without objection the chairs authorized to declare recess at any time we welcome everyone to today's hearing on the weaponization of the federal government the chert not recognize the gentleman from kentucky mr. matthew to lead us on the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands "one nation," under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> appreciate the enthusiasm.

[laughter] will start with opening statements and then move into our witnesses the chert recognizes himself an opening statement. big government was colluding with big tech to censor americans as the first thing we learn but now it is big government including a big banks and big business to spy on everything american spot, every place they go, everything they do. big government once financial data at its full of sensitive information about you. our investigation started fbi whistleblower came forward and talk to the committee he was supervisor intelligence analyst at the fbi i've told the committee fbi got information from bank of america specifically it received a list of any customer who made purchases in the washington d.c. area generally fifth through seven, 2021.

the whistleblower supervisor in charge of the boston field office corroborated his testimony when he spoke to the committee. and so did steve jensen the fbi domestic terrorism operation section chief. but it was not just purchased pe data around a specific date the fbi got from bank of america. that was actually overlaid with any firearm purchase at any time. how does the fbi get this information? they ask for it. you can see on the display on the screen here the e-mail that was sent to the fbi told bank of america to recapture morning call we are prepared to ask the threshold customers confirm transacting business in washington d.c. between these specific days. if you are in washington d.c., visiting your kid, may be maybevisiting her aunt or just a friend the epic that wanted to know about every single person she made.

and, and if you are a gun owner looked out you are going to top of the list. for simply exercising your second amendment right you on the fbi target list. never forget the federal government got this information without any process. note warrant and frankly no notification. the bank did not tell the customer we are handling this information over to the fbi the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world. these fbi agents, they all said this was wrong. in fact sent to the information back to fbi headquarters in d.c. that is how our investigation began. but since then we continue to investigate but since that we'vl and the financial surveillance wrote broader there is a specific objective. federal government is building profiles on the american people. the profiles up based on conduct

but beliefs if you have the wrong political beliefs you are potentially a domestic violent extremists. how are they doing this? are the mechanics? as an entity discovered called the orwellian in sound and title it's an entity where the fbi, the department fluent security work 6650 largest companies in the world. these companies have to do over billion dollars of revenue in a year. they represent two thirds of the gross domestic product of the united states economy. they worked through a controlled access world. but that on the screen right what are they sharing in the secret portal? we are not exaly sure because it is secret. but we do know they share information show reports of wehe reports we got called a liaison information report said this, any ameca wh opposes -- mckinney american who opposesirrm legislation

easing of restrictions and cov mandates as someone they should watching because again they might be an extremist for stop and think about that for a second period in other words if you are against gun registration you oppose lockdowns and vaccine mandates, you are a domestic violent extremist according to the fbi. the government should get your data. get your financial data. it actually gets worse. the federal government and banks also use with occult merchant category codes to flag americans at shop at places like bass pro shop and cabela's. they flagged americans about religious we can show you that too. because everybody knows if you want a sur border you oppose covered lockdns then you probably shop at bass pro sho and read your bible and all of that makes you an extremist. literally that is the logic to see display from the information

we have been altogether thus far during our investigation. now remember these are also the same folks to a couple of years ago told us of your parent showing up at a school board meeting or a terrorist. if you're pro-life catholic you are an extremist and now if you opposed lockdown, vaccine mandates when a secure border don't want gun registration you are in the category as well. this is scary where things are headed. we have seen a censorship now i see what's happening with big banks and big government relative to your financial data. all of this being done with no process. note warrants, no notification to the customer the banks are supposed to serve. big government is not supposed use big tech to censor americans big government should not be were with big banks to target americans for behavior that is legal and constitutional. that is the concern. that is why were having this hearing. with that ideal to the rank mayor for an opening statement before get her witnesses.

>> think it mr. chairman and good morning to everyone here. i am glad the chairman open with who instigated this hearing which is george hill. and what the purpose of this hearing is. at the end of the day the purpose of this hearing is to minimize what happened on generally six and the lawful prosecution of individuals who were engaged in that practice. the chairman wants us to believe people are being persecuted for their political conduct. rather than their criminal behavior. so basically he is trying to

tell us everyone who has been indicted and prosecuted for january 6 did not engage in criminal conduct. that is the logic of what he is saying how we have come so low in this house is frightening to me. what people will do to try to minimize the work of those individuals who came to this capitol on january 6. this entire republican conspiracy theory was launched based on the testimony of so-called whistleblower. of george hill appeared for a transcribed last year. climb the fbi was using bank of america to survey americans. all americans? not all americans. but everyonewho owns a firearm?

the chairman said, not everyone who owns a firearm. picking and choosing of a language within an entire report is just inappropriate. information given to the american people, give them all of it so that they can see the true picture. until half the story you are not telling the truth. the fbi asked the bank of america for information but individuals who fit three categories. people who came and there's evidence they were here on january 6. that they purchased a firearm in the last six months and, that is key, not to work, and they plan to come back for the inauguration and they know they were coming back for the inauguration based on air b&b

purchases, hotels, rsvps in the dmv area and individuals who had come on generally six and know that through those purchases as well. these were not all of the people they were looking up oppose the purpose of this? it was to make sure it generates six the event did not happen on inauguration because people were talking about it. he had dmv do it we know it dmv's are? it's domestic terrorists. individuals engaged in domestic violence. that happens. when it is people who fit your political agenda they are not criminals anymore they are patriots? they are victims? they are not, they are criminals. and a jury of their peers and found them. so many of them have been prosecuted in our court of law.

not about brownshirts, not by nancy pelosi, not by the by the justice department, by a jury of their peers. it is surprising we do not have george hill here today because in the same way their start witness on their impeachment alexander smirnov, remember him was her key witness in the hunter biden impeachment probe until we found out that everything you said was made up and he's got his information from russia. we do not know what is going to happen with george hill but we can pretty much guess based on the track record. but i want to thank our witnesses for being here. we don't always agree on things witnesses say but we thank them for their willingness to come and give their thoughts and be questioned by members of

congress and of this hearing but want to particularly thank you for being here with us today. i want to thank him publicly for his bravery and his willingness in sharing his dramatic harrowing experience so publicly so that we can understand until there can be truths juxtaposed. i am sorry for you in all the men and women who fought on the front lines who stepped away from this room we are in today to protect all of us in this building. the staff, architects of the capitol, and members of congress to the young people who were here, my experience here today is nothing compared to what those officers went through.

and while those of us on the dais were being protected and insecure locations, some of us fearing for our lives. many of us on both sides of the aisle fearing for their life on that day. they have quickly forgotten about after visits to mar-a-lago. i want to thank you because you saw it all because you are out there. you did not hide, you read them towards a danger you went out to meet the mob. you and your brothers and sisters in blue went out and did that. and i wanted to share just a reminder of what really occurred on that day. run. run.

[background noises] [inaudible] [inaudible] stay in their body. if you hear me i am here. that is a battle scene. that is what that is. that is a battle scene. that is not political discord. that is criminal behavior. that is what that is. and while capitol police officers were slipping in blood on the ground as they fought

their fellow officers fights, and that insurrection, those of us who were in the capitol, those members of congress and staff were seeking shelter. and unfortunately, you have met the times we are in. you have given up your safety to secure truth. fortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side know the truth but they are still seeking shelter from donald trump hordes they are still seeking shelter from the truth that they want to protect not just themselves but their political careers. their jobs. they are hiding behind allies for that. we know what happened not just by the videos and footage, but the nearly 1000 convictions obtained against those rioters

across an array of jurisdictions. conviction from career prosecutors, not political hacks with juries of the defendants peers. every day americans who saw the evidence. evidence that has been obtained by prosecutors and investigators have worked to hold the violent individuals accountable for their horrendous abuse. and so there's a lot else i could talk about but i guess we will get to it. accidentally yields back all opening statements will be in the statement of doctor jordan peterson's psychologist author professor emeritus of the university of toronto priestly taught at harvard university and mcgill university's published more than 100 scientific papers hosted a public alert podcast through canada straight in europe offers online programs help consumers better understand their personnel as an themselves

doctor peterson and target diversity is on the importance of free speech and traditional values is one of the dangers of the banking political opponents as he has in canada. mr. brent knight director of innovation governance of the senior research fellow at the center. he has research published widely in financial regulation include the creation of pro- innovation regulatory environments the credit markets and consumer protection sharing of data between financial institutions the regulators and other federal entities. mr. jeremy serves as senior counsel in the senior vice president of corporate engagement at the alliance defending freedom. in these roles he works events free speech for religious freedom and human dignity in companies he also works to prevent political religious d banking at major financial institutions. the allies for defending freedom is one of the entities targeted by the government and some of this correspondence. we appreciate being here as well. mr. norbert michael vice president director of the center for monitoring financial alternatives of the cato institute.

he has researched and published on issues pertaining to financial markets and monetary policy including the bank secrecy act and important piece of legislation that it saves particulars advocate for reform to individual rights against government overreach and protect personal privacy. mr. michaels a law-enforcement analyst security consultant firearms instructor he proves us or for 20 years as a police officer with the d.c. metropolitan police department we welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. we will begin by swearing you in will you please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony about to give his true and correct to the best of your knowledge and information and belief so help you god? they let the record show that witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you, you may be seated please tell your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety accordingly we ask you summarize your testimony and a five

minutes we will be a little leaning on the time you go a little over that's fine. if you go too far over we may have to move onto the next but many of you have done this before so you know how this works. there's a microphone rescue turn that on when you're testifying will start with doctor peterson. mr. peterson you recognize for five minutes. thank you again for being here. >> yes, well i like to start by expressing my appreciation for the privilege awarded to me too testify here today. it really is an honor to be asked to do so. i am not here to talk about generally six or about any particular threat, insurrection or protest political or real or imagined am here to talk about the rd extent and expanding collusion of governments and corporations in restricting the individual freedom and autonomy upon which the productive genesis stable psyche economy

and state are necessarily founded it i will begin my comments therefore in the most general terms to shed light on the mounting problem. they are now 700 million cctv's in china under the rule of the communist party. the system to which those electronic eyes are attached is the most complete state apparatus of surveillance yet imagined. with the ability not only to recognize faces at a distance but gate itself when facial features are hidden or obscured. such capability can and will soon be augmented to the movement of eyes themselves monitored by height resolution and intelligent cameras will soon be sufficient to identify any aware and active party. the demented, naïve and prideful engineers who so enthusiastically help build the system call it after the rogue

