Transcripts For CSPAN3 Justice Dept. Testifies On National Security Threats 20220728

Judiciary will come to order, without objection the chair is authorized to declare resources of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this mornings hearing and oversight of the department of justice and National Security division. Before we begin with i would like to remind members that we have established an email address and distribution list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, and other written materials that they want as part of the hearing today. If you would like to submit materials please send them to the email address that has been previously distributed to the offices, and we. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. National Security Division, or an s day was established was in the department of justice in 2006 with the aim to create counterterrorism and streamline interactions between federal prosecutors, main justice, and the Intelligence Community. The decision operates on the front lines of meteorologist facing our country, including a rise in domestic terrorism, cyber espionage, and threats from foreign governments. Leading the division todays assistant attorney general matthew olson, we are pleased to welcome you to the committee, mr. Olson, and to hear your perspective on the difficult tasks ahead of you. We were created in the years after the september 11th attacks. It has its roots in wet we used to call the war on terror. The decision is integral to the fight against to keep our country safe. Today the nsd faces the on comparable necessity of internal transformation. The face of terrorism has changed, the greatest threat to American Safety is no longer extremism. We can no longer dismiss the threat is coming from other people, other cultures. The threat today is from within. It is right at home in our communities and on our social media feed. Well even see it from time to time on our cable news networks. It has taken root in the rhetoric of certain political leaders, none of us can return to turn a blind eye to the growing danger. The new face of domestic terrorism is farright extremism, which is growing exponentially in the United States. The attorney general garland told our colleagues in the senate just over a year ago that the greatest threat, the greatest domestic threat facing the United States was from racially motivated violent extremists, quote, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race. White supremacists, extremist militia members, and other violent farright extremist groups were responsible for 66 of all domestic terror plot in 2020, and 30 fatalities from terrorism in 2021. 28 were at the hands of radicalized trackers. If the numbers do not convince you we can put the imminence of the threat in practical terms. One republican candidate for senate has aligned his campaign with the website that promoted the hateful actions of the shooter at the tree of life synagogue. They said that jews are not welcome in the connecticut movement and will not be welcome in a christian matchless country they hope to build. Across the country anyone hoping to attend a turning point usa it had to march past a well organized group of neonazis who had a preferred candidate for office. With the easy availability of weapons of war in this country, distance from xenophobic messaging to hateful tots, and from hateful thoughts into terrorist actions has never been shorter. An 18 year old radicalized over social media can walk into a pawn shop and leave with an ar15 that same day. Farright extremists and White Supremacists terror groups present not only a significant threat to the lives of americans, but also relatedly an unprecedented challenge to the National Security division. I applaud the attorney general for the creation of the dojs domestic Terrorism Unit this past january, which would be specifically dedicated to responding to the increasing threats posed by domestic terrorists. To be clear, the Department Already has resources and structures in place to fight domestic chairism, when i hope to hear from mr. Olsen today is how the department will focus these resources where they are needed most. The growing threat of violent White Nationalism and farright extremism. In addition to advancing the fight against domestic terrorism, there are also many other important challenges facing National Security division, as it works to keep us safe. For example, i am interested in hearing how the division is navigating threats posed by hostile actors targeting our system of government. Is this committee recently learned, the federal court system faced an incredibly significant and sophisticated Cyber Security breach, one which has since had lingering impact on the department and other agencies. While the concentration of National Security matters within a Single Division ostensibly allows the doj and executive Branch Overall to respond more effectively to threats facing the United States, they are also presented with opportunities for abuse. That is why i am looking forward to hearing how the division is reforming the governments pfizer processes, to allay our longstanding concerns about the querying of the section 702 database to acquire american information. Im also interested in hearing how the honesty is responding to inspector generals concerns about the divisions plants with the woods procedure, which requires agents to document support for all factual assertions contained in applications. And its the is at the epicenter of programs and policy areas in both where the federal gunner when it comes to protecting Civil Liberties ranging from the warrantless rounds of american citizens to the unfair targeting of black and brown communities, the sweeping collection of private data and communications, the illconceived china initiative, politically motivated investigations of and much more, nsd has found itself on the wrong end of the battle between Civil Liberties and security. I hope that the division will commit to forging a new path and strikes of proper balance. Protecting our citizens from those seeking to do them harm its also a difficult task requiring those at the helm to balance security with liberty. This nuance speaks to the heart of the values that are essential to this nation, and its your responsibility as the divisions leader to protect the ideals along with the people. Thank you for being here today, mr. Olson. I look forward to your testimony. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. Jordan, for his Opening Statement. Thank you. In america, we shouldnt need to say that parents speaking out against their childrens education arent domestic terrorists, or that those raising concern about the radical direction the left is trying to take this country are not domestic terrorists, or that Trump Supporters arent domestic terrorists, but apparently, we do. Because the Biden Administration is bound and determined to demonize everyone and anyone not in lockstep with their farleft agenda. Last september, the Biden White House colluded, colluded with the National School Boards Association to orchestrate a letter to President Biden that portrayed concerned parents speaking out at School Board Meetings a security threat. Flutter urges the president to use the patriot act to go after americas moms and dads. Just five days later, the attorney general issued a memorandum directing the fbi and u. S. Attorneys offices to address a, quote, disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence at School Board Meetings. If you remember, when we have the attorney general in front of this committee, we ask him about where did they get this where did they learn about this disturbing spike in intimidation . Where did they learn about . And his response was from the School Board Letter that they helped coordinate and put together to send to the white house. The press release that accompanied that memorandum said that mr. Olsons division, the National Security division, would be involved in a Department Wide effort to target parents. Thats right. The division that is supposed to be prosecuting terrorists, protecting us from terrorists, the kind of the kind that want to hijack planes and bring down the lisa side of that a priority of this division of the fbis parents at School Board Meetings. Yes what . We find out that this whole situation was coordinated. Thats right, like i said earlier, the letter was a pretext for the memorandum. The letter was instigated by the white house. Documents released by the National School Boards Association showed that the white house knew that the letter would urge the administration to invoke the patriot act and the white house raised no objection. In fact, the National School Boards Association admitted that President Biden telephoned the then nsba president to say that he was appreciative of the letter. When this all came to light, and americas parents rightly became outrage, the National School Board Association apologized for its actions. The nsba wrote to its members, quote, we regret and apologize for the letter. Thats a lot more than the attorney general of the Biden Administration did. As far as we know, the memorandum is still in place. Thats, right as far as we, know the attorney generals directive to the National Security division two targets moms and dads, it remains in place. If this was it, if it was just a political stunt, that would be bad enough. But its actually much worse. Because of whistleblowers who came forward, we know that the fbi created a threat tag specifically targeting parents, a designated we know that the fbi opened over two dozen investigations into parents merely because they stood up to speak on behalf of their children. We say in count letters to the doj, trying to get answers, but have gotten virtually nothing back in response. Im sure we will have some pointed questions for mr. Olson today, and i hope that he is prepared to give us answers on our the answers our constituents deserve. We also hope hes prepared to talk about the department of justice is refusal to address people trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices at their homes and their childrens schools, and we have great concerns about the terrorist attacks targeting prolife facilities in groups around the countrys. This year, there have been dozens of attacks on these facilities, but the Biden Administration seems preoccupied with other politicallycharged investigations. We would also like to know why the doj is ignoring all the facts coming to light regarding the business dealings and illegal activities of hunter biden. In fact, a troubling pattern has come to light recently that indicates the Biden Justice department seems more focused on politics than it is on fighting crime. Dont forget, this is the division of the department of justice that we interest with immense surveillance powers. The chairman mentioned, within the National Security division, is the office of intelligence, which is responsible for preparing and filing all applications pursuant to fisa, as well as appearing before surveillance court. We all know about the fisa abuses over the past several years, and how the department of justice and the fbi misused finds it to target the campaign of President Trump. Mr. Olson has been intrusted with a great deal of responsibility, its our hope that today, hes come prepared to answer a great deal of questions this committee has about the department of justice. Thank, you mister chairman, a yield back. Thank, you mr. Jordan. Without objection, are there i will now introduce todays witness. Matthew olsen is the assistant attorney general for the National Security in that capacity, he leads and department of justices mission to combat terrorism, espionage, cybercrime, and other threats to the National Security. [inaudible] mr. Olsen served as the director of the National Counterterrorism center. Prior to leading and ctc, he was the National Council for the National Security agency. For 18 years, mr. Olsen work at the department of justice as a career attorney, and a number of leadership positions, including as an associate Deputy Attorney general of special counselor to the attorney general. In 2006, he helped establish the National Security division and served as the first career Deputy Assistant attorney general for National Security. Mr. Olsen began his Public Service career as a Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the department of justice. He later held positions as a federal prosecutor in the u. S. Attorneys office for the District Of Columbia and special counsel to the director of the fbi, supporting the post 9 11 transformation of the fbi. Previously, mr. Olsen clerked for judge Norma Holloway johnson in the u. S. District court for the District Of Columbia. He graduate from Harvard Law School in the university of virginia. We welcome our distinguished witness, we thank you for participating today. I will begin by swearing you in. I asked that you raise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and believe, so help you god . I do. Let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you may please be seated. Please note that your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, accordingly i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have a minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired. Mr. Olsen, you may begin. Thank you, chairman nadler, Ranking Member jordan, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify about the important work of the Justice Department on National Security. As you know, as you noted, chairman, congress created the National Security division in 2006. The goal was to unify and prioritize the dojs National Security efforts. The National Security division has a wide range of responsibilities, you touched on them. We prosecute terrorists and spies, we protect the nation against cyberattacks, we provide legal and policy support to intelligence operations and oversight. And we review Foreign Investments in u. S. Companies for National Security risks. This morning i would like to focus that my Opening Statement on one of our top priorities, that is counterterrorism. The country faces a persistent and dynamic threat from terrorism. This threatening compresses multi foreign terrorist groups that seeks to carry out attacks against the United States, as well as domestic violent extremists, they are often mobilized to violence by racism and Anti Government ideologies. International terrorism poses a continuing and evolving threat to the u. S. , both at home and abroad. We keep a unwavering focus on violent jihadist groups, and we play an interval role in the all government effort to defend against these threats. At the same time, the department of justice is committed to tackling the alarming threat at home from domestic violent extremism. Domestic violent extremists are individuals in the United States who seek to commit violent, criminal acts in furtherance of domestic, social, or political goals. For example, we have seen a growing threat from those who are motivated by racism, we have also seen an increase of threats from extremists to espouse Anti Government or Anti Authority ideologies, and who often target those who participate in civil life. Such as elected officials, police officers, and health care workers. There is no doubt that these threats are on the rise. The number of fbi investigations over the past two years has more than doubled from domestic violent extremists, january 6th attack on the u. S. Capital stands apart. The departments investigation is the single largest domestic terrorism is investigation in the history. To date that has led to the arrest of more than 860 individuals. Many of these defendants have been charged with very serious crimes including seditious conspiracy, obstruction of congress, assault on police officers. We are committed to Holding Accountable those who engaged in violence and other illegal acts, and to bring to justice anyone who unlawfully try to overturn the election. We are upholding our oath to defend the constitution against those who tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Our National Security initiative requires that we protect these fundamental pillars of our democracy. We work not just to protect our Democratic Institutions but also our citizens and communities from the terrible costs inflicted by terrorism and violent extremism. Tragedies in buffalo, pittsburgh, el paso, charlatan, and out but elsewhere are seared honorees. We must be clear that Law Enforcement faces very start islanders when it comes to domestic extremism. Violent extremists are too often able to radicalized online quickly, easily acquire military grade weapons, and target vulnerable locations such as public gatherings. Places of worship, and shopping centers. These are places that are very difficult to defend. The National Security division plays a Critical Role in countering these threats. We lead and support terrorism investigations and prostitution working with the fbi and the u. S. Attorney call Office Around the country. We recently established a dedicated, domestic Terrorism Unit. The goal is to oversee and coordinate these cases across the department and around the country. Our domestic Terrorism Unit works very closely with the Civil Rights Division, which has prosecuted some of the hate most heinous attacks in the recent years using the federal hate crime statutes. Having spent 18 years myself as a Career Department of justice attorney and prosecutor, i know that our workforce is committed to the constitution, and to ensuring equal and impartial justice. We prosecute cases based on the facts and the law. Without regard to ideology and politics. Our National Strength comes from our founding values, these include the rule of law, free speech, and freedom of association. We will uphold these values as we safeguard the American People from threats to our safety and our National Security. I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to answering the committees questions. Thank you for your testimony, we will now proceed under the five minute rule with questions, and i will recognize myself for five minutes. On january 6th 2021 the Administrative Office of the courts released a Public Statement about a Cyber Security breach dating back to early 2020. Unrelated to however, it was only in march of this year that the Committee First learned the scope of the courts document managing the System Security failure. Perhaps even more concerning is the disturbing impact the Security Breach had on pending civil and criminal location, as well as the ongoing National Security matters. Understanding that this is an unclassified setting, what types of cases or investigations will the u. S. Attorneys office that were impacted the most with these breach. How many of those cases investigations are within your division . Chairman, let me begin by saying that the threat we face from cyber enabled attacks, whether that is to the government, public secretary in congress, and to the private sector, its one of the most significant threats we face as a country to our National Security. For the National Security division we are based on nationstate attacks. Thats can come from countries like china, russia, iran, and north korea. While i cannot speak directly to the nature of the Ongoing Investigation of the types of threats that you have mentioned regarding the effort to compromise public traditional documents, this is, of course a significant concern for us given the nature of the information that is often held by the courts. If any cases or investigations within the nsc materially impacted were no longer dismiss because of the courts rich . I cannot think of anything in particular that has been affected in the way that you described, although i would want to double check on that. We are very concerned, we are working, i can assure you based on my own personal experience that we are working very closely with the judicial conference and judges around the country to address this issue. As a department ordered your own systems to ensure you are not compromised by the same three hostile foreign actors who adopt the Document Management system. It is ongoing effort to protect our systems for the same reason but i would say that the challenge when it comes to the sophisticated nationstate type of activity that we see in cyber, the challenge is significant and it is difficult to ever be in a position to say any system is one hunted percent safe when it comes to sophisticated nation states that seek to obtain persistent access to the systems. The departments 2022 conference cyber review included that doj needs to, quote, consider carefully whats at it collects with the lawfulness of resources in the rest of the data itself. Close quote. As you heard last week during our digital hearing, unreliable and unverified data often purchase through available thirdparty sources can lead to incorrect identification, rifle arrest and constant litigation. Under the brady role prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to expose evidence. But, when prosecutors rely on information produced by Law Enforcement this is not the case. What is the department apology on sharing exculpatory evidence with defendants when that information was acquired through purchases from data brokers, apps, social media platforms, or other thirdparty commercial sources . Mister chairman, as a former federal prosecutor myself i can assure you that the constitution providing exculpatory evidence to the accused under the brady role is one that is taken extremely seriously, applies across the board to any information that the government has in its possession, regardless of the source. I have not looked at that policy recently, i know that that is general obligation apply across the court to federal prosecutors. [inaudible] i assume your promise to keep us updated on the courts bridge. Absolutely, absolutely waste and ready to come to congress to talk about that at any time. Thank you very much, mr. Jordan . Mr. Biggs . Thank, you mr. Chairman, mr. Olson, the foreign agents registration act requires those to be a minister with your office and the National Security division. Is that fair . That is correct, i have behind me and email from 2016 from the obama Biden Administration between hunter biden and the son of a mexican billionaire and grandson of the forprofit mexican president. The other line say we arriving late night on air force two to mexico city to attend a meeting with the president , and with dad. Highlighted is the comments we have been talking about business deals and partnerships for seven years, i have brought every Single Person you have ever asked me to bring to the white house, the Vice President s house, and the inauguration. I have delivered on every single thing you have ever asked. In this email hunter biden acknowledges his attendance at a meeting between mexican president and then vice President Biden. Masking, family references mexican businessmen at the white house and the Vice President south he states, i delivered on every single thing you ever. As this email, or does this email might have asked the contrary to represent foreign principles . Im not familiar with the email that you are referring to but i can tell you that it is a fundamental principle of the Justice Department and consistent with my almost 20 year career that we follow the facts of the law in every case but you are not familiar with this. With this email here. We will show you next a picture of vice President Biden and hunter one of the richest man in the world, in 2015. While joe biden was Vice President , this picture seems to conflict with President Biden stating that he has never met with his sons business associates. Much of the information regarding Hunter Bidens foreign busses dealings has come from the as well as my 51 former intelligence officers. In this letter, dated october 2020, which i will submit for the record. This week we learned fbi whistleblowers have come forward and reported the fbi committed a widespread effort within the fbi to downplay or discredit negative information about hunter biden. Are you familiar with that reporting . No, im not. So has an investigation of hunter biden by your office been influenced by the work, product, or actions timothy bull . I will not comment on any investigation that may or may not be ongoing. But i assure you is that we follow the facts and evidence and we apply the law and i every case without regard for ideology you are unaware of the reporting, so you are unaware of any label derogatory information under biden as this information. I will not comment on any potential Ongoing Investigation. Okay. According to reports, Border Patrol has apprehended at least 50 illegal aliens at the southwest border in the fiscal year 2022. The office of Field Operations has encountered at least 50 aliens on a terror watch lit at ports mentor in the fiscal year. Does when they encounter an illegal alien who is on a terrorist watchlist . The National Security division was actually created to work with other agencies, whether thats agencies does including agencies and the this is not hard. Does the cbp give you information when they find someone on the terrorist watchlist at the border. Do they give that information to you . I cant speak as i sit here to any particular situation or circumstance, but what i can tell you im not asking you about the circumstances. Is the process they report to you, so you have 100 known encounters with people a terrorist watch lists. I assume one would think, its coming to you, im asking about the process, not a specific case. In general, congressman, the way the system works is that the fbi investigates the crimes that we prosecute. Lets get to this specific the information goes lets get to the specific case then. Are you familiar with the name nissan bazzy . Im sorry . Are you familiar with the name nissan bazzy . No. Hes on the terror watchlist. He was released into the United States after crossing the border illegally. According to reports, the fbi recommended keeping him in custody, but ice headquarters intervene and released him because of a concern he might catch covid19 because he was overweight. So far theres been more than hundred thousand known how many can you extrapolate are on the terrorist watchlist . And have you done any assessment the witness may answer the question. Im not familiar with that, now. Miss lofgren . Thank, you mr. Chairman i would like to explore section 702 with you, as im sure you are aware, in his november 2020 recertification found that the fbi employees had improperly surged american females that were collected without a warrant and were unrelated to foreign intelligence information, and the d. O. D. Annual statistical transparency report released in april of 2022 founded the fbi searched its 702 surrounds repository, quote, using the identifiers of americans like their names, phone numbers, and addresses. Nearly 3. 