SUPERCUT: Matt Gaetz—Trump's Attorney General Pick—Grills AG Garland At Judiciary Hearings (video with formatted transcript)

Skip to comments.

Posted on 11/13/2024 4:17:45 PM PST by RoosterRedux

"Attorney General, you've told us that it's a dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the Department of Justice is communicating with these state and local prosecutions against Trump. You can clear it all up for us right now. Will the Department of Justice provide to the committee all documents, all correspondence between the department and Alvin Bragg's office, Fani Willis's office, and Letitia James's office?"

"The offices you're referring to are independent offices of the state."

"I get that, I get that. The question is whether or not you will provide all of your documents and correspondence. That's the question. I don’t need a history lesson."

"Well, I'm going to say again, we do not control those offices. They make their own—"

"The question is whether you communicate with them, not whether you control them. Do you communicate with them? And will you provide those communications?"

"Make a request. We'll refer it to our Office of Legislative Affairs."

"See, here's the thing. You come in here and you lodge this attack that it's a conspiracy theory, that there is coordinated law against Trump. And then when we say, 'Fine, just give us the documents, give us the correspondence,' and then if it's a conspiracy theory, that will be evident. But when you say, 'We'll take your request, and then we'll sort of work it through the DOJ's accommodation process,' you're actually advancing the very dangerous conspiracy theory that you're concerned about."

"Now, you were a judge, once nominated to the highest court in our country. When you were a judge, I'm just curious, did you ever make political donations to partisan candidates?"

"No."

"And you didn’t because that would create the potential appearance of impropriety."

"We didn't, because there’s a federal rule barring federal judges from making contributions."

"Right. But under that same theory of attacks on the judicial process, like, shouldn’t someone be owed a jury of their peers and a judge that’s nonbiased, rather than getting a judge from your political opponent's donor file?"

"I'm well aware that you're not asking a hypothetical. You’re asking me to comment on a verdict in another jurisdiction, which has to be respected. I won’t comment on it. That case is still ongoing."

"Mr. Attorney General, I hadn’t asked you about the verdict yet; we were getting there. I was talking about the judge. And so, let me ask you this question about your time as a judge: Was there ever a time when you were a judge when you had a family member who was personally profiting off of the notoriety of a case that was before your court?"

"I'm going to say again, it's very clear you’re asking me to comment on a case in another—"

"Wait, hold on. Mr. Attorney General, did you ever have a family member profit off of the notoriety of any case that you presided over?"

"I’ll say it again: You’re asking me to comment on a case currently—"

"It seems you’re connecting the dots, Mr. Attorney General. I'm just asking as a general principle. But you are aware that Judge Meran's daughter was profiting off of this prosecution. You’re aware that creates the appearance of impropriety, right? The very reason there’s a federal rule against judges giving donations is because it is an attack on the judicial process."

"I'm sorry, I don’t agree with anything you just said, but I’m not going to comment on a—"

"So you won’t comment on it, Mr. Attorney General, but you had no problem dispatching Matthew Colangelo."

"Who’s Matthew Colangelo?"

"That is false. I did not dispatch Matthew Colangelo. Matthew Colangelo became the Assistant Attorney General at the very beginning of the Biden Administration without having been Senate-confirmed, goes and gets this senior role at the DOJ, and then, after Gupta replaces Colangelo, Colangelo makes this remarkable downstream career journey from the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and then pops up in Alvin Bragg's office to go get Trump. And you’re saying that’s just a career choice, that it has nothing to do with the coordinated lawfare?"

"I'm saying it's false. I did not dispatch Mr. Colangelo anywhere."

"Well, do you know how he ended up there?"

"I assume he applied for a job there and got the job. I had nothing to do with it."

"You might not have had anything to do with it, but we’ve got this contemporaneous evidence in Mr. Pomerantz’s book. Pomerantz writes in his book—which I’m sure you’re aware of—that 'we put together the legal eagles to get Trump. We got all these folks together and we assembled them for that purpose.' And so, when we on the Judiciary Committee think about attacks on the judicial process, our concern is that the facts and the law aren’t being followed. A target is acquired here—Trump—and then you assemble the legal talent from DOJ, Mr. Pomerantz, and you bring everybody in to get him."

"And meanwhile, the judge is making money on it. The judge’s family is making money on it. For stuff that you yourself wouldn’t do. No one’s going to buy this. No one’s going to believe it. It’s going to create great disruption, and I am saddened by it because, like you, I have given my life to the law. I care deeply about the law, and I think that the lawfare we’ve seen against President Trump will do great damage, well beyond our time in public service."

"I see my time has expired. I yield back."

Ranking members recognize for five minutes.

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, do you want to respond to anything in Mr. Gaetz's tirade?"

