tv America Reports With John Roberts Sandra Smith FOX News October 21, 2021 10:00am-12:00pm PDT
>> i don't have that number on the top of my head but i'd be happy to have my staff get back to you. >> do you think that might have something to do with the fact that our border is now being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants, who tell reporters that they would consider making that change under the trump administration? >> i think there are a substantial number of issues driving migration toward the united states from the pandemic. >> if you ask the migrants they will tell you specifically what's driving it and they can do it, they can get in. and not fear prosecution from you. gallup tells us there are about 42 million living in latin america and the caribbean who intended to coming to the united states and a lot of people come each year on temporary visas but then they fail to leave when those visas expired. and again it's in violation of federal law.
do you believe that those who illegally overstay their visas should respect their laws and return to their home countries? >> that's up to the department of homeland security. and that's before january of 2021. and those visas have yet to expire. let me go on, it's unlawful for an employee to unknowingly hire an illegal alien. and i will have the staff get back to you. >> it shocks me given the fact that this is an historic high, you are the chief law enforcement officer of our country. you come here before this committee and you develop not a word in your spoken remarks to this issue. if you devote out of it ten page written statement, one paragraph
simply saying we need to expedite the immigration proceedings or asylum claims and i find that astonishing. let me ask you this. do you agree that an alien who has received proper notice of his or her immigration, as an exceptional circumstance and has ordered removed in absentia should be removed from the country? >> i'm not really familiar with the exact circumstance you are talking about. there are rules about removal. >> when it's reported by a court, if someone is ordered deported by a court, should they be removed? >> if they are ordered deported by a court then we have an obligation to follow the court's order. >> yet the president on opening day of office inspected his immigration and customs enforcement not to conduct such deportation. >> what circumstances would
justify an independent prosecutor. we have had and there have been multiple reports that hunter biden made an enormous sums of money and he has admitted that's because of his family ties. that by itself might not be a crime, but there have also now been multiple reports that emails end of the commune occasions from hunter biden have indicated that his finances were intermingled with those of his father's including a text to his daughter complaining that half of his earnings were going to his father. if that doesn't call for an independent investigation to the president, what would? >> i'm not going to comment about the investigation but as everyone knows there is an investigation going on and i
can't comment on that any further than that. >> that's nonindependent of the justice department who is implicated in these emails. >> of the time for the gentleman has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman and attorney general garland, thank you very much for being here and for your commitment to protecting our democracy. i'd like to generally discuss the prosecutions of the january 6th insurrectionist. the prosecutors handling these cases believe that jail time is the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor charge. however the first misdemeanor defendants received jail time were only sentenced last month, nine months after the worst assault on the united states capital since the war of 1812. i'm trying to understand what the processes for these prosecutions and why there are delays. does the doj headquarters have final approval on all plea agreements before they are offered to the defendant? >> so i don't want to discuss
these investigations, i would say that the justice department and the u.s. attorney's office and working together have guidelines for police to be accepted so there is not -- i don't want to use the word discrimination and the racial sense but there is not unequal treatment between people who did the same thing. now we can't have every individual prosecutor following a different set of plea arguments for that's the extent to which that is being organized. the question you asked which is, why does it take so long, this is really not long at all. i've been in lots of criminal investigations and it took way longer. arrested 650 people already and keep in mind that most of them were not investigated or arrested on the spot because the capitol police were overwhelmed. so they were people who had to be found and they had to be found by sometimes looking at our own video data and sometimes
from citizens around the country identifying people and then they have to be brought back to washington, d.c. then the discovery of terabytes of information have to be provided and all this was occurring while there was a pandemic and some of the grand jury's were not fully operating in some of the court rents were fully operating. i am extremely proud of the work that the prosecutors are doing in this case and the agents are doing in this case and we are working 24/7 on this. >> thank you general garland, that's helpful. i do want to talk about the disparity of prosecution, federal judges have criticized that apartment's approach to letting many stay at home or travel for vacation at one judge said "there has to be consequences for participating in an attempted violent overthrow the government beyond sitting at home" and at "the wall street journal" reports that you've told doj officials that jailing writers who weren't hard-core extremists could further radicalize them.
general garland, do you believe that such statements are appropriate to make up for overseeing these prosecutions? >> i don't know where that report comes from. my recollection of this in a completely different context and this is radicalization that has occurred with prison gangs and white supremacists and radical middle eastern groups and prisons. i was concerned that the bureau of prisons have a procedure for ensuring that the radicalization does not spread across prison populations. >> general garland, i don't know how you could further radicalize people that have attempted to overthrow the government. let's contrast the departments of approach to the george floyd protest, a participant at the george floyd protests fessed up to five years in felony charges for inciting a riot to be a
social media contrast, three in the charlottesville rally received prison sentences between two and three years for their violence and assault and protestant conspiracy conspiracy to riot. only one person was ever charged but with a felony and i understand all of the challenges that you are facing with what you've mentioned, and i do appreciate that. but i am concerned about the disparity of the way sentencing is occurring. is it fair to say that the department does and should consider deterrence and the gravity of crimes ensuring both sentencing and pretrial contention? >> the answer to that -- and pretrial distention is up to the judge and not the department. there are some judges that are criticizing that kind of charges that we are bringing as being
not harsh enough. other judges who are criticizing the same charges as being too harsh, and as i mentioned before, this comes with the territory of being the prosecutor. >> general garland, i think if we were to restore faith under the department of justice, i would have to make sure that the disparity of sentencing that you continue to see under the last administration and that this administration has to be addressed and i hope you will do that and thank you for your efforts. fico >> i appreciate that you are giving us so much time. as you know, your reach is global when it comes to overseas activities such as the bombing that occurred in kabul. so the killing of 26 august of
13 u.s. troops falls under your jurisdictions, correct? or at least, the fbi. >> the fbi can participate most likely with dod but it is some combination, yes. >> there is some concern of media reports in public and private statements that indicate that the bomber was in fact an individual that released from the detention center. and i don't know the answer to that. the fbi does know that it's leaked out enough that it needs to be made official. >> to the extent that it should be permissible, that's not classified information and then of course we will get back to you and ask my staff to look into this. >> of the records of those who are incarcerated at the detention center were public,
and, i don't know that that would be, and the important point in my view is that there are a thousand 99 or more individuals who were released to her free to the streets of kabul and on the very day that we were evacuating. i was in cutter last week and it was reported to us and in classified sessions that more than 20% of the individuals who boarded the aircraft, indo hot in the united states, and more than 20% who came into their came in with no papers whatsoever. no afghan papers, no u.s. papers, no other documentation and of the documentation was produced based on oral testimony, they called it a paper passport. based on the fact of the 60,000
plus people who pass through the cutter, 80% of them didn't have paperwork and of the remaining ones at least 40% had only documentation that was produced in afghanistan. how do we know how many, we know some undoubtedly but how many in fact made their way to the united states of the 5,000 plus people that were incarcerated for being nice as terrorists and the like, how do we know who they are and how many are in the united states and what we are doing to discover further? >> and that required vetting, not only at cutter but also ram stein and the other bases were people were moved to. >> i don't mean to interrupt you but in the remaining time, if
you could respond for the record about how many you know and how many people left afghanistan and 5,000 terrorists have recently been released. we do have an obligation with steps that are taken to find them and incarcerate them and i recognize that there are a number of people in kosovo who were identified. my last round of questioning really goes to the terrible attacks that occurred in fort mccoy and other places. we have a significant number of afghan/american bound individuals who are currently committing crimes. and who have committed crimes. i'd like to know, that one to
come to the best of your ability, how many cases you are following, not what the cases specifically are about. and of what that you've been given or that need to be given to do with these individuals including revocation of their parole which of course is an executive prerogative. but, that's one that we would like to know. and they begin the deportation process. >> we will try to get back to you on what we are able to sell you one. and we are happy to accept it in an environment where it's not disclosed but i really think that this committee has an obligation to have a good feel for the nature of the individual, the nature of the crimes and how we are going to deal with them. this is an awful lot of people who are requesting special entry into the united states and many of them did not do anything for
