Senate investigates ‘Operation Arctic Frost’ in high-stakes hearing

[0:00] I hear about a call to order this hearing, Arctic Frost, the modern Watergate. [0:06] Fifty years ago, Watergate exposed a simple but profound abuse of power. [0:12] Operatives tied to a sitting president broke into a building to secretly gather information from their political opponents [0:19] by bugging offices and seizing documents. [0:23] And what followed was just as troubling. [0:27] Efforts to use the powers of government to conceal it, to pressure investigators, [0:35] to shut down inquiries, to avoid accountability. [0:40] Even though that operation failed in its ultimate objective, the American people did not treat it lightly. [0:47] The consequences were swift and severe. [0:52] The president of the United States resigned in disgrace, facing near certain impeachment. [0:58] And dozens of officials, more than 40 individuals connected to the scheme, were indicted or jailed. [1:08] Because the attempt itself was the offense. [1:13] In our law, we recognize a simple truth. [1:14] A failed crime is not an insignificant one. [1:20] A man who pulls the trigger and misses is no less guilty than the one who hits his mark. [1:25] The intent is the same, the danger is the same, and the crime is the same. [1:32] And if Watergate taught us anything, it is that even a single abuse of power, [1:36] carried out by a handful of individuals, can shake the foundations of our republic. [1:42] But what we confront today, the Biden administration's Arctic Frost scheme, is not a single act. [1:50] It is a modern Watergate. [1:53] Trading a break-in at one office, for a digital sweep into approximately 100,000 private communications. [2:04] More than a dozen senators, and thousands of individuals' lives. [2:10] But even that comparison falls short. [2:13] It is something far broader. [2:16] An operation that aligned Democrats across all three branches of government. [2:21] The Biden executive branch, through DOJ and the FBI, wielding investigative power against political opponents. [2:27] Democrat appointed Joe Biden. [2:30] Elected judges in the judiciary, through warrants, secrecy orders, and deference, failing to serve as a meaningful check. [2:38] And members of the legislative branch, who should be the first line of oversight, choosing instead to look the other way. [2:47] And just like Watergate, these officials deserve to be investigated, tried, impeached, and brought to justice. [2:54] So let's examine how this operation was carried out, step by step. [2:59] In early 2022, senior leadership within the Biden Department of Justice, [3:04] made the decision to open an investigation targeting President Trump and his campaign apparatus. [3:11] Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Chris Wray, [3:18] all personally approved the opening of the investigation. [3:22] On April 4th, 2022, they signed a confidential memo with each of their signatures. [3:34] That fact matters. [3:38] Because Watergate was carried out in secret. [3:41] By operatives who were not brazen enough to act, [3:44] with formal written authorization from the highest levels of the Department of Justice. [3:50] Arctic Frost was fully authorized, formalized, and executed [3:54] through the official powers of the United States government by partisan Democrats. [3:59] Then, in the fall, came the nearly 200 subpoenas. [4:07] We're talking about information pertaining to hundreds of entities and individuals. [4:13] Over 400 Republican-aligned groups and individuals, [4:17] including the most sensitive categories of personal data, [4:20] gathered, retained, and in some accounts, shared across offices. [4:24] Watergate was about a handful of files in a single office. [4:29] This reached into tens of thousands of private communications, [4:33] emails, records, and personal data. [4:36] Toll records, bank records, donor lists, law firm records, [4:44] and other personal files relating to every major conservative organization were subpoenaed. [4:51] Who were the targets of this? [4:53] Donald Trump's campaign. [4:55] The RNC. [4:56] The Conservative Partnership Institute. [4:58] Save America PAC. [4:59] America First Policy Institute. [5:01] And even MyPillow. [5:04] Because God knows we have a national security threat [5:07] from rogue pillows threatening our country. [5:11] Watergate broke into an office. [5:15] Arctic Frost reached into the private lives of thousands of Americans. [5:22] Meanwhile, [5:23] conservative leaders found themselves [5:25] equally violated. [5:26] The Biden administration sought the phone records [5:28] of nearly 20% of the Republicans in the Senate, [5:31] including multiple members of the committee, [5:33] including myself. [5:34] Without our knowledge, [5:38] the FBI took the cell phone data [5:40] of nearly 20% of the Republicans in the Senate, [5:44] including information about with whom we were talking, [5:47] how long we were talking, [5:48] and from where we were calling. [5:50] Toll records are not trivial. [5:52] They are a map of your life, [5:55] giving insight into your relationships, [5:58] your movements, [5:59] your patterns. [6:00] Such invasive subpoenas were granted by Judge Boasberg, [6:05] a Democrat-appointed judge, [6:07] on the premise that any one of us, [6:09] or to be clear, [6:10] all of us, [6:11] as duly elected United States senators, [6:14] would destroy evidence, [6:17] tamper with witnesses, [6:19] or obstruct justice. [6:20] And Judge Boasberg signed those orders [6:24] like he was printing the menu at a Denny's. [6:28] One after the other, [6:30] facts be damned, [6:31] every member of the Senate is likely to destroy evidence. [6:33] Such invasive subpoenas are an abuse of power. [6:42] Recently, [6:44] even more troubling facts continue to emerge. [6:46] Biden's Department of Justice subpoenaed the toll records [6:50] of now FBI Director Kash Patel [6:53] and now White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. [6:56] They were not aiming low. [6:57] They were trying to take out everyone on the other side. [7:01] Both were at the time private citizens [7:04] and key members of President Trump's 2024 election campaign. [7:08] Now imagine the reverse. [7:11] Imagine for just one moment [7:13] that President Trump's Department of Justice [7:15] had secretly obtained the phone records [7:17] of Senator Schumer and Senator Whitehouse [7:22] and Senator Durbin, [7:23] Senator Hirono and Senator Padilla. [7:27] My Democrat colleagues would be losing their minds [7:30] right now in this hearing [7:32] if the Trump Department of Justice had done that. [7:35] Imagine if a Republican Attorney General, [7:39] a Republican FBI Director, [7:41] and a Republican appointed judge [7:42] had all signed off on a covert effort [7:44] to sweep up the communications locations, [7:46] data and call history [7:48] of every Democrat affiliated organization [7:51] and individual in the United States. [7:53] Imagine if a judge, [7:55] a Republican appointed judge, [7:57] signed an order that said [7:58] Senator Durbin will destroy evidence [8:01] if he is aware of this subpoena [8:02] because that's what this judge did. [8:04] Would anyone in this hearing room call that routine? [8:09] Would Democrats call that normal law enforcement activity? [8:14] Would the press shrug its shoulders? [8:17] Of course not. [8:19] There would be wall-to-wall coverage. [8:21] There would be cries of authoritarianism. [8:24] There would be emergency hearings, [8:26] demands for resignations, [8:28] and talk of impeachment before the sun went down. [8:31] Instead, my Democrat colleagues can barely get [8:35] their heart rate above 60 beats per minute. [8:38] Arctic frost is the culmination [8:45] of a gross pattern of abuse by Democrats [8:48] for partisan ends to elect [8:52] and re-elect a Democrat president. [8:55] In 2016, Obama's FBI began spying [8:58] on the Trump campaign just a month before Election Day. [9:01] In 2020, Biden's FBI met with Senators Johnson and Grassley [9:05] in an effort to throw off their investigation [9:07] into the now infamous Hunter Biden laptop, [9:10] calling the laptop disinformation, [9:13] a claim we now know was false. [9:15] The FBI went to the chairman [9:18] of the Senate Judiciary Committee [9:20] and lied to him in an effort to change the outcome [9:24] of a presidential election. [9:26] Democrats for years have exhibited the pattern [9:31] of abusing public law and justice [9:33] and law enforcement powers for the sake of politics. [9:38] A pattern this committee, [9:39] under the leadership of Chairman Grassley, [9:41] is now working to uncover and expose. [9:45] Because no administration, Republican or Democrat, [9:47] has any business turning the surveillance powers [9:50] of the federal government against its political opposition. [9:53] 50 years ago, this nation was confronted [9:56] with an abuse of power, [9:59] and it responded not with indifference [10:01] but with accountability. [10:02] And I'll tell you one of the big differences [10:04] of Watergate versus Arctic frost, [10:06] when Richard Nixon and his corrupt attorney general [10:10] and his corrupt administration abused [10:12] their law enforcement powers [10:14] to go after their political opponents, [10:16] Republican senators stood up [10:18] to the president of their own party [10:20] and defended the rule of law. [10:23] Where is even a single Democrat senator [10:27] who has said one word about this abuse of power? [10:32] Is there not one? [10:34] There are 47 Democrats in this body. [10:36] Is there not one who can come forward and say, [10:39] you know what, turning the Department of Justice [10:42] into the oppo research and attack machine [10:45] of the DNC is not what the DOJ is supposed to be? [10:49] We were tested then, and there was accountability. [10:57] We are being attested again now. [11:01] The question is really simple. [11:05] Will we uphold the same standard? [11:07] Will we defend the rule of law, [11:09] or will we abandon it? [11:12] Ranking member, White House. [11:18] Last month, Kash Patel fired [11:23] roughly a dozen agents and analysts [11:27] from the FBI's search [11:29] for the CIA 12 unit, [11:33] a counterintelligence unit dedicated [11:35] to protecting Americans from foreign espionage. [11:38] One of the foreign actors that this unit specializes in [11:43] is Iran and its proxies. [11:47] According to CNN, this unit was, and I quote, [11:50] instrumental in tracking potential threats [11:53] after the first Trump administration [11:56] killed a top Iranian official in 2020. [12:01] Just days after Patel fired these agents, [12:04] President Trump started a war in Iran [12:08] that has already led to the deaths [12:11] of at least 13 American service members. [12:16] If it seems like a bad decision [12:20] to fire career law enforcement professionals [12:25] who specialize in defending against Iranian threats [12:30] just days before we start a war with Iran, [12:34] that's because it is. [12:37] And it's even worse when you consider [12:40] why Patel fired these agents. [12:46] These agents had been assigned [12:47] to Jack Smith's investigation [12:50] into Donald Trump's illegal hoarding [12:54] of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. [12:58] Patel claims that as part of that investigation, [13:04] Jack Smith issued grand jury subpoenas [13:06] for toll records for Patel [13:09] and for Susie Wiles [13:12] when they were private citizens. [13:15] Patel also insists that the FBI recorded [13:18] one of Wiles' phone calls, [13:20] which her own attorney has denied. [13:22] If you ask anyone with law enforcement experience [13:26] to react to news that the FBI [13:29] may have sought these toll records, [13:31] the response is simple. [13:34] Of course they did. [13:37] Virtually every investigation involves subpoenas [13:40] for toll records for any number of reasons. [13:43] Sometimes it's to construct a timeline of events. [13:48] Sometimes it's to rule out wrongdoing. [13:52] Sometimes it's to prepare for a witness interview. [13:57] Sometimes it's to help understand [14:01] the scope of a conspiracy. [14:05] In fact, the first Trump DOJ [14:09] did the same thing Republicans [14:12] have criticized Jack Smith for doing. [14:15] Getting the toll records of members of Congress, [14:20] following the DOJ policies then in place, [14:23] and getting non-disclosure orders. [14:27] Here's what Chairman Grassley said at the time. [14:31] Investigation into members of Congress and staff [14:35] are nothing new. [14:38] And the Justice Department has specific procedures [14:41] for such sensitive investigations. [14:44] Apparently, when the Trump DOJ does it, [14:49] it's nothing new. [14:52] When Jack Smith does it, it's a modern Watergate. [14:55] With Patel, it's obvious why Jack Smith [14:59] was looking at him. [15:01] Patel made himself a fact witness [15:05] in that investigation. [15:07] He went on podcasts [15:09] bragging about how he planned to post [15:12] classified information online [15:15] at Donald Trump's direction. [15:18] And how he personally