'Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate' Hearing Held By Senate Judiciary Committee

[23:31] I hear about a call to order this hearing, Arctic Frost, the modern Watergate. [23:37] Fifty years ago, Watergate exposed a simple but profound abuse of power. [23:43] Operatives tied to a sitting president broke into a building to secretly gather information from their political opponents [23:50] by bugging offices and seizing documents. [23:55] And what followed was just as troubling. [23:58] Efforts to use the powers of government to conceal it, [24:03] to pressure investigators, to shut down inquiries, to avoid accountability. [24:11] Even though that operation failed in its ultimate objective, the American people did not treat it lightly. [24:18] The consequences were swift and severe. [24:23] The president of the United States resigned in disgrace, facing near certain impeachment. [24:30] And dozens of officials, more than 40 individuals connected to the scheme, were indicted or jailed [24:38] because the attempt itself was the offense. [24:44] In our law, we recognize a simple truth. [24:47] A failed crime is not an insignificant one. [24:52] A man who pulls the trigger and misses is no less guilty than the one who hits his mark. [24:58] The intent is the same, the danger is the same, and the crime is the same. [25:03] And if Watergate taught us anything, it is that even a single abuse of power, [25:07] carried out by a handful of individuals, can shake the foundations of our republic. [25:12] But what we confront today, the Biden administration's Arctic Frost scheme, is not a single act. [25:22] It is a modern Watergate, trading a break-in at one office for a digital sweep into approximately 100,000 private communications. [25:36] More than a dozen senators and thousands of individuals' lives. [25:41] But even that comparison falls short. [25:43] It is something far broader. [25:47] An operation that aligned Democrats across all three branches of government. [25:52] The Biden executive branch, through DOJ and the FBI, wielding investigative power against political opponents. [25:58] Democrat appointed judges in the judiciary, through warrants, secrecy orders, and deference. [26:06] Failing to serve as a meaningful check. [26:09] And members of the legislative branch, who should be the first line of oversight, choosing instead to look the other way. [26:17] And just like Watergate, these officials deserve to be investigated, tried, impeached, and brought to justice. [26:24] So let's examine how this operation was carried out, step-by-step. [26:29] In early 2022, senior leadership within the legislature, [26:33] the Biden Department of Justice made the decision to open an investigation targeting President Trump [26:40] and his campaign apparatus. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa [26:46] Monaco and FBI Director Chris Wray all personally approved the opening of the investigation. [26:53] On April 4th, 2022, they signed a confidential memo with each of their signatures. That fact [27:07] matters because Watergate was carried out in secret by operatives who were not brazen enough [27:14] to act with formal written authorization from the highest levels of the Department of Justice. [27:21] Arctic Frost was fully authorized, formalized and executed through the official powers of the [27:27] United States government by partisan Democrats. Then in the fall came the nearly 200 subpoenas. [27:38] We're talking about information pertaining to hundreds of [27:42] entities that are involved in the investigation of President Trump and his campaign apparatus. [27:42] We're talking about information pertaining to entities and individuals. Over 400 Republican-aligned [27:47] groups and individuals, including the most sensitive categories of personal data, [27:51] gathered, retained and in some accounts shared across offices. [27:56] Watergate was about a handful of files in a single office. [28:01] This reached into tens of thousands of private communications, emails, records and personal data, [28:08] toll records, bank records, donor lists, law firm records and other personal files relating [28:17] to every major conservative organization were subpoenaed. [28:21] Who were the targets of this? Donald Trump's campaign, the RNC, the Conservative Partnership [28:28] Institute, Save America PAC, America First Policy Institute and even my pillow, [28:35] because God knows we have a national security threat from rogue pillows threatening our country. [28:42] Watergate broke into an office. Arctic Frost reached into the private lives of thousands of [28:51] Americans. [28:51] Meanwhile, conservative leaders found themselves equally violated. [28:57] The Biden administration sought the phone records of nearly 20% [29:01] of the Republicans in the Senate, including multiple members of the committee, including [29:05] myself. Without our knowledge, the FBI took the cell phone data of nearly 20% of the Republicans [29:14] in the Senate, including information about with whom we were talking, how long we were talking [29:20] and from where we were calling. Toll records are not trivial. They are a map of your life. [29:26] Giving insight into your relationships, your movements, your patterns. [29:32] Such invasive subpoenas were granted by Judge Boasberg, a Democrat appointed judge on the [29:38] premise that any one of us, or to be clear, all of us as duly elected United States senators [29:46] would destroy evidence, tamper with witnesses or obstruct justice. [29:52] And Judge Boasberg signed those orders like he was printing the menu at a Denny's. [30:00] One after the other, facts be damned, every member of the Senate is likely to destroy evidence. [30:08] Such invasive subpoenas are an abuse of power. Recently, even more troubling facts continue to [30:18] emerge. Biden's Department of Justice subpoenaed the toll records of now FBI Director Kash Patel [30:24] and now White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. They were not aiming low. They were trying to [30:30] take out everyone on the other side. Both were at the time private citizens and key members [30:36] of President Trump's 2024 election campaign. Now imagine the reverse. Imagine for just one moment [30:45] that President Trump's Department of Justice had secretly obtained the phone records of Senator [30:51] Schumer and Senator White House and Senator Durbin, Senator Hirono and Senator Padilla. [30:59] My Democrat colleagues would be losing their minds right now in this hearing if the Trump Department [31:05] of Justice had done that. Imagine if a Republican Attorney General, a Republican FBI Director and a [31:12] Republican appointed judge had all signed off on a covert effort to sweep up the communications [31:18] locations, data, and call history of every Democrat affiliated organization and individual in the [31:24] United States. Imagine if a judge, a Republican appointed judge signed an [31:29] order that said Senator Durbin will destroy evidence if he is aware of this subpoena, [31:34] because that's what this judge did. Would anyone in this hearing room [31:40] call that routine? Would Democrats call that normal law enforcement activity? Would the press [31:48] its shoulders? Of course not. There would be wall-to-wall coverage. There would be cries [31:55] of authoritarianism. There would be emergency hearings, demands for resignations, and talk [32:01] of impeachment before the sun went down. Instead, my Democrat colleagues can barely get their [32:07] heart rate above 60 beats per minute. [32:13] Arctic frost is the culmination of a gross pattern of abuse by Democrats for partisan [32:21] ends to elect and reelect a Democrat president. In 2016, Obama's FBI began spying on the Trump [32:31] campaign just a month before election day. In 2020, Biden's FBI met with Senators Johnson [32:37] and Grassley in an effort to throw off their investigation into the now infamous Hunter [32:42] Biden laptop, calling the laptop disinformation, a claim we now know was false. The FBI went [32:50] to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and lied to him in an effort to change the [32:56] outcome. [32:56] In the interim of a presidential election, Democrats for years have exhibited the pattern [33:03] of abusing public law enforcement powers for the sake of politics. A pattern this committee [33:10] under the leadership of Chairman Grassley is now working to uncover and expose. Because [33:16] no administration, Republican or Democrat, has any business turning the surveillance [33:21] powers of the federal government against its political opposition. [33:26] Fifty years ago, this nation was confronted with an abuse of power, and it responded not [33:31] within [33:31] difference, but with accountability. I'll tell you one of the big differences of Watergate [33:36] versus Arctic Frost. When Richard Nixon and his corrupt attorney general and his corrupt [33:43] administration abused their law enforcement powers to go after their political opponents, [33:49] Republican senators stood up to the president of their own party and defended the rule of [33:55] law. Where is even a single Democrat senator who has said one word about this abuse of [34:03] power? Is there not one? There are 47 Democrats in this [34:08] body. Is there not one who can come forward and say, you know what? Turning the Department [34:14] of Justice into the oppo research and attack machine of the DNC is not what the DOJ is supposed [34:20] to be. We were tested then, and there was accountability. We are being attested again [34:32] now. The question is really simple. Will we uphold the same standard? Will we defend [34:40] the rule of law or will we abandon it? Ranking member, White House. [34:46] Last month, Kash Partal fired a young woman who had been a musician. She was a community [34:54] strawberries and a black playsboy, and she was a black playboy. She was a black person in [34:55] this party. She was a black woman. She was a black person. She was a black person. She was a black woman. [34:55] Roughly a dozen agents and analysts from the FBI's CI-12 unit, a counterintelligence unit [35:05] dedicated to protecting Americans from foreign espionage. One of the foreign actors that this [35:12] unit specializes in is Iran and its proxies. According to CNN, this unit was, and I quote, [35:21] instrumental in tracking potential threats after the first Trump administration killed a top [35:29] Iranian official in 2020. Just days after Patel fired these agents, President Trump [35:37] started a war in Iran that has already led to the deaths of at least 13 American service members. [35:47] If it seems like a bad decision to fire career law enforcement professionals who specialize in [35:59] defending against Iranian threats, just days before, [36:04] we start a war with Iran, that's because it is. And it's even worse when you consider why [36:12] Patel fired these agents. These agents had been assigned to Jack Smith's investigation [36:21] into Donald Trump's illegal hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Patel claims that [36:32] as part of that investigation, Jack Smith issued grand jury subpoenas for toll records [36:40] for Patel and for Susie Wiles when they were private citizens. Patel also insists that the FBI [36:48] recorded one of Wiles's phone calls, which her own attorney has denied. If you ask anyone with [36:57] law enforcement experience to react to news that the FBI may have sought these toll records, [37:03] the response is simple. Of course they did. Virtually every investigation involves subpoenas [37:12] for toll records for any number of agents. [37:14] Do you know what else has happened to many? [37:19] allegations of fraud over the past six months. [37:24] 뭐 grenade [37:29] Sometimes, if you are a shellsman and so are we, it's easy to figure out a number of reasons. [37:39] Sometimes it's to construct a timeline of events. Sometimes it's to rule out wrongdoing. [37:44] Sometimes it's to prepare for a witness interview. [37:47] Sometimes, it's to help understand the scope of a conspiracy. In fact, the first Trump DOJ, did the same thing republicans have criticized Jack Smith for doing. [37:48] Getting the toll records ofол [37:49] máximo [37:50] members of Congress, following the DOJ policies then in place, and getting non-disclosure orders. [38:00] Here's what Chairman Grassley said at the time. Investigation into members of Congress and staff [38:07] are nothing new, and the Justice Department has specific procedures for such sensitive [38:15] investigations. Apparently, when the Trump DOJ does it, it's nothing new. When Jack Smith does it, [38:24] it's a modern Watergate. With Patel, it's obvious why Jack Smith was looking at him. [38:33] Patel made himself a fact witness in that investigation. He went on podcasts bragging [38:41] about how he planned to post classified information online at Donald Trump's direction, [38:49] and how he'd personally witnessed Donald Trump declassify records. We have known for years [38:58] that Smith... [38:59] Smith was looking into Patel's role because Smith subpoenaed Patel to testify before a grand jury. [39:10] Where is Patel's grand jury testimony? Why is that still hidden? The same goes for