[0:01]Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durban and every member of this committee. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify in front of you today. First, please join me in
[0:12]remembering, as you said, Chairman Grassley, all the Jewish people who lost their lives in the October 7th attacks two years ago today. Also, please, let's
[0:23]pray for all the hostages and the families of all of those individuals. They are a critical reminder of our central mission here at the Department
[0:34]of Justice, protecting the safety and security of the American people. That is why even when the government is otherwise shut down because of the
[0:44]Democrats, the department's law enforcement officers and prosecutors are hard at work fighting crime, keeping our streets safe, and protecting you from
[0:54]the threats foreign and domestic. When I was confirmed as the 87th Attorney General of the United States, I took office with two main goals. To end the
[1:04]weaponization of justice and return the department to its core mission of fighting violent crime. As to ending the weaponization of justice, we learned that former FBI secretly investigated
[1:16]you and your colleagues. Why? They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field. They were playing politics with law enforcement powers and will go down as a historic betrayal of
[1:28]public trust. This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people's faith in our law enforcement system. We will work
[1:37]to earn that back every single day. We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime. While there is more work to do, I believe in eight short
[1:48]months, we have made tremendous progress towards those ends. Our federal surges in Washington DC and Memphis are a perfect example of how the Department of
[1:58]Justice should operate. We created strong partnerships with local leadership. Working hand in hand with both cities to send resources where they
[2:09]were needed most. The results speak for themselves. We have made more than 3,800 arrests here in Washington while seizing
[2:18]more than 365 illegal guns. In Memphis, we have already made more than 300 arrest and
[2:26]close to 80 illegal guns in just a week. We are replicating that tough on crime approach throughout this country. Under the leadership of Director Cash Patel,
[2:38]the FBI is doing outstanding investigative work to keep American people safe. The FBI just conducted monthslong operation called Summer Heat, which resulted in over 8,600 arrests
[2:49]from June to September. More than 6,500 arrest fell under the FBI's violent crime and gang program. Under the leadership of administrator
[3:00]Terry Cole, the DEA has seized 47.9 million fentanyl pills and 4500 kilos of
[3:09]fentanyl powder. That represents 370 million deadly doses. 370 million. The
[3:19]DEA is dismantling violent cartel drug trafficking networks across this country, including the seizure of nearly 470 million in criminal assets. Under
[3:29]the leadership of Gaddy Serala, our US marshals have been the tip of the spear on federal surges and protecting judges and elected officials. Our marshals have
[3:39]arrested more than 51,000 fugitives nationwide since January 20th. Under the leadership of acting director Dan Driscoll, ATF has taken more than
[3:51]23,000 illegal guns off our streets. 3,400 of those guns have been linked to trafficking between the US and Mexico. My attorneys have done incredible work
[4:02]advancing President Trump's agenda and protecting the executive branch from judicial overreach. We've been sued more than 400 times since January 20th.
[4:12]Judges have issued more than 90 temporary restraining orders against us, more than the previous several administrations combined. Despite the unprecedented degree of
[4:23]activism we've seen from the lower courts, we have never ignored a court order. And why would we? We have secured a historic 22 victories at the Supreme
[4:32]Court alone with more to come. Our civil rights attorneys are fighting discrimination and anti-semitism. Our criminal attorneys are prosecuting violent criminals and foreign terrorists
[4:43]every single day. I look forward to continuing this work at the Department of Justice and I look forward to testifying before you today. Thank you, Chairman.
[4:54]>> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Madam Attorney General, let me ask you this question. Were you consulted by the White House before they deployed National Guard
[5:03]troops to cities in the United States? >> I am not going to discuss any internal conversations with the White House. >> You won't even say whether you talk to
[5:15]the White House about this. >> I am not going to discuss any internal conversations with the White House with you chair um ranking member. >> I noticed that. What's the secret? Why do you want to keep this secret to the
[5:26]American people? don't know the rationale behind the deployment of National Guard troops in my state. The word is, and I think it's been confirmed by the White House, they are going to transfer Texas National Guard units to
[5:38]the state of Illinois. What What's the rationale for that? >> Yeah, chairman, as you shut down the government, you voted to shut down the government and you're sitting here, our law enforcement officers aren't being paid. They're out there working to
[5:50]protect you. I wish you love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump. And currently the National Guard are on the way to Chicago. If you're not going to protect your citizens, President Trump
[6:00]will. >> Been on this committee for more than 20 years. That's the kind of testimony you expect from this administration. A simple question as to whether or not they had a legal rationale for deploying National Guard troops becomes grounds
[6:12]for personal attack. I think it's a legitimate question. It's my responsibility. She refuses to answer as to whether she had any conversation with the White House about deploying national
[6:22]troops to my state. That's an indication, I'm afraid, where we are politically in this place. Let me ask you another question. I want to uh if you will hold on a second, make sure I
[6:33]got the right page of facts here. You testified under oath when you last before this committee that before uh your appointment to attorney general,
[6:44]you had served as a representative of some sort for the royal family of cutter. There was an issue that came before you in May when President Trump accepted a $400 million luxury jet from
[6:56]the royal family ofQatar for temporary use as Air Force One before it's permanently gifted gifted to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation. The Constitution unequivocally bestows on
[7:08]Congress the power to control whether any officer of the United States, including the president, may accept a gift, quote, from any king, prince, or foreign state." End of quote. And this
[7:18]gift clearly violates the statutory regime enacted by Congress. You've refused to answer a letter I sent to you five months ago asking the legal rationale you relied on to advise
[7:28]President Trump to accept this unprecedented gift from your former uh legal client. Can you make a promise today that you will disclose that?
[7:39]>> Disclose what? Ranking member. >> I assume there was a letter or some sort of statement from your office to the White House to advise them that you felt it was permissible.
[7:51]>> First to address my role with cutter as I addressed with you during my confirmation hearing. I disclosed it in my SJQ in private practice. I worked for
[8:02]a cutter for antihuman trafficking for the World Cup. That was my only involvement and I made that very clear and I'm very proud of everything I've
[8:12]done with antihuman trafficking. Obviously, in preparing any advice for the president on a jet or anything else, we consult with the office of legal
[8:21]counsel. The confidentiality applies to their input as well. And chairman, if you would approve and vote to approve, as Chairman Grassley said, excuse me,
[8:32]ranking member, as Chairman Grassley said, my employees, we would answer your letters a lot faster. Yet, you're stalling them at every stop. And to go
[8:41]back to your previous question, your city has a murder rate five times higher than New York's, 571
[8:52]homicides last year. If you were serious about protecting your people, you would be asking this administration for help. You're you're saying that we're coming
[9:03]into your state and your city. We're there to help make America safe and Illinois safe whether or not you want to.
[9:15]>> I believe cutting federal grant programs to law enforcement in my state and across the nation does not make us any safer. And you've done just that. You've supplanted that decision by sending in
[9:26]National Guard troops to California and other places. Uh that is a situation where the governors have not asked for that help. If you truly wanted to do this on a bipartisan basis, you wouldn't
[9:37]defy a governor. You would work with them. I'm prepared to do that. I'm prepared to work with this administration. But cutting these grants to law enforcement does not make us any stronger as a nation or give us the
[9:47]tools we need to reduce crime in Chicago. Now, I'd just like to ask you, when it came to this cutter situation, did you consult with the ethics office in the Department of Justice before
[9:58]making your decision on this gift of a jet? >> Chairman, I didn't gift a jet to anyone. My office of legal counsel provides
[10:10]confidential advice to the president, to the White House. Period. And you're conflating two issues.
[10:20]Cutting grants. I was very clear about what grants we've cut and what grants we haven't. Only 7%. And if you have a grant in Illinois that you think that
[10:29]I've cut that is not protect that is protecting law enforcement officers or your people, you personally call me and I will work with you to turn that grant back on. I think many of the Democrats
[10:40]here can tell you I have worked with them to turn grants back on. There's an appeal process. Tell me a specific grant that I have turned off in Illinois that would help law enforcement and I will
[10:52]work with you. But you have not done that. Did you take a look? The National Guard is on the way right now as we speak. Oh, by the way, so is Director Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd
[11:02]Blanch. You're sitting here grilling me and they are on their way to Chicago to keep your state safe. >> Madam Attorney General, it's my job to grill you. Investigation of your agency is part of
[11:14]my responsibility and this this committee. You may not like the experience, but others have weathered the storm and answered questions in a respectful manner. >> Can you tell me the grants ranking member? Please
[11:26]>> take a look at the president's budget on Haida grants. What happens to it in his proposed budget? >> I'd be glad to meet with you on the grants. >> It's cut by onethird
[11:35]from $300 million to 196. That's one example of a grant that works. and your administration has suggest cutting it in and the budget lies ahead. I want to ask
[11:46]you about an items in a letter I sent you in July that you have uh not answered. In February, you made a public claim that the Epstein client list was quote sitting on my desk right now for
[11:56]review. End of quote. You then produce already public information and no client list at a major media event hosted at the White House. Attorney General Bondi, why did you publicly claim to have the
[12:07]Epstein CL client list waiting for your review and then produce nothing relevant to that claim? >> Senator Der Senator Durban, if you
[12:16]listen to my entire clip on that, I said I had not reviewed it yet, that it was sitting on my desk along with the JFK files, the Martin Luther King files, and
[12:27]I said I had not yet reviewed it. And if you see our memo on Epstein, you will see, excuse me, our memo on Epstein clearly points out that there was no
[12:38]client list. Our July 6th memo, you also didn't let me respond to the Haida question. The budget transfers $196 million for highintensity drug
[12:48]trafficking areas to the Office of Justice Programs, OJ. The Justice Department will continue to administer
[12:56]those grants under OJ in 2026. Going back to the Epstein files, uh, according to another whistleblower who
[13:07]made a protected disclosure to my office, you pushed the FBI to review approximately a 100,000 Epstein related records on an arbitrarily short deadline
[13:16]in March, and the FBI was directed to flag any documents that mentioned President Trump. Nothing came of that review until July when DOJ and FBI released an unsigned memo stating,
[13:27]quote, "There's no incriminating client list." Why was the July 7th memo unsigned? >> The July 7th memo came from the FBI and the Department of Justice. Director
[13:39]Patel answered those questions very clear. And you know, Senator Durban, I I find it very interesting that you refused repeated Republican requests to
[13:48]release the Epstein flight logs in 2023 and 2024. You fought that. I did you take money from Reed Hoffman campaign donations,
[13:58]>> who was a huge Epstein friend. Why did you fight for years to Why did you fight to not with disclose the um the flight log? Senator Durban,
[14:10]>> I can tell you I did not refuse. One of the senators here wished to produce those logs and I asked her to put it in writing and she never did. >> Yeah, I think Senator Blackburn would quarrel with you on that. >> I will quarrel with you as to read
[14:22]somebody that you mentioned. I never heard of >> Reed Hoffman. >> So, who gave the order to flag records related to President Trump? >> To flag records for President Trump?