witnessed Donald Trump [15:21] declassify records. [15:23] We have known for years [15:27] that Smith was looking into Patel's role [15:30] because Smith subpoenaed [15:33] Patel to testify before a grand jury. [15:37] Where is Patel's grand jury testimony? [15:41] Why is that still hidden? [15:44] The same goes for Ms. Wiles. [15:48] Wiles is referenced in the indictment [15:50] against President Trump [15:52] because Trump showed her classified documents [15:55] when she didn't have a security clearance. [15:58] The same month that indictment came out, [16:03] the PAC Wiles ran [16:05] received its highest payment ever [16:08] from the Trump campaign. [16:10] That's another thing that any [16:13] investigator worth their salt [16:15] would take a close look at. [16:18] The same goes for the rest of the subpoenas [16:20] my colleagues on the other side [16:22] want to talk about today. [16:26] Jack Smith was investigating [16:29] a massive conspiracy [16:32] by Trump officials and their allies [16:35] to overturn an election [16:37] and attack the Capitol on January 6th. [16:41] Is anyone surprised [16:43] that he issued subpoenas [16:45] as part of that investigation? [16:50] And why? [16:52] As Smith told the House Judiciary Committee [16:54] under oath, his investigation, [16:57] quote, involved interviewing [16:59] and subpoenaing records of Republicans [17:02] because that's who Donald Trump [17:05] sought to prey on to stay in office. [17:10] Somebody geared up [17:13] the Republican Attorneys General Association [17:15] or RAGA [17:18] to sponsor the rally that turned [17:20] into the riots on January 6th [17:23] and pay for robocalls [17:25] urging people to march to the Capitol building [17:28] and fight to protect the integrity [17:30] of our elections. [17:33] Jeffrey Clark, who worked at DOJ at the time, [17:36] tried to convince the Department of Justice leadership [17:41] to send a letter [17:43] to try to overturn the election results in Georgia. [17:47] President Trump almost made him [17:49] acting Attorney General [17:50] because Clark was willing [17:52] to help Trump try to overturn the election. [17:57] Pretend for a minute that Jack Smith [18:00] and all the DOJ and FBI officials [18:02] who helped his investigation [18:04] did do something wrong. [18:06] What would real oversight look like? [18:08] Well, first, Republicans would accept [18:11] Jack Smith's offer to testify [18:13] before this committee under oath [18:17] instead of holding a series of hearings [18:19] on conspiracy theories [18:21] without anything new to say. [18:23] Why not call him? [18:25] Hear it from the man himself. [18:29] Second, Republicans would let us see [18:31] Jack Smith's full report [18:33] on his investigations into President Trump. [18:36] We only have Volume 1, [18:39] which explains the subpoenas he issued [18:41] in the 2020 election interference investigation. [18:45] We still need Volume 2 [18:47] on his classified documents crimes investigation. [18:51] Democrats on this committee have asked DOJ [18:55] to give us Volume 2, [18:57] but Republicans have been silent [18:59] as President Trump and his MAGA DOJ [19:02] have fought to bury the report. [19:06] Third, Republicans would oblige Kash Patel [19:09] to tell us what he told the grand jury [19:14] in that classified documents investigation. [19:17] They might also hold Patel accountable [19:19] for misleading this committee [19:22] in sworn testimony. [19:24] I've asked Patel multiple times under oath [19:27] to describe his testimony to us [19:30] as Rule 6E plainly allows. [19:34] First, he said he couldn't [19:38] because it was under seal [19:41] by the Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court [19:44] for the District of Columbia. [19:47] Turns out that very Chief Judge later said [19:50] that nothing was preventing Patel [19:52] from divulging his testimony [19:55] to this committee as the rule allows. [19:58] So that testimony was false. [20:02] When Patel came back, [20:03] he told another lie, [20:05] this time that he had already released [20:08] the transcript of his testimony. [20:12] Here's the transcript [20:13] he might have been talking about. [20:17] As you can see from reading it, [20:19] oh, wait a minute, [20:22] you can't read it [20:23] because it's almost completely redacted. [20:26] And it's not even from the right hearing. [20:31] This is from the time Patel appeared [20:33] before the grand jury, [20:35] in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents crimes case, [20:39] to assert his Fifth Amendment rights [20:42] because he was afraid of being prosecuted. [20:47] The testimony that he actually ended up giving [20:50] once his Fifth Amendment plea was accepted [20:55] and he was immunized, [20:56] we have never seen. [20:59] If this committee is so interested [21:00] in Jack Smith's investigation, [21:02] it should want to know [21:03] what Patel had to say in that investigation. [21:06] Why he was so afraid [21:08] to say it [21:10] and why he's so afraid [21:12] to tell us about it now [21:14] and instead repeatedly lies to this committee. [21:17] I'll close by talking about [21:20] what this hearing should be about. [21:23] Those counterintelligence agents [21:24] Kash Patel fired [21:26] aren't the only career law enforcement officials [21:28] forced out by this administration. [21:32] Nor are they the only ones purged [21:34] because they were assigned to investigate [21:36] President Trump's crimes. [21:40] Here's what has happened at the FBI [21:41] since President Trump took office. [21:43] The FBI has lost at least 300 agents [21:46] working on national security matters, [21:50] transferred agents out of the [21:51] domestic terrorism operations section, [21:54] disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force [21:57] and instructed joint terrorism task forces [22:01] to work on immigration cases. [22:05] At DOJ, more than 6,000 employees have left. [22:10] The National Security Division has lost [22:12] up to one-third of its leadership, [22:14] half the line prosecutors [22:16] in the counterterrorism section [22:18] and half the workforce [22:20] in the counterintelligence section. [22:22] Attorney General Bondi disbanded DOJ's [22:25] Task Force KleptoCapture, [22:28] Kleptocracy Team [22:31] and Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. [22:34] It is the same story throughout the administration [22:37] where conspiracy theories [22:39] and obsessions with revenge [22:41] are decimating the career [22:43] law enforcement [22:45] who protect us [22:47] against national security threats. [22:50] Major cuts at the Office of the Director [22:52] of National Intelligence, [22:54] Laura Loomer forcing out the heads [22:56] of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, [23:00] DHS gutting its office [23:02] to prevent domestic terrorism [23:04] and putting a 22-year-old [23:07] with no experience in charge [23:10] and cutting the workforce of CISA, [23:15] which protects us [23:16] from cyber security threats [23:18] from bad actors like Iran. [23:22] Americans are made less safe [23:24] every time this committee holds a hearing [23:26] promoting fake outrage [23:28] about Jack Smith [23:30] and denigrating FBI and DOJ professionals. [23:33] Every time MAGA influencers [23:36] like Laura Loomer [23:37] convince the President [23:38] to fire agency heads. [23:40] And every time Kash Patel [23:42] fires FBI experts [23:44] because he wants to distract [23:46] from his own incompetence, [23:48] his wasting of taxpayer dollars [23:51] to fly around the world [23:52] on a private jet, [23:54] his partying at the Olympics, [23:57] or his undermining [23:58] of the FBI's own investigation. [24:01] Instead of chasing conspiracy theories [24:04] down rabbit holes, [24:05] that's what we should be focused on. [24:08] Chairman Grassley. [24:12] Yeah. [24:13] Thank you, Senator Cruz, [24:14] for your strong leadership, [24:16] but more importantly [24:17] for the outstanding statement [24:19] you gave this morning [24:20] that reminds us a lot of history [24:23] as well as what's going on right now. [24:26] Today is the second in a series [24:28] of Arctic Frost hearings [24:30] that I've authorized as chairman. [24:32] I started my investigation [24:34] into Arctic Frost [24:35] in July of 2022 [24:37] based on credible [24:39] whistleblower disclosures. [24:41] Senator Johnson has since [24:43] joined the investigation [24:45] and I appreciate our joint work. [24:48] Our goal is to publicly [24:50] release as many records as possible. [24:53] The public has a right to know [24:55] how the taxpayer dollars have been used [24:57] and who was involved [24:59] up and down the decision-making chain. [25:03] Today, we're making new records public. [25:06] Some records are dated January 2023 [25:09] before Jack Smith's team [25:11] secretly sought most member tolling data. [25:14] The records include a wish list [25:16] created by Smith's team [25:19] naming 14 members of Congress [25:21] for whom they wanted to seek tolling data. [25:24] Some of those members are senators [25:26] on this very committee. [25:28] But the list notes [25:30] that Smith's team already knew [25:32] these members had communication, [25:35] so include text messages [25:37] for some members [25:39] with individuals associated [25:41] with President Trump. [25:43] And Jack Smith was certainly aware [25:45] of this effort. [25:47] To quote from the emails [25:48] we're making public today, quote, [25:50] before we tell Maine, [25:52] meaning Maine justice, [25:54] we're going to fire off subpoenas [25:57] for so many members' tolls. [25:59] I should make sure that Jack's aware. [26:05] Another record states that, quote, [26:08] unlikely the many of these members [26:11] will cooperate with, [26:14] unlikely many of these members [26:17] will cooperate with our investigation. [26:20] The same record also says [26:23] the members, quote, [26:25] likely have a valid speech [26:27] or debate privilege [26:29] immunizing them from [26:31] compelled testimony. [26:33] End of quote. [26:35] I've already publicly released [26:37] other records showing Smith's team [26:39] was warned [26:41] that subpoenaing congressional information [26:43] could violate [26:45] the speech and debate clause. [26:47] I've also publicly released [26:49] 197 [26:51] subpoenas seeking [26:54] sensitive financial information [26:57] from over 400 Republican groups [27:00] and individuals. [27:02] Some of the information sought included [27:05] legislative branch communications. [27:08] Even with these constitutional concerns, [27:11] Smith's team secretly sought [27:13] and obtained member of Congress [27:16] tolling data. [27:18] And when one phone company [27:20] pushed back, [27:22] Smith backed down. [27:24] That calls into question [27:25] the necessity [27:27] of obtaining member data. [27:29] Another record calls into question [27:34] Jack Smith's assertion [27:36] that the House January 6th [27:38] committee materials, quote, [27:40] comprised a small part [27:42] of the office's investigative record. [27:45] End of quote. [27:47] This new record states that [27:49] of the January 6th report, quote, [27:52] leadership teams fully read [27:55] and reviewed. [27:56] Last weekend, [27:58] we went over it page by page [28:01] and incorporated it into our [28:03] investigative plan. [28:05] End of quote. [28:06] Indeed, [28:07] these same records [28:09] that we're making public today [28:12] says that Smith's team will be, [28:14] quote, [28:15] logging all information [28:17] contained in the report. [28:19] End of quote. [28:21] Also, [28:22] the record states [28:24] Smith's team will, quote, [28:26] leverage, [28:27] end of quote, [28:28] the report to, quote, [28:31] avoid needless interviews [28:34] and focus the interviews [28:36] we perform on [28:38] underdeveloped topics. [28:40] End of quote. [28:41] Overall, [28:42] the records create additional questions [28:45] about Smith's conduct, [28:47] need for member data, [28:49] and candor [28:51] to the court [28:52] and the public. [28:53] The Democrats have criticized us [28:56] for not bringing Jack Smith [28:58] before us at the beginning, [29:00] and you've heard that again today. [29:02] If we followed the Democrats' [29:04] premature and ill-advised strategy, [29:08] we wouldn't have had [29:09] a great deal of information [29:11] we now have [29:13] that shows Jack Smith [29:15] misled Congress and the public, [29:17] if not outright lied. [29:20] And lastly, today, [29:21] we're also making public [29:23] two subpoenas [29:25] for toll records [29:26] of FBI Director Patel, [29:28] along with nondisclosure orders [29:31] that kept them secret. [29:33] This committee's work [29:34] will continue. [29:36] Thank you. [29:37] Thank you. [29:39] Ranking Member Durbin. [29:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [29:47] Last week, [29:50] America lost a man [29:51] who devoted his life [29:52] in service to our nation. [29:54] Robert Mueller [29:56] earned a Bronze Star [29:57] and a Purple Heart [29:58] serving as a Marine [29:59] and risking his life in Vietnam. [30:01] He led the FBI [30:02] after 9-11, [30:06] helping to secure our nation [30:07] after the worst terrorist attack [30:09] in American history. [30:11] Mueller was an amazing man. [30:14] A registered Republican, [30:17] he was appointed and reappointed [30:19] by not only Republican President [30:22] George H.W. Bush, [30:24] but Bill Clinton, [30:26] George W. Bush, [30:28] and Barack Obama. [30:30] He holds an historic distinction. [30:33] He is the only FBI director, [30:35] other than J. Edgar Hoover, [30:37] who had his tenure [30:40] at the FBI extended [30:43] beyond the 10-year limit. [30:45] By a vote of 100 to nothing [30:48] in the United States Senate, [30:50] he was given approval [30:51] to serve an additional two years [30:53] under President Obama. [30:55] I worked with Robert Mueller [31:00] for many years. [31:01] I remember reaching out to him [31:03] after 9-11 [31:04] and the news [31:05] that the technology available [31:07] at the FBI [31:08] was so ancient [31:10] on the day of the attack [31:12] of 9-11 [31:13] that you could buy [31:15] more modern and effective technology [31:17] at a radio shack. [31:18] I said to him, [31:19] I am not an expert [31:20] in this area [31:21] in any way whatsoever, [31:22] but I want to help you [31:23] if I can. [31:25] I want it to be [31:26] a bipartisan effort, [31:27] and we worked together [31:28] for years. [31:29] I never, ever questioned [31:30] Bob Mueller's devotion [31:32] to our nation [31:33] or his personal integrity. [31:34] How did President Donald Trump [31:35] respond to news [31:36] of Robert Mueller's passing? [31:37] I quote the President, [31:38] good, [31:41] I'm glad he's dead. [31:42] Let me repeat that. [31:43] The President of the United States [31:44] said, [31:45] I'm glad he's dead. [31:46] The President of the United States [31:48] said, [31:50] I'm glad he's dead. [31:51] The President of the United States [31:52] said, [31:55] I'm glad he's dead. [31:56] The President of the United States [31:57] said, [31:59] I'm glad he's dead. [32:00] Those reprehensible words [32:01] should be condemned [32:03] by every member [32:04] of the committee [32:06] on both sides of the aisle. [32:07] Unfortunately, [32:08] under Republican leadership, [32:09] this committee [32:10] has been complicit [32:11] in the attacks [32:13] on Robert Mueller, [32:14] spending years [32:15] spreading debunked [32:17] conspiracy theories [32:18] about his investigation [32:19] into Russia's interference [32:20] in the 2016 election. [32:21] We're here today [32:22] to talk about [32:23] how the President [32:24] of the United States [32:25] was able [32:26] to make [32:27] this decision [32:28] in a way [32:29] that would be [32:31] to attack [32:32] another special counsel [32:33] investigation [32:34] led by another [32:35] honorable public servant. [32:36] As the title [32:38] of this hearing [32:39] makes clear, [32:40] the majority [32:41] is wasting [32:42] this committee's time [32:43] and resources [32:44] on another [32:45] baseless, [32:46] partisan [32:47] witch hunt. [32:48] President Trump [32:50] spent months [32:51] attempting [32:52] to unlawfully [32:53] overturn [32:54] his 2020 [32:55] presidential election [32:56] loss. [32:57] It was known [32:58] as the Big Lie. [32:59] We heard it [33:00] over and over again. [33:02] It culminated [33:03] in a deadly attack [33:04] on the Capitol, [33:05] which many of us [33:06] lived through [33:07] on January 6th. [33:08] Then, [33:09] President Trump [33:10] removed [33:11] hundreds of pages [33:12] of classified documents [33:13] from the White House [33:14] and, [33:15] as a private citizen, [33:16] held them [33:17] at his Mar-a-Lago residence, [33:18] some next [33:19] to a toilet, [33:20] refusing [33:22] for more than a year [33:23] to return [33:24] these documents. [33:25] Despite [33:26] this unprecedented [33:27] and egregious conduct, [33:28] my Republican colleagues [33:29] claim [33:30] the Watergate level scandal [33:31] is the actual [33:32] investigation [33:33] into Trump's [33:34] brazen transgressions, [33:36] not his historically [33:37] dangerous action. [33:38] It would have been [33:39] a dereliction [33:42] of duty [33:43] for any prosecutor [33:44] investigating [33:45] the effort [33:46] to overturn [33:47] the 2020 election, [33:48] not to subpoena [33:49] organizations [33:50] like [33:51] Turning Point USA, [33:52] an organization [33:53] that helped plan [33:54] the so-called [33:55] Stop the Steal rally [33:56] that led [33:57] to the January 6th [33:58] deadly attack [33:59] on the United States [34:00] Capitol. [34:01] Similarly, [34:03] any prosecutor [34:04] worth his salt [34:05] would have subpoenaed [34:06] Kash Patel, [34:07] who was [34:08] a material witness [34:09] in the classified [34:10] documents case. [34:11] Patel even [34:12] infamously [34:13] claimed to be [34:14] the sole witness [34:15] of President Trump's [34:16] supposed blanket [34:17] declassification [34:18] of classified [34:19] documents. [34:20] Now, [34:22] if my Republican [34:23] colleagues were [34:24] serious about [34:25] this issue, [34:26] they would have [34:27] called [34:28] Special Counsel [34:29] Jack Smith [34:30] to testify [34:31] under oath [34:33] before this committee. [34:34] The Democrats [34:35] on this committee [34:36] notified the Chairman [34:37] in October [34:38] of last year, [34:39] months ago, [34:41] that Smith [34:42] was not only [34:43] available to testify, [34:44] he would do so [34:45] under oath [34:46] and answer the questions [34:47] raised in this hearing. [34:48] What has happened [34:49] in the last six months? [34:50] No action [34:51] by the Republican [34:52] leadership [34:53] of this committee [34:54] to bring [34:55] the sole [34:57] major witness [34:58] of this event [34:59] before the committee [35:00] under oath [35:01] to ask [35:02] specific questions. [35:03] Why? [35:04] Why is this committee [35:05] afraid to bring [35:06] Jack Smith [35:07] before and under oath? [35:08] For six months [35:10] they have avoided it. [35:11] The majority [35:12] has refused [35:13] to continue [35:14] the sham hearings [35:15] over issues [35:16] that don't exist. [35:17] The majority [35:18] has also refused [35:19] to support [35:20] Committee Democrats' [35:21] request to release [35:22] Volume 2 [35:23] of Special Counsel [35:24] Smith's report, [35:25] which Senator [35:26] Whitehouse noted. [35:27] Let me draw attention [35:28] to the issues [35:29] the committee [35:30] should be addressing [35:31] instead of [35:32] this farce today. [35:33] Over the past year, [35:34] President Trump, [35:35] Attorney General [35:36] Bondi, [35:37] and Director [35:38] of the FBI, [35:39] Patel, [35:40] have systematically [35:41] attacked [35:42] the premier [35:43] law enforcement [35:44] agency in the [35:46] United States, [35:47] if not the world. [35:48] These purges [35:49] are making [35:50] every American [35:51] less safe. [35:52] Most recently, [35:53] Patel reportedly [35:54] fired at least [35:55] six agents [35:56] and several [35:57] other FBI [35:58] personnel [35:59] who had been [36:00] assigned to work [36:02] related to [36:03] President Trump's [36:04] mishandling [36:05] of classified [36:06] documents. [36:07] These terminations [36:08] were seemingly [36:09] to save face [36:10] with President [36:11] Trump in response [36:12] to the negative [36:13] consequences [36:14] of his [36:15] actions. [36:16] In addition, [36:18] many of the [36:19] FBI agents [36:20] have been [36:21] charged with [36:22] chugging beer [36:23] at the Olympic Games. [36:24] Several of the [36:25] fired agents [36:26] were reportedly [36:27] part of a [36:28] global [36:29] counterintelligence [36:30] squad, [36:31] which Senator [36:32] Whitehouse [36:33] has referred [36:34] to as [36:35] particularly [36:36] appropriate [36:37] at a time [36:39] we are [36:40] at war [36:41] with Iran. [36:42] In other words, [36:43] Director [36:44] of the United States [36:45] Department of [36:46] Defense [36:47] and the [36:48] United States [36:49] Department of [36:50] Defense [36:51] have been [36:52] charged with [36:53] the [36:54] most [36:55] serious [36:56] misconduct [36:57] in the [36:58] history [36:59] of the [37:00] United States. [37:01] The [37:02] United States [37:04] Department of [37:05] Defense [37:06] has [37:07] been [37:08] charged [37:09] with [37:10] the [37:11] most [37:12] serious [37:13] misconduct [37:14] in the [37:16] history [37:17] of the [37:18] United States. [37:19] We cannot [37:20] continue [37:22] on this [37:23] course. [37:24] The American [37:25] people face [37:26] real challenges [37:27] from citizens [37:28] being [37:29] summarily [37:30] executed [37:31] for exercising [37:32] their First [37:33] Amendment [37:34] rights [37:35] into the [37:36] skyrocketing [37:37] price of [37:38] the cost [37:39] of living [37:40] under this [37:41] administration. [37:42] This [37:43] hearing [37:44] should [37:45] know [37:46] a dead [37:47] horse [37:48] when he [37:49] sees one. [37:50] This [37:51] hearing is [37:52] an attempt [37:53] to throttle [37:54] a dead [37:55] horse [37:56] to a [38:00] gallop. [38:01] There aren't [38:02] enough [38:05] giddy-ups [38:06] in the [38:07] world [38:08] to [38:09] accomplish [38:10] that [38:11] goal, [38:12] I [38:13] yield. [38:14] Mr. [38:15] Chairman, [38:16] I don't [38:17] quite [38:18] know [38:19] if [38:20] you [38:21] know [38:22] what [38:23] you're [38:24] talking [38:25] about. [38:26] I'm [38:27] not [38:28] sure [38:29] that [38:30] those [38:31] words [38:32] are [38:33] public. [38:35] So, [38:36] upon the [38:37] advice of [38:38] counsel, [38:39] I'll [38:40] be invoking [38:41] my Fifth [38:42] Amendment [38:43] privilege. [38:44] The [38:45] whole [38:46] rest [38:47] of it [38:48] is [38:49] just [38:50] to [38:51] make [38:52] it [38:53] clear [38:54] to [38:55] the [38:56] public [38:57] that [38:58] this [38:59] is [39:00] not [39:01] the [39:02] right [39:03] time [39:04] for [39:05] this [39:06] to [39:07] happen. [39:08] This [39:09] is [39:10] not [39:11] the [39:12] right [39:13] time [39:14] for [39:15] this [39:17] to [39:18] happen. [39:19] The [39:20] White House [39:21] is [39:22] not [39:23] the [39:24] right [39:25] time [39:26] for [39:27] this [39:29] to [39:30] happen. [39:31] The [39:32] White House [39:33] is [39:34] not [39:35] the [39:36] right [39:37] time [39:38] for [39:39] this [39:40] to [39:41] happen. [39:42] The [39:43] White House [39:44] is [39:45] not [39:47] the [39:48] right [39:49] time [39:50] for [39:51] congressional [39:52] oversight. [39:53] I [39:54] will [39:55] now [39:56] introduce [39:57] the [39:58] witnesses [39:59] at [40:01] this [40:02] hearing. [40:03] First [40:04] witness [40:05] is [40:06] Mr. [40:07] Will [40:08] Chamberlain, [40:09] who [40:10] currently [40:11] serves [40:12] as [40:13] senior [40:14] counsel [40:15] at [40:16] the [40:17] Article [40:18] 3 [40:19] Commercial [40:20] Litigation. [40:22] Mr. [40:23] Chamberlain [40:24] later worked [40:25] as an [40:26] attorney [40:27] at the [40:28] Competitive [40:29] Enterprise [40:30] Institute [40:31] focusing [40:32] on class [40:33] action [40:34] litigation. [40:35] In [40:36] 2019, [40:37] he [40:38] revived [40:39] Human [40:40] Events, [40:41] the [40:42] nation's [40:43] oldest [40:45] conservative [40:46] magazine [40:47] where he [40:48] served [40:49] as [40:50] the [40:51] head [40:52] of [40:53] the [40:54] U.S. [40:55] Department [40:57] of [40:58] Justice [40:59] in [41:00] September [41:01] 2023 [41:02] after two [41:03] decades of [41:04] leading [41:05] counterterrorism [41:06] investigation [41:07] and [41:08] operations. [41:09] Mr. [41:10] O'Leary's [41:11] last [41:12] assignment [41:13] was [41:14] serving [41:15] as [41:16] the [41:17] U.S. [41:18] Government's [41:19] Director [41:20] of the [41:21] U.S. [41:22] Department [41:23] of [41:24] Justice [41:25] and [41:26] the [41:27] U.S. [41:28] Department [41:29] of [41:30] Justice. [41:31] Mr. [41:33] O'Leary [41:34] served [41:35] as [41:36] the [41:37] Director [41:38] of [41:39] the [41:40] U.S. [41:41] Department [41:42] of [41:43] Justice [41:44] and [41:45] the [41:46] U.S. [41:47] Department [41:48] of [41:49] Justice [41:50] of the [41:51] U.S. [41:52] Department [41:53] of [41:54] Justice. [41:55] Mr. [41:56] O'Leary [41:57] served [41:58] as [41:59] the [42:00] Director [42:01] of [42:02] the [42:03] U.S. [42:04] Department [42:05] of [42:06] Justice [42:07] and [42:08] the [42:09] U.S. [42:10] Department [42:11] of [42:12] Justice. [42:13] Mr. [42:14] O'Leary [42:15] served [42:16] as [42:17] the [42:18] Director [42:19] of the [42:20] U.S. [42:21] Department [42:22] of [42:23] Justice [42:25] and [42:26] the [42:27] Director [42:28] of [42:29] Justice. [42:30] Mr. [42:31] Chamberlain [42:32] served [42:35] as [42:36] the [42:37] Director [42:38] of [42:39] Justice [42:40] and [42:41] the [42:42] Director [42:43] of [42:44] Justice. [42:45] Mr. [42:46] Chamberlain [42:47] served [42:48] as [42:50] the [42:51] Director [42:52] of Justice [42:53] for [42:54] the [42:55] U.S. [42:56] Department [42:57] of [42:59] Justice. [43:00] Mr. [43:01] Chamberlain [43:02] served [43:04] as [43:05] the [43:06] Director [43:07] of [43:08] Justice [43:09] in [43:10] the [43:11] U.S. [43:12] Department [43:13] of [43:14] Justice. [43:15] Mr. [43:16] Chamberlain [43:17] served [43:18] as [43:19] the [43:20] Director [43:21] of [43:22] Justice [43:23] infamous Arctic Frost investigation. Both were private citizens at this time, and the surveillance [43:28] continued while Wiles was co-managing President Trump's election campaign. This was troubling, [43:32] but sadly it wasn't shocking. This committee has been investigating Smith's abuse of his [43:36] subpoena power against a slew of Republican senators, alongside Judge James Boasberg's [43:40] unlawful nondisclosure orders that hid the existence of those subpoenas from those senators. [43:45] But Reuters, if anything, buried the lead. The article also revealed that in 2023, [43:50] the Biden FBI had surreptitiously recorded a phone call between Susie Wiles and her attorney. [43:55] This was a remarkable breach of attorney-client privilege. The Reuters article, relying on two [43:59] FBI sources, claimed that Wiles' attorney had been aware of the surveillance on the phone call, [44:04] which, if it were true, would have been a shocking ethical breach by Wiles' lawyer. [44:08] The following day, however, Wiles' lawyer denied having ever consented to any such recording, [44:13] stating correctly that, quote, if he ever pulled a stunt like that, he wouldn't [44:17] and shouldn't have a license to practice law. [44:20] End quote. His denial is, in my view, credible. What lawyer in their right mind would secretly [44:25] consent to law enforcement recording a privileged phone call with their client? [44:29] But the lawyer's denial raises more questions than it answers. Why, then, did two FBI sources [44:34] tell Reuters that the lawyer had consented? Were the sources lying, or were they relying [44:38] on false records created by FBI agents working with Smith? It wouldn't be the first time FBI [44:43] personnel have falsified records in their pursuit of President Trump. Remember that Kevin Klein [44:48] Smith, a former FBI lawyer, pled guilty to intentionally falsifying the records of his [44:51] client. He was also accused of falsifying information to obtain a FISA warrant in the [44:54] Russiagate investigation. The scandal isn't merely that this phone call was recorded. It's also about [44:59] how the records of the recording were hidden. The FBI's primary digital case management system is [45:04] called Sentinel. Within it, investigators can apply a special designation to a file called [45:09] Prohibited Access. Files coded this way become completely invisible in standard Sentinel searches. [45:15] If an agent runs a keyword search that should hit these documents, the system returns a false [45:18] negative. It reports no responsive documents, even though they exist. [45:22] While this Prohibited Access designation might make theoretical sense for files dealing [45:27] with the most sensitive classified matters, it clearly does not make sense that records [45:31] of Susie Wiles' phone call being surveilled would qualify. The agents who marked this [45:35] records prohibited would have known that. If Wiles' lawyer had been aware of the recording, [45:39] it would have constituted consensual monitoring. Monitoring such a call would likely require [45:43] DOJ approval, but it could be lawful. But if Wiles' lawyer did not consent to the recording, [45:48] we are likely looking at an illegal wiretap of a phone call between a press and a private [45:52] presidential campaign manager and her own lawyer, one where the agent or agents who conducted the [45:58] wiretap lied about Wiles' lawyer's lack of consent and then coded it as a prohibited file in the [46:04] hopes that no one would ever find out about it. This would be a more brazen FBI intervention into [46:08] domestic politics than anything during the Russiagate investigation, which is certainly [46:12] saying something. We often hear liberal law professors complain about the Trump administration [46:16] undermining the DOJ and FBI's independence. Sophisticated listeners should immediately [46:23] report independent as unaccountable. Illegal wiretaps and inappropriate prohibited file [46:28] classifications are the fruits of an independent FBI that acted with impunity because it was [46:33] not subject to the democratic accountability that our Constitution demands. The president [46:38] is tasked with the responsibility to take care that our laws be faithfully executed, [46:42] not to submit to the FBI and DOJ, transforming themselves into an unaccountable fourth branch [46:46] of government. And this body can help by providing essential oversight and scrutiny. I welcome [46:50] any questions. [46:52] Thank you. Mr. O'Leary, you're recognized. [46:54] Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the [47:00] opportunity to appear before you today. In his farewell address to the nation, President [47:06] George Washington warned that the health and survival of a republic required leaders who [47:11] exercise virtue and resist the pull of partisan division. It is in that spirit that I offer [47:16] my testimony today. I come before you, not as an advocate for any political party or [47:22] position, but as a nonpartisan former special agent of the FBI where I serve for over 9 years. [47:28] two decades. My intent is to provide the committee with a clear, experience-based understanding [47:36] of how the FBI operates, its investigative standards, institutional culture and the professional [47:43] norms that guide its work. The men and women of the FBI have long stood as a quiet bastion [47:49] between order and chaos, guided not by politics or public acclaim, but by an enduring commitment [47:55] to the Constitution and the rule of law. Their character is forged in an environment where [48:01] integrity is not aspirational, it is required. Every day, often without recognition, they [48:08] make decisions that demand moral clarity, professional restraint and personal courage. [48:15] These are not abstract virtues within the FBI. They are lived expectations, reinforced [48:21] through training, supervision and deeply rooted in institutional culture. The FBI's investigative [48:29] process is grounded in predication, facts, intelligence and evidence. [48:35] Not ideology or affiliation. Agents are trained to clearly articulate and document the factual [48:43] basis for opening and continuing investigations. And those decisions are subject to multiple [48:49] layers of supervisory and legal review. Equally important is the internal culture of the FBI. [48:55] The bureau I served had no tolerance for political ideology or personal bias influencing investigative [49:02] work. This was not simply a matter of formal policy. It was an expectation reinforced through [49:08] leadership. [49:09] The FBI, the FBI and its many other organizations, are both in the eyes of public and legal experts. [49:12] The credibility of the FBI, both in court and in the eyes of the public, depends on [49:17] that neutrality. And FBI professionals understand that their work must withstand scrutiny, not [49:24] only in the moment, but years later. Allegations that the FBI has engaged in broad, coordinated [49:30] conspiracies to investigate individuals based on political affiliation or ideology are inconsistent [49:38] with my experience. [49:39] In fact, I think that the FBI has engaged in broad, coordinated conspiracies to investigate individuals based on political affiliation or ideology are inconsistent with my experience and my [49:39] unsupported by evidence or reason. Yet the absence of credibility to these claims has not deterred [49:46] Director Kash Patel from pursuing what can only be understood as a campaign of retribution against [49:53] his own personnel. When agents and analysts are removed not for misconduct, but for their lawful [49:59] participation in duly authorized investigations, the conclusion that such actions are politically [50:07] driven is self-evident. This form of retaliation against the dedicated professionals of the FBI [50:13] has eroded trust in leadership, damaged morale, introduced uncertainty across the workforce, [50:21] and disrupted the continuity of ongoing operations. Equally concerning are the [50:28] national security implications, with the loss and marginalization of experienced personnel [50:33] and diminished institutional knowledge drastically impacting the FBI's ability to [50:39] effectively fight against the FBI. [50:39] The FBI's role is to effectively confront threats from terrorism, espionage, and cyber adversaries. [50:45] Left unchecked, Director Kash Patel's actions risk inflicting generational harm on an institution [50:53] central to the safety and security of the nation. In closing, I would emphasize that the strength of [51:00] the FBI and our broader system of justice depends on its independence from political influence. [51:07] It's a principle that those who serve within the Bureau understand, [51:11] as fundamental to their duty. Being an FBI agent is either a job nor a profession, but rather a vocation. [51:20] Service to the nation is not a slogan within the FBI. It's a calling, a [51:25] steadfast commitment to the cause of freedom. [51:26] Democracy and justice. [51:29] This Ethos is rooted in a tradition of excellence that spans generations. [51:36] The legacy of the G Man is not merely a cultural artifact but a standard, one that reflects professionalism, discipline, And fact pizza [51:43] and an unyielding pursuit of truth. [51:47] Each new generation of G men and women inherit [51:50] not only the responsibilities of the role, [51:53] but the weight of that legacy and the obligation to uphold it. [51:57] Day after day, the men and women of the FBI answer the call [52:00] and choose duty over comfort, principle over expedience, [52:04] and service over self. [52:06] Their work is often unseen and their successes unheralded, [52:11] but the nation is safer [52:12] because of their steadfast commitment, [52:15] their adherence to the rule of law, [52:17] and their fidelity to the ideals that define the FBI. [52:21] Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. [52:24] I look forward to answering your questions. [52:27] Thank you. Ms. Cleveland, you're recognized. [52:32] Chairman Cruz, ranking member Whitehouse, [52:36] and members of the subcommittee, [52:38] thank you for the opportunity to testify [52:40] concerning the grave constitutional violations [52:44] inflicted as part of Arctic Frost. [52:47] After the 2020 election, [52:49] an anti-Trump FBI agent named Tim Tybalt [52:53] attempted to use the Justice Department [52:55] to destroy the president. [52:57] Tybalt's efforts led to the launch of Arctic Frost. [53:01] Soon after, Merrick Garland tapped Jack Smith, [53:05] a hyper-aggressive prosecutor known to overstretch [53:08] the meaning and intent of the law to serve as special counsel. [53:13] Smith proved himself true to form, [53:16] indicting Trump for allegedly violating a statute [53:19] enacted in the aftermath of Enron, [53:22] based in part on a theory of criminal liability [53:25] the Supreme Court would later hold invalid. [53:29] The Supreme Court would later also halt Smith's efforts [53:32] to prosecute Trump for actions that fell [53:35] within the president's official duties. [53:38] Beyond being a partisan in his own right, [53:41] Smith stacked his team with partisan Democrats, [53:44] such as J.P. Cooney and Ray Holzer. [53:47] Cooney and Holzer served as Smith's [53:50] top deputies and in them we see the clear double standard [53:55] and political bias that permeated the DOJ and FBI. [54:00] Before joining Smith's team, Cooney [54:03] crafted an outrageous sentencing memorandum [54:06] that sought to send Trump advisor Roger Stone to prison [54:10] for seven to nine years. [54:12] Cooney's sentencing recommendations [54:14] were so unhinged that the then Attorney General William Barr [54:18] intervened. [54:20] responded by spreading unfounded rumors that Barr and the acting U.S. Attorney were being [54:28] improperly political, with media leaks furthering that narrative, eventually leading to an Inspector [54:35] General investigation. [54:37] The IG cleared the Trump administration but chastised Cooney. [54:42] Holzer, for his part, demonstrated his partisan proclivities when he headed up the Public [54:50] Integrity Section, and refused the FBI's request to open an investigation into the [54:55] Clinton Foundation. [54:57] But Holzer's partisan protection racket went further when he withheld a six-page timeline [55:05] of the Clinton Foundation investigation from the then U.S. Attorney operating out of Little [55:11] Rocket. [55:12] Instead, he provided an abbreviated two-page summary that omitted all references to interference [55:18] from the DOJ and the FBI. [55:20] In contrast, when the target was Trump, Holzer, along with