clips that are available to

fire off multiple rounds into innocent crowds, just to me, makes little or no sense when you read the basic language of the second amendment. >> >> the committee will come to order. as i mentioned at the outset, there is the second run of three minutes, which will be strictly enforced. you will hear the gavel at three minutes. i'm going to wait to save my questions till the very last, and so, i begin this round of questions, the second round of questioning, senator whitehouse. >> thanks, chairman. thank you again, attorney general. i'm going to go to a topic that

was addressed earlier by senator blumenthal and senator graham. that's the question of the freezing, seizing, and forfeiture of russian oligarchic and kleptocrat assets. one of the problems that we are running into is that for the highly valuable assets that can be seized from the russian oligarchs, like massive yachts or fabergé eggs, or other works of very expensive art, the value is well above $500,000. and right now, we have an administrative forfeiture procedure that applies for assets that are valued only up to $500,000. above that, you have to go through a different procedure. the nutshell way that i think about this is that the simpler administrative forfeiture procedure allows the government to proceed in ram against the

asset and people have to show up, if they have a claim to the asset. it's a little bit like what the department of justice did with bach nets. they had a proceeding in ram against the back net and anyone who laid claim to that botnet asserted right not to have it taken down. they were welcome to show up in court and present themselves. they probably would've gone off in handcuffs, but they certainly had that right. with respect to the assets above $500, 000, that are associated with the russian oligarchs who are associated with the really criminal war that putin has launched into ukraine, we would like to see the law changed. senator graham supports this, senator blumenthal and i support this. we have legislation to support this. and i just wanted to take my moment here with you to make sure that you and i, the marshal service, your forfeiture offices, are all properly aligned so that we can move quickly to get this

changed,. at the moment, having to identify the owner of an asset, which is often hidden in russian -- layers of faraway bank accounts, shell corporations, cypress holding companies, really puts a major crimp in our ability to proceed fairly, and i don't think there's any national interest or public interest in having russian oligarchs, in support of this work, treated better than american citizens, simply because their assets are more valuable. so, would you please tell your team to greenlight working with us to get this bill passed quickly, and out of this committee, and into legislation on the floor? >> as you can imagine, i'm wholeheartedly in favor of the team working with you on this. as you know, we recently --

thanks to the work of the congress, i was able to certify for transfer to ukraine the money that was seized from one all the dark -- and most recently, our task force, kleptocapture, succeeded in forfeiting $75 million from victor vekselberg. they have done it in enrollment of work to find nesting within nesting, within nesting of shell corporations. it would be easier if that were not required, so we would be happy to work with your team on this. >> thank you very much. thank you, chairman. >> thank you. senator whitehouse, senator grassley >> thank, you chairman. thank you for general garland for being here. my first question is a follow-up to a line of questioning you had with senator cotton you told this committee that, quote, the executive branch cannot simply decide based on policy disagreements that it will not enforce the law at all, and of quote. then you released a december

16th, 22 memo, instructing prosecutors to disregard the law that establish sentencing differences, doing cocaine and cocaine bays. your decision not to enforce the law and it congressional discussions at that particular point. for compromise. if doj claims that it will ignore the law, by declining to prosecute a law that grew out of a bipartisan compromise, forged in this committee, it's hard to see how members can trust the department about following any further bipartisan deals so, i'm going to ask you would you withdraw your memo so that a meaningful legislative discussion can resume? and if you don't have an agreement with me, why wouldn't you do that? >> yes senator, i wanted to clear, we're not in any case saying that we won't enforce the law. and all the examples that we're

talking about here, people are being prosecuted for violation of the controlled substances act. it's only a question of what sentence we will seek, and this has been a matter of prosecutorial discretion. we do not in any way limit the judge. we have to honestly tell the judge what the drug was, and what the amounts were, but this goes to the question of what we will charge and seek. but we are charging these people with violations of the controlled seven's is substances act >> on another point, the department of justice charge nicholas -- with narco terrorism and drug trafficking offenses, and the office of foreign assets control sanctioned him. since then, the biden administration has released three billion dollars -- assets and authorized chevron to drill. does the department of justice still consider nicholas maduro a few digit fugitive of u.s.

