>> [inaudible conversations] the committee will come to order. i will recognize the gentle man from california after five minutesom of questions. thank you. is it illegal under federal law in fronte of a justices residences to intimidate their decisions? >> hard for me to answer questions in the hypothetical. >> let me read you the statute then. with the intent of interfering or influencing any judge, jury

or officer near a building housing or residence occupied or used by such a judge were with such intent shall be fined under the title or imprisoned. is that news to you is this the first time you've heard of that statute? >> no, i am aware. >> than i would ask for a little more candor. why is that not being enforced? >> it will be like all federal laws based on the evidence that we are ablensns to obtain in the

disruption of the january 6th joint session in congress how does this compare to the resources and investigating the prosecuting threats and intimidation of members of the supreme court? >> with respect to the concerns that i think are serious and involve threats of violence and against members are you putting the same efforts and resources and the intimidation -- >> how do those compared to what you put in on january 6th? >> i think that is apples and oranges. it's hard to say. the resources necessary. >> the rest of these were kicked out of the building. the would-be assassin made it

clear that by killing a supreme court justice you could single-handedly change the majority of the court do you consider that as great a threat to the constitutional order as thwearing buffalo horns in the building? >> with respect to the justice, that was a very serious crime with attempted assassination. >> you have refused to prosecute the multiple demonstrations that are in violation and the supreme court justices homes and then your shocked that an assassin shows up at his doorstep. iw find that astonishing for an officer given the trust that you have been given by the united states government. by failing to enforce the laws that protect the safety of the supreme court justices aren't you in effect setting up an open season message to extremists across the country?

>> we are enforcing the laws based on the facts and evidence in every case and as i've said, we've charged and individuals attempted assassination and we've addedac security for the justices. we supported legislation. >> and turned a blind eye to the law that protect those justices in their homes. the characterization and turning a blind eye. >> it is total inaction when it comes to enforcing that law that you originally pretended you hadn't even heard of. how big a threat posed to the security and safety of the american people? >> the threat from cartels certainly is a criminal threat. >> we've had 900,000 because the border patrol has been completely overwhelmed with this

mass migration along the southern border. we know there were 5,000 or more when they surrendered to the taliban. how many of those do you imagine we were unable to intercept? >> i would want to verify the veracity before responding. i think you're tracking down and -- >> esthe time the witnesses wish to answer. >> i have no basis to ascertain the truth of those assertions, so i would want to verify that before trying to answer the question. >> mr. mcclintock, thank you very much. i recognize myself for five minutes of questions. first of all let me thankes you for your service.

we've got a tough job. the country, our citizens, we have to play 100% defense. let me turn to slavery a little bit, cyber security. question, at what point does the cyber attack on the nation constitute a declaration of war? we had an attack on the federal system. a brazen, unbelievable. rhetorical question. the pointou is made which is cyr is an attack and a deadly attack in many ways. i would resume your concern with the increasing cyber attacks and threats from russia and china and other actors. the committee considered legislation that requires american companies to open their hardware and software to third

parties which could allow china, russia and others to have additional access. doesn't this pose a cyber cybersecurity risk? >> the cyber threat is a vast and complicated one it's the most significant actor when it comes to the cyber enabled espionage. it's a challenge for the government, the public and private sector. you have essentially the cyber enabled means in a way that threatens the democracy and economic institution.

that includes the justice department to work with the private sector in particular the technology companies so we have a joint effort to address these types. >> so these companies have arg competitive edge to work with you hand in hand to defend the nation on cyber? >> my experience has been the large technology companies are very open to working with of the government when it comes to improving the nations cybersecurity. >> to make sure they play 100% defense. the interests are aligned in many ways. >> i understand the executive branch has been reviewing these

antitrust legislations and you've been part of this review it's my understanding.de >> myuh division was part of the review of the legislation. >> and we've seen concerns raised by the national security experts on both sides concerning these antitrust bills. is it fair to say that if you have concerns you will provide the committee with that information at the right time? >> we provided a letter in support of the legislation. i am prepared to continue to work on that with of this committee with there are additional concerns. >> but you will bring some of those concerns if they are there to the committee. >> i will continue to work with th others.tee and

>> without objection. >> let me say again cyber is the new warfare. we are in the state of war. i think it's important that your voice be a clear one when it comes to some of this legislation. this legislation primarily applies to american companies, yet a lot of the firms do not seem to fall under the purview of the legislation and i believe it's important that f before weo off and go after our own firms that we make sure we are not doing unintentional harms to the nationale defense when it comes to cyber.

