    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

             HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

       SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2023

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 118-3

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                            ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     51-365PDF             WASHINGTON : 2023

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
    MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
    MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
    VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             TED LIEU, California
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    TROY NEHLS, Texas                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
    KEVIN KILEY, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
    NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               GLENN IVEY, Maryland
    LAUREL LEE, Florida
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                     ------

       SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands,
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member
    CHRIS STEWART, Utah                  STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          LINDA SANCHEZ, California
    MATT GAETZ, Florida                  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
    KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida           COLIN ALLRED, Texas
    DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 DAN GOLDMAN, New York
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                  CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
              AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
               CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, February 9, 2023

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     1
    The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select
      Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
      from the Virgin Islands........................................     2

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel I

    Hon. Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator, Iowa
      Oral Testimony.................................................     5
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    10
    Hon. Ron Johnson, U.S. Senator, Wisconsin
      Oral Testimony.................................................    14
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    18
    Hon. Jamie Raskin, Maryland
      Oral Testimony.................................................    21
    Hon. Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
      Oral Testimony.................................................    25
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    31

                                    Panel II

    Thomas Baker, International Law Enforcement Consultant, former
      FBI Agent
      Oral Testimony.................................................    37
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    40
    Jonathan Turley, Professor, George Washington University Law
      Center
      Oral Testimony.................................................    49
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    51
    Elliot Williams, Principal, The Raben Group
      Oral Testimony.................................................    71
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    73
    Nicole Parker, Former FBI Agent
      Oral Testimony.................................................    79
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    82

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee
      on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below   126

    Materials submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of the
      Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
      Government from the State of Florida, for the record
        A list of past and present clients of The Raben Group
        A report submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary
            entitled, ``FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures
            Indicate about the Politicization of the FBI and Justice
            Department,'' November 4, 2022
    A letter from Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington,
      submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the
      Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
      Government from the State of Texas, for the record

                                    APPENDIX

    Materials submitted by Senator Ron Johnson from the State of
      Wisconsin, for the record
        An article entitled, ``We need answers to questions
            mainstream media won't ask about Democrats,'' October 10,
            2019, The Hill
        An article entitled, ``Russian Disinformation Fed the FBI's
            Trump Investigation,'' April 10, 2020, Wall Street
            Journal | Opinion
        An article entitled, ``The Press Versus the President, Part
            One,'' Columbia Journalism Rev., January 30, 2023
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
            Senator Gary C. Peters from the State of Michigan,
            January 2, 2020
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
            Senator Gary C. Peters from the State of Michigan,
            February 24, 2020
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
            the Members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
            and Governmental Affairs, March 1, 2020
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
            Senator Gary C. Peters from the State of Michigan, March
            9, 2020
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin and
            Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa, to the Minority
            Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Chair
            Schiff, August 10, 2020
        A letter from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security
            and Governmental Affairs, August 10, 2020
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
            Inspector General Christopher Wray, October 17, 2020
        A letter from the Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin
            to Michael E. Horowitz, October 21, 2020
        A letter to the FBI Director Christopher Wray and DNI
            Director Avril Haines, May 3, 2021
        A letter from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa to
            Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director
            Christopher Wray, July 25, 2022
        A letter to General Garland, Director Haines, Director Wray,
            and the Inspector General Horowitz, July 26, 2022
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
            Inspector General Horowitz, August 23, 2022
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
            Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides at the FBI, August 25,
            2022
        A letter from Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin to
            Mr. Zuckerberg, August 29, 2022
        A letter from the Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin
            to Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray, August
            29, 2022
        A letter to Attorney General Garland, FBI Director Wray and
            Delaware District Attorney Weiss, October 13, 2022
        A letter from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa and
            Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin, to Delaware
            District Attorney David Weiss, October 26, 2022
        A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa
            entitled, ``Grassley Raises Concerns over Obama Admin
            Approval of U.S. Tech Company Joint Sale to Chinese
            Government and Investment Firm Linked to Biden, Kerry
            Families,'' August 15, 2019
        A report by the Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa
            entitled, ``Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The
            Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns,''
            September 23, 2020, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
            Security & Governmental Affairs
        A report from the Senate Committee on Finance and Committee
            on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, November
            18, 2020
        A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa's
            entitled ``Whistleblowers' Reports Reveal Double Standard
            in Pursuit of Politically Charges Investigations by
            Senior FBI, DOJ Officials,'' July 25, 2022
        A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa
            entitled, ``Grassley, Johnson on Call on FBI to Explain
            Interference in Hunter Biden Investigation,'' August 26,
            2022
        A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa
            entitled, ``FBI Possesses Significant, Impactful,
            Voluminous Evidence of Potential Criminality in Biden
            Family Business Arrangements,'' October 17, 2022
        A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa's
            entitled, ``Grassley, Johnson Share Investigative
            Material with Prosecutors in Hunter Biden Criminal
            Probe,'' February 9, 2023
        A report from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa's
            entitled, ``Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The
            Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns''
        A Floor Statement by Senator Johnson from the State of
            Wisconsin and Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa on
            the Biden Family Investigation--Part I
        A Floor Statement by Senator Johnson from the State of
            Wisconsin and Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa on
            the Biden Family Investigation--Part II
        A Floor Statement by Senator Johnson from the State of
            Wisconsin and Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa on
            the Biden Family Investigation--Part III
        A Floor Statement #1 from Senator Grassley from the State of
            Iowa and Senator Johnson from State of Wisconsin
        A Floor Statement #2 from Senator Grassley from the State of
            Iowa and Senator Johnson from State of Wisconsin
        A Floor Statement #3 from Senator Grassley from the State of
            Iowa and Senator Johnson from the State of Wisconsin
        A statement from Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa's
            for the Senate Record entitled, ``Combatting Russian
            Disinformation,'' September 16, 2020
    A statement from the Honorable Gerry Connolly, a Member of the
      Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
      Government from the State of Virginia, for the record
    A memorandum from the Attorney General addressing threats against
      school board members, submitted by the Honorable John
      Garamendi, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the
      Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of
      California, for the record
    Testimony of Defending Rights & Dissent, submitted by the
      Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select
      Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
      from the Virgin Islands, for the record

                      HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE

                               FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, February 9, 2023

                            House of Representatives

       Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:33 p.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan Chair
    of the Subcommittee presiding.
        Present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Massie, Stewart,
    Stefanik, Gaetz, Johnson, Armstrong, Bishop, Cammack, Hageman,
    Plaskett, Lynch, Sanchez, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly,
    Garamendi, Allred, Garcia, and Goldman.
        Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time.
        We welcome everyone to this first hearing of the Select
    Subcommittee.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Gaetz, to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
        All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
    of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation,
    under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes himself for an
    opening statement.
        On November 18, 2021, an FBI whistleblower discloses to
    Republicans on the House Judiciary that the FBI created a
    threat tag for parents voicing their concerns at school board
    meetings.
        On April 26, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses that
    the FBI employees are being run out of the Bureau for attending
    conservative political events.
        On May 11, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses that
    dozens of parents with the threat tag designation to their name
    are investigated by the FBI. This also happens to be the same
    whistleblower who said the FBI leadership, not the rank-and-
    file members, the FBI leadership is rotted at its core. His
    clearance has been revoked and he has been suspended.
        On June 7, 2022, another FBI whistleblower is retaliated
    against after giving feedback on an anonymous survey.
        On July 27, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses that
    agents are pressured to reclassify cases as domestic violent
    extremism cases to hit self-created performance metrics.
        On September 14, 2022, an FBI whistleblower discloses that
    the FBI views the Betsy Ross flag as a terrorist symbol.
        On September 19, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses
    that the Washington Field Office is deliberately manipulating
    January 6th case files to make it appear that domestic violence
    extremism is on the rise. He has been suspended.
        On November 4, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses
    the FBI accepts private user information from Facebook without
    the user's consent and information is from only the
    conservative side of the political spectrum.
        This is only a sampling. In my time in Congress, I have
    never seen anything like this. Dozens and dozens of
    whistleblowers, FBI agents coming to us, talking about what is
    going on, the political nature at the Justice Department. Not
    Jim Jordan saying this, not Republicans, not conservatives;
    good, brave FBI agents who are willing to come forward and give
    us the truth.
        This is just the FBI. Americans have concerns about the
    double standard at the Department of Justice. Americans have
    concerns about the disinformation governance board that the
    Department of Homeland Security tried to form. Americans have
    concerns about the ATF and what they are doing to the Second
    Amendment. Of course, they have concerns about the IRS and the
    thousands of new agents who are coming to that organization.
        Finally, there are concerns about what we have learned in
    the Twitter files, where Big Government and Big Tech colluded
    to shape and mold the narrative and to suppress information and
    censor Americans.
        Over the course of our work in this committee, we expect to
    hear from government officials and experts, like we have here
    today; we expect to hear from Americans who have been targeted
    by their government; we expect to hear from people in the
    media; and we expect to hear from the FBI agents who have come
    forward as whistleblowers. We think many of them will sit for
    transcribed interviews, as one did on Tuesday, and we believe
    several of them will come and testify in open hearings.
    Finally, we expect to bring forward legislation that will help
    protect the American people.
        We hope our Democrat colleagues will work with us. The day
    the resolution creating this Subcommittee was debated and
    passed, though, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Nadler said Democrats would,
    quote, fight us ``tooth and nail.''
        We hope that attitude changes. We want to work with them.
    Protecting the First Amendment shouldn't be partisan,
    protecting the Constitution shouldn't be partisan, and
    protecting the fundamental principle of equal treatment under
    the law should not be partisan.
        With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for her opening
    statement.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Chair Jordan.
        Nobody disputes the important role of congressional
    oversight. I know firsthand how important it is to ask
    questions and demand answers of the Federal government.
        In the ordinary course of business, that work informs the
    legislative process. In extraordinary times, when misconduct in
    the Executive Branch threatens to undermine our democratic
    institutions, congressional oversight can serve to protect the
    integrity of our republic.
        For example, I am proud of the role I played as an
    impeachment manager in the second impeachment of President
    Donald Trump in the aftermath of the attack on the Capitol.
    That bipartisan work was both a measure of accountability and a
    sign to the American people that Congress had no intention of
    being bullied into giving up on a peaceful transfer of power.
        There is a difference, my colleagues, between legitimate
    oversight and weaponization of Congress and our processes,
    particularly our committee work, as a political tool. I am
    deeply concerned about the use of this select Subcommittee as a
    place to settle scores, showcase conspiracy theories, and
    advance an extreme agenda that risks undermining Americans'
    faith in our democracy.
        Some of today's witnesses would have us believe that the
    Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    are part of a deep-state cabal. One even wrote a book
    describing the FBI itself as a threat to democracy.
        The Department of Justice and the FBI do not always get it
    right. History is full of examples of these agencies getting it
    very, very wrong. We have colleagues in this Congress who have
    been subject to politically motivated, hateful, racist
    investigations by our government. It does not logically follow
    that every investigation or criminal inquiry by the FBI or the
    Department of Justice is political or ideologically based.
        In our current climate, with domestic terrorism on the rise
    and hate speech normalized by national politicians, the
    Department of Justice and the FBI are doing their best to
    protect us from sliding into chaos.
        This past Monday, the FBI captured two individuals, one a
    neo-Nazi leader and founder of an Atomwaffen group, who were
    plotting a racially motivated attack on Baltimore's power grid.
    They said their goal was to, quote, ``completely destroy this
    whole city,'' unquote.
        Last week, the FBI infiltrated and disrupted a major cyber-
    criminal group extorting schools, hospitals, and critical
    infrastructure around the world.
        Last summer, the FBI engaged in a mass violent crime
    enforcement effort that took nearly 6,000 violent criminals off
    of our American streets.
        Let's not forget the tremendous work of the FBI and the
    Department of Justice after the attacks on our homeland on
    September 11, 2001.
        Some of my Republican colleagues love to talk about the
    threat of violent crime, but they appear oblivious to the fact
    that their dangerous rhetoric and baseless accusations against
    the Justice Department and FBI, itself, at times pose a direct
    threat to those organizations' ability to do the work that they
    are doing to protect our communities.
        Recent threat bulletins have highlighted a shocking
    increase in threats of violence against law enforcement
    agencies and a significant uptick after the FBI executed a
    search warrant of President Trump's property at Mar-a-Lago.
        The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has
    vehemently denounced what he described as, quote, ``politically
    motivated threats that are unprecedented in recent history and
    absolutely unacceptable,'' end quote.
        Unfortunately, examples of these threats are not hard to
    find. Last year, someone threatened to plant a dirty bomb
    outside the FBI headquarters. Another attempted to storm the
    Cincinnati FBI Field Office while wearing body armor and
    carrying an AR-type rifle. A third was arrested after he made a
    credible threat, stating, quote, ``every single piece of
    [expletive] who works for the FBI in any capacity, from the
    director on down to the janitor who cleans their [expletive]
    toilets, deserve to die. You have declared war on us, and now
    it is open season on you,'' end quote.
        These allegations are deeply troubling, and I hope that the
    Chair and Members of this Subcommittee will be mindful of the
    risks that go hand-in-hand with heated rhetoric.
        A rush to accusations and subpoenas without a factual basis
    and without any effort to engage with agencies through the
    accommodation process flies in the face of due process and
    demeans the congressional oversight process. It makes a mockery
    of our institution.
        As a former prosecutor, I am even more troubled by the
    suggestion that this Subcommittee may attempt to investigate
    ongoing criminal investigations. As the head of the Reagan
    Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote years ago,
    granting Congress access to information about active criminal
    investigations will, in effect, make Congress a partner in the
    investigation, creating a, quote, ``substantial danger that
    congressional pressures will influence in the course of the
    investigation'' and potentially, quote, ``hamper prosecutorial
    decisionmaking in future cases.''
        This would not only damage law enforcement efforts, but it
    would also shake the public's confidence in the criminal
    justice system. I hope not. I suspect much of the
    investigations the majority, my Republican colleagues, want to
    look into and potentially muck up involve criminal
    investigations into former President Donald Trump.
        I want to be crystal-clear: My Democratic colleagues and I
    will resist any attempt by this Subcommittee to derail ongoing
    legitimate investigations into President Trump, any other
    President, and others within his orbit.
        During the course of this Subcommittee's work, I suspect we
    will hear both Members and witnesses describe the events of
    January 6, 2021, in ways that simply do not mesh with reality.
    When this happens, I would encourage everyone watching today to
    review the impeachment record and report of the January 6th
    Select Committee, which lays out the true facts in shocking
    detail.
        I recently sent a letter to the Chair noting that, despite
    our policy and political differences, I am hopeful that there
    may be matters of investigation within the stated mandate of
    this Subcommittee under which we may collaborate. I meant this.
    I mean this. I still hope that we can find common ground and
    explore it in a bipartisan manner that respects the due process
    rights and interests of all involved.
        The Chair and his colleagues continually use the moniker of
    protecting free speech. That sounds good. I hope they all
    recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally
    protected--racist, hate, and incitement to violence. I also
    hope that the protection of free speech extends to all
    Americans. We will see.
        I hope that we can use this Subcommittee to conduct
    legitimate oversight to help advance policies to address the
    real challenges that Americans face every day, rather than
    undermine every agent, officer, and prosecutor on the job.
        Government abuses of power do not solely rest with the
    Executive Branch. It can, and we have seen it, come from the
    Legislative Branch as well. On our present course, however,
    this exercise seems little more than a political stunt designed
    to inject extremist politics into the legislative oversight
    function and the justice system. The American people deserve
    better than that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the Ranking Member.
        Without objection, all other opening statements will be
    included in the record.
        Chair Jordan. We will now introduce our first panel of
    witnesses.
        Senator Chuck Grassley has represented Iowa in the U.S.
    Senate since 1981. He is currently the Ranking Member of the
    Senate Committee on Budget. He is former Chair and Ranking
    Member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
    Finance.
        Welcome, Senator Grassley.
        Senator Ron Johnson has represented the State of Wisconsin
    in the U.S. Senate since 2011. He has served as the Chair of
    the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
        We welcome you, Senator Johnson.
        Representative Raskin. Congressman Raskin has represented
    Maryland's Eighth Congressional District since 2017. He
    currently serves as the Ranking Member on the Committee of
    Oversight and Accountability.
        We have with us former Member Tulsi Gabbard, who
    represented Hawaii's Second Congressional District for eight
    years in the House of Representatives. For nearly 20 years, she
    has served our country in the Hawaii Army National Guard and
    U.S. Army Reserve, including deployments in Iraq and Kuwait.
        We thank all of you for your service.
        Our longstanding committee practice is to not ask questions
    of our colleagues and former colleagues that appear before us.
    In light of that practice, our first panel will have 10 minutes
    to deliver their testimony.
        Again, we thank you for being here.
        The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 10 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES GRASSLEY

        Senator Grassley. Thank you, Chair Jordan and Ranking
    Member Plaskett, for this opportunity to appear. I thank you
    for inviting me to come here. What I am about to tell you
    sounds like it is out of some fiction, spy thriller, but it
    actually happened and it happened in our own government.
        Congressional oversight is a constitutional demand. We
    dedicate our careers to it, I have at least. During the course
    of my service, I have ran countless investigations. In the past
    few years, I have never seen so much effort from the FBI, the
    partisan media and some of my Democratic colleagues to
    interfere with and undermine very legitimate congressional
    inquiries. It's become a triad of disinformation and outright
    falsehoods. As one example, look at Crossfire Hurricane. Bit by
    bit, piece by piece, it has been deconstructed and shown to be
    a politically motivated investigation, which it was. We all
    know now that it was the Democratic National Committee, along
    with the Clinton campaign who colluded with the Russians. They
    used a former British spy, Fusion GPS, and a law firm, to
    create a fake dossier and then tried to cover it up.
        Now, the most recent example of this triad at work, our
    efforts against my and Senator Johnson's ongoing Biden family
    investigation. That investigation started on August 14, 2019,
    when I was Chair of the Senate Finance Committee with a letter
    that I wrote to the Treasury Department. My letter was about a
    questionable financial transaction subject to the Committee on
    Foreign Investment that related to a matter involving the Biden
    family. As our investigation continued and advanced, Democratic
    leadership and partisan media began their attack on our
    investigation.
        This is where that spy thriller starts to heat up. On July
    13, 2020, then Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, then
    Speaker Pelosi and then Chair Schiff sent a letter with a
    classified attachment to the FBI. That letter expressed a
    purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign
    disinformation campaign. The letter was targeted at the
    Johnson, Grassley investigation.
        However, the classified attachment included unclassified
    elements that attempted and failed to tie our work to a Russian
    agent named Andrii Derkach. Unsurprisingly, those unclassified
    elements were leaked to the press to support a false campaign,
    accusing Senator Johnson and me of relying on material from a
    Russian agent, and thus advancing Russian disinformation.
        Of course, it was pure nonsense that the irresponsible
    media portrayed this all as the truth. Guess what then? Chair
    Schiff claimed, without any evidence whatsoever, that our
    oversight work was rooted in Russian disinformation. Of course,
    he conveniently left out that our oversight work was actually
    rooted in official U.S. Government and Obama Administration
    records. Then guess what? Senator Blumenthal also wrote an op
    ed in The Washington Post accusing our investigation of, quote,
    ``Perpetuating Russian disinformation in the U.S. Senate,'' end
    quote. Then, guess what? Minority Leader Schumer and then
    Ranking Member Wyden tried to offer a resolution in the Senate
    disparaging our Biden investigation. They, in a sense, were
    basically calling us Russian stooges. Pretty simple, that
    violated Senate rules and their efforts, of course, were
    appropriately shut down.
        On July 16, 2020, mere days after the July 13th letter,
    then Ranking Members Wyden and Peters, wrote a letter to me and
    Senator Johnson asking for a briefing from the FBI's Foreign
    Influence Task Force. Our staff and the Ranking Members' staff
    had already--now, remember we had already received a briefing
    March 2020 that put the issue to rest. So, why another
    briefing? The point being there was no real purpose for another
    briefing, let alone a member-level briefing other than to
    further undermine our investigation.
        Some of our Democratic colleagues weren't interested in
    anything but using the briefing to try and destroy our
    investigation. At these Democrats' insistence, the FBI caved.
    In August 2020, Senator Johnson and I had that infamous
    briefing from the FBI that was needless. Then as we had feared,
    the contents of that briefing were later leaked to The
    Washington Post, even though the FBI had promised us
    confidentiality. That leak outrageously and inaccurately
    connected that FBI briefing to our investigation in another
    effort to falsely label our good government oversight work as
    Russian disinformation.
        Now, The Wall Street Journal editorial board was on top of
    it because that board did the right thing and wrote a piece
    about the briefing titled, quote, ``The FBI's Dubious Briefing.
    Did the bureau set up two GOP Senators at the behest of
    Democrats?'' end of quote.
        So, simply put, the briefing was unnecessary and completely
    irrelevant to the substance of our investigation. It was only
    done because the Democrats wanted to do so they could try and
    smear us. The FBI wrongly did their bidding. To this very day
    Director Wray refuses to provide Senator Johnson and me, as
    constitutional officers, records relating to that briefing,
    including the alleged intelligence basis for it. Director Wray
    has consistently failed to perform duties required of his
    position.
        Now, another example of this Democratic disinformation
    campaign involved a George Kent, former State Department Deputy
    Assistant Secretary. Senator Johnson and I ran a transcribed
    interview with George Kent. Before the interview, Democrats
    acquired material from that Russian agent, the same one that I
    mentioned earlier. At the interview, Democrats, not
    Republicans, Democrats asked Mr. Kent about the same material.
    Mr. Kent said it was disinformation.
        Now, think about that, after all the spears the Democrats
    were throwing at the two of us, in the end, it was the
    Democrats who introduced Russian disinformation from a Russian
    agent into the investigative record as an exhibit. A foreign
    agent whom our own intelligence community warned was actively
    seeking to influence U.S. politics. Not me or Senator Johnson.
    Not our staff. It was the Democrats who inserted disinformation
    from the Russians into our official record.
        The partisan media and Democrat leadership ought to be
    ashamed of themselves for fake information that they spread
    about our investigation. So, in the end, they all failed to
    stop Senator Johnson and me. On September 23, 2020, Senator
    Johnson and I released our first Biden investigation report.
    Now, I know there has been a lot of talk in this town about
    Treasury records and you ought to pursue them. In that 2020
    report, we made public the contents of many Treasury records,
    but we didn't stop there. We issued another report, November
    18, 2020. Our report exposed extensive financial relationships
    between Hunter and James Biden and Chinese nationals connected
    to the Communist regime.
        More precisely, Chinese nationals connected to the Chinese
    government's military and intelligence services. With the new
    Congress, of course, Senator Johnson and I transitioned to be
    Ranking Members. We hadn't forgotten about what the triad of
    partisan media, the FBI, the Democratic leadership did to us.
    So, we don't stop. We did what any congressional investigator
    worth their salt would do, we gathered even more records to
    prove them all wrong. We acquired authentic bank records that
    substantiated findings of our previous two reports. They
    financially linked Hunter Biden and James Biden to entities and
    individuals connected with the Communist Chinese regime. We
    also acquired business records with Hunter and James Biden's
    signatures, alongside those same Chinese nationals. How were
    they supposed to be paid? According to bank records there were
    wires from companies linked to the Communist regime.
        In three floor speeches, we made those bank records public
    and asked this question to our partisan detractors, the same
    ones that I mentioned throughout my remarks and maybe a lot of
    others: Are these official bank records Russian disinformation?
        We also shared hundreds of pages of bank records with U.S.
    Attorney Weiss. He failed to respond. Now, as our investigation
    continues, whistleblowers approached my office with allegations
    that the FBI created an assessment in August 2020, the same
    month that the FBI briefed me and Senator Johnson. According to
    these whistleblowers, that assessment was used by FBI
    headquarters to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden
    information as, you might expect, disinformation. As a result,
    this scheme allegedly caused investigative activity to entirely
    cease. It has been further alleged to me that in September
    2020, the same month Senator Johnson and I released our first
    report, those FBI headquarters personnel began placing their
    analysis of the credibility of reporting related to the Biden
    family in what I have been told is a restricted access subfile.
        Further allegations to my office involved FBI personnel at
    the Washington Field Office, who improperly ordered information
    to be closed by the FBI related to Hunter Biden's potential
    criminal conduct in October 2020 just before the election, even
    though it was verified, or it was verifiable.
        Other whistleblower disclosures to my office made clear
    that the FBI has, within its possession, very significant,
    impactful, and voluminous evidence with respect to potential
    criminal conduct by Hunter and James Biden. These disclosures
    also allege that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden's business
    arrangements and may have been involved in some of them.
        We still aren't sure what has been done with this
    information. The FBI's track record doesn't create much faith
    that the information is going to be followed up on. It is clear
    to me that the Justice Department and the FBI are suffering
    from a political infection that if it is not defeated, will
    cause the American people no longer to trust these storied
    institutions. It will also threaten the American way of life.
    Unfortunately, what you have heard from me, this story of
    government abuse and political treachery is scarier than
    fiction, it really happened.
        Mr. Chair, your committee here so assembled has an
    opportunity to help us write the last chapter in this real-life
    drama. You must relentlessly pursue the facts and the evidence.
    Senator Johnson and I will do the same and are willing to work
    with you. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. Thank you so much, Senator Grassley.
        Senator Johnson.

