BREAKING NEWS: Jim Jordan Chairs House Judiciary Committee Hearing On The Manhattan DA's Office

6 months ago

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Thursday on the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00:00Chair is authorized to declare recess at any time.

00:00:02We want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

00:00:05I apologize.

00:00:06Looks like we're 62 minutes late in starting,

00:00:09but we had an important guest that spoke to our Republican conference today.

00:00:12The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

00:00:19I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

00:00:24and to the republic for which it stands,

00:00:26one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:00:39Chair will now recognize himself for an opening statement.

00:00:41The New York County District Attorney's Office began investigating President Trump in 2018,

00:00:46six years ago.

00:00:472018.

00:00:48But it wasn't Alvin Bragg, it was Cy Vance.

00:00:50Southern District of New York months later concluded its investigation into payments

00:00:54made by Michael Cohen and determined no charges should be brought against President Trump.

00:00:59Of course, while this was going on, Alvin Bragg was running for the job,

00:01:03vowing to go after President Trump,

00:01:05bragging about the number of times he had already sued President Trump.

00:01:08Mr. Bragg ultimately wins and takes office in January of 2022.

00:01:13First thing he did, the day one memo,

00:01:1610-page policy memo to his staff instituting progressive, soft on crime, anti-victim policies.

00:01:23Felony armed robbery charges get reduced to misdemeanors.

00:01:26He instructed his staff, except for homicides, not to seek prison sentences for individuals.

00:01:33And guess what came next?

00:01:35Rising crime.

00:01:37During that first year, violent crime in Manhattan was at an all-time high.

00:01:40New York City saw a 23% surge in major violent crimes.

00:01:43In fact, we heard from some of these victims of crime at our field hearing

00:01:48up in New York City 13 months ago.

00:01:51A mother whose son's murderers were allowed to walk free because of Alvin Bragg's soft

00:01:55on crime prosecutors.

00:01:56A bodega owner who was violently attacked, yet Bragg's office initially charged him.

00:02:01And finally, a father whose son was attacked in Times Square because he was Jewish.

00:02:05And Bragg offered one of his assailants a sweetheart slap on the wrist deal,

00:02:09even though he had previous run-ins with the law,

00:02:12showed no remorse, and was arrested while out on bail.

00:02:16A few weeks after this day one memo, Alvin Bragg told one of his prosecutors,

00:02:20Mark Pomerantz, quote, he could not see a world in which he would indict President Trump

00:02:25and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness.

00:02:29That's right, after campaigning on going after the former president,

00:02:33Alvin Bragg gets into office and realizes the case against President Trump is ridiculous.

00:02:37That's why the Southern District of New York didn't bring it.

00:02:39That's why his predecessor, Cy Vance, didn't bring it.

00:02:43Everybody knew Michael Cohen couldn't be trusted.

00:02:45In fact, his former lawyer sat right in this room and told us,

00:02:48you can't believe what this guy says.

00:02:51Michael Cohen's lied to Congress, he's lied to the FBI, and he's lied to court.

00:02:55It's not often you can lie to all three branches of government

00:02:58and yet become the star witness in a prosecution of a former president.

00:03:02Now, what caused Alvin Bragg to do the 180-degree turn?

00:03:06What caused him to change?

00:03:08That special assistant district attorney, Mark Pomerantz.

00:03:11The guy Alvin Bragg had told he could not see a world in which he would indict President Trump

00:03:15and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness.

00:03:18That guy resigned in protest of Mr. Bragg's decision not to go after President Trump.

00:03:24And his fellow assistant district attorney, Kerry Dunn,

00:03:27resigned as well, and they leaked their resignation letter to the New York Times.

00:03:32And after that, the left begins their pressure campaign on Mr. Bragg,

00:03:35and suddenly the, quote, zombie case is resurrected.

00:03:39And also, never forget, in November of 2022,

00:03:43President Trump announced he was a candidate for president of the United States.

00:03:47And just a few weeks later, Alvin Bragg hires former senior Biden Justice Department official,

00:03:52Matthew Colangelo, to come up and run the prosecution.

00:03:56Someone who had a history of taking on President Trump and his family's businesses

00:03:59and had also worked for the New York State Attorney General.

00:04:04Alvin Bragg, the partisan DA that campaigned on going after President Trump,

00:04:08who's newly hired lead prosecutor for the case,

00:04:11also had a history of taking on President Trump,

00:04:15had their case now in front of a partisan judge,

00:04:18a judge who had donated to President Biden, who imposed a gag order on President Trump,

00:04:22prevented an expert defense witness from testifying,

00:04:25and also told the jury they didn't need to reach a unanimous decision.

00:04:29And there is the fundamental issue. No one knows what the federal crime is.

00:04:34Bragg and Colangelo bootstrap charges federal prosecutors declined to bring

00:04:37into some kind of never-seen felony.

00:04:40Former Attorney General Robert H. Jackson warned us about rogue prosecutors.

00:04:46Former Attorney General said this in a speech 84 years ago.

00:04:50The speech was titled The Federal Prosecutor.

00:04:53Applies to all prosecutors, though.

00:04:55Attorney General Jackson laid out a vision for how prosecutors should

00:04:59behave in a fair and just society.

00:05:03He stated, quote,

00:05:05Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor,

00:05:08that he will pick people that he thinks he should get,

00:05:11rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.

00:05:14It is here that law enforcement becomes personal,

00:05:17and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular

00:05:20with the predominant or governing group,

00:05:23being attached to the wrong political views,

00:05:26or to, in a way, of the prosecutor,

00:05:31be in the way of the prosecutor himself.

00:05:33And that is precisely what we have here in this situation.

00:05:36Excuse me, in this situation.

00:05:38Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump was personal.

00:05:41It was based on politics, and it was wrong.

00:05:43And we're going to hear from some expert witnesses today

00:05:45who will give us details into all that.

00:05:48With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for an opening statement.

00:05:52Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:05:54Mr. Chairman, we sit here today for one reason, and one reason only.

00:05:59House Republicans are willing to do just about anything

00:06:03to protect Donald Trump from the consequences of his actions.

00:06:07On May 30th, a jury of his peers,

00:06:09sitting in a state court in Manhattan,

00:06:11convicted Donald Trump of 34 counts

00:06:14of falsifying business records in the first degree,

00:06:17for paying hush money to conceal information

00:06:20that could have been harmful to his 2016 presidential campaign.

00:06:25Let's see how that all unfolded.

00:06:27Let's see how that all unfolded.

00:06:33An unprecedented moment in American politics.

00:06:36Former President Trump indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.

00:06:40Breaking news.

00:06:41It appears for the first time in American history,

00:06:43an American president has been indicted on federal charges.

00:06:47The Justice Department unsealing the 49-page federal indictment

00:06:51against former President Trump

00:06:52for his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House.

00:06:55A federal grand jury here in Washington

00:06:57has voted to indict the former president

00:06:59for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

00:07:03Former President Trump has been indicted for a fourth time.

00:07:06The nearly 100-page indictment was unsealed last night in Georgia.

00:07:09A whopping 91 felony counts in total.

00:07:1391.

00:07:14The jury a short time ago alerting the judge

00:07:16it has reached a decision in the Donald Trump hush money trial.

00:07:20Count one, guilty.

00:07:22Count two, guilty.

00:07:24Count three, guilty.

00:07:26It's 15 out of 15 so far.

00:07:27He became very still.

00:07:29He had his arms folded across his chest.

00:07:31Count 31, guilty.

00:07:32Count 32, guilty.

00:07:34His face was red.

00:07:35He looked upset.

00:07:37He had a frown on his face.

00:07:38He's scared.

00:07:39And frankly, he should be.

00:07:41Guilty on all 34 felony counts.

00:07:45We arrived at this trial,

00:07:47and ultimately today this verdicts in the same manner

00:07:50as every other case that comes to the courtroom doors.

00:07:55Let me be clear.

00:07:57This trial was fair and just.

00:08:00And allegations to the contrary

00:08:02represent a desperate, evidence-free attempt

00:08:05to shield Trump from accountability.

00:08:08Today you are going to hear a long list of allegations

00:08:10designed to undermine public faith and confidence

00:08:13in the jury's verdict.

00:08:15Do not be deceived.

00:08:16These are baseless allegations,

00:08:18and we can take them down one by one.

00:08:20These are baseless allegations,

00:08:22and we can take them down one by one.

00:08:25First, Republicans claim that Judge Mershan

00:08:28was, quote, handpicked to handle the Trump case

00:08:31because he had donated $35 to Democrats in the past.

00:08:35This is false.

00:08:36Judges are assigned at random in the New York court system.

00:08:40With respect to Judge Mershan's $35 donation,

00:08:43the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics

00:08:46issued an opinion saying that he need not recuse himself

00:08:49from the case, and there is simply no evidence

00:08:52that any of Judge Mershan's rulings were biased in any way.

00:08:56Second, Republicans claim that the jury's verdict

00:08:58convicting Trump was not unanimous.

00:09:01This is absurd.

00:09:02The jury instructions plainly stated that, quote,

00:09:05your verdict on each count you consider,

00:09:08whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous.

00:09:11That is, each and every juror must agree to it, close quote.

00:09:15The verdict was unanimous on each of the 34 counts.

00:09:20Third, Republicans claim that all of Judge Mershan's

00:09:23rulings went against Trump.

00:09:25This is false.

00:09:26In fact, Judge Mershan repeatedly ruled for Trump,

00:09:30including a critical ruling that required prosecutors

00:09:33to prove willfulness under a heightened mens rea standard.

00:09:38Fourth, Republicans claim that Judge Mershan

00:09:40prevented Trump's expert witness from testifying.

00:09:44This is false.

00:09:45Trump's attorneys chose not to call that witness

00:09:49because he could not have testified

00:09:50about underlying questions of law,

00:09:52which is a role solely reserved to the judge.

00:09:56Fifth, Republicans claim that Attorney General Garland

00:10:00secretly, quote, dispatched Matthew Colangelo,

00:10:04a former DOJ attorney who served as the lead prosecutor

00:10:08on the Trump case, to the Manhattan DA's office

00:10:11as part of an elaborate ruse to plant DOJ prosecutors

00:10:16in state-level offices to attack Donald Trump.

00:10:19This is false and utterly absurd.

00:10:21Last week, the Attorney General clearly and unequivocally

00:10:24told Republicans that they are wrong.

00:10:27The Department of Justice has no record

00:10:28of any communication to the contrary,

00:10:31and Republicans have not and cannot produce

00:10:34any evidence whatsoever to support this nonsensical claim.

00:10:39And that's the theme for today.

00:10:41Republican attacks, one after another,

00:10:43lack any basis in truth or fact.

00:10:47My colleagues across the aisle know this,

00:10:49and yet they repeat their attacks ad nauseam

00:10:52because that is the only play left in their playbook.

00:10:55They didn't like the fact that Trump lost in 2020.

00:10:58So, lacking facts or evidence to support their claims,

00:11:02they instead attacked our democratic institutions,

00:11:05basically claiming that the election was rigged and corrupt.

00:11:09They didn't like the fact that Trump was indicted

00:11:11for mishandling highly sensitive classified documents,

00:11:14so they claimed that Trump declassified them with his mind.

00:11:18They didn't like the fact that the FBI had to send in agents

00:11:21to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago

00:11:24because of concerns that Trump would destroy documents,

00:11:27so they claimed that the lawful execution of a search warrant

00:11:30constitutes a raid and a witch hunt.

00:11:34And now, they don't like the fact that an impartial jury

00:11:37found Trump guilty not once, not twice,

00:11:40but on 34 separate counts,

00:11:42so they are attacking the judicial process,

00:11:45calling it rigged, corrupt, and precooked

00:11:48without a shred of evidence to back their allegations.

00:11:52And why are they doing this?

00:11:54Why are they sowing doubt in our system?

00:11:56Why are they using rhetoric that is guaranteed

00:11:58to generate death threats against the judges and jurors

00:12:01and prosecutors and police involved in these cases?

00:12:06For one reason only, to protect a felon.

00:12:09A felon who, I remind you, faces an additional 37 felony counts

00:12:13related to his mishandling of classified documents,

00:12:17four federal counts for conspiring to launch a riot on January 6th,

00:12:21and 13 counts in Georgia for conspiring to interfere

00:12:24with the administration of the 2020 election.

00:12:27Within the bounds of our system of laws,

00:12:29there is nothing Trump can do

00:12:31to escape a trial in each of those counts

00:12:34or to escape a sentence if he is found guilty on any of them.

00:12:38Trump and his allies know this,

00:12:41and so they are moving heaven and earth

00:12:43to undermine the system itself.

00:12:45That includes the attempt by our chairman

00:12:48to reach into the New York case

00:12:49while sentencing is still pending

00:12:51and drag the Manhattan District Attorney before this committee.

00:12:55That demand represents a completely unacceptable abuse of the gavel.

00:13:00It is entirely inappropriate for us to interfere

00:13:02with an ongoing state prosecution,

00:13:05no matter how much blind loyalty you feel you owe to the defendant.

00:13:09It is also an effort that smacks of desperation,

00:13:12and it seems from the standing of MAGA Republicans these days

00:13:16that the American public has caught on.

00:13:19Donald Trump has faced a jury of his peers.

00:13:22Nothing can change that.

00:13:24We here will face our constituents in November.

00:13:26We should conduct ourselves accordingly.

00:13:29I thank the witnesses for being here today,

00:13:31and I yield back.

00:13:35The gentleman yields back.

00:13:39We'll now introduce today's witnesses.

00:13:41We have first Mr. Andrew Bailey,

00:13:43the attorney general of the state of Missouri.

00:13:44Prior to becoming attorney general,

00:13:45he served as a prosecutor and deputy counsel,

00:13:47and then general counsel to the governor of Missouri.

00:13:50Attorney General Bailey has also served our country

00:13:52in the United States Army.

00:13:54The next individual, I will yield to the gentleman

00:13:56from Texas to introduce.

00:13:58It is my honor to introduce Mr. James Traynor.

00:14:02He's a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission,

00:14:04where he served as chairman of the commission in 2020

00:14:07prior to his confirmation.

00:14:09He practiced law for two decades with a focus on election law,

00:14:11campaign finance law, and ethics.

00:14:14He has also served on the advisory board

00:14:16of the Election Assistance Commission,

00:14:17and he's a constituent of mine

00:14:19and lives about five miles down the road,

00:14:21around the corner from Salt Lake Barbecue,

00:14:23and like my wife, is a Texas A&M graduate.

00:14:26Great to have you here, Tray.

00:14:28Good to have the attorney general and commissioner.

00:14:31Next, we have Ms. Elizabeth Price Foley.

00:14:33Mrs. Foley is a professor of law

00:14:35at Florida International University College of Law,

00:14:36where she teaches constitutional law,

00:14:38separation of powers, and civil procedures.

00:14:40She is also of counsel at Baker Hostetler,

00:14:42where she practices constitutional and appellate law.

00:14:45Mrs. Foley is the author of three books

00:14:46on constitutional law published

00:14:48by the Yale, Harvard, and Oxford University Presses.

00:14:51And we have the Honorable Norm Eisen.

00:14:53Mr. Eisen is a senior fellow in governance studies

00:14:55at the Brookings Institute.

00:14:56He previously served as the U.S. ambassador

00:14:59to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014,

00:15:02and we've had Mr. Eisen in front of the committee

00:15:04numerous times.

00:15:05We welcome our witnesses

00:15:06and thank them for appearing today.

00:15:08We'll begin by swearing you in.

00:15:09Would you all please rise and raise your right hand?

00:15:15Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury

00:15:17that the testimony you're about to give is true

00:15:20and correct to the best of your knowledge,

00:15:21information, and beliefs?

00:15:22So help you God.

00:15:24Let the record show that the witnesses have answered

00:15:26in the affirmative.

00:15:27Thank you, and you may be seated.

00:15:28Please know that your written testimony

00:15:30will be entered into the record in its entirety.

00:15:32Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony

00:15:36in five minutes.

00:15:37We'll be a little liberal with that,

00:15:39but around five minutes will be great.

00:15:40And we're going to start.

00:15:41We're going to go right down the line.

00:15:41We'll start with the attorney general

00:15:44and then we'll move down the line.

00:15:45Mr. Attorney General, you're recognized for five minutes.

00:15:47I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member

00:15:49and distinguished members of the committee

00:15:51for having us here today.

00:15:53The people of the state of Missouri watched in horror

00:15:55as the left's direct assault on President Trump

00:15:57manifested itself in the form of a corrupt prosecution

00:16:01of the president,

00:16:02which resulted in an errant criminal conviction.

00:16:05We are a nation of laws

00:16:07that are supposed to be equally applied.

00:16:09Instead, the left has prioritized its hatred

00:16:11of President Trump above the rule of law.

00:16:14To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump

00:16:17more than they love this country.

00:16:19The term lawfare, while apt,

00:16:22fails to adequately convey the moral depravity

00:16:25underpinning this strategic attack.

00:16:28The Manhattan District Attorney's Office

00:16:29recent prosecution of President Trump

00:16:32represents one of the most morally abhorrent volleys

00:16:35in the left's ongoing barrage of lawfare.

00:16:38This prosecution was politically motivated

00:16:40and is replete with legal error.

00:16:43First, prosecutors are explicitly forbidden

00:16:45from waging politically motivated prosecutions.

00:16:48To the extent a prosecutor is self-interested in a case,

00:16:50that prosecutor must recuse himself.

00:16:52That did not happen in New York.

00:16:54Mr. Bragg was previously involved in civil litigation

00:16:56against President Trump,

00:16:57campaigned on a promise to prosecute President Trump,

00:17:00and then recruited the third highest ranking official

00:17:02from President Biden's Department of Justice

00:17:04to lead his trial court efforts

00:17:06against President Biden's political opponent.

00:17:08Second, the indictment charges President Trump

00:17:10with 34 counts of falsifying business records

00:17:13for making entries in records with, quote unquote,

00:17:15the intent to commit another crime.

00:17:18The charge's reference to an unidentifiable other crime

00:17:20constitutes a deprivation of due process.

00:17:24By denying the president a right to be informed

00:17:27of the crimes for which he is charged.

00:17:29Third, the prosecutor sought

00:17:32an unconstitutional gag order in this case.

00:17:34There's a strong presumption against gag orders

00:17:36as violative of an individual's

00:17:38First Amendment right to free speech.

00:17:40Bear in mind, the right to free speech

00:17:42protects not only the speaker,

00:17:44but Americans' right to hear from a presidential candidate.

00:17:48Fourth, the prosecutor perverted the law

00:17:50to meet the facts rather than objectively apply

00:17:52the facts to the law.

00:17:54The statute at issue prohibits a false entry

00:17:56into a business record.

00:17:56However, the financial entries were authentic

00:17:59in that the entities listed

00:18:01received the funds enumerated in the documents.

00:18:04The prosecutor illegally bent the law

00:18:05to allege that these transactions

00:18:08that were accurately recorded were for some other purpose.

00:18:10Fifth, the prosecutor failed to correct the court's error

00:18:13in instructing the jury that unanimity was not required

00:18:16as to the predicate offense

00:18:18that forms the basis for the fallacious charges.

00:18:21The Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury

00:18:22includes jury unanimity as to each element of the offense

00:18:26for which the defendant has tried.

00:18:28The prosecutor had an affirmative duty

00:18:30to object to this violation

00:18:32of President Trump's constitutional rights.

00:18:34Missouri has a unique history

00:18:35that parallels much of what recently happened in New York,

00:18:37with the exception that systems in Missouri

00:18:41countered a rogue prosecutor

00:18:43who filed politically motivated cases.

00:18:44In fact, I filed the lawsuit

00:18:46that ultimately removed her from office

00:18:49and prevented this kind of lawfare.

00:18:51George Soros has repeatedly funded

00:18:52progressive prosecutors who wreak havoc

00:18:54on the criminal justice system at every level.

00:18:57Not only do they prosecute political opponents,

00:19:00but they refuse to prosecute actual violent crimes

00:19:03happening in our communities.

00:19:05In fact, President Biden's Department of Justice

00:19:07is in lockstep with radicals like George Soros

00:19:10and is actively funding groups like the Vera Institute

00:19:13that are turning our streets into war zones.

00:19:16The Vera Institute, a progressive organization

00:19:18dedicated to undermining criminal prosecution

00:19:21in the United States,

00:19:22receives tens of millions of dollars

00:19:23in federal funds annually.

00:19:25My lawsuit to remove the prosecutor

00:19:27in the city of St. Louis

00:19:28uncovered the disastrous relationship

00:19:30between her office and the Vera Institute

00:19:32that resulted in more than a 90% non-prosecution rate

00:19:36of reported crimes.

00:19:38Meanwhile, the St. Louis prosecutor

00:19:40had to be disqualified from cases

00:19:41in which she was politically motivated.

00:19:43Missouri's systems worked

00:19:44in that the judiciary prevented her political witch hunts,

00:19:47and my lawsuit removed her from office

00:19:49after she neglected to prosecute violent crime.

00:19:51The same systems failed in New York.

00:19:53George Soros has funded Alvin Bragg's candidacy,

00:19:55and under his watch,

00:19:56the Manhattan District Attorney's Office

00:19:58has partnered with the Vera Institute.

00:20:00And in this case, the judiciary in New York

00:20:01failed to disqualify Alvin Bragg

00:20:03from his case against President Trump.

00:20:04These facts, coupled with the federal

00:20:06and state prosecutions that have yet to play out,

00:20:07display a level of collusion never seen before

00:20:10between a corrupt Department of Justice

00:20:12and illicitly motivated state prosecutors.

00:20:14I believe the investigations

00:20:16and subsequent prosecutions of President Trump

00:20:17have been illegally conducted

00:20:19in coordination with the Department of Justice.

00:20:21That is why my office demanded communications

00:20:23between the DOJ, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James,

00:20:25Jack Smith, or Fannie Willis,

00:20:27related to the investigation or prosecution

00:20:29of former President Donald Trump.

00:20:31In order to protect the rights of all Missourians

00:20:33who plan to participate in the 2024 presidential election,

00:20:36the state of Missouri has the right to know

00:20:37what extent the prosecutions

00:20:39of prominent presidential candidates

00:20:40are being coordinated by the federal government,

00:20:42which is currently run

00:20:43by President Trump's primary political opponent.

00:20:45The credibility of our criminal justice system

00:20:47has been undermined and hangs in the balance.

00:20:51If we are to protect the rule of law,

00:20:53we must end the lawfare against President Trump.

00:20:57As a nation, we must affirmatively reject

00:20:59Soros-backed prosecutors who refuse to enforce the law

00:21:01and instead weaponize the criminal justice system

00:21:03to achieve political ends.

00:21:05As a nation, we must eliminate

00:21:06the Vera Institute's influence over the DOJ

00:21:09and our local prosecutors' offices.

00:21:11I want to thank the chairman and ranking member

00:21:14and distinguished members of the committee.

00:21:17Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

00:21:18Commissioner, you're recognized for five minutes.

00:21:19Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:21:20Chairman Jordan Ranking Member Nadler

00:21:22and distinguished members of the committee,

00:21:23it's an honor to appear before you today

00:21:25to discuss the critical issue of jurisdictional overreach

00:21:27in the prosecution of federal campaign finance law,

00:21:30specifically regarding the actions of Alvin Bragg,

00:21:32the district attorney for Manhattan,

00:21:34in his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

00:21:37No less critical, I want to highlight the inaction

00:21:39by the Department of Justice

00:21:41to defend federal jurisdiction in this case.

00:21:43The Federal Election Campaign Act serves as the bedrock

00:21:46for regulating money in our elections.

00:21:48It delineates the authorities responsible

00:21:49for enforcing these rules,

00:21:51vesting exclusive jurisdiction

00:21:53in the Federal Election Commission

00:21:54and the Department of Justice.

00:21:55The statutory framework is designed

00:21:57to ensure uniform application

00:21:59of campaign finance laws nationwide,

00:22:01preventing the creation

00:22:03of fragmented enforcement landscape

00:22:05and leveraging the expertise

00:22:06and resources of federal agencies.

00:22:09District Attorney Alvin Bragg's decision

00:22:10to pursue charges against former President Trump

00:22:13for alleged violations

00:22:14of federal campaign finance laws marks a significant deviation

00:22:18from this established legal framework.

00:22:20By doing so, Bragg has effectively usurped

00:22:22the jurisdiction that this Congress

00:22:24has explicitly reserved for federal authorities.

00:22:27This overreach sets a troubling precedent

00:22:30for the politicization of legal proceedings

00:22:32at the state level.

00:22:33The danger here lies

00:22:35in the disparate enforcement standards

00:22:36that torture well-established federal law processes.

00:22:40As an example, the state judge in New York

00:22:42misinterpreted federal criminal mental intent standards

00:22:45and gave the jury an instruction

00:22:47which read,

00:22:48willfully contributing campaign contributions,

00:22:51but the statutory mental intent

00:22:52found in the Federal Election Campaign Act

00:22:54is knowing and willful.

00:22:56Now, imagine 50 states

00:22:58enacting the crime of campaigning

00:23:00by unlawful means

00:23:02and a thousand different state

00:23:03and local prosecutors

00:23:04prosecuting presidents,

00:23:05former presidents,

00:23:06presidential candidates,

00:23:07and any number of House and Senate candidates

00:23:10under varying interpretations of FECA

00:23:12by bootstrapping those laws

00:23:14through their state's unlawful means criminal code.

00:23:17It is also disturbing in this case

00:23:19what hasn't happened

00:23:20over at the Department of Justice.

00:23:22Given the clear precedent

00:23:24established by the U.S. Supreme Court

00:23:25regarding the prohibition of state officers

00:23:28prosecuting federal crimes,

00:23:29it is perplexing

00:23:30that Attorney General Merrick Garland

00:23:32and the Department of Justice

00:23:34did not intervene

00:23:35in the prosecution of Donald Trump.

00:23:37The DOJ's election year sensitivity policy

00:23:39is designed to protect the public

00:23:41from being influenced

00:23:42by legal proceedings

00:23:43during an election year.

00:23:45Had the DOJ

00:23:46zealously represented the United States

00:23:48by intervening to protect

00:23:49its own jurisdiction

00:23:51and that of the FEC,

00:23:52this issue might not be

00:23:54the predominant one

00:23:54of the 2024 presidential cycle.