[14:34]>> To flag any records which included his name. I'm not going to discuss anything about that with you, Senator. >> Eventually, you're going to have to answer for your conduct in this. You
[14:45]won't do it today, but eventually you will. I yield, Mr. Chairman. >> I got Mr. Chairman something here. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Chairman,
[14:56]since Senator Durban referred to me, I would really appreciate the opportunity to correct the record because Senator
[15:04]Durban knows I repeatedly asked for those flight logs. I brought up the subpoena. You even shut down the
[15:14]committee because you didn't want that. And you know, I submitted that in writing and you continue to misrepresent that. And I am not going to let that
[15:24]record stand. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Go ahead, Senator Durban. >> I just want to make it clear that the reason the committee business ended was that your side invoked the two-hour
[15:35]rule. Point number two is I asked you if you wanted any documents like flight logs to put it in writing. You never did. >> Yes, sir, I did. And your staff knows
[15:44]that I did. We'll submit once again the information to you. We've done that several times, but we'll be happy to once again send it to you. I think your
[15:54]staff doesn't show that to you. >> Senator Graham. >> Good morning. >> Good morning.
[16:05]>> Thank you. Um, so I want to make sure I got this clear. If a Democrat or a Republican senator has a problem with a grant that's been cancelled or reduced, you would be glad
[16:16]to talk to them. >> Yes, Senator, and I have been doing that as well. >> There have been Democratic members who called you? >> They have t spoken to my office. Yes, Senator. >> And you've tried to respond
[16:28]>> on either side of the of course. If it has anything to do with law enforcement or victims, >> and that includes Senator Durban. If he's got a problem, he can call you and you try to respond. >> Absolutely. Thank you. How many illegal
[16:40]immigrants are in Chicago? >> Does anybody know?
[16:49]>> I do. Countless. >> What we have seen since January 20th, Senator Graham, is a 1,000%
[17:00]increase in violent attacks against our ICE officers. >> Right. But I just want to know is there like 10 or a hundred thousand? Does
[17:10]anybody know? >> There have been multiple and we have made multiple arrests of course involving violent gangs in Chicago throughout Illinois.
[17:21]>> Right. So the only reason I ask that is Chicago a sanctuary city. Do they help ICE deal with illegal
[17:32]immigration or they are sanctuary city? Do you know >> they are not cooperating? And and I would ask that I wish Senator Dervin would condemn the governor for for not cooperating with our law enforcement officers.
[17:43]>> The only reason I mention this, if you're a sanctuary city, any place in the country, you're making it difficult for the rest of us because word gets out if you get to a certain city, maybe
[17:54]Chicago being one of them, that you're home free and that just encourages more illegal immigration. Do you deal with that? Agree with that? >> I I do, Senator Graham. And can I add something to that? Sure,
[18:06]>> please. Um, one of our biggest wins was against the Sinaloa cartel and that came in Chicago. >> The state of Illinois has a trust act which prevents local law enforcement
[18:18]from cooperating with our federal immigration authorities. And that's what I was trying to talk to Senator Durban about. On September 15th, our partners at ICE arrested an illegal alien from
[18:30]Mexico for beating a 21-year-old man to death. He had been imprisoned in Illinois prior to the murder and was released under Illinois's Trust Act. We
[18:40]filed multiple lawsuits in Illinois for sanctuary policies, specifically instate tuition for illegal aliens and obstructing employers from verifying
[18:52]citizenship. You can't make this up. On September 5th, a federal grand jury in Chicago indicted a major Sinaloa cartel
[19:00]boss. Narot terrorism, guns, and drug charges. On July 11th, we announced a guilty plea
[19:11]for Ovidio Guzman Lopez. You may know him as the son of El Chapo, one of the worst narotist in the world. In the world.
[19:23]in Chicago. In Chicago, he entered a guilty plea to drug conspiracy and two counts of knowingly engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in the
[19:34]state of Illinois. I could continue with fentanyl. I could continue with child predators in Illinois. >> Well, thank you. I I think I've seen
[19:44]numbers over 100,000. So, Chicago and other sanctuary cities, you're making it harder for us to deal with illegal immigration by doing what you're doing.
[19:55]And uh I am glad President Trump is trying to change those policies. And if you need the National Guard to bring order out of chaos, uh so be it from my point of view. Let's get back to the
[20:06]topic uh sort of at hand here uh about how the law is being used politically. In September 2022,
[20:17]Attorney General James from New York basically said in a campaign that she would go after Trump, his business transactions, and his family will full
[20:28]force. November the 15th, 2022, Trump announces his candidacy for president. November
[20:36]2022, 3 days after Trump announced his re-election campaign, Jack Smith was appointed by Garland to be special
[20:46]counsel to look at classified information u document mishandling and uh trying to undermine the 2020 election. In March,
[20:57]President Trump was indicted in Manhattan of 2023, just after announcing um 34 felony counts. And what they did
[21:07]is they took misdemeanors and turned them into felonies by using a legal theory that no one in the history of Manhattan had ever been charged with.
[21:18]June 2023, a federal federal grand jury in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida indicted President Trump on 37 charges uh regarding
[21:30]classified information. Now, all I can say is that taking a hammer to a hard drive and bleach bid apparently
[21:39]doesn't make the cut. Having documents in the garage of President Biden doesn't make the cut. In
[21:48]August of 2023, he was indicted yet again regarding the 2020 election. So,
[21:56]all I can say is that in September 27th, uh Jack Smith's team asked for my phone records and seven other senators. Now,
[22:08]that's just the 20 24 election. Comey,
[22:16]are you aware of the fact that in August Comey, then director CIA, I mean, excuse me, FBI, August of 2016,
[22:28]was in a meeting at the White House where it was discussed that uh by Brennan, then then CIA director, that there was intelligence that maybe the
[22:40]Clinton campaign was trying to cook up a narrative that Trump was a Russian an asset. >> Senator, I believe that has been reported publicly, but I cannot comment on that.
[22:50]>> Okay. Well, I'm just telling you now. This is a campaign for president in 2016. In July, they open up Crossfire
[23:01]Hurricane. In August, they have a discussion in front of President Biden that there's intel that maybe this is generated by his political opponent.
[23:11]Nothing happened in September. Are you aware of the fact that the intelligence community sent a memo to the FBI director detailing intelligence that
[23:22]suggest is Clinton's campaign behind the idea that Trump is colluding or cooperating with the Russians? >> Senator, I believe that has been reported >> and that was addressed to the FBI
[23:32]director and Mr. Struck. This memo, are you aware that he told this committee? I don't recall that. the FBI director. >> Senator, I can't discuss anything.
[23:42]>> Well, I can tell you this. What the hell would you recall? You're the sitting FBI director. There's a campaign for president going on. You've opened up an investigation believing that the
[23:54]Republican candidate may be a Russian asset. And now all of a sudden, less than a month later, two months later, you have two inquiries, two events to
[24:05]suggest it may be his political opponent. Did anybody in the FBI inform the FISA court or anyone else about this activity that you know of? >> I can't discuss that matter. As you
[24:17]know, Senator Graham, >> should they have? Is there a requirement by law enforcement to tell the court if their warrant is being sought or a defendant that there's sculpatory
[24:28]information out there about you >> in general? Of course. Senator. >> So to the country, the FBI director gets an memo from the intel community. This
[24:38]may be all a political plot by his opponent. They didn't do a damn thing. Are you familiar with the steel dossier? >> Yes, Senator. >> That was a dossier prepared and paid for
[24:50]by the Clinton campaign. Are you aware that it was that document was used to get a warrant on five different occasions against Carter Page, an American citizen? >> Yes, Senator. And that has been
[25:01]>> Are you aware of the fact in February 2017 after Trump is president, the person who gave Christopher Steel the information,
[25:11]the Russian guy told the FBI, "The information I provided you was all bar talk, hearsay, and not reliable." Are you aware of that?
[25:20]>> Yes, Senator. Do was there ever an effort by the FBI to tell the FISA court about evidence that the man who helped prepare the doc do document retracted his
[25:32]statement? >> I can't discuss that, Senator. >> Should there have been? >> Can't discuss that. >> You wonder why we're looking at Comey? Give me a break.
[25:43]Why are we looking at Comey? Because he ran an FBI and personally knew about it. sculpatory information and let it slide.
[25:53]How in the hell can two FBI agents interview a man who says the document you're using against a sitting president
[26:03]to suggest he may be a Russian agent or Carter Page that is now no longer reliable? How does that not get to the court? Can you tell me how that doesn't get to the court?
[26:15]>> You can't. Can you? >> I can't, Senator. Can you tell me why my phone records when I'm the chairman of the judiciary
[26:23]committee were sought by the Jack Smith agents? Why did they ask to know who I called and what I was doing from January
[26:34]4th to the 7th? Can you tell me that? >> No, Senator. And there were eight senators in total. >> Yeah. Do you think that was an abuse of power? Senator, I cannot discuss whether
[26:46]there is or is not an ongoing investigation. If I may add one thing, they also wasted $50 million on what you just described trying to put President
[26:56]Trump in jail prior to the election. >> Senator White House. >> Thank you, Chairman. Miss Bonnie, good morning.
[27:06]>> Good morning. What became of the $50,000
[27:13]in cash that the FBI paid to Mr. Hman in a paper bag? evidently Senator, as Deputy Attorney General Todd
[27:35]Blanch recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Hman was subjected to a full review by the FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors. They found no credible
[27:46]evidence of any wrongdoing. >> And that was not my question. My question was, what became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered evidently
[27:57]in a paper bag to Mr. Hman? >> Senator, I'd look at your facts. >> Are you saying that they did not deliver
[28:08]$50,000 in cash to Mr. Holman? >> Senator, as recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Holman was subjected to a full review >> by the FBI agents. That's a different question.
[28:19]>> The Department of Justice prosecutors, they found no evidence of wrongdoing. >> That's a different question. What became of the $50,000?