"I think everything he was talking about was a case in another jurisdiction, an independent prosecutor. Mr. Pomerantz worked for that independent prosecutor. I don’t know Mr. Pomerantz; I don’t know what’s in his book. But these are decisions made in another office, independent of the Justice Department."

"Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Last week, as we all know, a jury of his peers convicted former President Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business directions to the first degree. The case was brought by the Manhattan DA, so it is a state case, not a federal case. I shouldn’t have to ask you this, Mr. Attorney General, but since the majority seems to be confused, can you please explain the difference between a state case and a federal case?"

"Yes. The Manhattan District Attorney has jurisdiction over cases involving New York state law, completely independent of the Justice Department, which has jurisdiction over cases involving federal law. We do not control the Manhattan District Attorney, and the Manhattan District Attorney does not report to us. The Manhattan District Attorney makes its own decisions about cases that he wants to bring under his state law."

"Thank you. My Republican colleagues seem to believe—"

The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes.

"I guess I'm just wondering, Mr. Attorney General, has anyone at the department told President Biden to knock it off with Hunter? I mean, you guys are charging Hunter Biden on some crimes, investigating him on others, and you've got the president bringing Hunter Biden around to state dinners. Has anyone told him to knock it off?"

"Our job in the Justice Department is to pursue our cases without reference to what's happening in the outside world."

"Just yes or no, have you done that?"

"That is what we do."

"So it's a no. No one that I know of has spoken to the White House about the Hunter Biden case."

"Of course not. Okay, I got it, I got it. So Hunter Biden is selling art to pay for his $15,000-a-month rent in Malibu. How can you guarantee that the people buying that art aren’t doing so to gain favor with the president?"

"The job of the Justice Department is to investigate criminal allegations."

"Are you investigating this? I mean, someone who bought Hunter Biden's art ended up with a prestigious appointment to a federal position. Doesn’t it look weird that he's become this immediate success in the art world as his dad is President of the United States? Isn’t that odd?"

"I'm not going to comment about any specific—"

"Not going to comment, not going to investigate. So Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer told us that Hunter sold the appearance of access to then-Vice President Biden. Are you confident he has stopped doing that?"

"I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question."

"Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer told us that Hunter sold the appearance of access to then-Vice President Biden. Are you confident he has stopped?"

"I’m going to say again that all these matters are within the purview of Mr. Weiss. I have not interfered with them, and I do not intend to interfere."

"If you were confident that he had stopped, you could say so."

"And I do not intend to interfere with him."

"So, there was a lot of Chinese money working its way through these shell companies into the accounts of the Biden family. The China Initiative was set up during the Trump administration at the Department of Justice to go after the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party, and the Biden Justice Department dissolved the China Initiative. So I guess I'm wondering, does the department have any documents that would detail the basis for why you got rid of the China Initiative that President Trump had set up?"

"The Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division gave a long speech, which explained that, and he has testified before Congress several times. We'd be happy to provide you with—"

"Just tell us all now. Why was the China Initiative dissolved?"

"What the Assistant Attorney General said was that we face attacks from four nation-states: North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran, and that we need to focus our attention on the broad range of these attacks."

"Are you saying that North Korea has the same malign influence risk to the United States as the Chinese Communist Party? Are you trying to represent some parity there? Because here’s what it looks like: It looks like the Chinese gave all this money to the Bidens, and then you guys came in and got rid of the China Initiative. And it was successful. I saw one rationale that you guys got rid of the China Initiative because it was racial profiling. But one of the people you convicted was a guy named Charles Lieber, who was a Harvard professor taking $50,000 a month to do China's bidding and give them whatever research was being done. Are you aware of the millions of dollars that moved through Rob Walker’s shell companies from Chinese Communist Party entities into Biden family bank accounts? Are you aware of that?"

"There were a lot of questions that you just asked. Let me start with the first one about North Korea. North Korea is a dangerous actor, both kinetically and with respect to cyber—"

"But not on par with China. It makes you look unserious to suggest—"

"May I answer your question?"

"Answer the question about whether or not you know about all the millions of dollars that moved—"

"Do you want me to answer about North Korea?"

"I already know the answer, and so does everyone. They're not the same risk as China. So let's get on to serious questions and serious answers. Do you know about the money that moved through Rob Walker’s shell companies, yes or no?"

"As I have said repeatedly, I have left these matters to Mr. Weiss. I’ve not intruded—"

"It seems like you're looking the other way on purpose because everybody knows this stuff’s happening. You know what? People don’t pay bribes to not get something in return. Right? The China Initiative resulted in the convictions of a Harvard professor and someone at Monsanto. So we were working against the Chinese; they paid the Bidens, and now you're sitting here telling me that North Korea is the big threat."

"I need to get to this one thing on January 6th. So, did the FBI lose count of the number of paid informants on January 6th?"