Ms. Wiles. [39:20] Wiles is referenced in the indictment against President Trump because Trump showed her [39:25] classified documents when she didn't have a security clearance. The same month that [39:33] indictment came out, the PAC Wiles ran received its highest payment ever from the Trump campaign. [39:43] That's another thing that any investigator worth their salt would take a close look at. [39:50] The same goes for the rest of the subpoenas my colleagues on the other side want to talk [39:54] about today. Jack Smith was investigating a massive conspiracy by Trump officials and their [40:05] allies to overturn an election and attack the Capitol. [40:11] On January 6th, is anyone surprised that he issued subpoenas as part of that investigation? [40:19] And why? As Smith told the House Judiciary Committee, under oath, his investigation, quote, [40:29] involved interviewing and subpoenaing records of Republicans because that's who Donald Trump [40:37] sought to prey on to stay in office? [40:41] Somebody geared up the Republican administration? [40:46] Attorney's General Association, or RAGA, to sponsor the rally that turned into the riots [40:52] on January 6 and pay for robocalls, urging people to march to the Capitol building and fight to [41:01] protect the integrity of our elections. Jeffrey Clark, who worked at DOJ at the time, tried to [41:09] convince the Department of Justice leadership to send a letter to try to overturn the election [41:16] results in Georgia. President Trump almost made him acting attorney general because Clark was [41:23] willing to help Trump try to overturn the election. Pretend for a minute that Jack Smith [41:31] and all the DOJ and FBI officials who helped his investigation did do something wrong. What would [41:38] real oversight look like? Well, first, Republicans would accept Jack Smith's offer to testify before [41:46] this committee under oath. Instead of holding [41:49] a [41:49] series of hearings on conspiracy theories without anything new to say. Why not call him? Hear it [41:57] from the man himself. Second, Republicans would let us see Jack Smith's full report on his [42:06] investigations into President Trump. We only have volume one, which explains the subpoenas he issued [42:12] in the 2020 election interference investigation. We still need volume two on his classified documents [42:21] crimes. [42:21] He also needs a very roomy thing in hisən reservation to oppose the Wikipedia when a [42:25] impeachment inquiry plans have been raised on视'Doempier's [42:27] investigation. [42:27] Democrats ono this committee have asked DOJ to give us volume two, but Republicans haven'e been silent as [42:31] President Trump and his MAGA DOJ have fought to bury the report and [42:36] Third, Republicans would oblige Kash –Patel to tell us what he told the grand jury in that classified documents investigation. [42:48] They might also hold Patel accountable for misleading this committee in sworn testimony against Trump for whose [42:53] allegations there could lie to his organisation. [42:55] I've asked Patel multiple times under oath to describe his testimony to us as Rule 6e [43:04] plainly allows. [43:06] First, he said he couldn't because it was under seal by the chief judge for the U.S. [43:14] District Court for the District of Columbia. [43:18] Turns out that very chief judge later said that nothing was preventing Patel from divulging [43:25] his testimony to this committee as the rule allows. [43:30] So that testimony was false. [43:34] When Patel came back, he told another lie, this time that he had already released the [43:40] transcript of his testimony. [43:44] Here's the transcript he might have been talking about. [43:48] As you can see from reading it, oh, wait a minute, you can't read it because it's almost [43:55] completely redacted. [43:59] And it's not even from the right hearing. [44:02] This is from the time Patel appeared before the grand jury in the Mar-a-Lago classified [44:08] documents crimes case to assert his Fifth Amendment rights because he was afraid of [44:16] being prosecuted. [44:19] The testimony that he actually ended up giving once his Fifth Amendment plea was accepted [44:26] and he was immunized, we have never seen. [44:31] If this committee is so interested in Jack Smith's investigation, it should want to know [44:35] what Patel had to say. [44:36] He had to say in that investigation why he was so afraid to say it and why he's so afraid [44:44] to tell us about it now. [44:46] And instead repeatedly lies to this committee. [44:50] I'll close by talking about what this hearing should be about. [44:55] Those counterintelligence agents Kash Patel fired aren't the only career law enforcement [45:00] officials forced out by this administration, nor are they the only ones purged because [45:06] they were assigned to investigate President Trump. [45:08] Thank you. [45:09] I'll make a comment about this. [45:11] They are until they get out of the country. [45:14] From the D.O.J. [45:14] And there's no question that President Trump's crimes. [45:19] Here's what has happened at the FBI since President Trump took office. [45:22] The FBI has lost at least 300 agents working on national security matters, transferred [45:28] agents out of the domestic terrorism operations section, disbanded the foreign influence Task [45:36] Force and instructed joint terrorism task forces to work on immigration cases. [45:42] Division has lost up to one-third of its leadership, half the line prosecutors in the counterterrorism [45:49] section and half the workforce in the counterintelligence section. [45:55] Attorney General Bondi disbanded DOJ's Task Force KleptoCapture, Kleptocracy Team and [46:03] Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. [46:06] It is the same story throughout the administration where conspiracy theories and obsessions with [46:12] revenge are decimating the career law enforcement who protect us against national security threats. [46:22] Major cuts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Laura Loomer forcing [46:28] out the heads of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, DHS gutting its office to prevent domestic [46:35] terrorism and putting a 22-year-old with no experience in charge. [46:43] And [46:43] cutting the workforce of CISA, which protects us from cyber security threats from bad actors [46:51] like Iran. [46:54] Americans are made less safe every time this committee holds a hearing promoting fake outrage [47:00] about Jack Smith and denigrating FBI and DOJ professionals. [47:06] Every time MAGA influencers like Laura Loomer convince the president to fire agency heads. [47:13] And every time Kash Patel fires FBI experts. [47:15] Because he wants to distract from his own incompetence, his wasting of taxpayer dollars [47:22] to fly around the world on a private jet, his partying at the Olympics, or his undermining [47:29] of the FBI's own investigation. [47:33] Instead of chasing conspiracy theories down rabbit holes, that's what we should be focused [47:39] on. [47:43] Chairman Grassley. [47:44] Yeah. [47:45] Thank you, Senator Cruz, for your strong leadership. [47:48] But more importantly, for the outstanding. [47:49] Thank you. [47:50] Thank you. [47:50] Thank you. [47:51] Thank you. [47:52] Thank you. [47:53] Thank you. [47:54] Thank you. [47:55] Thank you. [47:56] Thank you. [47:57] Thank you. [47:58] Thank you. [47:59] Thank you. [48:00] Thank you. [48:01] And I have a statement you gave this morning that reminds us a lot of history as well as [48:02] what's going on right now. [48:03] Today is the second in a series of Arctic Frost hearings that I've authorized as chairman. [48:04] I started my investigation into Arctic Frost in July of 2022 based on credible whistleblower [48:12] disclosures. [48:14] Senator Johnston has since joined the investigation. [48:17] And I appreciate our joint work. [48:20] Our goal is to publicly release as many records as possible. [48:25] The public has the right to know how the taxpayer dollars have been used and who was involved [48:31] up and down the decision-making chain. [48:34] Today we're making new records public. [48:38] Some records are dated January 2023, before Jack Smith's team secretly sought most member [48:44] tolling data. [48:46] The records include a wish list created by Smith's team, naming 14 members of Congress [48:52] for whom they've wanted to seek tolling data. [48:56] Some of those members are senators on this very committee. [49:00] But the list notes that Smith's team already knew these members had communication, so include [49:07] text messages for some members with individuals associated with President Trump. [49:15] And Jack Smith was certainly a witness. [49:17] We're making public today, quote, before we tell Maine, meaning Maine justice, we're [49:27] going to fire off subpoenas for so many members' tolls. [49:32] I should make sure that Jack's aware. [49:37] Another record states that, quote, unlikely the many of those members will cooperate with [49:46] unlikely. [49:47] Many. [49:48] Many of these members will cooperate with our investigation. [49:53] The same record also says the members, quote, likely have a valid speech or debate privilege [50:00] immunizing them from compelled testimony, end of quote. [50:07] I've already publicly released other records showing Smith's team was warned that subpoenaing [50:14] congressional information could violate the speech and debate clause. [50:18] I've also publicly released 197 subpoenas seeking sensitive financial information from [50:29] over 400 Republican groups and individuals. [50:33] Some of the information sought included legislative branch communications. [50:40] Even with these constitutional concerns, Smith's team secretly sought and obtained member of [50:47] Congress. [50:48] And that's not enough to believe that the Secretary of State has been suspicious of [50:51] the members' tolls. [50:52] And when one phone company pushed back, Smith backed down. [50:57] And that calls into question the necessity of obtaining member data. [51:02] Another record calls into question Jack Smith's assertion that the House January 6th committee [51:12] materials, quote, comprised a small part of the Office's investigative record, end of [51:18] This new record states that of the January 6th report, quote, leadership teams fully read and reviewed. [51:29] Last weekend, we went over it page by page and incorporated it into our investigative plan, end of quote. [51:37] Indeed, the same records that we're making public today says that Smith's team will be, quote, logging all information contained in the report, end of quote. [51:52] Also, the record states Smith's team will, quote, leverage, end of quote, the report to, quote, avoid needless interviews and focus the interviews we perform on. [52:08] Underdeveloped topics, end of quote. [52:12] Overall, the records create additional questions about Smith's conduct, need for member data, and candor to the court and the public. [52:26] The Democrats have criticized us for not bringing Jack Smith before us at the beginning, and you've heard that again today. [52:34] If we follow the Democrats' premature and ill-advised strategy, [52:40] we wouldn't have had a great deal of information we now have that shows Jack Smith misled Congress and the public, if not outright lied. [52:51] And lastly, today, we're also making public two subpoenas for toll records of FBI Director Patel, along with nondisclosure orders that kept them secret. [53:05] This committee's work will continue. Thank you. [53:09] Thank you. Ranking Member Durbin. [53:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [53:20] Last week, America lost a man who devoted his life in service to our nation. [53:27] Robert Mueller earned a bronze star and a Purple Heart, serving as a Marine and risking his life in Vietnam. [53:35] He led the FBI after 9-11, helping to secure our nation after the worst terrorist attack in American history. [53:45] Mueller was an amazing man. [53:46] A registered Republican, he was appointed and reappointed by not only Republican President George H.W. Bush, [53:56] but Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. [54:02] He holds an historic distinction. [54:05] He is the only FBI director, other than J. Edgar Hoover, who had his tenure at the FBI extended beyond the 10-year limit. [54:16] By a vote of 100 to nothing in the United States Senate, he was given approval to serve an additional two years under President Obama. [54:30] I worked with Robert Mueller for many years. [54:34] I remember reaching out to him after 9-11. [54:36] And the news that the technology available at the FBI was so ancient on the day of the attack of 9-11 [54:45] that you could buy more modern and effective technology at a radio shack. [54:51] I said to him, I am not an expert in this area in any way whatsoever, but I want to help you if I can. [54:57] I want it to be a bipartisan effort. [55:00] And we worked together for years. [55:03] I never, ever questioned Bob Mueller's devotion to our nation or his personal integrity. [55:09] How did President Donald Trump respond to news of Robert Mueller's passing? [55:19] I quote the president, [55:22] Good. I'm glad he's dead. [55:26] Let me repeat