                   STATEMENT OF THE HON. RON JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
    Plaskett, Members of the Select Committee. Thank you for
    inviting me to testify about my personal knowledge and
    experience with Federal agencies being weaponized against U.S.
    citizens.
        Senator Grassley has just described the most egregious
    examples undertaken by multiple actors and agencies to
    undermine and sabotage our joint investigations. To begin, let
    me be clear, throughout my testimony, I am not talking about
    the men and women in government who conduct themselves with
    integrity and patriotism.
        At the outset, it is important to recognize corrupt
    individuals within Federal agencies that I am talking about are
    not acting alone. They operate as vital partners of the left-
    wing political movement that includes most members of the
    mainstream media, Big Tech social media giants, global
    institutions and foundations, Democrat Party operatives and
    elected officials. As the Twitter files reveal, these actors
    work in concert to defeat their political opponents and promote
    left-wing ideology and government control over our lives.
        My eyes began opening to this reality with the disclosure
    of how the Obama Administration weaponized the IRS to harass
    Tea Party groups by denying them tax-exempt status.
        My personal knowledge and experience with agency corruption
    began in 2015 when I became Chair of the Senate Committee on
    Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. My first
    investigation ultimately revealed the extensive editing of
    then-FBI Director James Comey of his July 5, 2015, statement
    that exonerated Secretary Clinton regarding her use of a
    private email server for official business. The edits were
    clearly made to downplay the seriousness of her actions.
        It is important to note those partisan edits were made by
    the same cast of characters in the FBI that would initiate and
    drive the corrupt Russian-Trump collusion investigation. During
    our investigation of the FBI's involvement in the Russian
    collusion hoax, Senator Grassley and I uncovered and made
    public highly partisan text messages between FBI employees
    Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
        Strzok's December 15, 2016, text:

            Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned,
            worried, and political, they are kicking into overdrive. Has
            never been given the attention it deserves.

        In a 2022 interview with Jeff Gerth, Strzok said he now
    believes, quote,

            It is more likely the text came not from the CIA but from
            senior levels of the U.S. Government or Congress.

        Who might those leakers be? Why aren't reporters who
    received the leaks outraged at being fed false information? Why
    haven't they blown the whistle on the leakers? Why didn't the
    mainstream media robustly investigate how they were all duped?
    The answer is: They weren't duped. They were complicit in
    creating and fostering the political turmoil our country has
    been experiencing over the last six years.
        Those leaks were a key ingredient in the most destructive
    political dirty trick in U.S. history, the creation and
    promotion of the false Russia-Trump collusion narrative. To be
    most effective, however, that narrative relied on coordination
    between government actors and the media, and the left had
    allies in the FBI.
        Unable to verify the Steele dossier, the FBI offered
    Christopher Steele $1 million to provide verification. By
    December 2016, the FBI knew--they had investigated Steele's
    primary subsource as a Russian spy.
        In the main body of the Department of Justice Inspector
    General's report on FISA abuse, FBI official Bill Priestap is
    quoted as saying the FBI, quote, ``didn't have any indication
    whatsoever,'' unquote, of Russian influence on the Steele
    dossier.
        Our investigation uncovered redacted footnotes to that same
    document that completely contradicted that statement. Why would
    Priestap's false statement appear in the report, but the truth
    be hidden in classified footnotes?
        Fourteen months later, in February 2018, the FBI still
    briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee that the dossier had
    validity.
        When the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion, the
    left engineered an impeachment of President Trump. The
    cooperation between the House Intelligence Committee and the
    impeachment whistleblower remains murky. Then-Chair Adam Schiff
    originally denied his committee had conduct with the
    whistleblower prior to the filing of the complaint, a claim
    Schiff later attempted to walk back. The genesis of the
    impeachment saga has yet to be fully investigated. It needs to
    be.
        Prior to the impeachment proceedings, Hunter Biden's
    obvious conflicts of interest in Ukraine became public, and
    Senator Grassley and I began investigating. We didn't target
    Joe and Hunter Biden. Their actions demanded it.
        On December 9, 2019, the FBI issued a grand jury subpoena
    and took possession of Hunter Biden's laptop from John Paul Mac
    Isaac, a computer shop owner in Wilmington, Delaware. As the
    FBI left his shop with the laptop, Mr. Mac Isaac recalled one
    agent saying, quote, ``It is our experience that nothing ever
    happens to people that don't talk about these things,''
    unquote.
        That statement was the opening salvo in a coordinated
    effort over the next 10 months to sabotage any public
    revelation of Hunter Biden's laptop or any wrongdoing connected
    to the Bidens.
        Senator Grassley has provided a number of examples of that
    sabotage, and we will release a report that goes into far
    greater detail than we have time for today. When available, I
    hope everyone will read it.
        Perhaps the most egregious and effective act of sabotage
    against the truth was the public letter signed by 51 former
    intelligence officials that claim the laptop had, quote, ``all
    the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,''
    unquote.
        That letter itself was an information operation that
    interfered with and impacted the 2020 Presidential election to
    a far greater extent than anything Russia ever could have hoped
    to achieve. Each of those intelligence officials needs to be
    interviewed to determine how that letter was masterminded.
        While we all condemn the violence on January 6th--we all
    condemn the violence on January 6th--the fervor in which the
    Biden Department of Justice has pursued those protestors and
    rioters stands in stark contrast to their lack of interest in
    the summer-of-2020 rioters. Serious questions regarding
    instances of unequal application of justice and violation of
    January 6th defendants due process rights remain unanswered.
    SWAT team arrests and treatment of prisoners are legitimate
    concerns.
        Neither the Senate nor House investigations adequately
    explained why the Capitol was so woefully unprepared or how
    many Federal agents and informants were in the crowd.
        COVID has exposed the awesome power that can be misused by
    government officials. The loss of basic freedoms has been
    nothing less than breathtaking. Our response to the pandemic
    has been a miserable failure. A miserable failure. Over one
    million lives lost; the human toll of the economic devastation
    caused by shutdowns that did not work; and the loss of learning
    and other psychological harms to our children. Federal health
    officials denied patients early treatment and, to this day,
    refuse to acknowledge the extent of significant injuries caused
    by the COVID vaccines.
        Emails between Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins reveal how
    they intended to use their awesome government authority and
    power to accomplish a, quote, ``devastating published
    takedown,'' unquote, of scientists who offered a different
    approach to handling the pandemic.
        Have the emails also revealed Fauci's attempt to hide his
    agency's role in funding dangerous research that might have led
    to the creation of the deadly coronavirus? We don't know,
    because those agencies won't provide the unredacted documents.
        Federal health agencies have not been honest or
    transparent. I have written over 50 oversight letters, and the
    vast majority of the questions I have asked to have either
    received an inadequate response or no response at all. I have
    requested information that the public has a right to know.
        Doctors who have had the courage and compassion to
    treatment COVID patients using their off-label prescription
    rights have been vilified, censored, and their careers
    destroyed. Other health professionals have noticed, toed the
    line, and remained silent.
        Parents who out of concern for their children questioned
    school boards and administrators have been labeled potential
    domestic terrorists and must now fear scrutiny from the Federal
    law enforcement.
        With the release of the Twitter files and the Missouri and
    Louisiana lawsuits against the Biden Administration, we are
    getting a clearer picture of how active government officials
    were in suppressing free speech and controlling the narrative.
        It is also becoming obvious that the World Health
    Organization has been captured by the Chinese Government, that
    global institutions, in general, have been captured by the
    left, and that some charitable foundations are exerting far
    more power over public policy than should be allowed.
        Chair Jordan, Members of the Committee, you have important
    work before you. Although you have been generous in granting me
    10 minutes to offer my testimony, I have barely scratched the
    surface in describing the complexity, power, and destructive
    nature of the forces that we face.
        Our Founders fully understood that government was necessary
    to avoid anarchy, but they also knew that government power was
    something to fear. That is why they devised a set of checks and
    balances to limit government's power and influence over our
    lives.
        Ideally, a free press would hold all government officials
    equally accountable, but with today's media mostly biased to
    the left, congressional oversight is needed now more than ever.
        Because the administration is not cooperative and
    transparent, Congress needs whistleblowers from agencies
    throughout the Federal government. I urge men and women with
    integrity to come forward and reveal the truth. Senator
    Grassley and I will do everything we can to encourage
    bipartisan oversight in the Senate and stand ready to assist
    your efforts in any way that we can.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Senator Johnson. We look forward
    to your report. We hope that is coming shortly.
        I now recognize Representative Raskin for his testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAIME RASKIN

        Mr. Raskin. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and dear
    colleagues, our Framers were enlightenment thinkers who wrote
    us an enlightenment Constitution. They wanted government to
    operate on the basis of facts, science, and common sense, not
    ignorance and superstition. They wanted America to usher in an
    age of reason.
        With the separation of powers, the Framers
    constitutionalized Newton's third law of motion, checking every
    action with an equal and opposite reaction. Congress, in
    Article I, was given the central role of legislating and making
    progress for our people.
        The oversight function is not specified in Article I, but
    the Supreme Court has always said that it is implied--something
    necessary and proper for the legislative function. As Madison
    famously said, ``Those who mean to be their own Governors must
    arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives.''
        Dear colleagues, your Subcommittee could conceivably become
    part of a proud history of serious bipartisan oversight
    stretching from the Teapot Dome investigation, the Boeing
    investigation, the Watergate hearings, the tobacco hearings,
    and the Select Committee on the January 6th Attack. Or it could
    take oversight down a very dark alley filled with conspiracy
    theories and disinfor-
    mation, a place where facts are the enemy and partisan
    destruction is the overriding goal.
        Millions of Americans already fear that ``weaponization''
    is the right name for this Special Subcommittee, not because
    weapon-
    ization of the government is its target, but because
    weaponization of the government is its purpose.
        What is in a name? Well, everything is here. The odd name
    of the Weaponization Subcommittee constitutes a case of pure
    psychological projection. When former President Donald Trump
    and his followers accuse you of doing something, they are
    usually telling you exactly what their own plans are. By
    establishing a Select Subcommittee on Weaponization, they are
    telling us that Donald Trump's followers, who obviously control
    this Subcommittee, will continue weaponizing any part of the
    government they can get their hands on to attack their enemies,
    defined as anyone who stands in the way of their quest for
    power.
        To be clear, that is not an exclusively partisan operation.
    They have proven that they will weaponize the government not
    just against the other party, but against anyone who refuses to
    bend to the will and whim of one Donald Trump, whether that is
    a lifelong Republican State election official, like Georgia
    Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger; a foreign Head of State,
    like President Zelenskyy; a political movement, like Black
    Lives Matter; a once-close personal friend and ally of Trump's,
    like his personal lawyer Michael Cohen for many years; or even
    a sycophantic Trump Cabinet appointee and lifelong Republican,
    like Attorney General William Barr, if these people break from
    the habits of lying and lawlessness that define life as a camp
    follower in the cult of Donald Trump.
        If the weaponized MAGA campaign isn't exactly partisan, it
    is entirely political, because it has an overriding electoral
    focus, and you know what it is: It is all about restoring
    Donald Trump, the twice-impeached former President to the
    office he lost by seven million votes in 2020 and tried to
    steal back in a political coup and violent insurrection against
    our constitutional order on January 6, 2021.
        You disagree? Well, please, don't take my word for it, as
    our Chair might say. Just listen to what Chair Jordan himself
    had to say six months ago at the Conservative Political Action
    Conference in Dallas, where he was predicting GOP victory in
    the 2022 elections and promising that oversight of Hunter
    Biden's laptop and the claim that the Federal government is
    treating moms and dads, like the ones in this room, like
    terrorists would be the centerpiece of the GOP's work in the
    White House when they got back into power.
        Relaxing with a friendly interviewer, Chair Jordan gave the
    game away entirely. Quote, ``All those things need to be
    investigated just so you have the truth,'' he said. ``Plus,
    that will help frame up the 2024 race, when I hope and I think
    President Trump is going to run, and we need to make sure that
    he wins.'' ``We need to make sure that he wins.'' This call to
    arms for the 2024 Presidential Election was met with wild
    applause from the CPAC audience. I urge every Member of this
    Subcommittee to go and watch the interview.
        Now, of course, a serious bipartisan Committee focused on
    weaponization of the government would zero in quickly on the
    Trump Administration itself, which brought weaponization to
    frightening new levels across the board. Consider just a few
    examples I have time for, illustrative of dozens I can provide
    the Subcommittee.
        First, in a six-week period in 2020, Donald Trump fired or
    removed five different Departmental Inspectors Generals simply
    for doing their jobs and not caving into Trump's coercive
    political demands to cover up different forms of administration
    wrongdoing and misconduct.
        On April 3, 2020, Trump informed Congress he was firing the
    intelligence community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, who
    had received a whistleblower complaint in August 2019 about
    improper demands made by Trump to Ukrainian President Vladimir
    Zelenskyy.
        In May 2020, Trump fired Steve Linick, IG of the State
    Department, later claiming he had no idea who he was and saying
    that he fired him only at Secretary Pompeo's request. That
    inspector general was investigating Pompeo's decision to bypass
    Congress in sending billions of dollars in arms to Saudi
    Arabia.
        I don't have time to get into the details of the others,
    but, May 20, he fired Mitch Behm, the Transportation Deputy IG.
    He relieved of duty Glenn Fine, Acting IG for the Defense
    Department. He removed Christi Grimm, the acting Inspector
    General of HHS.
        Second, breaching the traditional separation between the
    President and Department of Justice criminal prosecutions,
    Trump and his obliging sycophantic Attorneys General, like Jeff
    Sessions and William Barr, repeatedly pressured career
    prosecutors to go hard or go soft in particular cases, always
    seeking to reward Trump's friends or to punish his enemies.
        If ``Weaponization of the Department of Justice'' has any
    meaning, this is it.
        Consider the egregious case of Gregory Craig, a White House
    counsel under Obama who was targeted by the DOJ for alleged
    FARA violations and finally indicted on a single count of
    making false statements. He was acquitted unanimously by the
    jury in less than five hours, and one of his lawyers observed
    that the Department of Justice had hounded his client without
    any evidence and without any purpose. Former U.S. Attorney
    Jeffrey Berman said that Greg Craig never should have been
    prosecuted.
        Consider the case of Michael Cohen, the President's former
    lawyer and confidant for many years. In August 2018, he pleaded
    guilty to campaign finance violations over large hush-money
    payments he arranged before the 2016 election to keep porn
    stars Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal from talking about
    sexual affairs they had with Donald Trump. You guys remember
    this one. Well, after Barr became Attorney General in February
    2019, he worked to kill further investigations related to those
    payoffs and suggested that Mr. Cohen's conviction on campaign
    finance charges itself be reversed, even though six months had
    already passed since Cohen had entered a guilty plea.
        Amazingly, after Cohen was in prison for a year and then
    being transferred out of prison to home confinement during
    COVID-19, Barr and the DOJ intervened to block his transfer
    because Cohen would not immediately accept, as a condition of
    his ankle bracelet home confinement, not to engage in First
    Amendment activities, specifically writing and publishing a
    book about Donald Trump or saying anything in public on TV or
    in the social media about Donald Trump.
        Cohen had already been home for two weeks when this
    unconstitutional demand from DOJ appeared. When he and his
    attorney dared to ask questions about it, three Federal
    Marshals showed up with handcuffs and shackles, and he was
    returned to the Otisville Correctional Institute.
        There, he spent 16 days in solitary confinement before they
    were able to get his case before a Federal District Judge, who
    immediately found that Barr's purpose, quote,

             . . . in transferring Cohen from release on furlough and home
            confinement back to custody was retaliatory in response to
            Cohen desiring to exercise his First Amendment rights to
            publish a book critical of the President and to discuss the
            book on social media.