[28:30]Did the FBI get it back? >> Mr. White House, excuse me, Senator White House, you're welcome to talk to the FBI. >> The report to you. Can't you answer this question? >> Senator White House, you're welcome to
[28:42]discuss this with Director Patel. Did Holman keep the $50,000? >> As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch
[28:54]recently stated, the investigation of Mr. >> Never mind. I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple >> by the FBI agents and the DOJ. They
[29:04]found no credible evidence of wrongdoing. You know, you're very concerned about money and people taking money and you rail against Wait a second. Wait a second. work with dark
[29:14]groups all the time. Senator, >> wait a second. >> Did you know >> whether or not in that investigation they looked at whether the 2024 $50,000
[29:25]payment to Mr. Hman was declared by him on his tax returns? Senator, I would be more concerned if I
[29:36]were you when you talk about corruption and money that you that when you pushed for legislation that would subsidize your wife's company. >> The um questions here are actually
[29:47]pretty specific. So having you respond with completely irrelevant far-right internet talking points really
[29:58]is not very helpful here. I'd like Mr. Chairman, you generally like to have us be able to get answers to know and we'll
[30:07]follow up with the QFR and to the extent Patel wants to answer that would be great as well. What happened to the $50,000?
[30:15]Did Homeman keep it? Did the FBI get it back? If he kept it, did he put it on his tax returns? Pretty simple questions.
[30:25]Um Homeman was the same guy who said there was a deal with Eric Adams. He said, "If Adams doesn't come through, I'll be back. I'll be in his office up his butt saying, "Where the hell is the
[30:36]agreement we came to?" Which brings us to the um OPR investigation of prosecutorial
[30:46]misconduct by Amile Boie because he was also involved in that transaction. >> What became of the OPR investigation of
[30:56]prosecutorial misconduct by Amile Bo? Yeah, Senator White House, to correct you for one moment, that would be the honorable judge Amal J. Boove III to you.
[31:06]>> Not at the time of this. He was uh an employee of the Department of Justice. And what became of the OPR investigation? >> It's all pending litigation, Senator. I can't discuss pending litigation nor
[31:17]personnel matters. OPR customarily publicly says when there is an investigation and at the end of it they
[31:28]provide a summary. Why can't you say whether there is an OPR investigation and whether if it's concluded there's a summary? >> Senator, I'm not going to discuss personnel matters,
[31:40]>> even public ones. >> Senator, I'm not going to discuss personnel matters. So, um, Cash Patel told this committee
[31:51]that his grand jury testimony after immunization after initially pleading the fifth was, and I quote,
[32:00]sealed by the Department of Justice. How and when and why was his testimony sealed and by whom?
[32:11]Senator, I'm not going to discuss any testimony, especially testimony that could be sealed with you. >> No, the question is was it or was it not sealed,
[32:22]>> Senator? I'm not going to discuss that with you. >> Well, he also said that he worked with the Department of Justice to have his
[32:32]transcript released publicly. How and when was his transcript released? Presumably, if he released it
[32:43]publicly, that's something you can discuss because it's public. >> Well, Senator, I believe you discussed that with Director Patel. >> And I'm asking you because he said the Department of Justice
[32:54]made this decision and you run the Department of Justice. I would refer that to Director Patel >> even though you run the Department of Justice and he testified that the
[33:04]Department of Justice released his transcript publicly. >> If it is released publicly, we will get you a copy, Senator. Gladly.
[33:13]if being a rather important word there when your FBI director testified that that was a fact. Treasury compiles suspicious activity
[33:26]reports referred to often as SARS that DOJ receives automatically.
[33:34]Hundreds related to accounts of Jeffrey Epstein. How many of those Treasury SARS did you
[33:44]or Director Patel investigate? >> Senator, I'm not sure if you're concerned because you took money, I
[33:56]believe. Did you from Reed Hoffman, one of Epstein's closest confidants, not only once but twice in 2018 and 2024, if
[34:05]that's correct? But Senator, did you ask Merrick Garland any of this over the last four years when he sat before you?
[34:15]>> This investigation has been going on. This investigation was closed. Did you ask Alex the cost of that? >> And Patel came to office. You said you would look into this.
[34:26]>> There were hundreds of suspicious activity reports. Some people would deduce from the fact that they are called suspicious activity reports that
[34:35]there might be suspicious activity. And yet you seem to have looked at zero of those suspicious activity reports
[34:46]involving Jeffrey Epstein accounts. Let me ask you something else. There's been public reporting that Jeffrey Epstein showed people photos of President Trump
[34:56]with half naked young women. Do you know if the FBI found those photographs in
[35:05]their search of Jeffrey Epstein safe or premises or otherwise? Have you seen any such thing? You know, Senator White House, you sit here and make salacious
[35:16]remarks once again trying to slander President Trump left and right when you're the one who was taking money from one of Epstein's closest confidence, I
[35:26]believe. I could be wrong, correct me, Reed Hoffman, who was with Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions. And the senator sitting right next to you tried
[35:37]to block the flight logs from being released. Yeah, you're grilling me on President Trump and some photograph with Epstein. Come on. >> The question is,
[35:49]did the FBI find those photographs that have been discussed publicly by a witness who claimed Jeffrey Epstein
[35:57]showed them to him? You don't know anything about that? Okay. Um, here's what some Well, now we cut to
[36:12]something else. Um, the Marshall Service is supposed to protect our federal judges.
[36:23]I have asked repeatedly for the Marshall Service to let me know if they are
[36:34]investigating or being inhibited from investigating whether or not there is orchestration
[36:43]of threats against federal judges, whether under either conspiracy laws or raketeering enterprise laws or aiding and abetting laws, whatever. But as you
[36:55]know, there's the person who says the threat and then there may very well be somebody orchestrating the threat behind them. Is the Marshall Service allowed to
[37:05]investigate orchestration of threats? And do you know if they've taken one step to do so? >> May I answer the question, Chairman Grassly? The time is expired.
[37:17]>> I think it's the convention of the committee that if I've started my question in my time, you may answer the question. >> I was asking the chairman. >> Okay. Before I go to corner, she wants to answer the question. Chairman,
[37:28]>> oh, please go ahead. I thought you said you didn't want answered. Yes, sir. Sorry. >> Thank you, >> Senator White House. I would be happy to sit down with you regarding any threat
[37:40]to any federal judge in this country. We take threats very seriously. I will set a meeting with you with Director Saralta
[37:50]of the US Marshalss and I will be there and we will talk about any threats on federal judges including who threatened them or who orchestrated them.
[37:59]>> Bingo. Thank you. Before Cornin speaks, uh I I get kind of amused about my Democratic colleagues bringing up
[38:10]Treasury suspicious activity reports regarding uh Epstein. When Senator Johnson and I issued our Biden family reports in 2020, we used information
[38:22]from these very same types of documents. And you know what? We were criticized by our Democratic colleagues for doing so and for years they ignored the evidence
[38:33]of the Biden family criminality. I don't think my colleagues can have it both ways. >> Senator Clolobachar, you're recognized. >> Thank you. Um Attorney General Bondi,
[38:44]good morning. I'm going to start on different subject um on behalf of um families in my state and I wanted to thank the FBI and the local justice
[38:56]officials in Minnesota, the US Attorney's Office for the work uh that they did um catching the murder um in the horrific murder of my friend, Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband
[39:07]and the shooting of Senator John Hoffman. Um just last month my state was again shaken to its core when a mass shooter uh attacked Annunciation
[39:18]Catholic Church in Minnesota shooting through the stained glass windows injuring 21 people including 18 kids killing little Fletcher little Harper
[39:29]and eight and a 10year-old murdering them when they're in mass praying 12y olds protecting eight-year-olds. I know we've spoken about these tragedies and
[39:40]we both agree that this kind of violence, whether in Minnesota or at a Mormon church in Michigan or the assassination of Charlie Kirk, has no
[39:49]place uh in our politics or in our democracy. Uh in 2018, after the Parkland shooting, you were attorney general and there was
[40:00]a bill called the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. And the bill banned bump stocks, enacted red flag laws, and raised the minimum
[40:10]age to purchase a firearm in Florida from 18 to 21. And you actually defended the law in court from a challenge from the NRA. And we know that I'm in favor
[40:22]of an assault weapon ban, period. I look at these bills and I think, does this hurt my uncle Dick in the deer stand? We have a proud tradition of hunting in Minnesota. I don't think they do. Um,
[40:33]but as I talked to Director Patel and he told me um in the chair you are sitting in right now that assault weapon bans could prevent future attacks. I talked
[40:44]to him about better background checks, about red flag laws, and then that perhaps we could find common ground on what actually happened in Florida, which would be to at least change the minimum
[40:56]age for purchasing assault weapon because um we've got 18 to 20 year olds commit gun homicides at over triple the rate of adults 21 years and over. Even
[41:07]though that wouldn't help it hap helped in Annunciation Church because he was a few years older. She was a few years older, but as you know, the shooter at Parkland was 19 years old, and the
[41:18]shooters in Buffalo and Yuvaldi were both 18 years old. So given your efforts in Florida, do you agree that at least raising the age for purchasing assault
[41:30]weapons could reduce the number of these shootings? >> Senator, first, that that's pending litigation and I can't discuss that at all. The the 21 is pending litigation. I
[41:40]cannot discuss that. But if I could go back the 21 age is pending litigation. I I can't discuss that. But Senator, back to to what you said about what happened
[41:50]in Minnesota. There is no place for that. And I believe I spoke to you after that horrific horrific
[41:59]those murders. And um I'm so sorry that that happened. and all of my federal agencies were partnering with state
[42:08]agencies working hand in hand in Minnesota. What I can tell you about the Second Amendment is this is a very this
[42:18]is the most pro- second amendment DOJ in American history as you know. But we want to keep guns as you said where they should be in the hands of law-abiding
[42:29]American citizens while keeping them out of the hands of criminals and gangs. Since January 20th, the ATF and FBI have
[42:40]seized more than >> you statistics. I really I I have 10 minutes. 30,000 you have given these statistics and I I truly appreciate
[42:50]those statistics. But what I was just trying to get at was something where maybe we could find common ground on a bill that you actually defended in court
[42:59]in a state uh which uh director Patel seemed open to and that was looking at could we at least raise the age to 21 of the purchase of an assault weapon
[43:08]federally while states look at banning uh these weapons overall given these little babies that this gun is used to kill. So we can talk about it later, but that was my question and you don't want
[43:20]to answer it. >> No, it's pending litigation, sir. >> Okay. But your views on this is not pending litigation. So I want to get to the independence of the Justice Department. Uh at your nomination
[43:32]hearing, I specifically ask you to provide assurance to every member of this committee that the Justice Department will will only follow the facts in the law and the White House will play no role in the cases
[43:44]investigated or brought. You stated in respon response, this was you, politics will not play a part in my decisions and you also said the justice department
[43:54]must be independent and must act independently. Do you believe that you have upheld that commitment? I absolutely have upheld that commitment, Senator. I pledged that I
[44:06]would end the weaponization also of the justice department and that America would once again have a onetier system of justice for all. And that is what we
[44:17]are doing in this country. We saw this with the president directing an investigation prosecution of Chris Krebs the former head of cyber security. Um
[44:28]Lisa Cook former who is a current governor of the Federal Reserve. Director Comey and the president and I know you have said that you will not
[44:37]discuss um dis discuss discussions you've had with the president about Comey. Is that correct? That you won't testify here about that?