>> the committee needs to take a moment to address technical issues. the committee will suspend. the committee now resumes. in the profile of domestic terrorism cases, they appear to have found thatt the fbi and trapped people in a matter involved in the elegy to plot to kille the governor of michigan. the jury acquitted of the defendants and others. >> i am familiar with that particular prosecution.

you emphasized the importance of the domestic terrorism mission central to the national security mission. is that case a fair representation of how it's handling domestic terrorism? >> i would include that case among many others that are part of the efforts to ensure that people that serve in public office or safe. >> are safe. >> the importance is undeniable. the question is whether that is what the fbi is doing. let me go a little further. the evidence that the jury heard mostly in text messages and testimony of agents and the fbi is the fbi did not discover an existing scheme to collect evidence and take down the plot

some of the resources had a lead in the formant to pretend to lead a fake militia to recruit disadvantaged and unstable man. several of them one of whom ats video produced and at one point according to "the new york times" there was a nighttime surveillance of the vacation and

when the group was falling apart in august of 2020 the fbi congratulated them to, quote, look at you bringing people together and congratulated him for breathing new life in. not as well known the same fbi agent and the parallel scheme to recruit folks into the plot against former virginia governor asked held to couch the plan to one of the recruits. that's the evidence i can understand. understand. it is ate complete sampling. but is that the kind of conduct doj andev fbi are engaged in in pursuing domestic terrorism matters? >> as you know it involved defendants charged with kidnapping. the governor of michigan as an

ongoing case the judges ordered a retrial and it is set. they've been acquitted by the jury. thi understand that they have decided to retry to other defendants but the evidence is that the evidence has been and that's been public and there's been media stories written. it's not like this is some kind of right-wing notion. don't those revelations impair the credibility of the fbi. >> the judge has ordered that the case be retried. it's an ongoing matter and i cannot w comment further. >> how many informant agents respectively were involved in the operation? >> i'm not going to comment about that particular case.tr >> howma much does the fbi spen? >> the ongoing case for the

retrial so i'm not going to comment on it. >> thehe eligible plot was announced october 7, 2020 within a month before the u.s. presidential election. how come that timing for the announcement of the plot? >> that's in ongoing case i'm not going to comment. if i tell you that every case we follow the facts into the evidence t we do so without regards to the politics or ideology. >> the fbi has a history on exactly that kind of thing. you have no comment about the that.re of >> you may answer the question. >> that is an ongoing case except for the retrial so i'm not going to comment. >> now the time is expired. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you for appearing to

speak to the work on a number of matters involving the national security. as you indicated in your testimony, domestic violent extremists are one of the most significant growing threats that the department of justice must grapple with. individuals often radicalize online and are motivated and in recent years directed threats and deadly attacks at institutions including predominantly black churches, temples and synagogues, racially motivated and we see the rise in political violence directed including collection workers. we've seen the pro verse progres conspiracy theories and disinformation for the extremists being spread precisely and that they can

spiral into acts of violence we also work to undermine the foundational institutions including the elections. conspiracy theories and hate filled ideology migrated from the fringes of the american society into the public discourse and the propaganda and the domestic political opportunities. elected officials and other leaders abused the public trust and responsibility to the constituents when they embraced the amplified disinformation whether that disinformation concerned lies about election results, antigovernment conspiracy theories or the attacks on religious minorities and other marginalized groups. habit isns information on social media is used in extremist recruitment? >> yes. the challenge that we face with individuals who consume rhetoric or hateful content online is

that that information is so easily available to individuals who may be alone or act in small groups. to accelerate on the path to becoming radicalized ultimately the concern we have is that that individual may become mobilized to carry out acts of violence that violate the federal law. much of that conduct is protected in the first amendment and the speech itself but identifying that line when it happens in private identifying when someone crossed the line from free speech to planning a violent attack doesn't protected just andprotected can be difficr the fbi and other investigative agencies and that is one of the things wet face. >> so what can congress subdue

other than individual members taking care not to amplify theue disinformation to support the department of justice's efforts to disrupt the radicalization? >> hearings like today the focus on this issue are helpful. theicularly around january 6 attack, the u.s. attorney's office in washington, d.c. which has done an admirable job in leading that effort to increase its ranks to go after funding and i think as well the work of the select committee has done an exceptional job shining a light on the events of januaro the american people have a better understanding of what was at stake in the effort to preventar a peaceful transfer of power which is a pillar of our democracy. >> thank you. you have been quite clear that politics doesn't play a role.

