8:57
Georgia, Trump calls Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and pressures him to find 11,780 votes. Exactly enough votes to beat Joe Biden by one vote. He is the first president in history to repeatedly break the law, and the first president to incite a rebellion in an attempt to stop a peaceful transfer of power. You could pay the President of the United States to drop a case against a foreign national. You could pay him directly. You could buy his meme coin. You could do anything you wanted and he would be exempt from criminal liability according to the Supreme Court ruling. The first three highest positions go to the president's criminal lawyers.
Pam Bondi, who defended him. Todd Blanche, who defended him. John Sauer defended him. Many of them continue to defend him. Are we really moving as a country toward having our Department of Justice intervene in specific cases across the country to protect corrupt or suspected corrupt officials from criminal liability if they share the administration's policies? But that's exactly what's happening. Is it illegal for the president to accept a gift from a foreign country without the consent of Congress? Very simple question. Senator, as a lawyer, I always try to provide my answer. I'm not asking you for a preface. Just yes or no.
Well, Senator Schiff, it depends on the facts. Well, Mr. Geiser, where does it depend on the facts in Article 1, Section 9, Section 8, which says that no person holding any office shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any gift from any foreign power. I'm asking you a simple question. Yes or no? I'm very glad that you are familiar with the Ministry of Justice manual You are familiar. Do you think the manual applies to people on the Departmental Armaments Working Group? Should they follow it? Yes or no? Senator, as you know, this is a difficult issue for you? Did you observe the members of the task force, or did you yourself violate the rules of the Ministry of Justice Senator, as previously noted, the improper handling of grand
jury materials by members of the Departmental Armaments Working Group? But isn't this a clear conflict of interest? You represented him in these cases. You acknowledge that you still have obligations to him in these matters. How can you oversee the investigation or review of prosecutors in these cases when you yourself conducted them? How is this not the most obvious conflict of interest not a hypothetical situation. It's black and white. It says, and I'll read it out: "I hereby establish a Working Group on Armaments, to be chaired by the Office of the Attorney General with support from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General." So, this is what you will be required to do. Um, if you were given the right to oversee the cases in which you
were his attorney, would you recuse yourself? Mr. Smith, thank you for coming to testify today. I'm sorry you were demonized and attacked today. I want to point out what we heard, and I sat through almost every minute of this hearing. What we heard and what we didn't hear from my colleagues on the other side of the room. They attacked you repeatedly, aggressively, inappropriately, scandalously, but none of them challenged what happened that day. None of them said that the attack on January 6 did not happen. None of them tried to deny the attack on the police officers. None of them even suggested that the president was not involved. None of them disputed any of these things. No, they attacked you
because they don't want to talk about the facts. They don't want to talk about it. They prefer to attack you. And to clarify the situation: despite all the outrage from my colleagues over your request for phone records, because Rudy Giuliani and other accomplices called some members of this body. Despite all the outrage about this, I have to let you know, because you may not know, that the Justice Department under Barr requested phone records of members of Congress. Not a word from my colleagues about this, but it was about the Democrats' phone records. This was obviously acceptable. This obviously does not violate freedom of speech and debate. And to further clarify the situation, I want to tell you what my colleagues here had to say about the attempt to
impeach two of their colleagues in the Senate and four in the House of Representatives for making a video that said the military should not follow an illegal order. A simple statement of fact, law, and Constitution. Not a word about the fact that they were not just persecuted, but tried to bring them to criminal responsibility. It was the Justice Department that asked the indict them. And you probably know what happened at that grand jury meeting. Namely: not a single juror agreed to support the indictment. Has this ever happened to you, Mr. Smith? Have you ever had to address a grand jury so that no juror would refuse to indict? No. I was a prosecutor for almost 6 years. I've never even heard of such a thing. But that doesn't
worry them. These were the Democrats whom the department was trying to hold accountable. So, they do not deny the facts of January 6. They don't object, and let me just go over a few facts. On January 2, 2021, a few days before the Georgia election results were confirmed, Trump called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and pressured him to find 11,780 votes. Exactly enough votes to beat Joe Biden by one vote. What can my Republican colleagues say about this? Do they say, "Oh, Trump never did that"? Have you heard any of my colleagues make such a statement today? No. None of them denied that the president called and pressured the Georgia secretary to find votes that didn't exist. Have you heard any of
them make such an argument? No. And, of course, it's on the record. It would be very difficult to deny that. He also said, "So what are we going to do here, guys?" This is Trump on the phone. I only need 11,000 votes, guys. I need 11,000 votes. But that's enough for you. Have you heard any of my Republican colleagues say that this never happened? No. They do not deny these facts. Uh, how about this about Mar-a- Lago.well, actually, about January 6th. Justice Department officials on December 27, 2020. Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donohue. And in this 90- minute phone call, Trump complains that the election was stolen from him, even after Justice
Department officials repeatedly denied his claims. And Attorney General Rosen says: "I understand that the Justice Department cannot and will not snap its fingers and change the results of the election." President Donald Trump responds: "I don't expect you to do that. Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen." Have you heard any of my Republican colleagues No. Have you heard any of them say, "Oh, Donald Trump never tried to pressure the Justice Department to make up anything about the 2020 election"? Have you heard them make such an argument? No. You heard how they often attacked you, right?
