journalists from covering a future hack and leak in the way journalists have long been trained.

In the tradition of the Pentagon Papers made famous by the Sten Spielberg movie, they said they cover the fact that it probably came from the Russians, then there's former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker, the former deputy. FBI chief of staff, both came to Twitter in the summer of 2020, which I find to be an interesting coincidence, so when the New York Post publishes its first article on October 14, it is Jim Baker who makes the strongest argument within Twitter, multiple emails, multiple messages. saying this doesn't seem real, there are people, there are intelligence experts who say this could be Russian disinformation.

He is the most vocal person on Twitter and argues that it is probably Russian disinformation. The internal assessment of Yol Roth, who testified in front of this committee, was that it was what it appeared to be, that it was not the result of a hacking and leak operation and why he thought that because the New York Post had published the FBI subpoena to take the laptop in December 2019 and posted the agreement that the laptop store owner preferred to have with Hunter Biden, who gave him permission after he abandoned the laptop to use it. however he wanted, so there really wasn't much doubt about the Providence of that laptop, but Jim Baker was making an effort. argument and then, of course, a few days after the October 14th post, we have the president of the United States echoing what they were sayingthese former Intelligence Community officials, which is it seemed like a Russian influence operation, so they were claiming that the laptop was made public because of a conspiracy theory and the conspiracy theory that somehow the Russians they got it and they and they basically convinced Yol Roth that they were the ones who convinced him of this crazy hacking and leak story that somehow the Russians stole it they got the information they gave it to the computer store and it was weird , so you read that chain of events and it seems as if there was an influence operation organized for pre-b.

Why do you think they could predict the time, the method and the person? the FBI predicted it, not only did they predict it, they predicted it, so did the Aspen Institute. It seemed like everyone was on the not saying this is what's going to happen, we can read the future, why do you think how do you think they were able to do it? I think the most important fact we need to know is that the FBI had that laptop in December 2019. They were also spying on Rudy Giuliani when he got the laptop and when he gave it to the New York Post, now maybe FBI agents that they were going to Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and Twitter executives and warning about a hack and a leak that could involve Hunter, maybe those guys had nothing to do with the ones with the laptop, we don't know, but I have to say it as a newcomer. this as someone who thought it was russian disinformation in 2020 everyone i knew thought it was russian.

I was surprised to see that period in which that series of events happened, it seemed to me like a deliberate influence operation. I have no proof of it, but the circumstantial evidence is quite disturbing, quite overwhelming, thank you. Mr. Shel, now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Goldman, for five minutes last week at the full hearing of the Judiciary Committee. He introduced into the record a story from a left-wing journalist who he said talked about the FBI turning a paid informant into a criminal in the Black Lives Matter movement in Denver. I want to focus on the First Amendment just like protecting the First Amendment just like these guys point of order Mr.

President, are you going to answer after every no? I'm taking my five minutes this is oh it's your five minutes now I can take my five minutes when when when I want and I'm taking my five minutes okay great thank you. I would ask for a few extra seconds for being interrupted by the ranking member. But the truth is that we want to focus on protecting the First Amendment. Mr. Shellenberg, are you a Republican? No, I'm not. Do you have any Pro Trump stickers on your car that you know? I voted for Biden I voted for Biden Do you know how many Maga hats are in your house?

I don't know, yeah, but you said before that both you and Mr. Tyby said this is the creepiest thing. thing you've ever seen as a journalist, Mr. T, maybe the same thing, you're not a Republican either, right, no, you didn't vote for that. I mean, this is about protecting the First Amendment, Mr. AB, I want to read from his Twitter archive. number nine you say this after weeks of Twitter Files The Bureau issued a statement on Wednesday referring to the FBI this is what the FBI said it is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation for the sole purpose of try to discredit the agency that you then follow, which is why I believe you are an award-winning author, then continue, you must think that we are not ambitious if our only goal is to discredit the FBI, after all, a whole range of government agencies are discredited by themselves in the Twitter archives and then you go to this particular Twitter archive to talk about what Mr.

Bishop had just said about the gec at the state department you talk about the CIA you talk about the Department of Defense you talk about the FBI you talk about the DHS you talk about the foreign intelligence task force which is a combination of all of these but there was one agency you didn't mention because you didn't know at the time one agency had almost the entire alphabet but you didn't mention one agency the FTC , the If you know them now, yes, now you know them in a close and personal way, you didn't know it then, but you do know it now.

December 2nd, as I said before, December 2nd, the first Twitter file goes out, Mr. Taii and I. I believe there are five others, including Mr. Shellenberger's. On December 13, the first letter the FTA FTC sends to Twitter after the Twitter files. 11 days after the first Twitter archive, five have come out. The first FTC lawsuit on that first one. The letter after the Twitter files come out is to identify all the journalists I'm citing, identify all the journalists and other members of the media that Twitter worked with. You find it terrifying, sir, that a federal government agency asked a private company.

Who in the press are you talking to? Yes, it scares me. I think it is not the government's business. Which journalist does the private company talk to and why. I think all journalists should be concerned about that and the lack of interest in that topic. by my fellow colleagues in the mainstream media is an indication of how far the business has sunk. There was once a real sense of warmth and camaraderie within the media every time one of us left after we all accepted the challenge and supported. we were, yeah, it used to be the case, um, that's gone now, uh, we don't protect anyone, what else used to happen?

Democrats used to care about protecting First Amendment free speech rights too now it's okay if you're attacking and I I said this on the floor of the house I said don't think they won't come for you oh big tech media cancels the culture, they can come for republicans and conservatives now, but never, the mob is never satisfied, they will keep coming, Mr. CH Shellenberger, do you know who the FTC chairman is, uh, not personally, Lena Khan Lena Khan, do you know who with she used to work, as I understand it, it's the Judiciary Committee, yes she has worked for these people, the same people have been attacking you today, the same people chair the FTC works for them this is what they said this is what she said in a letter asking who these newspapers are again they personally named four four journalists by name you were two of the four as I said before I think it is frankly brave and courageous of you to come forward today when you know that the federal government was monitoring you personally this is what they asked for in that letter any accreditation or background checks that Twitter has done on journalists now think about the federal government saying we want you to do a background check on members of the freedom of the press mentioned in the First Amendment and they are doing it when they want Twitter to do a background check on you before they can talk to you in the United States, the FTC led by Lena KH who used to work for these guys is asking that question now you now now we know Now we all know why you guys said at the beginning that this is the most chilling story and you are New York Times best sellers, award winning journalists, uh, but overall your time in the field of journalism this topic is the most important and how I think what you call it Mr.

Shellberg this is complex what the

censorship

industrial complex calls it totally this big government big tech NOS

censorship

network this whole censorship network that Mr. Bishop was getting into his line and questioning that's what this committee is going to come to and that's not right or left that's not just right or wrong this is wrong we know it's wrong and it's about protecting the first uh Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Willcox, do you or anyone of Did your organization communicate with ATF or the Biden administration about these issues we are discussing today prior to notice of the proposed rulemaking?

We submitted formal ruem requests through the appropriate channel, sir, prior to the proposed rulemaking notice which is correct, so you were in communication with Administration B to make these changes. We submitted a formal request for rulemaking through the appropriate channels. With whom I speak? I wrote introductions to you, sir. Did you talk to anyone? Personally, no one in your organization spoke to anyone. I'd have to check, but I think we sent the written submission as a formal submission. People in your organization may have talked to people at ATF before the notice. of the proposed rulemaking, not that I know of, did anyone in your organization speak to Mr.

Debach prior to the notice of the proposed rulemaking? I don't think Mr. Deach came and has anyone spoken to Mr. Debach about this personally? I've been in communication with the ATF in this administration and previous administrations talking to the director, have you talked to the director, I mean, we worked with the ATF in every administration, have you talked to the director? It's a simple question, yes. I contacted the director, you talked to Mr. Dlear, of course, yes, and well, I find that interesting. I just know that as we speak upstairs, the president of the national School Board associations is sitting down for a transcribed interview because same thing.

Something happened there. The National School Boards Association spoke to the Biden White House, the Biden Department of Justice, the Biden Department of Education made up this letter that set in motion this whole attack on parents that was presented on school boards and it seems to me that we have a similar operation underway. here where you worked with the ATF to change something that had been law for 10 years to persecute law-abiding Americans Second Amendment supporting Americans Mr. Bosow, you invented this stabilizing device, that's right, that's right and you invented for a fellow marine, a friend of yours who served our country and was wounded, that is correct and 10 years ago you were told that the stabilizer mount does not turn a pistol into a short barreled rifle, that is correct.

I got the letter right here from the ATF November 26, 2012, right, and then seven weeks ago, 180 degree change, right, 180 degree change, just the opposite, now they say it's just the opposite of what they were told ago. 10 years again, I just know others have talked about this. I think it is very clear. 180 of CH so in 10 years and two months the rule was one-way and you developed a business based on the rule that they told you, your government told you that this was fine and now they have changed it, that is correct, when was that bill passed? change? the law there was no bill no bill that is the fundamental issue true there is no bill Mr.

Debach the new director never ran for Congress I don't think he ever was I don't remember a bill that passed by Mr. Nadler's committee in the last Congress that changed the law I would have known because I am on that committee, the Judiciary Committee that has jurisdiction over these things. I would have known. I don't remember a bill passed by the full Congress. I don't remember a bill passing the Senate Judiciary Committee or passing through the Senate and I certainly don't remember a bill reaching President Biden's desk and him signing the legislation that changed the rule, but this could potentially affect to millions of Americans.

The law-abiding Second Amendment that supports Americans is right, Mr. Bosow, that is absolutely correct. How many products has his company alone sold to Americans? How many stabilizer devices have you sold? Many millions. I can say that from 2020 to today, what are the days that the ATF did not care when it made its impact? In the study, we sold our company only 2.3 million braces, so while they were doing the study they didn't count the number of braces that were sold, they didn't count them in their impact study, that's probably because the Mr. Willcox's organization told them not to do it. tell it right, I don't want to, well they were talking to him the whole time, it sounds like we put all this together going after people who support the Second Amendment, how many Americans do you think that is in total, so I've heard estimates as high as 40.

Million of Americans could be affected by this correction. The Congressional Research Services says that between 10 and 40 million Americans own a stabilizing device unless you remove it, lengthen the barrel, surrender or destroy your firearm, or register your weapon with this government where you know that can trust. Because Mr. Willcox has been working with them, you know you can trust them unless you do those four things. What's happening? What are you a criminal? A criminal. A criminal for something. 10 years ago they said it was okay to build a business and the business started. because you wanted to help a man who put his country's uniform on his back and our country's uniform and got hurt and now they're going to put you out of business and turn people into criminals, but don't worry in every city in the US .Uh, this Mr.

Wilcox. has been working with our government to implement this to targetSecond Amendment people. Americans who support the Second Amendment such a deal such a deal that's why we need legislation to say this rule we need to pass that's what we need to pass into law now, based on what's happened with this organization, Mr. President, I'll go back five minutes, I thank the President, Ms. Johnson, in your written comments you said that the Pen Center has a strong devotion to freedom of expression. In fact, I counted 16 times in her written testimony. In terms of free speech or free speech, I just want to know that two weeks ago, when Senator Schumer stood up on the Senate floor and told a major American media outlet that they should not play video footage from January 6, it was something that is consistent with an unwavering devotion to free speech, sorry sir, when Sher told Fox News not to play the January 6 video it was a commitment to an unwavering devotion to free speech.

I think Senator, I can't speak for Senator Schumer or what really speaks for him. In fact, comment on what you said, if there is a National Security issue, sir, I'm not going to comment on how about the next day, when this committee released a report in which the Federal Trade Commission sent a letter to a private company . and I asked them who are the journalists that he is speaking to and I named four journalists by his name, would that be consistent with a firm devotion to free expression, Mr. Pen America? He constantly works to defend the rights of journalists, including their ability to do their jobs, that's all.

I'll say about that the next day, two of the four journalists mentioned in the FTC's letter to Twitter testified in front of this committee and Democratic members of Congress asked those two journalists what their sources were and whether that is consistent with a strong devotion for Liberty. expression Mr. Pen America is constantly working to ensure that journalists can do their jobs and that means allowing anonymous sources as appropriate, well for you, how about these two days in the Biden administration, literally two days, January 23, 2021 Clark Humphrey Executive Office of the President? The White House Office sends an email to Twitter saying they wanted to flag the following tweet and I'm wondering if we can move the process forward to remove it as soon as possible.

Would that be consistent with a firm devotion to free expression, sir? I don't have the content of the tweets that I can't talk to, I'll give you the content that they quoted a tweet from Robert F Kennedy that that conservative Republican Robert F Kennedy Jr. where he was raising some concerns about vaccines and the White House, two days after this administration, they said they wanted that tweet removed. Would that be consistent with free expression? I'll say two things about that, one is that he hasn't seen us and I appreciate him reading that. you're reading it to me, one is we'd like to hear the Allow Content side, so because I think it's important to have content, I'm with you, I'm with you and I think the other gentleman is that we would also want to make sure that if promulgates misinformation or disinformation, we can address it, and well, that's when it gets scary, that's when it gets really scary.

I'm surprised you said that after mentioning freedom of speech. 16 times in your written statement that suddenly, unless it is misinformation, as you define it, that is completely contrary to what the first amendment says about this letter from the National School Board Association that was the catalyst for most of this, uh FR, frankly, all of this, I think. uh it was sent on September 29, 2021. I just want to read the first sentence. America's public schools and educational leaders are under immediate threat. The letter goes on to say that the nsba requests a joint expedited review by the Department of Justice.

Such a review should examine usage. of patriotic acts regarding domestic terrorism, do you agree with the nsba letter sent on September 29, 2021, sir? phrases I just read, do you agree with the tone of that letter? Do you agree with that? I will say this, I'm sorry, it's really important for any member of a community to be able to appear before a school board and express their opinions. In my opinion, it is equally important that a school board member be able to carry out this critically important public service in a way that keeps us safe. That's what I really know.

Who doesn't agree with that? Who disagrees with me, sir? All kinds of people, but I think the biggest entity that disagrees is the School Boards Association itself because 23 days later they were offended 23 days later they said this, we regret it and apologize for the letter, there was no justification for the language included. In the letter, I address the idea that the Attorney General still continues to defend his memorandum based solely on this, as Ms. Neely noted in her opening statement, I find it alarming and to our three Witnesses, uh, Miss Jus, Mr. L. , Miss NE, thank you very much.

Thank you very much for her previous point, Miss Neely, we are going to talk to these people, we talked to Miss Garcia today, we had a transcribed interview with her. Mr. Slavin will come next week. We are trying to talk to Ms. Wall and a lot of other people who made up this whole thing is our report that we put out two days ago points out that they made up this whole thing and the key line in that report does not come from the Republicans, nor from Mr. Johnson, not from the Republicans on the committee, but from a US attorney, a Democratic prosecutor. the candidacy administration when he said that this seemed to be a manufactured crisis, everything was set up for politics and that is what we all know, I thank the gentlemen, the president recognizes the lady from Texas, Miss Jackson Lee , five minutes when I think. of Education that the president now recognizes himself for five minutes Mr.