is it fair to say a parental status also doesn't play a role to investigate or charge potential criminalri conduct suh as threats of violence directed against officials or their families? >> of course. i have no further questions. i yelled back. >> the gentleman from texas is now recognized. >> the department of justice prosecutorle against individuals demonstrating the residents of the supreme court justices in violation of the 1507. >> i'm not aware there's been a grace brought of that particular statute. >> so the answer is no. >> there was an dangerous to those across the border by the armed or organized cartels pose a danger to the national security of the united states? >> i'm not familiar with the facts you are referring to. >> and all 107,000 related to

fentanyl, you don't believe you can't comment whether that poses a danger to the nationale security of the united states? >> i'm not familiar with the facts you are referring to. there is no doubt the movement of illegal drugs crossed the borders poses a threat to the safety and well-being of americans. >> what about threats to border agents such as the rio grande threatening to kill border patrol or gun fire on the streets of texas, but that pose a threat to the united states? >> i don't know specifically what you are referring to, but obviously acts of violence directed at the law enforcement and federalon or state is a significant concern and one that we take seriously. >> before thee unknown goden always, how about 389,000 that the attorney general testified under oath here in the house of representatives accepting the fact, the attorney general testified, i'm sorry that might have beenn the homeland secretary. would that pose a danger to the

national securityed of the unitd states? >> not familiar with the fact that you are referring to. >> unwould you accept that as posing a danger to the national security of the united states? >> i am comfortable talking about cases that we are bringing or have brought as a matter of public record where we proven the cases in court i prefer not to comment on hypotheticals. >> which poses a greater danger cartels o or appearance of schol board meetings. >> groups, violent gangs that are involved in acts of violence are significant. m >> i would certainly have to agree with that on the general proposition being a parent myself they pose a greater threat to the american people. >> is the department of justice

operating under the memorandum of merit a garland of 2021 which hehe said disturbing spike and intimidation and threats of violence are they still operating under that memorandum? >> the attorney general's guidance from last fall is continuing. yes, sir. >> and what was issued the department issues. >> the national security division is a broad array of components the justice department has as a part of that to ensure people who serve on local school boards or other. >> you think they rise to the level of the national security division at the department of justice? >> it's possible there could be a threat or act of violence against somebody in the local office whether it's the city council or school board that might reflect a domestic violent extremism. >> is it appropriate to use the patriot act against parents? >> it's a variety of tools.

i can't talk about it in the abstract. >> did they recommend the use and describe that the action of the school board is the equivalent to domestic terrorism proceeding the memo issued by the department of justice? >> usi don't know. >> you don't know that there is a memorandum by the national school board association referring to domestic terrorism and the use of the patriot act prior to the attorney general issuing a memorandum directly targeting and focusing on school boards, you don't know? >> i've heard you and others make reference to that. >> you're the head of the division that mentioned that goes out and you don't know, you're testifying before us you don't know anything about that. >> i've heard of the letter but i don't know exactly what it says. >> do you support as it was made? >> howup they characterize the case is better proposed to the fbi. >> one last question on a

different topic. i sent a letter on july 11th requesting the department to conduct a thorough review of the left off of the violation with respect to the billions of dollars that the saudi arabians have to targeting the tour believing that is a great thing for the image of saudi arabia or incredible investment that would seem to require registrations i'm unaware of these occurring. would you respond to the letter we sent the department of justice and brief membersee on e issue? >> i will take that back to the legislators office. >> that time is expired. the gentle man from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair and i want to thank the chairman nadler for this hearing. the minority communities and individuals are becoming an existential threat to the democracy and to the nation. white supremacists have worked their way into the government

institutions. some would say they have the republican party in a chokehold. some would also suggest the congressional enablers welcome the violence with encouragement and enthusiasm. they call insurrectionist kcal99 patrons and criticize the conditions they said a blind eye to the incarceration disproportionately. my colleague's refusal to combat instances of domestic terrorism. to live without the fear of retaliation. it isn't any onto the increasing rate of hate crimes since 2016. the shooting in el paso texas on august of 2019 motivated by the sentiments by the perpetrators