Yes, but it does n't really bother me. It's much more important that the civil servants I work with.uh.that we stop shaming civil servants Well, I.I completely agree with you. I mean, I saw them blabber-I heard Kesh Patel, sitting where you are sitting now, making a blatantly false statement that no agent working for you was fired for working on the Donald Trump investigation. He really made that statement. This is just completely absurd. And the time will come when he will be held accountable for such statements under oath. But let me ask you this. Despite all the emotional outbursts we heard from the other side today. If
this committee really wanted to know the facts, for example, about the storage of all classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Now, can we see images of the Mar-a- Lago documents? Wouldn't they like to see the second volume of your report? They wanted to know the facts. Wouldn't this report shed light on the facts of how the president hid all these documents in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago? I want to make sure I comply with Judge Cannon's order, so I will not say anything that would even hint at the content of this report.
Let me ask you about this from a procedural point of view then. The Department of Justice, before Donald Trump became president, wanted the second volume of your report to be released, right? Uh, the Department of Justice, I believe, released the first volume. That's right. I'm talking about the second volume. They also wanted to release a second volume, right? Uh, you know, to be honest, I filed these reports in accordance with the rules of the special prosecutor's office and immediately left the Ministry of Justice. I don't know if this was the position of the Justice Department before the new team came in under
Donald Trump. Trump's new team, Donald Trump's former defense lawyers have changed their position. They no longer advocated for the release of your report. I think if our chairman and our Republican colleagues really wanted to get to the facts, they would want to see this report. The chairman and the senior member of the committee together have the authority to issue a subpoena to receive this report. Uh, I'm going to make a motion at our next work meeting to subpoena your report. We need to see him, the country needs to see him. These cases were closed. This does not prejudice any ongoing prosecution. They want to see the facts. Let's show them the facts, but they don't want to see the facts.
They might ask for your report. They don't want to see your report. They don't want the country to see your report. No, they want to come here today and call you scum because that means they won't have to face any of the evidence you've provided. And you previously emphasized a point that I want to emphasize, since I was a member of the Committee to Investigate the Events of January 6. What made those hearings powerful, what made your investigation powerful, the reason the jury, among others, indicted the president, is that the witnesses were almost all Republicans. It wasn't something partisan. Witnesses have spoken about crimes committed by the president, and my colleagues on the other side of the room want to convince the country that,
well, because Donald Trump was indicted in two separate cases, which is unprecedented in history, then you have to believe that these prosecutions were improper. Well, that's one explanation. This is an incorrect explanation. It could also be because he is the first president in history to repeatedly break the law, and the first president to ever incite an uprising in an attempt to stop a peaceful transfer of power. This is the first president to try to obstruct an investigation into the concealment of boxes of classified materials. So, I want to thank you again for your service to the country. I want to thank you for the service of every member of your team.