Cooney, drafted a memorandum to [55:29] justify subpoenaing the toll records of about a dozen members of Congress, notwithstanding [55:35] internal email discussions acknowledging a clear speech or debate clause problem. [55:41] They then hid the details of those subpoenas using the prohibited access functionality [55:46] of Sentinel, which ghosted the FBI records. [55:50] As this committee well knows, because many of you were victims, Smith approved the subpoenas [55:56] and obtained the toll records of Senators Blackburn, Graham, Hagerty, Hall, Loomis, Johnson, [56:03] Kennedy, Scott, Sullivan, and Toberville. [56:07] Only Senator Cruz escaped the invasion into his privacy and the violation of the speech [56:12] or debate clause, because his cell phone provider questioned the subpoena. [56:18] From this subcommittee's January 7th hearing. [56:19] As this committee well knows, because many of you were victims, Smith approved the subpoenas [56:20] and obtained the toll records of Senators Blackburn, Graham, Hagerty, Hall, Loomis, Johnson, Kennedy, [56:21] elected by Senator Mr. Bob F sod Dorby. [56:22] That he sought to [56:29] scareứng [56:39] I say apparently because Chairman Cruz request for nontisclosure application to be unsealed [56:43] has been ignored. [56:44] Yet again we see the double standard, and the weaponization. [56:50] Judge Booberg boxedack still failed to order Smith and third in his prosecutors to show [56:51] not be held in contempt for concealing the members of Congress were the [56:56] ones who were being targeted. This fact should not be ignored. If you [57:01] are to believe Smith and the administrative office of the court's [57:04] testimony that Judge Boasburg did not know that your identities were [57:10] involved. It makes absolutely no sense that Boasburg would not enter [57:15] a show cause order to hold Smith accountable for violating your rights. [57:20] Given Judge Boasburg's nearly year long crusade to hold a member of [57:26] the Trump administration in contempt. We now know that Smith violated [57:31] the speech or debate clause rubber stamped by Judge Boasburg. He went [57:35] further and he subpoenaed the toll records of Kevin McCarthy, former [57:40] speaker and chairman Jim Jordan again under cover of a nondisclosure [57:45] order. Add that add to that the hundreds more served on individual [57:50] rights. [57:51] Republicans, including Trump's attorneys, Republican organizations [57:56] such as Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA. [57:59] And they didn't seek merely told records, but also bank records, [58:04] which unveiled revealed the donor base. The breadth of these [58:09] constitutional intrusions is unprecedented. But to recap Smith [58:14] unconstitutionally was appointed special counsel in violation of the [58:18] appointments clause. The subpoenas of the toll records filed against [58:21] Boasburg. [58:22] The vast and unjustified subpoenas to Republicans and the organizations [58:26] that were connected to them violated the First Amendment associational [58:29] rights. The targeting of Trump's attorneys implicates the Sixth [58:32] Amendment right to counsel. [58:35] And using prohibited access to bury records is a huge due process [58:40] violation that raises potential violations of Brady. Smith and his [58:45] team have been working closely with the U. S. Department of Justice to [58:49] address this. [58:50] Thank you. [58:51] Thank you. [59:00] Let's start with the foundation. [59:02] Miss Cleveland Jack Smith issued nearly 200 subpoenas. Is that correct? [59:06] Yes. [59:08] Those subpoenas targeted over 400 Republican individuals and [59:12] organizations, correct? [59:13] Correct. [59:14] Many of whom had no connection to those who entered the Capitol on [59:18] January six, correct? [59:20] Absolutely. [59:22] And in fact, some of those organizations didn't even exist on January [59:25] six. Is that correct? [59:27] It is. [59:28] So we're not talking about a narrow investigation. We're talking [59:31] about a sweeping operation targeting virtually the entirety of the [59:36] other side. Politically. [59:38] It was a fishing expedition. [59:40] So let's turn to the Constitution subpoenaing the toll records of [59:44] members of Congress. Does that raise serious constitutional concerns? [59:47] Absolutely. And in fact, we have the pin who notified the special [59:52] counsel's office of those concerns. [59:55] And Jack Smith had apparently said that the [59:57] he was going to consult with the solicitor general, according to [1:00:00] the release of the information from Senator Grassley this morning. [1:00:04] Yet when he was deposed by the House and was specifically asked if [1:00:07] he spoke with the solicitor general, he said, on this discreet issue, [1:00:10] no. [1:00:11] Among other issues, it raises significant issues with the speech [1:00:13] and debate clause, correct? [1:00:14] Absolutely. [1:00:16] So much so that, as you noted, when Senator Grassley was asked [1:00:19] to speak with the solicitor general, he said, on this discreet issue, [1:00:24] no. [1:00:25] Among other issues, it raises significant issues with the speech [1:00:28] and debate clause, correct? [1:00:29] Absolutely. [1:00:30] And when Jack Smith subpoenaed AT&T to get my toll records, AT&T refused [1:00:36] to comply with the subpoena because they concluded that it violated the [1:00:40] speech and debate clause. Is that correct? [1:00:43] Absolutely correct. And they backed down. [1:00:45] Jack Smith did not try to enforce that subpoena, did he? [1:00:48] He did not. [1:00:49] He did not go to court and litigate the matter, did he? [1:00:51] He did not. [1:00:52] Does that suggest, as it does to me, that he knew damn well what he was [1:00:56] doing was illegal and would not be upheld in court? [1:00:59] It does suggest that. [1:01:00] When the federal government subpoenas donor lists, internal communications, [1:01:06] organization records, does that implicate the First Amendment and also [1:01:11] Freedom Association in particular? [1:01:13] It does, and the Supreme Court made that clear in the NAACP case. [1:01:18] Mr. Chamberlain, aside from the legal violations, what specific crimes, [1:01:25] if any, were actually uncovered as a result of the Arctic Frost [1:01:29] investigation? [1:01:30] I'm not aware of any crimes that were uncovered. [1:01:35] Would the senators, donors, organizations, and individuals who were [1:01:38] surveilled and subpoenaed have ever learned about the Arctic Frost [1:01:43] investigation had Trump not won in 2024? [1:01:46] Probably not. [1:01:49] Mainly because of these nondisclosure orders, but also, I mean, the fact [1:01:53] that a lot of these records were now just learning about them because [1:01:56] they were in these prohibited access files only available to their FBI [1:01:59] director. [1:02:00] So if the FBI director was a Democrat, there's no reason to think we'd [1:02:02] know about them. [1:02:03] How would you compare the scope of the violations? [1:02:05] The scope of the violations in Arctic Frost to Watergate? [1:02:11] I think, if anything, it might even be greater. [1:02:14] I mean, the scope of this in terms of the sheer number of people and [1:02:18] organizations affected, and as I discussed, I mean, this brazen violation [1:02:22] of attorney-client privilege, wiretapping, a phone call between Susie [1:02:26] Wiles and her lawyer, these are egregious offenses. [1:02:29] And, you know, if Watergate was just about a single break-in, I mean, [1:02:32] this is effectively, you know, compound that by 200. [1:02:36] All right. [1:02:37] I appreciate your service. [1:02:38] One of the things you testified is you said, quote, the effectiveness [1:02:41] and legitimacy of the FBI depend on its independence from political [1:02:44] influence. [1:02:45] I very much agree with that, and I will say, as an alumnus of the [1:02:49] Department of Justice, I am deeply saddened and, frankly, I'm angry that [1:02:54] under President Biden, the Department of Justice and the FBI were [1:02:58] weaponized and its integrity badly, badly compromised. [1:03:04] You are right. [1:03:05] That's how the FBI is supposed to behave, and that's how the Department [1:03:07] of Justice is supposed to behave. [1:03:08] So, Jack Smith was not investigating a crime based on evidence. [1:03:15] He issued subpoenas to get the toll records of the following senators. [1:03:19] Mike Lee, seated to my right. [1:03:23] Josh Hawley. [1:03:25] Lindsey Graham. [1:03:27] John Kennedy, seated to my right. [1:03:29] Marsha Blackburn. [1:03:32] Ron Johnson. [1:03:34] Rick Scott. [1:03:35] Bill Hagerty. [1:03:36] Dan Sullivan. [1:03:38] Tommy Tuberville. [1:03:40] Cynthia Lummis. [1:03:41] And myself. [1:03:42] That's over 20 percent of the Republicans in the United States Senate. [1:03:45] Mr. O'Leary, is it consistent with the obligations of the Department of [1:03:51] Justice and the FBI to issue subpoenas with no factual basis and no legal [1:03:57] basis? [1:03:58] Senator, it is not. [1:04:02] And in my experience, FBI agents would never approach a matter without [1:04:06] the proper justification and articulable facts to open their investigation. [1:04:11] OK, good. [1:04:12] So you said they would never do that. [1:04:14] Judge Boasberg signed an order. [1:04:16] I'm holding the order right here, in which he concludes, and I'm going [1:04:20] to read, [1:04:21] The court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure—in other words, notifying [1:04:28] the senators on that list—will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, [1:04:35] intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy of the investigation. [1:04:39] Are you aware of any factual basis whatsoever that a dozen senators will destroy evidence? [1:04:47] I am not. [1:04:49] But I will tell you that nondisclosure orders are a routine part of investigation. [1:04:54] Based on facts. [1:04:56] Give me any hypothetical fact. [1:04:58] By the way, do you know any facts that I will destroy evidence? [1:05:01] Let's take it me personally. [1:05:02] I cannot, you know— [1:05:04] Because Jack Smith went into court and said, [1:05:07] I will destroy evidence if I know about the subpoena. [1:05:10] And this clown signed the order one after the other after the other. [1:05:15] Are you aware of any basis? [1:05:18] Look, I'm a member of the bar. [1:05:19] I take my obligations seriously. [1:05:23] The FBI signed off on that. [1:05:25] Mike Lee concluded he would do it. [1:05:27] I will destroy evidence, John Kennedy, while Louisiana may be. [1:05:30] I will say, I'll give a special dispensation for the great state of Louisiana. [1:05:35] But there is no basis. [1:05:37] By the way, is it consistent with DOJ's obligation to also ask a judge to violate the law and not inform the judge of it? [1:05:46] No, it would not be. [1:05:49] Well, 2 U.S.C. section 6628 explicitly bars nondisclosure orders applying to the Senate. [1:05:57] And yet, in the lawless Department of Justice, [1:06:00] they assume they didn't tell Judge Boesberg, [1:06:02] hey, we're asking you to violate the law. [1:06:04] Would you sign this? [1:06:05] Do you assume that as well? [1:06:08] You would have to ask the DOJ that, but you make a good point, Senator. [1:06:11] Thank you. [1:06:13] Ranking member, White House. [1:06:16] Just to follow up on that point, Mr. O'Leary, [1:06:21] is the reason that a prosecutor would pursue a nondisclosure order for a toll record subpoena [1:06:30] necessarily that it is the subject of the subpoena? [1:06:34] Who would attempt to interfere with or obstruct the investigation, [1:06:39] as opposed to the subject of the investigation, [1:06:42] who would attempt to interfere with and obstruct the investigation? [1:06:49] Senator, it depends on the investigation. [1:06:53] It could be the subject of the investigation. [1:06:55] It could be associates. [1:06:57] The idea of a nondisclosure order is to not really let an individual know that they're under investigation. [1:07:04] But one cannot infer from the investigation [1:07:07] or from the existence of a nondisclosure order [1:07:10] any accusation that the subject of the order was intending to interfere or obstruct. [1:07:17] It could just as easily be that it was actually the subject of the investigation, [1:07:22] one of the conspirators, for instance, [1:07:25] who the court was concerned about, who the prosecutor was concerned about. [1:07:29] It certainly could be, but as I was communicating to Senator Cruz, [1:07:34] nondisclosure orders are a routine part of FBI investigation. [1:07:37] Understood. [1:07:38] So in your view, what has happened to the FBI and DOJ's national security capabilities in the last 15 months? [1:07:49] They've been decimated. [1:07:51] There's been generational damage done. [1:07:53] And with respect to the quiet bastion you referred to [1:07:59] and the standards of virtue and integrity that you spoke so passionately about, [1:08:05] were those standards of virtue and integrity, [1:08:10] the fidelity, bravery, and integrity of the FBI, [1:08:14] met by agents