justice? and if so, do you commit to diligently pursuing his arrest? >> to be honest, senator, i really don't have any information. i know who maduro is, obviously. i know he was charged. i don't know what his current status is. i would be happy to look in that for you though, sir. >> are you answering right? >> of course, of course. >> this will be my last question. i have strong concerns about competition problems in different areas of the economy. example, i've conducted oversight drafted legislation to address abuses in pharmaceutical agriculture, in high tech industries. can you tell us what the antitrust priorities are for the justice department, under your leadership? and are your resources following that priority? >> yeah, so our priority, both to prevent increased concentration in industries that are already concentrated

agriculture is a very good example. pharmaceutical is another very good example. therefore, to closely look at the mergers and to investigate them, and our other priority, closely related, is exclusionary conduct by dominant firms. we are doing quite a bit of that kind of work, as referenced by some of the cases. you know that we filed them. we are also looking at criminal violations of the place fixing statute and others, with respect to resources, this is an area where we could always use more resources. we are faced on the opposite side with companies with virtually unlimited resources. i expressed gratitude for the senate and the house for the hobbes scott rodino fees bill, merger fees will, which has given us more money to even up the playing field a little bit. >> senator blumenthal? >> thanks, mister chairman. thank you again, mister attorney general. i want to thank you for the

supportive comments you've made about the open upmarket act. as you know, i'm hoping that the department of justice will support us because right now, we have a due up early in the mobile apps stores. google, and this measure would stop those two companies from attacking grants and boxing out competitors. i'm hoping that the department of justice will support this measure. >> as i said, senator assistant attorney general planter has already testified in support of the bill, so we hope to be able to get the administration on board as well. but he has and that represents my views as well. >> thank you. i want to talk about the foreign intelligence surveillance act. specifically, section 702. not exactly the topic of major

inquiry here, but enormously important. without going into any classified information, that provision, i believe, was instrumental in preventing major, catastrophic aggression against our nation. and also, helping our allies like the ukrainians with intelligence that was extremely critical to pushing back the russians and knowing what they needed to know on the battlefield. could you comment on the importance of reauthorizing section 700 to? >> yes senator, this is a statute that i was, we didn't have the last time i was in the justice department, so i really didn't know what to expect when i came in this time. i will tell you that every morning, i have an all threats briefing with the fbi, with an

intelligence community briefer, with our national security division. enormously large percentage of the threats information that we receive comes from 702 collection. all the examples that you're talking about, ukraine, threats by foreign terrorist organizations, threats coming in from adversaries, from china, from north korea, from iran, from russia, a lot of what we do in the area of cyber, and particularly in ransomware investigations of finding out who's behind the ransomware investigation. sometimes of obtaining the keys comes from information that is at least part fed by section 702. we would be intentionally blinding ourselves to extraordinary danger, in my view, and this is not a view that i jumped on, you know? i've always held. this is something that i've

learned as i've been in the department. >> and binding with the allies as well? thank you >> yes, and our allies as well. >> senator gordon? >> general garland, i'm sure you will agree with me that the independents of the federal judiciary is one of the crown jewels of our form of government. historically, fellow judges have had a hard time defending themselves against attacks of various kinds. and i just want to raise with you my concerns that we are seeing not only attacks like those from former staffers of this committee, who happen to now be on the outside, special interest groups, saying that now when reporters cover the story of cases being decided by judges, they ought to cite a partisan affiliation of that judge. and saying that it's important to say, for example, it's not just chief justice roberts, or

say he's a republican, not a conservative-leaning justice. this is happening in the press, it's happening on social media. as you've already discussed with some of my colleagues, this has led to political protests at justices homes. and even a threatened assassination of a member of the supreme court of the united states. but unfortunately, it's not just limited to the outside partisan rabble rousers. it includes speeches made by united states senators on the floor of the senate. mister chairman, i would ask you to -- copy of the speech dated february 16th be made part of -- >> without objection. >> this is a speech by united states senator trying to discredit a judge. happens to be in texas, matthew