4 million times between december 2020 and november 2021. This is nearly tripled the number reported from 2020. Although the odni only reported 376 warrants issued for wiretaps or physical searches of individuals in 2021, it found 232,000 plus named targets of fisa section 702 warrantless searches. During your confirmation hearing, before the Senate Intelligence committee, pam restoring trust in the fisa process was a critical priority for you, and i was glad to hear that. Since you have assumed your role as assistant attorney general, what have you done to prevent warrantless improper backdoor searches of americans s data section 702. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about fisa particular section seven or two. As you noted, when i was confirmed, last year, i indicated that a priority for the department of justice and for me at the National Security division was to ensure that congress and the American People have confidence in our use of intelligence tools such as fisa. Fisa was passed first in 1978, as you know, it has proven to be to be an indispensable tool to go after spies and terrorists and hackers and it remains so. Collect information about nonu. S. Persons, nonu. S. Citizens has proven to be essential to protecting National Security the issues that you cite are ones that are of concern, the compliance of the fbi in particular with the way in which it searches through the section 702 data that is lawfully collected. The fbi, with the department of justice, has undertaken a series of threats over the years to improve compliance by systems changes and training, and i have been part of that effort in my eight months in office, we are looking forward to improving the compliance records of the department of justice. It is part of the broader comprehensive system of oversight that takes place when it comes to foreign intelligence collection, and that includes congress, the executive, branch and the judiciary if i may just follow, of we have had reassurances over the years and yet the performance continues to be poor, and its been poor under both democratic and republican administration. So we have considered imposing a warrant requirement for queries of known americans, and i guess im thinking that probably a necessity unless we can get some further definitive control of the warrantless search of americans using the 702 we agree, we want to catch the spies and the foreign bad actors, but to use that database for warrantless searches of americans is simply improper, and yet it continues, how can we get assurances, and when will we get our next report from you, about the controls that youve discussed . As you know, section seven into expires at the end of next year. We are engaged in a concerted effort to be prepared to brief congress at any time, review, your staff, about the controls that are in place. The way that section 17 into works, if i may, it is information collected targeting nonu. S. Persons overseas. It is lawfully collected, with the fbi enabled to search that data to find connections. So its not a warrantless search of americans. It is a search of data that was collected targeting people who are outside the United States who are not u. S. Citizens. If i may, sir, that is contrary to the report that we got from odni, and from the fisa board. So i think my time is expired, but we need to get to the bottom of this, and mister chairman [inaudible] thank you. Mr. Massie is recognized for five minutes. I yield to my friend from florida, mr. Matt gaetz. Its hunter biden a National Security threat . Thats not a question here the had a National Security division, it seems sort of on the nose. Its not in my practice or experience to identify not in my purview. Weve heard that. Any individual american citizens as a National Security threat. He was certainly could say that if the adult offspring of the president of United States or the Vice President were compromised, that would be a National Security threat, right . We speak through our filings in court. And we speak through our actions in open court. Speak to this, wheres the laptop, do you know where Hunter Bidens laptop is . Again, im not going to talk about any potential do you know where it is . Do you know where it is . Im not going to talk about any ongoing you come here to tell us you follow the facts and the law but you cant follow a laptop that you guys have had for three years. We follow the facts on the law, and we speak in open court about yeah but you arent speaking about this, but you know who is . The whistleblowers from the fbi, have gone to senator grassley and said that you guys purposefully take any information that is derogatory about hunter biden and you go and rattle it so you dont have to speak about it in any circumstance. But the good news is, you are not the only ones with that laptop. So patrick was convicted of bribing Government Officials and africa, and he gave a to hunter biden. Are you familiar with that . Im not going to speak about any Ongoing Investigation. Is that an Ongoing Investigation . Im not going to the bribe . Dont you see that that degrades the countrys belief in you guys, when you have whistleblowers saying that you are purposefully rattling disinformation and you come here and you say you wont talk about it. Inside Hunter Bidens multi Million Dollar deals with a Chinese Energy company, Washington Post, matt busier, chinese elite, paid 31 million to hunter and the bidens. Peter schweitzer, new york post, Hunter Bidens Business Partner called joe biden the big guy in panic messages. Do you guys call joe biden the big guy at the doj . Its important understand why we dont speak about cases outside of the courtroom. By the way, i know i may answer the question . Its about hunter biden. You guys have no problem leaking about other stuff. But youve got no problem going out and tagging parents at School Board Meetings as a National Security threat, but when all of the facts, and all of the law before you regarding the corruption of hunter biden, you dont want to speak to that at all, and its precisely why youve got folks that are talking to senator grassley about. It boeheim harvest, so ten days after by takes hunter biden to china, ten days after, this long toiling venture of hunter biden, he cant get off the drone, ten days after they go, he automatically gets approved. So for have you guys looked into that . And im going to talk about any Ongoing Investigation. You know who else is talking . Tony bubble in ski, who told the world that joe biden was cut in on a ccp energy deal that was orchestrated by hunter biden. Have you guys talked to him . Again, we dont talk about Ongoing Investigations in settings such as this. So joe biden how about this, will you commit to a classified briefing on these matters . Certainly i would be happy to talk to you or any member of the committee about matters of National Security. Is this a matter of National Security . We dont talk outside of courtrooms about Ongoing Investigations. Is there an Ongoing Investigation of the annual fund dinner that happened where joe biden was Vice President of the United States and hunter biden pulled his funds at the Chinese Embassy. But in order to do that, in order to get the Chinese Embassy to roll out the red car, but he had to go to the embassy 30 minutes before and have a oneonone meeting with the chinese ambassador. Do you think its possible that that meeting might have jeopardize National Security . Im not going to comment about any potential or Ongoing Investigation. Heres the thing. Its pretty easy to see that hunter biden is compromised. I think every american knows thats a threat to National Security. I think we are watching a crime spree in progress that hunter biden is orchestrating, and one has to wonder, what are the chinese getting for the tens of millions of dollars that they are cutting the biden family in on . What is a Chinese Communist Party Getting as a result of cutting in 10 for the big guy . I just happened to notice that you guys canceled the china initiative, that president put in place, where he focused count on those things. Jim biden said to tony bob alinsky that the reason they were able to get away with this corruption is plausible deniability, and that is precisely the plausible deniability that you are animating endings that defied today, and you know, one winter is coming, we are going to be the majority, and then you will have to answer these questions for the country. I yield back. The gentlemans time is expired. I have several unanimous consent requests. My first unanimous consent requests is the Ranking Member made reference to a department of justice whistleblower memo and grossly mischaracterized its content, so may i read the memo into the record . I object. I object. Thatll be over five minutes. You reject a reading to the record that was not if you do it on time. Then i ask unanimous consent that the document that republicans were afraid to have be read aloud be introduced into the record. Without objection. I have unanimous consent requests that i a politifact, with the heading, no, the federal government isnt using the patriot act to treat be introduced into the record. Madam chair, point of order, unanimous contents is limited to describing the document which i am doing right now. I have the. Floor hold, on. Guys i am asking that the document titled entitled no, the federals government isnt using the like domestic terrorists, be a part of the record. With that objection. I have unanimous consent requests that entitled mccarthys false claims at garland called parents terrorists be made part of the record. So ordered, without objection. A document titled attorney general never called concerned parents domestic terrorists be made part of the record. Without objection. And finally, a fact check that kevin that reads Kevin Mccarthy keeps repeatings full time that attorney general called parents terrace for wanting to attend School Board Meetings be made part of the record. Without objection. I requested my stop making a false claim. Wed like with that. General order just impugn our tag early i would demand that his words be taken down, he is not allowed under the rules to impugn false statements by this side. And as far as politifact and some of those, they couldnt find the truth with both hands. Thats a separate allegation. I would like the gentleladys voice to the gentlelady from texas no, your words to be taken down the committee will suspend. The committee will suspend. Im sorry, were they intending to read it . [inaudible] in response to David Cicilline i think that imputes the republican side. I think that is actually totally inappropriate, and if we are going to start letting people out of order just throw in a document. Ive got about 20 sitting right here. I will withdraw the comment. Thank you. And now we would like to recognize miss jackson. Weve got to have a ruling on my request that the gentlemans words be taken down. Where he said we made false statements madam chair . Yes, mr. Raskin . As i understand, in the gentlemans point, he said that the gentleman from rhode island had impugned his false statements and perhaps the gentleman from brown would say he doesnt impugn his false statements. I dont think mr. Gilmore made any statements. I think the report where we are repeating reported to this committee the headlines of five documents that said those claims are false. Those are what the documents say. Im not going to change the words of the documents. And im not impugning them, and simply putting into the record those documents that in fact refused to claim. The gentleman said that the Ranking Member grossly mischaracterized the statements and thats not the breach of decorum, thats a statement. In my opinion, he grossly mischaracterized the contents of the doj memo. Thats absolutely appropriate. Impugns intention. No it does not it doesnt impede anybodys intention. Youve gotten so used to making statements that are outside the rules of decorum that you dont even recognize when you do. You cant just constantly malign people on this side of the aisle. Madam chair, are you prepared to rule . Madam chair . Madam chair . [inaudible] and the gentleman from rhode island rephrase to make clear that this is a difference of opinion with respect to madam chair . I certainly accept that they they were responding to [inaudible] madam chair . But i dont think that our rules require me to accept assertions without challenging them. Thats exactly what Committee Process is about. And im not going to limit my right to challenge claims that are made appropriately, which i believe they did. That is outside the bounds for any member to just take overtime and start impugning other people making i dont think there was anybody impugning anyone. It was a unanimous consent requests it does not allow you to start mischaracterizing what you allege are mischaracterizations. Yes, mr. Jordan. That lets just get to the facts. The facts are the white house coordinated with the School Board Associations theres a request if you said that something is just an anchor, look at the letter right here mr. Jordan i want to impugn all right fine. Are we ready . Yes. Thats fine. [inaudible] hes not going to do, it serves. [inaudible] in the opinion of the chair the words do not impugn the members on the other side. Madam chair motion to table. Motion tabled. Automatic roll call. All right. We will get the clerk. The clerk will call the roll. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler . Just so everyone is clear, after the exchanges, this is a vote on the motion to table. Ms. Lofgren. Miss jacksonlee votes. I mr. Cohen . Mr. Johnson of johnson . Johnson votes aye mr. Deutch . Ms. Bass . Mr. Jeffries was i . Mr. Cicilline votes aye mr. Lieu both i, mister raskin votes i. Ms. Demings votes i. Mr. Curry about i. Ms. Scanlon boats i. Ms. Garcia . Mr. Neguse . Ms. Mcbath . Mr. Stanton . Aye. Mr. Stanton votes i. Ms. Dean . Ms. Escobar . Ms. Escobar . How did the chairman voice . Aye. I aye . Ms. Boats aye. Mr. Jones . Ms. Ross . Ross votes aye. Ms. Ross votes aye. Ms. Bush mr. Gohmert or snow. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Buck byrd snow. Mr. Gaetz votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana about snow. Mr. Biggs . Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcclintock. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Mr. Steube . No. Mr. Steube votes no. Mr. Tiffany . Tiffany, no. Mr. Tiffany votes no. Mr. Massie . No. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy . No. Mr. Roy boats . No mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop votes no. Miss fish back . No. No. Mr. Fitzgerald . No. Mr. Fitzgerald votes. No mister pence . Mister pence votes no. Mr. Owens . Ms. , ms. ,. . Lieu boats aye. Mr. Shabbat, you are not recorded. No. Mr. Shabbat votes no. America . Mr. , dont you are not recorded. Aye. Mr. Deutch votes aye. Mr. Apple is not recorded. Madam chair, im a recorded . Mr. Johnson, you are recorded as aye. Thank you. The clerk will report. Manager there 18 ayes and 17 noes. The motion to table is agreed to. The gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. Welcome, let me we are dealing with the clock right now, thank you. Which way is it going . Hello . Did you restore the clock . Yes. Thank you. This may be another long hearing, i do not know where your timeframe is but let me first of all indicate that this idea of National Security should be a bipartisan issue, and i knew as i woke up this morning that the Family Member of a president would be a center point. I wonder why the insurrection and january 6th is not a center point. Let me have my line of questioning in specific areas. First, i want to say that i will be interested, i think it is going to be very important to know how many cases have been impacted by the federal court breach. I do not polarization, i pose it is a serious concern that this committee needs to. I would expect your preparation and for us to be able to get that information as quickly as possible in a setting that will be appropriate. This is a dangerous set of circumstances that has now been publicly announced, we need to know how many and how many were dismissed. I wanted to get that on the record. Then i wanted to make sure that we posed the question nearly 3. 4 million searches for american identifier is a astronomical number, are you confident that none of these queries were, as judge boss bergh described, designed to retrieve evidence of crime that was not intelligence information. This obviously relates the pfizer concerns, i was here for the patriot act that its can reform, if you can give brief answers because i have a series of other questions, thank you. Sure, if i may briefly remarked that in my experience having served under a number of other administrations, National Security is a bipartisan concern. On the number of queries that you referenced, that was a significant jump over the prior year. We have looked closely at that number, 3 million queries, more than half of that number is attributable to one search involving a cyber incident, we were looking for potential victims of a cyber incident. I am happy to come back and give you more details on that in a classified setting but that is the question. You know how concerning it is that americans will be subjected to that kind of evasion, i want to go into the record that we would post that and get a briefing as quickly as possible. Let me also pursue this issue dealing with incel and the horrific rise of domestic terrorism in this country. For me it is overwhelming, but it is true. In january 2022 doj announced the creation of a domestic Terrorism Unit to fight homegrown extremism. Quickly, what does this new unit demonstrate about dojs strategy for countering White Supremacy, can you briefly talk about the threat from the farright extremists who also misrepresent the truth. That is an important point, it draws him recruits, would you comment briefly on that unit and that recruiting concept of the untruth and getting people to join . The domestic Terrorism Unit that we announced in january and sort of officially and may consist of a number of prosecutors as well as policy oriented attorney to make sure we are taking a significant approach across the country when it comes to domestic, violent extremism and cases involving domestic terrorism. Which runs the gambit, we follow the evidence of the law and we will take on the issue of domestic terrorism without regard to politics or ideology. We have seen a rise in particularly lethal attacks by individuals motivated by racism, as well as individuals motivated by Anti Government or Anti Authority ideology. What does nina do . The unit is within our broader counterterrorism section, it oversees and coordinates the domestic terrorism. It was carried out by u. S. Attorneys offices, handling these cases on consistent basis. Were looking at violence and acts of violence and not looking at protected speech. Let me move quickly to and sell. This is a gray, just horrific, deadly, the perpetrators of the crime involving oxford michigan and Uc Santa Barbara were insult proponents. That is the hatred of women, gender, misogyny, extremism mixed in with the talks of race. This National Threat Assessment Center released a study on terrorism who called themselves anti feminist or involuntary some feminists. They have the inability to develop relationships with women, the highlight is that, my question is, if you can finish the question which, is your focus on that . We are focused on all manner of ideologically focused or directed violence. Certainly, the instances you mention, some of them are under investigation. I cannot talk about Ongoing Investigations. The general challenge is that individuals with a mix of ideologies are easily radicalized online and have access to significant and powerful weapons. The gentleladys time has expired, the gentleman from california is recognized. Thank you, thank you madam chair. Mr. Olson, in the 22 years that i have sat down there and up here on the dais i saw the creation of your organization, the creation of sub organizations, and like a few of us at the top of the dais i remember why you were formed. 9 11 created the mandate. We were concerned about domestic activities leading to attacks on the United States. Formerly foreign motivated. It does seem to me, justice commentary, that we are straying further and further permission. I think it is important that you follow the facts where you need and go after terrorists. I had an attempt to bomb my office which was a domestic terrorism, members of this body on both sides have been shot and nearly killed by people who objected to our positions. I am not saying to get rid of them but i am concerned that what we fund, when we promote, and what your responsibility is is to keep the homeland safe. Disproportionately that is based on foreign actors linked to u. S. Actors. To that extent i have a specific question today that is of deep concern. On june 6th a venezuelan flag plane landed, it had five iranians and 14 of venezuelan crew. They were irgc officials, the other crew members had ties to terrorism. The plane was owned by a u. S. Designated airline that had been seen and proven to be firing weapons into syria from iran. It was designated to be connected. All of this is undeniable. The plane itself, its tail number doesnt itd by the United States in the past. As a result, six weeks ago federal judge in argentina referred and and lapped to your organization. And, today, has not had a response. This is normally a 24hour turnaround, because in order to hold these people, in order to have the information, in order to fight the war on terror and terrorism they need your cooperation. Are you familiar with this case . I am generally familiar with the case, yes, colonel smith. Can you explain by both myself and a u. S. Senator do not have an answer, along with the argentinians who should have gotten it in 24 hours . This is an ongoing matter that i cannot talk about the specifics. I am happy to take this question and get back to you with the information i can further provide. Myself, senator ernst, and others would appreciate that. Let me just say that we find it conspicuous that iran seems to not be getting the kind of scrutiny, particularly considering the connection, considering the threat to israel, the United States, the threat to our allies in south and central america. That should have been a high priority, i would like an answer and i would like to know here, today, in the remaining time what you believe the appropriate turnaround time is for this kind of a request. Particularly with prevent terrorist activities in the hands of a friendly foreign government. I will take you to take the threat from iran very seriously. If i can pause you for a moment, we took it seriously under the trump administration, we took it seriously when we were fighting iran. Currently there are negotiations to essentially normalize relations with iran going on at the highest level of this government. The scrutiny i have now is, why is it taking beyond 24 hours, tell me why it is not. The historic turnaround time to work with our allies when confronted with terrorism. I simply cannot speak to the particulars of that. I will take every other case, are we going to get turning for our turnaround time in other cases . Policy issues at the very top of that would seem to have you not want to go after the irgc for their conducting of terrorist activities that in dangerous, israel, and our other allies . I can absolutely assure you the Political Considerations are not a fact. You can assure me, mr. Olson, you have not done it yet. The gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Johnson of georgia is recognized. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to this witness for your appearance today. Sir, i would like to ask you, does the fbi target parents at School Board Meetings who are protesting against mask mandates, critical race theory, or any other subject . And they do not threaten violence, does the fbi have a system where it investigates these parents who are lawfully exercising their First Amendment right . The answer is no, the fbi and the department of justice investigates crimes, violence, and threats of violence. It does not, in fact it is prohibited from opening investigations based solely on First Amendment protected activities. There is no targeting of anyone for exercising their First Amendment rights, that was made clear by the attorney general in his consistent with my experience over 20 years of the Justice Department. As the fbi seen a rise and threats against local School Board Officials that are threatening violence . My understanding is that there has been a general rise in threats against individuals who served in positions, such as School Boards. But also local and state elected officials, as well as Law Enforcement. This concern about the rise and threats of violence from criminal activity involving people who serve in positions of civic life. That is a growing concern for the department of justice, as it is for state and local Police Departments and prosecutors around the country. Does the fbi and the Justice Department go with the local and state governments. When there are threats of violence against School Boards officials. That partnership between federal Law Enforcement, and federal prosecutors. Particularly on the Law Enforcement side, from the state and locals it serves him positions of public trust, at every level are subject to threats of violence. At the same time that individuals who seek to speak out at open hearings, whether a school board or a city council hearing, that those rights are protected as well. Thank you, do you find that the United States has been targeted with disinformation from both foreign and domestic sources, and that this disinformation affects parents at local School Board Meetings. It affects members of congress with respect to disinformation about hunter biden, should there be any, do you find that disinformation and highs caused people to react in ways that are problematic . I cannot speak to a particular instances of this or misinformation and how it may affect individuals and particular matters, when i can tell you is that the Intelligence Community for the United States does believe and has assessed the spread of information, jocularly over social media has increased the reach and speed of the reach of violent content, and it has increased the speed at which individuals may become radicalized, and mobilize to violence, that is where we are focused is where individuals are moved to commit acts of violence or threats of violence. Criminal act that we can then investigate and prosecute. Has this disinformation been a factor in the rise of the terrorist threat from the farright nationalists, domestic farright nationalists who are also racists . In my view, congressman, the challenge of disinformation and misinformation is agnostic, we saw this when it came to the use a propaganda by isis to try and recruit and mobilize people to violence in the United States, and it is true when it comes to domestic violent extremists as well who maybe move to become radicalized based on miss and disinformation that they consume over social media or from other sources. Thank you, thank you for being diligent and they protecting of the security of the American People, was that i yield back. Thank you, gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, madam chair, mr. Olson, are you juicing the numbers . I am not sure what you are referring to. You talk in the Opening Statements about the number of domestic Terror Threats, we have also people saying theyre being pressured to categorize cases as domestic terrorism threats that are not, the Opening Statement, most of your statement you talked about this new option, are you juicing the numbers . I am not aware of the references you are making to a suppliers, but i can tell you is that the Intelligence Community has assessed that the threat we face from domestic violent extremism is elevated, that is consistent with what we see. Who is timothy bolt . I am sorry, i do not know that name. You do not know that name, mr. Grassley does, mr. Gates brought him up in my five minutes of questioning. He is a person who suppressed information that was verifiable of hunter biden in 2020. Do not know this individual is . Im sorry, i do not. What is interesting about the individuals as he is the guy who told us that they whistleblowers are pressuring to recategorize the cases as domestic terrorism cases. You do not know anything about him . I do not. That stands to reason, i find that interesting. How many poor parents hasday department of justice investigated . The Justice Department and the fbi investigate individuals who commit acts of violence or threats of violence. Relative to the school board issue, we know of 20 some, over two dozen because we have had other whistleblowers come forward and tell us about that. It is almost like it as a well worn trail of fbi agents coming as whistleblowers to our office because of the things theyre concerned about going on with the Justice Department. We know other two dozen i want to know how many more you have done. Sorry, i did not investigate anyone based on their status as a parent or not apparent. We investigate prosecute investigate based on the spread threat tag, how many more than the 20 something we know about already have been investigated because they had that threat tag associated with their name . I do not believe anyone has been investigated because they have a threat tag, i cannot speak to that. How else do you identify them . That was the fbi memo, the officials have been investigated. We know of over 2000 of them. I do not have specific information about that. You are on the press release when attorney general issued his memorandum that the National Security division was mentioned in the press release that one out that day. Heres what the press release said. According to the attorney generals memorandum the Justice Department will watch a series of additional efforts to include the creation of a task force, that task force been created . I believe that it has, yes. I believe that it has, yes. Who is on it . A number of components across the Justice Department. Who is on the task force . A number of components represented from the Criminal Division, the civil division. Components do not create task, forced people to. A number of representatives of those components, served on the task force. Do you serve on it . I am not a member of the task force, i have not been to any meetings, so there are a number of representatives across the department before on that task force. From the nsd is on the task force . I do not have information on this. This was a big press release, this is the biggest story on the news last fall National Security division is one of the components, you have never been to a Task Force Meeting and you do not know who from your division is . Correct. Are you embarrassed about this . Is this an embarrassment . The National School Board Association pulled back their letter, they apologize for and rejected that they did it, a bunch of states have pulled out of the organization, i am wondering if that is the same attitude you guys have, i think it would be good if you did. I think we take seriously that anyone who deserves in civic life deserves to be safe, anyone who serves on a city council, in a position of public trust should not be the subject of threats of violence or violence, that is the point of this effort, is to work with particularly and parents should feel safe they shouldnt speak their mind about their kids education not be harassed for doing so, we have sent you 103 letters, 584 specific request of the last few months, i have a whole stack of them, have you collected any of the information we have asked for, have you collected that information . I am aware that there have been requests, i do not know the status in response to those requests. We know the status from the response, you have basically said we will not give you anything. We got two letters with half a paragraph on each letter, i just want to know if you have actually collected the information, we know you will not give it to us, we have seen that over the last nine months, have you collected it . Sir, i am not sure what you mean by collected any of the information. 584 specific quest about correspondents, emails, communications between the Justice Department, the white house, the department of education, we have asked the information, i am just asking if you have even started to collect it. And certainly willing to take that question back to our office of legislation. The gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, and i want to thank you, assistant colonel general ors olson for being here today, one of the more dire threats were seeing from National Security is coming from within our borders. In recent years we have seen a rise in domestic terrorism and hate crimes across the country, and analysis by the center for strategic and International Studies shows that domestic terrorism in 2020 was at the highest level in nearly three decades. Since 2005 rightwing extremists have been involved in 267 domestic terror plots and attacks and are responsible for 91 deaths, according to the center. This is including countless russia lee motivated attacks, Mass Shootings, and killings including in el paso, texas in 2019 at the tree of life synagogue in 2018, to any other places to name, it is dealing great fear and insecurity emily American People. The National Security division, and your work is incredibly important to the defense of the homeland, not only from foreign threats but from domestic ones as well. Which brings me to my first question. Attorney general garland and secretary of Homeland Security mayorkas have both testified that the greatest domestic threat facing the United States comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race. How is the doj modified this intelligence and prosecution apparatus since the beginning of the Biden Administration to prioritize terrorist activities by White Supremacists, White Nationalists, and Anti Government groups in the United States . Theyre responsible for kind of violence i just described. Sure, we are threat driven at the National Security division and across the Justice Department, we respond to the threats that we see and the way the fbi and the rest of the Intelligence Community characterize those threats, they include threats from International Terrorist groups like alqaeda and isis but increasingly we have become concerned about groups that are based in the United States, those groups run the gambit in terms of ideology, a mix of ideology. My question is why has the doj struggled to investigate and prosecute these threats . But i would say, for our part, but we did was to establish the specialized unit within our counterterrorism section this year, to focus on domestic terrorism threats, and domestic violent extremists, to make sure that we have the right data, that is a challenge to understand the nature of the threat, to make sure that we have prosecutors dedicated to that effort, and also to make sure that we are focusing on the violence, and not First Amendment protected activities because of course, one of the concerns that individual may espouse hateful rhetoric, racist rhetoric, Anti Government rhetoric, but that is protected by the First Amendment. My concern is when those views cross over to criminal acts such as acts of violence. I want to ask you about a piece of legislation, the american ovation and choice online acts, this is legislation that promotes competition, innovation, and Consumer Choice online. In this letter of support, very strong letter of support the department of justice explained that the gatekeeper power of dominant platforms threatens our Economic Leadership and resiliency, and that by reigning in this power our legislation will help promote americas dynamism and competitiveness, some opponents of the bill have falsely claimed it would harm our National Security, that the legislation has not been properly vetted for National Security considerations. Isnt it true that the Justice Department support of this bill reflects the entire departments views, including those of the National Security division and as head of the National Security division, do you have any National Security concerns about the legislation. And certainly aware of the legislation and also that the department has submitted a letter in support of the bill, and that letter reflects the input of my division and the National Security division, i also know that the bill contains a number of provisions that are designed to address the types of concerns that were raised about and are being raised about National Security, i look forward to working if there are additional changes that need to be made to address any additional National Security concerns. Thank you, finally, terrorism in the form of nationals has become prevalent in the United States. 2021 saw nearly 500 Mass Shootings in that sense, the gun violence archive began tracking them in 2014. Does the doj view these attacks as part of a broader problem, how do you incorporate the prevention of mass shooting into the National Security work if you do it all . The challenge of Mass Shootings, tragic as we have seen, spans across the department of justice. The Criminal Division, the Civil Rights Division, and the National Security division. When we have instances of a mass shooting that is motivated by political views or ideology, that falls into the category of domestic terrorism. That will be something to the National Security division works on, we often work in coordination with the Civil Rights Division because it has the jurisdiction over hate crime statutes in many of these cases that are prosecuted through hate crimes. But i can, say which i think is obvious, is that easy access to military grade weapons increases the likelihood that individuals who are of extremist and hold extremist views, and seek to carry out acts of violence are able to do those on a more significant scale. Thank, you ill back. Thank, you mr. Johnson of louisiana is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Olson it is ironic to hear my colleagues talk about disinformation because theres a lot of it being shared on the other side of the aisle, let me reset the table on the documented facts of what exactly we know about this whole School Boards issue. As activists groups on the left continue to push their agenda on americas children last year, parents across the country began to speak out, they came to School Board Meetings, they express their views on critical race theory, mask mandates, and controversial curriculum, that is their First Amendment right. As more parents spoke at the National School Boards Association and the biden ministration colluded, that is a specificallys term for a reason to create justification to use federal Law Enforcement tools to silence those parents who are becoming a real problem for the agenda, as part of this collision the nsba School Board Association says a now famous letter to the white house, in september 29th 2001, to urge the Biden Administration to use the heavyhanded Law Enforcement to target those moms and dads and chill theyre protected First Amendment right, the white house not only colluded with the nsba to craft the substance of that letter, but, following the letter President Biden called the president to say he was appreciative of their letter, and invited her to visit the oval office. The letter stated quote, malice, violence, and threats against School Officials, quoting, could be the equivalent of a form of domestic terrorism or hate crimes, unquote, we did not make that up, it is all documented, on may 20th of this year they released a report, it had a Commission Report because 20 of its organizations, its state School Board Associations pulled out and disavowed them over all this nonsense. They commissioner a port to examine the events surrounding the letter to President Biden, the report offered all of us in all the American People and all the American People were paying attention of just exactly how the Justice Department courted with the white house to target parents, they found that the First Communications the First Communications between them and the white house occurred on september 9th, almost a month prior to all of this, and that the Biden White House closely coordinated with them on its letter to President Biden, this is their information, not republicans in congress. Contra to attorney general garland sworn testimony this committee, whistleblower information now shows that the Justice Department and its components quickly operationalized his directive. On october 20th, the day before the congressional testimony the fbi assistant director for Counter Terrorism decision sudden enough referencing the october 4th directive, notifying fbi personnel about a new threat tag created to apply to the school border. When those rectangles eu officials, we are not making this up, whistleblowers have confirmed it all, that threat tag has been used in almost every region of the country, relating to almost all types of educational settings. I do not want to miss quote you are under oath, i believe just a few moments ago you testified, quote, no one has been investigated because of the eu official tack. Did i miss quote you . No one has been investigated solely because of a threat tag, i will tell you, that people are investigated because of acts of violence or threats of violence, that is why people are investigated. Is your testimony today that parents, moms and dads who went to School Boards were engaged in violent sufficient to trigger investigation. I do not have specific information on the number of cases. Of course, you cannot tell us a number of cases, why is that sensitive . I do not know the number of cases. You are the director, how do you not know the number of cases . This is not an important thing. He testified on court notice, you do not know the number . If i may, the National Security division only handles a matter if it is a matter that falls within the crimes we are responsible for prosecuting. There may be cases that are being handled by other divisions. How many is your division handling . Im not aware of any. Tell me about the threat of a deal officials, what was its purpose . I would suggest directing that question to the fbi. That is convenient, when theyre here they point the finger elsewhere. Let me say this, moms dads voicing their concerns at School Board Meetings are not domestic terrorists. For the white house to collude with anybody who suggest that is outrageous, it is one of the glaring examples and the reasons why millions of American People now believe the u. S. Department of justice has been weaponized for political purposes, you and i both know the real threat to that is the rapid erosion of faith that our citizens have in our system of justice and the institutions. They are at record lows, we cannot maintain a Constitutional Republic if people do not trust the system of justice and the fairness of the system, targeting citizens who are expressing their outrage over curricula is not an appropriate use of your resources. We are going to get the bottom of this will get the majority here in a few months and we need you back under oath. I think theres a lot more answers you will have to provide. I yield back. If i may respond, i absolutely agree, it is essential that we maintain the trust of the American People and that they understand we follow the rule of law and investigate crimes that regard to politics and ideology, allegations that the fbi is silencing parents is reckless and false. That is not what the facts show. The gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, madam chair, to be clear the Department Justices up and weaponize. One has been weaponized is the radical right wing runaway, illegitimate Supreme Court majority taking away long held freedoms from the American People, that is what has been weaponized. Mr. Olsen, a turn in general garland testified that the greatest medic threat facing the United States comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists. Do you agree with that statement . I cannot say which type of ideology, because there is a mix of ideologies that often formed a domestic terrorism threat, i do think that the rise in domestic terrorism from a range of ideologies is a significant concern. In recent years we have seen a significant update and bile attacks, many cases perpetrated by White Supremacists, according to a 2020 report by the center for strategic and International Studies, White Supremacists conducted 67 of terrorist plots and attacks in the United States, is that figure consistent with what you have seen in terms of the rise of domestic terrorist attacks . I do not know that exact report, i do know that our Intelligence Community has said that the most significant number of attacks come from two sets of ideologies. Racially motivated and Anti Government. Those are the two that are most likely to result in lethal attacks. Has there been any understanding as to why you have seen a rise in organized and racially motivated domestic terrorist activity . I think there are studies to look at potentially many factors that give rise to this threat, i would note that it is not nail, it goes back to the beginning of the country, you department of justice was founded in part to take on the kkk, it is not a new challenge but it is one that has increased in recent years. It is not in a challenge but it is newlyresonant, that is a very troubling development. What role does social media play and the ability to radicalize potentially hundreds of thousands if not millions of americans with respect to this violent extremism that we are seeing increase and its residents . It is a significant challenge, congressman, the intelligence agencies that look at this have assessed that the way social media works can accelerate and individuals move from being radicalized to even mobilizing to violence because of the exposure to online content that can happen at such a quick pace. Individuals are radicalized quickly, often radicalize in ways that are difficult to detect because they are consuming this content by themselves are in very small groups. With respect to the january 6th attack, am i correct that there were several white supremacist organizations like the oath keepers on the proud boys miss england played a prominent role in the horrific events of that fateful day . There is no doubt that individuals that identify themselves as members of those groups that you mentioned, oath keepers and proud boys were present. Many of them have been charged indictments in washington, d. C. , including two separate indictments to charge the crime of seditious conspiracy. It is also fair to say that oath keepers and proud boys are increasingly targeting people within Law Enforcement or for a Law Enforcement personnel. In some cases, people within the military, or Foreign Military personnel . We certainly look at individuals within these groups and if they espouse the types of ideologies. We are looking at individuals. Some of them self identify as being members of those groups but we do not look at those groups as groups. We look at individuals who may conspire with other individuals, who are self identified as those groups to see if they have committed criminal acts. That is how we look at those cases. Given this rise in racially motivated violent extremism, how is a department of justice or your particular division working with state and local Law Enforcement officials to try to prevent, the best accent possible, the massacre at the tree of life synagogue. Or, most recently, the massacre at a supermarket in buffalo, new york . That is a very important question because when it comes to this type of violence it is almost certainly going to be the state and local First Responders who are going to be the first on the scene. In many cases they will ultimately prosecute these cases, a partnership between the fbi and state and local police, as well as at the prosecutorial level is important to this challenge. We are training, the fbi is often a sport rule for investigative standpoint, sometimes in a primary role when these cases are prosecuted in federal court based on federal charges, many cases are prosecuted in state courts, we need to make sure that we are also all playing at the same level. Thank you. The gentlemans time has expired, the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. I think the chair, mr. Olson i was honored to serve as a career prosecutor with the department of justice, at the u. S. Attorneys office primarily at the time the main justice for 15 years, i understand what you are saying about revealing information about Ongoing Investigations, i understand what you are saying about the, or at least i understand your reticence and answering some of the questions, i think it would confront the American People, and i have some prepared questions that i will hopefully get answers to, i think it would confront the American People to know that you get it. I now have the honor practically every weekend to listen to constituents that are afraid that the federal government is getting into an area that it should not get into. State and local officials can handle protests, threats, violent acts, and they are fairly rare when you look at all of the School Board Meetings that have been going on across this country. I would be comforting for all of us to hear that you understand that it is not a federal issue, antifa is a federal issue, White Nationalism, i hope you eradicate White Nationalism in this country. I think everybody on both sides of the aisles would agree with that. I think there are should be nobody who would commit a violent act. Would not go after people for their beliefs, but anybody who would commit a violent act because whats premised or White Nationalist beliefs, by all means, look at that on a National Level. It is a national scope. School board meetings and the threats against school more meetings concern a lot of us greatly. There is actually a tag that is associated with that, i will give you an opportunity to answer that, i would like to ask a couple of other questions as well. I appreciate that, i agree completely with everything you just said, by a large but we are talking about when it comes to threats of violence directed against state and local officials, School Board Members, those are matters handled by state and local prosecutors and Law Enforcement, they always have been and they must continue to be, there is a role for the federal government with the National Level cases you are talking about. Racially motivated violence, domestic violent extremism, there may be a case at the state lower local level, the rare case that rises, but i do think you are right that that is where, i am a parent of three children, my son is sitting behind me, i have been to School Board Meetings i have been spoken, must his dismay, at School Board Meetings. I understand parents have a right to be involved, and speak up, and disagree with the decisions that are being made at the local level, actually we are committed, i am personally committed, the National Security division is committed to protecting the rights of parents and citizens to speak out, voice their concerns, even if we do not agree. We really need to draw that line between that free speech that we cherish and violence. I also greatly need to be thoughtful about the role the federal government plays. And to play an appropriate role, often in partnership and support of state and local Law Enforcement. I appreciate you saying that, i think it comfort the American People and i want to make sure your son understands that he should be very proud of his father service to our country, i want to ask, though for, there is another area that concerns me, another area that i continue to hear concern from my constituents, that is that the riots on january 6th at the United States capitol were horrific, they were intended to disrupt a legitimate government function and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The riots that occurred throughout our country in the summer of 2020 were horrific, they were damaging, and the american, many of the American People in my district. Granted, it is a fairly rural district and israeli conservative district, many of those people expressed concerns that there is not a parity between the attention that was given to