of prosecution. we follow the facts and law. that's what we are doing here. we're protecting the ability to continue to do high profile and sensitive investigations. we will continue to do that. >> it now seems -- it is small that the two jack smith federal cases are going to begin -- let alone finish trail this year. what does that say about the justice department? ag garland: the special counsel about the kisses last year, he requested a speedy trial. it is now in the hands of the judiciary. [reporters asking questions]

announcer: shortly after those remarks, the house judiciary committee met to consider contempt of congress charges against attorney general merrick garland. the resolution was eventually approved among party lines by a vote of 18-15. it now goes to the full house where it will be considered at a time to be determined. up next, we will show you the house judiciary committee as it met to consider the resolution.

wisconsin for the pledge of allegiance to call up the >> and move the committee reported to the house. erk will report without objection the report will be considered as read and the special counsel stated on page one of his report will fully

retained materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. he strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules of properly handling the information in his notebooks. he shared some of the classified materials he kept with his ghostwriters writing a book for which joe biden received with $8 million advance and but we had motives and the classified information. all of this declines to prosecute joe biden because he

is, quote, a sympathetic man with a poor memory and that brings us to today. following the report we subpoenaed the transcript and audio recordings for the special counsel's interviews and his ghost writer. they failed to produce the audiotapes to determine whether he appropriately carried out justice by not prosecuting or recommending the recordings are necessary and the transcripts alone are not sufficient evidence of the memory because the white house has a track record faltering the transcripts. just weeks ago during a public speech, president biden read a teleprompter instruction and stated imagine what we could do next when the white house put out the transcript it didn't

include the word. in that case and in this case as well, the video and the audio recording is the best evidence of the words that president biden spoke. the refusal to produce the recordings of the special counsel for his interviews with president biden announced the demand that the committee trust and the department created and produced the transcripts are accurate and complete. transcripts of the personal counsel likely had access to before they were finalized. there was a legal obligation to turn over the request of the materials pursuant to the subpoena. the willful refusal to comply constitutes the contempt of congress. now today this morning we get an 11th hour invocation of executive privilege exerting for the same reason we need the audio recordings they offer a unique perspective. this doesn't change the fact

that the attorney general has hasn't complied with our subpoena. with that i will recognize the ranking member for an opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. 20 million taxpayer dollars, chairman jordan opposes the government spending on everything from feeding children to education and healthcare and has spent 20 million taxpayer dollars in this congress to investigate various conspiracy theories. what exactly has he delivered it to the american people on the $20 million investment, exactly nothing. no evidence that the conspiracies are true, no indictments, no impeachments or any significance the board of the directors.

the political base may stay home next november. so he and the chairman were scrambling through the contempt. he wanted to see him he uncovered wrongdoing by the attorney general. sometimes they've been too responsive in my opinion is the american majority. the chairman was desperately hoping the special counsel would indict president biden's mishandling documents so the chairman could attack president biden and away from trump's treacherous handling of classified information. of the reality of the special counsel cleared mr. biden of

wrongdoing. the chairman hoped he could intimidate for his crimes but donald trump has been charged with mediated felonies. the list goes on and on. the tremendous searches and intimidates, but there just isn't anything there. so what do our republican friends do when the investigation turns up short? simply put, they engage in fantasy. that is what they are doing here today. accusing the attorney general of withholding key evidence. the attorney general substantially complied with every request. the doj has produced 92,000 pages and documents to this congress alone and made dozens of witnesses available for interviews, hearings in briefings before the committee. as more pages of documents and more witnesses and the trump justice department produced to the committee in four years. with respect to the february 27,

2024 subpoena, the department turned over all the information. there's been no obstruction, only cooperation. this morning the president exerted executive privilege of the audio files at issue and the letter formed in the kennedy the department of justice noted that producing the audio recordings would, quote, raise an unacceptable risk for undermining the department's ability to conduct high-profile criminal investigations in particular investigations that of the white house officials exceedingly important. the chairman claims he needs this to understand the pace and tone of the conversation. this is absurd. in any event for the substantial concerns expressed by the president and the department. moreover, with respect to the recording an issue in the report, the complete transcript has already been provided to the

committee. the only thing that has not been is the reporting itself, which can be easily manipulated. this is not an idle concern. last year we had in the closed door of deposition a manipulated video amplified by republicans on this committee that it contributed to a flat of death threats against him. this isn't really about a policy disagreement within the doj. this is about feeding the base. but don't take my word for it, take it from the chair man's mouth. quote, i'm busting my tail to get a donald trump reelected. quote, we need to make sure donald trump wins. quote, it's so important that we stay engaged and helped donald trump get back into the white house, and of quote and clearly he needs the germans help to win the white house -- the chair

man's help to win the white house. he's been indicted for times right at this very moment he faces 34 charges in new york and new york state court for falsifying business records and making hush money payments to catch and kill information that could be harmful to trump's reelection campaign. he faces 40 charges in a federal court in florida for his mishandling and withholding of classified documents that put national security at a severe risk. four charges in a federal court in washington, d.c. and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and fueling the insurrection of january 6, 2021 of the united states capital. ten charges in georgia state court for attempts to intimidate and force officials to overturn the election results in the 2020 presidential election. that's not all. we are going to hear a lot about the memory today. republicans will dimension that

he is ranked as one of the most successful presidents of our time. he will dimension the once in a generation transformative legislation is ushered into law. they will dimension the special counsel commented to president biden that is, quote, photographic memory. they will just go on and on about a couple of gratuitous contradicted comments in the report that suggest the president has a poor memory. republicans won't show you is the mounting evidence that trump has to hold the office of the president. the late, great hannibal lector can't even begin to understand how republicans have chosen this man as their champion, but they have. now house republicans are paying for it by flocking to the sidelines of the criminal trial sacrificing their integrity to defend him against the indefensible acts. everybody seems to know that

he's unfit for office and that these acts of public humiliation on this path are wrong. more evidence to my colleagues what do they need. trump once said that he could choose someone standing on fifth avenue and would still keep supporters. at least in this chamber it is obviously true. and it truly saddens me. i sat on this body for many years and the ability to fully have disagreements i've never seen members of congress so readily turned the democracy itself to service of one man and never in my life that i would see members of congress readily attack law enforcement to protect the criminal. i never thought i'd see members of congress defend and minimize the attempt as if those that storm to this building and the trump associates that led them here were somehow patriots, but here we are. i think the chairman knows that this markup will amount to

nothing. they pushed on the truly partisan lines and this resolution will do very little other than smear the reputation of garlin who will remain public servant no matter what they say about him today. it may give him something to watch on fox when he gets home from his criminal trial tonight, but it will almost certainly not convinced the department of justice to produce the one remaining question the effort before the contempt resolution will have been a partisan stunt distant to fail from the very start. it's a total waste of time. the american people actually need us to do important work, to fund the government, to secure affordable healthcare, to reduce inflation in housing costs, take care of children and families and to keep the nation safe. i'm tired of these games and so are the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and yield back.

>> the chair recommends himself to explain the the amendment makes the change on page ten of the report and doesn't affect the substance of the report i yield back. there is no ground whatsoever to withhold of the intake that take must be quite something if the administration, if they decided

to exert executive privilege to keep it from the committee in the course of an impeachment inquiry, think about it. the basis for withholding the audio recording when the transcript has been varnished must rest on something about the recording that is distinct from the information contained in the transcript. for example, what if the committee made a request for a different copy of the transcript? that is unlikely to happen but no reasonable person would ask for it either. the president and the white house had contested what was said in the interview, the special counsel in his report predicated his decision not to prosecute an obvious violation of statute and the president's rating from the classified information to the ghost writer to satisfy the terms of the 8 million-dollar book retainer on his findings the president

was elderly and forgetful, in other words he placed tremendous reliance on what is called demeanor evidence. the president and the white house has viciously attacked the special counsel's characterization of the demeanor evidence. that is whether and to what extent the president appeared to have limited capacity as a witness to testify for memory. now the transcripts do not capture demeanor evidence. transcripts are often in perfect especially to convey the timing of question and answer and the his notations among other things. all of that is demeanor evidence. that's the reason among other things that it is absolutely standard practice in litigation in american courts for the parties to be entitled to record

testimony by more than one means. another method for recording the testimony and an addition to that specified in the original notice. pretty straightforward. given that the evidence is contradicted by the special counsel land by the president as to the reason the president has escaped prosecution for an obvious violation of statute, and because the committee sits and at the impeachment of the president. the committee needs the demeanor evidence the same way any party would in any such matter being litigated and the notion that

there is a basis for a claim of executive privilege and what has been articulated by the justice department by the attorney general is that it would be detoured to future white house from cooperating with criminal inquiries because the interview would be made available and therefore it's got to be exposed but the transcripts had already been provided. what possible basis could there be that would impair future white house cooperation with investigations if what the department is contending is just the same information in an audio recording form. that is an incomprehensibly absurd position, and so there's nothing to it whatsoever. this committee cannot be detoured in proceeding with the resolution in my view, and one

can question the motives or attack motives, but it's a straightforward as it can be. it is a simple presentation of demeanor evidence that is important to this committee's investigation, inquiry to the potential president and should be accomplished and done. i'm for it, let's go. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the ranking member is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk will report. i mentioned in the nature of the substitute for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find -- >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> this adds language from the most recent executive branch to the report. the justice department into the white house vote to the

committee to inform us that the president was exerting executive privilege over the audio recordings. this assertion of privilege is used to protect important law enforcement interests and he is the attorney general road, the justice department has a vested interest in protecting materials related. they further explained that producing the audio recordings to the committee would raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the department's ability to conduct similar high-profile criminal investigations in particular investigations that are a cooperation of white house officials is exceedingly important. the white house also asked them to explain the executive privilege based on the long-standing commitment to protect the integrity, effectiveness and independence of the department of justice and its law enforcement investigations. a chairman jordan claims the

recordings to understand things like tone. this is absurd. there is no attempt to explain the reasoning. it in no way overcomes the substantial interest of the law enforcement investigations. what high-profile witness for liver cooperate with law enforcement investigation if they knew the audio files and the conversations were released to committees seeking the finals only purely political purpose? this amendment simply ensures that it is complete and up-to-date. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman from california withdrawals his point of order and the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. >> speaking in opposition, they don't get to choose. they don't get to choose. we spent a lot of time in the hearing in this room talking about i've been an advocate in the recording interviews and arrests and all of this. it's a pretty known legal precedent and rule and it exists

everywhere. the person providing the evidence doesn't get to choose the matter and form that the evidence is provided. and this also happens to be a pattern. five minutes before the hearing we got the transcript. five minutes before this hearing we get the invocation of executive privilege. there is a difference between a transcript and video and audio, and i don't possibly understand the argument of we will release the transcript but we won't release the tapes and that's going to determine whether or not somebody participates in an investigation, which by the way they can be compelled to be done as well. the argument that this is somehow anything other than the doj trying to pick and choose which pieces of evidence were which parts of evidence are what they determine as the best evidence to our committee is quite frankly not based in any

precedent under law. i spent ten years doing this and doing discovery requests. i never asked for permission. i'm entitled to what it is. they don't get to determine what we get. that is not how the system works. and it can't be how the system works because otherwise the people who you are trying to conduct oversight on determine what information you get to conduct that oversight. this is simply not how the separation of powers is set up, or how any legal investigation in any jurisdiction in any form exists anywhere in the country. the audiotape exists. that is the best evidence in which to conduct oversight and with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

first i want to talk about what the committee and the congress is doing to the rule of law. earlier this week we witnessed a spectacle of the highest ranking republican in the country the speaker of the house, someone in line for the presidency standing outside a manhattan courthouse in a hush money payments to a porn * trial gouging for the good character of the defendant. i would imagine if you asked a younger mike johnson some ten or 15 years ago could you ever imagine you would stand outside of a courthouse in a hush money payments to a porn star trial and vouch for the moral character of the defendant, you would never imagine that possible. but like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot, what we are seeing not just with this speaker but so many of the leadership over the last several years is one surrender of moral authority after another after

another. one betrayal of what one stood for by another betrayal and another until you find yourself standing outside of a manhattan courthouse vouching for the moral authority and character of someone who possesses none. not just in the process but here denigrating the very institution of justice. a something the speaker knows is false but willing to repeat and this is where we are on the highest ranking official republican officials is essentially telling the american people don't trust the system of justice. we see something very similar.