kaz merrick. senator cruz and i recommended and who was appointed and now serves with lifetime tenure as a federal judge. calling him a lifelong right-wing activist, a partisan idealogue, and antiabortion zealot. he goes further to say that regardless of how judge has merrick may decide this particular case that it would inevitably be affirmed by the act of his fifth circuit court of appeals and then surely rubberstamp by the united states supreme court. i find this rhetoric particularly by united states senator to be appalling. and i wonder if you will join me in condemning that sort of attack on the independence of the fellow judiciary. >> when i first got on the judiciary, i and several of my colleagues hounded our heads

against the wall trying to get the reporters to stop in this is more than 25 years ago, to stop reporting the name of the president who appointed us and where the party. unfortunately, this is a battle that has not been one and i don't think given the authority the first amendment, it's importance, it's one that we're not going to be able to win. i come from a kinder and gentler era. and a kinder and gentler court. even in terms of the way the members of the core treat themselves. >> general garland -- officer of the united states. will you condemn it? >> don't i am against divisive rhetoric of all kinds. but i do not have authority in this manner as you know. >> you have moral authority.

>> my moral authority is against divisiveness from all sides in all quarters. from all arguments to be made on the merits. that is why moral authority. >> senator lee. >> that's the concern that i've got. is that you don't seem to condemn the divisiveness if it's on the left. i want to go back briefly to the text of section 15 07. section 15 07 is pretty darn clear. i personally don't see how anyone could protest outside the home of a supreme court justice. especially while engaging an issue advocacy. related to a case of the taken or are currently hearing. it doesn't violate 18 u.s. -- the fact that you put u.s. marshal service in charge of protecting, great. the fact that not a single arrest has been made. not a single set of charges have been made is very

disconcerting. that's is the fact that even if the marshals don't choose to make an arrest there, which is stunning to me that they haven't. even if they hadn't, there is video footage. you can identify folks. you've proven your ability to do that. the fact that you're not bringing that is serving to me as it was when on the day at the dobbs decision, the department justice took what i believe was a pretty unprecedented step. issuing a scathing statement, announcing we disagree or were disappointed with the outcome. making arguments that i believe calls into question the legitimacy of the court. i've never seen it a part of justice do that. it is cause for additional concern when i see people like philip -- having received clemency is now having to face the prospect of being prosecuted again after having received clemency by a prior president. at all this up with the fact that by the end of this year,

we're going to see the expiration of section 702 of the foreign intelligence can surveillance act. departments already asking and chomping at the bit to be asking -- us to simply reauthorize that. notwithstanding the fact that there are all kinds of examples are this is been politicized. how section 702 has been misused. current standard for a warrant was backdoor search of the content of communications of americans persons is reasonably likely to return evidence of a crime. -- recently declassified semiannual report released on december 27 and. 21st 22. reports all kinds of noncompliant searches. these are the ones we know about. just once that the odni report was able to identify. involving u.s. persons including the search is a

prospect of fbi employees members of the political party. individuals were committed to participate in the fbi citizens academy journalist. and even a congressman. the politicization of the department is a problem. and you can tell your department not a chance in were gonna be reauthorizing that thing without some major, major reforms. your department is not trusted because it has been politicized. i know you are a good person. you have the obliterated in. i asked that you do so promptly. >> thank you, senator lee. senator curtis. >> thank, you mister chairman. general garland, department justice should enforce the law regardless of politics. i do not believe that is been what is happening in the last two years. among other things, i believe you very much want to indict donald j trump. towards that end, the department of has leaked that doj is investigating an intends to indict hunter biden.

