During Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),” U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz (FL-01) grilled U.S. Attorney General (AG) Merrick Garland after he called it a “conspiracy theory” to suggest that DOJ coordinated lawfare against President Donald Trump with state and local prosecutors.
Despite his inflammatory claim, AG Garland refused to commit to Rep. Gaetz to turn over DOJ communications with the various state and federal prosecutors.
This is a pattern of conduct for the AG, who last year repeatedly refused to answer Rep. Gaetz’s questions about Joe and Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals to sell power to the highest bidder. Furthermore, while claiming DOJ and the FBI had no involvement with January 6th, the Attorney General refused to answer Rep. Gaetz’s direct question about the FBI losing count of the number of federal assets present on January 6.
Video of Rep. Gaetz’s interaction with AG Garland at the House Judiciary Committee hearing can be found HERE. A rough transcript can also be found immediately below:
TRANSCRIPT
Rep. Gaetz: The Attorney General, you’ve told us that it’s a dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the Department of Justice is communicating with these state and local prosecutions against Trump. You can clear it all up for us right now. Will the Department of Justice provide to the committee all documents all correspondence between the department and Alvin Braggs office and Fani Willis assaults office and Letitia James’ office?
AG Garland: The offices you’re referring to our independent offices of state,
Rep. Gaetz: I get that I get that day. The question is whether or not you will provide all of your documents and correspondence? That’s the question. It’s, I don’t need a history lesson.
AG Garland: Well, I’m gonna say, again, we do not control those offices, they make
Rep. Gaetz: the questions, communicate with them, not whether you control them, do you communicate with them, and we provide this
AG Garland: committee make a request, we will refer it to our Office of Legislative Affairs to think
Rep. Gaetz: they will come in here and you will lodge this attack, that it’s a conspiracy theory that there is coordinated lawfare against Trump. And then when we say fine, just give us the documents, give us the correspondence. And then if it’s a conspiracy theory, that will be evident. But when you say, well, we’ll take your request, and then we’ll we’ll sort of work it through the do J’s accommodation process, then you’re actually advancing the very dangerous conspiracy theory that you’re concerned about. Now, you’re you were a judge once nominated the highest court in our country, when you were a judge. I’m just curious, did you ever make political donations to partisan candidates?
AG Garland: No, no.
Rep. Gaetz: And you didn’t, because that would create the potential appearance appearance of impropriety?
AG Garland: I didn’t because there’s a federal rule Oh, are in federal judges for making contributions? Right.
Rep. Gaetz: But But under that same theory of attacks on the judicial process, like shouldn’t someone be owed, like a jury of their peers and a judge that’s non biased rather than getting a judge from your political opponents donor file?
AG Garland: I’m well aware that you’re not asking a hypothetical. You’re asking me to comment on a verdict jury verdict in a nother jurisdiction, which has to be respected. I won’t comment on it. That case is still ongoing, that the
Rep. Gaetz: Attorney General I hadn’t asked you about the verdict yet. We were getting there. I was I was talking about the judge. And so let me ask you this question about your time as a judge. Was there ever a time when you were a judge when you had a family member who was personally profiting off of the notoriety of a case? That was before your court?
AG Garland: I’m gonna say again, very clear, you’re asking me to comment on a case in another journal.
Rep. Gaetz: Hold on, Mr. Attorney General, did you ever have a family member profit off of the notoriety of any case that you settled and say
AG Garland: Again, your answering me. No, you’re asking me to comment on a case currently.
Rep. Gaetz: Well, it seems you’re connecting the dots. Mr. Attorney General, I’m just asking you as to a general principle, but you are aware the judgment or Shawn’s daughter was profiting off of this prosecution, you are aware that that creates the appearance of impropriety? You know, the very reason there’s a federal rule against judges giving donations is because it is the very attack on the judicial process that we’re concerned about.
AG Garland: I’m sorry, I don’t agree with anything you just said. But I’m not going to comment on it. Okay, so
Rep. Gaetz: You won’t comment on it, Mr. Attorney General, but you had no problem dispatching Matthew Colangelo, who’s Matthew Colangelo.
AG Garland: I did not dispatch Matthew Colangelo.
Rep. Gaetz: Matthew Colangelo became the assistant attorney general, at the very beginning of the Biden administration, without having been Senate confirmed, goes and gets the senior role at the DOJ. And then after, I believe it’s a Gupta replaced his co Angelo glandular makes this remarkable downstream career journey from the US Department of Justice in Washington, DC and then pops up in Alvin Bragg’s office to go get Trump and you’re saying that’s just a that’s just a career choice that was made that has nothing to do with the law fair coordinated, saying
AG Garland: It’s false. I did not dispatch Mr. Colangelo anywhere. Well,Matthew Colangelo’s
Rep. Gaetz: Do you know how he ended up there?
AG Garland: I assume he spoke. He applied for a job there and got the job but see, you know what, tell you I had nothing to do with well,
Rep. Gaetz: You might not have had anything to do with it. But we’ve got this contemporaneous evidence in Mr. Pomerance his book. So Pomerantz writes this book, which I’m sure you’re aware of where he says, we put together the legal legals to get Trump. We got all these folks together, and we assembled them for that purpose. And so when we on the Judiciary Committee, think about attacks on the judicial process, our concern is that you’re the facts in the law aren’t being followed. A target is acquired. Here, Trump and then you assemble the legal talent from DOJ Mr. Pomerance and you bring everybody in together. Yeah, really. And meanwhile, the judges making money on it. The judges making money on it, the judges families making money on it for stuff that you yourself wouldn’t do. You know, no one’s gonna buy this. No one’s gonna believe it. It’s going to create great disruption and I am saddened by it because like you I haven’t given my life to the law. I care deeply Got the law and I think that the law fair we’ve seen against President Trump will do great damage well beyond our time in public service I see my time has expired I yield back.