00:23:57A disclosure on May 31st

00:23:58in unredacted FEC documents

00:24:00reveals that the Department of Justice

00:24:02conducted a year-long investigation

00:24:04and found no criminal acts

00:24:05committed by former President Trump.

00:24:07This revelation underscores

00:24:09the problematic nature

00:24:10of Bragg's prosecution

00:24:11and his intrusion

00:24:12upon federal jurisdiction.

00:24:14Again, the implications

00:24:16for allowing local district attorneys

00:24:17to prosecute

00:24:18based on their interpretations

00:24:19of federal campaign finance law

00:24:21are profound.

00:24:22Such actions risk eroding

00:24:23the uniformity and predictability

00:24:25that FECA aims to provide.

00:24:28For me,

00:24:29a larger First Amendment concern

00:24:31is at play here.

00:24:32That is the deterrent

00:24:33that this encroachment

00:24:34on federal jurisdiction

00:24:35will have on well-qualified candidates

00:24:37from seeking public office.

00:24:39Fearing disparate legal standards

00:24:42based upon their locality,

00:24:43preserving the centralized

00:24:45enforcement mechanism

00:24:46envisioned in FECA

00:24:48is essential to a fair

00:24:49and impartial oversight

00:24:50of campaign finance regulations

00:24:52and of our elections.

00:24:54Alvin Bragg's misguided prosecution

00:24:56of former President Donald Trump

00:24:58represents a clear usurpation

00:25:00of federal jurisdiction

00:25:02coupled with the DOJ's inaction

00:25:04it's compounded the issue.

00:25:05The dangerous precedent

00:25:07of local prosecutorial overreach

00:25:08in matters of federal concern

00:25:10must be addressed

00:25:11to maintain the integrity

00:25:12of our electoral system.

00:25:14We must reaffirm

00:25:15the exclusive authority of the FEC

00:25:17and the Department of Justice

00:25:19to enforce federal campaign finance laws,

00:25:21ensuring consistent

00:25:23and impartial application

00:25:24across the United States.

00:25:26Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

00:25:27for the opportunity

00:25:27and I look forward to your questions.

00:25:28Thank you, Commissioner.

00:25:31Counselor, Ms. Foley, you're recognized.

00:25:34Chairman Jordan, ranking member Nadler,

00:25:37members of the committee,

00:25:38thank you so much

00:25:39for the opportunity to testify today.

00:25:42I'm going to focus my remarks

00:25:43on due process

00:25:44as constitutional lawyer

00:25:46and someone who practices in the field.

00:25:48Most of you went to law school,

00:25:50so you remember that due process

00:25:51is part of the Constitution

00:25:52that ensures that the processes

00:25:54employed to deprive someone

00:25:56of life, liberty or property

00:25:57are fundamentally fair.

00:25:59And of course, we all learned

00:26:00that there are twin pillars

00:26:01of due process.

00:26:02One is notice.

00:26:04And in the criminal context,

00:26:05that means notice

00:26:06of the specific charge

00:26:08that you face,

00:26:08as well as the issues

00:26:10that are raised therein.

00:26:12In other words,

00:26:12the elements of that crime.

00:26:14And number two,

00:26:15a meaningful opportunity

00:26:16to be heard on those charges.

00:26:18And unfortunately,

00:26:19Mr. Trump's New York trial

00:26:20violated both of these twin pillars

00:26:22of due process.

00:26:23And to explain why,

00:26:25I've, first of all,

00:26:26I've attached a flow chart

00:26:27to my written statement

00:26:28that might be helpful

00:26:29as I go along

00:26:31through my oral testimony.

00:26:33But I thought I'd also

00:26:34bring another visual

00:26:35of the Russian nesting dolls

00:26:37to give you some sense

00:26:38of the complexity

00:26:39of the theory of criminality

00:26:42with which Mr. Trump

00:26:43was faced in New York.

00:26:46This first doll represents

00:26:48the actual charges

00:26:49in the indictment

00:26:50against Mr. Trump.

00:26:51There were 34 charges

00:26:53of felony falsification

00:26:55of business records

00:26:56under New York law.

00:26:58And to make it

00:26:59a felony falsification,

00:27:00you have to meet

00:27:01all of the elements

00:27:02of misdemeanor falsification,

00:27:04which means you have to have

00:27:05a falsified business record

00:27:06with an intent to defraud.

00:27:08And then to make it a felony,

00:27:10you have an additional element

00:27:11that must be proven.

00:27:13That additional element

00:27:14is the intent

00:27:15to commit another crime.

00:27:17All right.

00:27:17So the next nesting doll

00:27:21is what is that other crime

00:27:22that Mr. Trump intended to commit?

00:27:26Well, Mr. Trump wasn't sure

00:27:28and neither were his attorneys.

00:27:29So he asked the New York prosecutor

00:27:30for what's called

00:27:31a bill of particulars saying,

00:27:32hey, please tell me

00:27:33what that other crime

00:27:34you think it was

00:27:34that I intended to commit.

00:27:36The prosecutor,

00:27:37interestingly, responded and said,

00:27:39you don't have a right to know.

00:27:41We don't have to tell you

00:27:42what that specific crime was.

00:27:43And oh, by the way,

00:27:44without limiting the people's theory

00:27:46at trial, that's a direct quote.

00:27:49In other words,

00:27:50without limiting our ability

00:27:51to change our minds

00:27:52during the trial,

00:27:54the other crimes that Mr. Trump

00:27:55may have intended to commit

00:27:57may include one of four things.

00:28:00First, New York election law.

00:28:03Second, New York tax law.

00:28:05Third, falsification

00:28:07of other business records,

00:28:08presumably other than the 34

00:28:10with which he was actually charged.

00:28:12And finally, the Federal Election

00:28:15Campaign Act, FECA, right?

00:28:17Now, if you hear me list

00:28:19those four possibilities

00:28:21the other crimes

00:28:22Mr. Trump intended to commit,

00:28:24you see that they're

00:28:24very different crimes, right?

00:28:27They range from state crimes

00:28:28to federal crimes,

00:28:30from misdemeanors to felonies.

00:28:32And within each of those crimes,

00:28:34there are different or statutes,

00:28:36there's different sort of ways

00:28:38to commit a crime.

00:28:39So for example,

00:28:40under New York tax law,

00:28:42tax fraud was one of the statutes

00:28:43cited by the New York prosecutor

00:28:45in his response

00:28:46to the Bill of Particulars request.

00:28:48That tax fraud can be committed

00:28:49in multiple different ways

00:28:51under that statute.

00:28:52There's different kinds of ways

00:28:53to engage in tax fraud.

00:28:55FECA, as you probably know,

00:28:57it's the Federal Election

00:28:58Campaign Act,

00:28:59is a federal law

00:29:01that's over 100 pages long.

00:29:03And if you read it,

00:29:04you see that there's

00:29:05lots of different crimes

00:29:06embedded in that one mega statute.

00:29:09So Mr. Trump didn't know for sure

00:29:12what was that other crime

00:29:14that the prosecutor

00:29:15thought he intended to commit.

00:29:17And in fact, the first time

00:29:19he learned what it was,

00:29:21was during the jury instructions.

00:29:24When Judge Juan Marchand

00:29:26told the jury

00:29:27that that other crime

00:29:29was New York election law.

00:29:32OK, that's far too late

00:29:34for due process purposes,

00:29:36purposes of notice, right?

00:29:37That's after all of the evidence

00:29:39has closed.

00:29:40All right.

00:29:41So then he picked out

00:29:43of those four that were mentioned

00:29:44by the prosecutor,

00:29:46New York election law.

00:29:48When you look at New York

00:29:49election law,

00:29:50you see even further

00:29:51that it embedded in it.

00:29:53There's another predicate.

00:29:55In order to violate

00:29:56New York election law,

00:29:57you have to basically interfere

00:29:58with an election by quote unquote

00:30:01unlawful means.

00:30:04You say, well, what is unlawful means?

00:30:05Unlawful means means that

00:30:06the way that you committed

00:30:08the violation of the New York

00:30:09election law was itself

00:30:11unlawful in some way.

00:30:12So there's a second

00:30:14predicate crime buried in there.

00:30:16Right.

00:30:17And then you say, well,

00:30:18how do I know what

00:30:18those unlawful means are?

00:30:21And Mr. Trump had no notice

00:30:23of what those unlawful means were

00:30:24because unlawful means was embedded

00:30:26in the New York election law,

00:30:28which he didn't even know

00:30:29was the first credit predicate

00:30:30for the basis of the felony

00:30:32falsification charge.

00:30:34And the first time Mr. Trump

00:30:35realized what the unlawful means

00:30:37could be for the basis

00:30:38of the New York election law

00:30:40was again during the jury

00:30:41instructions by Judge Mershon.

00:30:44And at that point,

00:30:45Judge Mershon instructed the jury.

00:30:47And I wish I had three of these,

00:30:48but I only have one.

00:30:51I got these in Russia, actually.

00:30:53And the three means

00:30:56that Judge Mershon pulled out

00:30:57of the sky, right,

00:30:59were number one, FECA,

00:31:01again, the federal election law.

00:31:03Number two, falsification

00:31:05of other business records,

00:31:07although he didn't specify which ones.

00:31:09And number three,

00:31:10and this is kind of fascinating,

00:31:11quote unquote, tax laws,

00:31:13which Judge Mershon's instruction

00:31:14said could include not only state law,

00:31:17but federal tax law

00:31:19and local tax law as well.

00:31:22Now, to make matters worse.

00:31:24You can finish up real quick.

00:31:25I apologize.

00:31:26We got to just pull it up.

00:31:27Yeah, you can finish up real quick.

00:31:28Sorry.

00:31:28To make matters worse,

00:31:30Judge Mershon instructed the jury

00:31:31that they need not be unanimous

00:31:33in picking out

00:31:34which one of these three means

00:31:36by which they could convict Trump.

00:31:38This is a travesty of justice.

00:31:39It's clearly a violation of due process.

00:31:42And if anyone would like to ask me

00:31:43about the Supreme Court's decision

00:31:45and shad on unanimity of means,

00:31:47I'd be glad to give further detail.

00:31:50Thank you.

00:31:52The gentleman, the ambassador

00:31:56is recognized for five minutes.

00:31:58Thank you, Chairman Jordan,

00:32:00Ranking Member Nadler

00:32:02and distinguished members

00:32:04of the committee.

00:32:06I appreciate you inviting me back today

00:32:10for this hearing.

00:32:11You may notice that I'm not turning

00:32:14my microphone on and off.

00:32:15Today is the Jewish holiday of Shavuot

00:32:18and we do not operate electronics

00:32:20on our holidays.

00:32:22I didn't think I would be able

00:32:24to come at all,

00:32:25but my rabbi gave me permission

00:32:27when I explained the significance

00:32:30of today's hearing.

00:32:32I was in court throughout the six-week

00:32:35plus Manhattan criminal trial

00:32:37of former President Donald Trump

00:32:38for interfering in the 2016 election

00:32:42and covering it up.

00:32:43I want to make three points today.

00:32:45First, a jury of Mr. Trump's peers

00:32:49in the city where he lived

00:32:51and worked most of his life

00:32:52found him guilty.

00:32:54I spent most of the trial watching them

00:32:57and unlike some in court who dozed,

00:33:00they paid extremely close attention

00:33:04throughout.

00:33:05The jurors got it right.

00:33:07Witness after witness,

00:33:09formerly inside Mr. Trump's orbit,

00:33:13supported both parts

00:33:15of the jury's conclusion.

00:33:16First, that Mr. Trump

00:33:18intended to influence the 2016 election

00:33:22by unlawful means,

00:33:24including in the form

00:33:25of a $130,000 payment

00:33:28to Stormy Daniels

00:33:29to benefit his campaign,

00:33:31over $127,000

00:33:34in excess of the legal limit.

00:33:37Second, that Mr. Trump covered it up

00:33:40through 34 false business records

00:33:43that disguised that repayment

00:33:46of that excessive contribution

00:33:48as a legal expense.

00:33:50The jury were not the only ones

00:33:52who got it right.

00:33:54So did the judge.

00:33:55I know this may astonish some

00:33:58who were fed a steady diet

00:34:00of disinformation about him,

00:34:02but Justice Juan Marchand

00:34:04bent over backwards

00:34:05to be fair to the defendant.

00:34:08Why should Mr. Trump

00:34:09have been allowed, for example,

00:34:10to act in contempt of court

00:34:14by violating the gag order

00:34:16no less than 10, 10 times

00:34:19before he was warned

00:34:21that the 11th violation

00:34:22would lead to more

00:34:23serious consequences?

00:34:25Justice Marchand was judicious

00:34:28on that and many other occasions,

00:34:30as I believe

00:34:31the appellate review

00:34:34will demonstrate.

00:34:36Second, the jury found

00:34:38Mr. Trump lied to voters

00:34:40and covered it up

00:34:40with phony documents.

00:34:42Does that sound familiar?

00:34:44It should because we saw

00:34:46this pattern repeat in 2020

00:34:49with the big lie

00:34:50that Mr. Trump won the election.

00:34:52The false documents in 2020

00:34:55were fake electoral certificates

00:34:57that were part of a scheme

00:34:58to overturn the legitimate outcome

00:35:01of the election in this body

00:35:04with tragic results

00:35:06on January 6th, 2021.

00:35:09And Mr. Trump is limbering up

00:35:11to try the big lie again.

00:35:14He will not commit

00:35:16to accepting the 2024 election results

00:35:19unless he wins.

00:35:22That brings me to my third

00:35:23and final point,

00:35:25where the real threat

00:35:27of the politicization

00:35:29of the justice system

00:35:30and the weaponization

00:35:32of government lies.

00:35:33The attacks on the trial

00:35:35and verdict

00:35:36by the former president

00:35:38and others

00:35:39are politicizing a crime,

00:35:41falsification of business records,

00:35:43that has been prosecuted

00:35:45about 10,000 times in New York

00:35:48since 2015.

00:35:50Mr. Trump should not be treated

00:35:51any differently,

00:35:53no better, no worse,

00:35:54than those other defendants

00:35:56who falsified documents.

00:35:58His politicization of the case

00:36:00has led to a staggering amount

00:36:02of confusion,

00:36:03such as that there was

00:36:05no underlying crime specified

00:36:07that made his document falsification

00:36:10a felony.

00:36:11Not so.

00:36:12I brought an exhibit also,

00:36:15the May 12, 2023 Bill of Particulars.

00:36:20That's the response

00:36:21to the Bill of Particulars

00:36:23that did specify the crime.

00:36:25And I have a pile

00:36:26of other documents here

00:36:28showing that that happened

00:36:29over and over again.

00:36:32As bad as all that is,

00:36:35the worst politicization

00:36:37is the call

00:36:38by Mr. Trump and others

00:36:39to baselessly prosecute

00:36:42his adversaries in retaliation

00:36:45for the verdict.

00:36:46Just last week,

00:36:47Mr. Trump pointed to his own prosecution

00:36:49and then said,

00:36:50it's very possible

00:36:52it's going to have to happen to them,

00:36:54to his political opponents.

00:36:56Those words are all the more chilling

00:36:58because they are not isolated

00:37:00to the issue of this trial.

00:37:02We should take them as a warning

00:37:03of what is to come

00:37:04should he return to office,

00:37:06starting with his promise

00:37:08to be a dictator on day one.

00:37:11That would be the real

00:37:13weaponization of government,

00:37:15not Mr. Trump's

00:37:16being held accountable

00:37:18by 12 of his fellow citizens.

00:37:21Thank you.

00:37:22The gentleman yields back.

00:37:24The gentleman from Florida

00:37:24is recognized for five minutes.

00:37:27We are here at the hearing

00:37:29on the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

00:37:32And the essential ingredient

00:37:34we seem to be missing is

00:37:36the Manhattan District Attorney.

00:37:38Which I guess Mr. Roy

00:37:40would be a lot like

00:37:41going to the Salt Lick Barbecue

00:37:42and not getting the moist brisket.

00:37:45To Mr. Jordan's credit,

00:37:47great credit,

00:37:47he sent a letter to Mr. Bragg

00:37:49on May 31st,

00:37:50inviting him to come participate.

00:37:52And we got sort of a nasty gram

00:37:54back from Mr. Bragg on June 7th.

00:37:57Mr. Chairman,

00:37:58I seek unanimous consent

00:37:59to enter into the record

00:37:59the June 7th response from A.G. Bragg.

00:38:02It's an objection.

00:38:03And I'm sorry, D.A. Bragg.

00:38:04And in this letter,

00:38:06I'm going to quote from it,

00:38:08Ms. Foley.

00:38:10Bragg says,

00:38:10this office is committed

00:38:12to voluntary cooperation.

00:38:14Do you believe that?

00:38:16No.

00:38:17The letter continues,

00:38:18that cooperation includes

00:38:20making the district attorney available

00:38:21to provide testimony

00:38:22on behalf of the office

00:38:24at an agreed upon date.

00:38:25Do you believe that?

00:38:26I'll believe it when I see it.

00:38:28It goes on to say

00:38:29that they're evaluating the propriety

00:38:31of allowing an assistant district attorney

00:38:33to testify publicly about the matter.

00:38:36Now, that assistant district attorney

00:38:38is the one who downstreamed from DOJ, right?

00:38:40So you think they're going to provide

00:38:42Mr. Colangelo here

00:38:44to answer our questions?

00:38:45I would not expect Mr. Colangelo to show up.

00:38:47And do you base that opinion

00:38:49on the lawsuit that Alvin Bragg

00:38:52filed against Jim Jordan

00:38:54in his official capacity

00:38:55in the Committee on the Judiciary?

00:38:58I saw some of that, yeah.

00:38:59I mean, look,

00:39:00you have a legitimate legislative purpose

00:39:02to be inquiring as to what you're doing.

00:39:04So they have no leg to stand on.

00:39:06But they're not going to come

00:39:08because we ask.

00:39:09And they're not going to come

00:39:10because they say so.

00:39:13And we learned that

00:39:14by observing our dear friends

00:39:15at the Oversight Committee,

00:39:17because this will surprise

00:39:18a lot of Americans.

00:39:19After hearing the enthusiasm

00:39:22around oversight

00:39:23of the Biden crime family,

00:39:26we never sent a subpoena

00:39:30to Hunter Biden

00:39:31to give live testimony before Congress.

00:39:34Let that sink in.

00:39:36The Republican House majority

00:39:38has never subpoenaed Hunter Biden

00:39:41for live testimony in public.

00:39:43We've never done it.

00:39:45And I worry that, you know,

00:39:46we're going about

00:39:47the same kind of process here.

00:39:49And we may end up there in July,

00:39:52right after sentencing,

00:39:54with an empty Alvin Bragg nameplate

00:39:57and an empty Matthew Colangelo nameplate.

00:39:59And then we'll start the process again

00:40:01on letters and subpoenas

00:40:02and accommodation.

00:40:04And I've just grown tired of it.

00:40:06And I think you're right, Ms. Foley,

00:40:08that this is all professional wrestling.

00:40:12There's no real effort

00:40:14to bring these people to bear.

00:40:17So will the gentleman yield?

00:40:19One second, I got a motion.

00:40:21Mr. Chairman, I move

00:40:22under Committee Rule 4 and Clause 2M

00:40:24of House Rule 11

00:40:25to require the attendance

00:40:27and testimony of Alvin Bragg

00:40:28and Matthew Colangelo

00:40:30on July 12th

00:40:31to discuss their involvement

00:40:32in the Trump prosecution,

00:40:33including their office's coordination

00:40:35with the Department of Justice.

00:40:36Mr. Chairman.

00:40:37Mr. Chairman.

00:40:39Gentlemen, ranking members recognize.

00:40:42It's a little absurd

00:40:44because Mr. Bragg

00:40:46and Mr. Colangelo

00:40:48have already agreed to appear

00:40:50before the committee on July 12th.

00:40:52We have a letter to that effect.

00:40:53So there's no point requiring them

00:40:55to do what they've already said

00:40:56they're going to do.

00:40:57The committee asked them

00:41:00to appear.

00:41:01They asked to appear today.

00:41:03They made the point that they did,

00:41:05or Mr. Bragg, I should say,

00:41:06made the point that he didn't think

00:41:08he should appear

00:41:09before the sentencing on July 11th,

00:41:11but he'd be available thereafter.

00:41:13And he's agreed to come on July 12th.

00:41:15Mr. Chairman, this debate's out of order.

00:41:17You made a motion.

00:41:18It's not out of order.

00:41:19You have to seek recognition

00:41:21pursuant to debate on the motion.

00:41:22You can't just inject.

00:41:24I'm still on my time.

00:41:25I'm still controlling

00:41:26two additional minutes of time.

00:41:27You'll get your time, man.

00:41:29I have a letter here.

00:41:31No, my point is simple.

00:41:35The committee requested them to appear.

00:41:37Mr. Bragg and Mr. Colangelo,

00:41:38they've agreed to appear.

00:41:40They plan to appear on July 12th.

00:41:44I don't know what this debate is about.

00:41:45I yield back.

00:41:48Oh, and I'd like unanimous consent.

00:41:53Mr. Chairman.

00:41:56I ask unanimous consent

00:41:59to introduce into the record

00:42:01a report from Fox News headlined...

00:42:04It's not objective.

00:42:05Object pending consideration.

00:42:07I want to deal with Mr. Gates' motion,

00:42:12then we'll take your unanimous consent.

00:42:14Mr. Bragg and Mr. Colangelo

00:42:15have agreed to come on the 12th.

00:42:19If they don't show up on the 12th,

00:42:20they will be subpoenaed.

00:42:22So I would ask the gentleman

00:42:23if he could withdraw the motion.

00:42:26They're coming.

00:42:28We worked hard over the weekend

00:42:30to make sure they're coming.

00:42:31And if they change their mind,

00:42:33they will get a subpoena from the committee

00:42:36requiring them, compelling them to be here.

00:42:37And then if they choose to go to court on that,

00:42:40I think we'll beat them in court

00:42:41like we did the first time

00:42:42when we got Mr. Pomerantz to come testify

00:42:45in front of the...

00:42:48Time then becomes determinative.

00:42:50The problem is,

00:42:51if we're going to bring these people in,

00:42:52let's go...

00:42:53I've made a motion to subpoena these people now.

00:42:56Pursuant to the rules.

00:42:57And I want to vote on my motion.

00:42:59Or I want someone to move to table it.

00:43:01You made the motion to subpoena them for the 12th?

00:43:04I made...

00:43:05I moved under Committee Rule 4,

00:43:07Clause 2M of House Rule 11...

00:43:10I moved the table.

00:43:12I moved to table the...

00:43:13That's fine.

00:43:13I second that.

00:43:16That's not debatable.

00:43:22Gentlemen's made a motion.

00:43:23The motion to table is not debatable.

00:43:25Those in favor of...

00:44:55Committee will stand in recess.

00:45:00In order, the gentleman from Florida

00:45:02has two minutes remaining

00:45:03on his five minutes of questions.

00:45:04Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my motion

00:45:07based on the representations,

00:45:09not only that you've made,

00:45:10but that the ranking member has made

00:45:12in our colloquy previously

00:45:13that Mr. Bragg and Mr. Colangelo will be here

00:45:16and willing to answer our questions.

00:45:18Ms. Foley, I wanted to come back to you.

00:45:20You've made mention of this theory of unanimity.

00:45:23And I wanted to give you a chance

00:45:24to talk about that case law a little bit

00:45:26that you were referencing.

00:45:26Oh, yeah.

00:45:27Thanks.

00:45:27In fact, Professor Eisen and I

00:45:29were just sort of debating that case,

00:45:31Shad, from 1991.

00:45:33So, Shad is a case where Arizona

00:45:36had this first-degree murder statute.

00:45:39And in order to commit first-degree murder

00:45:42under that statute,

00:45:43you could either have premeditated murder

00:45:44or you could have felony murder.

00:45:46And the question was whether or not...

00:45:50The jury had to be unanimous

00:45:52in its conviction under first-degree murder,

00:45:54whether they had to make a specific finding

00:45:56that it was premeditated

00:45:57or they had to make a specific finding

00:45:59that it was felony murder.

00:46:00And that case is very split.

00:46:02There's like a 4-1-4 split

00:46:04amongst the nine justices in Shad.

00:46:06The main plurality written by Justice Souter says,

00:46:09well, in a case like that,

00:46:11that statute, the Arizona legislature

00:46:14looked at the crime as first-degree murder

00:46:17and said that if you committed

00:46:19either by premeditation

00:46:20or during the commission of a felony,

00:46:23you sort of have equal sort of moral culpability

00:46:26to warrant the first-degree thing.

00:46:29And so the jury doesn't have to be unanimous

00:46:31as to whether it's one or the other, all right?

00:46:35But along the way, at the end of that,

00:46:36they said, oh, a point of caution,

00:46:39that if the means by which a crime could be committed

00:46:42are sort of too capacious,

00:46:44there might be due process problems.

00:46:46And then you have a Scalia concurrence

00:46:48that reiterates that concern and says,

00:46:51if you have sort of an umbrella crime,

00:46:53it would violate due process.

00:46:54And then you get four other justices in dissent

00:46:56who are even taking a tighter position

00:46:58to saying if it's an element of the crime,

00:46:59it must be unanimous.

00:47:00It almost seems like it's,

00:47:02I get the Russian nesting dolls,

00:47:03but it's almost like a Mr. Potato Head doll

00:47:05where you're sticking the wrong parts on

00:47:07and ending up with quite an odd-looking legal feature.

00:47:10Well, yeah.

00:47:10And the thing about New York's election law

00:47:13is it can be violated by any unlawful means,

00:47:16quote-unquote.

00:47:17That's the language of the statute.

00:47:19Now, any unlawful means means any unlawful means.

00:47:21It can mean a local crime,

00:47:23it could be a state crime,

00:47:24it could be a federal crime,

00:47:25as opposed to the Arizona statute,

00:47:26which was upheld,

00:47:28only gave you two choices.

00:47:29It was either premeditated murder

00:47:31or it was murder on the commission of a felony.

00:47:33That's much tighter.

00:47:34I see our time has expired,

00:47:35but it sounds like a real constitutional due process issue

00:47:39as applied in this prosecution.

00:47:40I yield back.

00:47:41Correct.

00:47:41Gentleman yields back.

00:47:42Gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes.

00:47:45Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman.