the purpose of those leaks, i believe, was to set the predicate for an indictment of trump. to say look how even-handed we are. we're indicting a biden, we're indicting a trump. those leaks are not a law or enforcing the law. they are politics. did you know about the leaks? about the hunter biden investigation? >> i don't know about the leak that you're talking about. leaks are in violation of our regulations and our requirements. >> the leagues are consistently on one side of the aisle, advancing one political agenda. as you know, the fbi raided donald trump's mar-a-lago home. subsequent to that raid, there have been multiple leaks about what was discovered there including a photograph of documents that were discovered

there are. did you know about the leaks? >> the photograph was a filing in court in response to a motion filed by mr. trump. it was not a leak. >> you are testifying there have been leaks about the trump raid. >> i'm responding to the point about the photo. >> do you know by the leaks that have occurred -- >> i've read the leaks, they're inappropriate. we also don't know where they come from. witnesses on -- >> what's interesting is when the shoe was on the other foot, i believe your intention and i believe it's a political intention to indict president trump became infinitely harder when classified documents were discovered repeatedly at president biden's multiple residences. court of the program record, those reports discovered of the former second, six days before the prior election. department of justice was notified on november 4th. miraculously, there was no leak about the classified documents that president biden's home.

when it politically benefited the effort to go after and charge donald trump doj lead when it potentially harm the democrat president doj did not leak. does that strike you as at all a double standard? >> leaks under all circumstances are inappropriate and they were not directed by anyone in the justice department. >> when we see in particular on hunter biden. i very much hope that investigation of hunter biden's focus not just on his own personal substance abuse issues but on connections to his father and potential corruption. that is the matter of public concern. and why people are concerned. it was striking with ali that came out from doj suggested this is just going after some poor person struggling with drugs instead of looking at the very real evidence of corruption. will you commit that the investigation will actually examine the public corruption

aspect and not simply scapegoat hunter biden as an individual? >> i can't comment about the investigation other than to say that all the matters involving mr. hunter biden are in the purview of the u.s. attorney in delaware. it's not restricted in his investigation in any way. >> you don't comment here but then you look at the same time. >> thank you, mister chairman. attorney general garland, you said in our last exchange at your practice to defer to fbi agents in the field when it comes to investigations apprehensions and subjects. i was interested given your answer to read in this morning's washington post that the fbi is saying that you overrule them when it came to rating ex president trump's personal residence. washington post -- showdown before the raid. senior fbi officials who had been in charge of leading the surge resisted doing so.

as to combative. proposed -- sikh transformation to search that property. these field agents wanted to shutter the criminal investigation altogether in early june. the post reports. they were overruled by doj. in light of your earlier testimony this morning, my question is how often do you overrule fbi field agents for political purposes? >> i ask him that article. that's not an accurate reflection of what the article says. i'm not able to comment on the investigation. my comment earlier was about tactics on the ground and particular cases. >> you said it's not -- i'm reading from the article. a quote. senior fbi officials who would be in charge of leading the search for assisted the plan as too combative. proposed instead to seek transformation to seek his property according to four people who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive investigation in quote. >> i have to say i'm not able to describe the investigation.

i will say as a general matter and a high level of generality that in my experience, long experience as a prosecutor, there is often a robust discussion and in the -- it's encouraged among investigators and prosecutors. >> my time is very -- made the decision. >> you said you did. >> i'm sorry, what i said was i approved the decision. >> so you did make the decision? >> i approve the decision to seek a search warrant after probable cause -- >> overruling the fbi agents who did not want to do so. did you talk about this with the white house? >> the memorandum does not -- washing pose article does not say what you're saying. i'm sorry. i'm not able to describe this in any further -- >> i think given that, mister chairman, a lot of some tire article be entered into the record. >> we can read for ourselves. unbelievable to go look. it's exactly that fbi field agents did not want to conduct the raid and they were overruled by doj.

it doesn't seem to me, attorney general, that the fbi has a lot of confidence in you. what they're doing clearly is trying to distance some cells from your decisions. they're out there leaking left right and center and saying that it wasn't us. we didn't want to do it. he made us do it. what's that say about their confidence in your leadership? >> the previous senator said they're leaking all in favor of the lab. now you are saying they're leaking all in favor -- >> i'm asking my question. answer my question based on this evidence. don't dissemble attorney general. >> answer my question. senator cotton. -- outside of just as holmes last summer. it's plainly unlawful the protest outside of judges home to influence the outcome of pending case. you testified earlier that as far as you know, no charges have been brought against those protesters. you never explain why. why in notre dame brought against protesters? >> the decision about making arrests is left to the marshals