that. [55:28] The president said, when notified of Robert Mueller's passing, [55:33] Good. I'm glad he's dead. [55:36] Those reprehensible words should be condemned by every member of the committee on both sides of the aisle. [55:44] Unfortunately, under Republican leadership, this committee has been complicit in the attacks, [55:50] on Robert Mueller, spending years spreading debunked conspiracy theories [55:56] about his investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. [56:02] We're here today to attack another special counsel investigation led by another honorable public servant. [56:09] As the title of this hearing makes clear, the majority is wasting this committee's time and resources [56:16] on another baseless, partisan witch hunt. [56:20] President Trump spent months attempting to unlawfully, [56:24] to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss. [56:28] It was known as the big lie. [56:30] We heard it over and over again. [56:33] It culminated in a deadly attack on the Capitol, which many of us lived through on January 6th. [56:40] Then President Trump removed hundreds of pages of classified documents from the White House, [56:47] and as a private citizen, held them at his Mar-a-Lago residence, some next to a toilet, [56:53] refusing for more than a year to return these documents. [56:57] Despite this unprecedented and egregious conduct, my Republican colleagues claim [57:02] the Watergate-level scandal is the actual investigation into Trump's brazen transgressions, [57:09] not his historically dangerous action. [57:13] It would have been a dereliction of duty for any prosecutor investigating the effort to overturn the 2020 election, [57:20] not to subpoena organizations like Turning Point USA, an organization that helped plan the so-called [57:27] stop-the-steal race. [57:28] It would have been a terrible, terrible rally that led to the January 6th deadly attack on the United States Capitol. [57:33] Similarly, any prosecutor worth his salt would have subpoenaed Kash Patel, [57:39] who was a material witness in the classified documents case. [57:43] Patel even infamously claimed to be the sole witness of President Trump's supposed blanket declassification of classified documents. [57:53] Now if my Republican colleagues were serious about this issue, [57:57] they would have called Special Counsel Jack Smith [58:00] to testify under oath before this committee. [58:04] The Democrats on this committee notified the Chairman in October of last year. [58:10] Six months ago, that Smith was not only available to testify, [58:14] he would do so under oath and answer the questions raised in this hearing. [58:19] What has happened in the last six months? [58:21] No action by the Republican leadership of this committee to bring the sole major witness of this event [58:29] before the committee under oath to ask specific questions. [58:32] Why? [58:33] Why is this committee afraid to bring Jack Smith before and under oath? [58:37] For six months they have avoided it. [58:40] You want to know why? [58:41] They can continue the sham hearings over issues that don't exist. [58:46] The majority has also refused to support Committee Democrats' request to release Volume 2 of Special Counsel Smith's report, [58:54] which Senator Whitehouse noted. [58:56] Let me draw attention to the issues the committee should be addressing instead of this farce today. [59:03] Over the past year, [59:03] President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, and Director of the FBI Patel [59:08] have systematically dismantled the Federal Bureau of Investigation, [59:12] the premier law enforcement agency in the United States, if not the world. [59:17] These purges are making every American less safe. [59:20] Most recently, Patel reportedly fired at least six agents and several other FBI personnel [59:27] who had been assigned to work related to President Trump's mishandling of classified documents. [59:32] These terminations were, seemingly, [59:35] to save face with President Trump in response to the negative press Director Patel received [59:41] for his embarrassing appearance chugging beer at the Olympic Games. [59:47] Several of the fired agents were reportedly part of a global counterintelligence squad, [59:53] which Senator Whitehouse has referred to, particularly appropriate at a time we are at war with Iran. [59:59] In other words, Director Patel's political retribution has weakened the FBI's ability [1:00:05] to counter Iranian threats at the exact time that not only America, [1:00:11] but certainly the men and women in uniform, needed them to keep themselves safe. [1:00:16] Watergate is the story of a president who engaged in a vast illegal conspiracy [1:00:21] to remain in power and use his control of the levers of government to obstruct investigations into his own misconduct. [1:00:28] Back then, the Senate stood up for the Constitution and the rule of law, [1:00:33] exposing Nixon's corruption by investigating the serious allegations. [1:00:36] Today, Senate Republicans waffle between indifference to outright celebration [1:00:44] of President Trump's brazen misconduct, despite the real dangers it poses. [1:00:49] We cannot continue on this course. [1:00:51] The American people face real challenges from citizens being summarily executed [1:00:57] for exercising their First Amendment rights, [1:01:00] and to the skyrocketing price of the cost of living under this administration. [1:01:06] This hearing will not help a single person other than Donald Trump, [1:01:10] and the Republican majority should do better for their constituents. [1:01:14] A senator from Texas should know a dead horse when he sees one. [1:01:19] This hearing is an attempt to throttle a dead horse to a gallop. [1:01:22] There aren't enough giddy-ups in the world to accomplish that goal, I yield. [1:01:27] For a Chicago man, that was an awful lot of rodeo references. [1:01:36] Mr. Chairman, I don't quite know how to do this, [1:01:39] but I would like to ask that this transcript be made an exhibit in this proceeding. [1:01:46] It's 22 pages of examination of the witness in which only these words are public. [1:01:53] So upon the advice of counsel, I'll be invoking my Fifth Amendment privilege. [1:01:58] The whole rest of it is redacted. [1:02:01] I assume that it can go in as an exhibit with the image of all the redactions, [1:02:08] and if that's the case, [1:02:10] I'd like to ask that it be made an exhibit in this proceeding. [1:02:13] Without objection, it will be admitted. [1:02:15] Also, on behalf of Chairman Grassley and Senator Johnson, [1:02:18] Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, [1:02:22] I enter into the record 30 newly uncovered and significant investigatory documents [1:02:27] regarding Arctic frost that shed light on the decision-making of the Biden Department of Justice. [1:02:34] This includes 197 subpoenas targeting over 400 Republican individuals and entities [1:02:39] that form part of the Biden administration. [1:02:40] The subpoenas include the former special counsel Jack Smith [1:02:43] and his team issued as a part of the indiscriminate election case against President Trump. [1:02:48] These are not routine materials. [1:02:51] These are internal investigative records that shed light on how and why [1:02:55] the Biden Department of Justice authorized and carried out this operation. [1:03:00] They detail the scope of the subpoenas issued, [1:03:03] the categories of the 400 individuals and organizations targeted, [1:03:07] and the decision-making process inside the department at the highest levels. [1:03:11] They allow us to see, clearly and for the first time, [1:03:14] how this investigation was conducted from the inside. [1:03:17] This new information would not have been known but for congressional oversight. [1:03:21] I will now introduce the witnesses at this hearing. [1:03:25] First witness is Mr. Will Chamberlain, [1:03:27] who currently serves as senior counsel at the Article III project. [1:03:30] Mr. Chamberlain graduated from University of the Pacific in 2010 with a BA in economics. [1:03:35] He received his JD magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2015. [1:03:41] After graduating Georgetown, [1:03:44] he joined Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, and Sullivan in Los Angeles as an associate [1:03:48] where he practiced complex commercial litigation. [1:03:51] Mr. Chamberlain later worked as an attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute [1:03:56] focusing on class action litigation. [1:03:59] In 2019, he revived Human Events, [1:04:02] the nation's oldest conservative magazine, [1:04:04] where he served as publisher and editor-in-chief. [1:04:06] Mr. Chamberlain is also vice president of external affairs at the Edmund Burke Foundation, [1:04:12] which organizes national conservatism [1:04:14] conferences around the world. [1:04:17] Christopher O'Leary retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation [1:04:20] as a member of the Senior Executive Service in September 2023 [1:04:24] after two decades of leading counterterrorism investigation and operations. [1:04:28] Mr. O'Leary's last assignment was serving as the U.S. government's director of hostage recovery, [1:04:33] where he led an interagency task force dedicated to the mission [1:04:36] of safely bringing home Americans taken hostage by terrorist organizations. [1:04:41] Mr. O'Leary is also a former United States Marine Corps officer [1:04:45] and Marine Corps gunnery sergeant and Iraq War combat veteran. [1:04:48] Thank you for that, sir. [1:04:49] Mr. O'Leary holds a bachelor's degree in Middle Eastern studies from Rutgers University, [1:04:54] a master's degree from Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, [1:04:58] and a master's degree in government and national security from Harvard University. [1:05:03] Our third witness is Margo Cleveland, [1:05:05] an attorney, legal analyst, an investigative journalist, and former academic. [1:05:10] After graduating from the Notre Dame Law School, [1:05:12] where she earned the Hoynes Prize, [1:05:14] the law school's highest honor, [1:05:16] Ms. Cleveland served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk [1:05:20] for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. [1:05:23] Ms. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member [1:05:27] at the University of Notre Dame, [1:05:29] where in 1998 she received the Frank O'Malley Undergraduate Teaching Award, [1:05:33] the highest award for undergraduate faculty members. [1:05:37] Ms. Cleveland currently serves as the Federalist's senior legal correspondent, [1:05:41] where she helped lead the Federalist's reporting on the Russia collusion hoax, [1:05:45] which won the Dow Grand Prize for investigative journalism in 2025. [1:05:50] Ms. Cleveland is also counsel for the new Civil Liberties Alliance, [1:05:54] where she practices constitutional law, [1:05:56] and has co-authored several Supreme Court amicus briefs and a petition for certiorari. [1:06:01] And Mr. Chamberlain, we'll start with you. You're recognized. [1:06:06] Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. [1:06:09] Thank you for the opportunity. [1:06:11] And actually, hold on a second. [1:06:13] Before we do that, I need to ask each of you [1:06:15] to stand and raise your right hand. [1:06:19] Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give before this subcommittee [1:06:24] is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? [1:06:27] So help you God. [1:06:28] All of you have answered affirmatively. Please be seated. [1:06:31] And now, Mr. Chamberlain, you're recognized. [1:06:33] Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. [1:06:38] Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. [1:06:40] On February 26, 2025, Reuters broke a remarkable story. [1:06:44] They reported first that in 2022 and 2023, [1:06:47] Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department [1:06:50] subpoenaed toll records of calls from Kash Patel and Susie Wiles [1:06:53] as part of the now infamous Arctic Frost investigation. [1:06:56] Both were private citizens at this time, [1:06:58] and the surveillance continued while Wiles was co-managing President Trump's election campaign. [1:07:02] This was troubling, but sadly, it wasn't shocking. [1:07:05] This committee has been investigating Smith's abuse of his subpoena power [1:07:08] against a slew of Republican senators, [1:07:10] alongside Judge James Boasburg's unlawful nondisclosure orders [1:07:13] that hid the existence of those subpoenas from those senators. [1:07:17] But Reuters, if anything, buried the lead. [1:07:19] The article also revealed that in 2023, [1:07:21] the Biden FBI had surreptitiously recorded a phone call [1:07:24] between Susie Wiles and her attorney. [1:07:26] This was a remarkable breach of attorney-client privilege. [1:07:29] The Reuters article, relying on two FBI sources, [1:07:31] claimed that Wiles' attorney had been aware of the surveillance on the phone call, [1:07:35] which, if it were true, would have been a shocking ethical breach by Wiles' lawyer. [1:07:38] The following day, however, [1:07:40] Wiles' lawyer denied having ever consented to any such recording, [1:07:44] stating correctly