the united states but were simply able to get on aircraft in the rush of the end. mr. chairman, thank you for your excess time indulgence and i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> think is on its chairman, attorney general garland it's great to see you again. we were together last week as the nation recognized 701 law enforcement officers and and here we are just a few yards away from several law enforcement officers who were beat down in this very sacred place. we've been asked to move on but attorney general garland, some of us just cannot, not yet. in your opening statement you said that the department's core values are upholding the rule of law. keeping our country safe and protecting civil rights. as i sit here today is a member
of the house of representatives, also the job of every house of both sides of the aisle, attorney general and and then protects several rights. as you know i served as a law enforcement officer for almost three decades they take an oath to uphold the constitution and defended constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. it is about keeping the american people safe. and we cannot sit here as policymaker and demand better
policing and better training for providing the resources to achieve it. attorney general garland, i know you know, i'm very from there with the cops a grant program as you know which provides resources, and the state and local enforcement for things such as community policing. the burn jagged grant provides several initiatives for state and local jurisdiction and personnel and equipment, prevention and education, crime victim and witness assistance, mental health and related law enforcement assistance. if you would just take just a moment, i know you mentioned earlier that your commitment in terms of funding is a very important initiative, and if you could take a moment to talk about the effectiveness of the doj grant program, and talk a little bit about the future of those resources. >> i thank you for that
opportunity. this is part of our commitment both to keep the country safe and therefore to fight violence in their communities and a second, of our obligation to uphold civil rights and so ensure that this be done with constitutional policing. and also with respect to our first priority which is ensuring adherence to the rule of law. so we have asked for in the 2022 budget more than $1 billion in grants for state and local police organizations. that's 537,000,004 cops hiring and 513,000,004 burn jag. each of those are in an increase, for cops it's an increase of 300 million over the first year and four burn jag it's about 30 million increase. but there are other programs that we've asked for money as
well and one of them is quite important, it's $100 billion for new community and violence initiatives. i met with community violence intervention, and chicago earlier in the summer and i was extremely impressed by the results that they've had and it was a well controlled study by the university and these things really work quite well. >> if we could switch gears for just a second, i want to talk about election security and threats that have been going on against election workers and poll workers. i know there was a task force established in june of last year as a result of the rise and threats including death threats. how does the task force plan to
coordinate with local and state of enforcement and prosecutors to pursue cases against those who seek to intimidate election workers? >> so like all of our antiviolence initiatives from the violence initiatives that we were just talking about, the project safe neighborhoods and memorandum that we were discussing earlier today, all of our activity in this regard involves partnerships with and meetings with state and local law enforcement. with respect to election workers, we have as part of our normal sets of findings, with respect to the state and local law enforcement, we are meeting with them to identify threats to find out where federal tools would be helpful, to find out where assistance to state and locals would be effective, and that happens and that's final to the appropriate fbi office in
the locality where the threats are occurring. this is similar to our work with respect to threats against members of congress, threats against judges and threats against prosecutors, threats against police officers, all of these things were done with tight coordination with state and federal law enforcement. >> i understand mr. roy has a request? >> i do. i have unanimous consent to insert into the record the memorandum from the national school board association to president joe biden specifically noting in there that this is talking about domestic terrorism and footnote 13, i'd like to insert that into the record. >> no objection. >> the second item in the record is the memorandum issued by the attorney general regarding what the federal bureau of investigations is doing. >> no objection.
mr. bigs. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, mr. garland, facebook has admitted in the letter to the attorney general that it "allows people to share information about how to enter a country illegally or request information about how to be smuggled." that criminalizes aiding and appending in the u.s. by illegal aliens. have you sent a letter or issued a memorandum similar to the 10-4-21 memorandum directing apartment resources to be dedicated to investigate the apparent violation of law? >> i haven't done that. i haven't seen that letter or information that you are talking about but if it was sent to the department i will make sure you are looking at. >> it is also reported that mark zuckerberg -- influence the 2020 election. those efforts have been referred to as a "private takeover of government operations."
have you sent a letter or memorandum directing department to resources be dedicated to investigate these claims? >> i don't know what was done in 2020 and we are talking i'm not aware of what you are talking about, i'm sorry. >> so you have not sent a memo and you are not investigating that either. last sunday more than 300 churches in virginia aired a video featuring vice president harris advocating the election of terry mcauliffe as governor of virginia. this appears to violate the irs code as well as election laws and seems to be an art orchestrated effort by the bp. have you sent a letter or issued a memorandum directing department told resources be dedicated to investigating this department of law and exercising first amendment rights and local school board. >> no.
>> and may 4th 2021 under oath before its congressional committee dr. anthony fauci denied the institute of health providing any funding for gain-of-function research showing that "it categorically was not done." today this very day, they suggest that dr. fauci may have committed perjury. this is a criminal offense and i'm left to wonder if you intend to look into that and send a communication such as a letter or a memo similar to the octobed regarding parents going to school board meetings to investigate dr. fauci's potential perk perjury. >> i will comment pending or on pending. that would normally come with a referral from the relevant committee and, at the actual
point i'm making is you chose as a response to a letter from the national school board association and as you said earlier today, a newspaper account, to issue a memorandum to organize task force and investigate and put a chill and parents participation for school boards. you say i didn't mean to provide chill, but what did you assume would happen when you asked the federal government to begin looking into this? of course parents are going to be nervous now. of course people will step back. that's the purpose of my questioning. so when you get to these things like zuckerberg and facebook, kamala harris, and dr. fauci's
purported perjury, there is no indication. you didn't hold back, you issued a press release. you should see the distinction and how about this one? since january 20 of 2021, border patrol has encountered more than 1.3 million aliens of the south border illegally have you sent a letter or issued a memorandum for u.s. attorneys directing prosecution of these cases? >> no and the reference of cases comes from the department of homeland security as i mentioned before. >> look. you've managed to issue a memorandum about parents showing up at school boards. i can't you issue a memorandum regarding the million plus people that illegally entered the country and encourage your u.s. attorney to prosecute those cases?
they are there constantly. >> and thank you very much for the attorney general. i wanted to end human mentioned a couple of words, and true serious bodily injury. i will say that's in the context of what has been set already which is the first amendment, and all of us are public officials. we chose to run for office, to be an elected office. yet recently, not recently but throughout the years we have been confronted with people in our faces, serious bodily harm, us being threatened and a dozen years ago that happened to me in california. all my local attorney general's,
and you will be criminally liable and i'll put you in jail myself and you will have tort issues as well. on january 7th and i remember i didn't want to swing first. i had people in my face surrounding me. and if it doesn't connect otherwisrwise i'm going down. so what are we left with today. nice corporal that responded to that incident accused me of starting the fight. number two, i asked for investigation the nice people at the airport said no laws are broken yet we talk about true
threats and to serious bodily. at what point do we essentially -- at what point would you draw the line in terms of us protecting ourselves. the sad thing about january 7th for me is, it's nothing new. that's happened in my district last two years over and over again. police officers show up in the first amendment and we are left to essentially handle the situation many times in a row. so mr. attorney general, i'm trying to figure out some clear lines here. how do we as elected officials protect ourselves, are we left to conceal weapons? what is it exactly that we need to do? i will take the heat, i'm an elected official but, where does that first amendment stop in that serious bodily injury concept come into play? thank you. >> the courts have been quite clear that threats that -- of an
intent to commit unlawful acts of death or a threat of serious bodily injury are not protected by the first amendment. anger, getting up in your face, those things are protected. >> they are protected and people can argue with you and people can say vile things to you and people can insult you and i'm sorry to say this. it doesn't at me and that i like the idea and it doesn't mean that's where we should be in a civil society but the first amendment protects vigorous arguments. with respect to self protection i'm going to have to leave that and he went might think you have had a threat if you receive the threat of violence, or serious bodily injury, you should report
it. many other members of congress have done that and we just arrested somebody in alaska for threatening the two alaskan senators. >> attorney general, i only have 54 seconds left. i guess what i'm looking for is there is some kind of message from your office at the federal level and there are some things that are tolerated under the first amendment and some that are not. those that cross that line will be prosecuted. it also spills over to the protection and that's threatening voters and we've had letters, focused and yes, and we will prosecute.
i'm hoping and we really send a clear message, and the elections can be tolerated. >> the gentleman yields back mr. gates. >> i'm very concerned about the influence of lobbyists in washington, d.c. there is no prohibition against the department of justice hiring lobbyists to be prosecutors. is there? >> you mean former lobbyists? there's no prohibition. >> there is no specific betting that the public does one professional influence peddlers are given higher than prosecuting authorities. >> for the hiring of u.s. attorneys, this is a career higher made in different u.s. attorneys offices.