On behalf of a representative of the federal government, I want to apologize for the appalling treatment your team has received from this Congress and this government, for all the death threats they have received, for their wrongful dismissal , for the burden placed on their families. My colleagues spoke of the stress for members over requesting their phone records as witnesses, not even as targets. Well, what about the death threats your team receives? Or the ones you received. So I thank you for taking on this challenge. I thank you for your willingness to testify, for your desire to testify. I hope that we can allow the country to see the results of your work and see the release of the second volume of your report. You can't testify about
it today because Judge Cannon doesn't want you to. Her decisions were simply doing everything possible to please the president. And because this committee doesn't want you to do it. And this Department of Justice will not give you guidance on what you can say today because they don't want you to. They want you to be afraid that they will persecute you if you testify about the amount of evidence you have received. So, thank you for your service to the country. And I'm sorry you were treated with such pathetic personal attacks. You deserve better, as do the American people. I take it back. On behalf of, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by outlining the context for the candidates we're considering today. And this context is
the creation of a narrative about the transformation of the Department of Justice into a weapon. The reason for this narrative is the president's need to explain why he is the first president in history to be repeatedly The most important accusation, of course, was the president's role in the January 6 coup. The subsequent indictment or additional charge of concealing boxes of classified documents at Mar-a- Lago, obstructing this investigation, combined to demand that the president explain why he is the first president in history to be indicted multiple times. And not just the fact of the indictment itself, but also the fact that numerous grand juries, having reviewed the evidence, found sufficient grounds to believe that the President of the United States
committed many, many crimes. To explain this, the president must create a narrative that the Justice Department was somehow improperly used as a weapon against him. Because he is the only person in history to have been indicted multiple times. What other explanation could there be? Well, sometimes the simplest explanation is the most accurate, and the simple explanation here is that he is the first person to commit these crimes while in office. And yet, this narrative, built around the weaponization of the Department, ignores the fact that the Department, far from using justice as a weapon, has chosen to treat the President like any other American, no better or worse. That is, they did not grant him immunity from violating criminal laws
. If they decided to indict the people who attacked the Capitol and beat up police officers, the people who conspired to make it happen, but would let the person who instigated it rest. If they decided that if other intelligence community members elsewhere brought boxes of classified documents home, they would be held accountable, and if the president did it, they would be treated differently, that would be a rejection of the whole idea that no one is above the law. So, they acted within the law, and the law led to Donald Trump. But this narrative they have created also serves another purpose, namely: it allows them to do, in an Orwellian way, what they have unjustly accused others of doing, namely: it allows them to use the ministry as a weapon.
Use the ministry as a sword and as a shield. As Sheldon Whitehouse aptly noted, they use it as a sword to try to create criminal cases where there are none, as a basis-in the case of this environmental fund-for its closure and prosecution. In the absence of reasonable suspicion, they asked many prosecutors and judges to open an investigation, but they, finding no grounds, fulfilled their ethical duty and replied: "No, it simply does not exist." And so they are fired, and the case is passed from prosecutor to prosecutor, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, trying to use the agency as a sword to prosecute programs that the president doesn't like or political enemies.
We have seen letters from the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to Democratic members of Congress, designed to intimidate them into using the office as another tool of presidential power. But, of course, they use it not only as a sword, but also as a shield. And we see this clearly in New York, where the Department of Justice intervened in a serious criminal case against the mayor of New York, a case of corruption and bribery, and filed a motion to dismiss it. And why? Because the mayor is useful to them. He is useful to them on an issue that has nothing to do with the case - immigration policy. So they filed a motion to dismiss the case, and not just dismiss it, but dismiss it without prejudice,
meaning they want to hold this case over his head like the sword of Damocles: if the mayor stops carrying out the president's will, they will reopen it. Have we reached a point where the Department of Justice can be so blatantly used as a means of intimidation, control, and policy formation? Now all this has become possible thanks to a Supreme Court decision that grants the president immunity from criminal liability, and in particular notes that in certain key areas of responsibility, this immunity is absolute. The Supreme Court in the case "United States v. Trump" stated that when the president uses the Department of Justice, he has absolute immunity. There could be no more open attack on the Watergate-era policy of separating the White
House and the Justice Department than the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration: "Tear down this wall." Use the agency as you wish. Create cases where there is no evidence. Close cases where there is a lot of evidence. And you will never be held accountable. No matter how corrupt the motive, you will never be held accountable. You could pay the President of the United States to drop a case against a foreign national. You could pay him directly. You could buy his meme coin. You could do whatever you wanted and he would be exempt from criminal liability according to the Supreme Court ruling. This has greatly increased the possibility of the Department of Justice being used
as a weapon by a president who seeks to use it for such a purpose. We now view these candidates and others before them as instruments of such ability to use ministry. The first three key appointments went to the. Pam Bondi, who represented him. Todd Blanche, who represented him. John Sauer represented him. Many still represent him. Many cannot distinguish between his personal representation and the representation of the United States of America. I asked Mr. Sauer about his ethical obligations. I asked Mr. Blanche the same thing. At the time of the survey, these were the two current attorneys for the president. Well, even when they become former lawyers for the president, they still have ethical obligations to their former client. Do not
harm the interests of a former client. This would have required recusing oneself, but no one wanted to do that. The most they were willing to do was say they would consult with professional ethics lawyers at the Ministry of Justice, but they are no longer there. Now they are fellow criminal lawyers for Donald Trump The inspectors general left. The head of the Office of Professional Responsibility has left. National security professionals have left. Lawyers who don't bring cases in the absence of evidence have left. Lawyers who don't close cases where there is enough evidence are gone. And who replaced them?