that, quote, [1:07:46] if he ever pulled a stunt like that, he wouldn't [1:07:48] and shouldn't have a license to practice law, end quote. [1:07:51] His denial is, in my view, credible. [1:07:54] What lawyer in their right mind would secretly consent [1:07:57] to law enforcement recording a privileged phone call with their client? [1:08:00] But the lawyer's denial raises more questions than it answers. [1:08:03] Why, then, did two FBI sources tell Reuters that the lawyer had consented? [1:08:07] Were the sources lying, or were they relying on false records [1:08:10] created by FBI agents working with Smith? [1:08:12] It wouldn't be the first time FBI personnel [1:08:15] have falsified records in their pursuit of President Trump. [1:08:18] Remember that Kevin Kline Smith, a former FBI lawyer, [1:08:21] pled guilty to intentionally falsifying information [1:08:24] to obtain a FISA warrant in the Russiagate investigation. [1:08:27] The scandal isn't merely that this phone call was recorded. [1:08:29] It's also about how the records of the recording were hidden. [1:08:32] The FBI's primary digital case management system is called Sentinel. [1:08:36] Within it, investigators can apply a special designation to a file [1:08:39] called prohibited access. [1:08:41] Files coded this way become completely invisible in standard Sentinel searches. [1:08:45] If an agent runs a keyword search that should hit these documents, [1:08:48] the system returns a false negative. [1:08:50] It reports no responsive documents, even though they exist. [1:08:54] While this prohibited access designation might make theoretical sense [1:08:58] for files dealing with the most sensitive classified matters, [1:09:01] it clearly does not make sense that records of Susie Wiles' phone call [1:09:04] being surveilled would qualify. [1:09:06] The agents who marked those records prohibited would have known that. [1:09:09] If Wiles' lawyer had been aware of the recording, [1:09:11] it would have constituted consensual monitoring. [1:09:13] Monitoring such a call would likely require DOJ approval, [1:09:15] but it could be lawful. [1:09:17] But if Wiles' lawyer did not consent to the recording, [1:09:19] we are likely looking at an illegal wiretap of a phone call [1:09:22] between a presidential campaign manager and her own lawyer, [1:09:26] one where the agent or agents who conducted the wiretap [1:09:29] lied about Wiles' lawyer's lack of consent [1:09:32] and then coded it as a prohibited file [1:09:34] in the hopes that no one would ever find out about it. [1:09:37] This would be a more brazen FBI intervention into domestic politics [1:09:40] than anything during the Russiagate investigation, [1:09:42] which is certainly saying something. [1:09:45] We often hear liberal law professors complain about the Trump administration [1:09:48] undermining the DOJ and FBI [1:09:50] 's independence. [1:09:52] Sophisticated listeners should immediately translate [1:09:55] independent as unaccountable. [1:09:57] Illegal wiretaps and inappropriate prohibited file classifications [1:10:01] are the fruits of an independent FBI [1:10:03] that acted with impunity because it was not subject [1:10:06] to the democratic accountability that our Constitution demands. [1:10:09] The president is tasked with the responsibility to take care [1:10:11] that our laws be faithfully executed, [1:10:13] not to submit to the FBI and DOJ [1:10:15] transforming themselves into an unaccountable fourth branch of government. [1:10:18] And this body can help by providing essential [1:10:20] evidence to the FBI and DOJ [1:10:22] to help the FBI and DOJ [1:10:24] to take action. [1:10:25] I welcome any questions. [1:10:28] Thank you. [1:10:29] Mr. O'Leary, you're recognized. [1:10:30] Chairman, ranking member, [1:10:32] and distinguished members of the committee, [1:10:35] thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. [1:10:37] In his farewell address to the nation, [1:10:39] President George Washington warned [1:10:41] that the health and survival of our republic [1:10:43] required leaders who exercise virtue [1:10:45] and resist the pull of partisan division. [1:10:47] It is in that spirit that I offer my testimony today. [1:10:51] I come before you not as an advocate [1:10:53] for any political party [1:10:54] but as a nonpartisan former special agent of the FBI [1:10:58] where I served for over two decades. [1:11:00] My intent is to provide the committee [1:11:04] with a clear, experience-based understanding [1:11:07] of how the FBI operates, [1:11:09] its investigative standards, [1:11:12] institutional culture, [1:11:14] and the professional norms that guide its work. [1:11:16] The men and women of the FBI have long stood [1:11:19] as a quiet bastion between order and chaos, [1:11:22] guided not by politics or public acclaim, [1:11:25] but by an enduring commitment to the Constitution [1:11:28] and the rule of law. [1:11:30] Their character is forged in an environment [1:11:32] where integrity is not aspirational. [1:11:34] It is required. [1:11:35] Every day, often without recognition, [1:11:39] they make decisions that demand moral clarity, [1:11:43] professional restraint, and personal courage. [1:11:47] These are not abstract virtues within the FBI. [1:11:50] They are lived expectations, [1:11:52] reinforced through training, supervision, [1:11:55] and deeply rooted in institutional culture. [1:11:58] The FBI's investigative process [1:12:01] is grounded in predication, [1:12:03] facts, intelligence, and evidence, [1:12:06] not ideology or affiliation. [1:12:10] Agents are trained to clearly articulate [1:12:12] and document the factual basis [1:12:14] for opening and continuing investigations, [1:12:18] and those decisions are subject to multiple layers [1:12:20] of supervisory and legal review. [1:12:22] Equally important is the internal culture of the FBI. [1:12:26] The bureau I served had no tolerance [1:12:29] for political ideology or personal bias [1:12:32] influencing investigative work. [1:12:34] This was not simply a matter of formal policy. [1:12:37] It was an expectation reinforced through leadership, [1:12:40] peer accountability, and institutional norms. [1:12:44] The credibility of the FBI, [1:12:46] both in court and in the eyes of the public, [1:12:48] depends on that neutrality. [1:12:50] And FBI professionals understand that their work [1:12:54] must withstand scrutiny, [1:12:56] not only in the moment, but years later. [1:12:58] Allegation that the FBI has engaged [1:13:01] in broad, coordinated conspiracies [1:13:03] to investigate individuals based on [1:13:05] political affiliation or ideology [1:13:08] are inconsistent with my experience [1:13:10] and unsupported by evidence or reason. [1:13:13] Yet the absence of credibility to these claims [1:13:17] has not deterred Director Kash Patel [1:13:19] from pursuing what can only be understood [1:13:21] as a campaign of retribution [1:13:24] against his own personnel. [1:13:27] When agents and analysts are removed, [1:13:29] not for misconduct, [1:13:30] but for their lawful participation [1:13:32] in duly authorized investigations, [1:13:35] the conclusion that such [1:13:37] actions are politically driven [1:13:39] is self-evident. [1:13:40] This form of retaliation against [1:13:43] the dedicated professionals of the FBI [1:13:45] has eroded trust in leadership, [1:13:47] damaged morale, [1:13:49] introduced uncertainty across the workforce, [1:13:52] and disrupted the continuity of ongoing operations. [1:13:56] Equally concerning are the national security implications, [1:14:00] with the loss and marginalization [1:14:03] of experienced personnel [1:14:05] and diminished institutional knowledge [1:14:07] drastically impacting the FBI [1:14:09] to effectively confront threats [1:14:12] from terrorism, espionage, [1:14:14] and cyber adversaries. [1:14:17] Left unchecked, [1:14:18] Director Kash Patel's actions [1:14:20] risk inflicting generational harm [1:14:23] on an institution central to the safety [1:14:26] and security of the nation. [1:14:28] In closing, I would emphasize [1:14:30] that the strength of the FBI [1:14:32] and our broader system of justice [1:14:34] depends on its independence [1:14:37] from political influence. [1:14:39] It's a principle that those who serve [1:14:41] in the Bureau understand [1:14:42] as fundamental to their duty. [1:14:44] Being an FBI agent is neither a job [1:14:47] nor a profession, [1:14:48] but rather a vocation. [1:14:51] Service to the nation is not a slogan [1:14:53] in the FBI. [1:14:54] It's a calling, [1:14:55] a steadfast commitment [1:14:57] to the cause of freedom, [1:14:58] democracy, and justice. [1:15:00] This ethos is rooted in a tradition [1:15:03] of excellence that spans generations. [1:15:06] The legacy of the G-man [1:15:08] is not merely a cultural artifact [1:15:10] but a standard, [1:15:11] one that reflects professionalism, [1:15:13] discipline, [1:15:14] and an unyielding pursuit of truth. [1:15:16] Each new generation of G-men and women [1:15:20] inherit not only the responsibilities [1:15:22] of the role, [1:15:23] but the weight of that legacy [1:15:25] and the obligation to uphold it. [1:15:27] Day after day, [1:15:28] the men and women of the FBI [1:15:30] answer the call [1:15:31] and choose duty over comfort, [1:15:33] principle over expedience, [1:15:35] and service over self. [1:15:38] Their work is often unseen [1:15:40] and their successes unheralded, [1:15:42] but the nation is safer [1:15:44] because of their steadfast commitment, [1:15:46] their adherence to the rule of law, [1:15:48] and their fidelity [1:15:50] to the ideals that define the FBI. [1:15:52] Thank you for the opportunity [1:15:53] to appear before you today. [1:15:55] I look forward to answering your questions. [1:15:59] Thank you. [1:16:00] Ms. Cleveland, you're recognized. [1:16:03] Chairman Cruz, [1:16:04] Ranking Member Whitehouse, [1:16:07] and members of the subcommittee, [1:16:10] thank you for the opportunity [1:16:11] to testify concerning [1:16:13] the grave constitutional violations [1:16:15] inflicted as part of Arctic Frost. [1:16:17] After the 2020 election, [1:16:19] an anti-Trump FBI agent [1:16:21] named Tim Tybalt [1:16:23] attempted to use the Justice Department [1:16:25] to destroy the president. [1:16:27] Tybalt's efforts led to the launch [1:16:29] of Arctic Frost. [1:16:31] Soon after, Merrick Garland [1:16:33] tapped Jack Smith, [1:16:35] a hyper-aggressive prosecutor [1:16:37] known to overstretch the meaning [1:16:39] and intent of the law [1:16:41] to serve as special counsel. [1:16:43] Smith proved himself true to form, [1:16:46] indicting Trump for allegedly [1:16:48] violating the law [1:16:50] and violating a statute enacted [1:16:52] in the aftermath of Enron [1:16:54] based in part on a theory [1:16:56] of criminal liability [1:16:58] the Supreme Court would later hold invalid. [1:17:00] The Supreme Court would later also halt [1:17:02] Smith's efforts to prosecute Trump [1:17:04] for actions that fell [1:17:06] within the president's official duties. [1:17:08] Beyond being a partisan [1:17:10] in his own right, [1:17:12] Smith stacked his team [1:17:14] with partisan Democrats, [1:17:16] such as J.P. Cooney and Ray Holser. [1:17:18] Cooney and Holser [1:17:20] served as Smith's top deputies, [1:17:22] and in them we see [1:17:24] the clear double standard [1:17:26] and political bias that permeated [1:17:28] the DOJ and FBI. [1:17:30] Before joining Smith's team, [1:17:33] Cooney crafted [1:17:35] an outrageous sentencing memorandum [1:17:37] that sought to send [1:17:39] Trump advisor Roger Stone [1:17:41] to prison for seven to nine years. [1:17:43] Cooney's sentencing recommendations [1:17:45] were so unhinged [1:17:47] that the then Attorney General [1:17:49] William Barr intervened. [1:17:51] Cooney responded by spreading [1:17:53] unfounded rumors that Barr [1:17:55] and the acting Attorney General [1:17:57] excuse me, the acting U.S. Attorney [1:17:59] were being improperly political, [1:18:01] with media leaks furthering [1:18:03] that narrative, eventually [1:18:05] leading to an Inspector General investigation. [1:18:07] The IG [1:18:10] cleared the Trump administration [1:18:12] but chastised Cooney. [1:18:14] Holser, for his part, [1:18:16] demonstrated his partisan [1:18:18] proclivities [1:18:20] when he headed up the public integrity [1:18:22] section and refused the FBI's [1:18:24] request to open an investigation [1:18:26] into the Clinton Foundation. [1:18:28] But Holser's [1:18:30] partisan protection racket [1:18:32] went further when he [1:18:34] withheld a six-page timeline [1:18:36] of the Clinton Foundation investigation [1:18:38] from the then U.S. Attorney [1:18:40] operating out of Little Rocket. [1:18:42] Instead, he provided [1:18:44] an abbreviated two-page summary [1:18:46] that omitted all references [1:18:48] to interference from the DOJ [1:18:50] and the FBI leadership. [1:18:52] In contrast, when the target [1:18:55] was Trump, Holser, [1:18:57] along with Cooney, drafted a [1:18:59] memorandum to justify [1:19:01] subpoenaing the toll records of about [1:19:03] a dozen members of Congress, [1:19:05] notwithstanding internal email [1:19:07] discussions acknowledging a [1:19:09] clear speech or debate clause [1:19:11] problem. They then hid [1:19:13] the details of those subpoenas [1:19:15] using the prohibited access [1:19:17] functionality of Sentinel, [1:19:19] which ghosted the FBI records. [1:19:21] As this committee well [1:19:23] knows, because many of you were [1:19:25] victims, Smith approved the [1:19:27] subpoenas and obtained the [1:19:29] toll records of Senators Blackburn, [1:19:31] Graham, Hagerty, Hollery, [1:19:33] Loomis, Johnson, Kennedy, [1:19:35] Scott, Sullivan, and Toberville. [1:19:37] Only Senator Cruz [1:19:39] escaped the invasion into his [1:19:41] privacy and the violation of [1:19:43] the speech or debate clause because [1:19:45] his cell phone provider questioned [1:19:47] the subpoena. [1:19:49] From this subcommittee's January [1:19:51] 7th hearing, you also know [1:19:53] that Smith's team sought a [1:19:55] nondisclosure order from Chief Judge [1:19:57] James Boesberg, apparently without [1:19:59] informing him that the targets [1:20:01] were members of Congress. I say [1:20:03] apparently because Chairman Cruz's [1:20:05] request for the nondisclosure [1:20:07] application to be unsealed [1:20:09] has been ignored. Yet again, [1:20:12] we see the double standard [1:20:14] and the weaponization. Judge [1:20:16] Boesberg has still failed [1:20:18] to order Smith and his [1:20:20] prosecutors to show cause for [1:20:22] why they should not be held in [1:20:24] contempt for concealing the [1:20:26] members of Congress were the ones [1:20:28] who were being targeted. This [1:20:30] fact should not be ignored if you [1:20:32] are to believe Smith and the [1:20:34] Administrative Office of the Court's [1:20:36] testimony that Judge Boesberg [1:20:38] did not know that your identities [1:20:40] were involved. [1:20:42] It makes absolutely no [1:20:45] sense that Boesberg would not [1:20:47] enter a show cause order to hold [1:20:49] Smith accountable for violating [1:20:51] your rights, given [1:20:53] Judge Boesberg's nearly [1:20:55] year-long crusade to hold [1:20:57] a member of the Trump administration [1:20:59] in contempt. We now know [1:21:01] that Smith violated the speech or [1:21:03] debate clause, rubber-stamped by [1:21:05] Judge Boesberg. He went [1:21:07] further and he subpoenaed the [1:21:09] toll records of Kevin McCarthy, [1:21:11] former Speaker, and Chairman [1:21:13] Jim Jordan, again under [1:21:15] cover of a nondisclosure [1:21:17] order. Add to [1:21:20] that the hundreds more served on [1:21:22] individual Republicans, including [1:21:24] Trump's attorneys. Republicans [1:21:26] and organizations such as Charlie [1:21:28] Kirk's Turning Point USA [1:21:30] and they didn't seek [1:21:32] merely toll records, but [1:21:34] also bank records, which [1:21:36] revealed the donor [1:21:38] base. The breadth of these [1:21:40] constitutional intrusions is [1:21:42] unprecedented. But to recap, [1:21:44] Smith unconstitutionally [1:21:46] was appointed special counsel [1:21:48] in violation of the appointments clause. [1:21:50] The subpoenas of the toll [1:21:52] records violated the speech or debate [1:21:54] clause. The vast and [1:21:56] unjustified subpoenas [1:21:58] to Republicans and the [1:22:00] organizations that were connected [1:22:02] to them violated the First [1:22:04] Amendment associational rights. [1:22:06] The targeting of Trump's attorneys [1:22:08] implicates the Sixth Amendment right [1:22:10] to counsel. And using [1:22:12] prohibited access to bury [1:22:14] records is a huge [1:22:16] due process violation that raises [1:22:18] potential violations of [1:22:20] Brady. Smith and his team [1:22:22] must be held accountable. [1:22:24] Thank you. Thank you. [1:22:30] Um, let's start with the [1:22:32] foundation. Miss Cleveland, Jack [1:22:35] Smith issued nearly 200 subpoenas. [1:22:37] Is that correct? Yes. [1:22:41] Those subpoenas targeted over 400 [1:22:43] Republican individuals and organizations, correct? [1:22:45] Correct. Many of whom [1:22:48] had no connection to those who entered [1:22:50] the Capitol on January 6th, correct? [1:22:52] Absolutely. And [1:22:54] in fact, some of those organizations [1:22:56] didn't even exist on January 6th. [1:22:58] Is that correct? It is. [1:23:00] So we're not talking about a narrow [1:23:02] investigation. We're talking about a [1:23:04] sweeping operation targeting [1:23:06] virtually the entirety [1:23:08] of the other side politically. [1:23:10] It was a fishing expedition. [1:23:13] So let's turn to the Constitution. [1:23:15] Subpoenaing the toll records of members of Congress, [1:23:17] does that raise serious constitutional concerns? [1:23:19] Absolutely. And in [1:23:21] fact, we have the PIN [1:23:23] who notified the Special Counsel's [1:23:25] Office of those concerns. [1:23:27] And Jack Smith [1:23:29] had apparently said that [1:23:31] he was going to consult with [1:23:33] the [1:23:35] Solicitor General according to [1:23:37] the release of the information from [1:23:39] Senator Grassley this morning. [1:23:41] Yet when he was deposed by [1:23:43] the House and was specifically [1:23:45] asked if he spoke with the Solicitor [1:23:47] General, he said, [1:23:50] on this discreet issue, no. [1:23:52] Among other issues, it raises [1:23:56] significant issues with the speech and debate [1:23:58] clause, correct? Absolutely. [1:24:00] So much so that as you noted, [1:24:02] when Jack Smith subpoenaed [1:24:04] AT&T to get my toll [1:24:06] records, AT&T [1:24:08] refused to comply with the subpoena [1:24:10] because they concluded that it violated the [1:24:12] speech and debate clause. Is that correct? [1:24:14] Absolutely correct. And they backed down. [1:24:16] Jack Smith did not try to enforce [1:24:19] that subpoena, did he? He did not. [1:24:21] He did not go to court and litigate the matter, did he? [1:24:23] He did not. Does that suggest, [1:24:25] as it does to me, that he knew [1:24:27] damn well what he was doing was illegal [1:24:29] and would not be upheld in court? [1:24:31] It does suggest that. When the federal government [1:24:34] subpoenas donor lists, [1:24:36] internal communications, organization [1:24:38] records, does that [1:24:41] implicate the First Amendment and also [1:24:43] Freedom Association in particular? [1:24:45] It does, and the Supreme Court made that clear [1:24:47] in the NAACP [1:24:49] case. [1:24:51] Mr. Chamberlain, aside from the legal [1:24:54] violations, what specific [1:24:56] crimes, if any, [1:24:58] were actually uncovered as a result [1:25:00] of the Arctic Frost investigation? [1:25:04] I'm not aware of any crimes that were uncovered. [1:25:06] Would the senators, donors, organizations, [1:25:08] and individuals who were surveilled [1:25:10] and subpoenaed have ever [1:25:13] learned about the Arctic Frost investigation [1:25:15] had Trump not won in 2024? [1:25:17] Probably not. [1:25:20] Mainly because of these non-disclosure [1:25:22] orders, but also [1:25:24] the fact that a lot of these records [1:25:26] we're now just learning about them because they were in these [1:25:28] prohibited access files only available to [1:25:30] their FBI director. So if the FBI director [1:25:32] was a Democrat, there's no reason to think we'd know about them. [1:25:34] How would you compare the [1:25:37] scope of the [1:25:39] violations in Arctic Frost [1:25:41] to Watergate? [1:25:43] I think, if anything, it might even be greater. [1:25:45] The scope of this in terms [1:25:47] of the sheer number of people and organizations [1:25:49] affected, and as I [1:25:51] discussed, I mean, this brazen violation of [1:25:53] attorney-client privilege, wiretapping, a phone [1:25:55] call between Susie Wiles [1:25:57] and her lawyer, these are [1:25:59] egregious offenses. And, you know, if Watergate [1:26:01] was just about a single break-in, I mean, this [1:26:03] is effectively, you know, compound that [1:26:05] by 200. All right, Mr. O'Leary, [1:26:08] I appreciate your service. One of the things [1:26:10] you testified is you said, [1:26:12] quote, the effectiveness and legitimacy of the FBI [1:26:14] depend on its independence from political [1:26:16] influence. I very much agree with [1:26:19] that, and I will say, as an alumnus of the [1:26:21] Department of Justice, I am deeply [1:26:23] saddened and, frankly, I'm angry [1:26:25] that under President Biden, [1:26:27] the Department of Justice [1:26:29] and the FBI were weaponized [1:26:31] and its integrity badly, [1:26:33] badly compromised. [1:26:36] You are right. That's how the FBI is supposed to [1:26:38] behave, and that's how the Department of Justice is supposed to [1:26:40] behave. So Jack Smith [1:26:42] was not investigating a crime [1:26:44] based on evidence. He issued [1:26:47] subpoenas to get the toll records [1:26:49] of the following senators. [1:26:52] Mike Lee, seated to my right, [1:26:56] Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham, [1:26:58] John Kennedy, seated to my right, [1:27:01] Marsha Blackburn, Ron [1:27:04] Johnson, Rick Scott, Bill [1:27:07] Hagerty, Dan Sullivan, [1:27:09] Tommy Tuberville, Cynthia [1:27:11] Lummis, and myself. [1:27:14] That's over 20% of the Republicans in the [1:27:16] United States Senate. Mr. O'Leary, is it [1:27:21] consistent with the obligations of the Department [1:27:23] of Justice and the FBI to [1:27:27] issue subpoenas with no factual basis [1:27:29] and no legal basis? Senator, it is [1:27:33] not, and in my [1:27:35] experience, FBI agents would never [1:27:37] approach a matter without the proper [1:27:39] justification and articulable [1:27:41] facts to open their investigation. [1:27:43] Okay, good. So you said they [1:27:45] would never do that. Judge Boesberg [1:27:47] signed an order, I'm holding the [1:27:49] order right here, in which he concludes, [1:27:52] and I'm going to read, the court [1:27:54] finds reasonable grounds to [1:27:56] believe that such disclosure, in other words [1:27:58] notifying the senators on that [1:28:00] list, will result [1:28:03] in destruction of or tampering [1:28:05] with evidence, intimidation of potential [1:28:07] witnesses, and serious jeopardy of the [1:28:09] investigation. Are you aware of [1:28:11] any factual basis whatsoever [1:28:13] that a dozen senators [1:28:16] will destroy [1:28:18] evidence? I am not, but I [1:28:20] will tell you that [1:28:22] non-disclosure orders are a routine part [1:28:24] of investigations. Based [1:28:26] on facts. Give me any [1:28:28] hypothetical fact. By the way, do you [1:28:30] know any facts that I will destroy evidence? [1:28:32] Let's take it me personally. I cannot, [1:28:34] you know. Because Jack Smith went [1:28:37] into court and said, [1:28:39] I will destroy evidence if I [1:28:41] know about the subpoena. And this [1:28:44] clown signed the order one after [1:28:46] the other after the other. Are you aware [1:28:48] of any basis? Look, I'm a member of the bar. [1:28:50] I take my obligations seriously. [1:28:52] The FBI signed [1:28:55] off on that. Mike Lee [1:28:57] concluded he would destroy evidence. John [1:28:59] Kennedy, well, Louisiana maybe. [1:29:01] I will say, I'll give a special [1:29:03] dispensation for the great state of Louisiana. [1:29:07] But there is no basis. [1:29:09] By the way, is it consistent with DOJ's [1:29:11] obligation to also ask [1:29:14] a judge to violate the law and not inform [1:29:16] the judge of it? No, it would not be. [1:29:19] Well, 2 U.S.C. section [1:29:21] 6628 explicitly [1:29:23] bars non-disclosure orders [1:29:25] applying to the Senate. [1:29:29] And yet, in the lawless Department of Justice, [1:29:31] I assume they didn't [1:29:33] tell Judge Boasburg, hey, we're asking [1:29:35] you to violate the law, would you sign this? [1:29:37] Do you assume that as well? You would have to [1:29:39] ask the DOJ that, but you make a good [1:29:41] point, Senator. Thank you. [1:29:44] Ranking member, White House. [1:29:47] Just to follow up on that [1:29:49] point, Mr. O'Leary, [1:29:51] is the reason that [1:29:54] a prosecutor would [1:29:56] pursue a non-disclosure [1:29:58] order for a toll record [1:30:00] subpoena necessarily [1:30:02] that it is the subject [1:30:04] of the subpoena who would [1:30:07] attempt to interfere with or [1:30:09] obstruct the investigation, as [1:30:11] opposed to the subject of the [1:30:13] investigation who would attempt to [1:30:16] interfere with and [1:30:18] obstruct the investigation? [1:30:20] Senator, it depends on the investigation. [1:30:24] It could be the subject of the [1:30:26] investigation, it could be associates. [1:30:28] The idea of a non-disclosure [1:30:30] order is to not really [1:30:32] let an individual know [1:30:34] that they're under investigation. [1:30:36] But one cannot infer [1:30:39] from the existence of a [1:30:41] non-disclosure order [1:30:43] any accusation that the subject [1:30:45] of the order was intending [1:30:47] to interfere or obstruct. It could [1:30:49] just as easily be that it was [1:30:51] actually the subject of the [1:30:53] investigation, one of the conspirators. [1:30:55] For instance, who [1:30:57] the court was concerned about, who the [1:30:59] prosecutor was concerned about. [1:31:01] It certainly could be, but as I was [1:31:03] communicating to Senator Cruz, [1:31:05] non-disclosures are [1:31:07] a routine