[44:48]because I was going to ask you if you received advice, instruction, or request from anyone at the White House to direct the department to engage in any
[44:58]investigations, prosecutorial actions, including decisions not to investigate or prosecute anyone. >> I'm not going to discuss any conversations. That then how about the truth social post on September 20th,
[45:10]2025 in which the president said, "We can't delay any longer. Pam, using your name, not bringing criminal charges are killing our reputation," his words and
[45:21]credibility and then goes on to tell you to prosecute a member of this committee, to prosecute the attorney general of New York, and to prosecute James Comey. Do
[45:33]you consider that a directive to the Justice Department? >> Senator Clolobashar, President Trump is the most transparent president in American history
[45:43]and I don't think he said anything that he hasn't said for years. >> Okay. It has been reported that you initially pushed back against report against requests by senior Trump
[45:54]administration officials um to push out or fire the acting US attorney in Virginia, Eric Seabird, who's a conservative Republican um who made the
[46:06]decision that Comey that the evidence was not there to prosecute Comey. What made you change your opinion? >> I am not going to discuss personnel decisions. >> Okay. Is it true that the career
[46:17]prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia found that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against former Director Comey? I am not going to discuss pending cases
[46:28]because Comey was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia by, I may point out, one of the most liberal grand juries in the country.
[46:38]>> Okay, let's go on to other firings or terminations. Last week, the Justice Department fired at least two senior attorneys in the Eastern District of Virginia, including the office's
[46:49]national security chief, Michael Beneri. It is reported that his firing came following criticism from a right-wing social media commentator who wrote, "One
[46:59]can only assume he was part of the internal resistance in the Comey indictment. In fact, he did not work on the Comey case. Instead, he was working on pursuing justice for service members
[47:10]killed in Afghanistan. How does firing a 20year national security prosecutor enhance public safety? Senator Cloverar, I'm not going to
[47:22]discuss personnel decisions, but the personnel issue that I'm having right now is that all of my agents, all of my lawyers are working. My agents are on
[47:32]the street working without a paycheck because your party voted to shut down the federal government. >> Unfortunately, the House isn't even back here. They're 18 days off the job to
[47:43]even meet with us to come up with a resolution that we would like to discuss with them about saving people's healthcare. Let's move on to the antirust division. Did you authorize
[47:54]your chief of staff to overrule top officials in the antitrust division to settle the challenge to the Huelet Packard Enterprises Juniper Networks merger? Senator Gail Slater runs my antitrust
[48:09]unit and she is doing an excellent job on many, many cases. As you know, that is a pending case. Okay. In any merger,
[48:19]just to clarify, in any merger, Senator, there is a a deal struck with our office and with the corporations involved, but then that
[48:30]also goes to a court to certify in any merger. In any merger, it's a multi-step process. >> Okay, I will ask some further still pending
[48:40]>> questions about antitrust. I just had one other thing. DOJ uh can now take the extraordinary step of subpoening journalists. Has the Justice Department issued any subpoenas to journalists
[48:51]under the updated guidance? >> Time is expired. Okay, I'll ask those on the record. >> Respond, Miss Bondi. >> You can respond. She said,
[49:00]>> "Oh, >> Senator, my office
[49:13]in April restored the Justice Department's long-standing norm on this issue. It was A.G. Garland who had
[49:22]deviated on the media investigations policy, allowing self-identified journalist using the self-serving status as a
[49:33]shield against being held accountable for endangering our nation's security. We have taken that policy back to the
[49:43]norm. and I can't comment on whether we have or have not or do or do not have pending investigations. >> I'm expired. Senator Coons, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Um, and
[49:59]thank you to the committee for holding this oversight hearing. And Attorney General Bondi, thank you for your service and for being with us. I want to start with an area where I think we have a lot to agree on. In May, your Bureau
[50:10]of Prisons issued a directive to expand the availability of home confinement. The directive said it was rooted in the principle of smart, fair criminal justice reform and explained that smart
[50:21]reform and public safety can go hand in hand and that second chances are not just possible, they're necessary for a justice system worthy of the American people. There's more to do to implement this directive, but I appreciated the
[50:33]BOP's recognition of these principles. Could you briefly speak further about the work BOP Director Marshall and Deputy Director Smith, himself, a former inmate are doing with regard to reform
[50:45]and what opportunities you see for us to do more. >> Thank you, Senator Coons. And you have been a champion of that and we believe
[50:55]in second chances. As a career prosecutor, I know that most people, even violent criminals, are going to be locked up and then they're going to be released. And that's why we need
[51:07]everyone to be a productive member of society, I believe, in halfway houses. And that's part of what the second the First Step Act did. It gives people a
[51:16]second chance at life. And that's what Billy Marshall and Josh Smith have been doing, working hand inand at the Bureau of Prisons. I talk to them constantly
[51:27]and they are working so hard. In fact, they inherited a dysfunctional and neglected agency and they are taking
[51:37]despite more than $450 million being appropriated between n 2019 and 2024. We found that funds had been diverted
[51:48]away from the department of the prisons, the bureau of prisons. And so they are doing everything to create more halfway houses
[51:59]and to give inmates everything they need to be successful upon release, but also by keeping America safe. And I just
[52:10]learned from Billy Marshall, we just made an incredible case that someone, I believe the case was in Texas, one of our federal prisons, no one was monitoring this. And there
[52:22]was someone who was caught with a drone dropping off recently. Cell phones. >> Yep. >> Paraphernalia. >> Let me follow up on that point if I might. >> Many, many things that could cause
[52:34]violence within our prisons and allow criminal cartel networks to function within our federal prisons. And that's what a lot of this money is going for to
[52:45]make our prisons safe within and so these criminals cannot function while they are in prison. But what one good thing I can also add is we have given inmates I think we've over doubled the
[52:57]amount of minutes they can have on their phones so they can talk to their family members because we believe that is important. One of the challenges federal probation officers face is massive case
[53:08]loads. And um I am about to introduce hopefully reintroduce soon um a bill with Senator Lee that would improve our federal supervised release system by
[53:19]focusing resources on those who really need to be supervised uh and providing incentives to reduce uh oversight of those who've really made progress and who've changed the direction of their
[53:29]lives. that is broadly supported by law enforcement and a variety of policy groups. And I'd love to work with you on that, Madam Attorney General. >> Yeah. And Senator, can I just add because I I just got the the the
[53:39]numbers. So, what we have is $ 8.7 billion for the Bureau of Prisons. And what that does is it adds 587 correctional officers to help with the
[53:51]things that we just discussed. 95 million for new hires. We have to recruit and we have to retain. We know that's a really tough job to be a
[54:00]corrections officer and that's why Josh Smith is such a valuable part of that team with Billy Marshall and I would I would welcome working with you on that and President Trump is the one who
[54:12]signed the first step act because he believes in second chances. We all do. Thank you Senator Coons for that question. One of the things um I have been
[54:22]concerned even upset about is how early in this administration at the behest of Doge uh the department cut hundreds of grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars uh many of which serve critical
[54:33]public safety needs supporting victims assisting with re-entry violence prevention including in my own home state this was literally defunding the police and I have some concerns about
[54:45]how DOJ is putting at risk public safety by assigning thousands of agents and prosecutors away from drugs, firearms, corruption, violent crime to help ICE
[54:56]arrest people without criminal records. You've indicated a willingness to review any grant that a member of Congress has concerns about and noted a number of them have been restored on appeal, and I
[55:07]appreciate that willingness to admit some misjudgments or mistakes in some of the many grants that were cancelled. But can you assure us this process is going to be fixed going forward? So better
[55:19]decisions are made at the start and not just after appeals. And can you assure us that we are not leaving doors wide open uh for crime and criminality in our
[55:28]communities and overfocusing on arrest and deportation of those without criminal records. >> Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. And as I said earlier, we are
[55:38]reviewing all the grants and I believe we have I say turned some back on for senators who have called. It doesn't matter what state you're from. If it's a law enforcement grant, if it's
[55:49]protecting victims, let us know and we will work with you. And I'm not sure if we have done any in your state yet, but I would be happy to work with you on that. What I can tell you is 200 there
[56:01]have been out of the 5800 discretionary grants that were reviewed, only 376 around the country, 7% were terminated.
[56:10]225 of the grant recipients have appealed that termination. And so far we've turned back on 18 of those. 17 appeals have been denied and the rest
[56:21]are being actively reviewed. If any if any of you know of any of those that you believe should call me. Should be turned back on. Call me. We don't want to
[56:30]jeopardize this hurting, please do. And and and Senator to to go to what you said about the FBI and my federal agencies and being pulled to work on
[56:39]immigration cases. They're working hand in hand because we believe that, you know, we have ICE officers out there, as we just discussed. I don't want to repeat that, who who are being harmed.