00:47:48Ambassador Eisen,

00:47:49I want to talk about some of the disinformation

00:47:51that's been spread about the trial in New York.

00:47:54Republicans have attacked Judge Mishan as biased

00:47:57and have suggested that he continually ruled against Trump.

00:48:00What is your response to that allegation?

00:48:03Mr. Chairman, I was present throughout the trial

00:48:08and I thought that the conduct of the judge

00:48:15was the exact opposite of bias.

00:48:20He was scrupulously fair.

00:48:24He upheld dozens and dozens of the objections

00:48:30that were articulated by the defense.

00:48:34At times, for example,

00:48:35during the testimony of Stormy Daniels,

00:48:37when the defense did not object,

00:48:40he objected for them,

00:48:42sua sponte,

00:48:43to limit the testimony.

00:48:45I would not have allowed Donald Trump

00:48:50to violate the gag order 10 times,

00:48:54as you heard in my opening testimony,

00:48:57before threatening him

00:48:58that the 11th would require more dire consequences.

00:49:03One of the biggest fights,

00:49:06Commissioner Treanor referenced this,

00:49:08was over willfulness.

00:49:10The judge actually adopted the instruction

00:49:14that was proposed by the defendant and his counsel.

00:49:19I could give you many, many other examples.

00:49:22I thought it was one of the outstanding jobs of judging

00:49:26that I have seen in my over three decades in court.

00:49:31Now, Ambassador, Republicans have alleged

00:49:34that it would be impossible for Donald Trump

00:49:37to get a fair trial in New York.

00:49:38Is there any shred of validity to this?

00:49:42I watched that jury, Mr. Nadler,

00:49:46and they paid close attention.

00:49:49Many of them took notes throughout.

00:49:53They included those who said

00:49:55they followed Mr. Trump's statements on truth social.

00:50:02Truth social.

00:50:05The notion that a jury of Manhattanites,

00:50:10where Mr. Trump chose to live and work,

00:50:13where the offenses were committed,

00:50:17cannot sit is really wrong.

00:50:20And I think it's not fair to these 12 ordinary Americans

00:50:25who performed their duty in our rule of law system.

00:50:29And Republicans have also alleged

00:50:31that Donald Trump would never have been charged

00:50:33with felony falsification of records

00:50:35of his name or anything other than Trump.

00:50:37In fact, this is a common charge in New York.

00:50:39The Manhattan DA's office has pursued these cases

00:50:42120 times since Bragg took office.

00:50:44Isn't that correct?

00:50:46That's right, Mr. Bragg has.

00:50:48Is there any evidence at all

00:50:50that Donald Trump is being politically

00:50:52and unfairly targeted?

00:50:55Since we're doing exhibits, I think.

00:50:57Professor Foley, a trial lawyer.

00:50:59I love exhibits.

00:51:01For my book, I may even borrow her nesting dolls

00:51:05at some point if the chairman will permit.

00:51:08For my book, Trying Trump,

00:51:10I surveyed almost 10,000 New York falsification

00:51:15of business records cases.

00:51:17This is a crime that is regularly charged.

00:51:20If you do the FBR in New York, you do the time.

00:51:25So there is nothing unusual here

00:51:27about charging false documents.

00:51:30Thank you.

00:51:30MAGA Republicans' attacks on Alvin Bragg

00:51:32should not come as a surprise.

00:51:34It's a clear pattern.

00:51:36Just look at how Republicans have viciously

00:51:37and baselessly attacked Special Counsel Jack Smith,

00:51:41who was overseeing the two federal prosecutions

00:51:43against Trump and conducted the investigations

00:51:45into Trump's criminal behavior.

00:51:47They have desperately tried to discredit Smith

00:51:50to lessen the effects that the indictments

00:51:51have had on his reelection bid,

00:51:54despite the mounds of evidence against him.

00:51:57The former president has called Smith a lowlife

00:51:59who is nasty, rude, and condescending,

00:52:01a Trump-hating prosecutor, a disgrace to America,

00:52:04and a very vulgar profanity that I won't repeat here.

00:52:07He even brought Mr. Smith's family into the attacks,

00:52:10saying, quote,

00:52:11Smith's wife and family despise him much more than he does,

00:52:14and called Mr. Smith's team thug prosecutors.

00:52:17These attacks on Smith clearly mirror the attack on Bragg.

00:52:20Why are Republicans going to such lengths

00:52:22to attack these prosecutors?

00:52:24And what are the benefits of delegitimizing them?

00:52:28Because Mr. Trump is guilty

00:52:32of interfering in the 2016 election

00:52:36and covering it up with 34 false documents,

00:52:40and because the American people understand

00:52:46that that is a disqualification

00:52:47for a public figure in our country,

00:52:49and because that pattern was exemplified again in 2020

00:52:54is a threat for 2024.

00:52:56And these attacks on prosecutors,

00:52:59juries, judges are of a piece

00:53:03with Donald Trump's promise to be a dictator on day one.

00:53:08That is why they're pushing back.

00:53:09Gentlemen, the gentleman yields back.

00:53:12The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.

00:53:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:53:15So I'll ask you, Mr. Bailey,

00:53:18do you know why Alvin Bragg originally declined

00:53:20to move forward with the prosecution of Donald Trump?

00:53:24I believe the reasonable inference to draw

00:53:26is that the charges aren't supported

00:53:27by the laws or the facts.

00:53:29So let's talk about a guy named Mark Pomerantz.

00:53:33So Mark Pomerantz and his colleague,

00:53:38Mr. Dunn, resigned from the office

00:53:41because they felt that Mr. Bragg

00:53:43was not going to go forward with the case.

00:53:47And so he issued a statement.

00:53:48But in analysis, if you start looking at what Mr. Pomerantz said,

00:53:53he said,

00:53:54many members of the team did not think

00:53:55that they could prove Trump committed crimes.

00:53:58Many did not think the New York state criminal charges

00:54:00advanced by Pomerantz applied to Trump's conduct.

00:54:05In his book, he writes,

00:54:06many of the lawyers were relentlessly negative.

00:54:08There were references to our case as weak.

00:54:11One lawyer opined that it had many fatal flaws.

00:54:14Another expressed a view that the case may be way out there.

00:54:17It's not the strongest case in the world.

00:54:20And if you go on,

00:54:23there were defectors from the Trump investigation.

00:54:26All of this is taking place from December of 2021

00:54:31all the way through February of 2022.

00:54:34Now, why is that important?

00:54:36Because I want to get to this, Professor Foley,

00:54:40because there's a timeline issue.

00:54:42And you're talking about due process.

00:54:43And so due process is,

00:54:45you've mentioned two pillars,

00:54:46but I'm going to suggest

00:54:47that if you have an infirm prosecution

00:54:51and they're looking to find a way to prosecute

00:54:55because it's a person as opposed to the case.

00:54:57So here's the timeline,

00:54:58which may seem coincidental,

00:55:00but this is exactly what happened.

00:55:02November 7th, 2022, Trump teases.

00:55:04He says, I have a big announcement coming up.

00:55:07September 9th, 2022,

00:55:11at a press conference,

00:55:12Joe Biden says,

00:55:14we just have to demonstrate

00:55:15that he will not take power if he does run,

00:55:19making sure he,

00:55:21under legitimate efforts of our constitution,

00:55:23does not become the next president.

00:55:26On November 15th, Trump announces his run.

00:55:28Now here's where it gets interesting.

00:55:30On November 18th,

00:55:32Matthew Colangelo, number three in the DOJ, resigns.

00:55:36He gives a two-week notice in a letter

00:55:39and he's going to end up quitting his job at DOJ

00:55:43December 2nd.

00:55:44He's going to work for Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office

00:55:47beginning December 5th.

00:55:49And nobody can tell us from DOJ or Alvin Bragg

00:55:53how they even, nobody seems to know.

00:55:55He just apparently,

00:55:57Colangelo just shows up in the office one day.

00:56:01Point two on that same date,

00:56:03November 18th, Mary Garland appoints Jack Smith

00:56:06on two cases against Trump.

00:56:09One in Florida and one in Washington, D.C.

00:56:11Number three, same day, November 18th,

00:56:14Fannie Willis' paramour, Nathan Wade,

00:56:17spends eight hours in meetings with White House lawyers.

00:56:22And it wasn't too long after that

00:56:24that indictments start falling into place.

00:56:27And we could go through those.

00:56:28I wanted to ask you, Ms. Foley,

00:56:34if a prosecutorial agency is actually searching for crimes

00:56:41because of an individual, and they've stated it,

00:56:44don't forget Mr. Bragg,

00:56:45and I'm leaving out all of his campaign promises

00:56:49to get Trump.

00:56:50Couldn't name any kind of thing that he had done wrong,

00:56:52but he's going to get Trump.

00:56:54Is that antithetical to the very notion of due process

00:56:57in and of itself?

00:56:59Yeah, you ask a really interesting question.

00:57:01Yes, the short answer is yes.

00:57:04There is a line of Supreme Court jurisprudence

00:57:06beginning with a case called

00:57:07Rochin versus California in the 1960s,

00:57:10which establishes what's called

00:57:11the shocks the conscience test

00:57:13for violation of due process.

00:57:14You may remember that from law school.

00:57:15It's where your stomach got pumped forcibly against his will.

00:57:18But since Rochin was decided,

00:57:20there've been other Supreme Court cases.

00:57:21There's one called Ex Rel Vuitton.

00:57:23There's one called Caperton involving judges.

00:57:26And this line of jurisprudence under due process says

00:57:29that if you can establish that there was bias

00:57:35by a prosecutor, an investigator, or a judge

00:57:38that shocks the conscience,

00:57:39it's a due process violation as well.

00:57:41Right, so when we start looking at this

00:57:45and you realize that there was no theory of the case

00:57:51that seemed to work,

00:57:52I mean, that's from Mr. Pomerantz's testimony.

00:57:54They couldn't come up with a case.

00:57:57You have prosecutors saying,

00:57:59we just can't come, we can't find anything here.

00:58:01And then all of a sudden you get jury instructions

00:58:03like you have here.

00:58:04How antithetical to that is to due process?

00:58:08I think when you piece all those pieces of evidence together,

00:58:11they paint a pretty compelling picture of bias.

00:58:14And whether or not it would shock

00:58:18the left side of the aisle's conscience, I don't know.

00:58:20But it certainly would shock mine.

00:58:21I'm trying to be pretty objective about this.

00:58:24And it's a high bar to shock someone's conscience.

00:58:28But basically the idea is,

00:58:32if you're doing the Attorney General,

00:58:35Justice Jackson maneuver of picking the man

00:58:39and pinning some crime on him,

00:58:41then yes, I would hope that would shock your conscience.

00:58:43Thank you. Yield back.

00:58:44Gentleman yields back.

00:58:45Gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.

00:58:47Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:58:49This committee has engaged in many off-the-wall,

00:58:53pointless, politically-driven hearings,

00:58:55this Congress seems to be the mode.

00:58:59We are in the basic format of trying to do everything we can

00:59:02to defend one of the most lawless people

00:59:04in this nation's history, Donald Trump,

00:59:07who has been found civilly liable numerous times in New York

00:59:11for tax fraud, for rape, for defamation,

00:59:18and for violating the New York state tax laws.

00:59:22And now 34 times for a felony and a criminal action

00:59:28for interfering in business records

00:59:30and interfering in the election of 2016.

00:59:33Now, of course, he's got other federal cases coming in Florida

00:59:38where he has his friend, Judge Eileen Connor Cooper,

00:59:44whatever her name is.

00:59:45Cannon.

00:59:46And he's got New Georgia,

00:59:50and he's got Jack Smith on overthrowing the government

00:59:57on January 6th.

01:00:00But this committee concentrates on defending him

01:00:03and bringing up his case.

01:00:04We've got crime going on in the country.

01:00:06We've got immigration problems in the country,

01:00:08problems at the border.

01:00:10But nothing's more important than defending

01:00:11the number one person, criminal, civil defendant,

01:00:16and criminal defendant in this country

01:00:18in the history that I can remember over the years.

01:00:21Nobody has been in court so many times

01:00:22and had so many losses.

01:00:25Yet we defend them here.

01:00:27This is an attack on the rule of law

01:00:29and on democracy,

01:00:30and it's very, very unfortunate.

01:00:32These are political purposes

01:00:34that this committee has publicly, aggressively,

01:00:36and despicably tried to intervene

01:00:38in a criminal proceeding.

01:00:40We are a nation of laws,

01:00:41and those laws are enforced through the judicial system.

01:00:44The federal government has specific duties

01:00:46and state governments have specific duties.

01:00:48Both are equally bound to satisfy the principles

01:00:52of due process and equal justice under the law.

01:00:54But this isn't what we're looking at here.

01:00:56We're looking at what the GOP has done

01:00:58to try to run this committee

01:00:59as a Trump legal defense team.

01:01:01They've just met with Mr. Trump

01:01:03over in the Capitol Hill Club,

01:01:04and I'm sure he did a Harvey Kornman impression

01:01:06of you go do that voodoo that you do so well

01:01:10when he sent the Klansmen and the Hells Angels

01:01:13and all the other despicable characters

01:01:15round up together to go into Rockbridge.

01:01:19They're here doing that voodoo that they do so well.

01:01:22And they're losing,

01:01:23as Trump and his lawyers lost in Manhattan.

01:01:2934 times a felon.

01:01:32And they tried to say this is about you,

01:01:35not about Trump.

01:01:36Well, it's malarkey.

01:01:40Ambassador Eisen, as a general rule,

01:01:42judges interpret the law and juries are finders of fact.

01:01:45Can you please tell us what that means

01:01:47and explain it to the people here

01:01:48who might not have an understanding of that theories

01:01:51and what happened in New York?

01:01:53The principle that judges interpret the law

01:02:00and juries find the facts

01:02:02is a foundational one in our American rule of law,

01:02:06Anglo-American rule of law system.

01:02:08The reason we ask judges to interpret the law

01:02:11is because they have the expertise

01:02:14in what the law means.

01:02:16The reason we ask juries to determine the facts

01:02:19is because in the American justice system

01:02:26and in its role as a foundation of our democracy,

01:02:30we trust the fate of a criminal defendant

01:02:36ultimately to their fellow Americans.

01:02:40That is exactly what happened here.

01:02:42One of the many canards that we've heard, Mr. Cohen,

01:02:47is that one of Trump's witnesses,

01:02:50former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith,

01:02:52who I've known since we were in law school together,

01:02:54I edited his note,

01:02:56was prevented from testifying.

01:03:00No, he was welcome to testify.

01:03:02He was free to testify.

01:03:04The only limitation was he was not allowed

01:03:06to instruct the jury on the law

01:03:08because that is the job of the judge.

01:03:12And you saw Judge Murkhan preside over this case?

01:03:16Every day.

01:03:17What kind of job did he,

01:03:19what you saw and what you have heard from others,

01:03:23did he perform?

01:03:24I thought that everyone in the case,

01:03:29including Donald Trump's own defense lawyers,

01:03:32who I praised,

01:03:32I wrote a daily trial diary, published,

01:03:35and I dedicated one to singing their praises,

01:03:38myself as a...

01:03:40Murkhan was highly rated.

01:03:41Mostly.

01:03:42Murshan was one of the great judges that I've seen.

01:03:47Thank you, thank you.

01:03:48I've got to...

01:03:49Ms. Foley, one question.

01:03:51Is Trump in one of those nesting dolls underneath Putin?

01:03:55Where?

01:03:57That's the ones I've seen.

01:03:58I yield back the balance of my time.

01:04:00Gentleman yields back.

01:04:01Mr. Chairman, I have some UC...

01:04:03Gentleman has a unanimous consent request.

01:04:05Thank you.

01:04:06Article from CNN,

01:04:07former President Donald Trump announces White House bid for 2024.

01:04:11Article from The Hill,

01:04:12Biden suggests Trump will not take power again if he runs in 2024.

01:04:16New York Times article from December 5th, 2022,

01:04:19Manhattan DA hires ex-justice official to help lead Trump inquiry.

01:04:23February 7th, 2023,

01:04:25Pomerantz versus Pomerantz,

01:04:26an annotation of his leaked resignation letter

01:04:28in Manhattan DA Trump investigation.

01:04:32These from Business Insider,

01:04:33Donald Trump again teases 2024 presidential bid,

01:04:35saying he'll make a big announcement on November 15th,

01:04:37same day Mike Pence's memoir is scheduled to be published.

01:04:41February 23rd from The New York Times,

01:04:43two prosecutors leading New York Trump inquiry

01:04:45resign clouding case's future.

01:04:48May 6th, 2021,

01:04:49FEC drops case reviewing Trump hush money.

01:04:52From Washington Examiner,

01:04:53for Prosecutor Bragg,

01:04:54Trump indictment is campaign promise kept.

01:04:57And Biden's number three man at DOJ

01:05:01resigned to join Alvin Bragg's Get Trump team on November 18th, 2022.

01:05:04Without objection.

01:05:05Thank you.

01:05:06Gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.

01:05:08Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:05:09Of course, the leftist lawfare didn't start here.

01:05:12I think it started when the Democrats used the IRS

01:05:15to target Tea Party volunteers for harassment and intimidation

01:05:19in advance of the 2012 presidential election.

01:05:22In the 2016 presidential election,

01:05:24the FBI, the DOJ,

01:05:26and our intelligence agencies used their power

01:05:30to legitimize the lie that had been concocted

01:05:33by the Hillary Clinton campaign

01:05:35that Trump was colluding with the Russians.

01:05:37Despite knowing this was a lie,

01:05:39these agencies used their powers to legitimize it,

01:05:42to authorize spying on the Trump campaign

01:05:44and to terrorize its supporters.

01:05:47And when this failed,

01:05:47they continued to pursue it

01:05:49to undermine the Trump administration,

01:05:51question the legitimacy of the election,

01:05:54and shook this country apart for more than two years

01:05:57before the lie was finally fully exposed to the public,

01:05:59thanks to the inspector general's reports.

01:06:02Then we have the 2020 presidential election.

01:06:04100 Biden laptop contained emails

01:06:07that clearly documented

01:06:08long-standing influence-peddling scheme

01:06:11involving the Biden family,

01:06:12in which millions of dollars were paid.

01:06:15Yet 52 high-ranking intelligence agency officials

01:06:18signed a letter circulated by the Biden campaign

01:06:21calling it Russian disinformation.

01:06:24And although the DOJ had that computer in its possession

01:06:27and knew it was authentic,

01:06:29they suggested otherwise

01:06:30and then used their power

01:06:32to pressure social media companies

01:06:34to censor and suppress that story.

01:06:36Pollsters have reported that action alone

01:06:38could have decisively influenced the 2020 election.

01:06:42And now we have this.

01:06:44And I'm sorry to inform the ranking member,

01:06:46but Jack Smith was one of the principal figures

01:06:48in the IRS scandal.

01:06:50He had a history of prosecutorial misconduct

01:06:53culminating with unanimous reversal

01:06:54by the U.S. Supreme Court.

01:06:57Yet he was the one appointed by the Biden administration

01:07:00to try to put their chief political opponent in jail.

01:07:04Biden's attorney general personally approved a raid

01:07:07on a former president's home

01:07:08despite strenuous opposition

01:07:11by career DOJ officials

01:07:13and by the local field office

01:07:14that would normally have had jurisdiction.

01:07:17Alvin Bragg, who campaigned by boasting

01:07:20he'd prosecute Donald Trump,

01:07:21was joined by the number three official

01:07:23in the Biden Justice Department.

01:07:25Nathan Wade, named prosecutor by his paramour,

01:07:29Atlanta DA,

01:07:31spent eight hours

01:07:33consulting with the White House counsel

01:07:35at the White House

01:07:37before filing these felony charges,

01:07:39not to mention the multiple failed attempts

01:07:41by Democrats to throw Trump off the ballot.

01:07:44This administration, its Confederates,

01:07:46have broken every political norm,

01:07:47every civil tradition,

01:07:49every due process protection

01:07:51that shielded Americans from the convulsions

01:07:54suffered by banana republics.

01:07:56And we can now clearly see

01:07:57the full power of leftist lawfare.

01:08:00We always thought this couldn't happen here,

01:08:02but it has.

01:08:03And my question is,

01:08:05what can be done by Congress,

01:08:07first of all, to close this Pandora's box

01:08:11and assure that it is never opened again?

01:08:12Mr. Bailey?

01:08:15I think this body has a duty

01:08:16to erect a wall of separation

01:08:18between tech and state

01:08:20to prevent government censorship

01:08:21of conservative voices

01:08:22on big tech social media platforms.

01:08:24As you pointed out,

01:08:25the deep state has actively

01:08:27suppressed information

01:08:28that interfered with the 2020 election.

01:08:31I think that that will continue to happen

01:08:33as we move into 2024.

01:08:34And I think the distinguished member

01:08:35is absolutely right

01:08:36that we've got to stop looking at lawfare

01:08:38in terms of trees

01:08:39and start seeing the forest for what it is.

01:08:41It's censorship.

01:08:42It's civil suits.

01:08:43It's President Trump

01:08:44being unconstitutionally stricken

01:08:45from the ballot in states.

01:08:47It's now criminal charges.

01:08:49It's the turning of the most terrifying powers

01:08:52that government possesses

01:08:53against its own citizens

01:08:55to influence elections.

01:08:56And this has been going on now

01:08:57through several cycles,

01:08:58and now it's getting to a whole new level.

01:09:02Mr. Treanor?

01:09:04Thank you for the question.

01:09:06I think it really comes down to the fact

01:09:07that we have to get away

01:09:08from allowing government to be the weapon

01:09:10to interfere in political participation.

01:09:13How do we do that?

01:09:13I had the opportunity last year

01:09:16to testify before

01:09:17the House Administration Committee

01:09:18on this very issue

01:09:19of how complaints are filed

01:09:21with the Federal Election Commission

01:09:22and used to do nothing

01:09:23but go investigate political opponents

01:09:26under the guise of the federal government

01:09:27conducting that illegitimate investigation,

01:09:30and they ultimately turn out

01:09:31to be nothing at all.

01:09:32In fact, the most infamous one

01:09:34that I talked about

01:09:34was a gentleman who spent $348

01:09:40on a Facebook page.

01:09:41The allegation against him

01:09:42was that he had spent $23,000

01:09:44on a Facebook page,

01:09:46and he spent three and a half years

01:09:47being investigated.

01:09:48Right, and word gets out to anybody else,

01:09:50don't even go near the political process

01:09:52because you will expose yourself

01:09:54to this kind of liability.

01:09:55I know Tea Party volunteers

01:09:57absolutely today

01:09:58won't go near politics

01:09:59for fear of invoking

01:10:00the harassment of the IRS.

01:10:03What really frightens me

01:10:04is what happens to our country

01:10:06when Trump,

01:10:07if Trump narrowly loses the election

01:10:09and the case is then overturned

01:10:12and repudiated

01:10:13and exposed by the higher courts,

01:10:17that could tear our country apart.

01:10:18Ms. Foley, final word.

01:10:21Well, I mean,

01:10:22I think there are a few things

01:10:23that at a minimum should be done.

01:10:24One is to defund

01:10:26the district attorneys

01:10:28and actors who engage

01:10:29in these nefarious acts.

01:10:32Two, I think the Congress

01:10:34needs to use its oversight authority.

01:10:36It has clear oversight authority

01:10:38on the Civil Rights Act

01:10:39to make sure that law is not weaponized

01:10:43to prevent people

01:10:44from exercising

01:10:45their First Amendment freedoms

01:10:47and other constitutional rights.

01:10:50And I think that's really a pattern

01:10:51that's going on today.

01:10:52I think there's mass intimidation

01:10:54through lawfare and other means

01:10:55to intimidate,

01:10:57especially those on the right,

01:10:58from speaking their mind,

01:11:00from gathering,

01:11:00from assembling,

01:11:02from protesting.

01:11:04And I think also,

01:11:06to a certain extent,

01:11:07we're late to the game

01:11:09as conservatives and Republicans,

01:11:11but we have to start engaging

01:11:12in lawfare of our own.

01:11:13I think there's various ways,

01:11:15for example,

01:11:15that Mr. Trump,

01:11:17if he wants to...

01:11:18Well, my time is up,

01:11:19but I hope we don't do that.

01:11:20We must never allow

01:11:21the left become our teachers.

01:11:22Well, but there's good lawfare

01:11:24and there's bad lawfare.

01:11:25The time of the gentleman has expired.

01:11:27The gentlelady from California

01:11:28is recognized for five minutes.

01:11:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:11:31I want to start off

01:11:32by recognizing that

01:11:34the felony convictions

01:11:35of a former president

01:11:36represent a first for our country,

01:11:38and that is solemn.

01:11:40I don't celebrate these convictions.

01:11:42It's disappointing

01:11:44when crimes are committed,

01:11:45but it may be even more disappointing

01:11:47when our country's justice system

01:11:50gets criticized for political ends.

01:11:53I, for one, don't always agree

01:11:55with the outcome of cases,

01:11:57but I do respect the process

01:11:59and especially the public servants

01:12:01who do their jobs.

01:12:02Now, some of my colleagues

01:12:04on the other side of the aisle

01:12:05claim the verdict

01:12:06against the ex-president is,

01:12:08and these are all quotes,

01:12:09a travesty, rigged, a sham,

01:12:13that the jury of peers

01:12:14who assembled to do their civic duty

01:12:16delivered a, quote, rigged verdict,

01:12:18that a defendant afforded due process

01:12:20was part of a, quote, witch hunt,

01:12:23that the DA is, quote, corrupt,

01:12:26the judge is corrupt.

01:12:28Corrupt seems to be a big catch-all.

01:12:32I saw a judge that made rulings

01:12:34in favor of both the defense

01:12:36and the prosecution

01:12:37and who provided clear,

01:12:39lawful instructions to the jury.

01:12:41Now, some of my colleagues

01:12:42say the Department of Justice,

01:12:44a federal agency

01:12:45that is part of the Biden administration,

01:12:48somehow directed

01:12:50the Manhattan District Attorney

01:12:52to indict Mr. Trump

01:12:53in a New York state case.

01:12:55Ambassador Eisen,

01:12:57can you please help correct

01:12:59that specific fallacy?

01:13:01What jurisdiction was involved

01:13:02with this hush money

01:13:04and election interference case?

01:13:06The state of New York

01:13:07or the federal government?

01:13:09This was a case that was brought

01:13:12by the Manhattan District Attorney

01:13:14under New York state law.

01:13:17The federal government

01:13:18had no role in that.

01:13:20It's a fundamental misunderstanding,

01:13:23Ms. Lofgren,

01:13:23of our federalism

01:13:25to confuse the role.

01:13:26It's a conspiracy theory.

01:13:28And the Department of Justice

01:13:30just this week

01:13:31debunked that conspiracy theory

01:13:34with the AG issuing a letter

01:13:36saying there's no evidence.

01:13:37So it's fair to say

01:13:38that the Biden administration

01:13:40was not involved in this case?

01:13:43Not whatsoever.

01:13:45And just to make things clear,

01:13:46it's fair to say

01:13:47that President Biden himself

01:13:49was not involved in this case?

01:13:52Not involved in this case

01:13:53and indeed has given

01:13:54extraordinary latitude,

01:13:56even on the federal side,

01:13:57to his own Department of Justice,

01:13:59including to prosecute his own son.

01:14:02In addition to muddying the waters

01:14:04about the current administration's

01:14:06involvement,

01:14:07the loud criticism, ironically,

01:14:09from some who say they back the blue

01:14:12can really erode Americans' faith

01:14:14in the justice system.

01:14:16Now, that is a problem

01:14:17for basic law and order in our country.

01:14:20And I think it also puts lives at risk.

01:14:23The number of threats

01:14:25targeting federal judges

01:14:27has more than doubled

01:14:28over the last three years.

01:14:30And at the local level,

01:14:31threats and harassment

01:14:33against local public officials

01:14:35rose last year, too.

01:14:37Now, Ambassador Eisen,

01:14:38can you please talk about

01:14:40these increased threats

01:14:41to public officials,

01:14:43as well as distrust in the system?

01:14:45How harmful both of those could be

01:14:48to our country's independent judiciary

01:14:51and really our democracy?

01:14:53They're devastating, Ms. Lofgren.

01:14:54And one of the worst outcomes

01:14:58of the former president's

01:15:00incessant flow of disinformation,

01:15:03the attacks that you describe

01:15:05on the judge, the jury,

01:15:07the prosecutor, the system,

01:15:09is to incite those threats.

01:15:14We know that his incitement

01:15:16led to the tragedy of January 6th.

01:15:20We saw that in this body.

01:15:22But the constant flow,

01:15:23when I read the well-founded

01:15:26factual predicate

01:15:28for the gag order in this case,

01:15:31the sheer number and explosion

01:15:34of threats against the DA,

01:15:36they documented

01:15:38hundreds of these threats

01:15:39that were received.

01:15:41It's chilling.

01:15:42That is a tragic consequence

01:15:46of Donald Trump's irresponsibility.

01:15:49Can democracy survive

01:15:52if the rule of law is eroded?

01:15:54One of the privileges of my life

01:15:57was to sit on the dais

01:15:58in the first impeachment

01:16:01of the former president

01:16:02between the ranking member

01:16:04and Ms. Lofgren.

01:16:05That process demonstrated to me

01:16:08that a vibrant rule of law

01:16:11is the foundation

01:16:12of a strong democracy.

01:16:14I believe our democracy will survive,

01:16:16but we have not seen

01:16:18such a profound internal threat

01:16:21as this promise

01:16:22of day one dictatorship

01:16:24since, in my view,

01:16:26the end of Jim Crow

01:16:27or the beginning of the Civil War.

01:16:28Thank you.

01:16:29Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.

01:16:31I yield back.

01:16:32The gentlelady yields back.

01:16:33The gentlelady yields back.

01:16:34Commissioner Treanor,

01:16:36I want to read from your testimony.

01:16:38They have sat idly by

01:16:39and allowed a state officer

01:16:40to assert federal jurisdiction

01:16:41where they themselves

01:16:42had taken jurisdiction

01:16:44and couldn't prosecute.

01:16:45I want you to unpack that sentence

01:16:46for us again real quick.

01:16:47Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

01:16:48for the question.

01:16:49The Department of Justice,

01:16:51all of these claims

01:16:52with regard to the $130,000

01:16:54from Ms. Daniels

01:16:55stem from a complaint

01:16:56that was filed

01:16:56at the Federal Election Commission

01:16:58following the 2016 election.

01:17:00But you guys were investigating.

01:17:01We were in the process

01:17:02of investigating that.

01:17:03The DOJ came to you and said,

01:17:04stand down.

01:17:05We're taking over

01:17:06and give us your information.

01:17:07They asked us to abate that

01:17:09and several other matters.

01:17:09DOJ meeting the Southern District

01:17:10in New York.

01:17:11That's correct.

01:17:12They took your information.

01:17:12You guys, you voted to stand down

01:17:14and give it to the Federal Authority, right?

01:17:16That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

01:17:18And they determined

01:17:18that there was nothing there

01:17:19to prosecute other than Michael Cohen.

01:17:20That's correct.

01:17:21Now, they took a long,

01:17:22they took a very long time in doing it.

01:17:24And when they sent it back to us,

01:17:25we had no more authority

01:17:26to investigate

01:17:27because they sent it back to us

01:17:28and we were barred

01:17:29by the statute of limitations

01:17:30from even investigating

01:17:32the normal civil things

01:17:33that we would look at

01:17:34with regard to those type of expenditures.

01:17:35But your point here is

01:17:36they've said idly by

01:17:37and allowed a state officer

01:17:38to assert federal jurisdiction

01:17:40where they themselves had intervened,

01:17:42to use the word,

01:17:43and taken jurisdiction from you

01:17:45and concluded there was nothing there

01:17:47regarding a federal statute, right?

01:17:51That is a quote federal crime

01:17:54that they come up with.

01:17:55That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

01:17:56And I don't know what role

01:17:57Mr. Coangelo played

01:17:58in that investigation that took place

01:18:00when they took it away

01:18:00from the Federal Election Commission,

01:18:02did that investigation,

01:18:03and then he later left the office

01:18:05to go prosecute this at the state level.

01:18:06Well, we're going to find that out

01:18:07on July 12th

01:18:08when Mr. Coangelo will be

01:18:09sitting in your seat,

01:18:10Mr. Bragg will be sitting

01:18:10in Ms. Foley's seat

01:18:11and we'll get a chance to ask him.

01:18:15The Democrat, Ms. Foley,

01:18:16Mrs. Foley, excuse me,

01:18:17the Democrats talk about,

01:18:18you know, jury of his peers.

01:18:21Okay, fine.

01:18:21That's how our system works.

01:18:23But if President Trump

01:18:25didn't learn what

01:18:25the unspecified crime was

01:18:27until the jury got

01:18:28the instructions from the judge,

01:18:30that sort of changes

01:18:31the dynamic a little bit, doesn't it?

01:18:34Yeah, it's not blaming the jury.

01:18:36I mean, of course,

01:18:37the jury, you know,

01:18:38has to operate

01:18:39according to the instructions

01:18:40provided by the judge.

01:18:41You know, the fruit,

01:18:43the poison here,

01:18:44the poison pill

01:18:44are the jury instructions themselves,

01:18:46which provided the notice,

01:18:48but it came too late

01:18:49for purposes of due process.

01:18:51So, yeah, I mean,

01:18:52you can't correct that

01:18:54through a bad set

01:18:55of jury instructions.

01:18:56You know,

01:18:57if there's a due process defect

01:18:58because he learned too late,

01:19:00you have to redo the trial.

01:19:01You have to reverse the conviction

01:19:03and then the prosecutor has to...

01:19:04Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a...

01:19:06Yeah.

01:19:07Oh, I mean, I was an economics major.

01:19:09I mean, a major focused on wrestling,

01:19:11but you had to get a degree.

01:19:12I got one in economics

01:19:13and they talk about this opportunity cost.

01:19:14If you don't know what the issue is,

01:19:16you missed the opportunity

01:19:17to maybe focus in on the issue

01:19:19as the, as the defense counsel, right?

01:19:22Yeah.

01:19:22That's kind of important,

01:19:24particularly when you're talking about

01:19:26what kind of sentence

01:19:27they may try to impose on the president

01:19:29on July 11th.

01:19:29That's kind of important, right?

01:19:31It's kind of important.

01:19:32And I would suggest that

01:19:33any member of this committee

01:19:34who faced similarly amorphous charges

01:19:37or a loved one

01:19:38would be absolutely incensed

01:19:40by facing these kinds of charges

01:19:42where it was a moving target.

01:19:43You're not the only constitutional scholar

01:19:45who's raised this concern.

01:19:47This, I think, huge concern,

01:19:49Mr. Dershowitz, Mr. Turley.

01:19:51I mean, other esteemed

01:19:54constitutional scholars

01:19:55have said the same thing.

01:19:56I'm in good company.

01:19:58I think there's a general consensus

01:20:00that there are some problems here.

01:20:01You sure are.

01:20:03Mr. Attorney General,

01:20:05July 15th, 2021, Alvin Bragg.

01:20:07I'm the candidate in the race

01:20:08who has the experience with Donald Trump.

01:20:10And I think it'd be hard to argue

01:20:12with the fact

01:20:13that that'd be the most important,

01:20:14most high profile case.

01:20:15And I've seen him up front

01:20:17and seen the lawlessness that he could do.

01:20:20That's what he said as a candidate.

01:20:21Does that fit with kind of the ethics

01:20:23of someone who's a member

01:20:25of the bar and running

01:20:26for a district attorney's position?

01:20:28Is that how you're supposed

01:20:30to conduct yourself in a campaign?

01:20:31Absolutely not.

01:20:32That abhorrent statement

01:20:34is an incurable impropriety

01:20:36that should have disqualified Alvin Bragg

01:20:38from prosecuting that case.

01:20:39Yeah.

01:20:40Not to mention then

01:20:41when he gets the job,

01:20:43he looks at the facts,

01:20:44looks at all the evidence,

01:20:45and he concludes like,

01:20:46this case, I shouldn't prosecute it.

01:20:48I should do what

01:20:50the Federal Elections Commission did,

01:20:52not prosecute.

01:20:52What the Southern District of New York did,

01:20:54not prosecute.

01:20:55What my predecessor, Sy Vance did,

01:20:56not prosecute.

01:20:57That's what he wanted to do

01:20:58until the political pressure came.

01:21:00They talk about us all the time, pressure.

01:21:02Came from the left.

01:21:04Mark Pomerantz left his job, volunteered,

01:21:06goes and becomes an assistant district attorney

01:21:08to go after President Trump.

01:21:10And then when Alvin Bragg gets there

01:21:11and looks at how crazy the case is,

01:21:12Michael Cohen's going to be their star witness.

01:21:14He goes, this is crazy.

01:21:15I'm not doing it.

01:21:16I'm not that crazy.

01:21:18But then they leak,

01:21:19Pomerantz resigns, leaks the letter

01:21:21and all the left goes crazy.

01:21:23And Alvin Bragg says,

01:21:24now I'm going to do what I said

01:21:26during the campaign,

01:21:27even though I know it's wrong.

01:21:28And that's what happened.

01:21:30And then they got a judge

01:21:30who went along with all the crazy things

01:21:32Ms. Foley's pointed out.

01:21:33That's the story.

01:21:34And that story is consistent with the facts.

01:21:37That's why we're here today.

01:21:37And that's why we look forward to Mr. Bragg,

01:21:40Mr. Colangelo,

01:21:41sitting right where you're at,

01:21:42so they can answer our questions.

01:21:44Mr. Chairman, I have a UC request.

01:21:46Gentleman, state his request.

01:21:48Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

01:21:50to enter into the record

01:21:51a letter from the Department of Justice

01:21:53confirming that it had no role

01:21:54in the Manhattan trial.

01:21:56Without objection.

01:21:57The chair now recognizes

01:21:58the gentleman from Georgia for five minutes.

01:22:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:22:04MAGA Republicans are trying to

01:22:06make the American people

01:22:07believe a false narrative.

01:22:10That being that Alvin Bragg,

01:22:13a state prosecutor,

01:22:14was somehow manipulated

01:22:16by federal officials.

01:22:19Trump, excuse me, Biden officials,

01:22:22Justice Department,

01:22:24to prosecute and persecute Donald Trump.

01:22:31And the fact that this committee,

01:22:34the Judiciary Committee,

01:22:36is trying to get Americans

01:22:38to buy into this false narrative

01:22:40is concerning.

01:22:43Wouldn't you say so, Mr. Eisen?

01:22:47It's deeply concerning.

01:22:48It undermines Americans' faith

01:22:51in the rule of law,

01:22:52in the Department of Justice,

01:22:54which has been quite independent

01:22:57from President Biden.

01:22:59And it's baseless.

01:23:00There's no evidence for it.

01:23:01It's debunked.

01:23:02It's a conspiracy theory.

01:23:04The ranking member just entered

01:23:06the proof into the record

01:23:08submitted by the Department of Justice.

01:23:11More proof.

01:23:11It's wrong.

01:23:13So how does this kind of federal

01:23:17placing of the thumb

01:23:20on a state institution,

01:23:25the judiciary,

01:23:26the rule of law,

01:23:28the prosecution,

01:23:29the justice system of a state,

01:23:33how does it come across

01:23:37to state and local officials

01:23:40when the federal Congress,

01:23:45when the Judiciary Committee

01:23:47of the United States Congress,

01:23:48the House of Representatives,

01:23:50is trying to bully them?

01:23:53What impact does that have?

01:23:55It doesn't come across well.

01:23:58Fortunately, D.A. Bragg,

01:24:00as he said he would

01:24:03during his campaign,

01:24:06he stated that he had,

01:24:08I don't know where

01:24:10this investigation will go.

01:24:12I don't want to prejudge it.

01:24:14He maintained independence.

01:24:15I was there in court every day.

01:24:17There were no federal prosecutors

01:24:18there calling the shots.

01:24:20They were strictly independent.

01:24:22But it requires that courage

01:24:24and integrity.

01:24:25The pressure is felt on the part

01:24:27of state and local actors.

01:24:29Not all of them may show

01:24:31that same independence

01:24:32and they may knuckle under

01:24:34and not investigate.

01:24:35And with Donald Trump promising

01:24:37to be a dictator starting on day one,

01:24:39that means to attack the rule of law.

01:24:41We need our state institutions

01:24:44to be stronger.

01:24:44That's the American idea of federalism,

01:24:46not to intimidate, threaten,

01:24:49or put the thumb on their scales.

01:24:52And so when you talk about intimidating

01:24:54and threatening behavior by bullies,

01:25:00how does this translate

01:25:01into physical threats

01:25:04or the possibility thereof?

01:25:06Just look at the submissions

01:25:10that the D.A. made

01:25:11or other prosecutors have made

01:25:15in response to this disinformation campaign,

01:25:19these attacks led by the former president.

01:25:22It opens the floodgates.

01:25:25Mr. Johnson, I don't need to tell you,

01:25:27like the will be wild tweet

01:25:29opened the floodgates of January 6th.

01:25:32It is a clear and present danger

01:25:35to American democracy.

01:25:37When it comes to state prosecutions,

01:25:39which depend on jurors,

01:25:42like the 12 brave jurors

01:25:45in the case in New York,

01:25:49how do efforts like these

01:25:52that we're going through today

01:25:54affect states' abilities

01:25:56to procure juries and jurors

01:26:00to handle or to serve on cases

01:26:04in those jurisdictions?

01:26:05It creates a challenge.

01:26:07In the, I was there also for the voir dire,

01:26:10the jury selection

01:26:11in the Manhattan election interference

01:26:13and cover-up trial,

01:26:15and you had to get hundreds

01:26:17and hundreds of jurors.

01:26:19Half of them chose not to serve

01:26:22in part because,

01:26:24right from the get-go,

01:26:25in part because of this climate

01:26:27of intimidation.

01:26:28Several who were selected

01:26:30felt they couldn't do it.

01:26:32I do salute the jury, though,

01:26:34and the judge,

01:26:35and I will say the lawyers on both sides,

01:26:38because they ran a courtroom together

01:26:42where those 12 jurors

01:26:44were able freely and fairly

01:26:47to weigh the evidence,

01:26:48apply the law to the facts,

01:26:50and find Donald Trump guilty

01:26:52without fear or favor.

01:26:54And not one of those jurors

01:26:56has chosen to speak out,

01:26:58whereas you've had jurors

01:27:00in the Hunter Biden case

01:27:02who decided that case speak out.

01:27:05Why is that?

01:27:06They're very smart.

01:27:09It was one of the,

01:27:10I do juries for a living,

01:27:13and it was one of the most attentive,

01:27:16smartest, engaged,

01:27:18plugged-in juries,

01:27:19and I think it's smart

01:27:20that they're not stepping forward

01:27:22because of this climate

01:27:24of threats and harassment.

01:27:26Imagine if the former president

01:27:28were to recover the powers

01:27:30of the Oval Office

01:27:31and the federal government,

01:27:32or if he could subvert his DOJ

01:27:35as he sought to do,

01:27:36turning them on the legitimate

01:27:38election results of 2020,

01:27:41the level of intimidation

01:27:43that our state and local prosecutors

01:27:46and our jurors,

01:27:47everybody involved in the justice system

01:27:50would feel.

01:27:50My apologies.

01:27:51Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:27:53Mr. Eisen, I just want to make sure

01:27:54you answered the ranking member,

01:27:57I think,

01:27:58and I want to make sure

01:27:59I heard it correctly,

01:28:00that you said President Trump's

01:28:02interference in the 2016 election.

01:28:04Correct.

01:28:05Is that correct?

01:28:05That's correct.

01:28:06He interfered in the 2016 election.

01:28:08Yes, sir.

01:28:09And real quickly, household?

01:28:11The jury unanimously found

01:28:15in the Manhattan case

01:28:17that former President Trump

01:28:20had committed 34 felony violations

01:28:23of document falsification.

01:28:24You weren't referring to anything else.

01:28:26No, no, no.

01:28:27That's not true.

01:28:28That's disinformation, sir.

01:28:30In order to find that,

01:28:31they were charged

01:28:32with election interference.

01:28:34The underlying crime

01:28:35that made that a felony,

01:28:37not a misdemeanor,

01:28:38was election interference.

01:28:39Same pattern as 2020.

01:28:41So, so it's all about

01:28:42election interference in 2016 also.

01:28:45Ms. Foley,

01:28:47so we heard from the gentleman,

01:28:49that's to your right,

01:28:51that he said that the DOJ

01:28:53should be viewed as above reproach

01:28:55because look,

01:28:56they prosecuted the president's son.

01:28:59A year ago,

01:29:01weren't they cutting a sweetheart deal?

01:29:02Do you recall the details of that?

01:29:06Yeah, I mean,

01:29:06they were basically

01:29:07just going to let him walk

01:29:08for all of them.

01:29:09They already allowed statutes of limitations

01:29:11to expire on multiple

01:29:12of the more serious felony.

01:29:14So how did that happen

01:29:15that we actually may get justice

01:29:18in that case?

01:29:20Well, I mean, look...

01:29:21Wasn't it the judge?

01:29:23That threw out the sweetheart deal?

01:29:26Yeah, I mean,

01:29:27you had a judge in Delaware

01:29:28threw out the sweetheart deal, yeah.

01:29:30And then, you know,

01:29:30I guess there was egg

01:29:31on the Biden administration's face.

01:29:33So they felt like they had to do something.

01:29:34So they pursued these current charges,

01:29:37the gun charges and the tax charges.

01:29:40But, you know, I mean,

01:29:42did they reach the right result?

01:29:44I assume so.

01:29:46I didn't follow that trial very much.

01:29:48I think there'll be an interesting question

01:29:50as to whether the president commutes

01:29:51his son's sentence.

01:29:52So we'll see.

01:29:54Which is, yeah.

01:29:55So also the gentleman next to you

01:29:58referred to under questioning,

01:29:59he said this trial was...

01:30:02And jury was scrupulously fair.

01:30:04It was outstanding.

01:30:06There was nothing unusual.

01:30:09Care to comment on that?

01:30:11Well, again, I mean...

01:30:12You can start with nothing unusual.

01:30:13I'm not blaming the jury here.

01:30:14I think the poison came

01:30:17from the behavior of the prosecutors

01:30:20hiding the ball.

01:30:22And then Judge Mershon

01:30:23giving sort of a cafeteria style approach

01:30:25where non-unanimity was allowed

01:30:27on the underlying means

01:30:29by which the New York election law was violated.

01:30:31I think those are clear due process violations.

01:30:33So it's not the jury's fault.

01:30:34They just had, you know, junk to work with,

01:30:36so to speak.

01:30:37I was going to use another word,

01:30:38but I probably shouldn't.

01:30:39It's almost enough to shock the conscience, huh?

01:30:42It's almost enough.

01:30:43Yeah, it shocks mine.

01:30:44I don't know about yours, but...

01:30:46I believe it's correct.

01:30:48And I can be corrected on this if I'm wrong,

01:30:50but I believe the judge contributed

01:30:53to President Biden, the judge in this case.

01:30:56Is that common for a case

01:30:58that has a real nexus

01:30:59that the judge would contribute

01:31:01and then not recuse?

01:31:03I've never seen a case like that.

01:31:04I mean, usually a lawyer feels pretty confident

01:31:07if he finds out that the judge has overtly,

01:31:10you know, expressed preference

01:31:12for one party or another.

01:31:15And political contributions

01:31:18to the Biden administration

01:31:19would seem to fit that bill.

01:31:21Given the political overtones of this case, right?

01:31:23This was not an ordinary state trial.

01:31:25This was not an ordinary state prosecution.

01:31:27This was a state prosecution

01:31:29that if successful,

01:31:30even though it had been turned down

01:31:31at every other level

01:31:32to even proceed as a prosecution,

01:31:34if it proved successful,

01:31:36it would basically interfere

01:31:38with the 2024 presidential election.

01:31:40And possibly could not,

01:31:42that interference could not be remedied,

01:31:43could not be rectified

01:31:44until after the election.

01:31:46So it's slam dunk,

01:31:492024 election interference.

01:31:51It's almost reminiscent of Jack Smith

01:31:55and Donald in Virginia, isn't it?

01:31:57Right.

01:31:57And he got his, you know what,

01:31:59handed to him by the Supreme Court on that one.

01:32:00I want to get a question

01:32:01into Attorney General Bailey here.

01:32:04Talk about the overall chilling effect

01:32:05in regards to this.

01:32:06In fact, I believe it was Governor Hochul

01:32:08after this, after this charge happened,

01:32:13went on media in New York

01:32:16and said, hey, don't worry.

01:32:19This isn't going,

01:32:20we're not coming after

01:32:21the rest of you business people.

01:32:22This is just Donald Trump.

01:32:24Talk about the impact

01:32:26of something like this

01:32:27for the long run in the rule of law.

01:32:29The Constitution is our national identity.

01:32:31Those rights codified therein

01:32:33come from God, not man.

01:32:34And the document is intended

01:32:35to protect us from the government.

01:32:37And yet what we see time and time again

01:32:38is the government being weaponized

01:32:41against individuals.

01:32:42It's President Trump today.

01:32:44Who will it be tomorrow?

01:32:46And that's the problem.

01:32:47I think that when you look

01:32:49at the due process issues

01:32:50contained in the charging document,

01:32:51ultimately in the jury instructions,

01:32:53you look at the inchoate

01:32:54nature of the offenses

01:32:56with these ill-defined levels

01:32:57of attenuation,

01:32:58it's as if invisible links of chain

01:33:00are necessary to connect

01:33:01the facts to criminal liability.

01:33:04And it causes the jury

01:33:05to turn into a roving commission

01:33:07free to pursue whatever facts

01:33:10they want to attach liability

01:33:11as they please.

01:33:11And the issue there is

01:33:12it undermines the rule of law

01:33:14for the rest of us.

01:33:14Who can have confidence

01:33:15that we know what is

01:33:16and isn't illegal behavior

01:33:18when the court and the prosecutor

01:33:21impanel a roving commission

01:33:22to attack a political opponent?

01:33:24I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

01:33:26Gentleman yields back.

01:33:27The gentleman from California

01:33:28is recognized.

01:33:30I want to begin by quoting

01:33:32the jury in the Manhattan

01:33:34hush money payment trial.

01:33:37Guilty.

01:33:39Guilty.

01:33:40Guilty.

01:33:42Guilty.

01:33:43Guilty.

01:33:44Guilty.

01:33:46Guilty.

01:33:47Guilty.

01:33:48Guilty.

01:33:49Guilty.

01:33:51Guilty.

01:33:52Guilty.

01:33:53Guilty.

01:33:54Guilty.

01:33:55Guilty.

01:33:56Guilty.

01:33:58Guilty.

01:33:59Guilty.

01:34:00Guilty.

01:34:01Guilty.

01:34:02Guilty.

01:34:03Guilty.

01:34:04Guilty.

01:34:05Guilty.

01:34:06Guilty.

01:34:07Guilty.

01:34:08Guilty.

01:34:09Guilty.

01:34:10Guilty.

01:34:11Guilty.

01:34:12Guilty.

01:34:14This was what the jury pronounced

01:34:17unanimously on every count.

01:34:21My Republican colleagues

01:34:23don't really contest

01:34:25Donald Trump's guilt.

01:34:27This is the fascinating thing.

01:34:29Their argument is essentially

01:34:31he should never have been prosecuted.

01:34:33Or they falsely claim

01:34:34it was a political prosecution.

01:34:36They falsely claim

01:34:37it should have been a misdemeanor,

01:34:38not a felony.

01:34:38But they don't contest,

01:34:41not really,

01:34:43that Donald Trump was making

01:34:44hush money payments to a porn star

01:34:47to hide their affair from voters.

01:34:51What they're really saying is

01:34:52they're more than comfortable

01:34:55electing, nominating, and electing

01:34:57as the President of the United States

01:34:58someone making hush money payments

01:35:00to a porn star.

01:35:02The party formerly of the moral majority

01:35:06is now, I suppose, hoping to fashion

01:35:08some kind of immoral majority

01:35:12to reinstate Donald Trump as president.

01:35:17The presidency, the most powerful office

01:35:19in the world,

01:35:20and not the most powerful

01:35:21because of the size of our military,

01:35:24but because of the power of our ideas.

01:35:28And what is the animating idea

01:35:30of a Trump presidency?

01:35:33It is dictatorship.

01:35:35It is power at all costs.

01:35:38And this is also, tragically,

01:35:40the animating idea

01:35:41of the Republicans on this committee.

