Attorney General Garland testifies before GOP-led House Judiciary Committee

US Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on September 20, 2023 in Washington, DC. 

House Republicans and Attorney General Merrick Garland clashed Wednesday at a testy hearing. Here are key takeaways:

Republicans’ attacks on Garland preview impeachment inquiry: Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, one of the three committee chairs spearheading the impeachment inquiry, accused the Justice Department of not prosecuting Hunter Biden over the tax years when Hunter Biden was on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.

Jordan claimed that Hunter’s work on Burisma was related to Joe Biden and the then-vice president’s demand that Ukraine fire its prosecutor general – even though Biden was carrying out bipartisan US policy that the prosecutor was not doing enough to prosecute corruption, including at Ukrainian companies like Burisma.

Garland stands firm: He rejected allegations from Republicans and an IRS whistleblower that the Hunter Biden investigation was tainted by politics, and said that he did not interfere with the probe in any way. He also disputed allegations that US attorney-turned special counsel David Weiss was unable to charge Hunter Biden anywhere in the country that he wanted to, and not just in Delaware. “if (Weiss) wanted to bring a case in any jurisdiction, he would be able to do that,” he said.

Garland leans on Trump’s appointment of Hunter prosecutor: Over and over, Garland relied on the same refrain: Weiss had been appointed by Trump, and he left Weiss in charge after taking office. When Garland was pressed by Republicans on details of specific elements of the investigation, he pointed back to Weiss, saying those were questions he could answer. Garland also noted that Weiss is expected to testify before the panel next month, saying that lawmakers would have the chance to ask him questions directly.

But Garland doesn’t say why Weiss was appointed as special counsel: After Hunter Biden’s plea deal fell apart this summer, Weiss requested and was granted an appointment as special counsel last month. Weiss indicted Hunter Biden on gun charges last week. Garland was questioned repeatedly about why the appointment came when it did, more than four years into the investigation into Hunter Biden. Garland would not comment on specifics behind the appointment, however, other than to say Weiss made the request.

Dems push back: Garland got a bit of a breather when Democrats questioned him, with questions that were teed up to defend the Hunter Biden investigation as well as the special counsel’s investigations into Trump.

Garland objects to question about religious discrimination: One of the most heated exchanges Wednesday occurred when Garland was questioned over whether the Justice Department, under his leadership, was improperly targeting Catholics because of their religious beliefs. Garland took exception to the question.

“The idea that someone with my family background would discriminate against any religious background is so outrageous, so absurd, that it’s hard for me to even answer your question,” shouted Garland, his voice audibly shaking.

CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz, Holes Lybrand, Zachary Cohen, Devan Cole, Casey Riddle and Abby Baggini contributed to this report.

During Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky brought up Ray Epps, a participant in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, who has been the subject of baseless conspiracy theories alleging that he was a “false flag” provocateur working with the FBI to incite Trump supporters.

Epps was charged Monday with a misdemeanor, engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, and pleaded guilty on Wednesday. Massie, suggesting the charge against Epps was light, told Garland: “Meanwhile you’re sending grandmas to prison. You’re putting people away for 20 years for merely filming. Some people weren’t even there.”

Facts First: It’s not true that anybody who has been sentenced in connection with the January 6 riot has received 20 years in prison “for merely filming.” And the rioter Massie’s office says he was talking about, who has not yet been sentenced, is extremely unlikely to receive a sentence even close to that long.

The only January 6-related sentence to date that is at or above the 20-year mark was handed down to Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of multiple felonies including seditious conspiracy. Though Tarrio wasn’t at the Capitol on January 6 – he had been ordered to leave Washington after an arrest two days prior – Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, said, “Mr. Tarrio was the ultimate leader of that conspiracy” and “had an outsized impact on the events of the day.” Other January 6 figures whose sentences were in the neighborhood of 20 years, such as senior Proud Boy Ethan Nordean (18 years), Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes (18 years) and senior Proud Boy Joe Biggs (17 years), were also convicted of seditious conspiracy along with other felonies.

Massie spokesperson John Kennedy told CNN after the hearing on Wednesday that Massie was referring to the case of Ryan Zink, a riot participant from Texas who was convicted by a jury last week of one felony (obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting) and two misdemeanors (entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds).