part of FBI investigations. [1:31:09] Understood. [1:31:11] In your view, what has happened [1:31:13] to the FBI and [1:31:15] DOJ's national security [1:31:17] capabilities in the last [1:31:19] 15 months? They've been [1:31:22] decimated. There's been generational [1:31:24] damage done. And with [1:31:27] respect to the quiet bastion [1:31:29] you referred to, [1:31:31] and the standards of [1:31:33] virtue and integrity that you spoke [1:31:35] so passionately about, [1:31:37] were those standards [1:31:39] of virtue and integrity, [1:31:41] the fidelity, bravery, and [1:31:43] integrity of the FBI, [1:31:46] met by agents [1:31:48] who Kash Patel then turned on [1:31:50] and fired? There is [1:31:58] rampant [1:32:00] morale degradation [1:32:03] uncertainly [1:32:05] amongst the ranks, [1:32:07] and really [1:32:09] disheartened [1:32:11] career federal [1:32:13] public servants who've been [1:32:15] dismissed without cause. Because [1:32:17] in fact their colleagues [1:32:20] understood that they [1:32:22] in fact met those standards [1:32:24] for fidelity, bravery, and integrity [1:32:26] and were nevertheless fired, correct? [1:32:28] Correct. [1:32:31] DOJ and the FBI [1:32:33] run under close institutional [1:32:35] checks and balances designed to [1:32:38] protect the integrity of the organization. [1:32:40] Were those applicable to special counsel? [1:32:42] I would assume so. I wasn't involved [1:32:47] in that investigation at all, but I can [1:32:49] speak to the process that [1:32:51] Washington Field Office would [1:32:53] follow, and those are the agents that [1:32:55] supported that investigation. [1:32:57] And they would follow traditional [1:32:59] regular FBI guidelines and controls? [1:33:01] The documents that I was able to review [1:33:03] demonstrated that. Are you aware [1:33:05] that the Trump Department [1:33:08] of Justice in the first term [1:33:10] subpoenaed information from [1:33:12] members of Congress and members [1:33:14] of Congress' staff, [1:33:16] including toll records? [1:33:19] Senator, the FBI [1:33:23] conducting public corruption investigations [1:33:25] has been part of its mission for years. [1:33:27] I know it's probably disconcerting [1:33:29] to any member of Congress [1:33:31] or a public official, but the FBI [1:33:33] does it with the same integrity that it [1:33:35] conducts any investigation. [1:33:37] I would say to a fellow Irishman, [1:33:39] we would probably work with them [1:33:41] on an investigation, but [1:33:43] the FBI pursues [1:33:45] hostilities despite what side of the aisle [1:33:47] you're on. And they did in the first [1:33:49] Trump term of office, [1:33:51] and that included getting non-disclosure [1:33:53] orders so that the members of Congress [1:33:55] did not know their toll records had been [1:33:57] subpoenaed, correct? That is correct. [1:33:59] It's routine. Tell me a little bit [1:34:10] as we wrap up here [1:34:12] about the work of the CI-12 [1:34:14] unit and [1:34:17] what condition it is now in [1:34:19] as hostilities [1:34:21] with Iran [1:34:24] exist. So CI-12 is a [1:34:27] foreign counterintelligence squad [1:34:29] in Washington field office [1:34:31] and the agents that were [1:34:33] dismissed from there and from the [1:34:35] counterintelligence division at FBI [1:34:37] headquarters work a variety of [1:34:39] counterintelligence priorities. [1:34:41] Iran is one of them [1:34:43] and dismissing some of these people [1:34:45] just days before the [1:34:47] war with Iran kicked off [1:34:49] creates problems with [1:34:51] sustained focus and [1:34:53] could impact operations. And in fact [1:34:55] some of the FBI's [1:34:57] institutional knowledge [1:34:59] is contained [1:35:02] in the knowledge [1:35:04] and experience of senior [1:35:06] FBI agents. [1:35:08] And so when they are purged for [1:35:10] political reasons [1:35:12] that component of [1:35:15] the bureau loses [1:35:17] something fairly [1:35:20] significant. That is true [1:35:22] Senator. So there were some senior leaders at [1:35:24] headquarters that were removed and then [1:35:26] in this last year alone two [1:35:28] assistant directors from Washington field office [1:35:30] were both removed. [1:35:32] My time is up. Thank you Chairman. [1:35:36] Thank you. Without objection I'd like to [1:35:39] With respect to the [1:35:42] question of the [1:35:44] NDOs and the [1:35:49] reason for that [1:35:51] I'd like to put into the record [1:35:53] the letter that I wrote to Speaker Johnson [1:35:55] giving what I consider to be the [1:35:57] accurate background related to that [1:35:59] dated January 15, 2026. [1:36:01] Without objection will be entered into the record. [1:36:03] Thank you. Also without objection [1:36:05] I want to introduce into the record a [1:36:07] second 2023 letter from Chairman Grassley [1:36:09] to the DOJ Office of [1:36:11] Inspector General raising concerns [1:36:13] that in 2017 DOJ [1:36:15] subpoenaed personnel's phone and email [1:36:17] records of Republicans and Democrat [1:36:19] congressional staff. [1:36:21] I'm also entering into the record a November [1:36:23] 8, 2023 letter from me [1:36:25] Chairman Grassley and Senator Lee to [1:36:27] Attorney General Garland raising similar [1:36:29] concerns and requesting information on the [1:36:31] subpoenas of congressional staff. [1:36:33] Contrary to what Senator Whitehouse said in his opening [1:36:35] Republicans did raise concerns about [1:36:37] DOJ obtaining records from congressional staff [1:36:39] of both parties [1:36:41] and I will say [1:36:43] just a minute ago Mr. O'Leary [1:36:45] you were being asked by Senator Whitehouse about [1:36:47] investigating members of Congress [1:36:49] and it is certainly true that DOJ has [1:36:51] a long tradition if there's evidence of [1:36:53] particular misconduct [1:36:55] for example our former colleague [1:36:57] Senator Menendez is currently incarcerated [1:36:59] in prison for corruption and if you've got [1:37:01] evidence of criminal conduct of one individual [1:37:03] the Department of Justice has an obligation [1:37:06] to investigate that. [1:37:08] Would you agree that's qualitatively [1:37:10] different than a fishing [1:37:13] expedition targeting 20% of the [1:37:15] Republicans in the Senate? [1:37:17] Would you agree that's qualitatively different? [1:37:19] I'm not familiar with the details of either [1:37:21] investigation so I wouldn't want to speculate. [1:37:23] Well let me ask you this would you be [1:37:25] troubled if tomorrow [1:37:27] the Trump Department of Justice issued [1:37:29] a subpoena for the phone records of [1:37:31] every Democrat that sits on the judiciary committee? [1:37:33] Not if it was based on [1:37:35] factual evidence specific and articulable [1:37:37] facts. Well let me be clear I'd be [1:37:39] damn troubled and that would be an abuse [1:37:42] of power and I'm going to predict [1:37:44] not a single Democrat's going to say even [1:37:46] a word about the abuse of [1:37:49] power on their side and that double [1:37:51] standard is troubling. Senator Lee. [1:37:54] Thank you very much Senator Cruz for [1:37:56] convening this hearing. It's an important topic. [1:37:58] About a half century [1:38:01] ago President Nixon [1:38:03] resigned. He did so under pressure [1:38:05] on the basis [1:38:07] of public outrage that stemmed [1:38:09] from a break-in [1:38:11] at DNC headquarters. [1:38:13] It was an act of [1:38:15] lawfare you might say or maybe [1:38:17] better said political espionage. [1:38:19] Today the media and my [1:38:22] Democrat colleagues have fallen [1:38:24] conspicuously silent [1:38:26] when confronted with a scandal that [1:38:28] in some ways is of much larger [1:38:30] proportions because it [1:38:32] involves the official law enforcement [1:38:34] apparatus of the U.S. government in a much [1:38:36] more direct way than that one did. [1:38:38] President Biden's systematic [1:38:40] weaponization of the Department of Justice and [1:38:42] federal law enforcement against his political [1:38:44] opponents is a development of [1:38:46] staggering proportions and by development [1:38:48] I mean scandal. Just like the [1:38:51] Watergate break-in Arctic [1:38:54] Frost was ultimately an attempt to [1:38:56] sway the results [1:38:58] of a presidential election. [1:39:00] But this comparison may [1:39:02] even be unfair to President Nixon [1:39:04] who never attempted to quash [1:39:06] dissent by putting up [1:39:09] putting the opposition candidate [1:39:11] in prison for trumped [1:39:14] up charges. Now thankfully the [1:39:16] Biden administration failed in the [1:39:18] misguided effort. President Trump [1:39:20] was elected by the people [1:39:22] to become the [1:39:24] 47th president of the United States but we have [1:39:26] to ensure that this kind of lawfare [1:39:28] can't occur again. [1:39:30] Mr. Chamberlain I'd like to [1:39:33] start with you. Your testimony [1:39:35] focuses among other things [1:39:37] on an FBI [1:39:39] recording of a 2023 [1:39:41] phone call between Susie Wiles [1:39:43] who was at the time managing [1:39:45] President Trump's presidential campaign [1:39:47] and her lawyer. [1:39:49] Now according to the FBI the lawyer [1:39:51] was aware of the recording [1:39:53] but isn't it true that [1:39:56] the lawyer denied that he had ever consented [1:39:58] to that arrangement? [1:40:00] That's true that was widely reported. [1:40:02] And if in fact the lawyer did not consent [1:40:04] your testimony today is that this [1:40:06] would have been and was [1:40:08] an illegal wiretap by [1:40:10] the FBI in the absence of her [1:40:12] lawyer's consent with [1:40:14] the FBI. That's correct. [1:40:16] And the FBI designated this as [1:40:18] a prohibited file to prevent [1:40:20] anyone from finding out about it. [1:40:23] That seems to be correct yes. [1:40:25] Okay so they did something they weren't supposed to do [1:40:27] then they designated it as a prohibited file to cover it up. [1:40:29] Now in general should the president be able to direct [1:40:31] the FBI to spy [1:40:33] on the campaign of his political [1:40:35] opponent? Absolutely not. [1:40:37] And isn't listening to a private [1:40:39] conversation between a presidential [1:40:41] campaign manager and her lawyer [1:40:43] in many ways much more serious [1:40:45] as an abuse of government power [1:40:47] than an attempted [1:40:49] wiretap of the DNC headquarters [1:40:51] in Watergate? Correct because there's [1:40:53] two interests being invaded. [1:40:55] First it's just the wiretap generally [1:40:57] but then it's doubly invasive because it's supposed [1:40:59] to be a privileged conversation. A privileged [1:41:01] conversation which regardless of who's involved [1:41:03] in it is supposed to be privileged. [1:41:05] And that takes on additional flavor [1:41:07] and additional degrees of seriousness [1:41:09] when that person [1:41:11] happens to be [1:41:13] a client represented by a lawyer [1:41:15] who happens to be managing the [1:41:17] presidential campaign of the then [1:41:19] incumbent president's lead [1:41:21] and exclusive challenger effectively. [1:41:23] Ms. Cleveland, you [1:41:26] referenced the FBI's use of [1:41:28] protected access [1:41:30] tag for Arctic Frost [1:41:32] subpoenas. What's the [1:41:34] what is this functionality [1:41:36] and why does it raise [1:41:38] due process concerns in your mind? [1:41:41] So prohibited access [1:41:43] is a functionality which [1:41:45] makes the records invisible. [1:41:47] So when there's an [1:41:49] investigation going on [1:41:51] the FBI agents are doing searches [1:41:53] maybe by keywords of names. [1:41:55] It will come back and say [1:41:57] there are no results. [1:41:59] They will believe there are no results. [1:42:01] We already have evidence [1:42:03] that this has been used in [1:42:05] the investigation of Trump. [1:42:07] We also have evidence [1:42:09] that it has been used in other [1:42:11] investigations that were high profile. [1:42:13] From the due process concern [1:42:15] a lawyer is [1:42:18] entitled to have evidence that [1:42:20] is exculpatory to their clients. [1:42:22] If there is exculpatory [1:42:24] evidence or even evidence that [1:42:26] calls into credibility [1:42:28] of one of the witnesses [1:42:30] that has to be turned over. [1:42:32] For Brady and Giglio [1:42:34] purposes. Exactly. [1:42:36] It can't be turned over if they [1:42:38] don't know about it. That's a huge [1:42:40] problem from the due process perspective. [1:42:42] Right. So you're forestalling up front [1:42:44] what would be part of [1:42:46] the defendant's due process [1:42:48] in the event of eventual criminal [1:42:50] proceedings. Now [1:42:52] really quickly before my time expires [1:42:54] tell me whether to what extent [1:42:56] Judge Boasberg knew or [1:42:58] would have had reason to know what the [1:43:00] NDOs were actually covering. [1:43:02] So without seeing the application [1:43:04] it's impossible to [1:43:06] say he should have known. [1:43:08] But this morning when Senator Grassley [1:43:10] released his documents [1:43:12] it indicated that Smith's [1:43:14] team was speaking with the prior [1:43:16] Chief Judge [1:43:18] of the D.C. District Court [1:43:20] about subpoenas [1:43:22] and executive privilege. [1:43:24] So that raised the concern of [1:43:26] was this conversation going on [1:43:28] with Judge Boasberg as well? [1:43:30] If not, did Smith's team [1:43:32] actually decide not to have the same [1:43:34] kind of conversations because [1:43:36] they were concerned that Judge Boasberg [1:43:38] wouldn't go along with it? [1:43:40] So we don't know what Judge Boasberg knew [1:43:42] but we do know he didn't [1:43:44] demand Smith come in [1:43:46] and explain himself [1:43:48] as he has done time and time again [1:43:50] with the Trump administration [1:43:52] in trying to hold someone in contempt there. [1:43:54] Okay, so this would be [1:43:56] outside the norm [1:43:58] not only for this type of action [1:44:00] but out of norm even for what [1:44:02] Judge Boasberg has done in other cases? [1:44:04] In the contempt, in calling [1:44:06] them in for contempt, absolutely. [1:44:08] Thank you. Senator Durbin. [1:44:15] Thank you, Senator Lee. [1:44:19] Ms. Cleveland, you've given a pretty [1:44:21] lengthy bill of particulars [1:44:24] in reference to the special prosecutor [1:44:26] Jack Smith. [1:44:29] I tried to keep up with your statement. [1:44:31] You've accused him of being [1:44:34] a hyper-aggressive prosecutor, [1:44:36] partisan, deputies who are [1:44:39] politically partisan, running some sort [1:44:42] of partisan protection racket, [1:44:45] unconstitutionally appointed, [1:44:47] a litany of constitutional misconduct, [1:44:49] guilty of a fishing expedition, [1:44:53] and on and on. [1:44:57] Would there be value for you to be able to ask [1:44:59] Mr. Smith questions [1:45:01] about your assertions? [1:45:06] Only after I've seen enough background information [1:45:08] to poise good questions [1:45:10] such as Senator Grassley's [1:45:12] release this morning revealed [1:45:14] for the first time that he had... [1:45:16] No, I'm just asking in general terms, [1:45:18] not to get specific. [1:45:20] Well, as a lawyer, I have to give you [1:45:22] the specific answer to the question. [1:45:24] Well, I'd like you to do it very briefly, [1:45:26] because I have a limited period of time. [1:45:28] I'm just asking you if you had a chance [1:45:30] to ask Jack Smith questions. [1:45:32] Not until I've seen the documents [1:45:34] that will inform the questions [1:45:36] and be able to confront him. [1:45:38] You don't do a deposition until you've done [1:45:40] document review. [1:45:42] Well, of course, I think that goes without saying [1:45:44] whether that would be under oath, [1:45:46] whether that would be more value [1:45:48] than just general questions. [1:45:51] Again, after I've seen the documents. [1:45:53] You don't think being under oath [1:45:55] puts any special obligation on a person [1:45:57] who's asked a question? [1:45:59] You can be under oath, [1:46:01] and if you're not confronted with the evidence, [1:46:03] the answer is not going to be as informative. [1:46:05] It sounds like you're afraid to face him. [1:46:08] Not at all. [1:46:10] Well, good. Let me ask you this question. [1:46:12] If you could do it in the setting of, say, [1:46:14] the Senate Judiciary Committee, [1:46:16] would you have a chance to ask those questions under oath? [1:46:18] Do you think that might be of value? [1:46:21] After I've reviewed all of the relevant documents, [1:46:23] including the ones hidden [1:46:25] in prohibited access. [1:46:27] How about we make sure that that meeting [1:46:29] of the Judiciary Committee is public [1:46:31] so America can witness the questions and answers? [1:46:33] Would that be of value? [1:46:35] After all of those documents have been released, [1:46:37] yes. [1:46:39] Oh, you wouldn't want to question him [1:46:41] until all the documents have been released? [1:46:43] The relevant documents that are hidden [1:46:45] in prohibited access absolutely need those [1:46:47] before you question him. [1:46:49] That may be a luxury which most attorneys [1:46:51] and others would not have access to. [1:46:53] Well, they shouldn't have been hidden [1:46:55] in the first place. [1:46:57] Well, it isn't a question of hiding [1:46:59] as much as legal access. [1:47:01] The point I'm getting to is that [1:47:03] for the last six months, [1:47:05] the Democrats on this committee have said [1:47:07] to the Republicans on this committee, [1:47:09] bring Jack Smith into this room. [1:47:11] Sit him down in front of that microphone, [1:47:13] put him under oath, [1:47:15] and ask whatever questions you have. [1:47:18] The bill of particulars that has been [1:47:20] issued by some of the witnesses [1:47:22] today would have to be [1:47:24] confronted by him directly, [1:47:26] under oath, in a public hearing [1:47:28] for America to see. [1:47:31] Of course, any lawyer who's been [1:47:33] on a law school more than 15 minutes [1:47:35] knows that there's value to the [1:47:37] circumstances of asking those questions. [1:47:39] But they won't do it. [1:47:41] For six months, the Republican majority [1:47:43] wants to hear hearing after hearing [1:47:45] of what's wrong with Jack Smith [1:47:48] and the one person they should ask that of directly, [1:47:50] Jack Smith. [1:47:52] They won't call before this committee. [1:47:54] What are we waiting for? [1:47:56] If this is worse than Watergate, [1:47:59] as some senators have asserted, [1:48:01] isn't it about time that we get to [1:48:03] the primary source? [1:48:05] Jack Smith under oath, [1:48:08] under penalty of criminal perjury [1:48:10] or perjury, if he fails to testify? [1:48:12] I don't get it. [1:48:14] What are they waiting for? [1:48:17] They'd rather have the hearings [1:48:19] than have the answers, [1:48:21] and that to me doesn't help. [1:48:24] Over 20, sir. [1:48:26] Did you retire? [1:48:29] I did, yes, sir. [1:48:31] And you said quite a bit about [1:48:33] what the Federal Bureau of Investigations [1:48:35] means and what they stand for. [1:48:38] One of the things that I noted [1:48:40] that you didn't have time to read into the record [1:48:42] I want to make sure is noted, [1:48:44] and that is your statements about Robert Mueller. [1:48:46] What you had to say about him is amazing. [1:48:49] You say, [1:48:51] the example set by Robert Mueller [1:48:53] established a standard of quiet professionalism, [1:48:55] integrity, [1:48:57] and leadership that permeated [1:48:59] every level of the Bureau. [1:49:02] That is high praise. [1:49:04] I feel the same way about him, [1:49:06] and I hope I made it clear in my opening statement. [1:49:08] Where are we now? [1:49:10] We're 15 months into this new president, [1:49:13] a 48-month term. [1:49:15] Damage has been done to the Federal Bureau [1:49:17] that you've described as generational damage. [1:49:19] What's the future of the FBI? [1:49:22] What the FBI deserves [1:49:24] and needs [1:49:28] is an unbiased leader, [1:49:30] somebody with investigative [1:49:32] experience and leadership experience [1:49:34] and a commitment to public service [1:49:37] and justice. [1:49:39] Unfortunately, I do not see that [1:49:41] in the current director. [1:49:43] He does not have any background [1:49:45] or experience, and he lacks the character [1:49:47] and the disposition to carry out [1:49:49] the duties that the American people deserve, [1:49:51] and the country is less safe [1:49:53] under his leadership. [1:49:55] I agree with your conclusion, [1:49:57] and a great deal has to be done to rehabilitate [1:49:59] and resurrect this great agency. [1:50:01] Thank you very much. [1:50:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:50:11] Mr. Chamberlain, [1:50:17] I believe four telephone companies [1:50:21] received [1:50:23] these subpoenas [1:50:25] for the phone records, [1:50:27] the metadata, [1:50:30] of 20 members of Congress. [1:50:33] Is that your understanding? [1:50:35] That sounds right to me, yes. [1:50:38] I don't have time to talk about all of them. [1:50:40] Let me just pick one. Verizon. [1:50:44] About 90,000 employees, [1:50:47] I think. [1:50:50] $140 billion [1:50:52] worth of revenue. [1:50:57] Does Verizon hire [1:51:00] dummies to work in [1:51:03] its legal department? [1:51:05] I should think not. They've probably got a good [1:51:07] reservoir of lawyers to pick from. [1:51:09] Okay. [1:51:12] I suppose you were one of the lawyers [1:51:15] at Verizon, [1:51:19] and [1:51:22] you don't strike me as a dummy. [1:51:24] Well, thank you. I appreciate that. [1:51:27] And you got a subpoena [1:51:29] from Jack Smith [1:51:32] with an NDO [1:51:36] non-disclosure order [1:51:39] signed by Judge [1:51:42] Boasberg. [1:51:46] A reasonably competent lawyer [1:51:50] at Verizon would know [1:51:52] who Jack Smith was? [1:51:54] Yes, I think so. [1:51:57] Do you think a reasonably [1:51:59] competent lawyer [1:52:02] at Verizon would know who [1:52:04] Judge Boasberg was or [1:52:06] would inquire about him? [1:52:08] Yeah, I think you could pretty quickly Google [1:52:10] him, and if you were concerned that [1:52:12] maybe he wasn't actually a federal district judge, [1:52:14] I think it's pretty obvious that you'd be able to figure out [1:52:16] what's going on. [1:52:18] I mean, it was pretty widely known [1:52:20] that President [1:52:23] Biden instructed [1:52:25] the Attorney General to sue [1:52:28] President Trump, and then he hired [1:52:30] Jack Smith, wasn't it? [1:52:32] Yes. [1:52:34] On the front page of every paper. [1:52:40] If you were an attorney [1:52:42] at Verizon and you got a subpoena [1:52:44] like this, wouldn't [1:52:48] you say, maybe [1:52:51] I need to check and see who [1:52:53] Mr. Smith is subpoenaing here? [1:52:55] Yeah, and especially once I found out [1:52:57] it was a representative, it would immediately [1:52:59] raise that flag of, like, [1:53:01] maybe there's a legal exception here that doesn't [1:53:03] apply in other cases? [1:53:05] Do we know if [1:53:08] the employee who received this subpoena [1:53:10] at Verizon [1:53:12] even sought a legal opinion [1:53:15] from an attorney at Verizon? [1:53:17] I do not know. [1:53:19] Well, let's just assume for a second that Verizon, [1:53:21] sophisticated company [1:53:23] that it is, is not so incompetent [1:53:25] that they wouldn't have had a lawyer [1:53:27] look at this. Lawyer looks [1:53:31] at it and says, huh, Jack Smith. [1:53:33] Lawyer looks at it and says, NDO [1:53:36] signed by Judge Boesberg. Lawyer [1:53:39] looks at the names as a reasonably [1:53:41] competent lawyer would. Hmm, [1:53:43] they're members of Congress. If that [1:53:45] was you, what would you do? [1:53:48] Well, I'd make a few phone calls, I'd do [1:53:50] legal research to confirm that [1:53:52] complying with this order was obviously [1:53:54] lawful, and I might [1:53:56] gently try and push back on the [1:53:58] subpoena to try and understand [1:54:00] you know, what was going on. Well, in fact, [1:54:02] you would probably discover the law [1:54:04] being the very competent [1:54:07] lawyer that you are, that [1:54:09] said no [1:54:11] judicial order can bar [1:54:13] Verizon from picking [1:54:16] up the phone and calling [1:54:18] the member of Congress, [1:54:20] wouldn't you? That's right. You'd probably find that [1:54:22] statute. [1:54:25] And if you did find that statute, [1:54:28] in order to protect [1:54:32] Verizon as their lawyer, [1:54:34] wouldn't you have filed a motion to [1:54:36] wash? That's exactly what I'd do, yeah. [1:54:38] But Verizon didn't do any of that, did they? [1:54:40] Apparently not. They just [1:54:42] sucked all this information up like [1:54:44] a Hoover Deluxe. Yeah. [1:54:47] They didn't [1:54:49] even look at, that we know [1:54:51] of, to see [1:54:54] if these were members of Congress. [1:54:56] Yes, that's right. What kind of liability [1:55:01] does Verizon have here? [1:55:04] That's a good question. I'd need to read the statute [1:55:06] more clearly to see what the [1:55:08] actual penalties are, [1:55:10] but my guess is there would be [1:55:12] some pretty reasonable civil penalties [1:55:14] for having done so. What kind of [1:55:16] remedies, if any, are there [1:55:18] for the fact that Judge Boasberg [1:55:20] said that he had [1:55:23] reasonable grounds to believe that these [1:55:25] members of Congress [1:55:27] would destroy evidence, and then [1:55:29] he made that conclusion without holding [1:55:31] a hearing? I think the only remedy to that [1:55:33] is political and impeachment. I don't think there's [1:55:35] a unique, you can't sue [1:55:37] Judge Boasberg for damages for [1:55:39] his judicial decision making, so [1:55:41] the only remedy is political. Would you [1:55:43] consider it to be grossly [1:55:45] incompetent if [1:55:48] Judge Boasberg had [1:55:50] not even inquired [1:55:53] who these people were, [1:55:55] and whether they were members of Congress? [1:55:57] Oh yes, extremely incompetent. [1:56:00] Okay. That's all I've got, Mr. Chairman. [1:56:04] Senator Hirono. Thank you, [1:56:10] Mr. Chairman. Well, here we are once again, [1:56:12] once again with a hearing [1:56:17] espousing Republican [1:56:19] conspiracy theories, [1:56:21] and once again focusing [1:56:23] on Jack Smith, [1:56:25] how many times [1:56:27] do we Democrats have to say, [1:56:29] why don't we just bring