Holden you were born in New York City yes, you grew up in New York City you went to elementary and high school here in the city yes you went to college in New York City I think I think I looked, you got an associate's degree, a bachelor's degree, a graduate degree, all from universities here in New York City, that's right, yeah, I did. CH, you're a professor at a university here in New York City, right, 44 years, your entire professional career has been. sent, you've spent here in New York City, that's right, yes, and you received a Lifetime Achievement Award for your volunteer work from the queen's civic group, that's right, for your work here in the city, yes, you love This city, right?

I love it. I mean, I think Mr. Gates is right. I think America loves this city, whether you're a Yankees fan, a Mets fan, a Giants fan, a Jets fan, us, the Statute of Liberty, Ellis Island, Broadway, Wall Street. Americans love this city, maybe most, I think. Americans appreciate the people of this city and the example they set for the country after that tragic day of 9/11. Do you agree with everything Mr. Hold says? I agree with that 100%, but right now the policies this DA is implementing are going to ruin this. Big city, are you okay with that?

Yes, I'm scared, isn't what you see scary? It's scary what Miss Harrison had to endure what Mr. Alba had to endure what Miss Braams had to endure and what Mr. Borgan had to endure and it's driven for that day, a memo from that day would send a message to this city, to the bad guys in this city, they can do bad things and they're not going to be prosecuted, do you agree with all that, Mr. Holden, yes, yes, it's scary? Soft on crime policies are going to ruin this great city and that is why we are here.

It's happened in other cities, as Mr. Gates pointed out, so we're going. This is not the only audience. We are going to have other hearings. We will go wherever we need to go but this is something that has to happen it has to stop justice is not supposed to be political now Mr. Holden you are a Democrat right yes I am but it shouldn't matter republican or democrat. I think, as a lot of people said, it shouldn't matter, what's the answer, Mr. Holden, what would be my allegiance to my constituents? Me and I lived here for 71 years.

I have lived in New York City. I've seen bad times. crime 2,000 murders a year in the 80s I have never seen in my life the anarchy that I am seeing today in New York City, that means we are afraid to go anywhere, let me be clear, so I want to do it in 71 years Your life here in this big city has never been as bad as it is today and I have had so many friends who have left this city because they simply see the quality of life dropping, they go out into the street, there are people driving down the street. in the wrong way, uh, with electric scooters, there are people robbing stores, you know that all the pharmacies in New York City have to be locked, that you have to go on a case, these little crimes are so bad that Mr.

Brag said he won't go. to process, it doesn't send that message, it doesn't and that's why we disagree, we are the same party but we totally disagree, I am again, my loyalty is not to the party, but to my constituents and the place where I live and again I plan to live here, you know that until I die, but I don't want to see you go down the drain. Yes, you are defending the people you represent in Queens as part of the city council. Mr. Borgan, Miss Fischer. I said before that bad guys go to other states and buy guns illegally and the Democrat's response is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

That's going to work Mr. Borgan at all. I just want to say one thing, he already knows: I sit here and listen to him. You're on one side, you're on one side when Ronald Reay was president, he, he and O'Neal had regular meetings, met and worked together in Congress. I don't understand why I have to sit here, whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. By the way, I'm a Republican. I now vote in Florida and am a registered voter in Florida. I have a Florida driver's license based on the state of the plan, but the fact is that if everyone worked together and didn't sit here and say, this party says this about Trump about this, it just doesn't make any sense, but the fact is criminals will get guns either way, you can do whatever you want, criminals will get guns, they always, always have them.

I have guns, it's not going to change, it's not going to change, so you can sit here until you take it in your face BW, you can say that Congress is going to ban the sale of guns in the entire United States, they are going to get guns , criminals will get weapons. and there's nothing you can do about it that's just life and Mr. Kessler sits here saying we have to say it and accept it. I've never heard anyone tell me that you have to accept crime. I live on Long Island. Crime is out, come to my area in less than five. cities, very nice suburban area, we have had robberies, now stores and now the requirement is coming to me because I guess New York City is exhausted, they can't R thees anymore, but they are criminals who are going to get weapons, there is no nothing you can do about it. absolutely nothing the bad guys are not necessarily stupid they are just bad they are going to find a way to do bad things and the key is to put the bad guys behind bars so they can't harm others and when you send that message things improve as a segment of the society, there will always be criminals, from day one you can't do anything about it, but if Mr.

Brag locked people up he would save a lot of headaches in New York City and save lives, thank you Mr. gentleman borgan , the president now acknowledges that he was just going to say Miss Harrison, are you great? No, and it seems like he knows, as Meline mentioned, that the other side is here with taxpayer dollars. our side is asking us questions, they have brought in Witnesses to counter our horrible stories for their agenda, all they want to do is talk about gun legislation, well you can have all the gun legislation on the books, but if it is not enforced, which is it?

What Alvin Brag is doing then is not going to matter and people are going to die and that is why we are here and I appreciate his oversight because we need help and if they continue to ignore it, people will continue to die. It is this? committee that victimizes you, you miss the bra, since the Democrats said no, this committee has given me a platform, it has given me a seat at the table to be able to tell my story and raise awareness for victims in everything, not only in New York City, but especially throughout the country. from Philadelphia M Fisher yes yes yes guns are the problem why didn't the Democrats fix it the Democrats have worked hard to have control they controlled the whole house all the guys still have the White House why didn't they fix it in the last Congress yes The answer is to pass comprehensive gun violence prevention legislation, and this Congress has the ability and capacity to do so.

I was in Congress lastsession. The man was the president they tried. They could have approved. They didn't do it. pass it Congress to go back to Washington and pass strong anti-violence legislation no, I'm going to go with Mr. Djo Mr. Djo, uh, is that you? Grand Sanding, not at all, uh, you know honestly, I'm, you're here representing the detectives of This Great City, absolutely, I'm very proud of it. I'm not here except to ask for help. Someone just said that we can't do anything right here if the people in the United States Congress can't do anything to help us.

We are in a lot of trouble because there are some powerful people around this table who could help and stop the violence and make the streets safer for the people of New York City and the police officers and detectives who serve them. Thank you, uh, we. We are here looking for help, we need help, thanks to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman gives up the chair now he recognizes Mrs. G from Pennsylvania. Mine, thank you, Mr. President. I thank all the

witnesses

for being here today. Mrs. G, relent for a moment. Yes. Mr. Nadler, thank you.

I just want to answer Mr. Jordan's question last year, when we were in control, Democrats in the House passed very comprehensive gun control legislation, Democrats in the Senate voted for very comprehensive gun control legislation. , but because of the filibuster it needed 60 votes and we didn't get Republican votes and that's why it didn't pass. I thank the kind lady. I give up. I echo the statistics the ranking member just offered. Mr. n, does he remember when he said this in February? Before you made these statements that I think are disingenuous to the American people, you said that vaccinating teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools, did you make that statement, anything to that effect?

I can't say the exact quote, but Yes, teacher vaccination is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools. I believe you made that statement on February 3rd. Do you stand by that statement at that time? Yes, yes, I had a week later or 10 days later. we had operational guidance that demonstrated layered mitigation strategies and that you could safely operate again if you spoke like Dr. Bolinsky or if you spoke like Dr. Bolinsky, the head of the CDC. um I've already said that while I've been in front of Congress and the media um at press conferences I, during my tenure as director of the CDC, I've been speaking as director of the CDC, but that's not what the House said.

Blanca, right, uh Jinaki said that Dr. Wilinsky spoke about this in her personal capacity, do you remember that statement? I understand, who is right, Jinaki or you? Well I'll tell you I was speaking at my um the CDC look at me I think what happened is in February you said I'm going to be honest with the American people. I'm going to tell them straight up that vaccinating teachers is not a prerequisite for opening schools safely and the Biden administration left you high and dry, they said no, she doesn't speak for us, she doesn't speak as director of the CDC. . speaking like Dr. wilinsky and then a month later you said, well, you know, I better not be totally honest with the American people, so I'm going to say that vaccinated people don't carry the virus and they don't get sick and everyone likes it.

Wow, I know someone who has been vaccinated and then got sick. I think what happened is you try to be honest and they told you no and then you said well, I'm going to have to protect myself a little bit, I'm going to have to give the American people misleading statements from the head of the CDC. You were speaking as head of the CDC in both situations, right? I have said that I have been speaking as head of the CDC. all the time, yeah, well, it would have been nice if you had been honest and direct with the American people every time throughout this whole virus.

With that I relent, I have fulfilled my commitment to tell the American people what I know. when I know, thank you, Mr. Durman, in the summer of 2016, our government received intelligence information suggesting that Secretary Clinton had approved a plan to link President Trump to Russia. Yes, was that intelligence important enough for Director Brennan to inform the President of the United States? The vice president of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States and the director of the FBI say, yes, and it was that the intelligence put it in a memorandum, a referral memorandum, yes, and that memorandum was delivered to Director Comey and to the beaten agent, that's who it was addressed to yes, did director Comey share that memo with the fisa court?

Sorry, can he share that memo with the fisa court? Did Director Comey do that? I'm not aware of that, if he did it, did he share? It was with the attorneys who prepared the fisa request, as far as I know, did he share it with the agents on the case working on the Hurricane Crossfire case? No, he did not share it with the agents in the case. Can you tell the committee what happened when you took that? reference memo and shared it with one of those agents, specifically supervisory special agent number one, we interviewed the first supervisor of the Crossfire investigation, the operational person, we showed him the intelligence information, he indicated that he had never seen it before, him immediately. he got excited he got up and left the room with his lawyer he spent some time in the hallway he came back he was angry wasn't he angry because this is something he should have had as an agent on the case?

It is important information that the director of the FBI withheld from the people who were doing the investigation the information was withheld from him, who is Charles Dolan Charles Dolan uh he is a public relations person here in Washington DC he had previous professional involvement with the Russian government who represents Russian government interests uh he was a person who was associated with Eigor uh Danchenko um he was also a friend of the Clintons what he uh he had um held positions um when President Clinton was president in his campaign advisor for the Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, is that the same Charles Dolan we're talking about, uh, yeah, yeah, and wasn't he also a key source of information on the dossier?

He provided information that was included in the Carlton material, the Maniford material in the Mueller crossfire hurricane investigation. investigation When the FBI interviewed Mr. Dolan, what did he have to say? To my knowledge, they didn't interview Mr. Dolan, they didn't interview this guy, key source of information on the file, the friends on the file with Clint, and they didn't talk to him. He didn't, I reported on that because even Christopher Steel in October 2016 identified Dolan as someone who might have information. I find it interesting, they didn't talk to him. There were agents on the case who wanted to talk to Mr.

Dolan. Mr. Durham, yes, what happened to analyst number one? She continued to press to speak to Mr. Dolan. They finally rejected it. What happened to her the day she was rejected and she said no, no, we're not going to talk to Dolan? she um around the same time she was assigned to a different project they transferred her they said we can't allow this we can't allow we can't be investigating Clinton's friend a key source with the file they reassigned her and then what did she do? She remembered it. She entered a memo into the file because she said that at some point the Inspector General will want to know this information.

I'll make sure you register at the same time. She put it on file, I mean, it's crazy, they didn't talk to the key source, they kept key information from the investigators, how bad this investigation was, but here's the scary part. I don't think anything changed the day her report came out. Five weeks ago, on May 15, she received a letter from Mr. Durm from the FBI's general counsel. Mr. Jason Jones writes you this six-page letter and tells you not to worry, that everything is fine, that everything has been resolved at the FBI. says on page two he says that if the reforms implemented by the current FBI leadership summarized below had been implemented in 2016, the fa detailed in his report would never have happened in substance, he said this would never happen because of the reforms that we implemented in 2019 and 2020 and then it says on page four one of the specific reforms that says that the executive leadership of the FBI has ordered that the investigation be conducted out of the field and not from headquarters that statement is not true five ago weeks the FBI wrote to him and told him that everything had changed when in reality it has not and a statement there is absolutely false and we know it is false because two weeks ago today we interviewed Steven Dant Twano, former head of the Washington field office .

Mr. Durman, this is what you said in your transcript, the head of the Washington field office when the Trump classified documents investigation began, he said the case was handled differently than he would have expected it to be any other case, we learned a lot of things from Hurricane Crossfire, that headquarters should not work on the investigation, they are supposed to be the field offices. My concern is that the Department of Justice was not following these principles. Nothing is and that's what scares me the most. Nothing has changed. Mr. Durham, let me finish this. 60% of Americans now believe there is a double standard at the Justice Department.

I know why they think that because something has to change and I don't think more training and more rules will do it. I think we have to fundamentally change the fisa process and we have to use the Appropriations process to limit how Americans' tax dollars are spent at the Department of Justice. Are you back? Gentle lady from Texas. I think the gentlemen. Mr. Durham Carter Page is an American citizen who graduated from the Naval Academy and served our country. Why not talk to him before spying on this? For example, I mean, I guess I don't know if people saw this in the report.

There is one particular piece of information that was given to Michael um isakov and appeared in a Yahoo news article on September 23rd in which Mr. Isakov says hello. which he has obviously been told and is clearly Steel information, but also included a statement that a senior law enforcement official confirmed that Carter's page was on the radar screen and that the matter was never referred for an investigation into who leaked that this is an investigation that CL is supposed to be confidential, a sensitive investigation that is never referenced, no one ever looked at who is the senior law enforcement officer who gave the information to Michael Isakov that the Carter's page was on his radar screen, that's number one, the number one that does it.

You believe it was the president, time is up, the witness was able to answer the question, he cannot answer another, ask another. I thank the ranking member for pointing out that fact, okay, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to respond or not. I'm done, I'll let you respond oh um, okay, so with respect to um uh to the Carter page, the Carter page, within two days of that article, I wrote a letter to Director Comey saying, "I don't I did, I didn't do the things that are suggested I didn't meet with these people I'm willing to sit down and talk to the FBI you know, tell me when and where essentially the nice lady from Texas offered to be interviewed the lady gives in the gentleman from Texas is acknowledged thank you Mr.

Dorham, that's not part of the report, that's a lot of what I heard from my colleagues across the aisle One of my colleagues from California said: I don't know what we're doing here and what we're doing here is. review this very damning report. The FBI has failed many times over the years that you investigated them. I would like to ask if the FBI opened the Crossfire hurricane without talking to the people who provided the information yes, the FBI opened the hurricane. Crossfire on a Sunday just three days after reviewing the information yes, the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane without any significant review of its own intelligence database yes, the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane without interviewing the Essential Witnesses yes, the FBI opened Crossfire hurricane without using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed in intelligence assessment.

Yes, did the FBI consider the possibility that he was the target? It didn't seem that way to me from the evidence, so I'm curious to see if it could. Tell me why I'm not a prosecutor, some of my colleagues here are, but the average American is not. Can you tell us why and under what motivation a prosecuting agency would act in such a way as to intentionally ignore multiple instances of exculpatory EX evidence at all times? the course of your investigation because I just don't understand that, in my experience, that's not the norm, that's not how the FBI operates and in this particular case, as reflected in the report, there appear to be people uh people in the FBI that were instrumental in opening the investigation that had quite strong opinions about then-candidate Trump Trump and we have heard in your report that you reference confirmation bias and many times or sometimes we see that um the The investigators maybe theFBI investigators have a confirmation bias, because they want a guilty outcome, they want to find the suspect guilty, but we didn't see that be the case with Hillary Clinton, so it makes me think that based on the behavioral investigation. and the continued disregard for duty, there was obviously a special motivation to find this suspect, Donald Trump, in his campaign, guilty above anyone else, do you agree?

I can, I can speak to what the facts show, as documented in the report, again, people draw their reasonable inferences conclusions from those facts with a Hest reading of the report if you or someone on your team intentionally ignored exculpatory evidence exculpatory refused to interview key

witnesses

favored one suspect over another or did some or all of the things the FBI did during Crossfire Hurricane, would face repercussions, should there be repercussions if that ever happened in relation to an agent he was with working and I knew it, the first thing would be to report it to the court and the second thing, probably, would be to report it to the superiors uh the third thing would be to be sure that that agent never worked with me again.

I appreciate that I also appreciate uh your notes earlier in your open testimony where you said that my colleagues and I conduct our work in good faith with Integrity in the spirit of following the facts wherever they lead without fear or favor. I think you did that. I am disappointed and some of my colleagues have made derogatory comments about you. I've seen very few that actually talk about it. their report they want to talk about everything else, which tells me they are on to something. I would also give the rest of my time to the president.

I thank the gentleman for relenting, so Dan Chinko is the primary secondary source a few years before he Was this work investigated by the FBI for espionage? It's true, Mr. Dur, correct and that case was stopped because the FBI thought he left the country. that he was living when they opened the investigation here in DC, yeah, he hadn't left any room, he's here in DC and we're going to stop him and then they'll hire him, they'll use people's tax money that I get. the privilege of representing to pay this guy who they obviously knew was a Russian spy, they hired him, who is the source of all the false information, that's right, they paid him, they hired him and they paid him a couple hundred thousand, yeah I don't remember badly. right it's over $200,000 yeah and then this guy is dating Dolan Charles Dolan who is a friend of the Clintons who is also a source of the fake dossier that was used to spy on an American citizen he's dating In fact, don't they know each other? a park bench somewhere in Arlington, Virginia, on New Year's Day, on New Year's Day, in the middle of the day, this is straight out of the movies, right, and the FBI says, but we're not going to talk with Charles Dolan, these are two of the dumbest things I've ever seen. "I've heard before that they don't talk to them, they pay a guy who is a Russian spy, who is the source of the file.

The other source of the file is Charles Dolan, who meets with that guy at a bank in a park in Arlington and they don't do it. I don't want to interview him, I mean, you can't make this stuff up, but that's what Comey's FBI did and they're still doing these types of activities alone because Mr. Danto told us so, directing operations and investigations from headquarters in instead of assigning a US attorney. a job that he did for a long time and did very well, it is a big problem and his report, that is why his report is valuable, gentlemen.

I pay tribute to the gentleman who ran out of time and now we recognize the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. President, Dr. Anderson. Should we perform gain of function research? I think fundamental biology research, including gain-of-function research, is important; However, such research would of course need to be done safely if the gain-of-function research was being done. done by Dr. Gary in the laboratory in Wuhan, China. I haven't reviewed all the research that was being done at the Wuhan Institute, so I don't really have a professional opinion on it. Do you have a professional opinion? Dr. Anderson, as far as I know, I know him.

I got professional opinions on many things, but you have one on that, as far as I know, there is no gain in function research, although there is work involving chimeric viruses, for example, as we discuss in our forthcoming article, the lab in China was up to code to do so. the type of research you just described, Dr. Anderson, I don't know any of the codes, nothing happens in one, would it depend on the, would it be, as I understand it, it wasn't, um, yeah. you think it depended on the code needed to do the kind of research you think they were doing there again.

I can't speak to the lab code itself. I think what is clear from the research published by the Wuhan Institute of Orology was that much of this research was done at BIOS security level two, which I considered insufficient at the time and today, especially given the diversity of related viruses, so to be clear, you guys don't know if they were doing gain of function research or not, you think they weren't, I think so, you think they weren't, but regardless of what they were doing there, the BIOS security level in that lab was not up to code. it should have been because of the research they were doing doing this type of research on bsl2 using bats.

Corona viruses are commonly done in bsl2 lab work animal work should say done in BSL 3 again this is all the lab level you would want if you are doing the research Dr Anderson or Dr Gary what level lab, what level would you like, two or three, this would normally be, it would usually pass at the bios security level, however, as I said from the beginning, it is that I think Especially given everything we know , based on how many of these Corona viruses we have, this type of work should be done in the future through international regulations in bsl3, it should be done at a higher level than what was done there, correct what you are saying, do you understand? ? okay and if it is carried out we have this process Dr.

G this process P3 this approval process for this type of uh this type of grant money to be used and this type of work to be done uh should go through that process I want I mean, before it's approved, I mean, in your hypothetical yes, I mean, of course, we should follow the regulations, okay, um, so my understanding is that American tax dollars went to this lab in China, it's right, Dr. Gary, I don't know what not. I have some information about commonly reported Eco Health. Eco Health sent the money there. US tax dollars were used in the Wuhan lab.

This lab we've been talking about again. I have not reviewed the financial transactions between NIH and Ecco. Health Alliance, okay Dr. Anderson, very quick and I know you've touched on this before, so on January 31, the current email that you know of is a somewhat famous email that sent a virus that looks like an engineered virus that doesn't It's consistent with the theory of evolution, you know. I think I think that was part of that email in the comment that Dr. Gary made, where that's what sparked the conference call and then four days later you come back and basically say if you think it came from a lab, then you are something.

Wild theory and what happened in that, I mean it's a pretty dramatic change in four days and I know you've talked about it before, but that's what I think I'm worried about is that you went from vibrus that seems designed not consistent with evolutionary theory. to you. You're crazy if you think it came from a lab and that's going to happen in four days, so that's a misrepresentation of what the email actually says, let me read that sentence because I'm saying the main part of the Crack theory is floating around. at the time related to this shooting it was somehow designed with intent and it can be shown that that is not the case Cas.

I'm referring very specifically to the fact that this is designed with intent, meaning a biological weapon at the time. Fair enough, so you're saying it. Was there no intention to do it in a laboratory? But you're not saying it couldn't have come from a correct lab at the time of writing this email. In fact, I thought the plausibility of this being a lab-grown virus was still high. I maintained that belief until the end of Fe. Do you think you know that you have been strong in the zuntic? Theory Do you think it could have come from a laboratory even today? you said not here as I said today not here, I think the plausibility of this coming from the lab given the evidence I don't find plausible at all.

The FBI is wrong, people who discredit people who think they come from a lab are wrong. The fact that American tax dollars went to a lab in China, a lab that was not up to code should have been level three, even based on what you guys say was not up to code, I think You potentially get a gain of function in research and it explodes. in that city in China but somehow no, it can't even be possible that it came from a lab, it has to be the zuntic approach, it is possible, as I say, I don't find it plausible or maybe I should say probable.

Given the evidence we have available again, anything is possible and as we say in the article on the proximal origin and also in later articles, it is that it is currently impossible to prove or disprove any version of the origin, whether it is L above or not, okay , thank you. you, the president, now recognize yourself for an opening statement eight days ago, eight days ago, on July 4, in the Western District of Louisiana, the court found that the federal government suppressed free speech rights of Americans' first amendment in its conclusion on page 154, the court said this The judge said the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition opposition to covid-19 vaccines opposition to covid-19 masks and closures opposition to the laboratory League theory of opposition to covid-19 the validity of the 2020 election, opposition to President Biden's policies, statements that Hunter Biden laptop was true and opposition to the policies of government officials in power were suppressed, it is quite telling that every example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature, the court further writes that the United States government appears to have taken on a role akin to an FBI-specific Orwellian Ministry of Truth, the court said the FBI's failure to alert social media companies that the Biden laptop story was real and not Russian disinformation is particularly concerning to the The FBI had the laptop in its possession since December 2019 and had repeatedly warned social media companies to be on the lookout for hacking and quote dumping operations by the Russians before the 2020 election, even after Facebook specifically asked if the laptop story was Russian disinformation that the FBI refused. comment that resulted in the suppression of this story by social media companies and as a result millions of our fellow citizens did not hear the story before the November 3, 2020 election, plus the FBI was included in meetings of the industry, bilateral meetings, received and transmitted alleged disinformation from social media. companies and they actually misled the companies about the laptop story when the court says the FBI misled, that's a good way of saying they lied, they lied, and as a result important information was withheld from We the People , days before the most important elections we have.

President of the United States, commander in chief election in a survey last fall, four in five Americans said they believe there is a two-tier justice system in the United States today, they said because there is, they said because What they have witnessed, they think about what Americans have seen The left-wing political group the National School Board Association writes to the White House and asks them to treat parents at School Board meetings like terrorists and Garland's justice department does just that. They prepared a memorandum. They established a dedicated threat communication line. a snitch line on parents as a result parents are investigated by our FBI receive a threat tag associated with their name 25 of them because the whistleblowers came and told us we were investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Americans have seen the FBI field office inRichmond put together, a memo that says pro-life Catholics are extremists.

They have seen 20 FBI agents, members of the SWAT team, show up at Mark Hal's house and arrest him in front of his wife and seven children, even though he had indicated that he would be happy to turn himself in. And why was he arrested? He and his 12-year-old son were praying outside an abortion center. One guy started yelling in his son's face and did what frankly any father would do, he defended his son. What's interesting is that the National School Board Association apologized. for the letter, but the Attorney General refuses to forward his directive, the FBI again sent, thank God, the Richmond Catholic memo, but they refuse to tell Congress who wrote it and who approved it and Mr.

Hal , Mr. Hal, when his day came in court, was acquitted. by a jury of their peers American speech is censored parents are called terrorists Catholics are called radicals and I haven't even talked about the espionage that took place during a presidential campaign or the grading of a former president's home but maybe I What's scarier is what happens if you show up and tell Congress? If you're a whistleblower, come and tell the legislature, come and tell Congress what's going on. Be careful, you will suffer retaliation. Ask Garett o bo, who told Congress about these issues. He got permission from him.

They took his pay. they took his children's clothes Ask Gary Shapley, a 14 year veteran of the IRS, he handled some of the biggest international tax fraud cases at the agency, he shows up and the justice department kicks him off the case, but This is what is really incredible, this is what is surprising about all of that. history with all that the department of justice the FBI wants the taxpayers they censored the parents they labeled as pro-life Catholics they called radicals they want them to pay for a new FBI headquarters ERS and they want the fisa reauthorization of the 702 program in its current form is In the director's opening statement I want to say that you can't make this stuff up, there are 204,000 reasons why Republicans will oppose reauthorizing FISA in its current form. 204,000 times the FBI improperly searched the 702 database and, unlike the FBI's censorship, in the Court's opinion, focused on conservatives, the FBI's illegal scrutiny was not limited to just conservatives BLM supporters too were illegally vetted by the FBI and I hope that our Democratic friends will join us in opposing the reauthorization of section 702 the way it is currently done and I believe they will and I hope and expect that they will work with us in the process of Appropriations to stop the use of government as a weapon against the American people and on this double standard that now exists in our justice system I defer to the gentleman from New York for an opening. statement What is the difference between a traditional Catholic and a radical traditional Catholic?

I am not an expert on Catholic orders. Well, your FBI wrote a memo talking about radical traditional Catholics. I wonder if you can define it for Well, what I can tell you is that you are referring to the Richmond product, which was a unique product from a single field office and as soon as I found out about it, I went like a ghost and ordered it taken down and removed from FBI systems. a gas so why don't you let us talk to the people who put it together? We are working to complete an internal review of what happened.

We have to wait. We, Congress and the American people, have to wait until you do an internal review. There is no criminal investigation going on here, an internal review before we can talk to the people who wrote this, when we finish our internal review, which will be very soon, we will reengage and provide a briefing on what we found, the information we want. to talk to the people who wrote it, any idea how many Catholics there are in America? director, uh, no sir, there are many more than 60 million, what percentage of them are radical traditional Catholics, according to the FBI Richmond field office, again, that product is not something I will defend or excuse it is something I thought it was horrible and I deleted it read, let's read of that product page four of that product because of the way you gave us the copy, when can we get a copy that doesn't have all this redactions? so we can really see why American taxpayers were paying to see their rights, their first amendment religious freedom rights were attacked, let me read from page four, provide new opportunities to mitigate the extremist threat through outreach to traditional Catholic parishes and developing sources with location and access to reports on places of worship, that's pretty fancy language because they're trying to put informants in the parish in the church, that's what this memo says, director of one of your field offices and you don't let us talk to the people who did it any answer to that I didn't know I was waiting for the question no priest do you think the priest should be information within the church director we don't recruit human sources open nor operate confidential to infiltrate the Target report, but that's not Rel what they said it seems like you were trying to do it in Richmond Virginia no sir no sir if this didn't happen can we assure you that this didn't happen that the product didn't give the best result we can say in any research action as a result of it none of you know what the motivation was for this why why would they even think of doing this do you know what the motivation was well again I think that's what our internal review will dofind and I prefer Wait until you hear the results of that internal review.

I don't need an internal review. I can read the document. I assume you can do the same because it says right there on the same page. Richmond assesses extremist interest in The number of radical traditional Catholics will increase over the next 12 to 24 months in the run-up to the next general election. The same paragraph events in which radical traditional Catholics could have common cause include legislation, judicial decisions in areas such as abortion rights, affirmative immigration. lgbtq action and protections is political, the motivation in the period leading up to the next elections and they talk about affirmative action at the border and abortion, true, it is total politics.

I mean, I think it's interesting that affirmative, we just received a decision from a group of Catholics who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the affirmative action policy was the entire motivation here and that's what scary, that's what I think is so scary and why we know how this happens, I don't know and five people approved it five people, including the chief council of the division in the Richmond field office. I'd like to talk to this lawyer and a lot of people in this room went to law school, took a course on the Constitution, talked about the first amendment.

That seems really scary to me again. When do you think we will have the opportunity? How soon will you complete this internal investigation so we can talk to these people who set this up? I hope that we will be able to report to the committee on our internal review later this summer. Will that report include the names of the people who produced this document attacking Americans' First Amendment Freedom? I'm not sure what it will include yet because it's not finished yet, but when it is, we'll provide you with a proper report. What are you doing to fix it so this doesn't happen again?

Well, we have already started implementing a number of fixes and these will be better informed by the results of the review. What are those corrections? More training, more things, more, that's the same thing. You told us about fisa and while it may have improved somewhat, you still received 204,000 times that the database was illegally searched, so what are the training and procedures you are putting in place? Well, I'll leave the fisa stuff aside. I'm just an example. where did you tell us the same thing, you fixed something and you didn't do it. I don't think the number you just invoked on the fisa side is the reforms, the corrections as you called them, can we get an unredacted date, after the numbers?

What you're referring to, Director, can we get an unredacted copy while you're still doing this internal search? Can we at least get an unredacted copy of this memo? I will find out if there are more parts of the document that can be shared with We have tried to be very careful with what we write and there is always a basis for it, so let me go back and see if there is more that we can offer, but know that my instructions are to be as sparing as possible in the redactions we provide to you, Director Ray, did the FBI ask financial institutions to turn over their clients?

Do you have time for me? Did the FBI ask financial institutions to turn over the debit and credit card purchase history of their customers in the Washington DC area during January 5 and 6? 2021 huh, I don't know the answer to that as I'm sitting here right now. Well, we know because Bank of America gave this FBI email to Bank of America. I'm aware that Bank of America provided information to the FBI, but what? There were communications between the FBI and Bank of America regarding this. Let's read it to summarize our morning call. Are we ready to act? The next threshold of customers transacting with debit card, credit card, purchases in Washington DC between 1521 and 1621, that's pretty scary, but then the next point is Even scarier, any historical capital letters, all capital letters , any historical purchase of a firearm, you asked.

Financial at least Bank of America, we think they asked him again. I don't have the complete reverse sequence that they have. It looks like you got an email that I haven't seen here before, so I don't know if I have the full exchange that this email worries you as much as it does the members of the Judiciary Committee that the FBI is asking about. for every member of Congress that we had here that week, the first time they're sworn in is a new member of Congress, their family is in town and you're rocking it and they may be customers of Bank of America and you. you're sweeping up every debit and credit card purchase of your family that was in town that week because your husband or your dad or your mom is going to be sworn in as a new member of Congress and then you also say overlaying that information with did you do it?

This person bought a firearm and the question is am I nervous about it? Are you nervous about that? As I believe I have testified before, I understand that our engagement with Bank of America was completely legal but that we remember the leads that were cut to the field office if it is legal that was my next point if it is legal why did you say we were not going to use these clues that's what Mr. Jensen testified when we removed him as director of the terrorism unit in in the FBI that's what he testified why didn't he use the clues if it was legal to obtain the information?

Well, there is 1 minute and 18 seconds of time, there is sir, there are many times when there are things. that we can do legally but we decided it's better not to do it and I think that's what happened the idea that Mr. Massie said before the idea that this is legal that you can ask this is scary this is something else that we are going to have to change with that, I would defer to the kind lady to acknowledge the kind lady to apologize for which we obtained a unanimous consent request from the president of Mr. Moore M.

Yes. Wall Street Journal article that I would like to put on the record , says Republicans. Hey, sweet home to the new FBI headquarters in Alabama, okay, no objection, the president now recognized the G for Texas for 5 minutes and then we'll take a break, break, director, back, director, we appreciate, we appreciate everyone country. In fact, I said this in an interview this morning in a television interview this morning. Two of those agents who served for years in the FBI did a great job, they now work for the Republican personnel committee and we appreciate the work they did then.

They are doing it now, but they share the same concerns raised by the committee members, which is why they came to work for us. I just got a couple more questions. Any FBI personnel who made inappropriate queries to the 702 database has one of those. people lost their clearance, well we had it depends on how far you want to go back in time, we've had people if you go back to say like 2018, I think that was the last one I remember where there was someone who engaged in intentional conduct and the One person , for example, is gone.

I think security clearances were revoked for people in that period, but I don't know if we've had anyone who was involved in intentional or reckless conduct. More recently, we have As you may know, Mr. President, and we, this didn't actually come up today, but it isimportant for people to know. We recently implemented a whole new set of accountability policies focused specifically on 702, they go through cascading consequences, yeah, um and So, that's important. It has been reported that a Congressional member's donors were illegally registered. Did that individual lose his authorization? I'm not sure I'm familiar with the specific example, so it's been widely reported. that a member of Congress's donor base has been searched and I wonder if that has happened, if the person responsible for that has had any consequences such as losing security clearance.

I don't know, the answer is FBI assistance. the Secret Service in the investigation into how cocaine ended up in the White House. Yes, I want to be a little careful about what I say here because the Secret Service is leading the investigation, but as is standard in an investigation. White powder found in FBI laboratory. The staff did an evaluation to determine whether or not there was any type of biological. The only assistance we have is the only assistance we have provided so far. We have offered the full range of our assistance uh to the Secret Service uh if they want to use us for that purpose but beyond that to refer you to the Secret Service is that offer has been rejected is that what you're saying I guess not, I didn't, no I did it.

I say we have simply offered it to the secret service, but beyond that, I would refer to them in October 2020 when Facebook asked the FBI is the Biden laptop story Russian disinformation, the FBI response was no comment who gave that answer and before you. Please respond, sir, if I could interject the fact that we agreed that I would have two questions and you would have two questions. I think I said a couple of questions, yeah, and you asked a couple. I think I know I said a couple of questions, but I'll give you five minutes, but I'll ask you, do you want another question, no, I want us to conclude this hearing and I respect two minutes and 10 seconds, thank you and we appreciate that, and obviously we appreciate that the director this one here.

In October 2020, when Facebook asked the FBI is the Biden laptop story, Russian disinformation, the FBI response was no comment, do you know who gave that answer? I didn't know, the court knew and the court said it was Laura demo, do you know who Laura demo is? I know who Laura Demo is, what does she do? Laura Demo, is an agent in our Counterintelligence Division and is currently working with the foreign influence task force, isn't she the head of the foreign influence task force? I think she directs it, yes. she heads the foreign influence task force, did you tell her to make that comment?

Now what did you say to someone when Facebook asked? Did you tell him not to make any comments? I have to say that I'm not sure if Laura Demo was in that role in the time period you described, but again the Louisiana court said yes and said that when Facebook asked her specifically, she said she would not comment and that this It is the task of foreign influence. force leader in front of a tipping task force that you created as director of the FBI, right. I'm, that's all right, you created the foreign influence, I created the foreign influence, you put that together and she, she, she heads it, okay, when did she do it?

How did she find out about the Catholic memo that we've talked about a couple of times today? As I remember, in one of my regular morning meetings, I found out that this product existed and that was the same day. What I ordered to be removed was that before or was it before or after it was already in the press that I can't, I can't tell you, I guess it was probably around the same time, but I don't know. Did people find out? The people who told you? Did you find out from the press or was it some internal communication?

I can't speak to how they found out. I only know what they told me. they talked it over and we had a conversation about taking immediate action which we then took, we appreciated it and we appreciated it, okay director, we appreciate your time today, I know it's been a long day, we already had unanimous consent from Mr. Gates. so the committee adjourns my time has expired I yield G You yield the president acknowledges himself Madam Speaker why um why are you harassing Twitter Congressman thank you for the question as you may know that the FTC's work in Twitter goes back a decade in 200 I'm not talking about a decade, I'm talking about now 12 demand letters in 10 weeks 300 over 350 separate requests that you have demanded from Twitter why are you harassing them?

Twitter has a history of lacking security and privacy policies PR that you've asked about every communication related to Elon Musk, not communications you just sent to someone or some communications you received, but every time you mention that it actually seems more like a harassment that seems almost an obsession why why the F why why so intense Focus again on the congressman, it was discovered that Twitter's privacy policies at LAX allowed unauthorized users to cooperate with Twitter accounts, including Fox's News. Twitter subsequently voluntarily signed a consent order with the FTC until you wrote in December Madam Speaker, this is what you wrote in December identify all journalists and other members of the media to whom Twitter has granted access since Musk bought the company.

You want to know the name of every journalist a private company has spoken to. I think that's consistent with the congressman's First Amendment as a former journalist. They take the valuable work they do very seriously and understand that there may be cases where government action is unfair. Particularly, Mrs. CH, if you could, particularly, if you could intervene, particularly in the context here, I mean, it's bad enough that the government is asking a private party. company about who the journalists you are speaking to are, name four of them and say we want the other names of any journalists you may be communicating with, that is pretty bad and I think it is a threat to the press freedom of the First Amendment, but in the context of giving us information about how the government had suppressed speech on these platforms, that's the context that you're asking for, I think it's particularly troubling, isn't it, Congressman?

The consent decree we have prohibits Twitter from sharing personal information with third parties when we read in the newspapers, like everyone else, that Twitter may have granted access to third parties, that's what our teams were looking for information about again. This is a company that got angry with the FTC, we have limited time Madam Madam President Who is David Rog? Could you repeat that Congressman David Rog r o quu? Who is David Rog? I'm not familiar with that. He deposed him last month, June 21,

2023

. David Rook is the independent partner for Eron Young's independent evaluation of the Twitter program that is part of this consent decree, do you know what Mr.

Rog said in that statement? Don't know. Well, let me read it then because I think it's pretty important. Mr. Rog testified again in front of his attorneys. You deposed him. He testified that the FTC's conduct did so. I feel like the FTC was trying to influence the outcome of the compromise before it began. He said that in some of the discussions we were having with the Federal Trade Commission, expectations were being conveyed about what those outcomes should be before we had even started. procedures to be the independent evaluator in this consent decree that the FTC has with Twitter and you are telling the guy who the person is the guy is Joe the accountant who is going to get this information you are telling him that putting your finger on the scale telling him what he wants the result to be and he's supposed to be the independent fact finder why are you doing that, congressman.

I'm not familiar with them because they were just filed today, but this was filed in court today and this is his statement. I'll be happy to take a closer look and get back in touch. I will say that, as a general matter, we want to make sure that the advisors and auditors responsible for monitoring compliance are doing their job. saying Mr. Rog's line what he testified here what was presented in court today that there were suggestions of what they would expect the outcome to be they being the FTC there were suggestions of what they wanted him to look for in his independent assessment of the degree of consent I'm in accordance again with the agreement between the FTC and Twitter.

I'm happy to take a closer look and we can get back to you about that allegation, but our staff are consummate professionals. When they conduct these investigations, they focus on determining. You go later? Did you go later? Is your uh uh attack on Twitter harassment based on the fact that all kinds of Democrats have asked you to do this and, frankly, some things you've written about how to deal with the quote? Does misinformation have anything to do with it, Ms. Khan, Congressman, we only make independent determinations about whether there were violations of the law? Um President Nler's statement the statements in the letter the press release in the Seven Democratic Centers letter that had no impact on that's not why you're doing it at all, we looked very closely at the specific matter at hand again 12 demand letters in 10 weeks telling the independent evaluator hey, put your finger on the scale, these are the results we want, that's not harassment and it had nothing to do with the fact that every Democrat in this city seemed to be telling him that went after Twitter, our focus is protecting people's privacy and security.

Twitter has sensitive data on 150 million Americans, including private messages, which we need to especially secure. given its history dating back to 2010, we're doing everything we can to make sure Twitter completes Ling with the order, okay, don't put your finger on the scale and don't attack the first amendment on journalists' rights, Mr. .President I. I surrender and acknowledge the gentleman from California for five minutes. Thank you. Madam President, thank you for your testimony today and thank you for the refreshing and aggressive approach you are taking. Texas is recognized. I thank the president, Miss Khan, thank you for coming here to testify before the committee, could you please commit to me to provide all necessary updates regarding the merger of the Liv uh golf PGA Tour and everything is looking into what's going on with that.

So, Congressman, I believe they are our partners in the department of justice. that they're looking at the FTC is also looking at what's going on there, at least the news accounts I see, but I appreciate any updates from your office on that and concerns about it. I'm going to give up the balance. my time for the president oh thank you to the gentleman for uh thank you to the gentleman for deferring to Ms. Khan earlier and I think the gentleman from Arizona mentioned this you said that people's privacy is paramount I couldn't agree more and as we spoke Before I think there's bipartisan support for dealing with this data collection that's going on and what's even scarier is the FBI buying that data, so it's of utmost importance, but I would say the first amendment would also be of utmost importance. . you absolutely agree, uh, and then the gentleman from California, Mr. mlto, asked you what misinformation is and you said you don't really have an opinion on it.

That was the fair assessment of your response, uh, as part of our work at the FTC. we focus on deception and fraud and that sort of thing, well, you wrote a couple of years ago in a law review article. Digital companies like Twitter deserve their users by facilitating the spread of misinformation. What was he talking about there? So what? What is misinformation? I'm happy to take a closer look at the material that's mentioned, but you know, as part of our work at the FTC, we've seen how fraud and scams can sometimes run rampant on these social media websites. launched a consultation to try to understand, you know, why some of these crypto scams are really proliferating on these sites and what we can do.

These are the first two sentences in the introduction to the article he wrote again just a couple of years ago. like Twitter doesn't deserve its users by facilitating the spread of misinformation, who decides what is misinformation from the FTC's perspective, it's hoax, hoax, and fraud, okay you can keep using synonyms, but I want to know who decides what is hoax, who decides that it is fraud, who decides that. it's disinformation, in this case you're talking about social media companies and what's posted on their platforms, who decides what is disinformation, what it is, so congressman again at the FTC, we focus on fraud and deception, there's a legal standard on what constitutes fraud again. is about, but you didn't say fraud or deception, you said misinformation and my concern is that my concern is again andThis is probably the third time I've talked about this, but the sustained attack on Twitter when ownership changed and the platform pledged not to remove speech not to remove posts to allow sharing of information uh and not to censor information and last week we had a major decision. from a court in Louisiana Federal Court in Louisiana where they said the government was actually pressuring big tech companies to censor. and a big tech company was willing to go along with it now that we have a change there and you're going after the only company that's changed the way it does things, that's what worries me especially in light of the fact that you just write about this.

A few years ago I said this is what happens, Congressman. I'm glad to have the opportunity to clarify some issues here, so we at the FTC have no opinion on who should or should not own a business. The only thing that matters to us is that the company is following the law, that is really our focus. We've covered that ground. I want to know, I want to know about disinformation and who decides what is disinformation. Do you think the government should decide that congressman? The way I see it is the concentrations of economic power, including over platforms of expression and platforms of communication, it's that concentrated power and the ability to choose who is heard and who is not to make these types of decisions that I think It concerns us all and the FTC's job is to promote, you know.