But contrary to Massie’s suggestion, Zink was not a mere observer just filming the riot; according to court documents, he recorded himself on Capitol grounds making enthusiastic comments like, “We knocked down the gates! We’re storming the Capitol! You can’t stop us!” and “We stormed the Capitol. There’s thousands of us here. They can’t stop us all!” And while Kennedy provided a link to a local news article from 2021 that claimed Zink was facing up to 21 years in prison, it is a virtual certainty that he will not receive a sentence approaching that length; rioters with roughly similar cases have received much shorter sentences.

This post has been updated with a comment from Rep. Thomas Massie’s office.

The White House lambasted the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing with Attorney General Merrick Garland Wednesday as a “circus” and part of a “distraction campaign” by “extreme House Republicans” ahead of the government funding deadline next week.

The combative hearing offered a preview of the coming Republican impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden focused on allegations surrounding his son, Hunter Biden, as House Republicans peppered Garland with questions.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was not instructed to charge Donald Trump with federal crimes, pushing back against comments made by the former president over the weekend. 

Trump told NBC that the charges he’s facing as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents and election interference probes are “Biden political indictments,” and that Biden “said to the attorney general ‘indict him.’”

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California asked Garland to respond to the allegation, “Was [Trump] telling the truth or was he lying when he said the president told you to indict him?”

“No one has told me to indict,” Garland said, “and in this case the decision to indict was made by the special counsel.”

“So that statement the president made on Sunday was false,” Schiff asked.

Garland again repeated that “no one has told me who should be indicted in any matter like this, and the decision about indictment was made by Mr. Smith,” referring to special counsel Jack Smith.

Rep. Eric Swalwell questions Attorney General Merrick Garland as he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on September 20, 2023 in Washington, DC.

GOP Rep. Thomas Massie suggested that Attorney General Merrick Garland could be held in contempt of Congress for declining to answer questions about an ongoing investigation.

Pressed by Massie for information related to several active probes during a hearing Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, Garland told the Kentucky Republican that it is Justice Department policy not to comment about ongoing investigations.

“We are the committee that is responsible for your creation, for your existence of your department. You cannot continue to give us these answers. Aren’t you, in fact, in contempt of Congress when you refuse to answer?” Massie said.

Garland told Massie, “the protection of pending investigations and ongoing investigations — as I briefly discussed in another dialogue a few moments ago — goes back to the separation of powers, which gives to the executive branch the sole authority to conduct prosecutions.”

Democrats on the panel scoffed at Massie’s suggestion that Garland could be held in contempt of Congress.

Speaking after Massie, Rep. Eric Swalwell pointed out that the committee’s GOP chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, never complied with his subpoena from the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

“Mr. Attorney General, my colleague just said that you should be held in contempt of Congress. And that is quite rich, because the guy who’s leading the hearing room right now, Mr. Jordan, is about 500 days into evading his subpoena — about 500 days,” the Democrat from California said.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, left, talks to Rep. Ken Buck, right, as Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on September 20, 2023 in Washington, DC.

Attorney General Merrick Garland would have been criticized no matter the actions he had taken on the investigation into Hunter Biden, Rep. Ken Buck argued during a hearing Wednesday, where the issue of the probe came up several times.

The Colorado Republican has expressed skepticism toward the GOP impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

During the hearing, Republicans have attacked Garland over the handling of the investigation as well as the appointment of US Attorney David Weiss — who negotiated a scuttled plea deal with Hunter Biden — to be special counsel last month.

Buck said that Garland would have been accused of obstructing the Hunter Biden investigation had he removed Weiss, who was appointed by Trump, when he became attorney general. He also would have been accused of interference had he removed Weiss for not moving fast enough or if he had appointed someone else as special counsel, Buck said.

“You didn’t have the opportunity to make a decision on the leadership of that investigation,” Buck added.

Some context: Buck’s comments are notable because of his senior position on the House Judiciary Committee, one of the three leading the House GOP impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. Last week, Buck penned an op-ed calling out his Republican colleagues for moving forward with an impeachment inquiry without the facts to back it up.

“Republicans in the House who are itching for an impeachment are relying on an imagined history,” Buck wrote in The Washington Post.

Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on Wednesday.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose family fled antisemitic persecution in Eastern Europe, pushed back Wednesday against allegations that the Justice Department, under his leadership, was improperly targeting Catholics because of their religious beliefs. 

The accusation, raised by GOP Rep. Jeff Van Drew, stems from an FBI field office memo issued earlier this year that seemed to suggest the FBI was targeting “radical traditionalist Catholics.”

The memo, which used a designation from the Southern Poverty Law Center to flag an eccentric Catholic group, was almost immediately pulled and quickly disavowed by FBI and DOJ leadership, including Garland himself. 