is an inherent part of the ideology. a justified response for the invasion of texas. you eluded the great replacement. the conspiracy theories central theory central tothe nationalis. these ideas are not important for the most extreme outgrowth of the white supremacist political culture. between anti-immigrant rhetoric and domestic terrorism to preventin future acts of domestc terrorism it's also critical for our friends across the aisle to collaborate with democrats and put people over politics and put all this terrorism behind us and be about protecting our

democracy. i wanted to ask you a question about the interrelationship and the interconnectedness of all of this and i know that much has been said about some of the pro- abortion extremists, but i want to just say that according to the latest reports i've seen, anti-abortion extremists have been responsible for at least 11 murders, 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 194 artisans and thousands of incidences of criminal activity directed at abortion providers since 1977, including thousands and thousands of charges, criminal mischief, vandalism. the list goes on. it's pages and pages of all of this and i thinkou that it's trespassing charges. it also talks about the connection between the antiabortion extremists and the

january 6th insurrection that they overlap and that one of the convicted arsonists and extremists live streaming from m outside of the capital january 6th, and another one is a protester at the abortion clinics that entered the e-uppercase-letter and was later charged. the list goes on. so, what is the interconnectedness between the extremists? do all these acts of terror domestically or is there some that lead more to the hate crimes against hispanics and blacks into some towards the abortion clinics? >> it's an interesting question because what we have seen in the intelligence community has made this assessment that the violent extremists are motivated by the mix of ideologies into don't necessarily fit into one category or another. they may consume a variety of content, for example online,

that feeds into a worldview that causes them to become radicalized and ultimately move to violence but sometimes it is difficult to pinpoint if a particular ideology or viewpoint. but i do know from the data is that individuals that are motivated by animus or government account for the greatest number of attacks in the r u.s. in recent years but e fbi when it identifies a case to categorize its as one category r another suggested it is difficult to pinpoint a particular ideology but at the justice department we prosecute acts of violence without regard to ideology politics. >> i would ask unanimous consent to enter into o the record the

2021 statistics prepared by them federation and treat articles related to hate crimes and the funding of the police and other issuesat related. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. isor the department purchasing data from third parties and then u using it for investigatory purposes? >> the national security division that i lead doesn't engage in purchasing data so the answer to the question in terms of the work i do is know we are not involved. >> what about other agencies or parts of the department? inme terms of carrying out the division the agencies and the

justice department,sw the fbi ad others operate under a series of rules and laws. i've heard" the secretary speaking to the security forum just last week he said look how thew border is secure. do you agree the border is secure? >> i am not familiar with his remarks at that conference. >> this is his remarks. i simply want to know if you agree. >> i would defer to the secretary ofhi homeland security in his judgment on that. >> your department has nothing to do with the border is that what you're saying? >> we are involved in the prosecution of>> crimes but in terms of the overall border -- >> the number of folks coming across and those that you would

perhaps surmise the fact it's not secure. you wouldn't be down there ifndt was, correct? >> making sure individuals that violate are investigated and prosecuted. >> there is a great deal of hyperbole about what is the greatest threat we hear a lot about domestic violence. but i've read the fbi thinks china is the greatest threat. who is the greatest threat in yourte opinion? is that the wrong way to approach this? >> that is probably the wrong questionst to ask. we have a number of significant threats and need to make sure that our efforts and authorities and resources are aligned commensurate with of the threats we face. >> of the attorney general appeared before the committee, and i asked him if he would focus on the situation occurring in my state, southern oregon wherefo we have had a very significant number, very large

and extremely wealthy cartel for all around the world moving into start raising incredible amounts of marijuana. the numbers, are in the billions of dollars of retail value thatl is being raised. and i asked the attorney general of he would please help, if he would please send additional folks to oregon to try to stop what is going on and part of it involveses the theft of an immee amount of water. we are in an incredible drought and there's nothing but water now but not backward i'm from and the fact people are carrying aak-47 zana there are people being locked in their homes, what is your department doing to try to head off this threat? >> what you described sounds extremely concerning. i don't have obvious first-hand knowledge and the national security division typically wouldn't becr involved in what you're describing which sounds like would be handled by the