>> i mean in washington at doj, are there any special procedures that lobbying contacts or maybe who will lobbyists work for before they are given prosecutorial authorities? >> i'm not sure what kind of person you are speaking with. if you are talking about front-line prosecutors there is a background check. everybody unsure here is familiar with the sf 86, and that's true with the main justice. >> there is no special review for lobbyists that have to be engineers. >> i don't believe there's a difference. >> lets ask about political consultants. political consultants are people who get paid to ensure that it candidate wins or loses in an election and a political movement is successful or unsuccessful. there prohibition against hiring political consultants as prosecutors at the department?
>> again, i don't think we are allowed to even look at people's politics. >> not the politics but the profession of being a political consultant. there is no special vetting for that. >> i don't think that there's a specific prohibition. there is a requirement that once somebody becomes a prosecutor, just like when somebody becomes a judge, they get rid of whatever preconceptions they had before and that they go forward under their new responsibilities and are subject to the rules. >> you would hope that it would be the case but i tend to think of people are in the influence peddling game where there prosecutors it can be kind of dangerous to mix those and be an influence peddler one day and a prosecutor the next, maybe rotate back and forth amongst those koreas and it sounds like there is no special vetting for lobbyists. let me ask the question about partisan committee staff. we have partisan committee staff that you see here and there job is to ensure that one party or
another preserves or captures the majority that legislative proposals are a successful or not successful. no prohibition against the partisan hiring department committee staff as prosecutors. >> as i understand it all administration including the one preceding this one has hired people who have been committee staff. i don't think there is a statutory limitation, thousand representatives in the senate think that the partisan -- >> that's how preperera got his job. he worked for sumer and ended up in the southern district. so we have people who can be lobbyists and the prosecutors, people who can be arts and committee staff and prosecutors. the public integrity section has jurisdiction over election integrity, correct? >> i have jurisdiction over election crimes, yes. >> so is there any prohibition against people who have been
lobbyists, partisan committee staff were political consultants actually going in and serving in the public integrity section or is not allowed? >> say it again, it's a career higher under the civil service. >> i'm worried about their prior career that will. what i think is if someone has been a political operative to then put them in charge of election crimes, it's kind of like having the fox guard the hen house, don't you think? >> if you think that, that would be a perfect example of something the house should pass a statute barring people in particular professions from working in the justice department. >> that, i appreciate your open-mindedness. and i hope that persists. would you provided the committee
a list of lobbyists, former lobbyists, or former, and i don't intend to create a list of officials and what their previous jobs were. and that's overseas elections. >> at the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you attorney general garland for appearing here today, and that might be responsive to the issues facing it today. and those are attacks on elected officials and, several of my colleagues have led to
intimidation and threats of violence and death being made against elected officials and families. in pennsylvania we saw armed extremists come across state lines to try to disrupt the counting of votes in philadelphia and an election official had to put his children and hiding after death threats were made against him and his family. with the reopening of schools, we saw similar criminal conduct being directed at teachers and school board members with encouraging of and almost a decade, and in grocery stores and baseball fields and courtrooms and school board meetings. sometimes the discussions were passionate, and everyone always ask respected the boundaries, and that was the goal of exchanging information.
and never ever experienced any threats to the safety of board members, and that has crossed well, and parents have a right to be heard. to complain and to argue. and we do not have the right to criminally harass or threaten a result school leaders and their families. and the candidate for office and urged community members at a public rally two, and we can go
in with 20 strongmen, and that can be removed and that's not ordinary speech. that has led to school boards, and is shocking but perhaps not surprising that some of our colleagues have tried to frame that criminal access free speech, and that's fanning the flame of chaos. and the conduct and the ordinary parents showing up at school board meetings. and would you agree that allowing threats of violence and intimidation against elected
officials to go unreported or unpunished could not only lead to greater violence, and that's harmful to free speech. >> and they attacked last month, they sent a subpoena to the pennsylvania department of state along with drivers licenses and social security numbers and that information could be turned over to an unidentified private contractor. that if they were outraged about the invasion privacy and the way
the personal information was being put at risk. can you address how this kind of sweeping intrusion into election and personal data under the guise of an election audit might violate federal election laws? >> yes. let me just say on the previous point that you made, i don't know if i could give you a quick answer, and we've had that for quite some time. we have election administrators and at the national association of secretaries of state for every state, and that's what prompted us to establish this task force. and there are provisions of the voting rights acts. and election officials to keep control and custody of voting records and voting equipment which are leading to the last
election i think for 18 months. and similarly there are provisions of the same statute, which prohibit intimidation or ask leading to the intimidation of book voters. and it's with concern to postelection. >> the dental ladies time has expired. the gentle lady leave yields back. >> attorney general garland in your senate council hearing, and 168 people were killed. the speech enhancing a new domestic terrorism policy, and i
quote as an assault on a mainstay of the democratic's system. that remains central to the mission and what is not clear however is if you will use the same force against violent left-wing domestic terrorists. just last week on october 14 a group of extremists of environmental and indigenous protesters force their way into the department of interior's. they fought with and injured security and police officer is sending some of them to the hospital. the extremists violently push their way into a government building and i thumped to thwart the department of interior. police arrested at least 55 of the protesters on site. and they forced their way into the permit of interior.
>> so i won't be able to reference that specific incidents since it's a first i know about it but i will say that the department does not care. >> is a suppress you know about an incident where protesters force themselves onto a federal government building right here in d.c.? you didn't hear about this at all? >> this particular example, doesn't mean the justice department, but i personally heard about it before. and i don't care whether the violence comes from the left or the right or the middle, and you will prosecute violations in the middle of the law this is a nonpartisan determination of how to do that. >> all right, i'll make it more clear for you. this other picture is extremists forcing themselves into the
interior department. so you look at these pictures and i know you are saying you are not aware of this, and and we would call both of those acts of domestic terrorism. >> i can't comment on both particular matters and you have two individuals forcing themselves into a government building right here in washington, d.c., and one, as they bleed out, you call them domestic terrorists but, you commit the same atrocity is here in washington, d.c., and he called them domestic terrorists. >> one i know the facts of any other i don't the facts of. >> here's the facts right here.
january 6th, department of interior. based on these pictures of people forcing themselves -- >> i'm not going to be able to resolve a legal determination based on one picture. and then january 6th case we have terabytes of video which disclose exactly what happened. >> speaker pelosi hasn't released the american public to view all that video that has been captured here in washington and in the capitol complex but that's a problem that every day are facing right now, they see these type of comments that you've made about generally sixth and you are completely and not answer my question now and you are saying that's an ongoing investigation and i don't know about it but clearly based on the pictures and clearly what has occurred is widely what's been reported and also it's a different american outlets. these individuals force themselves into a building in the department of interior and you are using part right here today before the emerging people to say that's the same type of activity that i'm going to bring the full force of the department of justice to come against,
regardless of the ideology which you have said in the past. but you are refusing to do that today and that's the problem with the challenges, this administration that your department is facing his everyday americans who are seeing this on tv i know you have the opportunity to set the record straight and say both of those actions regardless of ideology are against federal law and will be prosecuted with the full faith and credit of the department of justice and you are refusing to do that. that's a challenge it every day are having right now, they are seeing what you guys are doing with the people and to the point where even a judge is saying -- coat the speaker before me had 30 extra seconds and i would ask for the same deference that you gave to the previous speaker. you have judges that recently held the department of contact on my corrections and content to the way that the generally six suspects have been treated and you are refusing to even comment on the very acts that have just occurred here and that is what is horribly wrong and happening in our country. >> your time has expired.