"Let me answer your question about China—"

"Let’s go to January 6th. Did you lose count of the number of federal assets?"

"Did you lose count—"

"The gentleman’s time has expired."

"I get an answer to the question of did they lose count—"

"Let him answer the question."

"Time has expired. The Attorney General can respond."

"China is the most aggressive, most dangerous adversary the United States faces, and we are doing everything within our power to rebut that, to stop that, to prevent their invasions both kinetically and through cyberspace."

"If someone gave that answer in your courtroom when you were a judge, you would tell them they were being nonresponsive and you would direct them to answer the question."

"Time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman."

"Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman asked his question before his time expired. The Attorney General did not respond to the gentleman's question."

"I was hoping he would respond to the question about the confidential human sources on January 6th. He didn’t respond to that."

"I’m sure we’re going to get an answer to that."

"Of course, Mr. Chairman."

"We recognize the gentleman from Tennessee for five minutes."

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very concerned about the influence of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. There's no prohibition against the Department of Justice hiring lobbyists to be prosecutors, is there?"

"You mean former lobbyists, I hope?"

"Yes, that's correct, former lobbyists. There's no prohibition. Can you describe for us the specific vetting that the department does when professional influence peddlers are hired and given prosecutorial authority?"

"The hiring of Assistant U.S. Attorneys is a career hire made in the different U.S. Attorney's offices."

"In Washington at the DOJ, are there any special procedures that vet lobbying contracts or who a lobbyist worked for before they’re given prosecutorial authority?"

"I'm not sure what kind of person you’re speaking about. If you're talking about line prosecutors, there is a background check, and everyone here is familiar with the SF86, which includes all the people they worked for. The same is true in main Justice."

"But there's no special review for lobbyists as opposed to people who've been engineers or had any other career?"

"I don't believe there’s a difference, but obviously lobbying might—"

"Let’s ask about political consultants. Political consultants are people who get paid to ensure that a candidate wins or loses an election or that a political movement is successful or unsuccessful. Is there any prohibition against hiring political consultants as prosecutors at the department?"

"I don't think that we're allowed to even look at people's politics."

"No, no, no, it’s not their politics; it’s the profession of being a political consultant."

"There’s no special vetting for that. But there is a requirement that once someone becomes a prosecutor, just like when someone becomes a judge, they get rid of whatever preconceptions they had before and they go forward under their new responsibilities and are subject to the ethics rules of their new responsibilities."

"We would hope that would be the case, Mr. Attorney General, but I tend to think that if people are in the influence-peddling game and then they become prosecutors, it can be kind of dangerous to mix those. To be an influence-peddler for hire one day, to be a prosecutor the next, and maybe to rotate back and forth among those careers. And it sounds like there’s no special vetting for lobbyists or political consultants."

"Let me ask about partisan committee staff. We have partisan committee staff that you see here. Their job is to ensure that one party or another preserves or captures the majority and that legislative proposals are successful or not successful. There’s no prohibition against the department hiring partisan committee staff as prosecutors, is there?"

"As I understand it, every administration, including the one preceding this one, has hired people who have been committee staff. I don’t think there's a statutory limitation."

"If the House of Representatives and the Senate think that partisan—or, I'm not sure, that's how Preet Bharara got his job. He worked for Schumer and then ended up in the Southern District. So we have people who can be lobbyists and then prosecutors. We have people who can be political consultants and then prosecutors. We have people who can be partisan committee staff and then prosecutors.

The Public Integrity Section has jurisdiction over election integrity, correct?"

"It has jurisdiction over election crimes, yes."

"So, is there any prohibition against people who’ve been lobbyists, partisan committee staff, or political consultants actually going in and serving in the Public Integrity Section, or is that allowed?"

"The hiring in the Public Integrity Section is a career hire, made under the civil service. It’s not made by political appointees."

"I’m worried about their prior career, though. See, what I think is that if someone has been a political operative, to then put them in charge of election crimes is kind of like having the fox guard the henhouse. Don’t you think?"

"If you think that, that would be a perfect example of something the House should pass a statute barring people from particular professions from working in the Justice Department."

"And would you support that legislation?"

"I’d have to look at what it is, and I’d have to look at whether it itself violates the First Amendment, but I don’t think there have ever been any restrictions like that before."

"I appreciate your open-mindedness, and I hope that persists during your time at the department. Would you provide the committee a list of lobbyists, former lobbyists, or just former political consultants who work in the Public Integrity Section so that we might inform the legislation you suggested we consider?"

"I don’t intend to create a list of career officials and what their previous jobs were."

"So there are people who were literally political operatives who have prosecuting authority in the area that oversees elections, and you won’t give us the list?"

"I don’t have any idea whether there is any such person."

"Time of the gentleman has expired."

1 posted on 11/13/2024 4:17:45 PM PST by RoosterRedux

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson