Fired FBI Agents Testify Before Senate Judiciary Panel On 2020 Election Case

[0:21] Hereby call to order this hearing, Arctic Frost, the modern Watergate. [0:27] Fifty years ago, Watergate exposed a simple but profound abuse of power. [0:34] Operatives tied to a sitting president broke into a building to secretly gather information from their political opponents [0:41] by bugging offices and seizing documents. [0:44] And what followed was just as troubling. [0:49] Efforts to use the powers of government to conceal it, [0:53] to pressure investigators, to shut down inquiries, to avoid accountability. [1:01] Even though that operation failed in its ultimate objective, the American people did not treat it lightly. [1:09] The consequences were swift and severe. [1:14] The president of the United States resigned in disgrace, facing near certain impeachment. [1:20] And dozens of officials, more than 40 individuals connected to the scheme, were indicted or jailed. [1:28] Because the attempt itself was the offense. [1:33] In our law, we recognize a simple truth. [1:36] A failed crime is not an insignificant one. [1:41] A man who pulls the trigger and misses is no less guilty than the one who hits his mark. [1:47] The intent is the same, the danger is the same, and the crime is the same. [1:52] And if Watergate taught us anything, it is that even a single abuse of power, [1:58] carried out by a handful of individuals, can shake the foundations of our republic. [2:03] But what we confront today, the Biden administration's Arctic Frost scheme, is not a single act. [2:11] It is a modern Watergate, trading a break-in at one office for a digital sweep into approximately 100,000 private communications. [2:25] More than a dozen senators and thousands of individuals' lives. [2:30] But even that comparison falls short. [2:33] It is something far broader. [2:37] An operation that aligned Democrats across all three branches of government. [2:41] The Biden executive branch, through DOJ and the FBI, [2:45] wielding investigative power against politicians. [2:48] Political opponents. [2:49] Democrat-appointed judges in the judiciary, [2:53] through warrants, secrecy orders, and deference, [2:57] failing to serve as a meaningful check. [2:59] And members of the legislative branch, [3:03] who should be the first line of oversight, [3:05] choosing instead to look the other way. [3:08] And just like Watergate, these officials deserve to be investigated, tried, impeached, and brought to justice. [3:16] So let's examine how this operation was carried out, step by step. [3:19] In early 2022, [3:22] senior leadership within the Biden Department of Justice [3:25] made the decision to open an investigation targeting President Trump and his campaign apparatus. [3:34] Attorney General Merrick Garland, [3:36] Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, [3:38] and FBI Director Chris Wray [3:40] all personally approved the opening of the investigation. [3:49] On April 4th, 2022, [3:51] they signed a confidential memo with each of their signatures. [3:57] That fact matters. [4:00] Watergate was carried out in secret [4:02] by operatives who were not brazen enough to act [4:05] with formal, written authorization from the highest levels of the Department of Justice. [4:10] Arctic Frost was fully authorized, formalized, and executed [4:15] through the official powers of the United States government [4:19] by partisan Democrats. [4:23] Then, in the fall, [4:24] came the nearly 200 subpoenas. [4:28] We're talking about information pertaining to hundreds of entities and individuals. [4:34] Over 400 Republican-aligned groups and individuals, [4:38] including the most sensitive categories of personal data, [4:41] gathered, retained, and in some accounts shared across offices. [4:45] Watergate was about a handful of files in a single office. [4:50] This reached into tens of thousands of private communications, [4:54] emails, records, and personal data. [4:59] Toll records, bank records, donor lists, law firm records, [5:04] and other personal files relating to every major concern [5:08] of every major conservative organization were subpoenaed. [5:13] Who were the targets of this? [5:15] Donald Trump's campaign, [5:16] the RNC, [5:17] the Conservative Partnership Institute, [5:19] Save America PAC, [5:21] America First Policy Institute, [5:23] and even my pillow, [5:24] because God knows we have a national security threat [5:28] from rogue pillows threatening our country. [5:33] Watergate broke into an office. [5:36] Arctic Frost reached into the private lives [5:39] of thousands of Americans. [5:42] Meanwhile, conservative leaders found themselves equally violated. [5:47] The Biden administration sought the phone records [5:49] of nearly 20% of the Republicans in the Senate, [5:53] including multiple members of the committee, including myself. [5:56] Without our knowledge, the FBI took the cell phone data [6:02] of nearly 20% of the Republicans in the Senate, [6:05] including information about with whom we were talking, [6:09] how long we were talking, and from where we were calling. [6:12] Toll records are not trivial. [6:15] They are a map of your life, [6:16] giving insight into your relationships, [6:18] your movements, your patterns. [6:21] Such invasive subpoenas were granted by Judge Boasberg, [6:26] a Democrat-appointed judge, [6:28] on the premise that any one of us, [6:31] or to be clear, all of us, [6:33] as duly elected United States senators, [6:36] would destroy evidence, [6:39] tamper with witnesses, or obstruct justice. [6:42] And Judge Boasberg signed those orders [6:46] like he was printing the menu at a Denny's. [6:49] One after the other, facts be damned, [6:52] every member of the Senate is likely to destroy evidence. [6:55] Such invasive subpoenas are an abuse of power. [7:03] Recently, even more troubling facts continue to emerge. [7:09] Biden's Department of Justice subpoenaed the toll records [7:12] of now FBI Director Kash Patel [7:14] and now White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. [7:17] They were not aiming low. [7:18] They were trying to take out everyone on the other side. [7:23] Both were at the time private citizens [7:25] and key members of President Trump's 2024 election campaign. [7:29] Now imagine the reverse. [7:32] Imagine for just one moment [7:34] that President Trump's Department of Justice [7:36] had secretly obtained the phone records [7:38] of Senator Schumer and Senator Whitehouse [7:43] and Senator Durbin, Senator Hirono, and Senator Padilla. [7:48] My Democrat colleagues would be losing [7:51] all signed off on a covert effort [7:54] to sweep up the communications, locations, data, and call history [7:58] of every Democrat-affiliated organization [8:01] and individual in the United States. [8:03] Imagine if a judge, a Republican-appointed judge, [8:07] signed an order that said, [8:08] Senator Durbin will destroy evidence [8:10] if he is aware of this subpoena. [8:12] Because that's what this judge did. [8:13] Would anyone in this hearing room call that routine? [8:18] Would Democrats call that normal law enforcement activity? [8:23] Would the press shrug its shoulders? [8:26] Of course not. [8:27] There would be wall-to-wall coverage. [8:31] There would be cries of authoritarianism. [8:34] There would be emergency hearings, demands for resignations, [8:37] and talk of impeachment. [8:39] There would be impeachment before the sun went down. [8:43] Instead, my Democrat colleagues can barely get their heart rate [8:46] above 60 beats per minute. [8:48] Arctic frost is the culmination [8:53] of a gross pattern of abuse by Democrats [8:58] for partisan ends to elect and re-elect a Democrat president. [9:04] In 2016, Obama's FBI began spying on the Trump campaign [9:09] just a month before Election Day. [9:11] In 2020, Biden's FBI met with Senators Johnson and Grassley [9:15] in an effort to throw off their investment [9:17] in an investigation into the now infamous Hunter Biden laptop, [9:20] calling the laptop disinformation, [9:23] a claim we now know was false. [9:25] The FBI went to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee [9:30] and lied to him in an effort to change the outcome [9:34] of a presidential election. [9:38] Democrats for years have exhibited the pattern [9:41] of abusing public law enforcement powers [9:44] for the sake of politics. [9:46] A pattern this committee, under the leadership of Chairman Grassley, [9:50] is now working to uncover and expose. [9:53] Because no administration, Republican or Democrat, [9:56] has any business turning the surveillance powers [9:59] of the federal government against its political opposition. [10:02] 50 years ago, this nation was confronted with an abuse of power. [10:07] And it responded not with indifference, [10:09] but with accountability. [10:11] I'll tell you one of the big differences [10:13] of Watergate versus Arctic Frost. [10:15] When Richard Nixon and his corrupt attorney general [10:20] and his corrupt administration abused their law enforcement powers [10:24] to go after their political opponents, [10:26] Republican senators stood up to the president of their own party [10:30] and defended the rule of law. [10:33] Where is even a single Democrat senator [10:38] who has said one word about this abuse of power? [10:43] Is there not one? There are 47 Democrats in this body. [10:46] Is there not one who can come forward and say, [10:49] you know what, turning the Department of Justice [10:52] into the oppo research and attack machine [10:55] of the DNC is not what the DOJ is supposed to be. [11:01] We were tested then, and there was accountability. [11:07] We are being attested again now. [11:10] The question is really simple. [11:14] Will we uphold the same standard? [11:16] Will we defend the rule of law or will we abandon it? [11:21] Ranking member, White House. [11:24] Last month, Kash Patel fired roughly a dozen agents [11:35] and analysts from the FBI's CI-12 unit, [11:39] a counterintelligence unit dedicated to protecting Americans [11:45] from foreign espionage. [11:47] One of the foreign actors that this unit specializes in [11:51] is Iran and its proxies. [11:55] According to CNN, this unit was, and I quote, [11:59] instrumental in tracking potential threats [12:02] after the first Trump administration killed [12:06] a top Iranian official in 2020. [12:09] Just days after Patel fired these agents, [12:13] President Trump started a war in Iran [12:17] that has already led to the deaths [12:21] of at least 13 American service members. [12:25] If it seems like a bad decision [12:29] to fire career law enforcement professionals [12:34] who specialize in defending against Iranian threats [12:39] just days before we start a war with Iran, [12:43] that's because it is. [12:46] And it's even worse when you consider [12:49] why Patel fired these agents. [12:53] These agents had been assigned to Jack Smith's investigation [12:59] into Donald Trump's illegal [13:02] hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. [13:07] Patel claims that as part of that investigation, [13:13] Jack Smith issued grand jury subpoenas [13:16] for toll records for Patel and for Susie Wiles [13:21] when they were private citizens. [13:24] Patel also insists that the FBI recorded [13:27] one of Wiles' phone calls, [13:29] which her own attorney has denied. [13:31] If you ask anyone with law enforcement experience [13:36] to react to news that the FBI may have sought [13:39] these toll records, the response is simple. [13:44] Of course they did. [13:47] Virtually every investigation involves subpoenas [13:50] for toll records for any number of reasons. [13:53] Sometimes it's to construct a timeline of events. [13:57] Sometimes it's to rule out wrongdoing. [14:02] Sometimes it's to prepare for a witness interview. [14:06] Sometimes it's to help understand [14:10] the scope of a conspiracy. [14:15] In fact, the first Trump DOJ did the same thing [14:20] Republicans have criticized Jack Smith for doing. [14:24] Getting the toll records of members of Congress, [14:29] following the DOJ policies then in place, [14:33] and getting non-disclosure orders. [14:38] Here's what Chairman Grassley said at the time. [14:42] Investigation into members of Congress and staff [14:45] is nothing new. [14:49] And the Justice Department has specific procedures [14:52] for such sensitive investigations. [14:55] Apparently when the Trump DOJ does it, [14:58] it's nothing new. [15:01] When Jack Smith does it, [15:03] it's a modern Watergate. [15:06] With Patel, it's obvious why Jack Smith [15:09] was looking at him. [15:12] Patel made himself a fact witness [15:14] in that investigation. [15:16] He went on podcasts bragging about [15:19] how he planned to post classified information online [15:23] at Donald Trump's direction. [15:27] And how he personally witnessed Donald Trump [15:30] declassify records. [15:32] We have known for years [15:37] that Smith was looking into Patel's role [15:40] because Smith subpoenaed Patel [15:43] to testify before a grand jury. [15:46] Where is Patel's grand jury testimony? [15:50] Why is that still hidden? [15:53] The same goes for Ms. Wiles. [15:57] Wiles is referenced in the indictment [15:59] against President Trump [16:01] because Trump showed her classified documents [16:04] when she didn't have a security clearance. [16:07] The same month that indictment came out, [16:12] the PAC Wiles ran received its highest payment ever [16:17] from the Trump campaign. [16:20] That's another thing that any investigator [16:23] worth their salt would take a close look at. [16:26] The same goes for the rest of the subpoenas [16:29] my colleagues on the other side [16:31] want to talk about today. [16:33] Jack Smith was investigating a massive conspiracy [16:40] by Trump officials and their allies [16:44] to overturn an election [16:46] and attack the Capitol on January 6th. [16:50] Is anyone surprised that he issued subpoenas [16:54] as part of that investigation? [16:57] And why? [17:01] As Smith told the House Judiciary Committee [17:03] under oath, his investigation, quote, [17:07] involved interviewing and subpoenaing records [17:10] of Republicans because that's who Donald Trump [17:14] sought to prey on to stay in office. [17:19] Somebody geared up the Republican [17:23] Attorneys General Association, or RAGA, [17:26] to sponsor the rally that turned into the riots [17:30] on January 6th and pay for robocalls, [17:33] urging people to march to the Capitol building [17:36] and fight to protect the integrity of our elections. [17:41] Jeffrey Clark, who worked at DOJ at the time, [17:45] tried to convince the Department of Justice leadership [17:49] to send a letter to try to overturn [17:54] the election results in Georgia. [17:56] President Trump almost made him acting Attorney General [17:59] because Clark was willing to help Trump [18:02] try to overturn the election. [18:05] Pretend for a minute that Jack Smith [18:08] and all the DOJ and FBI officials [18:10] who helped his investigation did do something wrong. [18:14] What would real oversight look like? [18:18] Well, first, Republicans would accept Jack Smith's offer [18:21] to testify before this committee under oath [18:25] instead of holding a series of hearings [18:28] on conspiracy theories without anything new to say. [18:32] Why not call him? [18:35] Hear it from the man himself. [18:37] Second, Republicans would let us see [18:40] Jack Smith's full report on his investigations [18:44] into President Trump. [18:46] We only have volume one, [18:48] which explains the subpoenas he issued [18:50] in the 2020 election interference investigation. [18:54] We still need volume two [18:57] on his classified documents crimes investigation. [19:02] Democrats on this committee have asked DOJ [19:04] to give us volume two, [19:06] but Republicans have been silent [19:08] as President Trump and his MAGA DOJ [19:11] have fought to bury the report. [19:14] Third, Republicans would oblige Kash Patel [19:19] to tell us what he told the grand jury [19:22] in that classified documents investigation. [19:25] They might also hold Patel accountable [19:28] for misleading this committee in sworn testimony. [19:32] I've asked Patel multiple times under oath [19:36] to describe his testimony to us [19:39] as Rule 6e plainly allows. [19:42] First, [19:45] he said he couldn't [19:46] because it was under seal [19:49] by the chief judge [19:52] for the U.S. District Court [19:54] for the District of Columbia. [19:56] Turns out, [19:58] that very chief judge later said [20:00] that nothing was preventing Patel [20:02] from divulging his testimony [20:05] to this committee as the rule allows. [20:08] So that testimony was false. [20:10] When Patel came back, [20:13] he told another lie, [20:15] this time that he had already released [20:17] the transcript of his testimony. [20:19] Here's the transcript [20:22] he might have been talking about. [20:24] As you can see from reading it, [20:29] oh, wait a minute, [20:31] you can't read it [20:32] because it's almost completely redacted. [20:35] And it's not even from the right hearing. [20:39] This is from the time Patel appeared [20:43] before the grand jury [20:44] in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents crimes case [20:48] to assert his Fifth Amendment rights [20:51] because he was afraid [20:52] of being prosecuted. [20:57] The testimony that he actually ended up giving [21:00] once his Fifth Amendment plea [21:02] was accepted and he was immunized, [21:05] we have never seen. [21:08] If this committee is so interested [21:09] in Jack Smith's investigation, [21:11] it should want to know [21:12] what Patel had to say [21:14] in that investigation, [21:17] why he was so afraid to say it, [21:20] and why he's so afraid [21:22] to tell us about it now [21:24] and instead repeatedly lie [21:26] to this committee. [21:27] I'll close by talking about [21:29] what this hearing should be about. [21:31] Those counterintelligence agents [21:34] Kash Patel fired [21:35] aren't the only career [21:36] law enforcement officials [21:37] forced out by this administration, [21:40] nor are they the only ones purged [21:42] because they were assigned [21:44] to investigate President Trump's crimes. [21:47] Here's what has happened at the FBI [21:50] since President Trump took office. [21:52] The FBI has lost at least 300 agents [21:55] working on national security matters. [21:57] Transferred agents [21:59] out of the domestic terrorism operations section, [22:02] disbanded the foreign influence task force, [22:07] and instructed joint terrorism task forces [22:10] to work on immigration cases. [22:13] At DOJ, more than 6,000 employees have left. [22:18] The National Security Division [22:20] has lost up to one-third of its leadership, [22:23] half the line prosecutors [22:25] in the counterterrorism section, [22:27] and half the workforce [22:29] in the counterintelligence section. [22:31] Attorney General Bondi [22:34] disbanded DOJ's task force klepto-capture, [22:38] kleptocracy team, [22:40] and kleptocracy asset recovery initiative. [22:43] It is the same story [22:44] throughout the administration [22:46] where conspiracy theories [22:48] and obsessions with revenge [22:50] are decimating the career law enforcement [22:54] who protect us [22:55] against national security threats. [22:58] Major cuts at the office [23:01] of the Director of National Intelligence, [23:02] Laura Loomer, [23:05] forcing out the heads of the NSA [23:07] and U.S. Cyber Command, [23:09] DHS gutting its office [23:12] to prevent domestic terrorism, [23:15] and putting a 22-year-old [23:17] with no experience in charge, [23:20] and cutting the workforce of CISA, [23:24] which protects us from cyber security threats [23:27] from bad actors like Iran. [23:30] Americans are made less safe [23:33] every time this committee holds [23:35] a hearing promoting fake outrage [23:38] about Jack Smith [23:39] and denigrating FBI and DOJ professionals. [23:43] Every time MAGA influencers [23:45] like Laura Loomer [23:47] convince the president [23:48] to fire agency heads. [23:50] And every time [23:51] Kash Patel fires FBI experts [23:53] because he wants to distract [23:55] from his own incompetence, [23:57] his wasting of taxpayer dollars [24:00] to fly around the world [24:01] on a private jet, [24:03] his partying at the Olympics, [24:05] or his undermining [24:08] of the FBI's own investigation. [24:11] Instead of chasing conspiracy theories [24:13] down rabbit holes, [24:15] that's what we should be focused on. [24:21] Chairman Grassley. [24:22] Yeah. [24:23] Thank you, Senator Cruz, [24:24] for your strong leadership, [24:26] but more importantly, [24:27] for the outstanding statement [24:29] you gave this morning [24:30] that reminds us a lot of history, [24:33] as well as what's going on right now. [24:36] Today is the second in a series [24:38] of Arctic Frost hearings [24:39] that I've authorized as chairman. [24:41] I started my investigation [24:43] into Arctic Frost in July of 2022 [24:47] based on credible whistleblower disclosures. [24:50] Senator Johnson has since [24:52] joined the investigation, [24:54] and I appreciate our joint work. [24:57] Our goal is to publicly release [25:00] as many records as possible. [25:03] The public has a right to know [25:05] how the taxpayer dollars have been used [25:07] and who was involved [25:09] up and down the decision-making chain. [25:12] Today, we're making new records public. [25:15] Some records are dated January 2023 [25:18] before Jack Smith's team [25:20] secretly sought most member tolling data. [25:24] The records include a wish list [25:26] created by Smith's team, [25:28] naming 14 members of Congress [25:30] for whom they wanted to seek tolling data. [25:33] Some of those members are senators [25:35] on this very committee. [25:37] But the list notes [25:39] that Smith's team already knew [25:41] these members had communication, [25:44] so include text messages [25:46] for some members [25:48] with individuals associated [25:50] with President Trump. [25:52] And Jack Smith was certainly aware [25:54] of this effort. [25:57] To quote from the emails [25:58] we're making public today, quote, [26:00] before we tell Maine, [26:02] meaning Maine justice, [26:04] we're going to fire off subpoenas [26:07] for so many members' tolls. [26:09] I should make sure that Jack's aware. [26:14] Another record states that, quote, [26:17] unlikely the many of these members [26:20] will cooperate with, [26:23] unlikely many of these members [26:26] will cooperate with our investigation. [26:29] The same record also says [26:33] the members, quote, [26:34] likely have a valid speech [26:36] or debate privilege [26:38] immunizing them [26:40] from compelled testimony. [26:43] End of quote. [26:44] I've already publicly released [26:46] other records showing Smith's team [26:49] was warned that subpoenaing [26:52] congressional information [26:54] could violate the speech [26:56] and debate clause. [26:58] I've also publicly released [27:00] 197 subpoenas seeking [27:04] sensitive financial information [27:07] from over 400 Republican groups [27:10] and individuals. [27:11] Some of the information sought [27:13] included legislative branch communications. [27:17] Even with these constitutional concerns, [27:21] Smith's team secretly sought [27:23] and obtained member of Congress [27:25] tolling data, [27:27] and when one phone company pushed back, [27:31] Smith backed down. [27:34] That calls into question the necessity [27:37] of obtaining member data. [27:39] Another record, [27:41] calls into question [27:43] Jack Smith's assertion [27:45] that the House January 6th [27:47] committee materials, quote, [27:50] comprised a small part [27:52] of the office's investigative record. [27:56] End of quote. [27:57] This new record states that [27:59] of the January 6th report, [28:02] quote, [28:03] leadership teams fully read [28:05] and reviewed. [28:06] Last weekend, we went over it [28:09] page by page [28:10] and incorporated it [28:12] into our investigative plan. [28:14] End of quote. [28:15] Indeed, [28:16] these same records [28:18] that we're making public today [28:21] says that Smith's team will be, [28:24] quote, [28:25] logging all information [28:27] contained in the report. [28:29] End of quote. [28:31] Also, [28:32] the record states [28:34] Smith's team will, quote, [28:36] leverage, [28:37] end of quote, [28:38] the report to, quote, [28:40] avoid needless interviews, [28:43] and focus the interviews [28:45] we perform on [28:46] underdeveloped topics. [28:49] End of quote. [28:50] Overall, [28:51] the records create additional questions [28:54] about Smith's conduct, [28:56] need for member data, [28:58] and candor to the court [29:02] and the public. [29:03] The Democrats have criticized us [29:05] for not bringing Jack Smith [29:07] before us at the beginning. [29:09] And you've heard that again today. [29:11] If we followed the Democrats' preamble, [29:13] the Democrats' premature [29:16] and ill-advised strategy, [29:18] we wouldn't have had [29:19] a great deal of information [29:21] we now have [29:22] that shows Jack Smith [29:24] misled Congress and the public, [29:27] if not outright lied. [29:30] And lastly, today, [29:31] we're also making public [29:33] two subpoenas [29:34] for toll records [29:36] of FBI Director Patel, [29:38] along with nondisclosure orders [29:41] that kept them secret. [29:43] This committee's work will continue. [29:46] Thank you. [29:48] Thank you. [29:49] Ranking Member Durbin. [29:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [29:59] Last week, [30:00] America lost a man [30:01] who devoted his life [30:02] in service to our nation. [30:05] Robert Mueller [30:06] earned a Bronze Star [30:07] and a Purple Heart [30:08] serving as a Marine [30:09] and risking his life in Vietnam. [30:11] He led the FBI after 9-11, [30:15] helping to secure our nation [30:17] after the worst terrorist attack [30:19] in American history. [30:21] Mueller was an amazing man. [30:24] A registered Republican, [30:26] he was appointed and reappointed [30:28] by not only Republican President [30:31] George H.W. Bush, [30:33] but Bill Clinton, [30:35] George W. Bush, [30:38] and Barack Obama. [30:39] He holds an historic distinction. [30:42] He is the only FBI Director, [30:45] other than J. Edgar Hoover, [30:47] who had his tenure at the FBI [30:52] extended beyond the 10-year limit [30:54] by a vote of 100 to nothing [30:58] in the United States Senate. [30:59] He was given approval [31:00] to serve an additional two years [31:02] under President Obama. [31:04] I worked with Robert Mueller [31:09] for many years. [31:10] I remember reaching out to him [31:12] after 9-11 and the news [31:14] that the technology available [31:16] at the FBI was so ancient [31:19] on the day of the attack of 9-11 [31:22] that you could buy more modern [31:25] and effective technology [31:26] at a radio shack. [31:28] I said to him, [31:29] I am not an expert in this area [31:30] in any way whatsoever, [31:32] but I want to help you if I can. [31:35] I want it to be a bipartisan effort. [31:37] And we worked together for years. [31:39] I never, ever questioned [31:43] Bob Mueller's devotion to our nation [31:45] or his personal integrity. [31:47] How did President Donald Trump [31:51] respond to news of Robert Mueller's passing? [31:55] I quote the President, [31:58] Good. I'm glad he's dead. [32:01] Let me repeat that. [32:05] The President said, [32:06] when notified of Robert Mueller's passing, [32:10] Good. I'm glad he's dead. [32:13] Those reprehensible words [32:16] should be condemned by every member [32:18] of the committee on both sides of the aisle. [32:22] Unfortunately, [32:23] under Republican leadership, [32:25] this committee has been complicit [32:27] in the attacks on Robert Mueller, [32:30] spending years spreading debunked [32:32] conspiracy theories about his investigation [32:35] into Russia's interference [32:37] in the 2016 election. [32:40] We're here today to attack [32:41] another special counsel investigation [32:43] led by another honorable public servant. [32:47] As the title of this hearing makes clear, [32:49] the majority is wasting [32:51] this committee's time and resources [32:53] on another baseless, partisan witch hunt. [32:57] President Trump spent months [33:00] attempting to unlawfully overturn [33:02] his 2020 presidential election loss. [33:05] It was known as the Big Lie. [33:07] We heard it over and over again. [33:10] It culminated in a deadly attack [33:12] on the Capitol, [33:13] which many of us lived through [33:15] on January 6th. [33:17] Then President Trump removed [33:20] hundreds of pages of classified documents [33:22] from the White House, [33:24] and as a private citizen, [33:26] held them at his Mar-a-Lago residence, [33:28] some next to a toilet, [33:30] refusing for more than a year [33:31] to return these documents. [33:33] Despite this unprecedented [33:36] and egregious conduct, [33:37] my Republican colleagues claim [33:39] the Watergate level scandal [33:41] is the actual investigation [33:43] into Trump's brazen transgressions, [33:46] not his historically dangerous action. [33:49] It would have been a dereliction of duty [33:53] for any prosecutor investigating [33:55] the effort to overturn the 2020 election, [33:58] not to subpoena organizations [34:00] like Turning Point USA, [34:02] an organization that helped plan [34:04] the so-called Stop the Steal rally [34:06] that led to the January 6th deadly attack [34:09] on the United States Capitol. [34:11] Similarly, any prosecutor worth his salt [34:13] would have subpoenaed Kash Patel, [34:15] who was a material witness [34:17] in the classified documents case. [34:19] Patel even infamously claimed [34:22] to be the sole witness [34:24] of President Trump's supposed [34:26] blanket declassification [34:28] of classified documents. [34:31] Now, if my Republican colleagues [34:33] were serious about this issue, [34:35] they would have called [34:36] Special Counsel Jack Smith [34:38] to testify under oath [34:40] before this committee. [34:42] The Democrats on this committee [34:44] notified the chairman [34:46] in October of last year, [34:48] six months ago, [34:51] that Smith was not only available to testify, [34:53] he would do so under oath [34:55] and answer the questions [34:56] raised in this hearing. [34:57] What has happened in the last six months? [34:59] There has been no action [35:00] by the Republican leadership [35:01] of this committee [35:02] to bring the sole major witness [35:05] of this event [35:06] before the committee under oath [35:08] to ask specific questions. [35:10] Why? [35:12] Why is this committee afraid [35:13] to bring Jack Smith [35:14] before and under oath? [35:15] For six months, they have avoided it. [35:17] You want to know why? [35:19] They can continue these sham hearings [35:21] over issues that don't exist. [35:23] The majority has also refused [35:26] to support Committee Democrats' request [35:28] to release Volume 2 [35:30] of Special Counsel Smith's report, [35:32] which Senator Whitehouse noted. [35:34] Let me draw attention to the issues [35:36] the committee should be addressing [35:38] instead of this farce today. [35:40] Over the past year, [35:41] President Trump, [35:42] Attorney General Bondi, [35:43] and Director of the FBI Patel [35:45] have systematically dismantled [35:47] the Federal Bureau of Investigation, [35:49] the premier law enforcement agency [35:51] in the United States, [35:52] if not the world. [35:53] These purges are making [35:56] every American less safe. [35:58] Most recently, [35:59] Patel reportedly fired [36:00] at least six agents [36:02] and several other FBI personnel [36:04] who'd been assigned to work [36:06] related to President Trump's mishandling [36:08] of classified documents. [36:10] These terminations were seemingly [36:13] to save face with President Trump [36:15] in response to the negative press [36:17] Director Patel received [36:19] for his embarrassing appearance [36:22] chugging beer at the Olympic Games. [36:25] Several of the fired agents [36:27] were reportedly part of a global [36:29] counterintelligence squad [36:31] which Senator Whitehouse has referred to [36:33] particularly appropriate at a time [36:35] we are at war with Iran. [36:37] In other words, [36:38] Director Patel's political retribution [36:40] has weakened the FBI's ability [36:42] to counter Iranian threats [36:44] at the exact time [36:46] that not only America, [36:49] but certainly the men and women in uniform, [36:51] needed them to keep themselves safe. [36:54] Watergate is the story of a president [36:56] who engaged in a vast illegal conspiracy [36:58] to remain in power [37:00] and use his control [37:01] of the levers of government [37:02] to obstruct investigations [37:04] into his own misconduct. [37:06] Back then, the Senate stood up [37:07] for the Constitution and the rule of law, [37:10] exposing Nixon's corruption [37:12] by investigating the serious [37:14] allegations against him. [37:16] Today, [37:17] today, [37:18] Senate Republicans waffle [37:19] between indifference [37:20] to outright celebration [37:22] of President Trump's brazen misconduct, [37:24] despite the real dangers it opposes. [37:27] We cannot continue on this course. [37:29] The American people face real challenges [37:32] from citizens being summarily executed [37:35] for exercising their First Amendment rights [37:38] and to the skyrocketing price [37:40] of the cost of living [37:41] under this administration. [37:43] This hearing will not help a single person [37:46] other than Donald Trump, [37:47] and the Republican majority [37:49] should do better for their constituents. [37:51] A senator from Texas [37:53] should know a dead horse [37:55] when he sees one. [37:56] This hearing is an attempt [37:58] to throttle a dead horse to a gallop. [38:00] There aren't enough giddyups [38:02] in the world to accomplish that goal. [38:05] I yield. [38:09] For a Chicago man, [38:10] that was an awful lot [38:11] of rodeo references. [38:14] Mr. Chairman, [38:15] I don't quite know how to do this, [38:16] but I would like to ask [38:19] that this transcript be made [38:23] an exhibit in this proceeding. [38:25] It's 22 pages of examination [38:27] of the witness [38:28] in which only these words are public. [38:32] So upon the advice of counsel, [38:34] I'll be invoking [38:35] my Fifth Amendment privilege. [38:37] The rest of it is redacted. [38:39] I assume that it can go in [38:41] as an exhibit [38:43] with the image of all the redactions, [38:45] and if that's the case, [38:47] I'd like to ask that it be made [38:48] an exhibit in this proceeding. [38:50] Without objection, [38:51] it will be admitted. [38:52] Also, on behalf of Chairman Grassley [38:55] and Senator Johnson, [38:57] Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee [38:58] on Investigations, [39:00] I enter into the record [39:02] 30 newly uncovered [39:04] and significant investigatory documents [39:06] regarding Arctic frost, [39:08] that shed light on the decision-making [39:10] of the Biden Department of Justice. [39:12] This includes 197 subpoenas [39:14] targeting over 400 Republican individuals [39:17] and entities [39:18] that former special counsel Jack Smith [39:20] and his team issued [39:22] as a part of the indiscriminate election case [39:24] against President Trump. [39:25] These are not routine materials. [39:27] These are internal investigative records [39:30] that shed light on how and why [39:33] the Biden Department of Justice [39:34] authorized and carried out this operation. [39:37] They detail the scope [39:38] of the subpoenas issued, [39:40] the categories of the 400 individuals [39:42] and organizations targeted, [39:44] and the decision-making process [39:46] inside the department at the highest levels. [39:48] In short, they allow us to see, [39:50] clearly and for the first time, [39:52] how this investigation was conducted [39:54] from the inside. [39:56] This new information would not have been known [39:58] but for congressional oversight. [40:00] I will now introduce the witnesses [40:02] at this hearing. [40:03] First witness is Mr. Will Chamberlain, [40:05] who currently serves as senior counsel [40:07] at the Article III project. [40:09] Mr. Chamberlain graduated [40:10] from University of the Pacific in 2010 [40:12] with a B.A. in economics. [40:13] He received his J.D. magna cum laude [40:16] from Georgetown University Law Center in 2015. [40:20] After graduating Georgetown, [40:21] he joined Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, and Sullivan [40:24] in Los Angeles as an associate [40:26] where he practiced complex commercial litigation. [40:29] Mr. Chamberlain later worked as an attorney [40:32] at the Competitive Enterprise Institute [40:34] focusing on class action litigation. [40:37] In 2019, he revived Human Events, [40:39] the nation's oldest conservative magazine, [40:41] where he served as publisher and editor-in-chief. [40:44] Mr. Chamberlain is also vice president [40:47] of external affairs at the Edmund Burke Foundation, [40:49] which organizes national conservatism conferences [40:52] around the world. [40:53] Christopher O'Leary retired [40:56] from the Federal Bureau of Investigation [40:58] as a member of the Senior Executive Service [41:00] in September 2023 after two decades [41:02] of leading counterterrorism investigation [41:04] and operations. [41:06] Mr. O'Leary's last assignment was serving [41:08] as the U.S. government's director of hostage recovery. [41:10] Where he led an interagency task force [41:12] dedicated to the mission of safely bringing home [41:15] Americans taken hostage by terrorist organizations. [41:18] Mr. O'Leary is also a former United States [41:22] Marine Corps gunnery sergeant [41:24] and Iraq war combat veteran. [41:26] Thank you for that, sir. [41:27] Mr. O'Leary holds a bachelor's degree [41:29] in Middle Eastern Studies from Rutgers University, [41:32] a master's degree from Georgetown University's [41:34] McDonough School of Business, [41:36] and a master's degree in government and national security [41:38] from Harvard University. [41:40] Our third witness is Margo Cleveland, [41:42] an attorney, legal analyst, [41:44] an investigative journalist, [41:46] and former academic. [41:48] After graduating from the Notre Dame Law School [41:50] where she earned the Hoynes Prize, [41:52] the law school's highest honor, [41:55] Ms. Cleveland served for nearly 25 years [41:57] as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge [41:59] on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. [42:01] Ms. Cleveland is a former full-time [42:03] university faculty member [42:05] at the University of Notre Dame [42:07] where in 1998 she received [42:09] the Frank O'Malley undergraduate teaching [42:11] award, the highest award [42:13] for undergraduate faculty members. [42:15] Ms. Cleveland currently serves as the Federalist [42:17] senior legal correspondent [42:19] where she helped lead the Federalist reporting [42:21] on the Russia collusion hoax [42:23] which won the Dow Grand Prize [42:25] for investigative journalism in 2025. [42:27] Ms. Cleveland is also counsel [42:29] for the New Civil Liberties Alliance [42:31] where she practices constitutional law [42:33] and has co-authored several [42:35] Supreme Court amicus briefs [42:37] and a petition for certiorari. [42:39] And Mr. Chamberlain, we'll start with you. You're recognized. [42:44] Thank you, Chairman Cruz, [42:46] Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. [42:48] Thank you for the opportunity. [42:50] And actually, hold on a second. [42:52] Before we do that, I need to ask each of you [42:54] to stand [42:56] and raise your right hand. [42:58] Do you swear that the testimony [43:01] that you are about to give before this subcommittee [43:03] is the truth, the whole truth, [43:05] and nothing but the truth? So help you God. [43:08] All of you have answered affirmatively. [43:10] Please be seated. And now, Mr. Chamberlain, you're recognized. [43:12] Thank you, Chairman Cruz, [43:15] Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. [43:17] Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. [43:19] On