those that committed crimes on january 6th, and those that commit crimes throughout the summer of 2020. Furthermore, as part of the analysis. The crimes that were committed throughout the summer of 2020 appeared to be coordinated. I would like to ask a very specific question, can you tell this committee that george soros was not behind, and his money was not behind, directly or indirectly the antifa activities that occurred in the summer of 2020 . In any of the work i have done i have never seen any suggestion. That is not something i look at in terms of the cases that we handle and the National Security division. I agree with you that we need to look and are looking across the board when we are talking about crimes committed during the riots in summer of 2020 and a graphic attack in the capital on january 6th. Using the tools that we have, the reality is that thousands of arrests occurred in the summer of 2020 or handle by state and local. The difference is, it counts for attention paid on january 6th and the nature of the attack on the significance, most of those crimes are federal crimes. If not all, because of the target. Things that accounts for the difference in view when it comes to the role of the federal government. The fundamental point that you make i completely agree with. We need to be a political and how we handle these cases. When it to look across the board and be driven by the nature of the threats that waist face. The gentlemans time expired, the jugular from california is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Olson, my republican colleagues have said over and over that school board violence is fairly rare, a reuters story on february 15th 2022 begins with the letter came to the home of brenda sheridan, a School Board Member address to one of her adult children. It threatened to kill them both unless she left the board. It is too bad that your mother is an ugly communist horror said the hand scold note. Which if she does not quit or resign before the end of the year, we will kill her, but first we will kill you. The story goes on to document over 220 examples of such violent intimidation, i would like to ensure that underneath animus consent into the record. Without objection. Mr. Olson, what concerns me as you are being questioned by a lot has become more comfortable in violence than voting, that is associated itself more with chaos than community, but do you agree that what i just described to you is something that Law Enforcement should be concerned about, and that Law Enforcement should investigate . Absolutely, i dont who has served in a position such as the School Board Member should be free from the fear of threats of violence or active violence. Absolutely. I am the son of a School Board Member myself, as someone who decided to serve for the same reason you decided to serve, do you also agree that if a parent goes peacefully but very passionately describes their own beliefs about their childs curriculum, that person should not be investigated . Of course, that is protected by our First Amendment. I have to say, i am not surprised that there are so many acts that are rare of violence, in this building americas leaders are stoking that violence. So many of my colleagues on their social media love to hold their Assault Rifle and threatened the president to come and get it. They love to use their social media accounts to threaten to kill the speaker of the house, that has happened. They depict themselves in anime and still president of the United States. It would not surprise me that people in their community would go to a School Board Meeting and asked the way that i just described, i am grateful they were investigating people. Legitimate concerns about the curriculum. I also just have to debunk the sorest nonsense, thank you for clarifying. That is a part of a longstanding antisemitic trope that we see from the other side that goes after any jewish individual who contributes to campaigns to suggest that they support and fund violence. It is incomparable to take the violence that occurred in the protest of the summer of 2020 and what happened in this capital, the largest crime ever investigated as far as number of individuals investigated and sentenced. Thank you for that. I want to ask you very briefly about the antitrust legislation that my college mr. Cicilline referenced. If we were to have a side loading, to take the store and acquire them to take on apps from anywhere, essentially take a curated app store and allow them to be a flea market where anyone can come and sell their apps on the platform must there is concerns whether the chinese would flood the app store with their own apps that could vacuum up u. S. Consumer data and send it back to beijing. Not only affecting our privacy but also the people in the Intelligence Community, was russia using a platforms flooded with apps that could so disinformation . Whether it is our own elections or the campaign in ukraine, would you be willing to pay listen to evidence from other parts of the Intelligence Community if they have new concerns that come out after the letter that your agency sent as it relates to the anti trust legislation . Yes, as we had a chance to talk about. Im sorry, im at the department of justice. Yes, yes, as this legislation for the process we did have the opportunity to comment on it. I think some of the concerns that were incorporated addressed National Security concerns. Of course, if there are additional issues and concerns raised by our Intelligence Community it would be incumbent on us in the Justice Department and elsewhere to take this seriously. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you, the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. Thank, you madam chair. Being any orders or warrants and change to assist in the investigation of what happened on january 6th. I think you can appreciate, congressman, i am not in a position to talk about any matters that occurred before the implementation of the only way we can have oversight to discern whether or not we should ever allow fisa to continue is if we find out what has been going on. I was here beginning january of 2005 when we talked to lots of people from the Justice Department. We were assured nothing but foreign matters were going before the fisa court, imagine the shock when we saw the order from the fisa court which basically, not basically, it says that all call detail records created by communication between the United States and abroad, there is the foreign, or wholly within the United States including local telephone calls all had to be turned over. As i understand, there are still orders similar to that that have a big net and once that information goes into the database of your department and the doj and the nsa than there are thousands of people that can access that and have access to that. And they have done searches. So, the question, when you have something that we are told is wholly domestic, that it is the domestic threat that is so serious, it is an important question to know whether you are using something called fisas, where the f stands for foreign to go after american citizens. I can tell you, when i was back in 06 and away we are taking these matters up, if people had known how badly that was being abused, there were people back then on both sides of the aisle who would have said, wait a minute, this is just being abused so much. It is a fair question to know, in general, not specific cases, is the fisa court being used to get orders to investigate january 6th . Again, i am not familiar with the order that you referred to at the moment. It was wikileaks. That was what was so shocking to so many of us, the abuses occurred during the bush administration, the obama administration, there were some in the trump administration. I feel sure it is still going on, we need to know the extent of that. Let me ask you about a case in texas. A lady theyre working for a private organization got a text from her nephew, he had been looking through the fbi pictures and said, do you recognize anybody in this picture . It looked similar to her, she did an lol, that looks like me, do not turn me in. A couple of days later, two fbi agents show up at her place of business demanding to know where she was on january 6th. She was in texas. Then they threatened her boss that he could go to prison for covering for her. Is there any order from any court that allows the doj or the nsa to monitor Text Messages of american citizens. Obviously there are court orders, whether they come from federal courts, not the fisa court, or the federal fisa court, that authorize pursuing into law search warrants, and surveillance. Yes, but search warrants under the Fourth Amendment have to describe with particularity the things to be searched or seized, that is not happening, that has not been happening, and so when you have no probable cause to go after somebody in texas, we had heard about their Words Software to look for specific words that allow you to go after anybody that has not committed crimes. We really need to know how widespread that is, can you give us an answer . Has not been used . It is important to point out that the way the law works is that the federal judge, a federal pfizer court judge would only approve an order based on probable cause and an individual is asian of a foreign power. We have proof. The gentlemans time has expired, mr. Raskin is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, madam chair, welcome, sir, welcome for your testimony. Dangerous extremists jacked up on racist and antisemitic propaganda with widespread replacement theory have committed massacres in buffalo, el paso, in the synagogue. In the mother a manual church in charleston, south carolina. The American People are obviously very upset about this explosion of gun violence by dangerous extremists. A number of the extremist groups also participated significantly in the violent insurrection against our government on january 6th, 2021. I am wondering about the internal structure of the department of justice. And how it has worked to try to address this threat in the country. I know that after 9 11 the department redefined its mission and priorities to focus on counterterrorism, this included the formation of the Antiterrorism Advisory Council and the Terrorism Task force. Have these existing structures created in the wake of 9 11 been adopted to address White Supremacists violent radicalization and the new domestic Terror Threat . Or are there other structures that you have innovated in order to respond . I think it is a very important question, i do believe that we are adapting. The National Security division as others have pointed out was formed in 2006 to accommodate the threat from alqaeda and particular. We have evolved over time and built the ability to go after cyberattacks. We have increased the transparency. The domestic you raised about domestic terrorism. This year i established a domestic Terrorism Unit to increase the focus on the types of threats we face from domestic violent extremists. In addition i have one with the assistant attorney general for Civil Rights Division in Ongoing Partnership because so many of the attacks that you mentioned, buffalo, charleston, el paso, these are not only domestic and violent extremists and attacks but they are also hate crimes. We have learned over the years that are hate crimes are our most effective criminal tool to go after those in support of each other and partnership. A partnership that may not have been obvious 15 years ago between the National Security division and the Civil Rights Division has been very effective and making sure that prosecuted are making that to bear on the growing problem that we face, as you know in your question. I think we are evolving and working with the fbi. I think domestic terrorism operation session to focus on this threat but there is more we can do. We are going to be continued to be driven by the nature of the threats that we face. I appreciate, that violent farright terrorism is striking all over the country, churches, mosques, synagogues, movie theaters, walmarts, grocery stores. Of the 30 domestic terror fatalities last year, the found that 28 of them resulted from 20 farright terrorist attacks. The vast majority, nearly all of them. You previously testified that the number of fbi investigations of suspects accused of domestic extremism has more than doubled since the spring of 2020. Has this jump in the number of investigations led to an increase in actual indictments and prosecutions . Excluding, for the moment, the january six prosecution. I do not have a specific number on that, congressman. That number, that jump, that doubling does include the january six cases. Of course, there we have over 800 arrests of individuals. Not all of them are characterized as domestic violent extremists, to be clear, but many are and those are accounting for at least a significant portion of that jump. That is over the past two years to the number of investigations. Okay, are there any proactive measures we are taking to try to address this . I am sorry, say, again sir . Other proactive measures the doj is taking to address the threat of farright terrorism . Absolutely, part of the challenges that we have not historically done a good job of categorizing and capturing the numbers, just the Data Collection, because many of these cases are actually prosecuted at the state and local level, or by federal u. S. Attorneys offices around the country. We are Getting Better at trying to just capture that data, that is one proactive aspect of this. As well as training we are doing around the country. Gentlemans time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, madam chairman. Mr. Attorney general, every riot, act of violence, or threat thereof taking place anywhere in this nation, whoever is responsible for it is unconscionable, and we on this side, republicans, we reject it, we condemn it, as elective members of congress we must do our part and call out acts of violence, just not those that fit a particular part of the narrative, we need to reject them all. Democrats, unfortunately, have become very focused on the rhetoric that led up to the riots on january 6th. And yet, for the most part they have been silent when similar language and tactics are used by their supporters. Following the unprecedented leak of the Supreme Courts draft decision in jobs, democrats ignored threats of violence, including an assassination attempt on a Supreme Court justice. In addition to the pro abortion activists, these abortion activists have targeted Supreme Court justice, fanatics professing pro abortion views and targeted, destroyed, and vandalized dozens and dozens of prolife facilities and churches to further a political cause. Arguably, the incendiary rhetoric used by someone on the reichl effed is only encouraging that violence against those facilities and those justices, and is putting lives at risk. Members of Congress Must condemn, not condemn, violence and furtherance of a political agenda. Look no further than Chuck Schumer who took the steps of the Supreme Court in 2020, when the court was considering a louisiana prolife law and said, quote, i want to tell you kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind. You will pay the price, you will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. That is what Chuck Schumer said, the democratic head in the senate, assistant attorney general olson, is that the kind of rhetoric that is helpful when trying to abort abortion related violent extremism . I quickly agree with you that this is not a partisan issue, everyone has served in a position of public trust, certainly at the very top in the members of our Supreme Court deserve to be safe, we have taken very seriously the threats of violence, in fact, we have prosecuted an individual with some criticize nation of justice kavanaugh. We have supported legislation to increase that support. We take that extremely seriously, similarly you mentioned the attacks on pregnant series our centers and prolife centers and groups. Also not a partisan issue, violence and threats of violence are not a partisan issue, the fbi has opened a series of cases involving threats against this resource centers, some of them opened as domestic extremist cases. This is not a partisan issue. You absolutely need to do that, we have facilities where these organizations are trying to help women in need, and they are being attacked, it is outrageous, as we saw in june the radical pro abortion group, the same organization that originally posted the addresses of the six conservative justices published the name of Justice Amy Coney barretts church, and the school her children attended. The very school that her Young Children attended, encouraging protesters to voice your anger. Is that the kind of rhetoric that is helpful in trying to abort abortion related violent extremism . We look at violence and acts of violence that violent criminal law, it is an unfortunate fact of our civic life that there is a strong language, reprehensible language on both sides. I assume he would condemn putting up a Supreme Court justices childrens school, church,. You do not condone doing that sort of thing, do you . I am personally finding certain comments and statements reprehensible and not acceptable, but in my role the National Security division we look at threats of violence, and we prosecute those. At the same time, we protect americans rights to enjoy their First Amendment rights. Let me ask you this, another leftist group, shut down the sea offered bounties, bounties to d. C. Industry workers, later, et cetera for reporting confirmed sightings of conservative justices. And, additional money if the justices were still at the establishment 30 minutes after the additional report. Is offering bounties for sightings of justices hopeful, or trying to avert violent extremism . Our goal is to investigate and prosecute crimes, threats of violence and violence. It is one of our protections that people can speak in ways that many people do not agree. What theyre putting a lot of time lives in danger. I know my time has expired, i yield back. The gentleman woman from florida is recognized for five minutes. Thank you so much, thank you for your service. We appreciate your testimony today. Just confirm that your job is to prevent, disrupt, investigate, and prosecute all forms of terrorism. Is that correct . That is correct. Does that include both foreign and domestic . It does. Are you committed to protecting in your work the Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties of all americans . I am. Regardless of the color of their skin, gender, sexual orientation, and religion . Yes. As a former Law Enforcement officer, contrary to some of my colleagues who really like to pick and choose who they want to prosecute based on political party, or if it serves their political agenda by any means necessary. Mr. Olson, i can assure you that i am committed to holding all violators of the law accountable. I do believe that those who are most dangerous, those who are most engaged in the most hideous behavior, should be held accountable first. We have heard a lot of talk about the school board, as a parent who has attended School Board Meetings, a lot like you, School Parents are supposed to be involved. What is happening when is with their children. I can tell you i have never seen any parental behavior that even comes close, even as a Law Enforcement officer, to the violent, deadly behavior that we all were subjected to on january 6th. However, my colleague seldom talk about that. Unless it is in an effort to explain their an action, or it is an effort to explain why they should ignore subpoenas, as a matter of fact my colleagues on the other side said if you did not know better, you would think it was a normal tourist visit. It certainly was not that, nor did they talk a whole lot about uvalde, buffalo, pulse nightclub that is in my district, bomb threats against hbcu. Mr. Olson, you talked about the unit that you have formed within your department that will investigate domestic terrorism. Could you talk a little bit more about that . Staffing, resources, where are we . Are we able to meet the goals of that unit . What do you still need from congress to help you to be able to fulfill that mission . I appreciate this opportunity, we formed that unit with the existing attorneys we had in the counterterrorism section. Starting small, we are going to grow it to meet the threat, when i can tell you as i said in my opening, when we look at the threat across the board. Whether it comes from violence against Public Officials at the state and local level, all the way to attacks like we saw in buffalo, in particularly the january 6th attack stands apart. It represents the single largest domestic terrorism investigation in the nations history. More than 800 arrests, felonies, cleareyed and that attack posed to democracy with individuals pose in that attack, with a peaceful transform of power. That is why our organizational National Security division is joined in partnership with u. S. Attorneys office here in washington d. C. , the Criminal Division of the Justice Department to have the resources on what amounts to the wideranging investigations in history. Which really of lacks the significance and gravity of that day, the day leading up to it. You would really think the Judiciary Committee of the United States house of representatives would be really concerned about the most wideranging investigation that involved trying to not certify a free and fair election. That is not the case as all of america knows today. I want to quickly ask you, he made a statement to congresswoman jacksonlee earlier about the millions of queries that likely resulted in a search for victims of a cyber breach. Mr. Olson, was that the related to the courts cyber breach . I dont think i can talk about in the setting. The reason for these searches was because it was an investigation of a cyberattack. Okay, that is something we can discuss another setting. Im happy to talk about this with you and others in a classified setting. My time is up, but thank you again for doing gods work. We appreciate you. We have two votes on the house floor. Therefore their community will recess until immediately after the last vote. The committee stands in recess. The house Judiciary Committee has gone into recess. While we wait for the hearing to resume here is a portion of this mornings washington journal. To your thoughts on whether or not you support a ban on assault women. First, this is what the legislation would do. It prohibits the sale, manufacture, transfer, or import of certain semiautomatic rifles. Those with a detachable magazine, certain military style features. It respeak stress fit more than ten rounds. It would not apply to antique firearms, manually operated firearms, or many firearms used for hunting and sporting. From the Washington Post reporting, this morning, there headline reads that the House Democrats have delayed a vote on this assault weapon ban. It is wrapped up in a debate over funding for police. The liberals in the Congressional Black Caucus have thrown up some road blocks over the funding for police. They want other provisions included in that. Here is a Washington Post reporting. House democrats postpone the consideration package of bills that would address Public Safety and ban assault weapons, exposing the fracture lines that exist within the caucus. Sinking the desire, by many members, to leave washington with fresh, legislative winds to motivate voter turnout if they hit the campaign trail. The Washington Post says, the House Democrats are planning to revisit this in mid august, when they return from their congressional break. More from the Washington Post. There was uncertainty that an assault weapon ban has the votes in chamber for democrats, where only a razor thin for member majority is. Leaders helped to tack the ban on to the Public Safety bills, which included Police Funding as well as Community Policing measures and Mental Health response teams, to ensure that it can pass this month. Members now hope to reconsider that package in mid august. So, you get to be part of this debate in washington. What do you want these house members to do . Support a ban on assault weapons . Brandon is up first. You say yes. Good morning brandon, go ahead. Good morning, thanks for having me on. I absolutely support a ban via weapons of war. I think when republicans oppose bills like this the top of both sides of their mouth when it comes to gun rights. They call it a Mental Health crisis but then they do not do anything on the back and. Okay, francis also says yes. Adrian, michigan. Your turn, go ahead. Yes, i think it is time they do that. There are enough People Killed with them. It is time to quit. That is all i got to say. All right, lets take a look at more reporting from the Washington Post. This is also within the paper. Gun makers use manipulative marketing to sell rifles, according to the House Oversight committee. It is ran by democrats. They are in the majority. This, from their report, five Gun Companies made more than one billion. They write, over the last decade, selling powerful, military style assault weapons to civilians. With their revenue surging amid an increase of firearm violence, nationwide. This is according to the committee report. The committee, which said it had studied manufacturers that sold ar15 style up ans, using mass killings, released findings after a string of such shootings including this year in high school park, illinois. In uvalde, texas. And in buffalo, new york. Mass killings account for a small share of overall gun violence in the United States. Both have increased though in recent years. From that House Oversight hearing yesterday gun manufacturers testified and we covered it here on cspan. If you missed it you can find it on our website. I want to show you this moment when the chair of the committee, maloney of new york, asked the executives if they would take personal responsibility for Mass Shootings used with these types of guns. It seems to me that if a Company Really cared that its products were being used to kill scores of americans, it would stop selling them. But, of course, the gun industry will not do that because they are making lots, and lots of money from these weapons. As shown in the church behind me. Over the last ten years Daniel Defense collected more than half a billion dollars in revenue selling ar15 style assault weapons. It is the weapon of choice and 20 mastering. Another also made 500 million on these weapons. Smith and wesson made more than 600 million. That is the very definition of putting profits over people. Today, the Committee Said there are victims and survivors of Family Members, from the Highland Park and uvalde shootings. Mister daniel, you have sent thoughts and prayers to the victims of uvalde, but you have never accepted responsibility. For selling weapons that killed these innocent children. You testified, earlier, that there has been a decline in personal responsibility. I want to give you the opportunity now to show personal responsibility. Will you accept personal responsibility for your companys role in this tragedy . And apologized to the families of uvalde . Hello maloney, these acts are committed by murderers. The murderers are responsible. But reclaiming, mr. , how about you, will you apologize to the victims here today and around the country, and families in Sutherland Springs who were harmed by your products . Congresswoman, with all due respect, i grieve with all americans. Again to blame the fire arm in use here, that we are talking about, to being the fire arms isnt inanimate object. Thank you, i am reclaiming my time. Let me get this straight. With all due respect, you Market Weapons of war to civilians. And two children. You make millions by selling them. But one someone pulls the trigger, you refused to accept responsibility . Again, from capitol hill yesterday. The gun manufacturers were testifying. You can find the entire hearing at one for nearly five hours on the website, cspan. Org. Wanda in danville michigan, now you get to tell these lawmakers in washington, and what do you want them to do an assault weapons . What do you say . I want them to leave them alone. My reason is, the minute they go after these assault weapons, they are going to turn around and go after other guns. Guns are not killing people. People are killing people. This is not gun crime. This is humanity crime. This is their choice of weapon. You can kill anyone with any type of weapon. We do it with cars. We have seen that. If they go after these guns they will not stop until they get guns out of everybodys hands. Okay, barbara in the bronx. You say yes to banning assault weapons. Hey barbara, we lost you there. It sounds like you are away from the phone. Barbara are you with us . Yes i am. What is it you want from a . You know what, you have your ta. You have to mute your television, can you do that . I certainly can. Now, start over with your comments, barbara. Okay. I absolutely do want the assault weapons ban, i do not think that ordinary citizens should have jean been allowed to purchase them in the first place. I have been saying that last one in five years. The folks that make those assault weapons should be responsible for the things that are done with them. Im 85 years old, i certainly believe that they would do that even more so. Okay, we will listen more in the hearing yesterday because congressman jim jordan brought up the issue of all salt style weapons for use in selfdefense. To your point about ordinary citizens. I will tell you what we believe, we believe the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Period. Particularly arms as the United States Supreme Court has said, particularly arms that are in common use. Our handguns in common use . They are, congressman. Theyre in common use in the country today . Our firearms used in selfdefense . Yes, 1. 