let's take a ten minute recess and come back. [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> the committee will come to order. as i mentioned at the outset, there is a second round of 30 minutes which will be strictly enforced. we hear the gavel at the minutes, i am going to wait and save my questions to the very last. we begin this round of questioning with senator whitehouse.

>> thank you, chairman, and thank you again, attorney general. i will go to a topic that was addressed earlier by senator blumenthal and senator graham, and that is the question of the freezing, seizing and forfeiture of russian allied shark and crypto clap assets. one of the problems that we are running into a step for the highly valuable assets that can be seized by the russian oligarchs like massive yachts or fabergé eggs or other works of expensive art, the value as 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. a book that, you had to go through a different procedure.

the nacho way that i think about this is that the simpler administrative forfeiture procedure allows the government to proceed against the exit. people have to show up a day have claimed the asset. it's a little bit like what the justice department did when by next. they had a proceeding against a banana, and anyone who it claim to the button and asserted the right did not have it taken down, they showed up in court and presented themselves. they probably would have got out 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 criminal war that putin launched into ukraine, we would like to see the law changed. senator graham supports this. senator limit 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 marshals service, your forfeiture offices, are all properly aligned so that we can quickly get this changed. at the moment, having to identify the owner of an asset, which is often hidden in russian nesting the layers of faraway bank accounts, show corporations, cypress holding companies, really puts a major crimp in our ability to proceed fairly, and i don't think there is any national interest or public interest in having russian oligarchs and support they were treated better than american citizens, simply because their assets are more valuable. would you please tell your team to greenlight working with us to get this bill passed quickly out at the committee and into legislation on the floor?

>> as you can imagine, i am wholeheartedly in favor with the team working with you on this. as you know, recently thanks to the work in the congress, i was able to certify the transfer to ukraine money that was seized from one oligarch, and most recently, our task force crypto capture succeeded in extracting 75 billion dollars. they have done in a normal amount of work to find lasting within testing within testing and shell corporations. it would be easier if that were not required. we would be happy to work with your team on this. >> thank you senator whitehouse, senator grossman. >> thank you mister chairman, thank you general garland for being here. my first question to follow up to a line of questioning you had with senator caught. you told the committee to, quote, the executive branch cannot simply

decide based on policy that it will not enforce it was all, and of course. then released in december 16th 2022 memo instructing prosecutors to disregard the law that was a stop bush differences between cocaine and cocaine base. your decision not to enforce the law and it congressional discussions at that particular point for compromise. if a doj claims it would ignore the law by declining to prosecute a law that grew out of a bipartisan compromise forged in this committee is hard to see how members can trust the department about following any further bipartisan deals. i am going to ask you, would you withdraw your memo so that meaningful legislation discussion can resume, and if you don't have an agreement with me, what would you not do

that? >> senator, i want to be clear. we're not in any case saying that we won't enforce the law in all of the examples that we're talking about here. people are being prosecuted for violation of a controlled substances act. it's only a question of what sense we will seek. and this has been a matter of prosecutorial discretion. we did not limit the judge. we have to honestly tell the judge what the drug was and what the amount was. but this goes to the question of what we will charge and seek. we are charging these people with violations at the controlled substances act. >> on another point, the department justice is in charge of terrorism and drug trafficking offenses, and the office of foreign assets control and sanction him. the biden administration absolutely's three billion dollars and foreign assets and authorized -- does the department of justice still

consider nicholas maduro a fugitive of the u.s. justice, and if so, do you commit to his arrest? >> to be honest, senator, i really don't have any information. i know who maduro is, obviously. i know what he is charged. i've got no what's current status. i would be happy to answer that for you. >> will you answer in writing? >> of course, of course. >> this will be my last question. i have strong concerns about competition problems and different areas of the economy. for example, i oversight drafted legislation a pharmaceutical and high tech industries. can you tell us what the antitrust priorities are for the justice department under your british up, and are your resources following that birdie? >> yeah, so our priority, both to prevent increased concentration and industries that are already concentrated.