        Can you think of a more egregious example of weaponizing
    the Department of Justice for nakedly political purposes than
    imprisoning and putting in solitary confinement the President's
    own former lawyer simply because he wanted to exercise his
    First Amendment rights?
        Consider the John Durham investigation. At the urging of
    Republicans, including the good Chair, the John Durham special
    counsel investigation was set up in 2019 by Barr to try to find
    wrongdoing by intelligence or law enforcement agencies in the
    origins of the Mueller investigation. We have heard some of the
    murmurings about this today.
        After four years and millions of dollars spent, the Durham
    investigation closed as a total flop without unearthing
    anything like the deep-state conspiracy that Republicans have
    been denouncing around here for years. It couldn't find
    anything of substance to it.
        Yet, Barr and Durham kept pressing in clearly abusive ways
    I hope your Subcommittee will investigate. One former DOJ
    prosecutor, Robert Luskin, a defense lawyer who represented two
    witnesses before the Durham probe, told The New York Times he
    was shocked. ``This stuff had my head spinning,'' he said.
    ``When did these guys drink the Kool-Aid, and who served it to
    them?''
        Amazingly, when prosecutors participating in this wild
    goose chase actually came into possession of evidence of a real
    offense from Italian Government officials, of a potentially
    major financial crime committed by Donald Trump, Durham was
    suddenly deputized to investigate it, and the whole
    investigation mysteriously disappeared without a trace.
        Trump's enablers now want this Subcommittee not to examine
    the Durham debacle as a case study in dangerous weaponization
    of the justice function but, rather, to pick up the baton from
    the defeated and demoralized Durham team and to keep the wild
    goose chase going today.
        Third, the former President had no qualms about literally
    weaponizing our Nation's law enforcement and military against
    First Amendment activity for his political purposes. I commend
    to you the debacle that took place on June 1, 2020, in
    Lafayette Square, where they mobilized an interagency law
    enforcement troop and then unleashed them on horseback, with
    pepper spray and batons, billy clubs, rubber bullets, against a
    totally lawfully present crowd.
        Mr. Chair, I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that any
    of the investigations that have taken place during the last two
    years have been perfect. I am sure they could have been
    improved in some ways. That is a legit thing for you to ask.
        It is one thing to engage in systematic oversight driven by
    a commitment to facts and the truth and something radically
    different to set up a platform for a series of hit-and-run
    partisan attacks that are just vindictive, vendetta-driven, and
    meant to frame up a Presidential campaign in 2024.
        Some of the new rhetoric we have been hearing can be
    dangerous, as the Ranking Member was pointing out. After the
    execution of a perfectly lawful judicial search warrant in Palm
    Beach in August of last year, politicians and media figures
    began denouncing the FBI--the whole FBI--and FBI agents in
    vitriolic terms. Since then, the FBI and DHS have observed an
    increase in violent threats posted on social media against
    Federal officials and facilities, including a threat to place a
    dirty bomb in front of the FBI headquarters and issuing general
    calls for civil war and armed rebellion. We have heard those
    calls before in this chamber.
        On August 11th last year, a person wearing a tactical vest
    and armed with an AR-style rifle and nail gun attempted to
    forcibly enter the FBI Cincinnati Field Office. When officers
    responded, he fled the scene, and a pursuit followed. During a
    prolonged standoff with the FBI, the man fired multiple shots
    at Ohio State Highway Patrol.
        Mr. Chair, the public is skeptical about this strange new
    venture with this strange new name that is being launched,
    because so many of the Members involved have done everything
    they can to block the January 6th Committee's investigation of
    the worst insurrectionary domestic violent attack on an
    American election and American Congress in our history. The
    public wonders whether Members who refuse to comply with
    congressional subpoenas themselves should be issuing
    congressional subpoenas to other people.
        Oversight must be organized around a comprehensive search
    for the truth, truth that will lead to progress, and not around
    revenge, which will lead us as a country to chaos and ruin. I
    hope the Subcommittee will find a way to embark upon a truly
    bipartisan agenda, with all members participating and agreeing
    on a common agenda.
        I wish you well and Godspeed on behalf of this difficult
    venture that you are about to proceed on.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        I can assure the gentleman from Maryland that we will--we
    respect the FBI agents, particularly the ones who have come to
    us, the dozens who have come to us, and we will focus on the
    facts--something I felt was not exactly presented in the proper
    way in your testimony.
        I understand that the Senator from Wisconsin has a number
    of documents he would like to ask to be entered into the
    record. So, without objection, those will be entered.
        We will get those from you, Senator Johnson.
        Chair Jordan. We now turn to our former colleague, the
    former Democrat Member from the great State of Hawaii,
    Congressman Gabbard.

                  STATEMENT OF THE HON. TULSI GABBARD

        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Chair Jordan, Ranking
    Member Plaskett, and Members. Aloha. Thank you for the
    opportunity to be here to speak with you today.
        Benjamin Franklin said, ``Without freedom of thought, there
    can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public
    liberty without freedom of speech.''
        I love our country, and I cherish our God-given freedoms
    that are enshrined in the Constitution. Like every one of you,
    I took an oath, both as a soldier and as a Member of Congress,
    to support and defend the Constitution of the United States
    against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
        I have had the privilege of serving alongside many of you
    in Congress for eight years, representing the people of
    Hawaii's Second congressional District, serving on the Armed
    Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.
        I am honored to be able to continue to serve as a
    lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves now for almost 20
    years, where during that time I deployed to three war zones and
    participated in multiple overseas training exercises where I
    had the opportunity to see firsthand what life is like in
    countries where there is no First Amendment, where there is no
    free press, where government deems itself to be the moral
    arbiter to its people, dictating to them what is right and
    wrong, what can and cannot be said, who can speak, who cannot,
    who is free to worship and who is not.
        Now, our Founders understood the importance of enshrining
    our God-given freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights
    to ensure that, no matter which party or person may be in power
    at any given time, our founding documents serve as a reminder
    of these freedoms that are guaranteed to every American.
        Thomas Paine said, ``He that would make his own liberty
    secure must guard even his enemy from opposition, for if he
    violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach
    to himself.''
        We cannot be so shortsighted as to thinking silencing
    speech that we don't like today will not result in our own
    voices being silenced tomorrow.
        The work that you have all been charged with in this
    committee affects all Americans, and it is too important to
    allow it to fall victim to partisan politics. No matter how
    deep your differences, we must all agree to stand on the side
    of liberty.
        Unfortunately, right now we live in a country where many
    Americans are afraid to speak freely, afraid to express
    themselves, afraid to actually have real, open dialog and
    debate, afraid of losing their job, being canceled, or being
    accused of a crime, which could happen if recently introduced
    legislation criminalizing so-called hate speech is passed into
    law, speech that, no matter how abhorrent, is still protected
    under the First Amendment.
        Now, this fear and this culture of fear and self-censorship
    is not unfounded. We have individuals in our government, often
    working through their arms in the mainstream media and Big
    Tech, doing exactly what our Founders rejected--trying to
    control what we, the people, are allowed to see and say, under
    the guise of protecting us from so-called misinformation or
    disinformation.
        Now, of course, they appoint themselves as the sole
    authority and voice of truth of information, backed by the most
    lethal force on Earth with the power to target anyone they deem
    a threat. They alone are the ones, self-designated, who get to
    decide what is true and what is false, what is information and
    what is misinformation or disinformation.
        They say they are doing this for us, that they are doing
    this for our own good, to protect the people. In reality, the
    truth is, they think that we are too stupid to think for
    ourselves, too stupid to discern for ourselves and to draw our
    own conclusions.
        Now, idea that we must just blindly accept whatever the
    government or those in power tell us is true goes against the
    very essence of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were
    created as a resounding rejection of the reign of kings,
    churches, and authorities.
        They tell us we must blindly trust them or face the conse-
    quences, even though our government has a long history of lying
    to us, the American people.
        Just to cite a few examples, we were lied to about the
    weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which spurred the war that
    I and so many served in and so many others sacrificed their
    lives in.
        They lied for almost two decades claiming success in
    Afghanistan, when, in fact, we saw failure after failure after
    failure, coming at a great cost to this country.
        We saw lies about Vietnam that were revealed in the release
    of the Pentagon Papers.
        We saw lies about our own government illegally surveilling
    Americans.
        These are just a few examples. There are many more.
        Ranking Member Plaskett talked in her opening comments
    about how individuals in the FBI also throughout our country's
    history have abused their power, weaponizing those agencies to
    advance their own political interests.
        This is not and cannot be reduced to partisan fight. The
    stakes are too high. We all must recognize our own
    responsibility to stand against such abuses.
        As we sit here today, the danger is that, if we choose to
    reject or challenge whatever those in power declare is the so-
    called truth, we are accused of being anti-authority, we are
    accused of being a danger to society, accused of spreading
    misinformation, and are then targeted, smeared, and called
    things like ``Russian asset,'' ``White supremacist,''
    ``bigot,'' ``racist,'' ``sexist,'' ``extremist,'' ``traitor,''
    and so on.
        More dangerous than any baseless smear, our own government
    institutions, which exist to serve the people, they are being
    weaponized against us.
        The Department of Homeland Security declared a heightened
    domestic terrorism threat due to three factors, the first of
    which is, quote, ``the proliferation of false or misleading
    narratives which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S.
    Government institutions,'' end of quote. They are the ones who
    get to decide what those false or misleading narratives are.
        Former CIA Director John Brennan said in 2021 that, quote,

            Members of the Biden team are now moving in laser-like fashion
            to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very
            similar to insurgency movements that we have seen overseas--an
            unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists,
            authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, and even
            Libertarians,

        Attorney General Garland charged his newly created Domestic
    Terrorism Unit with targeting those who hold, quote, ``anti-
    authority views.'' That included parents who dared to protest
    at board of education meetings, concerned and standing up for
    the right for themselves to have a say in their children's
    education.
        A draft copy of the Department of Homeland Security
    Quadrennial Homeland Security Review outlined their intent to
    target, quote/unquote, ``inaccurate information'' on a whole
    host of topics, to include the origins of COVID, vaccines, the
    U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and U.S. support to Ukraine.
    Their Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation Team
    exists to, quote, ``counter all types of disinformation.'' Once
    again, they get to determine what this disinformation is.
        Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed on the ``Joe Rogan
    Experience'' podcast recently that Facebook limited the
    exposure of the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story just
    weeks ahead of the 2020 election, only after talking with the
    FBI. Twitter took similar action, but they recently apologized
    for doing so, recognizing that their decision was wrong.
        The cozy relationship between White House officials, the
    Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and Big Tech is now
    well-documented and results in private companies, not
    restricted by the First Amendment, doing the dirty censorship
    work of those in government who are not legally allowed to do
    so themselves.
        The threat Big Tech monopolies pose to our democracy is
    real and serious. I have had personal experience with this.
    After the first Democratic Primary Presidential debate in 2019,
    I was the most searched candidate of the night. Unfortunately,
    and suddenly, my Google Ads account was mysteriously suspended
    without any notice or explanation. There were no responses to
    our multiple attempts to resolve whatever problem could have
    caused this. After some time passed, magically, my account was
    reinstated, again, with no explanation or apology.
        Their actions limited my ability to connect with voters who
    were actively seeking more information about my candidacy and
    why I was offering to serve them as President and Commander in
    Chief.
        This has not only happened to me, but it is also happened
    to other candidates running for various offices. Joe Kent
    running for Congress in Washington State is one I know
    personally of.
        This happens all the time, with these Big Tech monopolies
    interfering in our democracy by manipulating search results
    based on whatever it is that they want the American people to
    know about a particular candidate or issue. This should be
    concerning to any one of us and all of us.
        Now, recently, we have learned that, with the release of
    the Twitter files detailed by Matt Taibbi and others, high-
    level former FBI and CIA and other government officials were
    behind Hamilton 68 and their list of 644 social media accounts
    supposedly linked to, quote, ``Russian influence activities''
    online.
        Now, Hamilton 68's work was widely cited as fact by
    institutions like Harvard and Stanford, by mainstream news
    organizations across the board, by Members of the House of
    Representatives and Senate from both political parties,
    including the head of the Intelligence Committee.
        The problem is it was false. Twitter, themselves,
    determined that the vast majority of counts that Hamilton 68
    targeted on this list of 644 were, quote, ``neither strongly
    Russian nor strongly bots,'' end quote. They were mostly anti-
    establishment American voices from across the political
    spectrum. I was one of them.
        Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused me, a
    sitting Member of Congress, a soldier, and a candidate running
    for President, of being, quote, ``groomed by the Russians.''
    Her baseless smear worked as intended. It was something that
    was repeated over and over, headline after headline, article
    after article, pushed online in every way.
        This had the harmful impact that was intended. I could give
    you many examples of interactions that I have had with people
    throughout that campaign and still today, but I remember one,
    in particular, that had an impact.
        Just weeks after this statement was made, I was in South
    Carolina at a campaign event when an elderly woman came up to
    me, and I could tell that she was very disturbed. She came up,
    and she put her hands on my shoulders, and she looked into my
    eyes, her eyes welling up, hands shaking, and she said, ``Look
    me in the eyes. I need to know if you are working for Putin.''
        She was serious. I couldn't believe it. I looked her
    straight back in the eyes and expressed to her from my heart
    how much I love this country, so much that I am willing to die
    for it.
        More recently, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney accused me of
    treason, a crime that is punishable by death under our laws. I
    challenged him to back this serious allegation up with
    evidence. What was this based on? There was no response, no
    explanation, no evidence, and certainly no apology.
        Now, these accusations are often shrugged off as, ``Well,
    hey, it is politics. People say things about each other all the
    time.'' That may be easy for some of you to say, but for
    somebody who wears the uniform, this is serious. It is serious
    not only to me but to my fellow servicemembers and veterans,
    every one of us making a decision at some point in our lives to
    raise our right hand, prepared and volunteering to lay our life
    down for this country.
        What does that mean in reality? It means that, before every
    deployment, in our own hearts we have to make peace with the
    possibility that we may not come home. It means writing letters
    to our loved ones, trying to find the words to express our love
    and gratitude, knowing that may be our final goodbye. It means,
    for those of us who do come home, doing our best every single
    day to honor the great sacrifices of our brothers and sisters
    who paid that ultimate price.
        This is much bigger than me or any one individual. When
    those who dare to challenge the establishment are targeted by
    this powerful conglomerate of government, corporate media, and
    Big Tech, weaponizing all that they have against the people for
    their own selfish gain, it has a dangerous chilling effect on
    free speech, and it sends a very powerful message: If you dare
    to challenge us, we will come after you.
        The more we allow this to happen, we start looking less and
    less like a democratic republic and more and more like a banana
    republic. Instead of a government ordained to secure these
    rights, we are now increasingly facing a government determined
    to take those rights away. George Washington warned,

            For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments
            on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming
            consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind,
            reason is of no use to us. The freedom of speech may be taken
            away, and dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to
            slaughter.

        We have to stop this insanity and protect these sacred
    freedoms, vanquish the fear and self-censorship that is now
    pervasive, every one of us taking action to breathe new life
    into the open marketplace of ideas that is at the heart of a
    thriving democracy, encouraging vigorous and substantive
    debate, encouraging people to think for themselves so we can
    draw our own conclusions, where we can disagree without
    devolving into hate, where we can respect each other as fellow
    Americans and treat each other with ``aloha.''
        The work you have before you are critical for all these
    reasons. The stakes are high. The consequences, for better or
    worse, will be long-lasting. For the sake of the American
    people, our freedom, and the future of this country we love, I
    pray we can set aside our partisan differences and commit to
    standing together to defend the constitutional right of every
    American to live free.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        [The prepared statement of the Hon. Ms. Gabbard follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Congresswoman Gabbard. We
    appreciate those fine remarks.
        Congressman Raskin, we thank you for being here.
        Senator Johnson, we thank you, as well, for your testimony.
        The Committee will stand in recess for five minutes, more
    or less, to get ready for the second panel.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
        I want to introduce our second panel. We don't have all our
    second panel.
        Mr. Thomas Baker is an international law enforcement
    consultant. He served for more than 33 years as a special agent
    with the FBI, including in leadership positions, overseeing
    terrorism and other criminal investigations.
        Mr. Baker, thank you for being with us.
        Professor Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C.
    Shapiro Professor of Law at George Washington University Law
    School. He has written extensively on topics like
    constitutional law and has served as counsel to whistleblowers,
    military personnel, judges, Members of Congress, and a variety
    of other clients.
        Mr. Elliot Williams is a principal in the Government
    Affairs and Policy Counsel practice group at the Raben Group.
    He has served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
    Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice and Assistant
    Director for congressional Relations at U.S. Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement.
        Ms. Nicole Parker is a former special agent with the FBI.
    During her time at the FBI, she worked on various matters,
    including securities fraud, violent crime, and the Violent
    Crime Fugitive Task Force.
        Chair Jordan. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you
    please raise your right hand--stand and raise your right hand,
    please.
        Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the
    testimony you are about to give is true and correct, to the
    best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you
    God?
        Let the record show that each witness answered in the
    affirmative.
        Please know that your written testimony will be entered
    into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you to
    summarize your testimony in five minutes. Then we will go
    through it, and then we will get to questions.
        The microphone's in front of you. You all have done this, I
    think, before, most of you. Green means go. Yellow means get
    ready to stop. Red means stop. Then we will get to the
    questions as quickly as we can.
        Mr. Baker, you are recognized first. Again, thank you for
    being here.

                       STATEMENT OF THOMAS BAKER

        Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Americans have lost faith in the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, an institution they once regarded as the world's
    greatest law enforcement agency.
        I spent 33 years in the FBI and have continued to be
    closely engaged with the Bureau since my requirement. I am
    deeply troubled by this loss of faith, not only because of the
    challenge and danger it presents to our Nation but, personally,
    it breaks my heart.
        Specific lapses will be looked into by this panel, but the
    big issue is: Why did they happen? What changed? What should be
    done?
        Culture is where it starts. This widespread deleterious
    behavior of the past several years describes a culture, not
    just the work after few bad apples.
        Robert Mueller, when he was the FBI Director, set out
    deliberately to change the culture of the FBI from a law
    enforcement agency to an intelligence-driven agency. That had
    bad and unintended consequences.
        The difference is this: In law enforcement, you spend every
    day, consciously or unconsciously, waiting for that day to come
    when you are going to raise your right hand before a judge or
    before a jury and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth.
        That is quite different than an intelligence agency that
    operates through deceit and deception and their end product is
    an estimate. Some would call it a best guess. Guesses aren't
    allowed in the courtroom.
        Past reforms like the Church and Pike Committees were
    necessary. This present Subcommittee is a step in the right
    direction. Hopefully its work will be bipartisan, because the
    abuses of an intelligence-driven FBI threaten the liberty of
    those on the left as well as those on the right.
        In 1978, after the Church Committee revelations, reforms
    were undertaken. The FBI and the DOJ enacted a series of
    Attorney General guidelines for conducting investigations, but
    Congress gave us the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
        Now, however, the use of FISA against U.S. citizens, as
    seen in the Carter Page case, has presented a threat to
    American civil liberties. FISA suspends the Constitution.
        For its first decades, the Foreign Intelligence Act was
    used, as its name implies, to surveil foreign agents' resident
    in this country. FISA needs to be returned to that original
    purpose. That is something that the Congress can fix.
        That the FBI colluded with Twitter to suppress free speech
    is shocking. What is even more surprising is the FBI's
    explanation or denial that they did that.
        Over the past few years, when shenanigans were discovered
    in the Bureau by the Bureau, the miscreants were shown door.
    Director Wray and other FBI leaders, their theme is, ``The bad
    apples are no longer with us.'' With the Twitter revelations,
    there is not even that usual half-apology but a boldfaced
    denial that nothing is wrong.
        The First Amendment guarantees free speech. The FBI, by
    urging Twitter to sensor speech, which it could not itself do,
    was engaging in a perversion of the First Amendment.
        For most of FBI history, agents were trained that part of
    the FBI's mission was to be a guarantor of the Bill of Rights.
    That has now been turned on its head. A renewed emphasis on the
    Constitution as a cornerstone of the Bureau's work is what is
    called for.
        When I was in training as a new agent, we were each given a
    pocket copy of the Constitution. We were told to keep it in our
    breast pocket and that, if we did that, you would think about
    it when interviewing a citizen or when searching someone's
    home. If you kept it close to your heart, you wouldn't go
    wrong.
        For years, when explaining the FBI to various groups, I
    would always emphasize that, unlike other countries, the United
    States was blessed to have as its domestic security service a
    law enforcement agency, an agency rooted in the rule of law.
    The United States now may be cursed to have a domestic
    intelligence agency with police powers.
        We may never get the Bureau back to the culture of a tell-
    the-truth law enforcement agency that I lived and loved in the
    pre-
    9/11 era, but the effort of reform is worth it, noble, and
    direly needed.
        I thank you all for your efforts.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Baker. I appreciate your
    testimony.
        Professor Turley, you are recognized for five minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY

        Mr. Turley. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
    Plaskett, Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear
    before you to discuss this subject.
        It is my sincere hope that there is room for bipartisan
    agreement, even in these times, when we talk about the
    government's role in regulating speech. We all are here today
    because we all have a deep love for this country. We come from
    different backgrounds, different parts, but we share that
    common article of faith.
        I would like to speak to that today. These are difficult
    questions that I am going to address, and these are divisive
    times, but they transcend politics.
        Notably, in yesterday's hearing in the Oversight Committee,
    James Baker said that he also thought there might be need for
    legislation--this is the former Twitter executive, former FBI
    General Counsel. He said there might be need for legislation to
    limit the role of the FBI and other agencies in their
    relationship with social media companies. I think that this is
    true.
        One of the reasons that this Committee has a difficult task
    before it is that there is a crisis of faith, and it is not
    just simply with some of our constitutional values. Polls are
    showing that people have a distrust for the Federal government
    but also with the FBI.
        Twenty percent in a recent poll said that the FBI was the
    greatest threat to the country. Only 40 percent of Americans
    said that they trust the FBI most of the time. Fifty-three
    percent said they felt the FBI was acting politically.
        I am not saying that those results are warranted. What I am
    saying is, it is a serious problem when the public, large
    portions of the public, have that level of distrust.
        My testimony that I have submitted to the record goes
    through the constitutional and case law that applies to this
    issue of when the government goes too far. I say that these are
    really very heavily contested questions; there are cases on
    both sides. In some of my discussions, I say that actually I
    think the social media companies have a better argument, and in
    some parts I think that there are legitimate issues here that
    might trigger the First Amendment.
        There are two different aspects to that analysis. One is
    that we do have direct action shown in the Twitter files by
    government employees. So, we don't have to get into what I
    spend most of my time on, which is agency theory under the
    First Amendment. We know that there were dozens of Federal
    employees who tagged or targeted particular posts and posters
    for possible elimination and suspension.
        Now, we can question whether that was a directive or a
    partnership or a coordination, but there was direct government
    conduct. So, the question for this Committee, first and
    foremost, is: Do you want your government in that business? We
    can have, I hope, a civil and respectful conversation about
    that.
        What is interesting about the Twitter files is that they
    establish what could be viewed as agency. Now, as I go through
    a lot of the cases in the past, courts have really struggled
    with this. At what point does a private party become an agent
    of the government?
        Cases like Page and others say that you can have that; even
    if, by the way, the private agent turns down some requests, you
    can have that. I go through the various tests that apply.
        I also go through three things that are established:
        First, this may be the largest censorship system in the
    history of our country. Twitter alone reaches 450 million
    people. They are 15th on social media. Companies like Facebook
    dwarf them in terms of their size. It is a censorship system.
    The ACLU has made clear that censorship can be both in
    government or private form, and it certainly can be in a
    government and private type of coordination.
        Second, this is beyond what agencies usually do. This was
    not the FBI responding to criticism of the FBI. It was
    generally policing this thing called disinformation and
    eventually they tagged things like jokes. They tagged just a
    ridiculous scope of information that they believed could be
    removed.
        Third, what we have here, in terms of what the government's
    doing, is what we have seen before. Even if you assume that
    this does not create an agency relationship, it is wrong. It is
    wrong for the government to be in the business of silencing
    citizens. It is wrong.
        We saw it during the McCarthy period, where the government
    was behind the blacklisting of individuals. We said it was
    wrong. It was wrong then; it is wrong now. We have to have that
    debate. It has to move somewhere beyond our normal partisan
    divisions.
        Adlai Stevenson said that, ``when there is a loss of faith
    in government we lose everything.'' I hope that Senator
    Stevenson's words resonate with Members of this Committee. We
    have everything at stake when you have the government involved
    in censorship.
        So, I thank you again for allowing me to appear, and I look
    forward to working with Members on both sides to look at this
    issue.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. Professor, thank you. Thank you for stating
    the gravity of the situation and the question before us.
        Mr. Williams, you are recognized for five minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF ELLIOT WILLIAMS

        Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member
    Plaskett, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much
    for inviting me to testify today.
        My name is Elliot Williams, and over the course of 15 years
    I have the honor of serving in all three branches of our
    government. Across that time, I worked as both a career
    prosecutor and a senior appointee, as both a rank-and-file
    employee and in senior management, and in both Republican and
    Democratic administrations.
        For a major portion of my time in government, I served in
    roles tied directly to the relationship between the Executive
    and Legislative Branches of government. I served as counsel to
    the Senate Judiciary Committee across the building--or across
    the courtyard, and helped run legislative affairs at both the
    United States Department of Justice and the United States
    Customs and Immigration Enforcement, or ICE.
        I note that I am here today speaking in my personal
    capacity and not on behalf of any employer.
        Now, having sat in the seats of the very staff behind you,
    alongside some of the very people who are still here today, as
    well as in the role of the Executive Branch employee or
    official responding to your requests, I can say that each
    institution's interests are critically important to creating a
    healthy, functioning democracy.
        When they collide, it is crucial to recognize that our
    institutions are best served by reaching compromises or
    accommodations--we are going hear that word again in a moment--
    that protect the core interests of each branch of government.
    congressional oversight, the reviewing or monitoring or
    supervision of Federal agencies and activities, is essential to
    good government. It helps ensure that officials who hold the
    public trust apply laws fairly and spend their funds wisely--
    our funds wisely. It uncovers abuse and uproots waste. It
    encourages efficiency and fosters transparency.
        Now, this is a two-way street, where Congress ends up
    better informed when making its Legislative decisions and the
    Executive Branch is in a better position to carry out its
    enforcement of our laws.
        Now, there is a natural and perfectly reasonable push and
    pull of constitutional and legal interests when two branches of
    government interact. Too much pushing or pulling from either
    side poorly serves the American people and does not serve the
    work of the American people.
        Now, each branch of government--and I mean the Legislative
    and Executive--have a tremendous amount to lose and a lot to
    gain in the process. It is in the interest of people at both
    ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and across the country that our
    institutions and our democracy function properly.
        Now, Congress and the Justice Department, both where I
    worked for a long time, have recognized this principle. The
    Justice Department has attempted throughout the years to
    balance satisfying legitimate legislative interests with
    protecting the Executive Branch's confidentiality interests.
        An obvious example arises when disclosure of case materials
    from an open criminal case or a civil case might be disclosed
    to the public or to Congress. There might be a significant
    public interest in the Justice Department's efforts to protect
    those materials.
        Likewise, Congress has a very long history of engaging in
    responsible oversight--and bipartisan oversight, for that
    matter--of the Executive Branch. This means reaching
    accommodations that have regularly included narrowing requests
    for information, limiting access to information that is
    provided by the Executive Branch, or even at times delaying a
    congressional investigation until the work of the Justice
    Department and the former prosecutions or declinations are
    completed.
        For instance, here is an example. In the early 2000's, the
    House Oversight Committee wanted to obtain documents from
    Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the
    leak of the covert identity of CIA Officer Valerie Plame. They
    consulted--this is the Committee, the Oversight Committee--
    consulted with the special counsel and agreed to delay
    receiving information until after the end of the litigation, or
    after the investigation and litigation.
        Even then, the Chair of the Committee worked closely with
    the special counsel to narrow his requests that the special
    counsel agreed would not infringe on his prosecutorial
    independence or intrude upon grand jury secrecy, which, as many
    of you know, is protected by law under the law.
        Both sides here, Congress and the Executive Branch, or the
    Justice Department, had interests. They both balanced them for
    the good of democracy, the health of our institutions, and
    transparency for the American people.
        Now, as with any process of negotiation, not every party
    will always receive what they seek to recover, nor will they be
    able to protect every bit of information they wish to shield.
    That is not a bad thing. We will talk about that over the
    course of the day.
        Needless to say, thank you again for inviting me to
    testify, and I look forward to answering any questions you
    might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
        Ms. Parker, you are recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Parker, hit that button. There you go. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF NICOLE PARKER

        Ms. Parker. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and
    Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for
    inviting me to come and respectfully speak to you today.
        The people of this country deserve the right to have faith
    in those sworn to protect. Faith is the foundation of hope, and
    hope can be restored through honest reflection of who we have
    become and who we could and should be.
        On September 11, 2001, I was working for Merrill Lynch at
    the World Financial Center in New York City. I witnessed up
    close the horrific deadly terrorist attacks on the adjacent
    World Trade Center. My colleagues and I evacuated our building
    and were led to safety, thanks to the heroic efforts of NYPD
    officers; 2,977 souls were not as fortunate that day.
        As I watched the mayhem unfold, to include people jumping
    to their deaths, I was shocked, heartbroken. I vowed to God
    that I would give back and serve this great Nation. This vow
    led me to leave a multibillion-dollar hedge fund in 2009 and
    apply to become an FBI special agent.
        According to The Wall Street Journal, around 45,000 people
    applied to be special agents that fiscal year. About 900 made
    the cut, and I was one of them.
        After five months of arduous training at the academy in
    Quantico, I was a sworn-in special agent, assigned to the Miami
    Division. I considered it a very sacred responsibility and was
    honored to be entrusted to protect and serve the American
    people.
        My entire career was spent in the field, where I believed I
    could make the strongest impact in rescuing victims and putting
    criminals behind bars.
        It was my privilege to work alongside the finest and
    brightest in the FBI, local law enforcement, and our Federal
    partners, participating in the investigations of myriad
    criminal cases--the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
    shooting in Parkland, Florida; the 2017 Fort Lauderdale Airport
    shooting; the Cesar Sayoc pipe bomb case; multimillion-dollar
    Ponzi schemes; crimes on the high seas; bank robberies; murders
    for hire; sexual assaults; extortions, and more.
        Yes, it was physically taxing and emotionally jarring, but
    I believed I was making an impactful difference. Every day, I
    woke up and I embraced being an FBI special agent--until things
    changed.
        Over the course of my 12-plus years, the FBI's trajectory
    has transformed. On paper, the Bureau's mission remained the
    same, but its priorities and governing principles shifted
    dramatically. The FBI became politically weaponized, starting
    from the top in Washington and trickling down to the field
    offices.
        Although FBI employees have their First Amendment rights,
    they are not at the liberty to allow their personal political
    views or preferences to determine their course of action or
    inaction in any investigation. Lady Justice must remain blind.
    Those that do not uphold these responsibilities cause a
    negative ripple effect throughout the agency and the field.
        It is as if there became two FBIs. Americans see this, and
    it is destroying the Bureau's credibility, causing Americans to
    lose faith in the agency and, therefore, the hardworking and
    highly ethical agents who still do the heavy lifting and pursue
    noble cases. It makes it very difficult for agents to do their
    job when the FBI loses the respect of the American people.
        There has also been a shift in recruiting practices--a
    lowering of the eligibility requirements, which is negatively
    impacting the agency's performance.
        All of this adds up to a loss of trust in the FBI by many
    Americans and low morale among many FBI employees. For many,
    becoming a special agent was their calling in life, but now it
    is merely a very dangerous and high-risk job with minimal
    contentment.
        Wary of consequences that come with voicing their
    displeasure, these agents keep their heads low. They work hard,
    and they stay off the radar, and they count down the days until
    they can collect their well-deserved pensions.
        For me, distancing myself from egregious mistakes, immoral
    behavior, politically charged actions taken by a small but
    destructive few FBI employees became exhausting.
        Although I was always treated with the highest level of
    respect in the Miami Division, I no longer felt that I was the
    type of agent that the FBI valued. I began to lose passion for
    the career I loved, and peace came as I reflected on the
    victims I assisted, the criminals I took off the streets, and I
    remembered positive performance reviews, awards, and accolades
    I had been given, as I left nothing on the line in my work as a
    special agent.
        I held out as long as I could, hoping things would improve,
    but finally I knew it was time to go. So, less than four months
    ago, of my own volition, I made the difficult decision and
    quietly walked away from the FBI with an exemplary and spotless
    record.
        I love the FBI I joined, and I have treasured memories
    working alongside remarkable people. I am proud to have served
    with honor as a special agent. While I sincerely pray for the
    FBI's future success, the FBI's troubles of late were bigger
    than anything I could change.
        Going forward, I will continue to serve others in our
    beloved country while honoring and celebrating the true heroes,
    both past and present, of the FBI.
        When I was invited to participate in this hearing, my
    initial reaction was to decline the request, as there may be
    others more capable who would do a much better job than me. Why
    would I want to subject myself to the stress of testifying,
    putting a target on my back and likely facing public scrutiny?
        As I prayed about this invitation--sorry--the thought came
    to me: To whom much is given, much is required. I realized that
    this is not about me. I have been given the opportunity to
    speak up on behalf of numerous current and former Bureau
    employees who feel similarly but they do not have a voice.
        I am not here today to show favor to any political party. I
    am here to stand for the truth based on my experience at the
    FBI. In all humility, I hope to make an impact in creating a
    stronger agency, which is what Americans deserve.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Parker follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Parker. Thank you for your
    service.
        We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
    questions.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
    Stefanik.
        Ms. Stefanik. I want to echo the Chair. Thank you, Ms.
    Parker, for your extraordinary service and your courage for
    being here today.
        Mr. Turley, I want to start with you.
        The Twitter files laid bare for the American people what
    you correctly call unconstitutional, quote, ``censorship by
    surrogate.''
        Matt Taibbi writes, quote, ``Twitter's contact with the FBI
    was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary.''
        Do you agree with that assessment?
        Mr. Turley. I do. What we know on the record so far shows a
    relationship that goes beyond this sort of informal exchange of
    ideas--
        Ms. Stefanik. You are correct.
        In fact, isn't it true that, leading up to the 2020
    election, Twitter had weekly meetings with not just the FBI,
    with DOJ, DHS, and DNI, to conduct this unconstitutional
    censorship by surrogate? We know that because of the Twitter
    files, correct?
        Mr. Turley. Correct.
        Ms. Stefanik. It was not just meetings, not just censorship
    of stories like the Hunter Biden laptop story. We also now know
    that the FBI paid Twitter over $3.4 million of taxpayer funds
    to censor these stories before the 2020 election. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Turley. That money was paid. Twitter confirmed that.
        Ms. Stefanik. The Twitter files are just the tip of the
    iceberg, because there is so much more. There was a corrupt
    revolving door at the highest levels between the FBI and
    Twitter.
        Look no further than Jim Baker, former General Counsel at
    the FBI, who helped unlawfully investigate Donald Trump in the
    2016 election. Or look at Jim Comey's Deputy Chief of Staff,
    who became the Director of Strategy at Twitter.
        Isn't it true, according to the Twitter files, that there
    were so many FBI officials who then went to work at Twitter
    that they created their own Slack channel and crib sheet for
    onboarding? The Twitter files confirmed that, correct?
        Mr. Turley. Correct.
        Ms. Stefanik. Are you aware, as the American people are
    aware, that, according to polling of the people that were made
    aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53 percent would have
    changed their vote, including 61 percent of Democrats?
        This is the definition of election meddling. It is the
    definition of election meddling by the FBI, on behalf of
    Democrats, paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. It is collusion, it
    is corruption, and it is unconstitutional.
        Ms. Parker, I want to go to you next, about your experience
    at the FBI. Because this is not just about the Twitter files,
    which folks are focused on because of the news it made. It is
    about systemic rot in the culture and the politicization of the
    leadership of the FBI, and it needs to be rooted out.
        Let's take a step back. Let's look at the targeting,
    illegally, of parents who wanted to stand up for their kids at
    school board meetings.
        On September 29, 2021, the National School Boards
    Association sent a letter to Joe Biden equating parents at
    school board meetings to domestic terrorists.
        On October 4th, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a
    memorandum to the FBI and U.S. attorneys that the Department
    would use Federal enforcement tools to target and prosecute
    these parents.
        Do you consider parents as domestic terrorists?
        Ms. Parker. I do not consider parents as domestic
    terrorists. No, I do not.
        Ms. Stefanik. No. Neither do the American people.
        There is more to this story. It goes back further than that
    initial letter on September 29th, because the letter didn't
    happen organically. It was solicited. It was solicited by the
    White House and by the Secretary of Education. Essentially, the
    Biden Administration laid the predicate for which it used to
    justify illegally targeting the American people, targeting
    these parents.
        Is it proper protocol, as a former FBI officer, to set that
    predicate, to manufacture the reasoning to justify opening an
    investigation?
        Ms. Parker. I believe that no one should be targeted for
    free speech and that violence should never be tolerated under
    any circumstance, but it should definitely not--no one should
    be targeted because they want to speak up at a school board
    meeting.
        Ms. Stefanik. This was a setup. It was this setup--and it
    is the real definition of weaponization of the government
    against the American people.
        It is not just this example of targeting parents at School
    Boards Association. It goes back to the opening of Crossfire
    Hurricane. It goes back to the faulty FISA application. It goes
    back to what we heard on that first panel from Senators
    Grassley and Johnson. It goes back to the suppression,
    illegally, of the Hunter Biden laptop story, paid for by the
    U.S. taxpayers. This corruption needs to be rooted out.
        It is not just about protecting the U.S. Constitution. It
    is, most importantly, about protecting the American people from
    the weaponization of the Federal government against them.
        Yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Huh. Very interesting.
        As a parent of five children, I think having my rights as a
    parent is a very sacred trust--a very sacred trust.
        Mr. Williams, would you say that, having worked as a
    prosecutor, threats of violence against individuals is
    something that supersedes an individual simply being a parent?
        Mr. Williams. Of course, Madam Ranking Member, threats of
    violence are actionable under the law.
        Ms. Plaskett. Right.
        Mr. Williams. When they come, prosecutors can investigate--
    or the FBI or any other investigative agency can investigate
    them and prosecute as appropriate.
        Ms. Plaskett. Sure.
        This one-page DOJ memo that we have made much ado about
    says, in its first instance, that the First Amendment-protected
    activity should never be subject to prosecution and issues a
    concern to legal violence and threats of violence that are made
    to school board officials, most of whom are--surprise,
    surprise--parents, volunteers who do the unenviable job of
    trying to direct their children in their communities'
    activities with regard to education--a job most of us,
    thankfully, have not had to do.
        I am also troubled, I am deeply troubled, by all the events
    as well as the increase in violence and threats of violence
    against civil servants and Federal law enforcement as we
    attempt to weaponize these individuals doing their job. In
    fact, we have seen the consequences of this rhetoric over and
    over again.
        I am also deeply troubled by the idea of Congress, as I
    said in my opening statement, using oversight as a weapon to
    air a list of political grievances. We seemed to hear much of
    that from the first panel especially.
        I have been a Member of the House Oversight Committee,
    where I saw firsthand how good oversight can help Congress make
    better public policy.
        Mr. Williams, you have worked in both Congress and the
    Executive Branch. Do you agree with me that oversight of the
    Federal government is an important legislative process?
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely. As Representative Raskin said at
    the first panel, the Constitution doesn't explicitly lay out an
    oversight mandate, but the legislative mandate of Congress
    provides Congress with its ability to engage in oversight.
    Oversight is good when it helps the government work better.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
        Do you agree that congressional oversight is at its best
    when it is focused on addressing the real problems that
    Americans face every day?
        Mr. Williams. The real problems Americans face every day
    and making government work better, absolutely, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Plaskett. I believe in congressional oversight, and
    committee Democrats would be willing to work together to
    conduct oversight of matters such as the disproportionate
    audits by the IRS of African-American families, recent reports
    about former Attorney General Bill Barr and Special Counsel
    John Durham.
        Mr. Williams, do you agree that congressional oversight
    works best when it is bipartisan in nature?
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely.
        Ms. Plaskett. Have you seen examples of that in bipartisan
    investigations?
        Mr. Williams. Oh, absolute---
        Ms. Plaskett. I know it is so infrequent now. Have you ever
    seen any?
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely. A great example is in 2016 when
    the House Committee on Oversight, led by Republican Chair Jason
    Chaffetz and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, worked together on
    an investigation, a bipartisan investigation, of the U.S.
    Secret Service and the mismanagement and misbehavior there.
        It led to bipartisan legislation that made, as I said, the
    government work better and Secret Service a more functioning
    and more functional organization.
        Ms. Plaskett. What about cooperation between the branches
    of government? Is it necessary for Congress to be willing to
    work with the Executive Branch in investigations?
        Mr. Williams. Yes. Vice versa, absolutely, the Executive
    Branch should be willing to work with Congress as well.
        Ms. Plaskett. Would that first instance be trying to come
    to agreement as to when and how documents and information could
    be given?
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely. The public sees hearings but does
    not see the--when the process works properly, there is a back-
    and-forth and a give-and-take between the two parties at both
    ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, as I said before. Yes, both sides.
        Ms. Plaskett. Would you say two weeks into the Congress
    issuing subpoenas might be a bit premature for the
    investigation and cooperation between those branches of
    government?
        Mr. Williams. Certainly, Congresswoman, Congress has the
    authority to issue subpoenas quickly if they wish. I guess you
    get more flies with honey than with vinegar, to be cute, and
    working with the other side collaboratively is always going to
    be a better approach.
        Ms. Plaskett. Vinegar seems to work better on social media,
    though, than the honey.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentlelady.
        I would just point out; we tried the honey. A hundred
    letters we sent in the last Congress. We tried the honey.
        Ms. Plaskett. The last Congress.
        Chair Jordan. The honey--
        Ms. Plaskett. You are now the Chair.
        Chair Jordan. The honey didn't work. That is why we sent
    the subpoenas.
        Ms. Plaskett. You are now in the majority. You should've
    tried that first as the Chair of this Committee, not as the
    Ranking Member.
        Chair Jordan. We tried--we tried that--
        Ms. Plaskett. You didn't do that as Chair.
        Chair Jordan. --with 100-and-some letters.
        Ms. Plaskett. You didn't do that as Chair.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    the State of Wyoming, Ms. Hageman.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Chair Jordan. It is a privilege to
    serve on this Select Subcommittee, and I look forward to the
    work we have ahead of us.
        After over 30 years as a water, natural resource, and
    constitutional attorney, I have seen firsthand and fought
    against the weaponization of the Federal government against my
    fellow Wyoming citizens and the country at large.
        Through the testimony of our witnesses today and the points
    made by my colleagues, it is clear that the culture and mission
    of the FBI and DOJ has changed in a manner which runs counter
    to the rights and liberties of the American people.
        The purpose of government is to secure our natural rights.
    Yet, the testimony we have heard and the information received
    from the whistleblowers and other investigative findings has
    shown that the FBI's mission has moved from securing those
    rights to using them as a predicate for investigating and
    surveilling the American people and weaponizing their
    government structure against them.
        Mr. Baker, in a Wall Street Journal piece you wrote titled,
    ``The FBI Needs a Wray of Courage,'' you stated that, in
    response to Attorney General Garland's memoranda directing the
    targeting of American parents, Director Wray should respond by
    highlighting that the FBI won't undertake any investigation
    based on speech alone.
        It is troubling that this statement would even need to be
    made. Mr. Baker, do you think your advice was heeded by
    Director Wray?
        Mr. Baker. In fact, I remember that episode quite clearly.
    I wrote that article in October, just days after the
    announcement became public. I was in touch with high executives
    at the FBI a day or two after that.
        They assured me that the FBI would maintain the standard of
    only investigating those situations where there was violence
    and not investigating free speech. I have to accept the Ranking
    Members of the FBI who told me that.
        However, my article in The Wall Street Journal still
    stands. We needed--the FBI needed, the American people needed--
    to hear Director Wray say that publicly, as other FBI Directors
    have spoken up to previous Attorney Generals and previous
    Presidents. He never did publicly.
        The American people need to hear--we wouldn't be having
    this discussion today if he clearly stated that we will not
    investigate speech, we will only investigate violence. We are
    still waiting for that statement.
        Ms. Hageman. Okay.
        Mr. Turley, from what Mr. Baker just said, we have seen two
    issues stemming from this abuse and change of priorities within
    the FBI and DOJ. They are either investigating Americans based
    upon their constitutionally protected rights or they are
    flagging lawful action to which they have political objection.
        In some of your recent writings, you have identified two
    very important points from the revelation of the FBI-Twitter
    relationship: First, that this relationship is a First
    Amendment violation, as it constitutes censorship by surrogate
    or proxy; and, second, you also are concerned that you don't
    know what is more menacing, the role the FBI played in
    Twitter's censorship program or its response to the disclosure
    of that role.
        The Constitution is a limited-governance document. The
    First Amendment identified our God-given right to speak freely
    and imposes the restraint that the government shall make no law
    abridging the freedom of speech.
        Mr. Turley, can you explain the implications of the
    government relying on private industry to circumvent the First
    Amendment?
        Mr. Turley. Thank you for that question.
        The Supreme Court and lower courts have spent a great deal
    of time trying to define when our relationship with a private
    party can cross over to a type of agency relationship. That
    also applies on the State level through the Fourteenth
    Amendment.
        In cases like Paige, for example, you have situations where
    you have a government official who called an employer to say,
    ``I don't like what this person said in a public meeting,'' and
    that employee was fired. The court said that is government
    action, that is a violation of the First Amendment.
        One of the things that this Subcommittee has to deal with
    is that difficult line, and I admit it is difficult. In these
    Twitter files, there is a very disturbing picture that emerges.
    You have regular meetings between the FBI and Twitter. They
    even offered to give clearances to Twitter officials. You have
    complaints among Twitter employees that this is overwhelming in
    terms of the number.
        What you really see is how insatiable censorship becomes,
    that eventually they were doing what appeared to be word
    searches and just sending all these postings in for possible
    action by Twitter. That included things like jokes and other
    things that anyone looking at it would realize that this is not
    a nefarious Russian operation.
        So, when we talk about surrogate censorship, we are talking
    about one of the most serious threats against free speech.
        People always say, ``Well, you know, the First Amendment
    only applies to the government.'' The First Amendment is not
    synonymous with free speech. It deals with one problem of free
    speech. What we are talking about with surrogate censorship is
    a much greater problem for those of us who value free speech as
    a defining right of this country.
        Ms. Hageman. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Hageman. I will yield back.
        Mr. Massie. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming.
        Now, I recognize my friend on the other side of the aisle,
    Mr. Lynch, who worked successfully and diligently with our late
    friend, Walter Jones, to secure the release of 28 pages of the
    9-11 document.
        Now, I recognize Mr. Lynch for five minutes.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Williams, on August 12, 2022, the FBI and DHS released
    a joint intelligence bulletin warning of an increase in
    domestic terrorist threats against Federal law enforcement
    officials following the search of Donald Trump's offices at
    Mar-a-Lago, including, quote, ``a threat to place a so-called
    dirty bomb in front of the FBI headquarters and issuing general
    calls for civilian war and rebellion.''
        On August 9, @judiciaryGOP tweeted:

            The IRS is coming for you. The Department of Justice is coming
            for you. The FBI is coming for you. No one is safe from the
            political punishment in Joe Biden's America.