technology took a dreadfully wrong turn in the famous science-fiction movie terminator series featuring artificial intelligent robot intelligence bent on protecting themselves by destroying humanity. the name also references a well-known chinese phrase describing the reach of the divine itself. the net of heaven is vast yet it misses nothing which aptly describes capabilities of the new state apparatus. the system is integrated with the so-called credit system. which in voluntary participants but the score indicated their compliance with the dictates of the chinese comments party. now in full control over access to everything they possess

certainly all modern means of travel increasingly the electronic gates come up even by walking if you are chinese or a visitor your access to the world can be reduced to zero if it falls beyond an arbitrary minimum. this allows you purposefully to be shut out of all activities that can be virtualized and in a rapidly virtualizing world this gains all activities driving, shopping, working, eating, finding shelter. even fraternizing with family and friends as merely being in the presence of someone for the low social credit score injure own score can be lowered this is opened up the opportunity for the government to extract slave -like labor from its citizens so burden. by which arrington chinese men

and women put increase their score remain part of human society. this is precisely the payment system most desired by the most tyrannical. not work for me a benefit thereby the benefits the contractual arrangement undertaken by free and sovereign citizens. but the work for me and i will lift the deprivation i impose will be in the late motif of this labor. why is this relevant to people in the west? because the other technology chinese commerce party employs as an extension of western technology. we already fell prey to the terrible temptation of a lockdown employed by that state partly because of the hypothetical convenience of universal of identity. partly because any problem

whatsoever that now confronts us can easily be used to justify the increasing reach of the security state. it said stone age people first confronted with cameras and the result in photographs by modern anthropologists objected to having images captured as they neared the captivity of their souls. the images would leave behind will navigate in virtual space or such close duplicates of our actual selves the capture of our essence is at this point all but guaranteed. we all now have our doppelgängers. we live so much in the virtual world the consequence of our purchasing habits and modes of communication are very selves have been reducible to a frightening degree. the data is a modern equivalent of our footprint. the same data making up the image of identity which can be and is increasingly bought and

sold by the invisible corporate broker. the still mostly uses to sell us we so desperately, carelessly and conveniently want but could also be used to track, monitor and punish everything we do and say. behavioral sciences facilitate this project with that reprehensible nudging the practice of pushing people in a given ideologically determined by manipulating incentives behind the scenes. corporations track purchasing decisions developing algorithms with increasing accuracy along for the prediction of what might be most enticing. doing so and only to offer us what we want but to determine and shape what we need. governments can and are colluding with corporate agents to develop a picture of not only our actions but thoughts and words so deviation from the desired end can be mapped, rewarded and punished for of the

surveillance state. the scope of optimistic totalitarian as george orwell could scarcely imagine. they are so rapidly emerging do nothing but increase the danger, providing for the possibility of the super surveillance whose scope exceeds anything mere un- augmented humans could imagine while making it searching even the perception real world shape our attitudes conduct and personality can be manipulated to the degree will not be able to see our reality for the superstate. an paranoid security abscess in the human government. we are already selling our souls to the superstate for immediate

gratification. a big entice to do so. >> could determine be asked to summarize please? do i have my five minutes? >> you have gone over for. >> i am sorry. >> the witness could summarize for a little lenient with the time to fix 10 more seconds? not sure. >> increasing ability to monitor not only the actual attention patterns and behaviors of its citizens but to predict the persecution of potential crime becomes ever more likely. give nothing to hide you have nothing to fear will be the slogan commandeered by those most likely to turn to surveillance to protect and control. what was it famous totalitarian show me the man and i'll say the crime. her secret from as well that's nothing compared to what we can and likely will produce now a

police so secret will not even be able to grasp their comprehensive and subtle activity. monitoring crime so pervasively everyone under the dictates of the system left something to hide. >> mr. order? >> a gentleman had time expired be good to mr. knight for your statement. >> jim jordan, ranking member members of the subcommittee it is an honor to be asked to testify. my name is brian i am a senior research fellow george mason university in my research focuses on financial regulation is as a tool for broader policy. americans read the story of their lives and their bank accounts. a functioning in a modern economy the trail of records it can reveal their movements sexual preferences, health conditions whether they are likely to own a gun or have an abortion. the government can access these records without meaningful due process without the person i ever happen.

perhaps surprising efforts to expand financial surveillance are increasing. while potentially while meeting they present a pressing threat to americans privacy a glaring weakness in our cause additional order that should be addressed. a recent example of this is federal law enforcement of financial institutions collaborating shared financial records of an unknown number of americans after generally six. while publicly available information is limited, it appeared this was done to identify suspects based on their movement, political religious beliefs and whether they own a firearm. broad categories many of which relate to lawful sensitive and constitutionally protected activity. this was apparently done the target of the search and until that happened. the testimony and the work of the subcommittee i don't how often similar techniques are used in the past and if their use is currently ongoing. that adds insult to injury it's

unclear whether the date it was used felt removed by the fbi. the shared with at least two field officers. as in surprising after serious crime and fury more bios law enforcement use every tool available? the way this appears to happen is emblematic of the serious defects in a protection of american privacy enabled by financial surveillance. that isn't the only example expands the use of surveillance. to turn it into a tool to track consequently protected behavior including firearms purchases. advocates of this approach argue it will help prevent violence pretty specially mass shootings. to be sure is the noble aspiration it's unlikely it will, should school by including significant across the privacy, trust, the ability as well as encouraging a broader escalation of surveillance. as discussed in more detail my written testimony our problem is

our financial system is a convenient one stop shop without the protections applied similar information elsewhere. it is too easy for the government to obtain a comprehensive and rapid retrospective person's life that due process. further problem the bank secrecy act is opaque by design. they're prohibited from the target of a report this prevents most citizens whose information is shared from challenging lawn court. moving where the court meanings for excesses. they've been kept in the dark about effectiveness be provided by law. based on the subcommittee based on the secrecy x confidentiality use the bsa how useful it is, how long it takes for government

to act on it. we have these problems due to a combination technology, bad law bad supreme court precedent. coming under question we cannot and should not rely on the court. as discussed further my written testimony congress should reform a financial surveillance system. especially bank secrecy act to restore protection for americans privacy important and i want to emphasize this, this does not mean law enforcement could not access the information. rather it means the excess to be done pursuant to due process. to be clear i'm not here to impugn anyone's motives. good intentions can pave the road and our history is replete at times when it motivated by real threats we have valid the rights of americans often by benefit which will provide it with liberty nor security.

distinguish nemesis look subcommittee senior of corporate engagement. the financial crimes enforcement network clear with big banks to monitor their customers to identify domestic threats. shared a list of so-called hate groups published by the hyper- partisan institute for strategic dialectal producer. echoing the discredited morally bankrupt the isv list includes edf where i work as well as other mainstream religious and conservative organizations like having research council, liberty counsel, justice institute. simply put the federal government appears to have swept up christian conservative organizations and is domestic terrorist dragnet. surveillance of american citizens have no place in a free

society. neither does the weaponization of the financial industry against peaceable religious groups. our story is one of many demonstrating increased rise and the threat of viewpoint -based d banking. in 2023 bank of america close the long-standing bank account of indigenous advanced ministries a christian nonprofit that helps impoverished widows and children in uganda. the bank closed the account of a local tennessee church that donates to that ministry. the longer ones to serve their business that indigenous advanced exceeded the bank's risk tolerance. the abrupt decision as a logistical nightmare and inflicted real harm on the populations they served. the list goes on j.p. morgan chase the bank arkansas family council for being high at risk. incredible reason for canceling the counter former u.s. senator the national committee for religious freedom. wells fargo denied payment processing to the pro-life group

because it was a hate group. these d banking stories and many more head of the systemic risk a political religious bias that pervade the financial industry. particularly unfettered discretion. in their view prohibition on hate speech and intelligence that include the institution to make subjective both policies are vague and ambiguous sweep in broad swaths of content underwrote economic freedom. worsen government regulators can all too easily shield their outside power i am sorry wield their outside power over financial institutions to pressure them to leverage reputational risk policies, and hate speech policies and similar language against abuse with no per public accountability.

financial institutions in turn can hide behind the same shield to discriminate without ever explaining it to the customer. regardless of whether this prompted by government pressure. there is ample evidence of the two collaborating censored views they don't like. but it's d.o.j. fdic operation chokepoint from the state of new york and nra case currently pending before the supreme court or the fbi and treasury recent revelations from the subcommittee. each of these incidents show the government can and will weaponize the financial marketplace against americans for political benefit. several factors exacerbate this risk. has expansive authority on day-to-day operation and decisions. shrouded in secrecy to impart

these benefits the top five banks control over 50% of the market for deposit accounts. this only elevates the need to ensure viewpoint neutrality in the provision of financial services. congress should take action for this is an issue we should all agree on and deserves her utmost attention. we cannot continue to law enforcement, regulars and banks too big to fail run roughshod over our first amendment freedoms. i welcome your questions. >> thank you. you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning chairman jordan, ranking member thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. i'm vice president director for cato center for monetary and financial alternatives. the views i expressed today in this testimony our mind that she should not be construed as representing any official position of the cato institute. i argue it is long past the time for congress to reaffirm

american cause additional rights that guarantee an expectation of financial privacy. particularly those secured by the fourth amendment. excuse me. the bank secrecy act in the money laundering framework the government has developed around it are unnecessary, wasteful and harmful. typical american is not a terrorist, a criminal or a tax cheat and does not want to live among such individuals. typical american does however recognize the constitution protects all americans from unreasonable persecution and limitless invasions of privacy. i like to make three main points in support of my position. first congress should not pass the bank secrecy act of 1970 is a much broader bill than legislation than its original sponsor promised to deliver. its relationship to the fourth a member of the constitution was controversial enough for several which were split decisions at the u.s. supreme court during

the 1970s. further the bill so controversial it spurred congress to pass multiple bills including the right to financial privacy act just eight years after passing the bank secrecy act. it did so with the explicit intent of countering the very financial surveillance the bank secrecy act itself created but unfortunately 1970 bill was so watered down 20 different exceptions it failed to live up to its name. as a result financial institutions remain responsible for both recordkeeping and reporting requirements and law enforcement has the authority to obtain americans financial records without first obtaining a valid search warrant. these so-called third party doctrine born largely on supreme court decisions on the 1970s excuses this legal status by effectively claiming bank customers have no expectation of privacy from the government once they get their information to the bank.

