Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Allows Release of Trump Tax Returns to New York Prosecutor; Confirmation Hearing for Attorney General Nominee Merrick Garland; Attorney General Nominee Merrick Garland Delivers Opening Statement. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired February 22, 2021 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: Leading the Department of Justice is vowing to prosecute the domestic extremists involved in the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol, January 6th.

[10:00:08]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: And also promising, a Department of Justice reset restoring the century-and-a half-old department's legacy of political independence.

Also this, just happening also in Washington, and the Supreme Court clearing the way for the Manhattan district attorney, Cy Vance, to obtain former President Donald Trump's tax returns. This is a huge loss to Trump, who had fiercely fought to shield his financial papers from prosecutors but he is not able to do that now says the high court.

SCIUTTO: No question, a big loss for the president there. We do want to bring in our experts, Abby Phillip, Manu Raju, Elie Honig, Laura Coates.

Manu, if I could begin with you, it is been 30 years, you have to go all the way back to Janet Reno to an attorney general who had to wait this long for his or her confirmation hearing. Why so long and what do we expect to happen now? Do we expect him to get bipartisan support?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is expected that he will ultimately get bipartisan support. And the reason why for the delay here is a mixture of politics and policy. Republicans did not want to move forward on the proceedings during the impeachment trial. They did not allow the effort to be green lighted. Also this is held up because of the power sharing agreement that would actually allow this 50/50 Senate to officially organize.

So, Lindsey Graham, who was a Republican in the minority right now, was actually the chairman of this committee at the beginning of this new Congress because that power sharing agreement had not been in place. That is no longer the case. Now, it is in place. Dick Durbin is the chairman of the committee, and now they're moving ahead.

Now, ultimately, we do expect some Republicans to support this nomination on the floor, which is why after today, after tomorrow, the confirmation hearings, we do expect a vote in the full Judiciary Committee over the next week and a half or so and then it will to the full Senate. That will still be quite a delay from when past presidents have gotten their past attorney general's nominees oftentimes on the first day or first few weeks of the administration. This is not going to be the case for here, for Merrick Garland.

I expect most Republicans, some may vote against him, a lot will vote for him. It will be a big question about how he answers some of the key questions today. Will he get pinned down as Republicans will try to pin him down on pursuing investigations that they want to pursue? Will he decide he can't get pinned down on that? And will his decision not get pinned down be enough to satisfy Republicans on this committee?

So a lot of questions today, expect some pointed questions from Republicans and a lot of questions from both sides about what he will do about the former president and the former President Donald Trump's role in the January 6 attacks. So that is going to be a big focus.

HARLOW: That is something that I think is really interesting, Laura Coates, that he brings up, and Dick Durbin just said this to reporters walking into this hearing, basically, I want Merrick Garland, if confirmed, to focus on the attacks, the insurrection, not on the former president. And this goes to Biden's comments in the town hall in CNN last week that the Justice Department does not report to him.

Hold that thought. Let's listen to the nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

(LIVE COVERAGE OF GARLAND'S CONFIRMATION HEARING)

MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and members of the Judiciary Committee. I am honored to appear before you today as the president's nominee to be the attorney general.

I would like first to take this opportunity to introduce you to my wife, Lynn, my daughters Jesse and Becky, and my son-in-law, Zan. I am grateful to them and to my entire extended family that is watching today on C-Span every day of my life.

The president nominates the attorney general to by a lawyer not for any individual but for people of the United States. July 2020 marked the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Department of Justice, making this a fitting time to remember the mission of the attorney general and of the department.

It is a fitting time to reaffirm that the rule -- the role of the attorney general is to serve the rule of law and to ensure equal justice under law. And it is a fitting time to recognize the more than 115,000 career employees of the department and as law enforcement agencies and their commitment to serve the cause of justice and protect the safety of our communities.

If I am confirmed as attorney general, it will be the culmination of a career I have dedicated to ensuring that the laws of our country are fairly and faithfully enforced and the rights of all Americans are protected.

Before I became a judge almost 24 years ago, a significant portion of my professional life was spent at the Justice Department. As a special assistant to Ben Civiletti, the last of the trio of post-Watergate attorneys generals, as line assistant U.S. attorney, as a supervisor in the criminal division and finally as a senior official in the department.

[10:05:08]

Many of the policies at the Justice Department developed during those years are the foundation for reaffirming the norms that will ensure that the department adheres to the rule of law. These are policies that protect the independence of the department from partisan influence and law enforcement that strictly regulate communications with the White House, that establish guidelines for FBI domestic operations and foreign intelligence collection, that ensure respectful treatment of the press, that read the Freedom of Information Act generously, that respect the professionalism of DOJ employees and set out the principles of federal prosecution to guide prosecutorial discretion.

In conversations that I have had with many of you before this hearing, you have asked why I would agree to leave a lifetime appointment as a judge. I have told you that I love being a judge. But I have also told you that this is an important moment for me to step forward because of my deep respect for the Department of Justice and for its critical role of ensuring the rule of law.

Celebrating DOJ's 150th year reminds us of the origins of the department, which was founded during reconstruction in the aftermath of the civil war to secure the civil rights that were promised in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. The first attorney general appointed by President Grant to head the new department led it in a concerted battle to protect black voting rights from the violence of white extremists, successfully prosecuting hundreds of cases against white supremacist members of the Ku Klux Klan.