Still, the memo has become a cause célèbre among conservatives who allege the Justice Department is targeting their First Amendment rights. 

In a testy exchange with Van Drew, Garland slammed the New Jersey Republican for raising the allegation, and asking whether he believed Catholics were extremists because of their religious affiliation. 

This was the exchange:

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Wednesday that women living in states where abortion is banned have a constitutional right to travel to other states to get access to the procedure. 

“My view about this right to travel is the same as Justice Kavanaugh’s in his separate opinion,” he said during the House Judiciary Committee hearing, referring to the conservative justice’s concurring opinion in the majority decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Garland also highlighted the Justice Department’s efforts to expand access to abortion after last year’s Supreme Court decision, noting that the Biden administration has already scored an early victory in a lawsuit brought against an extremely restrictive abortion law in Idaho. 

“We have filed a number of statements of interest in other places, and we’re continuing to look at where it would be appropriate to intervene,” he added.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland stands for the Pledge of Allegiance prior to testifying before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the "Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice," on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on Wednesday.

The House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Merrick Garland is in a short break. Throughout the hearing so far, Garland has forcefully rebuked congressional Republicans who have accused the Justice Department of political bias.

“I am not the president’s lawyer,” Garland said in his opening statement. “I will also add that I am not Congress’s prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people.”

Garland delivered the statement as he faces vitriol from Republicans, who accuse him of failing to protect the department from politicization, and dissatisfaction from Democrats, who say the department has been too timid in going after former President Donald Trump.

Republicans on the panel have grilled Garland with questions about the investigation into President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and his now-scuttled plea deal, as well as special counsel Jack Smith’s two indictments of Trump.

Garland told lawmakers that the department welcomes “public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate oversight,” but “singling out individual career public servants who are just doing their jobs is dangerous – particularly at a time of increased threats to the safety of public servants and their families.”

“We will not be intimidated,” Garland said. “We will do our jobs free from outside interference. And we will not back down from defending our democracy.”

Garland also denied interfering in the Hunter Biden probe and said he was not instructed to charge Donald Trump with federal crimes, pushing back against comments made by the former president over the weekend. 

Wednesday’s hearing has also offered a preview of the House Republican’s impeachment inquiry into the president – which will have its first hearing next week – and the partisan brawling that will accompany it.

The bulk of the allegations Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Republicans are investigating in the impeachment inquiry relate to Hunter Biden’s business dealings, though Republicans have uncovered no evidence to date that the president personally received any money. The House Judiciary Committee has also been probing allegations from an IRS whistleblower that the Justice Department investigation into Hunter Biden was politically tainted.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan speaks as Attorney General Merrick Garland appears before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan claimed that President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden has, himself, admitted that he was unqualified for his former role on the board of directors of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

“He wasn’t qualified to be on the board of Burisma. Not my words, his words,” Jordan claimed. “He said he got on the board because of his last name.” 

Jordan made the claim in his opening remarks at a Wednesday hearing at which Jordan and other Republicans pressed Attorney General Merrick Garland about the Justice Department’s handling of investigations into former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Facts First: It’s not true that Hunter Biden himself said he wasn’t qualified to sit on the Burisma board. In fact, Hunter Biden said in a 2019 interview with ABC News that “I was completely qualified to be on the board” and defended his qualifications in detail. He did acknowledge, as Jordan said, that he would “probably not” have been asked to be on the board if he was not a Biden — but he nonetheless explicitly rejected claims that he wasn’t qualified, calling them “misinformation.”

When the ABC interviewer asked what his qualifications for the role were, he said: “Well, I was vice chairman on the board of Amtrak for five years. I was the chairman of the board of the UN World Food Programme. I was a lawyer for Boies Schiller Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world. Bottom line is that I know that I was completely qualified to be on the board to head up the corporate governance and transparency committee on the board. And that’s all that I focused on. Basically, turning a Eastern European independent natural gas company into Western standards of corporate governance.”

When the ABC interviewer said, “You didn’t have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself, though,” Biden responded, “No, but I think I had as much knowledge as anybody else that was on the board — if not more.”

Asked if he would have been asked to be on the board if his last name wasn’t Biden, Biden said, “I don’t know. I don’t know. Probably not.” He added “there’s a lot of things” in his life that wouldn’t have happened if he had a different last name. 

More context: Biden had served as the board chair for World Food Program USA, a nonprofit that supports the UN World Food Programme, not the UN program itself as he claimed in the interview.