LIVE: Senate Judiciary hearing examines FBI's 2020 election probe 'Arctic Frost'

[9:02] I hear about a call to order this hearing, Arctic Frost, the modern Watergate. [9:08] 50 years ago, Watergate exposed a simple but profound abuse of power. [9:15] Operatives tied to a sitting president broke into a building to secretly gather information [9:20] from their political opponents by bugging offices and seizing documents. [9:26] And what followed was just as troubling. [9:30] Efforts to use the powers of government to conceal it, [9:34] to pressure investigators, to shut down inquiries, to avoid accountability. [9:42] Even though that operation failed in its ultimate objective, [9:46] the American people did not treat it lightly. [9:50] The consequences were swift and severe. [9:54] The president of the United States resigned in disgrace, facing near certain impeachment. [10:02] And dozens of officials, more than 40 individuals connected to the scheme, [10:06] were indicted or jailed because the attempt itself was the offense. [10:14] In our law, we recognize a simple truth. [10:18] A failed crime is not an insignificant one. [10:23] A man who pulls the trigger and misses is no less guilty than the one who hits his mark. [10:29] The intent is the same, the danger is the same, and the crime is the same. [10:34] And if Watergate taught us anything, it is that even a single abuse of power, [10:39] carried out by a handful of individuals, can shake the foundations of our republic. [10:44] But what we confront today, the Biden administration's Arctic Frost scheme, [10:51] is not a single act. [10:53] It is a modern Watergate, trading a break-in at one office for a digital sweep [11:01] into approximately 100,000 private communications, [11:07] more than a dozen senators, and thousands of individuals' lives. [11:11] But even that comparison falls short. [11:16] It is something far broader, an operation that aligned Democrats across all three branches of government. [11:22] The Biden executive branch, through DOJ and the FBI, [11:27] wielding investigative power against political leaders. [11:29] The Biden executive branch, through DOJ and the FBI, [11:30] wielding investigative power against political leaders. [11:31] Democrat-appointed judges in the judiciary, through warrants, secrecy orders, and deference, [11:39] failing to serve as a meaningful check. [11:42] And members of the legislative branch, who should be the first line of oversight, [11:47] choosing instead to look the other way. [11:50] And just like Watergate, these officials deserve to be investigated, [11:54] tried, impeached, and brought to justice. [11:57] So let's examine how this operation was carried out, step by step. [12:00] In early 2022, senior leadership, [12:04] and the Biden Department of Justice, [12:06] made the decision to open an investigation targeting [12:10] President Trump and his campaign apparatus. [12:15] Attorney General Merrick Garland, [12:17] Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, [12:19] and FBI Director Chris Wray [12:20] all personally approved the opening of the investigation. [12:30] On April 4, 2022, [12:32] they signed a confidential memo with each of their signatures. [12:38] That fact matters, [12:40] because Watergate was carried out in secret [12:43] by operatives [12:44] who were not brazen enough to act [12:47] with formal written authorization [12:49] from the highest levels of the Department of Justice. [12:52] Arctic Frost was fully authorized, formalized, [12:55] and executed through the official powers [12:58] of the United States government, bipartisan Democrats. [13:03] Then, in the fall, came the nearly 200 subpoenas. [13:10] We're talking about information pertaining to hundreds [13:13] of entities and individuals. [13:16] Over 400 Republican-aligned groups and individuals, [13:19] including the most sensitive categories of personal data, [13:23] gathered, retained, and in some accounts, [13:25] shared across offices. [13:28] Watergate was about a handful of files in a single office. [13:33] This reached into tens of thousands [13:35] of private communications, emails, records, [13:38] and personal data, toll records, bank records, donor lists, [13:44] law firm records, and other personal files [13:47] relating to every major conservative [13:50] organization. [13:50] We're subpoenaed. [13:53] Who were the targets of this? [13:55] Donald Trump's campaign, the RNC, [13:58] the Conservative Partnership Institute, Save America PAC, [14:02] America First Policy Institute, and even my pillow, [14:06] because God knows we have a national security threat [14:09] from rogue pillows threatening our country. [14:13] Watergate broke into an office. [14:17] Arctic Frost reached into the private lives [14:20] of thousands of Americans. [14:24] Meanwhile. [14:25] Conservative leaders found themselves equally violated. [14:28] The Biden administration sought the phone records [14:31] of nearly 20% of the Republicans in the Senate, [14:34] including multiple members of the committee, [14:36] including myself. [14:39] Without our knowledge, the FBI took the cell phone data [14:44] of nearly 20% of the Republicans in the Senate, [14:47] including information about with whom we were talking, [14:50] how long we were talking, and from where we were calling. [14:54] Toll records are not trivial. [14:56] They are a map of your life, giving insight [14:59] into your relationships. [15:00] Your movements, your patterns. [15:03] Such invasive subpoenas were granted by Judge Boasberg, [15:07] a Democrat-appointed judge, on the premise [15:11] that any one of us, or to be clear, all of us, [15:14] as duly elected United States senators, [15:18] would destroy evidence, tamper with witnesses, [15:22] or obstruct justice. [15:24] And Judge Boasberg signed those orders [15:28] like he was printing the menu at a Denny's. [15:31] One after the other, facts be damned, every member of the Senate [15:34] is likely to destroy evidence. [15:39] Such invasive subpoenas are an abuse of power. [15:46] Recently, even more troubling facts continue to emerge. [15:50] Biden's Department of Justice subpoenaed the toll records [15:53] of now FBI Director Kash Patel, and now White House Chief [15:57] of Staff Susie Wiles. [15:58] They were not aiming low. [16:00] They were trying to take out everyone on the other side. [16:04] Both were, at the time, private citizens and key members [16:08] of President Trump's 2024 election campaign. [16:12] Now imagine the reverse. [16:12] Imagine for just one moment that President Trump's [16:17] Department of Justice had secretly obtained the phone records [16:20] of Senator Schumer, and Senator Whitehouse, [16:25] and Senator Durbin, Senator Hirono, and Senator Padilla. [16:30] My Democrat colleagues would be losing their minds right now [16:34] in this hearing, if the Trump Department of Justice [16:37] had done that. [16:40] Imagine if a Republican Attorney General, [16:42] a Republican FBI Director, and a Republican-appointed judge [16:45] had all signed off on a covert effort to sweep up [16:48] the communications level. [16:48] That's what we're going to do. [16:49] That's what we're going to do. [16:49] Locations, data, and call history [16:51] of every Democrat-affiliated organization and individual [16:55] in the United States. [16:57] Imagine if a judge, a Republican-appointed judge, [17:00] signed an order that said, Senator Durbin will destroy [17:03] evidence if he is aware of this subpoena, [17:05] because that's what this judge did. [17:09] Would anyone in this hearing room call that routine? [17:13] Would Democrats call that normal law enforcement activity? [17:18] Would the press shrug its shoulders? [17:20] Of course not. [17:22] There would be wall-to-wall coverage. [17:25] There would be cries of authoritarianism. [17:27] There would be emergency hearings, demands [17:30] for resignations, and talk of impeachment [17:32] before the sun went down. [17:36] Instead, my Democrat colleagues can barely [17:38] get their heart rate above 60 beats per minute. [17:44] Arctic frost is the culmination of a gross pattern of abuse [17:50] by Democrats for partisan ends to elect and re-elect [17:56] a Democrat president. [17:59] In 2016, Obama's FBI began spying on the Trump campaign just [18:03] a month before election day. [18:05] In 2020, Biden's FBI met with Senators Johnson and Grassley [18:09] in an effort to throw off their investigation [18:11] into the now infamous Hunter Biden laptop, [18:14] calling the laptop disinformation, [18:16] a claim we now know was false. [18:20] The FBI went to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee [18:23] and lied to him in an effort to change the outcome [18:28] of a presidential election. [18:31] Democrats for years have exhibited the pattern [18:34] of abusing public law enforcement powers for the sake [18:38] of politics. [18:40] A pattern this committee, under the leadership of Chairman Grassley, [18:43] is now working to uncover and expose. [18:47] Because no administration, Republican or Democrat, [18:49] has any business turning the surveillance powers [18:52] of the federal government against its political opposition. [18:57] 50 years ago, this nation was confronted [18:59] with an abuse of power. [19:01] And it responded not with indifference, [19:03] but with accountability. [19:04] I'll tell you one of the big differences [19:06] of Watergate versus Arctic Frost. [19:10] When Richard Nixon and his corrupt attorney, [19:12] General, and his corrupt administration [19:14] abused their law enforcement powers [19:17] to go after their political opponents, [19:19] Republican senators stood up to the president [19:22] of their own party and defended the rule of law. [19:28] Where is even a single Democrat senator [19:32] who has said one word about this abuse of power? [19:36] Is there not one? [19:37] There are 47 Democrats in this body. [19:39] Is there not one who can come forward and say, [19:42] you know what, turning the Department of Justice [19:45] into the oppo research and attack machine, [19:48] of the DNC, is not what the DOJ is supposed to be. [19:54] We were tested then, and there was accountability. [20:02] We are being attested again now. [20:05] The question is really simple. [20:08] Will we uphold the same standard? [20:10] Will we defend the rule of law, or will we abandon it? [20:16] Ranking member, White House. [20:21] Last month, Kash Patel fired roughly a dozen agents [20:29] and analysts from the FBI's CI-12 unit, [20:34] a counterintelligence unit dedicated to protecting, [20:37] Americans from foreign espionage. [20:41] One of the foreign actors that this unit specializes in [20:45] is Iran and its proxies. [20:49] According to CNN, this unit was, and I quote, [20:52] instrumental in tracking potential threats [20:57] after the first Trump administration killed [20:59] a top Iranian official in 2020. [21:03] Just days after Patel fired these agents, [21:07] President Trump started a war in Iran that has already led [21:12] to the deaths of at least 13 American service members. [21:20] If it seems like a bad decision to fire career law enforcement [21:26] professionals who specialize in defending against Iranian [21:31] threats just days before we start a war with Iran, [21:39] that's because it is. [21:41] And it's even worse when you consider why Patel [21:45] fired these agents. [21:48] These agents had been assigned to the FBI, [21:49] and they were assigned to Jack Smith's investigation [21:53] into Donald Trump's illegal hoarding of classified documents [21:59] at Mar-a-Lago. [22:02] Patel claims that as part of that investigation, [22:06] Jack Smith issued grand jury subpoenas for toll records [22:11] for Patel and for Susie Wiles when they were private citizens. [22:18] Patel also insists that the FBI recorded one of Wiles' phone calls, [22:22] which her own attorney has denied. [22:26] If you ask anyone with law enforcement experience [22:29] to react to news that the FBI may have sought these toll [22:33] records, the response is simple. [22:37] Of course they did. [22:39] Virtually every investigation involves subpoenas for [22:43] toll records for any number of reasons. [22:47] Sometimes it's to construct a timeline of events. [22:51] Sometimes it's to rule out wrongdoing. [22:55] Sometimes it's to prepare for the consequences, [22:57] and sometimes it's to set the tone for the next bill. [22:57] You can't go far enough. [22:57] for a witness interview. [23:00] Sometimes it's to help understand [23:03] the scope of a conspiracy. [23:08] In fact, the first Trump DOJ did the same thing [23:14] Republicans have criticized Jack Smith for doing, [23:19] getting the toll records of members of Congress, [23:23] following the DOJ policies then in place, [23:27] and getting nondisclosure orders. [23:31] Here's what Chairman Grassley said at the time. [23:35] Investigation into members of Congress and staff [23:38] are nothing new, and the Justice Department [23:43] has specific procedures for such sensitive investigations. [23:48] Apparently, when the Trump DOJ does it, it's nothing new. [23:54] When Jack Smith does it, it's a modern Watergate. [23:59] With Patel, it's obvious why Jack Smith was looking at him. [24:04] Patel made himself a fact witness [24:07] in that investigation. [24:09] He went on podcasts bragging about how he planned [24:13] to post classified information online [24:17] at Donald Trump's direction and how he'd personally witnessed [24:21] Donald Trump declassify records. [24:26] We have known for years that Smith was looking into [24:31] Patel's role because Smith subpoenaed