agriculture is a good example. pharmaceuticals are eight another good example. therefore to close to look at measures and to investigate them, and our other priority and closely related is exclusionary conduct by firms. we are doing quite a bit of that kind of work as referenced by some of the cases filed. we are also looking at criminal violations of the statute and others. with respect to resources, this is an area where we can always use more resources, when we are faced on the opposite side of companies with virtually unlimited resources. i've expressed gratitude for the senate and house for the scots rodino bill. it's given us more

money to even off the playing field a bit. >> senator blumenthal -- >> thanks, mister chairman. thank you again, mister attorney general. i want to thank you for the supportive comments about the open act, market act. as you know, i am hoping that the department of justice will support us because right now, we have a due up early in the app stores, apple, google, and this measure would stop those two companies from attacking warrants and boxing out competitors. i am hoping that the department of justice will support this measure. >> as i said, senator, assistant attorney general ken torres already testified in support of the bill. we hope to be able to get the administration on board, as well, but he has already come, and that represents my views as well. >> thank you, i want to talk about the foreign intelligence surveillance act, specific

roughly section 02, not exactly the topic of major inquiry here but enormously important. without going into any classified information, that provision i believe was instrumental in cutting major catastrophic aggression against our nation and also upping our allies like the ukrainians with intelligence that was extremely critical to push back the russians and knowing what they needed to know on the battlefield. could you comment on the importance of reauthorizing section 702? >> senator, this was a statute that we did not have last time. i was at the justice department, so i really did not know what to expect when i came in this time. i would tell you that

every morning, i have and all thoughts briefing with the fbi, with and talents committed debris over the national security division. a normalcy large percentage at the threats of information that we are receiving comes from seven or two collection. all the examples that you're talking about, ukraine, that's by foreign terrorist organization, that's coming in from adversaries from china and north korea, from iran, from russia, a lot of what we do in the area of cyber and, in particularly, investigations of finding who is behind the ransomware investigation, sometimes, obtaining the keys,

comes from information that is 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. i always held that this is something that i heard and the department. >> relying on our allies as well, thank you. >> yes, as well. >> senator cornyn? >> general -- i am not sure that you would agree with me that the independents that the federal judiciary is one of the crown jewels of our federal government. historically, federal judges have had a hard time defending themselves against attacks of various kinds, and i just want to raise my concerns that we're seeing not only attacks like those from former staffers at this committee, who happened to help me on the outside, special interest groups, saying that now when reporters cover the story of cases be decided by

judge, they incite the partisan affiliation of the judge and saying it's important to say for example, it's not just chief justice roberts or say that he's a republican, not a conservative-leaning justice. this is happening in the press. it's happening on social media. as you have already discussed with some of my colleagues, this has led to political protests of justices homes. and even after and 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, people of the senate. mister chairman, i would ask you to consent to the speech dated february 16th be part of the record.

>> without objections. >> this is a speech by a united states senator trying to discredit a judge who happens to be a -- that senator cruz and i recommended it was appointed and now serves in lifetime tenure as a federal judge, calling him lifelong right-wing activists of partisan idealogue and anti-abortion summit. and he goes further to say the regardless of how judge kacsmaryk may decide this particular case, that it will inevitably be affirmed by the activists 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 an attack at the independents of the federal judiciary. >> when i first got on the judiciary, i, as well as my colleagues, pounded our heads against the wall to try to get the reporters to stop. this is more than 25 years ago, to stop reporting what the name of the president who appointed us and where they partied. unfortunately, this is a battle that has not been won. i don't think obviously given the authority of the first amendment, its importance. we're not going to be able to win. i come from a kinder and gentler era and a kinder and gentler court if in the terms of the way that the members of the court treat themselves. >> general garland, you are a lot enforcement officer at the united states, what you condemn it? >> i am against divisive

rhetoric of all kinds, but i do not have authority in this matter. as you know, the speech and the cause -- >> you have moral authority. >> moral authority is against divisiveness from all sides and all quarters and from all arguments being made on the merits. that is my moral authority. >> senator lee? >> that is the concern i got. is that you don't seem to condemn the divisiveness if it is on the left. i want to go back briefly to the text of sections 15 07. it's pretty darn clear, i personally don't see anyone could protest outside the home of the supreme court justices, especially while engaging by an issue advocacy, related to a case

that they taken or are current hearing. business violate section 15 or seven. the fact that he put so much u.s. marshal service and charge are protecting their homes, it's great. the fact that a single arrest has been made, not a single set of charges has been paid is very disconcerting. as 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, but even if they had, there is video footage. you can identify folks, you grew up and your ability to do the, and the fact that you don't bring that up is deeply disturbing to me. because as it was, one on the date of the dobbs decision, the department of justice to i believe was a pretty unprecedented step, escaping statement, not just saying that we disagree or are disappointed with the outcome but making arguments that cult and to question the legitimacy of the court. i've never seen the department of justice do the. it is cause for additional concern when i see people like philip -- having received