we see a republican u.s. attorney brought on to investigate the president and we see him make a report to the congress that there's nothing prosecutable and what he was able to find we see him at the same time failing to make a prosecuted case deciding the next best thing he can do is lob a political great into the report and belittle the president. .. and why? because her public on this committee have moved from being in the criminal defense firm for the president to being essentially an adjunct of the

president's media advertising firm. they want the video for donald trump's campaign commercials. that is where this committee has become the committee on the judiciary. they committee that is centered are supposed to be centered on the rule of law and on justice. what are we doing? we are holding the attorney general of the united states in contempt. and for what? he will not get video material for campaign commercial to this committee. on behalf of a president who was a criminal defendant in a hush money payment to a pouring star case in new york. the first of many criminal trials that he will face. this is where we are. this is where we are. i first joined this committee, it has been over 20 years ago. michael young michael johnson i could not imagine that committee would engage in the spirits on

this if that 20 years ago sebastian it wasn't. we didn't disagree on abortion and guns and whole host of other policy issues. counting democrat or republican on this committee to ever ever d it would been brought so low as to hold an attorney general and contempt because it cannot get a video for campaign commercial when you started given the transcript. this is where we are. moment after moment year after we lose sight on how far we have fallen. any sense of what we are supposed to be about in this committee. i do not imagine anything i have to say will change that i do think every now and then the country needs to be reminded there is nothing okay about this, there's something to write about that's there is nothing normal about this and we to back to demonstrating some devotion to our constituents and the rule of law and with that i yield

backwards judgment yields back the judgment from new jersey is jersey'srecognizable gentleman d for a second? what's not seeking a videotape and audiotape sites want to correct the same as the democrats it hold the attorney general of united states and contempt a couple congress ago i yield back to the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have got to get focused here. the gentleman from california again trying to take our eye off the ball. this is nothing to do this particular issue right here but we are doing with the courthouse in new york city. this is nothing directly to do with what is going on with president trump i would be glad to engage in a colloquy or debate or discussion about how awful what's happened to president trump's but that is not the issue here right now. and is nothing to do with the campaign. it's not thinking of the fact the speaker did go as he should

have to support president trump this is not the issue. it has to do with special counsel her. it has to do with what he said. and by the way he never said it was not prosecutable. he decided not to pursue the charges due to the assessment a jury would find president biden's age and a poor memory and excuse for mishandling those documents. i did not say that. our chairman did not say that. the special counsel from the department of justice said that. the subpoena of the attorney attorneygeneral is necessary bee department of justice has refused to provide the audio recordings of interviews that are crucial for determining the special counsel assessment of our current president. it is essential for this congress and the american people to determine whether special counsel assessment is accurate

or not. i will tell you why. the folks on the other side are in a bind of our commander-in-chief is so incompetent it cannot stand the trail is not to stand trial he is too incompetent for god sake to be the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. i president biden is competent and special counsel assessment was incorrect president biden should face a jury for his crimes of mishandling classified materials. president trump's face and the full weight of the department of justice in his own case on this issue. even though he had the authority to declassify documents because he was the president of the united states when he did it. president biden on the other hand mishandling classified documents both as a vice president and then as a senator. members of congress, vice presidents, u.s. senators do not

get to take classified documents and remove them from the skiff. they don't get to do that. they did not do declassify documents. did not have the authority to declassify with the audio recordings why do we want them? they will reveal whether was correct mishandle classified documents or it will reveal he is incompetent not competent enough to stand trial therefore not competent that's the closest we have we have two choices here competent and he broke the law or incompetent and he is so incompetent he is a bumbling old man he could not stand trial because they would not be able to do much with them. so we want to find out. it's what we need to know. either way i'll be clear our president is unfit to lead in my opinion and likely why the

d.o.j. is hesitant to share it. i will tell you what. probably anyone on this committee if you asked them to share the audio something we said, believe me anything i am saying now you can share anywhere you can share anything the chairman says or any of our esteemed members you are on either side part of their one cosmic they got a reason they are in a bind. and might willing to set the precedent that subpoenas from congress in this committee can be ignored? are you willing to do that? i do not think so. i don't think we want that to happen. are we willing to perpetuate at the president is incompetent a a two-tiered justice system again? we see it again being wielded against the one person but not another. the answer to the question should be no information requested in the subpoena is crucial. we need the information not just for uncovering whether

presidents acted in that manner deserving of impeachment but also because the description of the answers we should not be hiding the answers and the truth from the american people. i don't support this amendment let it loose, give us the information if there's nothing there to worry about you should have no problem letting us note knowletting us see but let the t in. let the sunshine and i yield tobacco gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> think it mr. chairman. i want to address a couple of things quickly before i get to the amendment. by the arguments and hang from the republican side over and over again is essentially questioning conclusion not to move forward with the prosecution. i did want to remind my

colleagues that under mr. barr the department of justice has taken the position that the committee, referencing this incoming house judiciary committee is no legitimate role in debating law enforcement materials with the aim of duplicating criminal inquiry. which is of course they function the constitution and trusts exclusively to the executive branch. to the extent you are arguing you do not agree with his findings and you want to replicate or go through them again, mr. barr argued against that five years ago with respect to the underlying amendment for the amendment to a ns there is a major problem with moving forward with the language and the amendment.

it's based on the predicate and i won't read it to the date the department has refused to produce the audio recordings despite not having invoked any privilege to justify its failure to comply with the subpoena. one of the conclusions it reaches at the end has a justification for moving forward with contempt the attorney general is further invoked no constitutional or legal privilege relieving his obligation to fully respond to the committee subpoena because gentleman yield? like sure. >> are drafting an amendment we understand that has to be dealt with in light of the last minute executive assertion coming from the white house. we drafted an amendment but were running it past house counsel. intend to offer an amendment for the specific language the gentleman cited pickwick so the committee then adopt ranking members amendment? >> no, we have our own. what's left to take a look at it when he gets here. moving forward on this basis,

even if you amend the language in ad that i want to remind the committee whether it is an assertion of executive privilege according to nixon which is the case you all have cited per .jennifer to strike that too. upon receiving a claim or privilege of a chief executive it became further the duty of the district court to treat the subpoena material as presumptively privileged and require special prosecutor to demonstrate the presidential material was essential to the justice of the case. that is because the pending criminal case and moving forward at that point there is an expedited process. we obviously do not have an expedited process here. but just to point out and be clear about this the court said this is presumptively privileged. and so moving forward as if that is not the case is deeply problematic. one of my colleagues over there a minute ago said something about you do not get to choose.

that's exactly what happens when you assert a privilege especially executive privilege. references and the other side with respect to regular civil litigation which is fine i engage in regular civil litigation to this is litigation between article one and article two branches of the united states. constitutional magnitude. rushing through this quickly i think is misguided it. i think it will lead to hopefully a court telling the committee we are going down the wrong track. we are abusing our power for oversight. especially in the instance where we've got special counsel that's already been appointed, has reviewed the issues, has come back and stated clearly there is insufficient evidence in his view to move forward with the prosecution. i think is especially problematic if we have to take it to court again. there is no evidence of eight

refusal to cooperate. in fact you got the exact opposite. above and beyond language on the bar language on the bar letter is clearly met hereto. we've got mr. garland who is not legally required to release the report but he did. he was not required to release the transcript, but he did. as pointed out a minute ago by the ranking member for departments produced 92000 pages of documents. we've had 40 or 50 lawyers in the department of justice come and testify. a couple of them in the middle of a criminal prosecution which is totally unprecedented. so, for these reasons and more i'm urging my colleagues to rethink this approach i think ultimately is going to end up in undermining the ability of this committee to conduct legitimate oversight at the time of that is appropriate. i've exceeded my time with that i yield back and i think the chairman. >> are gentlemen yield to back

the gentleman from alabama's recognize >> thank you i yield to mr. armstrong. >> thank you. a couple of things. for one, i would be happy to argue this. to make colleagues from maryland i wish you would've been your hn may of 2019 because we legitimately as the chairman said healthy attorney general and contempt after asserting privilege it was more than that we held them in contempt for not violating the law. there is a statutory requirement you cannot disclose or integrate testimony. we talk about the path were going down and talk about oversight we don't have to go back to nick we can go back to may of 2019 and so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing about this i would love to get that transcript or audio or video and come back on here but we are not duplicated criminal proceeding there is no criminal proceeding. we got the answer from where we are at. i would argue this in front of

since the yester doing it the running out the clock he could've exerted executive privilege i don't know a week ago, a month ago, six weeks ago. it is a pattern going on with this d.o.j. and this white house comes up to the precipice of when you're actually going to do something then they said the absolute last minute they drop all of this. we have a right to do these things. i fully am aware the difference in a criminal prosecution and civil litigation and a congressional hearing are the same thing. the basic premise of what is the best evidence, what we are entitled to it versus what the opposing side says we are entitled to something the people on my side of the aisle are completely willing to have that conversation with whoever is independent and neutral arbitrator of those facts pickwick so gentlemen yield? >> sure. >> the best evidence standard which i don't think is necessarily applicable here because not a court proceeding

the demeanor evidence fell on the face for the same reason. the point here is with respect to the 6e issue. it can be waived and routinely is as a matter of practice. and it certainly has been for congress i do not know that's a really good analogy. the bottom line here is you guys are arguing you need it for demeanor evidence which again has no applicability here because it does not go to the finding that came from her or the impeachment transcript. altering the transcript is what you have to argue for it affecte chairman argued that. there's obsolete no evidence of that in fact is a certified transcript. this is one i typed it up on the side these are the transcripts we generate on a routine basis in congress and the department of justice. >> reclaiming my time. that might be someone else's argument, that is not my argument. my argument is if i have the

version of going through something and dealing with something i have watched witnesses and this committee and depositions say things because they know have agreed to it not being released on video. how something rereads and how something sounds is different. that is true. i am not arguing -- but can't say what they are entitled are not entitled to give me. i am saying i'm in south of this evidence and i think this hearing is entitled to it. i am willing to have that fight. i have never been in my entire life said you tell me what i get and i will disagree to that. that is not the point regardless of all the other issues you do not get to say at the last minute we are exerting executive privilege because nobody will ever come in voluntarily come into an investigation ever again because simply release the audio recording instead of the transcript that's going to have a chilling effect. that is a ridiculous argument i don't care what the burden of proof is it's just a ridiculous

argument. what's so gentlemen yield again? >> yes. that's an argument that's ray's administration after ministration after administration included by the trump administration on multiple occasions. the assertion of executive it privilege is at least 50 -- 60 years old. that's based on a decision by the executive branch usually the department of justice to make a decision as to what they will turn over what they won't. a basket litigated in court than the court decides. this is exactly how it is supposed to go for. >> executive privilege is usually done whether or not you get the information or not too. i was here i remember when the attorney general came in and said i cannot turn the stuff over because i will be breaking the law. this is not a matter of whether they're turning it over or not we are to have whatever you think it is they are saying were only going to give the piece of it we what to give it were not going to give you what you guys want that is the fundamental disagreement that exists here. we want the evidence of what happened and the best evidence

available. with that i yield back pickwick judgment inspect the judgment from alabama yields back the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> correct thank you mr. chair. i have been despairing the state of our country even more so the state of this committee. and the judiciary the last several months. this committee is becoming the canon committee trump anointed group to support him and defend him with conduct that is not defensible. road blocks should be on trial in florida for his keeping classified records he did not declassify them, he just kept them. this is a man several barcodes are generic and said art rule of law this was political having

people trash it is despicable almost treasonous. and in this committee the hypocrisy this committee would question merrick garland to report a republican to look into president biden's conduct. a man who mr. her said he was here to be question anyone here could have questioned him about the conduct on what mr. biden said away came to that conclusion. he said he was sympathetic elderly man with a poor memory the fact he was sympathetic as what he would not be convicted. this distinguished from his forthcoming opponent in past opponent who was a despicable mendacious man with a port

knowledge of history and government. an important memory to boot. i met his own secretary of state said was a moron. tiller's and said he was a moron. kelly said he admires jon calley's chief of staff said he admires autocrats and dictators and has no conception of the rule of law concern for or democracy in our country. his defense secretary said he is a threat to democracy. jon boulter declared to be unfit to be president. and of course mike pence said they had profound differences. folks coming up here defending what's going on in new york, this is a man his wife gave birth to his child and he was playing golf and fornicating in nevada rather than being with his wife and newborn child, what an example we have for the american public and for young

people. joe biden is i was set at the correspondents dinner a decent man sympathetic at a decent man. the idea one of the gentleman said impeachment hearing we are not at an impeachment inquiry these are things it thrown out there to try to take the facts away that he was twice impeached. and to try to impeach him. what so gentlemen yield? >> biden and netanyahu or both wrong. the hypocrisy i think every republican on this committee voted against holding bar and contempt of one of our members my friend the chairman was cited for contempt because he refused to appear before a committee. within the generate six and the overthrow of the government. the hypocrisy is and i yield to mr. nadler for i think the general and for yield and want to point out the discussion we

heard before about evidence and so forth between mr. armstrong and mr. iv is fit for a criminal trial this is not a criminal trial. this is a dispute between the executive branch and congress. such a dispute congress would show a need for the evidence that we seek. republicans have not made that showing. they have shown no need for these vials. the discussion we heard before is irrelevant it was said with a criminal trial. which is not a criminal trial is a dispute between the executive branch and congress such a dispute congress would show a need for the evidence. republicans have not made that showing. they have not shown any need for these files that renders this whole thing ridiculous. i think the gentleman fruit yielding and i yield back to him. >> thank you. might last 10 seconds all i can

say is god bless america because we need someone of that authority to bless us with the way this committee and these folks have dealt with this case and ruling on constitution of democracy. what's a judgment inspect the gentleman from california is recognized. correct think it mr. chairman's in the discussion is drifted into the manhattan trial i just have to say it is ironic you are my calling from california speak to the integrity of our legal system like most americans i am appalled at our justice system could become so it dangerously politicized. it started with the irs harassing members of the tea party years ago. we had the fbi and intelligence agencies using what they knew it was a completely fabricated story by the clinton campaign over russian collusion. my colleague played a large role in that was censured by the house for his role in it. then we had the intelligence agency concoct a lie the hunterr biden laptop was a russian hoax

that may have decisively affected the outcome of the 2020 election. i know him sham cases against donald trump on the flimsiest of legal grounds. grounds that have never been charged before. what the out his intent to interfere massively with the presidential campaign the sinister nature of these cases is that it does not matter they are falling apart. that is not the points. the point is to drain a trump of his time and resources and throw the election to the democrats. the cornerstone of our justice system is equal justice under law. in matter who we are we are treated the same that is a wide trust just depicted as blindfolded. in each of these cases there seem to be three standards of justice one for donald trump, one for the rest of us and one for the democrats. that strikes at the heart of the matter before us. the decision to prosecute donald trump for mishandling classified documents and the decision not to prosecute joe biden for the same offense.

executive privilege is an important concept and enormous a bearing on separation of powers it goes back to george washington's administration. the discussions a president has with his advisers or subordinates in the executive branch on any manner within the powers of his office are no more the business of the legislative branch and the discussions among members of congress and the business of the executive the president cannot compel congress to divulge deliberations anywhere than congress can compel the president. it is crystal clear to me any official discussion between the president and any subordinate cannot be pierced. but this case is very different. because it is not a conversation between the president and a subordinate of our policy of the discharge of his official duties. rather it's an interview in the course of a criminal investigation. to meet this is far closer to the nixon tapes the nixon tapes are not conversations part of a

criminal investigation the conversations that have bearing on one. the conversation in this case is even further from that route at the executive privilege for this is it interview and a criminal investigation that clearly falls within the legitimate legislative function. it's not only legitimate inquiry it is a vital inquiry. how is it there are two cases involving the handling of classified information that have been treated so radically differently? as president donald trump at absolute authority to declassify material at will as vice president joe biden did not. under the present to records at president trump@absolute discretion to determine what papers to return in the course of his presidency. as vice president joe biden did not. and yet a decision was made to prosecute donald trump and yet not to prosecute joe biden. by the joe biden administration. so it bears repeating the foundation of our judicial system is equal justice under law. without this the law it looses l

authority it simply becomes broad political force and it is apparent to me we are moving dangerously away from this principle of a quote justice congress because us and is central to play in setting things right before we lose the very principles that define us as a free people. central to this is to understand why these two cases were treated so very differently. the request of the administration is legitimate. the contempt citation for refusal to provide this information is entirely appropriate but with that i yield back. >> else at the gentleman yields back the gentleman from california. i have california then i'll come there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the house and judiciary committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. unfortunately the actions of this committee chairman and ignoring a bipartisan congressional subpoena has hurt

the ability of this committee to get information and hurt the rule of law. it is a height of hypocrisy for the chairman of this committee to try to enforce a contempt subpoena against merrick garland when this chairman himself ignored bipartisan congressional subpoena. now, i have been to a number of proceedings in my time in congress and in the state legislature. i have been a relatively stupid. this proceeding goes beyond stupidity it is a waste of taxpayer resources. why is that? because we have the transcript. we have the transcript of the interview between special counselor robert her and president biden. there is no evidence whatsoever at this transcript was made up. that it is fake, that has been doctored. this transcript was produced by robert hurd's office. he was appointed by donald

trump. he is a republican appointee. the notion that some out this transcript is fake is a wild and insane conspiracy theory to know why things really going on? joe biden stutters is always had a stuttering problem and he was made fun of as a child because he stuttered, his bullied as a kid because he stuttered. he overcame stuttering become president of the united states republicans in the past have used his stuttering to smear him. i think that's what they want to do again with this audio. think that is despicable if republicans are going to go low i'm going to punch back. let's talk about donald trump i agree with the republican integers is that a person cannot stand trial he should not be president of the united states. donald trump has fallen asleep multiple times his own criminal trial. i am a former prosecutor. i can say that is not normal.

i think there may be physical mental health issues that should be investigated. i'm going to tell people in the courtroom are writing about donald trump falling asleep. here's a reporter who is been observing this own reporter observed quote donald trump has nodded off a few times his mouth going slack in his head dripping onto his chest." another reporter said quote donald trump slowly dropped his head his eyes closed, jerked back aboard he adjusted himself in his head droops again, he straightens up leaning back. his head droops for a third time he shakes his shoulders, i can disclose it still has head drops." i have a person is so weak and feeble donald trump was so weak and feeble cannot stay away to his own criminal trial he cannot be president of the united states. so, instead of going around trying to smear different people why don't we work on a bipartisan basis and issued a matter that to american people

bipartisan hearing unless decent bills to fix a broken immigration system. republicans here do not want to do that do not to work in a bipartisan basis they do not want to fix this, why? because donald trump told them not too. how about another issue but let's talk about high prices. prices are high we did get a good report yesterday inflation is slow down. that is good but prices are still high why don't we work on bipartisan basis to look at price gouging? we have companies making record profits once have a hearing on that. why don't we have a hearing on that? republicans don't fix the issue they one as a campaign issue. how about let's do a topic that's not a campaign issue. artificial intelligence has become a problematic privacy implications, could do amazing things it could also harm us in a variety of ways in terms of

what we do hearing on this and this committee? why don't we do that? instead were doing the stupid stuff to try to get audio of a transcript we already have. i gets even worse than that. there is a second committee oversight committee did the exact same hearing on this proceeding. let me put in at least the chairman of that committee did not ignore congressional bipartisan subpoena it might be more appropriate for that committee to do it we should and this proceeding right now i yield back. >> a gentleman yields back the gentleman from texas is recognized for a quick thank you, mr. chairman. after that five minutes of starting to get a little sleepy i would like to yield my time. >> thank you the gentleman for yielding. here we go again. the gentleman, my friend from tennessee and california, maryland, they want us not to have our eye on the ball. they want us to look. we've talked about this before.

the shiny object over here. when you are really in the trouble op the other side of the aisle, when you really have a problem, let's go after donald trump. let's make it a campaign speech. let's talk about what a bad guy he is. let's talk add all of the different issues. that's not why we're here. if we want to have a separate debate, come colloquy, informa'am discussion, let's go at it. most of us here are. that's not the issue. the issue is this committee feels that it needs an audio transcript because the charges that concerns are so serious. i want everybody to understand. we're either saying that our current president is in -- cog

thattively impaired. if that's true, we need to hear the audio tape. you need to understand if he's truly that cognitively impaired, if he has the issue, if he cannot deal with the issue, if he doesn't know what he's doing, we're going to learn a lot of the way. if it nos big deal, because we have the transcripts, we have the transcripts. why do you care so much about us getting the audio? what's the big deal? >> i want the answer? >> i want to finish this first. i will yield. we already have the transcript. why don't we have the audio? we can find out whether he's in that much trouble. as a country is in that much trouble. it's got nothing to do with what's going on in new york. this has to do with what's going on here in the white house in washington, d.c. with the president or if he is not

cognitively impaired, if he's with it, if he's capable, then he broke the law as vice president and as a u.s. senator, not allowed to take the classifies materials out, kept them in the garbage by his home next to the collapsed dog kennel. then used them. i want everybody to understand that. then used them, read them to his ghost rider to use in his multi-million-dollar book deal. of the he competent? did he know what he was doing when he made the deal and used the papers to make money on the presidency? that's what we need to know. that's why we're going through all of this. that's what we need to find out. >> gentleman yield? >> i will. one moment. that's why we're having the discussion. this committee has an oversight

responsibility and needs to know that. its not only the committee. most importantly the american people need to know it. we need to know if we have an incompetent, incoherent president or if we have a president that is being held to the two-tier system of justice again just like they tried to help his son. justice for thee not for me. whomever is watching and listening to this don't have the opportunities. he keeps getting them over and over again. which is it? i know it is a bad spot for you folks. it is an uncomfortable place to be. but we need to find out the truth. i yield to the gentleman -- actually you -- i'll yield to you. >> thank you. i want to comment the following. special prosecutor decided there was no reason to prosecute for his own good reason. he stated them in his report.

he sneered the president on the cognitive impairment. we'll see. if we don't need the transcript to see if the president is cognitively impaired. the president speaks all the time. there's going to be two debates. the american people can decide if he's cognitively impair and if his opponent is. they are going to see plenty of evidence of that on the debate to the campaign. we don't need the transcript to know whether the president is cognitively impaired or not. the evidence is going to be before the american people. >> i reclaim my time. this doesn't have anything to do with the time. it doesn't have anything to do with the debates. everybody is going to enjoy them. me included. this is regarding the classified materials. either as the specific prosecutor said he's cognitively impaired or unfit for trial or knowingly did this and made money off it. i yield back.

>> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing is a continuation of what this congress has been about under republican authority since january 3 of 2023. we started out trying to elect and it took 19 ballots before this congress in 2023 january was able to elect a speaker. that speaker presided over what is agreed upon by most people who are observing this committee's functions as -- well, the congress' functions. this has been the least productive congress in the history of the country.

many arguing. and my friends on the other side of the aisle on this committee are a part of that. they have spent $20 million investigating president trump. this committee. this committee alone. has spent $20 million during this 118th session of congress which began in january of 2023. investigateing president biden. they suffered the indig dig dignity of their leader, former president trump for being indicted for withholding classified documents. that indictment was in july of 2023. during the height of this do-nothing congress. and not long before this

congress expelled the speaker it took so long to elect in january. they put him out in october. and then we went for three weeks while even people on this committee were vying for the speakership. it took three weeks and ran through a number of candidates before this congress elected mike johnson as its speaker, formally of this committee. and he has not fare first-degree much better. neither has the house under his reign. still not accomplished. we get to the point after spending $20 million, the committee has absolutely nothing to show for it. they tried to pin a classified documents case on president

biden. they had a special council. special council heard. they spent a lot of money investigating, couldn't find a thing, had to write a report that cleared the president from illegally withholding classified documents and then he was summoned to this committee to deliver the findings of his report which included a derogatory reference to president biden being -- having a loss of memory. disparaging him. that was the only thing that republicans could get out of heard's report. they made hay of that for a while. then that went away. now it has come back.

even though we're seeking to hold the attorney general in contempt of this committee for refusing to reduce an audio file. when you already have the document, the entire unredacted report, the transcript of the interview with the president, and even talking to the president's ghost writer. it is an exhaustive investigation. the only thing we can do now is come up with additional information to show that biden is cognitively impaired. that's what the committee is trying to do today according to my friend from new jersey. get the evidence that biden is cognitively impaired. this is political. this is a do-nothing congress. it is the product of a do-nothing committee. the american people deserve

more. and they are seeing what is happening. we can do the work that the american people need us to do to keep them safe and make sure that costs are down and make sure our economy is humming along, jobs, rebuilding america. that's what the committee needs to be about. not a fishing expedition trying to show this president is cognitively impaired. and with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i mean a lot of us sit here and listen to the special council. i think respond to many questions that day, sitting right there in front of us. and i began to wonder, kind of,

what were the conversations behind closed doors? who were the discussions amongst the attorneys on how are we ever going to dismiss the idea that the president of the united states holding substantial positions within our government has absolutely secured on his own person sensitive documents? and then was able to take them back to the residence, move boxes of them to offices, in multiple locations, and obviously, willingly and knowingly mishandling secret, sensitive, u.s.-government documents and just dismiss this.

and there's been a conversation with the special council behind closed doors about -- well, they just did a raid on the former president's home in florida. lights going and securing specific areas of the residence and really kind of ransacking the place. now we find out, you know, probably, you know, a little bit of orchestration of what they wanted those documents to look like when the photos were taken. i can't imagine what the special council and his assistants were trying to dismiss by simply saying that the president he's not all there. you know? we've seen it on tv. we see it every day now. he's completely incompetent from

handling a simple press conference. so that become their way out. that become what they thought could justify let them off of the hook. i'm not sure where that would have gone as a criminal prosecution. none of us are ever going to know that; right? i mean my own personal opinion is that they blew it. because he's the one who set up the juxtaposition of the president of the united states, who by the way, just agreed to two presidential debates, okay, but at the same time we're supposed to believe that, you know, he had a few boxes in the garbage. he lost track of them. he's just not up to standing trial for this. he's just not up to actually having an attorney ask him poignant questions about what he

was doing with the boxes and was he aware what was in the boxes that he had all over the place? and now, today, we get a letter from mr. siscol. i wonder what was going on behind closed doors at the white house yesterday. in the discussions on how are we now going to make sure that we protect the president again from having to disclose anything of substance. and the paragraph that strikes me is the absence of a legitimate need for the audio recording is a likely goal. now they are telling congress in what our goals are in trying to secure evidence. that's to chop them up, disreport them, and use them for partisan political purposes. that's not part of the process either; right? that you have to run for

re-election. that's utilized in that way. that's not the committee's intent. but clearly one of the attorneys over at the white house dropped the ball when they wrote the paragraph. because it just went from us not being able to do oversight to now we've come up with a way that we're going to execute a little bit of a cover up. we're going to move towards cover up. to make sure the special counsel's conclusions are not questioned beyond what was done in the room when he was here a month ago. so, mr. chairman, this entire day is not only warranted, but the american people see what's going on here. we're not going to elect donald trump. the other side of the aisle in

the white house is going to elect donald trump. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. >> it is nice to see that some of my colleagues on the other side could make it today. i don't know if that means there weren't enough seats in the courtroom in new york. but i know that the oversight committee canceled the hearing that was supposed to happen right now on this matter so they could be at the president's trial. some members will miss this vote, because they want to be at the president's trial. i don't think that anything could animate the phrase do-nothing congress more than missing votes and canceling hearings to go up and be a spectator at your cult leaders trial. that's the definition of do-nothing congress. but i'm here for a celebration. because -- let's raise a glass. it's been about two years. two years this week. may 12 is when jim jordan, or chairman, was subpoenaed and

asked to comply with his subpoena for his role and enteric with the former president on the january 6th attack of the capitol. we are now 735 days in. it's two years. and this committee has the nerve, this committee has the temerity to seek compliance from the attorney general. i don't think he should be able to bring any subpoena of another person if you were out of compliance of your own subpoena. that seems to me to make a lot of sense to me. we'll have an amendment to address that later. i want to talk about this particular effort to hold the attorney general in contempt. what does this really about? after all, it was donald trump's appointed prosecutor who the attorney general deputized to be the special counsel here to look at the handling of the classified documents.

it was donald trump's prosecutor who cleared president biden. he said there's nothing to see here. although he did not put it in the legal memory poa -- memo for his report, there was an exchange that he acknowledged in the interview where the special counsel told the president your recall is photographic. he didn't say your recall is god. he didn't say your recall is decent. the special counsel said your recent is photographic. what is this really about? this is about you all not accepting the outcome of the 2020 election. you rooted on the riders as they sought to attack the capitol on january 6th. if that wasn't enough, you went back to the floor and reiterated the issue that brought the riders to the capitol. many of you go and visit the convicted criminals who

assaulted the police officer at their jail cells and during police week as a bunch of officers yesterday testified in the homeland security hearing those officers are heros and those riders are criminals, you call them host annals. and the former president called them hostages. this is entirely about not accepting the outcome of the january 6 vote here. rooting on the riders. and doing everything you can to try to affect the outcome of the upcoming election. so then i thought to myself, is there a parallel? is there another investigation where your side was completely incurious about what that investigation yielded? turns out there was. turns out it happened recently. turns out somebody on your side was investigated for sex trafficking. now you are going to say, well, he was cleared. he was cleared. they dropped the charges. yes, the biden attorney general dropped the charges.

didn't pursue. didn't bring charges. that's exactly what happens with president biden. but you all have shown no interest to go to the attorney general and say we want to learn more. we want to see the notes and the audio recordings and the evidence of our own colleagues sex trafficking investigation. not a peep from any one of you. if you wanted to do that, if you wanted to show just a little bit of consistency, i would be willing to entertain that you have a genuine interest in understanding what happened in the hearing. but that's not what this is about. this is about doing everything that help donald trump, who you see as your client, who a new york criminal trial sees as a defendant, to help him win an election. so i have no interest in playing this game. the american people have no interest in playing this game. all this does for those of you who have graced us with your presence, animates it is a completely do-nothing congress.

i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i yield to the gentleman from california. >> i'll be brief before my colleague from california leaves. i've been on the committee long enough to know why we mark up contempt. the committee and the committee he referred -- we've held people in contempt for not doing things. the committee held in contempt the chief council to the president under george w. bush for not showing up. we next door held in contempt eric holder for withholding information that he said he had 200 and some pages, ultimately over 10,000 pages turned out to be delivered. what's interesting and very similar is the president's old boss, president obama, claimed executive privilege on exactly the day we were about to do this. ultimately none of the 10,000

pages stood the test under a judge appointed by president obama for executive privilege. so the false claim of executive privilege today is just as much of a ruse as it was under president obama. that's what i hope as we hold the attorney general in contempt. >> thank you. my colleagues are depriving the fact that some of our colleagues are in new york. what's happening in new york? we have a clear sham trial being perpetrated by a judge with clear bias. we have a situation where the entire thing relied on mwai the cohen -- michael cohen, who just at least is a convicted felon and has disbarred and plenty guilty of perjury and financial crime. the judge's own daughter is

known democrat political operative. some of the committee, including some colleagues who are advising michael cohen. all of that is occurring when they could bring forward alan who is sitting in rikers. they are not bringing him forward. one could guess because it wouldn't help. this is all playing out while bootstrapping a federal law into the state crime in order to try to navigate statutes of limitation. it is ridiculous. it is absorb what we are seeing unfold. the politicalization of it. now here we sit. my colleagues on this side of the aisle don't like that we simply want to see the best evidence available when, in fact, it is not as one of my colleagues talked about trying to effectively get a second stab at criminal proceedings. this is an impeachment inquiry.

that's inherently not a criminal proceeding. it is a unique function of congress. we're investigating very legitimate questions. conflicts of interest in the biden family. the significant amount of money given to the biden family. the president having material he's not suppose to have in his position. which special counsel pointed out and in the committee testified to and, in fact, the president and his lawyers have contested special counsel's assessment. the truth is in this committee, they stood behind his sworn system. we've got evidence that we can see in transcripts. but all we're pointing out is it is a both impeachment function and legislative function of this body to be able to use the power to be able to go to the president of justice which is supposed to be overseen by us in the first place, by the way.

and it is saying, we simply want to see the best evidence, because if you look in the terms of the criminal proceeding which is not an impeachment inquiry and not the legislative function. it is independent and unique function that carried out. they clearly what you saw for special counsel herr was a great deal of dependence on the demeanor of the president. an extraordinary amount of dependence in terms of his determination on whether to pursue charges depending on how he assessed the demeanor of the president of the united states. that's all this is about. it is not political. it is not about something that might show up later for political purposes. it is very much to the heart of whether or not and what the president knew about the materials that he had which special counsel officially acknowledges and wrote were illegal for him to possess.

what was his intent? it is critically important for the purposes of this body to determine where we're going to go with impeachment inquiry or legislative inquiry that determined what the president's demeanor was during that interview. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i'm disappointed -- strike that. move to strike the last word. i'm disappointed, but i'm not surprised that we're getting a letter from the white house citing executive privilege the day before the hear, the day before the markup. as my colleague from california knows, who is the ranking member on subcommittee that i chair, responsiven't and accountability to oversight, this is common behavior for this white house. waiting until the last minute,

and then throw either an excuse or a few pages of documents that have been subpoenaed, much of which is publicly available, to us to try to fend off exactly this. a contempt citation for failure to comply. you know, it would be one thing if it were the subcommittee that i chair. it would be one thing if it were documented subpoenaed at the department of health and human services or education or the ftc about collusion with big tech, about the covid information that they tried to limit availability on the internet. there are so many different ways in which this administration has failed to be accountable. failed to be held accountable,

and failed to provide the information that we've requested. that we're not surprised. this is under an impeachment inquiry. last year we approved an impeachment inquiry in the body. which heightened the standard. and actually increases the burden on the administration to show that there's some reason why they should not be providing this information and executive privilege does not -- is not applicable here. we have a request for a recording. as was stated earlier. the white house doesn't get to decide how that information is provided. which transcript is better, which transcript is appropriate. if we want one transcript, they give us that one. if we want the other one, they

have to give us that one. this investigation is about whether the president willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a president st. . that was a conclusion. and then herrs investigation also concluded that vice president biden had quote strong motivations unquote to ignore the rules for properly handling classified materials. those strong motivations included. an advantage of $8 million that biden had planned to received from writing his memoir. a book he decided to write months before leaving office. why has the doj not sought to bring charges for the actions both as vice president and the private st. ? for one reason, special council herr noted there was evidence that he had willfully retain classified information, he wouldn't recommended to take it to trial because the president

was a sympathetic elderly man with a poor memory. herr knew to make the $8 million book advantage, he would need reminders. he shared them with his ghost writers who holds november security clearance. the committee caught information among -- about among other things president biden's mishandling of classified information. the doj refuses to provide the committee with the recordings. and attorney general garland not only confirmed that this material has been turned over to the white house, and not us, he said this during an appropriations testimony. but failed to see the hip tock si in allowing the white house access to the recordings, but not the judicial and oversight committee.

he rejected the notion that the doj should release the recordings. at the time they had no response as to how to provide the recordings to the white house as to how he provided the recordings of the white house. these recordings are important to our investigations. because of the superior ted that they provide. transcripts do not capture misdemeanor evidence. there's evidence they have doctored transcripts. if if they are doctoring official transcripts, we need the tapes. we need the tapes. they have an obligation to provide them to us. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the question occurs on the amend offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> no.

>> opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

>> eight ayes and 17 noes. >> the noes have it. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. point of order preserved by the gentleman from california. >> amendment to the amendment. >> objection. >> i object. mr. chairman. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute for

the committee report for the resolution recommending that the house of representative find for refusing to comply for the committee on the judiciary on page 13 at the end of the second full paragraph and insert. they note serious concern about the competency of donald trump the weekend before they took up the contempt report in a speech delivered in new jersey. he phrased a fictional serial killer the late great hannibal lector. he's a wonderful man. we have people in our country that we don't want in the country. he confused beijing with the island of taiwan and confused a president with jimmy carter. all i want about mag news is skipping a class of water. let me drop it. during a series of march

campaign rallies, trump had the country of argentina telling the person in the crowd, you know, argentina, great guy. i love him. he loves trump. anybody that loves me, i love him. he also called our country the united states and made a series of noises when describes himself being boom this is me unintelligible thing. it is not clear if he knows which is political opponents he's running against. mr. trump has said president biden and president obama on at least different occasions. he confused nikki hailey with someonest. mr. trump has been confused with respect to foreign leaders. mr. trump referred to the prime minister as a great leader of türkiye.

these examples and more raise concern about his mental competency and ability to serve as another term as president. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentleman, this contempt report that is being considered today is chalked full of misleading references to president biden's age and his mental competency. throughout his hearing today, i've heard the false allegation made that special counsel herr found that biden was incompetent to stand trial. that's not what herr found. he simply questioned the president's memory. let's not get it twisted. and speaking of, you know, cognitive impairment, the report that we're considering today

conveniently omits serious evidence that the standard fare for my friends on the other side of the aisle, donald trump is the only candidate that shows any evidence of competency problems. just this past weekend in the speech in wildwood, new jersey, mr. trump praised a fictional serial killer, the late great hannibal lector. he's a wonderful man. congratulations to the late great hannibal lector. we have great people here that are being released into our country. we don't want our country -- we don't want in our country. hear it for yourself. play the tape. >> "silence of the lam." anybody ever seen it? the late great hannibal lector. he's a wonderful man. talking about beijing. they have ships circling.

they have planes. they don't remember doing anything. i could have pressed hillary a lot harder. she broke up her phone. nobody even knows if it is all done by biden. jimmy connors -- he's also happy. congratulations. the late great hannibal lector. we have people that are being released into our country that we don't want in our country. i'm up here screaming like a lunatic. >> ladies and gentlemen, that sad display took place just this past weekend with the former president. he appeared to confuse the chinese city of beijing with the southern governing island of taiwan. he confused jim jimmy connors, a famous tennis player with jimmy carter. >> would the gentleman yield? >> no.

i won't. this rant is not a singular event. last january at a rally in iowa, mr. trump incoherently speaking think of it, magnets. end quotes. now all i know about magnets is this. give me a class of water. let me drop it on the magnets. that's the end of the magnets, end quote. during a series of march campaign rallies, mistook the country of argentina for a person, telling the crowd, quote, you know, argentina. great guy. he's a big trump guy. he loves trump. i love him. because he loves trump. anybody that loves me, i like them. end quote. he also claimed that a poll was a legislative bill and called our country the united stage and made a series of unintelligible noises when described him. ding, boom, this is me.

bing. this is not even clear if trump knows which of his political opponents he's running against. mr. trump has mixed up president joe biden and former president obama on eight different occasions. he mixed up nikki hailey with former speaker pelosi inferring that ambassador hayley was responsible for capitol security. he can't keep straight the names of world leaders. in october of 2023, he referred to hungarian prime minister as the quote great leader of türkiye, end quote. republicans are intellectually and morally dishonest. criticize president biden when they are the chosen leader, donald trump presents with symptoms which are quite frankly scary.

the american people can seek through this republican charade. this is just an ugly exercise to hurt president joe biden. let's move on. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> i just wonder the gentleman on the other side of the aisle the aid that was voted on would cause the island to tip over at any point in the future. >> you know what? i hope that -- >> yeah. the island of guam is floating on water and not on diesel fuel. that's the point i was making. and i think that the gentleman might question my mental acuity. let's look at your leader. >> stop claiming my time. >> let's look at president trump. >> i'm reclaiming my time. i have the utmost respect for my

colleague on the other side of the aisle. the point i wanted to make is sometimes we make statements tongue in cheek that we are metaphorically speaking and that the president most certainly in most of those cases was doing that. as we all have republican and democrat made statements. if they are taken out of context , seen indefensible or ungrounded, if you will. let me give an example. so the comment on the magnets. here. if you give me a glass of water, let me dog it on the magnets, it is the end of the magnets. i've heard him talking about that. he's talking about electromagnets. it is a discussion about whether or not the catapults on aircraft carriers should be steam driven or electromagnetically driven. it is true that the steam is

more reliable. that water would not affect the hoses, for instance, but they could -- salt water could affect water that is are driving electromagnets. so i think it is disingenerous here to offer this and take many things out of context to take things that were said tongue in cheek and said on the campaign trail and act as if they were meant to be taken literally, because we all on both sides of the aisle have said things before that we're not meant to be taken literally. and with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yield. >> i yield. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. i think the point is well made. no human being has ever said anything exactly right. we all make mistakes. the fundamentally question in front of us was the decision not to prosecute consistent with the department of justices commitment to impartial justice. that's the fundamentally

question. president trump is getting prosecuted for a classified documents concern. biden is. biden isn't because -- this is what the special council said. he said mr. biden's memory appeared to have specific limitations both in 2017 and as evidenced by their recorded conversations and today as evidenced by the recorded interview with our office. that's why we want the audio tape. president biden is the department being impartial. it is getting prosecuted. we know it is going on in miami. president biden isn't. it is because of the statement from the special counsel. that statement from the special counsel in light of the facts of the case. the elements of the crime has been met. they sat at at the table and told us joe biden knowingly kept classified information and knowingly disclosed classified information.

special counsel told us why joe biden did it. he had strong motivation to release classified information because he was writing a book, a book from which he got paid $8. so we have motive, elements of the crime, he doesn't get charged. yet president trump does. the committee, the committee that oversees the justice department wants to know if they are impartially administering justice. the best way to figure that out is to get all of the evidence so we can figure that out. see if there's something we need to do to change the specific council statute. that's the fundamental question. we can get into the things people say. i've said things that are taken out of context. mr. matthew has. mr. johnson has. we've all said it. that's not the point. the point is the fundamental question. was it the administration of impartial justice? were they being consistent? that's what i want to know. >> i yield the remainder of my

time. >> just to add on to the chairman's comment to impartial. if you go back to the senate confirmation hearing, i'm going to conduct justice without fear or favor. he's getting a chance now to live up to those words. will he provide impartial justice without fear or favor to the american people? that's a question that's before us. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> we're out of time. i can go to mr. ivy. i'm sure he will yield you some time. >> let me go first. >> 15 seconds. >> all right. go ahead. >> thanks to the gentleman. the believes two speakers are concerned about me taking president trump's comments out of context. this is exactly what they plan on doing if they can get their

hands on the audio file. they want to take president biden's comments out of context. this is projecting. this is exactly what these republics are known for. that's what the big cheese does, donald trump. with that, i'll yield back. >> thank you, to the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> that's not accurate. that's not our goal. >> you know, i've got to say -- you know, my colleague from georgia raised the point about taking it out of context. there's a concern about that. it is a legitimate one. to not have the audio tape, but have the transcript. which again nobody is actually alleged is incorrect in any way. it is not a verbatim transcript. the person that took the transcript violated her oath of

office. i think it does point that you have to assume it is factually accurate. but -- i had to get to the point though. i've got so many colleagues over there talking about the contrast, you know, well, biden wasn't prosecuted. trump was. herr sat right here. there's a report that laid all of it out. herr pointed out the distinctions between trump's case and biden's case. they are clear. there are serious aggravating facts in the trump case, most notably after given chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, he did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents, but enlisted other to destroy evidence and lie about it. he goes on in contrast, mr. biden is returned the documents, consented to the search of multiple locations, including

his home, sat for the voluntary interviews, and coordinated with the investigation. that's the distinction. that's the distinction the department of justice draws frequently in making decisions about whether to move forward with the criminal prosecution. the obvious fact that you are ignoring. democrat versus the republican. former vice president pence was not prosecuted for the same sorts of issue. there's a reason trump sits alone or will sit alone. he acted to ab instruct justice. biden and pence did not. i've got to say the book along both lines. there's the ongoing claim that the president of justice is somehow bias and only going after republicans. the senate in new jersey right now, a democrat who is about to start a jury trial. i don't know if they are still picking the jury or not. they were last time that i looked. there's an indictment against

the democrat in texas right now as well. that just came down. it is a tough argument. it really flies in the face of all of these open cases or cases that are moving forward. to suggest that for some reason the department of justice is only targeting republicans when it is clear they are. there's the last point you all keep avoiding. herr sat here and testified. you are making allegations today you did not confront him with at the time. the extend that you raised it. you said, no, i'm not trying to hide anything or protect the president. we're not trying to slam anything. i did this. the called the balls and strikes as i saw them. you know, it is a bit of a smear to suggest otherwise. it is a little unfair to do it now when he's not here when you had the chance to do it when he was here. and, you know, i don't know.

it is frustrating to me. the judiciary committee is supposed to be about upholding the rule of law. we have political issues and the presidential year and all of that stuff. you are distorting the facts other and over again. it should stop. it should. just one final point on the issues. the attorney general here, mayor garland, 90,000 pages he's produced, over and over, presented witnds to the committee that other ags would have refused to commit. lawyers who were in the investigation or pending trial. although you are all ignoring that and trying to act like he's on instructing justice. you have the verbatim transcript. >> is the impartial

administration of justice by the justice department. it is nothing else. that's our objective and goal. the best way to figure that out is the evidence. the gentleman referenced when he was here. i did confront him. i laid up the same thing. did joe biden keep classified information? yes? why did he do it? he was writing a book. how much did he get paid for the book? $8 million. we laid all of that out. i did confront him. >> will the gentleman yield? you confronted him with the facts -- those facts. nobody said you are not telling the truth. you are not charging him and upped, because you are trying to protect him. none of you said that. >> of course, i confront him with the facts. that's what you are supposed to do in the hearings. with that, i'll yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you. i think you really encapsulated what this is about. you are good at this.

i mean as a compliment. you are good at it. you are good at politic. again we're speaking about the rally which i happen to be in as you probably know that's in my district, i spoke about it. by the way, you are feeling bad about it. we had a hundred thousand of people from all walks of life from plumbers to pipe fitters and professionals and engineers and doctors and young people and old people. all excited to be there with a hundred thousand people we had no incident, nobody got drunk, nobody got hurt, there were no fights, it was a celebration of america. for an hour and a half, donald trump stood up there. mostly extemporaneously speaking about a bunch of stuff. having fun. sometimes being sarcastic and sometimes being serious and speaking about merica and freedom and what's happening to the country in so many different

ways which isn't good. my point is that's not what the hearing is about. once again, the chairman encapsulated it. you are leading us aspray. -- astray. you are good at it. we're debateing about donald trump. you are good at it. we have existing transcripts. we want to know the demeanor of the current president was. you can watch the whole hour and a half on tape. you can look and see. i wish we didn't have to have the hearing either. i just wish they turned it over. chairman -- i will in a minute. the chairman wouldn't have called the hearing if simply they had said, yes, you can have the video recordings. you can check out the demeanor. the problem you have, as good at it as you are, the problem that you have is either that he is cognitively impaired and doesn't know what's going on and what

he's doing or he's not and he knowingly took all of the classified material out. then basically sold it to a ghost writer to make $8. i know you are in a tight spot. that's the reality. so we kind of want to know what it is. so do the american people want to know what it is. they want to know the truth. it isn't a big deal. tell the truth. it sets you free, man. you can go through this inside out and over and over and over. i know the next speaker on your side is going to have another amendment that's got to do with donald trump. that's not what this is about. focus on the ball. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> i hadn't planned on bringing up donald trump today. you did it. you are the one that came in and said that trump was mistreated because he's on trial. biden is getting the pass. you brought it up. >> i want to reclaim my time. no, what i brought up is we were taking our eye off of the ball.

we still are. we're into the serious. there's a serious issue here. by the way, they obviously don't think since you brought it up that donald trump is cognitively impaired. they are prosecuting him in different venues across the country, and politically motivated. i don't want to have that debate now. i'll have that debate with you anywhere and any time that you want to do it. i will yield back my time. >> gentleman yield back. >> i will yield back. >> yeah. i would just point out, gentleman, the jack smith mishandled the evidence. we don't want to bring up trump. but in that case, you have the prosecutor that sees the documents and changed the order he sees the documents. they don't match up with the actual scanned documents. some people might say that's tampering with evidence. wait a minute. we've got to hold on here. >> will the gentleman yield -- >> the irony is, jack smith mishandled documents while he's

charging president. you can't make this stuff up. i think in some ways the reference to what's going on with president trump is entirely appropriate. my time is up. it is recognition. >> the question occurs on the amendment from the gentleman from georgia. all of those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> no. >> opinion of the chair the noes have it. the opinion is not agreed to. >> clerk, please call the roll. [roll call]

>> mr. chairman, 5 ayes and 12 no's. >> the motion is not adopted. ms. dean from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment to -- reserved to point of order. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute of the nitty report for resolution

recommending that the house of representatives merrick b garland in contempt. >> without objection. explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to lay the table and this build on the amendment we just considered. the disinformation coming from the other side of the aisle is so troubling, it's funny, but it's really much more troubling than anything else. as we all know special counsel has not call today do some competency hearing, he was to find out whether or not president biden would be charged for mishandling of documents. i refer you to mr. hurd's report, we have every page of it. i forget how big it is, hold on. 350-60 pages. line 1, page 1, this is special counsel hurd's finding and he said here to us, sitting right

at that table that this was after, quote, rigorous detailed and analysis by him and his group, his staff. page 1, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. and then i thought very interestingly and i even asked him to reread this to us. the exception is former president trump, i'm reading from page 11, again rigorously, thoroughly reported here by special counsel hurd in his conclusive findings. the exception meaning that one person, one president has been charged in misuse of classified documents. page 11, it is not our role to assess criminal charges pending against mr. trump but several material distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. biden's case are clear. you'll remember i asked special counsel hurd to read this. unlike the evidence involving

mr. biden the allegations set forth would present serious aggravating facts as my colleague read also. most notably continuing in the report after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution. mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. , end quote. so let's talk about the elephant in the room, why do my republican colleagues need this audio file at all after all doj has provided 92,000 documents, plenty to go through, including the transcript to let me hold that up two days worth of testimony, the transcript of the president cooperating in the two days following the attack in israel on october the seventh but this president, this sitting president cooperated fully and

completely every word of its testimony is reported here. do you think the republicans really want to listen to the president's vocal tone? i will give them the benefit of the doubt. it may be they want to do that but not -- but only because they think they can manipulate president biden's voice to make it the next trump for president ad. after all they have done it before, take a look. march 2020. trump's white house social media director posted and trump retweeted and edited video that cut off president biden's sentence to make it sound like president biden was endorsing trump. later that year, steve scalise shared an edited video of president biden that falsely made it appear that he was supporting defund the police. and back in 2019, president

trump and rudy giuliani both retweeted a manipulated video of speaker pelosi that had been doctored to make the speaker appear incompetent. unfortunately, we know that our chairman, our very chairman had taken part in those phoney manipulations too. i have to admit as a mother and grandmother this next example hurts the most. last year ms. nina testified that chairman tweeted manipulated video of her that contributed to death threats against her. she was 8 months pregnant while strangers online called her a nazi and told her she should die. she had to attend -- >> suspend for a second? >> i will not yield. >> i'm not asking you to yield. we are citing a -- >> i have a point of order. >> there you go. the --

>> i will ask you -- >> it's 40 seconds. >> restore the clock. >> i have a point of order. you are citing a deposition in your amendment that has not been released in violation of house rules. >> let me check with my team. >> i will make the point that they should release the deposition. >> we are happy to release the deposition. >> they are happy to release the deposition. thank you for restoring my time. >> we have to strike the language that is citing the deposition that has not been released by house rules. >> because you don't want to release it, you don't want to release what mr. jordan did? >> i can't release it in realtime? >> i think you could. you're the chairman. >> mr. chairman, parliamentary inquiry? >> yes. >> can the chairman make a point of order if so then who rules of

the point of order or not? no. the point of order is made by the chairman. >> i'm in charge of enforcing the rules. >> on your own point of order? >> yes. >> can someone else be heard on the point of order? >> can i speak on the point of order? >> no. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, the sitting chairman of this committee knows that this transcript was from last april, the committee has every ability and has often time to release that. it seems to me and this side of the aisle that it is trying to be withheld in order to protect the chairman from something quite embarrassing. i ask that it be released today. >> would the general lady yield? >> i sure will.

>> okay. that requires consultation with majority and minority counsel and the fact that you wish that it was released prior to that does not supercede the fact that it is cited deposition that has not been released by this committee is cited in the amendment that is in violation of house rules. >> is the irony visible to anybody else here? anybody else notice the irony here? >> mr. chairman -- >> you have the whole transcript here. [inaudible conversations]

>> it's fair to say one-minute video that mr. jordan linked to -- let me finish. >> objection, mr. chairman. objection. >> the gentleman is out of order. the gentleman will suspend. >> so mr. jordan relied -- >> the gentleman is out of order. >> who is out of order? >> you are, mr. nadler. why am i out of order? what am i violating? >> it's the entire point of the parliamentary inquiry. >> i'm happy to amend my amendment to take out the q&a that you do not want revealed because the chairman would be embarrassed by it.

i want to be heard on the point of order. she's disclosed. she being -- >> her testimony towards that versus the transcript of the deposition are not the same. >> but the point there and i think the author of the amendment offered to strike the exact quote but the substance of the statement is public information. >> the amendment discloses committee record that has not been released in violation of house rules? >> how about my amended amendment?

i'm taking out the testimony which this committee, the majority on the committee does not want revealed and i guess i don't even want to ask, can we get the audio of that? [laughter] >> i mean, if you look at the footnotes, mr. chairman -- >> will the general lady ask for unanimous consent to amend the amendment? >> i ask for unanimous consent to amend the amendment to take out the language that you don't want revealed. take out the q&a. >> is there an objection? >> without objection so ordered. >> mr. chairman, i thank you. i think i had 40 seconds but i will take 30. the irony is extraordinary in this committee. misrepresentation, a finding of incompetence by the former president, when you know this special counsel found we conclude no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.

it is absurd that the chairman of this committee who sits in offense to his own subpoena, hundreds and hundreds of days is seeking the voice of the president whose voice he knows very, very well, the testimony is rich and pleat. i ask that my amendment be considered and be honored and passed because otherwise we could see the use of this video, this audio, excuse me, doctored to be deep faked and to be trump. i urge all my colleagues to support my amendment. thanks so much. >> anywhere else seek recognition? >> i'm hesitant to speak because -- >> i can't hear you. >> i'm hesitant to speak because, mr. chairman, because i'm so -- so stunned by the amendment proposed by the

general lady to get around house rules to disclose documents that have not been released by this committee. is that how the other side is going to play? that violates general rules of quorum and decency. this committee has been a respected body in this congress and many previous congresses for many years and one to have things that it emphasizes is not just the rule of law, but the balancing of the branches of government when the executive branch overreaches its authority and says, we don't have to hand over these tapes to the

legislative branch of government, we should be united in saying, how dare you, we should be united in saying, we represent the people, we are entitled to these tapes, we ask for them, we should get them and to not just say no but to say, the hell to your request and to hell with your rules, to hell with your decorum we are going to make a mess of the rules that have been followed by this committee and others for years and years is just offensive. i oppose this -- i'm going to reluctantly, well, the general lady's amendment is -- i'm going to oppose the amendment, but i'm going strenuously oppose.

i yield back. >> i want to point oh out two things, the striking hypocrisy of the majority. opposing this amendment which simply reveals some records while demanding the release of an audiotape of information that's been released by transcripts and we know the chairman of this committee has doctored audiotapes to make them say what they didn't, in fact, say. this amendment points this out. i would also point out that even if the quotes are taken out of this amendment h has happened and whether or not this amendment passes which it

should, but in any event, this is all now in the public record so you can't accomplish anything because it's out there, the hypocrisy, the dishonesty of the chairman is out there revealed in the text of this amendments whether it passes or not and with that i yield to mr. ivy. >> thank you, mr. ranking member. i just want to point out a couple of things. one is with respect with the specifics here. in the footnotes, it's clearly public information. jim jordan twitter's account. it's not like we made this public. that was already made public by the chairman. footnote number 2 was the letter from the department of justice. footnote number 3 is -- there's

115 plus transcripts from interviews that this committee has done that this committee has refused to dislose and made public so we should do that. all the statements today about the public's right to know and we need the information. with respect to my colleague, this goes specifically to the conversation that we had at our last hearing where i requested e-mail communications between house republicans majority and the departments and agency that we keep dragging in to produce documents, i move to request the information that wasn't agreed to at the time. so it's not my time to yield, but if you want to get upset about her making a statement, my

colleague from pennsylvania, where it's public information, i think that's incorrect and to say you're offended by it, i think is kind of over the line, but, if we want to turn the page as a committee and you all want to disclose this information, make it public, by all means, let's do it. and i yield back to the gentleman of new york. >> anybody seek recognition. >> gentleman from georgia. >> i wanted to tell the rest of the story that is public knowledge of what happened as a result of the misleading narratives. after the misleading narratives were spread about her she received tens of thousands of

death threats, you talk about decency and decorum, manipulated video, you talk about decency and decorum here, my goodness. she had to go to court to obtain restraining order against the individual who repeatedly -- she was eight months pregnant while strangers online called her a nazi and told her she should die. when a reporter reached out to chairman -- well, i will skip that part. staff are responding that was on the board's public face and should be accountable in public. as you see i'm taking out mr. jordan's role in any of this because he doesn't want anything to be known about his role in this and i really want to honor that. in august of 2020 the current house majority leader shared an edited video that shared words

of activist and portray president biden appearing to support defunding all of the police even though biden has specifically said that the reforms being discontinued were not the same of getting rid of or defunding the police. i want to just say that it is strange to hear from the other side of the aisle that they're worried about decency or indecency or decorum, please take a look in the member of your own members what they did to spread misinformation and lies to confuse the public knowingly to say that this somehow special counsel's report was about competency, is so shameful. you know that's not what it is about. you just don't like the results to have report. the results of the report being we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter against president biden. you don't like that, you wish you could have had it another

way because you're own candidate is rightly facing charges. with that, i do have one unanimous consent. i ask to enter into the record just so that we can be more complete because the majority doesn't want to reveal the transcript of their conversation with ms. jankowitz, former biden chief detail, it is from march eighth of last year and it is political. >> without objection. >> and members of this committee on the other side continued to repeat the falsehood that this hearing and this resolution is a part of an impeachment inwiry. the last i heard about impeachment inquiry by this do nothing congress as to having spent $20 million in this

committee investigating president biden, the last i heard of an impeachment was by the chair of the other committee, the oversight committee which is actually been the committee handling impeachment and at that point after they had president biden had president biden's son in, hunter to testify and couldn't get anything out of him, the -- the chair pretty much threw the towel in on -- he threw in a white towel into the ring. gave up pretty much on impeachment and now this committee is trying to drag it out of the garbage can and try to trick the american people into believing that this is a part of the impeachment inquiry. it is not -- it's simply an expedition to try to make

president biden look bad in keeping with the report of special counsel hurd who cleared president biden but nevertheless inserted some unnecessary and derogatory information in there that this committee has seized upon and continue to kick like a dead horse and with that, i yield back. >> who seeks recognition? question is on the amendment. all those in favor aye, all those opposed? no. the no's have it. roll call has been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. jordan? mr. issa? mr. gaetz? mr. biggs?

mr. tiffany? mr. matthew? mr. roy? mr. bishop? mr. fitzgerald? mr. ben says no. mr. klein votes no. >> mr. armstrong votes no. mr. gooding? mr. van drew? mr. moore? mr. moore votes no. mr. kylie, mr. kylie votes no. mr. muran? ms. lee? mr. hunt? mr. nadler? >> aye. >> mr. nadler votes aye. >> ms. jackson lee? mr. cohen? mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes aye. >> mr. schiff?

mr. swawell? mr. lou? mr. correa? [roll call vote] >> ms. dean? ms. dean votes aye? ms. escobar. ms. bush. mr. ivy. >> aye. >> votes aye. >> you're not recorded. mr. issa votes no. >> mr. tiffany. >> mr. tiffany is not recorded. mr. tiffany votes no. >> is mr. roy recorded? >> mr. roy is not recorded.

.. .. .. have spent $20 million this congress investigating conspiracy theories and have nothing absolutely nothing to show for it. to date, they've used this

$20 million in taxpayers money to hold ten hearings before the select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government six of which have been on the same topic. they've conducted 121 transcribed interviews or depositions with witnesses from over two dozen companies, nonprofits or federal government agencies. they've spent 555 hours of staff and with this time in these transcribed interviews and depositions. they sent more than a 60 subpoenas to executive branch agencies and private entities.

defining incriminating information on the administration, they repeatedly excoriated and right-wing media for not accomplishing anything this congress. in fact as recently as april 28, 2024, fox news host maria stated, quote, with all due respect people are sick and tired of congressional investigations that go nowhere. people are sick and tired of letters being written and sent to the people that we know are bad and the first place. this is from their own gallery of supporters. to date there is no evidence of any impeachable offense committed by president joe biden. there's no evidence of

misconduct. the witchhunt will go down in history as a total and complete failure especially when viewed in light of the fact that we are reduced down to seeking verification and erroneous report about the mental acuity. i think that if the committee refuses to the full house it should at least be accurate. a key part of that accuracy is including the details of this projected over the top investigation in the background on the investigation section of the report recommending contempt and for that reason i urge you to support this amendment and with that i would yield back. >> the gentleman still has

plaintiff order. at the question occurs offered by the gentleman from georgia. all those in favor? opposed. in the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. the gentleman has asked for a recorded vote. roll call. roll call.

[roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report. >> five ayes and 12 noes. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report. >> point of order reserved by the gentleman from virginia. >> amendment considered as read. the gentlelady from -- >> i object. >> the clerk will report the problem. >> an amendment the committee report for the resolution recommended that the house of representatives find him in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena issued on the judiciary on page three after the paragraph ending when his son died, insert

however it is in fact false that he couldn't remember when his son died in the transcript of president biden's interview president biden recalls the date of his son's death saying what month did he die, may 30th. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> my amendment correct the record regarding the president's recollection of his own son, beau biden's death. and i saw in the markup today a willing above the koran and indecency and doing what is right. i would think this would be an amendment all of us could agree upon. it's about decency and facts and getting the record straight. as i pointed out, president biden recalled the month his son

passed. at the transcript of his five-hour deposition he says what month did he die? ogata, may 30th, and of quote. i find the mischaracterization of that exchange in a government report to be inaccurate, grotesque and gratuitous. that is nothing to do with the task he was given. it was just a free shot at a father grieving his son. even more distasteful, the republican attempts to repeat that mischaracterization for political ends. everybody in this room, everybody in this house must do better. but i suppose indecency is too often the point. in addition to the statements regarding mr. beau biden's

death, he also determined on behalf of the doj that president biden would not be prosecuted for in properly storing sensitive documents because in truth the same cannot be said for mr. trump for endangering the servicemembers he was led by leaving classified documents strewn among. on the important point if the president's hearing memory of his own son's death and i urge all members to support this factual correction. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> speaking of the amendment. mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentlelady for making my point with her amendment.

not only did the transcripts continue on after her amendment says may 30th, it continues and i will quote the transcript with the question was it 2015 when he died. i also think the gentlelady for making the point that without the audio can't tell how much time passed and the words ogata, may 30th and how it was because he followed that with a question. was it a question, ogata, may 30th? we don't know because we don't have the recording. it's exactly why we needed.

it's why we've requested it over and over again, subpoenaed it and holding the attorney general in contempt because he's not providing because we can't do our jobs for the american people accurately unless we have the most accurate information and that's why we need the tapes and why we are pursuing them and holding the attorney general contempt. >> the gentleman yields back. >> that's an interesting explanation but i have to say it's hard to figure out how the length of a pause between an answer and a question would have any kind of dispositive merit one way or another. this is hypothetically say for two seconds as opposed to 30 seconds. if it's 30 seconds then it's an impeachable opens in somehow?

it's the basis for legislative action or some kind of impeachment or even if you want to go there because you've got it wrong for about five different versions of why you need this, none of which are included in the report that at least the one you passed out. but let's say hypothetically, what does that prove? nobody is asserting that mr. biden's answers were deceitful or disingenuous or anything like that, and of the issues you've raised are potentially the basis for the impeachment of some kind. it's hard to figure out where to go from this from a legitimate standpoint.

i'm not questioning anybody's integrity over there, but there's a sort of obvious alternative where they want the audio tape so they can use it may be not them personally but somehow it might end up in a video, campaign video, maybe. that supports the efforts to be reelected and. it makes more sense than the explanations i've heard from the other side. the legislative purpose issue, which i haven't had much of a chance to touch on yet, but we can do it now it's a legitimate legislative purpose for.

if you have the transcript and it's a verbatim transcript and as i've said earlier. it's asserting that somehow the court reporter, doctor did, fabricated, did anything wrong with it, things like that. nobody's made an inquiry with respect to the court to ask if she did something inappropriate. he came in and it does divide and you could have asked about that. he never said anything about a doctor transcript either. is it incomplete when it doesn't include the question that follows the statement of may 30th? i am offering an amendment to add language if you want but the

bottom line is from the standpoint of at least having a fuller transcript because there is no doubt the way the report was written at least the one that i don't know what the final one is going to look like because we don't have it yet, but it's about as one-sided as the document can get so from the standpoint i will say this again because this is going to be the basis. we went through this on the hunter biden version as well. this is going to be what we send to the court, and i hope the department of justice does take this to court because i want to see is litigated and a judge rule on this because i think a majority as we over the line and the way it's abusing the authority. but i'm really not seeing the reasoning behind why it's so critical to have the audiotape in a way that's not addressed by the actual transcript, which again nobody has questioned its

accuracy. somebody did sort of throughout that assertion on the fly, but there's no factual basis for it. nothing certainly sustained. he was here, testified and you could have asked him about it, but nobody did. so not saying anything about a bad faith here, but the only explanation for why you all are making such a big deal about this is you want the audiotape and it might turn up in a campaign and down the road. the question occurs only amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] the clerk will report.

five ayes and 12 noes. >> the amendment is not adopted. >> i have an amendment of the desk. >> the clerk will report. >> point of order from the gentleman by north dakota. >> amendment to the amendment to the nature of a substituted to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find him in contempt of congress. >> without objection the amendment is considered red. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i offered this amendment to walk through it briefly. this goes to the issue of the distinctions between the case against mr. biden and the case

against mr. trump. there've been multiple allegations today about from the republican side that somehow the department of justice gave favorable treatment to president biden. i wanted to offer this amendment to make sure the record is clear and also to make sure not just the record of the discussion today is clear but also that the report that ends up being sent forward and i think is going to be the lead document if this gets to court and again i hope it does, but i think it balances out the one sidedness of the report that the committee has polluted, the republicans have floated. there are on this point special counsel who said this in the report as well. several distinctions between mr. there are serious aggravating facts and the trump case most

notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents or avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. he turned and classified documents to the national archives and the department of justice, consented to search of multiple locations including his home, and interview and in other ways cooperated in the investigation. the final point here i think is that unlike the deliberate acts of the former president trump to retain a concealed classified material from the federal government, the special counsel failed likely inadvertence or mistake. and so as we go on to quote some of the language from the report as well, we find the evidence as

a whole insufficient that he maintained the afghanistan documents in the virginia home in 2017 for other recovered classified documents the decision to decline criminal charges was straightforward. the evidence suggests mr. biden didn't willfully retain the documents and they could plausibly have been brought to these locations by a mistake. unlike president biden, donald trump intentionally took and concealed of the documents and mr. trump's actions are extremely serious and warned that 32 counts of willful as he was charged. former vice president mike pence faced a similar factual scenario. there were documents found i believe in one of his residences. he turned them over, cooperated

immediately and there was no evidence of any type of an effort to obstruct the investigation, hide the documents or anything like that. certainly didn't ask anybody to move them for him as mr. trump, i think this was raised in the indictment, has done. i asked that this be included for a point of completeness. we want to make sure we send a document. i would oppose the whole thing holding as istated repeatedly tf you're going to forward the document at least send a document that has some sort of semblance of balance to it and i think it shows the efforts to try to present the court with a full take on this issue. as i mentioned earlier this wasn't a place i was expecting to go today. i thought we would focus more on the specifics of the privilege

issue. they don't seem to have a strong argument to address it but since you brought this up with mr. boyd amanda sort of coupled it not only with allegations of misconduct by the overall department of justice but specifically mr. her. i am not going to sit here and essentially slander him for trying to be unfair and cover up for the president. none of that is merited and i don't think there was anything about the report or testimony that would support that. >> the gentleman from north dakota. >> it almost passively aggressively proves a point this

wasn't substantially similar. if there's a 40 year history of keeping classified documents, 40. it's why the audio is important. in an adversarial way you know what i've never seen for a regular defendant in criminal court? the doj making the plausibility defense over a 40 year history and we talk about disingenuous and all those things if you spend 40 years rubbing liquor stores and then cooperated with law enforcement, they are not going to not charge you. that is a sentencing factor, that's an obstruction factor if you're going to be maintaining and disclosing classified

documents but is a significantly different thing. only in this world would you go to that place where we will say you've committed the underlining cry and you did it for 40 years but you cooperated to so we will allow you to escape. that's the difference you spend a lot of time talking about the obstruction charge but we don't spend enough time talking about the egregious nature of the underlining maintaining and disclosing classified documents. that's the difference and that's the problem is and that's why audio matters because there's a different way and which you do it. if you are telling your ghostwriter in a laughing matter that if you're reading classified documents as he's writing your book, that's different than a lot of different ways. but there is no other scenario -- and by the way, i would have but we had a five minute ruling and i had a lot of other things

to get out but you can talk about the secondary part of the case all day long but i don't think anybody that reads the report looks at the nature. he did it when he was a senator over 45 years. he'd been warned about it and continued to do it. you have to seriously jump through some hoops to get to the inadvertent part of it. you're talking about maintaining a classified document and if anybody thinks that the information in the report doesn't give a valid reason for that knowingly and willingly, then the question is why wasn't it knowingly and willingly and that's where we are out at in this point. >> i'm going to yield to the gentleman. there is no claim of innocence

or finding of innocence that is and how reports work but we keep going past the underlining offense which is the document of that and why wouldn't you cooperated when you have the ability? >> we don't exonerate what we are going to do is to say the president as an older gentleman is incompetent and we don't think we can get a conviction therefore we are not going to prosecute. to that point, the best evidence rule. >> is there any evidence of the recording? >> there's a reason for the last five years in congress i have worked with my friends on both sides of the aisle to get to

custodial interrogations being recruited by federal law enforcement. completely out of this room it's often times i fight with my side of the aisle more than your side of the aisle. the reason you want audio, the reason you want to video into those things is because it is without a doubt the best evidence that exists. as somebody that has been watching this happen from the minority to the majority for five years, there is the equal application of justice part of this answer. we have a guy that was prosecuted the year after he altered an affidavit in front of the court and he's currently practicing law so i see my time is expired and i yield back. >> the gentlelady from vermont

is recognized. >> i yield my time to the gentleman from maryland. >> i just want to run through some of the statements made a moment ago. i guess i can work my way backward to some extent. with the statements i share the view about the importance of the federal investigators recording statements but i would make a couple of notes to that. first, there are no videotapes of the grand jury testimony. for example. they are all electronically transcribed by. for use in court, for use to used tocharge for criminal purp, for example for false statements or perjury. i don't disagree with that because in that scenario is the best evidence. >> it's certainly sufficient for the basis of criminal charges.

and with respect to scenarios where you have the transcript and to videotape it's the videotape you can use the tape for impeachment purposes. given the nature of the proceeding, it is incumbent upon us to show. if this goes to court. the burden would be on the committee to show attempt. i don't know how they get you

from. that is therefore impeachable which is what is required in the legislative purpose standard. i haven't heard of her reason for why it's not satisfied. based on what mr. her sedan based on the certifications this received at the time that it was recorded and printed. >> i yield. you are not doing oversight. you are doing overkill. and osuna get the audio, you're going to say i wish we had a video. then you will get the video and you will say we wanted his health records.

we don't know if he was telling the truth or not. you have been thoroughly, and i want to emphasize thoroughly. so you're digging and digging and digging. it's not happening. you're not impeaching him, you have nothing in the just. i yield. >> doja cat.

he said he definitely but he couldn't get a conviction because he was a sympathetic character so, what good is it going to do if they get to hear him say he was a sympathetic character and why they thought that and that's not the issue. the issue is did he take the stuff or not. there's no question about it he took the stuff and for his biographer and they say indictment, it's about the fact he is a sympathetic character and he couldn't get a conviction. so we are all on rabbit trails. you should never go off on a rabbit trail. i yield. >> just to make a final statement here, the amendment i'm offering doesn't actually go to that. it goes to the fact the distinction that is drawn

between for the mishandling of justice that occurred afterwards. i would hope that we could get a vote from my colleagues on the other side on that amendment. >> the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

the gentleman from kentucky? >> he votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> eight ayes and nine noes. >> the amendment is not agreed on. who seeks recognition? >> the clerk will report. point of order. >> considered as read.

the report for the resolution to come play with a subpoena on the judiciary offered by mr. spall of california. on page six at the end of the paragraph, quote, to further the constitutionally mandated oversight and legislative duties insert any sentence that reads taking into account multiple members of the committee including the chairman remain out of compliance with subpoenas issued. no member of congress will be permitted to vote to hold any other person in contempt of congress until such time they provide the testimony regarding the participation in the planning and execution.

>> this amendment clearly says if you'd not responded to your own subpoena, you can't bring a subpoena or seek compliance on anyone else. in the law we call it the unclean hands doctrine or the clean hands doctrine. it's a principle that prevents a party from receiving relief from the court if they've acted unethically or justly in relation to the matter at hand. in our own it's called the wash your hands before dinner doctrine. may 6, 5 and 2-year-old are not coming to the dinner table until they themselves have clean hands. there are dirty hands on the other side. multiple times to members of the committee have been asked to comply with a subpoena to january 6th. one i don't think is here today. i think he's up watching mr. trump's trial but don't come at us about anyone else's

compliance if you are out of compliance into the german a 735 days, 17 hours, 19 minutes and 24 seconds out of compliance with his own subpoena so this amendment would prohibit the chairman or anyone else from bringing compliance or contempt upon somebody for another matter. >> point of order being withdrawn. the gentleman from virginia. >> i think the chairman and the gentleman for his remarks. i've heard of them a couple of times. and in responding i would say the subpoenas for the members of the committee are no longer in effect because the last congress has finished. we will make that first.

we also want to look at the responses that were made by the term into the january 6 committee. the term he never declined to testify. the chairman in fact wrote every time he was asked to testify and with further requests for either statements were further requests for responses from the committee and never received any responses from the committee. never expressed an unwillingness to testify, so the characterization that he refused is an accurate. and it's clear democrats were subpoenaing for political reasons at the time. chairman thompson stated he pursued these in part to weaken

republicans if they took the majority in the future. so, we see through the political motivations of those who issued them to begin with and those who want to make it a political point now. so i opposed the amendment and yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. to my colleague from virginia. a couple of quick things to clarify. in exchange between the chairman and the committee the problem was the german-made in my view demands that were unusual in response to a subpoena like you tell me how you are going to use the information and give me the information that you have about my, related to the testimony in

my coming. so to give the statement. now let's compare that to what we've got before us with respect to the department of justice and in this particular instance. not only has there been substantial compliance with respect to i wish i had it in front of me the number of subpoenas and document requests. as i mentioned earlier, some of the witnesses were prosecutors and made investigation who the department is still produced for statements and transcripts here before the committee which is inappropriate and interferes in the efforts by the department of justice in one instance with regards to hunter biden, so

let's be clear about that piece peaceand as i mentioned earliery from this compliance standpoint in this particular request there was a report generated that the department wasn't required to turn over but he decided to turn it over anyway on his own initiative with respect to the transcript again there's no requirement he turned that over but he did and he resigned before he gave the testimony that it's clear they were not trying to block so from the substantial compliance, this is an outstanding record for the department of justice. i won't go into the contrasting

point. let's be clear about this. the compliance has been extraordinary the executive privilege claim raised by the department has not been addressed certainly not on the legal merits by the republicans in this committee and as i mentioned earlier today, a letter that was dated in 2019 from the justice department raising most of the same points that we are talking about today. with respect to the issue of similar acts could be repeated if the white house were given reasons to believe congress were to see each and every document shared with the department.

there was no predicate provided already in this instance you've got the transcripts you just want additional information. within the bar the department of justice said the committee articulated any purpose for its request for all of the council's investigative files. the committee has no role with the assembly duplicating the inquiry. now here the justice department gave the transcript and the report into the lawyers to testify about what they'd done. they objected with respect to the molar report and raised all sorts of issues. those have been addressed in the different forum. but here you are ignoring the

compliance that's been provided over and over again. i see i'm running out of time, but my point here is you've got the substantial compliance in the department of justice. your record is what it is. we discussed it on multiple occasions but i think it's a contrast to that it bears noting in this particular instance especially when we are seeking contempt against the attorney general of the united states. >> the gentleman from virginia. >> unanimous consent to insert three letters from you.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

mr. chairman, there are 12 ayes and nine noes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment to the amendment. >> considered as read. the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you. if there were any question about whether today's hearing is a legitimate exercise of congress is legislative oversight powers our colleagues across the aisle have effectively eliminated the possibility with the combined remarks today. they spent hours trying to defend the leaders of their party misstating the conclusions

of the special counsel's report and smearing the president of the united states with politically inspired lies and innuendo. this markup is in fact nothing more than political theater by the allies in the house republicans have wasted more than a year of the people's time and 20 million taxpayer dollars on a blatant act of vengeance. now rather than admit that they found nothing and had a been embarrassed every step of the way, they are shamelessly plowing ahead. instead of cutting their losses they are trying to drag the american people and now the attorney general down a rabbit hole of conspiracies and untruths. what we have here today is not a legitimate oversight or effort. it's guided not by the constitution but the calls for the retribution against to the political rival and the complicity of his supporters and it's nothing but an attempt to distract from the ongoing

criminal trial and to prop up the reelection bid. if it's not clear enough already they are not driving the house republicans impeachment stunt so my amendment adds context of the purposes and parameters of impeachment to this exercise. in the reports, he noted that the walls handling classified material do not apply to a sitting president or vice president. so even if there were a criminal conduct, which he did not, it could only have applied to the times before joe biden was elected. even house republicans long time favorite legal scholar testify to be for the oversight committee last year that impeachment proceedings for the office conduct unrelated to current actions is controversial and must be approached with abundant action. launching investigations on that

basis would convert impeachment into a rationalization for subjecting officials to limitless inquiries. there's been no abundant caution and clearly there is no real basis for the claim that they need these audio files besides political theater and the department of justice has rightly pointed out that allowing the house majority to weaponize investigative materials in this way would pose a strong risk of jeopardizing the willingness of other witnesses to come forward in the future. ultimately and his colleagues proved time and time again, it has no basis, no evidence and no high crimes or misdemeanors to show for it and today is another attempt after the bogus investigation failed. the american people can see this the way it is and they deserve better. we should have enough of these ridiculous games and get back to working for the american people. i yield back.

>> point of order is withdrawn. i recognize myself to speak against the amendment. the special counsel could have said that, could have written a report and said we don't prosecute sitting presidents. that's not what he said. it just simply isn't. it was gone through in detail and now we are asking for the best evidence of why it was written that way and with that i will yield back. anybody seeking recognition? >> all those in favor? opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- the clerk will call the role

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

the clerk will record. >> the amendment is not adopted. who seeks recognition? i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment to the amendment and the nature of the substitute to the report for the isolation recommending the house of representatives find the attorney general in contempt of congress for refusal to comply on the judiciary offered. >> the amendment is considered as read. the gentlelady reserves a point of order. the chair recognizes myself to explain the amendment. before the markup session was

scheduled to start, the committee received letters from the white house and the department of justice and forming as president biden is invoking executive privilege from producing the audio recording of his. about the validity of the president's assertion, first the president has already waived any potential assertion of executive privilege over the information discussed in his interviews with special counsel. consistent with the court's decision and usb mitchell which rejected the privilege of her audio recordings whereas here, the president caused. they are no longer confidential. with the president leaked his

and his ghost writer's transcripts, the ability to invoke executive privilege was no longer existent. the president of the department could have taken steps to but failed to do so when they released them to the press. the subpoena returned and third, even if the indication was valid, which it is not, it's usually overcome by the need for this information. the committee has demonstrated a sufficient need for the audio recordings as they are likely to contain evidence and pertinent to the committee's impeachment inquiry and legislative oversight. additionally the recordings sought by the committee cannot be obtained from any place other than the department. ..

>> gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i have a question. what does the amendment -- is this language of executive privilege throughout the amendment or what is there?

[inaudible conversations] >> updates the report to the department and president's office on waiving executive privilege. >> i guess what i'm specifically asking my recollection is i came across 7 instances where privilege was cited in the report and that was the amendment and the nature of the substitute this morning. what's been done with those? >> it updates those -- privilege to account for the letter that we received this morning.

>> okay. >> i have to read through it quickly to see. but the waiver issue, i think, -- i just wanted to address that because the department specifically spoke to that at may 16th letter to both committees. finally, the department's disclosure does not constitute a waiver with respect to audio recordings. as i have explained audio recordings what law enforcement uses. disclosures of congress to the recordings we have effect and similar investigations. i think it's pretty clear that

the waiver has been addressed. i think the assertion and the amendment i haven't had a chance to read yet because i only got it 30 seconds -- actually two minutes ago, two and a half minutes ago, i apologize. i think that's been directly challenged and so i'm curious about how the report addresses that challenge. that's raising the letter that i guess a reporter is supposed to be responding to. >> one is the leaking to have press. we are giving the transcript to the committee is one thing and two leaked to the press and we got the letter from doj this morning. >> no, this letter -- i'm talking about here is from 8-16. >> i'm saying the amendment is because of the letter we got from -- >> today is may 16th. >> i'm sorry, the --

>> i haven't had a chance to look at the mitchell case. i'm not familiar with the executive privilege.

months even years after an initial request has been made because frequently takes a long time for the source of disputes to play out. so i do want to challenge the language in the report with respect to the changes, for example, executive privilege and the claims that they made waiver of the privilege which i don't believe is the case and -- i think there's been no showing with respect to the contrast between the transcript and the tape and the committee essentially set a deadline here which is not sufficient to time bar the assertion of the executive privilege and with that, i yield back. >> anybody else wish to be recognized?

>> yes, sir. thank you. i still don't see that the committee has or that the majority has made out legislative or oversight purpose. we keep getting this word of it's important that we review the actual audiotape as opposed to the transcript because it's important we have important interests we are trying to address so it's important, it's kind of a lot of word salad that you need an appropriate rule which would be one that's appropriate, so i would just object to the amendment on the grounds that the majority has not made out a clear legislative or oversight purpose unless they are suggesting that there's been some kind of here -- the department of justice or by the special counsel so i would just say that i don't think there's

premises not been met by the majority and i would yield to mr. ivy. >> i'm taking a look at mitchell now and this was subpoena to john mitchell who has been the attorney general from the general counsel and i haven't had a chance to read this but in the watergate litigation one of the points that was made by the court's repeatedly was that intrabranch disputes were treated differently than disputes between the legislative branch and it looks like here this is also another one of the mid trial requests for the information which has requirement or impact that's not present in the scenario here today. so i would urge the majority to reconsider reliance on this particular case because i think

it's inapplicable for those reasons and with that i yield back to the gentle lady from pennsylvania. >> and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. strike the last word to the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized. i just want to say resort to go the phrase word salad when wasn't don't want to accept what we are trying to do, unpredictable. yeah, we will set whatever you say, we are engaged in oversight and the best evidence is the transcript and the only way we would know if the transcript, the recording, that's the only way we would know if the transcript is inappropriate by comparing it to the recording so sit here and say we haven't called into question the transcript when we are asking for the recording is to ignore the obvious which is we need the

recording to see if the transcript is correct. we need to check on these kinds of things because these are within our oversight capability and certainly duty. so to ignore all of this and bring all the other peripheral stuff that we had to endure for the last couple of hours is interesting diversion and a lot of fun conversation but the truth of it is we are going oversight, we need the recording. that was proven by the way, when the gentleman from georgia showed an audio of former president trump. why didn't he just rely upon his words that were written? no, he wanted us to see the exact words, hear them and compare them and that which was written down. of course, we need to compare the audio to the written. that's why we have the rule. the audio.

we move to try to do so. i yield back. >> last word. >> general lady is recognized. >> so i'm a little confused because we keep hearing, of course, we need to match the audio with the transcript and based on the testimony that her hearing is certified transcript. it's a certified transcript. talking about needing to match the audio with what is written if it is established that that what has happened. so when we talk about wasting time, this whole conversation in which you bring up over and over again that we need to match these two things, it has been certified. i yield back.

>> general lady from wisconsin is recognized. this came up earlier. it's right here. the absence legitimate need for audio recordings lays barrier likely gold to chalk them up and store them and use them for partisan political purposes. so if they're identical and should be perceived as identical, then why is it actually in the white house's correspondence. they blew it. they have the wrong one here. some attorney late yesterday was composing this and basically showed their hand which is they believe it's going to be used for political purposes. well, if the transcript and the recordings are exactly the same, why couldn't just do that with the recordings anyway? it doesn't make any sense at this point. they need to turn it over. they need to turn it over at some point. i yield back.

>> anybody else seek recognition? general lady from wyoming. >> the medium at issue is the factor by giving us the transcripts they've already waived any claim of executive privilege. so there is no legitimate reason to withhold the transcript, to withhold the recordings. we are entitled to them as has already been repeatedly stated. it's the best-evidence rule as the oversight committee we are entitled to hear exactly what mr. hurd heard without -- >> the general lady yields? >> yes. >> adding that point, i think the general lady, i just note that i was kind of digging through my friend mr. ivy from maryland trying to filter through the letters and find had been set on waiver. the only thing i see is the top

of page 7, there's an argument that i note that the department's disclosure of the transcripts to have interview does not constitute a waiver. you are going to read paragraph, once testimony has been released in written form that there's some basis that you could possibly contend that the -- another version of the testimony and in this case in the form of audio recording. [laughter] >> it's protected from waiver. there's not just -- you would think if they want to say there's an argument that there's no waiver they could cite some authorities from some court at some point in history that came close to addressing that issue and making that ruling but there is no such authority and it is absurd. i yield back to the general lady

>> do you want to release that right now? are you willing to release that to public and show us because this seems really interesting that you subpoenaed, you don't respond, you are upset that the president and his team won't respond to the subpoena. you have the guy on your side who was investigatedded for sexual trafficking and you're not interested at all in subpoenaing or getting any notes to that investigation but you want every part of this investigation and with hunter biden you've done a year plus of

instigating him and found nothing and your best wishes are now locked up but you won't give the public any audio recordings or video recordings and i keep hearing this phrase by some drive-by lawyers over there of best evidence. isn't that the best evidence. why don't you show us what you have and if you're not going to show us what you have, tell us why you won't show the public what you have, i yield back. >> my good friend from california makes a point and i always take his point seriously. i'd like to make a point. the point is this committee back when chairman was the chair asserted that what we are doing an investigation whether it's impeachment or an inquiry of case and in the case of german,

right behind the ranking member, chairman said we have to be the committee that oversees the president. we have to be. we were under richard nixon, we have to be under george w. bush. to give that up simply because the shoe is on the other foot is to give up the authority of this committee and the importance of what we do, i agree with the gentleman from california that this should not be used for parse and purposes. i think ms. mr. fitzgerald said that the accusation falls on its face. well, let's make sure that the audio isn't release today the public at least until there's a full committee voting and until they had an opportunity to see whether glens additional

information, we probably would have a bipartisan moment but we are not doing that. we are really debating the question of the authority of this committee and just as chairmanwoman grew the respect for this committee and the beats decision which was taken not only through his time but continued and day what we rely on for whether or not someone is to appear before this committee from the white house, we have to do the same thing here. the committees of congress maybe political bodies but so is the white house and, in fact, the other side of the aisle is constantly telling us it's the supreme court. if we are political bodies that does not change our constitutional responsibility, so i for one will be voting to hold in contempt if we do not get that which we have asked for under some reasonable terms which have not begun to discuss. that is what we are discussing

here today. i hope that the gentleman from california will think again about where this body will be in four, six, eight or ten years just as chairman, chairman before them has asserted that congress has a right and consistently the court at all levels under all types of courts has held those rights to be reasonable if they are, in fact, pursuant to our obligation and our obligation clearly is to oversee the department of justice and i thank the gentleman and yield back. >> anybody else seeking recognition. >> gentleman from new jersey. thank you, chairman. just a few points to be made here. if we get down to the real issue, they are afraid to reveal the demeanor which is the best evidence. not just what you said, how you said it, did you ramble on, you

have cognitive thought here, where you just, you know, not under particular control of what you were saying or doing and that's something the american people deserve to know, it's something that we deserve to know and that's point number one, second thing is -- we know that. so, again, what are we afraid of? are we afraid to hear the audio why because concerned that it's very revealing as far as the cognitive state of this president. there's no problem. if there's no issue, just send over. we don't have to have this hearing. you know, i think there's a good number of us which we didn't need to have this hearing. it just should have been simpler to say yes, abide by the system, let us look at it and it would be done but it isn't and we have a right to it and there's no

executive privilege, there's no protection. the information was already given in the transcript, now, the audio needs to be given too. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you. i have some short remarks. i find it to think that fellow members on the other side of the aisle believe that they have the ability to determine whether or not someone is mentally competent by listening to audio recording. i mean, that's all that you want to have is just some audio so that you can probably slice and dice and use it to mislead the public into buying your narrative but the american people are not going for that. they see through the hallowness of this exercise that we are going through today. they know, the only thing you

want to do is try to get something to embarrass the president with and this is what you're refused to after spending $20 million of taxpayer money compiling a -- a data bank of information which reveals no wrongdoing by the president. you are hoping to find something but you didn't and now you are reduced to trying to find evidence that he is somehow unfit, mentally for office when people can see the man doing his job every day. they could see what he's doing, they could see what he's done, they can see him in action, listen to him, we don't need further waste of taxpayer money going down this rabbit hole any further. i ask my colleague to get serious about it. we got stuff that we need to be doing on behalf of the american

people as opposed to sitting up here for four hours now debating the solution that you are all offering trying to hold merrick garland to account but not turning over and audio file that really has no relevance to what the american people are going through today. please stop this and let's get to work doing something that benefits the american people and i will yield to the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. johnson. i believe that one of the other members on the other side incorrectly said that there was something in her testimony that said that the president was incompetent. he never said that. he never wrote that. no one has said or wrote that. he said he was a sympathetic contractor elderly person who had little problem with their memory. that's not saying you are incompetent and that's, nobody

is suggesting that. the previous term we had with president's first two years has been compared to the 1964 lyndon johnson era, most effective legislative actions, congressional actions in our country's history. the quote, unquote, bipartisan transportation bill, jobs and transportation bill, highways bill. the chips act, you name it. biden got it done. he even got done finally after law gagging moneys for israel and ukraine. far too late for ukraine to resist the russian expedited attacks, strengthened attacks while ukraine was suffering without the equipment they should have had in these we got

money finally -- we could have had a bill on immigration that the senate would have passed that would have dealt with immigration and not made it a political issue and let all these arguments that you make about these terrible people coming into our country continue to come into our country only if they advanced the opportunity of having a terrible person become the president of the united states again. a person who has been said by more of his colleagues than he does not shouldn't get anywhere the white house again almost all of his cabinet members and the ones that said that have gone to jail, mr. navarro, contempt, mrn near you. mr. cowan went to jail for two

years because he did what mr. trump asked him to do. he went to jail. you lay down with dogs and get up with fleas. be careful, my colleague. i yield back the balance of my time. >> when the democrats were in charge of the committee in 2019, as i believe the chairman has mentioned today was it not true that they held the attorney general of the united states, attorney general in contempt or effectively redacting material from the report that he was legally obligate today redact? >> yes, it was grand jury transcripts. >> so that's the standard. set for democratic colleagues to do what is legally required to do under the law. >> yes. >> here we are having a conversation about an amendment, i believe, what we are debating

in a amendment, an amendment to add language to clarify that we were in receipt of the assertion of executive privilege, that we received a mere minute before we began this markup here today and this amendment asserts privilege and it's aasserting privilege after the general lady of wyoming effectively relinquish privilege having provided the transcript and our position is that now we are having have the transcript that we want to be able to look at the actual audio or listen to the actual audio because of to be very specific the assertions by her throughout the entirety of the hurd report that, it was, in fact, the president's demeanor, the way the president was responding or lack of response and i'm trying to be careful by the way.

with all due respect to the assertion made about the gentleman from tennessee that there was some little problems with the memory, i mean, the hurd report is littered and filled with concerns about the nature of the president's memory. i don't even want to go down that road. he's the president of the united states. i'm not looking to dive into that other than as it relates directly to this question about what we can take away from the actual -- your testimony by the president to mr. hurd, that's it. back to recentering the question, all we are doing is debating this amendment and talking about adding the language in about the assertion of executive privilege which we are saying has already been essentially set aside by giving the transcripts and we believe it is our oversight function to simply listen to the audio file. the gentleman agrees with that. the only other part to that i would say it was also leak today the press.

it wasn't just given to the committee. will the gentleman yield? the gentleman from new jersey. just real quickly, we are alluding to what was exactly said and they didn't want to go forward with the case and the reason they didn't was because biden would be seen as, quoting well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, not a little bit of a memory problem, not a little tinny issue, such a big problem that they -- that it was such a sympathetic case that they wouldn't go forward with the case because the jury would feel bad for him because of the cognitive state. that was an exact quote of what i just read. i yield back. >> recognition. >> i recognize myself real quick. you know, we heard a lot of different reasons about

impugning what motivations are on this side of the aisle. we have been here for four hours and nobody has ever defended the doj's reason for not turning it over. the reason for not turning it over is somehow it's going to have this huge chilling effect on all of these witnesses and the volunteering of cooperation with the doj if you somehow release an audio -- an audio interview versus the transcribed entire view. and i think that's a level of sophistication that quite frankly fails on its face and we talk about waiving the privilege by giving the transcript and leaking it to the press but that's the other part of this which is farceful on its face that somehow we are going to chill all of the doj investigations because of the medium in which we release something to congress after we have already waived the privilege and i think for all of the different things for four hours today nobody has ever

actually said i can name nine people who would have cooperated except you gave them a transcript instead of an audio recording and because that doesn't exist and it's an excuse and it is an excuse that we got one minute before the hearing which is why this amendment is important and so with that, i yield back. >> the question -- >> i'd just like to remind the committee that donald trump would like to be reviewed by the special counsel and was tape recorded and could have used that and used in campaigns and i think there's the idea that this could be used politically while as far as the legal basis all you need is a transcript. the audio is needed for politics not for information based on what this committee's jurisdiction is. and question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor say aye?

>> aye. >> all those opposed say no, no. the no's have it. i'm sorry. in the opinions the ayes have it. roll call has been requested. >> mr. jordan? >> yes. >> mr. jordan votes yes. mr. issa? mr. issa votes yes. mr. gaetz? mr. tiffany. mr. tiffany votes aye? mr. massi? mr. roy? mr.le roy votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. fitzgerald. >> aye. >> mr. fitzgerald votes aye. mr. klein? mr. klein votes aye. mr. armstrong? >> yes. >> mr. armstrong votes yes. >> mr. gooding votes yes.

mr. kylie? mr. kylie votes aye. mr. muran? ms. lee votes yes. mr. hunt. mr. nadler? mr. cohen votes no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. mr. schiff votes no. mr. swawell votes no. mr. lou votes no.

ms. bush? >> the learning will report. >> mr. chairman, 15 ayes and 11 no's. >> the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. question now is on the adoption of the amendment and the nature of the substitute. this will be followed by vote on reporting the report all those in favor say aye. aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it and the nature is adopted and quorum being present. the question is -- >> mr. chair. >> the report as amended. >> mr. chairman, may i raise a point of order?

>> sure. >> and i won't insist on it but ordinarily the committee does not do markups when committees bills are on the floor. the ranking member is on the floor managing those bills. he's not asking that the vote be delayed because of the time that's been put in he would vote against it and i just wanted to put on the record why it is rather unusual for us to be meeting and i'm not even sure but he would vote no and that's why he is not here. >> and i'm willing -- we are willing to wait for the chairman to come back for the final passage. he's not asking for that. >> okay, okay. >> all those -- the question is reporting the report as amended, all those in favor say aye? aye. those opposed no. the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it. >> roll call vote.

>> roll call being requested, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] >> mr. jordan? yes. >> mr. jordan votes yes. >> mr. issa? >> mr. matthew? mt. roy? mr. roy votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. fitzgerald? mr. fitzgerald votes aye. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. gooding votes yes. mr. van drew? mr. van drew votes yes. mr. moore? mr. moore votes yes. mr. kylie, mr. kylie votes aye. mr. muran? ms. lee? ms. lee votes yes. mr. hunt? mr. frye votes yes.

mr. nadler? jackson lee? mr. cohen? mr. cohen votes no. >> mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. >> ms. dean? ms. escobar? ms. ross? ms. bush? mr. ivy?

>> we are going let mr. nadler come and vote on the report. will commit write will just stand -- will committee just take a break for a second. once mr. nadler gets here, we will move legislation. republican members have food back there if you haven't eaten. i don't know if we have enough for the democrats.

>> you're not recorded. >> escobar votes no? ms. job or votes no. mr. matthew you're not recorded. >> is the general lady recorded? ms. bush you're not recorded. ms. bush votes no. mr. bishop votes aye.

mr. nadler votes no. >> the ayes have it, the report to be reported to the house members will have two days to submit views without objection the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. we now call -- one second. hr7803 to amend title 45,

exception and other purposes for -- purposes of markup. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. issa for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in short win for small businesses and long overdue. small businesses may qualify for reduced when filing for patents or trademarks. the small business claim entity or micro entity status. for example, firing utility patent is $320. a small entity, however, is charged only 128 and micro entity is charged only $64. i note that those are set by the

pt of course and under this bill we will continue to have the patent and trademark office set them, however, when congress passed the unleash american innovation act in 2023, a law required the usptr director to impose imputative finds on entities falsely asserting or certifying entitlement to reduced fees. we did that with good intent, however, the finding is three times the reduction of fees. right now there's no exception provided by law for an entity that made an error in their filing in good faith. example of good faith is if an employee is mistakenly categorized a contractor. another example is if a good faith mistake is made regarding the belief as to the number of employees qualifying under the entity. the impact of the imputative

finds can be harmful to small businesses and if they had no intent we do not want them fined, we want them corrected. the harsh fines may deter them from seeking benefits of micro entities since their status of savings is far less than the possibility of a trouble find. to ensure small business to take advantage and reduce fees the bill gives the director authority to waive such penalties if an entity demonstrates they had a good-faith belief. i'm pleased to introduce this bill with my ranking member mr. johnson and i hope we will all sort it. we believe it's technical in incorrecting about giving the authority to the pto to waive the fees in a good faith mistake and with that i yield back. >> the chairman recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. hr78 to 3 makes minor technical

change to give the patent and trademark the flexibility to decide when to penalize applicants with for fee reductions. when congress passed the unleashing innovative act, funding package, fiscal year 2023 we did so with the intention of making patents no longer the sport of kings but an opportunity for investors to make a decent living. innovators should not have to work for a big-tech company, major manufacturer or any other power house industry to be able to file for a patent but that is exactly what often happens. the hurdles associated with obtaining and owning a patent from hiring a lawyer to search for prior art to paying standard application fees prevent individuals seeking patents to interventions. barriers to entries like this hurt everyone but above all hurt women, minorities that do not have the resources to go it

alone. all of talent becomes siloed in just a few companies in just a few industries and perspective creators show their ideas for another day and including increasing discount fees and also imposing penalties and obtain discount. but i'm sure many here will be shocked to learn congress sometimes makes mistakes and creating the new fee waivers and associated penalties for trying for waivers we negligent today consider the applicants too can make honest mistakes in applications. if innovators are too afraid to apply because penalties and honest mistakes can lose of a chance in the patent all the improvements simply not exist.

harm it is exact same people that they are unleashing american innovators act. individuals and entities that can barely afford the filing fees certainly do not have the financial resources to weather a hefty fine. unlike large entities, losing patent associated within application may very well mean losing everything. small entities there are the most likely to avoid the risk of applying for the very programs that exist to help them. hr7803 would correct this minor error. under this legislation uspto director would no longer be forced to find a good-faith actor that asserts fee reduction for small or entity status. this will show that everyone has a seat at the table. i thank congressman issa and

congressman johnson for their leadership on this legislation along with congresswoman ross, the original sponsor of the unleashing innovator's act. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a proud colead on this bill with chairman issa. this bill is a typical fix that would allow tun leashing american inventors act to work as intended, thereby as the title says unleashing the power of america's smaller and medium-size inventers. the american innovators act lowered the barriers to entry for individual and small inventors by among other things creating a reduction for the application fees for small and micro entities to protect

against abuse. the legislation imposed fines on companies that applied to these programs fraudulently but because it failed to give the uspto ability to waive the fines in case of good-faith mistake, disincentivessed the use of the fee retexas programs for small and medium size entities that were not sure if they qualified. as members of congress it was never our intention to penalize the small and medium size inventors that are vital to our economy and to our invasion landscape but who lack the resources of the mega corporations.

>> the gentleman yields back. quorum being present. favorably recording on the bill. all those in favor of recording the bill. the ayes have it, two days to submit without objection the bill would be reported as single amendment in the nature of substitute in incorporating amendments and staff authorized technical and conforming changes.

that conclude it is committee's business for today. the committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]