People who don't understand where the personal representation of the president ends and where the representation of the country should begin. And I just want to say to those of us who think we're safe because of our positions in this body or any other: the longer we let this go on, the more we confirm people who won't recuse themselves, the more we expose ourselves and our democracy itself to attack by a president who doesn't respect the rule of law, backed by a Supreme Court that has given him no reason to fear the law. And I can't say what it will lead to, but I can say that it will lead to a place that will not resemble a democracy. Mr. Chairman, I will pass the floor on.
The argument that my colleagues on this side of the room so often repeats forces me to respond: it is the argument that, supposedly, President Biden also ignored the law. And the example they give is his efforts to get his student loan debt forgiven. What President Biden did with student loans: he tried to write them off using certain legislative powers, and the court said, "No, the law doesn't give you that power." He accepted it. And then he tried to use other legislative powers. It would be wrong for the court to say, "Not only can you not do this under this law, but under no other law," since that issue was not addressed by the court.
Therefore, the president has the right to try to use other legislative powers to achieve the same goal. This is not the same as ignoring the law. But the other point I want to make is unrelated to the first one-I just want to pause and think about what's happening to our justice system right now. I mean, the Justice Department is getting involved in a case in New York, a serious corruption case against an elected official, only to close it down simply because that official supports or assists in a completely unrelated immigration. Is this really the way for our country to go, with the Department of Justice intervening in specific cases across the country to shield corrupt or allegedly corrupt officials from criminal liability if they agree with
administration policies? But that's exactly what's happening. And, what's even worse, in a sense, the Ministry of Justice's motion to dismiss the case is without the right to reopen. That is, they want to hold a kind of sword of Damocles over the mayor's head so that if at some point he does not follow the administration's line or says something bad about the president, they can use this sword of criminal liability. And this is happening without a single word of dissent from this committee or this body. Eh and I think that from time to time we should De Cruz? to try to break out of this stupor and say, "Oh my God, is this really happening in this country?" I mean, can you imagine, sometimes you have to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
If it were President Biden or another Democratic president who would try to close a corruption case in another jurisdiction just because the person being closed supports an unrelated. Hmm, what a fuss there would be, and frankly, a completely justified fuss about this. Which is something no president of any party should do, and I hope we don't sit back and let this become the new modus operandi for the Department of Justice. Thank you, Chairman, I see that our colleagues are returning, and so that I am not interrupted, I will pass the floor on. Um, I want to follow up on Senator Kennedy's line of questioning and ask a series of questions that can only be answered with a "yes" or "no" to clarify the details and make sure your answers are as clear-cut as
they seem. So, let me start with you, Mr. Edlow. Uh, yes or no. Would you ever advise the administration that it could ignore or disregard a current district court decision because you believe the Supreme Court would later overturn it? Senator, as I said before, uh, yes, just a I don't know if I'll ever be in that situation, but maybe not, but as with the response to Senator Kennedy, I want to make sure you have n't misled anyone. So let me ask again. Would you ever advise the administration that it could disregard a current opinion or decision of a district court because you believed the Supreme Court would later overturn it? Yes or no I don't want to speculate, but I don't see a situation in which I would advise against
enforcing the court's decision. So your answer is no, you would never advise them to ignore the district court's decision, even if you think the Supreme Court. Again, I don't want to talk in, I don't want to talk in the style of I just want you to be specific and answer "yes" or "no" I don't see a time when I would do that. No. OK. Mr. Geiser, yes or no? Thank you very much, Senator Schiff. I would advise clients to comply with court decisions. Even if you believe that the Supreme Court will eventually overturn the district court's decision?