much like the dissenting justices of those cases i believe this logic defies all reasoning. there's simply no sphere of our lives that would remain free of government involvement ends surveillance and control if it were taken seriously. second the agency themselves and failed to demonstrate how the bank secrecy act regime provided a net benefit it is merely created information overload for federal agencies through excessive reporting. 2022 for instance financial institutions were required to file over 26 million reports with the federal government on customer activity. even though it has been decades since the first suspicious activity report was filed crimes enforcement network still cannot provide data that explains how law enforcement even uses those reports. these two points are just the tip of the iceberg difficult as it may be to believe there are virtually no convictions to show for all of the regulating and reporting. depending upon the federal crime data that we use the per

conviction cost ranges anywhere from $7 million to $178 million. those figures do not include any implicit costs of violating citizens rights to financial privacy, banks decisions to terminate or limit customers accounts or a bank's refusal to provide financial services to certain customers. finally, personal and financial privacy are pillars of life in the free society. the american system of government was designed with a good reason to ensure individuals do enjoy a private sphere free of government involvement, surveillance and control. unless there is a reasonable suspicion someone has committed a crime or conspired to commit a crime people should generally be free to live their lives on molested an un- surveilled by the government. that is literally why the fourth mm to the constitution protects americans from unreasonable searches and seizures and

americans financial records should not be an exception to that rule. it is of course healthy to debate what private companies should be allowed to do with the data they collect from customers. but no america should confuse in that debate with why we have the fourth amendment the fourth amount protects us from unwarranted government persecution. that is why congress should amend the bank secrecy act and restore americans fourth the member rights. thank you and i welcome any questions. >> thank you. we now go for five minutes. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee thank you for inviting me here today to answer questions regarding the events that occurred at the nicest capitol ungenerous six, 2021. i would like to tell you that i've forgotten some of the events of that date or that my recollection is not as clear as it once was.

but that would not be the truth. the events of january 6 are as vivid to me now as when they occurred over three years ago. while the physical scars so that they have healed the emotional scars remain. we government of laws, not of men. i spent nearly two decades as a law enforcement officer trying to enforce the law. my career began and the united in the unitedstates capitol as l police officer and ended when called upon as a metropolitan police officer to protect the capitol against a mob of people. much of my career involved a dangerous encounters with violent criminals, that experience was unlike anything i had experienced. i am here to tell you what happened to me on that day what i saw and heard happening to fellow officers. as for me i was violently grab, restrain, beaten, tased, all

will been called a traitor to my country. i was at risk of being stripped of and killed with my own a firearm as i heard chance of kill him with his own gun. my body camera video capture the violence of the crowd directed towards me during this very brutal moments. the portions of the video i have seen remain extremely painful for me too watch but doing so is crucial to fully understand what really happened that day the extent of violence. during those moments i remember thinking there is a good chance i could be killed my thoughts were of my children they may lose their father. i am here to share my experience i know hundreds of other law enforcement officers responded that day they were outnumbered and acted with tremendous bravery to protect the capitol and all of this present inside who serve our country. those officers have sustained injuries to both physical and emotional. they too have been scarred some

visible and some that cannot be seen. i think of them often like my partner jimmy albright who dragged me too safety while i was unconscious and drove me to the emergency room though injured himself. i think that about commander renee who, like so many of us is self deployed to the capitol. who organize the defense in the lower west vittert tunnel and his rally cry do not give up the door. it echoes through my thoughts. i think of all the brave men and women, newly minted officers and those nearly retired who responded to the call of service that day in defense of our nation. those who were still the front lines each and every day to make our city safe and protect our institutions of government. i appeared today, not to give my opinion or analysis or advocate for some action but simply to bear witness. i leave whatever action needs to be taken to your wisdom.

and where we go as a nation to the american people. i have no agenda or affiliation. i do not come with malice in my heart but only a deep love of this country, which i know is shared by so many others both young and old. both republican and democrat. and in the process of speaking more importantly, listening to each other hopefully we can come together as "one nation" with shared values of wanting tomorrow to be better than today with the hope and confidence that we do each and every day, excuse me, as for the singular purpose of trying to provide a better life for our children and our children's children and generations to come. i thank you for your invitation to be here today and the opportunity to speak with you. >> thank you mr. fanone will now proceed to the five-minute roof questions the chart recognize a

genre from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. fanone i want to express my heartfelt thank you for being here today for those of us who are here in january 6 in no small part oh, you and others a debt of gratitude for the work you did assuring people members of congress and others into safety. i truly appreciate that in thank you. >> thank you sir. if this were only about january 6 that would have been my last comment and we would be done. i'm going to ask a series of questions that beg the question of something beyond january 6. for all of you if you would raise your hands, are there any of you who think it would be better if we had the same rules of discovery that china, cuba,

russia, iran have from a standpoint of looking for criminals among us. is there anyone here who would raise their hand? i thought not. for all of you, let's ask some questions i will use as my strongman for a moment. with the way the bank stops it administration from choosing to look at it and gather, strip away cap from the major banks are all the banks all the data of all of the citizens and participants in our society. haul it all in so they have a database for whatever they need to do weathers january 6 or somebody driving in town and not paying a parking ticket too. >> , i do not know the bank secrecy act particularly well i

know the implications. >> not merely looking at the fourth a minute for a moment. again for the others mr. knight i think you answered on this. there is nothing that would stop and administration in secret from taking vast amounts, potentially all of it under current law. the only question you'd really ask is if you can go to a court and say is it excessive and with the court side with you? from a functional standpoint from the fbi's out they get? >> i believe that's correct i think is even worse than that in the sense it does not need to be evidence of a crime it could be evidence of another violation. and also because the target of suspicious activity report is prohibited from finding out would be very hard for the person to go to court later and challenge it unless they were the subject potentially of a prosecution of which case you arty starting behind the ball.

>> as we stand right now the fourth amendment relative to your banking records which don't just say what you spend money on its where you were because by definition when you put the credit card into the gas pump we know exactly where you were. there is nothing that stops the government from finding out not only what you're spending on but what where you are and what you're doing, is that correct? >> that's absolutely correct. the records are not yours they belong to the bank and therefore you have no protectable privacy right in them. the court recently has been starting to change their thinking on that. >> we are hoping to spur the court to think more through legislation. summarizing we are talking most about bank records those are the ones we have a current example. isn't it true the fbi and other agencies want the same access to all your phone records which would include where you are

moment by moment and who you talk to? isn't that correct? >> yes that was an issue in the carpenter case law enforcement tried to pull location data from cell phone towers the court found they have a protectable fourth amendment rights even though the record belongs to the phone company not to the customer. if i want to get those kinds of records on the fbi in the case of your phone records for all practical purposes we need to get a warrant. you don't need it for bank records but isn't it true those records very often provide the same information and thus are equally invasive and not just your first amendment but your fourth amendment, reasonable expectation for privacy and the keeping of your files and

personal effects appear. >> i would argue they are more sensitive and provide more accurate information cell phone towers. >> i for one would close by saying i do not see a problem getting warrants it. do not see a problem getting judges. this committee has a significant role with pfizer and other cases like that per the question is will we amend that law so that no matter where the data is being grabbed by the government it is being grabbed pursuant to a reasonable expectation we have a reason to get it in a jugs of degrees. mr. chairman think of her hold s i yield back too. >> it recognizes from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify before the committee. evidence by today's hearing of the so-called subcommittee on weaponization of the house republican leadership appears to

be the proliferation or ironically the weaponization can combined with the efforts to develop evidence of the impeachment of president biden these proceedings have become increasingly bizarre at every turn. once upon a time we were told the key to all this was the hunter biden laptop that was the smoking gun that would solve all of this. until it wasn't. then it was getting hunter biden to testify. that was going to be the close of evidence. until at one point he had the courage to walk into a hearing, sit in the front row and then republicans rejected his offer to testify and instead voted to hold him in contempt. the testimony of the top legal expert witnesses. who appear before congress and offer evidence against president biden lay out the legal theory

to justify articles of impeachment. they showed up, all with great resumes but with no evidence. they testified under oath, under oath they could not find any evidence that would support or suggest such charges. the trump appointed special counsel david weiss announced he had indicted chairman jim jordan star witness, former fbi informant alexander smirnoff for making false statements and fabricating evidence of federal investigation of president biden. millions in bribes now smirnoff, some of you may not remember chairman jordan described as the

most corroborating evidence they have." the trump appointed special counsel for lying and fabricating evidence. the pathetic show republicans and put on so far. that assessment is probably correct. now the chairman of the subcommittee is determined to obscure the facts conservative americans baseless financial by the federal government. in statements made by several summerhouse members and downplaying the attacks that officer capitol complex as quote acts of vandalism" in a normal tourist visit.

that could not be further from the truth as reported by the bipartisan select committee and generally six in its final report our nation endured an insurrection specifically sought to violently block congressional certification of the 2020 election. the sheer scale of the mob violence you saw on the video earlier the lawlessness that was exhibited that day tested the fabric of our democracy with a savagely beating law enforcement officers like officer fanone amid repeated crowded chance such as hang mike pence, shoot him with his own gun. the republican vice president hang mike pence. that is what makes you an extremist. that is what makes you a terrorist. not just your desire to purchase under the second amendment a weapon that you are legally entitled to have. it also warranted an additional

investigatory evidence by federal law enforcement authorities to prevent more violence leading up to the 2021 presidential inauguration. officer fanone as a former metropolitan police officer could you please tell us of the promulgation of false narratives like this is just a tourist visit or a simple vandalism. how that distorted description affects your ability to do your job? >> thank you for the question. well, essentially the distortion mischaracterization about january 6 resulted in or partially played a role of leaving my job as metropolitan police officer. they have inspired fellow americans to threaten me, threaten members of my family simply because of the statements

i have made about my experience both on january 6, 2021 and in the aftermath. >> i thank you very much my time is expired. [inaudible] thank you for your service. >> a gentleman yields backup. >> mr. chairman asking m's consent to enter into the record gerry 72021 e-mail the financial institutions requesting information met edward luria behind quote claim to be armed and intending to travel to d.c. and asking m's consent to enter into the record a press release the eastern district of new york and anson edwards sentencing to making threats to kill elected officials at san raphael warnock queens man sentenced to 33 months in prison posing threats to kill a member of congress illegally possessing ammunition.