[56:50]We're going to work with them. And I have directed all of my law enforcement agencies to work with ICE to make sure they're safe in Chicago, to make sure they're safe in Memphis, to make sure they're safe right here in Washington
[57:02]DC, but also at President Trump's direction. We are not stopping the core function of what we're doing, and that is fighting violent crime. And I think Director Patel made that very clear with
[57:14]all of the arrests that our FBI have been making on violent criminals. And you know, there's so much that we can't talk about here, but if any of you are on the intel committee, you know, we are
[57:24]fighting terrorists around this country every single day. Our lawyers are shut down right now. They're not getting paid. The crime is not stopping. They
[57:34]are working around the clock to not only keep our country safe, Senator, but to keep our world safe. And >> Madam Attorney General, I think I think all of us uh hate that there's a
[57:45]shutdown and its impact on the federal workforce and are working to find a way out of this shutdown, but one that will also restore cuts to health care. We could spend a lot of time on that, but
[57:56]let's focus on, if I could, two more questions related to your service as the attorney general. The government's asserting the authority to sumearily kill people. It says our cartel members through military strikes against boats
[58:08]on the open ocean in the Caribbean. Congress has never authorized such a use of military force. And it's unclear to me how the administration has concluded that these strikes are legal. I'm concerned with what the limiting
[58:20]principle is, whether the government could sumearily kill people. that just declares our cartel members as well as unlawful combatants inside the United States or if they were American
[58:30]citizens. This isn't about defending cartels and these aren't hypothetical questions. President Trump assembled military leaders and said they would be needed to fight the enemy from within
[58:41]and to train in cities in the United States that he describes as chaotic and violent. Due process is the cornerstone of our Constitution. I'm deeply concerned about the authority our
[58:52]president seems to be asserting to sumearily kill people suspected of criminal activity outside the law. As the chief lawyer for our federal government, you have a unique responsibility to ensure maintenance of
[59:04]our constitutional standards. How did you conclude that these strikes on ships or boats in the open ocean are legal? Senator Coons, I'm not going to discuss
[59:17]any legal advice that my department may or may not have given or issued at the direction of the president on this matter regarding Venezuela. What I can
[59:27]tell you is Maduro is a narco terrorist and we announced a historic I announced
[59:35]$50 million reward for his capture to bring him to this country to face charges. He is currently under
[59:44]indictment in our country. Drugs coming from Venezuela are killing our children at record levels. >> And members of this committee are as
[59:54]passionate as you at protecting our families and our communities from fentanyl. But we also need to protect our sailors on the high seas who are conducting freedom of navigation
[1:00:05]operations in the South China Sea from just an abject violation of international norms and standards about how we interdict ships on the high seas. We can push back on fentanyl and drug
[1:00:17]trafficking. Many of my colleagues have done so as former US attorneys or prosecutors or attorneys general, but we have to do it in a way that is in keeping with the core values of our
[1:00:27]constitution. My colleagues have pressed you on a number of recent actions particularly in the Eastern District of Virginia. Uh my colleague Senator Clolobashar did. Uh and I just wanted to
[1:00:37]add my voice to those who have expressed real alarm at how in your confirmation hearing you said you would be leading a department that would look forward. Yet, public statements by President Trump
[1:00:49]urging you to go after and to indict and to prosecute specific named people seem to have led to dramatic and sudden action by the department. Um, I am
[1:01:00]gravely concerned about what is no longer a hypothetical question, which you refused to answer in your confirmation hearing, but is a real question about when or if the president
[1:01:10]demands you prosecute individuals because he views them as opponents or enemies. what you will do and what your limiting standard is because the recent episode around the indictment of James
[1:01:21]Comey left me very concerned about the direction of the department. >> We are a minute and a half over. Senator Chairman, may I answer? >> Yes.
[1:01:33]>> Senator Coons, as you have stated in the past, no one is above the law. >> And James Comey is a pending case right now. It's a pending indictment. He was indicted
[1:01:44]by one of the most liberal grand juries in the country by our US attorney Lindseay Halligan >> right >> right here in in Virginia. And it's a pending case. So I'm not going to
[1:01:55]discuss the facts of a pending case. >> But you can understand the alarm about the the the circumstances of the indictment immediately following President Trump demanding that you take
[1:02:06]action to indict prosecute that specific individual. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just so the American
[1:02:16]people understand, uh, this issue of weaponization of justice goes to the core of the integrity of our criminal justice
[1:02:25]system. And I think we can all agree that no individual, no group should be targeted simply because they are a
[1:02:36]political opponent or because the president of the United States has some personal animosity toward them. You've just said that President Trump is
[1:02:48]the most transparent president in history, tragically and chillingly, you may be right when it comes to
[1:02:57]criminal justice. Because far from ending weaponization of justice, I would submit, madame attorney general,
[1:03:08]that President Trump has embodied it and we have a record. It is a public record of his express instructions
[1:03:20]that certain individuals be investigated. the attorney general of New York, Tis James, my colleague Adam Schiff, the former SISA director,
[1:03:30]Chris Krebs, the DHS former chief of staff Miles Taylor. There's a list and he has been transparent. In fact, 5 days
[1:03:40]before the indictment of James Comey, he put this post up as instructions to
[1:03:49]you. He didn't mince words. He was very open and public that you should indict
[1:03:58]James Comey and others because they are guilty as hell.
[1:04:05]No more delay. Now 5 days before you indicted or grand jury at your instructions
[1:04:15]indicted James Comey. I'd like to know from you what conversations you've had with President Trump about the indictment of James
[1:04:25]Comey. >> Senator Senator, I am not going to discuss any conversations I have or have
[1:04:37]not had with the president of the United States. You're you're an attorney. You have a law degree and you know that I'm not going to do that. But I also find it
[1:04:46]fascinating, you know, because I'll keep fighting to ensure that law enforcement and the judicial process move forward without political interference. No one
[1:04:57]is above the law, not even the president. That's a quote from you, Senator Blumenthal, in 2017. >> Let let me ask you then, when you saw that,
[1:05:08]>> no one is above the law. That was your quote. When you saw that post, did you talk to anybody in the White House? >> I am not going to discuss any
[1:05:18]conversations I have nor any investigations nor you are unwilling to tell this committee about conversations with the White House.
[1:05:28]>> And if James Comey's indictment, >> And if I may, let me show you a picture. James Comey was indicted by one of the most liberal grand juries
[1:05:39]in the United States. >> The night before James Comey's indictment, you had dinner with President of the United States. Pretty intimate group. >> Actually, there were a lot of people
[1:05:51]there that night. That's a great picture. >> Comey discussed at that dinner. >> I love that picture. That's a great picture. And there were a lot of people there that night. I think the entire cabinet was there.
[1:06:02]Did you discuss James Comey with the president of the United States? He was sitting just to your left. >> Well, two seats down. Yes. Two seats
[1:06:10]down. And I am not going to discuss any or not have with the president >> because the American public is entitled to know. Madam Attorney General,
[1:06:20]>> the entire cabinet took instructions from President Trump after he told you very directly to indict James Comey,
[1:06:30]which is weaponization of the Department of Justice. >> I I want to agree with my colleague
[1:06:39]Senator Holly that weaponization of our justice system must end. That's the reason that I proposed legislation and I challenge him and my colleagues on
[1:06:50]the other side of the aisle to join me in legislation that would create a statutory right of action for people who are selectively or
[1:06:59]maliciously prosecuted for political reasons. It would codify your manual, the Department of Justice manual on political
[1:07:11]prohibitions against political considerations in charging decisions and prohibit the White House from intervening, President Trump and any other president
[1:07:22]from intervening in political in charging decisions. It would make reforms the grand jury process. You've just said this grand jury was liberal.
[1:07:32]We should reform the grand jury process to ensure that the government is not abusing its power and authority. And it will require transparency and
[1:07:42]accountability reforms at DOJ so that you will and other attorneys general be held accountable for these kinds of decisions. Will you join me in
[1:07:51]supporting that kind of reform? Senator Blumenthal, I find it so interesting that you didn't bring any of this up during President Biden's administration when he was doing everything to protect
[1:08:01]Hunter Biden, his son. And I think you just saw what Director Radcliffe just released. >> You know, this is an information. If I can finish answering the question, I'm not going to yell over you. I'm not
[1:08:12]going to get in the gutter with you, but information information that the Biden administration told them not to investigate Hunter Biden's involvement
[1:08:22]with Ukraine. >> And I'm not going to be lectured to move about integrity. Another topic. I'm hoping that you will review the >> lied about being in the military just to
[1:08:32]be elected as senator. >> The merger between Hulip Packet Enterprises and Juniper Network
[1:08:42]was settled. You authorized the settlement. It was the subject of a lawsuit to block
[1:08:51]it. The settlement produced virtually no concessions from Hulan Packard. It was a settlement that prompted criticism from
[1:09:03]the antitrust division. Did you authorize that settlement yourself? As I stated earlier, Gail Slater is
[1:09:16]doing an incredible job running the antitrust unit. And as I stated earlier, that is still a pending matter as you should know with the law. Did you not
[1:09:27]all mergers? If I can finish answering the question. >> I'm going to interrupt answering the question because my time is limited. >> No. Well, then don't ask me a question. >> So, let me just ask you.
[1:09:38]>> As I said, you have a law degree. You know that not only are mergers agreed upon, but they have to go to a court of law to be approved. It's a multi-step
[1:09:48]process. And as I said earlier, that is still pending. And I have full faith in Gail Slater. And Miss Slater reportedly objected to the settlement. >> Reportedly.
[1:09:59]>> And moreover, >> Moreover, >> two of her top officials were fired. Roger Alfred and Bill Ster. Did you
[1:10:09]authorize and direct those firings after they objected to the settlement? I am not going to discuss personnel matters
[1:10:17]or pending litigation in my office. >> Let me ask you about another merger.
[1:10:25]The uh merger involving uh two home health care agencies on
[1:10:35]favorable terms likely to drive up costs for millions of Americans. The transportation department's rule to provide compensation to travelers
[1:10:44]impacted by airline caused flight delays which was cancelled. The merger of Sky Dance >> and Paramount after Paramount's
[1:10:56]ownership took a number of steps favorable to the president. These kinds of mergers belly the claims that
[1:11:08]President Trump himself has made that this administration will stop big corporate mergers that ultimately
[1:11:19]benefit the owners of those corporations rather than consumers or ordinary everyday Americans.
[1:11:29]>> Senator, let me ask you, you just listed Uh you just gave a list of of many mergers. I have a question. >> Can you talk to me about the the issue with these mergers?
[1:11:39]>> I I do have a question >> in the merger that took place. >> Which merger? You've listed many
[1:11:48]>> involving American Express GBT. I understand that Brian Ballard,
[1:11:58]>> longtime backer and head of the law firm where you worked, was instrumental in lobbying the Justice Department to
[1:12:08]drop that lawsuit. It was dismissed. So, it's not subject to a court review. What conversation did you have with Mr. Ballard?
[1:12:18]Senator Blumenthal, I I cannot believe that you would accuse me of impropriy when you lied about your military
[1:12:29]service. You aditted elected a US senator. How dare you? I am a career prosecutor.