Well, Senator, how much is Yes, yes or no? The answer is the same. The president said he would comply with the court's decisions. Same answer. Yes or no? Uh, Senator, the President said you were able to respond to Senator Kennedy, but I want to make sure you didn't mislead Senator Kennedy. Yes or no, would you ever advise an administration that it could ignore a district court decision because you believed the Supreme Court would ultimately rule differently? Yes or no, would you ever advise them to do so?
Uh, senator, existing court decisions must be enforced. That's not what I'm asking about. Yes or no? Uh, Senator, you asked me Yes or no, Mr. Geiser, it's a simple question. Uh, Senator, you, you, Mr. Geiser. You were able to answer Senator Kennedy. Are you now questioning your answers to Senator Kennedy because you can't answer that question? Well, Senator, I would advise clients to comply with the relevant court orders. or not? I would advise clients to follow the appropriate yes or no? Let me repeat the question so that there is no ambiguity. Would you ever advise the administration. if you were
confirmed as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which helps determine whether actions are legal or illegal, would you ever advise the administration that it cannot ignore a relevant opinion or order of a district court because you believe that the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn that order? Yes or no? Uh, Senator, if I'm confirmed as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, you're not answering the question. So, I guess the answer to Senator Kennedy is that you can advise the administration to ignore the district court order. How about you, uh, counselor? I'm just asking, uh, yes or no. Well, I, I would, thank you. I want to clarify that I am not, uh, if I am confirmed as director, I will not act as a lawyer at all. I am part of the
executive branch, and therefore I will not advise clients, uh, on any such matters. Well, would it be appropriate, in your opinion, for anyone else in, uh, legal counsel to do that? I, I, I, in general, court decisions should be implemented and respected. Uh, there are situations that I remember from law school. OK. I, I, I, I think you are unable to answer the question either. Uh, counselor, what about you I mean, I mean, I agree. I do not consider it appropriate to consider this hypothetical question. At the Department, do you want to revise your response to Senator
Kennedy? That is, there are circumstances in which you would advise the administration to ignore the district court's opinion because you believe the Supreme Court may reach a different decision. Is this, is this your opinion? As a lawyer, I will answer : it depends on the circumstances. OK. What can I do? Thank you. Then we will make sure that Senator Kennedy knows that you will advise the administration to ignore the court decisions "depending on the circumstances." Senator, if I may ask one more question. Mr. Geiser, uh, do you agree that it would be illegal for the President to accept a gift from a foreign country without the consent of Congress? Do you agree that this is illegal?
Well, thank you for that question, Senator. Uh-huh. Yes or no? As for whether something is legal, I would always like to take a look. I'm just asking you a simple question. Is it illegal for the president to accept a gift from a foreign country without the consent of Congress? Very simple question. Senator, as a lawyer, I would always provide my answer. I am not asking you for an opening statement. Just yes or no.
Well, Senator Schiff, it depends on the facts. Well, Mr. Geiser, where in Article 1, Section 9, Section 8, it says " dependence on facts," it says: " No person holding any office shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any gift from any foreign power." This is the Constitution. It doesn't say, "Well, it depends." or maybe, or possibly. It says: "No person should do this." Do you find this ambiguous? Senator, I thought you were supposed to be a proponent of strict interpretation of laws. This is what the Constitution says. Is there an exception for $400 million worth of planes from Gulf emirs Mr. McDonald, were you part of the
Justice Department's task force on Senator, as mentioned earlier in some of the questions in the hearing today, the task force on weaponization of the agency was created by the President yes or no. would do. Were you part of the working group on the use of the agency as a weapon? Senator, as I mentioned earlier in questions before the committee, the task force on weaponization of the agency, created by the president and then the attorney general, I still have not received a response. Were you involved in the working group on the use of the agency as a weapon? Yes or no? This is a simple question. You were either involved in it or you weren't.
Senator, as already mentioned, no, Mr. Yes or no, Mr. McDonald. Senator, as I mentioned earlier, I am not interested in what you mentioned earlier. I'm asking you a simple question now, not before, but right now. Were you part of the working group on the use of the agency as a weapon at the Ministry of Justice? Yes or no? Senator, as I mentioned earlier, okay, you're not going to answer the question. You are not going to answer the question. It was rightly determined to answer a simple question, but let me ask you another question. Do you think that members of the task force on the use of the agency as a weapon should follow the instructions of the Ministry of Justice? Yes or no?