clemency is facing the prospect of being prosecuted again, having received clemency by a prior president. at all this up with the fact that by the end of this year, we are going to see the expiration of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the department is already asking and chomping at the bit, to me asking, us, to simply reauthorize them, notwithstanding the fact that there are all kinds of examples about how this has been politicized. how section 702 has been misused. the current standard for a backdoor search of the content of communications of american persons is reasonably likely to return evidence of a crime, but the odni's recently declassified sin annual report released on december 22nd, in 2022, includes all kinds of noncompliant searches. these semiannual are just the ones that we know about, just that the report was

able to identify. they involve u.s. purchasing, including the searches across fbi employees, members of a political party, individuals recommended to participate in the fbi citizens academy, journalists and even a congressman. he put a citation of the department is a problem. and you can tell your department, a chance in that we will be reauthorizing that thing without some major reforms. your department is not trusted because it has been politicized. i know that you are a good person and have the ability to rein in. i ask you to do so promptly. >> thank you, senator lee. senator curtis? >> thank you, mister chairman. general garland, the department of justice should enforce the law regardless of politics. i do not believe that has been happening the last two years. among other things, i believe you very much want to indict donald j trump. toward that and, the department of justice has leaked that the doj is

investigating and 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 at how even-handed we are. we are providing biden and then we are inviting trump. those leaks are not law or enforcing the law, they are politics. did you know about the weeks of the hunter biden investigation? >> i don't know about the leak that you're talking about, and leaks are in violation of our regulations and apartments, so the answer is -- >> the leaks are consistently on one side at the higher, and it's one political agenda. as you know, the fbi raided donald trump's mar-a-lago home. and subsequent to that raid, there have been with the leaks about what was discovered there,

including a photograph of documents that were discovered there. did you know about the leaks from that raid? >> the photograph was a following in court in response to a motion filed by mr. trump. it was not a leak. >> so you testified that there have not been weeks about the trump investigation? >> i am responding to the point -- >> did you know about the leaks that have occurred. >> i've read about the leaks, they are inappropriate. we also don't know where they come from. >> what is interesting is when the shoot was on the other foot, i believe your intention, and i believe is a political intention to indict president trump, became infinitely harder when classified documents were discovered repeatedly at president biden's multiple

presidencies. according to the public record, those were first discovered on november 2nd, six days before the prior election. the department of justice was able to identify november 4th and miraculously, there was no week about the classified documents at president biden's home. when it politically benefited the effort to go after and charge donald trump, the doj leak. when it potentially harmed the democrat president, the doj did not lead. the strike you as had a double standard? >> leaks, under all circumstances, are inappropriate, and they are not directed by anyone in the justice department. >> let me say in particular on hunter biden, i very much hope that an investigation of hunter biden is focused on just's own personal substance abuse issues but on connections to his father and potential corruption. that is the matter of public concern and people are concerned. it was striking that that lead that came from

the doj suggests that this is 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 on the investigation other than to say that all the matters involving mr. hunter biden are the purview at the u.s. attorney in delaware. it is not restricted in the investigation in any way. >> you don't come in here, but then he lead it for the same time? >> senator hawley? >> thank you, mister chairman. attorney general garland that you said in our last exchange to enter practice to defer to fbi agents in the field when it comes to investigations, apprehensions of subjects. i was interested given your answer to read in this morning's washington post that the fbi is saying that you overruled them, when it came to raiding ex president trump's personal residence. the washington post reports this morning that the shutdown before the raid, the senior fbi

officials, who have been in charge of leading the search, resisted doing so, as too competitive and proposed to instead seek trump's permission to search the property. they wanted the shutter criminal investigation altogether and early june. the post reports, but they were overruled by the doj. i guess in light of your earlier testimony this morning, my question is, how often do you overrule fbi field agents from -- >> i skimmed that article. it's not an accurate reflection of what the article says. i am not able to comment on the investigation. like comment earlier was about tactics on the ground, in particular cases. >> wait, i am reading before the article,, senior fbi officials who would be in charge of leading the search resisted the plan as too competitive and proposed instead to seek trump's for mission to seek his property, according to four people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive investigation, and.