who Kash Patel then turned on and fired? [1:08:23] There is rampant morale degradation, [1:08:31] uncertainty amongst the ranks, [1:08:34] and really disheartened career federal public servants [1:08:43] who've been dismissed without cause. [1:08:45] And... [1:08:46] Because, in fact, [1:08:47] their colleagues understood that they, in fact, [1:08:50] met those standards for fidelity, bravery, and integrity, [1:08:54] and were nevertheless fired, correct? [1:08:56] Correct. [1:08:58] DOJ and the FBI run under close institutional checks and balances [1:09:05] designed to protect the integrity of the organization. [1:09:08] Were those applicable to special counsel? [1:09:10] I would assume so. [1:09:14] I wasn't involved in that investigation at all, [1:09:16] but I can speak to the process that Washington field office would follow [1:09:21] and those are the agents that supported that investigation. [1:09:24] And they would follow traditional, regular FBI guidelines and controls? [1:09:29] The documents that I was able to review demonstrated that. [1:09:32] Are you aware that the Trump Department of Justice [1:09:36] in the first term subpoenaed information from members of Congress [1:09:41] and members of Congress' staff, including toll records? [1:09:47] Senator, the FBI conducting public corruption investigations [1:09:53] has been part of its mission for years. [1:09:55] I know it's probably disconcerting to any member of Congress [1:09:59] or a public official, [1:10:00] but the FBI does it with the same integrity [1:10:02] that it conducts any investigation. [1:10:04] I would say to a fellow Irishman, [1:10:06] we would probably work with them on an investigation, [1:10:10] but, you know, the FBI pursues these [1:10:13] despite what side of the aisle you're on. [1:10:15] And they did in the first Trump term of office, [1:10:18] and that included getting nondisclosure orders [1:10:21] so that the members of Congress [1:10:23] did not know their toll records had been subpoenaed, correct? [1:10:26] That is correct. It's routine. [1:10:29] Tell me a little bit, as we wrap up here, [1:10:39] about the work of the CI-12 unit [1:10:44] and what condition it is now in [1:10:48] as hostilities with Iran exist. [1:10:54] So CI-12 is a foreign counterintelligence squad [1:10:57] in Washington field office, [1:10:59] and the agents that were dismissed from there [1:11:02] and from the counterintelligence division [1:11:04] at FBI headquarters [1:11:05] work a variety of counterintelligence priorities. [1:11:08] Iran is one of them, [1:11:10] and dismissing some of these people [1:11:13] just days before the war with Iran kicked off [1:11:16] creates problems with, you know, sustained focus [1:11:20] and could impact operations. [1:11:22] And, in fact, some of the FBI's institutional knowledge [1:11:27] is contained in the knowledge and experience [1:11:32] of senior FBI agents. [1:11:35] And so when they are purged for political reasons, [1:11:40] that component of the bureau [1:11:45] loses something fairly significant. [1:11:49] That is true, Senator. [1:11:50] So there were some senior leaders [1:11:51] at headquarters that were removed, [1:11:53] and then in this last year alone, [1:11:55] two assistant directors from Washington field office [1:11:58] were both removed. [1:11:59] My time is up. Thank you, Chairman. [1:12:02] Thank you. Without objection, I'd like to enter... [1:12:06] Sorry. [1:12:07] With respect to the question [1:12:10] of the NDOs [1:12:17] and the reason for that, [1:12:19] I'd like to put into the record [1:12:21] the letter that I wrote to Speaker Johnson [1:12:24] giving what I consider to be the accurate background [1:12:26] related to that, dated January 15, 2026. [1:12:29] Without objection, it will be entered into the record. [1:12:31] Thank you. [1:12:32] Also without objection, [1:12:33] I want to introduce into the record [1:12:35] a November 2, 2023 letter from Chairman Grassley [1:12:38] to the DOJ Office of Inspector General [1:12:41] raising concerns that in 2017 [1:12:43] DOJ's [1:12:44] DOJ subpoenaed personal phone and email records [1:12:46] of Republicans and Democrat congressional staff. [1:12:50] I'm also entering into the record [1:12:52] a November 8, 2023 letter from me, [1:12:54] Chairman Grassley, and Senator Lee [1:12:56] to Attorney General Garland, [1:12:57] raising similar concerns and requesting information [1:13:00] on the subpoenas of congressional staff. [1:13:02] Contrary to what Senator Whitehouse said in his opening, [1:13:04] Republicans did raise concerns about the DOJ [1:13:06] obtaining records from congressional staff [1:13:09] of both parties. [1:13:11] And I will say, just a minute ago, [1:13:13] Mr. O'Leary, you were being asked by Senator Whitehouse [1:13:16] about investigating members of Congress, [1:13:18] and it is certainly true that DOJ has a long tradition [1:13:21] if there's evidence of particular misconduct. [1:13:24] For example, our former colleague, Senator Menendez, [1:13:27] is currently incarcerated in prison for corruption. [1:13:29] And if you've got evidence of criminal conduct [1:13:31] of one individual, [1:13:32] the Department of Justice has an obligation [1:13:34] to investigate that. [1:13:36] Would you agree that's qualitatively different [1:13:40] than a fishing expedition targeting 20% of the Republicans [1:13:43] in the Senate? [1:13:45] Would you agree that's qualitatively different? [1:13:47] I'm not familiar with the details of either investigation, [1:13:50] so I wouldn't want to speculate. [1:13:52] Well, let me ask you this. [1:13:53] Would you be troubled if tomorrow [1:13:56] the Trump Department of Justice issued a subpoena [1:13:59] for the phone records of every Democrat [1:14:01] that sits on the Judiciary Committee? [1:14:03] Not if it was based on factual evidence, [1:14:05] specific and articulable facts. [1:14:07] Well, let me be clear. [1:14:08] I'd be damned troubled, [1:14:09] and that would be an abuse of power. [1:14:11] And I'm going to predict not a single Democrat's going to say, [1:14:14] even a word about the abuse of power on their side. [1:14:18] And that double standard is troubling. [1:14:20] Senator Lee. [1:14:23] Thank you very much, Senator Cruz, [1:14:25] for convening this hearing. [1:14:26] It's an important topic. [1:14:28] About a half century ago, [1:14:30] President Nixon resigned. [1:14:32] He did so under pressure [1:14:35] on the basis of public outrage [1:14:37] that stemmed from a break-in at DNC headquarters. [1:14:42] It was an act of lawfare, you might say, [1:14:45] or maybe better said, political espionage. [1:14:48] Today, the media and my Democrat colleagues [1:14:51] have fallen conspicuously silent [1:14:54] when confronted with a scandal [1:14:56] that in some ways is of much larger proportions [1:14:59] because it involves the official law enforcement apparatus [1:15:03] of the U.S. government in a much more direct way [1:15:05] than that one did. [1:15:08] President Biden's systematic weaponization [1:15:10] of the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement [1:15:12] against his political opponents [1:15:14] is a development of staggering proportions. [1:15:16] And by development, I mean scandal. [1:15:18] Just like the Watergate break-in, [1:15:21] Arctic Frost was ultimately an attempt [1:15:24] to sway the results of a presidential election. [1:15:28] But this comparison may even be unfair to President Nixon, [1:15:32] who never attempted to quash dissent [1:15:36] by putting the opposition candidate in prison [1:15:41] for trumped-up charges. [1:15:43] Now, thankfully, the Biden administration failed [1:15:45] in that misguided effort. [1:15:47] President Trump was elected by the people [1:15:50] to become the 47th president of the United States. [1:15:54] But we have to ensure that this kind of lawfare [1:15:58] can't occur again. [1:16:00] Mr. Chamberlain, I'd like to start with you. [1:16:02] Your testimony focuses, among other things, [1:16:05] on an FBI recording of a 2023 phone call [1:16:10] between Susie Wiles, who was at the time [1:16:13] managing President Trump's presidential campaign, [1:16:16] and her lawyer. [1:16:18] Now, according to the FBI, the lawyer was aware [1:16:21] of the recording, but isn't it true that the lawyer [1:16:25] denied that he had ever consented to that arrangement? [1:16:28] That's true. That was widely reported. [1:16:30] And if, in fact, the lawyer did not consent, [1:16:32] your testimony today is that this would have been [1:16:36] and was an illegal wiretap by the FBI [1:16:39] in the absence of her lawyer's consent with the FBI. [1:16:43] That's correct. [1:16:45] And the FBI designated this as a prohibited file [1:16:48] to prevent anyone from finding out about it. [1:16:50] That seems to be correct, yes. [1:16:52] Okay, so they did something they weren't supposed to do, [1:16:54] then they designated it as a prohibited file [1:16:56] to cover it up. [1:16:57] Now, in general, should the president be able [1:16:59] to direct the FBI to spy on the campaign [1:17:02] of his political opponent? [1:17:04] Absolutely not. [1:17:05] And isn't listening to a private conversation [1:17:08] between a presidential campaign manager and her lawyer [1:17:11] in many ways much more serious as an abuse of government power [1:17:16] than an attempted wiretap of the DNC headquarters [1:17:19] in Watergate? [1:17:20] Correct, because there's two ways [1:17:22] in which, you know, interest being invaded. [1:17:24] First, it's just the wiretap generally, [1:17:26] but then it's doubly invasive [1:17:27] because it's supposed to be a privileged conversation. [1:17:29] A privileged conversation which, [1:17:30] regardless of who's involved in it, [1:17:32] is supposed to be privileged. [1:17:34] And that takes on additional flavor [1:17:36] and additional degrees of seriousness [1:17:38] when that person happens to be [1:17:41] a client represented by a lawyer [1:17:44] who happens to be managing the presidential campaign [1:17:47] of the then incumbent president's lead [1:17:50] and exclusive challenger, effectively. [1:17:53] Ms. Cleveland, you referenced the FBI's use [1:17:56] of a protected access tag for Arctic Frost subpoenas. [1:18:01] What's the... [1:18:03] What is this functionality, [1:18:05] and why does it raise due process concerns in your mind? [1:18:10] So prohibited access is a functionality [1:18:13] which makes the records invisible. [1:18:16] So when there's an investigation going on, [1:18:19] the FBI agents are doing searches, [1:18:21] maybe by keywords of names, [1:18:23] it will come back and say there are no results. [1:18:26] They will believe there are no results. [1:18:29] We already have evidence that this has been used [1:18:32] in the investigation of Trump. [1:18:35] We also have evidence that it has been used [1:18:38] in other investigations that were high profile. [1:18:41] From the due process concern, [1:18:44] a lawyer is entitled to have evidence [1:18:48] that is exculpatory to their clients. [1:18:51] If there is exculpatory evidence, [1:18:53] or even evidence that calls into credibility, [1:18:56] the credibility of one of the witnesses, [1:18:59] that has to be turned over. [1:19:01] It can't possibly... [1:19:02] For Brady and Giglio purposes. [1:19:04] Exactly, Brady and Giglio. [1:19:05] It can't be turned over if they don't know about it. [1:19:08] That's a huge problem from the due process perspective. [1:19:11] Right, so you're forestalling up front [1:19:13] what would be part of the defendant's due process [1:19:17] in the event of eventual criminal proceedings. [1:19:20] Now, really quickly, before my time expires, [1:19:23] tell me whether to what extent Judge Boasberg knew [1:19:26] or would have had reason to know [1:19:28] what the NDOs were actually covering. [1:19:30] So, without seeing the application, [1:19:33] it's impossible to say he should have known. [1:19:36] But this morning, when Senator Grassley released his documents, [1:19:40] it indicated that Smith's team was speaking [1:19:43] with the prior Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court [1:19:49] about subpoenas and executive privilege. [1:19:52] So, that raised the concern of, [1:19:54] was this conversation going on with Judge Boasberg as well? [1:19:58] If not, did Smith's team actually decide [1:20:01] not to have the same kind of conversations [1:20:03] because they were concerned that Judge Boasberg [1:20:06] wouldn't go along with it? [1:20:08] So, we don't know what Judge Boasberg knew, [1:20:11] but we do know he didn't demand Smith come in [1:20:14] and explain himself, as he has done time and time again [1:20:18] with the Trump administration [1:20:20] in trying to hold someone in contempt [1:20:22] for what he did there. [1:20:24] Okay, so this would be outside the norm, [1:20:28] not only for this type of action, [1:20:30] but out of norm even for what Judge Boasberg [1:20:32] has done in other cases? [1:20:34] In the contempt, in calling them in for contempt, absolutely. [1:20:37] Thank you. Senator Durbin. [1:20:44] Thank you, Senator