criminal division in terms of drugscu or weapons violations si would probably have to ask the criminal division and the office to that.d >> it's safe to say they are making millions andn. using that to bring all kinds of drugs killing upwards of 100,000 a year. you would think that t would fit within the mission statement i have in frontnt of me that are kf 100,000 people a year. you would think that would fit within your mission statement, which i have right here in front of me, which is to protect the united states, carry out the departments highest priority, protect and defend the united states against the full range of national security threats. this would appear to me to be one. would you disagree? >> the way we've divided up responsibility within the justice department is that our federal narcotics laws and weapons laws are by and large and force by other parts of the justice department. >> would you be so kind as the reach out to those other parts and tell them that we in oregon need help and that the

situation in my opinion is one that raises to a national level, given that marijuana is being sold right on the streets here, in washington, d.c.. thank you again for being here. look forward to your helping us out in oregon. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair. thank you mr. olson for your service at the department of justice and answering committees questions today. throughout this congress, the committee has -- data collection practices, protecting the due process rights of all americans as has been paramount in our work. one particular area of concern has been the doj's use of non disclosure orders or ngos. these court ordered ngos prevent technology service providers like, google, apple, -- one personal records or emails from the provider. during a hearing before this

committee in june of last year, thousands from the doj in fact leaders from microsoft indicated they received seven to ten every single day they utilize and raise concerns about the misuse or their overuse were swept up in investigations involving ngos particularly indicating first amendment liberties and separation of powers calls forsw additional scrutiny into these processes. in response i joined the bipartisan group of colleagues from the committee introducing the act to provide more guardrails of against and quitting by raising the legal standard to a strict scrutiny analysis establishing the 30 day limit on the effectiveness requiring the notice to give customers 72 hours after the expiration and allowing providers to contest the gag

orders in court. lead neededoversight bill in jue the senate will take it up very soon. i'd like to ask you some questions about 2705 and the doj use. prior to the committee's examination of the issue and subsequent passage of fairness act, head of the department considered changing 2705 policies to prevent the overuse of the orders? >> i'm not aware of the prior policy reconsideration around the use and if i may i can tell you that as a former federal prosecutor it can be an appropriate and important part of the criminal investigation to preserve the integrity of the investigation subject to constraints and time limit stated they must be issued by a judge. they typically wouldin only be appropriate in cases where we

are seeking to protect someone's life or against the destruction of evidence. i am aware there are concerns about their overuse and i'm aware of those concerns because they do impose restrictions on third parties but there are constraints that apply to the use. may 27, 2022 the deputy general released a memo providing clarity on 27 ob procedures and it includes reminders that, quote, the protective order should bed sought only after the prosecutor engagesia and in case of the fact a specific analysis and a prosecutor must provide sufficient facts to permit the court to conduct the same case and fact specific analysis. why do you believe the prosecutors were required to have this reminder? >> i'm not sure what was the reason for it. the deputy attorney general's memo but i do find the language

you read to be appropriate and consistent june 2021 the companies and the communication providers testified to this committee there was1, a rubberstamp process. has the prosecutor the request? >> i can't speak generally to how the prosecutors around the country are using those orders. i do agree very much with the policy from the deputy attorney general that they should be viewed and used only on the case by case basis where the circumstances weren't. will you commit to conducting

the usage of 2705 orders? >> if i may i would like to consider how we would respond to that question and get back to you. i look forward to hearing your response and i will yield back. >> the w gentle man from wisconsin, mr. fitzgerald is recognized. >> thank you madam chair. in your statement it kind of surprised me that you called at the january 6th investigation the largest in the history of the national security division. what you are investigating is a division in the scope of the investigation. >> withh respect to january 6th, in particular, yes. the reason i said that investigation stands a part of the largest domestic terrorism investigation and history, the fbi has characterized that investigation and opened. as the attorney general said,

the most wide-ranging investigation of history and the numbers speak for themselves over 850 people have been arrested.. many includes serious charges including assault on police officers and obstruction of congress, seditious conspiracy. so, it's touched on every state including the fbi field offices in every state in terms of the cou.s. attorney's offices that e involved. so, by several measures, in a scale and in significance, the significance being it involved an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power that is one of the pillars of thegn democracy by all of those measures i feel justified in describing as an investigation that stands apart and history. >> so you said that it is threats of violence. what threats was the division aware of on the givens that it lit up to january 6th?