6 million every year. Probably more common in light of the ridiculous is the defund the police, no cash bail, not prosecuting criminals when they do crime, why did people who attack a United States congressman running for governor out on bail and the state of new york. That leads to the idea that people need guns to protect themselves, their family, and their property. It is a human right again. Are our 15th years in selfdefense . Yes, i actually describe them in my testimony. You are trained women to protect themselves, that is something you need to know about. Some person wants to attack them, to protect them. Africans are used to protect them. Mr. Daniels, is it fairly calm in the air 15, your products are used to protect people . Yes, sir, as he stated millions of times, up to millions of times a year theyre used for selfdefense. Including the one you make, right . Including the air 15 and that is becoming more popular with using your one you manufacture . That is correct, sir. The democrat has beef with the Second Amendment, they do not like the Second Amendment, they want to get rid of it but they cant. In the constitution do not like the fact that we can do this fact. It is a cumbersome process to amend a change in constitution. We are going to ban certain type of weapons, call them assault weapons and try to bend them. Or, we are going to go after gun manufacturers and try to sue them. Congressman jim jordan yesterday at the hearing on capitol hill, gun manufacturers, we house its considering putting legislation on the floor, along with some Public Safety and Police Funding proposals that would assault, that would ban assault weapons, this morning we want you to take your turn, your opportunity to tell these lawmakers how you think they should go. Whether or not you support a ban on assault weapons. In crystal river, florida, you say no. Good morning. Good morning, thank you, this is more to touch anybody that is listening to this arrest. We have a simple situation. We need things to get emotionally charged. Any gun will kill. Does not have to be an Assault Rifle, and egan will kill in the hands of somebody wrong. There are reasons why we put people in governmental positions. That is to compromise. The people of america have different viewpoints. Of those three things that you have shown us today, two of them i could go for. Absolutely, no problem with limiting the things and that. I will never, ever let a Government Official who is terminal at the end of their time in office, i would never let a parttimer take away my rights, delineate it in the constitution. They should never asked to do that. I have the right to bear any gun that is for sale, legally, in america. If they take that away, they can take anything away. So, you are for limiting the amount of rounds that can fit into the type of gun. That would limit the amount of protection. Into any gun, i have no problem with that whatsoever. To give something to somebody who disagrees with this, so that they have a winwin situation, i have zero problems. That is what politicians should be doing, finding room to compromise. Because we are a Diverse People we, we have a key diverse way of thinking about it. Certain things can never be touched me. My right to the constitution to bear legal arms. Lets take the baloney, for example. The politicians spoke so passionately, why didnt you take care of the streets in new york first before she worries about firearms . If i go into a crowded room with a revolver, with six shots, i can kill six people, so it does not matter whether it is an Assault Rifle, there is no assault, it is a rifle. It is like any other rifle, we use these passionate terms to elicit responses from what we have gotten in america, a bunch of lemmings who do not think anymore. Then, there is a cbc article that goes to what you are driving at, definition of what is actually an assault weapon is highly tinge us. This is an older article but it is still as fitting to this today, 2018, the gun industry is traditional definition of an Assault Rifle is a weapon the military generally uses, and has select fire capabilities. The capacity to switch between semiautomatic and a fully automatic mode. However, the civilian ar15s to not have the select fire capabilities, only semiautomatic settings. So, the firearms industry exists they are not a Assault Rifle or weapon. That, you are arguing if they reduce the capacity of that for any weapon, from 20, or ten, whatever it is. This legislation would limit it to ten rounds. Then you produce the amount of people that can be killed. Correct . Then, are you there . Yes, i hear you. Loud and clear. Sorry, they must of hide your volume down. Go ahead. Look, you and i lets be honest with one another, this is all rhetoric on politicians part. They do not want to resolve things. They want to fill soundbites, anymore. The truth as it is if they limit it to ten rounds, and i want to be a mass murderer i can go in with 50 clips on me, it takes two seconds to reload. Any gun. Not just any gun that has a magazine to be reloaded. We have to stop thinking about this in abstract terms. This is the reality of today. Technology is what it is. We need to deal with people, not inanimate objects like they do something on their own. Not give them terminology like Killer Weapon from outer space. None of that truly exists. All right ben, heard your points. Thank you. We will get some other calls and as well. We want to share a text from if you are responding to a color earlier. We have never seen anyone killed 20 children in a school with a car. That is stupid says kenneth from, ohio. Back to your calls and thoughts here in just a moment. Some other news this morning that we want to share with you. This is from the wall street journal this morning. U. S. Press, the u. S. Is pressing and offered to free Brittney Griner and paul whelan from russia tension. This is coming from the secretary of state yesterday. The publicly sled that it was a rare thing for the secretary of state to do. They put an offer on the table. He calls it substantial. It is substantial to russia to free Brittney Griner and paul whelan and exchange. That deal has been on the table since june. The secretary of state is scheduled to meet with his counterpart, the Russian Foreign minister, in coming days. You also have this headline this morning. President biden and chinese president xi are going to speak today at 8 30 am, over the phone. This is on the white house schedule. It is during a tense taiwan standoff. We will wait for that here this morning. This was announced too many people surprise, on capitol hill yesterday. West virginia democrat, joe manchin, says he has reached a deal with the majority leader, Chuck Schumer, on taxes and Climate Change. Many people thought that the negotiations had stopped. Apparently they continued. And, it looks like joe manchins on board with some deal on Climate Change provisions, and other proposals to address inflation. This includes a 15 tax in corporation to help pay for this legislation. Many of you know, the Federal Reserve chair, yesterday, announced that he was raising Interest Rates by three quarters of a percentage point, a big jump. He was also asked if he thought we were in a recession and he said no. Later today, in our Washington Post program, and the washington journal later, the gdp numbers will be announced. Many people will be looking at that as a sign of whether or not we are headed towards a recession. Cbs News Headlines Justice Department is investigating the investigation into january six. It now and conferences come unification of allies of the former president. Those are some of the headlines this morning from the newspapers and news outlets in the nation. So, back to our conversation with all of you about banning assault weapons. Bob, in louisville, kentucky. You are saying no. Welcome, go ahead. Thank you. I just do not believe that the gun is the problem. It is a problem with the guy that is pulling the trigger. That is where the nut is, not the gun. I have three guns in my house. As far as my knowledge goes, none of them have ever left and shot at anybody without me knowing it. It is not the gun that is the problem. The problem is the people, and that is where the problem is. Not the gun. Thank you. Okay, all right. We are talking to gun orders as well this morning. If you own one of these, so called assault weapons, please call in on this line, as well. 2027048. The number is on the screen. That is for gun owners this morning. That includes socalled assault weapons. Richard is a gun owner in marina del ray, california. Hi richard, good morning to you. Yes. If you look at the assault weapons from 2013, i believe, it was sponsored by it basically talks about detachable magazines. What made something a definable assault weapon was one military feature. Like a pistol grip, a forward grip, the telescope, the detachable stop. And then there were more extreme things like grenade launchers or rocket launchers. If you have one item on your weapon that would be considered a military feature, like a threaded barrel or second pistol grip, they want to ban that as well. I think it is way too restrictive. Especially for responsible gun owners who know how to store and use these weapons. So, one of your other colors made the point that, you know, all weapons by definition are an assault weapon. Of course it is. Does the owner know how to use it . Is he handling it responsibly . I do not think those people should be penalized. They understand how to use the weapon. The problem is, people who are getting these weapons, you know, on the black market, thats where the problem is. It is not with responsible gun owners. If you look at the profile of people in these Mass Shootings, a lot of them are very young. Probably firsttime gun owners. A lot of them are alumni to the schools in which they shot the children. It is not so much about the weapon, it is really about these people who have mental illness. Going back to these schools and facilities where they once worked, or were students, i do not think anyone is interested in that point. Okay, richard, do you think responsible gun owners, as you were defining them, need any more than ten rounds to fit in a semiautomatic rifle . The promise of your question is that if someone needs more in a detachable magazine, that for some reason they are going to use it for a criminal usage. I do not think that is the case at all. It is like saying to someone, while you have a certain call that you like these people are aficionados in this kind of ownership. They understand the device and how it works. Some people would rather have a full magazine and some would rather have one with ten. With the assault weapons ban back in 2013, they wanted to limit it to five rounds. I think one of the problems is, the people who write these laws do not really know anything about these guns, quite frankly. You really need to look at this from the standpoint of the guns that were purchased by these kids, recently, the most recent killings. They were very young. They were mentally disturbed. That was more of the over lying problem than the actual gun itself. Okay, richard salts there. John, oakland, california. You say yes to banning assault weapons. Good morning. Good morning. So, i completely support a ban on all guns, not just assault weapons. All guns are made to kill people. Lets get that straight. They were invented to kill people. Statistically, you are more likely to shoot your roommate then an intruder. By far and large, where i live, in oakland, you have to worry about walking down the street. Whether you are going to be shot by the police, or robbed. That is why i support the black, and progressive caucus. They are holding up the bill in the house. Barbara lee, yes, we are listening, barbara lee wet . Barbara lee was the only member of congress who wrote did know on the iraq war. The reason for it all right john, thanks. Caroline in ohio. Good morning to you. Good morning. I just want to say, colloquially, that i work in a high school. I understand what they were talking about, the mental illness, and age, and all that. But i still would prefer there be an age limit. That is my opinion. That is all i have to say. Okay, here is jones in oregon. I in no way support a ban on assault weapons. As the common citizen would suffer total control by the government, police, and criminals. In Capitol Heights michigan, you also say no. Good morning. I say no but i do support the government, if they wed unarmed the police, as well as an arm the president security, and congress security. I think they should lead by example. If they feel that the American People should be unarmed, then the president should be unarmed. Congressman should an arm all their security. And they should unarmed the police. I think they should lead by example. We do not want what happened in shanghai, china. To the unarmed people in shanghai, that were on 24hour lockdown, not allowed to leave their houses, because they are not armed, and they are starving in their apartments. They are not allowed to leave by the government. They cant do anything about it because they are unarmed. They are forced out of their homes and into concentration camps, like what is happening in australia. They are over there unarmed. So, Government Officials want the American People to be unarmed, they should lead by example. We should honor the president s security. We should unarmed the police. They should lead by example. Heard the point. Steve. You say yes . Yes, i do. I actually support a partial ban. Let people understand, firstly, that defund the police crap, that the republicans are pushing, that is a for them. It is completely out of context. People should do a little bit of research. The other thing i want to address is these Mass Shootings, of all these children being killed, here is the thing about that. These people want to be able to go out and build and rapid fire these weapons. They want to go out and play with them and show them how big their guns compared to other peoples guns. They are really saying, well, it is okay, we want to bear arms. All those children are being killed, and they are being killed by, mostly, young guys. They are like 18 years old, right . Well, do your research. Everybody out there, do your research. A human being has a brain that is not even fully developed until they are 25 years old. They are not capable. They cannot make rational decisions. They are able, without having background checks, to go out and buy these weapons and go out and kill. Killed 20 children, or whatever. It is ridiculous. So, steve, are you saying to raise the age to 25 . Yes. Absolutely. No one that young should be able to purchase a weapon like that. The socalled assault weapons, you can put a 30 round clip in there. As fast as you can pull the trigger, as fast as you can do that, it is as fast as you can shoot that. You might be able to shoot it fast with a regular cartridge, 30 rounds, or whatever, but the ar15 style, civilian weapon, you can get 30 round clips, and you can kill 30 kids. As fast as you can pull the trigger. All right steve, at this hearing on capitol hill, yesterday, the turban, maloney, question a manufacturer about that mass shooting in uvalde texas. Take a listen. Mister daniel, the gunman in uvalde, he used an assault weapon from your company to murder 19 children and two teachers. Your company said that this shooting was, and i quote, a terrible, horrifying tragedy, and quote. And that the victims and families are, quote, in our thoughts, and in our prayers. And quote. You even canceled your companys appearance at the Nra Convention after the shooting. You testified today that there has been a decline in personal responsibility. You are using your words. Mr. Daniel, do you agree that the murder of these children, and teachers in uvalde, was a tragedy . And do you feel any personal responsibility for that tragedy . Chairwoman maloney, we are, and i am deeply disturbed by these horrific acts. They are committed by evil people. I cannot even imagine what those innocent children had to go through and the teachers. I cannot imagine the horror that the families have to live with. For the rest of their lives. For the rest of their lives. These lives were horrible and these acts need to be stopped. Again, that was from capitol hill yesterday, the gun manufacturers were testifying before the House Oversight panel, you can find it on our website at cspan dot org, if you hit the video you will see a bunch of gold stars at the bottom of the video, that indicates to you some key moments from this nearly fivehour hearing, if you do not have five hours as will allow you to see some of the key moments in the debate yesterday. Skip, in waterbirds, connecticut. You say yes to banning assault weapons. Welcome to the conversations. Yes, i love about 50 minutes away from newtown where little kids were murdered by an assault weapon. Now, in the 1930s waistband machine guns, the tom again. Why, because it was a weapon of war that killed too many people. How come we cannot learn from those days and apply it to our situation today . What are you getting at . The weapons that are used for war on the street . Yes, why did they not ban these weapons years ago . Today we cannot ban an assault weapon . Okay, a little bit more, i want to show this moment, hang on the line if you can because i want to show this moment from this hearing yesterday with byron donalds, a republican from florida, and his exchange with a representative from the difference law Center Discussion what is military weapon and what is, if you ban assault weapons for civilians, what that means. Take a listen. Are these the same weapons that are used by men and women of the United States military . With very minor differences, yes they are, in some cases there are superior to the guns we are supplying to our soldiers. Can you stipulate the differences between the guns that are used by members of our military, versus what is sold by retailers . That will be a very long list but i think what you are getting at is whether the gun supplied to the military have a selective fire system, which means they can fire and threw around bursts and fully automatic first. So, men and women in military have three rounds first fully automatic, is that available for sale in retail in the United States of america to citizens . Not generally, no, but there are many firearms instructors who now advocate the single fire as in semiautomatic fire is more effective and deadly than three remembers or fully automatic. Advocating versus what is actually a lot on the firearms, these are two different things, wouldnt you agree . I am sorry, i do not understand. If your position is that semiautomatic firing is somehow better, those are different distinctions. Is that true . I did not make that designation, there are many firearms and structures, including military firearms instructors, who know advocate for a single shot as a semiautomatic. Skip, back to you in connecticut. What is your reaction after listening to that exchange . You know, im a veteran. I have fired automatic weapons. The semi automatic weapons we have today, they seem almost equal to a fully automatic weapon. They are being used to murder people in our nation. Okay, skip is a yes on banning assault weapons. David, gone over in ohio. What do you say . Top of the morning to you, my dear. I have two handguns in a shotgun. More firepower to defend my house, we are in a war if i need more than that. We live in a very sick society when we love our guns more than we love our kids. All you have to do is look at the terrible actions that happen in schools. I believe that we should basically take this issue out of the politicians hands that and with these gun owners or the gun manufacturers and the donations that they give for themselves. This should be put on the ballot so that every american can sit there and vote on it. All right, john, in late june about wisconsin. Also a gun owner. Hi, john. Good morning, thank you for taking my call. I wish i could have talked with that other person, i would have asked him if his shotgun was semiautomatic or revolvers, or single action. I can agree with the assault weapons ban until reaching the age of 21. But, semiautomatic our weapons as war, no, if im not mistaken every military person also carries a nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun. Is that a weapon of war . I am a hunter, i have hunted my whole life. My firearms are stored securely. I am a responsible gun owner, also the previous caller, i do not want you have a vote on it because 80 of the people in this country on some type of firearm. One last point, i think the people that live in the country who are born and raised in the cities, just the other day there was a guy on here that claimed that helping handicap people to fire a pistol was a bump stop. If you have never fired a gun or used a gun in a responsible manner that you are possibly trained, you should not be able to discuss the question. What happened in the schools that rages, the Mainstream Media has just keeps putting in our minds but it is the shooter, they are saying the name and getting 15 minutes of fame. Is that why this happens . Maybe i should get one little clip say that the tragedy happened, that should be the story. Everybody just keeps harping on it and going on, and on, and on, and on about people who have mental issues or whatever. I am going to go, nobody likes me, i am going to go and shoot up a school and i will be famous. So, do you support raising the age at which you can reach us again . To deal with children who, as they one caller said, mines are not assault style weapons. What is that . I did not hear, you john . What did you say . Ar15 style gowns, i cant agree with that, to raise the age to 21. Okay, you talked about whether or not people would support a ban on assault weapons if it came to a vote, ipsos did a poll. This is what they found on all of these questions, some of these questions they raised. More than eight and ten, 84 of gun owners were part regardless of partisanship support universal background checks for all gun sales, including those at gun sales. Gun owners at the American Public writ large support raising the minimum age to buy ar15style semiautomatic rifles from 18 to 21. And, red flag laws. Finally, there is a majority support among gunners to raise the minimum age to buy any kind of gone from 18 to 21. And Design School so that there is only one entrance that is guarded by armed police officers. However, an outright ban on ar15style semiautomatic rifles feels to garner a majority support, 42 among gun owners. Richard in oceanside, california. Good morning to you, richard. You say yes on an assault weapons ban. Hi, this is a great morning. I got up early today and thought i would check this out, there you are. The gun situation, i would like to say, is so out of control in this country. Compared to other countries, recently on another one of your shows they did a piece on australia. Very few