>> of that objection pay. >> a demo from florida is made for five minutes for. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm sitting up your listings your testimony is absolutely insane the level of the deep state acting to go after pro pro-life groups. pro-gun groups that you talked the arkansas pro-life group now they cannot even bank at the bank they were banking at because of their political beliefs. the information the chairman signed up in the religious attacks and firearms. all without a warrant. we go to law school and go to constitutional law the fourth amendment in all basins that have to happen in order for the government on searcher information. all of this is happening without the person and knowing it is going on without a warrant, without an ability to defend themselves. in the aftermath of the 2020

presidential election. u.s. department of treasury told major banks to be on the lookout for credit and debit cards for the purchase of legal firearms for it is a gun owner's strong proponent of a second member writes it is appalling federal agency would ask private companies to spy on their customers conducting perfectly legal business transactions. it's not like there is a suspicion of criminality going on. these are just typical purchases of firearms. also pass along's bankrolling of bigotry and overview of the online funding strategies of american hate groups. included among the supposed of hate groups as the alliance defending freedom. we just represented before us today. i found this characterization curious because the adf that i know is anything but a hater. adf defends god-given rights to religious liberty around this country. it seems biden ministration vs advocacy for religious liberty as hate these days. that's as far more about the administration that it does

about adf. president obama many conservative americans coming to guns or religion. given the actions it seems president biden's administration shares the same hostility for millions of americans like me who proudly cling to our first n secondment rights. shutdown an event by defense of

liberty. donald trump junior was speaking at it and they shutdown that event on the basis of a hate policy is so we know they are being weaponize did in the financial industry and again because the bank secrecy act and the shrouding of the way wave regulation happens in the banking context it's hard to know why are these things happening. we just know it's on the rise and a concern. >> one of my colleagues said this is a narrative we are creating but you've gone through specifics. if you want to highlight specifically some of the instances you are referring of facts where pro-life groups or organizations that are conservative have been debunked by these private entities. >> the highest profile one is a member of the senate samuel brownback's organization for religious freedom. j.p. morgan chase canceled that in 2022 and gave very different

reasons that were contradictory over the next year as scrutiny mounted. never the reasons held any weight and interestingly enough they refer to anti-money laundering, financing tough terrorism, a concept called politically exposed persons. all of these are within the banking regulations and are used as tools ultimately to suppress people because of their views. again the secrecy and shrouding of the reasons for the decisions is a huge part of the problem and something congress needs to address. >> are there circumstances the consumers may never know their information was disclosed from the bank to the fbi or government agency? >> this is a huge part of the problem is our clients to a person anytime they go to the bank there is a vague policy the only thing the bank will say is high risk or business type or risk tolerance. every time they go back and ask for an answer or specific reason

the bank just stonewalls them. >> i have a couple seconds left. what is your recourse if you do find out because let's say i've ticked a lot of the boxes that were referenced. if you find out your information was divulged from the bank that you bank to a government agency do you have any recourse whatsoever to go after the government or the bank? >> it's difficult for consumers in that position because they usually don't know what happens. there are complaints you can file with attorneys general land other avenues people could pursue but that's part of the reason congress should act to ward off some of the secrecy and confidentiality that's happening in the banking industry and also stop using reputational risk and the other categories to determine whether they are going to bank with someone. >> thank you for being here today. >> i have a unanimous consent

request. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record of the fbi's situation report to send to financial institutions with respect to an explicit and clear threat on january 16, 2021. >> with respect to the inauguration. >> the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i thank the witnesses for being here and i want to examine some of the actual requests the fbi sent to financial institutions in the wake of the violence that occurred on purpoy trying to scare americans into believe they are being surveilled every single day without any crime prevention or solving. january 14, 2021 the fbi asked financial institutions for information about robert lemke who made, quote, interesting threats of violence targeting the family of a u.s. congressman as well as other in the furtherance of antigovernment,

antiauthority extremism and i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the e-mail dated january 14, 2021 from fbi employees to financial institutions into the record. >> lemke ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison for making threatening communications against members of congress and the journalists in connection with the 2020 election and says threatening electronic messages to approximately 50 victims he targeted because of their statements about donald trump losing the 2020 presidential election. he send messages to a new york city congressman's brother threatening him and the brothers children. he send messages to the family of a journalist and i would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the press release entitled california man sentenced to three years in prison for making threats against political officials and journalists relating to the outcome of the 2020 presidential

election. >> without objection. >> in your experience is it appropriate for law enforcement to use all wall fully available tools in the investigation of somebody who's threatening the family of members of public officials or journalists? >> yes ma'am. not only appropriate, it's law enforcement's responsibility to do so. >> would it be a dereliction of duty if you didn't use every lawfully available tool to try to prevent a crime from happening or to solve a crime that has already happened? >> yes ma'am i believe so. >> thank you. the data from inauguration the fbi requested information about samuel fisher who was photographed on the steps of the u.s. capital and is suspected of unlawfully entering federal property on january 6th, 2021. the fbi noted that fisher may also have been, quote, manufacturing trafficking guns and preparations for civil war. additionally, he is racially

motivated ideology. the fbi noted that it was, quote, currently preparing enforcement action and it's interested in financial information that corroborates fisher's involvement in firearms trafficking and i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the e-mail from fbi employee to financial institutions about this matter into the record. >> without objection. >> why am i and law enforcement agencies seek financial information in cases of arms trafficking? >> outside of the obvious potential receipts for purchases made would provide evidence that in fact the weapons were purchased by a specific individual. my understanding is within these particular requests it was the fbi seeking voluntary compliance from a number of banking institutions in which there ask was very specific in that they

were looking for individuals who were present on january 6th which i think we all can agree was an incredibly violent assault against law enforcement officers. those individuals that also had purchased firearms in the past six months and were at least evidence to plan on returning to the nation's capital on january 20th. >> so they were not just looking for people based on their beliefs but there were different criteria that all had to be present to do this search, is that correct? >> that's my understanding. >> samuel fisher by the way was arrested the next day and when he was arrested, agents found over a thousand rounds of ammunition and several weapons including an illegally modified ar 15 rifle and machetes in the upper east side apartment and his car. fisher by the way he wrote after the capital riot, quote, seeing cops literally run was the

coolest thing i've ever seen in my life, and of quote and i would ask unanimous consent to the article into the record. this is a clear example of people committing criminal acts that my colleagues across the aisle are claiming are the innocent victims of surveillance but in reality of the fbi was doing their jobs. they were working to prevent threats to the inauguration and hold january 6th rioters responsible for their criminal actions. i want to thank you for being here today and i appreciate your willingness to bear witness to what really happened and to dispel these overly broad fear mongering tactics that innocent americans are being surveilled simply because of their beliefs or religion and with that i yield back the balance of my

time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> do you need a gun registration, the government can just ask the bank any time a customer purchases a gun? >> thanks know if you purchase a gun per se but bank records they are not perfect but for almost everything. >> it's almost like a backdoor registration, right? >> one of the challenges is highly sensitive information can be accessed through financial records that are otherwise are constitutionally protected. >> do you think this is going to stop with conservatives? history tells us the cancel culture, the surveillance state, whatever you want to call it, they never are satisfied with just it always expands and i will give you an example. a few years ago, senator feinstein from the great state of california the folks in san

francisco renamed the dianne feinstein elementary school, they took her name off the school because they found she said to something like 40 years ago that the cancel culture mom didn't like so even a liberal democratic senator wasn't good enough. they came after her to into this is what scares me we've invited probably more democratic witnesses on the committee more than any other because we respect the first amendment, second amendment, fourth amendment and constitution. my concern is it never stops with certain people. it always goes further. would you agree with that? >> the reason i prefaced my remarks with nonpartisanship is the danger posed by this increasing ability of governments and large corporations to collude threatens everyone's freedom equally and it could well be that at the moment, and i think this is the case the republicans here are trying to make is the people in the sights of that collision tend to have more conservative leanings but that will shift in a moment whenever

the political tides shift and we are concentrating in this hearing a fair bit on the events of january 6th, very partisan issue that produces a very intense partisan divide. we are not addressing the fundamental issue is here directly which is our new technology enables a mode of surveillance that is so intense that no one will escape its purview regardless of their political views. >> it also seems to me there seems to be a pattern emerging. i want to take you back to when we first started getting in with this issue with the now famous memorandum from the department of justice and you probably remember what i'm talking about, but the opening sentence of the attorney general's document, this memorandum says in recent months there's been a disturbing

spike interests, board members, teachers, staff at the hearing where we had the attorney general. i asked a simple question i said you make that opening statement as the basis for why you need this memorandum to go after moms and dads showing up at the school board meetings, what was that first sentence based on and he said it was based on the national school board association the memorandum they put out and at the same thing happened to you guys because we had an entity called the global disinformation index that put out this information and then the government uses that as the basis to say you're some terrorist group. that is frightening because since then the treasury department used an agency put out organ entity as a basis to say you are some hate group or terrorist group. i find that alarming and

particularly the pattern that makes you start to wonder. >> the fbi used the report on the radical traditional catholics to target them as well in the interim between the moms for liberty and parental rights groups and what's going on today. i think it's very alarming that the government uses these discredited third-party arbiters of truth who are just promoting their own political agenda to try to make decisions about anything, let alone sending them to financial institutions as some kind of financial surveillance. >> unless the group says you're better than the government is going to use that information to send to banks and say you might want to be concerned about this. that is a frightening world and the point is i don't think it's just going to be limited to conservative people in the future because there were people in black lives matter who got

targeted when all the protests were happening around the country and i disagree with a lot of things that happened that summer but i also don't like the fact they are going after liberals either. that is the scary thing. in both parties that activity should be protected. second, the right to privacy should be protected but unfortunately now it's gotten to partisan. with that, to the other side. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. for nearly 20 years in the chamber i know i've heard time and again they claim that they back the blue. recently chairman jordan put out a press release about the resolution that said when it comes to supporting the police, republicans put words into action yet when it comes to walking the walk, republicans too often take a seat. just yesterday we took a vote on a bipartisan spending bill that includes spending for the criminal justice program and of

those that make up the committee, a handful of you voted against it. it would mean less funding for state and local law enforcement agencies and more criminals on the streets and neighborhoods. it means funding for the key law enforcement tools that keeps online predators away from our children. those actions sure don't back the blue and now today republicans want to target law enforcement yet again. this time they purposefully downplay the violence that traumatized hundreds of capitol police officers in the january 6th introduction and perhaps the most intimate assault on american history. specifically, the republican colleagues are taking aim at the abilities of the financial records to prosecute the criminals that attempted to stop the legitimate constitutional transfer of power in congress. these are the very financial tools that help hold to account the people who try to overthrow a presidential election. officer, thank you so much for

repeatedly testifying about your experiences. i'm sure it isn't easy to relieve these dramatic moments. can you explain the violence that police officers were subjected to on january 6th? >> i like many other officers from the department self deployed that day and that i heard the stress calls coming out from officers who were already deployed at the capitol complex and took it upon myself to respond to those calls for assistance. when i arrived at the capital, i made my way to a specific distress call coming from officers that were defending the tunnel against a large group of

violent rioters they were trying to gain access. >> thank you. >> when i entered the tunnel, i observed about 40 or 50 dc police officers and a few u.s. capitol police officers attempting to hold back the violent mob. the officers were being assaulted with a variety of different weapons. everything from metal polls, two by fours, aluminum baseball bats. batons and other police equipment that had been stripped from police officers themselves were then used against officers. >> thank you. i'm sorry. i want to make sure i can get some other items in. the video we saw earlier was disturbing and a video i don't have time to show. you can hear words being yelled at police officers that serve to