01:35:45Power at all costs.

01:35:47What else can it be?

01:35:49It's not enough to explain

01:35:52what it would profit them

01:35:54to give up their political soul,

01:35:57but a world of power.

01:36:01Ambassador Eisen, I want to ask

01:36:03Historian Eisen a question.

01:36:06Is there any period of our history

01:36:09that sheds light

01:36:10on what we're going through today?

01:36:12Have we ever seen one party or the other

01:36:16so completely abandon

01:36:19commitment to truth,

01:36:20commitment to decency,

01:36:24so willing to tear down the rule of law,

01:36:26our institutions, our justice system,

01:36:29anything that gets in the way of power?

01:36:30Have we ever seen anything like this?

01:36:36Three periods come to mind, Mr. Schiff.

01:36:38The first is the founding period,

01:36:41and in particular, the ferment

01:36:44between the Articles of Confederation

01:36:46and the Constitution,

01:36:48when the founders and the framers,

01:36:51famously, the Federalist Papers,

01:36:55a passage you know well,

01:36:58worried about that in that period of instability,

01:37:03a tyrant would arise.

01:37:05That was resolved

01:37:07by one of the fortunate accidents,

01:37:10not just in American history,

01:37:11but I dare say in the history of the world,

01:37:15the George Washington's establishing

01:37:18the tradition of peaceful transition

01:37:20that Donald Trump ultimately broke

01:37:22for the first time in our history.

01:37:24Number two, the Civil War period,

01:37:26when we had those within,

01:37:28who also proclaimed

01:37:31that they would not accept

01:37:33American rule of law.

01:37:36And that period of divisiveness

01:37:40is also found in the post-Civil War era,

01:37:44the decline of Reconstruction,

01:37:47that assault on our constitutional system

01:37:50that became the Jim Crow era.

01:37:53Those are three precedents.

01:37:54We see other dangers,

01:37:56including here in Congress,

01:37:57the period of McCarthyism.

01:38:00Donald Trump represents the most grave danger

01:38:03to this country,

01:38:05at least since the end of Jim Crow,

01:38:08very likely since the commencement

01:38:10of the Civil War,

01:38:12and perhaps since the founding of our nation

01:38:15from within.

01:38:16Thank you, Ambassador.

01:38:19Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

01:38:23Gentleman yields back.

01:38:24General from Kentucky is recognized.

01:38:25Thank you, Chairman Jordan.

01:38:28This is amazing construction

01:38:30of some kind of crime here,

01:38:31but when we dig down to the bottom of it

01:38:33and try to find out

01:38:34what the underlying crime is,

01:38:35I don't think that's been discussed enough

01:38:37for what the supposed underlying crime is.

01:38:40One of the propositions

01:38:41was that hush money should be reported

01:38:44as a campaign finance expense.

01:38:47Okay.

01:38:47If somebody pays their attorney

01:38:51to seal divorce records

01:38:54because they may be going to run for office

01:38:56or they are running for office,

01:38:59Mr. Treanor,

01:39:00is that a campaign finance expense?

01:39:02Is that something you see

01:39:03on campaign finance reports?

01:39:06That is not.

01:39:07It is something that you would see,

01:39:10you know,

01:39:11legal fees are often reported

01:39:13and it has been the tradition at the commission

01:39:15in looking at those legal fees

01:39:17that we don't question

01:39:18what the attorney-client privilege

01:39:21between the candidates

01:39:23and the lawyer are

01:39:24of what's needed

01:39:26in those particular circumstances.

01:39:27So let me use another example.

01:39:30In 1999, Bill and Hillary Clinton

01:39:32bought a house in New York,

01:39:34obviously influenced the election

01:39:36of the Senate race there in New York

01:39:37because they moved into the house

01:39:38so that she could run for Senate.

01:39:40Is that a campaign finance expense?

01:39:42Is everything that could influence a campaign

01:39:45a campaign finance expense?

01:39:47Well, under Mr. Bragg's interpretation,

01:39:49it would be,

01:39:49but under normal campaign finance law,

01:39:52it would not be.

01:39:53There are distinct similarities here

01:39:55between the John Edwards prosecution in 2008

01:39:58where he paid over a million dollars

01:40:00to his mistress to keep her quiet

01:40:03and was prosecuted

01:40:04by the Department of Justice for that

01:40:06and was ultimately acquitted on one count

01:40:08and had a mistrial on all five counts

01:40:10because the jury was given a correct charge

01:40:12as to what the federal law was.

01:40:14In this particular case,

01:40:15the jury was given an incorrect jury charge

01:40:17as to what the law is

01:40:19and they come out

01:40:19with a completely opposite ruling.

01:40:22I asked my campaign finance treasurer

01:40:25if I could pay my wife $10,000.

01:40:27She's got more dirt on me than anybody else

01:40:30and then report that

01:40:31as a campaign finance expense

01:40:33and he's very fastidious.

01:40:34He manages the finances

01:40:36of at least a dozen different campaigns.

01:40:38He looked at me like I was crazy,

01:40:40yet isn't that sort of the same theory

01:40:43that Alvin Bragg had here

01:40:45that something like that could be reported

01:40:47as a campaign finance expense?

01:40:49It's very similar to what's happened here.

01:40:52So Congress has paid over $17 million

01:40:56in hush money for sexual misconduct

01:40:59inside of the offices in these buildings

01:41:03and what's more is that was taxpayer money, right?

01:41:07The allegation is that President Trump

01:41:09paid $130,000 of his own money,

01:41:12but here in Congress,

01:41:13there may be some on this dais.

01:41:15I mean, I'm for turning loose

01:41:17all of these records.

01:41:18Who in here has had the taxpayer pay

01:41:21for their sexual misconduct

01:41:24charges the hush money?

01:41:25I bet there's some over there.

01:41:27There may be some over here.

01:41:28I don't know,

01:41:29but I do know it's taxpayer money

01:41:31and I do know not a single penny of it

01:41:33has been turned in

01:41:34as a campaign finance expense.

01:41:37I mean, is the FEC going to investigate

01:41:40the $17 million that Congress has paid

01:41:44to settle behind closed doors

01:41:47of these sexual misconduct allegations?

01:41:52Congressman, if a complaint

01:41:53were to come to us about it,

01:41:54I'm sure it would be thoroughly investigated.

01:41:57I might file one

01:41:58because it seems like anybody could do this,

01:42:01but let me just ask this.

01:42:04Is this verdict going to be vacated,

01:42:08Attorney General Bailey?

01:42:10What do you think?

01:42:11It absolutely should be.

01:42:12On what grounds?

01:42:14Numerous grounds.

01:42:15I think the five grounds I laid out

01:42:17in my opening statement

01:42:18provide sufficient justification

01:42:19to undermine the credibility of the conviction.

01:42:21I think there are additional grounds as well,

01:42:24but I think that the constitutional violations,

01:42:26the due process violation,

01:42:28the jury unanimity,

01:42:28Sixth Amendment problem alone,

01:42:30the gag order is violative

01:42:31of the First Amendment.

01:42:32The prosecutorial misconduct,

01:42:34the conviction is replete with legal error.

01:42:36Ms. Foley, do you think this is going to be vacated,

01:42:39this verdict?

01:42:40I do, and I think eventually

01:42:42it's going to be reversed

01:42:44based on legal grounds

01:42:47rather than mixed questions of fact and law.

01:42:49So some of the evidentiary issues,

01:42:51some of the bias issues,

01:42:52I think they're more difficult to win on appeal

01:42:54because the appellate courts owe deference

01:42:57on these evidentiary determinations of trial judges.

01:42:59Bias is very difficult to win on appeal.

01:43:02Because the judge has so much latitude

01:43:05in deciding whether to recuse himself.

01:43:06That's why the due process errors

01:43:08are so critical here

01:43:09because obviously due process errors

01:43:11are questions of law.

01:43:12They get de novo standard of appellate review.

01:43:14The appellate courts owe

01:43:15absolutely no deference whatsoever.

01:43:17So the irony here

01:43:19is this is going to be vacated

01:43:21and this trial was all about

01:43:23trying to influence an election

01:43:25using the process as the punishment.

01:43:28Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit

01:43:29for the record three documents.

01:43:31One is entitled

01:43:32FEC Drops Investigation Into Trump Hush Payments.

01:43:36This is from three years ago.

01:43:38I'd like to introduce a document.

01:43:39Congress has paid $17 million

01:43:41in sexual misconduct and discrimination settlements.

01:43:44This was in Axios in 2017.

01:43:48And my third and final document

01:43:50I'd like to introduce is from CNN.

01:43:52Congress paid out $17 million in settlements.

01:43:55Here's why we know so little about that money.

01:43:59Thank you. I yield back.

01:44:00That objection.

01:44:01Gentleman from California is recognized.

01:44:03Just a show of hands for anyone in the room

01:44:07who hung out with a felon today.

01:44:10Hey guys, probably want to get your hands up

01:44:13if you're hanging out with convicted felon Donald Trump.

01:44:16I don't think anyone on our side did.

01:44:19But that's why we're here.

01:44:21Ambassador Eisen,

01:44:23what city did Donald Trump commit his crimes in?

01:44:27In New York City.

01:44:30Where were the jurors drawn from for Donald Trump's trial?

01:44:34From Manhattan.

01:44:36Did Defendant Trump have a say in picking his jury?

01:44:40I was there for it.

01:44:42There was a vigorous voir dire.

01:44:45His defense counsel were extremely active

01:44:48and I thought effective.

01:44:49And after that jury of his peers,

01:44:52his neighbors deliberated,

01:44:54they had to make 34 decisions.

01:44:5812 jurors, 34 decisions.

01:45:01What did they say?

01:45:03They decided 34 times that Donald Trump falsified documents

01:45:08to cover up his 2016 criminal election interference scheme.

01:45:16408 straight times they said the word guilty.

01:45:22Now let's transfer or fast forward to another trial

01:45:27that took place recently.

01:45:29The president's son, Hunter Biden,

01:45:30he tried to plead, was not able to do that.

01:45:32He was found guilty and actually I heard your side

01:45:35in Fox News celebrating the verdict.

01:45:39Celebrating the idea that a jury of his peers found him guilty.

01:45:42So again, when it hurts their guy, it's a rigged jury.

01:45:47When it hurts the president's son, we celebrate the jury.

01:45:53I want to talk a little bit about judicial bias

01:45:55because they've suggested that there's a bias

01:45:58that occurred in this case.

01:45:59Ambassador Eisen, in Donald Trump's other case

01:46:04where he's alleged to have stolen national security secrets,

01:46:09who appointed the judge to the bench

01:46:12in the Southern Florida federal case?

01:46:16Unlike the special counsel in the Hunter Biden prosecution

01:46:22who is a Trump holdover, David Weiss,

01:46:25that was a last minute, referring back to our history,

01:46:30midnight appointment, you can call it,

01:46:32by Donald Trump of Judge Eileen Cannon.

01:46:37Are you kidding me?

01:46:38Donald Trump is complaining about bias in his case

01:46:41and he's on trial for stealing national security documents

01:46:46with a judge that he appointed?

01:46:48That's interesting.

01:46:49I didn't hear any of you all talking about that.

01:46:51Well, let's talk about the Supreme Court

01:46:53who's deciding whether he has absolute immunity

01:46:55and can send the Navy SEALs to kill any of his opponents

01:46:58as he alleges in his arguments that he can do.

01:47:03One judge is flying an insurrection flag

01:47:07in solidarity with the insurrection on January 6

01:47:09that tried to overturn Donald Trump's loss

01:47:12in the 2020 election.

01:47:14Another judge's wife was at the president's speech

01:47:20on January 6, right before the insurrection occurred.

01:47:24But Ambassador Eisen, I want to talk about,

01:47:26now that he's a convicted felon,

01:47:28declared 408 times guilty by his neighbors,

01:47:33are convicted felons allowed to hold a security clearance?

01:47:36No.

01:47:37Are convicted felons allowed to serve in the military?

01:47:40No.

01:47:40Are convicted felons allowed to visit most countries?

01:47:45There's a long list of countries they cannot visit.

01:47:48And typically, the terms of probation for a convicted felon,

01:47:54do they allow you to hang out with other felons?

01:47:58That's prohibited.

01:47:59There are other prohibitions, such as gun ownership.

01:48:02That's probably going to be a problem

01:48:05if your friends are criminals like Paul Manafort,

01:48:11who was Donald Trump's former campaign manager,

01:48:14vice chairman of the campaign, Rick Gates,

01:48:16aide to the campaign and convicted felon, Roger Stone,

01:48:23former White House aide, also convicted, Peter Navarro,

01:48:28Steve Bannon, also a convict, on his way to jail soon,

01:48:33former national security advisor, also a convict,

01:48:36Michael Flynn, and his accountant, Allen Weisselberg,

01:48:41currently in custody right now.

01:48:44But this is the person who you all chose to hang out with

01:48:50this morning, delaying the original start time of our hearing,

01:48:55because rather than getting work done for people who need us to work,

01:49:00you chose a felon over helping families.

01:49:04We're going to flip that and we're going to choose families over felons.

01:49:07And I yield back.

01:49:08Gentleman yields back.

01:49:09Mr. Chairman.

01:49:10Gentleman from Kentucky.

01:49:11Mr. Chairman.

01:49:12Gentleman from Kentucky.

01:49:13Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.

01:49:17I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article in Open Secrets

01:49:22that says that Ambassador Eisen bundled between $200,000 and $500,000 to the Obama campaign.

01:49:29Sounds like he's an ambassadoner, not an ambassador.

01:49:32So.

01:49:33Without objection.

01:49:34Gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.

01:49:37Thank the chairman.

01:49:38Ambassador Eisen, a quick question.

01:49:44Is the Biden campaign guilty of interference in the 2020 election?

01:49:51No.

01:49:54Did President Biden say repeatedly, did the Biden administration repeatedly

01:49:59declare the Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation?

01:50:05I am not an authority on the statements or on the laptop.

01:50:10I mean, come on.

01:50:12Come on.

01:50:12Was that not repeatedly stated by the president of the United States and the president's campaign?

01:50:19For example, did President Biden not say in a debate, look, there are 50 former

01:50:25national intelligence folks who said that what he's accusing me of is a Russian plan.

01:50:30They have said this is all the characteristics for five former heads of the CIA.

01:50:36Both parties have been saying it's a bunch of garbage.

01:50:38Nobody believes it except him and his good friend, Rudy Giuliani.

01:50:40And they go through and talk about it.

01:50:43Was that not a central feature of the campaign in 2020 by President Biden?

01:50:48I do think it's very important to distinguish between the vigorous debate

01:50:53that we've seen here today, extremely vigorous and a violation of.

01:51:03Was Hunter Biden convicted this week based on evidence obtained in that laptop?

01:51:13In part, yes.

01:51:14Yes.

01:51:16Hunter Biden was convicted this week in information that was brought out from that laptop,

01:51:20which President Biden and his campaign repeatedly referred to as

01:51:23disinformation in the 2020 campaign.

01:51:26So the former president is or is not guilty or is or is not,

01:51:32you know, engaged in activity that could be described as election interference.

01:51:39There's a difference between falsifying documents to cover up and.

01:51:45OK, well, let's talk about that.

01:51:45Seem to interfere with an election by, if I may finish my sentence.

01:51:49No, no, no.

01:51:50It's my time.

01:51:50There is a difference between breaking the law and political debate.

01:51:54OK, so let's let me ask you this question.

01:51:56What is the first date, the first date of a crime that is alleged to have been

01:52:02committed by President Trump?

01:52:04The actual date of the crime.

01:52:06The date of the initial crimes were when the conspiracy to

01:52:18interfere with the 2016 election was formed in August 2015 at Trump Tower,

01:52:26when David Pecker, an independent witness, testified that he, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump

01:52:32agreed on a conspiracy to violate New York law.

01:52:37Was it not the crime that Alvin Bragg alleged first committed was on February 14th, 2017?

01:52:43That is when the actual crime.

01:52:45That is when the cover up occurred.

01:52:47Was that is a different element of the crime.

01:52:50The conspiracy began August 2015.

01:52:54The fact of the matter is, and for what?

01:52:56Are NDAs illegal?

01:52:58When an NDA is used to facilitate an illegal campaign contribution

01:53:04over $127,000 in excess of the legal limits.

01:53:08Yes, it is a means, it is an unlawful means.

01:53:12As the gentleman from Kentucky just pointed out, the absurdity of that assertion is plain

01:53:20based on what he was just making in his case.

01:53:22But the fact is you have in February of 2017, well after the 2016 election, the first crime

01:53:29that is even referenced in what the District Attorney Bragg was doing.

01:53:36And I would just ask Mr. Treanor, do you see the problem here in terms of the timing?

01:53:43And then can you add an element here in my last minute on the extent to which the FEC

01:53:49and importantly the Department of Justice, as you alluded to in your testimony,

01:53:53failed to pursue this, or not failed, chose not to pursue this?

01:53:58Thank you, Congressman.

01:53:59The Department of Justice investigated this very vigorously.

01:54:02In fact, they asked the Federal Election Commission to abate our proceedings for over a year

01:54:07for them to go in and investigate this.

01:54:09They investigated all of the individuals involved in all of the money that was being talked about

01:54:15in this idea that there was some sort of conspiracy.

01:54:18They took to a grand jury and got nothing back from it.

01:54:21The only reason that they ultimately concluded to prosecute Mr. Cohen is because he admitted

01:54:27to a crime in a plea deal.

01:54:29And then they bundled all that back up and shipped it over to the FEC and said,

01:54:33here you go, guys, but your statute of limitations is run.

01:54:35You can't investigate anything either.

01:54:37I see my time has expired.

01:54:38I yield back.

01:54:40The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes now.

01:54:43Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

01:54:45And thank you to everybody for being here to testify.

01:54:50While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are leveling claims of a partisan prosecution,

01:54:58I'm from North Carolina, as you just heard.

01:55:00I want to remind the committee that this is not the first time that a former presidential

01:55:06candidate has been indicted for having hush money paid to hide an affair from voters.

01:55:14The last time, in my memory, that this happened, it was a Democrat who was indicted.

01:55:20And the charges were brought by a Republican federal prosecutor, George Holding, who,

01:55:25weeks after filing those charges, resigned to run for the same seat in Congress that I now hold.

01:55:32That was in 2011.

01:55:34And federal prosecutors charged John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and two-time

01:55:41presidential candidate, for soliciting nearly $1 million from donors, including Bunny Mellon,

01:55:50to keep details of his relationship with his mistress, with whom he had fathered a child,

01:55:56from coming to light.

01:55:58Now, while Edwards' defense team argued that his prosecution was politically motivated,

01:56:04the Obama Justice Department defended the charges,

01:56:08even though they had originated with a Republican prosecutor,

01:56:14arguing that that administration had a duty to prevent candidates for high office

01:56:20from abusing their power to subvert the integrity of Democratic elections.

01:56:26Now, as you heard earlier, in 2012, a North Carolina jury found Edwards not guilty of one count

01:56:34of receiving illegal campaign donations and deadlocked on the other charges.

01:56:39Now, I followed the Edwards-Hushmoney case, and I also followed the Trump-Hushmoney case.

01:56:45I don't know how you couldn't have.

01:56:47And I'm confident that if the prosecutors in the Edwards case had the type of evidence

01:56:52that the prosecutors in the Trump case presented,

01:56:56we would have seen a very different verdict for John Edwards.

01:56:59The evidence that the prosecutors in the Trump case had

01:57:03was the type of evidence that prosecutors dream of finding.

01:57:08A paper trail of emails and bank records, a slate of insider witnesses,

01:57:16and even recordings of Trump himself discussing the payments.

01:57:22So I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle

01:57:25that these charges against Mr. Trump are not unprecedented or baseless.

01:57:32That the verdict is not, as one of my colleagues on this committee recently claimed,

01:57:37comparable to the injustice against Black Americans during the Jim Crow era.

01:57:43That's disgusting.

01:57:46Most importantly, this was not lawyers with the Manhattan DA's office

01:57:52or the Department of Justice that convicted Trump of these crimes.

01:57:57It was a jury, unanimously, 34 times, and quickly.

01:58:06So, Ambassador Eisen, I'd like to ask you,

01:58:10why is it important for democracy that presidents or presidential candidates,

01:58:16no matter what party they come from,

01:58:19be accountable for their crimes and not be held to be above the law?

01:58:25Ms. Ross, it's the fundamental American idea.

01:58:28We were speaking earlier of the proud history of our country,

01:58:31with all our challenges over the centuries.

01:58:35We overthrew a system and a king, George III, where one man was above the law.

01:58:46In his place, we put the Constitution and the founding American principle.

01:58:52No one is above the law.

01:58:55If Donald Trump, as the jury unanimously found of 12 of his peers,

01:59:04covered up 2016 conduct of a pattern that we saw again in 2020,

01:59:10we see him limbering up for in 2024, then he deserves to be found guilty.

01:59:16If 10,000 other cases, approximately, in New York since 2015 have resulted in prosecutions,

01:59:24he should not be held to a different standard

01:59:27when he falsifies business records to cover up another crime.

01:59:31That's what America is.

01:59:33That is why this verdict was so important.

01:59:38And again, Ambassador Eisen, do you think that the Obama administration

01:59:42was correct in not interfering in the John Edwards prosecution?

01:59:46I do. You correctly point out that case relied on the testimony

01:59:52of a former campaign aide, Mr. Young, and his wife, Sherry,

01:59:56weak witnesses, contrary to what we saw in New York,

01:59:59witness after witness, document after document,

02:00:02an overwhelming factual and legal case that will withstand appellate review.

02:00:09Thank you. And I yield back.

02:00:11The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes.

02:00:17Mr. Eisen, what you've just stated is so utterly and completely absurd,

02:00:21it's almost impossible to even respond to it.

02:00:24This case will be reversed on appeal.

02:00:26The level of egregious reversible error that was demonstrated by this judge

02:00:32and by the prosecutors is absolutely off the charts.

02:00:35I've never in my entire career seen anything even close to it.

02:00:40I think you recognize that.

02:00:42I think the vast majority of the American people recognize that.

02:00:46I really want to focus on the equal protection and due process issues

02:00:50that are so clearly evident here.

02:00:52And the fact, Mr. Eisen, that you keep going back to 2016

02:00:55and what occurred in 2016 is extremely important from that standpoint.

02:01:00Ms. Foley, is there a due process and equal protection aspects to statutes of limitations?

02:01:07Well, I mean, statute of limitations can be, I guess, evaded, I suppose,

02:01:14in a ways that could violate the due process or equal protection.

02:01:18Well, and in fact, in this kind of a circumstance, that's what you see.

02:01:21We've got a situation where the alleged crime was committed in 2016,

02:01:26and they had to bootstrap it to something that occurred years later

02:01:29to try to resurrect what was really a dead case.

02:01:32And the way that I look at statutes of limitations,

02:01:34and the way that I look at statutes of limitations

02:01:37as someone who practiced law for well over 30 years,

02:01:40is that people have memory issues.

02:01:41That's why there's a statute of limitations.

02:01:44Can you remember what you were doing on June 13th,

02:01:46seven years ago or four years ago?

02:01:48I'm sure Mr. Ambassador cannot.

02:01:51There are statute of limitations because trying to drag somebody

02:01:54before a tribunal five and seven and 10 and 12 and 15 years down the road,

02:01:59by its very definition,

02:02:00especially if we're talking about a potential criminal prosecution

02:02:04where someone is going to lose their freedom.

02:02:08Do we really want someone getting up and being able to say,

02:02:1125 years ago, I was attacked in a dressing room.

02:02:14I have no evidence.

02:02:15Can't tell you anything about it.

02:02:16Don't even know what day of the week it was.

02:02:18Don't know what month.

02:02:18Don't know what year.

02:02:19But for goodness sakes, we know what happened.

02:02:21So we have the state of New York,

02:02:23and they come in and they pass a law saying,

02:02:25well, we're not going to have a statute of limitations

02:02:27for this particular crime or this particular individual.

02:02:29Wouldn't that be considered a violation of this gentleman's due process rights?

02:02:33Yeah. I mean, I think it's part of the overall context,

02:02:36which again kind of shows the political motivation,

02:02:40the uniqueness of this case.

02:02:41I mean, Ambassador Eisen talks about the 10,000 cases.

02:02:45Well, I've read most of those cases too.

02:02:47None of them approach the uniqueness of this case

02:02:50and the obfuscation of the theory here.

02:02:53For example, usually the underlying offense that is intended to be committed

02:02:57is grand larceny, grand larceny, grand larceny, insurance fraud,

02:03:01things like that.

02:03:01Very straightforward facts.

02:03:04But by making the underlying offense here,

02:03:06federal New York election law,

02:03:07which itself required proof of unlawful means,

02:03:10which then hinged upon FICA, tax laws, falsification of business records,

02:03:15it just got more and more and more unclear

02:03:18in exactly what Mr. Trump was being charged with.

02:03:20So all of these facts suggest

02:03:23that there is a shocks to conscience due process violation here

02:03:27in addition to the notice problems I've pointed out.

02:03:29Well, and I think that there's the due process issue.

02:03:31But Mr. Bailey, let's turn to you

02:03:32and let's talk about the equal protection aspect of it.

02:03:35As you've just described, Ms. Foley,

02:03:37this is one case against one man for one purpose.

02:03:40And in fact, the governor of the state of New York has said it.

02:03:42Look, everybody, don't worry.

02:03:44Don't worry.

02:03:44We're not coming after you for these kinds of fraud claims.

02:03:47We're just going after Donald Trump.

02:03:49Isn't that the antithesis,

02:03:51the antithesis of the foundation of our constitution

02:03:55that is based upon equal protection?

02:03:57An equal application of the law.

02:03:59Have you ever seen anything like what they have done

02:04:02to Donald Trump in their effort to destroy

02:04:05who they perceive to be their political enemy?

02:04:07Mr. Bailey.

02:04:08I have never seen such an egregious assault

02:04:10upon the tenets of equal protection

02:04:12as when government officials in the state of New York

02:04:15claim that they are specifically targeting one individual

02:04:18and will not use the same laws against anyone else.

02:04:21But I want to go back to the due process issue briefly

02:04:24because everything that's being said here

02:04:26is further amplified by the fact that section 175.10

02:04:30of the code of state of New York,

02:04:31which forms the basis of the 34 charges,

02:04:33has an affirmative defense

02:04:36that requires the defendant to get a preponderance

02:04:38of the evidence.