>> i have to say, i am not able to describe the investigation. i will say as a general pattern at a high level of generality, in my experience, long experience as a prosecutor, there is often a robust discussion and, in the end, it's encouraged among investigators and prosecutors -- >> yes, you made the decision. right, you said he did. >> no, i am sorry. i set that i approved the decision. >> so you did not make the decision? >> i approved the decision to seek a search warrant after probable cause was -- >> overruling the fbi agents that did not want to do so? did you talk about this with the way as before? >> that washington post article does not say what you are saying, i am sorry. i am not able to describe to us any

further. >> mister chairman, i ask you that this entire article is in the record. we can read for ourselves. i invite people to look. this is exactly that the fbi field agents did not want to conduct the raid, and they were overruled by the doj. so, it does not seem to me, attorney general, that the fbi has a lot of confidence in you. what they are doing, clearly, is trying to distance themselves from the decisions. they are out there leaking, right and center, and saying, it was not us, we did not want to do it. he made us do it. what does that say about their confidence and your leadership? >> the previous senator says that they are leaking on paper at the left, now you're saying that leaking all in favor of the -- >> i am asking my question. it's not my question based on the evidence. don't dissemble, attorney general. answer our question. >> the time has expired. senator cotton? >> i want to talk about the protests outside the search for justice's homes last summer. it is plainly all my fault protests outside justice is home to -- as he testified earlier, no charges have been brought against the protesters, but you never explain why. i have no charges been brought

against the protesters? >> the decision about making arrest is left to the marshals on scene. >> marshals are a lot of argument officials, not prosecutors. i am not saying arrest but charges. these people or not criminal masterminds. they posted videos at themselves on their social media accounts. they advertised the protest demands. it is possible to arrest someone for an offense after the offense occurred, is it not? why did you not sent anyone to arrest those protesters and the days after the protests? >> we are allocating our resources towards protecting the lives of the justices and 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 not believe that it would provide a deterrent effect if you arrested some of the 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 am leaving it to the marshal service to make determinations on the ground. they have to make determinations about what they see on the ground. >> and center the efforts or department has put into traffic on everyone even on the capital on january 6th, 2021. you dedicated 1 million of man hours to study videotape, to do forensic analysis of computers and devices, to go conduct interviews. you can't allocate just a few agents to look at people social media accounts to say that they were present outside the justice is a home. we will go arrest and charge them. it's a black leather violation of the law. >> our priority is violence and protection of the lives of the justices, and that is what we are doing. >> again, these are not criminal masterminds. they posted pictures and videos at probably go arrest on today from a cold start. why can't you do that? >> i am saying again, our purpose is to protect the lives and safety of the justices.

that is how we are allocating resources. >> he said the fbi and several senators pointed out -- in front of his children for the great crime of singing hymns and saying prayers in front of an abortion clinic, a church in which he was acquitted by his peers and an hour. you can't send the fbi to check down anybody that was protesting outside the home of the supreme court justice? >> i want to be clear, our purpose here is to pack the lives and safety at the justices. >> i think the answer is that you are sympathetic to the protesters. that he did not like the decision that 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 from the supreme court. >> no one's ever been arrested under the circumstances.

>> you will not sent a single agent to conduct a single arrest and charge them for something that they have zero defense for, because you're sympathetic to left wing protesters. >> thank you, mister chairman. mr. attorney general, i want to go back to what we discussed earlier. with the two theories of justice. the answers that you've given us our very subjective and how you approach decisions. they don't seem to be ruled based and how to make these decisions. as a matter of fact, they come across as being very political in the decisions that they make and politicizing your work is something that really offense most tennesseeans. i want to ask you about the two cases justice, particularly in the way that you've responded to congressional oversight investigation. he has a judiciary committee recently requested that you turn over documents relating to the special counsel investigation. of president biden's mishandling of classified documents, but the doj so far as stone wall up the house request claiming you can't turn off documents on an open

matter. now, let's compare that with your decision. obviously, very subjected to fully cooperate with document requests from the house january six committee. your fbi had no problem at all turning over documents and information to the committee even though they related to an open investigation. do you see this comparison air. do you appreciate this. this is a prime example of to tears of justice, your two tier system, who will cooperate with and who you will not. why add view cooperated with a document requests that were made from democratic led committees, but you have refused chairman jordan and i have refused the house judiciary committee when they are requesting documents that pertain to president biden's mishandling of classified documents? >> so, i greatly respect the