Patel [24:36] to testify before a grand jury. [24:41] Where is Patel's grand jury testimony? [24:44] Why is that still hidden? [24:48] The same goes for Ms. Wiles. [24:50] Wiles is referenced in the indictment [24:52] against President Trump because Trump showed her classified [24:57] documents when she didn't have a security clearance. [25:02] The same month that indictment came out, [25:06] the PAC Wiles ran received its highest payment [25:10] ever from the Trump campaign. [25:14] That's another thing that any [25:15] investigator worth their salt would take a close look at. [25:19] The same goes for the rest of the subpoenas my colleagues [25:23] on the other side want to talk about today. [25:26] Jack Smith was investigating a massive conspiracy [25:33] by Trump officials and their allies to overturn an election [25:40] and attack the Capitol on January 6th. [25:43] Is anyone surprised that he issued subpoenas [25:47] as part of that investigation? [25:51] And why? [25:53] As Smith told the House Judiciary Committee [25:57] under oath, his investigation, quote, [26:00] involved interviewing and subpoenaing records [26:03] of Republicans because that's who Donald Trump sought [26:08] to prey on to stay in office. [26:13] Somebody geared up the Republican Attorneys General [26:17] Association, or RAGA, to sponsor the rally that turned [26:22] into the riots on January 6th and pay for robocalls, [26:26] urging people to march to the Capitol building [26:30] and fight to protect the integrity of our elections. [26:35] Jeffrey Clark, who worked at DOJ at the time, [26:39] tried to convince the Department of Justice leadership [26:43] to send a letter to try to overturn the election results [26:48] in Georgia. [26:49] President Trump almost made him acting attorney general [26:53] because Clark was willing to help Trump try [26:56] to overturn the election. [26:59] Pretend for a minute that Jack Smith and all the DOJ [27:03] and FBI officials who helped his investigation [27:06] did do something wrong. [27:08] What would real oversight look like? [27:11] Well, first, Republicans would accept Jack Smith's offer [27:15] to testify before this committee under oath instead [27:19] of holding a series of hearings on conspiracy theories [27:24] without anything new to say. [27:26] Why not call him? [27:28] Hear it from the man himself. [27:32] Second, Republicans would let us see Jack Smith's full report [27:36] on his investigations into President Trump. [27:39] We only have volume one, which explains the subpoenas [27:43] he issued in the 2020 election interference investigation. [27:47] We still need volume two on his classified documents crimes [27:53] investigation. [27:55] Democrats on this committee have asked DOJ to give us volume two, [27:59] but Republicans have been silent as President Trump and his MAGA [28:04] DOJ have fought to bury the report. [28:08] Third, Republicans would oblige Kash Patel to tell us what he told [28:14] the grand jury in that classified documents investigation. [28:19] They might also hold Patel accountable for misleading [28:23] this committee in sworn testimony. [28:27] I've asked Patel multiple times under oath to describe his testimony [28:32] to us as Rule 6E plainly allows. [28:38] First, he said he couldn't because it was under seal by the chief judge [28:45] for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. [28:49] Turns out that very chief judge later said that nothing was preventing [28:54] Patel from divulging his testimony to this committee as the rule allows. [29:01] So that testimony was false. [29:04] When Patel came back, he told another lie, this time that he had already [29:09] released the transcript of his testimony. [29:12] Here's the transcript he might have been talking about. [29:17] As you can see from reading it, oh, wait a minute, you can't read it [29:25] because it's almost completely redacted. [29:28] And it's not even from the right hearing. [29:32] This is from the time Patel appeared before the grand jury in the [29:37] Mar-a-Lago classified documents crimes case to assert his Fifth Amendment [29:43] rights because he was afraid of being prosecuted. [29:48] The testimony that he actually ended up giving once his Fifth Amendment [29:55] plea was accepted and he was immunized, we have never seen. [30:01] If this committee is so interested in Jack Smith's investigation, [30:04] it should want to know what Patel had to say in that investigation, [30:09] why he was so afraid to say it, and why he's so afraid to tell us about it now, [30:17] and instead repeatedly lies to this committee. [30:21] I'll close by talking. [30:22] I'll close by talking about what this hearing should be about. [30:25] Those counterintelligence agents Kash Patel fired aren't the only career [30:30] law enforcement officials forced out by this administration. [30:34] Nor are they the only ones purged because they were assigned to [30:38] investigate President Trump's crimes. [30:42] Here's what has happened at the FBI since President Trump took office. [30:46] The FBI has lost at least 300 agents working on national security matters, [30:52] transferred agents out of the Domestic Terrorism Operations [30:55] Section. [30:55] Disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force and instructed Joint Terrorism Task Forces [31:03] to work on immigration cases. [31:08] At DOJ, more than 6,000 employees have left. [31:12] The National Security Division has lost up to one-third of its leadership, [31:17] half the line prosecutors in the counterterrorism section, [31:21] and half the workforce in the counterintelligence section. [31:26] Attorney General Bondi disbanded DOJ's task force. [31:29] Task Force KleptoCapture, Kleptocracy Team, and Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. [31:37] It is the same story throughout the administration where conspiracy theories [31:41] and obsessions with revenge are decimating the career law enforcement [31:48] who protect us against national security threats. [31:52] Major cuts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. [31:57] Laura Loomer forcing out the heads of the NSA, [32:00] the NSA, and U.S. Cyber Command. [32:03] DHS gutting its office to prevent domestic terrorism. [32:08] And putting a 22-year-old with no experience in charge. [32:14] And cutting the workforce of CISA, which protects us from cyber security threats [32:21] from bad actors like Iran. [32:25] Americans are made less safe every time this committee holds a hearing, [32:29] promoting fake outrage about Jack Smith [32:33] and integrating FBI and DOJ professionals. [32:36] Every time MAGA influencers like Laura Loomer convince the President to fire agency heads. [32:43] And every time Kash Patel fires FBI experts because he wants to distract [32:49] from his own incompetence, his wasting of taxpayer dollars to fly around the world [32:54] on a private jet, his partying at the Olympics, [32:59] or his undermining of the FBI's own investigation. [33:03] Instead of keeping the FBI's own investigation, [33:04] or chasing conspiracy theories down rabbit holes, [33:08] that's what we should be focused on. [33:13] Chairman Grassley. [33:14] Yeah, thank you, Senator Cruz, for your strong leadership. [33:18] But more importantly, for the outstanding statement you gave this morning [33:23] that reminds us a lot of history, as well as what's going on right now. [33:29] Today is the second in a series of Arctic Frost hearings that I've authorized as chairman. [33:35] I started my investigation into Arctic Frost, [33:38] in July of 2022, based on credible whistleblower disclosures. [33:44] Senator Johnson has since joined the investigation, [33:47] and I appreciate our joint work. [33:51] Our goal is to publicly release as many records as possible. [33:56] The public has a right to know how the taxpayer dollars have been used [34:00] and who was involved up and down the decision-making chain. [34:05] Today, we're making new records public. [34:08] Some records are dated January 2023, [34:11] before Jack Smith's team secretly sought most member tolling data. [34:17] The records include a wish list created by Smith's team, [34:21] naming 14 members of Congress for whom they wanted to seek tolling data. [34:26] Some of those members are senators on this very committee. [34:30] But the list notes that Smith's team already knew these members had communication, [34:37] so include... [34:38] Text messages for some members with individuals associated with President Trump. [34:45] And Jack Smith was certainly aware of this effort. [34:49] To quote from the emails we're making public today, quote, [34:53] before we tell Maine, meaning Maine justice, [34:57] we're going to fire off subpoenas for so many members' tolls. [35:02] I should make sure that Jack's aware. [35:07] Another record states, [35:09] quote, [35:10] unlikely the many of these members will cooperate with... [35:16] Unlikely many of these members will cooperate with our investigation. [35:23] The same record also says the members, quote, [35:27] likely have a valid speech or debate privilege, [35:31] immunizing them from compelled testimony. [35:35] End of quote. [35:37] I've already publicly released other records showing [35:40] Smith's team was warned that subpoenaing congressional information [35:46] could violate the speech and debate clause. [35:49] I've also publicly released 197 subpoenas seeking sensitive financial information [35:59] from over 400 Republican groups and individuals. [36:04] Some of the information sought included legislative branch communications. [36:10] Even with these constitutional concerns, [36:13] Smith's team secretly sought and obtained member of Congress tolling data. [36:20] And when one phone company pushed back, Smith backed down. [36:26] That calls into question the necessity of obtaining member data. [36:31] Another record calls into question Jack Smith's assertion [36:37] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:39] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:40] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:41] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:42] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:43] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:44] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:46] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:47] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:48] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:49] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:50] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:51] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:52] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:53] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:54] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:55] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:56] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:57] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:58] that the House January 6th committee materialized [36:59] that the House January 6th committee materialized [37:00] that the House January 6th committee materialized [37:01] that the House January 6th committee materialized [37:02] by page, and incorporated into our investigative plan." [37:08] Indeed, the same records that we're making public today says that Smith's team will be [37:17] quote, logging all information contained in the report, end of quote. [37:24] Also the record states Smith's team will quote, leverage, end of quote, the report to quote, [37:33] avoid needless interviews and focus the interviews we perform on underdeveloped topics, end of [37:42] quote. [37:43] Overall, the records create additional questions about Smith's conduct, need for member data, [37:52] and candor to the court. [37:55] End of quote. [37:55] The Democrats have criticized us for not bringing Jack Smith before us at the beginning, and [38:03] you've heard that again today. [38:06] If we followed the Democrats' premature and ill-advised strategy, we wouldn't have had [38:12] a great deal of information we now have that shows Jack Smith misled Congress and the public, [38:20] if not outright lied. [38:23] And lastly, today, we're also making public... [38:26] Well, we are. [38:27] If not outright lying. [38:28] Instead, we're going to make public, and I think that we will. [38:31] However, that's what we're going to be doing. [38:35] Instead of making public, we're going to be telling the world about Tom Hanks and the [38:39] appointment of Dan Icarus to be the President of the United States of America through a [38:51] full-time, official, chief of staff. [38:53] And you need to know a little bit about this, and I'm not going to be too exact with the [39:01] date. [39:02] I'm going to be very Taiwan-ish. [39:03] And you need to know, think twice before doing the combining. [39:04] I'm going to be very Taiwan-ish. [39:06] I'm going to be very Taiwan-ish. [39:07] I've been talking to Mike before. [39:08] 9-11, helping to secure our nation after the worst terrorist attack in American history. [39:16] Mueller was an amazing man. A registered Republican, he was appointed and reappointed [39:22] by not only Republican President George H.W. Bush, but Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, [39:31] and Barack Obama. He holds an historic distinction. He is the only FBI director, [39:38] other than J. Edgar Hoover, who had his tenure at the FBI extended beyond the 10-year limit [39:47] by a vote of 100 to nothing in the United States Senate. He was given approval to serve an [39:55] additional two years under President