mr. attorney and general members, both have been called on house floor and the court will stand in recess until immediately after the conclusion of those votes. >> you have been listening to this ongoing on capitol hill, some contentious moments at times, john juanda, that we've been listening through. we have not seen all of the lawmakers yet, i believe we still have 12 more to go on both the democrat and republican side, but really at moments pressing on the double standard, the ag garland. and there are stories that we all know that we are not briefed on too many surprised. >> this really does fall into three broad categories here, and the three most controversial
areas of questioning have been his memo to the fbi and to the father who said that his daughter was in the restroom of her high school, and how he was arrested and carted away and charged with disorderly conduct. and he was angry that the school board dismissed him and said there's nothing to see here and nothing that happened. the ceo is involved in something called panorama education which provide social and emotional learning materials to schools and some people say, rightly or wrongly, kind of falling into the category of critical race theory teaching, but whether the council should be appointed in the hunter biden art dealer said case where he's getting as much for his painting as a d got paintings were getting at
options. a lot of interesting topics covered in the last few hours with no lawmakers left to go. >> let's bring in fox news contributor jonathan turley. it's great to see you and we expect term and jerry nadler to reconvene at any moment now. we've been taking some brief resources throughout. but the ag has been pressed on some very hot issue items on the hearing room. >> while at points it seems to be channeling sergeants scholz from hogan's heroes. that's the successful efforts to bust into the interior department, and it's been like a sensory and memory deprivation tank for weeks. and that was clearly arnie. but on the school board issue he
did say reassuringly that he does not view any of these circumstances coming out of school board meetings to be cases of domestic terrorism. but that answer leads to new question, why are you launching this national effort to monitor and coordinate with local officials on school boards? that was particularly interesting when he was asked a question about the loudoun county controversy. there you had an alleged rape by a transgender student and possibly in two different schools. his immediate reaction to that was, that sounds like a local case, not a case that would come before him. while that again begs the question, if that's a local case, why aren't these schoolboard arrests for disruptive conduct local cases? what he didn't supply was evidence of any pattern, any
intrastate element, any federal jurisdictional claim that justify the national effort. >> john: i got the letter here from the school board association and it definitely says that acts of malice, violence and threats against public officials of increased, and that's terrorism and hate crimes and the national school board association appealing with the doj to use the patriot act to investigate these. and scott smith was the father of that young woman who was allegedly in the restroom of her high school back at the end of may. he got up in front of the loudoun county school board, and let's listen to cut number six, and exchange between texas congressman chip roy and the attorney general about this particular case. listen here. >> the victim's mother is hard on the cell phone video telling the crowd what happened.
my child was at school and behind him the victim's father was being seen arrested and bloodied. the man arrested a 48-year-old plumber became the poster boy for it domestic terrorism, the biden administration and which you concocted to destroy anyone who gets on the way. attorney general, do you believe a father attending a meeting exercising his first amendment rights and yes, getting angry about whatever lies are being told about his daughter being in the school he sent her to be educated in, but this is domestic terrorism? yes or no? >> no. i do not think that parents getting angry at school boards for whatever reason constitutes domestic terrorism. >> john: is a jonathan that's what the attorney general said but this is what the national school board association cited in his letter to the attorney general. and they use the example, used as an example in virginia an individual which was arrested during the school board meeting discussion distinguishing
critical race theory in regard to equity issues. that's in reference to the scott smith. if you are a peer into, and your daughter has been, and they said no it didn't, they were going to get upset. they acknowledge that they would. >> i believe to the attorney general when he said he wouldn't use the patriot act against parents for speaking out in these meetings. and that didn't explain why it soon after getting this letter a launches the national comic of the effort and tells parents he's going to be monitoring the school board meeting. these are core areas of political speech and it obviously has a chilling effect on people who are going to these meetings. i think that what you see with attorney general garland today, and so largely noncommunicative
to a performance. he's dismissing some of these questions are not answering others but there are certain things that he can't answer. like for example, why now have this national program looking at school board meetings? local and state laws cover disruptions. people are citing about five of these cases across the country and there's no argument in his letter about a pattern that would justify the effort. he also didn't respond to the fact of the department of justice put out a press release that referred to getting the national security division involved, and this was raised by congressman jordan. and he really didn't respond to that. >> sandra: jim jordan is now speaking on capitol hill. just stepped out of the hearing room. >> targeting a political opponent and now there's a vote on the floor. i hope every republican votes against this and i think that's going to happen but we will find out here soon. >> thank you very much. >> sandra: that was jim jordan
who just stepped out of the hearing room and we expect that to resume shortly. to continue on with rep jim jordan, this exchange to follow up on the we were just having, on the commute case and with the white house and the school boards over that memo, listen to this. >> did you or anyone at the justice department discuss and and i'm sure that the commute kitchen from the national association from school boards was discussed between the white house and the justice department and that's perfectly appropriate. >> did you or anyone at the department of justice can indicate with the american federation of teachers or the national education association or the national school board association prior to your memo? >> i did not. i don't know. >> sandra: did that surprise you jonathan? >> it does, and that with a host
of legal experts as destroying the integrity of the justice department. and the beginning of the investigation of the customs officer has declared them guilty and said they had been stopping these individuals trying to come into the country. that's really out of line and it's a direct sort of flap of the justice department independence. in total and nothing but crickets in response to that. the president has made repeated statements about pending investigations most recently in saying that anyone who doesn't comply with the subpoenas in congress should be prosecuted by the justice department. the record here is not quite as
redeeming and i don't necessarily say that those are an and proper and those are not public statements who should and -- the justice department. >> john: you mentioned a moment ago that the attorney general is somewhat like sergeant schultz and hogan's heroes, i know nothing. congressman mike johnson in louisiana and the attorney general on whether or not there was a conflict of interest in his memo to the fbi because his son-in-law sean tanner is involved in an enterprise called panorama education which puts out a curriculum material for a social emotional learning. and, that's a very curricula that your son-in-law is selling.
>> did you seek ethics counsel before you issued a letter that directly relates to the financial interests of your family? yes or no? >> this memorandum does not relate to the financial interests of anyone. >> i will take that as a no. >> john: i don't know if that's so much of sergeant schultz defense as it is as "star trek" defense, deflector shield on full. but he sure wasn't answering the question. >> so let's not mix up too many somatic references. i was very surprised by his response quite frankly, the justice department would not find a conflict in this particular circumstance. so i am surprised that garland it didn't say look. i'm perfectly happy to submit it and i don't believe it is a conflict but instead he just kept on repeating mantra like the same line which i thought was really quite ineffective. >> john: jonathan, thank you for joining us with your
expertise. we will keep watching the hearing which after a series of votes is expected to continue in about ten or 15 minutes. >> sandra: all i look at the hearing room, will get back in when it begins. miranda devine is now joining us, first give us your broad take or your first take, i should say come on what you have heard so far in the hearing room, miranda. >> i think merrick garland is not doing a very good job of restoring that half of america or more that the department of justice is not an plummeting and unfair two-tier justice system. he just declared that he didn't care whether crimes are committed by the right or the left. jim jordan estimate couple of questions which put that into questions, for instance, jim jordan asked him about the environmental activist who forced their way into the department of the interior and d.c. recently. and he said, do you call them domestic terrorists like you
called that january 6 rioters domestic terrorists? and merrick garland just says i didn't know anything about the department of interior incident. so he's deflecting these questions and he doesn't really seem to care that there is a problem out there in the community where the public is seeing the department of justice sicking the fbi onto moms and dads in school board meetings and merrick garland an answer to one of these questions is the entire basis of his memo seeking the fbi onto moms and dads was a left-wing organization letter, the national school board association letter. he had no body of evidence to show that there was violence in these meetings. it was just that letter, plus he a few newspaper reports. that was really disturbing and it shows you that merrick garland wasn't aware of his own bias and the bias within
his own justice department. the other issue i think about the school boards is, he was saying that he didn't himself have a meeting with the white house about the school board meetings or that he didn't consult with the national school board association before he wrote that letter, and that's five days from the department of justice and the attorney general himself. he said he didn't know if anybody else on the department of justice was coordinating with the white house and the national school board association and that's just not good enough. i don't understand why he doesn't come armed with data and information or at least an assistant who can prompt him, and i can prompt you in other arenas. that just seems pointless and these hearings and not be held accountable. >> john: it's pretty clear as well miranda that the action in terms of the memo from the attorney general to the fbi came
after the national school board association to petition the president for release. and why did the fbi look at this across country when the local law enforcement are fully capable of dealing with this. why do you need to invoke the patriot act when local laws would likely be sufficient. and what constitutes domestic terrorism? and listen here. >> that's apparent questioning whether school board members had earned their high school diplomas. that might have been rude but does that seem like an act of domestic terrorism that you or your justice department ought to be investigating? >> absolutely not, and the they defend the first amendment right of parents to complain as
vociferously as they wish. >> john: at the attorney general miranda says that people have the right to complain as vociferously as they wish. meanwhile the school board is soliciting the expertise and resources, and the u.s. secret service, and national threat assessment center. it sounds like al qaeda is at the school board meeting and not parents. >> exactly. it's really sinister and i think jim jordan again kneeled the question to merrick garland, where garland just could not answer, where he initially said they were domestic terrorist moms dads but then why was he employing the national security division the department of justice to go after the school board meetings?