Senator, as a career federal prosecutor, a question. Yes or no? familiar with the instructions of the You are familiar. Do you think the guidelines apply to people on the Should they follow them? Yes or no? Senator, how do you know what a difficult question is for you? Do you believe that members of the Working Group on Abuse of Power should adhere to ethical standards? Senator, all they ask a very specific question. Not about all employees of the Ministry, but about employees of the Working Group on Abuse of Power.
Do they have to follow the instructions of the Ministry of Justice? Yes or no? Senator, all operate within the provisions Mr. McDonald, is that " yes"? Senator, I will refer you to the answer I just gave. Is a working group something different? Are you implying that this is different, that she shouldn't follow a code of ethics, that she shouldn't follow ethics at all? Why do you refuse to answer a simple question? Senator, I do not refuse to answer your question. Do the members of the Working Group have to follow the instructions of the Ministry of Justice Senator, as I noted in my previous response, all Ministry staff
I am not interested in your previous responses. You can't answer a simple question or you just don't want to. Which makes me suspect that you believe that these rules do not apply to them and that they do not have to meet the standards of the Ministry of Justice Instruction. So let me ask you another question. During your time working in this group, have you observed any other members of the Working Group violating the Instructions of the Ministry of Justice? Yes or no? Power Task Force has been working. I'm not interested in your evasive answers. Did you observe the members of the working group, or did you yourself violate the Instructions of the Ministry of Justice Senator, as has been indicated in previous responses,
So, let me ask you another question. Did the group work or did you see members of the Abuse of Power Task Force mishandling grand jury materials? Senator, as I mentioned earlier, I am not interested in evasive answers. The Task Force has worked to uncover the facts and events underlying the significant abuse of power in government during the Chairman, I have a simple question. I am asking for your help in getting a straight answer. I asked the witness whether he believed that members of the Justice Department's Abuse of Power Task Force should follow the. Um, can you help me get an answer to this question?
No, I won't help you. OK. Well, you have the chairman's support in not answering the question, so let me try another question. Let me try to get clarity again. Did you see any of the task force members violate the grand jury secrecy rules? Yes or no? Senator, as I noted in my previous testimony, the Task Force on the " Weaponization" of Government is working hard to understand the historical abuses and " weaponization" of the Department of Justice under the Biden administration. McDonald, have you ever seen anyone on the government's "armament" task force break the law? Yes or no? Senator, I refer you to my previous response.
Your previous answer was evasive, and it is becoming quite clear that you are unwilling to answer very simple questions. Because it's quite clear what this "weapons" Working Group exists for: to use the vast powers of the Department of Justice to prosecute the president's enemies. I will conclude, Mr. Chairman. Despite what I've heard from our mutual acquaintances, I'm very concerned, listening to your testimony, by how much you sound as if you're still representing Donald Trump as his lawyer. Your criticism of the Ministry, for example, for filing an amended indictment in the case on January 6 after the Supreme Court's decision to have the indictment comply with this finding, is an objection I would expect to hear from a criminal defense attorney
, not a statement I would expect to hear from a Deputy Attorney General. So let me ask you. You have not yet been confirmed for the position. Are you still Donald Trump's lawyer? attorney- client relationship with President Trump remains. Yes, the cases I represented him in since there's nothing going on there, like an appeal in Manhattan, I'm not involved in that. But you still represent him, sitting here today. Well, I mean, representing him. there are no active cases. Therefore. That 's right, but you're still his lawyer. I have an attorney-client relationship with President Trump. And even if you are approved and you no longer represent him as a defendant in a
criminal case, you will still have moral obligations as a member of the bar, legal obligations to your former client, right? As does everyone at the Department of Justice regarding each of their former clients. Right. So you would still have a duty of loyalty and confidentiality regarding his communications, correct? Yes. Now, Ms. Bondi, as Attorney General, one of her first acts was to establish this Orwellian-sounding Working Group on the " weaponization" of power . Her memorandum states that the work of this Working Group on "armament" issues will be supported by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. This is the office you will occupy. Would you agree that it would be a blatant conflict of interest if you, as his
criminal attorney and someone with a longstanding legal obligation to him as a former client, were to participate in any of this group's work regarding the January 6th case, where you represented him, or the Mar-a-Lago case, where you defended him, or the Alvin Bragg office case, where you also represented him? You would agree that this would be a very blatant conflict of interest. I don't know. I don't necessarily agree with that. There's potentially a conflict of interest there, but I don't agree with the word "flashy," and it depends on the Good.