Obama. I worked with Robert Mueller for many years. [40:03] I remember reaching out to him after 9-11 and the news that the technology available at the FBI was [40:11] so ancient on the day of the attack of 9-11 that you could buy more modern, [40:18] and effective technology at a radio shack. I said to him, I am not an expert in this area in any way [40:25] whatsoever, but I want to help you if I can. I want it to be a bipartisan effort, and we worked [40:32] together for years. I never, ever questioned Bob Mueller's devotion to our nation or his personal [40:40] integrity. How did President Donald Trump respond to news of Robert Mueller's passing? I quote the [40:51] president, good. I'm glad he's here. I'm glad he's here. I'm glad he's here. I'm glad he's here. [40:54] I'm glad he's dead. Let me repeat that. The president said, when notified of Robert Mueller's [41:02] passing, good. I'm glad he's dead. Those reprehensible words should be condemned by [41:11] every member of the committee on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, under Republican [41:17] leadership, this committee has been complicit in the attacks on Robert Mueller, spending years [41:24] spreading debunked conspiracy theories about his investigation into Russia's interference in the [41:30] 2016 election. [41:31] We're here today to attack another special counsel investigation led by another honorable public [41:38] servant. As the title of this hearing makes clear, the majority is wasting this committee's time [41:45] and resources on another baseless, partisan witch hunt. President Trump spent months attempting to [41:54] unlawfully overturn his 2020 presidential election loss. It was known as the big lie. [42:00] We heard it over and over again. It culminated, [42:05] in a deadly attack on the Capitol, which many of us lived through, on January 6th. Then President [42:12] Trump removed hundreds of pages of classified documents from the White House and, as a private [42:18] citizen, held them at his Mar-a-Lago residence, some next to a toilet, refusing for more than a [42:25] year to return these documents. Despite this unprecedented and egregious conduct, my Republican [42:32] colleagues claim the Watergate level scandal is the actual investigation into the president's [42:36] pseudo-crisis. [42:37] What does the American president really see in Trump's brazen transgressions? Not his historically [42:45] dangerous actions. It would have been a dereliction of duty for any prosecutor investigating the [42:50] effort to overturn the 2020 election not to subpoena organizations like Turning Point USA, an [42:58] organization that helped plan the so-called Stop the Steal rally that led to the January 6th deadly [43:04] attack on the United States Capitol. [43:06] Speaker John Kerry and Petra Beeler, the Senhor auditioned, a meeting on January 4th, 2020, to stand in front of the White House. [43:06] Speaker John Kerry and Peel, a former Republican, and a former Republican, both at the Capitol, and from the White House. [43:07] Speaker John Kerry and Peel, a former Republican, and a former Republican, both at the Capitol. [43:08] Speaker John Kerry and Peel, a former Republican, and a former Republican, both at the Capitol. [43:08] Patel, who was a material witness in the classified documents case, Patel even infamously claimed [43:15] to be the sole witness of President Trump's supposed blanket declassification of classified [43:21] documents. [43:23] Now, if my Republican colleagues were serious about this issue, they would have called Special [43:29] Counsel Jack Smith to testify under oath before this committee. [43:35] The Democrats on this committee notified the chairman in October of last year, six [43:41] months ago, that Smith was not only available to testify, he would do so under oath and [43:47] answer the questions raised in this hearing. [43:50] What has happened in the last six months? [43:52] No action by the Republican leadership of this committee to bring the sole major witness [43:59] of this event before the committee under oath to ask specific questions. [44:04] Why? [44:05] Why is this committee afraid to bring Jack Smith? [44:07] Why is this committee afraid to bring Jack Smith before and under oath? [44:09] For six months, they have avoided it. [44:11] You want to know why? [44:12] They can continue the sham hearings over issues that don't exist. [44:18] The majority has also refused to support committee Democrats' request to release volume two [44:23] of Special Counsel Smith's report, which Senator Whitehouse noted. [44:28] Let me draw attention to the issues the committee should be addressing instead of this farce [44:33] today. [44:34] Over the past year, President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, and Director of the FBI, and [44:38] Attorney General Patel have systematically dismantled the Federal Bureau of Investigation, [44:43] the premier law enforcement agency in the United States, if not the world. [44:48] These purges are making every American less safe. [44:51] Most recently, Patel reportedly fired at least six agents and several other FBI personnel [44:58] who'd been assigned to work related to President Trump's mishandling of classified documents. [45:05] These terminations were seemingly to save face with President Trump in response to the [45:09] negative press Director Patel received for his embarrassing appearance chugging beer [45:17] at the Olympic Games. [45:20] Several of the fired agents were reportedly part of a global counterintelligence squad, [45:25] which Senator Whitehouse has referred to particularly appropriately at a time we are at war with [45:30] Iran. [45:31] In other words, Director Patel's political retribution has weakened the FBI's ability [45:36] to counter Iranian threats at the exact time that not only America, but the entire world [45:40] is at war. [45:41] In other words, Director Patel's political retribution has weakened the FBI's ability [45:42] to counter Iranian threats at the exact time that not only America, but certainly the men [45:43] and women in uniform, needed them to keep themselves safe. [45:48] Watergate is the story of a president who engaged in a vast illegal conspiracy to remain [45:52] in power and use his control of the levers of government to obstruct investigations into [45:58] his own misconduct. [46:00] Back then, the Senate stood up for the Constitution and the rule of law, exposing Nixon's corruption [46:06] by investigating the serious allegations against him. [46:10] Today, today, Senate Republicans waffle between him and Trump. [46:12] They waffle between indifference to outright celebration of President Trump's brazen misconduct, [46:18] despite the real dangers it poses. [46:21] We cannot continue on this course. [46:24] The American people face real challenges from citizens being summarily executed for exercising [46:30] their First Amendment rights, and to the skyrocketing price of the cost of living under this administration. [46:37] This hearing will not help a single person other than Donald Trump, and the Republican [46:42] majority should do the same. [46:43] A senator from Texas should know a dead horse when he sees one. [46:50] This hearing is an attempt to throttle a dead horse to a gallop. [46:54] There aren't enough giddy-ups in the world to accomplish that goal. [46:58] I yield. [47:02] Mr. Chairman, I don't quite know how to do this, but I would like to ask that this [47:13] transcript be made an exhibit in this proceeding. [47:17] It's 22 pages. [47:18] It's a series of examination of the witness, in which only these words are public. [47:25] So upon the advice of counsel, I'll be invoking my Fifth Amendment privilege. [47:29] The whole rest of it is redacted. [47:32] I assume that it can go in as an exhibit with the image of all the redactions, and if that's [47:40] the case, I'd like to ask that it be made an exhibit in this proceeding. [47:44] Without objection, it will be admitted. [47:46] Also, on behalf of Chairman Grassley and Senator Johnson, I would like to ask that this be [47:49] made an exhibit in this proceeding. [47:50] I assume that it can go in as an exhibit with the image of all the redactions, and if that's [47:51] the case, I'd like to ask that this be made an exhibit in this proceeding. [47:52] I assume that it can go in as an exhibit with the image of all the redactions, and if that's [47:53] the case, I'd like to ask that this be made an exhibit in this proceeding. [47:54] Also, on behalf of Chairman Grassley and Senator Johnson, Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee [47:55] on Investigations, I enter into the record 30 newly uncovered and significant investigatory [47:58] documents regarding Arctic Frost that shed light on the decision-making of the Biden [48:04] Department of Justice. [48:05] This includes 197 subpoenas targeting over 400 Republican individuals and entities that [48:11] former special counsel Jack Smith and his team issued as a part of the indiscriminate [48:16] election case against President Trump. [48:17] This is not routine. [48:19] This is not routine. [48:20] This is not routine. [48:21] This is not routine materials. [48:22] These are internal investigative records that shed light on how and why the Biden Department [48:27] of Justice authorized and carried out this operation. [48:30] They detail the scope of the subpoenas issued, the categories of the 400 individuals and [48:35] organizations targeted, and the decision-making process inside the department at the highest [48:40] levels. [48:41] In short, they allow us to see clearly and for the first time how this investigation [48:46] was conducted from the inside. [48:49] This new information would not have been known. [48:51] These are the leaders that have been involved on this investigation. [48:53] This is the first time they will be supported at the Supreme Court. [48:57] This is the first time we will see a cover-up. [48:58] This is also a case in progress. [48:59] This is the first time they will see a cover-up for congressional oversight. [49:00] I will now introduce the witnesses at this hearing. [49:01] The first witness is Mr. Will Chamberlin who currently serves as Senior Counsel at the [49:02] Article III Project. [49:03] Mr. Chamberlin graduated from University of the Pacific in 2010 with a B.A. in Economics. [49:07] He received his J.D. Magna Cum Laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2015. [49:13] After graduating Georgetown, he joined Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan in Los Angeles [49:18] as an associate where he practiced Complex Commercial Litigation. [49:21] Mr. Chamberlin, who is currently serving as the Chief Executive Officer of the Washington [49:22] Mr. Chamberlain later worked as an attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, focusing on class action litigation. [49:30] In 2019, he revived Human Events, the nation's oldest conservative magazine, where he served as publisher and editor-in-chief. [49:38] Mr. Chamberlain is also vice president of external affairs at the Edmund Burke Foundation, which organizes national conservatism conferences around the world. [49:47] Christopher O'Leary, retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a member of the Senior Executive Service in September 2023, [49:55] after two decades of leading counterterrorism investigation and operations. [49:59] Mr. O'Leary's last assignment was serving as the U.S. government's director of hostage recovery, [50:04] where he led an interagency task force dedicated to the mission of safely bringing home Americans taken hostage by terrorist organizations. [50:12] Mr. O'Leary is also a former United States Marine Corps gunnery sergeant and Iraq War combat veteran. Thank you for that, sir. [50:21] Mr. O'Leary holds a bachelor's degree in Middle Eastern studies from Rutgers University. [50:26] A master's degree from Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, and a master's degree in government and national security from Harvard University. [50:34] Our third witness is Margo Cleveland, an attorney, legal analyst, an investigative journalist, and former academic. [50:42] After graduating from the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize, the law school's highest honor, [50:48] Ms. Cleveland served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. [50:55] Ms. Cleveland is a former full-time lawyer. [50:57] Ms. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member at the University of Notre Dame, [51:00] where in 1998 she received the Frank O'Malley Undergraduate Teaching Award, the highest award for undergraduate faculty members. [51:07] Ms. Cleveland currently serves as the Federalist's senior legal correspondent, [51:12] where she helped lead the Federalist's reporting on the Russia collusion hoax, [51:16] which won the Dow Grand Prize for investigative journalism in 2025. [51:21] Ms. Cleveland is also counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, where she practices constitutional law, [51:27] co-authored several Supreme Court amicus briefs, and a petition for certiorari. [51:32] And Mr. Chamberlain, we'll start with you. You're recognized. [51:37] Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. [51:40] Thank you for the opportunity. [51:41] And actually, hold on a second. [51:44] Before we do that, I need to ask each of you to stand and raise your right hand. [51:52] Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give before this subcommittee is the truth, [51:56] the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? [52:01] All of you have answered. [52:02] Affirmatively, please be seated. [52:03] And now, Mr. Chamberlain, you're recognized. [52:06] Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. [52:10] Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. [52:12] On February 26, 2025, Reuters broke a remarkable story. [52:16] They reported first that in 2022 and 2023, Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department subpoenaed [52:22] toll records of calls from Kash Patel and Suzy Wiles as part of the now infamous Arctic Frost investigation. [52:27] Both were private citizens at this time, and the surveillance continued while Wiles was co-managing President Trump's [52:33] election campaign. [52:34] This was troubling, but sadly, it wasn't shocking. [52:36] This committee has been investigating Smith's abuse of his subpoena power against a slew of Republican senators [52:40] alongside Judge James Boasberg's unlawful nondisclosure orders that hid the existence of those subpoenas from those senators. [52:47] But Reuters, if anything, buried the lead. [52:49] The article also revealed that in 2023, the Biden FBI had surreptitiously recorded a phone call between Suzy Wiles and her attorney. [52:57] This was a remarkable breach of attorney-client privilege. [53:00] The Reuters article, relying on two FBI sources, claimed that, [53:03] "...Wiles's attorney had been aware of the surveillance on the phone call, which, if it were true, would have been a shocking ethical breach by Wiles's lawyer. [53:10] The following day, however, Wiles's lawyer denied having ever consented to any such recording, stating correctly that, [53:17] quote, if he ever pulled a stunt like that, he wouldn't and shouldn't have a license to practice law, end quote. [53:23] His denial is, in my view, credible. [53:25] What lawyer in their right mind would secretly consent to law enforcement recording a privileged phone call with their client? [53:32] But the lawyer's denial raises more questions than it answers. [53:35] Why, then, did two FBI sources tell Reuters that the lawyer had consented? [53:39] Were the sources lying, or were they relying on false records created by FBI agents working with Smith? [53:44] It wouldn't be the first time FBI personnel have falsified records in their pursuit of President Trump. [53:49] Remember that Kevin Kline Smith, a former FBI lawyer, pled guilty to intentionally falsifying information to obtain a FISA warrant in the Russiagate investigation. [53:58] The scandal isn't merely that this phone call was recorded. [54:01] It's also about how the records of the recording were hidden. [54:04] The FBI's primary digital case manager, [54:06] the FBI's primary digital case manager, [54:06] is called Sentinel. [54:07] Within it, investigators can apply a special designation to a file called prohibited access. [54:12] Files coded this way become completely invisible in standard Sentinel searches. [54:17] If an agent runs a keyword search that should hit these documents, [54:20] the system returns a false negative. [54:21] It reports no responsive documents, even though they exist. [54:24] While this prohibited access designation might make theoretical sense for files dealing with the most sensitive classified matters, [54:31] it clearly does not make sense that records of Susie Wiles' phone call being surveilled would qualify. [54:36] The agents who marked this record as prohibited would have known that. [54:39] If Wiles' lawyer had been aware of the recording, it would have constituted consensual monitoring. [54:43] Monitoring such a call would likely require DOJ approval, but it could be lawful. [54:47] But if Wiles' lawyer did not consent to the recording, [54:50] we are likely looking at an illegal wiretap of a phone call between a presidential campaign manager and her own lawyer, [54:57] one where the agent or agents who conducted the wiretap lied about Wiles' lawyer's lack of consent and then coded it as a prohibited file, [55:05] in the hopes that no one would ever find out about it. [55:08] This would be a more brazen FBI intervention into domestic politics than anything during the Russiagate investigation, [55:13] which is certainly saying something. [55:15] We often hear liberal law professors complain about the Trump administration undermining the DOJ and FBI's independence. [55:22] Sophisticated listeners should immediately translate [55:25] independent as unaccountable. [55:28] Illegal wiretaps and inappropriate prohibited file classifications are the fruits of an independent FBI that acted with impunity [55:35] because it was not subject to the law. [55:36] They are subject to the democratic accountability that our Constitution demands. [55:39] The President is tasked with the responsibility to take care that our laws be faithfully executed, [55:44] not to submit to the FBI and DOJ, transforming themselves into an unaccountable fourth branch of government. [55:49] And this body can help by providing essential oversight and scrutiny. [55:52] I welcome any questions. [55:53] Thank you. Mr. O'Leary, you're recognized. [55:56] Chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, [56:02] thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. [56:05] In his farewell address to the nation, President George Washington warned [56:09] that the health and survival of our republic required leaders who exercise virtue and resist the pull of partisan division. [56:17] It is in that spirit that I offer my testimony today. [56:21] I come before you not as an advocate for any political party or position, [56:25] but as a nonpartisan former special agent of the FBI where I served for over two decades. [56:33] My intent is to provide the committee with a clear, experience-based understanding of how the FBI operates. [56:41] Its investigative standards, [56:43] its constitutional culture, [56:45] and the professional norms that guide its work. [56:48] The men and women of the FBI have long stood as a quiet bastion between order and chaos, [56:53] guided not by politics or public acclaim, [56:56] but by an enduring commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. [57:01] Their character is forged in an environment where integrity is not aspirational. [57:05] It is required. [57:07] Every day, often without recognition, [57:09] they make decisions that demand moral clarity, [57:13] professional restraint, [57:15] and personal courage. [57:16] These are not abstract virtues within the FBI. [57:20] They are lived expectations, [57:22] reinforced through training, [57:24] supervision, [57:26] and deeply rooted in institutional culture. [57:28] The FBI's investigative process is grounded in predication, [57:33] facts, [57:35] intelligence, [57:36] and evidence, [57:37] not ideology or affiliation. [57:39] Agents are trained to clearly articulate and document the factual basis for opening and continuing investigations. [57:49] And those decisions are subject to multiple layers of supervision, [57:51] and legal review. [57:54] Equally important is the internal culture of the FBI. [57:57] The bureau I served had no tolerance for political ideology or personal bias influencing investigative work. [58:04] This was not simply a matter of formal policy. [58:08] It was an expectation reinforced through leadership, [58:11] peer accountability, [58:12] and institutional norms. [58:14] The credibility of the FBI, both in court and in the eyes of the public, [58:18] depends on that neutrality. [58:20] And FBI professionals, [58:21] understand that their work must withstand scrutiny, [58:25] not only in the moment, [58:27] but years later. [58:28] Allegation that the FBI has engaged in broad, coordinated conspiracies [58:34] to investigate individuals based on political affiliation [58:37] or ideology [58:39] are inconsistent with my experience [58:41] and unsupported by evidence or reason. [58:44] Yet the absence of credibility to these claims has not deterred Director Kash Patel [58:50] from pursuing what can only be understood [58:52] as a campaign of retribution against his own personnel. [58:56] When agents and analysts are removed not for misconduct, [58:59] but for their lawful participation in duly authorized investigations, [59:05] the conclusion that such actions are politically driven is self-evident. [59:10] This form of retaliation against the dedicated professionals of the FBI [59:15] has eroded trust in leadership, [59:17] damaged morale, [59:20] introduced uncertainty across the workforce, [59:23] and disrupted the continuity of ongoing operations. [59:27] Equally concerning are the national security implications, [59:32] with the loss and marginalization of experienced personnel [59:36] and diminished institutional knowledge [59:38] drastically impacting the FBI's ability to effectively confront threats [59:43] from terrorism, espionage, and cyber adversaries. [59:47] Left unchecked, Director Kash Patel's actions risk [59:51] inflicting generational harm [59:53] on an institution central to the safety and security of the nation. [59:58] In closing, I would emphasize that the strength of the FBI [1:00:03] and our broader system of justice [1:00:05] depends on its independence from political influence. [1:00:09] It's a principle that those who serve within the Bureau [1:00:12] understand as fundamental to their duty. [1:00:14] Being an FBI agent is neither a job nor a profession, [1:00:19] but rather a vocation. [1:00:21] Service to the nation is not a slogan within the FBI. [1:00:25] It's a calling, [1:00:27] a steadfast commitment to the cause of freedom, [1:00:30] democracy, and justice. [1:00:33] This ethos is rooted in a tradition of excellence [1:00:36] that spans generations. [1:00:38] The legacy of the G-man is not merely a cultural artifact, [1:00:42] but a standard, [1:00:43] one that reflects professionalism, discipline, [1:00:46] and an unyielding pursuit of truth. [1:00:48] Each new generation of G-men and women [1:00:51] inherit not only the responsibilities of the role, [1:00:54] but the weight of that legacy, [1:00:56] and the obligation to uphold it. [1:00:58] Day after day, the men and women of the FBI [1:01:01] answer the call and choose duty over comfort, [1:01:04] principle over expedience, [1:01:06] and service over self. [1:01:08] Their work is often unseen, [1:01:10] and their successes unheralded. [1:01:12] But the nation is safer because of their steadfast commitment, [1:01:16] their adherence to the rule of law, [1:01:18] and their fidelity to the ideals that define the FBI. [1:01:22] Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. [1:01:25] I look forward to answering your questions. [1:01:27] Thank you. [1:01:30] Ms. Cleveland, you're recognized. [1:01:31] Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse, [1:01:38] and members of the subcommittee, [1:01:40] thank you for the opportunity to testify [1:01:42] concerning the grave constitutional violations [1:01:45] inflicted as part of Arctic Frost. [1:01:48] After the 2020 election, [1:01:50] an anti-Trump FBI agent named Tim Teibold [1:01:54] attempted to use the Justice Department [1:01:56] to destroy the president. [1:01:58] Teibold's efforts led to the launch of Arctic Frost. [1:02:03] Soon after, Merrick Garland tapped Jack Smith, [1:02:07] a hyper-aggressive prosecutor [1:02:09] known to overstretch the meaning and intent of the law [1:02:13] to serve as special counsel. [1:02:15] Smith proved himself true to form, [1:02:18] indicting Trump for allegedly violating a statute [1:02:21] enacted in the aftermath of Enron [1:02:24] based in part on a theory of criminal liability [1:02:27] the Supreme Court would later hold invalid. [1:02:30] The Supreme Court would later also halt [1:02:33] Smith's efforts to prosecute Trump [1:02:35] for actions that fell within the president's official duties. [1:02:39] Beyond being a partisan in his own right, [1:02:42] Smith stacked his team with partisan Democrats, [1:02:46] such as J.P. Cooney and Ray Holser. [1:02:50] Cooney and Holser served as Smith's top deputies, [1:02:54] and in them we see the clear double standard [1:02:57] and political bias that permeated the DOJ and FBI. [1:03:02] Before joining Smith's team, [1:03:04] Cooney crafted an outrageous sentencing memorandum [1:03:07] that sought to send Trump advisor Roger Stone [1:03:10] to prison for seven to nine years. [1:03:13] Cooney's sentencing recommendations were so unhinged [1:03:17] that the then Attorney General William Barr intervened. [1:03:21] Cooney responded by spreading unfounded rumors [1:03:24] that Barr and the acting Attorney General, [1:03:27] excuse me, the acting U.S. Attorney, [1:03:29] were being improperly political, [1:03:31] with media leaks furthering that narrative. [1:03:34] Eventually leading to an Inspector General investigation. [1:03:38] The IG cleared the Trump administration, [1:03:42] but chastised Cooney. [1:03:44] Holser, for his part, [1:03:46] demonstrated his partisan proclivities [1:03:50] when he headed up the public integrity section [1:03:53] and refused the FBI's request to open an investigation [1:03:57] into the Clinton Foundation. [1:03:59] But Holser's partisan protection racket went further [1:04:04] when he withheld a six-page timeline [1:04:07] of the Clinton Foundation investigation [1:04:09] from the then U.S. Attorney operating out of Little Rocket. [1:04:13] Instead, he provided an abbreviated two-page summary [1:04:18] that omitted all references to interference [1:04:21] from the DOJ and the FBI leadership. [1:04:24] In contrast, when the target was Trump, [1:04:27] Holser, along with Cooney, [1:04:29] drafted a memorandum to justify subpoenaing [1:04:32] the toll records of