February 26, 2025, [43:21] Reuters broke a remarkable story. [43:23] They reported first that in 2022 [43:25] and 2023, Jack Smith [43:27] and the Biden Justice Department [43:29] subpoenaed toll records of calls [43:31] from Kash Patel and Susie Wiles [43:33] as part of the now infamous Arctic Frost investigation. [43:35] Both were private citizens at this time, [43:37] and the surveillance continued while Wiles [43:39] was co-managing President Trump's election campaign. [43:41] This was troubling, but sadly it wasn't shocking. [43:43] This committee has been investigating [43:45] Smith's abuse of his subpoena power [43:47] with Republican senators, [43:49] alongside Judge James Boesberg's [43:51] unlawful nondisclosure orders [43:53] that hid the existence of those subpoenas from those senators. [43:55] But Reuters, if anything, buried the lead. [43:57] The article also revealed that in 2023 [43:59] the Biden FBI had surreptitiously recorded [44:01] a phone call between Susie Wiles [44:03] and her attorney. [44:05] This was a remarkable breach of attorney-client privilege. [44:08] The Reuters article, relying on two FBI sources, [44:10] claimed that Wiles' attorney had been aware [44:12] of the surveillance on the phone call, [44:14] which, if it were true, would have been a shocking [44:16] blow to Wiles' lawyer. [44:18] The following day, however, Wiles' lawyer denied [44:20] having ever consented to any such recording, [44:22] stating correctly that, [44:24] quote, [44:26] if he ever pulled a stunt like that, [44:28] he wouldn't and shouldn't have a license to practice law. [44:30] End quote. [44:32] His denial is, in my view, credible. [44:34] What lawyer in their right mind would secretly consent [44:36] to law enforcement recording a privileged phone call [44:38] with their client? [44:40] But the lawyer's denial raises more questions than it answers. [44:42] Why, then, did two FBI sources tell Reuters [44:44] that the lawyer had consented? [44:47] Were they lying, or were they relying on false records [44:49] created by FBI agents working with Smith? [44:51] It wouldn't be the first time FBI personnel [44:53] had falsified records in their pursuit of President Trump. [44:55] Remember that Kevin Kline Smith, [44:57] a former FBI lawyer, [44:59] pled guilty to intentionally falsifying information [45:01] to obtain a FISA warrant [45:03] in the Russiagate investigation. [45:06] The scandal isn't merely that this phone call was recorded. [45:08] It's also about how the records of the recording [45:10] were hidden. [45:12] The FBI's primary digital case management system [45:14] is called Sentinel. [45:16] Within it, investigators can apply a special designation [45:18] called prohibited access. [45:20] Files coded this way become completely invisible [45:22] in standard Sentinel searches. [45:24] If an agent runs a keyword search [45:26] that should hit these documents, [45:28] the system returns a false negative. [45:30] It reports no responsive documents, even though they exist. [45:32] While this prohibited access designation [45:34] might make theoretical sense [45:36] for files dealing with the most sensitive classified matters, [45:38] it clearly does not make sense [45:40] that records of Susie Wiles' phone call being surveilled [45:42] would qualify. [45:44] The agents who marked as records prohibited [45:46] would have known that. [45:48] It would have constituted consensual monitoring. [45:50] Monitoring such a call would likely require [45:52] DOJ approval, but it could be lawful. [45:54] But if Wiles' lawyer did not consent to the recording, [45:56] we are likely looking at an illegal wiretap [45:58] of a phone call [46:00] between a presidential campaign manager [46:02] and her own lawyer, [46:04] one where the agent or agents [46:06] who conducted the wiretap [46:08] lied about Wiles' lawyer's lack of consent [46:10] and then coded it as a prohibited file [46:12] in the hopes that no one would ever find out about it. [46:14] This would be a more brazen FBI intervention [46:16] into domestic politics [46:18] than anything during the Russiagate investigation, [46:20] which is certainly saying something. [46:23] We often hear liberal law professors complain [46:25] about the Trump administration [46:27] undermining the DOJ and FBI's independence. [46:29] Sophisticated listeners should immediately translate [46:31] independent as unaccountable. [46:33] Illegal wiretaps [46:35] and inappropriate prohibited file classifications [46:37] are the fruits of an independent FBI [46:39] that acted with impunity [46:41] because it was not subject [46:43] to the democratic accountability [46:45] that our Constitution demands. [46:48] The president is tasked with the responsibility [46:50] of the FBI [46:52] and DOJ [46:54] to ensure that the DOJ [46:56] and the FBI [46:58] are faithfully executed [47:00] not to submit to the FBI and DOJ [47:03] transforming themselves [47:07] into an unaccountable fourth branch of government. [47:09] And this body can help [47:11] by providing essential oversight and scrutiny. [47:14] I welcome any questions. [47:16] Thank you. [47:18] Mr. O'Leary, you're recognized. [47:20] Chairman, ranking member, [47:22] and distinguished members of the committee, [47:24] it is in that spirit that I offer my testimony today. [47:26] I come before you [47:29] not as an advocate for any political party [47:31] or position, [47:33] but as a nonpartisan former [47:35] special agent of the FBI [47:37] where I served for over two decades. [47:41] My intent is to provide the committee [47:43] with a clear, experience-based [47:45] understanding of how the FBI operates, [47:47] its investigative standards, [47:49] institutional culture, [47:51] and the professional norms that guide its work. [47:53] The men and women of the FBI [47:56] have long stood as a quiet bastion [47:58] between order and chaos, [48:00] guided not by politics [48:02] or public acclaim, [48:05] but by an enduring commitment to the Constitution [48:07] and the rule of law. [48:09] Their character is forged in an environment [48:11] where integrity is not aspirational. [48:13] It is required. [48:16] Every day, often without recognition, [48:18] they make decisions that demand moral clarity, [48:20] professional restraint, [48:23] and personal courage. [48:25] These are not abstract virtues within the FBI. [48:27] They are lived expectations [48:29] reinforced through training [48:32] supervision, [48:34] and deeply rooted in institutional culture. [48:36] The FBI's investigative process [48:39] is grounded in predication, [48:41] facts, intelligence, and evidence, [48:43] not ideology or affiliation. [48:45] Agents are trained to [48:49] clearly articulate and document [48:51] the factual basis for opening [48:53] and continuing investigations. [48:56] And those decisions are subject to multiple layers [48:58] of supervisory and legal review. [49:00] Equally important is the [49:02] internal culture of the FBI. [49:04] The bureau I served had no [49:07] tolerance for political ideology [49:09] or personal bias [49:11] influencing investigative work. [49:13] This was not simply a matter of formal policy. [49:15] It was an expectation reinforced [49:17] through leadership, peer accountability, [49:19] and institutional norms. [49:22] The credibility of the FBI, [49:24] both in court and in the eyes of the public, [49:26] depends on that neutrality. [49:28] FBI professionals [49:30] understand that their work [49:32] must withstand scrutiny [49:34] not only in the moment, but years later. [49:36] Allegation that the FBI [49:38] has engaged in broad, coordinated [49:40] conspiracies to investigate individuals [49:42] based on political affiliation [49:44] or ideology [49:46] are inconsistent with my experience [49:48] and unsupported by evidence [49:50] or reason. [49:53] Yet the absence of credibility to these claims [49:55] has not deterred Director Kash Patel [49:57] from pursuing what can only be understood [49:59] as a campaign of [50:01] retribution against his own personnel. [50:03] When agents and analysts are removed [50:06] not for misconduct, [50:08] but for their lawful participation [50:10] in duly authorized investigations, [50:12] the conclusion that such actions [50:14] are politically driven [50:16] is self-evident. [50:18] This form of retaliation [50:21] against the dedicated professionals [50:23] of the FBI [50:25] has eroded trust in leadership, [50:27] damaged morale, [50:29] introduced uncertainty across the workforce, [50:31] and disrupted the continuity [50:33] of ongoing operations. [50:36] Equally concerning [50:38] are the national security implications, [50:40] with the loss and marginalization [50:42] of intelligence personnel [50:44] and diminished institutional knowledge [50:46] drastically impacting the FBI's ability [50:48] to effectively confront threats [50:50] from terrorism, espionage, [50:52] and cyber adversaries. [50:55] Left unchecked, [50:57] Director Kash Patel's actions [50:59] risk inflicting generational harm [51:01] on an institution [51:03] central to the safety [51:05] and security of the nation. [51:07] In closing, I would emphasize [51:09] that the strength of the FBI [51:11] and our broader system of justice [51:13] is based on its independence [51:16] from political influence. [51:18] It's a principle that those who serve [51:20] within the Bureau understand [51:22] as fundamental to their duty. [51:24] Being an FBI agent is neither a job [51:26] nor a profession, [51:29] but rather a vocation. [51:31] Service to the nation is not a slogan [51:33] in the FBI, it's a calling, [51:35] a steadfast commitment to the cause [51:37] of freedom, democracy, and justice. [51:40] This ethos is rooted [51:42] in a tradition of excellence [51:44] that spans generations. [51:46] G-Men is not merely a cultural artifact [51:48] but a standard, [51:50] one that reflects professionalism, [51:52] discipline, [51:54] and an unyielding pursuit of truth. [51:57] Each new generation of G-Men and women [51:59] inherit not only the responsibilities [52:01] of the role, [52:03] but the weight of that legacy [52:05] and the obligation to uphold it. [52:07] Day after day, the men and women [52:09] of the FBI answer the call [52:11] and choose duty over comfort, [52:13] principle over expedience, [52:16] and service over self. [52:18] The G-Men and their success is unheralded, [52:20] but the nation is safer [52:22] because of their steadfast commitment, [52:24] their adherence to the rule of law, [52:26] and their fidelity [52:28] to the ideals that define the FBI. [52:30] Thank you for the opportunity [52:32] to appear before you today. [52:34] I look forward to answering your questions. [52:38] Chairman Cruz, [52:42] Ranking Member Whitehouse, [52:45] and members of the subcommittee, [52:48] thank you for the opportunity [52:50] to testify concerning the grave [52:52] constitutional violations inflicted [52:54] as part of Arctic Frost. [52:56] After the 2020 election, [52:58] an anti-Trump FBI agent [53:00] named Tim Teibold [53:02] attempted to use the Justice Department [53:04] to destroy the president. [53:06] Teibold's efforts led to the launch [53:08] of Arctic Frost. [53:10] Soon after, Merrick Garland [53:12] tapped Jack Smith, [53:14] a hyper-aggressive prosecutor [53:16] known to overstretch the meaning [53:18] and intent of the law [53:20] to serve as special counsel. [53:23] Smith proved himself true to form [53:25] by indicting Trump for allegedly [53:27] violating a statute enacted [53:29] in the aftermath of Enron [53:31] based in part on a theory [53:33] of criminal liability [53:35] the Supreme Court would later hold invalid. [53:37] The Supreme Court would later [53:39] also halt Smith's efforts [53:41] to prosecute Trump [53:43] for actions that fell within [53:45] the president's official duties. [53:47] Beyond being a partisan in his own right, [53:49] Smith stacked his team [53:51] with partisan Democrats [53:53] such as J.P. Cooney [53:55] and Ray Holzer. [53:58] Cooney and Holzer served [54:00] as Smith's top deputies [54:02] and in them we see [54:04] the clear double standard [54:06] and political bias [54:08] that permeated the DOJ and FBI. [54:10] Before joining Smith's team, [54:12] Cooney crafted an outrageous [54:14] sentencing memorandum [54:16] that sought to send [54:18] Trump advisor Roger Stone [54:20] to prison for seven to nine years. [54:22] Cooney's sentencing recommendations [54:24] were so unhinged [54:26] that Attorney General William Barr [54:28] intervened. [54:30] Cooney responded by spreading [54:32] unfounded rumors that Barr [54:34] and the acting U.S. Attorney [54:36] were being improperly political [54:38] with media leaks [54:40] furthering that narrative [54:42] eventually leading to an Inspector General [54:44] investigation. [54:47] The IG cleared the Trump administration [54:49] but chastised Cooney. [54:51] Holzer for his part [54:53] demonstrated his [54:55] partisan proclivities [54:57] when he headed up the [54:59] Public Integrity Section [55:01] and refused the FBI's request [55:03] to open an investigation [55:05] into the Clinton Foundation. [55:07] But Holzer's partisan protection racket [55:09] went further [55:11] when he withheld a six-page timeline [55:13] of the Clinton Foundation [55:15] investigation from the then [55:17] U.S. Attorney operating [55:19] out of Little Rocket. [55:22] Instead