02:04:39How can he go get his evidence

02:04:40if you bring the claims late?

02:04:42Statute of limitations are intended to prevent

02:04:44sandbagging of claims.

02:04:45Exactly right.

02:04:46And in this particular circumstance

02:04:48and what we've seen in the other persecutions

02:04:50against Donald Trump,

02:04:51they absolutely had to violate those basic tenets

02:04:55in order to go after him.

02:04:56It is absolutely an egregious violation of the law.

02:04:59It is a level of constitutional malpractice,

02:05:03the likes of which I've never seen.

02:05:05And Ambassador Eisen,

02:05:06I think that if you were being honest,

02:05:08you would agree with that.

02:05:09With that, I yield back.

02:05:10The gentlelady yields back.

02:05:12The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

02:05:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:05:20I want to address two sets of things.

02:05:22One is the repeated claim.

02:05:25It's a mantra at this point about

02:05:30Mr. Bragg vowing to go after President Trump,

02:05:33campaigning on going after President Trump,

02:05:37leaving out all the campaign promises to get Trump.

02:05:41I got to say that I haven't heard

02:05:43anybody specifically quote anything about it

02:05:46except the chairman's quote.

02:05:49And I want to,

02:05:50you know, we've been trying to dig this up

02:05:52and see what the factual basis is

02:05:54for that repeated allegation,

02:05:55because it's very relevant.

02:05:57I mean, the point about some of you

02:05:58have been saying that

02:06:00this is sort of issue number one

02:06:03with respect to proof that

02:06:05this is a political prosecution

02:06:07that was inappropriate.

02:06:10And as I went through all the facts,

02:06:13I kept seeing him say that he wanted to follow the facts.

02:06:18Now, the quote that the chairman lifted

02:06:22I've seen him up front

02:06:23and seen the lawlessness that he could do.

02:06:26Well, that was in the context of the 100 prosecutions

02:06:29that had come through

02:06:30the state attorney general's office.

02:06:33And in one instance,

02:06:34is leading to a $2 million settlement

02:06:38against the Trump Corporation for fraud

02:06:42along the lines of the corporate finding

02:06:44that I think is that $470 million

02:06:47that that's resulted in.

02:06:48And then there's also the sexual assault finding

02:06:52as well in a separate court.

02:06:54But the point that Bragg was making

02:06:55was that he's dealt with these cases frequently.

02:06:58And he was questioned about this

02:06:59over and over again during the campaign,

02:07:01but he made statements along the lines of these.

02:07:05I believe we have to hold him accountable.

02:07:07I've seen, I haven't seen all the facts beyond the public,

02:07:10but I've litigated with him.

02:07:12And so I'm prepared to go where the facts take me

02:07:14once I see them and hold them accountable.

02:07:16Another quote during the same interview

02:07:19that the chairman referenced,

02:07:21you're right, I am being careful,

02:07:23not just because I'm running for office,

02:07:25but because every case still has to be judged by the facts

02:07:28and I don't know all the facts.

02:07:31Another quote, again,

02:07:34from Mr. Bragg in a different interview,

02:07:36I will hold him accountable

02:07:38by following the facts where they go.

02:07:41Over and over again,

02:07:42he said that he would follow the facts

02:07:44and follow the law in reaching his decision

02:07:48about making a determination to prosecute or not.

02:07:51Another interview after that,

02:07:54this was asking about

02:07:55whether he had the ability to prosecute these cases,

02:07:58which is where he referenced his prior experience

02:08:01dealing with Mr. Trump and his corporations.

02:08:05But he said, but without talking about,

02:08:07you know, what we don't know,

02:08:08which is where this is headed,

02:08:10the facts that aren't in the public domain.

02:08:13The questioner followed up,

02:08:14you can't talk about that?

02:08:16Bragg responded, I can't talk about that.

02:08:19He said over and over and over again

02:08:21that he wanted to follow the facts

02:08:23and that he hadn't reached a conclusion

02:08:24about where he was going to go.

02:08:26He did reference the previous cases against Mr. Trump

02:08:30and their legion

02:08:31and the subsequent cases as well.

02:08:34But I think over and over again,

02:08:35he made it clear that he had not made a decision

02:08:38about whether to prosecute or not

02:08:39and he hadn't predetermined what he was going to do.

02:08:42Real quickly, I'm running out of time,

02:08:44but Professor Foley,

02:08:47you raised the issue of the

02:08:51defense being blindsided, essentially,

02:08:53by not knowing what the legal theory of the case was.

02:08:58And in your testimony,

02:08:59written and that you stated today,

02:09:02you quoted the response

02:09:05and the people's response to the bill in particular.

02:09:12Number two.

02:09:13But you left out a key part of the quote.

02:09:16And so when I took a look at it,

02:09:17after Ambassador Eisen referenced it,

02:09:20we got a copy of it.

02:09:21You quoted page five.

02:09:22I flipped over to page six

02:09:25and it lays out bullet points

02:09:26about the specifics of what's going to be pursued.

02:09:30And they're bringing it to the attention of the defense.

02:09:34An agreement to unlawfully suppress negative stories

02:09:36about the defendant before an election

02:09:38in order to influence the outcome of the election.

02:09:41Multiple false statements in the business records.

02:09:43I'll skip down.

02:09:45Disguising reimbursement payments by doubling them

02:09:47and falsely characterizing them as income for tax reasons.

02:09:52Now, you also stated that

02:09:54the first time that they knew the theory of the case

02:09:57was when jury instructions were read.

02:09:59And so I looked at your testimony

02:10:00where you quote the jury instructions.

02:10:02And guess what?

02:10:04It mentions all of the same things

02:10:05that were referenced in the bullet points.

02:10:07Election, the law was violated.

02:10:12Federal election law, which is number two.

02:10:15Falsification of other business records.

02:10:17Three, violation of tax laws.

02:10:19Professor, well, Ambassador, we're running out of time.

02:10:22But I guess I was a little surprised

02:10:25based on your testimony when you said that

02:10:27they hadn't given any indication

02:10:30of where they were going to go

02:10:31beyond broad references to federal election law,

02:10:34tax law and the like.

02:10:35When the specific bullet points

02:10:38in the bill of particulars response

02:10:42were the same as the ones that are referenced

02:10:44in the jury instructions,

02:10:45according to your written testimony.

02:10:47I see my time's expired.

02:10:48I yield back to the chair.

02:10:50The gentleman yields back.

02:10:52The gentleman from Indiana is recognized.

02:10:54Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:10:56I think Ambassador Eisen was referring to

02:10:59the importance of a vibrant rule of law for democracy.

02:11:03We actually have constitutional republic,

02:11:04not pure democracy to survive.

02:11:07But interestingly enough,

02:11:09when talking about intimidation,

02:11:11threatening and disinformation,

02:11:14I would say, you know, I'm not an attorney.

02:11:16I'm actually CPA and been involved with finances

02:11:20for a very long time.

02:11:21And I think a lot of Americans

02:11:23should be intimidated and worried

02:11:24if they pay bill to attorney

02:11:26and put it legal expense

02:11:28and they can have 34 felony counts for that.

02:11:32That is true intimidation.

02:11:34That is a true what the law is, you know,

02:11:36so that would make anyone very nervous, you know.

02:11:40But, you know, just talking about 2016,

02:11:43I think Ambassador, you made statements

02:11:45about interference in election.

02:11:47What do you think from your perspective

02:11:50to have Department of Justice

02:11:53under President Obama at that time,

02:11:57and you've probably very familiar with Durham report,

02:11:59Russians rule closing the case for Hillary Clinton

02:12:03without doing any proper investigation,

02:12:05and then Russians rule

02:12:07to have Russian collusion hoax against Trump

02:12:10without even vetting any of the information

02:12:13and in turn out to be all lies, right?

02:12:16We have a report on that.

02:12:17So do you think from your perspective

02:12:19and then colluding to cover up with Ms. Medias,

02:12:23like political another one to cover up the story,

02:12:26isn't it seem like that could be looking

02:12:28like interference in election in 16?

02:12:31No, Ms. Sparks, I don't believe that.

02:12:36There was ample evidence to predicate that investigation,

02:12:40including the polling data that was passed

02:12:43from Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

02:12:47Yeah, but like-

02:12:47To Constantine killing-

02:12:49No, you just, I'm talking about the report.

02:12:50So you think the special prosecutor

02:12:53did not do a good job and he lined the report?

02:12:55I mean, he actually concluded in his report

02:12:58that FBI didn't do its job

02:13:00and it was outrageous.

02:13:01He was outraged what's happened in the FBI.

02:13:04He did a-

02:13:06But it seems strange, but let's go further.

02:13:08The same situation was Hunter Biden in 2020.

02:13:12The same media, political reporters have the story

02:13:15that actually was 50 security,

02:13:19this national security for my advisors,

02:13:21a print a story that Hunter Biden laptop doesn't exist

02:13:25and give legs to that store and all media go that.

02:13:28And he's talking the debate

02:13:30and this is all former Department of Justice employees.

02:13:36And that is going to, in the election president,

02:13:40Biden is a candidate that I'm using it to cover up

02:13:44and say, oh, it doesn't exist.

02:13:45We know it exists.

02:13:46Doesn't it look strange to you?

02:13:48The Biden Department of Justice

02:13:50empowered a Trump holdover U.S. attorney, David Weiss,

02:13:54to prosecute Hunter using the laptop.

02:13:59It's the exact opposite.

02:14:01It's an affirmation of the way the rule of law works.

02:14:04In 2020, doesn't it look strange

02:14:08that that's a period during election

02:14:10and they have disinformation campaign?

02:14:12The same political reporters are doing again.

02:14:14Isn't it seem like awfully strange to you?

02:14:16Doesn't it seem like, and it's not interference at all,

02:14:19but I'm not going to probably get an answer

02:14:21because you do have a double standard

02:14:23and we do have a double standard.

02:14:24And now a system of justice is broken.

02:14:27And that's why Americans are intimidated

02:14:30and they're worried about not existing of the rule of law

02:14:34because we have a rule of law, you know,

02:14:37that working, you know, to protect now,

02:14:40you know, the Department of Justice

02:14:41to protect people that they like.

02:14:43This is a political prosecution

02:14:45and I'm not going to tell you what the case,

02:14:47but it would be intimidated for Americans

02:14:49and it would be very oppressive and tyrannical.

02:14:52And I couldn't believe as an American

02:14:54who grew up in tyrannical country,

02:14:57that we would be sitting here

02:14:58and the system of media collusion with our justice system.

02:15:03I think that is very, very sad.

02:15:06And I'm very disappointed

02:15:07that you cannot tell the truth here.

02:15:08I yield back.

02:15:09Would the gentlelady yield?

02:15:13I yield.

02:15:15Ms. Foley, Mr. Ivey basically said

02:15:18what you told the committee about the jury instructions,

02:15:20he disagreed with that strongly

02:15:22and was going to let Mr. Eisen answer for you.

02:15:24So I want you to be able to answer for yourself.

02:15:27Well, thank you.

02:15:27I appreciate that.

02:15:29Yeah, I mean, that's sort of the bait and switch

02:15:31that was going on here.

02:15:32That the stuff that he talked about

02:15:35on the prosecutor's response was a response

02:15:39and then he flipped the page and saw some of the detail,

02:15:41but that's all the response

02:15:42that talks about the first predicate,

02:15:46which makes the falsification of business records

02:15:49a felony offense.

02:15:50All of that information is about this first predicate.

02:15:53But the interesting thing is that all of that detail

02:15:57on the page that he flipped

02:15:58ended up having nothing to do with the first predicate,

02:16:01but the second predicate,

02:16:02which was the basis for the New York election law offense.

02:16:04So all of that detail was useless

02:16:08because all of that detail was about this and not this.

02:16:12In fact, we didn't even know this was necessary

02:16:14until the judge instructed the jury

02:16:15about this New York election.

02:16:17That's the point.

02:16:18Right.

02:16:18That's the point.

02:16:19The gentlelady yields back.

02:16:20The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.

02:16:23Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:16:25Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

02:16:27It is interesting being here.

02:16:30I will say that.

02:16:3062 minutes late starting what is a faux hearing

02:16:34about the New York DA.

02:16:37The gentlelady, I apologize.

02:16:40I think the Attorney General has to leave.

02:16:43Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:16:43Are you going to pose any questions

02:16:45to the Attorney General?

02:16:46I don't think so, Mr. Bailey.

02:16:47Yeah, we'll pause our time.

02:16:48Certainly give her all her time.

02:16:49I've been giving you your full five minutes back.

02:16:51But we thank you for being here.

02:16:53And I should have pointed out earlier.

02:16:54We've been at this while.

02:16:55If anyone needs a break, just obviously let us know.

02:16:57I apologize to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.

02:16:59You get your full five minutes.

02:17:00Thanks, Chairman.

02:17:01And thank you, Mr. Bailey, for your participation today.

02:17:06Here we are.

02:17:08Mr. Eisen, I think I'm going to start with you.

02:17:09Before I came to Congress,

02:17:11and you might know this about me

02:17:12because you and I had the chance to work together

02:17:15on impeachment one.

02:17:17As you remember, a part of a phone call

02:17:20where then President Trump

02:17:22said to a brand new President Zelensky,

02:17:24I'll need you to do me a favor, though.

02:17:27I had the privilege of working with you then.

02:17:30I was a teacher before I got here.

02:17:31I know I've told you that many times.

02:17:33And I told my students,

02:17:34you need to convey your thoughts with clarity,

02:17:37with integrity, with honesty, with the facts,

02:17:40not misinformation or disinformation.

02:17:42But we've heard so many outlandish claims

02:17:45in this committee and all over the Hill, sadly,

02:17:49in service of one man.

02:17:50So I'm going to, if you permit me,

02:17:52and I'm going to give you some time.

02:17:53I know there's some things you want to address.

02:17:54But if you permit me,

02:17:55I'm going to go back to my old professor days.

02:17:57Not that I did this.

02:17:58A little pop quiz.

02:17:59Help me correct the record, if you don't mind.

02:18:01Here we go.

02:18:02And it is about the claims around our institutions.

02:18:04Number one, Donald Trump,

02:18:06referring to the 2016 presidential election,

02:18:09claimed, quote,

02:18:10I won the popular vote

02:18:11if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,

02:18:14end quote.

02:18:14Mr. Eisen, Ambassador Eisen,

02:18:17was that statement,

02:18:18that millions of people voted illegally

02:18:19in the 2016 presidential election, true or false?

02:18:23Like 30,000, over 30,000 other statements

02:18:27that the former president has made, false.

02:18:30Thank you.

02:18:31Donald Trump in 2019,

02:18:32referring to the free press,

02:18:34claimed, quote,

02:18:35truly they are the enemy of the people.

02:18:37Ambassador Eisen,

02:18:39is the press the enemy of the people, true or false?

02:18:43Under the First Amendment of the Constitution

02:18:45and the proudest traditions,

02:18:47the fourth estate is the pillar of American people,

02:18:51the friend of the American experiment, false.

02:18:57In November and December of 2020,

02:18:58Mr. Trump claimed,

02:19:00I won this election by a lot, all caps,

02:19:02and this fake election can no longer stand.

02:19:05Ambassador Eisen, did Trump win the 2020 election?

02:19:09He lost fair and square,

02:19:11and the big lie that he won

02:19:13is one of the most heinous and dangerous falsehoods

02:19:16in our history as a nation.

02:19:19That's actually at the crux of this.

02:19:21I was going to make that extra credit.

02:19:23Was it a fake election?

02:19:24But without being flip,

02:19:26you said it much more eloquently.

02:19:28Number five,

02:19:29Marjorie Taylor Greene,

02:19:30referring to the search at Mar-a-Lago,

02:19:32claimed the Biden DOJ and FBI

02:19:34were planning to assassinate Prez Trump

02:19:36and gave the green light,

02:19:37true or false, Ambassador?

02:19:39False.

02:19:40They were referring to a standard term

02:19:44of search warrants

02:19:45that you can also find in the search

02:19:48of President Biden's premises.

02:19:50Strange.

02:19:51Thank you for that clarity.

02:19:53Number six,

02:19:54Chairman Jordan claimed district attorney

02:19:56Alvin Bragg's criminal case against Donald Trump

02:19:58was a politically motivated prosecution.

02:20:00Ambassador Eisen, true or false?

02:20:03It was, as we say,

02:20:06uh, in the, um, uh, legal profession,

02:20:10a righteous case.

02:20:12And the appeals will prove that.

02:20:14And I have the receipts here with me to prove it.

02:20:19Number seven,

02:20:20Mr. Gates claimed Attorney General Garland

02:20:21dispatched Matthew Colangelo

02:20:23to prosecute Mr. Trump.

02:20:25Ambassador Eisen, is that true?

02:20:27The AG this week issued a letter,

02:20:30it's now in the record,

02:20:31definitively debunking that conspiracy theory.

02:20:36It's outlandish and false.

02:20:39And in the time I have remaining,

02:20:40I'd like to ask you something

02:20:42I've been fighting here on this committee.

02:20:44What now feels like the entire five and a half years

02:20:46I've been on this committee

02:20:48is the disinformation in service to one,

02:20:51in service to one who is now a convicted felon.

02:20:54It is so dangerous.

02:20:56And yet we hear from the other side of the aisle,

02:20:59tearing down a faith in our institutions,

02:21:01whether it's our electoral system,

02:21:03the Department of Justice, the FBI,

02:21:05some on this committee would like to defund FBI and ATF.

02:21:08And they, they decry the fact that, uh,

02:21:12Americans faith in our institutions is at the lowest low

02:21:15as they make sure that is the reality.

02:21:18What comments do you have about the danger

02:21:21of the disinformation and misinformation now?

02:21:25We are in a disinformation and a miss

02:21:28and malinformation epidemic.

02:21:31I testified about it in my last visit before the committee.

02:21:35And I do have to point out

02:21:37one piece of incorrect information that we heard today,

02:21:41that this theory of the case was never put before Donald Trump

02:21:45until the closing of the jury I have here.

02:21:48Not only do we have the response to bill of particulars,

02:21:51I have the opposition to the motion to dismiss

02:21:53November 9th, 2023, putting forth,

02:21:57may I have the middle Russian doll, please?

02:22:00This one?

02:22:01Here it is. Look at the document.

02:22:04The Russian doll is in the document.

02:22:08Here it is. Page 25, please.

02:22:11These actions violate elections law 17152,

02:22:14conspired to promote the election of a person to public office

02:22:17by unlawful means, including FICA,

02:22:21uh, the falsifying the records of other New York enterprises

02:22:24and mischaracterizing the nature of the repayment for tax purposes.

02:22:27The witness cannot introduce documents into the record.

02:22:31May I? May I? I didn't ask to introduce it.

02:22:33The gentlelady...

02:22:34May I return the Russian doll?

02:22:38I have, uh, unanimous consent.

02:22:40Gentlewoman's recognized for unanimous consent.

02:22:42Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:22:43And thank you, Mr. Eisen, for the demonstration.

02:22:46Unanimous consent, please, for, this is an article, ABC News,

02:22:51a timeline of Donald Trump's election denial claims,

02:22:54which Republican politicians increasingly embrace.

02:22:58ABC News.

02:22:59Without objection.

02:23:00Thank you.

02:23:01Mr. Chair?

02:23:02Recognize the gentlelady from Vermont.

02:23:04I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record

02:23:06people's response to defendant Donald J. Trump's

02:23:08April 27th request for a bill of particulars.

02:23:11Without objection.

02:23:13Now recognize the gentleman from Oregon for five minutes.

02:23:17Thank you, Mr. Chair.

02:23:18Press fully.

02:23:18You want to respond to the rant we just heard?

02:23:21Yeah, if I may have this back.

02:23:24Okay.

02:23:24So, this, uh, opposition to the motion to dismiss.

02:23:27Also, he gives one page out of context.

02:23:30That page, that paragraph that he was pointing to,

02:23:32these actions also violated election law section 17.152.

02:23:37In other words, it's just regurgitating exactly what they said

02:23:41in response to the requested bill of particulars

02:23:44that the underlying offense, the first predicate,

02:23:47could be one of four different statutes,

02:23:51all of which are very, very different

02:23:54and do not provide adequate notice to a defendant

02:23:57because this is an element of the crime.

02:23:59You have to be specific about elements of the crime.

02:24:01That's what the court said in Shad.

02:24:04So, if I may.

02:24:06Thank you for that explanation.

02:24:06That's why there's a due process.

02:24:08And to your point, the complexities, I think, many times

02:24:14are a nuisance to those who disagree with you, professors.

02:24:17So, thank you for the detail that you share.

02:24:20Also, folks earlier on the other side of the aisle

02:24:23suggest that this hearing is not necessary

02:24:25because it was a state court

02:24:26and thus this committee being Congress

02:24:29shouldn't be saying anything about it.

02:24:31Perhaps you can address that for just a second

02:24:33and explain why, in your opinion,

02:24:35you think the federal government should be concerned

02:24:37about what went on in Alvin Briggs' district.

02:24:41Well, I mean, look, as the Judiciary Committee

02:24:44and I assume the Oversight Committee

02:24:45also would have legitimate legislative purposes

02:24:48for looking into abuses of power by state prosecutors

02:24:53to violate anyone's constitutional rights.

02:24:57And that would include, you know, intimidation

02:25:00based on gag orders, First Amendment violations,

02:25:03due process violations, equal protection violations.

02:25:06All the ones we've talked about

02:25:08are ripe for investigation by this committee and others.

02:25:12And in fact, if we didn't, we'd be derelict in our duty

02:25:14when we see a former president

02:25:16being drawn into this circumstance.

02:25:18We would have to ask ourselves, come on.

02:25:23So thank you for that.

02:25:24Commissioner Treanor, same question to you.

02:25:27Is there a federal reason for us to be looking at

02:25:29a state action such as we observed in Manhattan?

02:25:32Unquestionably, there's a reason for this committee

02:25:34to investigate this.

02:25:36And it goes back to my opening statement

02:25:38where I talked about the fact

02:25:39that the Department of Justice

02:25:41did not zealously represent the United States

02:25:43in this particular case to go in and defend the jurisdiction

02:25:46that this Congress has given through FECA

02:25:49to the Federal Election Commission

02:25:51and to the Department of Justice to prosecute those crimes.

02:25:53Instead, they abrogated that

02:25:55to a local official to prosecute.

02:25:58Right, and the question would be,

02:26:00and quoting the professor from earlier today,

02:26:04to prevent the fractured application of the law,

02:26:06disparate justice, double, triple, quadruple standards.

02:26:10This is what we're trying to avoid

02:26:12by bringing this issue up at this hearing.

02:26:15Is that correct?

02:26:16Absolutely.

02:26:16You can't have 50 different standards

02:26:18of what violations of federal election law.

02:26:20It would apply to every member of this committee.

02:26:22It would apply to presidents, former presidents.

02:26:24If we're allowed to investigate

02:26:25what goes on in campaign finance spending

02:26:28under the guise of how 50 different states interpret it,

02:26:31we'll never have any equal protection

02:26:33for any individual running for political office.

02:26:35Right, and you would think that those on the other side of the aisle

02:26:37would recognize the danger of opening this Andorra's box,

02:26:41so to speak.

02:26:42Let me go to another point.

02:26:43Anybody that's tried a case, and I've tried many,

02:26:46recognizes that the jury process is imperfect.

02:26:51It's a great system,

02:26:52but we have this thing called an appellate court

02:26:55because it's known that mistakes will be made.

02:26:59And the idea is, once they are,

02:27:02you'll get another shot at it in the appellate court.

02:27:04Yet, here we are.

02:27:06We know this is going to be appealed,

02:27:07but we're holding this hearing today.

02:27:09Why is this hearing important

02:27:11when there's an appellate process available?

02:27:12Go with you, Professor Foley, first.

02:27:16Well, I mean, again, I think you have a responsibility

02:27:18to determine, for example,

02:27:21whether or not federal funds are being used

02:27:24to further lawfare that is designed

02:27:28to be election interference.

02:27:30I think you have a responsibility

02:27:32to make sure that civil rights laws,

02:27:34Section 1983 and other federal civil rights statutes

02:27:39are not violated by state prosecutors,

02:27:44especially for purposes of political interference.

02:27:47And, you know, at the end of the day,

02:27:50judicial process, even though there's a trial,

02:27:53judicial process is not due process, right?

02:27:55Otherwise, we'd never have any reversals

02:27:57based on due process.

02:27:58You can have long, elaborate trials

02:28:01with lots of witnesses and lots of documents.

02:28:03They have them in Russia and Venezuela all the time.

02:28:06And they look like trials.

02:28:07They kind of smell like trials,

02:28:08but they're not due process-based trials.

02:28:11And that's the error that occurred here

02:28:13that I think ultimately was going to lead to reversal.

02:28:16Thank you. Yield back.

02:28:17Gentleman yields back.

02:28:18The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.

02:28:20Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:28:22I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here.

02:28:25It's wonderful to see you, Ambassador Eisen.

02:28:28I want to thank you for your incredible commitment

02:28:31to our country, to the rule of law, to our democracy.

02:28:35I'm very, very grateful for your voice.

02:28:38You know, this committee is so important, as you know.

02:28:41And there are so many critical issues

02:28:44that our nation is looking to us to address.

02:28:48But week after week after week,

02:28:51this committee is unfortunately focused on things

02:28:56that don't matter to the everyday American.

02:28:59Going after various Biden administration officials,

02:29:03going after the president himself,

02:29:04attacking border communities, et cetera, you name it.

02:29:09I look forward to the day that this committee

02:29:12actually produces good work

02:29:14that the American people expect us to address.

02:29:19This hearing didn't even start on time.

02:29:21And I apologize for the incredible delay,

02:29:24but my Republican colleagues had to go bend the knee

02:29:28and make sure that they provided homage

02:29:33to the person that controls the House of Representatives.

02:29:38Anyhow, I'd like to debunk some of what we've heard.

02:29:42And I have some questions for you.

02:29:43But before I ask these questions,

02:29:45is there anything that you've heard today

02:29:47that you would like to address?

02:29:49It's been just a cascade of bizarreness,

02:29:55but would love to give you the opportunity to respond.

02:29:59When my friend, Professor Foley,

02:30:06whose work is thoughtful in an excess, I hope, of enthusiasm,

02:30:12was being questioned by Mr. McClintock

02:30:14and suggested that warfare should be waged in retaliation.

02:30:21And Mr. McClintock, to his credit, said,

02:30:23no, it gives me hope, Ms. Escobar.

02:30:30This was a legitimate case.

02:30:32Any other American who did what Donald Trump did

02:30:35would be prosecuted and convicted.

02:30:38We saw that it's false.

02:30:40It's false that these issues were raised

02:30:43in the jury for the first time.

02:30:44It's normal.

02:30:46I've been a criminal law practitioner,

02:30:49expert for over three decades.

02:30:51It's normal to have alternative prosecution theories.

02:30:57Every complex case I've ever had had them.

02:31:00Many had far more dozens of counts.

02:31:07Under widely disparate laws,

02:31:10the prosecution here had alternative theories.

02:31:13They chose one.

02:31:15There is nothing untoward about that.

02:31:17That is not going to be reversed on appeal.

02:31:21So I could go on, but I'm eager to hear your questions.

02:31:26Thank you so much, Ambassador.

02:31:27You know, before I ask my questions,

02:31:29I'll say one last thing.

02:31:31There were two trials that took place

02:31:34within a span of several weeks.

02:31:38And the difference between how President Biden

02:31:42and Democrats reacted to a guilty verdict

02:31:46in a case against the president's son

02:31:49was remarkably different from what we saw

02:31:51in terms of the reaction by former President Trump,

02:31:55his family, his allies, and acolytes.

02:31:58Democrats are not attacking the institutions

02:32:01that are important to our democracy.

02:32:04But unfortunately, Republicans are.

02:32:07And it's devastating to the future of our democracy.

02:32:10Ambassador Eisen, what do you make of the claim

02:32:13that Trump can appeal his case

02:32:15based on Judge Murchin not recusing himself?

02:32:20I think my friend, the professor,

02:32:25will agree with me that that is not going to be

02:32:28one of the grounds for reversible error here.

02:32:32I don't think there'll be any grounds for reversible error.

02:32:37But certainly, before he ever had the case,

02:32:43he gave a modest $15 exercising his freedom

02:32:50under the First Amendment that we all have.

02:32:53I gave another $20, that $15 was to Joe Biden,

02:32:58another $20 to other political organizations.

02:33:02He asked the judicial authorities.

02:33:06There's a judicial opinion.

02:33:08To his credit, he put it out of his own hands.

02:33:10Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics,

02:33:13opinion number 2354, May 4th, 2023.

02:33:17No, you don't have to recuse for that

02:33:19when you did it years before you got the case.

02:33:22Good on Judge Murchin to ask.

02:33:26That's the right answer.

02:33:27No reversal there.

02:33:28Excellent.

02:33:29Thank you, Ambassador.

02:33:30Good to see you.

02:33:30I yield back.

02:33:31And you.

02:33:32The LA yields back.

02:33:32Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

02:33:36Thank you, Mr. Chair.

02:33:38Thanks for being here today.

02:33:39And I know we've been kind of going on.

02:33:41I'm trying not to rehash anything that's already been discussed.

02:33:44But Commissioner Treanor, is the Manhattan District Attorney's Office

02:33:48charged with determining whether someone violated

02:33:52the Federal Elections Campaign Act or FECA?

02:33:57No, Congressman, that is exclusive jurisdiction

02:33:59of the Federal Election Commission and ultimately could be referred

02:34:02to the Department of Justice if it's found to be criminal.

02:34:04So certainly not the New York Supreme Court either,

02:34:08State Supreme Court.

02:34:09Absolutely not.

02:34:10No.

02:34:11So as you said, it's the Federal Elections Commission.

02:34:15Was President Trump's alleged payment via Michael Cohen

02:34:18to Stephanie Clifford referred to the FEC?

02:34:22We did have several complaints related to it.

02:34:26And what did the FEC decide with respect to that referral?

02:34:29Well, ultimately, we deadlocked on a decision related to it.

02:34:32But the real factor in making the determination was the fact

02:34:36that the Department of Justice asked us to abate those proceedings

02:34:40so that they could conduct an over a year-long criminal investigation,

02:34:44which they determined there was no criminality in,

02:34:46and then they sent it back to us, and it was statute of limitations part.

02:34:50So did the Justice Department also decline to charge

02:34:52the former president for charges related to FECA?

02:34:55They did.

02:34:56Right.

02:34:57And so the two agencies that are charged by Congress

02:35:01to determine whether President Trump's payment

02:35:04constituted a violation of FECA found no violation

02:35:09and took no enforcement action.

02:35:11Is that correct?

02:35:12That is correct.

02:35:13All right.

02:35:13Thank you very much.

02:35:14Ms. Foley, you argued in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed

02:35:19that Judge Murchin likely denied President Trump

02:35:22a meaningful opportunity to be heard

02:35:24by denying the testimony of former FEC Chairman Brad Smith.

02:35:28Can you please elaborate a little bit on that?

02:35:31Yeah, I mean, there's been a lot of sort of misreporting

02:35:34on what happened here.

02:35:35Yes, Judge Murchin, as my colleague, Mr. Eisen points out,

02:35:40did allow Brad Smith to testify, but the catch was

02:35:45he could not opine at all, either provide his opinion

02:35:49or any personal opinion or legal opinion

02:35:52regarding whether or not President Trump's actions

02:35:56had violated FECA, which was basically,

02:35:59then he was useless, which is why President Trump

02:36:02didn't call him as a witness.

02:36:03So the whole point was President Trump wanted

02:36:05an expert witness to put before the jury

02:36:07to show the jury that what he had done

02:36:10did not, in fact, violate federal election law.

02:36:12And he was denied that opportunity,

02:36:14and that seems like a rather basic thing

02:36:16that he would have the opportunity to be heard on.

02:36:18Do you think there was a chance

02:36:19that he could have had success upon appeal?

02:36:25Will he have success on appeal of this?

02:36:27Yeah, sure, absolutely.

02:36:28The thing is that, again, I agree with Norm

02:36:31on the fact that the bias issues are difficult to win

02:36:36because they get deferential standards of review.

02:36:40But the due process issue is a question of law.

02:36:44It gets de novo review.

02:36:45The appellate courts get to look at it fresh,

02:36:47with fresh eyes, no deference whatsoever.

02:36:50And more importantly, due process issues

02:36:52are issues that the Supreme Court

02:36:54can ultimately grant cert in here.

02:36:57Right, so Judge Marchand also ruled

02:36:59that Michael Cohen's guilty plea for violating FECA

02:37:02was inadmissible at trial.

02:37:06Why do you think he made that ruling?

02:37:08I think we know, but...

02:37:10Well, because you can't basically taint one individual

02:37:14by the guilty conduct of another.

02:37:17Judge Marchand also ruled that DA Bragg

02:37:20could elicit testimony from Mr. Cohen

02:37:22about his guilty plea to impeach his credibility

02:37:24as a witness.

02:37:25DA Bragg then repeatedly made reference at trial

02:37:28in his office closing arguments

02:37:30to the jury about Cohen's FECA guilty plea.

02:37:35Did repeatedly subjecting the jury

02:37:37to this testimony essentially

02:37:39get around the judge's own ruling

02:37:41that Cohen's FECA guilty plea was inadmissible

02:37:44as substantive evidence?

02:37:46Yeah, I mean, that should have been reined in.

02:37:48That was clearly trying to, you know,

02:37:50taint one person through association

02:37:52with another who was guilty.

02:37:53They also did the same thing, I believe,

02:37:54with the CFO of Trump Organization

02:37:57and made similar comments

02:37:58because he also entered a guilty plea.

02:38:02Weisselberg?

02:38:03Thank you, I yield back.

02:38:04Will the gentleman yield?

02:38:06Will the gentleman yield?

02:38:07I do.

02:38:08Thank you.

02:38:09So I just wanna get this straight.

02:38:10The campaign finance expert

02:38:12wasn't allowed to testify about campaign finance.

02:38:16Yeah, exactly.

02:38:17And, you know, the way Judge Marchand

02:38:19tried to explain it is he said,

02:38:20well, you know, I'm the expert of the law.

02:38:21And okay, granted, that's why the judge is there.

02:38:24Brad Smith wasn't allowed to talk about

02:38:26the very testimony we just got

02:38:28from Commissioner Traynor, in essence.

02:38:29Precisely.

02:38:30Well, we're gonna give Brad Smith a chance

02:38:31to testify in front of this committee as well.

02:38:33And we're gonna let him tell the Congress

02:38:35and the country what he wasn't allowed

02:38:37to tell the court and the jury

02:38:38because we think that's important.

02:38:40Gentleman from Wisconsin was right on target

02:38:42when he was asking that question.

02:38:44Now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont.

02:38:47Thank you, Mr. Chair.

02:38:48Before I start my line of questioning,

02:38:52I just have to make a comment about something

02:38:55one of my colleagues said earlier

02:38:57on the other side of the aisle.

02:38:59There was implication made that

02:39:02E. Jean Carroll must have had memory problems.

02:39:05You couldn't possibly have remembered

02:39:06what happened to her.

02:39:08And I just am so incredibly shocked by that statement.

02:39:13I can tell you when someone has been sexually violated,

02:39:19they don't forget who did it.

02:39:23A jury, a jury found him liable,

02:39:28him being the former president,

02:39:30for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.

02:39:36Those are the facts.

02:39:38A jury found that.

02:39:41And I just think it's shocking

02:39:44that somebody on this committee

02:39:46on this committee

02:39:47would not only attack juries,

02:39:52we are the Judiciary Committee after all,

02:39:54the onslaught against juries on this committee

02:39:56is shocking to me,

02:39:58but also to use time and committee

02:40:02to further defame E. Jean Carroll.

02:40:07So shifting gears here,

02:40:12part of the Republicans' attempt

02:40:14to absolve former President Trump

02:40:15for his fraud conviction

02:40:16is the claim that former Justice Department official

02:40:20Matthew Colangelo was somehow dispatched

02:40:23to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office

02:40:25to prosecute Trump.

02:40:26And one of my colleagues touched on this briefly,

02:40:28but I want to circle back around.

02:40:30I've heard my colleagues say in this hearing and others

02:40:33that because Mr. Colangelo took a job

02:40:36with the Manhattan DA after working at DOJ,

02:40:39and in their eyes, this was a pay reduction

02:40:43or career step down,

02:40:44that the only conclusion would be

02:40:46that he changed jobs to get Mr. Trump.

02:40:50People on this committee have asked

02:40:52the Attorney General specifically,

02:40:54how is it that a man, Matthew Colangelo,

02:40:57takes a pay cut and takes a cut in just, you know,

02:41:00what is it he's doing for a living

02:41:02as far as prestige to go and join that case?

02:41:06This part of the theory is very revealing to me.

02:41:08It suggests that a person could never change jobs

02:41:11based on anything other than money or prestige.

02:41:17It seems that some of my colleagues have forgotten

02:41:20that public servants may take other things into account

02:41:23when navigating their career.

02:41:26Ambassador Eisen, thank you so much for being here.

02:41:29And the other witnesses, I should have said at the top,

02:41:31thank you for your time.

02:41:33Are you aware of any evidence

02:41:36that Mr. Colangelo was a mole

02:41:39dispatched by General Garland

02:41:41to the Manhattan DA's office?

02:41:45No, there's none.

02:41:46The Attorney General has definitively debunked

02:41:50this conspiracy theory with his detailed letter

02:41:54that he sent to the committee.

02:41:56For good measure,

02:41:58when I came to work on committee staff

02:42:03with the ranking member

02:42:05and with the chairman in the first impeachment,

02:42:09I took a substantial pay cut.

02:42:13People are motivated by public service.

02:42:18I hope I was on that instance.

02:42:21I'm not sure how much you work with me,

02:42:23but you did work with the ranking member.

02:42:25Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding our differences,

02:42:30I'd like to think that we've maintained

02:42:33a cordial relationship.

02:42:34We see it differently,

02:42:35but we're both trying to do the best for America.

02:42:38Sorry.

02:42:39That's all right.

02:42:40That's all right.

02:42:40You know, it's important to have conversations.

02:42:45So you touched on it,

02:42:46but can you think of some other reasonable explanations

02:42:51for a lawyer taking a job

02:42:53that may not appear to be the next step in their career?

02:42:58Mr. Colangelo has a long record of public service,

02:43:03including in the nonprofit sector.

02:43:06He had previously worked with Mr. Bragg in the AG's office.

02:43:12When you do have a new DA,

02:43:13he acquired a variety of responsibilities

02:43:17when he entered the DA's office.

02:43:20It's an opportunity because the Manhattan DA

02:43:23is such an important role with New York

02:43:28as an American and global financial center.

02:43:32Another reason these 34 false records convictions matter so much.

02:43:36It was an opportunity to have an impact on the public good.

02:43:40I like to think that those kinds of motivations come into play.

02:43:45And I think one of the challenges for my constituents home,

02:43:52watching the work that we do here,

02:43:55watching the news,

02:43:55they all tell me they're exhausted.

02:43:56They don't want to watch anymore.

02:43:58They don't want to watch the news.

02:44:00They don't want to actually know what we're doing here anymore

02:44:03because it feels like every single time they turn on the news,

02:44:07there is another bit of misinformation,

02:44:11another conspiracy theory,

02:44:13another nesting doll, as it were.

02:44:17And it makes it very difficult to find a way to cut through.

02:44:23And so once again, there is no evidence of collusion.

02:44:29Involving Mr. Colangelo.

02:44:31Is that right, Mr. Eisen?

02:44:33Is there any evidence?

02:44:35I hold an empty bottle.

02:44:38There's the same amount of evidence.

02:44:41None.

02:44:42I appreciate it.

02:44:43Thank you for your time.

02:44:44I yield back.

02:44:45Young lady, it's back.

02:44:46Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.

02:44:48Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:44:50Ambassador Eisen, just a thought, a comment.

02:44:52I know you spoke about the climate of threats,

02:44:55the climate of disinformation.

02:44:58I'm going to maintain that is not the climate

02:45:01that you're speaking about.

02:45:03You just don't want to hear the truth

02:45:04because you don't like it.

02:45:06And, you know, Congresswoman Lofgren, my colleague,

02:45:10good person, she asked,

02:45:11can a democracy survive without the rule of law?

02:45:14Well, we know the answer.

02:45:15It can't.

02:45:16And that's what makes me sick with what's going on

02:45:19because we want to speak.

02:45:20And it's been spoken about often here

02:45:22about what people are thinking, what they're saying.

02:45:25Well, I'm a little crazy.

02:45:26So we get literally thousands and thousands of calls

02:45:29and letters and emails you can imagine every single week.

02:45:33I pick out a handful and I call people back.

02:45:36Some are Republicans.

02:45:37Some are Democrats.

02:45:38Some are people that don't care about either.

02:45:40But you know what a lot of folks are telling me?

02:45:42And they're not all hard Republicans.

02:45:44They're telling me they're scared.

02:45:47And the reason they're scared,

02:45:48and by the way, they should be,

02:45:49I don't make them feel good.

02:45:51I don't sugarcoat it.

02:45:52I don't say, no, nothing to worry about,

02:45:53nothing to see here

02:45:54because they don't believe in equal justice for all,

02:45:58which should be for the left and the right.

02:45:59It should be for Republicans and Democrats.

02:46:02It should be for progressives and libertarians.

02:46:04It should be for conservatives and liberals,

02:46:06equal justice for all.

02:46:09But that's what is making me sick

02:46:11because we don't have it now.

02:46:13This is all about politics and money

02:46:17and teaching a lesson, the politics of it.

02:46:21The politics of it is we have a judge

02:46:24who is a known and strong Democrat,

02:46:26not just because of the contributions he made,

02:46:28but for other factors.

02:46:29His daughter alone is a major operative

02:46:32in the Democratic Party,

02:46:33millions of dollars flowing through her hands.

02:46:37I tell you what, you wouldn't like it

02:46:38if it was reversed and you had a judge

02:46:41that didn't recuse himself.

02:46:43We should have judges and prosecutors

02:46:45that are objective and fair,

02:46:48whatever political party you are,

02:46:50whatever persuasion you are.

02:46:52It's about money because if you follow the money

02:46:55and politics is about money a lot,

02:46:57we don't like to say it,

02:46:58but if you follow the money here,

02:47:00huge contributions going to the prosecutor,

02:47:03coming from the far left,

02:47:04coming from Democrats,

02:47:06and he runs for office

02:47:09saying that he's going to get Trump,

02:47:11saying that he's going to get Trump.

02:47:12You may have one speech where he didn't say that.

02:47:14There were plenty of times where he made it clear

02:47:17that he was the guy to make sure to go after Trump.

02:47:21How unobjective can you be?

02:47:23How wrong is that

02:47:25in the American system of jurisprudence?

02:47:27How terrible is that?

02:47:29And you wonder why people are worried?

02:47:31And let's talk about Trump for a second.

02:47:33Everybody else is.

02:47:34President Trump, first they tried to impeach him

02:47:37and they didn't have grounds.

02:47:39That didn't work.

02:47:40So then we tried something

02:47:42and I would hope, Ambassador Eisen,

02:47:43that you didn't even agree with this.

02:47:45They try to take him off the ballot.

02:47:48They're scared of this guy.

02:47:50They try to take him off of the damn ballot

02:47:53illegally, incorrectly,

02:47:55and so the Supreme Court has to come in,

02:47:58liberals and conservatives,

02:47:59some real people from the left on that court,

02:48:01and say, man, this is just wrong.

02:48:03That didn't work.

02:48:04So what do you got left?

02:48:06You weaponize the judiciary.

02:48:09The only thing you can do.

02:48:11And what's teaching the lesson about?

02:48:13You know what you all, not you guys,

02:48:15but you know what's being done?

02:48:16We're teaching, I really mean this,

02:48:19Americans to be afraid if they differ,

02:48:22if they speak out,

02:48:23especially if they happen,

02:48:24in this case, to have a conservative

02:48:26or different viewpoint.

02:48:28Talk about those people you speak with on the phone.

02:48:30I do it.

02:48:30I really do it

02:48:31because my humble beginnings as a councilman

02:48:34and going all through,

02:48:35I've held every damn office you can hold.

02:48:37And you know what these people will tell you?

02:48:39Some of them are a little nervous

02:48:41about putting signs up.

02:48:43They're a little bit nervous

02:48:44about giving a campaign contribution

02:48:46because they're afraid

02:48:47they're going to go after them

02:48:48because you know what they know?

02:48:50If they went after this man,

02:48:52they can go after you.

02:48:54Now, the right thing to do here

02:48:55is the judge should have recused himself.

02:48:57The right thing is not to have the trial

02:49:00in a town with a prosecutor

02:49:02who's made it his aim in life to go after him.

02:49:05It's wrong.

02:49:07And people are afraid

02:49:08they're going to go after your family,

02:49:10your friends, your businesses, your life.

02:49:14Politics, money, and teaching a lesson.

02:49:18And you know what?

02:49:18It's a tale of two prosecutors.

02:49:20And I'm running out of time

02:49:21and I want to ask a question.

02:49:22But this is a guy

02:49:23who wants to prosecute non-existing crimes

02:49:26like this one,

02:49:27but damn it,

02:49:28he won't prosecute the violent crimes

02:49:30and he downgrades them

02:49:32in the city of New York to misdemeanors.

02:49:35And he's causing people

02:49:36to get murdered and robbed and hurt.

02:49:41I'm only going to get one question in here,

02:49:43but I'm going to squeak it in.

02:49:44Commissioner Treanor,

02:49:45can you elaborate

02:49:46on why the FEC Commission

02:49:48did not move forward

02:49:49with an investigation?

02:49:50And I know we've talked about this,

02:49:51but I want to hear it again.

02:49:53The FEC,

02:49:53who should have been the ones to do it,

02:49:55they said,

02:49:55no, we're not going to do it

02:49:57because they were neutral and objective.

02:49:59Why didn't they do it?

02:50:01The commission did not move forward

02:50:02with an investigation

02:50:03because we were asked

02:50:04to abate that proceeding

02:50:05by the Department of Justice.

02:50:06The Department of Justice

02:50:07then took over a year

02:50:09to conduct a criminal investigation.

02:50:11And then when they sent the information

02:50:13that they had back to us

02:50:14after they had declined

02:50:15to prosecute anyone in the case,

02:50:17the statute of limitations had run

02:50:19when it came back to the commission.

02:50:19Real quick, thank you.

02:50:20Ms. Foley,

02:50:21your testimony highlighted

02:50:23significant due process violations.

02:50:25Can you just detail that a little?

02:50:27Three core due process precepts,

02:50:29notice, meaningful opportunity to defend,

02:50:31and proof of all relevant facts.

02:50:33We only have a few seconds if you could.

02:50:35Yeah, lack of adequate notice

02:50:37of the charges

02:50:38and the basis of the charges

02:50:39by obfuscating a primary element

02:50:42of the felony falsification offense,

02:50:44which required that there be

02:50:46another predicate offense

02:50:49that was intended to be committed.

02:50:50They obfuscated that till the very end,

02:50:53until the jury instructions.

02:50:54Once they identify that

02:50:56in the jury instructions,

02:50:57it became clear

02:50:58that there was a second predicate

02:50:59that was required

02:50:59that Trump never had an opportunity

02:51:01to respond to whatsoever.

02:51:02Point of order, Chairman.

02:51:04You know what, I yield back.

02:51:07Ambassador Eisen,

02:51:07damn it, I wish I could have gotten to you.

02:51:10The gentleman yields back.

02:51:12The chairman of the United States Senate.

02:51:14Consent request from the ranking member.

02:51:16Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

02:51:18to introduce for the record

02:51:20an April 12, 2023 article

02:51:22from PolitiFact that states,

02:51:24quote,

02:51:25we reviewed Bragg's campaign record

02:51:26and found that although he often cited

02:51:28his prior prosecutorial experience

02:51:30with respect to Trump

02:51:31and said he was equipped

02:51:32to inherit the DA's office investigation,

02:51:34he made no promises about any case.

02:51:36He said that although he had access

02:51:37to some publicly available information

02:51:39about Trump's activities,

02:51:41he didn't have all the information

02:51:42and wanted to be fair, close quote.

02:51:44Without objection.

02:51:45Let me just real quickly say

02:51:47we have 15 minutes left.

02:51:48Ms. Scanlon and two on our side.

02:51:50I have to jump out for a meeting,

02:51:51but I wanted to thank each of you

02:51:53for being here.

02:51:55Mr. Eisen,

02:51:55I certainly did not work with you

02:51:58when you were trying

02:51:58to impeach the President of the United States.

02:52:01But let the record show,

02:52:02I have allowed you to hawk your book

02:52:04at the committee hearing

02:52:05and didn't object to that one bit.

02:52:07Ms. Foley, Commissioner Treanor,

02:52:09we do appreciate your being here

02:52:11and your testimony as well.

02:52:12Thank you for being here

02:52:14since 10 o'clock this morning.

02:52:15We appreciate that.

02:52:16I'm going to let the next governor

02:52:17of North Dakota chair

02:52:18the remainder of the hearing

02:52:19and we'll go to Ms. Scanlon

02:52:20for five minutes.

02:52:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:52:24And as the chairman acknowledged,

02:52:25we didn't start at 10.

02:52:26We started nearly an hour late

02:52:29or just over an hour late

02:52:30because he and his Republican colleagues

02:52:33had prioritized a meeting with Donald Trump

02:52:35over a committee hearing.

02:52:37And presumably they received

02:52:38their latest marching orders

02:52:40to weaponize congressional power

02:52:42against our criminal justice system

02:52:44because that's what we're seeing here today.

02:52:46It's outrageous.

02:52:47Over and over again,

02:52:48this Congress,

02:52:49we've seen House Republicans

02:52:50set aside congressional work,

02:52:53the people's business,

02:52:54to do the former president's bidding

02:52:56as he seeks to avoid justice

02:52:58and accountability

02:52:59for his numerous misdeeds.

02:53:01Their members,

02:53:02including the House speaker,

02:53:03have spent hours injecting themselves

02:53:06into these state court proceedings

02:53:08and standing outside

02:53:09the Manhattan courthouse

02:53:10instead of working on legislative business

02:53:13to serve the American people.

02:53:15They don't seem to understand

02:53:16that they were elected

02:53:17to serve their constituents,

02:53:19not the disgraced, twice impeached,

02:53:21and now convicted leader of the party.

02:53:24So why are we here in today's hearing?

02:53:27Because two weeks ago,

02:53:29a jury of Donald Trump's peers,

02:53:3112 American citizens,

02:53:33found him guilty of criminal conduct.

02:53:35Now, those jurors were selected

02:53:37by both the prosecution

02:53:40and Mr. Trump.

02:53:42Those jurors considered

02:53:44all of the evidence

02:53:45presented to them by the prosecution

02:53:47and by the former president,

02:53:49not just the evidence or,

02:53:51as is so often the case,

02:53:52the alternative facts

02:53:54that are selectively presented

02:53:55by social media,

02:53:57cable pundits,

02:53:59or political spin doctors,

02:54:00including some of those here today.

02:54:03Because unlike our political sphere,

02:54:05that's how our justice system works.

02:54:08The jurors performed their civic duty.

02:54:10They did their job.

02:54:11And when they applied the law

02:54:13to the evidence,

02:54:14they determined that

02:54:15the former U.S. president

02:54:16was guilty of 34 felonies.

02:54:19Now, having a former president

02:54:20found guilty of criminal conduct

02:54:22is a sad day for our nation.

02:54:24But it's sadder still

02:54:26that the former president

02:54:27is using his allies here on the Hill

02:54:29to attack our courts

02:54:31and undermine the rule of law,

02:54:33and that members of Congress

02:54:34are debasing themselves

02:54:36and this institution

02:54:37to embrace his conspiracy theories and lies.

02:54:40Unfortunately,

02:54:41these attacks upon the very foundations

02:54:43of our government

02:54:43to prop up the former president

02:54:45have become the norm for their party.

02:54:48When Donald Trump

02:54:48couldn't bend journalists' coverage

02:54:50to his will,

02:54:51MAGA Republicans

02:54:52echoed his attacks on the free press.

02:54:55When American voters

02:54:56rejected Donald Trump's

02:54:57first reelection bid,

02:54:59MAGA Republicans

02:55:00helped him sow chaos,

02:55:01confusion,

02:55:02and conspiracy theories

02:55:03to drive his attempts

02:55:04to overturn that election.