about a dozen members of Congress. [1:04:35] Notwithstanding internal email discussions [1:04:38] acknowledging a clear speech or debate clause problem. [1:04:42] They then hid the details of those subpoenas [1:04:45] using the prohibited access functionality of Sentinel, [1:04:49] which ghosted the FBI records. [1:04:52] As this committee well knows, [1:04:54] because many of you were victims, [1:04:56] Smith approved the subpoenas [1:04:58] and obtained the toll records [1:05:00] of Senators Blackburn, Graham, Hagerty, [1:05:03] Hollery, Loomis, Johnson, [1:05:05] Kennedy, Scott, Sullivan, and Toberville. [1:05:09] Only Senator Cruz escaped the invasion into his privacy [1:05:13] and the violation of the speech or debate clause [1:05:16] because his cell phone provider questioned the subpoena. [1:05:20] From this subcommittee's January 7th hearing, [1:05:23] you also know that Smith's team [1:05:25] sought a non-disclosure order [1:05:27] from Chief Judge James Boesberg, [1:05:29] apparently without informing him [1:05:31] that the targets were members of Congress. [1:05:34] I say apparently because [1:05:36] Senator Cruz's request for the non-disclosure application [1:05:39] to be unsealed has been ignored. [1:05:42] Yet again, we see the double standard [1:05:44] and the weaponization. [1:05:46] Judge Boesberg has still failed [1:05:49] to order Smith and his prosecutors [1:05:51] to show cause for why they should not be held in contempt [1:05:55] for concealing the members of Congress [1:05:57] were the ones who were being targeted. [1:06:01] This fact should not be ignored [1:06:03] if you are to believe Smith [1:06:05] and the Administrative Office of the Court's testimony [1:06:08] that Judge Boesberg did not know [1:06:10] that your identities were involved. [1:06:14] It makes absolutely no sense [1:06:16] that Boesberg would not enter a show cause order [1:06:19] to hold Smith accountable for violating your rights, [1:06:23] given Judge Boesberg's nearly year-long crusade [1:06:27] to hold a member of the Trump administration in contempt. [1:06:32] We now know that Smith violated the speech or debate clause. [1:06:35] Rubber-stamped by Judge Boesberg. [1:06:38] He went further and he subpoenaed the toll records [1:06:41] of Kevin McCarthy, former Speaker, [1:06:44] and Chairman Jim Jordan, [1:06:46] again under cover of a non-disclosure order. [1:06:49] Add to that the hundreds more [1:06:52] served on individual Republicans, [1:06:54] including Trump's attorneys, [1:06:56] Republican organizations [1:06:58] such as Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, [1:07:01] and they didn't seek merely toll records [1:07:04] but also bank records, [1:07:06] which revealed the donor base. [1:07:09] The breadth of these constitutional intrusions [1:07:12] is unprecedented. [1:07:14] But to recap, Smith unconstitutionally [1:07:18] was appointed special counsel [1:07:20] in violation of the appointments clause. [1:07:22] The subpoenas of the toll records [1:07:24] violated the speech or debate clause. [1:07:26] The vast and unjustified subpoenas to Republicans [1:07:31] and the organizations that were connected to them [1:07:34] violated the First Amendment associational rights. [1:07:37] The targeting of Trump's attorneys [1:07:39] implicates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. [1:07:42] And using prohibited access to bury records [1:07:46] is a huge due process violation [1:07:48] that raises potential violations of Brady. [1:07:52] Smith and his team must be held accountable. [1:07:55] Thank you. [1:07:56] Thank you. [1:08:01] Let's start with the foundation. [1:08:03] Ms. Cleveland, Jack Smith issued nearly 200 subpoenas. [1:08:07] Is that correct? [1:08:08] Yes. [1:08:11] Those subpoenas targeted over 400 Republican individuals [1:08:14] and organizations, correct? [1:08:15] Correct. [1:08:16] Many of whom had no connection [1:08:19] to those who entered the Capitol on January 6th, correct? [1:08:22] Absolutely. [1:08:24] And in fact, some of those organizations [1:08:26] didn't even exist on January 6th. [1:08:28] Is that correct? [1:08:29] It is. [1:08:30] So we're not talking about a narrow investigation. [1:08:33] We're talking about a sweeping operation [1:08:36] targeting virtually the entirety of the other side [1:08:39] of the Capitol. [1:08:40] So you're saying that's not politically? [1:08:42] It was a phishing expedition. [1:08:44] So let's turn to the Constitution. [1:08:46] Subpoenaing the toll records of members of Congress, [1:08:48] does that raise serious constitutional concerns? [1:08:50] Absolutely. [1:08:51] And in fact, we have the PIN [1:08:54] who notified the special counsel's office [1:08:56] of those concerns. [1:08:58] And Jack Smith had apparently said [1:09:01] that he was going to consult with the solicitor general, [1:09:08] according to the release of the information [1:09:10] from Senator Grassley this morning. [1:09:11] Yet when he was deposed by the House [1:09:15] and was specifically asked if he spoke [1:09:17] with the solicitor general, he said, [1:09:20] on this discreet issue, no. [1:09:22] Among other issues, it raises significant issues [1:09:27] with the speech and debate clause, correct? [1:09:29] Absolutely. [1:09:30] So much so that as you noted, [1:09:32] when Jack Smith subpoenaed AT&T to get my toll records, [1:09:37] AT&T refused to comply with the subpoena [1:09:40] because they concluded that it violated [1:09:42] the speech and debate clause. [1:09:43] Is that correct? [1:09:44] Absolutely correct. [1:09:45] And they backed down. [1:09:46] Jack Smith did not try to enforce that subpoena, did he? [1:09:50] He did not. [1:09:51] He did not go to court and litigate the matter, did he? [1:09:53] He did not. [1:09:54] Does that suggest, as it does to me, [1:09:56] that he knew damn well what he was doing was illegal [1:09:59] and would not be upheld in court? [1:10:01] It does suggest that. [1:10:02] When the federal government subpoenas donor lists, [1:10:07] internal communications, organization records, [1:10:10] does that implicate the First Amendment [1:10:14] and also Freedom Association in particular? [1:10:16] It does, and the Supreme Court made that clear [1:10:19] in the NAACP case. [1:10:21] Mr. Chamberlain, aside from the legal violations, [1:10:25] what specific crimes, if any, were actually uncovered [1:10:31] as a result of the Arctic Frost investigation? [1:10:33] I'm not aware of any crimes that were uncovered. [1:10:38] Would the senators, donors, organizations, [1:10:40] and individuals who were surveilled and subpoenaed [1:10:43] have ever learned about the Arctic Frost investigation [1:10:46] had Trump not won in 2024? [1:10:48] Probably not. [1:10:50] Mainly because of these nondisclosure orders, [1:10:53] but also, I mean, the fact that a lot of these records [1:10:56] were now just learning about them because they were [1:10:58] in these prohibited access files only available [1:11:00] to their FBI director. [1:11:01] So if the FBI director was a Democrat, [1:11:03] there's no reason to think we'd know about them. [1:11:06] How would you compare the scope of the violations [1:11:10] in Arctic Frost to Watergate? [1:11:12] I think, if anything, it might even be greater. [1:11:15] I mean, the scope of this in terms of the sheer number [1:11:18] of people and organizations affected, [1:11:20] and as I discussed, I mean, this brazen violation [1:11:23] of attorney-client privilege, wiretapping, [1:11:25] a phone call between Susie Wiles and her lawyer, [1:11:28] these are egregious offenses. [1:11:30] And, you know, if Watergate was just about a single break-in, [1:11:33] I mean, this is effectively, you know, compound that by 200. [1:11:36] All right, Mr. O'Leary, I appreciate your service. [1:11:40] One of the things you testified is you said, [1:11:42] quote, the effectiveness and legitimacy of the FBI [1:11:45] depend on its independence from political influence. [1:11:47] I very much agree with that, and I will say, [1:11:50] as an alumnus of the Department of Defense, [1:11:51] as an alumnus of the Department of Justice, [1:11:53] I am deeply saddened and, frankly, I'm angry [1:11:56] that under President Biden, the Department of Justice [1:12:00] and the FBI were weaponized and its integrity [1:12:04] badly, badly compromised. [1:12:06] You are right. [1:12:07] That's how the FBI is supposed to behave, [1:12:09] and that's how the Department of Justice is supposed to behave. [1:12:11] So Jack Smith was not investigating a crime [1:12:15] based on evidence. [1:12:17] He issued subpoenas to get the toll records [1:12:21] of the following senators. [1:12:24] Willie, seated to my right, Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham, [1:12:30] John Kennedy, seated to my right, Marsha Blackburn, [1:12:34] Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, Bill Hagerty, Dan Sullivan, [1:12:41] Tommy Tuberville, Cynthia Lummis, and myself. [1:12:45] That's over 20% of the Republicans in the United States Senate. [1:12:51] Mr. O'Leary, is it consistent with the obligations [1:12:53] of the Department of Justice and the FBI [1:12:55] to issue subpoenas with no factual basis and no legal basis? [1:13:03] Senator, it is not, and in my experience, [1:13:06] FBI agents would never approach a matter [1:13:09] without the proper justification and articulable facts [1:13:12] to open their investigation. [1:13:14] Okay, good. [1:13:15] So you said they would never do that. [1:13:17] Judge Boasberg signed an order, [1:13:19] I'm holding the order right here, [1:13:22] in which he concludes, and I'm going to read, [1:13:24] the court finds reasonable grounds to believe [1:13:27] that such disclosure, in other words, [1:13:29] notifying the senators on that list, [1:13:31] will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, [1:13:37] intimidation of potential witnesses, [1:13:39] and serious jeopardy to the investigation. [1:13:41] Are you aware of any factual basis whatsoever [1:13:45] that a dozen senators will destroy evidence? [1:13:49] I am not, but I will tell you that [1:13:53] non-disclosure orders are a routine part of investigations. [1:13:57] Based on facts. [1:13:58] Give me any hypothetical fact. [1:14:01] By the way, do you know any facts that I will destroy evidence? [1:14:03] Let's take it me personally. [1:14:05] I cannot, you know... [1:14:07] Because Jack Smith went into court and said, [1:14:10] I will destroy evidence if I know about the subpoena. [1:14:14] And this clown signed the order one after the other after the other. [1:14:19] Are you aware of any basis? [1:14:20] Look, I'm a member of the bar. [1:14:22] I take my obligations seriously. [1:14:24] The FBI signed off on that. [1:14:27] Mike Lee concluded he would destroy evidence. [1:14:30] John Kennedy, well, Louisiana, maybe. [1:14:32] I will say, I'll give a special dispensation [1:14:35] for the great state of Louisiana. [1:14:38] But there is no basis. [1:14:40] By the way, is it consistent with DOJ's obligation [1:14:42] to also ask a judge to violate the law [1:14:47] and not inform the judge of it? [1:14:50] No, it would not be. [1:14:51] Well, 2 U.S.C. section 6628 [1:14:54] explicitly bars non-disclosure orders [1:14:57] applying to the Senate. [1:15:00] And yet, in the lawless Department of Justice, [1:15:02] I assume they didn't tell Judge Boasberg, [1:15:05] hey, we're asking you to violate the law. [1:15:07] Would you sign this? [1:15:08] Do you assume that as well? [1:15:09] You would have to ask the DOJ that, [1:15:11] but you make a good point, Senator. [1:15:14] Thank you. [1:15:16] Ranking member, White House. [1:15:17] Just to follow up on that point, Mr. O'Leary, [1:15:22] is the reason that a prosecutor [1:15:26] would pursue a non-disclosure order [1:15:29] for a toll record subpoena [1:15:32] necessarily that it is the subject of the subpoena [1:15:37] who would attempt to interfere with [1:15:39] or obstruct the investigation, [1:15:41] as opposed to the subject of the investigation [1:15:44] who would attempt to interfere with [1:15:47] and obstruct the investigation? [1:15:51] Senator, it depends on the investigation. [1:15:55] It could be the subject of the investigation. [1:15:57] It could be associates. [1:15:59] The idea of a non-disclosure order [1:16:01] is to not really let an individual know [1:16:04] that they're under investigation. [1:16:06] But one cannot infer from the existence [1:16:11] of a non-disclosure order [1:16:13] any accusation that the subject of the order [1:16:18] was intending to interfere or obstruct. [1:16:20] It could just as easily be that it was actually [1:16:23] the subject of the investigation, [1:16:25] one of the conspirators, for instance, [1:16:27] who the court was concerned about, [1:16:30] who the prosecutor was concerned about. [1:16:32] It certainly could be, but as I was... [1:16:34] There we go. [1:16:35] ...communicating to Senator Cruz, [1:16:37] non-disclosures are a routine part [1:16:39] of FBI investigations. [1:16:41] Understood. [1:16:42] So in your view, what has happened [1:16:45] to the FBI and DOJ's national security capabilities [1:16:49] in the last 15 months? [1:16:52] They've been decimated. [1:16:53] There's been generational damage done. [1:16:55] And with respect to the quiet bastion you referred to [1:17:01] and the standards of virtue and integrity [1:17:04] that you spoke so passionately about, [1:17:07] were those standards of virtue and integrity, [1:17:12] the fidelity, bravery, and integrity of the FBI, [1:17:15] met by agents who Kash Patel then turned on and fired? [1:17:21] There is rampant morale degradation [1:17:33] uncertainly amongst the ranks [1:17:36] and really disheartened career federal public servants [1:17:44] who've been dismissed without cause and... [1:17:46] Because, in fact, their colleagues understood [1:17:51] that they, in fact, met those standards [1:17:54] for fidelity, bravery, and integrity [1:17:56] and were nevertheless fired, correct? [1:17:58] Correct. [1:17:59] DOJ and the FBI run under close integration [1:18:04] under close institutional checks and balances [1:18:07] designed to protect the integrity of the organization. [1:18:10] Were those applicable to special counsel? [1:18:12] I would assume so. [1:18:17] I wasn't involved in that investigation at all, [1:18:19] but I can speak to the process [1:18:21] that Washington field office would follow, [1:18:24] and those are the agents that supported that investigation. [1:18:27] And they would follow traditional, [1:18:29] regular FBI guidelines and controls? [1:18:32] The documents that I was able to review demonstrated that. [1:18:35] Are you aware that the Trump Department, [1:18:37] Department of Justice in the first term, [1:18:40] subpoenaed information from members of Congress [1:18:44] and members of Congress' staff, [1:18:47] including toll records? [1:18:50] Senator, the FBI conducting public corruption investigations [1:18:54] has been part of its mission for years. [1:18:57] I know it's probably disconcerting [1:18:59] to any member of Congress or a public official, [1:19:02] but the FBI does it with the same integrity [1:19:04] that it conducts any investigation. [1:19:06] I would say to a fellow Irishman, [1:19:08] we would probably, [1:19:09] probably work with them on an investigation, [1:19:12] but, you know, the FBI pursues these [1:19:15] despite what side of the aisle you're on. [1:19:17] And they did in the first Trump term of office, [1:19:21] and that included getting nondisclosure orders [1:19:24] so that the members of Congress did not know [1:19:26] their toll records had been subpoenaed, correct? [1:19:28] That is correct. It's routine. [1:19:30] Tell me a little bit, as we wrap up here, [1:19:42] about the work of the CI-12 unit [1:19:45] and what condition it is now in. [1:19:49] As hostilities with Iran exist. [1:19:57] So CI-12 is a foreign counterintelligence squad [1:20:00] in Washington field office, [1:20:02] and the agents that were dismissed from there [1:20:05] and from the counterintelligence division [1:20:07] at FBI headquarters [1:20:09] work a variety of counterintelligence priorities. [1:20:12] Iran is one of them, [1:20:14] and dismissing some of these people [1:20:16] just days before the war with Iran kicked off [1:20:20] creates problems with, you know, sustained focus [1:20:23] and could impact operations. [1:20:25] And in fact, some of the FBI's institutional knowledge [1:20:30] is contained in the knowledge and experience [1:20:35] of senior FBI agents. [1:20:38] And so when they are purged for political reasons, [1:20:42] that component of the bureau [1:20:47] loses something fairly significant. [1:20:52] That is true, Senator. [1:20:53] In the last year or so, [1:20:54] there were some senior leaders at headquarters [1:20:56] that were removed. [1:20:57] And then in this last year alone, [1:20:59] two assistant directors from Washington field office [1:21:01] were both removed. [1:21:03] My time is up. [1:21:04] Thank you, Chairman. [1:21:07] Thank you. Without objection, [1:21:08] I'd like to enter... [1:21:10] Sorry. [1:21:11] With respect to the question of the NDOs [1:21:20] and the reason for that, [1:21:22] I'd like to put into the record [1:21:24] the letter that I wrote to Speaker Johnson, [1:21:27] giving what I consider to be the accurate background [1:21:29] for that dated January 15, 2026. [1:21:32] Without objection, it'll be entered into the record. [1:21:34] Thank you. [1:21:35] Also without objection, [1:21:36] I want to introduce into the record [1:21:37] a November 2nd, 2023 letter from Chairman Grassley [1:21:40] to the DOJ Office of Inspector General [1:21:43] raising concerns that in 2017, [1:21:45] DOJ subpoenaed personal phone and email records [1:21:48] of Republicans and Democrat congressional staff. [1:21:52] I'm also entering into the record [1:21:53] a November 8th, 2023 letter from me, [1:21:56] Chairman Grassley and Senator Lee, [1:21:58] to Secretary General Garland, [1:22:00] raising similar concerns [1:22:01] and requesting information [1:22:02] on the subpoenas of congressional staff. [1:22:04] Contrary to what Senator Whitehouse said in his opening, [1:22:07] Republicans did raise concerns [1:22:08] about the DOJ obtaining records [1:22:10] from congressional staff of both parties. [1:22:13] And I will say, just a minute ago, [1:22:15] Mr. O'Leary, you were being asked [1:22:17] by Senator Whitehouse [1:22:18] about investigating members of Congress, [1:22:20] and it is certainly true [1:22:21] that DOJ has a long tradition [1:22:23] if there's evidence of particular misconduct. [1:22:26] For example, our former colleague, [1:22:28] Senator Menendez, [1:22:29] is currently incarcerated in prison for corruption. [1:22:31] And if you've got evidence of criminal conduct [1:22:33] of one individual, [1:22:34] the Department of Justice has an obligation [1:22:37] to investigate that. [1:22:38] Would you agree that's qualitatively different [1:22:41] than a fishing expedition [1:22:44] targeting 20% of the Republicans in the Senate? [1:22:47] Would you agree that's qualitatively different? [1:22:49] I'm not familiar with the details [1:22:51] of either investigation, [1:22:52] so I wouldn't want to speculate. [1:22:54] Well, let me ask you this. [1:22:55] Would you be troubled [1:22:56] if tomorrow the Trump Department of Justice [1:22:59] issued a subpoena for the phone records [1:23:01] of every Democrat that sits on the Judiciary Committee? [1:23:04] Not if it was based on factual evidence, [1:23:06] specific and articulable facts. [1:23:08] Well, let me be clear. [1:23:09] I'd be damned troubled, [1:23:10] and that would be an abuse of power. [1:23:13] And I'm going to predict [1:23:14] not a single Democrat's going to say even a word [1:23:17] about the abuse of power on their side, [1:23:20] and that double standard is troubling. [1:23:22] Senator Lee. [1:23:23] Thank you very much, Senator Cruz, [1:23:26] for convening this hearing. [1:23:27] It's an important topic. [1:23:29] About a half century ago, [1:23:32] President Nixon resigned. [1:23:34] He did so under pressure [1:23:36] on the basis of public outrage [1:23:39] that stemmed from a break-in [1:23:42] at DNC headquarters. [1:23:44] It was an act of lawfare, you might say, [1:23:46] or maybe better said, political espionage. [1:23:49] Today, the media and my Democrat colleagues [1:23:53] have fallen conspicuously silent [1:23:56] when confronted with a scandal [1:23:58] that in some ways is of much larger proportions [1:24:01] because it involves [1:24:02] the official law enforcement apparatus [1:24:05] of the U.S. government [1:24:06] in a much more direct way than that one did. [1:24:10] President Biden's systematic weaponization [1:24:12] of the Department of Justice [1:24:13] and federal law enforcement [1:24:14] against his political opponents [1:24:16] is a development of staggering proportions. [1:24:19] And by development, I mean scandal. [1:24:22] Just like the Watergate break-in, [1:24:24] Arctic Frost was ultimately an attempt [1:24:26] to sway the results of a presidential election. [1:24:30] But this comparison may even be unfair [1:24:33] to President Nixon, [1:24:36] who never attempted to quash dissent [1:24:38] by putting the opposition candidate [1:24:42] in prison for trumped-up charges. [1:24:45] Now, thankfully, [1:24:46] the Biden administration failed [1:24:48] in that misguided effort. [1:24:50] President Trump was elected by the people [1:24:53] to become the 47th president of the United States. [1:24:56] But we have to ensure that this kind of lawfare [1:24:59] can't occur again. [1:25:02] Mr. Chamberlain, I'd like to start with you. [1:25:04] Your testimony focuses on, [1:25:06] among other things, [1:25:08] an FBI recording of a 2023 phone call [1:25:12] between Susie Wiles, [1:25:14] who was, at the time, [1:25:15] managing President Trump's presidential campaign, [1:25:19] and her lawyer. [1:25:20] Now, according to the FBI, [1:25:22] the lawyer was aware of the recording, [1:25:25] but isn't it true that the lawyer denied [1:25:27] that he had ever consented to that arrangement? [1:25:30] That's true. That was widely reported. [1:25:32] And if, in fact, the lawyer did not consent, [1:25:34] your testimony today is that [1:25:36] this would have been and was [1:25:38] an illegal wiretap by the FBI [1:25:41] in the absence of her lawyer's consent with the FBI. [1:25:45] That's correct. [1:25:47] And the FBI designated this as a prohibited file [1:25:51] to prevent anyone from finding out about it. [1:25:53] That seems to be correct, yes. [1:25:54] Okay, so they did something they weren't supposed to do, [1:25:56] then they designated it as a prohibited file [1:25:58] to cover it up. [1:25:59] Now, in general, [1:26:00] should the president be able to direct the FBI [1:26:02] to spy on the campaign of his political opponent? [1:26:06] Absolutely not. [1:26:07] And isn't listening to a private conversation [1:26:10] between a presidential campaign manager and her lawyer [1:26:13] in many ways much more serious [1:26:16] as an abuse of government power [1:26:19] than an attempted wiretap [1:26:21] of the DNC headquarters in Watergate? [1:26:23] Correct, because there's two, you know, [1:26:25] interests being invaded. [1:26:26] First, it's just the wiretap generally, [1:26:28] but then it's doubly invasive [1:26:29] because it's supposed to be a privileged conversation. [1:26:31] A privileged conversation which, [1:26:33] regardless of who's involved in it, [1:26:35] is supposed to be privileged. [1:26:36] And that takes on additional flavor [1:26:38] and additional degrees of seriousness [1:26:40] when that person happens to be [1:26:43] a client represented by a lawyer [1:26:46] who happens to be managing the presidential campaign [1:26:49] of the then incumbent president's lead [1:26:52] and exclusive challenger, effectively. [1:26:54] Ms. Cleveland, [1:26:55] you referenced the FBI's use [1:26:58] of protected access tag [1:27:01] for Arctic Frost subpoenas. [1:27:03] What's the, [1:27:04] what is this, [1:27:05] um, [1:27:06] functionality [1:27:07] and why does it raise due process concerns [1:27:09] in your mind? [1:27:10] So prohibited access [1:27:13] is a functionality [1:27:15] which makes the records invisible. [1:27:17] So when there's an investigation going on, [1:27:21] the FBI agents are doing searches [1:27:23] maybe by keywords of names, [1:27:25] it will come back and say there are no results. [1:27:29] They will believe there are no results. [1:27:31] We already have evidence [1:27:33] that this has been used [1:27:35] in the investigation [1:27:36] of the investigation of Trump. [1:27:39] We also have evidence [1:27:40] that it has been used [1:27:41] in other investigations [1:27:42] that were high profile. [1:27:44] From the due process concern, [1:27:48] a lawyer is entitled to have evidence [1:27:51] that is exculpatory to their clients. [1:27:54] If there is exculpatory evidence [1:27:56] or even evidence that calls into credibility, [1:27:58] that the credibility of one of the witnesses, [1:28:01] that has to be turned over. [1:28:03] It can't possibly... [1:28:04] For Brady and Giglio purposes. [1:28:05] Exactly. [1:28:06] Right. [1:28:07] It can't be turned over [1:28:08] if they don't know about it. [1:28:10] That's a huge problem [1:28:11] from the due process perspective. [1:28:13] Right. [1:28:14] So you're forestalling up front [1:28:15] what would be part of [1:28:17] the defendant's due process [1:28:19] in the event of eventual criminal proceedings. [1:28:21] Now, really quickly, [1:28:23] before my time expires, [1:28:25] tell me whether to what extent [1:28:27] Judge Boasberg knew [1:28:28] or would have had reason to know [1:28:30] what the NDOs were actually covering. [1:28:32] So without seeing the application, [1:28:35] it's impossible to say [1:28:37] that he should have known. [1:28:39] But this morning [1:28:40] when Senator Grassley released his documents, [1:28:43] it indicated that Smith's team [1:28:45] was speaking with the prior Chief Judge [1:28:49] of the D.C. District Court [1:28:52] about subpoenas and executive privilege. [1:28:55] So that raised the concern of [1:28:57] was this conversation going on [1:28:59] with Judge Boasberg as well? [1:29:01] If not, [1:29:02] did Smith's team actually decide [1:29:04] not to have the same kind of conversations [1:29:06] as they were concerned [1:29:07] that Judge Boasberg wouldn't go along with it? [1:29:09] So we don't know what Judge Boasberg knew, [1:29:12] but we do know he didn't demand [1:29:15] Smith come in and explain himself, [1:29:17] as he has done time and time again [1:29:20] with the Trump administration [1:29:22] in trying to hold someone in contempt there. [1:29:24] Okay, so this would be [1:29:26] outside the norm, [1:29:29] not only for this type of action, [1:29:31] but out of norm even for what Judge Boasberg [1:29:33] has done in other cases? [1:29:35] In the contempt, [1:29:36] in calling them in for contempt, absolutely. [1:29:38] Thank you. [1:29:39] Senator Durbin. [1:29:45] Thank you, Senator Lee. [1:29:48] Ms. Cleveland, [1:29:50] you've given a pretty lengthy [1:29:53] bill of particulars [1:29:55] in reference to the special