[1:12:38]Don't you ever challenge my integrity. I have abided by every ethics standard. do not question my ability to be fair and
[1:12:48]impartial as attorney general and anything that former firm Ballard partners. >> Thank you, >> Senator Ronald. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:12:58]Miss Bondi, FISA section 702 will expire in 6 months. In response to response to my questions for the record, uh, at your confirmation hearing, you said you did
[1:13:10]not have experience with FISA, but if confirmed, you would consult with experts at DOJ. Now, you've had that opportunity. Do you support adding
[1:13:21]additional safeguards for searching Americans communications in the 702 database? Senators, section 702 is a vital source
[1:13:33]of foreign intelligence and instrumental in keeping Americans safe. We also take individuals rights of American their
[1:13:42]individual rights of all Americans very seriously and many statutory reforms to FISA have incorporate safeguards. They have to incorporate
[1:13:54]safeguards to protect our civil liberties. The Department of Justice looks forward to working with you >> to discuss anything regarding 702. >> Appreciate that.
[1:14:05]>> I believe my staff and and Senator, I also want to thank you for the for this hearing. Your staff met with my staff and I greatly appreciate that. >> Thank you. We're going to be working on
[1:14:15]702, so I appreciate the openness to further uh amending 702. At your confirmation hearing, you assured me that it is the Department of Justice's
[1:14:25]decision to determine what cases will be prosecuted last month in the US at the US Attorney for the Eastern District of
[1:14:34]Virginia was forced out. President Trump then posted the message behind me asking uh about prosecuting James Comey. You
[1:14:44]then appointed a new US attorney who within days secured an indictment against James Comey. That social media post behind me saying,
[1:14:55]"What about Comey?" was directed to Pam. Are you the Pam that the president was referring to? I'm sure I was. So it's very clear to me
[1:15:09]that when the president posts something like that that he considers the DOJ to be his law firm and you his lawyer and in fact very shortly after the post to
[1:15:18]you uh Comey gets indicted. Last year, President Trump's new borders
[1:15:26]are now border Tom Holman was videotaped taking a bag with $50,000 in cash from
[1:15:35]undercover FBI agents after suggesting he could help with government contracts. Sounds like a bribe. Two weeks ago, DOJ
[1:15:45]officials reportedly shut down the bribery investigation into Mr. Holman. Miss Bondi, did you approve closing the homeman investigation,
[1:15:56]bribery investigation? Just >> Senator Herono, as I stated earlier,
[1:16:07]the Department of Justice and the FBI conducted a thorough review and they
[1:16:16]found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. You were also on video outside the White House protesting with a group called CASSA where Antifa members were. Does that mean you're a
[1:16:28]member of Antifa? >> You know, I simply asked the question as to whether or not you approve the shutting down of the investigation, Mr. Holman. I have to assume that you did
[1:16:38]because the FBI it reports to you. But the American people would look at the situation where th this person is taking a 50,000
[1:16:47]$50,000 in cash, no less. And that you testified today that a thorough investigation was done. Now, I have to
[1:16:56]assume I conclude that since no wrongdoing was determined that in answer to Senator White House's question, he
[1:17:06]kept the money. He kept the money. And I hope that he put that on his uh tax returns as income. Next question. Over 1,200 riers were
[1:17:16]convicted of charges related to January 6th. President Trump has since pardoned nearly all of them. As if that weren't enough, last month there was there were
[1:17:27]reports that a lawyer for the January 6 riers met with senior DOJ officials about setting up a compensation fund. a
[1:17:36]compensation fund like the one that Congress set up after 911 to compensate these riers. Miss Bondi, is anyone at
[1:17:47]DOJ considering setting up a compensation fund for January 6 riers? Yes or no?
[1:17:57]>> Senator, I have had no meetings or discussions about a fund. >> So, would you support such a fund? Would would you okay such a fund?
[1:18:08]>> Senator, you can send me the information on the fund and I'd be happy to look at it. >> No, but do you think that's a good idea to you? This is what I'm getting at because to actually set up a fund and to
[1:18:19]have people talking with your senior people at DOJ, political people about creating a fund and you won't uh let us know what you think about that. I uh that's pretty unbelievable.
[1:18:30]On January 30th of this year, the Trump DOJ's Anatos division sued to block the merger of two tech companies.
[1:18:40]Then, a well-connected lobbyist met with your political deputies who overruled the career staff and approved the merger. So, there's a settlement on
[1:18:52]that. And separately, DOJ sued Ticket Master last year for monopolizing concert tickets and forcing consumers to
[1:19:02]pay outrageous fees. Ticket Master has hired the exact same lobbyists who met with senior DOJ political people regarding the merger of the two tech
[1:19:14]companies. So, um, my question is, Miss Bondi, have lobbyists met with your political deputies about the ticket ma
[1:19:23]master case? Senator Herono, as I stated earlier, I am not going to discuss anything that is
[1:19:33]ongoing. Gail Slater runs the antitrust. >> I would say and Gail Slater, if I can finish, Gail Slater is doing an incredible job running my antitrust
[1:19:43]unit. It's highly likely, Miss Bondi, that the same lobbyists who met with your people and basically got rid of the antitrust uh uh case. >> Senator, I don't think a lot of people
[1:19:55]like that you were out protesting with Antifa right now. Next question. You have fired dozens of career prosecutors because they worked on cases
[1:20:06]involving President Trump or January 6 riers. For example, one career federal prosecutor secured who secured over 100 convictions in Florida. He also spent
[1:20:18]time in DC prosecuting January 6 cases. He received an outstanding review only two days before you signed a memo firing
[1:20:29]him. The memo cited no reason for his firing. Are you firing career prosecutors solely because they worked on cases like
[1:20:40]January 6th that the president doesn't like? >> Senator Herono, I am not going to talk about personnel matters with you. >> Well, we all know that hundreds of
[1:20:52]career prosecutors have left the DOJ and uh uh literally hundreds we're told. Um, and >> yeah, Senator, are you familiar with the
[1:21:02]one that threw a launch at a at a at an ICE officer? Are you a homeland security officer? >> Are you familiar with the one who went out on her lunch break and was making obscene gestures?
[1:21:12]>> Would you say that DOJ losing these career prosecutors and the thousands of hours of experience they have prosecuting criminals? That is not a
[1:21:23]reassuring situation. >> Senator, many employees took the fork in the road and resigned. DOJ is hiring committed prosecutors who will actually
[1:21:33]come into the office and work and not work remotely and prosecute violent criminals around the country and terrorists. And I am very proud of the
[1:21:43]work all of our all of our prosecutors. I'm running out of time so I think you should stop with >> your continuous interruptions. In my opinion, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I just want
[1:21:54]to close by saying that what was once the Department of Justice has become the Department of Revenge and Corruption. Rather than pursuing cases without fear or favor, this DOJ seeks to favor the
[1:22:06]president's friends and instill fear in his alleged enemies. If you're a friend of the president, this corrupt DOJ will
[1:22:16]bend over backwards to help you. Just like it it dropped the bribery investigation of Tom Pullman, like it's considering paying money to January 6
[1:22:26]riers and like it has put antirust enforcement decisions in the hands of well-connected lobbyists. But if you're on the wrong side of this president, you
[1:22:37]will face the wrath of DOJ, no matter what the facts, law, or justice support. James Comey is indicted days after the president social media directive.
[1:22:48]Experienced career prosecutors are fired just because they were assigned to work on January 6 cases. Blue states are sued to get highly sensitive private voter
[1:22:58]data, whereas red states are left alone. The double standard is clear and the American people are waking up to the corruption and favoritism and the
[1:23:10]lawlessness at the DOJ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> May I respond, Chairman? >> Yes. >> May I respond? >> Yes, you you may respond then. Senator Kennedy, >> thank you. The double standard is
[1:23:21]crystal clear, Senator Herono. Crystal clear. because you didn't complain for four years when President Trump was being targeted by Jack Smith, by the
[1:23:31]last Justice Department, but the Americans people spoke loud and clear when they overwhelmingly elected him. The two-tier system of justice is over.
[1:23:42]>> Senator Padilla. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. uh appreciate uh the opportunity to uh participate in this hearing today which
[1:23:52]is our at minimum annual opportunity uh to uh ask questions as we fulfill our obligation to provide accountability
[1:24:01]over the Department of Justice. So just sort of to level set a little bit for folks in the audience and for folks watching at home, the Department of Justice is supposed to be the nation's
[1:24:12]guardian of fairness and the rule of law. The power of the Department of Justice is built on public trust and a
[1:24:22]belief that prosecutions are based on facts and law, not on politics or personal loyalty. And I call that out,
[1:24:32]Mr. Mr. Chairman, because when that breaks down, >> when the public trust breaks down, >> then justice itself is at risk.
[1:24:44]But under this Trump administration and the leadership of Attorney General Bondi, I believe the independence of the Department of Justice has come under
[1:24:54]attack. The department has been reorganized. It's been realigned and repurposed in ways that we've never seen before. Important offices have been
[1:25:05]closed, key programs dismantled, and agents diverted, all without congressional authorization
[1:25:14]or transparent justification. Now, these are not minor bureaucratic changes. They represent a fundamental shift in the Department of
[1:25:25]Justice's missions and priorities, its policies, and its practices. And for example, career prosecutors have been pressured to change decisions in
[1:25:36]politically sensitive cases. Ethics oversight has been taken away from independent career professionals and handed to political appointees with
[1:25:48]little experience in these matters. Internal working groups have been created to revisit investigations involving President Trump and his allies.
[1:25:59]And together these steps and a dangerous message that prosecutorial decisions can be driven by political loyalty instead of the law.
[1:26:09]Now, even more troubling is that the Department of Justice has pulled resources away from organized crime, away from counterterrorism, away from uh
[1:26:20]the uh protection of civil rights, to focus on immigration enforcement. The American people expect a Department of Justice to pursue violent crime, as do
[1:26:30]I, to pursue corruption and threats to national security, not to serve as an arm of immigration policy and in so
[1:26:41]doing underresource other critical missions. Now, the Justice Department's credibility depends on the public's faith in justice and that the justice
[1:26:51]will be applied equally to every person and not reserved for the powerful or the connected. And that faith must be protected. And so, it's in that spirit
[1:27:02]that this committee has a duty to ensure the department's work remains lawful, remains transparent, and remains true to its highest duty, the fair and impartial
[1:27:12]administration of justice. Now, that being said, I do want to get into some specific items um with Attorney General Bondi here, beginning with the firing of
[1:27:23]Michelle Beckwith. Michelle Beckwith was a 15-year career prosecutor with the Department of Justice. She prosecuted in her career some of the worst of the worst in my home state of California,
[1:27:35]sex traffickers, transnational terrorists, those who this administration claims to care about and be targeting.