        On that same day, my colleague, Representative Gosar, my
    Republican colleague, called the FBI, quote, ``the enemy of the
    people'' and tweeted: ``We must destroy the FBI,'' close quote.
        Do you share my concerns, as a former FBI employee, about
    this type of rhetoric inflaming those who might already be
    inclined to do harm to our Federal officers?
        Mr. Williams. Mr. Lynch, above all else, I should take a
    moment to praise the work of the FBI and the many law
    enforcement agencies and individuals that I worked with
    throughout my time, 15 years, in government, much of it in law
    enforcement. They do work on behalf of the American people and,
    frankly, don't sign up for threats or abuse.
        So, to answer your question, no, absolutely the threats
    hurt and are toxic and corrosive to our democracy.
        Mr. Lynch. Is it ever appropriate for American leaders to
    encourage violence against another branch of government?
        Mr. Williams. The encouragement of violence is never
    appropriate, either as a moral matter or under the law, sir.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        Now, the FBI has to respond to facts on the ground, and as
    recently reported by the Bipartisan Center for Strategic and
    International Studies, 28 of the 30 domestic terrorism
    fatalities that occurred in 2021 were the result of far-right
    terrorist attacks perpetrated by individuals who were--and I am
    quoting,

            motivated by ideas of racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to
            government authority, including procedural overreach related to
            protocols following the COVID-19 policies; misogyny, a hatred
            based on sexuality or gender identity; and belief in QAnon
            conspiracy theory, or opposition to certain policies such as
            abortion.

        Mr. Williams, could a congressional investigation designed
    to spread misinformation suggesting that the government is a
    threat actually compromise the safety of American citizens?
        Mr. Williams. The important words there were ``designed
    to.'' So, of course, a congressional investigation that were
    designed to do that would be improper, sir.
        Mr. Lynch. As you have raised as well--I was on the
    Committee when Mr. Chaffetz, and our dear friend, Elijah
    Cummings, conducted those negotiations around investigations of
    the Secret Service. I also agree with the former Chair's
    instructions around our joining investigations with Walter
    Jones.
        Could congressional investigations predicated on anti-law
    enforcement rhetoric contribute to misinformation that could
    lead extremists to target government actors?
        Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Lynch. How? Explain that. Go into that a little bit
    into this. Rather than yes or no, since you sat in that seat,
    explain to the audience.
        Mr. Williams. Sure. I think a lot of it is the climate we
    are in today. There is a significant risk of harm to an
    individual when people are whipped up by what they read and
    see. So, certainly, these aren't mere statements. In addition
    to being legally actionable, they come at a significant cost,
    sir.
        Mr. Lynch. At the same time, a unilateral--this Committee
    is based on the premise that the American people are under
    attack by the Federal government, by the Department of Justice,
    by the FBI, by the Department of Homeland Security. That is the
    premise on which this Committee was based.
        I just regret the impact that this is going to have on
    people who might otherwise consider serving in those agencies,
    and I just wonder if you have a perspective on that as well.
        Mr. Williams. Again, as I said briefly before, people come
    to government--in my experience, the vast majority of people I
    work with, and frankly, if not all of them, came to serve, came
    to treat the rule of law as their guide and serve the American
    people.
        The fear of threats will chill people's ability, (1) to do
    their jobs, but also (2) in terms of recruiting, people will
    not want to sign on for a job that will come necessarily with
    being threatened or doxed online, sir. So, I absolutely agree
    with that statement.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you. My time has expired.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, is recognized.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        A lot has been said here about the fear of threats, but
    what we are concerned about, and the scope of this Committee is
    the fear of threats to the American citizens. The reason we use
    the term ``weaponization'' is because it is appropriate.
        We have so many examples of that across so many Federal
    agencies that were designed to serve and protect the American
    people and have been used in recent years against them, and it
    will take us probably two years to lay that out.
        I just want to focus on one that has been mentioned this
    morning because the timeline is important, the school board
    issue.
        On June 22, 2021, Loudoun County parent Scott Smith spoke
    out at his local school board meeting, and he was arrested.
        On September 29, citing Mr. Smith's arrest as an example,
    the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the
    Biden Administration requesting Federal law enforcement
    involvement in local school board disputes.
        Now, here is what is really important. We learned later
    that the White House helped the NSBA draft that letter to
    itself.
        On October 4, Attorney Garland Merrick Garland issued the
    now infamous memo directing Federal law enforcement to mobilize
    against the parents of school children who protest at their
    local school board meetings. He turned the FBI, the U.S.
    Attorney's offices, the full weight of the Federal Department
    of Justice against the very citizens they were sworn to defend
    and protect.
        On October 12, we learned that the Loudoun County parent
    Scott Smith's daughter was actually sexually assaulted at her
    school, and that the school board covered it up, and that was
    the reason why that dad showed up to protest.
        Nine days later, October 21, happened to be the day
    previously scheduled for Attorney General Merrick Garland
    himself to appear before our House Judiciary Committee. In that
    hearing, as my colleagues will remember, he was forced to
    acknowledge before our Committee that the NSBA letter was the
    basis of his memo targeting concerned parents, but he refused
    to acknowledge the obvious chilling effect that memo involving
    the full weight of the Federal law enforcement apparatus would
    have on parents' protected First Amendment protected speech.
        He also, by the way, refused to commit to a mandatory under
    Federal law, mandatory ethics review of his own family's
    financial ties to advancing critical race theory in schools,
    and its relation to his school board memo and the obvious
    appearance of the conflict of interest therein.
        I encourage all interested citizens to watch the video of
    that hearing. It was pretty contentious.
        The very next day, on October 22, after much public outcry,
    the NSBA retracted and publicly apologized for its letter
    labeling concerned parents like Scott Smith as, quote,
    ``domestic terrorists.''
        In the following weeks, over 20 different State school
    board associations severed their ties with the National School
    Boards Association.
        Our Democrat colleagues have tried to downplay the
    importance of this select Committee, and they even criticized
    its name as hyperbolic. As this example and so many others
    clearly show, key agencies have indeed been weaponized. We are
    informed even still today that this memo has not been retracted
    by the Attorney General.
        Here is the question, Mr. Baker. You were an FBI agent for
    33 years and were involved in a lot of the important and noble
    work there. You have also said clearly and been vocal about
    some of the egregious overreaches you have seen from the FBI
    and the DOJ.
        In recent years, you have described what has devolved into
    a culture of, quote, ``deceit and deception'' involving, quote,
    ``alarming FBI behavior,'' and you have written that those
    abuses threaten the liberties of those on the left as well as
    the right.
        Professor Turley just cited statistics here today that
    there are large numbers of Americans who now distrust the FBI.
    Our task here is to determine exactly how that has happened and
    how to correct that framework.
        Mr. Baker, here is the question. In your testimony you
    noted that FBI Director Mueller a couple of decades ago worked
    to centralize the FBI, meaning that he centralized all
    information and decisionmaking, making that at the FBI
    headquarters as opposed to his predecessor's decentralized
    model which empowered the field offices instead.
        Do you believe the elimination of all those layers of
    supervision, review, and independent judgment is a key reason
    for all this corruption that we see today and that it is
    something that must be reformed and reversed?
        Mr. Baker. Yes, in fact I do, Congressman. I don't use the
    term ``corruption.'' The term I think is more appropriate that
    your colleague, Congresswoman Stefanik, used, the rotten
    culture, the culture rot.
        Specifically, as regards to centralization, there is no
    question about it. Traditionally, the FBI field agent headed an
    investigation. He had a field supervisor above him. Above him
    was the agent in charge of that office. Only then did the
    information and the decisionmaking go to FBI headquarters.
        What happened on the Mueller centralized--all that was
    eliminated. They ran these key investigations, Hillary Clinton
    email investigation, and then the Trump collusion
    investigation, out of headquarters, eliminated all these layers
    of independent judgment, supervision, gone.
        So, you had someone like--somebody mentioned his name
    already here--Strzok who not only writes the communication
    opening the case, but he also goes the next day to London and
    conducts the first interview in the case.
        You have McCabe, a Deputy Director, No. 2 in the whole
    Bureau, directs the investigation and sends two agents to the
    White House to interview General Flynn. No levels of review. It
    was bound to end badly.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I am out of time.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        Yes, they had a name for it. It was called a headquarter
    special, and the point is it wasn't special so much. It became
    the norm.
        With that, the Chair now recognizes--
        Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, could I have a point of order?
        There has been a lot of mention of information and
    testimony that you have received from whistleblowers. When are
    you planning on providing that to the minority?
        Chair Jordan. You could have been for the very first
    deposition--or excuse me--transcribed interview of
    whistleblower. I was there when he testified on Tuesday.
        Mr. Goldman. Okay. That is fine. I assume you will turn
    those over. You talk about dozens of whistleblowers. When are
    we going to get that information?
        Chair Jordan. When they testify, when we work with--I will
    work with the Ranking Member on that issue.
        Mr. Goldman. You don't have any transcriptions of their
    interviews?
        Chair Jordan. We have the first one, and we have the dozens
    who've come and talked to our office.
        Mr. Goldman. They talked to your office privately?
        Chair Jordan. They talked to Republican staff, right.
        Mr. Goldman. They are not transcribed, no notes, no
    nothing?
        Chair Jordan. The first one happened Tuesday.
        Mr. Goldman. No, no. I am not talking about the first one.
    I am talking about--
        Chair Jordan. The first one happened Tuesday. The next one
    happens tomorrow. The third one happens next Wednesday, and we
    will continue to do that.
        Mr. Goldman. You just said dozens. Do you have notes from
    those, or are they just talking to your staff?
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chair, isn't that how whistleblowers
    typically work?
        Chair Jordan. Well, it is how they are supposed to work. It
    is not how they worked in the impeachment that Mr. Goldman was
    a part of when Mr. Schiff said he didn't have contact with that
    whistleblower but, in fact, he did.
        Mr. Goldman. Actually, it worked exactly appropriately
    until Mr. Trump did not allow--
        Chair Jordan. We are doing it the way we are supposed to do
    it, Mr. Goldman.
        Mr. Goldman. No. You are supposed to turn it over to the
    minority.
        Chair Jordan. When they come and testify, you will have
    access to the transcript, like everyone on the Committee will.
        Mr. Goldman. You mean your staff is not going to turn it
    over to our staff; we are year just in the dark?
        Chair Jordan. No. When the transcript is done, you will get
    the transcript.
        Mr. Goldman. I mean of the dozens of whistleblowers you
    have already talked to that came to talk to your staff.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. What do you want me to turn over there?
        Ms. Plaskett. Their names.
        Mr. Goldman. Notes. Did anyone take notes?
        Chair Jordan. I will be happy to talk with the Ranking
    Member on how we handle that information.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
        Chair Jordan. All I am telling you is we will schedule each
    for a deposition, and we are doing that. You didn't show up for
    the first one. You could have been there.
        With that--
        Mr. Goldman. I didn't know about it.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes--
        Ms. Garcia. We didn't have notice.
        Mr. Bishop. Cicilline was there.
        Chair Jordan. There were Democrat Members at the--
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think you need to work on your
    schedule.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes, I think, Ms.
    Sanchez, the gentlelady from California is recognized.
        Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I know from experience how good investigations can really
    improve public policy.
        In 2009, my investigation shed light on the traumatic brain
    injury risk that accompanies professional football, and I am
    proud to say that this work changed how football teams, and
    more importantly, youth sports leagues address concussions.
        I have also seen congressional oversight at its worst. I
    served on the Select Committee on Benghazi, and I saw how
    politicized and expensive that investigation was. I want to
    note, again, that the final report found no new evidence of
    wrongdoing.
        Mr. Williams, you have handled oversight for both Congress
    and the Executive Branch. Based on your experience, what are
    the hallmarks of fair and effective congressional oversight?
        Mr. Williams. Again, fair and effective oversight is, (1)
    does it serve to make government work and function better on
    behalf of the American people? Then I would say, (2) is there a
    process of accommodation between the branches of government
    that are seeking to have information? In my case, that was the
    Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, but
    any government entity, are they working productively together,
    those two things.
        Ms. Sanchez. I am glad you raised the issue of
    accommodation process.
        Can you explain why that is necessary and why the
    government can't simply comply with every congressional
    oversight request the moment that it is made?
        Mr. Williams. Sure. Here is an example, Congresswoman
    Sanchez.
        It is actually more efficient in many circumstances for the
    parties to attempt to come to an agreement prior to, whether it
    is issuing subpoenas or going straight to hearings, and so on,
    because of the fact that things that are more contentious are
    far more likely to end up in litigation and tied up in the
    courts for whether it is months or years thereafter. Where, if
    the parties had just at the beginning tried to resolve it, like
    the judge I clerked for used to say,

            Can't you all work this out, would try to work it out up front
            and come to some agreement, where not everybody gets what they
            were initially asking for, but somehow the process moves
            forward.

        Ms. Sanchez. Last week, just two weeks after being named
    Chair, Mr. Jordan served multiple subpoenas seeking internal
    information from the Executive Branch.
        In your experience, can it sometimes take time for the
    accommodations process to play out?
        Mr. Williams. Exactly. As I said, it can take time, but it
    is far more productive to end up with a more time-consuming
    process up front where everybody ends up getting what they
    want.
        Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
        Now, I am not a prosecutor, but you have been a prosecutor,
    correct?
        Mr. Williams. Yes.
        Ms. Sanchez. The Chair of this Select Committee held a
    press conference earlier this week to talk about various
    interviews that his staff is conducting.
        Mr. Williams. Yes.
        Ms. Sanchez. Now, I haven't been able to be in those
    interviews, but I want to ask you some things that the
    Committee should keep in mind as it moves forward with our work
    on this Select Committee.
        Could the fact that someone has no firsthand knowledge of
    the matters they are discussing impact the credibility of what
    they say?
        Mr. Williams. Yes.
        Ms. Sanchez. What if they vocally advocated conspiracy
    theories that have no basis in fact? Should that impact how the
    Committee views their testimony?
        Mr. Williams. Yes. Openly advocating conspiracy theories
    that have no basis, in fact, would have a negative impact on an
    open investigation.
        Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
        Now, I just want to clarify some of the discussion that we
    have heard about parents protesting at school board meetings.
        People have the right to free speech in this country, but
    is that an absolute right?
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely. The best example is threats
    against other people are not--it is just not protected speech.
        Ms. Sanchez. In fact, many of these people who have shown
    up at school board meetings have threatened school board
    officials with violence or even with death. Isn't that the
    reason why they were placed on this--
        Mr. Williams. Sure.
        Ms. Sanchez. --special sort of monitoring thing, to make
    sure that they were not going to carry out those threats of
    violence?
        Mr. Williams. To be clear, Congresswoman, I am not familiar
    with the particulars of each individual case. I can say,
    however, based on my experience as a prosecutor, if somebody
    threatens somebody else or violated the law in another way in a
    manner that could either lead to--the term is ``probable
    cause.'' If there is probable cause to believe that an offense
    was committed, then certainly law enforcement can take action.
        Frankly, if law enforcement oversteps its bounds, there is
    a process through the civil rights process or any other way of
    dealing with that and addressing it.
        Ms. Sanchez. So, again, we have the right to free speech in
    this country, but it is not absolute if it includes threats
    against other people. It is not just violence that we should be
    looking out for, but it is also threats of violence that law
    enforcement should be looking out for.
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely. It is the threats of violence,
    because, to be quite straightforward, threats of violence lead
    to violence or can.
        Ms. Sanchez. Right. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Gaetz.
        Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Williams, wouldn't the American people feel
    like this government wasn't so weaponized against them if there
    wasn't such a revolving door between Department of Justice
    senior officials and lobbying?
        Mr. Williams. I don't quite follow the premise of your
    question, sir.
        Mr. Gaetz. It is pretty easy. There is a revolving door
    between senior officials at the DOJ and the lobbying
    profession. Do you think that this gives the public more or
    less trust?
        Mr. Williams. There are rules governing what employment--
    and this is based on my understanding after being in government
    for 15 years--governing what post-government employment can be.
    One, what individual's actions can be once they are employed
    elsewhere, but also what they are allowed to--
        Mr. Gaetz. Lobbying is influence peddling, and you are the
    principal at the Raben Group, which is a lobbying firm. I would
    observe the reporting of Project Veritas where Jordan Tristan
    Walker, who is a director of research and development, said on
    a recording:

            One of the things we are exploring is, like, why don't we just
            manipulate COVID ourselves, mutate COVID via directed
            evolution. Pfizer serves as a revolving door for all government
            officials. It is pretty good for industry, to be honest. It is
            bad for everyone else in America.

        Mr. Gaetz. Pfizer is one of the clients of the lobbying
    firm that you are a principal of, isn't it?
        Mr. Williams. I do not represent Pfizer. I do not know,
    sir--
        Mr. Gaetz. You are a principal of the Raben Group, right?
        Mr. Williams. No. That is correct. I mean, I--
        Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter
    into the record the clients of the Raben Group, which include
    Pfizer.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Gaetz. Not just Pfizer, but Google as well.
        In response to the Twitter files, we saw a statement come
    from the FBI where they said:

            Correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more
            than examples of our traditional, longstanding, and ongoing
            Federal government and private sector engagements.