>> i don't know exactly how to respond to the question of what threats the division wasnu aware of because i wasn't at the division at the time. i came into the office later. i do think -- >> you are aware of what the investigation includes at this point i'm sure. >> absolutely. >> would you say that doj and fbi failed to anticipate the threats of january 6th were to prepare for the threats? >> the level of violence speaks to itself. we always want to learn to do better when it comes to anticipating something that we didn't necessarily anticipate in terms of the level of violence and the run-up to january 6th so we need to continue to learn tifrom that. >> has there been coordination between the doj and house of representatives january 6th committee? >> i am aware of our request from the departmentt of justice

for access to transcriptsts from the select committee, but other than that, the answer is no. one is my congress and another is by a coequal branch of government that is an executive branch and we have a job to do. there are news reports stating they are considering more charges relating to january 6th but rather than violent acts they are t based on speech or verbal communications rather than the violence or threats we are experiencing on that day. is this happening as we sit here today? >> they do not conduct the investigations in public. i'm not going to talk about the trajectory or the direction of

investigation. >> you made some comments earlier. iis what speaker pelosi discussd in the preparations something that is off the table or could be investigated as well by doj? >> i'm not going to discuss anything about that ongoing investigation. what i can tell you is it is our obligation of the department of justice to uphold the rule of law. that's what distinguishes us from the hypocrisies and it isa central tenet of the room at her wheretheir status is above the . and and apply the law in the course of the investigation and the january 6 attack. from rhode island pointing out

that president biden's choice act five cyber threats and other national security risks. are you aware if the department of defense or any intelligence agents were consulted a process that involved a number of agencies to know that we were consulted, and i know ultimately the department of justice came out in favor of that legislation and at the national security risks and at the division were addressed by the legislation in the changes that were adopted. >> the time is expired. >> i recognize myself for five minutes. >> the attorney general, thank you for your service to the country and of course for your testimony here today. as youou shared in your testimo,

you in part are tasked with addressing the most pressing national security issues of the day. and i believe the online and on microphone vitriol that so commonly targets women and girls is a most troubling issue. for example, in uvalde it came as a shock to the nation. girls and women who talked with the murderer, whose name i will not keep saying, online they saw the signs. the women described him as cryptic, mean, scary. after he sent angry messages and thphotos of guns. when the women didn't respond how he wanted, he sometimes threatened to raid or kidnap them, then he laughed it off as a joke. i don't think that rape is funny. i don't think threats of

kidnapping are funny. this man had a public digital footprint available months before he killed, slaughtered, massacred 19 children and two of their teachers. he had a history and online profile of harassment and violent threats. violence threats. some members of this very committee choose to stand in public and use theof microphone with misogynistic statements as recently as this weekend. so howow can an 18-year-old who shared so much hate online, going back to the shooter now come to these girls, do so without punishment or raising an alarm? what can your division tell us? >> let me sayay first of all tht i share your outrage of the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in uvalde and unfortunately has occurred too often in other parts of the country. the challenge that i think we face as a country regularly law enforcement is that individuals

who may have mental illnesses or may otherwise be easily persuaded by the availability of online content are able to hard for law it's enforcement to see that before it happens. in fact we rely very much on families, educators, community enis to build a report for that information to law enforcement so that there is an opportunity to intervene but i've seen too often that that has not happened.ie did you combine that fact with the fact that individuals in the country have access to military grade weapons and that they are typically choosing to attack vulnerable locations like schools, shopping malls and you have a series of factors that contribute to a very dangerous situation that unfortunately we have seen played out over and over as has resulted in mass shootings and tragedies like we saw in uvalde. >> can i ask you, has your department seen, noticed

collected data to show an increase in the rise of terrorism and violence inspired by misogyny? >> i can't say that i can point to misogyny as a particular viewpoint that has been a theme or a threat. i can see throughout the data certainly what we do know i think supports were perspective that it can be a range of viewpoints some of it informed by hatred of people from certain countries or certain races mixed with viewpoints that are hard to understand but it often contributes to the individual's radicalization ultimately. ..

>> we are still trying to find all the extremist to stormed the capital i thank you for your effort and i think any member of congress and anyone who is any evidence coming forward with that detail. can you talk about any increase specific to my city of hate crimes across theen country? >> we have seen many acts we have seen as domestic terrorism that case is being prosecuted as a hate crime the

hate crimes are prosecuted by the civil rights division of criminal prosecutors devoted to prosecuting violations of civil rights. i would refer your question for us to the hate crimes in particular. >> your recognize five. >> of interest if your son wants to get a job in the national security division. commenting about the rule ofn law but it is a concern my constituents have many come up to me average people good citizens of america and part of the reason they stay thatem

