AG Garland’s testimony got heated as Republicans, Democrats traded barbs

Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Sept. 20. It is the first time Garland has testified to the committee since former President Donald Trump and Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, have both been indicted on federal charges in separate cases.

Republicans focused on discrediting Garland’s leadership at the Department of Justice, attempting to portray Garland as an attorney general who has created two systems of justice: one for Americans and one for the Biden family.

“Americans believe that today, in our country, there is unequal application of the law,” Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan said. “They believe that because there is. Republicans are committed to making that change.”

In his opening statements, Garland fought back, stressing that the DOJ’s job is to pursue justice without fear or favor and apply the law equally to everyone.

“Our job is to uphold the rule of law,” Garland said. “That means that we apply the same laws to everyone. There is not one set of laws for the powerful and another for the powerless; one for the rich, and one for the poor; one for democrats, another for republicans; or different rules, depending upon one’s race or ethnicity or religion.

“Our job is to pursue justice, without fear or favor. Our job is not to do what is politically convenient. Our job is not to take orders from the president, from Congress, or from anyone else, about who or what to criminally investigate. As the president himself has said, and I reaffirm today: I am not the president’s lawyer. I will also add I am not Congress’s prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people. Our job is to follow the facts and the law. And that is what we do.”

During the hearing, Republicans grilled the nation’s top law enforcement official on his department’s investigations into Hunter Biden for alleged tax and firearms crimes.

They pressed Garland on why special counsel David Weiss allowed the statute of limitations to run out on potential charges against Hunter Biden. Garland answered the question the same each time.

Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La.: “Why has the Justice Department dragged out this investigation for so long? Does it really take years to determine if Hunter Biden lied on a federal form related to purchasing a firearm?”

Garland: “Mr. Weiss was a long-time career prosecutor. President Trump appointed him.”

Johnson: “You’re not answering the question. Is that standard procedure? Should it take that long to make such a simple determination?”

Garland: “I’m answering the question, give me an opportunity to do so.”

Johnson: “Okay.”

Garland: “He was charged with that investigation under the previous administration. He has continued. He knows how to conduct investigations. I have not intruded or attempted to evaluate that, because that was the promise I made to the Senate.”

Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C.: “Are you unaware that the statutes of limitations have in fact been allowed to expire after there having been tolling agreements in place?”

Garland: “I’m going to say again. Determination of where to bring cases, and which kinds of cases to bring, was left to Mr. Weiss.”

Bishop: “Yes sir, I’m aware that you said that. That’s part of the problem.”

Chairman Jordan, R-Ohio: “It’s one thing to have a gun charge in Delaware, that doesn’t involve the president of the United States, but Burisma? Oh my, that goes right to the White House. We can’t have that. And we can slow-walk this thing along.

“We can even extend the statute of limitations and then we can intentionally let it lapse. And we know this investigation was slow. Here’s what everyone said… Every witness said it was slow-walked and we know why. They slow walked it long enough to have the statute of limitations run so they wouldn’t have to get into Burisma. Tell me where I’m wrong.”

Garland: “I think I’ve tried to make clear. I don’t know specifics of investigation. Much of what you’re describing occurred during the Trump administration with a Justice Department appointed by President Trump.”

Jordan: “No it didn’t. This is four-and-a-half years of investigation; we’re talking about the last few years. Your statement was just this year, March 1st to Senator Grassley.”

Garland: “I’m sorry, I was trying to respond. Your descriptions of what the IRS agents said about certain things…”

Jordan: “The statute of limitations is six years. That lapsed here in the Biden administration.”

Garland: “On the statute of limitations I will say again. That the explanation for why the statute of limitations was lapsed, if it was, has to come from Mr. Weiss.”

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Democrats defended garland – and asked him about other issues including a potential government shut down, abortion, crime, and the U.S.-Mexico Border.

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.: “If there’s a shutdown of our federal government, how will that affect the Department of Justice and how will it affect policing in local communities?”

Garland: “I have not done a complete calculation on the effects of a shutdown, on the difference between which employees are indispensable under the statute, and which ones are not. It will certainly disrupt all our normal programs including our grant programs to state and local law enforcement, and our ability to conduct our normal efforts, with respect to the entire scope of our activities including helping state and locals fight violent crime.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.: “One Trump-like presidential candidate has said that we should abolish the FBI altogether. Mr. Attorney General, what would be the impact on America if we defund the FBI?”

Garland: “Defunding the FBI would leave the United States naked to the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, to the attacks by Iranians on American citizens and attempts to assassinate former officials, to the Russian aggression, to North Korean cyberattacks, to violent crime in the United States, which the FBI helps to fight against, to all kinds of espionage, to domestic violent extremists who have attacked our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, and who have killed individuals out of racial hatred. I just cannot imagine the consequences of defunding the FBI, but they would be catastrophic.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.: “Mr. Weiss was appointed by then President Trump. Your decision was to leave the Trump-appointed attorney completely in charge of this, hands off from you. He makes all the calls without interference from the attorney general. Is that correct?”

Garland: “That is correct.”

Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa.: “Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Thank you for your decades of faithful service to our country, to our Constitution, and to our rule of law. Thank you for putting up with this today. The American people are watching. They know what’s going on here. This is a gross misuse of your time, your team’s time, and our time. It is a shameful circus. It has a goal. The goal is to spew lies and disinformation ultimately to tear away at the confidence of our independent institutions, in your case today, our very important Department of Justice.”

Things heated up when Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., fired multiple questions at Garland, not giving him much of a chance to answer.

Gaetz: “So, Hunter Biden is selling art to pay for his $15,000 a month rent in Malibu. How can you guarantee that the people buying that art aren’t doing so to gain favor with the president?”

Garland: “The job of the Justice Department is to investigate criminal allegations.”

Gaetz: “Are you investigating this? Someone who bought Hunter Biden’s art ended up with a prestigious appointment to a federal position. Doesn’t it look weird that he’s become this immediate success in the art world as his dad is president of the United States? Isn’t that odd?”

Garland: “I’m not going to comment about any specific…”

Gaetz: “You’re not going to comment, not going to investigate.”

Then, about 40 minutes later, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., accused Garland of being in contempt of Congress for not commenting on ongoing investigations. This led to Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., displaying two computers, showcasing Jordan’s refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena regarding his actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

Swalwell: “My colleague just said you should be held in contempt of Congress, and that is quite rich. Because the guy who’s leaving the hearing room right now, Mr. Jordan, is about 500 days into evading his subpoena. About 500 days.

“So, if we’re going to talk about contempt of Congress, let’s get real. Are you serious that Jim Jordan, a witness to one of the greatest crimes ever committed in America, a crime where more prosecutions have occurred than any other crime committed in America refuses to help his country. And we’re going to get lectured about subpoena compliance and contempt of Congress? Jim Jordan won’t even honor a lawful subpoena. Are you kidding me?”

Overall, the hearing seemed like it was two hearings: one for Republicans to dig in and ask questions about Hunter Biden investigations, and one for Democrats to praise Garland and the work being done by the DOJ.

In the end, Rep. Nadler gave Garland the chance to clear up any confusion or answer any questions in greater detail. He chose to use that time to reaffirm the DOJ’s commitment to America.

“I just, again, I want to assure the American public and this committee that the Justice Department follows the rule of law,” Garland concluded. “It enforces the law equally, without regard to persons and without regard to parties, and that we do the best we can to follow the facts and the law.”