and then he said that we are not sending the fbi to the school board meetings but again, why are they employing the only apparatus of the department of justice which is used against domestic terrorists which is meant to be al qaeda and these threats to our life and plan. it's expressing their desire to control what is taught to their children and they don't want to waste. are out. is problematic about merrick garland's son-in-law selling these and -- a benefit of the doubt and he should go through some sort of ethics a process to demonstrate to all the people that are pulling his credibility into question that there is nothing wrong. that's what you do. it's not just about being unethical but it's about not
giving the appearance of being unethical and here everybody should know. this is a man who really doesn't know what's going on at the department of justice. and he hasn't had a chance to figure it out, but there are a lot of appointees now by the biden administration that a person political activist -- and they are using the letters of the department of justice against the enemies or political foes of the president. and merrick garland if he means what he says about being a nonpartisan attorney general, then he needs to get on top of that straight away his department of justice is being used the target moms and dads who are opposed to the sort of left wing propaganda being sent to their children. it's being used against political opponents of joe biden, i can trump supporters.
it meant he had nothing to say about the abuse being injured out by guards and a d.c. jail against both rioters are both defendants from the january 6th riots who are being held for months without trial and who are complaining, their lawyers are complaining, that they are being abused by it really sadistic guards in d.c. merrick garland is not going to do an inspection. he was asked if he would and he said, it was noncommittal but it looked like a note to me. >> john: because it was a local issue. if you think on the subject of his son-in-law, and he said look i welcome a review of this in the department of justice, i got nothing to hide here. how about it. murray and i, good to talk to you and thanks for your perspective on things. >> sandra: thank you miranda. let's bring in colorado congressman ken buck just questioned -- the judiciary
committee and as you know the house is set to vote on the ban and contempt of congress. we do expect hearing will reconvene in the next few moments but, you just had the chance to question him, and specifically you asked about a special counsel for hunter biden. he was the exchange, listen. >> will you appoint a special counsel to investigate hunter biden? >> for the same reason i'm not able to respond to investigations of the former president or of anywhere else, i'm not able to discuss any investigations pending or otherwise with respect to any citizens of the united states. >> you asked about that congressman because there have been some including jonathan turley who was just on with us a few moments ago who said it's time for an independent special counsel of the president's son.
why did you choose to use your time to ask and not? >> i want to have sent a letter in the past to department of justice and now i have asked the attorney general in person and also sent another letter. i think it's important that this artwork scammed is going on is fully investigated and the american people know what is going on. i started out my questioning by showing the attorney general a monet that was worth approximately $700,000, a decor that was worth about $500,000 and then a hunter biden with about $500,000. it's absolutely ridiculous to think that this man can sell artwork for any other reason then his dad is the president of the united states. have that conflict with having the political appointees and justice department make decisions like this so a special is warranted. this is the same guy who received $50,000 per month from the ukrainian oligarch to serve on the energy board of directors
when he didn't have any background in energy and he also served and was paid for his work with the chinese investment firm, linked to the china central bank and didn't have any background in that. he is consistently taking his dad's position and found a way to make a profit off of it. it's wrong and the american people should know. >> john: ego pointed out there, and carried as artwork and back then you couldn't find a gallery to do that. now suddenly he's selling at auction houses i guess for half a million dollars, as much as you pointed out for a d god, almost as much for a monet. must've been a very small monet. the only thing that was different is that his father is now the president of the united states. >> right, it's a small world but it just so happens that that art gallery also doubled its covert relief package after the biden
administration took office and coincidentally, it happens to be the chairman of the judiciary committee congressional district. so there are a lot of loose ends that need to be tied up in the best way to do it with his with the special counsel. >> there is also this recent moment with rhett mcclintock asking ag garland and it's a change of subject. so let's listen together. >> we have seen the highest number of arrests of people illegally crossing our border in history of our country. 1.7 million arrests this year. it is a federal crime to cross the border outside of a port of entry, is it not? >> yes it's a misdemeanor. >> how many are you prosecuting?
>> i don't know the answer to that. >> so it was another incident where he didn't know the answers or have the answers so where did you make the exchange? >> it was unbelievable. the flow that we witnessed and the problems that really this is causing the border patrol is absolutely crushing the resources. this attorney general, this president walked away from the policies that that the trump administration had in place to avoid the crisis. they caused the crisis and i don't think the attorney general took responsibility for what happened. >> when you take a look at answer is that the attorney general was giving about this memo to the fbi to start looking at school board meetings across country, based on the letter from the national school board association, some of the conduct that the school boards association is singing at some of these meetings where parents were voicing their
concerns, amounts to in their estimation domestic terrorism. what did you think of his answers come up they comprehensive or was he evasive or just not there? what was your take on it? >> i think he was absent without leave. i think the problem that the attorney general faces is his department is being used by the white house as a political tool and the result is the american people are pushing back and pushing back very hard to. people understand what's going on when you take a really strong law enforcement agency like the federal bureau of investigation and you start looking at individual parents. it's not as if local law enforcement couldn't handle the situation, every single incident that the school board association cited was handled appropriately. there were prosecutions that were inappropriate and the result is not to call in a federal bureau of investigation
to investigate like this, the result is to recognize federalism and there is a nationwide conspiracy. right now we are talking about isolated incidences in various school boards and the attorney general should not have sent the letter that he did. >> sandra: but still on the targeting of those parents, congressman jordan had a bunch of heated exchanges but then he characterized the moment for parents and this country like this, this is cut number three. >> americans are afraid. for the first time during my years in public office, for the first time i get the good folks in ohio and folks all around the country, they tell me for the first time that they fear their government. >> sandra: republicans are working hard to get their message out there and get the message of those americans who have been directly impacted by all of this. do you think the ag is listening
and do you think that he's hearing them? >> i think the ag heard this long before they showed up to the judiciary committee to testify. there are so many frustrated people that i talked to and they are complaining that ken buck is not saying enough for doing enough and finally we had an opportunity where we had coverage to talk to the attorney general about some of the very real concerns and while we didn't get him any answers and we certainly didn't get a satisfying response in terms of a game plan to deal with the politicization of the department of justice, we were allowed to express our concerns publicly and of the concerns of those who we represented. i feel like the system works in that situation and it should work better because the department of justice should take what we are saying to heart and act as a truly nonpartisan prosecuting >> sandra: congressman ken buck the great state of colorado. that hearing will be back in
your weight shortly, thank you. >> john: thank you congressman. they recessed but one of those coming up later is whether or not to hold president trump's chief political advisor steve bannon in contempt for defying subpoena from january 6th commission. i think that's what we heard jim jordan speaking to briefly as we dipped in. would not be the affirmative. for more on all of this let's bring in congressional chad pergram. chad, this matter came up in an exchange between eric swalwell and attorney general. but first, give us your perspective on this particular vote and the issue on capitol hill. >> they are having this series of prevotes before the debate on whether or not to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress. that debate should start in the next half hour or 45 minutes or so. a vote late this afternoon. i am told there will probably be on the low end 6-8 republicans
to vote in favor of holding steve bannon in contempt maybe mid teens and keep in mind a lot of republican members who voted and who want to be committee chairs if they have the majority in 2023. they would like to have subpoenas enforced if a committed chair. they don't look fondly on people thumbing their nose at comm for congress but they want you to provide information. you would look at those republicans who would vote "yes" to impeach president trump the second time and/or the republicans who voted to create the 1-6 committee. the house the house speaker nancy pelosi was asked this morning about whether or not this actually has any teeth. you heard during the hearing and allude to merrick garland basically saying yes if you get a referral here contempt of congress resolution from the house of representatives, we will go through due diligence to consider this may be potentially prosecute steve bannon. but that process could take years and ultimately congress
doesn't get what they need. this is what pelosi was asked this morning as to whether or not congress needs to do more. now, there was something called inherent contempt. we always hear when they issue subpoenas and we always hear when they talk about holding somebody in contempt of congress. we think about former attorney general eric holder. 2012, a couple of years later and congress flexing its muscles, but they don't blink at the end result. what inherent contempt and this is something jamie raskin has pushed, congress actually goes and sends the sergeant of arms to arrest you. they hold you. this was a practice they used emerald times in the 1790s and early 1800s. they haven't use this on capitol hill since the 1930s here. house speaker nancy pelosi indicated there is a piece of legislation written by jamie raskin considered at some point. but a lot of people capitol hill doesn't think congress has teeth.