What type of speech was being censored? Do you know what the court said last week? What kind of speech have you read? By the way, no, he wasn't referring to the FTC. Do you know what kind of speech I was getting? censored you know what the court said conservative speech conservative speech was what all that suppression was practically every conservative this is not Jim Jordan speaking this is not the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee speaking this is the federal judge who had the facts 86 pages of facts and presented He laid out the facts and the law together in this opinion, a strong opinion that said it was conservative speech that was being censored and labeled as misinformation, so, Congressman, I completely understand why, given the extreme concentration of power in some of these speech platforms, why would people be afraid and worried about censorship.

I couldn't agree more that when there are a handful of people making decisions about what is seen, what is not seen and who is seen, I think the remedy is for the government to decide what is disinformation and what is not congressman. at the FTC? Our job is to promote competition. More competition means more people making these decisions and I think that may alleviate some of the concerns about censorship that you are sharing. The knights' time has expired. You don't recognize that the general is Georgia or yes, okay, in the first letter of June 7th you said that I had been given ultimate authority over the matter, including the responsibility to decide where, when and whether to file charges.

The quote the ranking member just introduced later that month. He sent me the second one. letter where he said no, no, no, I don't have that upload authority, so on June 7th he says I'm the boss, I can do whatever I want, file it wherever I want and then on June 30th he says no I can. It's not what happened between those two events. His testimony was made public. He says, "Oh my God, I have to change my story because now the truth is coming out and it seems to me that in this investigation, Mr. Shapley, the prosecutors and the investigators were in agreement." during most of the investigation and then we get to October 2022.

I see that Mr. Ziggler is not in his head and that meeting is where David Weiss told him something is true, Mr. Chapley, what did he say? Can he put his microphone there? What did he do? He said yes, he told me that he was not the person who decided whether charges were filed or not. He told us that, uh, the US attorney in DC had refused to allow charges. He told us that he had requested a special counsel. He authority of the Department of Justice and he denied that he was denied authority. Right, were you the only man at that meeting?

I didn't know how many other people were there, there were seven people in total, including you, Mr. Weiss, and five others. Right, that's right and did any of them have any of them come up and say what you just said it's not true they have no one has the right that's no one no one is in dispute refuted no one said what you said is not true and did you remember What happened at that meeting? did you remember yes? I did it that day when I returned home from the US Attorney's office in Delaware. I put it in an email to the two top executives at my agency.

You put it in an email that day. That is correct and contemporary. When did it happen. I received the email here. It is exhibit 10. in his testimony when he was interviewed by the Ways and Means Committee on October 7, Friday after Friday afternoon 6:09 9: p.m. That email is correct, sent to Mr. Walden and Mr. Batdorf, who are those individuals. Mike Batdorf is director of field operations for IRCI's southern division and Darl Walden was the special agent in charge of the Washington, DC field office. These are your bosses. That is correct, has Mr. Walden contacted you? Yes, he remembered what he said.

He said. Thanks Gary. You covered everything. You covered everything. He didn't say thanks Gary, but you're wrong. That's not what happened. He affirmed what you said. You covered it all and you laid it out, you detailed exactly what you told me a few minutes ago, right, what Mr. Weiss told you in that meeting is correct and when that became public on June 22 of last month, Mr. Weiss said, "Oh, I have to change my story, I better send a letter to the Judiciary Committee saying I stand by what I wrote but I want to expand, I want to fix it and then he had to go further in July when he spoke to when he sent a letter to the Senator Graham and told him to clarify again that they changed their story.

What do you think happened? What do you think Mr. Weiss was consistent with the investigators until this meeting on October 7th and then he changed. Do you think that happened, Mr. Chapley? I mean, I don't know, I don't know what happened internally at the Department of Justice, but what I can say is that the story has been changing since the Department of Justice and US Attorney Weiss and I think he's the only person who really has had corroborated documents or mine exactly. I think what happened. I think it's obvious that anyone with common sense can see what happened because he said so in Mr.

Graham's letter. He said I had conversations with the principals. Justice I had conversations with the big people, the deputy attorney general, the prosecutor whoever it was, I don't know, but he had conversations with the people of Justice Principal and suddenly things changed and all that became evident on October 7 and until on October 7 the investigator to Mr. Askins pointed out that the investigators and prosecutors were in agreement here are the facts this is how we do it this is how we have always done it we have the two best agents on the scene in the case let's go and then Shazamalgo changes and I think that's what Mr.

Weiss conveyed to Senator Graham when he said I had conversations with the Main Justice people, we don't know what we're in those discussions, but it seems pretty obvious, what happened seems pretty obvious, initially everyone was beating their chest David Weiss has complete authority now all of a sudden he doesn't, he doesn't have it because you guys came forward and told the truth. I, the president behind, now recognize you as Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts. The books of social media platforms were breached. Excuse me, Mr. President, but the last person who asked the question got an extra minute.

I'm at 35 seconds. I would be Mr. President, the Democrat, and I got an extra minute. His prayer tried to be generous. She will be generous even when the answer is that the government determines the truth. able to finish your sentence Mr. President then I will surrender okay Miss Wy you can finish your sentence thank you I'm not sure I remember the sentence but thank you I think the point was that I was saying that the government should . be the referee, please don't put words in the witness's mouth and let her respond now recognize the gentle lady from New York, the gentle lady from California.

I love how you follow the rules Mr President, it's really indicative of what a kangaroo court is all about. a c for the chair is censure for the chair oh Lord, Mr. President, thank you Mr. President, Miss Morris, isn't it true that your Hunter Biden laptop story from October 2020 hell has proven to be 100% factual? I was 27 when I posted that. story, it better have been, isn't it true that the FBI obtained Hunter Biden's laptop a full 10 months before his story broke? That is Gentan Yi's backrest, the chair, he did not recognize himself. Hard evidence. Mr Johnson said we are not just witnesses to censorship. were victims, the House Judiciary Committee's Republican website published the story and was limited in where it could go.

They censured the Republican account of the House Judiciary, for God's sake, Miss Wy, uh, you were an ACLU lawyer. I was Mr. Kennedy, I remember when the ACLU defended the F, they were the champions of the First Amendment, you remember that, remember the ACLU. I remember when the ACLU represented the Nazis, who were shocked, horrified, disgusted, and yet defended the crazy things he said well, that's what the First Amendment did exactly for him. I want to go back to where Mr. Stubie was. I want to talk about this compelling evidence that Mr. Goldman says doesn't exist.

I want to read the facts. is what the White House was saying and I want to go to just three statements. It cannot be emphasized that these are statements from our target of the Biden White House to social media. The degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately cannot be emphasized. Please remove this. tell immediately the same kind of stuff they put in yours delete it as soon as possible but here's the here's the best here's the best Mr. Flarity, who led this cooperative disinformation concept in the White House. Mr. Flarity said this won't sound like a broken record. the content is being downgraded and how effective you are at mitigating the reach and how quickly and we should just translate it because this is very simple, how much censorship are you doing, how much censorship are you doing and how quickly are you doing it, but I think. the trick is what Jin saki, the press secretary, said in 2021, look at this, now think about this, the press secretary, I mean, we are talking about the White House, considered the center of freedom on the planet, the press secretary in the press room says this.

We are in regular contact with these social media platforms and those interactions generally occur through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. We are flagging problematic posts to Facebook that spread misinformation. His definition, of course, saki also stated one. One of the requests from the White House was for social media companies to create a robust enforcement strategy, so the press secretary in the White House press briefing room said we're going to limit the press now, that's scary, that's scary, and Miss Wy from the ACLU lawyer from the ACLU thinks that's somehow appropriate, we know it's not and your number one target, Mr.

Kennedy, you were a Democrat, your main opponent. I just find you amazing and would like to have some opinions on you. can have because this is what's scary and Dennis and I had this conversation a while ago if you don't have a strong First Amendment if you try to restrict what people say and what the press reports, that's a scary place to go because if We can't debate and resolve our differences like you said in your amazing opening statement, let's work together, let's figure this out, but if you can't have that robust debate and resolve things, the alternative is scary and that's exactly what it is.

Where we are headed. I would encourage everyone to read Mr. Kenny's written statement. I read it this morning. Is incredible. He goes through history. That's what's at stake and that's why they're doing it, whether we agree with what they say or not, and I don't agree with what he said last week. I think a lot of people did. He has clarified it, but this is about protecting the constitution in the First Amendment. I'll give you the last minute and a half, Mr. Kennedy, well, what I would say is that the founders and the framers of our constitution knew that democracy was a very inefficient system and in the face of all these built-in inefficiencies and difficulties, they said that they felt that For us, the only thing that would give us an advantage over totalitarian systems was this capacity for the free flow of information and a complete lack of control of debate, so that ideas that would eventually mature into policies would harden in an oven. of debate and then they would emerge. through the marketplace of ideas instead of being dictated from above and that is what would give the energy, the vitality, the vigor to democracy when they invented this democracy.We were the first in the modern era in 1780 1865, five other nations had imitated us.

Today it is 190 Nations based on our system, we are supposed to be an exemplary democracy and the cornerstone of our system is freedom of expression. All other freedoms depend on it. If we lose, we not only lose our democracy in this country but also the entire world EX us as an example exactly I couldn't have said it better now recognize the gentleman from uh kentu Mr. President I have a request for unanimous consent gentleman say a request uh Mr. Secretary you know What's the number, right? number that Mr. Gates was trying to get an answer get an answer from you know what that number is.

Right, Congressman. I would be happy to provide this committee with you, Mr. Chairman, you know right now you don't know, you don't know what it is. I want to say again just to repeal because what Mr. Gates was trying to say I think what the country would like to know is that we know that there has been an influx of people coming in two over two million encounters at our border south, inadmissible, uh, aliens on our On the southern border, we know that number has come since Joe Biden has been president, we know it's a large number and all I was asking was how many of those 2-something million over two million, how many have gone through the adjudication process and have, in fact, been removed, Mr.

Speaker, you are telling you, you are telling the Judiciary Committee today, you don't know what that number is, Mr. Speaker, what I am sharing with you is that We will provide you with any information you request. No, no, that's not it. I wanna go. right, it's simple, we've had two simple questions that you didn't answer and I just want to know if I'll give you a second chance if you do, what is that number of those 2 points? something Universe of aliens with imm missiles found on our southern border that entered the country and were released into the country.

How many went through the adjudication process and then were expelled? Mr. President, I will be happy to give you that, can you guess? Mr. President, can you give us an estimate? Mr. President, I will not do it. Why don't you give the American people an estimate? Because they would like to know. Because those types of frames. This is what has entered. Here's who he's allowed in since then. Joe Biden has been president and these are the ones who have really been impeached. I would say two things, Mr. President Number One, I will give you that data and we will do it, so he is not very good at that CU, he has said it before. here and you don't give us the data, I mean, we asked for information about the misinformation government junta and all the redacted documents, so you're not very good with that and it's a simple question and, frankly, a question that we ask you to you answer.

Be prepared because we wrote you two letters in the last few weeks to be prepared to answer those types of questions. I think probably that specific question and you won't give us an answer, so the fact that you don't is bad and the fact that you don't know is just as bad because it's the only question the country would like to know. what's really happening when you say all this stuff that you know, roads and things and that you just have secure borders and all the things that Let's say we would like to know what has really happened to the two million or so people who have been released into the country since that Joe Biden is president.

How many have gone through the adjudication process and been expelled? So now I have a simple and simple question. now I have three points one we will provide you with the data God bless you we have been waiting God bless you I hope you do it this time two we have been cooperating with this committee we have made countless documents and people available to you we have provided you with briefings, yes, and this is what those documents, by the way, just so you know, I'll let you finish with your third point, this is what those documents look like, here's the one that you sent us when you formed your policy and responsibilities in the Department's information. manipulation mission that sounds pretty scary Information manipulation mission and it's all redacted and this is the kind of thing you gave us when we were trying to figure out who was responsible for forming the misinformation governing board that I think my colleague, Mr.

Johnson was asking and now we are asking a simple question about a number and the fact that he won't give it to us or know it is a concern for all of us. I would say both sides because the Democrats probably want to know too, that's something that should be so obvious and you won't reach out to make your third point. Mr. President will provide that information to all members of, will it be like this or will it be a real number? so, it will be a real number, Mr. President, the third point, let me ask very quickly, can you send us that number tomorrow or do you have it?

He has to come back and it will take weeks and months. and haggling back and forth over all the cards we make. Congress writes letters to the agencies and we haggle back and forth with that whole dance we have to do or you can just give us the number, Mr. President, we'll get that information to you as soon as possible. As much as possible my third point would be the most fundamental point of all when we talk about immigration we are dealing with a fundamentally broken system we have between 11 and 12 million. I have 50 seconds, so I appreciate you saying that earlier.

So I got that point, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I have to understand this now in your testimony: you said you arrested 14,000 smugglers. It seems like a very large number to me. What happened to those guys? Those individuals, Mr. President, uh, they are yes. the evidence supports it prosecuted for smuggling has referred them to the police department has handed them over arrested them takes them to the police department what happened to them have they been charged have they been taken to trial found guilty are they in prison? somewhere what is the state that is a huge number 14,000 smugglers.

I mean, God bless them for getting them, but I'd like to know what happened to him. I am very, very happy to provide you with that data. Let me give you some examples. He just told us a couple of minutes ago that he works closely with the FBI and we would like that information too. That is important. Have you arrested any of them multiple times? Congressman, I will provide you with that information. I think it's a possibility. Some of those smugglers. you arrested more than once, Congressman, when I prosecuted immigration crimes in the 1990s, we saw people who had committed repeated violations of the criminal laws of the United States and repeated removals from the United States.

I processed that my time has expired. Do you think you catch a smuggler? someone who smuggles people, smuggles drugs, he wouldn't do it, that guy would be prosecuted and he thinks he would know that answer too, but we hope that he will give us those answers. I give in now for giving in, uh, Mr. Secretary of the 140, uh, illegal. I have met again those who are on the terrorist watch list. This is Mr. is's question earlier in the day. What is the status of those 100 40 individuals? I smiled, yes, um, Cong, Mr. President, could you please repeat his question, the 140 people who have been found at the border and who are on the terrorist watch list?

What is the status of those people? I think that question has already been raised and I mentioned to the President that we will provide that data to him if any of it has been released. I guess there's another way to frame that, um, Mr. President, let me say that these are people who pose a threat to Public Safety or national security are detained pending their removal, well, that's not what the Inspector General said, said CBP released a migrant on the terrorist watch list and Ice faced information-sharing challenges in planning and making the arrest. This is from Mr.

Kafari, the Inspector General. DHS, do you disagree with Mr. Kafari, uh, respectfully, do you get it right? I would give my time to the gentleman from the president of Louisiana, now acknowledge yourself for an opening statement, the solution is even with the face-saving impeachment last week against Hunter Biden, everyone knows the the solution is in 4 and A2 years 4 and For 2 years the Justice Department has been investigating Mr. Biden an investigation led by David Weiss an investigation that limited the number of witnesses agents could interview an investigation that prohibited agents from referring to the president as the big guy quote in any of the interviews that managed to do an investigation that limited attempts to interview Mr.