is russian collusion proved to be the biggest hoax perhaps in the history of the united states is that acceptable to have an executive law enforcement agency engaged in sabotaging a political candidate. >> the justice department it has been my experience having been there for 20 years, 18 years as a career prosecutor and attorney we prosecute based on the facts. >> we know the truth now and it was a hoax does that embarrass you as someone whoho has served in this position of great trust does that embarrass you that you have four people in upper leadership? is that embarrass you with those people in that position. >> as a prosecutor my experience consistently has

been we take action based on facts and evidence we do not act based on ideology. >> the department appointed with the national security division she has been an outspoken and partisan critic and extensively commented on the fbi investigation into the allegations ofts the trump campaign colluding with russia and what she was and not hyped russia collusion allegations about that christopher steele author of the dossier was a person who's workedr intelligence take seriously are you aware that statement quick. >> i will not comment on any members. >> she was also a vocal critic

to the john during the investigation of the targeting of the trump campaign and transition team calling the and practical certain partisan silliness are you aware that statement quick. >> i will not comment. >> she works for you. are you aware of that statement quick. >> i will not comment on the work of anyone but i will tell you everyone is held to a higher standards of ethics and i include miss tennessee. >> because this investigation is ongoing she has overstepped her supervisory functions and over impartiality quick. >> my job is to ensure everyone in the division follows the rules and i am confident i'm able to do that. >> she deleted tens of thousands of statements on her twitter account prior to announcing her position in

your division are you aware? >> i'm confident of the capabilitieses and integrity and miss tennessee.>> >> you agree embracing those past controversial statements of hyper political bias has concern would you be concerned? from the conversation here is a generic person with that's concern you or someone hiring these people? >> . >> i am confident in the integrity i was there when we started the national security division and spent three years as a senior career official have the utmost confidence of the excellence and the integrity of that workforce. >> you will not remove her

quick. >> as she removed yourself from the investigation quick. >> i will not comment. >> she received access. >> i will not comment on any particular members of the workforce i have utmost confidence. >> if we find out as oversight authority, can we find out if she is exercising that authority? you will not tell me today if i have a way to find out if she will squelch the term investigation. >> i will not comment on specific members of the workforce those of the utmost confidence of every single person. >> thank you madame chair and attorney general olsonon for joining us today i will shift

focus and ask you to answer some questions about cybersecurity if you have not been asked yet in north carolina our attorney general recently announced that 2021 saw a record number of data breaches which is more than two.4 million north carolinians my district has ransomware attacks on a multistate infrastructure operation such as the 2021 attack on the colonial pipeline. following this attack more than 70 percent of gas stations ran out of fuel leading my constituents with limited transit options. as you know colonial pipeline paid a ransom to get the system back online and in june 2021 doj directed federal prosecutors to coordinate ransomware investigation with the new digital extortion task

force soon after working with the irs to clawback two. $3 million ever four.4 million brits and paid by colonial pipeline to a group using ransomware. while heralded as a great success no similar actions that we know of have been taken in the intervening years. with the colonial pipeline operation is thatar indicativesu on behalf of the us government? or is that a one-off situation of how great the impact was quick. >> if you believe that attack constituted a wake-up call because of the nature of the critical infrastructure we are

engaged in the justice department in a concerted effort to address the challenge of ransomware which has increased significantly that what we see the cyberattacks than the range of threats from national security for ransomware to efforts to steal our secret information to efforts to steal trade secrets and effort to interfere with the political process through misinformation and even efforts to debilitate our critical infrastructure. cyberenable the tax are a significant concern and to focus on those attacks that emanate from nationstates. that we are most concerned about china and russia and iran and north korea.na >> in addition to the

nationstates we have road actors that are enabled by nationstates and because of the nature of the block chain statements when the recipient is anonymous, the trail could be easier to follow. why is it difficult to intercept all caps on currency payments made to ransomware quick. >> we appreciate it you have a deep understanding of this challenge and forns wine i agree that it is hard to discern or distinguish betweennd criminal groups and nationstates theas way they might enable or support the work of criminal acting groups when it comes to the recovery of cryptopayments that challenge there is that these groups are by nature to

hide their steps and can make it difficult to identify the money paid in ransom that i would note we did announce last year we had 80 percent of those that was paid to that hacking group darkside and then to cover that cigna one —- significant portion but that will not always be true because these try to hide their tracks. >> i yield my time to the gentleman from ohio. >> thankgn you for yielding. mr. alston what is the number of doj employees that have access to 702 pfizer acquired act? >> i don't know the exact