they threaten these things all the time. they even have a vote which is what they will have this afternoon. they never get the end result. that is some people like jamie raskin, john talking about may be moving at some point to inherent contempt. >> sandra: 10 minutes left in the current vote. we will probably see that hearing reconvene in the next 1. your point about nancy pelosi earlier why contempt of inherent contempt. excellent audience on that, as always. we don't take it to court, they take it to court. that was her exact words. now kevin mccarthy though. he spoke early on and in contempt with the citation, he has the right to go to the court to see if he has executive privilege were not with mccarthy's view on this. so they are weakening the power of congress, he said come itself by issuing an invalid subpoena. what was the overall point that mccarthy made when speaking
earlier, chad? >> mccarthy thinks this committee they created, against the house of representatives voted for the the committee and a lot of republicans voted against it. there was this negotiation that went on for a long time a bipartisan commission that took this outside of congress to look into the events of 1/6. mccarthy is saying "this is a partisan committee. it has an end game in mind here." they want to relitigate everything with president trump and try to tie as much as they can come of this is the republican viewpoint on this weapon 1/6 and brought back to president trump. that is why they are so interested in steve bannon. they call that illegitimate. but with that said the house of representatives voted to actually create this committee. a regular select committee in congress and even though kevin mccarthy may say those things, the committee exists and it does have subpoena power. that is why they voted to issue a subpoena for steve bannon.
he said, no, not coming and they raised us up to the issue have contempt of congress. again, it was interesting watching the predebate earlier here, sandra. michelle fischbach a republican freshman from minnesota. she said, you know may be democrats ought to be calling the former sergeant of arms, polar thing. maybe they ought to be calling the national guard to figure out what were the arrangements for security on 1/6. this is where democrats say, "wait a minute you are trying to look past the issue. what was the root cause what spurred the riot back in january and not what happened afterwards?" and i talked to sources who indicated that the democratic narratives that they are trying to curate does go back to president trump. and there are some legitimate questions are between the speaker's office on house administration committee and the former sergeant of arms, paul irving, we don't have those records and we don't have those emails. i've been told to some degree that those are what they are
trying to look past. i'm seeing that republicans from a political standpoint are saying we kind of want to recalibrate this and look at actually what happened and what were the security arrangements on 1-6, whereas democrats obviously want to go back and target president trump and those closely associated with him. somebody we didn't talk about here he was issued a subpoena is mark meadows. the former white house chief of staff and of the reason he's not being held in contempt of congress here is that he has hired outside counsel and he's kind of playing ball. whether or not they eventually get what they need from mark meadows is unclear but they view him as a being at least willing to play and negotiate and maybe there's a question about the scope of that degree. >> sandra: todd program on capitol hill for us. chadha, we will come back to you as you have the news and as we needed and thank you for all the explainers as well. >> john: that's a thing about chad, he so come parens if we didn't even need to play the sound between eric swalwell and america garland because he summed it up so well. joining us now is louisiana
congressman steve scalise. congressman's lease on the issue of the contempt charge for a steve bannon, you said that the feeling in the g.o.p. caucuses to vote against it and vote no. why? >> that's correct john and sandra. if you start with the creation of the commission, it was clear from the beginning. and she went to the extreme of rejecting the picks that kevin mccarthy made to be on the committee so they undermine the credibility from day one. and it meander around and look for things to keep going after donald trump. they don't want to deal with the things they are facing in everyday america, and this week we don't have single vote on the house floor to deal with the inflation that scribbling american families, taking money out of their pocketbooks and gas gas prices are higher. the port shortages where you are seeing a supply chain disruption and they are not bring a bill on any of that. they want to keep going after donald trump every school day
because they will don't want people paying attention to the devastating things that the policies are doing to families at home. and that's what you're seeing people revolt against all across the country. >> what has been your take away, domestic terrorists that are targeted by the doj for speaking up in a school board meetings. it appears in one breath that america garland is descending the fbi school board memo whiles have a right to protest and he's denying that they should ever be called domestic terrorists so what is your take away from what he has explained so far? what the problem is he can't reconcile the two because what the department of justice was trying to do is do the bidding to the white house of these union bosses. union bosses do not want parents getting involved in education decisions being made at the local, local school board level. local school boards are the
basic form where the parents can go to school board meetings and by the way they are going to school board meetings and they are livid with things like critical race theory being taught. the units wanted to keep the schools close down on all the science of said keep the kids in schools and so the union bosses instead of trying to defend the ridiculous to decisions they try to get the justice to scare and bully instead of actually exercising their first amendment rights. they should've rejected the influence peddling from the white house where the white house wanted to get to the department of justice to do the bidding of the union bosses and instead they sent that memo out and they ultimately tried to just shiver and shock and scare parents from participating in school board meetings. by the way it hasn't worked because i think more parents aren't involved than ever before in decisions where they are trying to undermine the education of our children.
>> john: if this is a huge issue and what should have been an easy win for terry mcauliffe is -- with ken young can. if you look at the school boards association letter to the president they cite as part of the reason why they believe the department of justice, the fbi, homeland security, secret service and the national threat assessment center, scott smith is the father of a 14-year-old who was in the bathroom of her high school and got upset when the superintendent of loudoun county school scott sigler said it we don't have any reports of rapes in the bathrooms of her high schools. we don't know what you are talking about. and he was hauled off and arrested. clearly it was parent goes to the school board and says my daughter was raped and the superintendent says that never happens, that's going to get elevated.
they could potentially be considered to be domestic terrorists. your thoughts on that? >> talk about an abuse of power. right now at our southern border there are thousands of people coming across illegally and this question was asked to america garland multiple times today and he acted like he didn't know what the numbers were but he surely should know. we have people on the terrorist watch list that have been stopped crossing our border. how many? we can't get that answer, that's how many. people on the terrorist watch list have crossed our border illegally and that's where they should be focused, not going after parents who care about their kids education and so clearly this is a huge issue in the virginia governor's race. you are seeing mcauliffe trying to backtrack after he said parents shouldn't be involved in their school decisions. of course they should be involved and to the point where this should be one of the reasons that they elected youngkin as governor because he's been very vocal that he wants parents to have that role it and ensure his that he
shouldn't be trying to bully parents that they should care about their children's education. >> sandra: there was initially this fight or contentious moment between chairman nadler and jim jordan. it was during the hearing and jim jordan was trying to play a video about school boards. and this is spot one. >> can i inquire as to whether the gentleman has followed the judiciary committee's av but by prep providing 48 hours notice to the committee clerk that he was going to use a video? >> we provided notice but there's been an objection. >> mr. chairman, i like to speak. >> that's out of order and this is not debatable. >> what's out of order is there is no -- that's not in our rules. >> what are you afraid of? >> obviously, he wanted to play
this video and it's about school boards. nadler says as you heard at citing previous protocol, he said 48 hours notice was required for such video. jordan alleged that nadler wants to "censor us." they wanted to question nadler and the ag about recent statements particularly with aggressive action of these school board meetings. so what did you make of that exchange and is that an example of how many are being shut down when you choose to question? >> this underscores not just what jerry nadler and people on the left are trying to do but what's going on in some of these school boards where they are trying to silence parents. in the video they probably would have given more attention to the point he's making by trying to censor the video.