Biden by giving the transition team a secret notice an investigation that notified Mr. Biden's defense attorney about a pending search warrant an investigation led by the Mr. Weiss led by Mr. Weiss, where they told Congress three different stories in 33 days, they told this committee on June 7th. David White said I have the ultimate authority to determine when and whether to file charges. 23 days later, on June 30, he told this committee, actually I can. I only filed charges in my US attorney's district, the District of Delaware, and then, to confuse matters even more, on July 10 he told Senator Graham: "I have not applied for special counsel status, but have had conversations with the Department of Justice, an investigation led by Mr.

Weiss who negotiated a plea deal that the federal district court refused to accept a plea deal so ridiculous that the judge asked this question quote is there any precedent for accepting not prosecute crimes that have nothing to do with the charges that are being deviated from the response of the Department of Justice lawyer? I am not aware of any agreement by your honor to such a ridiculous guilty plea that the judge also asked if you ever saw? a diversion agreement in which the agreement not to prosecute was so broad that it covered crimes in a different case.

Not the response from the Department of Justice attorney, your honor. We have seen an investigation led by Mr. Weiss in which not only was a favorable deal rejected but, according to the New York Times, there was an even better deal, an earlier deal, a deal in which Mr. Biden would not have to plead guilty to nothing 4 and a /2 years and all that and now we have a special prosecutor and who chooses Attorney General David Weiss, the guy who let all that happen? He could have selected anyone. He could have chosen anyone inside the government, outside the government.

He could have chosen former attorneys general, former special counsels, but he chooses one guy, the only one he knows will protect Joe Biden, he chooses David Weiss and this is what the attorney general said in his August 11 announcement about David Weiss as the special prosecutor. I am sure that you cite that Mr. Weiss will carry out his responsibility impartially and urgently every witness that we have spoken to the two FBI whistleblowers who came forward Mr. Shapley Mr. Ziggler the two FBI agents in the case Mr. soinski miss Holly they've all said this was nothing urgent, the FBI said they were frustrated by the pace.

Miss Holly said she was frustrated by the pace and, of course, IRS agents said the investigation was slow and, in an impartial manner, they limited the number of witnesses who could be interviewed notified the defense council about a subpoena the judge says the plea deal was a joke and all that is only half the story there is an investigation that protects President Biden there is another that attacks President Trump The Justice Department has both sides of the equation covered look at the document case classified in the spring and early summer of last year, the Justice Department asked President Trump to hand over boxes of documents.

What he does is just that, in the process, President Trump finds 38 additional documents and informs the Department of Justice the next day. the FBI comes to his house and he delivers them, then the Justice Department asked the president to put the boxes he brought from the White House to his house in a storage room and lock them. He does that too, everything they asked of him. He did what he did and then what does the Department of Justice do? President Trump's home was raided on August 8 of last year, and according to FBI agent Steven Dant Twano, deputy director in charge of the Washington field office, the search was a complete departure from standard protocol when we interviewed Mr.

Danant. Your year. He said that first the Miami office did not do the search, but rather they sent people from DC. He said there was no US attorney assigned to the case, but rather it was led by DC, particularly Jay Brat, who is now on the special. team of lawyers said that the FBI did not get approval from President Trump's counsel before doing the search and then Mr. Danant Twano told us that he had recommended that when the FBI arrived at President Trump's house they contact his counsel and wait for it to arrive. there and do the search together, of course, the Department of Justice said no and then, who does?

Who? Does the Attorney General appoint aspecial prosecutor in that case? Jack Smith, the guy who a few years ago was looking for ways to prosecute the Americans attacked by Loest Learner in the The IRS is looking to prosecute the same victims of the armed government, the armed IRS, Jack Smith, the guy who prosecuted Governor McDonald alone for the Supreme Court to overturn that prosecution in a unanimous decision, that's the type the U.S. Attorney General selects. as a special prosecutor and you wonder why four out of five Americans believe there are now two standards of justice in our great country, Mr.

Garland, I anticipate a series of questions about these two investigations later in the hearing. I hope Republicans get questions too. about the many other concerns the American people have with the Department the school board memo on the treatment of Catholics the memo that said pro-life Catholics are extremists the Fifth Circuit decision big decision on the Justice Department and other agencies that they censor American speech and of course the fisa law that is pending reauthorization this year and how that process has been abused and infringed on the privacy rights of the American people. Americans believe that today in our country there is an unequal application of the law, they believe that because it exists, Republicans are pledging to make it not recognize itself cite Mr.

Weiss has full authority to bring cases and other jurisdictions if considers it necessary, that was his response by the Attorney General to Senator Grassley's question on March 1,

2023

, he simply referenced it when Mr. Bishop was questioning him, the only problem is that it had already been rejected by the prosecutor federal in the District of Columbia, Mr. Graves, so he did not have full authority. I had an extensive conversation with Senator Grassley at the time when we briefly addressed the issue of section 515 and how that. The process was. I have never understood my point. Mr. Garland, you said he had complete authority but he had already been rejected.

I wanted to bring an action in the District of Colombia and the US attorney there said no, he can't and then go tell the US Senate under oath that he has complete authority. I'm going to say again that no one had the authority to reject him, they could refuse to associate with him, they couldn't, you can use any language that he refused to associate with. reject well, it's not the same under a well-known department of justice practice here's why the statute of limitations question that Mr. Bishop was referring to just a few minutes ago is important here's why it's important that you let it the statute of limitations expires by 2014 2015 those were the years with the felony tax charges in which Hunter was earning income from barisma.

Here are four facts that I think are very important. Hunter Biden was included on the board of brism. He made a lot of money. He was paid a lot of money during those years. a couple million dollars, he was not qualified, fact number two, he was not qualified to be on the board of directors of barisma, those are not my words, his words, he said he got on the board of directors because of his last name, the brand, as Deon Archer said when he was under oath and we removed him fact number three barisma The executives told Hunter Biden we are under pressure we need help fact number four Joe Biden goes to Ukraine takes advantage of our tax money, the tax money of the American people to fire the prosecutor who was applying the pressure, interestingly, that The fact is totally consistent with what the confidential human source told the FBI and they recorded on Form 1023 the same form.

Mr. Ray did not want this committee and Congress to see that everything happened, that everything happened, what I wonder is why. You let the statute of limitations expire for those tax years that dealt with Barisma's income. There is one more fact that is important and that is that this investigation was conducted by Mr. Weiss, an appointee of President Trump. At the appropriate time you will have the opportunity to ask Mr. Weiss that question and he will no doubt address it in the public report that will be transmitted to Congress. I don't know the answer to those questions.

They forget. Were the lawyers happy to just leave it? They just like it, oh damn, we let it. Were they careless? I guess that's not what he says, but because I promise you they know that's not the case because, as Mr. Bishop pointed out, they had a toll agreement, they spoke to the Hunter Bin Defense Council and they said, " We extended the statute of limitations and then at some point they made an intentional decision to say we're going to let the statute of limitations expire and I want to know who decided that and why they did that.

Mr. Weiss was a supervisor of the investigation at. that moment at all times and at all times made the necessary and appropriate decisions and you will be able to ask him that question and he will know why they did it. Everyone knows why they did it. They may not say it, but everyone knows why they did it. It's not Baris those taxes that deal with the pre that involved the president. It's one thing to have a gun charge in Delaware that doesn't involve the president of the United States, but barism, oh God, that goes right to the White House, we can.

We don't have that and we can move slowly on this, we can even extend the statute of limitations and then we can intentionally let it lapse and we know that this investigation was slow. This is what everyone said. Shapley said the Justice Department moved slowly in the investigation. Ziggler entered slowly. The approvals for all of this happened at the Delaware attorney's office and at the tax level of the Department of Justice. Mr. Soinski, the FBI agent, said he would have liked to see things move faster. Miss Holly said the same thing. All the witnesses we have spoken to said this was slow and we know why they walked slowly long enough to allow the statute limitations to be met so they would not have to enter Bariso.

Tell me where I'm wrong. Will the knight give in? No. I'm asking Mr. Garland the question, I think so. I have tried to make it clear that I do not know the details of the investigation. Much of what you describe occurred during the Trump administration during a justice department appointed by President Trump. No, it wasn't like that. It's been four and a half years of this investigation. We are talking about the last few years. His statement was this year on March 1 to Senator Grassley. No, sorry, he was trying to respond to your descriptions of what IRS agents said about certain statistics.

The limitations are six years that passed here in the Biden Administration, the prescriptions. I will say again that the explanation for why the statute of limitations expired, if it did, has to come from Mr. Weiss. My time is, let me ask one last time. One last very quick question here, who decided that David Weiss would stay with his American lawyer? Look, this had happened before I came. Mr. Weiss had been kept. I promised him no, I didn't say he can go through all that. I said who decided the White House decided they serve at the pleasure of the President, right, Mr.

Weiss was Joe, he decided to keep David Weiss's American lawyer, he wasn't sworn in until March, he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, They told him what it was. He will stay in February. A pretty fundamental question: Who decided that David Weiss would stay on as a U.S. attorney in Delaware? Sir, he has expired, President, his time has expired. I'm waiting for an answer, so I'll do it, well, they asked. the question after your time has expired is already a point of order, the gentleman can answer, then I will go to Miss Jackson Lee, yes, Mr.

Weiss was the special United States attorney for the District of Delaware when I came in, he had been appointed by President Trump. He promised that he would be allowed to stay for this investigation and that is what happened, kind Mr. President, gentleman from New York. Mr. Weiss was Joe. He decided to stay with the American lawyer David Weiss. He wasn't sworn in until March. It was him? They told him they had given him a pretty fundamental question: Who decided that David Weiss would stay on as a U.S. attorney in Delaware? Sir, he has expired, President, his time has expired.

I'm waiting for an answer, then I will do it, then I will do it. I'll let you ask the question after his time has expired and a point of order folks can respond then I'll go to Miss Jackson Lee Mr. Weiss was the special U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware when I came in, he had been appointed by the president. Trump, I promised that he would be allowed to stay for this investigation and that is what happened, kind Mr. President, gentleman from New York, direct, Mr. President, I believe he misquoted the transcript of the Senate hearing.

Therefore, I ask for unanimous consent. to enter into the record the entire transcript of the Senate hearing without objection, but I did not quote what Mr. Garland said. Miss Jackson Lee from Texas recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. thank you, Mr. President Jo. I will defer to the president. I thank the gentleman and uh Mr. uh Mr. Garland Do you have or are you investigating who leaked the information that appeared in the Washington Post on October 6, 2022 about this investigation into the Hunter B investigation? You're saying there was a October 2022 October 6, 2022 Washington Post writes story about hunter Biden investigation I'm just wondering if you investigated who leaked that information to the Washington Post uh I don't know the answer to that question has there been one?

Has it been referred to the uh uh Inspector General? You know what um um? I do not want my answer to suggest that such research exists or does not exist. I know that the um um uh that the Inspector General of um Sol sent a letter to Congress explaining that there was an evaluation underway regarding the whistleblower charges I don't know if that's referring to the time that the gentleman expired uh Mr. Garland , considered? I just want to come back to this question. Did you consider anyone else when David Weiss requested the special counsel appointment in August?

Eighth, no, Mr. Weiss asked to be appointed special prosecutor and I did. I didn't consider an alternative. Of course, putting in an alternative would have greatly disrupted an investigation that was already underway. I want to make it clear that he was the only one under control. Considering whether or not he was a special prosecutor or, if there was a special prosecutor, he was going to be the guy who presided over the investigation for the previous five years. I thought about the possibility of what the consequences would be of both not naming him and trying to find him. someone else at that time, but there was no other person you had and you had no worries.

I mean, whistleblowers have raised all kinds of concerns before, when someone brought them up, you said, well, those are allegations, I think they hold up well, they've been questioned for 4 hours by Democrats on the oversight committee, but there were two facts that two facts about the Hunter Biden investigation can be questioned fact number one they let the statute of limitations run, they let it expire and fact number two the plea deal fell apart so I just wanted to make it clear that the guy who presided all of that was the only one under consideration for the special prosecutor appointment.

That is the right that Mr. Weiss has, he is a person known for his great integrity and his great experience in this in the tax field and because he was appointed by the president, you can, okay, you can say that you know, you appreciate what you're saying there. I have no doubts about his abilities in this area, he was the only one under consideration, the question was whether to name Someone and I thought about saying what the consequences would be of trying to change horses at Midstream, but I didn't consider any other July 10 . He wrote to Senator Graham and said: I have had conversations with departmental officials.

He said no. I did not seek special status on the Council, but I have had conversations with department officials who, and I don't know if they asked before who he spoke to, so I regret that he is talking about the letter that he sent to Senator Graham in July. Tenth again, um, I'm not going to get into internal deliberations, okay, is there a person who is the point person in the justice department for David Weiss, as he now functions as a special prosecutor in this investigation, Mr. Weiss? This is now subject to special counsel regulations requiring urgent reporting under certain circumstances requiring you to consult with numerous places within the justice department.

Well, you're following the statute. God bless you, that's where it's supposed to happen, but you said you have to inform who you report to again. I'm not going to go into this. It's you? I am ultimately responsible. Mr. Weiss didn't have to inform anyone. He was the supervisor and the one who made the decisions in these matters. Okay, we have. votes on the floor, we're going to have to take another break, Mr. Attorney General, we'll get back to it as quickly as we can and start with the Democrats, sure my time to be president, uh, Mr.

Gardland, what's changed? On July 10, 2023, David Weiss wrote to Senator Graham and told him that he had not requested the special counsel appointment. On the 11thAugust you announced that you are now the special prosecutor. What happened in those 31 days, as I said publicly several days before my announcement, I think three days, sir. Weiss had asked to be a special prosecutor. He explained that he had reached a stage in his investigation where he thought it was appropriate. I had promised to give him the resources he needed. At what stage had he reached that stage after five years? stage we are in us in the initial stage the intermediate stage the final stage they keep hiding the ball stage what stage are we in I think in this one I would go back to the video tape where I said that I am not allowed to discuss the ongoing investigation that is not so convenient something changed in 31 32 days from July 10 to August 11.

I think it was two brave complainants that came forward and a judge called BS on the plea deal that you guys tried to beat, that's what I think happened, uh, the chair. now acknowledge the kind thanks to the gentlemen we will now begin with opening statements president acknowledge more than six years ago we had a hearing on attempts to restrict free speech on college campuses right next door in the oversight committee the hearing t on Emerging threats to First Amendment safe spaces cancel culture and the attack on conservative student activist groups, unfortunately this was not a fad and the hostility towards certain viewpoints in particularly conservative viewpoints has only gotten worse and now We know that it is no longer universities that simply censor their students. that American universities were working with the federal government to systematically attack Internet speech just this week the committee released uh committee Republicans released information showing that Stanford University worked with the Orisa Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the State Department's Global Engagement Center to censor certain speech and the run-up to the 2020 election big government, big academia, and big tech all colluded to limit Americans' First Amendment free speech rights , they targeted jokes, political opinions, most importantly, they targeted true information, but the speech that was censored was slanted a certain way.