02:55:06And now, when a New York state jury trial

02:55:09has resulted in Donald Trump's

02:55:10first criminal conviction,

02:55:12MAGA Republicans

02:55:13are attacking the state's prosecutor,

02:55:15the judge,

02:55:16the witnesses,

02:55:16and the jury.

02:55:18And as several other criminal cases

02:55:20against the former president

02:55:21head to trial,

02:55:22House Republicans

02:55:23are introducing legislation

02:55:25to fire prosecutors,

02:55:27to defund the Department of Justice,

02:55:30and to deny states the authority

02:55:32to prosecute crimes

02:55:33committed in their jurisdictions.

02:55:35Disturbingly,

02:55:36we now see this pattern of behavior

02:55:38any time

02:55:39anyone tries to hold

02:55:40the former president

02:55:41accountable for his words or actions.

02:55:44House Republicans

02:55:44have been trying to interfere

02:55:45in the New York state case

02:55:46since its inception,

02:55:48even though such interference

02:55:49violates both

02:55:50our constitutional separation of powers

02:55:52and our federalist system.

02:55:55Every step of the way,

02:55:56House Republicans

02:55:56have attempted to insert

02:55:57the federal government

02:55:58into a purely state and local matter

02:56:01without any credible

02:56:02pretense of jurisdiction.

02:56:04And they're continuing

02:56:05their outrageous,

02:56:06unproven accusations

02:56:07against the Manhattan

02:56:08District Attorney's Office

02:56:09with this hearing.

02:56:10Republicans say that

02:56:11they're the party of law and order

02:56:13until their chosen candidate

02:56:15for president is convicted,

02:56:16and they claim to support states' rights

02:56:18until a state court rules

02:56:20in a way that they dislike.

02:56:22The truth is that America

02:56:23is built upon the idea

02:56:25that no one is above the law,

02:56:26including former presidents

02:56:28and their allies.

02:56:29And these shameless attempts

02:56:31to subvert

02:56:31our most fundamental

02:56:32American institutions

02:56:33threaten the rule of law

02:56:35that our country is built upon.

02:56:36So, Ambassador Eisen,

02:56:39why is it dangerous

02:56:40for members of Congress

02:56:41to try and influence the outcome

02:56:43and attack the legitimacy

02:56:45of a criminal court

02:56:46and a free and fair trial?

02:56:47And how does it threaten

02:56:48judicial independence?

02:56:50The genius of the American project

02:56:55lies in our federalism,

02:56:58our checks and balances,

02:57:00the laws,

02:57:01starting with the Constitution,

02:57:04that reinforce staying in your lane.

02:57:06When I worked in the White House,

02:57:08it was the first rule.

02:57:09Stay in your lane.

02:57:11And that's the rule

02:57:13for a functioning democracy as well.

02:57:17There's no place,

02:57:18just like there was no place

02:57:20for Donald Trump

02:57:20to tell Brad Ravensburger

02:57:22in January 2021,

02:57:24just, quote,

02:57:25find 11,780 votes.

02:57:28There's no place for Congress

02:57:30to be meddling

02:57:31in these state prosecutions.

02:57:35Thank you.

02:57:37And I would,

02:57:37I see my time's expired,

02:57:39although there has been

02:57:40a fairly loose gavel.

02:57:43But I'd ask—

02:57:44Mr. Armstrong is even more generous

02:57:47than Chairman Jordan.

02:57:48I would just ask unanimous consent

02:57:50to introduce an article

02:57:52from this morning's Politico

02:57:53entitled Trump's Private Demand to Johnson

02:57:56Help Overturn My Conviction.

02:57:59Thank you.

02:58:00I yield back.

02:58:02The gentleman from South Carolina

02:58:06is recognized.

02:58:09Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

02:58:12Ms. Foley,

02:58:13did Alvin Bragg's indictment

02:58:15actually articulate

02:58:16a provable felony offense?

02:58:21Did the indictment?

02:58:23No.

02:58:23I mean, the indictment was about

02:58:25as generic as you could get.

02:58:27I mean, one of the primary elements

02:58:29is the intent to commit another crime.

02:58:31The indictment said nothing,

02:58:32nothing about that.

02:58:34And he provided a statement of facts

02:58:35that accompanied the indictment.

02:58:36That also said nothing

02:58:38about what that other crime was.

02:58:39Why do you suppose that was,

02:58:40that it admitted that?

02:58:42I think to the extent that

02:58:43you want to convict someone to the,

02:58:46you know, you hide the ball,

02:58:48you obfuscate,

02:58:49and that keeps the defense counsel

02:58:51on their toes.

02:58:52They don't know what evidence

02:58:55to put forward to the jury.

02:58:57It's an ever-moving target.

02:58:59It makes it very difficult to defend

02:59:00if you're a defense counsel.

02:59:01And how does that impact

02:59:02the jury instructions in the end?

02:59:03You talked about that,

02:59:04but I want you to discuss that again.

02:59:07Yeah, well, you know,

02:59:08you don't know till the end,

02:59:10if you don't know till the end,

02:59:12what exactly the first predicate is.

02:59:17You don't know what,

02:59:18who to put on the stand.

02:59:19You don't know what evidence

02:59:20to put forward.

02:59:22The only reason he tried to bring forward

02:59:24Brad Smith, for example,

02:59:25the former FEC chair,

02:59:27was because Alvin Bragg kept hinting

02:59:31maybe one of the bases

02:59:33for the first predicate

02:59:34was the FECA violation.

02:59:38And so he kind of knew that.

02:59:40So he tried to get a witness

02:59:41to say something about that,

02:59:43and he was denied.

02:59:44So it was just an exercise in futility

02:59:47for Trump to try to defend this case,

02:59:49because it wasn't clear

02:59:50exactly what he was being charged with.

02:59:52Thank you for that.

02:59:52And just changing gears a little bit,

02:59:54who's Matthew Colangelo?

02:59:56Well, he was, what,

02:59:57the number three guy

02:59:57in the Department of Justice?

02:59:59Correct.

02:59:59And what was his current title?

03:00:01What does he do now?

03:00:03He's on Alvin Bragg's prosecutorial team.

03:00:05I'm not sure exactly what his title is.

03:00:06A state DA.

03:00:07Yeah, state DA.

03:00:08That's correct.

03:00:09Is it unusual to see somebody

03:00:11go from, what,

03:00:11the number three position

03:00:13at the Department of Justice

03:00:14to a state district attorney?

03:00:16You know, I know some

03:00:18other members of the committee

03:00:19have suggested, well,

03:00:20you know, you do it

03:00:21out of the goodness of your heart

03:00:22because you're a public servant

03:00:23and all that jazz.

03:00:24And I'm sure that's true.

03:00:26But at the same time,

03:00:27it's exceedingly unusual

03:00:30for that to happen,

03:00:31for you to take a downward movement

03:00:32in your career.

03:00:34And because of the unusual nature of it,

03:00:36it makes you go, hmm.

03:00:38Yeah, I think it raises questions.

03:00:39And I think the American people see that.

03:00:41I think polling consistently shows

03:00:43that the American people believe

03:00:45that the prosecution

03:00:48of President Trump in Manhattan

03:00:50was more about politics

03:00:52than it was about

03:00:53some violation of the law.

03:00:54And of course, we've seen that, right?

03:00:55I mean, District Attorney Bragg

03:00:58campaigned on going after

03:01:01a certain individual,

03:01:02not some violation of the crime.

03:01:03It was identify the man

03:01:05and then go after the crime.

03:01:07And I think that's incredibly alarming

03:01:09just for the justice system broadly.

03:01:11Is it fair to say that

03:01:12as a former DOJ official

03:01:14that Mr. Colangelo

03:01:15would have high level contacts

03:01:17within the Biden Department of Justice?

03:01:19Oh, undoubtedly.

03:01:21And I hope if he does actually show up

03:01:23before the committee

03:01:24that there are a lot of vigorous questions

03:01:27about that.

03:01:28If there was or continues

03:01:30to be some sort of coordination

03:01:31between the Department of Justice,

03:01:33based on those contacts

03:01:35and the District Attorney's office,

03:01:37what effect would that have on a case?

03:01:40It would be a tremendous effect.

03:01:42I mean, it would be a huge advantage

03:01:44for someone from the Department of Justice

03:01:46to sort of implant themselves

03:01:48in a state prosecution,

03:01:51which involves state crimes,

03:01:52obviously only.

03:01:54Because it would benefit his former boss,

03:01:57the person for whom he worked.

03:01:59And, you know, again,

03:02:00it would just sort of re-emphasize

03:02:02the impression, the suspicion

03:02:04that this is a politically motivated prosecution.

03:02:07I think that's why it's important too.

03:02:09Are you aware that members of Congress

03:02:10have the ability to remove cases

03:02:12from state court to federal court?

03:02:14Yeah.

03:02:15Judges, same thing.

03:02:17There's a bill that I've introduced

03:02:18called the No More Political Prosecutions Act,

03:02:20which would allow that to happen.

03:02:21Why might a president

03:02:23or former president

03:02:24want to remove the venue

03:02:26from a state district case

03:02:29to a federal jurisdiction?

03:02:31Well, you know,

03:02:31the hallmark of federal judges

03:02:33as opposed to state judges

03:02:34is they're appointed for life

03:02:35with the advice and consent of the Senate,

03:02:37whereas state judges are generally elected.

03:02:40And so they're more political creatures by nature.

03:02:44You know, they wear the robes of legislators

03:02:47to a certain extent

03:02:47because they do have to stand for election.

03:02:50So you hope to get the neutrality,

03:02:52you know, the political independence

03:02:54from a federal court.

03:02:55In your experience as jury,

03:02:57the jury selection process,

03:02:59is that more robust at the federal level

03:03:00than it is at the state, generally speaking?

03:03:02Yeah, absolutely.

03:03:03The voir dire is much more extensive.

03:03:07The judge controls that process much more

03:03:14in terms of making sure abuses don't take place.

03:03:17So yeah, I would assume that,

03:03:19you know, in general,

03:03:21the federal judicial process is much tighter

03:03:26and less loosey-goosey, I guess,

03:03:28is the way I'd put it,

03:03:29than a state process.

03:03:30Thank you, Ms. Foley.

03:03:31I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman,

03:03:33soon to be governor of North Dakota.

03:03:35And with that, I yield.

03:03:42The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.

03:03:48No, gentleman from Texas is recognized.

03:03:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

03:03:52When a Democrat gets convicted of a crime,

03:03:54it's called political retribution.

03:03:56When a Republican gets convicted of a crime,

03:03:58it's called justice.

03:04:00This is the justice system,

03:04:01the way that the American people have seen

03:04:02and come to expect

03:04:03over the course of the past few years.

03:04:05Soviet-style show of trials

03:04:07to persecute political enemies.

03:04:10I keep hearing my colleagues on the left say,

03:04:12no one is above the law,

03:04:13and Trump is being treated

03:04:14like anyone else would be.

03:04:16But we're talking about Trump's conviction only.

03:04:19But is that true?

03:04:20In American justice system,

03:04:22we do find that we target,

03:04:25then look through the entire life of history

03:04:28to find a crime,

03:04:29any crime that can be used against them,

03:04:32and then contort the law to convict that target.

03:04:36That's what the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg did.

03:04:39And how do we know this?

03:04:41That's what he campaigned to do.

03:04:44Do you know who else campaigned on that?

03:04:46Letitia James.

03:04:48And then they delivered on their promises.

03:04:50And the number three guy

03:04:52in the Department of Justice, Matthew Colangelo,

03:04:55even left a high-profile job,

03:04:56as you just articulated, ma'am,

03:04:58in the DOJ to work for a local DA's office

03:05:00with Alvin Bragg.

03:05:01That's weird.

03:05:03So from now until election day,

03:05:05Democrats will keep calling President Trump

03:05:06a convicted felon.

03:05:08And that's because Alvin Bragg

03:05:10delivered for his team.

03:05:11Now, we're talking about a man in President Trump

03:05:14who is the most investigated person

03:05:15in our country's history.

03:05:17And the only thing that Alvin Bragg could bring up

03:05:19was a zombie crime

03:05:21that no one else wanted to prosecute.

03:05:24And speaking of that zombie crime,

03:05:26I and the American people are still waiting to hear

03:05:28what the underlying crime actually is,

03:05:31and no one can tell us that.

03:05:33The left keeps touting themselves

03:05:35as the gatekeepers of democracy,

03:05:37and that they are the adults in the room

03:05:39and can impartially administer justice.

03:05:43I know this doesn't have to do

03:05:45with the Manhattan DA's office.

03:05:46I understand that.

03:05:48But I'd like to highlight a few political prisoners

03:05:50of the Justice Department.

03:05:52While Joe Biden and his team are scaring people

03:05:54into thinking that Donald Trump

03:05:55will put people in jail,

03:05:57Joe Biden is already putting political enemies

03:05:59in prison that we know of.

03:06:01Let's start with 74-year-old economist Peter Navarro,

03:06:04who served in the Trump administration.

03:06:06Do you know where he is currently?

03:06:09Peter Navarro is currently sitting in a jail cell

03:06:11in Miami for not complying with a subpoena

03:06:14from the Democrat-led January 6th Committee.

03:06:17How about Steve Bannon?

03:06:18He has to surrender himself by July the 1st,

03:06:21or he will be arrested.

03:06:22His crime?

03:06:23Not complying with a subpoena

03:06:24from a Democrat-led January 6th Committee.

03:06:27Now let's talk about Eric Holder.

03:06:30Oh, that's right.

03:06:32He never went to prison.

03:06:34The DOJ decided not to prosecute him

03:06:36after he ignored a congressional subpoena

03:06:38during the investigation

03:06:39into the Fast and Furious scandal.

03:06:42Does anyone find that hypocritical?

03:06:44Because Lord knows I do.

03:06:46And what about the Attorney General Merrick Garland?

03:06:49He was just held in contempt by the House yesterday.

03:06:53And how many Democrats are going to jump

03:06:55on the side of Lady Justice now?

03:06:58I have a prediction.

03:06:59Nobody.

03:07:01In our 250-year history,

03:07:03we haven't had this problem

03:07:04until Joe Biden was sworn into office,

03:07:06but now we're witnessing the Democrat Party

03:07:08persecuting and jailing their political opponents,

03:07:10including the former president, our party's nominee,

03:07:13and likely the 47th president

03:07:15of these United States of America.

03:07:18Biden is right when he says democracy

03:07:20is on the ballot this November.

03:07:22The only problem is that Joe Biden

03:07:24is on the wrong side of history.

03:07:26I hope and pray that Alvin Bragg and Colangelo

03:07:29will show up to testify before this committee next month.

03:07:32We've asked them, and we shall see.

03:07:34Because the American people deserve oversight,

03:07:37we deserve better,

03:07:38and we deserve accountability.

03:07:40I know it's been a long day for you all,

03:07:41but thank you so much for being here.

03:07:42I really appreciate it,

03:07:43and I yield back the rest of my time.

03:07:44Thank you.

03:07:48The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.

03:07:50Thanks, Chairman.

03:07:52On May 30th, Donald Trump was found guilty

03:07:55after years of lawfare by the radical left,

03:07:58and this is the result of a justice system

03:08:00that has been abused and used

03:08:02against the former president for quite some time.

03:08:07Mrs. Foley, can you explain for us

03:08:10what the primary jurisdiction doctrine is?

03:08:13The primary jurisdiction doctrine

03:08:16is that federal offenses

03:08:18are generally adjudicated in federal court.

03:08:22The purpose of this doctrine

03:08:23is to allow an agency of competent jurisdiction

03:08:26to review the facts to determine

03:08:27if there was, in fact, a violation of the laws

03:08:29that the federal agency administers, correct?

03:08:31Correct.

03:08:32The theory underlying the doctrine

03:08:34is that Congress has designated

03:08:36these federal agencies to adjudicate such questions

03:08:38because the agencies have a special competence

03:08:40and expertise over factual and legal questions

03:08:42within its designated mandate, correct?

03:08:45Correct.

03:08:46Was the primary jurisdiction doctrine

03:08:48implicated in the Manhattan criminal case

03:08:50against President Trump?

03:08:51I'm going to assume so,

03:08:53and I would defer to Commissioner Treanor on this,

03:08:56but FECA is not my area of law,

03:08:59but what I will say is,

03:09:00having looked at the FECA statute

03:09:02in preparation for this testimony,

03:09:04I'm shocked that there's been

03:09:07no preemption argument here.

03:09:09Commissioner Treanor?

03:09:11I would agree with Professor Foley on that.

03:09:13I mean, the whole purpose of my testimony

03:09:15was to highlight the fact that

03:09:18the jurisdiction that was asserted here

03:09:21is jurisdiction that belongs

03:09:22to the Federal Election Commission,

03:09:24that could ultimately then refer it

03:09:25to the Department of Justice.

03:09:27Do you believe the Justice Department

03:09:28should have intervened to protect

03:09:29both the FEC's jurisdiction and its own?

03:09:31Without question.

03:09:33And did the Justice Department intervene?

03:09:35They did not.

03:09:35They only intervened

03:09:36in the Federal Election Commission's investigations.

03:09:38So in other words,

03:09:39the Biden Justice Department

03:09:40allowed the Manhattan DA's office

03:09:42to usurp both the Justice Department

03:09:44and the FEC's jurisdiction, correct?

03:09:46Absolutely.

03:09:47And tell us why is that problematic?

03:09:49Well, it's problematic

03:09:50because it sets up a system,

03:09:51well, first and foremost,

03:09:53it allowed the judge to get the law wrong

03:09:54in this particular case

03:09:55and issue a jury charge

03:09:57that had to do with willful contributions

03:09:59as opposed to knowing

03:10:00in willful contributions

03:10:01is what, which is what the law requires

03:10:03to be proven.

03:10:04But in a larger picture,

03:10:06it sets up a standard

03:10:07where you can have, you know,

03:10:0850 different states

03:10:09trying federal election crimes

03:10:11under various standards.

03:10:13Judge Marchand neither stayed

03:10:15nor dismissed the case

03:10:16on primary jurisdiction grounds, did he?

03:10:19He did not.

03:10:20In fact, he, along with

03:10:22the 12 residents of New York County,

03:10:23decided that issue, correct?

03:10:25They did.

03:10:26And do you believe that the Trump conviction

03:10:28will be vacated

03:10:29on the primary jurisdiction grounds?

03:10:31I think that that's definitely a possibility.

03:10:33All right, thank you.

03:10:34I yield back.

03:10:38Thank you.

03:10:39All right.

03:10:40I just want to kind of bookend

03:10:43this thing a little bit

03:10:44and be like, we know this.

03:10:46The first federal prosecutor

03:10:47decided not to decline prosecution.

03:10:50Commercial trainers told that.

03:10:52The first DA, Manhattan DA,

03:10:54didn't prosecute.

03:10:55And then Alvin Bragg actually,

03:10:57I mean, campaigned on prosecuting it.

03:11:00And at the core,

03:11:02this is a false business record.

03:11:03Entries were used to cover up

03:11:05a conspiracy to promote an election

03:11:07by unlawful means.

03:11:09So the filing of false records

03:11:12is a misdemeanor

03:11:13to your statute of limitations.

03:11:15The New York conspiracy is a misdemeanor

03:11:17to your statute of limitations.

03:11:19By combining those two,

03:11:20you get to where you can actually

03:11:22create the felony

03:11:24with statute of limitations.

03:11:28Outside of anything else

03:11:29in talking about political,

03:11:30not political,

03:11:31there's an unbelievably aggressive use

03:11:33of prosecutorial discretion.

03:11:36So the charge of offense

03:11:38is the false line of business records.

03:11:39The predicate offense

03:11:41is the New York concealing

03:11:43a conspiracy to interfere.

03:11:45But here's where my question comes in,

03:11:46and this is, I've actually read

03:11:47all the jury selections.

03:11:49The unlawful means is where we get

03:11:50this grab bag, right, Mrs. Foley?

03:11:53Yes, that's where we get

03:11:55three possibilities instructed.

03:11:56And it's in basic pick.

03:11:58But I went through the jury instructions,

03:12:00and here's my question.

03:12:03What elements of any

03:12:05of those predicate claims

03:12:06are unlawful means?

03:12:07I mean, conspiracy in and of itself is,

03:12:11so if you charge a second offense

03:12:13driving under the influence,

03:12:15usually the sentence

03:12:16for a second offense

03:12:17is different than a first offense.

03:12:18In order to get to the second offense,

03:12:20you have to prove the first offense

03:12:22beyond a reasonable doubt.

03:12:23Right.

03:12:24Now, in those types of cases,

03:12:25it's a certified record

03:12:26of a court judgment.

03:12:27You just put it in the record.

03:12:30I've objected to just about everything

03:12:31that's ever been put into court

03:12:33when I was doing this.

03:12:34It's impossible to object to that.

03:12:36So when we're talking about

03:12:36these unlawful offenses

03:12:38and these three things

03:12:40and dealing with the New York

03:12:42misdemeanor statute,

03:12:43that when you combine

03:12:44with the other misdemeanor statute,

03:12:46you end up getting to this felony

03:12:47and pass the two-year

03:12:48statute of limitations.

03:12:49But was the jury required

03:12:51to prove any of those

03:12:52underlying elements

03:12:53beyond a reasonable doubt

03:12:54to any of those crimes?

03:12:55Because I'm talking about

03:12:56the Fifth Amendment

03:12:56and the due process part of that.

03:12:58No, and in fact, you know,

03:13:00based on the instructions,

03:13:00we don't even know

03:13:02which of those possible

03:13:03three areas of law

03:13:05the jury decided

03:13:07because they didn't

03:13:07have to be unanimous.

03:13:09But it's really more than

03:13:10three laws too, by the way,

03:13:11because the tax laws

03:13:12that he instructed the jury on

03:13:13could include local, state,

03:13:15and federal tax laws.

03:13:18And by the way,

03:13:18the mention of local

03:13:20or federal tax laws

03:13:20had never been made at all before.

03:13:22At most, right,

03:13:24the prosecution had mentioned

03:13:26the possibility of state tax laws

03:13:30as being the first predicate,

03:13:32not the second.

03:13:33Yeah, and I'm actually

03:13:35into the third layer of this

03:13:36because unlawful means,

03:13:38I mean, I'm just thinking of,

03:13:40I've never defended

03:13:41a case in New York.

03:13:42I've just never practiced

03:13:43in New York,

03:13:44but I have defended cases

03:13:45in state court,

03:13:45and I've defended cases

03:13:46in federal court.

03:13:47I'm thinking about arguing

03:13:48against a case when you,

03:13:50I mean, I made my living

03:13:51on if there were seven elements

03:13:53of a crime,

03:13:54winning one of them.

03:13:56Like, I don't need

03:13:57to win all seven.

03:13:58I got to get proof

03:13:59beyond a reasonable doubt

03:14:00on one of the seven elements.

03:14:02And they're not laid out

03:14:03anywhere in this whole process,

03:14:05are they?

03:14:05No, I mean, that's the problem.

03:14:07You don't know

03:14:09how the jury got

03:14:10to where they got at the end.

03:14:12In fact, you didn't even know

03:14:13how they could get there

03:14:15until they were instructed.

03:14:17And then once they were instructed

03:14:18because they could,

03:14:19you know, kind of pick and choose

03:14:21which of the unlawful means

03:14:22they wanted to base

03:14:24the New York election

03:14:25law violation on,

03:14:27you have absolutely no idea.

03:14:30Why President Trump

03:14:31was guilty of a felony

03:14:32based upon theories

03:14:34of two different misdemeanors.

03:14:35So,

03:14:38I'm glad you said that

03:14:39because I was busy

03:14:40and doing all of these things

03:14:41and I tend to not listen

03:14:43to the cable news rhetoric

03:14:44and all of these different things

03:14:46because I've actually been in there

03:14:47and I think they get it wrong a lot.

03:14:50But I get through it

03:14:51and I read it

03:14:51and I'm like, just thinking,

03:14:52how do you possibly do this?

03:14:55And that's where I'm frustrated.

03:14:57And I'm frustrated

03:14:57with the rhetoric,

03:14:58like today too,

03:15:00because like,

03:15:01I've been criminal

03:15:02of the administration of justice

03:15:04since 2003

03:15:05when I got sworn into

03:15:06the North Dakota bar.

03:15:08I mean, I've introduced bills

03:15:09on exculpatory evidence,

03:15:10recording interrogations,

03:15:12crack parody and sentencing,

03:15:14acquitted conduct,

03:15:16all of these things,

03:15:17oftentimes working

03:15:18with the other side of the aisle.

03:15:19But the nearest I can think of,

03:15:21and I agree with you

03:15:22and I appreciate you saying it earlier,

03:15:23the jury's only as good

03:15:24as the instructions they get.

03:15:26I do not criticize the jury.

03:15:27I get a little frustrated.

03:15:29Political demographics

03:15:30and all of that,

03:15:31I mean, I've dealt with that.

03:15:32I don't criticize the jury.

03:15:34But nearest I can figure out,

03:15:36anybody who criticizes Judge Mershon

03:15:38or Judge Bragg is like,

03:15:43DA Bragg is like,

03:15:46causing our criminal justice system

03:15:48to come crumbling down

03:15:49and democracy at itself

03:15:50is going to fail.

03:15:52But Judge Cannon, Judge Alito

03:15:53and Judge Thomas,

03:15:54completely on limits.

03:15:55You can do that whenever

03:15:57you want.

03:15:57So I think what it really means

03:15:59is if you don't agree with me,

03:16:01you're a danger to democracy.

03:16:02If you agree with me,

03:16:03you're perfectly acceptable.

03:16:04And with that, I yield back.

03:16:08All right.

03:16:10This concludes today's hearing.

03:16:11We thank our witnesses

03:16:12for appearing before

03:16:13the committee today.

03:16:14Without objection,

03:16:15all members will have

03:16:16five legislative days

03:16:17to submit additional

03:16:19written questions

03:16:19for the witnesses

03:16:20or any additional materials

03:16:22for the record.

03:16:23Without objection,

03:16:24the hearing is adjourned.

03:16:27Thank you.

BREAKING NEWS: Jim Jordan Chairs House Judiciary Committee Hearing On The Manhattan DA's Office

Category

Transcript

Recommended