and we are seeing this across the country already. parents are showing up in record numbers and school board meetings as they should be of school boards in making decisions that go against the wishes of those children. millions of children have had ayear of their life taken away and so shining a light on it is important and showing a video of those parents is something that we all should be wanting to see of the fact that chairman nadler wants to censor it, that shows you you don't want people to see it but people are seeing it. jim jordan is highlighting a point that so many people are already very well aware of and may be more people will be aware of it. >> so this is the reconciliation bill that democrats are arguing amongst themselves about and what it should be shrunk down to. senator mitch mcconnell on fox this morning said the democrats goal is to shrink the apparent cost of the bill and setting expiration dates on programs, but then hoping that they will
become popular enough and the committee for the responsible federal budget is calling out the democrats tactics saying these proposals don't actually shrink the package, they just shorten it, permanently extending the child tax credit and aca provisions alone would add more than a trillion dollars to the cost of the bill. as is the bait and switch going on right now? >> there are a lot of gimmicks and they are trying to hide from the american people what the real cost is. it's a trillion dollars, and spending which would face bought high inflation and lower wages and they would be hit even harder with this bill. there is an energy tax on natural gas in this bill, and that's not a total of 33 irs agents with a about 83 irs
agents. and if you make $20,000 per year they are going to look at every financial transaction, that's not economic development and not infrastructure, that's a frightening big government socialist push that people don't want and that's why they don't have the votes. i think that's a real chance they won't get the votes because people have had enough and they are already paying too much for the cost of the biden agenda of the pump, when they pay at the grocery store, and they want trillions more in big government socialism. >> zero cost except everyone knows who is paying. >> congressman steve scalise from louisiana, congressman, thank you. let's bring in constitutional law expert and fox news contributor jonathan turley.
it looks like things are about to be underway again in the hearing room, the leading republican jim jordan has returned to his chair and we are awaiting the chairman as well. if you had a seat in the room right now, jonathan, what would your question be to the ag? >> i would actually press on and if the need for special counsel i think it's pretty obvious at this point. recent emails have came from the hunter biden laptop indicate that there was a comingling of funds that some of the money that was coming from an account connected with hunter biden's foreign dealings which was in fact according to these emails, paying some of joe biden's bills. you also have emails going between joe biden and his daughter where he complains that much of the money he was making in these deals was going to his father. so there was no real way for their criminal investigation which was ongoing to look at
those accounts without stumbling over the president of the united states. that seems to me a rather glaring concept and the attorney general should be able to at least address this which could be warranted. he's not giving many specifics. and he was asked for example and that's the federal effort and this letter was sent by the school boards. he basically admitted that he was relying on the letter for the evidence in the federal government which included that. and that was a very short. and he didn't cite any evidence beyond that letter. >> john: it's johnson, let me ask you this question. from what you have seen in the school board meetings and coverage here on fox and other
networks as well, is there any reason for this to be investigated by the department of justice, the fbi, the department of homeland security, the national threat assessment center of the u.s. secret service and to potentially be under the gun free school zones act, the patriot act in regards to domestic terrorism temp the matthew shepard and james byrd jr. hate crime act, the violence of the protected right at him like and the conspiracy against right? is there any evidence that the school board should be handled under that rubric? >> and that's the disconnect with general garland who said of course not, there is are just parents who are being very passionate but then no one does the public question, so why did you intervene in this way and why are you citing things like the national security division in the press release that they are going to come to bear on
this issue? none of that is explained. when you look at these meetings people have been disruptive. some of them have gotten out of control. someone like this father, i think all of us can be sympathetic with. and i think the most telling aspect of there that we discussed earlier is when confronted with the father that got very upset when he was told by the board that his daughter apparently had not been or that they had no report of her being, he became most upset as most of us fathers and mothers would become. >> john: now the school superintendent has admitted, there was two and could have handled it better. >> that's right. if you look at that circumstance and when they asked garland about it, he said i'm not involved and not because of local. well hold it. they took this guy down and arrested it but that's a local matter. you just sent the entire department of justice into the field because where is that line
that you are drawing? and he simply wouldn't answer the question. >> sandra: what else would you want to know jonathan if you were in the room asking questions about, the garland memo, the family's involvement in the education sector as it pertains to crt, as news surfaced that his son-in-law cofounded the education consultancy that not only pushed crt related ideas but also provided services to school districts across the country? do you see a pool of potential conflict of interest there? >> i think the department of justice would likely find no conflict of interest because they would find us to attenuated but there is a standard here, and there is a concern here that a new member of his family is involved in the subject matter on which these disruptions and confrontations are occurring. it seems to me that it was incumbent upon him just to submit this for review. it's a mystery to me why he
didn't just say in the committee hearing, i'm going to do that. the american people should feel assured that someone independently is looking at this. that was another dropped ball in the hearing and i was really quite surprised by that, quite frankly. but one of the things i am interested in getting more information on is how they so quickly implemented at the national effort. they get this letter from the national board and about five days later he has unleashed the entirety of the fbi and department of justice to monitor and coordinate with every school district in the country. that is nascar pace for rolling out that kind of operation. the question is, how did that come about? who was the first that suggested it? did they review the implications of the chilling effect on free speech because these meetings are core areas and free speech.
it seems like at best they gave it a shrug and it's like having a cop following you down the highway just to see if you commit a violation. it affects how you drive. >> right. eventually you cross the line. jonathan turley, it's always good to get your take on things. >> thinking of driving and things not costing anything, i'm getting a local reporting california gas hitting a $7.59. along the big sur coast, gas prices are going up all over the country. so this hearing looks like it's going to be underway again shortly. they've been in a quick recess and jim jordan is back, we will take a super quick break and we will be right back with the hearing.
if you're thinking about a cash out refi whatever you're thinking with a mortgage, you should come to newday usa first. veteran homeowners. three reasons to do a cash out refi right now. home values are high while rates are low. newday lets you borrow all of your home's value. and you could take out $50,000 dollars or more.
bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ moving is a handful. no kidding! fortunately, xfinity makes moving easy. easy? -easy?