number but i assume it includes the fbi? and those who have access to the complete data. >> give me an estimate quick. >> i don't have the number that every person who can query that database has to be trained and certified to have access to that data. >> when we had a briefing on a similar situation we were told it could be as high as 10000 people we did not expect that but we did expect thousands so she works for you and is a lawyer and told we would like to know what that number really is with the pfizer

reauthorization on —- pfizer reauthorization there is all kinds of problems. >> @-at-sign of that was the number given to you from when you received but that readout from that briefing i assume it was accurate. >> actually is that high so one of the first questions we got today from the gentleman from arizona asking 42 individuals that the homeland security identified illegal migrants coming forward on the terrorist watchlist so does i.c.e. inform you about that information? you indicated you did not know. >> i think it was cbp. not i.c.e. and my responses it would go to the fbi of the investigative arm. >> by definition on the

terrorism watchlist. i think it would go straight to you. >> we certainly do work hand in hand with the fbi and then we would be the lawyers involved working with the fbi investigating. >> i understand what is supposed to happen but if you couple that with the response and asking his answer is i don't know even though is widely reported in the press and that goes to the national security division. >> did anybody at the national security division encourage anyone to purchase pegasus?

>> . >> i don't know about that matter those that have briefed us on it and "the new york times" article defense firm that with the bid for pegasus spyware that has exquisite spying software with those dissidents in some places and here you have l3 that they were encouraged and then to tell me if any of those people work of the national security division. >> i don't know if we have any information to be aware of public reporting. i don't have any other information. >> is that a yes or no?

>> i will not comment any further. >> whether or not our own government used a private company to gort by spy software you say i will not get a yes or no because you don't think we deserve to know that quick. >> i am not aware of the facts. >> so you should be able to tell me whether or not. >> . >> . >> mr. owens time is expired. >> there is a secret works place on —- secret workspace

that is maintained by the department of justice. >> i'm not familiar with the premise of your question. you're not aware of the workplace the department of justice had? and you cannot tell me whether or not the national security division has received information that has flowedd through the law firm of the democratic party? > correct. >> i go back to the plausible deniability from the biden family and speaking of them a remarkable piece came out on fox news joe biden has 14 of hunter's business associates while vice president. i know you will not answer any questions about hunter biden with the ongoing investigationes

but is joe biden compromised quick. not comment because they do not comment on any matter that may or may not be a matter of investigation those that were confirmed i am neither know or confirming nor denying an investigation. i'm just not commenting. >> don't you think the american people deserve to know the firsti' family is compromised. >> we speak through our filings in court we do not make allegations. >> so recently and then to ask a lot of questions whether president trump of january 6 and he was repeating the premise of prosecutorial pathways and lo and behold the same day the department of

justice those filings relate to the "washington post" and it seems like the biden family you all have the propriety not talking about these things whether republican are you aware of and authorize the so when he sate down with lester holt? >> as representative of the national security division for the house security committee we are not old an answer whether or not the biden family is compromised? we don't deserve that quick. >> we speak through our filings in court. that is part of the rule of law designed to protect the rights of anyone who was accused and the integrity of the investigation. and then the appointed inspector general so can you

at least acknowledge that you don't live up to that pillar. >> we speak with the integrity of our investigation. >> or when jim comey leads to his professor betty what is said between people at a baseball game when you are getting special treatment from the media. so the american people have the lowest perception and belief of the integrity of the justice department and that we can stonewall and not give answers you will not tell me whether our own government can operate you will not tell me

if that was passing new information and to be recategorized and will tell me of the president of the united compromised when we know he is lying when joein biden said repeatedly he never talk to hunter biden about business here you have 14 documented meetings are you able to investigate this? or is it just what somebody else. said that you are basically political showing? if this is accurate the justice department and fbi have been corrupted to their core to the point the american people will have no confidence in equal application of the law. that is what your behavior is continuing. >> we don't conduct investigations in public set

the gentleman's time is expired. >> we take care the assertions that we take are based of facts and evidence spirit the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> what we make in court are based on the facts in pursuit of justice that is our solemn obligation. >> plausible deniability. rs>> and it's an obligation of taken seriously over 20 years. >> i thank you for the entire team for service to the country and in pursuit of the rule of law and justice.

without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit additionalf written questions we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

c-span.or