assaults, three in the last year, i do not know how many hundreds of thousands here, and in other countries like canada and different places where guns are not so popular, there is really no need to have a handy gone around to shoot somebody with, when i was a kid in high school if we got mad at each other we just slugged it out, if you get that mad at each other and you want to pick up an assault charge you should slug it out, if you cannot slow get out them do not fight, it is a simple as that. No need to shoot somebody. That is very bad, we had a gun accident in my family, one of my little nephews that i liked a lot was killed by a shotgun, there was an accident in a garage, my dad and his buddies won hunting, one of the kids went out and played, it was just seven years old. Killed by a gun on the floor. Tragedy. This is just not necessary, people here are gone crazy and they should not be, but they are and the law will not do anything about it, the Congress Wont do anything about it, no meantime gun owners and ammunition, my father had about 25 guns, he had every kind of gone you could think of, especially shotguns. He was twice state champion here for the level of competition entrapped shooting at any level, he was at the National Championships twice in ohio, he represented for the state. He could get 100 straight, he would do it every day, two weeks and finally some guy beat him because he dropped one and that guy did not, out of like 1000, competition, sporting, if you have to have a firearm to make you feel good you should not have a semi automatic, that is my opinion, be careful out there because they are very dangerous, people do not have any now but theyre going to be safe and they have them. Theyll, and springfield, you are also a yes on this question. It morning, i am a yes and i was watching fox news, there are a lot of comments, i do not want to repeat them but when we are talking about banning something and regulating, i think it is likened to cigarettes, if people are saying smokers or cigarettes are not the problem, smokers on the problem, but we regulate cigarettes and with done that so that there is a safety issue in both issues. This is a Public Safety and health issue. Democrats, republicans, we all agree that there is an issue, a mass shooting in this country, almost one every other day, what we are separated by are not the people, there are 70 to 75 of the American People supporting some type of regulation, there is one party, the Republican Party are not supporting just gun owners, they are supporting the gun nuts, these people that call in, the Second Amendment you cannot do anything about it is nonsense. If the founders lived today and saw the shooting that was going on, they would say no, we need to do something, we know that because the Supreme Court that interprets the constitution has, many times, regulated these arms, not everyone is mentally fit to own a gun, not everyone has the right age to own a gun. If we are seeing 18 right now, we can say no, 18 is too low we are getting too many killers, could be a culture issue that is going on, could be that society breakdown, family breakdown, whatever those issues, until they are addressed what we need to do is to go back to that thing that we have for ten years, from 19 94 to 2004, which helped regulate or bring down the Mass Shootings, no one can argue these provisions. The only ones we need to push are the republican congress, and some democrats that are beholden to their constituents to say any type of regulation we are either going to primary or whatever, it has to be done, we are the only society that kills this much, if 19 fourth graders are a community, society and a neighborhood cannot be moved, who is going to . It could be days gone owners and their kids. All right, the federal government for the first time in a couple of decades is going to be studying gun violence, this is a headline in the Washington Times this morning, Congress Ready to spend another 25 million on gun research. Studies and lessons for children. This is how the money breaks down. Washington set aside roughly 75 million since 2019 for the National Institute of health and and prevention to research the gun violence, 2. 2 5 million to the university of michigan at ann arbor to determine whether returning vacant lots into green spaces such as community garlands, and Green Infrastructure will reduce firearm violence in detroit. 2. 1 billion to Virginia Commonwealth University that said in one of its programs gives gun violence victims counseling and Case Management services. The goal is to stop victims from retaliating against those who entered them. 1. 9 6 million to Columbia University Health Sciences to examine the effectiveness of firearm retention tactics by k12 schools such as metal detectors, armed resource officers, and shooting drills. It also says 1. 9 5 million to the university of alabama at birmingham to evaluate the effectiveness of a website designed to teach children about firearm safety. 1. 7 million for the university of chicago to examine the rapid employment and development initiative, it local jobs and therapy program, 1. 4 million to the university of colorado and denver to determine whether reducing access to firearms during times of suicide risk can save lives. One point to 1 million to the university of michigan at ann arbor to examine whether storing firearms locked and unloaded will curve suicides in alaska native communities. 650,000 the anniversary of colorado to study whether gunshot projects, which are partnerships between the Firearms Community and the local public or Community Health agencies will reduce suicides, finally, 125,000 to the university of connecticut to research how Youth Violence could be curbed through technology, and what role online threats play and real world violence, those are some of the studies happening with federal tax dollars. John in east hampton, connecticut, you say no to an assault weapons ban. Go ahead. Hi, greta, yes, absolutely not, this is nothing but a gun grab to outlaw all semiautomatics and handguns the new. A couple of your callers brought up the point that where the people were protesting, the police came out and were brutal on the people, tear gas, one officer said he had to do this because it was the only thing working but the whole reason we have a Second Amendment is so that the people are armed against a tyrannical government. They will start with ten round clips, and they will go to five, they do not want to be able to have guns in this country, that is going to be a ban on everything, they are coming for our guns. There could be food shortages, theyre letting out the criminals. They will be the only ones with the guns. The cops will not protect us and we will be in a lot of trouble. We will go to mike and wisconsin, you also say no. Good morning. Is a nice feeling to think we can pass a law by a piece of paper and think the evil thing goes away, we tried that with alcohol in the 20th century, we banned the production and sale and eventually people paid no attention, we gave up and said never mind. We have all agreed that illicit drugs are terrible and destroy lives, people want the drugs, now we are in a situation where people want to legalize drugs and say never mind. Any law that is passed is offering to ban firearms because people will not give them up, i think the deeper question is why we focused on inanimate objects and not talking about the behavior, people are doing things with the never did before, firearms have been around for hundreds of years, this behavior of Mass Shootings has never occurred before the last 20 years, maybe we should put some research into what is causing people, especially these kids to do these terrible acts. Is it bad parenting, is it marijuana, is it drugs, is it something in society. We are focusing on inanimate objects and not looking at a real solution. Clayton and indiana, hi. Good morning, yes, a lot of my thunder got stolen from the past couple of colors, a lot of these people are not understanding that my fellow democrats are too stupid to understand that even if guns are banned with rifles, just because they have a magazine capacity over a certain of anything, rifles to be used the long rifle and that is a river ten, that river 10 22 can be made to look like one of those scary Assault Rifles. But, a lot of people also dont understand that that 22 around bullet or whatever you want to call it is also the most dangerous cartridge in the u. S. , more people die by accidental used by that little thing, Assault Rifles are just a term used by idiots who do not know what they are talking about. All right, clayton, the House Democrats are considering legislation that would ban assault weapons, they are debating it within their own body as it is wrapped up in legislation for Public Safety and funding police, the progressive caucus and the congressional clock us have held up the that package over funding for polices debate continues within the party, however, the Washington Post reporting that they will come back to it in mid august, you can read more if you go to the Washington Post. Com. Christine in akron, ohio, gun owner. Good morning to you. Good morning. We are listening, christine. Thank you, i was on mute for a while, i would just like to state, first of all, thank you for the opportunity and they form to discuss this very significant and emotional topic today, i have been listening to all sides and i appreciate everyones comment, as a gun owner i will say that i will not support a ban on one is being considered an assault weapon. This is rhetoric we are hearing a lot, first of all i do consider it a slippery slope argument when we are talking about this. Attacking our Second Amendment rights, it makes me a little nervous when we Start Talking about some of these slippery slope issues. Second, as a responsible and educated gun owners, which many people are, i do see this issue as a lot of deflecting in this country. Again, very emotional, everyone gets upset when we hear about these shootings and it is very emotional, i would not support it and i agree with a lot of the collars today. There are many other issues in our country we need to address around this issue, Mental Health, the deterioration of our society and responsibility, being a responsible gun owner is something that should be addressed as well. When i listen to the hearings i would really appreciate if our representatives would educate themselves a little bit more before they speak. As a gun owner when you are listening to the hearings you are listening to a lot of rhetoric, you realize it is not factual, i wish they would educate themselves before they come out with some of their questions. All right, mark, and seattle, you say yes on assault weapons ban. Yes, thank you for cspan, welcome back, greta, as a former combat medic under the reagan administration, i was afraid of guns before i went in, turns out i was a marksman after good training, we just do not need those ar15s, they destroy the body on impact, you can kill 30 people with them in a matter of seconds. If i was the commander and chief i would blow them up and set fire to them and mold them into a sculpture, probably a peace dove, thank, you greta. All right, brian in washington d. C. , good morning. Good morning, yeah, i definitely would ban them, as people have said we need to look at what is going on a deeper, to me that is a racial issue, i wonder why it is that we are not talking about white men and white boys who are buying these guns, what is it inside the white psyche that makes them want to kill and murder and want guns more than they want children to survive . This hypocrisy of we are all about the children, but we are not about our Elementary School kids who are alive the. This stems from the murdering of native americans and black people, we need to concentrate on white white people, white men, white boys are Walking Around talking about being replaced. Why they hold so tightly to their guns. To me, that is the issue, to me it is not the illegal black market grounds, they are finding these in stores. Theyre taking them from their parents. There are not any people who are taking care of their weapons, and our children are suffering. Any country that puts ownership of guns above the lives of children is a sorry excuse for the country, probably the worst country on the planet, that cannot ever call themselves the light on the hill, that is the worst there is, that is my comment. Frank in texas, you are a gun owner, frank, go ahead. Yes, maam, sorry. Where do you come down on this question . I would just like to say, man, that i would not mind raising the age for the ar15s to 25 but i also would like to say that when the democrats give up all of their guns the republicans will be glad to give up their guns. Also, i was just wondering why the caller right before me brought up race the, and the i do not understand. Anytime a republican even touches on the idea of the race argument you all are attacking us. I do not understand that. And then, we do not ever bring it up, and yet the gangs in chicago kill thousands and thousands, and yet cspan does not hardly ever touched on it. Also, i am just wondering on the fentanyl, it is crossing over the border down here, kills 100,000 children and young people a year, and is going to kill another hundred thousand this year, but yet you dont ever cover that. We did, this week, there was a hearing on capitol hill. This week, on fentanyl, maybe it was last week on fentanyl and overdose. Go to our cspan dot org, go to our website and you will find it there of that hearing, open forum this morning. Any public calls of the issue that is on your mind. You can start dialing in. Lets start with the economy because it is the latest news, the gdp number shows the economy shrank 0. 9 last quarter, its second straight drop mid recession fears. I will read from paul weismans reporting with the Washington Post and the associated press, the economy shrank from april through june for a second straight corner contracting at 8. 9 annual pace and raising fears that the nation may be approaching a recession. They declined that the Commerce Department reported thursday on the Gross Domestic Product is the broadest gauge of the economy followed 1. 6 annual drop from january through march, the report comes at a critical time as consumers and businesses have been struggling under the weight of punishing inflation, and higher borrowing costs, on wednesday the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark Interest Rate by a sizeable three quarters of a point for a second straight time. Its push to conquer the worst inflation outbreak in four decades, President Biden will talk about the economy at 2 15 pm eastern time, you can watch that on our website, cspan. Org, you can also go to our video app at cspan now as well, he will be addressing this latest news, no doubt, when he talks this afternoon. Also this from the wall street journal on the economy, inventory swing is a culprit behind the u. S. Recession talks. A Commerce Department report on thursday could further ignite recession worries in the u. S. We all recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, mister chairman, mr. Olson is illegal under federal law to picket in front of the justices residence with the intention to influence their decisions . It is hard for me to answer a question in the hypothetical, congressman. Let me read to the statue it, whoever with the intent of interfering, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing any judge, jury, or witness, or officer and the discharge of his jury has near a building house of the biden states, or a building or residents occupied or used by such a judge, jury, or witness, or Court Officer would just intent. They should be fined under this title for imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Is that news to you . This is the first time you have ever heard that statute . Now, i am aware. And i would ask for a little more candor and your answers to your questions. Why is that not being forced . That law will be enforced like all federal laws based on the evidence we are able to obtain. We are watching videos of this occurring quite regularly from the justices residence, why is it not being prosecuted. We prosecute laws based on the evidence and facts we are able to obtained. You have said that multiple times, that is not an answer to the question, but may enormous resources into investigating into the january six joint session of congress. How does this compare with the resources of investigating prosecuting threats of intimidation of members of the Supreme Court . I will tell you with respect to the concerns that i think are serious and that are involved with threats of violence and members of the Supreme Court. Are you put in the same effort and resources into processing late intimidation . We are adding security to the Marshal Service to the members, of the Supreme Court. How does a resources put into how you compare with the riots on january 6th . I think that is apples and oranges. It is very hard to say. We are plan a resources and the resources to measure with a threat in that case. The electoral cant resume the mid last of these yahoos was kicked out of this building. Unfortunately, i think that equation is correct. Do you consider that a grave threat to the Constitutional Order as a lunatic wearing buffalo horns entering this building . With respect to justice kavanaugh, that was a very serious crime, and the individual is being charged with attempted assassination. You refused to prosecute the multiple demonstrations that are in violation of federal law that have been occurring in front of Supreme Court justices homes, and then you are just shock that an assassin just shows up at his doorstep. I find that astonishing, for an officer given the trust you have been given by the United States government. By failing to enforce the laws that protect the safety of Supreme Court justices, arent you sending an open season message to extremists across the country . We are enforcing the laws based on the facts and the evidence in every case. As ive said, we have charged an individual with attempted assassination involving justice kavanaugh. Weve added security for the justices. We supported legislation and turned a blind eye to the loss that protect those justices in their homes, i find that shocking. I cavalry lee reject there is total inaction when it comes to enforcing the law, that you originally pretended you havent even heard of. How big a threat to their mexican crime cartels unaffiliated gangs pose to the safety of the American People . The threat from cartels is certainly a criminal threat. Weve had 900,000 got a ways because of Border Patrols have been completely overwhelmed by this massive migration along our southern border. We know that they were 5000 or more terrorists released from detention facility when it is administration conditionally how many terrorists are among the 9000 got a ways that we were able to intercept . We know we were able to intercept 60. I would want to verify the veracity of your assertions before responding to that question. Heres my fear. I think you are tracking down in prosecuting the time, if the witness would wish a stance with the questions. I have no basis to ascertain the assertion. So id want to verify that. Do you question the reports of mr. Maclean thought, thank you very much. I want to recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. First of, all think let me thank you for your service. Youve got a tough job. Defense of our country, our citizens, you have to play 100 percent defense. You cant let them score. In any way for more manner. Let me turn to cybersecurity. Question, at what point does the cyber attack on our nation constitute a declaration of war . We recently had an attack on our federal court system, brazen, unbelievable, its a rhetorical question. I dont think you can answer that. The point is made, which is cyber is an attack on our nation and its deadly attack in many ways. I presume you are concerned with the increasing Cyber Attacks which could allow some of these actors, china, russia, and others to have additional access to u. S. Consumer data. Doesnt this pose a cybersecurity risk . So, the cyber threat is a vast and complicated one. In the National Security division we are focused on nationstate type attacks, particularly as you mentioned, sir, china and russia. China is the most significant actor when it comes to cyber enabled espionage. It is a challenge for both the government, public sector, and the private sector, it is one that we are very focused on at the Justice Department in terms of investigating and prosecuting but we are part of a broad, all the government approach. You have essentially said that the nation states increase the cyber needs that threaten our democracy and economic institutions. Wood in for todays platforms open allow bad actors to have increased access into our systems . I think it is incumbent on the government, that includes the Justice Department and Homeland Security as well as the Intelligence Community to work with the private sector and the Large Technology companies to make sure that we have a joint effort to address this. Do these Large Companies have a Competitive Edge or a were way to work with you . My experience has been that they Large Technology companies are very open to working with the government when it comes to improving the nations cybersecurity. They have a vested interest, a business interest to make sure they also play 100 defense. Our interests are aligned in many ways when it comes to cybersecurity, our interest and the interest of the private sector, and the government. Mr. Olson, i understand that the executive branch has been reviewing these tech antitrust legislations, you have been part of this review, is my understanding . I am sorry, there feels the legislation . Yes, yes sir, my division was part of the departments review of that legislation. And we have seen concerns raised by former National Security experts on both sides concerning these antitrust bills. Is it fair to say that if you have concerns you will provide this committee with that information at the right time . Yes, we have provided a letter from the Justice Department in support of the legislation, i am prepared to continue to work on that with this committee if there are additional concerns that need to be invested. You will bring some of those concerns if they are there to this committee . Yes, i continue to work with this committee and congress and others on this committee,. I would like to submit a letter, its titled open calling for National Security review on congressional tech legislation, without objection. Let me just say again, cyber is a new warfare, we are in a state of war and cyber, i think it is important that your voice be a clear one when it comes to some of this legislation. This legislation primarily applies to american companies, get a lot of the foreign firms, huawei, tiktok, many others did not seem to fall under the purview of this legislation. I believe it is important that the four we go off and go after our own firms, that we make sure that we are not doing an intentional harms to our National Defense when it comes to cyber. I understand. I am out of time, with that being said. Committee needs to take a moment to address technical issues. Committee will suspend. Committee now resumes. Mr. Bishop you are called for five minutes of questioning. Thank you. A distant journey olson, in april, in one of dojs highest profile domestic terrorism cases, a federal jury appears to have found that the fbi trapped people in a matter involved in an alleged to plot the governor of michigan. The jury acquitted two defendants and hung on to others. Are you familiar with that case . Yes sir, i am familiar with that particular prosecution. Youth emphasized the importance of the dojs domestic terrorism mission, central to the National Security mission. Is that case a fair representation of how doj is handling domestic terrorism matters . I would include that case among many others that are part of our efforts to ensure the people who serve in Public Office are safe. I think the importance is undeniable. The question is whether that is where the fee is doing. Let me go a little further. The evidence that the jury heard, mostly in Text Messages and testimony was that the fbi did not discover an existings game and discover evidence and takedown plotter. Instead, the fbi consider seems to have contrived the plot, used as informants to drive people into the plot, and what was in effect enough cabaret. Shun the board behind me details just some of the resources that were devoted to the of. They had a lead informant, a guy whose name big dad, who is paid 54,000 over six months to potentially to fake militia to recruit disadvantaged and on stable men from a facebook discussion group, one of them was living in the cellar of a vacuum repair shop, fbi pay travel expenses for people involved, food even alcoholic beverages to take the target folks to a militia conference out of state. There were more than a dozen fbi informants involved in the process, undercover fbi agents, several of them, one of them who reportedly taught how to teach them how to make a bomb, and used to bomb video by the fbi. And one, according to the New York Times, there was a nighttime surveillance of a government witnesses vacation camps, and for the witnesses were informants, including big data or undercover agents. When the group was falling apart in august, 2020, the fbi handled congratulated big down and quote look at you bringing people together. Congratulated him for breathing new life into the plot. Not as wellknown, the same fbi agent, jason chambers, coached big dan and a parallel screen to coax in a plot against former Virginia Governor northam. And chambers wrote quote, mission is to kill the governor, specifically. Again, thats the evidence i understand from the trial. I dont know if its a complete sampling of it, mister attorney general. But its not the kind of conduct that doj and fbi are engaged in pursuing domestic terrorism matters . Im sure you can appreciate that case involves defendants charged with kidnapping of the governor of michigan. It is an ongoing case. The judge ordered a retrial, and that retrial is set. Given that it is an ongoing case, i simply cant comment on any of the questions youve asked. Its not ongoing for two defendants. Theyve been acquitted by a jury. Ive decided i understand that the doj has decided to retry the 200 defendants. They evidence what the evidence. And that has been public. There have been media stories have written about it across the ideological spectrum. Its all like this is the rightwing notion. Dont those revelations impair the credibility of the fbi, which is what you stood was very important . In that case, the judges that order that case has been retried, its an ongoing, matter i cannot comment further. How many agents were involved in that operation . Im not gonna comment on that particular case. How much did the official spend on . And its an ongoing case. Its set for a retrial. So im not gonna comment on it. The alleged whitmer plot was announced october 7th, 2020 within a month for the u. S. President ial election. How come that timing for the fbi announcement of the plot . Its an ongoing. Case on lock their comments on. And i can tell you that in every case, we follow the facts, the evidence, and the law, and we do so without regards to politics or ideology. The fbi has gotten notorious history of exactly that kind of thing. You have no comment about that, exposure of, that exposure of, that during the months before the president ial . Your time has been expired. He gets down to the question, usually thats the practice. I did ask a question. Yes, you may answer the question. Thats an ongoing case. Its set for retrial. So im not gonna comment further. Now the gentlemans time has really expired. The gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. Thank you mr. Olson for trump appearing today to speak to the Justice Department works on a number of matters of National Security. In recent years, domestic terrorists have directed hate fueled threats and deadly attacks at institutions including predominantly black churches, sikh temples and synagogues, racially motivated extremists have gunned down shoppers that stores in el paso and buffalo. Weve also seen a rise unexplored gun violence directed as officials including electric officials and school workers. Weve seen the perverse conspiracy theories and disinformation that motivates farright extremists and they can spiral into acts of violence. They also worked to undermine our foundational institutions, including our elections. Conspiracy theories and hate filled ideologies that migrated from the fringes of American Society into Public Discourse and political propaganda through the efforts of foreign adversaries and domestic political opportunists. The plain truth is is that words matter. While the First Amendment is brought protection to free speech, elected officials and other leaders abuse the public trust when they embrace and amplify disinformation, whether that disinformation contains lies about election results, Anti Government conspiracy theories, or thinly veiled can you discuss how disinformation on social media is used an extremist recruitment . Yes. The challenge that we face with individuals who consume rhetoric or hateful content online, is that that information is so easily available to individuals who may be alone, who acted very small groups, and compared to decades, ago even several years ago, there is more that content online. It tends to accelerate someone who may be inclined to believe in that information. Accelerate them on the path to becoming radicalized. Ultimately the concern we have is that individual or group may become mobilized to carry a acts of violence. That violate federal law. Much of that conduct is protected under the First Amendment. The speech is self. But identifying that line, especially when it happens in private, online, identifying when someone else crossed that line from free speech to planning a violent attack for example, which is not protected, can be very difficult for the fbi other and investigative agencies. Thats why the challenge exists. That is my question. What can congress do other than individual members taking care not to repeat or amplify disinformation . To support this portman of justices effort to disrupt radicalization . I think hearings like today that focused on this issue are helpful. I think we asked for and obtained resources from congress, particularly around the january 6th attack. The u. S. Attorneys office in washington, d. C. , has done an admirable job in leading that effort. Theyve been able to increase its ranks to go after, based on funding from congress, i think as well the work of the select committee has done an exceptional job shining a light on the events of january 6th in the days leading up to that day so that the American People have a better understanding of what was at stake in an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, which is a pillar of our democracy. Thank you. Youve been quite clear that politics doesnt play a role in the department of justices decision to investigate or charge criminal conduct. Is it fair to say that a persons parental status also doesnt play a role in dojs decision to investigate or charge criminal conduct, such as threats of violence against School Officials and their families . Of course. I have never further questions. I yield back. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields. Back the gentleman from texas, mr. Roy, is now recognized. Thank you chair. As the defense has the department of justice prosecuted a single case im not where that there is a case brought under that statute. So the answer is no. Does the perfect Purposeful Movement of human beings pose a danger to the National Security of the United States . Im not familiar with the facts that youre referring to. Youre not familiar with cartels and their involvement is with 107,000 dead americans related to fentanyl. You cant comment of whether that was a danger to the United States . Im not familiar with the facts youre referring. Two theres no doubt that the movement of legal drugs across our borders poses a threat to but about safety and americans wellbeing of americans. Threats to Border Patrol agents set says signs display to kill Border Patrol or gunfire in the streets of texas . Does that pose a National Security threat to the United States . I dont know specifically what you are referring to, but obviously, acts of violence directed at our Law Enforcement, federal or state, is a concern and one that we take very seriously. He said 500,000. How about 389,000 known gotaways the attorney general actually testified under of here in the house of representative accepting that fact. He testified. Im sorry, that mightve been the secretary of Homeland Security who testified. And knowing if that known and gotaways pose a danger to the National Security of the United States . Im not familiar with the facts youre referring to. Assuming that fact would you accept that it is posing a danger to the National Security of the United States . Im comfortable talking about cases we are bringing or we have brought that are a matter of public record. I prefer not to comment on hypotheticals. Which poses a greater danger to the National Security . Cartels or parents at School Board Meetings . In violent gangs that move drugs or are involved in acts of violence are significant threats. Do they pose a greater danger to the United States of undue parents at School Board Meetings . I would certainly have to agree with that. As a general proposition, being a parent myself, gangs in violent groups pose a greater threat to the American People. Is the department of justice still operating under the memorandum issued by the attorney general, merrick garland, on october 4th, 2021, in which he said disturbing, quote, disturbing spike at School Boards . Are they still operating under that memorandum . The attorney generals guidance from last fall is in effect. Yes, sir. The pressure release that was issued your division is mentioned, why . The National Security division is part of a broader array of components that the Justice Department is part of that effort to make sure people who serve on local School Boards or bodies you think parents at School Boards rises to the level of the National Security division of the department of justice . I think its possible there could be a threat or an act of violence against somebody in a local office, whether it is city council, or a school board, that might reflect domestic violent extremist acts. Is it appropriate to use the patriot act against parents . The patriot act is a variety of tools. I can talk about it in the abstract. The National School Board Association recommend the use of the patriot act and described the actions equivalent to domestic terrorism, proceeding that memo issued by the department of justice . I dont know. You dont know . I dont know. You dont know there was a memorandum put out by the National School Board Association referring to domestic terrorsism prior to the attorney general of the United States issuing a memorandum directly targeting and focusing on School Boards . You dont know . Ive heard you and other members of this committee make reference to that today. Youre the head of the National Security division, in the press release that goes out, and you dont know . Youre testifying under oath before us that you dont know anything about that . Ive heard of that letter. I dont know exactly what it says. Do you support the tagging of alleged threats involving schools or School Boards and officials as was made public via whistleblower . How the fbi characterizes its case this is a question that is posed to the fbi. One last question on a different topic. I said a lot around july 11th, a thorough review of the liv golf limited and its potential violation of far, with a respect to the billion dollar saudi arabians have pumped into targeting the pga tour. Believing that that is a, quote, great thing for the image of saudi arabia or, quote, an incredible investment for saudi arabia, that would seem to require some far registration. Im unaware of those registrations occurring. Would you respond to that letter we sent the department of justice and brief members on that issue . I will take that question back to our Affairs Office. The gentleman from texas, miss garcia, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you madam chair. I want to thank chairman nadler for convening was very critical hearing. Attacks on minority communities and individuals are becoming existentially threat to our democracy and our nation. White supremacists have worked their way into our government institutions. Some would say they have the Republican Party in a chokehold. Some would also suggest that congressional enablers who welcomed their violence with encouragement and enthusiasm. They call insurrectionists patriots and defenders of freedom. They criticize their jail conditions when theyve had a blind eye to the massive incarceration of black and brown people in our country disproportionately. My republican colleaguess refusal to combat instances of domestic terrorism motivated by racism, by race, my constituents civil rights and liberties to live without fear of retaliation against their identities. Texas is not immune to the increasing rate of hate crimes since 2016. The shooting in el paso, texas, on august of 2019, was motivated by anti latino, anti immigrant sentiments, harbored by the perpetrator of the shooting. Anti hispanic hatred is an inherent part of White Supremacy ideology. The shooter claimed the attack was a justified response to the hispanic a Conspiracy Theory central to White Nationalist ideology. These racist ideas are not an anomaly but one of the most extreme outgrowths of a white supremacist culture. That racism, anti hispanic sentiment, antisemitism, and homophobia remain pressing problems in the United States and are reflected in the Congress Must find ways to address the relationship between anti immigrant rhetoric and domestic terrorism to future acts of domestic terrorism. It is also critical for our friends across the aisle to collaborate with democrats and put people over politics. And put all this terrorism behind us and be about protecting our democracy. Sir i want to ask you the question about the interrelationship and the connectedness of all this. I know much has been said about some of the proabortion extremists, but i dont want to just say that that according to the latest reports ive seen, anti abortion extremists have been responsible for at least 11 murders. 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 194 are since, balances of incidents of criminal activity directed at abortion providers since 1977, including thousands and thousands of transgressing charges, criminal mischief, a vandalism. The list goes on. Its pages and pages of all this. I think it said, 2000 we trespassing charges. It also talks about the connection between the anti abortion extremists and the january 6th insurrectionists that they overlap. Antiabortion extremists live stream from outside the capital was another frequent protester and abortion clinics enter the capital and was later charged. The list goes on. What is the interconnectedness between the extremists . Dube do they do all acts of terror domestically or is there some that lean more toward the hate crimes against hispanic and black people . Some toward the abortion clinics . Its an interesting question because what we have seen in the Intelligence Community has made this assessment that violent extremists are often motivated by a mix of ideologies and dont necessarily fit neatly into one category or another. They may consume a variety of content, for example, online, that feeds into a world view that causes them to become radicalized and moved to violence ultimately. It is sometimes difficult to pinpoint a particular ideology or every point. But i do know from the data is that individuals who are motivated by racial animus and individuals motivated by Anti Government views account for the greatest number of lethal attacks in the u. S. In recent years. The fbi seeks minded identifies a case as a Domestic Violence extremists case, to categorize it as one category or another. In my conversations with the experts it has suggested to me its very difficult in some cases to pinpoint a particular ideology. The fundamental point for us, at the Justice Department, is that we prosecute acts of violence and threats of violence without regard toward ideology or politics. The womans time is expired. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the 2021 violence and disruption statistics prepared by the National Abortion federation. Also three articles that i wont read all the titles. They are all related to hate crimes and funding of the police and other issues related to the hearing today. Without objection . The gentleman from oregon, mr. Cliff bentz is recognized. Thank you for being here today. Does your Department Purchase a data from third parties and then using that data for investigatory purposes . The National Security division does not engage in purchasing data. The answer to your question, in terms of the work that i do, is no. We are not involved. What about the aspects of other agencies, parts of the department . I cant speak across the board and answer that question, congressman. I can say, in general, that, you know, in terms of carrying out the National Security vision, the investigative agencies within the department, the fbi and others, operate under a series of rules to protect american citizenss privacy. They are purchasing data. They are trying to follow the law when they do it. To quote secretary mayorkas speaking at the security form last week, he said, look, the border is secure. Do you agree our border is secure . Im not familiar with his remarks at that conference. This is his remark. I simply want to know if you agree. Is our southern border secure . I would defer to the security of Homeland Security and his judgment on that question. That means your department has nothing to do with the border. Is that what you are saying . We certainly arent involved in the the prosecution of crimes around the border of the country. In terms of the overall Border Security even the number of folks coming across and the number of prosecutions, you perhaps would surmise guess or hinted that the fact that the southern border is not secure. You wouldnt be down there if it was. Is that correct . We certainly are involved in making sure individuals who violate federal law are investigated and prosecuted. And theres a bunch of them. There is a great deal hyperbole about whats our greatest threat. Domestic violence i read the fbi thinks china is the greatest threat. Who is the greatest threat in your opinion . Is that just the wrong way to approach this . Honestly, sir. I think thats probably the wrong question to ask. We have a number of significant threats and we need to make sure that our efforts and authorities and resources are aligned commensurate with the threats we face. On october 21st, if the attorney general appeared before this committee. I asked him if he would please focus on the situation occurring down in my state, Southern Oregon, where weve had a very significant number, a very large extremely wealthy cartels from all around the world moved into start raising incredible amounts of marijuana then. Numbers are in the billions of dollars retail value, that which is being raised in Southern Oregon and i asked the attorney general if he would please help, if he would please send additional folks to oregon to try to stop what is going on. Part of it involves the theft of immense amounts of water. We are in an incredible drought. We have these cartels out here where there is nothing but water. Not back where i am from. And the fact that people are carrying ak47s into grocery stores, the fact that there are people locked in their homes as cartels move huge amounts of marijuana out of the state. What is your department doing to head off this threat . What you described sounds extremely concerning. I dont have, obviously, firsthand knowledge. In fact, the Security Division typically would not be involved in what you are describing, which sounds like it would be handled by our criminal the vision in terms of a drug or weapons violation. I would probably have to ask the Criminal Division and legislative Affairs Office to respond to that question. Its safe to say that the cartels are making billions of dollars and using that in turn to bring in all kinds of drugs that are killing upwards of 100,000 people a year. You would think that would fit within your mission statement, which i have right here in front of me, which is to protect the United States, carry out the departments highest priority, protect and defend the United States against the full range of National Security threats. This would appear to me to be one. Would you disagree . The way weve divided up responsibility within the Justice Department is that our federal narcotics laws and weapons laws are by and large and force by other parts of the Justice Department. Would you be so kind as the reach out to those other parts and tell them that we in oregon need help and that the situation in my opinion is one that raises to a National Level, given that marijuana is being sold right on the streets here, in washington, d. C. Thank you again for being here. Look forward to your helping us out in oregon. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much, madam chair. Thank you mr. Olson for your service at the department of justice and answering committees questions today. Throughout this congress, the committee has Data Collection practices, protecting the Due Process Rights of all americans as has been paramount in our work. One particular area of concern has been the dojs use of non disclosure orders or ngos. These Court Ordered ngos prevent Technology Service providers like, google, apple, one personal records or emails from the provider. During a hearing before this committee in june of last year, executives from some of our knowledge nations Largest Tech Companies testified they received thousands of these ngos from the doj every year. Leaders from microsoft indicated that they received 7 to 10 of these gag orders every single day well. The use of the secrecy orders may be justifiable on National Security law merits, the volume of frequency with which the their misuse or their over use and the fact that journalists and members of congress were swept up in the investigation involving ndos, implicating enforcement liberties and separation of powers, calls for additional scrutiny into these processes. In response i join to pipe partisan group of my colleagues from this committee in introducing the ndp of fairness act to provide guardrails around the use of ngos to a strict scrutiny analysis establishing a 30day limits on ndos effectiveness, notice be given to customer 72 hours after the expiration of the pass through the house of representatives in june. I hope the senate will take it up very soon. Mr. Olson, i would like to ask you questions about and the dojs use of the ndos. Prior to this committees examination of the issue and subsequent passage of the ndo fairness act, had the department consider changing 20 705 b policies to prevent the over use of gag orders by doj prosecutors . Mr. Congressman, im not aware of prior policy or consideration around the use of nondisclosure orders. I can tell you that as a former federal prosecutor, they can be nondisclosure orders, they can be inappropriate and important part of a criminal investigation to preserve the integrity of the investigation. They are subject to constraints, time limits. If he must be issued by a judge. They typically would only be appropriate in cases where we are seeking to protect someones life or to protect against the destruction of evidence. Im aware there are concerns about and they are over use. Im aware of those concerns. Because they do impose constraints on third parties. I do think there are constraints that apply to their use. On may 27th, 2022, the general lisa monaco released a memo providing prosecutorial clarity on the procedures. The memo includes reminders that, quote, protective order should be sought only after prosecutor engages in a case and facts pacific analysis, our prosecutor must really provide a quote with the sufficient facts to permit the court to conduct the same case and fact specific analysis, unquote. Why do believe doj prosecutors are required to have this reminder . I am not exactly sure what the reason was for the Deputy Attorney generals memo. I do find the language you read to be appropriate and consistent with my experience, that nondisclosure orders should be issued only based on particular facts in a case, where such an order would be justified to protect against danger to a witness, for example. Or against the destruction of evidence. In june 2021, executives from Tech Companies and communication providers testified to this committee that there was merely a, quote, rubberstamp process, unquote, for obtaining these gag orders in court. Have doj prosecutors have been treating the rubberstamp process as the providers alleged . I cant speak generally to how prosecutors around the country are using those orders. I do agree very much with the policy from the Deputy Attorney general, that they should be viewed and use only on a case by case basis, where the circumstances wants it . Lastly mr. , also you can meet to conducting a review of the National Security divisions usage of 20 705 b orders . If i may, i would like to consider how we would respond to that question and get back to you. Okay, i look forward to hearing your response soon. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Fitzgerald is recognized for five minutes. Thank you madam chair. Mr. Olson, in your Opening Statement, it kind of surprise me that you call the january 6th investigation the largest in the history of the National Security division. Im just surprised that you lead with that in your Opening Statement. Would you against a for the record what you are investigating, the scope of the investigation . Sir, with respect the january 6th, in particular . The reason i said that investigation starts as part of the largest domestic terrorism investigation in u. S. History, the fbi has characterized that investigation and opened it as a domestic terrorism investigation. As the attorney general has said, it is the most wide ranging investigation in u. S. History. The numbers speak for themselves. Over 850 people have been arrested. Many if not most of those for felonies. It includes very serious charges involving assault on police officers, obstruction of congress, seditious conspiracy. It has touched on every state in terms of the fbi field offices and every state in terms of the u. S. Attorney offices around the country involved. By several measures, and scale, and significance, the significance being that it involved an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, which is one of the pillars of our democracy. By all those measures i felt justified in describing it as an investigation that stands apart in our history. You yourself said the division investigates, quote, threats of violence. Whats threats was the division aware of on the days that led up to january 6th . Sir, i think i dont know exactly how to respond to the question whats threats the National Security division was aware of, because i wasnt there at the time. I came in the office later. I do think there was information you are aware of where the investigation includes at that point, im sure. Absolutely. We are working in partnership with the doj and the fbi failed to anticipate the threats of january 6th, or failed to prepare for the threats . I think the level of violence speaks for itself. We always want to learn to do better when it comes to anticipating something that we didnt necessarily anticipate in terms of the level of violence that occurred in the run up to january 6th. We always need to continue to learn from that. Do better might be soft selling. Here in january Six Committee . Im aware of our requests from the department of justice for access the transcripts from the select committee. Other than that, the answer is no. These are two separate investigations. One by congress, another by a coequal branch of government, thats the executive branch. Both of us have a job to do and they are different. We are continuing to do that. There are news reports the doj is considering more charges related to january 6th. Rather than violent acts, and these charges are based on a speech or verbal communications rather than any of the violence or the threats that were experienced on that day. Is this accurate . Is this actually happening as we sit here today . The department of justice does not conduct its investigations in public. Thats for a couple reasons. One is to protect those who may be within the scope of the investigation, in other words, those who may be ultimately accused, as well as to protect the integrity of the investigation. Im not going to talk about the trajectory and the direction of the Ongoing Investigation into the events of january 6th in the days leading up to it. You made some comments earlier based on questions asked by mr. Jeffries and mr. Raskin that were, you know, inside what you are actually investigating. Thats why i had to ask that. Let me just move on. Is what Speaker Pelosi knew regarding potential threats in her preparation, or lack thereof, something that is off the table . Is that something that could be investigated as well by the og . Im not gonna discuss anything about that Ongoing Investigation. When i can tell you is, its our obligation at the Justice Department to uphold the rule of law. Its what distinguishes us from dictatorships and autocracies. A central tenet of the rule of law is that no one, no matter status, is above the law. We will continue to pursue the facts and apply the law in the course of our investigation of the january 6th attack. My 30 seconds. I wanna go back to my colleague from rhode island pointing out that bidens doj has a choice act. Even after the revisions, several National Security officials have raised concerns that the bill could limit u. S. Tech companies ability to fight Cyber Threats and other National Security risks. Are you aware that if the department of justice outside the doj were consulted prior to acting assistant attorney general juan setting the letters of support on the American Online innovation choice act . It would be normal order for the legislation to go through a process that involved a number of different departments and agencies and no we were consulted. The department of justice came out in favor of that legislation and National Security risks were addressed by the legislation and the particular changes adopted. The gentlemans time has expired. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Assistant attorney general olson, thank you very much for your service to our country. Of course, free testimony here today. As you shared in your testimony, you, in part are tasked with addressing the most pressing National Security issues of the day. I believe the online and on microphone vitriol that is so commonly targets women and girls is a most troubling issue. For example, in uvalde. There were so many signs. The uvalde shooting, the Deadliest School shooting in a decade came as a shock to the nation. Girls and women who talked to the murderer, online, they saw the science. The women described him as cryptic, and demeaning, scary. After he sent angry messages and photos of guns, when the women didnt respond how he wanted, he sometimes threatened to rape or kidnap them and laughed it off as a joke. I dont think rape is funny. I dont think threats of kidnapping are funny. This man had a public digital footprint available months before he killed, slaughtered, massacred 19 children and two of their teachers. But he had a history and online profile of harassment and violent threats. And some members of this very committee choose to stand in public and use the microphone with misogynists statements, as recently as this weekend. How can an 18 year old, who shared so much hate online, going back to the shooter now, to these girls, do so without punishment or raising and alarm . What can your Division Tell us . Let me say, first of all, that i share your outrage at the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in uvalde. Unfortunately, it has occurred too often in other parts of our country. The challenge that i think we face, as a country, in particular Law Enforcement faces, is that individuals who may have mental illnesses, or may otherwise be easily persuaded by the availability of online content, are able to radicalize, often by themselves or in small groups, very hard for Law Enforcement to see that before it happens. In fact, i think we rely very much on families, educators, communities, to be able to report that information to Law Enforcement so there is an opportunity to intervene. Again, weve seen too often that that has not happened. You combine that fact with the fact that individuals in this country i have access to military grade weapons and that they are typically choosing to attack vulnerable locations, like schools, shopping malls, and you have a series of factors that contribute to a very dangerous situation that, unfortunately, weve seen play out over and over again, has resulted in Mass Shootings and tragedies like we saw in uvalde. Can i ask you, has your department seen, noticed, collected data to show an increase in the rise of terrorism and violence inspired by misogyny . I cant say but i can point to misogyny as a particular viewpoint that is a theme or a thread i can see throughout the data. Certainly, what we do know, i think, supports your perspective that it can be a range of viewpoints. Some of it informed by hatred of people from certain countries, or if certain races, mixed with, you know, viewpoints that are hard to understand. Its a mix of ideologies that often contribute to an individuals readily guys radicalization and taking steps to carry out acts of violence. Thank you for that. I would say the shooter of course was not in a position of power. Those in a position of power have an obligation to use their words very carefully. So as not to inspire others to attack women or to mock women. I want to go real quickly, if i may, to philadelphia. My home city. Im from suburban philadelphia. The most recent data from 2020 details 63 people were reported as victims of hate crimes. A 320 increase from 2019. Lest we forget we are still trying to find all the extremists who stormed the capitol. I thank you for your efforts in the. I think any member of congress and anyone who has any evidence who is coming forward with that detail. Can you talk about the increase, maybe even specific to my city, maybe not, but the increase in hate crimes across the country . Yes. What we have seen is many of the acts we cracked characterize as dimmock to tourism. Before being the most recent example. That case is being prosecuted as a hate crime. That individual was motivated by racial racism. There was other matters, there are hate crimes that are necessary acts of domestic terrorism. Those hate crimes are prosecuted by our Civil Rights Division which has a whole section of criminal prosecutors devoted to prosecuting violations of civil rights, in particular hate crimes. I guess i would refer to your question to us to take back and we can bring back more information about hate crimes in particular. I appreciate that. I apologize, i went over. Mr. Tiffany, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. If your son wants to get a job at the National Security division when he reaches adulthood. You comments about the rule of law it sets us apart. Its a great concern that my constituents have. Many of them come up to me now, average people, good citizens of america, and they say, why do we have a two Tier Justice System in america . One of those, part of the reason they say that is russia collusion proved to be the biggest hoax perhaps in the history of the United States. You think its acceptable to have an executive Law Enforcement agency actively engage in sabotaging a political candidate . I think comey struck, page, mccabe. The Justice Department, its been my experience having been there for 20 years, 18 years, almost 20 years, but 18 years of time as a career prosecutor and attorney, that in every case, we prosecute cases based on the facts of the law. Are you embarrassed we know that with the truth is now, that it was a hoax. Does that embarrass you as someone who has served in this position of great trust for the American People . Does that embarrass you that you had four people in upper leadership, penultimate leadership will . Does that impairs you that we had those people in that position . As a career prosecutor, my experience consistently, consistently has been that we take action based on facts, evidence in the law, based on ideology or politics. The department clearly the department appointed Susan Hennessy to a senior position with a National Security division. Shes been an outspoken and partisan critic. For example, she extensively commented on the fbi investigation into the allegations that the Trump Campaign colluded with russia during which she quoted relentlessly and hyped russia collusion allegations. Miss hennessy vouched that christopher steele, author of the dossier, filled with Political Opposition Research and russian disinformation, was a person whose work intelligence professionals take seriously. Are you aware of that statement by miss hennessy . Im not going to comment on any members of the workforce is tennessee was also a vocal critic of the u. S. Attorney john durhams investigation into the targeting of the Trump Campaign and transition team, even calling the investigation partisan silliness. Are you aware of that statement . Im not going to comment about any of the she works for you. Are you aware of that statement . Im not going to comment on the work of anyone in might vision in particular. But i can tell you is that i hold everyone to the highest standards of legal capability and ethics. I include miss hennessy you bring up the issue of ethics. Do you agree that because this investigation is ongoing. In her new role miss hennessy may exert supervisory functions over this investigation, her previous statements seriously undercuts any perception of her impartiality . Its my responsibility as the head of the National Security division to ensure everyone in the division follows the rules and those include the rules of ethics. Im confident im able to do that. Im also confident miss hennessy deleted tens of thousands of statements on her twitter account prior to announcing her new position working for your division. Are you aware of that . Absolutely confident in the capabilities and integrity of miss hennessy. Do you agree that erasing her past controversial statements about National Security matters and hiding her political bias raises concerns about the Department Employee . Would you be concerned . Take miss hennessy, take her name off the conversation here, and it is a generic person. With that concern you as someone hiring these people . Im confident tens of thousands of twitter posts that are anti president. Im confident in the integrity of the workforce of the National Security division. I was there when we started the National Security division in 2006. I spent three years as a senior career official there. I returned there in 2021. I have in the excellence and integrity of that workforce. So you wont remove . Her has miss hennessy recuse herself from the Department Investigation . Not going to comment on any particular has miss hennessy received authorization to receive any aspect of the durham investigation . Not gonna comment on any particulars of my workforce, as i will repeat. I have the utmost confidence in the overall integrity can we find out, as an Oversight Authority in the congress of the United States, can we find out if she is exercising that authority . Youre not going to tell me here today, do i have a way to be able to find out if shes going to squelch the durham investigation . Im not gonna comment on specific members of the workforce. I have the utmost confidence in every Single Person who works within the National Security division. The gentlemans time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, miss ross. Thank you, madam chair. And thank you attorney general olsen for joining us today. Im going to shift focus and ask you to answer some questions about cybersecurity, if you have not been asked yet. In north carolina, our attorney general recently announced that in 2021 we saw a record of reported data breaches, which have affected more than 2. 4 million north carolinians. My district has felt the impact of Ransomware Attacks on a multi such as the 2021 attack on the Colonial Pipeline. Following this attack, more than 70 of rally gassed nations ran out of fuel, leaving my constituents with limited transit options. As you know, Colonial Pipeline paid a ransom to get at systems back online. In june 2021, doj directed federal prosecutors to coordinate ransomware investigations with a new ransomware and Digital Extortion Task force. Soon after, doj was able to work with the irs in reports to claw back two point 3 million of a 4. 4 Million Dollar ransom payment paid by Colonial Pipeline to a group using dark side ransomware. While this attack was heralded as a great success, no similar actions that we know of have been taken in the intervening years since that success. Is the Colonial Pipeline operation indicative of a new strategy of inter Agency Assistance on behalf of the u. S. Government . Or was it just a oneoff situation because of how great the impact was . I do think the Colonial Pipeline Ransomware Attack was constituted a wake up call because of the nature of the attack on a portion of our critical infrastructure, congresswoman. We are engaged and now, in the Justice Department, in a concerted effort to address the challenge of ransomware which has increased significantly in the past several years. But what we see is cyberattacks that if you appreciate that span the range of threats to our National Security, from ransomware, to efforts to steal our secret information, to efforts to steal our trade secrets. Efforts to interfere with our political process through misinformation, and even efforts to debilitate our critical infrastructure. Cyber unable to tax across the board are significant concern in the National Security division. We particular focus on those attacks that emanate from nation states. For that, we are most concerned about china and russia. Also iran, and north korea. In addition to the mission states, we do have these rogue actors, sometimes encouraged or enabled by nation states. Because of the nature of payments, one the recipient of the payment is anonymous, the trial of payments could be easier to follow. Why is it difficult to simply intercept all cryptocurrency payments made to ransomware gangs . I appreciate very much that you you seem to have a deep understanding of this challenge. For one, i am totally in agreement that in some cases its hard to discern or distinguish between criminal groups and nation states because of the ways in which certain nations might enable or support the work of criminal hacking groups. When it comes to the recovery of Crypto Payments for ransomware the challenge there is that these groups are by nature seems to hide their steps and it can make it difficult to identify the movement of money that is paid in ransom. I would note that we did announce the department announced last year, about a year ago, that we had seized about 85 of the bitcoin bet Colonial Pipeline had paid as a ransom to the hacking group, dark side. We were able to track it and recover that significant portion of that in that case. But thats not always going to be true. Again, because these groups, again by their nature, seem to hide their tracks. Okay. Thank you madam chair. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from utah, mr. Owens, is recognized for five minutes. Thank, you madam chair. I yield my time to the gentleman from ohio, mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Olsen, whats the number of doj employees who have access to 700 to fisa acquired data . I dont know the exact number and its important to note, i assume your question includes the fbi, as doj employees. Primarily, thats fbi agents and analysts who have access to that data. I dont have the exact number for you, sir. Give me an estimate of who can query that database. Again, i dont have a number, even an estimate on the numbers. But i can tell you is that every person who can query the 700 to database has to be trained in satisfied to have access to that data. We have a briefing ons december 2nd of last year, told us it could be as high as 10,000 people. We were shocked. We didnt expect it to be one. We sitter in lee didnt expected to be thousands. As the head of the National Security division, she works for you, shes a lawyer in the National Security division, she told us it could be, she was one of the briefers i dont know if shes the one that said it, but she wasnt briefing. We know with that number really is we have a fisa reauthorization coming up soon. I think this thing has got all kinds of problems. You sure you dont have an estimate . If that was the number that was given to you during that briefing, im aware of that briefing you received. I did give a readout from the briefing. Im assuming that was inaccurate. It surprised me that it was that high. One of the first questions we got today was from the gentleman from arizona, mr. Biggs, any ask you the 42 individuals that Homeland Security has identified as Illegal Migrants coming across the border on the terrorist watchlist, he asked you a question, does ice inform you, as the head of the National Security division, about that information when they get it . You indicated you didnt know. Is that right . This question was about cbp, not ice. It was about whether that information flow to the National Security division my response is, and that information, i would assume, if its threat information, would go to the fbi, which is the investigative arm and that would have authority to investigate. By definition, it would be a threat. They are on the National Security the terrorism watch list. I think it would be going straight to you from i. C. E. Or custom borders. I think it would go straight to you. We are the lawyers that prosecute those cases but we certainly do work hand in hand with the fbi and if that information came to the fbi and there was a basis to open an investigation, we would be the lawyers that would be involved in working with the fbi and investigating. I understand what is supposed to happen. Im asking, is it happening . Frankly, when you couple that with a response we got from secretary mayorkas that day, we are asking with the status of these folks, in his answer was, i dont know. He didnt know the status of those when he came in front of the Judiciary Committee even that was widely reported to the press and you are saying if you dont know if that information gets to the National Security division. I find that troubling. I would yield the remaining to the did anyone at the National Security division encourage l three to purchase pegasus . Im not aware of anywhere about that matter. You are. Because people who work with you have come and briefed us on it. Im citing the New York Times article, defense firms said u. S. Spies backed its bid for Pegasus Software maker, spyware. Pegasus is the most exquisite spying software in the world. It can get peoples phones, its been used to target politicians, journalists, dissidents, in some places. Here, you have l three saying that they were encouraged to go buy it from the National Security apparatus. Its very important, under oath, for you to tell me whether any of those people of the National Security division. Im sure you can appreciate, i dont have any information about the public reporting. Im aware of public reporting relating to that. I dont have any other information. Is that a yes or no . We will find out eventually. Im not going to comment any further. Wait a second. Whether or not our own government used a private Companies Cut out to go by spying software what youre saying is im not gonna get a yes out of you and im not going to get to know out of you because you are just not going to tell us. You dont think the American People deserve to know that . Im not aware of the facts you are assuming. You know what pegasus is . Yes, i definitely have heard of that. You should be able to tell me whether anyone who works in the National Security division was trying to use a private company to try to buy did you or did you not . Im not aware of any facts that relate to your question. I think you are. Mr. Owenss time has expired. Nobody . Here i seek recognition. The gentleman from florida, mr. Gaetz, is recognized for five minutes. There is a secret workspace at the Perkins Law Firm that is maintained by the department of justice. Is any information flow through that secret workspace to the National Security division . Im not familiar with the premise of your question. Im not familiar with the facts you just asserted as a question. You are not aware of the work space the department of justice maintains at Perkins Law Firm . Correct. And you cannot tell me whether or not the National Security division has ever received information that has flown through the law firm the Democratic Party . Correct. I just keep going back to the plausible deniability. Speaking of the biden family, since our last conversation, mr. Olsen, a remarkable piece came out in fox news, titled joe biden met with death least 14 of Hunter Bidens associates as Vice President. I know you wont answer any questions about hunter biden with the Ongoing Investigation, the answer you have given previously, but is joe biden compromised . I should be clear, im not going to comment on that question because i do not comment on any matter that may or may not be the matter of investigation. My comments previously were is construed as confirming an investigation, that would be a mistake. I mean there are confirming an investigation nor denying an investigation. Im simply saying, im not commenting on any potential investigation. Do you think the American People need to know whether or not the first family is compromised . We do not make allegations about going to the court yesterday youll spoke through some leaks. Recently, you had lester holt interviewing attorney general garland. Lester holt asked him a lot of questions about whether or not President Trump was being investigated for january 6th. Just like you, agent garland was repeating the promises of prosecutorial pathways. Lo and behold, the same day, the department of justice didnt speak through any filings. They leaked to the Washington Post they were investigating President Trump. It seems like when its the biden family, you all are buttoned up with all your propriety about and not talking about these things. When its a republican, when its President Trump, you all left to go have your authorized leaks. Heres my question to you. Are you aware of unauthorized leak to the Washington Post and the same day as a g garland sat down with lester holt . No. As you sit here, as the representative of the National Security division from the house Judiciary Committee, that we are owed an answer as to whether or not the biden family is compromised . We deserve the. We speak through our filings in court. And thats part of the rule of law it is designed to protect the rights of anyone who may be accused. Its designed to protect the integrity of the investigation is. A central pillar of the Justice Department. When you violate all the time. Even mr. Horowitz, the obama inspected inspector general, has given us report after report from the department of justice tickets the baseball games, fancy dinners with reporters in exchange for information. Can you at least acknowledge that you dont live up to that pillar with great precision . We speak through what we say in court. We protect the integrity of our investigation. What you said to the Washington Post, what jim comey leaks to his professor buddy, whats kind of said between people at a baseball game, where you guys are getting special treats and treatment from the media. You see the political bias. We are living in a time where the American People have the lowest perception and belief in the integrity of the Justice Department since your inception. Its not because we are asking tough questions. Its because you sit here and stonewall us and dont give answers. Just in the series of questions, you wont tell me whether or not our own government was out there trying to operate through a cut out to buy Cyber Software that spies on americans illegally and improperly. You wont tell me whether or not the legal weight of the Democratic Party was passing you information that was actually Opposition Research to be recategorize and repackaged as National Security information. And you will tell me whether the president of the United States is compromised, when we know he is lying. I mean, joe biden came out and said repeatedly that he never talked to hunter biden about business. Here you have 14 documented meetings. Are you guys ever going to investigate this . Is it just going to be as is just going to be mr. Grassley said, that you guys are basically political channels . If these allegations are true and accurate, the Justice Department and fbi are and have been institutionally corrupted to their very core to the point and the American Congress and American People will have no congress in the equal application of the law. That is what your behavior is continuing to metastasize . We dont conduct our investigations in public. Yeah, you lead them. Thats what you do. You lead them and try to smear you may answer the question. We take care that the assertions we make about facts are based on facts and evidence and are not reckless and false. This isnt false. The gentlemans time has expired. We take to make sure that our assertions we make in court on based on facts and the truth and the pursuit of justice, thats our solemn obligation. Plausible deniability, plausible deniability. Please turn your mic off. Basing our investigations on the fact and a lot. The pursuit of justice is our solemn obligation, when i take seriously, and when i had taken seriously for over 20 years. I continue to oversee the National Security division, we will continue to do that. This concludes todays hearing. Mr. Olsen i thank you and your entire team of Public Servants for your faithful service to our country in the pursuit of the rule of law, the pursuit of justice. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness, for additional materials for the record about objection the hearing is adjourned. Today members of congress will participate in their annual baseball game in washington, d. C. Live coverage from Nationals Park begins at 7 pm eastern on cspan. You can also watch on cspan now, our free mobile video app, or online, at cspan. Org