switch your xfinity services to your new address online in about a minute. that was easy. i know, right? and even save with special offers just for movers. really? yep! so while you handle that, you can keep your internet and all those shows you love, and save money while you're at it with special offers just for movers at xfinity.com/moving. every day, coventry helps people get cash for their life insurance policies they no longer need. i'm an anesthesiologist and a pain physician by specialty. i was trying to figure out what i could do with this term life insurance policy. i'm sorta stuck because i can't just go out and buy more insurance, because of my diagnosis. i called coventry direct and everything clicked. there actually were a lot more options that i thought there ever would be. coventry helped michael like we've helped thousands of people sell all or part of their life insurance policies for cash. even a term policy. there probably are a lot of
people that are in a similar situation who don't know they have an option. i would definitely recommend talking to coventry about it. coventry made it very easy. i just couldn't have asked for a better experience. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. >> john: after a series of votes the house judiciary committee has dabbled a back end so let's join. >> engaging a review of its use of force policies and we've introduced a bill to you banned the use of ketamine and custodial settings on that bill has earned the support of chairman nadler and subcommittee chairwoman jackson lee which i'm certainly grateful and we welcome the opportunity to work with your department on a particular legislation in honor of elijah's memory. on march 22nd of this year as
you know my community of boulder, colorado, experienced a chart comic horrific tragedy as a gunman killed ten people at a local grocery store using it ar-15 style pistol which fired modified arm rounds at the pistol brace. the pistol brace allowed the ute shooter to fire an easily concealable pistol with a rifle like accuracy and firepower. an immediate aftermath of this tragedy as you know, i sent the letter to the president and apartment of justice along with 100 of my colleagues requesting that administration use its authority to regulate concealable assault style firearms that fire rifle rounds. when we last met at the white house in april i was pleased with the administration's announcement that the doj would be issuing a proposed rule within 60 days to tighten regulations on pistol stabilizing braces, and i want to thank the department. applying this to the status of the rule of where we are in the rule making process. >> i believe we are still in the
rule making process, i can't remember whether the comment period has closed or not but as part of the administrative procedure as you know we have to go through rule making procedure and that was going on here to prevent the pistols from being used as a short barreled rifles which are prohibited. >> i appreciate the department taking that proposed rule seriously and we certainly look forward to the results of that. we are making the process, as do my constituents in boulder who are still very much grieving the loss of so many in our community. two other subjects i wanted to address in my limited time, the first round of the grand jury material. i know attorney general garland, i think you'd agree with me. current law allows for grand jury material known as a rule 6e material to be available after six years? >> i'm embarrassed to say this but i don't think that's correct. we have made a recommendation to
the federal rules committee that it be released, and i think 30 years is the time but i think the rules committee is not yet decided whether that would be the case. but that is -- i think 30 years as the number that we recommended. >> if that's a subject i was wanting to dig in on. my understanding is that current law allows for 30 years, the official or lawyer rather a doj proposed the time. to be extended to 50 years and in my understanding of the department of justice has continued that request and there are a lot of concerns in which i hold and my colleagues hold around judicial secrecy. and that would seem the bit much and if that were to be adopted a many of the materials released post-watergate would be secret today. so i would certainly -- >> so we have sent another
letter post the letter that you are speaking about to the rules committee and there is no reason why it can't share it, it's not a private letter or anything. it went back and even shorter. then the holder letter originally was. and i will ask my stuff to get that for you. >> that's terrific to hear and think you attorney general and think you department for making that change. i think that that is going to allay many of the concerns that folks had, certainly mine. so i perceive the department of justice doing that. finally last question, national substance abuse prevention as this month and i know my colleague from florida representative deutsch asked questions with respect to the opioid epidemic that is pervasive across the country including in my state and colorado were on average two coloradans are dying per day from opioid overdoses. the department has worked with us on a bill on the substance abuse act and i want to think the doj for their partnership in that regard and to give you an opportunity before the hearing concludes this afternoon to add
anything else you would like to add to representative deutsch about the departments work to address this epidemic and i think there is bipartisan interest in the congress and partnering with your department to ensure that these were given across the country including my state of colorado. >> this is a terrible epidemic. i went to the u.s. attorney's offices all across california and also in tucson to find out what's happening with respect to the importation of fentanyl. i would say that's my number one concern now because these pills are something like 4 out of 10 pills and it's like playing russian roulette. if you take one of these, you die. the kids that are taking those have no idea that that's what's happening, sometimes they think that there is something else that they are buying rather than those.
sometimes there are precursors coming from the people's republic of china and coming into mexico and they are pressed into pill form and then transmitted across the border. cbp has done an extremely good job of checking the trucks and a check in the this material and it is an overwhelming problem run by the cartels. and the dea is working extremely hard on this manner. dumb academic matter. when i was in mexico city we talked in their security and the secretary as i raised precisely this issue. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, as someone who was born in the soviet union, i am disturbed, very disturbed, by the use of the department of justice as a political tool, and its power to
suppress public discourse. the fbi has started to resemble all kgb with secret surveillance and wiretapping and surveillance of citizens. it's interesting that during the soviet era the united states criticized the use of the domestic terrorism concept in the ussr as a tool to suppress free speech and political dissent. in your recent statement in the antiabortion law you said it is the foremost responsibility of the department of justice to defend the constitution. do you plan to defend the second amended rights which are explicitly protected by our constitution as vigorously as you do abortion rights? yes or no? >> yes. >> do you believe recent
inspector general pfizer report citing widespread and material noncompliance by the fbi with proper due process for surveillance of u.s. citizens is a violation of the first amendment? >> i think it's a violation of the phis act by itself, without even having to get to the constitution and we take this extraordinarily seriously which is why we have an inspector general and that's why our national security division reviews what the fbi does with respect to fisa and i know the fbi director takes this very seriously as well and have made major fixes to their practices so this won't occur again. this is constantly being audited and reviewed by our national security division. i take this very seriously and i agree we have to be extremely careful about surveillance of american citizens only as appropriate under the statute. >> its potential that the fourth and fifth amendment could be violating, and in your remarks
on domestic terrorism is that nearly every day you get a briefing from the fbi directing his team, how often do you select fisa relations in your nearly briefing is with the fbi? >> is a quarterly review that the intelligence community and national security division submits to intelligence committees with sis mike respect to fisa reviews and i meet with them relatively routinely to discuss how that's going. so it's not every morning but this review of violations in our efforts to make sure that doesn't happen again is pretty frequent. >> so it seems like every report would have materials, and i went to the border a few times and recently visited the air force
base, and housed afghanistan evacuees and based on what i've seen i have some questions and significant national security concerns. former border patrol chief rodney scott recently said that the open border poses a real terror threat. do you agree with the border patrol chief or secretary new york us who said the board is no less secure than before? >> if you're talking about the border unconcerned about that across all of our borders. it's been a continuous concern. >> but do you agree that the border patrol chief that's happening right now can make it less secure and have a real increase terror threat? >> i believe that combination of intelligence community and the fbi are working very hard to make sure that people crossing the border do not constitute a terrorist threat but we always
have to be worried about the possibility and we are of a on that subject. >> can you reassure the american people that we will be able to protect our country from a terrorist attack that may result from this lawlessness of the border or the afghanistan debacle? >> i can assure the american people is working every day to do the best it possibly can from whatever direction it comes. >> do you have any specific actions and plans that you are doing in light of what is happening right now in the border, do you have a specific strategy where you are working directly with them in the current situation? considering the current situation on the border, do you take any specific actions of the border? >> with respect to the first part of your question, the fbi is participating along with the fbi and vetting refugees landing in various locations in kosovo
or the ram sign airbase, they are doing everything they can with respect to a crossing of the border, this is a combination intelligence community. outside of our intelligence community, getting information about who might be trying to cross. >> dental ladies time is expired. >> thank you so much mr. chairman. attorney general garland, there are many others in this room outside of myself that want to thank you so much for such a long career of public service. as you may know i lost my son jordan almost nine years ago now, he was simply sitting in a car with three of his friends playing loud music. a stranger complained about the volume of their music and called the boys gang bangers and thugs and he took my son's life.
i am pleased that the president has committed to preventing gun violence and he's taken on the role of gun violence prevention in america. the task orders, also known as a red flag orders, allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from those who oppose imminent danger to themselves and the risk of harming others. on april 72021, an announcement of initial actions to curb gun violence, the biden white house encouraged congress to pass the national red flag law. how would the national red flag law work with other federal protections to prevent gun violence? >> so we are in favor of the national red flag law and what we are doing now is making model red flag laws for the states. these models provide that guns can be taken away from a person
who might be in a mental crisis of some kind. when requested by someone close to them, or if there is already a court violation of some kind, but it provides a due process protections for those people to ensure that they haven't been inappropriately taken. there is a risk that a person in distress can commit violent acts and when they have easy access to a firearm the risk is that the violent act ends in a death. so i think >> thank you. attorney general garland, we lost 49 people including many young people at the mass shooting in pulse nightclub in orlando, florida. the shooter was previously the subject of a 10-month sbi investigation.
during this investigation, the fbi said that the man raped her, beat her and while she was pregnant, he threatened to kill her. 53% of mass shootings involve a shooter killing intimate partner or family member among other victims. among the mass shooters that don't kill an intimate partner as in the pulse shooting, there's a history of domestic violence. since the pulse shooting, has the department updated this domestic operations guide or u.s. attorney's manual to ensure that it is examining whether a person has a history of domestic violence? >> i don't know the exact answer in to the past. i know that right now the ten did attorney general is doing a review with respect to the way in which the department treats victims including victims in the circumstance that you talked about and creates warning systems for those sorts of things. so i can't give you any