        Mr. Gaetz. Are there such engagements between the FBI and
    Google?
        Mr. Williams. When you say, ``such engagements,'' sir, I
    don't quite--
        Mr. Gaetz. Does Google engage with the FBI, Mr. Williams?
        Mr. Williams. I don't work for either Google or the FBI,
    sir, so I can't--
        Mr. Gaetz. No. Gosh, I would have to again point you to
    your own client list that you advertise on your own website,
    which includes Google.
        Does it surprise you that on the Raben Group's website,
    Pfizer and Goggle are clients?
        Mr. Williams. It does not surprise me, sir, no.
        Mr. Gaetz. The Soros-funded Open Society is one of the
    clients as well.
        Does that surprise you?
        Mr. Williams. Sir, I don't have our client list in front of
    me right now. I will--assuming that is what it says, I will
    take your word for it.
        Mr. Gaetz. I would think that maybe one of the legislative
    initiatives we could pursue would be to tighten this revolving
    door that folks at Pfizer and folks at big tech seem to freely
    acknowledge and which you seem to be the incarnant of the
    revolving door.
        Mr. Baker and Ms. Parker--
        Mr. Williams. Could I respond to that?
        Chair Jordan. It is the gentleman's time.
        Mr. Gaetz. I want to ensure you both that we have come not
    to trash the FBI, but to rescue the FBI from political capture.
    It seems as though that political capture was really enhanced
    when Robert Mueller took a lot of the authority and power away
    from the field offices all over our country and centralized
    that power.
        Mr. Baker, do you believe that through legislation we might
    be able to restore the system of office origin where events
    occur, people are able to conduct investigations in the absence
    of the influences of Washington, DC?
        Mr. Baker. There is no doubt Congress can be an advocate
    doing a lot of good by having these hearings, this panel. A lot
    of these things, though, have to be done internally by the DOJ
    and the FBI. There is absolutely a role for Congress looking at
    the abuses of Pfizer for one, the abuses of the unmasking for
    another, the abuses of the indirect targeting, which actually
    the CIA and the NSA do rather than the FBI; but these are all
    things Congress can legislate solutions to.
        Mr. Gaetz. It seems as though those abuses become more
    acute the greater they have a geographic proximity to
    Washington, DC. Seems we don't see these abuses with the brave
    FBI agents, like Ms. Parker, who I am very grateful served my
    fellow Floridians in the Miami Field Office.
        Ms. Parker, if we got the decisionmaking more out of
    Washington, DC, and into the hands of our field offices where
    we have so many patriotic and brave FBI officials, do you think
    we would be able to escape this political capture that, quite
    literally, drove you out of the bureau?
        Ms. Parker. I think that is absolutely critical at this
    point in our American history.
        When I mentioned in the opening statement, if there are two
    FBIs, we in the FBI see it as the field offices, the standard
    rank and file. We are typically the agents who just came to the
    FBI to serve the country, protect American citizens, and fight
    crime. We have no interest in politics. We really have no
    interest in promoting many times. Then FBI 2 is kind of more
    individuals that are at the headquarters level. Sometimes--
        Mr. Gaetz. It seems as though that politics isn't out in
    the field office, it is here in Washington, DC. That is precise
    what we ought to deconstruct legislatively.
        I thank the witnesses. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of
    Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Williams, do you want to take about 30 seconds to
    respond?
        Mr. Williams. It won't even take 30 seconds, Congresswoman.
        What I would say is, if we are talking today about what is
    within Congress' powers and duties under Articles I of the
    Constitution, one such thing is legislation. If Congress wishes
    to pass bipartisan legislation either about the Federal
    Elections Commission or lobbying requirements, have at it--that
    is Congress' role--and work together and do it.
        I would support it, and I am sure many people in this room
    would.
        Mr. Gaetz. Alas, our first bipartisan agreement.
        Mr. Williams. I--
        Mr. Gaetz. We are in agreement then.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time.
        Mr. Williams. I am sorry.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is Okay. Not from you. Thank
    you.
        First, I want to thank you, Ms. Parker, as a victim of the
    Cesar Sayoc bomb package case, along with my staff. I
    appreciate your service and the work that you did in the Miami
    Bureau.
        Mr. Williams, you worked in oversight for a long time, as
    you noted, in Congress, for the Executive Branch. You have seen
    it at its best and worst. Although the Judiciary Committee has
    issued subpoenas over unfounded accusations just two weeks into
    this Congress, I know I have serious concerns over their rush
    to judgment, like many other Committee actions that are
    employed by Republicans for purely political reasons. Their
    move also clearly shows that when Republicans are in charge,
    they use the levers of power to weaponize government.
        So, can you tell us some examples of congressional
    oversight that has been abused in that way?
        Mr. Williams. Well, what I will say, Congresswoman, is that
    when congressional oversight is abused, history doesn't treat
    it well. None of us today are the judge or the guide, but
    history will be. If, for instance, individuals are targeted,
    history will not be the judge of that if Congress is using its
    authorities to do so and overstep its bounds beyond its scope
    of its Article I authority.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        What can Members of Congress learn from past examples of
    the politicization of oversight?
        Mr. Williams. I think the past is prologue. By recognizing
    that with a large platform as Congress has, it has the
    trendability to harm people as much as it does to do good.
    Congress ought to perhaps have that in mind when thinking about
    how to make government work better.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        In 2015, a Member of Congress, who happens to currently
    hold the gavel now in the House, boasted that the Benghazi
    Select Committee was effective all because it hurt Hillary
    Clinton politically, saying, quote,

            Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right. We put
            together a Benghazi Special Committee, a Select Committee. What
            are her numbers today?

    He even bragged in the same statement that because of it, her,
    quote, ``numbers are dropping,'' unquote.
        During Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, Republicans held
    nine investigative hearings focusing on her, including one
    where they called her to testify for over 11 hours. That was
    clearly politicized and weaponized oversight. Frankly, this
    Weaponization Committee itself epitomizes the weaponization of
    government.
        So, Mr. Williams, is it ever appropriate to turn
    congressional oversight authority into a weapon to harm a
    political opponent?
        Mr. Williams. No.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How can the politicization of
    congressional oversight harm the credibility of future
    congressional investigations?
        Mr. Williams. That is exactly the point I was going to get
    to, Congresswoman.
        If the public loses its faith in Congress' ability to be a
    fair arbiter of oversight disputes, then what does Congress
    have ultimately?
        So, yes, this is about the integrity of Congress, I think.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Turley, turning to you, have you ever worked for
    Twitter?
        Mr. Turley. No.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have any formal relationship
    with the company?
        Mr. Turley. No. I just have an account.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have any specific or special
    or unique knowledge about the inner workings of Twitter?
        Mr. Turley. Nothing beyond the Twitter files and what I
    read in the media.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, essentially, your responses to
    the questions here today were your own opinion and pure
    conjecture?
        Mr. Turley. No, I wouldn't say that. They are based--I try
    to base them on what we know from the Twitter files.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, but you said that you don't
    have any specific or unique knowledge of Twitter, but you spoke
    as if you did. You were asked very specific questions about
    Twitter's--the way Twitter functions and the decisionmaking
    that they make. Yet, you don't have any unique or special
    knowledge about Twitter and have never worked for them.
        So, this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a
    Twitter account user?
        Mr. Turley. No. I have come to give legal analysis based on
    facts that are in the public domain.
        I was really referring to what the--I was asked about the--
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time.
        Legal analysis is another word for opinion?
        Mr. Turley. Well, I would think there is some distinction,
    but, yes, it ultimately is an opinion. I believe the question
    to me was based on what the Twitter files show, and that was my
    reading of the Twitter files.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. Again, that is another way of
    describing your opinion being offered, which was represented as
    unique and special facts which you don't possess.
        Thank you.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Issa.
        Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, before he goes, may I be recognized
    for a unanimous consent request?
        Chair Jordan. My apologies. Yes, the gentleman is
    recognized for a unanimous consent.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record a
    Republican staff report from the Committee on the Judiciary
    dated November 4, 2022, entitled, ``FBI Whistleblowers: What
    Their Disclosures Indicate,'' and ask that the Committee also
    provide a copy to Mr. Goldman, so that he might be able to
    review all the staff notes compiled in the report.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection, so ordered.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    California.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the Chair.
        Dr. Turley, let me just go back--or Mr. Turley, let me just
    go back.
        How many times have you testified before Congress on behalf
    of all of us; dozens and dozens and dozens over my 22 years?
        Mr. Turley. I have testified both as a Republican and
    Democrat witness over 50 times, approaching 60.
        Mr. Issa. So, to use a term of art, you are an expert
    witness when it comes to evaluating the Constitution and a
    great many laws and their interpretation?
        Mr. Turley. That is how I have been called--that is why I
    have been called.
        Mr. Issa. You teach in that role?
        Mr. Turley. I do.
        Mr. Issa. Okay. I want to thank you because in my 22 years,
    I have seen you representing both sides many times, and
    normally treated with the respect that your opinions, based on
    your readings or your scholarly work, are generally respected
    by both sides of the aisle. I thank you for that.
        This Committee is rightfully being talked about--
    Subcommittee about weaponization of government, but I just want
    to clear up a couple of points.
        The previous operation known as Operation Choke Point where
    government limited people's ability, actually, to have bank
    accounts, that would be weaponization by government, a decision
    by government to affect commerce, correct?
        Mr. Turley. Well, it certainly affects commerce. There is
    no question about that.
        Mr. Issa. Okay. It is outside what one would think the
    Administrative State has a right to do in any sense? Our
    right--our liberties include that right to have commerce not
    impinged by based on our political views by our government.
        So, in a sense, the weaponization of DOJ isn't new, is it?
    It predates this Administration and even the previous one.
        Mr. Turley. No, that is true. Some of the darkest chapters
    in our history have come from the Department of Justice losing
    that independence and objective element that they pride
    themselves on. That goes back to the Palmer Raids and even
    before then.
        Whenever the DOJ and the FBI has lost its way in that
    sense, it has come at a great cost to the country, as well as
    the Department.
        Mr. Issa. Speaking of lost their way, back in 2010, 2012,
    with the IRS's targeting of conservative groups headed by Lois
    Lerner, that certainly limited the free speech of those
    organizations when they were denied their ability to hold
    themselves as a not for profits, correct?
        Mr. Turley. That had serious free speech implications.
        Mr. Issa. So, when we look at the weaponization of
    government, we should not limit it to three-letter words over
    at DOJ. In fact, we need to look at government broadly and how
    it might impinge free speech or our rights to simply have our
    liberties.
        To that extent, we have covered a lot of the FBI, and that
    isimportant, and I am mentioning the IRS. Behind there, I have
    a concern about the FBI.
        Ms. Parker, I have got to go to you. Is that something that
    you think represents the neutralism of simply being law
    enforcement, for the FBI basically being able to kneel in
    support of Black Lives Matter?
        Ms. Parker. That would not be deemed appropriate. They are
    wearing their official FBI ballistic vests. Although, like we
    have mentioned, FBI agents have the right to my First Amendment
    thoughts, but I am not at the liberty to express any of my
    political or social opinions while on the job.
        I know that in that instance, they were guarding our
    national institutions and that we heard they were saying that
    they were trying to deescalate the situation. In those
    pictures, it appears that there are people smiling, clapping.
    It looked very far from deescalation to me. It is not
    appropriate to make any sort of potentially political or social
    statement while wearing your FBI ballistic vests on official
    duty. No, it is not appropriate.
        Mr. Issa. In the decades when I served in the Army, we were
    warned about, when in uniform, being involved in anything that
    appeared to be picking a side. Certainly, they picked a side
    there.
        I just want to close my questioning, because we are going
    to be doing this probably for two years, and ask a question
    again, Mr. Turley. We have this question of government and what
    it is doing. A lot of people are talking about how Twitter is a
    private company, Facebook is a private company. They are all
    private companies.
        Isn't it fair to say that from a standpoint of statutory
    and constitutional history, our government has clearly looked
    at entities which convey free speech, newspapers, radio,
    television, and has limited the concentration of power and the
    concentration of ownership to maintain, although private, an
    ability for all, or at least most, free speech to find an
    avenue?
        Isn't that the history that we are also going to have to
    look at when it is concentrated in just a few companies?
        Mr. Turley. It is. The fact is that much of our political
    dialog now takes place on social media, which has replaced even
    telephones as a common form of communication. That is why it is
    true that private companies can limit speech. You have to keep
    in mind these are communicative companies. These are closer to
    the AT&T than they are Starbucks, and that raises a serious
    question in terms of not just looking at the government aspect
    of coordinating and targeting citizens for possible censorship,
    but the control of these companies over speech.
        I think that the people that sort of dismiss that are
    really losing the fact that this is now much of what is the
    marketplace of ideas. The marketplace of ideas is now a digital
    marketplace, and it is controlled by these companies.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I am so glad my friend from California just brought up Lois
    Lerner and the IRS and your comment, Professor Turley, that
    this was troubling in terms of targeting a particular point of
    view, because, of course, that is not true.
        As we learned, the Inspector General, the TIGDA,
    deliberately focused only on conservative filters, even though
    he was presented with clear evidence that the filters were
    nonpartisan. There were liberal filters, lefty filters,
    conservative filters, Republican filters, and Democratic
    filters. They chose, because they wanted to make a case, that
    this was deliberate censorship and targeting by the IRS. Wasn't
    true, never was true, false premise.
        That is what I worry about right here on this Committee.
    The premise is the FBI is tainted; the FBI is doing dirty work.
    It is got the hobnail boot of government on the necks of the
    American people who are simply trying to express themselves.
        Mr. Williams, do you think the insurrectionists, thousands
    of them, who came here, many of them armed, that led to five
    deaths in the storming of the Capitol, who tried to prevent the
    constitutional certification of the counting of the ballots for
    the President of the United States on January 6, 2021, do you
    think that was nothing more than patriots that got a little
    carried away, and they were just expressing their First
    Amendment rights, and the FBI shouldn't have been looking at it
    and certainly shouldn't be prosecuting people for it?
        Mr. Williams. Well, certainly, sir. I believe almost 1,000,
    if not over 1,000 people have been charged with crimes in
    connection with that day. Several people have now been
    convicted by juries, and also with findings that were affirmed
    by Federal judges, of seditious conspiracy. That is using force
    or threats to impede or delay the execution of the laws of the
    United States.
        Mr. Connolly. Right. So, I guess I hear you saying we need
    to make a distinction between the expression of views, which is
    absolutely protected under the Constitution of the United
    States, First Amendment, and the use of violence to propound
    and propagate those views?
        Mr. Williams. That is correct. So, the First Amendment does
    not protect the use of violence.
        Mr. Connolly. Right. In fact, that is illegal.
        Mr. Williams. Correct.
        Mr. Connolly. So, when we talk about parents just going to
    school boards trying to express their concerns, that is true.
    Many parents go. I was a parent with a kid in a school system.
    I was a card-carrying PTA member. I, certainly, testified now
    and then about the school budget or school issues. I didn't
    threaten the lives or families of school board members. I
    didn't anonymously threaten violence or let it be known I knew
    where they lived and that there would be trouble.
        That is a different form of speech, isn't it?
        Mr. Williams. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. Would it be wrong for the FBI, under some
    circumstances, to be called in to look into that for the
    protection of elected school board members, and for that
    matter, active parents?
        Mr. Williams. Both the FBI, or State and local authorities
    who, also, have the ability to investigate violent crime, both
    do.
        Mr. Connolly. So, do you think the FBI is the enemy of the
    American people?
        Mr. Williams. I do not, in my experience. Look, again, I
    was in government for 15 years. I do not.
        Mr. Connolly. Do you think that the FBI ought to be
    defunded?
        Mr. Williams. I do not believe the FBI should be defunded.
        Mr. Connolly. So, for example, if they were, the Tampa
    Field Office that infiltrated and spent six months embedded in
    a network of ransomware gang, Hive, and took it down, Hive is
    no longer functioning, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
        Mr. Williams. It is a very good thing. Look, I was a
    prosecutor and a Senior Executive with the Justice Department.
    Fighting crime is a good thing, and I think we should all agree
    on that.
        Mr. Connolly. I see. So, they are not just censoring free
    speech; they are actually doing some good things that protect
    the American people?
        Mr. Williams. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. Would you say that characterizes largely
    their mission and their function?
        Mr. Williams. In my experience of working with the FBI and
    other Federal law enforcement for years, absolutely, sir, that
    was my experience.
        Mr. Connolly. So, we have to put everything in context
    here. We can't allow somebody who asserts they are up to no
    good because a particular agent, or a couple of agents may be
    doing X, Y, and Z, not to taint the entire function and mission
    or personnel of the FBI. Is that a fair statement?
        Mr. Williams. That is a fair statement, correct.
        Mr. Connolly. That goes to their other missions,
    cybersecurity protection, human sex trafficking, breaking up
    those rings, and, for that matter, protecting us from domestic
    extremists who are propounding and using violence as a weapon
    to further their cause.
        Mr. Williams. What is special about the FBI, sir, very
    quickly, is that, unlike many other law enforcement agencies,
    it has both a counterterrorism element and a law enforcement
    element. Now, many people may think those are all one and the
    same, but those are actually two different functions.
        So, yes, both of those help keep the American people safe.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair and to the witnesses,
    thank you.
        Mr. Turley, my condolences that you have had to sit through
    60 of these, but thank you for doing that.
        I look forward to hearing from all of you. Mr. Chair, I
    also look forward to hearing from others who are key to this
    investigation, Christopher Wray, the Attorney General, former
    FBI Director Comey, former CIA Director Brennan. I hope we have
    a chance to hear from them as well.
        I want to share with you my first experience in this area.
    In 2017, as a Member of the House Intelligence Committee, after
    months and months of stonewalling, we were finally allowed to
    go to the FBI Building and to read the FISA application on
    Carter Page.
        After reading that application, it was very, very clear to
    me the FBI has lied to the FISA courts. The FBI has lied to
    Congress, and the FBI has lied to the American people. After
    that, I had a similar experience with some CIA documents and
    then other agencies.
        The result of this is when--Mr. Turley, you talked about
    losing the faith of the American people. If an FBI agent called
    me today and said they wanted to speak with me, I would never
    speak to them, regardless of the topic, without my attorney
    present.
        By the way, Congress has to reauthorize 702 this year, and
    we are a long way away from getting the trust and confidence
    because of the subject we are talking about today. We will lose
    a valuable tool if many people are simply going to say: We
    won't give them that authority. They abuse it.
        I would like to focus on the FBI abuse if I could. I would
    remind you, Carter Page was an innocent American citizen. The
    FBI said he was a Russian spy. It turned out that was not true.
    In fact, it turned out that there was zero evidence that he was
    a Russian spy. Yet, the FBI IG went and looked at the FISA
    application, and this is what they found. Mr. Williams, I hope
    you will pay attention to this because I am going to ask you a
    question about this. They found 17 significant errors and
    omissions. They found 51 wrong or unsupported factual
    assertions, including the FBI lawyers who simply made-up
    evidence and included it in the FISA application.
        Disgusted by this, I would suppose, the IG went and looked
    at a random 25 other FISA applications and found significant
    inconsistencies and omissions in every one of them.
        Mr. Baker, you are a former FBI agent. Do you think that 17
    omissions, 51 wrong assertions in a FISA application that, by
    the way, if you are going to get one right, don't you think the
    one that has targeting the President of the United States would
    be one you would be particularly careful of? Yet, they found
    that many omissions.
        Do you find that a standard acceptable?
        Mr. Baker. Of course not, Congressman. In fact, it is
    actually even worse than you described. There was exculpatory
    information available that was not considered. Some of the
    information that was considered we now know from the Steele
    dossier was false.
        Mr. Stewart. That is right. The list goes on.
        Mr. Baker. Even beyond that, the fact is that individual
    American, that U.S. person, Carter Page, should not have been
    subject to that FISA surveillance because he was an individual
    who--this is all in the public record now. He cooperated with
    the CIA and the FBI--
        Mr. Stewart. That is right.
        Mr. Baker. --in its previous investigations.
        So, by the guidelines that existed then, he should have
    been excluded from FISA. He could have been directly
    interviewed.
        Mr. Stewart. That is right.
        Mr. Baker, I am going to cut you off because you have made
    your point.
        Mr. Baker. Okay.
        Mr. Stewart. Mr. Williams, do you think that, as I have
    described to you, 17 omissions, 51 wrong assertions in one FISA
    application is professionally done?
        Mr. Williams. Sir, I would say that this is a matter that
    continues to be of interest to the Justice Department and I--
        Mr. Stewart. Just a simple question. Do you find that
    acceptable? I would be--I think it is hilarious that you won't
    say, no, I don't.
        Mr. Williams. What I am saying, sir, is that this is a
    matter before Justice Department and Congress that has been
    ongoing for years and--
        Mr. Stewart. So, you won't answer the question?
        Mr. Williams. What I will say is that it makes sense for
    you to direct the question to the Justice Department.
        Mr. Stewart. I am asking your opinion. I am not asking you
    for any insight into their investigation. I am asking for a
    simple opinion.
        Do you find that acceptable?
        Mr. Williams. What I will say as a--
        Mr. Stewart. Never mind. You won't answer the question.
        Voice. Think he answered.
        Mr. Stewart. Because of this, the FBI initiated reforms.
    You know what they were? Trainings.
        Here are some trainings for Senior FBI officials:

        Training No. 1, don't lie to FISA courts.
        Training No. 2, don't make things up.
        How about training No. 3: Don't hide evidence.

        That is what senior officials in the FBI did.
        I wish I had more time--I am almost out of time, because I
    would come to you and ask--first, Mr. Williams, I would come
    back one more time and ask you if you find that acceptable or
    not, but we won't waste time with it.
        I would ask, how do we restore faith in the FBI? Because we
    want to trust the FBI. People say, ``You are going after the
    FBI.'' What nonsense. We are trying to protect the FBI. I know
    FBI agents who are deeply offended by what they see. They want
    us to hold them accountable, and that is what the Committee is
    going to do.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        It pays to do a lot of listening, and what I have heard is
    a lot of discussion about this memo. We really ought to take a
    look at it. In fact, it is on the FBI website right now. You
    can pull it up as I talk.
        Mr. Chair, I would like to enter that memo into the record.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Garbarino. Thank you.
        So, what do we really have here? I have read the memo. I
    recommend we all do. It starts off in the first paragraph
    making it perfectly clear that:

        (1)  The lawful First Amendment protection activity should
    never be subject to prosecution. That is the free speech piece
    right there in the very first paragraph of the memo.
        (2)  The actual issue of concern in this memo is the
    illegal violence, which has been discussed by several of you,
    as totally illegal, or threats of violence.