the capital and some died in the insurrection? >> on the cause of death was unrelated to the capital riot. that being said i think decent people would understand that if it were not for his participation, brian would be here with us today. i understand i think better than most the posttraumatic stress that accompanied my

participation and then and during the mischaracterization of what i experienced from people in positions of power many of whom were here at the capital themselves. i understand what brought many officers to taking their own lives and i attribute their actions to their participation in defense of the u.s. capital on january 6th. >> thank you mr. chairman, once again i ask that you stop trivializing the violence assault. the entire world so that and please do not cavalierly discard law enforcement tools to prevent

the next january 6 the necessity of making the tools will law enforcement is even more imperative considering all but promises yet another assault, violence or otherwise and i yield back. before you go to the next member and if i could ask for a unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the situation report sent to financial institutions on january 14th, 2021 that explains the exact kind of threats the fbi tried to prevent leading up to the inauguration that day with threats to murder members of congress and started shooting at the inauguration. the exact type of threats the fbi is responsible for investigating and i quote information was received regarding a video posted on a website encouraging people to kill senators and congress members the poster of the video was identified via social media exploitation and threatening violence in washington, d.c. on inauguration day and advised

people to bring guns. >> without objection. we want them to do their job in a way that is consistent with the constitution and i welcome the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you for your testimony today. in 2022, activists amalgamated at the far left politicians pushed for the creation of an unconstitutional merchant category to be assigned to firearms retailers to identify, quote, suspect purchases and report patterns to law enforcement. a clear infringement and back door to a gun registry. in fact failed new york attorney general james specifically mentioned the importance of labeling gun and ammunition sales to indicate in imminent crime. since then as some have banned the code while states like california mandated. this is why i introduced the protecting privacy purchases act with congressman barr and hudson to put a stop to the code and

protect law-abiding americans from this infringing overreach. can you explain how does this code to threaten privacy and constitutional rights? >> thank you very much. this code, and if we were to do similar creating false positive where individuals who are potentially engaged in the activity because it's important to know they don't tell you what people by. will it be reported to the government as potentially suspicious for no real basis that is likely to be reasonable, and that's going to create a database that is available that could be searched later. one of the dangerous things about this financial database, the financial records is that they are retrospective. and perhaps there's precious little reason to believe it would be effective the stated

goal for a host of reasons i could get into if you want. >> yes, please expand. the problem is you won't know what someone buys. the door expecting banks to correctly identify what is a hallmark of the violence. you're expecting them to report it promptly, law enforcement to act on it promptly and effectively. so i would like to point to the report that advocates but if you look at the examples they point to as possible examples where it's helped, it's hard to believe it would because there is such a short timeframe, 12 days. there is a reason to believe, i don't see why we would believe it would be enough time to act on it because we don't know how it's going to view anything. it's hard to differentiate from legitimate activity. rather look at the cases and then work backwards so we don't

know how many false positives there will be. also in the recent report methodology it's very, very broad and overinclusive and it has thresholds that are such so how confident should we be to signal the noise? i don't think we should be given how little we know about how it's treated as is. i think we should be skeptical. >> do you think this is the back door to a gun registry? >> some of the supporters of view it as a backdoor to discourage firearms purchases. >> in my district that upstate new york americans are proud to stand up for a constitutional rights and understand this is in anan infringement on our constitutional rights. why is my bill so important?

>> the efforts to restrict the collection of data at the bank level are the best option we have currently because under current law, once the bank has that data, the government has the data so preventing the collection at the bank level was the first best option. >> thank you very much. i yield back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i just want to say to the officer, i was on the house floor january 6th. we haven't had a chance to talk, but i know you have kids. my wife is at home with our son, she was seven months pregnant and thanks to your bravery and the bravery of your colleagues

and true patriots of defendant this capital i got to meet my son. i want to thank you for your service and bravery. i'm sorry that you had to endure so much of the personal attacks to try to undermine what you actually did that day. people all across the country know what you did, respect you and appreciate your service so thank you and i will yield to the ranking member. >> thank you. i believe we all share those sentiments. i want to say that this is not a partisan issue. i heard it said that january 6th is a partisan issue. i just want to read something. he was assaulting in his name, carrying banners, hanging flags and screaming their loyalty to him. it was obvious that only president trump could so it

could be restored. instead he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. he kept pressing the team to overturn the election even after it was clear to to any any rease observer that he was in danger even as the mob carrying trump banners were beating cops and breaching parameters the president sent a tweet attacking his vice president predictably under the circumstances members seemed to interpret this as a further inspiration to lawlessness and violence.

that was the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. they are trying to expand the scope of what the fbi was trying to do. it wasn't to evade bank records or about a violation of the fourth amendment against search and seizure. i've been a practitioner of the law, not just a professor or someone with a graduate degree, but a prosecutor and investigator and you use the tools you have to prevent crimes from happening. i've shopped at bass pro shop plenty of times and read the bible on a regular basis and my family happened to be gun owners but i am not afraid the fbi is

going to be searching my account because i wasn't a writer january 6th and i didn't purchase a gun in the last six months before the inauguration and make plans to come back to attempt to again stop the free and fair election of our government. this is getting ridiculous. use all the violence on january 6, 2021 and it's all the individuals you were up close and way too personal with many of them. you also like many of the people here attended hearings, trials and sentencing of many of those

individuals. based upon the knowledge that you have that many of us here do not, do you know what ideology they embraced and if you do, how do you know that? >> i can't speak to every individual that was there that day. i didn't have an opportunity. i was fighting for my life. that being said i was present at a number of the hearings regarding individuals that were specifically charged with and pled guilty to violent assaults of myself and other officers and many of those individuals in their plead for leniency to the judge at a sentencing cited the fact that they had been inspired by and by rhetoric used by the former president of

misinformation from news media outlets that led them to believe the 2020 election had been stolen and it was their duty to respond to the e-uppercase-letter and fight to save their country. >> the gentlelady yields back. we begin the hearing by reciting the pledge of allegiance and i'd like to begin my questioning by reciting the fourth amendment because i think the other side of the aisle forgot to some of the terms. the right of the people to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizures cell not being violated or warrants issued but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched and person or things to be seized. can you tell us how the bank

secrecy act and rights to financial privacy act may not be in compliance with the amendment or how the implementation may violate the amendment? >> sure. once the bank or financial institution has the information the government has it so this came up in the early court challenges and cases that went to the supreme court in that we effectively have a law that is a blank check for the government or law enforcement to obtain all of the information without a warrant. they do not have to show probable cause. >> they have to go to the bank. it seems to me these acts are

not just out of date but outside of the constitution. mr. knight, you began your opening statement by characterizing some of the things the government could no or infer about you based on how you spend your money. can you elaborate what are the things the government can no? >> everything about you with a relatively high degree of confidence they know where you live and figured out where you work and figure out potentially things like your sexual orientation and a high degree of accuracy and guessing what your interests are and they can figure out what your religion is, what political beliefs you support and have a better than average chance of knowing you own a firearm. they could also potentially know if you have an abortion and

after the dobbs decision there was a lot of concern raised about the sensitivity of medical information that would be available in a state that prohibits or restricts abortion and so this isn't a left or right, this is a situation where everyone has information accessible. doctor peterson, why don't you and brace artificial intelligence and facial recognition and massive computer surveillance and cameras on every street corner so we can all be safer? >> if the emerging collusion between government and gigantic

corporations continues in a manner that is discontinuing, there won't be anything you do that can't be used against you and will be used against you in very short order and at the concerns expressed about the local consequences of that with regards to january 6 seem to fail to take into account a broader threat that lurks underneath that everyone should be attending to. we are in danger of eliminating the private sphere entirely. that's already happening at places particularly china which is why i made reference to that. that technology is at hand and appears both giant governments and corporations are utilizing it in every way they can manage and it is genuinely often motivated by the claim that that is forestalling an immediate proximal threat.

for engaging in a tremendous long-term engagement and it should be perceived as dangerous to those on the left that are committed because it will be those that are first identified by such systems. is it true that you have a phd? >> yes. why did canada decided that you needed more information? can you tell us about that? >> the entire transcript was submitted as evidence what i was doing primarily in that interview that was criticized was questioning the validity stacked upon the models detailing the climate change 100 years into the future that was deemed sufficient with regards to my professional confidence to serve as a licensed psychologist. that was one of only many

anonymous complaints that were fostered directly in relation to my political views. >> thank you for sharing that today. use your testimony is evidence as evidencethat your education t [inaudible] >> well done. the gentleman yields back into the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i of course represent george mason university where you were located and i had a question for you. the chair recently said people who were being imprisoned for crimes committed during january 6th are hostages. do you agree yes or no that the people that have been arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and

are serving those sentences are hostages? >> i have not studied that. my initial inclination is no. and if i can elaborate, i've not read all the transcripts of all the convictions -- >> thank you. i find it interesting you can opine about the constitution and infringements and warrants but you haven't looked at the issue whether people commit crimes are hostages or not. thank you for that equivocation. maybe you don't want to equivocate. there were peaceful citizens

protesting on behalf of their first, second amendment rights carrying bibles who assembled peacefully to express themselves here in the capital. isn't that what you encountered on january 6th? >> that couldn't be further from the truth. my account was brutal and violent and involved a number of individuals restraining and beating me and one individual subjecting me to electro shock on my neck, all the while resulting in injuries i sustained as a traumatic brain injury and heart attack. so among other things, law enforcement running roughshod

over citizens expressing first and second amendment rights. i had at the end of depression they were violently seizing bibles on good christians who are simply trying to exercise their faith because we were targeting them. is that what happened on januar? >> i had responded to the capital for no other purpose than to assist fellow officers who were calling out for help. i didn't care about the capital building and i didn't care about other members of congress. i came here because cops needed help. by the way because we've heard interesting testimony again how long were you in law enforcement? in those 20 years were you made aware of any effort by the fbi or law enforcement in general to survey individuals?