Jack Smith [1:56:31] before this committee? [1:56:33] Why do we not put him under oath? [1:56:35] Why don't we just ask him questions? [1:56:37] The witnesses this morning [1:56:39] are speculating as to what [1:56:41] Jack Smith knew, [1:56:43] or what he told the judge, speculating [1:56:45] about what the judge was told by [1:56:47] Jack Smith. I mean, instead of all these [1:56:49] speculations, why don't [1:56:51] we just call Jack Smith? [1:56:53] See, that has never [1:56:56] been adequately answered, [1:56:58] in my view. I think it's time, [1:57:00] rather than continuing to [1:57:02] go down this rabbit hole. [1:57:04] And really, you know, the [1:57:06] term milking a dead cow or beating [1:57:08] a dead horse comes to mind, [1:57:10] because this is what this [1:57:12] exercise is. It is [1:57:14] milking a dead cow, [1:57:16] which describes, I looked it up, [1:57:18] describes a completely futile, [1:57:20] pointless, or [1:57:22] waste of effort [1:57:25] that will yield no results [1:57:27] It implies trying [1:57:29] to extract value information [1:57:31] or result from [1:57:33] a source that is [1:57:35] already dead, exhausted, [1:57:37] or incapable [1:57:39] of providing anything [1:57:41] further. So the further [1:57:43] providing of information should [1:57:45] come directly from Jack Smith. So, [1:57:47] you know, I'm going to [1:57:49] repeat what some of my colleagues have said. [1:57:51] There are three things that we can focus on [1:57:53] with the work of this committee, rather [1:57:55] than wasting our time like this. [1:57:57] First is, call Jack Smith. [1:57:59] Second, [1:58:02] um, [1:58:06] he has already offered to testify, [1:58:08] so [1:58:10] we're not going to get much resistance from him. [1:58:12] He's already testified before [1:58:14] the House, [1:58:16] and he issued some reports [1:58:18] and we should [1:58:20] access, we should get access to [1:58:22] volume two of Jack Smith's [1:58:24] report. So not only should [1:58:26] we call him to testify, but we should get our [1:58:28] hands talking about getting information [1:58:30] that would be good for us to have. [1:58:32] Um, volume two [1:58:34] of Jack Smith's report. [1:58:36] And then, [1:58:39] thirdly, you know, there's been a focus [1:58:41] on Kash Patel. [1:58:43] After he received immunity, [1:58:45] he did testify [1:58:47] to the grand jury, and we've been trying [1:58:49] to access that testimony. [1:58:51] And Director Patel [1:58:53] has stonewalled and [1:58:55] lied to this committee, saying that [1:58:57] he can't provide that testimony. Yes, [1:58:59] he can. And, uh, [1:59:01] once again, my Republican colleagues [1:59:03] don't seem to care that [1:59:05] he lied to this [1:59:07] committee. So, um, [1:59:09] we have, as far as I'm concerned, a refusal [1:59:11] to confront the truth. [1:59:13] And I'm really [1:59:15] disheartened by what is happening [1:59:17] to an institution [1:59:19] called the FBI, not to mention the [1:59:21] Department of Justice, but the FBI that had, [1:59:23] I would say, a [1:59:25] reputation for [1:59:27] doing the work that protected [1:59:29] the American people [1:59:31] and that is not the case. What we're seeing [1:59:33] are people being fired, [1:59:36] not for lack of [1:59:38] competence. In fact, they were [1:59:40] very, very competent. [1:59:42] Not for misconduct, but [1:59:44] because they happen to question [1:59:46] the leader, [1:59:48] Donald Trump. This [1:59:50] continuous effort on the part of my [1:59:52] Republican colleagues to just bow [1:59:54] down to this President [1:59:56] who does not believe that the rule of law [1:59:58] applies to him is amazing. [2:00:00] And you know what? The American people [2:00:02] are getting it. And that is why [2:00:04] millions, millions [2:00:06] of them, [2:00:08] they, in fact, I think [2:00:10] this Saturday, there's going to be another [2:00:12] rally. No king's rally. Millions [2:00:14] of Americans are saying, [2:00:16] hey, Donald Trump, you are not our [2:00:18] king. You cannot run this country [2:00:20] through executive orders. You [2:00:22] cannot act as though the rule of law [2:00:24] does not apply to him. And [2:00:26] by the way, no thanks to the [2:00:29] Supreme Court. I think their decision [2:00:31] on his immunity was one of the worst [2:00:33] decisions that this court, and [2:00:35] there are many. So let me [2:00:37] just ask one question of Mr. [2:00:39] O'Leary. Thank you very much for testifying. [2:00:41] In your experience, and I know [2:00:43] there are some very fine FBI [2:00:45] agents who either were fired [2:00:47] or left over [2:00:49] a thousand. Can you go over [2:00:52] again, you know, the [2:00:54] fact that all of these very, very experienced [2:00:56] people who were engaged in white [2:00:58] collar crime investigations, [2:01:00] cyber attacks, etc., [2:01:02] their departure, tell us [2:01:04] how their departure is making [2:01:06] our country safer. Senator, the loss [2:01:11] of agents and [2:01:13] analysts and professional staff across the [2:01:15] FBI is impacting [2:01:17] a variety of programs [2:01:19] from white collar crime, [2:01:21] protecting the integrity of our financial [2:01:23] markets, and public corruption. [2:01:25] Cyber, [2:01:27] the head of the [2:01:29] cyber division was fired, an [2:01:31] exceptional agent that I served with for years. [2:01:33] The head [2:01:35] of the critical incident response group [2:01:37] who was the acting director in the beginning [2:01:39] of the Trump administration, Brian [2:01:41] Driscoll, was fired [2:01:43] just this last August because [2:01:45] he refused to fire one of [2:01:47] his employees without cause as directed [2:01:49] by Kash Patel. Brian Driscoll [2:01:51] demonstrated the courage [2:01:53] and the integrity that you would expect [2:01:55] from a leader, and he refused to do so. [2:01:57] He in turn was fired himself, [2:02:00] thrown out of [2:02:02] the FBI after years of service. [2:02:04] He's a recipient of [2:02:06] the shield of bravery and the shield of [2:02:08] valor, the shield of valor [2:02:10] for being on a joint [2:02:12] hostage recovery operation [2:02:14] in Syria with the Special [2:02:16] Operations Task Force to rescue [2:02:18] an American citizen. These [2:02:21] are the kind of individuals we're losing. [2:02:23] And those who are not being fired... [2:02:25] Thank you, Mr. Leary, for [2:02:27] standing up for an institution that deserves [2:02:29] our support, and instead we have [2:02:31] a director who parties around, [2:02:33] who flies around in a plane, [2:02:35] who visits his girlfriend. Give me [2:02:37] a break. Senator Black, [2:02:41] Ms. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:02:43] Mr. O'Leary, I want [2:02:45] to stay with you, if I may. [2:02:47] Now, my colleague [2:02:49] across the aisle seems [2:02:51] to have a problem with Kash [2:02:53] Patel, and you made a statement that [2:02:55] you think he's made our country less [2:02:57] safe. Do you own that statement? [2:02:59] Yes, I do, ma'am. You do own [2:03:02] that statement. Have you heard of Memphis, [2:03:04] Tennessee? Yes, ma'am. I've been [2:03:06] there many times. Good. Are you fully [2:03:09] aware of what [2:03:11] the FBI and the federal government [2:03:13] has accomplished in Memphis, [2:03:15] Tennessee? I think [2:03:17] using FBI agents as part of [2:03:19] a joint task force to reduce [2:03:21] violent crime is very important, and [2:03:23] I'm aware of their effectiveness there. Yes, ma'am. [2:03:25] And you're aware that [2:03:27] Director Patel has [2:03:29] been very involved in [2:03:31] planning, organizing, [2:03:33] implementing this. [2:03:35] Is that correct? I'm not personally [2:03:37] aware of that, but if you say so, yes, ma'am. Well, let me make [2:03:39] you aware of that. [2:03:41] Are you aware that there [2:03:43] have been over 9,000 [2:03:45] arrests of violent criminals? [2:03:47] If you say so, yes, ma'am. [2:03:50] And would you say that [2:03:52] arresting 9,000 violent [2:03:54] criminals makes the country more [2:03:56] or less safe? It certainly makes [2:03:58] that jurisdiction, Memphis, a [2:04:00] safer community. Makes the entire country [2:04:02] more safe. Would you say [2:04:04] that finding [2:04:06] 150 missing children [2:04:08] helps make this country [2:04:11] more safe? Yes, it does, [2:04:13] and the FBI has been doing that for decades, ma'am. [2:04:15] And in Memphis, it's [2:04:18] 153. You can stop being [2:04:20] snarky, too. That would help. [2:04:22] There have also [2:04:24] we've seen a 43% [2:04:26] drop in overall crime, [2:04:28] 36% drop in [2:04:30] murder, and a 68% [2:04:32] drop in carjackings [2:04:34] in Memphis. Now, I wanted to bring [2:04:36] all of this up because I think it's important [2:04:38] that we focus on [2:04:40] what we've been able to [2:04:42] accomplish in the line [2:04:44] of public safety. [2:04:46] When we appropriately use [2:04:48] resources from [2:04:50] the federal government, and when [2:04:52] we're not having the DOJ [2:04:54] weaponize itself [2:04:56] and go [2:04:58] after private citizens like [2:05:00] Suzy Wiles and Kash Patel were [2:05:02] when all of [2:05:05] their records were subpoenaed in [2:05:07] 2022 and [2:05:09] 23. When we don't see [2:05:11] the FBI going after [2:05:13] 400 different conservative [2:05:15] organizations, [2:05:17] which they did, [2:05:19] simply because they didn't like Donald Trump [2:05:21] and they didn't like a lot of [2:05:23] us, myself included. [2:05:25] But you seem to be [2:05:27] fine with that [2:05:29] weaponization. You seem to [2:05:31] think that it is okay. [2:05:33] And Mr. O'Leary, [2:05:35] I find it unconscionable [2:05:37] that you would [2:05:39] sit there and defend [2:05:41] them going after [2:05:43] the records of [2:05:45] private citizens of a [2:05:47] lot of elected officials [2:05:49] and weaponizing [2:05:51] the Department of Justice. [2:05:53] But that is [2:05:55] what they did. [2:05:57] I think it is [2:05:59] really unfortunate [2:06:01] that this type weaponization [2:06:03] appears to be [2:06:05] what we had come to expect [2:06:07] out of the Biden [2:06:09] administration. Mr. Chamberlain, [2:06:11] I want to come to you. Talk for a minute [2:06:13] about that danger [2:06:15] of the expectation of weaponization. [2:06:17] The effect and the impact [2:06:19] that that [2:06:21] has on [2:06:23] conservatives and what [2:06:25] Congress needs to do to make certain [2:06:27] this doesn't happen to anybody, [2:06:29] whether it's a liberal or a conservative. [2:06:31] It seems that we have a witness [2:06:33] who is fine with it [2:06:35] happening to conservatives, [2:06:37] but I'm sure he would not be happy [2:06:39] if it happened to a liberal. [2:06:41] Well, it's a very big worry [2:06:43] that you're effectively [2:06:45] demeaning the First Amendment because you're crushing [2:06:47] the rights of people to engage in political advocacy [2:06:49] if the underlying threat is [2:06:51] if you do this for the wrong side, [2:06:53] we're going to bring federal law enforcement [2:06:55] to bear upon you. [2:06:58] And Mr. O'Leary, are you okay [2:07:00] with it being weaponized to go after conservatives? [2:07:02] Does that suit you? [2:07:04] Did you think that was a justifiable use [2:07:06] of taxpayer money and time? [2:07:08] Senator, absolutely not. [2:07:10] And let me just tell you, [2:07:12] politics in the FBI workspace [2:07:14] are absent. Nobody understands [2:07:16] or knows or cares. [2:07:18] Do you want to own that statement? [2:07:20] No, it's my time. [2:07:22] Ms. Cleveland, what do you have to say about that? [2:07:24] That's laughable. [2:07:27] It is laughable. [2:07:29] It is absolutely laughable that it has no place [2:07:31] after everything we saw with [2:07:33] Crossfire Hurricane, [2:07:35] after what we're starting to see [2:07:37] in the Arctic Frost from the prohibitive files. [2:07:39] It might be that [2:07:41] you worked with the very few [2:07:43] who are not political, [2:07:45] but it is replete [2:07:47] everywhere. [2:07:49] And it was the same thing [2:07:51] for Mr. Osler, [2:07:53] who wrote an op-ed, [2:07:55] I believe it was in the Washington Post, [2:07:57] after he was fired, [2:07:59] complaining about him being fired for no reason. [2:08:01] But what do we now know? [2:08:03] He was the one who refused to investigate [2:08:05] the Clinton Foundation, [2:08:07] and he is the one who turned over [2:08:09] to the U.S. Attorney [2:08:11] who was actually doing the investigation [2:08:13] an abbreviated summary [2:08:15] of what was going on [2:08:17] so that it hid all of the DOJ [2:08:19] to stop the investigation. [2:08:21] It's laughable to say [2:08:23] that there's no politicalization [2:08:25] of the FBI. [2:08:27] Or maybe there isn't anymore [2:08:29] because they fired the groups [2:08:31] that were doing it. [2:08:33] Thank you. [2:08:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:08:38] Thank you. [2:08:40] I want to thank each of the witnesses [2:08:42] for your testimony. [2:08:44] Written questions can be submitted [2:08:46] for the record until Tuesday, March 31 [2:08:48] at 5 p.m. [2:08:50] With that, this hearing is adjourned.