        So, let me be very, very clear here. We have myriad
    examples of extraordinary, serious violent threats targeting
    school board officials that should be of concern to everyone in
    this room and all my colleagues.
        Behind me are just three of the written examples that were
    of concern to the FBI.
        First, quote, ``it is too bad that your mama is an ugly
    communist whore. If she doesn't quit or resign before the end
    of the year, we will kill her. But first, we will kill you.''
        That would seem to me that is a rather clear example of a
    violent expression of free speech which is illegal.
        Second, behind me is another written: ``This is why Hitler
    threw you [expletive] into the gas chamber.''
        Third, ``We are coming after you, stinking traitors of
    America.''
        This is what was out there in public school board meetings.
    I would love to show you the videos of those meetings, but we
    are not allowed to under the rules apparently.
        If we were to do that, we would have a rather clear and
    numerous examples of violent threats to school board members,
    teachers, and administrators across this Nation.
        This memo by the Attorney General, however it came to be,
    and that has been discussed here, that maybe somebody suggested
    that he take action on this, which is rather common. There are
    not one of us on this dais that hasn't been asked by one or
    more of our constituents to do something. So, the Attorney
    General does. He sends out a memo to the FBI agents across the
    country saying, bad things are going on.
        Maybe I should just read it.

            Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run
            counter to our Nation's core values. Those who dedicate their
            time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper
            education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their
            work without fear for their safety.

    That is the memo. That is what happened here, is the Director
    noting--and I am sure he had more than one source than the
    School Board Association--that there were things going on in
    our society that were dangerous.
        Ms. Parker, you spoke to the difference here between free
    speech and violent speech, which is what the FBI Director did.
    He said to the agents, ``Pay attention to this and keep track
    of it.'' Why? Why did he want them to do that? Because there
    were threats, very real threats.
        Did any of them materialize? There is evidence that they
    did, if you take a look across this country at the number of
    public servants that simply decided to not serve because of the
    violent threats.
        So, as we go about our work here, as we go about looking at
    the weaponization of the Federal government, we must be careful
    that we don't become a weapon to be used for political
    purposes. There clearly, absolutely, is a need to monitor all
    Federal agencies, law enforcement, military, on and on. Let's
    be very careful that we don't use this Committee as a weapon
    for political purposes.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired. The
    gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
        Mr. Massie. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
        It occurs to me that we are sitting here in a Committee
    that has a fancy name, a different name. There are people
    watching our very first hearing and wondering, are these folks
    serious? There are people who have spent their careers
    dedicated to the service of people in this country working at
    the FBI wondering are these folks serious enough that I could
    be a whistleblower, that I could come forward and share
    information with them and they would actually do something with
    it, and that something good could come from it.
        I want to let those people who are watching--Ms. Parker and
    Mr. Baker, you are an excellent example of people who will come
    forward and make a difference. I want to let those people know
    that I have come to this city for 10 years with one basic
    premise, which is, this is the best country on the planet, best
    country that has ever been. It is deeply flawed, but we owe it
    to our children to fix it, and that is why I sought to be on
    this Committee.
        That is why I thank you, Mr. Baker, and you, Ms. Parker,
    for being here, and why I invite others who are watching to
    please come to us. Find somebody on this dais that you trust
    and tell us your story so we can fix it.
        Speaking of fixing things, I want to talk about the FISA
    program which, Mr. Baker, you have talked about in your
    testimony, particularly, the 702 part of it, parts of it that
    we are going to reexamine and reauthorize potentially.
        On the surface of it, it sounds like a practical legal
    concept that you would collect information on foreign targets
    who don't have constitutional rights, and you might
    incidentally collect information that pertains to U.S. citizens
    who do have constitutional rights. Because it was collected
    incidentally and not in pursuit of that U.S. person; we will go
    look at this data, you know. We will put some policies and
    procedures, but the Constitution does not apply here because it
    was incidentally collected.
        Well, if the incidental collection were small enough, that
    might be a valid concept. The problem is, we have collected
    millions of exabytes of data. When what you are collecting
    incidentally becomes the entire universe, I think you might
    need a warrant to go look at that information.
        When the number of searches that is done on U.S. persons by
    the FBI--I am not talking about CIA, NSA--we know in 2020, it
    was over a million searches into this phishing, into this data
    base where you don't need a warrant. Then in 2021, it went from
    a million to over three million searches. This is problematic,
    and I hope we look at this going forward.
        Mr. Baker, you mentioned something in your written
    testimony I don't think you got a chance to speak about here
    today.
        Can you tell us what reverse targeting is and why we might
    want to be concerned about that?
        Mr. Baker. Yes. It is not well-understood, but in a
    nutshell, here it is. The CIA and the NSA are forbidden to
    target Americans, as you know. They often--and as you have
    said, ``the numbers are in the vast numbers where they pick up
    Americans most of the time just by incidental collection and
    the Americans are not really doing anything wrong.''
        If they pick up information that an American is breaking
    the law or is somehow a threat to national security, those
    other agencies, the CIA and the NSA, are supposed to provide
    that information to the FBI for appropriate action. Action can
    be taken on it.
        In reverse targeting, which John Brennan, during the
    Russian collusion thing, acknowledged they were doing, they
    would target a foreign person who was close to an American they
    were really interested in. Then when they picked up that
    information on the American, ah-ha, we got it in incidental
    collection, which it was all phony and false. It wasn't
    incidental collection at all.
        That is another thing that you in the Congress, on both
    sides of the aisle, can address and correct. You can make--you
    can institute penalties for them pulling this monkey business
    like that.
        Mr. Massie. Mr. Turley, Professor Turley, I know we don't
    have a lot of time, but do you think--and, obviously, private
    companies don't infringe the First Amendment until the
    government tells them to do it. Do you think that Section 230
    gave them some comfort that if they did that, these private
    companies, if they sort of--when the government suggested to do
    something, that they did it, that they would have a safe
    harbor?
        Mr. Turley. Well, I do think that Section 230 is becoming
    increasingly untenable. It was really designed on the premise
    that the social media companies and other platforms were not in
    an editing function, that they were simply a forum, a
    publisher.
        That is clearly not the case. We, obviously, have an
    extensive censorship system here that is in place. So, the
    premise of 230 I think has largely been discarded.
        The implications of what has been created cannot be really
    overstated. We are talking about a censorship system that
    affects billions of people, and we also have a confirmation in
    the Twitter files of the U.S. Government pinpointing people who
    should be censored or suspended. That should trouble people,
    regardless of your party affiliation, whether you want the
    government in that business. I think that is worthy of a
    debate.
        Mr. Massie. I thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Allred.
        Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I have worked hard now in my five years--going into my
    fifth year in this body to develop a reputation and a record of
    bipartisanship, of working on issues like veterans' healthcare
    and benefits, on infrastructure, on paid leave, trying to
    improve folks' lives.
        To me this Subcommittee and this hearing is a disgrace. It
    has nothing to do with helping the Americans struggling. It has
    nothing to do helping with families like mine growing up. I was
    raised by a single mother. It hass just been an airing of
    grievances, of debunked claims and conspiracy theories.
        I think most folks watching back home are having a hard
    time following some of what you are saying because it goes so
    far down the rabbit hole.
        Now, before I was elected to Congress, I was a civil rights
    lawyer. I served as an appointed lawyer in the Obama
    Administration. I believe in Congress' Article I duties to
    conduct oversight, and the Executive Branch's responsibilities
    to enforce the law and work with us.
        That nexus is governed by the accommodation process which
    ensures that there is trust and prevents politicians from
    meddling in the Department of Justice and into its
    investigations.
        On January 20, the Justice Department sent a letter to the
    Chair saying that,

            We share your belief that congressional oversight is vital to
            our function of democracy, and we are committed to cooperating
            with legitimate efforts to seek information, consistent with
            our obligation to protect Executive Branch confidentiality
            interests.

    It says:

            The Department's mission is to independently and impartially
            uphold the rule of law, requires us to maintain the integrity
            of our investigations, prosecutions, and civil actions and to
            avoid even a perception that our efforts are being influenced
            by anything but the law and the facts.

        Despite that, the Chair of this Committee has sought to
    seek numerous documents related to the FBI's ongoing
    investigations into the January 6th Capitol insurrection cases
    and other domestic terrorist cases, many of which are open
    investigations that are ongoing.
        Mr. Baker, just to set a tone here, do you agree that the
    attack on the Capitol on January 6th was an act of domestic
    terrorism?
        Mr. Baker. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?
        Mr. Allred. Do you agree the attack on the Capitol on
    January 6th was an act of domestic terrorism?
        Mr. Baker. I don't think I am in a position to judge that.
    It was an act of lawlessness. There was a lot of property
    destroyed--
        Mr. Allred. You are here as an expert, sir.
        Mr. Baker. --and there were crimes committed by
    trespassing.
        Mr. Allred. You are here based on your experience.
        Mr. Baker. I don't know if that rises to the level of
    terrorism, quite frankly. It might, but I don't know that.
        Mr. Allred. Well, what would constitute domestic terrorism
    to you, sir?
        Mr. Baker. Domestic terrorism is acts of violence to
    influence political decisions. That is the--
        Mr. Allred. Do you know what we do on January 6th every
    four years?
        Mr. Baker. January 6th, to me, looked like a riot.
        Mr. Allred. It was a seditious conspiracy--
        Mr. Baker. It was lawless. It was lawless. There was
    property destroyed. There was trespassing. There were people
    injured. Those are all crimes.
        Mr. Allred. Thankfully, numerous courts and juries have
    disagreed with you and have found many of those
    insurrectionists guilty. It was an act of domestic terrorism. I
    thank you for clarifying for all of us here that you can't
    decide whether it was or not.
        I want to go to you, Mr. Williams, because I think that we
    need to be very careful here. Nobody really wants Members of
    Congress or politicians jumping into ongoing criminal
    investigations, for many good reasons that I think you lay out
    in your testimony.
        Can you give us just a few reasons of why it would be a
    major problem for criminal investigations to suddenly be
    subject to the whim of a politician?
        Mr. Williams. I would say three reasons, Congressman
    Allred. Thank you for that question.

            (1)  As articulated in the letter by the Deputy
            Attorney General that was quoted by I believe it was
            Congressman Raskin earlier, you do not want the public
            to get a roadmap for how investigations are going to
            play out. That involves tipping off witnesses or
            defendants who might be brought into the system.

    So, that is point one. You just don't want to give the roadmap.
    That is the word used by the Justice Department.

            (2)  This is a big one--the fear of influence or the
            appearance of influence. If a prosecution continues
            right after a Member of Congress or someone speaks out,
            the public is left with the perception that Congress,
            in effect, had its thumb on the scale of a Federal
            prosecution. That is problematic.
            (3)  Finally, everyone is entitled to a presumption of
            innocence. The Justice Department takes very seriously
            the idea that naming or outing people who are not
            themselves yet criminal defendants are incredibly
            problematic, dangerous in a profound manner.

        Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
    Mr. Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Turley, I saw the effort to discredit you by a Member
    on the other side sort of go down in flames. I don't think much
    else needs to be said about that.
        I think what is interesting about what you have written and
    then in your testimony about the Twitter files and your
    tentative conclusion about what they may indicate is a product
    that, first, it bears repeating. You said there that it, quote,
    ``could well constitute the largest censorship program ever run
    by the government'' of the United States.
        I think what attracts you is, there is a body of evidence--
    it is not accusations; it is evidence--that we would not have
    but for the voluntary--maybe extraordinarily unlikely voluntary
    act of a very wealthy American who had the will and interest to
    purchase that company and then disclose what its files hold.
        Here is what has been notable. We didn't get any
    information about what the FBI and the CIA and the ODNI and GEC
    and all the other agencies are engaged in from those agencies.
    The American people wouldn't know but for Elon Musk's
    disclosures and the independent journalists who have been using
    them.
        You have talked a little bit in response to earlier
    questions about how there might be enough evidence there, or in
    other evidence we might be able to get of it's kind, to suggest
    an agency relationship between the United States Government--
    the agencies, the FBI--and these social media platforms that
    would cross the First Amendment line and violate the rights of
    Americans whose content was flagged for taking down.
        That may well be, but it seems to me there is another angle
    to this. Everybody knows, in the debate over Big Tech, that
    these social media platforms have content moderation policies
    that are narrower than the First Amendment. They take down
    speech as a matter of practice that the First Amendment would
    protect if it were a government. In fact, a lot of people say,
    ``Well, they can do that. They are private businesses.''
        The question that gets at me is this: How could the FBI,
    which is sworn to protect the Constitution, ever justify using
    intense application of its resources, agents, et cetera, to
    urge social media platforms to use those standards to take down
    speech that the Constitution protects?
        Mr. Turley. Yes. This goes to the sort of bifurcated issue
    here, legally, that is: You have on one hand the question of
    the agency relationship--which, actually, some courts, like the
    Eighth Circuit in Dossett, the Sixth Circuit in Paige, have had
    analogous cases where they said that there was an agency when a
    government official made a call and negative actions were
    taken. There is also the direct action. Obviously, Federal
    agents are government actors. In these cases, you have the
    agency identifying American citizens and others for their
    viewpoints and saying, ``We think these people should be
    suspended or removed.''
        As I say in my testimony, it is a particularly ominous
    thing to have the chief law enforcement agency performing this
    role, an agency with incredible powers.
        This wasn't the normal situation of a public affairs office
    where someone says, ``Look, the FBI did this,'' and the public
    affairs office say, ``You know what? That was a State raid. We
    weren't even in that issue.''
        Mr. Bishop. Right. They did it in private.
        Mr. Turley. Right. Here, you had the government itself
    looking for citizens who should be silenced and targeted. That
    is a problem in and of itself, whether it also triggers an
    agency relationship. Do we want to go back to the day when
    governments created those types of lists?
        Mr. Bishop. Let me get you to comment on something else
    that I believe is ominous. It is on the charts behind me.
        One of the Twitter files disclosures is that Elvis Chan, at
    the FBI San Francisco, wrote to a Twitter executive and said,
    ``My colleagues at the Fort had a query for you.'' Turns out,
    they had to tell me, that means Fort Meade, the National
    Security Agency, NSA, probably.

            A few years ago, Twitter said they would no longer provide
            their data feed to members of the IC.

    That means intelligence community. He goes on to ask whether
    they would--

            colleagues at the NSA want to know if they would reconsider
            that. Because the NSA would like to vacuum up every word
            mentioned on Twitter by American citizens to be analyzed by
            computers to figure out what they would make of it.