twenty years of experience have you ever experienced what they are describing? would you find that all it if you did stumble upon it? >> yes because it violates the principles of law enforcement upholding the constitution and respecting americans rights. >> i cannot tell you how much -- i was on the floor, i heard it and a soul it. i cannot imagine what you've gone through and how you were still living through ptsd. we are still living through ptsd. i can only imagine, and you are a hero. no matter what the attempts may be of some to minimize,

diminish, fabricate what happened, i assure you there are a number of us who will continue to fight to make sure the american people know what happened and that we won't equivocate about whether criminals who are justifia in jail are not hostages, they are criminals. a violent attempt to prevent the free exercise of an election being counted here in the capital. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman for the witnesses being here today. we are here to talk about a range of things that don't involve the topic of the hearing, and i think that's

disappointing. few of the rights protected by the constitution are more infringed than the right to privacy. my colleague brad the actual text of the fourth amendment and mr. peterson, doctor peterson, you referenced what people might wish it aside. it doesn't say that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy or complete secrecy, reasonable expectation of privacy is guarded by due process, warrants and subpoenas for u.s. citizens. you might not know many of the members of the committee are a part of something really rare in congress, which is a nonpartisan view. we've got divisions that don't break on party lines on privacy. there are republicans and democrats who want to rollback the patriot act, what a

beautiful name. but it's being used to violate american citizens rights to privacy. you have mr. jordan and mr. nadler in complete agreement on how to reform the act and of the foreign intelligence act works pretty well. it's the domestic surveillance act. the fourth amendment guards it and says you're supposed to get warrants and we are covering a giant hole not about january 6th but the bank secrecy act, things that are being abused, weaponize against the citizens of the country. i don't have all the same safeguards in canada and doctor peterson, you've experienced

some of the consequences of not having the safeguards that we do in this country. i wonder if you could elaborate on how consequential it is to have the safeguards we do have here on privacy and speech. >> i know that my colleagues on the psychological front and medical front are increasingly frightened of me making any political opinions known in any form whatsoever because they usually have the mid-level bureaucratic sort that have been empowered as the consequence of the lack of first amendment rights to intervene as they see fit in relationship to stated opinion, political or otherwise and it's not good. there is no legislation coming up also reflecting that protection that will make even the suspicion that a crime may be committed punishable. that is pending. >> these are dangerous ideas and i appreciate that you highlighted how china is using it and there are people pushing for a central bank currency that

at the core is a violation of privacy and the one ring to rule them all, a massive amount of power. a lot of that you highlighted with the consequences of the bank secrecy act. a couple of you highlighted the cost-benefit ratio. we have the stated goal of safety. >> one of the consequences as people blur the distinction not being able to access information or being able to access it subject to due process. there is no reason to believe that convictions obtained would be impossible without getting a

warrant. we also have to worry about the fact that information is being collected and if you are worried about your political opponents having power, why do you want this available to them? >> you mentioned the third-party doctrine and frankly, i am reminded of a story that's disputed whether it was accurate or not but when the leader of the soviet union started he pointed out how brutal it had been under stalin and someone from a large crowd yelled to him why didn't you do anything and here he is the dictator of the soviet union everyone knowing the kind of power he could yield and he said who said that? i demand to know who said that.

and everyone got quiet and he let it stay quiet for a long time and he said that's why because you know the coercive power of the state. the police state powers that have existed in previous areas of history are minor compared to the capabilities we have and when you link that to the unmitigated third-party doctrine, can you lay out for us what is at stake? >> it literally means any time you engage in any kind of a commercial transaction you are effectively saying i don't have due process anymore, which is rather insane in terms of the concept completely on its head that we all have due process. >> so we have a burden to produce legislation that does reclaim the freedom surrendered and i hope we continue to work in a bipartisan fashion. i have a unanimous consent request entitled an fbi liaison

report emboldened and aftermath of the capital breach that sites online rhetoric regarding the presidential inauguration with some calling for unspecified justice for the january 6th shooting by law enforcement of an individual at the capital building and another that many armed individuals would return on the 19th of january according to the open source reporting. >> the gentleman from california recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. if any of you need a break just let us know. we've probably a half-hour to go but if you need a break let us know. >> no problem mr. chairman. it's unfortunate that this hearing is intended to focus on

january 6th and the inaugural that followed two weeks later because it is a legitimate question mostly by private sector businesses and the like and then the government accessing that information. it's a worldwide phenomenon and something we should be focusing on. unfortunately what has happened in the hearing is we've taken the january 6th issue, the violence, the harm to the officer and others and morphed into a larger question. that is unfortunate. here we are using this hearing to somehow degrade the violence and the insurrection itself and

the ultimate effort to destroy our democracy. a couple of questions. do you have the number that have been charged and found guilty? >> correct. >> the number is i think over 1100? >> that's my understanding. in this process was any information developed that indicated there might be future violence? for example of the inaugural? >> that's my understanding from speaking to those involved in the investigation. >> do any of the witnesses disagree with that? and based on this, is it

reasonable for the federal government, fbi and other agencies to investigate certain individuals in the effort to prevent future violence? is that reasonable for the government to do? >> i not only think it is reasonable, i think it is a requirement. >> do any of you disagree that it would be reasonable to investigate those who were involved and threats that there might be future violence, is that something the fbi and others should do? >> i would disagree to some degree. it depends on how you do it because -- >> point well made. at the notion of continuing the investigation based upon information received as a result of the investigation of those that were involved in the

insurrection and the rioting would be reasonable so now we get down to the point and this is where it really got on to equate this issue of the personal civil liberties and privacies with the january 6th insurrection. we need to divide these two issues. there's no doubt we had an insurrection. a film that was shown earlier clearly demonstrates that and we thank you for your work that day and i think that i agree you may not think it is important to protect us, but we thank you for having done so. the reality is it was an

extraordinary event in america's history. it was the single largest assault on police ever in the history of this nation. based upon that, where do we go? and then mr. chairman if you would, put all of that aside and stop trying to protect mr. trump or anybody else involved in the riot and that insurrection and let's get down to the issue of protecting our civil liberties. there are examples that could be used in evidence to get to that point. unfortunately wrapped up in the january 6 insurrection and subsequent question of the inaugural. why is it that in america today we have the need for a new 7-foot high fence around the

capital on the day the president arrived to give a state of the union? i think i will just leave it there with of the seconds left and if you would put aside your desire to go after and protect the precedent and get down to the issues that were critically important for all of us, i would appreciate it and i think the country would also thank you mr. we have been focusing on how technological platforms and advancement further fuels the weaponization at least that was the intention on this side of the aisle. we focused how ai is expanding the suppression of speech.

i want to focus on the new reporting that connects the surveillance together. the surveillance by the irs is being done without a warrant in coordination with the doj. before the revelation senate informed us banks were beginning to deploy ai technology. meanwhile we are watching the failures for the politically biased model which the cofounder called left-leaning that is the understatement of the year and

the report documented information to assist on these its. you noted that we are limited to speak on what has been reported related to the financial service regime because so many is known by the public and congress and the timeline that i just described doesn't show that the area is developing really quickly and raises further concerns about federal agencies undertaking the dragnet surveillance using financial records. based on what we know so far about the coordination between the financial sector and the federal government, does the addition of ai into this equation because even greater concern regarding the scope and scale we can expect you recruit in the future? >> i believe it does for several reasons one to the extent it makes something less expensive you get more of it and that it's

not well tuned either intentionally or unintentionally you're going to get the risk modeling of the false positives but it's going to start selecting for information that may not be appropriate. there is a concern that does exist that ai tends to be opaque and it's already opaque enough if the great powerful laws is spinning a record of that is suspicious and you don't know why and we can't assist how appropriate that is, that's problematic. and so i think that we do need to be cautious and i would say one distinction between this and maybe some other areas is here we are talking about feeding information to the government so there are constitutional implications here that don't exist that doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious from others but we should be cautious

what could another layer of secrecy achieved by displacing human action with aai do to further erode our liberties and basic guarantees of privacy? what's up first i would caution banks and financial institutions of using technology get increasing rate for very long time. still the bigger problem is the principal. over guaranteed due process and law enforcement needs a warrant to get that information i think that's a better place. aside from that the better and broader the technology allows people to reach of the finer

detail allows people to get then obviously the more of it you're going to get. brian is right going to make it more efficient and less clock costly seal get more of it. but again the principal the fourth amendment is key here for a quick thank you i appreciate that with audio back. accidentally it yields back the gentle lady from california is recognized or texas i'm sorry. >> the lady here's a huge difference. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to all the witnesses who are here this morning. in the morning of january 6 age of my colleagues in the house to certify the historic election of president joe biden and vice president kamala harris spray that became a dark day the nation's history. within hours it was overrun by domestic terrorists, sent there by president trump i don't mean

terrorists and academic or definition i was terrified myself with him it was terrified many of my colleagues sees both democrat and republican this is not a partisan issue. some of my colleagues have forgotten the violence and terror we all experience together. we have heard some of the comments they think they should be called hostages. they should be treated as patriots they were terrorists played in simple in my books. i learned for the first time their gas masks underneath our seats on the house floor designed to keep us from chemical and biological attacks when i was told to put one on, imagine we were told to put on gas masks. my colleagues and i on the floor were hiding between seats, barricading doors and some of us calling their families as it grew louder and more terrifying. they were pounding at the door trying to get in where is nancy,

hang mike appends, where is nancy? where's nancy? they set up galas to keep them from coming on the intentions of these terms were clear, overturn the election and kill the democratic elected leaders they believed stood in their way. anyone who claims this was not a terrorist attack play violent insurrection was simply not facing reality as our witnesses said you're plain and simple lying. even in california they were called at lying. despite that here we are today more myths and misleading information given to the american people. what officer thank you for being there also for having the courage to come and testify today and to remind us all about the truth of that day. some colleagues wrapped themselves in banner flexor social media over those who

watch over the democracy brown never forget what i saw and felt that day. without your sacrifice and some those who died that day or were injured that day of sending the constitution and all and was foreign and domestic. so officer fanone. the compass safe in the capulet outside you are facing staggering odds but reports indicate the west side of the crowd outnumbered officers 58 -- one. what officer requested back up at least 17 times in 78 minutes. did you and your colleagues ever gets the sense we were defending democracy that day? >> that is not anything, those thoughts never crossed my mind. again, like i said i responded to the capitol heating distress calls coming from fellow

officers. and when i was fighting i was more concerned with my own survival and that of my colleagues than the totality but that they would later come to represent. >> as you reflect now do you see the connection do you see what is really happening that day was that the violence of the mob it was the attack on everything that was in for the country. >> yes, ma'am that is my assessment. >> thank you. many members of publicly spoke about recorded members of their experiences we know many members of congress have struggled with trauma from that day. we know that you have. is it possible and it may bring a lot of emotion but is it possible for you to share with us what you have dealt with personally as the aftereffects of that day?