Lee. [1:20:48] Ms. Cleveland, you've given a pretty lengthy [1:20:51] bill of particulars in reference [1:20:54] to the special prosecutor, Jack Smith. [1:20:58] I tried to keep up with your statement. [1:21:02] You introduced him as being a hyper-aggressive prosecutor, [1:21:05] partisan, deputies who are politically partisan, [1:21:10] running some sort of partisan protection racket, [1:21:14] unconstitutionally appointed, [1:21:16] a litany of constitutional misconduct, [1:21:21] guilty of a phishing expedition, and on and on. [1:21:26] Would there be value for you to be able to ask [1:21:29] Mr. Smith questions about your assertions? [1:21:34] Only after I've seen enough background information [1:21:37] to poise good questions, [1:21:39] such as Senator Grassley's release this morning, [1:21:42] revealed for the first time that he had... [1:21:44] No, I'm just asking in general terms, [1:21:46] not to get specific. [1:21:47] Well, as a lawyer, I have to give you [1:21:49] the specific answers to the question. [1:21:51] Well, I'd like you to do it very briefly, [1:21:52] because I have a limited period of time. [1:21:53] I'm just asking you if you had a chance [1:21:55] to ask Jack Smith questions. [1:21:57] Not until I've seen the documents [1:21:59] that will inform the questions [1:22:01] and be able to confront him. [1:22:03] You don't do a deposition until you've done document review. [1:22:05] Well, of course, I think that goes without saying [1:22:08] in the practice of law. [1:22:10] But let me ask you if you could ask him questions [1:22:12] under oath, whether that would be more value [1:22:15] than just general questions? [1:22:18] Again, after I've seen the documents. [1:22:20] You don't think being under oath [1:22:22] puts any special obligation on a person [1:22:24] who's asked a question? [1:22:26] You can be under oath, [1:22:28] and if you're not confronted with the evidence, [1:22:30] the answer is not going to be as informative. [1:22:33] It sounds like you're afraid to face him. [1:22:35] Not at all. [1:22:37] Well, good. [1:22:38] Let me ask you this question. [1:22:40] If you could do it in the setting of, say, [1:22:42] the Senate Judiciary Committee, [1:22:44] and you had a chance to ask those questions under oath, [1:22:46] do you think that might be of value? [1:22:49] After I've reviewed all of the relevant documents, [1:22:52] including the ones hidden in prohibited access. [1:22:55] How about we make sure that that meeting [1:22:57] of the Judiciary Committee is public [1:22:59] so America can witness the questions and answers? [1:23:01] Would that be of value? [1:23:03] After all of those documents have been released, yes. [1:23:06] Oh, you wouldn't want to question him [1:23:09] until all the documents have been released? [1:23:11] The relevant documents that are hidden [1:23:13] in prohibited access? [1:23:14] Yes, absolutely need those before you question him. [1:23:17] That may be a luxury which most attorneys [1:23:20] and others would not have access to. [1:23:23] Well, they shouldn't have been hidden in the first place. [1:23:25] Well, it isn't a question of hiding [1:23:27] as much as legal access. [1:23:29] The point I'm getting to is that for the last six months, [1:23:32] the Democrats on this committee have said [1:23:34] to the Republicans on this committee, [1:23:36] bring Jack Smith into this room. [1:23:39] Sit him down in front of that microphone, [1:23:41] put him under oath, [1:23:42] and ask whatever questions you have. [1:23:44] All these assertions, the bill of particulars [1:23:48] that's been issued by some of the witnesses today [1:23:51] would have to be confronted by him directly, [1:23:54] under oath, in a public hearing for America to see. [1:23:57] Of course, any lawyer who's been around [1:24:01] the law school more than 15 minutes [1:24:03] know that there's value to the circumstances [1:24:05] of asking those questions. [1:24:07] But they won't do it. [1:24:09] For six months, the Republican majority [1:24:11] wants to hear hearing after hearing [1:24:13] of what's wrong with Jack Smith, [1:24:16] and the one person they should ask that of directly, [1:24:18] Jack Smith, they won't call before this committee. [1:24:21] What are we waiting for? [1:24:23] If this is worse than Watergate, [1:24:24] as some senators have asserted, [1:24:26] isn't it about time that we get to the primary source? [1:24:30] Jack Smith under oath, [1:24:32] under penalty of criminal perjury or perjury, [1:24:37] if he fails to testify? [1:24:39] I don't get it. [1:24:40] What are they waiting for? [1:24:41] They'd rather have the hearings than have the answers. [1:24:45] And that, to me, doesn't help. [1:24:46] Mr. O'Leary, how many years of service [1:24:49] did you give to the Federal Bureau of Investigation? [1:24:52] Over 20, sir. [1:24:53] Did you retire? [1:24:55] I did, yes, sir. [1:24:58] And you said quite a bit about [1:25:00] what the Federal Bureau of Investigation means [1:25:03] and what they stand for. [1:25:04] One of the things that I noted that you didn't have time [1:25:07] to read into the record I want to make sure is noted, [1:25:10] and that is your statements about Robert Mueller. [1:25:14] What you had to say about him is amazing. [1:25:17] You say, [1:25:19] the example set by Robert Mueller [1:25:21] established a standard of quality [1:25:23] and quiet professionalism, [1:25:25] integrity and disciplined leadership [1:25:27] that permeated every level of the Bureau. [1:25:30] That is high praise. [1:25:31] I feel the same way about him. [1:25:33] I hope I made it clear in my opening statement. [1:25:36] Where are we now? [1:25:37] We're 15 months into this new president, [1:25:39] the 48-month term. [1:25:41] Damage has been done to the Federal Bureau [1:25:43] that you've described as generational damage. [1:25:47] What's the future of the FBI? [1:25:50] What the FBI deserves and needs [1:25:55] is an unbiased leader [1:25:57] somebody with investigative and operational experience [1:26:01] and leadership experience [1:26:04] and a commitment to public service and justice. [1:26:07] Unfortunately, I do not see that in the current director. [1:26:11] He does not have any background or experience [1:26:14] and he lacks the character and the disposition [1:26:18] to carry out the duties that the American people deserve [1:26:21] and the country is less safe under his leadership. [1:26:24] I agree with your conclusion [1:26:25] and a great deal has to be done to [1:26:27] rehabilitate and resurrect this great agent. [1:26:29] Thank you very much. [1:26:30] Senator Kennedy. [1:26:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:26:37] Mr. Chamberlain. [1:26:40] I believe four telephone companies received [1:26:51] these subpoenas for the phone records, [1:26:55] the metadata of 20 members of Congress. [1:26:59] Is that your understanding? [1:27:01] That sounds right to me, yes. [1:27:03] Okay. [1:27:04] I don't have time to talk about all of them. [1:27:07] Let me just pick one. [1:27:08] Verizon. [1:27:09] About 90,000 employees, I think, [1:27:16] $140 billion worth of revenue. [1:27:21] Does Verizon hire dummies to work in its legal department? [1:27:32] I should think not. [1:27:33] They probably got a good reservoir of lawyers to pick from. [1:27:36] Okay. [1:27:39] I suppose you were one of the lawyers at Verizon [1:27:47] and you don't strike me as a dummy. [1:27:52] Well, thank you. [1:27:53] I appreciate that. [1:27:54] And you got a subpoena [1:27:57] from Jack Smith with an NDO, [1:28:04] nondisclosure order, signed by Judge Boasberg. [1:28:11] Do you think a reasonably competent lawyer [1:28:20] at Verizon would know who Jack Smith was? [1:28:25] Yes, I think so. [1:28:28] Do you think a reasonably competent lawyer [1:28:33] at Verizon would know who Judge Boasberg was [1:28:37] or would inquire about him? [1:28:40] Yeah, I think you could pretty quickly Google him. [1:28:42] And if you were concerned that maybe he wasn't actually [1:28:45] a federal district judge, I think it's pretty obvious [1:28:47] that you'd be able to figure out what's going on. [1:28:49] I mean, it was pretty widely known [1:28:52] that President Biden instructed the Attorney General [1:28:58] to sue President Trump and that he hired Jack Smith. [1:29:03] Wasn't it? [1:29:04] Yes, yes. [1:29:05] On the front page of every paper. [1:29:09] If you were an attorney at Verizon [1:29:15] and you got a subpoena like this, [1:29:17] wouldn't you say, maybe I need to check [1:29:23] and see who Mr. Smith is subpoenaing here? [1:29:27] Yeah, and especially once I found out [1:29:30] it was a representative, it would immediately raise [1:29:32] that flag of, like, maybe there's a legal exception here [1:29:35] that doesn't apply in other cases. [1:29:37] Do we know if the employee who received this subpoena [1:29:41] at Verizon even sought a legal explanation [1:29:46] or legal opinion from an attorney at Verizon? [1:29:49] I do not know. [1:29:50] Well, let's just assume for a second [1:29:52] that Verizon, sophisticated company that it is, [1:29:55] is not so incompetent that they wouldn't have had [1:29:59] a lawyer look at this. [1:30:03] Lawyer looks at it and says, huh, Jack Smith. [1:30:07] Lawyer looks at it and says, [1:30:08] NDO signed by Judge Boasberg. [1:30:10] Lawyer looks at the names, [1:30:12] as a reasonably competent lawyer would. [1:30:14] Hmm, they're members of Congress. [1:30:16] If that was you, what would you do? [1:30:19] Well, I'd make a few phone calls. [1:30:22] I'd do legal research to confirm that, you know, [1:30:25] complying with this order was obviously lawful, [1:30:27] and I might, you know, gently try and push back [1:30:30] on the subpoena to try and understand, you know, [1:30:33] what was going on. [1:30:34] In fact, you would probably discover the law, [1:30:37] being the very competent lawyer that you are, [1:30:41] that said no judicial order can bar Verizon [1:30:47] from picking up the phone and calling [1:30:49] the member of Congress, wouldn't you? [1:30:53] That's right. [1:30:54] You would probably find that statute. [1:30:56] Mm-hmm. [1:30:59] And if you did find that statute, [1:31:01] in order to protect Verizon, as you're their lawyer, [1:31:06] wouldn't you have filed a motion to quash? [1:31:08] That's exactly what I'd do, yeah. [1:31:11] But Verizon didn't do any of that, did they? [1:31:13] Apparently not. [1:31:14] They just sucked all this information up [1:31:16] like a Hoover Deluxe. [1:31:18] Yeah. [1:31:20] They didn't even look at that we know of [1:31:24] to see if these were members of Congress. [1:31:28] Yes, that's right. [1:31:29] What kind of liability does Verizon have here? [1:31:36] That's a good question. [1:31:37] I'd need to read the statute more clearly [1:31:39] to see what the actual penalties are, [1:31:42] but my guess is there would be some pretty reasonable [1:31:45] civil penalties for having done so. [1:31:47] What kind of remedies, if any, are there for the fact [1:31:50] that Judge Boasberg said that he had reasonable grounds [1:31:56] to believe that these members of Congress [1:31:59] would destroy evidence, and then he made that conclusion [1:32:02] without holding a hearing? [1:32:03] I think the only remedy to that is political and impeachment. [1:32:06] I don't think there's a unique... [1:32:08] You can't sue Judge Boasberg for damages [1:32:10] for his judicial decision-making, [1:32:12] so the only remedy is political. [1:32:14] Would you consider it to be grossly incompetent [1:32:19] if Judge Boasberg had not even inquired [1:32:23] who these people were [1:32:26] and whether they were members of Congress? [1:32:29] Oh, yes, extremely incompetent. [1:32:32] OK, that's all I've got, Mr. Chairman. [1:32:36] Senator Hirono. [1:32:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:32:43] Well, here we are once again, [1:32:46] once again with a hearing [1:32:50] espousing Republican conspiracy theories [1:32:54] and once again focusing on Jack Smith. [1:32:58] How many times do we Democrats have to say, [1:33:01] why don't we just bring Jack Smith before this committee? [1:33:05] Why do we not put him under oath? [1:33:07] Why don't we just ask him questions? [1:33:10] The witnesses this morning are speculating [1:33:13] as to what Jack Smith knew [1:33:16] or what he told the judge, [1:33:18] speculating about what the judge was told by Jack Smith. [1:33:21] I mean, instead of all these speculations, [1:33:23] why don't we just call Jack Smith? [1:33:28] See, that has never been adequately answered, [1:33:31] in my view. [1:33:32] I think it's time, [1:33:34] rather than continuing to go down this rabbit hole. [1:33:37] And really, you know, [1:33:39] the term milking a dead cow [1:33:41] or beating a dead horse comes to mind, [1:33:43] because this is what this exercise is. [1:33:46] It is milking a dead cow, [1:33:49] which describes, I looked it up, [1:33:51] describes a completely futile, [1:33:53] pointless, or waste of effort [1:33:57] that will yield no results. [1:33:59] It implies trying to extract value information [1:34:03] or result from a source [1:34:06] that