prosecutor, [1:29:57] Jack Smith. [1:29:59] I tried to keep up with your statement. [1:30:03] You've accused him of being [1:30:04] a hyper-aggressive prosecutor, [1:30:06] partisan, [1:30:08] deputies who are politically partisan, [1:30:10] running some sort of partisan protection racket, [1:30:14] unconstitutionally appointed, [1:30:17] a litany of [1:30:19] constitutional misconduct, [1:30:21] guilty of a phishing expedition, [1:30:24] and on and on. [1:30:25] Would there be value [1:30:28] for you to be able to ask [1:30:31] Mr. Smith questions [1:30:32] about your assertions? [1:30:33] Only after I've seen enough [1:30:37] background information [1:30:38] to poise good questions, [1:30:40] such as Senator Grassley's [1:30:42] release this morning, [1:30:43] revealed for the first time [1:30:45] that he had... [1:30:46] No, I'm just asking in general terms, [1:30:48] not to get specific. [1:30:49] Well, as a lawyer, [1:30:50] I have to give you the specific answers [1:30:52] to the question. [1:30:53] Well, I'd like you to do it very briefly [1:30:54] because I have a limited period [1:30:55] of time. [1:30:56] I'm just asking you [1:30:57] if you had a chance [1:30:58] to ask Jack Smith questions. [1:30:59] Not until I've seen the documents [1:31:01] that will inform the questions [1:31:03] and be able to confront him. [1:31:04] You don't do a deposition [1:31:06] until you've done document review. [1:31:07] Well, of course, [1:31:08] I think that goes without saying [1:31:10] in the practice of law. [1:31:11] But let me ask you [1:31:12] if you could ask him questions under oath, [1:31:14] whether that would be more value [1:31:16] than just general questions? [1:31:18] Again, after I've seen the documents. [1:31:22] You don't think being under oath [1:31:23] puts any special obligation [1:31:25] on a person who's asked a question? [1:31:27] You can be under oath, [1:31:30] and if you're not confronted [1:31:31] with the evidence, [1:31:33] the answer is not going to be [1:31:35] as informative. [1:31:36] It sounds like you're afraid [1:31:37] to face him. [1:31:38] Not at all. [1:31:39] Well, good. [1:31:40] Let me ask you this question. [1:31:41] If you could do it [1:31:42] in the setting of, say, [1:31:44] the Senate Judiciary Committee, [1:31:45] and you had a chance [1:31:47] to ask those questions under oath, [1:31:49] do you think that might be of value? [1:31:50] After I've reviewed [1:31:52] all of the relevant documents, [1:31:53] including the ones hidden [1:31:55] and prohibited access, [1:31:56] How about we make sure [1:31:57] that that meeting [1:31:58] of the Judiciary Committee [1:31:59] is public so America can witness [1:32:01] the questions and answers? [1:32:03] Would that be of value? [1:32:04] After all of those documents [1:32:07] have been released, yes. [1:32:08] Oh, you wouldn't want to question him [1:32:11] until all the documents [1:32:12] have been released? [1:32:13] The relevant documents [1:32:14] that are hidden [1:32:15] and prohibited access [1:32:16] absolutely need those [1:32:17] before you question him. [1:32:19] That may be a luxury [1:32:20] which most attorneys and others [1:32:23] would not have access to. [1:32:25] Well, they shouldn't [1:32:26] have been hidden. [1:32:27] In the first place. [1:32:28] Well, it isn't a question [1:32:29] of hiding as much as legal access. [1:32:32] The point I'm getting to [1:32:33] is that for the last six months, [1:32:35] the Democrats on this committee [1:32:36] have said to the Republicans [1:32:38] on this committee, [1:32:39] bring Jack Smith into this room, [1:32:41] sit him down in front [1:32:42] of that microphone, [1:32:43] put him under oath, [1:32:44] and ask whatever questions you have. [1:32:48] All these assertions, [1:32:49] the bill of particulars [1:32:51] that's been issued [1:32:52] by some of the witnesses today [1:32:54] would have to be confronted [1:32:55] by him directly under oath [1:32:57] in a public hearing [1:32:58] for the American to see. [1:32:59] Of course, any lawyer [1:33:00] who's been on a law school [1:33:02] more than 15 minutes [1:33:03] know that there's value [1:33:04] to the circumstances [1:33:05] of asking those questions. [1:33:06] But they won't do it. [1:33:07] For six months, [1:33:08] the Republican majority [1:33:09] wants to hear hearing [1:33:10] after hearing [1:33:11] of what's wrong [1:33:12] with Jack Smith [1:33:13] and the one person [1:33:14] they should ask that of directly, [1:33:15] Jack Smith, [1:33:16] they won't call [1:33:17] before this committee. [1:33:18] What are we waiting for? [1:33:19] If this is worse [1:33:20] than Watergate, [1:33:22] as some senators [1:33:23] have asserted, [1:33:24] then we're going to have [1:33:25] to do something [1:33:26] about Jack Smith. [1:33:27] We're going to have [1:33:28] to do something [1:33:29] about Jack Smith. [1:33:30] Isn't it about time [1:33:31] that we get to [1:33:32] the primary source? [1:33:33] Jack Smith under oath, [1:33:35] under penalty [1:33:36] of criminal perjury [1:33:38] or perjury [1:33:39] if he fails to testify? [1:33:40] I don't get it. [1:33:41] What are they waiting for? [1:33:42] They'd rather have the hearings [1:33:43] than have the answers. [1:33:44] And that, to me, [1:33:45] doesn't help. [1:33:46] Mr. O'Leary, [1:33:47] how many years of service [1:33:48] did you give [1:33:50] to the Federal Bureau [1:33:51] of Investigation? [1:33:52] Over 20, sir. [1:33:53] Did you retire? [1:33:54] I did, yes, sir. [1:33:56] And you said [1:33:57] quite a bit [1:33:58] about what [1:34:00] the Federal Bureau [1:34:01] of Investigation [1:34:02] is going to do [1:34:03] for you. [1:34:04] What the Federal Bureau [1:34:05] of Investigation means [1:34:06] and what they stand for. [1:34:07] One of the things [1:34:08] that I noted [1:34:09] that you didn't have time [1:34:10] to read into the record [1:34:11] I want to make sure [1:34:12] is noted, [1:34:13] and that is your statements [1:34:14] about Robert Mueller. [1:34:16] What you had to say [1:34:17] about him is amazing. [1:34:19] You say, [1:34:21] the example set [1:34:22] by Robert Mueller [1:34:23] established a standard [1:34:24] of quiet professionalism, [1:34:26] integrity, [1:34:27] and disciplined leadership [1:34:28] that permeated [1:34:29] every level of the Bureau. [1:34:31] That is high praise. [1:34:32] I feel the same way [1:34:33] about him. [1:34:34] I hope I made it clear [1:34:35] in my opening statement. [1:34:36] Where are we now? [1:34:38] We're 15 months [1:34:39] into this new president, [1:34:40] a 48-month term. [1:34:42] Damage has been done [1:34:43] to the Federal Bureau [1:34:44] that you've described [1:34:45] as generational damage. [1:34:47] What's the future of the FBI? [1:34:50] What the FBI deserves [1:34:53] and needs [1:34:55] is an unbiased leader, [1:35:00] somebody with investigative [1:35:01] and operational experience, [1:35:03] and leadership experience, [1:35:05] and a commitment [1:35:06] to public service [1:35:07] and justice. [1:35:09] Unfortunately, [1:35:10] I do not see [1:35:11] that in the current director. [1:35:13] He does not have [1:35:14] any background [1:35:15] or experience, [1:35:16] and he lacks the character [1:35:17] and the disposition [1:35:20] to carry out the duties [1:35:21] that the American people deserve, [1:35:23] and the country is less safe [1:35:24] under his leadership. [1:35:26] I agree with your conclusion, [1:35:27] and a great deal [1:35:28] has to be done [1:35:29] to rehabilitate [1:35:30] and resurrect [1:35:31] this great agency. [1:35:32] Thank you very much. [1:35:35] Senator Kennedy. [1:35:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:35:42] Mr. Chamberlain, [1:35:45] I believe four [1:35:51] telephone companies [1:35:52] received these subpoenas [1:35:56] for the phone records, [1:35:58] the metadata, [1:35:59] of 20 members of Congress. [1:36:01] Is that your understanding? [1:36:05] That sounds right to me, yes. [1:36:07] Okay. [1:36:09] I don't have time [1:36:10] to talk about all of them. [1:36:11] Let me just pick one. [1:36:12] Verizon. [1:36:17] About 90,000 employees, [1:36:19] I think, [1:36:21] $140 billion [1:36:23] worth of revenue. [1:36:28] Does Verizon hire dummies [1:36:32] to work [1:36:33] in its legal department? [1:36:34] I should think not. [1:36:35] They've probably got [1:36:36] a good reservoir [1:36:37] of lawyers to pick from. [1:36:39] Okay. [1:36:41] I suppose you were [1:36:45] one of the lawyers [1:36:46] at Verizon, [1:36:51] and you don't strike me [1:36:54] as a dummy. [1:36:55] Well, thank you. [1:36:56] I appreciate that. [1:36:58] And you got a subpoena [1:37:01] from Jack Smith [1:37:03] with an NDO, [1:37:07] nondisclosure order, [1:37:10] signed by Judge Boasberg. [1:37:16] Do you think [1:37:17] a reasonably competent lawyer [1:37:24] at Verizon would know [1:37:26] who Jack Smith was? [1:37:28] Yes, I think so. [1:37:31] Do you think [1:37:33] a reasonably competent lawyer [1:37:36] at Verizon would know [1:37:37] who Judge Boasberg was [1:37:39] or would inquire about him? [1:37:42] Yeah, I think you could [1:37:43] pretty quickly Google him, [1:37:44] and if you were concerned [1:37:45] that maybe he wasn't actually [1:37:47] a federal district judge, [1:37:48] I think it's pretty obvious [1:37:49] that you'd be able [1:37:50] to figure out [1:37:51] what's going on. [1:37:52] I mean, [1:37:53] it was pretty widely known [1:37:56] that President Biden [1:37:59] instructed the Attorney General [1:38:02] to sue President Trump, [1:38:04] and then he hired Jack Smith. [1:38:07] Wasn't it? [1:38:08] Yes. [1:38:09] That was on the front page [1:38:11] of every paper. [1:38:14] If you were an attorney [1:38:16] at Verizon [1:38:17] and you got a subpoena [1:38:18] like this, [1:38:22] wouldn't you say, [1:38:25] maybe I need to check [1:38:26] and see who Mr. Smith [1:38:28] is subpoenaing? [1:38:29] Yeah, and especially [1:38:31] once I found out [1:38:32] it was a representative, [1:38:33] it would immediately [1:38:34] raise that flag of, [1:38:35] like, maybe there's [1:38:36] a legal exception here [1:38:37] that doesn't apply [1:38:38] in other cases? [1:38:39] Do we know if the employee [1:38:42] who received this subpoena [1:38:44] at Verizon even sought [1:38:48] a legal opinion [1:38:49] from an attorney at Verizon? [1:38:51] I do not know. [1:38:52] Well, let's just assume [1:38:53] for a second [1:38:54] that Verizon, [1:38:55] sophisticated company that it is, [1:38:57] is not so incompetent [1:38:59] that they wouldn't have had [1:39:01] a lawyer look at this. [1:39:03] Lawyer looks at it [1:39:05] and says, huh, Jack Smith. [1:39:07] Lawyer looks at it [1:39:09] and says, NDO signed [1:39:10] by Judge Boasberg. [1:39:11] Lawyer looks at the names [1:39:14] as a reasonably competent [1:39:15] lawyer would. [1:39:16] Hmm, they're members [1:39:17] of Congress. [1:39:18] If that was you, [1:39:20] what would you do? [1:39:21] Well, I'd make [1:39:22] a few phone calls. [1:39:23] I'd do legal research [1:39:24] to confirm that, you know, [1:39:26] complying with this order [1:39:28] was obviously lawful [1:39:29] and I might, you know, [1:39:31] gently try and push back [1:39:32] on the subpoena [1:39:33] to try and understand, [1:39:34] you know. [1:39:35] Well, in fact, [1:39:37] you would probably discover [1:39:38] the law being the very competent [1:39:41] lawyer that you are [1:39:43] that said no judicial order [1:39:47] can bar Verizon [1:39:49] from picking up the phone [1:39:50] and calling the member [1:39:52] of Congress, wouldn't you? [1:39:54] That's right. [1:39:55] You'd probably find [1:39:56] that statute. [1:39:57] Mm-hmm. [1:39:59] And if you did find [1:40:02] that statute, [1:40:03] in order to protect Verizon [1:40:06] as you're their lawyer, [1:40:08] wouldn't you have filed [1:40:09] a motion to call [1:40:10] for a quash? [1:40:11] That's exactly [1:40:12] what I'd do, yeah. [1:40:14] But Verizon didn't do [1:40:15] any of that, did they? [1:40:16] Apparently not. [1:40:17] They just sucked [1:40:18] all this information up [1:40:19] like a Hoover Deluxe. [1:40:20] Yeah. [1:40:21] They didn't even look [1:40:24] at that we know of [1:40:27] to see if these were [1:40:29] members of Congress. [1:40:30] Yes, that's right. [1:40:31] What kind of liability [1:40:35] does Verizon have here? [1:40:37] That's a good question. [1:40:39] I'd need to read [1:40:40] the statute more clearly [1:40:41] to see what the actual [1:40:43] penalties are, [1:40:44] but my guess is [1:40:45] there would be [1:40:46] some pretty reasonable [1:40:47] civil penalties [1:40:48] for having done so. [1:40:49] What kind of remedies, [1:40:50] if any, [1:40:51] are there for the fact [1:40:52] that Judge Boasberg said [1:40:55] that he had reasonable grounds [1:40:58] to believe that these members [1:41:00] of Congress [1:41:01] would destroy evidence? [1:41:02] And then he made [1:41:03] that conclusion [1:41:04] without holding a hearing. [1:41:06] I think the only remedy [1:41:07] to that is political [1:41:08] and impeachment. [1:41:09] I don't think there's [1:41:10] a unique... [1:41:11] You can't sue Judge Boasberg [1:41:12] for damages [1:41:13] for his judicial [1:41:14] decision-making, [1:41:15] but the only remedy [1:41:16] is political. [1:41:17] Would you consider [1:41:18] it to be grossly incompetent [1:41:20] if Judge Boasberg [1:41:23] had not even inquired [1:41:26] who these people were [1:41:29] and whether they were [1:41:30] members of Congress? [1:41:31] Oh, yes. [1:41:32] Extremely incompetent. [1:41:33] Okay. [1:41:37] That's all I've got, [1:41:38] Mr. Chairman. [1:41:40] Senator