>> assure, initially it was the experience of the day itself. the level of violence. for me and my personal experience i think what was so difficult to deal with was the first time in my law enforcement career when i worked narcotics though it's to say i have experienced a few things. i had never been -- i had lost all control of my own survival in those moments. it was only because of a few individuals in the crowd and the efforts of law enforcement that i was able to survive that. until that level of vulnerability for me as an officer was more than i could deal with. in the aftermath there was criticism -- internal criticism

on behalf of other officers in the department that may be experienced much more difficult. and eventually the mischaracterizations, the lies about what happened that day the lies about me specifically who i was or what role i played at the capitol on january 6. inspiring threats against myself and members of my family. and in a way i think it's impossible for me too fully resolve that trauma. even in attending this hearing today i received threats. when so how do you resolve that when it is ongoing? i am sorry that is happened and thank you for your courage thank you for coming and sharing with us today i yield back. >> accidentally yields back the

chair recognizes himself. check to their getting information understood what happened in the situation and other situations the government because the banks as of the name of the customer who is making purchases in a certain day time and i want the name of the customer who may have bought a firearm at any time. if they're going to do that you think they need to get a warrant first? >> i think they should? well yes. >> do you think they need to get a warrant to do that? >> yes progress since her nights? >> esp. >> mr. peterson? >> yes. mr. fanone. to repeat the question? works of the government owes the bank out the name of persons who may have bought a firearm should there be a warrant requirement for the bank has to be compelled by the government to get that information, should there be a warrant requirement first? what's my experience i was sought voluntary compliance. it's less paperwork. that being said if i was

uncooked voluntary compliance? >> corrects records how is a voluntary this is a third party the bank is giving. >> know if i go to the bank requested certain information regarding an investigation i'm participate. >> and the fundamental sense should there be a warrant requirement for a financial institution hands over the name of a customer based on certain purchases they may have made? in a general sense? x yes. >> you think there should be? yes that's great you're calling something so let me go to this. do you think mr. michel should there be a notification so should at least the bank say hey mr. smith, the fbi just asked me for all of your purchases on a certain day and they want to know if you've ever bought a gun do you think the bank should at least tell the customer their customer or they are supposed to serve should they'd at least be compelled to tell them that course. >> yes. mr. knight could. >> yes with the reasonable

exceptions for ongoing criminal case for quick sphere enough, mr. peterson? >> this should get a warrant. >> back to the first thing. mr. fanone? >> again with the exceptions are criminal investigations works we have agreement on a pound the first time we've had that since this morning. doctor peterson, point to talk about the deed banking issue we saw so much of particularly with the truckers because i see it coming. i see it coming here and it frightens me. i want you to talk about what took place in canada and if it any way impacted you? >> there is essentially a working-class protest against the extent think the length of the covered lockdowns. one consequence of that was the canadians who participated even by donating to the protest and by donating small amounts to the protest had their bank accounts seized and consequence of a

collusion between the banks and the government. it was extrajudicial that was deemed unconstitutional despite the fact we don't have strong first amendment claims. so this happened. the government is currently at maneuvering and candidates make the possibility of such collusion a certainty across multiple actual and potential domains of so-called harm. particularly in relationship to government defined hate. this is absolutely coming and it is facilitated by advancements in technology we talked about today. >> we know it is coming we have seen what they call the liaison information report from the fbi to the bank assaying a possible include firearm education has to do with limits on public land discontent with renews measures to mitigate the spread of covid 19. the very issue these are

truckers were deep bank in canada is the very thing the government is saying to banks winning to look at this as well. that single issue that is again what frightens me so much. and frankly when you're getting this information for going to get why should we be compelled to get the work before you go get it? >> jump right in. >> want to clarify one part of my answer. to the second question about notification. the right to financial privacy act does a good job of this notification can be delayed if the government has to go to a court to get permission to delay. click to shift the burden. >> the burn is or should be on the government to go get it from a court. >> absolutely i do believe this should be a warrant requirement so the notification would only be delayed in that event progress in this world we are now in the full committee i think i've made mentioned earlier on the reauthorization we have said the same thing if you are going to go search an

american citizen based on their phone number, their e-mail address in this haystack of information that's out there if you are going to do that will get a warrant we have the same fight there. it seems to me that getting eight warrant a fourth amendment constitutional right is how it has to begin. my times expired by yields of the ranking member. >> thank you very much. i thought it was very telling mr. knight said yes going after bank records would be inappropriate except in a criminal investigation. that is what the fbi was doing was involved in a criminal investigation. >> it's not necessary to have a warrant, back to criminal procedure you don't always need a warrant when you have a voluntary authorization. everyone who opens a bank account is told in the open their bank account information

bait may be disclosed to law enforcement. now if you want to change that rule in the consumer protection laws than we need to do that. but until that they have a reasonable expectation law enforcement may disclose that information because once you are banking with the banking institution that information in that record belongs to the banking institution. it is not solely belong to you anymore. when you are using a bank and the banking institution and they have given disclosure. now if we want to make an affirmative disclosure were an individual has to specifically check off the box that allows them to be aware of it when they're opening a bank that is something else. but you do not need a warrant you can have voluntary disclosure because under our law presently the banks have a possession and ownership of that information. now, the other thing you have talked about is are we worried about that that this is only going to happen to on

conservatives? no i am also concerned if the fbi were to do overreach. i am concerned with that. and i do understand this is something law enforcement does and we need to be careful about what they do. i find it very interesting that my colleagues one of our witnesses mr. fanone is not a colleague of ours and is giving his opinion as a law-enforcement officer. was or something else you wanted to add? >> is in the context of this particular investigation, one of the reasons why i believe the fbi would have sought voluntary compliance as opposed to applying for a warrant is the sheer magnitude of the events. you had literally thousands of people who participated on the attack on the capitol and

generous sixth. and an abundance of caution and really the responsibility of the fbi is investigating agencies is to ensure that violence does not occur again at our inauguration which was only about two weeks after that. and so i think it is wholly appropriate as you just said it's completely within our capabilities as law enforcement agencies to seek voluntary compliance from these institutions to investigate criminal acts or potential criminal acts. >> thank you so there is an imminent threat on the american people, on the homeland that the individuals who said they were going to come back and finish the job they had started on generous sixth to try and stop the placement of joe biden as president of the united states. now, there's a lot of things we could have hearings on.

you have not sat down with me at any point in time like we do what other committees and talk about word of the things we can agree on? you came to my office one time and we had a discussion i gave you a list of things i would like to have a hearing on you completely ignored me and that. your team does not give up testimony until the very last minute that they have too. you do not even lettuce of the subjects of hearing sometimes i find out about what we are going to -- what a hearing is going to be on twitter you are not operating as a fair deal in this so don't try that here in front of everybody. what i am concerned about what will happen if donald trump does get reelected because on november 92023 in the univision interview he said if i happen to be president and i see somebody doing well feeding meat very badly i say go down and indict them they would be out of business they be out of the

election. on november 11 and 2023 at a veterans day rally i cannot believe he is at a veterans day rally after what he says of those of our men and women in uniform he said we pledge to you it will root out the communist marxist fascist and radical leftist thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country. that lie, steal, cheat on elections. he seems to be a threat to the first, the fourth, whole bunch of amendments are not going to try to have an hearing on him in this weaponization of the federal government which we know donald trump is going to use for his own dictatorial narcissistic failing business failing presidency failing. >> are gentle at it yields back the judgment from north dakota's recognized regards it's a carjacking outside of a 711 in downtown washington deceived the cop calls the bank of america says i need every person in your bank's ever bought a gun anytime

anywhere. it's an ongoing criminal investigation. everything everywhere all at once won the oscar for the best movie it's not the standard for for the moment warrant. i think this is about is it important to have a hearing as we can have it they're doing it to members of congress and numbers of congress staff, reporters engaging in all the semester was going on by the supreme court agrees with me will get into that a little bit. when the bank of america provided the fbi list of people who made financial transactions with bank of america card in washington d.c. between generally fit and generally seventh 2021 the practice was sweeping thousands of americans without probable cause for in a search for specific suspects inconsistent with specific requirement of the fourth amendment and the entire criminal justice system. considering how many americans use bank of america credit or debit cards this must've included thousands of people. this was almost certain included members of congress, their staff who are performing constitutionally mandated

functions as well as reporters who are engaged in first amendment perspective activity. countless other individuals were swept into the surveillance without probable cause. phyllis include a people had a history of purchasing a firearm at any time which is a constitutionally protected activity. we likely violation of first, second, fourth amendment. the fact americans that is handed over to the feds on a fishing expedition by the banking industry because their customers were present in a particular region or purchase that constitutes item is unacceptable. i reject any argument the financial information is subject to third party doctrine and therefore exception to the fourth amendment. i've been arguing this for years. third-party exception in the modern economy threatens to make the fourth the moment irrelevant. the fourth amendment is telephoto lenses, drones, listening devices, tracking devices the fourth amendment is proved to be incredibly resilient this is the place where congress has to act.

in the supreme court seems to agree that concern based on. the majority opinion stated the cell site information information is quote detailed encyclopedic effortlessness he compiled is a financial transaction data that is released urinate less detailed in relation to fourth the memo legal analysis? >> i don't believe. >> can you imagine any judge in the country who would make a probable cause find to authorize a service search warrant for all this detailed financial information on this many people with the side effects? >> nova. >> no. also similarities with the is a federal court found an geo- fence warrant violence of ortho moji offense warrants our practice or law enforcement six location data on any device within a specific time and geographic region where crime took place. the court found it is insufficient for law enforcement to obtain the data based solely

on information a suspect possess the cell phone while in the general area where crime was committed. be on the court's concern with probable cause that highlighted no judicial review whatsoever was attained at law enforcement has unchecked discretion to seize a more intrusive data. mr. michel are the same factors that was turned over to the federal government in this case? >> yes. >> yes. >> mr. knight? >> owns were similar. my colleagues across the aisle have raised many concerns about broad violation of privacy and financial technological institutions and tripping private user data revealing to government authority factoring energy and commerce during debate on comprehensive data privacy there are several amendments to prohibit the collection of geolocation data geolocation data onfacilities sd parenthood that the transfer of that data to law enforcement or

government authorities. we note the cdc was collecting data to see if people were going to church during quarantine, church during quarantine. this conversation, how we deal with this is the fundamental question we have to answer as we move forward we can talk about generally six the event we can talk about all of that. thousands of innocent people went to bass pro shops in virginia in the two days before and after january 6 it does not matter how bad you think the event was or where it was or what ever, you cannot get a wart warrant on someone's exercising their constitutional right. if you can't get a warrant for somebody to do it then we have to create a situation where banks and large corporations or anybody else or third-party data brokers by the way are allowed to sell that information and law enforcement is allowed to obtain it without getting eight warrant this is a fundamental question it's a perfect place to have it in this hearing it is exactly what happened in this case