is already dead, exhausted, [1:34:09] or incapable of providing [1:34:12] anything further. [1:34:14] So the further providing of information [1:34:16] should come directly from Jack Smith. [1:34:18] So, you know, [1:34:20] I'm going to repeat [1:34:21] what some of my colleagues have said. [1:34:23] There are three things that we can focus on [1:34:25] with the work of this committee, [1:34:27] rather than wasting our time like this. [1:34:29] First is, call Jack Smith. [1:34:33] Second, [1:34:35] he has already offered to testify, [1:34:40] so we're not going to get much resistance from him. [1:34:44] He's already testified before the House, [1:34:47] and he issued some reports, [1:34:50] and we should access, [1:34:53] we should get access to Volume 2 [1:34:55] of Jack Smith's report. [1:34:57] So not only should we call him to testify, [1:34:59] but we should get our hands, [1:35:01] talking about getting information [1:35:02] that would be good for us to have. [1:35:05] Volume 2 of Jack Smith's report. [1:35:10] And then, thirdly, [1:35:12] you know, there's been a focus on Kash Patel. [1:35:16] After he received immunity, [1:35:18] he did testify to the grand jury, [1:35:21] and we've been trying to access that testimony. [1:35:24] And Director Patel has stonewalled [1:35:27] and lied to this committee, [1:35:29] saying that he can't provide that testimony. [1:35:31] Yes, he can. [1:35:33] And once again, [1:35:35] my Republican colleagues don't seem to care [1:35:37] that he lied to this committee. [1:35:41] So we have, as far as I'm concerned, [1:35:43] a refusal to confront the truth. [1:35:46] And I'm really disheartened [1:35:48] by what is happening to an institution [1:35:51] called the FBI, [1:35:52] not to mention the Department of Justice, [1:35:54] but the FBI that had, I would say, [1:35:57] a reputation for doing the work [1:36:00] that protected the American people. [1:36:03] And that is not the case. [1:36:05] What we're seeing are people being fired, [1:36:07] not for lack of competence. [1:36:10] In fact, they were very, very competent. [1:36:13] Not for misconduct, [1:36:15] but because they were [1:36:16] because they happened to question [1:36:18] the leader, Donald Trump. [1:36:21] This continuous effort on the part [1:36:24] of my Republican colleagues [1:36:26] to just bow down to this president [1:36:29] who does not believe [1:36:30] that the rule of law applies to him [1:36:32] is amazing. [1:36:33] And you know what? [1:36:34] The American people are getting it. [1:36:36] And that is why millions, [1:36:38] millions of them, [1:36:41] they, in fact, I think this Saturday, [1:36:44] there's going to be another rally. [1:36:46] Millions of Americans are saying, [1:36:48] hey, Donald Trump, [1:36:49] you are not our king. [1:36:51] You cannot run this country [1:36:52] through executive orders. [1:36:54] You cannot act as though [1:36:56] the rule of law does not apply to him. [1:36:58] And by the way, [1:36:59] no thanks to the Supreme Court. [1:37:01] I think their decision on his immunity [1:37:03] was one of the worst decisions [1:37:05] that this court, [1:37:06] and there are many. [1:37:08] So let me just ask one question [1:37:10] of Mr. O'Leary. [1:37:11] Thank you very much for testifying. [1:37:13] In your experience, [1:37:14] and I know there are some [1:37:15] very fine FBI agents [1:37:17] who either were fired [1:37:19] or left over 1,000, [1:37:23] can you go over again, [1:37:24] you know, [1:37:25] the fact that all of these very, [1:37:27] very experienced people [1:37:28] who were engaged [1:37:29] in white-collar crime investigations, [1:37:32] cyber attacks, et cetera, [1:37:34] their departure, [1:37:35] tell us how their departure [1:37:38] is making our country safer. [1:37:40] Senator, the loss of agents [1:37:44] and analysts and professional staff [1:37:46] across the FBI [1:37:47] is impacting [1:37:48] a vast number [1:37:49] of people's lives. [1:37:50] We have a variety of programs [1:37:52] from white-collar crime, [1:37:53] protecting the integrity [1:37:54] of our financial markets [1:37:56] and public corruption. [1:37:59] Cyber, [1:38:00] the head of the cyber division [1:38:03] was fired, [1:38:04] an exceptional agent [1:38:05] that I served with for years. [1:38:07] The head of the critical incident [1:38:09] response group [1:38:10] who was the acting director [1:38:11] in the beginning [1:38:12] of the Trump administration, [1:38:14] Brian Driscoll, [1:38:15] was fired just this last August [1:38:18] because he refused to fire [1:38:19] one of his employees [1:38:20] without cause [1:38:21] as directed by Kash Patel. [1:38:23] Brian Driscoll demonstrated [1:38:25] the courage and the integrity [1:38:27] that you would expect [1:38:28] from a leader [1:38:29] and he refused to do so. [1:38:30] He in turn was fired himself, [1:38:32] thrown out of the FBI [1:38:34] after years of service. [1:38:36] He's a recipient [1:38:37] of the shield of bravery [1:38:39] and the shield of valor, [1:38:40] the shield of valor [1:38:42] for being on a joint hostage [1:38:44] recovery operation in Syria [1:38:47] with the Special Operations [1:38:48] Task Force [1:38:49] to rescue an American citizen. [1:38:52] These are the kind of individuals [1:38:54] we're losing [1:38:55] and those who are not being fired [1:38:57] Thank you Mr. O'Leary [1:38:58] for standing up for an institution [1:39:00] that deserves our support [1:39:01] and instead we have [1:39:02] a director who parties around, [1:39:04] who flies around in a plane, [1:39:06] who visits his girlfriend. [1:39:08] Give me a break. [1:39:10] Senator Blackburn. [1:39:14] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [1:39:16] Mr. O'Leary, [1:39:17] I want to stay with you [1:39:19] if I may. [1:39:20] Now, [1:39:21] my colleague across the aisle, [1:39:23] seems to have a problem [1:39:25] with Kash Patel [1:39:26] and you made a statement [1:39:27] that you think he's made [1:39:28] our country less safe. [1:39:30] Do you own that statement? [1:39:33] Yes, I do, ma'am. [1:39:34] You do own that statement. [1:39:35] Have you heard of Memphis, Tennessee? [1:39:38] Yes, ma'am. [1:39:39] I've been there many times. [1:39:40] Good. [1:39:41] Are you fully aware [1:39:42] of what the FBI [1:39:44] and the federal government [1:39:45] has accomplished [1:39:46] in Memphis, Tennessee? [1:39:48] I think using FBI agents [1:39:50] as part of a joint task force [1:39:52] to reduce violent crime [1:39:53] is very important [1:39:54] and I'm aware [1:39:55] of their effectiveness there. [1:39:56] Yes, ma'am. [1:39:57] And you're aware [1:39:58] that Director Patel [1:40:00] has been very involved [1:40:02] in planning, organizing, [1:40:05] implementing this. [1:40:07] Is that correct? [1:40:08] I'm not personally aware of that [1:40:09] but if you say so, yes, ma'am. [1:40:10] Well, let me make you aware [1:40:11] of that. [1:40:13] Are you aware [1:40:14] that there have been [1:40:15] over 9,000 arrests [1:40:17] of violent criminals? [1:40:19] If you say so, yes, ma'am. [1:40:21] And would you say [1:40:23] that arresting 9,000 violent criminals [1:40:26] makes the country [1:40:27] more or less safe? [1:40:29] It certainly makes [1:40:30] that jurisdiction, Memphis, [1:40:31] a safer community. [1:40:33] Makes the entire country [1:40:34] more safe. [1:40:35] Would you say [1:40:36] that finding 150 missing children [1:40:40] helps make this country more safe? [1:40:45] Yes, it does [1:40:46] and the FBI has been doing that [1:40:47] for decades, ma'am. [1:40:48] And in Memphis, it's 153. [1:40:51] You can stop being snarky, too. [1:40:53] That would help. [1:40:54] There have also, [1:40:56] we've seen a 43% drop [1:40:58] in overall crime, [1:41:00] 36% drop in murder, [1:41:02] and a 68% drop [1:41:04] in carjackings in Memphis. [1:41:06] Now, I wanted to bring [1:41:07] all of this up [1:41:08] because I think it's important [1:41:10] that we focus on [1:41:12] what we've been able [1:41:13] to accomplish [1:41:15] in the line of public safety [1:41:18] when we appropriately use [1:41:21] resources from the federal government [1:41:23] and when we're able [1:41:24] to do that. [1:41:25] And when we're not having [1:41:26] the DOJ weaponize itself [1:41:29] and go after private citizens [1:41:32] like Susie Wiles [1:41:33] and Kash Patel were [1:41:36] when all of their records [1:41:38] were subpoenaed in 2022 and 23, [1:41:42] when we don't see the FBI [1:41:45] going after 400 different [1:41:47] conservative organizations, [1:41:49] which they did [1:41:51] simply because they didn't like [1:41:53] Donald Trump [1:41:54] and they didn't like a lot of us, [1:41:57] myself included. [1:41:59] But you seem to be fine [1:42:01] with that weaponization. [1:42:03] You seem to think that it is okay. [1:42:06] And, Mr. O'Leary, [1:42:08] I find it unconscionable [1:42:11] that you would sit there [1:42:13] and defend them [1:42:15] going after the records [1:42:18] of private citizens, [1:42:20] of elected officials, [1:42:22] and weaponizing [1:42:23] the Department of Justice. [1:42:26] But that is what they did. [1:42:30] I think it is really unfortunate [1:42:33] that this type weaponization [1:42:35] appears to be what we had come [1:42:37] to expect out of [1:42:39] the Biden administration. [1:42:41] Mr. Chamberlain, [1:42:42] I want to come to you. [1:42:43] Talk for a minute [1:42:44] about that danger [1:42:46] of the expectation [1:42:48] of weaponization, [1:42:50] the effect and the impact. [1:42:52] Mr. O'Leary, [1:42:53] I think it is really unfortunate [1:42:55] that that has [1:42:57] on conservatives [1:42:59] and what Congress needs to do [1:43:01] to make certain [1:43:02] this doesn't happen to anybody, [1:43:04] whether it is a liberal [1:43:06] or a conservative. [1:43:07] It seems that we have a witness [1:43:09] who is fine [1:43:10] with it happening [1:43:11] to conservatives. [1:43:12] But I am sure [1:43:13] he would not be happy [1:43:15] if it happened [1:43:16] to a liberal. [1:43:17] Mr. O' Well, [1:43:18] it is a very big worry [1:43:19] that you are effectively, [1:43:20] you know, [1:43:21] if you do this [1:43:22] for the wrong side, [1:43:23] we are going to send, [1:43:24] you know, [1:43:25] bring federal law enforcement [1:43:26] to bear upon you. [1:43:27] And Mr. O'Leary, [1:43:28] are you okay [1:43:30] with it being weaponized [1:43:31] to go after conservatives? [1:43:32] Does that suit you? [1:43:33] Did you think [1:43:34] that was a justifiable use [1:43:35] of taxpayer money [1:43:36] and time? [1:43:37] Senator? [1:43:38] Senator, [1:43:39] absolutely not. [1:43:40] And let me just tell you, [1:43:41] politics [1:43:42] in the FBI workspace [1:43:43] are absent. [1:43:44] Nobody understands [1:43:45] or knows [1:43:46] or cares [1:43:47] Do you want to own [1:43:48] that statement? [1:43:49] Let me finish, [1:43:50] Senator. [1:43:51] Senator, [1:43:52] if you can. [1:43:53] No, [1:43:54] it is my time. [1:43:55] Ms. Cleveland, [1:43:56] what do you have to say [1:43:58] about that? [1:43:59] That is laughable. [1:44:00] It is laughable. [1:44:01] It is absolutely [1:44:02] laughable [1:44:03] that it has no place [1:44:04] after everything [1:44:05] we saw [1:44:06] with Crossfire Hurricane, [1:44:07] after what we are starting [1:44:08] to see [1:44:09] in the Arctic Frost [1:44:10] from the prohibitive files. [1:44:12] It might be [1:44:13] that you worked [1:44:14] with the very few [1:44:15] who are not political, [1:44:17] but it is [1:44:18] replete [1:44:19] everywhere. [1:44:20] We had Ray Holzler [1:44:22] who wrote [1:44:23] an op-ed, [1:44:24] I believe it was [1:44:25] in the Washington Post, [1:44:26] after he was fired, [1:44:27] complaining about [1:44:28] him being fired [1:44:29] for no reason. [1:44:30] But what do we [1:44:31] now know? [1:44:32] He was the one [1:44:33] who refused [1:44:34] to investigate [1:44:35] the Clinton Foundation [1:44:36] and he is the one [1:44:37] who turned over [1:44:38] to the U.S. attorney [1:44:39] who was actually [1:44:40] doing the investigation, [1:44:41] an abbreviated summary [1:44:44] of what was going on [1:44:45] so that it hid [1:44:46] all of the DOJ [1:44:48] and FBI's protection [1:44:50] and what they were doing [1:44:51] to stop the investigation. [1:44:52] It is a [1:44:53] laughable [1:44:54] to say [1:44:55] that there's [1:44:56] no politicalization [1:44:57] of the FBI [1:44:58] or maybe [1:44:59] there isn't anymore [1:45:00] because they fired [1:45:01] the groups [1:45:02] that were doing it. [1:45:03] Thank you. [1:45:04] Thank you, [1:45:05] Mr. Chairman. [1:45:07] Thank you. [1:45:08] I want to thank [1:45:09] each of the witnesses [1:45:10] for your testimony. [1:45:11] Written questions [1:45:12] can be submitted [1:45:13] for the record [1:45:14] until Tuesday, [1:45:15] March 31st [1:45:16] at 5 p.m. [1:45:17] And I'll ask [1:45:18] the witnesses [1:45:19] to answer [1:45:20] and return [1:45:21] the questions [1:45:22] to the committee [1:45:23] by April 14th [1:45:24] at 7 p.m. [1:45:26] at the following [1:45:27] time. [1:45:28] Thank you.