They used to be bastions of free speech and the marketplace of ideas evolved into institutions of activism and repression with "safe spaces and free speech zones intended to protect students from violence." their demonstrations and have harmed students on university campuses, but that is not the case, as we will see in today's hearing a nearly 400% increase in anti-Semitic incidents, including ISM harassment, vandalism and assaults in the two weeks following the Hamas attacks on Israel. We will be doing more to protect freedom of expression we are actually working with ranking member nler on some legislation introduced by one of our colleagues trying to see if we can implement some legislation that would help in this area.

I want to thank my colleagues, including Representative Virginia Fox, chair of the Education Workforce Committee, for her important work on these issues. I want to thank Rep. Murphy, who is a leader on this issue, she has introduced two to promote free speech on campus and the co-chair of the uh campus Campus Free Speech caucus Miss Kamik for her work and passion for this issue. I also want to recognize Mr. Kylie, one of our members who introduced a bill last week decrying anti-Semitism on college campuses. We look forward to hearing from all of our Witnesses. today and again I want to thank you for coming.

We will now turn to the ranking member for her opening address and then address our Witnesses directly. In fact, I forgot. Well, I'll wait until I'm done. then I will play a short video. We have a short 90 second video. I wanted to show it. We'll play it now. Let's play it now. 90c video if we can, if you can, we will play this. what's happening on university campuses Debates over free speech have taken place Royal College campuses would protest against conservative guest speakers The fight against conservative speakers on university campuses intensified Administrators failed to stop some students from interrupting a conservative speaker on campus Former college swimmer Riley Gang says she was assaulted after giving a speech at San Francisco State University, I understand and share her objections to a speaker whose rhetoric is offensive and clearly intended to shock and provoke .

I don't think they're any less capable of listening to opposing points of view, I just think they're less accepting Shitty students have been making national headlines protesting controversial speakers on campuses across the country. Free speech is dead on campus. um, no, we don't want him to talk, hopefully we can drown him out. That's conservative podcaster Michael Nolles being burned in effigy at the University of Pittsburgh From the bench they consider the president of the University of Pennsylvania an absolute disenfranchisement Critics say he is not sending a strong enough message against anti-Semitism. I don't hear people talking about Israeli violence.

Hamasa changed the balance of power. Hamas has changed. It changed the terms of the debate, the Jewish fraternity was hit with a Jews are Nazis, this is our university graffiti attack. I thank our staff for organizing that and the president. I acknowledge the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, for an opening. statement thank you Mr. President thank you Mr. President with that I give way gentleman give way back uh I apologize I have to arrive I am 10 minutes late for another commitment that I have to arrive at I want to thank all of you for being here The President would ask Miss Hegman if she could come up and take the chair while we go to Mr.

Moran and then Miss Hegman will close our hearing, but I had two quick things, Mr. O, you had a, um, you had. a point you wanted to make before and I said I give you time, you can make it clear if you haven't, the committee will be in order if we get the capital you decided to become in not waiting for the police, so if you wanted to do it very quickly, then I had a question for Mr. Marcus, of course, yes, I just wanted to address Rep. Roy's question about the enforcement of Dei offices and why they may not be as effective.

I am referring, of course, to my biggest problem. with these offices there is the inclusion of Dei of course, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that everyone here wants the inclusion of all points of view. However, I don't understand how those offices can expect to facilitate that when it's applied so unequally, you know, when you hosted Allen West on our campus, he came to talk about race and this was heavily protested, especially by members of this office. , the university itself and its distinguished speaker series, which is quite well known in the Buffalo area, were able to host Nicole Hannah Jones.

Who is the founder of the 1619 project? Each of these speakers came to talk about race. Each has a large following, but the response was very different. Do you know if Dei officials were committed to handling these issues equally? I couldn't see why there was this description. So one of the things I learned recently about you made me think about it. You know, I know on campuses we had these safe spaces, we have the Free Speech Zone, all these things that I think the Free Speech Zone should be everywhere is called the First Amendment, but we have these things, but I learned about this issue called no contact orders, have any of you three students experienced that dynamic on campus where someone says they don't like their point of view to the one they're reporting to?

Dei's office or someone on campus in authority and then there is an order that you are not allowed to have contact with another student because that student is somehow offended by what you believe or what you may have said. I had some experience with that um, I haven't personally had any experience with that, no, it's okay, I haven't experienced that personally either, okay, neither have I, that's good to hear, maybe it's not very common, which would be a good thing, Mr. Marcus in your opening statement you talked about four things that you thought should happen that you were suggesting the committee do if they could and I only wrote one to four but I didn't understand all of them I didn't understand them if you could recite them To me again, that would be great, certainly Mr.

President, I suggested that Congress could provide the department of education with tools to address violations of free speech similar to the way it handles violations of the right to be free from discrimination okay second um that um there could be a special advisor or coordinator for free speech within the Department of Education reporting to the secretary uh third uh me promoting free speech promoting the First Amendment no no the misinformation governing board that Obama that the administration Biden I tried to establish that it would limit speech, that's the right, that's right, Mr. President, you got it.

Freedom of speech is addressed, if anything, by the office of the general counsel, the office of civil rights, there are implications of the work done by the Office of Postsecondary Education. Education and other components, but there is no institutional repository of knowledge on how freedom of expression can be protected. Well, third, I suggested that the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act would provide important tools for the Department of Education and I think the fourth is that there could be a check on whether the Biden Administration is actually planning to issue the promised regulations implementing the executive order. 13899 from Trump next month as I promised in the unified oira. agenda um and regulatory plan but for which it has not been talked about in uh that is something that is that is what you know current that we need to know pressing right now I want to thank all of our Witnesses in particular our students Miss Silverstein, especially you and what I've had to put up with, but thank you all for being here as chairman and I recognize the gentleman for five minutes.

Miss Carahan was the director. Ray was wrong when he said that he did not agree with the process that was followed to select the site in Maryland. I asked my general to investigate all the concerns raised in Director Ray's letter and they found them to be without merit. He says we have concerns about fairness and transparency in the process at the gsa fair to adhere to. his own psychological selection plan, so not only did he say there were problems, he said you didn't follow your own rules and you say that's not true. Our general council found that we followed all the rules.

What are you saying? boss i agree we follow all the rules which is why senator kane is also wrong when he says undermine and contaminate irrevocably and this decision must be reversed he is wrong too look there are a lot of people interested in where this is going this site. The fairest interest ran, well, I'm interested too. I don't want to go to either place. I don't think we should reward the FBI with the same FBI that said pro-life Catholics were extremists. The same FBI that retaliated against whistleblowers the same FBI that censored Americans no no that's not Jim Jordan we know this we saw we have seen the dominance perspective on what happened at the Richmond FBI we have seen what we have had testimony from whistleblowers in front of Congress saying about how they've been retaliated against and we know they censured Americans, the 5th Circuit told us that, so I don't want him to go either place, frankly, if he's going anywhere he should go to Huntsville , where they already have all kinds of all kinds. of land, all types of space and all types of operations, but I am concerned about this process, how long did Miss Albert have the position where she could override the three-person panel?

How long was she in that position? So Miss Albert was the head of public building service for GSA she was in that position for I think two years we made the decision how long has she been at GSA uh I think she started July 19, sorry, 20121, okay, so she was there for a couple of years CU, she recently left correct and she left before the decision was made public, that's correct, okay, so you say that Mr. Senator Kane is wrong in his assessment and the Director Ray is wrong in his assessment, furthermore, we ran a fair and transparent process, Congressman, that was my directive to our team and it is and is what we did, in the end, every document we have used to make any of these decisions is available online.

I encourage you to take a look at the right ones. Me, maybe me. I'm wrong, but a panel of three three didn't look at all of this and make a decision andthen it was annulled by Miss Albert, who had been at GSA for two years and then left after it was annulled, she left before you. make the decision public, isn't that how it played out? So I want to just focus on a term that you're using that cancels out. GSA's normal process when making site selections is to have a panel make some recommendations. They look at a lot of things and recommend, but then we have the agency's senior real estate professional make the final decision.

In fact, sometimes those decisions are different. What's interesting is how often they have been different. The most interesting thing is that in this case. case, how many times has this happened where the panel suggests one thing, recommends one thing and then an individual who is in this position that Miss Albert was in comes in and overrides how often does that happen? Let me tell you the most relevant moment that no, no, that's not What? I asked for? How often has it happened? So I will have to contact you on that number, but there is a very relevant frequency.

Is it all the time? What is happening in this particular project? It happened because in 2014, when all the sites were originally examined, there was a panel that selected dozens of sites to three MH, all three were in Maryland, okay, the site selection authority considered that the equivalent of Miss Albert decided that that was not right and he chose two in Maryland and one in Virginia, the site in Springfield, so in this project there is a story that still raises the question I'm asking, so it happened twice in the same project. How often does it happen elsewhere?

That's an important answer. that we have and when we are evaluating how he did this, particularly in light of what the president and Mr. Colin just said, there will be an inspector general investigation and I assume the ranking member agrees with this as well. In all of this, we'd like to know that the answer is going to be a pretty big fact if you say so, if it's only happened twice and it happened on the same thing, this FBI headquarters, which a lot of us on this side don't want to go to. to Maryland or Virginia, frankly, in light of what the FBI has been doing with respect to the American people, that's pretty important and I agree with the president.

I think an Inspector General investigation is exactly what's needed to get to the bottom of this and, yes, we found out that this almost never happens, but it happened twice with the sacred cow of FBI headquarters, which I think tells us something. in itself and my time has expired, president, I thank you, kind miss subaya. I'd say she's already here, she said. In her statement she wants to give us an idea of ​​what awaits us. I believe it is already here in the course of our investigation. In this committee on January 15, 2021, the FBI sent Bank of America, tell all customers. your customers shop in the Washington DC area for a specific date customers transacting with a debit card or credit card Washington DC shop on specific dates in this city anyone whether you're here whether you're here for the rally whether you're here here for any kind of protest, what if you're just inviting your mom to visit and they say furthermore and capitalize on any historical purchases going back 6 months for any gun or representative gun related supplier purchases, that's something Scary because you set the example, I think?

Danny Bford, you gave the example, I think it's already here, absolutely, in fact, I'm working on issues related to that, here in the US, there are people who have been unbanked in the United States, they generally tend to be conservative. side uh there um I have interviewed uh pastors um missionaries who do good work abroad uh they have been debanked uh um for no without explanation U you know the reasons are many because your risk profile does not match what we can do it with what we feel comfortable and therefore these are people who have been unbanked for doing good work and generally tend to be on one side of the political spectrum, but by the way, I think in your testimony you said that this guy W Mr Bford he was uh former canadian royal mountain policeman he wasn't charged with anything he wasn't being detained he was released and that's when the debank took place it's that exact uh yeah uh approximately they were all happening at approximately the same time, but he wasn't charged with anything and yet he was unable to access his account, so the Trudeau government invoked the emergency law.

It has only been invoked twice during the two world wars and one of the results of the emergency law was to persecute people. who were peacefully protesting against the requirements of the VAC vaccine against covid-19 and if you donated to the cause you found yourself unbanked and this is what ended up happening with 280 people Mr. T: is there a realignment? I mean, I look at today's panel. The Democrats invited an individual who worked in a Republican administration and the Republicans invited two former journalists awarded by the Democrats, one was the environmental hero recognized by Time magazine, the other worked for Rolling Stone and we invited a foreigner to Let him come and tell us, hey don.

Let's not let this happen here if America goes down this path, the whole world is in even bigger trouble. I mean, it seems to me that a realignment is happening. I believe I have invited more Democratic witnesses to testify in front of this committee than I have Democrats. because the focus is on the First Amendment and I don't care if you're a Republican, a Democrat, an independent conservative, a progressive, what I care about is the ability to speak and speak politically and not have the government come after you for doing that. So I think there is a total realignment happening in culture and in politics and, frankly, I think it's a very good thing, not not what they're doing, but the realignment.

Well, I definitely agree with you that a realignment is happening. Until very recently, I think free speech and the culture of free speech were embraced unquestionably by both parties, you know, throughout the early period of the war on terror. Those issues strongly encouraged the majority of Democrats that I knew most of my friends were. um opposed to laws like the Patriot Act or at least concerned about them uh the possibility of overreach there um and you know most people understood, for example, uh the work of the ACLU um in defending cases like the skoki uh March and to the point about the hate speech that was mentioned before, I think it's important to point out that the reason they defended those protesters is not because they liked hate speech or they liked Nazis, it's because American tradition understand that the moment you grant a government official the right to ban a type of speech, you will have a whole series of people.

Those people are all civil rights activists. They were afraid that the next thing to happen would be, you know, officials from the South. Ban NAACP rallies, that used to be universally understood in America, and for some reason in the last decade there's been a complete shift in the way we view those issues. I just want to do one last thing on the rest. I have a few seconds, let's put this on the screen because I think this is also interesting and tells you how upside down things have gotten. We have to testify in front of us today, Miss Subana, who is from Canada, tells us to look, prepare because we have seen. what happened in our country and we don't want it to happen here this is a summary of a phone call from one of the Facebook executives with people from the White House and the person summarizing this turns out to be the former UK minister in the en Member of Parliament Nick C and he says this I CED that removing content as the White House wanted them to do would represent a significant incursion into the traditional limits of free expression in the United States, which is why a Canadian warned us that we had a Member of Parliament, where I think it's interesting the irony here that someone from Britain is telling us what our rights are.

I mean, we had a little skirmish back in 1776 over this same sort of thing. that's how it's turned upside down three I don't know the politics of Miss Sub but two former Democrats three journalists and they invite a Republican he simply tells you what's happening but I think again underlining how important this is and it's not crazy it's It's not false, it's not unfounded, as the Democrats have said and the Fifth Fifth Circuit has certainly said that it's not those three things that I've outlived my time, but now I yield to uh, now I yield to uh Mr.

Al, the gentleman from Texas is recognized for minutes thank you, mr president, I yield my time to the ranking member, miss plaset, thank you to my colleague for yielding your time. I will acknowledge the gentleman from North Carolina, Bishop M. Clark, in the case of Biden versus, excuse me, the case of Missouri versus Biden. uh, in the district court, the court explained, quote, if the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech in the history of the United States. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were reasonably likely to succeed. the merits in the trial entered into the preliminary injunction the fifth circuit has affirmed that the Supreme Court has taken jurisdiction of the case of course that is all civil litigation is any criminal investigation or prosecution of the persons responsible for that activity in the system of the FBI and the White House and their co-conspirators are underway in the Congressional Civil Rights division and I am not familiar with this litigation, but I am happy to return your question.