without a yield back frequent attention but yields back the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman to follow on with my colleague from north dakota notion subpoenas are not sufficient to get information and every ounce of evidence must be obtained by a search warrant has of course been ripped speedily rejected by the supreme court over and over and over. this hearing, the reason why mrk about january 6 was because i understand this hearing was spurred on by an fbi whistleblower who is not here testifying today. one who sensibly had the information about alleged wrongdoing is not here to stand in front of us to testify under oath, to be questioned by members of both sides. mr. knight i want to ask you a hypothetical. let's say there is a riot in an

attack on our democracy on a particular day. we will just call january 6 for the purpose of this hypothetical. what say the fbi has information that an individual was near the site of the right that day. and let's say the fbi had evidence that individual purchase a firearm on the past six months. and, what say the fbi had evidence that same person planned to return two weeks later to interfere with another democratic process involving the president of the united states. as it actually your testimony here today to say that it is a violation of the fourth a memo for the fbi to seek bank records for that individual? >> mass are clever in question? what sure. >> based upon public information i have available, they did not

know on an individualized basis people were planning to return to cause violence. i think that is a distinction it's worth mentioning. >> i agree with you that someone hypothetical. they knew they're going to return pricks you said something evidence they're coming back to interfere. >> let's just say that. do you think the fourth amendment prohibits the fbi from getting bank records for that individual if they don't know they are going to commit violence? >> is an easy warrant to get. eight warrant i think a be easy warrant to go for a judge. >> you are not saying you need to get a warrant for bank records? >> i am saying you should have to get a warrant for bank records. >> you do not agree or disagree the supreme court which is upheld the constitutionality of the bank secrecy act progress if you like stop us supreme court precedents and the bank secrecy act as a carpenter is a formal recent case points to some very strong questions about the constitutionality of bank secrecy act. i've written something about it. >> by the way i agree but

carpenter also demonstrates the supreme court is evolving on the fourth amendment and there is no question and i will tell as a former prosecutor if i had that predication i would fire off a subpoena to that bank every single day 10 of 10 times for. >> respectfully. >> i have to move on i have to move on. it is absolutely absurd we are sitting here trying to make an argument that somehow the fourth amendment is being violated when there is specific reasonable suspicion about every individual whose bank records were obtained because they bought a gun they were at the insurrection and they were going to come back. the fact of the matter is, we are once again here on a completely sham rationale.

there was no first amendment or fourth mm violation on generally six. this is simply another effort to whitewash what happened on january 6. one of the members of the committee calls those who were convicted of crimes hostages while their actual american hostages sitting in gaza right now under captivity of a terrorist organization we are supposed to equate the people sitting in jail who rioted and attacked this capitol we are supposed to equate them with the hostages. mr. chairman you continually say it used to be both the parties agreed with the first amendment. it did not used to be, it is it remains the case we all agreed the first amendments. but the problem is the first amendment is not absolute. it does not protect any single

thing anyone says there are limits and that is important. what this committee has been trying to do for the last year end a half is to chill the federal government for monitoring what's going on in social media and otherwise out there so misinformation and disinformation can run rampant and elon musk social platform and every other social platform so they it, the republicans can benefit from it in november's election. that is why this committee exists. we have gotten no evidence to support any of these allegations are quick to chair it recognize south carolina. >> i yield to the chairman at such time. >> i appreciate that. i think the gentleman from new york said we are trying to chill the federal government? i don't know of its ever been said that weights the government trying to chill americans rights. i have never seen anything. [laughter] but guess what. you know who was supposed to have the fbi and the bank of

america did this thing when they asked for this information june who is opposed to it? three fbi agents the guys on the case george hill, steven jensen, all testified to the committee it was wrong guess who will said it was wrong, chris wray said this, we recall this information to avoid even the appearance of any overreach that even the fbi who systematically violated americans to save your pro-life catholic you're an extremist if you are a parent going to school board many guard terrors. even the fbi says this is ridiculous and they pulled back. three agents testified. and somehow -- the government chills american speech when they pressured big tech to censor that his chilling speech we have seen it first doctor peterson seen in his own country and now it's coming here, that is what we are concerned about i yield back to the gentleman thank you for yielding. >> thank you chairman i would

echo that. i'm glad thomas massie started off of the recitation of the fourth mm that's really why we are here while the other side wants to relitigate j6 the title of the hearing is about financial surveillance of american citizens this is deeply troubling if you are a catholic occurs by your child's education and you shop at gander mountain you are a prime suspect under some sort of weird rubric in the government surveillance operation. i think the supreme court and looking at this on a concurring opinion financial transactions can reveal much about person's activities associated and beliefs. at some point government intrusion it's acute without the

judicial process. so how do we get here? and at what point or how to get the point were big banks and freely hand over the information to the federal government? >> the biggest concern from our perspective is a systemic risk within the banking industry. that's really a product of oversight and pervasive regulatory authority bank supervisors have over banks pretty think of the top five banks you see there's a concentration of power in the banking industry a few banks heavily regulated. it's around bank supervision the reason why people are in the bank is a huge problem at censorship ship is real in the financial industry sector. >> who would you think are the biggest victims of the surveillance operation? >> it's american citizens and it

is a bipartisan issue. even some of the democrats on this chamber sent letters to the big bang talk but do you risking were talking of the same thing. arab americans of muslim americans including who the religious donations and donations to charities a bipartisan issue we should all be concerned about it and try to work together for solutions roberson one 100% agree with you. what you think right now to the bsa under the current structure, what is the remedy for americans? there is none. there is no mechanism for judicial review. americans cannot protest a bank who is an arm of the government at this point they cannot protest the disclosure of their financial transactions to the federal government there's no mechanism for that is there? obviously don't have any knowledge their data was collected to begin with, do they? what some of the scariest things

i heard at this hearing was what bank has a debt of the government has the data. >> can you hire private security firm to search someone's house without a warrant? >> don't think so nobody has to have a warrant so what is the difference here? >> it is a big risk it needs to be fixed. quick she would articulate let me ask the panel this do you think under the current or other laws that it would be wise given where we are from a technological standpoint do you think you will be wise to revisit the bsa or other laws to provide that protection for america's privacy, sir? >> there are some concerns expressed earlier about what might happen in the aftermath up on let's say trump's election with regards to political belief. anything that facilitates collusion between government and giant corporation and enables that kind of information gathering will absolutely be is

in that way. that is why we made comments earlier regarding this is a bipartisan issue. once this capability exists when it's been it magnified it will be used in all directions so the people at risk will be politically active vocal americans assignment once will remain relatively safe. >> briefly do you all think we should examine. >> you should absolutely examine it. >> agree. >> yes definitely. >> yes. >> of judgments time is expired. the gently from fortis recognize >> mr. chair have a point of order at your last statement you said steve jensen of the fbi oppose the collection of this information for banks. that is a misrepresentation of his testimony. >> point of order. then gentle lady. [inaudible] >> to release the transcript so we could hear exactly. >> not an appropriate point of order and that gentle lady knows that but continues. >> same way you do. same way you interjects i don't

think i've raised one point of order today because a lady from fortis recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman i continue to be stunned by the big government advocates that we come across and the ones that serve in this very chamber. they're not even hiding it anymore this in the quiet part outlet they want dependency dependency, the control the total disregard for the constitution and the oath many of my colleagues actually all of my colleagues have taken and violated. it is so disturbing to me. many people know probably evidenced by what is on the space of my ipad i detested big government and i detested big tech the two combined are a lethal combination when it comes to liberty and freedom. because quite frankly we know the mo of the big tech and big financial institutions combined with big government is to a road innovate america's constitutional rights we are here today because of a blatant

fourth amendment violation we're big banks collude with big government to turn over data that did not belong to them to target americans innocent americans because in this country it is still a fact you are innocent until proven guilty despite what everyone is trying to do and flip that around. doctor peterson, it is good to see you again. i could not help but notice your reaction will my colleague was talking about the first amendment not being absolute once given the opportunity to weigh in in response to that. i cannot help but notice your reaction. but before i do i'm really glad you have been talking about social credit system the ccp the chinese communist party utilizes. i am literally around the corner in a classified briefing right now talking about the use of big tech and how it is targeting american citizens in fact this very morning i've been inundated in my office with phone calls from tiktok users who have been denied access to the app because they live in my congressional

district. until they call my office and demand that i do not take adverse action against the app they cannot use it. talk about big tech directing behavior. i think we are on a very dangerous path and i want to give you my time to lay out in the most distinct way possible the dangerous nexus of big tech, big government and financial institutions that seek to weaponize that information against americans. i know you're more than capable of doing that in two minutes and 30 seconds. >> i don't think people understand the degree to which they are profiled online and to which their virtual representation is known iconic representation of them. nor do they understand they have no rights whatsoever to that representation. so for example let's say we turn our information about purchasing habits over the bank will be

open a bank account for 30 years ago that was not a big problem. with ai systems it is a problem so big you cannot imagine it. i am certain my staff could find the data online to absolute predictor voting patterns. with 95% accuracy you have no idea kind of digital footprints were living behind you. they're almost no protections for that. he also asked about the first amendments. we have weak free-speech protection in canada i can tell you that is not going well. and so the combination of my country the combination of that and the invasive technology we are producing at a rate the imagination. produces a threat to the integrity of sovereign citizenship the likes of which not yet has been experienced. that is what this committee should be concentrating on it's very interesting to watch it

because it devolves continually into discussion of a particular events, series that that event was. no matter how serious that about was it pales in comparison to the potential severity of the issue we are attempting to point to with regards to her testimony. these artificially intelligent systems can do things you can't imagine not only can link they are and they will that will be abetted by the collusion between large corporations and governments. it is certainly the case the people who stand on the left especially with regards to what it isa skepticism of large corporations which is perfectly warranted should be utterly terrified about this. >> you did that in less time than i thought. >> i did it once today >> i appreciate that. you have seen it front and center certainly we watched in horror as a trucker's bank truck

accounts were seized or shut down, who protested the mandate people think that such a faraway concept but we've seen that here with people who been given ultimatums of job or job in the seen ways they have been targeted and positioned in ways that are un-american and unconstitutional thank you tour witnesses for being here today appreciate you guys in the fight against weaponization we are seeing more and more every day at mr. chairman without a yield took exception to to gentle it yields back this concludes today's hearing we think the witnesses were appearing before the subcommittee today apologize to jeff to run out to another thing. we really appreciate the discussion will brought in the analysis you brought to her that objection all members of five legislative adjustment additional written questions. the witnesses or additional materials for the record without objection the hearing is adjourned.

[background noises] [background noises] [inaudible conversations]