I mean, I'll throw out the word " flashy," but isn't this a clear conflict of interest? You represented his interests in these cases. You acknowledge that you still have obligations to him in these matters. How can you even oversee the investigation or review of prosecutors in these cases when you yourself conducted them? How is this not the most obvious conflict of interest I'm not saying I can or I can't. I'm saying I'm not going to tell you today, Senator, yes, that's a blatant conflict of interest. Well, why I don't know what the job is. Well, can't you admit that if you were asked to oversee matters that included your own, that would be a conflict of interest different This is a completely different hypothetical situation. Of course.
this is not hypothetical. You are currently under the Attorney General's order to support this task force. This is going to look at the January 6th case and the Mar-a- Lago case-the cases you worked on. So, can you admit that it would be a conflict for you to oversee this work? What I don't recognize are the generalizations that you make. This work, for example. There will be conflicts, and I will not violate my ethical obligations. Well, well, let me ask you very specifically: Will you recuse yourself from overseeing the January 6th case, the Mar-a- Lago case, and the Alvin Bragg case? Will you recuse yourself from the task force's oversight of these investigations?
I will follow the rules, as the experts, the professional prosecutors in the department, will tell me, when it comes to, that might be true in theory. No, this is not a theory. I know. Well, that's the thing, Mr. Blanche, you know it well. You may well get an opinion from an ethics lawyer appointed by the administration. I said-professional prosecutors that you can act at your own discretion. If you believe this is a conflict of interest, you may decline to participate. If not, you can participate. So, you have some freedom of action. So I ask you: How will you use this
discretion? Will you recuse yourself from overseeing investigations into cases in which you were his attorney? This shouldn't be difficult. You just gave a purely hypothetical example, because the hypothesis you described is This is not a hypothesis. This is written in black and white. It says, and I'll read it out: "I hereby establish an Abuse Task Force, to be led by the Office of the Attorney General with support from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General." So, this is what you will be required to do.
Um, if you were given the right to oversee the cases in which you were his attorney, would you recuse yourself? It depends on the circumstances. The hypothesis you just described involved the in-house ethics lawyer telling me that I shouldn't recuse myself for any reason. Because again, we are talking about hypothetical situations. If a staff lawyer at the Department of Justice tells me, "You shouldn't recuse yourself." I'm not going to sit here today and say I'm going to say Okay anyway. Of course. Well , that answers my question. Um, you don't consider that enough of a conflict of interest for you to be here today telling me that you're Yes. No, I understand, I understand. I think it's amazing what we've come to.
Well, you're repeating something I didn't say, Senator. It's No, I find it amazing that you think there's a world where you could somehow be involved in an investigation into people where you represented the president in the same investigation. That would be Well you don't want to commit to self-recusal, which means you're willing to consider supervising this work. So this, this, this tells me something. But let me go further, because I think you've made your point clearly. Um, let me ask you specifically about the Mar-a-Lago affair. Um, the Department of Justice has officially recommended that the second volume be released. Do you support the publication of the second volume of the report?
No. Good. Um, are you committed to preserving evidence in both of these investigations? I guarantee that I will abide by the law and the rule of law. You do not undertake any obligation to preserve evidence. Let's say you have the right to decide whether to destroy evidence. Do you commit today to preserving evidence in both of these cases? I commit to following the law if you. If you can't commit to preserving evidence in cases where you were a defense attorney, I think that again indicates a conflict of interest that you have as the president's attorney. not to commit to it. I said I would
obey the law. No, I'm not sure, Mr. Blanche, I understand that everyone can say in general that they will comply with the law, but I asked you a simple question, will you preserve evidence, and you can't say yes. No. You can't say " yes". I would hope that every Justice Department prosecutor, political, personnel, or anyone else, would say that they will follow the rules in that regard. I would hope that any Justice Department prosecutor would say, "I will always preserve evidence." There are no circumstances under which I would destroy evidence. That's what I would hope for.
Mr. Chairman, I will pass the floor on.