[1:27:44]prioritizing in taking them off the streets. And it may surprise some to learn that Miss Beckwith was unsairy marched out of
[1:27:55]her office and fired from her job in July of this year. Why? Not because she failed to do her job. Quite the
[1:28:05]opposite. It was because she had the audacity to remind Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bouvino that he was obligated to follow a court order and the
[1:28:16]Constitution in California. According to reports, she was fired less than 6 hours after she told Bino he couldn't arrest people without probable cause. Six
[1:28:28]hours. So my first question, Attorney General Bondi, is a simple yes no question. Do you believe that government officials like Gregor Bavino are obligated to
[1:28:39]follow applicable court orders whether they agree with them or not? Yes or no? First, Senator Padilla, you have gone on
[1:28:49]for over five minutes and I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump. We'd be in really good shape then because violent crime in California is currently
[1:28:59]35% higher than the national average. property crime in California is 18% higher than the national average. That should be something that we should be
[1:29:10]talking about and working together on yet we're not. And no, this is important. You're talking about all these all of my agencies and I want I want to let you know what DEA has been
[1:29:20]doing and they are working hand in hand. No, you can't go on for 5 minutes and criticize my agents who are out working without pay right now because you voted
[1:29:31]to shut down the government. >> They're out there working without pay. >> Mr. Chairman, I asked a simple yes or no question. Uh, Attorney General Bond 4500
[1:29:40]kilos of 50 million fentanyl pills off the street under FBI 23,000 violent criminals. US Marshals Mr. Chairman order, thousand
[1:29:51]>> fugitives. >> I'm trying to get I'm not getting answer to my question. I'm trying to move on to the next question or the next topic. Mr. Chairman, order please. Thank you. Uh
[1:30:02]because uh under Attorney General Bondi's watch, prosecutors are being fired for telling agencies to follow the law and uphold the constitution.
[1:30:12]Meanwhile, there are instances of allies of the president who seem to be getting let off the hook. I won't reiterate what some of my colleagues have already brought up in
[1:30:21]terms of the uh uh dismissal of the investigation into Tom Holman and his alleged acceptance of $50,000 as payment by undercover FBI agents posing as
[1:30:33]business executives looking to secure contracts with a future Trump administration. Because if the reports are true, it's not just the underlying conduct of Mr. homeman, which would be
[1:30:44]absolutely unacceptable. But the dismissal of the investigation charges raises concerns about the influence of the White House on the Department of
[1:30:54]Justice. Again, a simple question, and I'd appreciate a simple and brief answer. Whose decision was it to end this investigation?
[1:31:05]>> I have answered that question multiple times, yet you didn't have the courtesy to be sitting in here for the hearing. I'm not going to answer it again. And I find it interesting that you want order in this in this proceeding now. Excuse
[1:31:16]me, Senator. Order in this proceeding now. You sure didn't have order when you stormed Secretary Gnome. Mr. Chairman, >> at a press conference, did you?
[1:31:27]>> I will ask a follow-up question. Would you commit to either releasing the tape or at least making it available for members of this committee to review? Yes or no?
[1:31:38]Senator, you have not been sitting in here this entire hearing. I've answered the question and I also want to tell you
[1:31:47]that our ATF agent 25,000 illegal firearms. So, we will try again and we'll in your home state. We are prosecuting illegal aliens who have
[1:31:58]raped and murdered young girls. >> Thank you. So when I haven't been in this hearing, I've been watching from my office monitoring the entire hearing
[1:32:08]just so everybody is aware. But since I'm not getting answers to my questions, I'll try to ask one last uh subject area. Now again, there's uh been increasing
[1:32:19]concerns about the politicized decision-making and the erosion of internal safeguards that protect prosecutorial independence. Before we even get into the integrity and
[1:32:31]independence of prose uh prosecutions, we get into you have to ask the question about the independence and integrity of
[1:32:41]investigations themselves. The director of the FBI, Director Patel was here before us just a few weeks ago. Uh
[1:32:52]attorney general Bondi, you are the attorney general of the United States. Director Patel reports to you. Do you believe he's doing a good job? Yes or no? >> I believe Director Patel is doing a
[1:33:03]great job. You know where he is right now. Senator Padilla right now. You asked me a question. Director Patel right now because you said it earlier in the hearing. >> Fighting to keep >> You said it earlier in the hearing. And
[1:33:15]yes, I have been paying attention. >> You want order in here now. Yet you stormed the director of Homeland Security, Christy Gnome. You sure didn't have order that day, did you, Senator? Attorney General, you are under oath. I
[1:33:26]did not storm the secretary the video. >> Oh, that was on video. That video has been released, I believe. Very well. >> Mr. Chairman, recent actions raised serious concerns about Director Patel's
[1:33:37]judgment and politicization, including lawsuits from former FBI officials, alleging retaliatory firings and his decision to cut off long-standing partnerships with civil rights
[1:33:48]organizations, and his decision to fire an FBI agent for refusing to engage in a quote perwak of James Comey.
[1:33:58]and on top of all that, his uh prematurely claiming that subjects were in custody after the shooting of Charlie Kirk. I take uh Attorney General Bonnie's endorsement today of his work
[1:34:09]as her support for those actions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> May I respond, Senator Chair? >> Under Director Patel, 23,000
[1:34:20]violent criminals have been arrested, a 91% increase over last year. More than 1,500 child predators have been arrested. We
[1:34:32]are making cases in your jurisdiction constantly in California. And I wish you would care about those cases. We have disrupted 1,600 gangs and criminal
[1:34:43]enterprises. 1600 gangs within this country thanks to Director Patel and the great men and women of the FBI. I um
[1:34:54]General Bondi, I'm a I'm kind of a boring management consultant uh nerd that believes in best practices as a way to to kind of uh move forward
[1:35:06]and and and create consistent outcomes. I'm having a real struggle right now with the National Guard being deployed
[1:35:15]and masking the abject failure of leaders at the state and local level. So give me some sense of if if we if if
[1:35:25]the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago or Portland is necessary to kind of create a shock to the system, do you believe that that's a best practice or
[1:35:36]just a necessary evil until we regen the extraordinary work I've seen on joint task forces every day in North Carolina with absolute cooperation between state,
[1:35:47]federal, and uh local officials. Is that is that the best practice that we should get to or is this deployment of the National Guard a part of an emerging
[1:35:57]best practice that I just don't get yet? >> Senator Tillis, seeing what's happening in Chicago, they need the National Guard. Our ICE members need the National
[1:36:08]Guard to protect the National Buildings. >> Oh, 100%. I I'm talking about when you when it wads into the local law enforcement. So, I felt like deployment in in uh in DC made sense because of the
[1:36:18]hybrid nature of DC. What I'm saying is outside of that defending federal buildings and federal law enforcement addressing I think you mentioned over 500 murders in Chicago, it would just
[1:36:29]seem to me that all those bums should be thrown out in an election and are we masking an underlying problem that will come back the minute we leave? That's what I'm talking about. not not the protection of federal buildings and
[1:36:40]federal law enforcement officers, but almost the sense of they become an arm of local law enforcement. I don't I don't consider that a best practice. It doesn't sound like you do either. >> Well, I don't believe our National Guard
[1:36:51]want to be doing that, but they're going to be where they have to be to keep Americans safe. In Memphis right now, the highest violent crime rate in the country, I was on the ground with
[1:37:02]Secretary Hegset there and our guard was there and they were thrilled. They're ready to help. And we used all Tennessee Guard there. Secretary H. Seth used all Tennessee Guard. They're working
[1:37:12]handinhand with the Memphis Police Department who I believe were very happy to have them there helping them to keep Memphis safe. C can I go back to the the
[1:37:23]vaping again that you brought up, please, Senator? So, I went to um I went to Chicago actually with Secretary Kennedy and we it was just outside of
[1:37:34]Chicago in a suburb and we were there talking about the illegal vapes and what parents need to know, this is a bipartisan issue. What people need to know, these illegal vapes, they're all
[1:37:44]over this country. You can buy them in convenience stores. You can buy them in grocery stores. One vape is the equivalent of, I believe, 20 cigarettes.
[1:37:54]The flavored ones are illegal and they're targeting children. What you said earlier, some of these vapes, and I had never seen this until we were there,
[1:38:04]even have video games attached to them. That's not targeting an adult. It's targeting a child. And they're also the majority are coming in from China, which
[1:38:14]is illegal, and they're lacing them with THC. Now, right now, I can't say that I have seen deaths with fentanyl laced, but we want to get on the front end of
[1:38:24]this because that's what's next. >> If we don't control this in every single one of our states, >> that's what's next. And for the first time, we're getting on the front end of
[1:38:35]a very serious problem around our country. And and Senator Moody, you fought this as well. So, thank you for letting me address that, Senator. >> And parents need to know that
[1:38:45]>> uh we do. we we need to focus on it and uh and and all I'm saying from a political standpoint is
[1:38:55]that if we're only well let's President Trump is termed out. He'll only be able to serve us uh serve out his second term. And I believe the president is
[1:39:05]absolutely focused on making these dangerous cities safer. Um I reject any notion that Charlotte's on that list by the way. So whether you're Democrat or Republican, bring it on.
[1:39:16]But I see three and a half years from now if we don't address the systemic problems that what we've basically done is given a governor and mayor and city councilman a pass on failing to protect
[1:39:28]their people. I was formerly speaker of the house in North Carolina. If I thought I had to have the president deploy troops to keep North Carolina safe, I would have considered myself a
[1:39:38]failure as a state leader. And so I just hope we strike the balance so that we're not we're not fixing a problem temporarily only to to come back maybe
[1:39:49]even worse than the problem we're fixing the moment this president who's committed to local safety leaves. And that's something that we have to talk about. So we're leaving something behind and I'm going to yield back. Thank you.