oversight responsibilities of the committees at the congress, and at the same time, we have to protect our outgoing investigations. i did not believe that we turned over information the january six committee about the investigation. >> there is sponsors that you get one set of responses from republicans, and now there for a democrat. you have one tier of justice for people that are conservative and a not there for those that are on the that. you told me earlier that you did not know who james revenge is. they are all over twitter. i will do a favor. i will send you a letter with a whole lot of twitter and different things to help you and that investigation for the hope

play. >> thank you, senator blackburn. senator graham has told me that she is on the way, so i will take my three minutes way. run the clock please. first, there was a reference made clear to the drug war, the war and drugs, a legislation about 35 years ago. this member of the house voted for it. it was an overreaction to crack cocaine. normally new narcotics discourtesy death. it was cheap, addictive, it was lethal, and heavily damaging. and we did what most people do in reaction to such a phenomenon, we raised the penalty to end on imaginable height. the sentencing penalty went from 101 to 100 to 1. the result is exactly the opposite of what we had hoped for. the price of the drug on the street went down, the use went up, and we filled federal persons 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 the initial reaction of getting tough and sentencing a mandatory memo is the substance of all that we do. the second part i would like to make is, it is interesting you tried 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 justices. i just did not do enough. you've got to do more, and i can understand that when it comes to school board members, the fact that you have a memo suggesting that they may be in danger has been translated to some invidious belarusian of the freedom of speech in the country, i think that the market decision on a daily basis as an attorney

general about where to apply the resources. i hope that you share, and i believe that you do, the bottom line that violence is unacceptable from either side politically and any -- i think if we use that standard and use it objectively, it is going to be an effective standard for the future. the last play i will make two should be set again this 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 your designation. can you explain why you didn't? >> yeah, to the extent that i have already publicly explained why i have not appointed special counsel to most cases, with respect to president trump, he had announced that he was a candidate for president, and president biden had indicated that he would be a candidate. i thought that is an

extraordinary circumstance, will fitting within the regulations to provide a level of independence and accountability within the purpose of the special counsel regulations. >> thank you, i think i just used my three minutes. i will try to set an example. senator graham, take it away. >> number one, you observe a purple heart for being here all day. really, i've enjoyed working with you and your team regarding ukraine, of our seniors, and i want to compliment you. you've done a good job of going after oligarchs and seem some of their assets and send them to the iranian people. i want to help or who do as much as we can to create some international tribunal to let people push -- that you will pay a price. there is no forgiving and forgetting in the war. you picked a fight, he picked the wrong fight, and they need to pay a price. do you agree with the? >> i do. >> there is a disagreement.

there are four states, arkansas, mississippi, south dakota, utah and more coming that enacted legislation that regulates certain medical and surgical interventions on minor children, 21, 18, whatever the state is, regarding transgender surgeries and purely blocking medical procedures. your office wrote it letter march 31st 20 20 to 2 states suggesting that if a state passed a law saying that banning medical procedures to transition minor children that they may be running a fire of equal protection or due process clause and the 14th amendment, is that your position? >> 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 they have to make those determinations.

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

four laws in question, have you looked at the laws and the arkansas, mississippi or utah? >> i have not. >> do me a favor and look at them and get back to me and answer my question if they are constitutional in the eyes of the department of justice. thank you, i did it, the minutes. >> i appreciate the attorney general. let me say that the record of the hearing will remain open for a week. senators may submit questions before pm on march 28th. senator garland, please submit these answers in a timely basis. with that, the hearing is adjourned. try our points of --

>> watch video on demand anytime online at c-span.org and try our points of interest feature, uses markers to garden

is really an interesting highlights of rocky coverage. is points of interest on a time online at c-span.org. >> order your copy of the 118th congressional directory, no available at c-spanshop.org. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, and importan information on congressional committee the presidents cabinet, fedal agencies, and state governors. scan the code on the right order your copy today are going to c-span shop dot org, it's 29 95 plus shipping and handling, every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 9:15 pm eastern, mary with the catholic information center talks about the legacy of the sexual revolution in america

and the overturning of roe v. wade in 2022 in her book, adam and eve after the pill, revisited. then, at ten pm eastern, on afterwards, center for justice president and ceo, michael waldman, examines the impact of the supreme court's 2021 in 2022 rulings with his books, the supermajority, how the supreme court divided america. interviewed by politico senior legal affairs reporter, josh gerstein. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime a book tv.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. or funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> cool endeavors synome is extremely where. but friends don't have to be. when your cone