Hirono. [1:41:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:41:45] Well, here we are once again, [1:41:46] once again with a hearing [1:41:52] espousing Republican [1:41:54] conspiracy theories [1:41:56] and once again [1:41:57] focusing on [1:41:58] Jack Smith. [1:42:00] How many times [1:42:01] do we Democrats [1:42:02] have to say, [1:42:03] why don't we just bring [1:42:04] Jack Smith before [1:42:05] this committee? [1:42:06] Why do we not [1:42:07] put him under oath? [1:42:08] Why don't we just [1:42:10] ask him questions? [1:42:11] The witnesses [1:42:12] this morning [1:42:13] are speculating [1:42:14] as to what [1:42:15] Jack Smith knew [1:42:17] or what he told [1:42:18] the judge, [1:42:19] speculating about [1:42:20] what the judge [1:42:21] was told by Jack Smith. [1:42:22] I mean, instead of [1:42:23] all these speculations, [1:42:24] why don't we just [1:42:26] call Jack Smith? [1:42:27] See, that has never been [1:42:30] adequately answered [1:42:31] in my view. [1:42:32] I think it's time, [1:42:33] rather than continuing [1:42:34] to go down [1:42:35] this rabbit hole. [1:42:36] And really, [1:42:37] you know, [1:42:38] the term [1:42:39] milking a dead cow [1:42:40] or beating a dead horse [1:42:41] comes to mind [1:42:42] because this is [1:42:43] what this exercise is. [1:42:44] It is milking [1:42:45] a dead cow, [1:42:46] which, [1:42:47] you know, [1:42:48] describes, [1:42:49] I looked it up, [1:42:50] describes a completely [1:42:51] futile, [1:42:52] pointless [1:42:53] or [1:42:54] waste [1:42:55] behavior [1:42:56] that [1:42:57] will yield [1:42:58] no results. [1:42:59] It implies [1:43:00] trying [1:43:01] to extract [1:43:02] value, [1:43:03] information [1:43:04] or result [1:43:05] from [1:43:06] a source [1:43:07] that is already [1:43:08] dead, [1:43:09] exhausted [1:43:10] or incapable [1:43:11] of providing [1:43:12] anything further. [1:43:13] So, [1:43:14] the further [1:43:15] providing [1:43:16] of information [1:43:17] should come [1:43:18] directly from [1:43:19] Jack Smith. [1:43:20] So, [1:43:21] you know, [1:43:22] I'm going to repeat [1:43:23] what some of my colleagues [1:43:24] have said. [1:43:25] There are three things [1:43:26] that we can focus on [1:43:27] with this, [1:43:28] with the work [1:43:29] of this committee [1:43:30] rather than [1:43:31] wasting our time [1:43:33] like this. [1:43:34] First is, [1:43:35] call Jack Smith. [1:43:36] Second, [1:43:37] um, [1:43:38] he has already [1:43:40] offered [1:43:41] to testify [1:43:42] so, [1:43:43] we're not [1:43:44] going to get [1:43:45] much resistance [1:43:46] from him. [1:43:47] He's already [1:43:48] testified [1:43:49] before the [1:43:50] House [1:43:51] and he [1:43:52] issued [1:43:53] some reports [1:43:54] and we should [1:43:55] access, [1:43:56] we should [1:43:57] get access [1:43:58] to his report. [1:44:00] So, [1:44:01] not only should [1:44:02] we call him [1:44:03] to testify [1:44:04] but we should [1:44:05] get our hands [1:44:06] talking about [1:44:07] getting information [1:44:08] that would be [1:44:09] good for us to have. [1:44:10] Um, [1:44:11] volume two [1:44:13] of Jack Smith's [1:44:14] report. [1:44:15] And then, [1:44:16] thirdly, [1:44:17] you know, [1:44:18] there's been [1:44:19] a focus on [1:44:20] Kash Patel. [1:44:21] After he received [1:44:22] immunity, [1:44:23] he did testify [1:44:24] to the [1:44:25] grand jury [1:44:26] and we've been [1:44:27] trying to access [1:44:28] that testimony [1:44:29] and lied [1:44:30] to this committee [1:44:31] saying that he [1:44:32] can't provide [1:44:33] that testimony. [1:44:34] Yes, [1:44:35] he can. [1:44:36] And, [1:44:37] once again, [1:44:38] my Republican [1:44:39] colleagues don't [1:44:40] seem to [1:44:41] care that [1:44:42] he lied [1:44:43] to this committee. [1:44:44] So, [1:44:45] we have, [1:44:46] as far as I'm [1:44:47] concerned, [1:44:48] a refusal [1:44:49] to confront [1:44:50] the truth. [1:44:51] And, [1:44:52] I'm really [1:44:53] disheartened [1:44:54] by what is [1:44:55] happening [1:44:56] to an institution [1:44:57] called the FBI, [1:44:58] not to mention [1:44:59] a reputation [1:45:01] for doing [1:45:02] the work [1:45:03] that protected [1:45:04] the American [1:45:05] people. [1:45:06] And, [1:45:07] that is not [1:45:09] the case. [1:45:10] What we're seeing [1:45:11] are people [1:45:12] being fired, [1:45:13] not for lack [1:45:14] of competence. [1:45:15] In fact, [1:45:16] they were very, [1:45:17] very competent. [1:45:18] Not for [1:45:19] misconduct, [1:45:20] but because [1:45:21] they happened [1:45:22] to question [1:45:23] the leader, [1:45:24] Donald Trump. [1:45:25] This continuous [1:45:26] effort on the part [1:45:27] of my Republican [1:45:28] colleagues [1:45:29] to this [1:45:30] president, [1:45:31] who does not [1:45:32] believe that the [1:45:33] rule of law [1:45:34] applies to [1:45:35] him, [1:45:36] is amazing. [1:45:37] And, [1:45:38] you know what? [1:45:39] The American [1:45:40] people are [1:45:41] getting it. [1:45:42] And, [1:45:43] that is why [1:45:44] millions, [1:45:45] millions of [1:45:46] them, [1:45:47] they, [1:45:48] in fact, [1:45:49] I think this [1:45:50] Saturday, [1:45:51] there's going [1:45:52] to be another [1:45:53] rally, [1:45:54] no king's [1:45:55] rally. [1:45:56] Millions of [1:45:57] Americans [1:45:58] are going [1:45:59] to vote [1:46:00] for [1:46:01] Donald Trump. [1:46:03] The rule [1:46:04] of law [1:46:05] does not [1:46:06] apply to [1:46:07] him. [1:46:08] And, [1:46:09] by the way, [1:46:10] no thanks [1:46:11] to the [1:46:12] Supreme Court. [1:46:13] I think [1:46:14] their decision [1:46:15] on his [1:46:16] immunity [1:46:17] was one [1:46:18] of the [1:46:19] worst [1:46:20] decisions [1:46:21] that this [1:46:22] court, [1:46:23] and there [1:46:24] are many. [1:46:26] So, [1:46:27] let me [1:46:28] just ask [1:46:29] all these [1:46:30] very, [1:46:31] very experienced [1:46:32] people who [1:46:33] were engaged [1:46:34] in white [1:46:35] collar crime [1:46:36] investigations, [1:46:37] cyber attacks, [1:46:38] et cetera, [1:46:39] their departure, [1:46:40] tell us how [1:46:41] their departure [1:46:45] is making [1:46:46] our country [1:46:47] safer. [1:46:48] Senator, [1:46:49] the loss [1:46:50] of agents [1:46:51] and analysts [1:46:52] and professional [1:46:53] staff across [1:46:54] the FBI [1:46:55] is impacting [1:46:56] a variety [1:46:57] of programs [1:46:58] from white [1:46:59] collar crime, [1:47:00] protecting [1:47:01] the integrity [1:47:02] of the [1:47:03] world, [1:47:04] protecting [1:47:05] the [1:47:06] environment, [1:47:07] protecting [1:47:08] the [1:47:09] environment, [1:47:10] protecting [1:47:11] the [1:47:12] community [1:47:13] and the [1:47:14] population. [1:47:15] And, [1:47:16] on the [1:47:17] other [1:47:18] side of [1:47:19] this, [1:47:20] there [1:47:21] are [1:47:22] a few [1:47:23] other [1:47:24] issues [1:47:25] that [1:47:26] we [1:47:27] want [1:47:28] to [1:47:29] address. [1:47:30] I [1:47:31] would [1:47:33] He, in turn, was fired himself, thrown out of the FBI after years of service. [1:47:39] He's a recipient of the shield of bravery and the shield of valor, [1:47:43] the shield of valor for being on a joint hostage recovery operation in Syria [1:47:49] with the Special Operations Task Force to rescue an American citizen. [1:47:55] These are the kind of individuals we're losing, and those who are not being fired— [1:48:00] Thank you, Mr. O'Leary, for standing up for an institution that deserves our support, [1:48:04] and instead we have a director who parties around, who flies around in a plane, [1:48:09] who visits his girlfriend. Give me a break. [1:48:15] Senator Blackburn. [1:48:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:48:18] Mr. O'Leary, I want to stay with you, if I may. [1:48:22] Now, my colleague across the aisle seems to have a problem with Kash Patel, [1:48:28] and you made a statement that you think he's made our country less safe. [1:48:32] Do you own that statement? [1:48:35] Yes, I do, ma'am. [1:48:36] You do own that statement. Have you heard of Memphis, Tennessee? [1:48:40] Yes, ma'am. I've been there many times. [1:48:42] Good. Are you fully aware of what the FBI and the federal government has accomplished in Memphis, Tennessee? [1:48:50] I think using FBI agents as part of a joint task force to reduce violent crime is very important, [1:48:57] and I'm aware of their effectiveness there. Yes, ma'am. [1:48:59] And you're aware that Director Patel has been— [1:49:04] very involved in planning, organizing, implementing this. Is that correct? [1:49:11] I'm not personally aware of that, but if you say so, yes, ma'am. [1:49:13] Well, let me make you aware of that. [1:49:16] Are you aware that there have been over 9,000 arrests of violent criminals? [1:49:23] If you say so, yes, ma'am. [1:49:25] And would you say that arresting 9,000 violent criminals makes the country more or less safe? [1:49:32] It certainly makes that jurisdiction, Memphis, a safer— [1:49:35] makes the entire country more safe. [1:49:38] Would you say that finding 150 missing children helps make this country more safe? [1:49:47] Yes, it does, and the FBI has been doing that for decades, ma'am. [1:49:50] And in Memphis, it's 153. You can stop being snarky, too. That would help. [1:49:57] There have also—we've seen a 43 percent drop in overall crime, 36 percent drop in murder, [1:50:05] and a 68 percent drop in crime. [1:50:07] And we've seen a 43 percent drop in carjackings in Memphis. [1:50:09] Now, I wanted to bring all of this up because I think it's important that we focus on what we've been able to accomplish [1:50:17] in the line of public safety when we appropriately use resources from the federal government [1:50:26] and when we are not having the DOJ weaponize itself and go after private citizens like Susie Wiles and Kash Patel were. [1:50:37] When all of their records were subpoenaed in 2000, 22, and 23, [1:50:44] when we don't see the FBI going after 400 different conservative organizations, [1:50:51] which they did simply because they didn't like Donald Trump and they didn't like a lot of us, myself included. [1:50:59] But you seem to be fine with that weaponization. You seem to think that it is okay. [1:51:08] And, Mr. O'Leary, I find it unconscionable that you would sit there and defend them going after the records [1:51:18] of private citizens, of elected officials, and weaponizing the Department of Justice. [1:51:27] But that is what they did. I think it is really unfortunate that this type of weaponization appears to what we— [1:51:38] had come to expect out of the Biden administration. [1:51:43] Mr. Chamberlain, I want to come to you. Talk for a minute about that danger of the expectation of weaponization, [1:51:51] the effect and the impact—pardon me—that that has on conservatives [1:51:59] and what Congress needs to do to make certain this doesn't happen to anybody, whether it's a liberal or a conservative. [1:52:06] It seems that we have a witness who is— [1:52:08] fine with it happening to conservatives, but I'm sure he would not be happy if it happened to a liberal. [1:52:16] Well, it's a very big worry that you're effectively, you know, demeaning the First Amendment [1:52:21] because you're crushing the rights of people to engage in political advocacy if the underlying threat is, [1:52:26] if you do this for the wrong side, we're going to send, you know, bring federal law enforcement to bear upon you. [1:52:32] And, Mr. O'Leary, are you okay with it being weaponized to go after conservatives? Does that suit you? [1:52:38] Did you think that was— [1:52:39] Do you think that was a justifiable use of taxpayer money and time? [1:52:44] Senator, absolutely not. And let me just tell you, politics in the FBI workspace are absent. [1:52:50] Nobody understands or knows or cares— [1:52:51] Oh, it's absent? Do you want to own that statement? [1:52:53] Let me finish, Senator, if you can. [1:52:55] No, it's my time. [1:52:56] Ms. Cleveland, what do you have to say about that? [1:53:00] That's laughable. [1:53:01] It is laughable. [1:53:02] It is absolutely laughable that it has no place, after everything we saw with Crossfire Hurricane, [1:53:09] after what we're starting to see— [1:53:10] Yes. [1:53:10] —and what we're starting to see in the Arctic Frost from the prohibitive files. [1:53:15] It might be that you worked with a very few who are not political, but it is replete everywhere. [1:53:23] We had Ray Holzler, who wrote an op-ed—I believe it was in The Washington Post—after he was fired, [1:53:30] complaining about him being fired for no reason. [1:53:33] But what do we now know? [1:53:34] He was the one who refused to investigate the Clinton Foundation, [1:53:38] and he's the one who turned over to the U.S.— [1:53:40] U.S. attorney who was actually doing the investigation an abbreviated summary of what [1:53:46] was going on so that it hid all of the DOJ and FBI's protection and what they were doing to [1:53:53] stop the investigation. It's laughable to say that there's no politicalization of the FBI, [1:54:01] or maybe there isn't anymore because they fired the groups that were doing it. [1:54:06] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:54:07] Thank you. I want to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony. [1:54:13] Written questions can be submitted for the record until Tuesday, March 31st at 5 p.m., [1:54:18] and I'll ask the witnesses to answer and return the questions to the committee by April 14th [1:54:23] at 5 p.m. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.