[1:40:01]>> Thank you, Senator Tillis. >> General Bondi at your confiration hearing in January made a clear commitment you would not politicize your position. We are here today at your first oversight hearing nine months into
[1:40:11]your tenure at a time when hundreds of career prosecutors have quit because they were required to take unethical actions at odds with that promise or fear that they would have to take such
[1:40:23]actions if they remained on the job. When over a thousand former federal prosecutors have sounded the alarm about the unprecedented degree to which the powers of DOJ are being abused to go
[1:40:35]after the president's enemies. I approached this hearing with a heavy heart. As a former federal prosecutor myself, I served in a department that whether it was under a Democratic or
[1:40:45]Republican president, would never use the office to go after the president's enemies or to hide the corruption of his friends. But today, the Justice Department has been used to cover up the
[1:40:57]possible corruption of the mayor of New York or of a high level administration official taking $50,000 reportedly in cash in a bag or a child sex predator who befriended the president and some of
[1:41:09]his cabinet members. And instead of preventing partisan weaponization, your department has engaged in a brazenly political prosecution at the president's
[1:41:19]explicit direction. The department has become President Trump's personal sword and shield to go after his ever growing list of political
[1:41:29]enemies and to protect himself, his allies and associates. My questions therefore focus on these two themes, hiding the corrupt acts of his friends and prioritizing the
[1:41:40]political prosecution of his enemies. So, let me start with the shocking allegations of bribery and paytoplay. Two weeks ago, four major media outlets
[1:41:50]reported that Tom Holman, the president's top deportation official working in the White House, took 50,000 in cash in a bag from undercover FBI
[1:42:01]agents in September 2024, just over a year ago. According to these reports, Hman indicated he would facilitate securing contracts in exchange for money
[1:42:12]once he was in office in a future Trump administration. Reportedly, this exchange was caught on tape. Rather than pursue this investigation without fear or favor, the department and the FBI under your
[1:42:23]leadership or that of your predecessor before you confirmed, quietly shut it down. Once news broke, your deputy and FBI director issued a joint public statement confirming that the Trump
[1:42:34]administration closed the investigation. White House press secretary Caroline Levitt denied Homeman took the 50,000, telling a reporter, quote, "Mr. Mr. Hman
[1:42:45]never took the $50,000 that you're referring to, so you should get your facts straight. So today, I hope you can help us get our facts straight. Was that true what the White House press
[1:42:57]secretary said when she denied home and took the money? Did he take the money? >> Senator Schiff, as I stated earlier, I
[1:43:08]was not in office. I was not confirmed when that was handled. So, does that mean >> Deputy Attorney General Blanch and
[1:43:16]Director Patel said that there was no evidence that Tom Hman committed a crime, yet now you're putting his picture up to slander him?
[1:43:27]>> No, I'm putting I'm putting his picture up showing an interview he gave with I think Fox >> in which he was asked explicitly about these allegations that he took a $50,000
[1:43:38]bribe and he refused to answer. He said he didn't answer the question whether he took the money. So I'm asking you the question, did he take the money?
[1:43:47]>> Senator Schiff, I answered that question multiple times. And frankly, you know, >> well, I I I don't think with respect, I don't think you did, but in case I just
[1:43:58]didn't hear you, >> what is the answer? Did he take the money? >> Senator Schiff, that happened prior to my confirmation. But do you know I said that?
[1:44:09]>> Do you know sitting here? know is that deputy attorney general Todd Blanch and FBI Director Patel said there was no
[1:44:19]case and Caroline Levit is one of the most trustworthy human beings I know was you know was she worked for me you would have been fired because you were c
[1:44:30]censured by Congress for lying >> we can stipulate to you can stipulate to all your personal attacks on the Democratic members of the committee >> personal attacks you've been attacking my FBI director you've my office because you've been attacked.
[1:44:42]>> But what we're interested in borders are >> what we're interested in is the answer to these oversight questions. >> Your colleague you were asked by >> attacking good people. >> A regular order, Madam Chair, so I can
[1:44:53]ask a question. >> You were asked by my colleague from Vermont whether you will support providing a video or audio tape if it exists of Mr. Mr. Holman taking 50,000
[1:45:04]in bribe money from the FBI. Will you support a request by this committee to provide that taper tapes to the committee? Yes or no? >> Senator Schiff, you can talk to Director Patel about that.
[1:45:16]>> Well, I'm talking to you about it. You're you're the you're the attorney general. This will be your decision. Will you support >> You have to tell me what is my decision, what is not my decision. I said
[1:45:27]you don't have to try to you can you think you got a gotcha with Tom home in our borders who's been out there fighting for our country since Donald Trump took office. >> I'm trying to ask a question. Regular
[1:45:38]order, please. Uh and you don't have to defer to the FBI director to pass the buck. So I'm asking you, will you support a request so that the committee or indeed I believe the American people
[1:45:50]should be able to see that video or audio tape. Will you support that request? Will you apologize to Donald Trump? >> I guess the answer is you won't support the >> after you now know that Joe Biden tried
[1:46:01]to cover up Hunter Biden's involvement with >> Excuse me. Let me let me do this because I think it's it's valuable that the American people get a sense of
[1:46:12]of what you've refused to answer today. So these are just some of the questions you refused to answer but or have answered with personal attacks on members of this committee. You were asked whether you consulted with career
[1:46:24]ethics lawyers as you promised you would do during your nomination hearing when you approved the president receiving a 400 million dollar gift from the Qataris. You refused to answer that
[1:46:34]question. You were asked what who or what role you may have played or who played the role in asking that Trump's name be flagged in any of the Epstein
[1:46:44]documents gathered by the FBI. You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether Homeman kept the $50,000 bribe money. You refused to answer that question. You were asked
[1:46:55]whether Hman paid taxes on the $50,000 bribe money. You refused to answer that question. You were asked, did career prosecutors find insufficient evidence to charge
[1:47:06]James Comey. You refused to answer that question. You were asked, "How are military strikes on these boats in the Caribbean legal?" And you refused to even ask
[1:47:17]answer that question. You were asked, excuse me, excuse me. >> Um, you were asked, >> did you discuss indicting James Comey with the president? You refused to answer that question. You were asked,
[1:47:29]did you approve the firing of antitrust lawyers who disagreed with the Hila Packard merger? You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you support a restoration fund
[1:47:40]for violent insurrections. Insurrections to attack the capital on January 6. refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you were firing career professionals, career prosecutors just because they worked on January 6
[1:47:51]question, January 6th investigations. You refused to answer that question. You were asked by my California colleague whether you believe government officials like immigration officials have to abide
[1:48:02]by court orders. You wouldn't even answer that question. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing. >> Oversight.
[1:48:11]>> These Excuse me. You can attack me after my time is over. >> You've attacked all of us, including President You can attack me later and I I know you've got plenty of canned
[1:48:21]attacks. We've heard them all day today. >> This is supposed to No needs a cand regular order. Madam Chair, I'm trying to speak. >> This is supposed to be an oversight
[1:48:30]hearing of the Justice Department and it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the president of one of his enemies. This is supposed to be an oversight
[1:48:41]hearing and it comes in the wake of revelations that a top administration official took $50,000 in a bag and this department made that investigation go away.
[1:48:53]This is supposed to be an oversight hearing when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former president. This is and now the current president
[1:49:04]>> buyers in California and this is supposed to be this is excuse me this is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get
[1:49:14]serious answers to serious questions about the riots in LA about the cover up of corruption about the prosecution of the president's
[1:49:25]enemies >> and I think you when will it be when will it be when will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those
[1:49:36]questions and and refuse to accept personal lawyers accept someone can and cannot refuse to accept personal slander as an answer to those questions.
[1:49:48]>> Personal slander apologize to Donald Trump for slandering him. Personal slander. Senator, um >> may I ask unanimous consent, Madam Chair, uh to introduce into the record
[1:50:00]the statement of a thousand former Justice Department officials who warned that the Comey indictment is a democracy threatening abuse of power. May I also request unanimous consent for the
[1:50:11]introduction to the record of 282 former career officials at the Justice Department raising the alarm who were voluntarily or involuntarily forced to
[1:50:22]leave the department because of improper actions taken by the Department of Justice. May I introduce with unanimous consent the Justice Department manual that talks about when initiating and
[1:50:33]declining charges are subject to impermissible considerations. And finally, Madam Chair, may I introduce the letter from Michael Ben Ary, a
[1:50:43]career counterterrorism prosecutor, DOJ, a letter he nailed to his door, uh, which concludes by urging officials
[1:50:54]to do the right thing for the right reasons, to follow the facts on the law, and raises the alarm that the decision to remove experienced career officials from US attorneys offices, the FBI, and
[1:51:05]critical parts of DO DOJ undermines our country's abilities to counterterrorist organizations, malign nation state actors, and countless others that seek to harm our nation and its citizens. And
[1:51:17]he believes that the the priority is prosecuting the president or are you admitting rather than protecting the country? May I have unanimous consent to enter these record
[1:51:28]>> without objection? >> Thank you. I yield back. >> Senator Brett senator Moody, may I clarify one thing he entered in the record? I I just want to say that I believe he he entered a letter by
[1:51:39]200 and something former employees. Well, I believe the spokesperson for that letter was also the spokesperson for Jack Smith. Senator Brit, >> when I was confirmed as the 87th
[1:51:50]Attorney General of the United States, I took office with two main goals. To end the weaponization of justice and return the department to its core mission of
[1:51:59]fighting violent crime. And that is Attorney General Pam Bondi there testifying before a Senate committee today. She defended her leadership of the Justice Department and pushed back
[1:52:10]against questions from Democrats about whether the DOJ has independence from the White House. Let's bring in CBS News justice correspondent Scott McFarland has more on all this. Uh Scott, very
[1:52:20]good to see you here. So, a lot came out of this meeting or this hearing today, including Bonnie addressing the Trump administration's deployment of the National Guard as well as her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. quite a
[1:52:32]range there. Uh what stood out to you there? >> If you're looking for a wellorganized continuous train of thought episode somewhere in America, the last place you want to look as a congressional hearing.
[1:52:43]This one was all over the place. Um the Jeffrey Epstein case files controversy continues to persist for the Trump administration and the attorney general faced a number of questions about that. Whether there's more information that
[1:52:54]can and should be released now in the possession of the Department of Justice. The attorney general didn't declaratively answer if Moore is going to come out, but indicated that some of the questions from Democrats about
[1:53:06]Jeffrey Epstein and any connection to the president were a slander or a salaciousness by those at by those senators to try to muddy up or dirty up the president. about the deployment of
[1:53:17]federal agents to American cities, including the National Guard, to some cities. She is making the argument, as the hearing goes on today, that that is helping protect people who live and work in those cities, including federal
[1:53:28]workers, amplifying what some local leaders have said, Nancy, that this has been a value add to local police to have the extra support. Just two of the many topics touched on today.
[1:53:39]>> Uh quite a bit to follow there and you always do it so well. Uh Scott McFarland, thank you very much for joining us.