Thanks, so let me make sure I understand that you are not aware of Missouri. versus Biden currently being taken up by the United States Supreme Court is that right, uh, unfortunately, I'm not a congressman, assuming not, assuming you're not aware of that, um, what reason would there be for that? Civil Court The Justice Department's leader's rights division is unaware of what a U.S. district court has described as the most massive attack on free speech in U.S. history. If you could share more facts, that might be helpful, Congressmen, otherwise. it's just that you don't know it's that true that's right unfortunately I'm this doesn't seem to be a case that I'm I'm familiar with good enough.

I'm going to give my time money to the president. Ohio Knight. I don't want to move forward. Alright. That seems surprising to me. I want to continue with a line of questioning from the California general. uh regarding the implementation of the facial law because M, Miss Clark, you dismissed her by saying well, I can't, who's time are we doing now? Go ahead, sir, it's my time. I'll let the gentleman ask you to send the gentleman from Ohio is behind you, but I just wanted to point out that there have been at least 35 cases where ACT phases have been applied to pro-life groups in Andor churches, or you know people pro-lifers who are against abortion during your term, without even counting. 2021, that's the data from 2022 and 2023 versus the four that we can point to, the one that you point to in January, so the quote, gentleman from California, I would just ask if you are in possession of your hands, we had a lobby request to which a left-wing group, the Center for Investigative Reporting, responded to, we've been asking for a copy of that lobby on processing levels and your office figures for a long time, I think almost a year. and we have not been responding, so we are committed to sharing that request in the lobby and all the data of the facial act processing specifically under your supervision and generally I can take this to the division Foya officials and make sure that you receive a timely response. response resp um please know that the division is committed to the impartial application of the even, even under your supervision, there are at least 35 to one or two that are not impartial, that is far from impartial and more importantly , Mark Hal, who was the target, was prosecuted for a raid on his home.

Under this, he was acquitted by a jury. Did he apologize on behalf of the Department of Justice for that serious violation of his civil rights by having his family watch him being raped in his home and then a federal jury acquitted him? to him, well we follow the facts and apply the law, that is our job and we welcome opportunities to engage with other pro-life groups that may be experiencing threats or taking action, the answer is no, by claiming my time I yield to you. to the gentleman from the president of Ohio, I think the gentleman for yielding, I think all the members, at least on this side, but I think all the members, whoever is watching, are amazed that he is not familiar with the deputy attorney general from the The civil rights division at the Department of Justice is not familiar with a big Missouri B Biden case, where in that case I think it was six different federal agencies that were found guilty of violating the First Amendmentabout American Freedoms, the HHS and the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), even the White House itself and you're not familiar with that's really me, frankly, I don't know what which I think, that's why the gentleman had time to give in because he didn't know what we were saying, that's the UN.

He's in front of the Supreme Court and the civil rights chief, Vision, doesn't know, that's scary and if that doesn't in itself prove that this justice department is political and does things for political reasons, I don't know. I know what I get back to you and I appreciate the gentleman's question in my time I think gentleman from North Carolina gentleman from Ohio um The gentle lady from Vermont is now recognized thank you Mr. President Assistant Attorney General Clark thank you very much for being here and I wanted to To begin just personally thanking Mr. President, uh, Miss Clark, are you sure you don't know anything about Missouri V Biden?

No, he doesn't know anything about that case. Thank you, thank you for the opportunity to clarify this. It is a case that is being handled by our Civil Division and I assure you, Chairman, that you have read the opinion. The Department of Justice complies. I didn't ask him if he read the Western District of Louisiana opinion or the Fifth Circuit opinion. um I picked up the ruling, but it's not a civil rights division, which is because, first of all, when Mr. Bishop asked him, he said he didn't know anything about it, now he says he picks up either GL or whatever I appreciation. opportunity to clarify that the Civil Division is handling this case and the department is complying with the court.

First Amendment rights are pretty fundamental rights, aren't they. That's something that I absolutely don't think the Civil Rights Division should get involved in. President, the first morning is a fundamental principle of our democracy, let me cut, let me go, let me go a little different route and then do politics. It drives decisions in the justice department today. Politics have no place in the work of the Civil Rights division three months ago. Three months ago, the Governor of New Mexico announced a 30-day ban on the right of citizens to carry a concealed firearm in Albuquerque and the county in which Albuquerque is located.

What did the Department of Justice do when the Governor issued that unconstitutional order? What did the Justice Department do in response? to that unconstitutional action by the governor of New Mexico. In general, I am aware of the issue you are referring to, but gun control is not a central issue. That we handle the Second Amendment of the fundamental right like the first amendment is quite important. It is not like this? These are very important issues for the department. Well, tell me what the Department of Justice did when this happened when the governor imposed this unconstitutional ban.

I'm glad I can return your question to my colleague. I know neither the Criminal Division nor the Civil Division, you don't know about Missouri B Biden, you don't know what the Department of Justice did in response to the New Mexico governor's action, well, this is what the county sheriff said in a Press conference. Saying this was unconstitutional, unenforceable and incapable of stopping and curbing gun violence, the New Mexico Attorney General, who is a Democrat, said this will have no impact on public safety and does not pass constitutional muster, so when the Democratic attorney general of New Mexico said it is not in accordance with the Constitution, but you in the Department of Justice do nothing, is what you are telling me, politics has no place in the job of the president of the department of justice, but what?

Are you aware of anything that the department of justice has done for that unconstitutional order from the governor of New Mexico not in the president of the Civil Rights division, but I certainly can, you are an important person in the department of justice, the department of justice did something? Yes, we enforce the laws that Congress gave us, President, not in In this case, did the Department of Justice do anything? I will raise that question again. I will give you the answer. They didn't do it. They did not present an amas. They did not put any declaration of interest.

They didn't make one. Damn thing that goes back to the point that I think Mr. Mclintoch was making earlier, shows that I think you are political because when Texas passed a pro-life bill on September 1, 2021, 8 days later, the Department of Justice announces a research on that bill now. Here's what surprises me, it's a bill that actually passed the House, passed the state Senate, was signed by the governor and you're there, challenging that 8 days later, but there's something in New Mexico, which is the obvious direct assault on the Second Amendment and is an order from the governor, did not pass through the legislature, the governor does it and the Department of Justice does nothing.

The Civil Rights division is deeply committed to enforcing the laws this body gave us and committed to defending them. the rights, the civil rights of every American to be president, well you can say it, but based on some of your other answers, not knowing anything about Missouri V Biden, not knowing what would happen if something was done because it actually wasn't done nothing in relation to the governor's unconstitutional order. regarding the citizens and residents of New Mexico, uh, and Americans are entitled to their second amendment rights, um, that's why we're so concerned. I appreciate that the president had this hearing with that.

I have 38 seconds. I would love to give way to the gentleman from Arizona. I appreciate. Mr. Jordan, thank you Madam President. I want to thank all of our Witnesses for being here too. It seems to me that there are two problems here. That's the fundamental problem, which is that letting men compete against women in sports is crazy. I love what Governor Hucke Sanders said in the response to the State of the Union: he said that the division in America today is normal versus crazy and this is one of those are obvious, it's crazy to think that it's okay to leave that boys compete against girls in sports, that's a fact, the whole country knows that anyone with common sense understands that, but I'm also more worried or maybe not more worried about what happens if you speak out against it, which That's exactly what happened to Miss Russell because, Miss Russell, I understand that you had an ACC, you trained for what was first a division one athlete, that's right, yes, that's the Division one lacrosse player.

One and then trained for, I think. 2 if I read yours 27 28 years you trained, yes, so you're not just a rookie coming off the street, you've trained for a long time, you've had all kinds of success, right?, you won awards, I think you run the program national somewhere else, not in the United States, but somewhere I read what you say: where do you run the national program? U.S. Virgin Islands, so Virgin Islands, so you're an accomplished coach, but because you said it was normal, they fired you. That's right, um, because I said what was normal, um, I didn't like it, yeah, and I shouldn't say fired, yeah, they canceled you because you weren't allowed to train anymore, they moved you somewhere else.

I read your testimony last night, they transferred you to another place. more in the athletics department or Overland University, that's right, yeah, and I always tell people don't think they're not going to come after you because I don't think you're someone you don't know. You're not someone you know, crazy, conservative, Republican, right, Miss Russell, you're just, you're just a coach, in fact, you even used the term, what did you say, you're the hippie love coach, that's not exactly how describes the republic. That's not usually how he describes Republicans, so these are his words. He has been nicknamed the hippie love coach.

He works with all of his student athletes, including some of whom I think he even said some are transgender. Yes, I have coached three transgender students and in my support, after I spoke out, I have had many gay men, many lesbians and a group of transgender athletes and non-athletes, let me know that you support this, you support that women's sports they must remain only feminine, yes, and they were willing. trust you because they trusted you they knew you were a good coach they knew they knew you were there to help the student athlete they understood they are willing to come but that wasn't good enough this is this is the part that's so scary it's never good enough for the left always has to be everything they want or we're coming after you even if you're the hippie love coach they're coming after you and that's what they did to you I mean that's how the mafia operates of cancel culture, it's an all-out attack, so this is bigger than as bad as what Miss Gaines described what she had to go through and if I remember your story right, miss.

You won, but it wasn't you, you couldn't be number one because of this Leah Thomas guy, you actually won, I mean it's pretty bad since that's this attack on the First Amendment and your right to speak out against that's just as bad and just as scary because that's widespread and I tell people all the time that you have five freedoms under the First Amendment, your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition the government . Freedom of the press, freedom of expression. One of the most important, by far, is your right to speak because if you can't speak, you can't practice your faith, you can't share your faith, you can't petition your government and you spoke out against something that anyone with any sense common knows.

It's ridiculous and they came after you, that's why this panel and the president thank you for doing this, this panel and this issue is very important because it is fundamental to who we are as a country, you can't have a country if you're only allowed to say what What the left says is fine and for the people who stand up and defend that they should miss miss gos grapes. I don't know, I couldn't be here during all of this, but I guess it's you. I'm defending this idea that boys can compete against girls, maybe not. I didn't hear it, but don't think they won't come after you at some point.

I mean, this is how bad the left, the left, the left Diane Feinstein is. The left's iconic liberal senator wasn't even good enough for the left. She was D Feinstein Elementary School in San FR. They came back and found something she said 30 years ago and said we had to change the name of the school so no one would be safe. If they can go after Miss Russell 27 years in training for saying something that everyone knows to be true, they will go after anyone and that is a dangerous world to live in. I didn't want to talk for so long.

Actually I want to ask you to speak, miss. Gaines or Miss Perry, if you want to say something, go ahead. I think what we're seeing is a kind of philosophical devolution of truth. We have moved from an ontological perspective of truth, truth is truth no matter how you feel, to a consequentialist approach. about the truth the truth is the truth as long as it doesn't hurt your feelings the law doesn't care about feelings the law is the law so that we have an American method of constitutional governance and that Title Nine and the Constitution are very simple, it doesn't matter who feels hurt and if in fact there are less than 1% of people in the country who are transgender, as Representative García mentioned.

Why the urgency of the Biden Department of Education to suddenly change 50 years of civil rights protections for biological women who benefit from Title 9 that is destroying the entire Canyon of the civil rights law? Thank you all, Madam President, yba, thank you, thank you. The Chairman now acknowledges Ms. Green for five minutes, thank you and good morning, Mr. Kylie, I give way to the chair, uh, uh, Mr. Kylie, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, oh, to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, thank you, Mr. Kylie, thank you gentleman for relenting, uh, miss. Miss Clark, who is Ava edel um president, that's not a name I know well.

I will try to familiarize you with it. She is an 87-year-old pro-life advocate who survived a communist concentration camp. in Yugoslavia after World War II, that you have charged under the facial act for praying and singing in front of an abortion clinic is the best use of the time and energy of the Department of Justice, as noted, the facial act has been uh it's a law that this body passed in response to efforts to obstruct access to reproductive health clinics. Threats of violence. Acts of violence. We follow the facts and apply the law without fear or favor.

President. I really think we heard a lot of that today. about how if you're pro-life you get the full treatment, just ask 87 year old concentration camp survivor Ava Edel, but if you're on the other side after the dobs decision, oh that's a different topic , different, different, despite what you've said applies it equally across the board, how about your decision to file a lawsuit against SpaceX? Can you tell me about that? Yes, President, let me ask it this way first. Should Elon buy her? Twitter has something to do with the decision of theDepartment of Justice to file that lawsuit against SpaceX.

The investigation into SpaceX was open during the last administration and we filed an administrative action under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an important law passed by this body with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Reagan, what are you alleging that SpaceX did wrong? ? In this case we allege that the company does not comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration and nationality law. This is a law that has been discriminating against uh. here they are discriminating against people who have been granted Refugee and Asylum status by our federal courts under refugee status, they are discriminating against refugees and asylum seekers, is that right, uh, there is no president, against people who have been granted Refugee and Asylum status by our federal courts and who enjoy equal status under federal law, for U.S. citizens and naturalized citizens, the law requires equal treatment for these individuals, and you are saying that SpaceX did not hire, meaning that it did not hire enough refugees or uh people who have been granted asylum is what you claim in the lawsuit and that they discourage those people from applying for any job, whether it be for a position custodian, office worker, someone who works in a kitchen all the time. up via Engineers you're suing I just want to get to the point you're suing SpaceX because they hired too many Americans too many citizens um this, there aren't enough people who were refugees or people who were granted asylum this investigation what did you wait for This investigation started three years ago.

I know the incident started three years ago and yet you are filing the lawsuit after Mr. Musk buys Twitter now. X is like that, we apply the laws that this organization gave us without fear or favor and and Mr. Musk. his claim is that they are dealing with Homeland Security type information at SpaceX and that is why he even posted this before you filed the lawsuit. He said that's why they focus on hiring people who have a green card or who are American citizens and you say This is something we need to go after SpaceX because they are not hiring enough Americans and we need to charge Ava Edel, concentration camp survivor of 87 years, that's what the Justice Department and the Biden Administration need to do, but, by the way.

We don't know anything about Missouri V Biden. We did not intervene in the issue where a governor of a state told American citizens that they cannot exercise their second amendment rights against the law, contrary to what the Supreme Court has said. and you are trying to tell us today that the Civil Rights division, the justice department is not political, frankly, I find it almost ridiculous that you are making that argument because anyone with common sense and objectivity can see that you are definitely political, that IDE supports and Thanks to the gentleman who left for giving up the time.

Well, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I would like to ask his consent to insert into the record a letter from a Mr. Paul Terer, the executive director of American Liberty Promotion, to Attorney General Garland's secretary. Cardona is noting the significant increase in harassment and violence from anti-Semitic vandalism across the United States and is calling on the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, which has broad jurisdiction, particularly the civil rights division, over these matters to ensure that re P um you know following up on what was signed by numerous groups throughout the country for that objection