on scene. >> marshals are law enforcement officials, not prosecutors. i did not say arrests. i said charges. these people are not criminals masterminds posted videos of their social media accounts. they advertised the protest in advance. it is possible to arrest someone for an offense after the offense has occurred, is not? >> it is. >> why did you not sending interest as protesters in the days after the protests. >> we are allocating our resources towards protecting the lives of the justices and they're in [interpreter] their families. decisions have to be made on the ground as to what is the best way to protect those lives. >> mr. attorney general, do nothing and perhaps provided a turning effect if you arrested some of these criminal protesters and charge them and threw them in federal prison. >> we are trying to protect the lives of the justices. that is our principal priority. i'm leaving it to the marshal service to make determinations on the ground there.

to make determinations about what they see on the ground. >> consider the efforts or department is put into tracking down everyone who's even on the capitol grounds on january six 2021. you've dedicated millions of man hours to study videotape, to do forensic analysis of computers and devices. to do connect interviews. you can't allocate just a few agents to look at people's social media accounts and say they are present outside of justice is home. renew your estimate charge them. it's a black little violation of the law. >> our priority is violence and threats of violence and the protection of the lies of the justices. that is what we're doing. >> these are not criminal masterminds. they posted pictures and videos of themselves protesting. you could probably go arrest one today from a cold start. why can't you do that? >> i'm seeing again, our purpose is to protect the lives and safety of the justices. that's how we're allocating resources. he >> said the fbi had several senators point out to do an early morning raid on --

in front of his children. for the grave crime of singing hymns and saying prayers outside of a abortion clinic. charges of which he was acquitted by jury of his peers within an hour. you can send the fbi to track down anybody who is protesting outside the home of the supreme court justice. >> i want to be clear. our purpose here is to protect the lives and safety of the justices. that is why we are doing that. >> the answer is that you are sympathetic to the protesters. that you didn't like the decision the justices were about to issue. i think we all know what you would do if a bunch of conservative protesters were outside the home of a democratic appointed justice to the supreme court. >> no one has ever been arrested in that circumstance. >> you will not send a single agent to conduct a single arrest and charge someone something that they have zero defense for, it is because you are sympathetic to left wing protesters. >> thank you, mister chairman. and mr. attorney general, i want to go back to what we discussed earlier with the two tiers of justice.

and, the answers you've given us, you are very subjective and how you approach decisions. you don't seem to be rules based in how you make these decisions. as a matter of fact, you come across as being very political in that decisions that you make. and politicizing your work is something that really fans most tennesseeans. and i want to ask you about this teachers of justice. particularly in the way eager spawned to congressional oversight investigations. the house judiciary committee recently requested that you turn over documents relating to the special counsel investigation. president biden's mishandling of classified documents. but, you are doj so far has stung stonewalled the house request claiming you can't turn over documents on an open matter. now, let's compare that with

your decision. obviously, very subjective. to fully cooperate with document requests from the house january 6th committee. you are fbi had no problem at all turning over documents and information to that committee, even though they related to an open investigation. do you see this comparison here? do you appreciate this? this is a prime example of two tiers of justice. your two tier system, who you are going to cooperate with and who you are not. so, why have you cooperated with the document requests that were made from democratic led committees, but you have refused chairman jordan. and you have refused to the house judiciary committee when they are requesting documents

that pertain to president biden's mishandling of classified documents. >> we greatly respect the oversight responsibilities of the committees of the congress. and at the same time, we have to protect our ongoing investigations. i do not believe we turned over information to the january six committee about. >> the attorney general, your response is that you give one set of responses for a republican in another for democrats. you have one tier of justice for people that are conservative, and another for those that are on the left. you told me earlier that you didn't know who james revenge is. they are all over twitter. i'm gonna do your favor. i am going to send you a letter with a whole lot of twitter and different things to help you in that investigation for the hope