        What about that? You don't comment on that in your column,
    but I am curious what your impression is of that.
        Mr. Turley. Well, that is another troubling aspect of this
    interstitial relationship between the government and social
    media companies. Now, on some occasions, the social media
    companies said, ``we are not going do that.'' All these
    different layers of interaction that the Twitter files refer to
    make it harder and harder to discern where the government ends
    and the social media company begins.
        I want to emphasize that when I talk about the largest
    censorship system in history, that is really unquestionable,
    right? Even Twitter alone is a massive censorship system. When
    you combine the other companies--now, it is privately run. Now
    we are looking at how much of that was being directed or
    influenced by the U.S. Government.
        We are, without question, talking about the world's largest
    censorship system. When you add elements like the one that you
    talked about, of this sort of interstitial relationship or
    cross-pollinization between agencies at social media, it
    becomes a very menacing prospect. These companies are
    enormously powerful. They control much of our political speech.
        As we talk about the dangers to democracy--and I agree with
    many of the Democratic Members and the Republican Members about
    the need to protect our democracy--that is a threat to
    democracy, when you have the ability of people to speak and
    control of companies that are using standards that are really
    undiscernible.
        Yesterday, when we heard the testimony of one of the
    Twitter executives, she gave a standard for which they would
    decide what could be censored. I wrote about it today on the
    blog. That standard defies definition.
        I will simply say that the greatest danger to the First
    Amendment is the chilling effect, the unknown of when you will
    be targeted.
        Mr. Bishop. I regret my time has expired, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentleman yields back.
        We now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker--Chair. I just promoted
    you this afternoon.
        Chair Jordan. I have been called worse.
        Ms. Garcia. It did not take 15 rounds of voting to do it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to our Ranking Member for her steadfast
    leadership in pursuing truth and protecting our democracy.
        The Federal government has a long history of weaponizing
    its power against minorities, like communities of color,
    religious minorities, and immigrant communities. Women,
    Latinos, people of color, and religious minorities are the
    actual victims of a weaponized government, not billionaires or
    politicians with frail egos.
        House Democrats spent four years fighting to enhance civil
    rights and liberties and stop the weaponization of government
    against our most vulnerable communities.
        Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
    assembled this misnamed and misguided Committee to grandstand
    and to try to lecture us all on the weaponization of
    government. The American people know that this Committee and
    MAGA Republicans are all about ``all show and no substance,''
    or, as we say in Texas, ``all hat and no cattle.''
        This Committee is designed to inject extremist politics
    into the justice system and to shield the MAGA movement from
    the legal consequences of their actions. These political stunts
    undermine every agent, officer, prosecutor, law enforcement,
    and the entire justice system.
        We should instead dedicate some time to oversee direct
    interference in prosecutions and investigations. We should
    instead dedicate our efforts to investigating the abuse of the
    President's pardon power by the former, twice-impeached
    President. We should instead dedicate time and effort to
    investigate the weaponization of the Federal government to
    undermine and overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
        I hope, Mr. Chair, that we will have followup hearings to
    do some of that.
        Now, I ask for unanimous consent to enter a letter from the
    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington outlining
    these and other recommendations for this Committee into the
    record.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        During the assault on the Capitol, which we have already
    discussed, many of us, including myself, were removed from the
    floor and evacuated. A lot of things happened. I, for one,
    consider it more than just a riot.
        Some have suggested that this Committee may try to erase
    the truth about the horrible days of that event. The idea of
    denying the truth about January 6th is horribly offensive to
    me, and I am sure that it is even more offensive to the law
    enforcement officers who were on duty that day.
        Mr. Williams, I know you are familiar with that day, and
    you are familiar with the halls of Congress. You worked on the
    Hill, correct?
        Mr. Williams. I did, Congresswoman. Thanks.
        Ms. Garcia. Were you there on the Hill on January 6th?
        Mr. Williams. I was not present on the Hill on January 6th.
        Ms. Garcia. Do you know others who were?
        Mr. Williams. I certainly do.
        Ms. Garcia. Can you understand why it would be offensive to
    the people who were there, many, like me, who were on the floor
    and got pulled out and had to put--trying to put on a gas mask
    and told to hit the floor, and, of course, the many law
    enforcement officers who had to rise to the duty?
        Can you figure any way that we can defend this if anyone
    tries to rewrite what happened that day?
        Mr. Williams. It is the second part of your sentence that I
    want to pick up on, Congresswoman, because it is not just
    former colleagues and friends of mine that were here; it is law
    enforcement officers that I know. There simply is no place for
    threats against law enforcement in a civil society.
        So, yes, I will echo everything you said. It was real. A
    thousand people have been charged with crimes. Several have
    been convicted of very serious crimes. It was a real event.
        Ms. Garcia. So, what is your reaction to the politicization
    of January the 6th?
        Mr. Williams. I think, as a general matter, Congress works
    at its best when working in a bipartisan manner. I think that
    becomes even more acute when talking about violent crime or
    threats or terrorism, as the word was used here, or even acts
    of insurrection.
        Ms. Garcia. Right. So, you do agree that it is domestic
    terrorism?
        Mr. Williams. My former-Federal-prosecutor friend at the
    end would share this: There is no domestic Federal terrorism
    statute. I want to be careful in how I talk about that.
        Now, certainly, there are acts that comprise what would
    constitute terrorism--violent crimes and so on--that might fit
    under that definition.
        Another thing for Congress to consider, if it wishes to, is
    to pass a domestic terrorism statute.
        Ms. Garcia. All right.
        Are any of the investigations contemplated by this
    Subcommittee comparable to the scale to the investigation of
    the attack on the Capitol?
        Mr. Williams. I am sorry. I didn't quite catch the
    question, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Garcia. Are any of the investigations contemplated by
    this Subcommittee comparable in scale to the investigation into
    the attack on the Capitol?
        Mr. Williams. I am not certain as to what the Committee's
    full mandate is. To be clear, what happened on the day of the
    Capitol was a historic event that ought never happen again, and
    perhaps it is in Congress's interest to work toward that.
        Ms. Garcia. All right.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
    Cammack.
        Ms. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I can actually answer that question. This Committee is
    different in the sense that we allowed our minority party to
    appoint their representatives to the panel. So, we will start
    there.
        Examining the ways that the Federal government abuses its
    power when dealing with everyday citizens it sees as
    threatening is some of the most powerful and consequential work
    that a Member of Congress can do.
        During this Federal government's very first Congress, the
    Representatives in the House began granting authorities to
    Federal agencies. These Members were well-experienced in the
    growth and abuses of a tyrannical government.
        The inherent quality of all governments is to collect more
    power and authority. There is an inverse relationship to the
    power of government and the freedom of the individual.
        That is why James Madison, along with other like-minded
    Members of the House, as well as President Washington,
    encouraged the passage of a Bill of Rights--defined, enumerated
    rights that citizens of our new Nation could point to when
    governments begin to trifle with their lives, their businesses,
    or their faith.
        They passed the Bill of Rights in the first session of the
    first Congress--arguably the most important action ever done by
    this body for the American people.
        Their actions were revolutionary. No government on Earth
    has a founding document that has aged as well as ours. It is
    the oldest and least amended constitution in the world.
        What we are charged to do on this Committee is defend it
    against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to ensure that our
    citizens' life, liberty, and property are protected from the
    warrantless abuses of Federal bureaus and their agents.
        Today, we are answering the call to investigate and
    ultimately stop the litany of dangerous and unconstitutional
    actions. Truthfully, the list is exhausting, and I am sure that
    there is far more than we can address here today or even in the
    two-years that we have.
        So, while Washington, Madison, and Jefferson are no longer
    here to help guide us in this body, their spirit lives on. It
    is absolutely crucial that we, today, take up this mantle. It
    is the work that will be done by this Committee, not as
    Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans, that is
    important and will live on.
        Mr. Williams, you just told this Committee, ``to be cute,''
    quote, ``you get more flies with honey than vinegar.''
        On your Twitter feed, you called on the January 6th Select
    Committee to publicly hammer and shame former Deputy Attorney
    General Jeff Clark on everything that he attempted to plead the
    Fifth about.
        Is that your version of honey or vinegar?
        Mr. Williams. That is my version of stating, when an
    individual has provided--
        Ms. Cammack. No, no, no.
        Mr. Williams. Well--
        Ms. Cammack. Just honey or vinegar.
        Mr. Williams. --I don't think it is a binary.
        Ms. Cammack. Okay.
        Mr. Williams. If you look at the context of all my tweets--
        Ms. Cammack. All right. You also just told Representative
    Sanchez a few minutes ago that one of hallmarks of good
    oversight is bipartisan and it is designed to, quote, ``improve
    government process,'' end quote. You went on to say that
    threats are not protected speech.
        You yourself were extraordinarily critical of Justice Brett
    Kavanaugh, going so far as to say publicly on your Twitter
    feed--and you were not shadow banned, however, when you said
    this--that the FBI dropped the ball when vetting him.
        When there was an assassination attempt on his life, you
    were unusually quiet. Up to that point, you had tweeted about
    him 17 times.
        I hope you, along with our Democratic colleagues, would
    agree that violence in political discourse is unacceptable. I
    would encourage you to do better.
        That is a statement, not a question. Moving on.
        Professor Turley, the Constitution was written to limit the
    power of the Federal government and to protect the rights of
    citizens, yes or no?
        Mr. Turley. Yes.
        Ms. Cammack. You have written extensively about the abuses
    of the Federal government. Would you say that these abuses
    occur within a variety of different agencies, yes or no?
        Mr. Turley. Yes.
        Ms. Cammack. Are there not massive national security
    implications as a result of the extensive amount of warrantless
    data collection by the Federal government agencies, coupled
    with the disastrous track record that they have of leaks and
    breaches, that Americans are not only being targeted
    domestically by the agencies, but also by bad actors and
    foreign actors?
        Mr. Turley. Well, there are massive constitutional concerns
    there with the collection of data. There are no question about
    that.
        Ms. Cammack. With all the breaches and leaks--
        Mr. Turley. Yes. That is a problem.
        Ms. Cammack. --here is a national security implication, is
    there not?
        Mr. Turley. There can be.
        Ms. Cammack. Thank you.
        It is publicly documented, the reference of use-of-force
    capabilities, within a litany of different agencies, including
    the Department of Education, the IRS, HHS, even the EPA.
        Can you detail why the capability, coupled with extensive
    warrantless data collection efforts of these agencies, should
    concern everyday Americans and why agencies like the Department
    of Education and the EPA are purchasing millions of dollars'
    worth of ammunition and tactical ballistic gear?
        Mr. Williams. Well, I testified earlier on the use of
    national security letters and other means to get information
    below the warrant level, and that covers a huge amount of
    information that the government has gathered. I thought there
    was actually fairly bipartisan support on that, that Democratic
    and Republican Members were equally concerned about the
    circumvention of warrants in that sense.
        I think it is a very serious problem. To the credit of
    social media companies, they actually have pushed back on this.
    I mean, one of the things in the Twitter files that I noted was
    that some of that dealt with these types of efforts to get
    access to social media companies.
        Most of the time, these companies are really hamstrung when
    they get these letters--and there is a lot of them--to turn
    over this information, and citizens are unaware of that.
        A lot of what we have that we could hold most dearly in
    terms of private information is now on our cell phones, it is
    now on the cloud. The government has really targeted the cloud.
    They are going after the cloud with non-warrants.
        In the previous hearing, I was really gladdened, because
    Democrats and Republicans joined together and said, ``This is a
    problem.'' I think it still is a problem.
        Ms. Cammack. I appreciate it.
        My time has expired. I yield.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        This is a Committee menacingly called the ``Weaponization
    of the Federal Government.''
        Mr. Turley, have you ever worked for the Federal
    government?
        Mr. Turley. Yes.
        Mr. Goldman. What did you do?
        Mr. Turley. I did a couple years, off and on, with the NSA
    as a lowly intern. I also worked in the Legislative Branch in
    various capacities. I represented Congress in court. I was--
        Mr. Goldman. That is not working for the Federal
    government. You were an intern. Okay.
        Mr. Turley. Well, no, I wasn't an intern. I was
    representing them in--
        Mr. Goldman. I understand. You were an intern at NSA. That
    is the extent of your Federal government experience.
        Mr. Turley. No. I think Congress is part of the Federal
    government, and--
        Mr. Goldman. You represented Congress. You didn't work for
    Congress.
        Mr. Turley. Well, they paid me. That is my standard.
        Mr. Goldman. Okay.
        Mr. Turley. I also worked for--
        Mr. Goldman. All right.
        Mr. Turley. I also worked in the--
        Mr. Goldman. I am going to reclaim my time. Let's move on,
    because I have a lot to cover.
        You have commented a lot on the First Amendment today. Do
    you think that Special Counsel Mueller's indictment of members
    of Russian intelligence for interfering with the 2016 election
    through social media was improperly charged?
        Mr. Turley. Well, it depends--I have to look at which case
    you are talking about. I supported Mueller's appointment as
    special counsel, and I--
        Mr. Goldman. I am talking about the indictment.
        Mr. Turley. Yes, I wouldn't say--I don't remember being
    upset with those indictments.
        Mr. Goldman. Okay.
        Mr. Turley. I--
        Mr. Goldman. Well, what they did and what they alleged is
    that Russia interfered in our election through using speech via
    social media.
        Mr. Turley. Right.
        Mr. Goldman. Now, do you think that the First Amendment
    protects people from making death threats against Federal
    officials across State lines?
        Mr. Turley. No. If it is--
        Mr. Goldman. Does the First Amendment protect someone from
    yelling ``fire'' in a movie theater?
        Mr. Turley. Well, unfortunately, that one is not yes or no,
    because that is become a mantra for people. It is the Holmes-
    Schenck line. Holmes himself walked back on--
        Mr. Goldman. All right. All right.
        Mr. Turley. Holmes and--
        Mr. Goldman. We don't need a law class here.
        You do agree, though, don't you, that the First Amendment
    does not protect all speech?
        Mr. Turley. No, there are limits to speech. All
    Constitutional rights have limits.
        Mr. Goldman. Right.
        Mr. Baker, I want to turn to you. When did you retire from
    the FBI?
        Mr. Baker. I retired from FBI employment in--about 20 years
    ago. I--
        Mr. Goldman. 1999, right? That is the year.
        Mr. Baker. Yes. I have continued to be engaged with the FBI
    on a number of levels since then.
        Mr. Goldman. Okay. So, you retired two years before 9/11,
    right?
        Mr. Baker. That is correct.
        Mr. Goldman. All right. Are you aware that one of the
    reasons that 9/11 occurred was that the FBI and the
    intelligence community did not coordinate sufficiently? Would
    you agree with that?
        Mr. Baker. That was the conclusion of the September 11th
    Commission, and it is very valid, I think.
        Mr. Goldman. So, you read that, like I did, and that has
    all the information that you had--
        Mr. Turley. Yes.
        Mr. Goldman. --because you were not at the FBI.
        Mr. Baker. What has happened--
        Mr. Goldman. It is as a result 9/11 that the Department of
    Homeland Security was created, right?
        Mr. Baker. A year or two after that, yes.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. So, you never worked in conjunction with
    the Department of Homeland Security when you worked for the
    FBI, right?
        Mr. Baker. I was working as a consultant during most of
    those years--
        Mr. Goldman. When you worked for the FBI, when you were
    paid by the FBI as a special agent, did you work with Homeland
    Security?
        Mr. Turley. No. It didn't exist.
        Mr. Goldman. Okay.
        You never investigated foreign interference in our
    elections, did you?
        Mr. Baker. No, I personally did not.
        Mr. Goldman. You have no experience investigating Russia's
    efforts to interfere in our elections through cyber-attacks and
    social media, do you?
        Mr. Baker. Other than what I have studied and researched.
        Mr. Goldman. Okay. In 1999 when you left, did smartphones
    exist?
        Mr. Baker. Of a sort.
        Mr. Goldman. Really?
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Mr. Goldman. What?
        Mr. Baker. Well, we had phones. We had phones with--
        Mr. Goldman. Smartphones. Do you know what a smartphone is?
        Mr. Baker. We had--
        Mr. Goldman. Okay.
        Mr. Baker. Well, I--
        Mr. Goldman. Did you ever do any search warrants for
    emails?
        Mr. Baker. Search warrants for?
        Mr. Goldman. Emails.
        Mr. Baker. No, I did not.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes.
        Mr. Baker. I have done--
        Mr. Goldman. Did you ever investigate domestic extremism?
        Mr. Baker. Actually, yes. I investigated the Ku Klux Klan
    on many occasions.
        Mr. Goldman. Good.
        Mr. Baker. I was--
        Mr. Goldman. Did you ever investigate any insurrections on
    the Capitol?
        Mr. Baker. No. There was none.
        Mr. Goldman. Okay.
        I appreciate your service, sir. You would agree that a lot
    of has changed in the FBI in the 23 years since you left,
    correct?
        Mr. Baker. Good and bad. I have stayed engaged on a number
    of levels--
        Mr. Goldman. One last question, sir, for you. I read that
    your opening statement is actually an excerpt from your book.
    Is that right?
        Mr. Baker. Well, it covers some of the same territory, yes.
        Mr. Goldman. All right. Well, next time, make sure you give
    us a heads-up, and we can set up a table for you to have a book
    signing after this.
        Ms. Parker, really quick, do you think that you speak for--
    you said that Americans are concerned about the FBI. Do you
    think you speak for every American?
        Ms. Parker. I do not speak for every American. As a special
    agent who is been out in the field trying to conduct my job, it
    is very difficult when we don't have the buy-in of the American
    people. A lot of Americans do not trust the FBI anymore because
    of recent--
        Mr. Goldman. Right.
        Well, unfortunately, my time is about up, but I will also
    say to you that I worked in the Department of Justice for 10
    years alongside a lot of FBI special agents, and their biggest
    concern and the most damage to the morale of the FBI occurred
    after Donald Trump started attacking the FBI because he was
    being investigated by the FBI.
        That is what this Subcommittee is all about.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I
    disagree with his conclusion.
        I will now recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr.
    Armstrong.
        Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Shouting ``fire'' in a crowded theater was dicta in a 1919
    case by Schenck. It was overruled in 1969 by Brandenburg and
    put in an imminence requirement. So, if we are going to
    continue to use it in this setting, whether it is the Twitter
    yesterday or the hearing here yesterday, let's at least get the
    law right.
        Second, as somebody who spent the first 10 years of my life
    defending criminal cases in both State and Federal court, I
    think the genesis of the Garland memo is incredibly important.
    The point of the coordination between the DOJ, the Department
    of Education, and the National School Boards Association was
    designed to create a Federal nexus.
        Local school board incidents are prosecuted locally. We
    elect local sheriffs, we elect local prosecutors, we elect
    local judges. Only by fabricating a domestic terrorism nexus do
    you create a position where you can prosecute those cases in
    Federal court.
        I don't want to talk about that, because I think we do have
    to talk about things more than the First Amendment.

            The timestamp data provides an intimate window into a person's
            life, revealing familial, political, professional, religious,
            and sexual associations. Only the few without cell phones could
            escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.

        Those are quotes from the Supreme Court's majority opinion
    in U.S. v. Carpenter. While Carpenter is a limited ruling
    addressing warrantless monitoring of cell site locations under
    the Fourth Amendment, the Court began considering whether the
    law needs to adjust to a digital world with extensive data
    collection and the analytical tools to operationalize that
    data.
        The Federal government has realized the value of the
    massive amounts of commercial consumer data that is freely
    available on the open market. The data is produced to inform on
    aggregate population levels, but it also generates leads that
    produce investigations into individuals.
        In 2020, the CDC purchased cell phone location data from a
    data broker to monitor whether or not people went to church
    during quarantine.
        In 2020, the DOD obtained consumer data from a Muslim
    prayer app.
        In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security purchased cell
    phone location data to make enforcement decisions on the U.S.-
    Mexican border.
        In the summer of 2020 and the turn of the year in 2021, DOJ
    obtained cell phone location data on Black Lives Matter
    protests and every cell phone in and around the Capitol on
    January 6th.
        In 2022, several law enforcement associations publicly
    opposed a bipartisan data privacy bill because it would disrupt
    the ability to easily obtain certain consumer data.
        In 2023, just this week, the IRS proposed comparing a
    waiter's reported income from tips to the tip data that is
    submitted by their employing restaurant.
        You may agree with some of these, you may disagree with
    some of these, but here is the thing: None of these third-party
    data acquisitions required a warrant.
        The amount of data available, either directly or through
    third parties, is both astounding and terrifying. Combine that
    with the advance in technology like AI, facial recognition, and
    more that will allow aggregation, analysis, and an
    identification, and we are fast approaching a surveillance
    State, with no assurances, other than the promises of our
    government, that it will not abuse this tremendous
    responsibility.
        Pegasus spyware, FISA abuses, alleged COVID vaccine data
    bases, and even home temperature controls have already shown
    that the trust alone is not enough.
        Orin Kerr, a law professor and Fourth Amendment expert, has
    suggested that when technological change or societal practice
    significantly alters the balance of power in favor of the
    government, the law must change.
        Kerr calls it an ``equilibrium adjustment.'' The Carpenter
    opinion referred to it as ``not mechanically applying to the
    third-party doctrine.'' I would call it ``ensuring the Fourth
    Amendment can survive the 21st century.'' Mr. Turley, do you
    think we need legislative reforms in Congress suggesting this
    aggregate collection of data?
        Mr. Turley. I do.
        Congress has struggled with this in the past. The courts
    have struggled with it. In Carpenter, the Court said that you
    couldn't get just cell phone locational data without a warrant.
    It kept alive the Smith v. Maryland third-party standard with
    that exception. Roberts, in that opinion, said, look, this is a
    serious--this is a serious amount of data that is highly
    personal for individuals and it triggers the warrant
    requirement.
        You also had the Court, in Jones, with the GPS decision in
    2012, where that was actually observable movement of a car, and
    the Court still said, you know what, this needs to have a
    warrant.
        So, the courts have been trying to get their hands around
    this thing, but it hasn't really materialized in protection.
    So, that falls to Congress, as to what you can do about it. I
    think there is a lot you can do about it. You can restrict
    these Federal agencies. You can force them to satisfy a higher
    standard.
        I honestly think that there would be general agreement in
    both parties that it is--right now, it is sort of--the cloud is
    the wild, wild West. People are grabbing stuff from the cloud.
        These companies have complained to you over and over again.
    I testified with a couple of these executives, and I was really
    sort of shocked by the desperation in their voices. They were
    saying, ``We need your help. We need you to come in and give us
    something here so that we can say no.''
        Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        Professor, censorship isn't just done willy nilly. There
    are always a purpose, an objective, some kind of motive for why
    some people want other people to not be able to speak. Is that
    fair?
        Mr. Turley. Yes. The government often says that it is
    neutral in targeting people, but it is still a content-based
    decision, and--
        Chair Jordan. It might--
        Mr. Turley. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. I would just say, and might sometimes that
    motive be political?
        Mr. Turley. It can be, yes.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. It seems to me that is what happened.
        I want to go to--I mean, we saw this 10 years ago, 12 years
    ago, when the IRS was targeting people of one political
    persuasion, limiting their free speech rights. I think we have
    seen it now with what the Twitter files have exposed.
        I really liked the term you used in your op-ed, and I think
    you may have said it today or someone said it earlier, when you
    were talking about this agency principle, this ``censorship by
    surrogate,'' and how dangerous that can be.
        I think you said it--maybe I got this from your op-ed
    earlier, but you said, it is one thing if Mr. Smith calls up
    Twitter and says, I don't like what Mr. Jones is saying about
    me or whatever. It is an entirely different matter when it is
    the U.S. Government telling Twitter, we have got concerns about
    these specific accounts--which we know is what happened, again,
    based on the Twitter files.
        Mr. Turley. Yes. It does irk me to see people say, ``Well,
    the U.S. Government was just acting like any citizen.'' The
    U.S. Government isn't any citizen. The FBI isn't your neighbor.
    The FBI has subpoena authority. They have search authority.
    They have weapons. They are the largest law enforcement agency
    in the United States. So, when they perform this task, it is
    different.
        There are lots of things that are more menacing when done
    by the government. That is one of the reasons the Court has
    allowed for this type of agency relationship to trigger things
    like the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment.
        This is not a new problem. In the Fourth Amendment area, it
    was an old technique for officers to get private security or to
    get campus police or others to conduct a search. The courts
    said, look, if they are doing that at your direction or your
    behest, those are agents as well.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. It is menacing when it is done by the
    government; it is even more menacing when it is done by the
    Federal government.
        Mr. Turley. Uh-huh.
        Chair Jordan. That is what we have here. We have the FBI--I
    think Mr. Armstrong made a great point when he said, okay, if
    parents are doing some things wrong at the local level, then
    local law enforcement will handle that. It is an entirely
    different matter when you set up a Federal apparatus where
    neighbors can report their neighbor or people can report
    someone in their community to the Federal government.
        Again, from whistleblowers, over two dozen parents had an
    FBI agent visit them, come see them, call them on the phone,
    investigate them, based on that process that was put in place.
        I want to go to the fundamental question. Why is the
    government--in the case of the Twitter files, why is the FBI
    sending a list of accounts and names to Twitter, telling
    Twitter, ``We think these accounts violate your terms of
    service''? That is sort of the fundamental question here. Why
    in the world are they doing that?
        That, to me, you used the term ``wrong'' in your opening
    statement. You have used the term ``menacing'' a number of
    times in today's questioning. That, to me, is as scary as it
    kind of gets.
        Mr. Turley. Well, it is interesting. In the Twitter files,
    that was the same question that a Twitter executive said.
        Chair Jordan. Yep.
        Mr. Turley. At one point, he said, ``What gives? I mean,
    basically, the FBI is telling us that our terms of service are
    violated by all these people. What is their role, essentially,
    and what is our role?'' It was an honest moment.
        That same question is reflected where even Jim Baker
    yesterday--
        Chair Jordan. Yep.
        Mr. Turley. --has said, I think we might need legislation,
    that I think that there is a need, given what has happened, to
    limit the FBI and other agencies.
        Chair Jordan. So, when even someone at Twitter who worked
    for the FBI says that, would you describe that as--would you
    use the term ``targeting,'' would you use the term
    ``weaponization,'' of that process we just talked about?
        Mr. Turley. Well, there are no question that they are
    targeting posters. They are sending the names and accounts for
    Twitter to take action on.
        By the way, this idea that, ``Well, Twitter could say no,''
    that is not the standard under these tests. I gave you the four
    tests that the courts use.
        Chair Jordan. Yep.
        Mr. Turley. You can say no and still be an agent overall in
    that relationship.
        Chair Jordan. Yes.
        As you point out in your testimony, your written testimony,
    this targeting is not just limited to what we have learned in
    the Twitter files, not just this direct attack on the First
    Amendment. We have seen it in different--we saw it with the
    dossier. We have seen it with the treatment of classified
    documents. You have referenced that, the different standards.
    You have referenced that in your statement. Of course, we have
    seen it with the school boards situation.
        I have got just 20 seconds. I will maybe pose a quick
    question to Mr. Williams.
        Mr. Williams, the opening statement--there have been a lot
    of talk about the memorandum from Attorney General Garland on
    October 21, 2021. The opening statement, he said, the very
    first sentence: ``In recent months, there has been a disturbing
    spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence
    against school administrators.''
        When he testified on October 21, 2021, we asked him what
    was the basis, what was the evidence for that statement. Do you
    remember what the Attorney General said?
        Mr. Williams. Sir, I don't. I don't work for the Justice
    Department anymore, didn't advise him on it, and I--
        Chair Jordan. Well, I will remind you. He said it was the
    letter from the National School Boards Association.
        Now, do you happen to know what the National School Boards
    Association did with their letter, what they said about their
    letter after the Attorney General testified?
        Mr. Williams. Sir, I do not.
        Chair Jordan. They rescinded it. They said, ``We regret and
    apologize for the letter.''
        So, the basis for the targeting action involving the
    Federal government and local school board matters and local law
    enforcement matters, the basis was the letter--that is what the
    Attorney General cited--and that letter has been pulled back,
    and the association who sent that letter said, ``We apologize
    and regret that we sent it.''
        It seems to me the Attorney General should rescind his
    memorandum, which we have called for now for a year and a half.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here. I know it was
    a long day, and I appreciate you staying the whole time. I was
    tempted to give you a--I was looking to give you a restroom
    break, but I thought we could get through it. So, I appreciate
    your patience and your great testimony.
        With that, the first Subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
    Government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
    Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115442.