he provided an abbreviated [55:24] two-page summary that omitted [55:26] all references to interference [55:28] from the DOJ and the FBI leadership. [55:30] In contrast, [55:32] when the target was Trump, [55:34] Holzer along with Cooney [55:36] drafted a memorandum to justify [55:38] subpoenaing the toll records [55:40] of about a dozen members of Congress [55:42] notwithstanding internal [55:44] email discussions acknowledging [55:46] a clear speech or debate [55:48] clause problem. [55:50] They then hid the details of those subpoenas [55:52] using the prohibited access [55:54] functionality of Sentinel [55:56] which ghosted the FBI [55:58] records. [56:00] As this committee well knows, [56:02] because many of you were victims, [56:04] Smith approved the subpoenas [56:06] and obtained the toll records [56:08] of Senators Blackburn, Graham, [56:10] Hagerty, Hollery, Loomis, [56:12] Johnson, Kennedy, Scott, Sullivan, [56:14] and Toberville. [56:17] Only Senator Cruz escaped the invasion [56:19] into his privacy [56:21] and the violation of the speech or debate clause [56:23] because his cell phone provider [56:25] questioned the subpoena. [56:27] From this subcommittee's [56:29] January 7th hearing, [56:31] you also know that Smith's team [56:33] sought a non-disclosure order [56:35] from Chief Judge James Boesberg [56:37] apparently without informing him [56:39] that the targets were members of Congress. [56:41] I say apparently because [56:43] Chairman Cruz's request for the [56:45] non-disclosure application [56:47] to be unsealed has been ignored. [56:49] Yet again, we see the double standard [56:51] and the weaponization. [56:53] Judge Boesberg has still [56:55] failed to order [56:57] Smith and his prosecutors to show [56:59] cause for why they should not be held [57:01] in contempt for concealing [57:03] the members of Congress [57:05] were the ones who were being targeted. [57:08] This fact should not be ignored [57:10] if you are to believe Smith [57:12] and the Administrative Office of the Court's [57:14] testimony that Judge Boesberg [57:16] did not know that your [57:18] identities were involved. [57:20] It makes absolutely [57:22] no sense that Boesberg [57:24] would not enter a show cause order [57:26] to hold Smith accountable [57:28] for violating your rights. [57:30] We have been given Judge Boesberg's [57:32] nearly year-long crusade [57:34] to hold a member of the [57:36] Trump administration in contempt. [57:39] We now know that Smith violated [57:41] the speech or debate clause, [57:43] rubber-stamped by Judge Boesberg. [57:45] He went further and he subpoenaed [57:47] the toll records of Kevin McCarthy, [57:49] former Speaker, [57:51] and Chairman Jim Jordan, [57:53] again under cover of a [57:55] non-disclosure order. [57:57] Add to that the hundreds more [57:59] served on individual Republicans [58:01] including Trump's attorneys, [58:03] Republican organizations such as [58:05] Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, [58:07] and they didn't [58:09] seek merely toll records [58:11] but also bank records [58:13] which revealed [58:15] the donor base. [58:17] The breadth of these constitutional [58:19] intrusions is unprecedented. [58:21] But to recap, Smith [58:23] unconstitutionally was appointed [58:25] special counsel in violation of [58:27] the Appointments Clause. [58:29] The subpoenas of the toll records violated [58:31] the speech or debate clause. [58:33] The vast and unjustified [58:35] subpoenas to Republicans [58:37] and the organizations that [58:39] were connected to them violated [58:41] the First Amendment associational [58:43] rights. The targeting of Trump's [58:45] attorneys implicates the Sixth Amendment [58:47] right to counsel. [58:50] And using prohibited access to [58:52] bury records is a [58:54] huge due process violation [58:56] that raises potential [58:58] violations of Brady. [59:00] Smith and his team must be held [59:02] accountable. Thank you. [59:07] Thank you. [59:09] Let's start with the Foundation. [59:12] Ms. Cleveland, Jack Smith issued [59:14] nearly 200 subpoenas, is that correct? [59:18] Yes. Those subpoenas targeted [59:20] over 400 Republican individuals and [59:22] organizations, correct? Correct. [59:25] Many of whom had no connection [59:27] to those who entered the Capitol on January [59:29] 6th, correct? Absolutely. [59:31] And in fact, some of those [59:33] organizations didn't even exist [59:35] on January 6th, is that correct? [59:37] It is. So we're not talking [59:39] about a narrow investigation. We're [59:41] talking about a sweeping operation [59:43] targeting virtually the [59:45] entirety of the other side [59:47] politically. It was a fishing expedition. [59:49] So let's turn to the Constitution. [59:52] Subpoenaing the toll records of members [59:54] of Congress, does that raise serious [59:56] constitutional concerns? Absolutely. [59:58] And in fact, we have the [1:00:00] PIN who notified [1:00:02] the Special Counsel's Office of those [1:00:04] concerns. And Jack [1:00:06] Smith had apparently [1:00:08] said that he was going to consult [1:00:10] with the [1:00:12] Solicitor General [1:00:15] according to the release of the information [1:00:17] from Senator Grassley this morning. [1:00:19] Yet when he was deposed [1:00:21] by the House and was [1:00:23] specifically asked if he spoke with [1:00:25] the Solicitor General, he said [1:00:27] on this discreet issue, [1:00:29] no. Among other issues, [1:00:33] it raises significant issues with [1:00:35] the Speech and Debate Clause, correct? Absolutely. [1:00:37] So much so that as you [1:00:39] noted, when Jack Smith [1:00:41] subpoenaed AT&T to get [1:00:43] my toll records, AT&T [1:00:45] refused to comply with [1:00:47] the subpoena because they concluded that it [1:00:49] violated the Speech and Debate Clause. Is that correct? [1:00:51] Absolutely correct, and they [1:00:53] backed down. Jack Smith did not [1:00:56] try to enforce that subpoena, did he? He did [1:00:58] not. He did not go to court and litigate the [1:01:00] matter, did he? He did not. [1:01:02] Does that suggest, as it does to me, [1:01:04] that he knew damn well what he was doing [1:01:06] was illegal and would not be upheld in court? [1:01:08] It does suggest that. [1:01:12] When the federal government subpoenas [1:01:14] donor lists, internal communications, [1:01:16] organization records, does [1:01:19] that implicate the First Amendment [1:01:21] and also Freedom Association in particular? [1:01:23] It does, and the Supreme Court made [1:01:25] that clear in the NAACP [1:01:27] case. [1:01:29] Mr. Chamberlain, aside from the [1:01:31] legal violations, what [1:01:34] specific crimes, [1:01:36] if any, were actually uncovered [1:01:38] as a result of the Arctic Frost investigation? [1:01:40] I'm not aware of any crimes that [1:01:43] were uncovered. Would the senators, [1:01:46] donors, organizations, and individuals [1:01:48] who were surveilled and subpoenaed, [1:01:50] have ever learned about the Arctic [1:01:52] Frost investigation had Trump not won [1:01:54] in 2024? Probably not. [1:01:57] Mainly because of these [1:01:59] nondisclosure orders, but [1:02:01] also the fact that a lot of these [1:02:03] records were now just learning about them because [1:02:05] they were in these prohibited access files only [1:02:07] available to their FBI director. [1:02:09] So if the FBI director was a Democrat, there's no reason [1:02:11] to think we'd know about them. How would you [1:02:14] compare the scope [1:02:16] of the violations in Arctic Frost [1:02:18] to Watergate? [1:02:20] I think, if anything, it might even be [1:02:22] greater. I mean, the scope [1:02:24] of this, in terms of the sheer number of people [1:02:26] and organizations affected, [1:02:28] and as I discussed, I mean, this brazen [1:02:30] violation of attorney-client privilege, [1:02:32] wiretapping, a phone call between [1:02:34] Suzy Wiles and her lawyer, [1:02:36] these are egregious offenses, and [1:02:38] if Watergate was just about a single [1:02:40] break-in, this is effectively [1:02:42] compound that by 200. [1:02:45] Mr. O'Leary, I appreciate your service. [1:02:47] One of the things you testified [1:02:49] is you said, quote, the effectiveness and [1:02:51] legitimacy of the FBI depend on its [1:02:53] independence from political influence. [1:02:56] I very much agree with that, and I will say, [1:02:58] as an alumnus of the Department of Justice, [1:03:00] I am deeply saddened and frankly [1:03:02] I'm angry that under [1:03:04] President Biden, the Department [1:03:07] of Justice and the FBI were [1:03:09] weaponized and its integrity [1:03:11] badly, badly compromised. [1:03:13] You are right, that's how the FBI [1:03:15] is supposed to behave, and that's how the Department of Justice [1:03:17] is supposed to behave. So Jack Smith [1:03:20] was not investigating [1:03:22] a crime based on evidence. [1:03:24] He issued subpoenas to get the [1:03:26] full records of the following [1:03:29] senators. Mike Lee, [1:03:32] seated to my right, Josh Hawley, [1:03:36] Lindsey Graham, John Kennedy, [1:03:38] seated to my right, Marsha Blackburn, [1:03:41] Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, [1:03:44] Bill Hagerty, Dan Sullivan, [1:03:46] Tommy Tuberville, [1:03:49] Cynthia Lummis, and [1:03:51] myself. That's over 20% of the [1:03:53] Republicans in the United States Senate. [1:03:58] Mr. O'Leary, is it consistent with the obligations [1:04:00] of the Department of Justice and the FBI [1:04:02] to issue subpoenas with no [1:04:06] factual basis and no legal basis? [1:04:08] Senator, it is not, and [1:04:12] in my experience, FBI agents [1:04:14] would never approach a matter without [1:04:16] the proper justification and [1:04:18] articulable facts to open their [1:04:20] investigation. Okay, good. [1:04:22] So you said they would never do that. [1:04:24] Judge Boesberg signed an order, [1:04:26] I'm holding the order right here, in which [1:04:29] he concludes, and I'm going to read, [1:04:32] the court finds reasonable [1:04:34] grounds to believe that such disclosure, [1:04:36] in other words, notifying the senators [1:04:38] on that list, will [1:04:40] result in destruction [1:04:43] of or tampering with evidence, intimidation [1:04:45] of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy [1:04:47] of the investigation. Are you aware [1:04:49] of any factual basis [1:04:51] whatsoever that a dozen [1:04:53] senators will destroy [1:04:55] evidence? I am not, [1:04:58] but I will tell you [1:05:00] that non-disclosure orders are a [1:05:02] routine part of investigations. [1:05:04] Based on facts. Give me [1:05:06] any hypothetical fact. [1:05:08] By the way, do you know any facts that I will destroy [1:05:10] evidence? Let's take it me personally. [1:05:12] I cannot, you know... Because [1:05:14] Jack Smith went into court and [1:05:16] said, I will destroy [1:05:18] evidence if I know about the subpoena. [1:05:21] And this clown signed the order [1:05:23] one after the other after the other. [1:05:26] Are you aware of any basis? Look, I'm a member [1:05:28] of the bar. I take my obligations [1:05:30] seriously. The FBI [1:05:33] signed off on that. Mike [1:05:35] Lee concluded he would destroy [1:05:37] evidence. John Kennedy, well, Louisiana, maybe. [1:05:39] I will say, I'll give [1:05:41] a special dispensation for the great state of Louisiana. [1:05:43] But there is no basis. [1:05:46] By the way, is it consistent with [1:05:48] DOJ's obligation to also [1:05:50] ask a judge to violate the law [1:05:54] and not inform the judge of it? [1:05:57] No, it would not be. Well, 2 U.S.C. [1:05:59] Section 6628 [1:06:01] explicitly bars non-disclosure [1:06:03] orders applying to the [1:06:05] Senate. And yet, in the lawless [1:06:08] Department of Justice, I assume [1:06:10] they didn't tell Judge Boesberg, [1:06:12] hey, we're asking you to violate the law. [1:06:14] Would you sign this? Do you assume that as well? [1:06:16] You would have to ask the DOJ that, but [1:06:18] you make a good point, Senator. Thank you. [1:06:21] Ranking member, White House. [1:06:24] Just to follow up on that [1:06:26] point, Mr. O'Leary, [1:06:28] is the reason [1:06:31] that a prosecutor [1:06:33] would pursue a non-disclosure [1:06:35] order for a [1:06:38] toll record subpoena [1:06:40] necessarily that it is the [1:06:42] subject of the subpoena [1:06:45] who would attempt to interfere with [1:06:47] or obstruct the investigation [1:06:49] as opposed to the subject of the [1:06:51] investigation who would attempt [1:06:54] to interfere with and [1:06:56] obstruct the investigation? [1:06:58] Senator, it depends on the investigation. [1:07:02] It could be the subject of the [1:07:04] investigation. It could be associates. [1:07:06] The idea of a [1:07:08] non-disclosure order is to not really [1:07:10] let an individual [1:07:12] know that they're under investigation. [1:07:14] But one cannot infer [1:07:16] from the existence [1:07:18] of a non-disclosure order [1:07:20] any accusation that the [1:07:22] subject of the order was [1:07:25] intending to interfere or obstruct. [1:07:27] It could just as easily be that [1:07:29] it was actually the subject [1:07:31] of the investigation, one of the [1:07:33] conspirators, for instance, [1:07:35] who the court was concerned [1:07:37] about, who the prosecutor was concerned about. [1:07:39] It certainly could be, but as I was [1:07:41] communicating [1:07:43] to Senator Cruz, non-disclosure [1:07:45] orders are a routine part of FBI [1:07:47] investigations. Understood. [1:07:49] So, in your view, [1:07:51] what has happened to the FBI [1:07:53] and DOJ's [1:07:55] national security capabilities [1:07:57] in the last 15 months? [1:08:00] They've been decimated. There's been [1:08:02] criminal damage done. [1:08:04] And with respect to the quiet [1:08:06] bastion you referred to [1:08:09] and the standards [1:08:11] of virtue and integrity that you spoke [1:08:13] so passionately about, [1:08:16] were those standards of [1:08:18] virtue and integrity, [1:08:20] the fidelity, bravery, and integrity [1:08:22] of the FBI, met [1:08:25] by agents who [1:08:27] Kash Patel then turned on and fired? [1:08:29] There is rampant [1:08:36] morale [1:08:38] degradation [1:08:41] and uncertainty [1:08:43] amongst the ranks [1:08:45] and really [1:08:48] disheartened [1:08:50] career federal [1:08:52] public servants [1:08:54] who've been dismissed without cause. [1:08:56] Because, in fact, their [1:08:58] colleagues understood [1:09:00] that they, in fact, met [1:09:03] those standards for fidelity, bravery, [1:09:05] and integrity and were nevertheless fired, correct? [1:09:07] Correct. [1:09:10] DOJ and the FBI [1:09:12] run under close institutional [1:09:14] balances designed to protect the integrity [1:09:16] of the organization. Were those applicable [1:09:18] to special counsel? [1:09:23] I would assume so. I wasn't involved in that [1:09:25] investigation at all, but I can speak to [1:09:27] the process that Washington Field [1:09:29] Office would follow, [1:09:32] and those are the agents that supported that [1:09:34] investigation. Any... [1:09:36] And they would follow traditional, regular [1:09:38] FBI guidelines and controls? [1:09:40] The documents that I was able to review demonstrated [1:09:42] that. Are you aware that [1:09:44] the Trump Department of Justice [1:09:46] in the first term subpoenaed [1:09:48] information from members [1:09:50] of Congress and members of [1:09:53] Congress' staff, including [1:09:55] toll records? [1:09:59] Senator, the FBI conducting [1:10:01] public corruption investigations has been part [1:10:03] of its mission for years. [1:10:05] I know it's probably disconcerting to [1:10:07] any member of Congress or [1:10:09] public official, but the FBI does it [1:10:11] with the same integrity that it conducts [1:10:13] any investigation. I would say to [1:10:15] a fellow Irishman, we would probably [1:10:17] work with them on an investigation, [1:10:19] but, you know, [1:10:21] the FBI pursues these [1:10:23] despite what side of the aisle you're on. [1:10:25] And they did in the first Trump [1:10:27] term of office, and that included [1:10:29] getting non-disclosure orders [1:10:31] so that the members of Congress did not know [1:10:33] their toll records had been subpoenaed, correct? [1:10:35] That is correct. It's routine. [1:10:38] Tell me a little bit, [1:10:48] as we wrap up here, about the work [1:10:50] of the CI-12 unit [1:10:52] and what condition [1:10:56] it is now in as [1:10:58] hostilities with [1:11:00] Iran exist. [1:11:02] So, CI-12 is a foreign [1:11:05] counterintelligence squad in [1:11:07] Washington field office, and [1:11:09] the agents that were dismissed from there [1:11:11] and from the counterintelligence [1:11:13] division at FBI headquarters [1:11:15] work a variety of counterintelligence [1:11:17] priorities. Iran [1:11:19] is one of them, and dismissing [1:11:21] some of these people [1:11:23] just days before the war [1:11:25] with Iran kicked off [1:11:28] creates problems with, you know, [1:11:30] sustained focus and could impact [1:11:32] operations. And in fact, some of [1:11:34] the FBI's institutional [1:11:36] knowledge is [1:11:38] contained in [1:11:41] the knowledge and experience [1:11:43] of senior FBI [1:11:45] agents. And so when they [1:11:47] are purged for political [1:11:49] reasons, that [1:11:51] component of the bureau [1:11:54] loses [1:11:56] something fairly significant. [1:11:58] That is true, Senator. So there [1:12:00] were some senior leaders at headquarters that were [1:12:02] removed, and then in this last year [1:12:04] alone, two assistant directors [1:12:06] from Washington field office were both [1:12:08] removed. My time is up. Thank you, [1:12:11] Chairman. Thank you. Without objection, [1:12:15] I'd like to enter... Sorry. With respect [1:12:17] to the question of [1:12:20] the NDOs [1:12:26] and the reason for [1:12:28] that, I'd like to [1:12:30] put into the record the letter [1:12:32] that I wrote to Speaker Johnson, giving [1:12:34] what I consider to be the accurate background [1:12:36] related to that, dated January 15, [1:12:38] 2026. Without objection, [1:12:40] it will be entered into the record. Thank you. [1:12:42] Also, without objection, I want to introduce [1:12:44] into the record a November 2, [1:12:46] 2023 letter from Chairman Grassley [1:12:48] to the DOJ Office of Inspector [1:12:50] General, raising concerns that [1:12:52] in 2017, DOJ subpoenaed [1:12:54] personal phone and email records of [1:12:56] Republicans and Democrat [1:12:58] congressional staff. I'm also [1:13:00] entering into the record a November 8, [1:13:02] 2023 letter from me, Chairman Grassley, [1:13:04] and Senator Lee to Attorney General [1:13:06] Garland, raising similar concerns [1:13:08] and requesting information on the subpoenas of [1:13:10] congressional staff. Contrary to what [1:13:12] Senator Whitehouse said in his opening, [1:13:14] Republicans did raise concerns about the DOJ [1:13:16] obtaining records from congressional staff [1:13:18] of both parties, [1:13:20] and I will say, just a minute ago, [1:13:22] Mr. O'Leary, you were being asked [1:13:24] by Senator Whitehouse about [1:13:26] investigating members of Congress, and it is certainly [1:13:28] true that DOJ has a long tradition [1:13:30] if there's evidence of [1:13:32] particular misconduct, for example, [1:13:34] our former colleague, Senator Menendez, [1:13:36] is currently incarcerated in prison for [1:13:38] corruption, and if you've got evidence of criminal [1:13:40] conduct of one individual, the [1:13:43] Department of Justice has an obligation to invest [1:13:45] in the investigation. [1:13:47] Would you agree that's qualitatively [1:13:49] different than a fishing expedition [1:13:51] targeting 20% of the Republicans in the [1:13:53] Senate? Would you agree that's [1:13:55] qualitatively different? I'm not familiar [1:13:57] with the details of either investigation, [1:13:59] so I wouldn't want to speculate. [1:14:01] Well, let me ask you this. Would you be troubled [1:14:03] if tomorrow the Trump [1:14:06] Department of Justice issued a subpoena [1:14:08] for the phone records of every Democrat [1:14:10] that sits on the Judiciary Committee? [1:14:12] Not if it was based on factual evidence, [1:14:14] specific and articulable facts. [1:14:16] Well, let me be clear. I'd be damn troubled, [1:14:18] and that would be an abuse of power, [1:14:20] and I'm going to predict not a single [1:14:22] Democrat's going to say even a word [1:14:24] about the abuse of power on their [1:14:27] side, and that double standard is troubling. [1:14:29] Senator Lee. Thank you very much, [1:14:33] Senator Cruz, for convening this hearing. [1:14:35] It's an important topic. [1:14:37] About a half century ago, [1:14:39] President Nixon resigned. [1:14:41] He did so under pressure [1:14:44] on the basis of public [1:14:46] outrage that stemmed from [1:14:48] a break-in at [1:14:50] DNC headquarters. [1:14:52] It was an act of lawfare, you might say, [1:14:54] or maybe better said, [1:14:56] political espionage. [1:14:58] Today, the media and my Democrat colleagues [1:15:00] have fallen conspicuously [1:15:02] silent when confronted with [1:15:05] a scandal that in some ways is of [1:15:07] much larger proportions, [1:15:09] because it involves the official [1:15:11] law enforcement apparatus of the [1:15:13] U.S. government in a much more direct way [1:15:15] than that one did. [1:15:17] President Biden's systematic weaponization [1:15:19] of the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement [1:15:21] against his political opponents is [1:15:23] a development of staggering proportions. [1:15:25] And by development, I mean scandal. [1:15:27] Just like the Watergate [1:15:30] break-in, Arctic Frost [1:15:33] was ultimately an attempt to sway [1:15:35] the results of a presidential [1:15:37] election. But this comparison [1:15:39] may even be [1:15:41] unfair to President Nixon, who never [1:15:43] attempted to quash dissent [1:15:45] by putting the opposition [1:15:47] candidate in prison [1:15:50] for trumped-up charges. [1:15:52] Now, thankfully, the Biden administration [1:15:54] failed in that misguided effort. [1:15:56] President Trump was elected [1:15:59] by the people to become [1:16:01] the 47th president of the [1:16:03] United States. But we have to ensure that [1:16:05] this kind of lawfare [1:16:07] can't occur again. [1:16:10] Mr. Chamberlain, I'd like to start with you. [1:16:12] Your testimony focuses, [1:16:14] among other things, on [1:16:16] an FBI recording [1:16:18] of a 2023 phone call [1:16:20] between Susie Wiles, [1:16:22] who was at the time managing President Trump's [1:16:24] presidential campaign. [1:16:26] And her lawyer. [1:16:28] Now, according to the FBI, the lawyer [1:16:30] was aware of the recording, [1:16:32] but isn't it true that the lawyer [1:16:34] denied that he had ever consented [1:16:36] to that arrangement? [1:16:38] That's true. That was widely reported. [1:16:40] And if, in fact, the lawyer did not consent, [1:16:42] your testimony today is that this [1:16:45] would have been and was [1:16:47] an illegal wiretap by the FBI [1:16:49] in the absence of her [1:16:51] lawyer's consent with the FBI. [1:16:53] That's correct. [1:16:55] And the FBI designated this as [1:16:57] a prohibited file to prevent anyone [1:16:59] from finding out about it. [1:17:01] That seems to be correct, yes. [1:17:03] Okay, so they did something they weren't supposed to do, [1:17:05] then they designated it as a prohibited file to cover it up. [1:17:07] Now, in general, should the President be able to direct [1:17:09] the FBI to spy on the campaign [1:17:11] of his political opponent? [1:17:13] Absolutely not. [1:17:15] And isn't listening to a private conversation [1:17:17] between a presidential campaign manager [1:17:19] and her lawyer in many ways [1:17:22] much more serious as an [1:17:24] abuse of government power [1:17:26] than an attempted wiretap [1:17:28] at DNC headquarters in Watergate? [1:17:30] Correct, because there's two [1:17:32] interests being invaded. First, [1:17:34] it's just the wiretap generally, but then it's [1:17:36] doubly invasive because it's supposed to be a privileged conversation. [1:17:38] A privileged conversation which, [1:17:40] regardless of who's involved in it, [1:17:42] is supposed to be privileged. [1:17:44] And that takes on additional flavor [1:17:46] and additional degrees of seriousness [1:17:48] when that person happens [1:17:50] to be a client [1:17:52] represented by a lawyer who happens [1:17:54] to be managing the presidential [1:17:56] campaign of the then incumbent [1:17:58] president's lead and [1:18:00] exclusive challenger, effectively. [1:18:02] Ms. Cleveland, you [1:18:04] referenced the FBI's use of [1:18:06] protected access [1:18:08] tag for Arctic Frost [1:18:10] subpoenas. What's the [1:18:12] what is this functionality [1:18:14] and why does it raise [1:18:16] due process concerns in your mind? [1:18:19] So, prohibited access [1:18:21] is a functionality which [1:18:23] makes the records invisible. [1:18:25] So, when there's an investigation [1:18:27] going on, the FBI [1:18:29] agents are doing searches, maybe [1:18:31] by keywords of names, [1:18:33] it will come back and say there [1:18:35] are no results. They will [1:18:37] believe there are no results. [1:18:39] We already have evidence that [1:18:41] this has been used in [1:18:43] the investigation of Trump. [1:18:45] We also have evidence [1:18:47] that it has been used in other investigations [1:18:49] that were high profile. [1:18:51] From the due process concern, [1:18:53] a lawyer is entitled [1:18:56] to have evidence that is [1:18:58] exculpatory to their client. [1:19:00] If there is exculpatory evidence [1:19:02] or even evidence that [1:19:04] calls into credibility, [1:19:06] the credibility of one of the witnesses, [1:19:08] that has to be turned over. [1:19:10] For Brady and Giglio purposes. [1:19:12] Exactly, Brady and Giglio. [1:19:14] It can't be turned over if they don't know [1:19:16] about it. That's a huge problem [1:19:18] from the due process perspective. [1:19:20] Right, so you're forestalling up front [1:19:22] what would be part of [1:19:24] the defendant's due process [1:19:26] in the event of eventual criminal proceedings. [1:19:28] Now, [1:19:30] really quickly before my time expires, [1:19:32] tell me whether to what extent [1:19:34] Judge Boasberg knew or [1:19:36] would have had reason to know [1:19:38] what the NDOs were actually covering. [1:19:40] So, without seeing the application [1:19:42] it's impossible to say [1:19:44] he should have known. [1:19:46] But this morning when Senator Grassley [1:19:48] released his documents, [1:19:50] it indicated that Smith's team [1:19:52] was speaking with the prior [1:19:54] Chief Judge [1:19:56] of the D.C. District Court [1:19:58] about subpoenas [1:20:00] and executive privilege. [1:20:02] So that raised the concern of [1:20:04] was this conversation going on [1:20:06] with Judge Boasberg as well? [1:20:08] If not, did Smith's team actually [1:20:10] decide not to have the same kind of [1:20:12] conversations because [1:20:14] they were concerned that Judge Boasberg [1:20:16] wouldn't go along with it? [1:20:18] So we don't know what Judge Boasberg knew, [1:20:20] but we do know he didn't [1:20:22] demand Smith come in [1:20:24] and explain himself [1:20:26] as he has done time and time again [1:20:28] with the Trump administration in trying [1:20:30] to hold someone in contempt there. [1:20:32] Okay, so this would be [1:20:34] outside the norm, [1:20:36] not only for this type of action, [1:20:38] but out of norm even for what [1:20:40] Judge Boasberg has done in other cases? [1:20:42] In the contempt, in calling [1:20:44] them in for contempt, absolutely. [1:20:46] Thank you. Senator Durbin. [1:20:53] Thank you, Senator Lee. [1:20:57] Ms. Cleveland, you've given a pretty [1:20:59] lengthy bill of particulars [1:21:02] in reference to the special prosecutor [1:21:04] Jack Smith. [1:21:07] I tried to keep up with your [1:21:09] statement. You've accused him of being [1:21:12] a hyper-aggressive prosecutor, [1:21:14] partisan, deputies who are [1:21:17] politically partisan, running some sort [1:21:20] of partisan protection racket, [1:21:22] unconstitutionally appointed, [1:21:25] a litany of constitutional misconduct, [1:21:27] guilty of a fishing expedition, [1:21:31] and on and on. [1:21:35] Would there be value for you to be able to ask [1:21:37] Mr. Smith questions [1:21:39] about your assertions? [1:21:44] Only after I've seen enough background information [1:21:46] to poise good questions [1:21:48] such as Senator Grassley's [1:21:50] release this morning revealed [1:21:52] for the first time that he had [1:21:54] No, I'm just asking in general terms, not [1:21:56] to get specific. Well, as a lawyer, [1:21:58] I have to give you the specific answers [1:22:00] to the question. Well, I'd like you to do it very briefly [1:22:02] because I have a limited period of time. I'm just asking you [1:22:04] if you had a chance to ask [1:22:06] Jack Smith questions. Not until I've [1:22:08] seen the documents that will inform [1:22:10] the questions and be able to confront him. [1:22:12] You don't do a deposition until [1:22:14] you've done document review. Well, of course, [1:22:16] I think that goes without saying [1:22:18] in the practice of law, but let me [1:22:20] ask you if you could ask him questions under [1:22:22] oath, whether that would be more value [1:22:24] than just general questions? [1:22:26] Again, after I've seen the documents. [1:22:28] You don't think being under [1:22:30] oath puts any special obligation on [1:22:32] a person who's asked a question? [1:22:34] You can be under oath, [1:22:37] and if you're not confronted with the evidence, [1:22:39] the answer is not [1:22:41] going to be as informative. It sounds [1:22:43] like you're afraid to face him. Not at all. [1:22:46] Well, good. Let me ask [1:22:48] you this question. If you could do it [1:22:50] in the setting of, say, the Senate [1:22:52] Judiciary Committee, and you had a chance [1:22:54] to ask those questions under oath, do you think [1:22:56] that might be of value? After I've [1:22:59] reviewed all of the relevant documents, [1:23:01] including the ones hidden [1:23:03] in prohibited access. How about [1:23:05] we make sure that that meeting of the Judiciary [1:23:07] Committee is public so America [1:23:09] can witness the questions and answers? [1:23:11] Would that be of value? After all of [1:23:13] those documents have been released, yes. [1:23:15] Oh, you wouldn't want to question [1:23:17] him until all the [1:23:19] documents have been released? The relevant [1:23:21] documents that are hidden in prohibited [1:23:23] access absolutely need those before [1:23:25] you question him. That may be a [1:23:27] luxury which most attorneys [1:23:29] and others would not have [1:23:31] access to. Well, they shouldn't have been [1:23:33] hidden in the first place. Well, it isn't a [1:23:35] question of hiding as much as [1:23:37] legal access. The [1:23:39] point I'm getting to is that for the last [1:23:41] six months, the Democrats on this committee [1:23:43] have said to the Republicans on this [1:23:45] committee, bring Jack Smith [1:23:47] into this room. Sit him down in [1:23:49] front of that microphone, put him under [1:23:51] oath, and ask whatever questions you have. [1:23:53] All these assertions, [1:23:56] the bill of particulars has been [1:23:58] issued by some of the witnesses [1:24:00] today, would have to be [1:24:02] confronted by him directly, under [1:24:04] oath, in a public hearing for [1:24:06] America to see. Of course, [1:24:09] any lawyer who's been on a law school [1:24:11] more than 15 minutes know that [1:24:13] there's value to the circumstances [1:24:15] of asking those questions. [1:24:17] But they won't do it. For six [1:24:19] months, the Republican majority wants to hear [1:24:21] hearing after hearing of what's wrong [1:24:23] with Jack Smith, and the one person [1:24:26] they should ask that of directly, Jack [1:24:28] Smith, they won't call before this [1:24:30] committee. What are we waiting for? [1:24:32] If this is worse than Watergate, [1:24:34] as some senators have asserted, [1:24:37] isn't it about time that we get to the primary [1:24:39] source? Jack Smith under [1:24:41] oath, under penalty of [1:24:43] criminal perjury or [1:24:46] perjury, if he fails to testify? [1:24:48] I don't get it. What are they [1:24:50] waiting for? They'd rather have the hearings [1:24:52] than have the answers. And that to [1:24:55] me doesn't help. Mr. O'Leary, how [1:24:57] many years of service did you give to the [1:24:59] Federal Bureau of Investigation? [1:25:02] Over 20, sir. Did you retire? [1:25:05] I did, yes, sir. And [1:25:07] you said quite a bit about what the [1:25:09] Federal Bureau of Investigation [1:25:11] means and what they stand for. [1:25:13] One of the things that I noted that you didn't [1:25:16] have time to read into the record, I want [1:25:18] to make sure is noted, and that is [1:25:20] your statements about Robert Mueller. [1:25:22] What you had to say about him [1:25:24] is amazing. [1:25:27] You say, the example set by [1:25:29] Robert Mueller established a [1:25:31] standard of quiet professionalism. [1:25:33] Integrity and disciplined leadership [1:25:36] that permeated every level [1:25:38] of the Bureau. That is high praise. [1:25:40] I feel the same way about him. [1:25:42] I hope I made it clear in my opening statement. [1:25:44] Where are we now? We're 15 months [1:25:46] into this new president, [1:25:48] 48-month term. Damage has been [1:25:51] done to the Federal Bureau that you've [1:25:53] described as generational damage. [1:25:55] What's the future of the FBI? [1:25:58] What the FBI [1:26:00] deserves and needs [1:26:02] is an unbiased [1:26:06] leader, somebody with investment [1:26:08] investigative and operational experience [1:26:10] and leadership experience [1:26:12] and a commitment to public service [1:26:15] and justice. [1:26:17] Unfortunately, I do not see that in the [1:26:19] current director. He does not [1:26:21] have any background or experience [1:26:23] and he lacks the character [1:26:25] and the disposition to carry out [1:26:28] the duties that the American people deserve [1:26:30] and the country is less safe under [1:26:32] his leadership. I agree with [1:26:34] your conclusion and a great deal has to be done [1:26:36] to rehabilitate and resurrect [1:26:38] this great agency. Thank you very much. [1:26:42] Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:26:46] Mr. Chamberlain, [1:26:50] I believe [1:26:56] four telephone companies [1:26:59] received these [1:27:02] subpoenas for the phone [1:27:04] records, the metadata [1:27:06] of 20 members of Congress. [1:27:08] Is that your understanding? [1:27:12] That sounds right to me, yes. [1:27:14] Okay. I don't have time to talk about [1:27:17] all of them. Let me just pick one. [1:27:19] Verizon. [1:27:24] About 90,000 employees, [1:27:26] I think. [1:27:28] And $40 billion [1:27:30] worth of revenue. [1:27:36] Does Verizon hire dummies [1:27:38] to work in its legal department? [1:27:41] I should think not. [1:27:43] They've probably got a good reservoir [1:27:45] of lawyers to pick from. [1:27:48] Okay. I suppose [1:27:51] you were one of the lawyers [1:27:53] at Verizon. [1:27:57] And you don't strike [1:28:00] me as a dummy. [1:28:02] Well, thank you. I appreciate that. [1:28:05] And you got a subpoena [1:28:09] from Jack Smith, [1:28:13] with an NDO, [1:28:15] non-disclosure order, [1:28:17] signed by Judge Boasberg. [1:28:20] Do you think [1:28:25] a reasonably [1:28:27] competent lawyer [1:28:29] at Verizon [1:28:32] would know who Jack Smith was? [1:28:34] Yes, I think so. [1:28:37] Do you think [1:28:40] a reasonably competent lawyer [1:28:42] at Verizon [1:28:44] would know who Judge Boasberg [1:28:46] was, or would inquire [1:28:49] about him? Yeah, I think you could [1:28:51] quickly Google him, and if you were [1:28:53] concerned that maybe he wasn't actually [1:28:55] a federal district judge, I think it's pretty obvious [1:28:57] that you'd be able to figure out what's going on. [1:28:59] I mean, it was pretty [1:29:01] widely known that [1:29:03] President Biden instructed [1:29:06] the Attorney General [1:29:08] to sue President Trump, [1:29:11] and then he hired Jack Smith. [1:29:13] Wasn't it? Yes. [1:29:15] On the front page of every paper. [1:29:18] If you were [1:29:23] an attorney at Verizon, and you got [1:29:25] a subpoena like this, [1:29:28] wouldn't you say, [1:29:32] maybe I need to check and see [1:29:34] who Mr. Smith is [1:29:36] subpoenaing here? Yeah, and [1:29:38] especially once I found out it was a representative, [1:29:40] it would immediately raise that flag [1:29:42] of, like, maybe there's a legal exception [1:29:44] here that doesn't apply in other cases? [1:29:46] Do we know [1:29:48] if the employee who received [1:29:50] this subpoena at Verizon [1:29:52] even sought [1:29:56] a legal opinion from an [1:29:58] attorney at Verizon? I do not know. [1:30:00] Well, let's just assume for a second [1:30:02] that Verizon, [1:30:04] sophisticated company that it is, [1:30:06] is not so incompetent that [1:30:08] they wouldn't have had a lawyer look at this. [1:30:12] Lawyer looks at it and says, [1:30:14] huh, Jack Smith. Lawyer looks at it [1:30:17] and says, NDO signed by Judge Boesberg. [1:30:19] Lawyer looks at the names [1:30:21] as a reasonably competent lawyer would. [1:30:23] Hmm, they're members of Congress. [1:30:25] If that was you, what would you do? [1:30:28] Well, I'd make a few phone [1:30:31] calls, I'd do legal research to confirm [1:30:33] that, you know, complying [1:30:35] with this order was obviously lawful, and [1:30:37] I might, you know, gently try [1:30:39] and push back on the subpoena to try and understand [1:30:41] you know, what was going on. [1:30:43] Well, in fact, you would probably [1:30:45] discover the law being [1:30:48] the very competent lawyer that you are [1:30:50] that said no [1:30:52] judicial order [1:30:54] can bar Verizon [1:30:56] from picking up the phone and calling [1:30:59] the member of Congress. [1:31:01] Wouldn't you? That's right. [1:31:03] You'd probably find that statute. [1:31:05] Um, and if you did [1:31:09] find that statute, in a [1:31:12] court order to protect Verizon, [1:31:14] as you're their lawyer, wouldn't you [1:31:16] file a motion to quash? [1:31:18] That's exactly what I'd do, yeah. [1:31:21] But Verizon didn't do any of that, did they? [1:31:23] Apparently not. [1:31:25] They just sucked all this information up like a Hoover Deluxe. [1:31:27] Yeah. [1:31:30] They didn't even look at [1:31:32] that we know of [1:31:34] to see if these were members [1:31:36] of Congress. [1:31:38] Yes, that's right. [1:31:44] What kind of liability does Verizon have here? [1:31:46] That's a good question. I'd need to read the statute more clearly. [1:31:48] To see what the actual [1:31:50] penalties are, but [1:31:52] my guess is there would be some pretty reasonable [1:31:54] civil penalties for having done so. [1:31:56] What kind of remedies, if any, [1:31:58] are there for the fact that [1:32:00] Judge Boasberg said [1:32:02] that he had reasonable grounds [1:32:05] to believe that these members [1:32:07] of Congress would destroy evidence? [1:32:09] And then he made that conclusion [1:32:11] without holding a hearing. [1:32:13] I think the only remedy to that is political and impeachment. [1:32:15] I don't think there's a unique [1:32:17] You can't sue Judge Boasberg for [1:32:19] his judicial decision making, [1:32:21] so the only remedy is political. [1:32:23] Would you consider it [1:32:26] to be grossly incompetent [1:32:28] if Judge Boasberg [1:32:31] had not even inquired [1:32:33] who these people were [1:32:36] and whether they were [1:32:38] members of Congress? [1:32:40] Oh yes, extremely incompetent. [1:32:45] That's all I've got, Mr. Chairman. [1:32:47] Senator Hirono. [1:32:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, here we are once again [1:32:58] with a hearing espousing [1:33:00] Republican conspiracy theories [1:33:02] and once again [1:33:04] focusing on Jack Smith. [1:33:06] How many times [1:33:08] do we Democrats have to say [1:33:10] why don't we just bring Jack Smith [1:33:12] before this committee? [1:33:14] Why do we not put him under oath? [1:33:16] Why don't we just ask him questions? [1:33:18] The witnesses this morning [1:33:20] are speculating as to [1:33:22] what Jack Smith knew [1:33:24] or what he told the judge, [1:33:26] speculating about what the judge [1:33:28] was told by Jack Smith. [1:33:30] Instead of all these speculations, [1:33:32] why don't we just call Jack Smith? [1:33:34] See, that has never been [1:33:37] adequately answered [1:33:39] in my view. [1:33:41] I think it's time, [1:33:43] rather than continuing to go down this rabbit hole. [1:33:45] And really, [1:33:47] the term milking a dead cow [1:33:49] or beating a dead horse [1:33:51] comes to mind [1:33:53] because this is what this exercise is. [1:33:55] It is milking a dead cow [1:33:57] which describes, [1:33:59] I looked it up, [1:34:01] describes a completely futile, [1:34:03] or waste of effort [1:34:06] that will yield no results. [1:34:08] It implies trying [1:34:10] to extract value information [1:34:12] or result from [1:34:14] a source [1:34:16] that is already dead, [1:34:18] exhausted, [1:34:20] or incapable of providing [1:34:22] anything further. [1:34:24] So the further providing of information [1:34:26] should come directly from Jack Smith. [1:34:28] So, you know, [1:34:30] I'm going to repeat [1:34:32] what some of my colleagues have said. [1:34:34] I'm going to focus on [1:34:36] with the work of this committee [1:34:38] rather than wasting our time like this. [1:34:40] First is, call Jack Smith. [1:34:42] Second, [1:34:44] he has already offered [1:34:48] to testify [1:34:50] so we're not going to get [1:34:52] much resistance from him. [1:34:54] He's already testified [1:34:56] before the House. [1:34:58] He issued some reports [1:35:00] and we should [1:35:02] get access to Volume 2 [1:35:04] of Jack Smith's report. [1:35:06] So not only should we call him [1:35:08] to testify, but we should get our hands [1:35:10] talking about getting information [1:35:12] that would be good for us to have. [1:35:14] Volume 2 of Jack Smith's [1:35:16] report. [1:35:18] And then thirdly, [1:35:21] there's been a focus on [1:35:23] Kash Patel. [1:35:26] After he received immunity, [1:35:28] he did testify to the [1:35:30] grand jury and we've been trying to [1:35:32] access that testimony. [1:35:34] And Director Patel has [1:35:36] stonewalled and lied [1:35:38] to this committee saying that he can't [1:35:40] provide that testimony. Yes, he can. [1:35:42] And once again, [1:35:44] my Republican colleagues don't seem to [1:35:46] care that [1:35:48] he lied to this committee. [1:35:50] So we have, as far as [1:35:52] I'm concerned, a refusal to [1:35:54] confront the truth. [1:35:56] And I'm really disheartened [1:35:58] by what is happening to [1:36:00] an institution called the FBI, [1:36:02] not to mention the Department of Justice, [1:36:04] but the FBI that had, I would say, [1:36:06] a reputation [1:36:08] for doing the work [1:36:10] that protected the American [1:36:12] people. And that is not the case. [1:36:14] What we're seeing are people [1:36:16] being fired, not for lack [1:36:18] of competence. In fact, [1:36:20] they were very, very competent. [1:36:22] Not for misconduct, [1:36:24] but because they happened to [1:36:26] question the [1:36:28] leader, Donald Trump. [1:36:31] This continuous effort on the [1:36:33] part of my Republican colleagues to [1:36:35] just bow down to [1:36:37] this president who does not believe [1:36:39] that the rule of law applies to him [1:36:41] is amazing. And you know [1:36:43] what? The American people are getting it. [1:36:45] And that is why millions, [1:36:47] millions of them, [1:36:49] they, [1:36:51] in fact, I think this Saturday [1:36:53] there's going to be another rally. No [1:36:55] king's rally. Millions of Americans [1:36:57] are saying, hey, Donald [1:36:59] Trump, you are not our king. You cannot [1:37:01] run this country through executive [1:37:03] orders. You cannot act as though [1:37:05] the rule of law does not apply to [1:37:07] him. And by the way, [1:37:09] no thanks to the Supreme Court. [1:37:12] I think their decision on his immunity [1:37:14] was one of the worst decisions [1:37:16] that this court, and there are [1:37:18] many. So let me just ask one [1:37:20] question of Mr. O'Leary. Thank you [1:37:22] very much for testifying. In your [1:37:24] experience, and I know there are some very [1:37:26] fine FBI agents who [1:37:28] either were fired or left [1:37:30] over a thousand. [1:37:32] Can you go over again [1:37:34] the fact that all of these [1:37:36] very, very experienced people who [1:37:38] were engaged in white collar crime, [1:37:40] cyber investigations, [1:37:42] cyber attacks, etc. [1:37:44] Their departure, tell us how [1:37:47] their departure is making our country [1:37:49] safer. Senator, the loss of [1:37:53] agents and analysts and professional [1:37:55] staff across the FBI is impacting [1:37:57] a variety of [1:37:59] programs from white collar [1:38:01] crime, protecting the integrity [1:38:03] of our financial markets, [1:38:05] and public corruption. [1:38:07] Cyber, the head of [1:38:10] the cyber division [1:38:12] was fired, an exceptional agent that [1:38:14] I served with for years. [1:38:16] The head of the critical incident [1:38:18] response group, who was the acting [1:38:20] director in the beginning of the Trump [1:38:22] administration, Brian Driscoll, [1:38:24] was fired just this last [1:38:26] August because he refused to [1:38:28] fire one of his employees without [1:38:30] cause as directed by Kash Patel. [1:38:32] Brian Driscoll demonstrated [1:38:34] the courage and the integrity [1:38:36] that you would expect from a leader [1:38:38] and he refused to do so. He in [1:38:40] turn was fired himself, [1:38:42] thrown out of the FBI [1:38:44] after years of service. [1:38:46] He's a recipient of the shield of [1:38:48] bravery and the shield of valor. [1:38:50] The shield of valor for [1:38:52] being on a joint hostage [1:38:54] recovery operation in Syria [1:38:56] with the special operations [1:38:58] task force to rescue an American [1:39:01] citizen. These are the kind of [1:39:03] individuals we're losing and [1:39:05] those who are not being fired... Thank you Mr. [1:39:07] Thank you Mr. Leary for standing up for an [1:39:09] institution that deserves our support [1:39:11] and instead we have a director [1:39:13] who parties around, who flies around [1:39:15] in a plane, who visits his girlfriend. [1:39:17] Give me a break. [1:39:19] Senator Blackburn. [1:39:24] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [1:39:26] Mr. O'Leary, I want to stay with you [1:39:28] if I may. [1:39:30] Now, my colleague across the [1:39:32] aisle seems to have a problem [1:39:34] with Kash Patel and you [1:39:36] made a statement that you think he's [1:39:38] made our country less safe. Do you [1:39:40] own that statement? Yes I do, ma'am. [1:39:43] You do own that statement. [1:39:45] Have you heard of Memphis, Tennessee? [1:39:47] Yes ma'am, I've been there many times. [1:39:49] Good. Are you fully aware [1:39:51] of what the FBI [1:39:53] and the federal government has [1:39:55] accomplished in Memphis, Tennessee? [1:39:57] I think using FBI [1:39:59] agents as part of a joint task [1:40:01] force to reduce violent crime [1:40:03] is very important and I'm aware of their [1:40:05] effectiveness there, yes ma'am. And you're aware [1:40:07] that Director [1:40:09] Patel has been very [1:40:11] involved in planning, [1:40:13] organizing, implementing [1:40:15] this. Is that [1:40:17] correct? I'm not personally aware of that but [1:40:19] if you say so, yes ma'am. Well let me make you aware [1:40:21] of that. Are you aware [1:40:24] that there have been over [1:40:26] 9,000 arrests of violent [1:40:28] criminals? If you say so, [1:40:30] yes ma'am. And [1:40:33] would you say that arresting [1:40:35] 9,000 violent criminals makes [1:40:37] the country more or less safe? [1:40:39] It certainly makes that jurisdiction, [1:40:41] Memphis, a safer community. Makes [1:40:43] the entire country more safe. [1:40:45] Would you say that [1:40:47] finding 150 [1:40:49] missing children helps [1:40:52] make this country more safe? [1:40:54] Yes it does and the FBI has been [1:40:56] doing that for decades, ma'am. And in [1:40:58] Memphis it's 153. [1:41:00] You can stop being snarky too. [1:41:02] That would help. There [1:41:04] have also, we've seen [1:41:06] a 43% drop in [1:41:08] overall crime, 36% [1:41:10] drop in murder, and [1:41:12] a 68% drop in [1:41:14] carjackings in Memphis. Now [1:41:16] I wanted to bring all of this up because [1:41:18] I think it's important that [1:41:20] we focus on what we [1:41:22] have been able to accomplish [1:41:24] in the line of [1:41:26] public safety when we [1:41:28] appropriately use [1:41:31] resources from the federal [1:41:33] government and when we are not [1:41:35] having the DOJ weaponize [1:41:37] itself [1:41:39] and go after private [1:41:41] citizens like Susie Wiles [1:41:43] and Kash Patel were when [1:41:45] all of their records [1:41:47] were subpoenaed in [1:41:49] 2022 and 23. [1:41:51] When we don't see the FBI [1:41:53] going after 400 [1:41:55] different conservative organizations [1:41:57] which they did [1:41:59] simply because they didn't [1:42:01] like Donald Trump and they didn't like [1:42:03] a lot of us, myself [1:42:05] included. But you [1:42:07] seem to be fine [1:42:09] with that weaponization. [1:42:11] You seem to think that it [1:42:13] is okay. And Mr. [1:42:15] O'Leary, I find it [1:42:17] unconscionable that [1:42:19] you would sit there and [1:42:21] defend them [1:42:23] going after the [1:42:25] records of private [1:42:27] citizens, of elected [1:42:29] officials, and weaponizing [1:42:31] the Department of [1:42:33] Justice. [1:42:36] But that is what they [1:42:38] did. I think [1:42:40] it is really unfortunate [1:42:42] that this type [1:42:44] weaponization appears to what we had [1:42:46] come to expect out [1:42:48] of the Biden [1:42:50] administration. Mr. Chamberlain, [1:42:52] I want to come to you. Talk for a minute [1:42:54] about the [1:42:56] danger of the expectation [1:42:58] of weaponization. The [1:43:00] effect and the impact [1:43:02] that that has [1:43:04] on conservatives [1:43:06] and what Congress needs to [1:43:08] do to make certain this doesn't [1:43:10] happen to anybody, whether it's a [1:43:12] liberal or a conservative. It [1:43:14] seems that we have a witness who is [1:43:16] fine with it happening to [1:43:18] conservatives, but I'm sure he would [1:43:20] not be happy if it happened [1:43:22] to a liberal. [1:43:24] I think it's a very big [1:43:26] worry that you're effectively [1:43:28] demeaning the First Amendment because you're [1:43:30] crushing the rights of people to engage in [1:43:32] political advocacy if the underlying [1:43:34] threat is, if you do this for the wrong [1:43:36] side, we're going to bring federal [1:43:38] law enforcement to bear upon you. [1:43:40] Mr. O'Leary, are you okay with [1:43:42] it being weaponized to go after [1:43:44] conservatives? Does that suit you? [1:43:46] Did you think that was a justifiable [1:43:48] use of taxpayer money and time? [1:43:51] Senator, absolutely not. [1:43:53] Let me just tell you, politics [1:43:55] in the FBI workspace are [1:43:57] absent. Nobody understands or knows [1:43:59] or cares. [1:44:01] Do you want to own that statement? [1:44:03] No, it's my time. Ms. Cleveland, [1:44:05] what do you have to say about that? [1:44:07] That's laughable. It is laughable. [1:44:09] It is absolutely laughable that [1:44:11] it has no place. After everything [1:44:13] we saw with Crossfire Hurricane, [1:44:15] after what we're starting to [1:44:17] see in the Arctic Frost from [1:44:19] the prohibitive files, [1:44:21] it might be that you worked [1:44:23] with the very few who were not [1:44:25] involved in the investigation. [1:44:27] That's not political. [1:44:29] But it is replete everywhere. [1:44:31] We had Ray Holzler who wrote an [1:44:33] op-ed, I believe it was in the [1:44:35] Washington Post, after he was [1:44:37] fired, complaining about him [1:44:39] being fired for no reason. [1:44:41] But what do we now know? [1:44:43] He was the one who refused to [1:44:45] investigate the Clinton Foundation [1:44:47] and he's the one who turned over [1:44:49] to the U.S. attorney who was [1:44:51] actually doing the investigation [1:44:53] an abbreviated summary of what was going on, [1:44:55] what they did, all of the DOJ [1:44:57] and FBI's protection [1:44:59] and what they were doing to stop [1:45:01] the investigation. It's laughable [1:45:03] to say that there's no politicalization [1:45:05] of the FBI. [1:45:07] Or maybe there isn't anymore [1:45:09] because they fired the groups [1:45:11] that were doing it. [1:45:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:45:17] Thank you. I want to thank each of the witnesses [1:45:19] for your testimony. [1:45:21] Written questions can be submitted for the record [1:45:23] until Tuesday, March 31st [1:45:25] at 5 p.m. [1:45:27] We will then ask the witnesses to answer [1:45:29] and return the questions to the committee [1:45:31] by April 14th at 5 p.m. [1:45:33] And with that, this hearing is adjourned.