clinic. we >> thank you, senator blackburn. senator graham has told me he is on the way, so i'm going to take my three minutes now, around the clock please. first, there was a reference made earlier to the drug war. the war on drugs legislation of about 25 or 30 years ago. as a member of the house, i voted for it. it was an overreaction to crack cocaine. nominally new narcotic that scared us to death. it was chief, it was addictive, it was illegal, and heavily damaging. and we did what most people do in reaction to such phenomena. we raised the penalty to an unimaginable height. so the sizing penalty went from 1 to 1 200 to 1. the net result is exactly the opposite of what we had hoped for. the price of the drug of the street went down. the usage went up. and we filled federal prisons primarily with african american prisoners. it backfired on us. i don't want to make that same mistake again when it comes to

fentanyl. it is a deadly, dangerous situation and i hope that the initial reaction of getting tough and sentencing and mandatory minimums is not, as it's and some say the substance of all we do. the second point i want to make is, it is interesting to try to sit back and follow what you face today. in terms of the resources of the government protecting elected officials, when it comes to supreme court justice as we hear from the other side, you just didn't do enough. you've got to do more. and i can understand the sentiment. but when it comes to school board members, the fact that you would send out a memo suggesting that they may be in danger at a school board a meeting with has been translated into some invidious diminution of the freedom of speech in this country. i think you have to make a decision on a daily basis as attorney of where you are going to apply the resources of the governments. i hope that you share, and i believe you, do the bottom line that violence is unacceptable from either side politically.

at any circumstance and i think if we use that standard, and use it objectively, that it is going to be an effective standard for the future. the last point i will make to you here should be side again. it was at the outset. you have authorized special counsel to investigate the classified materials, both president biden's home as well as former president trump's home. special counsel's have some independents by their designation. could you explain why you did that? >> yeah. we to the extent i've already publicly explained why we appointed special counsel in those two cases. with respect to president trump, he had announced that he will was a candidate for president and president biden had indicated that he would be a candidate. i thought, that is an extraordinary circumstance. and well fitting within the

regulations to provide a level of independents and accountability that fit within the purpose of the special counsel regulations. >> thank you. i think i just use my three minutes, so i'm gonna try to set an example. senator graham, take it away. >> number one. you deserve a purple heart for being here all day. so, really. i have enjoyed working with you and your team regarding ukraine, oligarchs, seizures. and i want to compliment you. you've done a really good job of going after oligarchs. and hopefully we will see some of their assets inside the ukrainian people. i want to help work with you as much as we can, creates an international tribunal, to let putin and his cronies know you are going to pay a price here. there is no forgiving and forgetting in this war. you picked a fight, you pick the wrong fight. and they need to pay a price. do you agree with that? >> i do. >> okay. now some areas of disagreement. there are four states, arkansas, mississippi, south dakota, utah, and more coming, that have been

enacted legislation that regulates certain medical and surgical interventions on minor children, 21, 18, whatever the status. regarding transgender surgeries and puberty blocking medical procedures. you you are office wrote a letter march 31st, 2022 suggesting that if a state passed a law saying, banning medical procedures to transition minor children, that they may be running afoul. the state may be running a file by equal protection, or due process calls of the >> so 14th amendment. is that your position? we >> so, the department believes the department believes that all people in the united states are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. that the situation that you're talking about has to be evaluated by doctors, by families. by individuals. and to make those determinations.

>> states have passed laws. we have 50 states here. they have passed laws and more are coming prohibiting this procedure because the state in question believes that allowing transition medical procedures on a minor is a life altering event and it should be not be done until you're older so you really better appreciate what you're doing a states have taken that view and i think more of them will take that view. is the position of the department of justice is such laws are unconstitutional? >> position is that a categorical across the board prohibitions on certain kinds of surgeries and not others have to be evaluated on a case by case basis and civil rights division will do that with respect to each of the laws that they're talking about when the time comes. >> so the bottom line is -- the four laws of the question. have you looked at the laws in

arkansas, mississippi -- and utah? >> i haven't. >> do me a favor. just look at them and get back to me and answer my question. are they constitutional in the eyes of the department of justice? thank you. i did it. three minutes. >> i appreciate the attorney general appearing before the committee. the hearing will remain open for a week. questions for the record may be submitted by senators before 5 pm on wednesday march 8th. attorney general garland, please provide these answers on a timely basis. what, that the hearing is adjourned.