Almost a century later, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the department, civil rights division, with the mission to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

That mission on the website of the department's civil rights division remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice. Communities of color and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, in education, in employment and in the criminal justice system. And they bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution and climate change.

150 years after the department's founding, battling extremist attacks on our democratic institutions also remains central to the department's mission. From 1995 to 1997, I supervised the prosecution of the perpetrators of the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, who sought to spark a revolution that would topple the federal government. If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy, the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.

And that critical work is but a part of the broad scope of the department's responsibilities. Justice Department protects Americans from environmental degradation and the use of market power, from fraud and corruption, from violent crime and cyber crime and from drug trafficking and child exploitation. And it must do all of this without ever taking its eye off of the risk of another devastating attack by foreign terrorists.

The attorney general takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am mindful of the tremendous responsibility that comes with this role. As attorney general, later Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously said, quote, the prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America. While prosecutors, at their best, are one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when they act from malice or other based motives, they are one of the worst.

[10:10:00]

Jackson then went on to say, the citizens' safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not fictional purposes and who approaches the task with humility.

That was the prosecutor I tried to be during my prior service in the Department of Justice. That is the spirit I tried to bring to my tenure as a federal judge. And if confirmed, I promise to do my best to live up to that ideal as attorney general. Thank you.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Thank you, Judge Garland.

Before I turn to my questions, I want to add a few mechanics for the hearing. Senators will have eight minutes in the first round of questions followed by a five-minute second round. And I ask members to do their best to stay within their allotted time.

We will take a break every once in a while for ten minutes. I'm hoping the first will be sometime near 11:00. At about 12:15 and 12:30, we will break for lunch for 30 minutes. I beg you to stick with that schedule as you can and be back in time so that we can keep the hearing moving along.

So at this point, let me turn to questions.

You were sent to Oklahoma City, 1995. What happened there was the deadliest act of homegrown domestic terrorism in modern American history. 168 people had been killed, including 19 children. Hundreds were injured. You were supervising the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols who were accused of being complicit and leading in that destruction. Now, if you are confirmed as attorney general, which I believe you will be, you will face what is known as the biggest, most complex investigation in Justice Department history, and that is the investigation around the events of January 6. 230 have been arrested so far, some 500 are under investigation. We know that the death of at least one police officer is one of the major elements in this investigation.

I'd like to ask you to reflect on two things. What is going on in America? Is Oklahoma City just a one-off and unrelated to what happened here? Can you measure based on what you've learned so far what kind of forces are at work to divide and destroy the American dream?

Secondly, when it comes to this prosecution, are there elements that we should consider in terms of law enforcement to deal with this rising threat to the American democracy?

GARLAND: Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee today. I'm grateful for this opportunity.

I don't think that this is necessarily a one-off. FBI Director Wray has indicated that the threat of domestic terrorism and particularly of white supremacist extremists is his number one concern in this area. This is coupled with an enormous rise in hate crimes over the past few years.

There is a line from Oklahoma City and there is another line from Oklahoma City all the way back to the experiences that I mentioned in my opening with respect to the battles of the original Justice Department against the Ku Klux Klan. We must do everything in the power of the Justice Department to prevent this kind of interference with the policies of American democratic institutions. And I plan, if you now confirm me for attorney general, to do everything in my power to ensure that we are protected.

DUBRIN: Judge Garland, it goes without saying, but we want to make it a record, we abhor violence, whether it comes from the right or left, whatever its source. It has to place in responsible constitutional dialogue in America.

Currently though, we are faced with elements that weren't there 25 years ago in Oklahoma City, a proliferation of weapons, secondly, social media and the internet, which serves as a gathering place for many of these domestic terrorists. What are your thoughts about how we should deal with those elements from law enforcement viewpoint?

GARLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree that we are facing a more dangerous period than we faced in Oklahoma City, than at that time.

[10:15:00]

From what have I have seen, and I have no inside information about how the department is developing its work, it looks like an extremely aggressive and perfectly appropriate beginning to an investigation, all across the country in the same way our original Oklahoma City investigation was many times more. I don't yet know what additional resources will be required by the department. I can assure you that this would be my first priority and my first briefing when I return to the department if I am confirmed.

DURBIN: Judge Garland, several years ago I went to an immigration court hearing in Downtown Chicago. It was in a high-rise loop building. I met the immigration court judge. She had been on the job almost 20 years and it seemed like a very conscientious and fair person. She asked me to stay for the docket call particularly for the first clients on the docket.

The first clients on the docket were a four-year-old girl named Martha (ph). When the judge asked that all of the people in the courtroom be seated, she had to be helped into the chair that was too tall for her to get into. She was handed a stuffed animal to hold during the hearing.

And at the same table was an unlikely boy named Hamilton, who was given a match boxcar which he played with on top of the table. He was six years old.

They were victims of the zero-tolerance policy. We remember it well. Thousands of children were forcibly removed from their parents, separated and, many times, lost in the bureaucracy. Some have stated that the policy about the Trump administration was just a continuation of Obama era policy. That isn't true.

The Obama administration did not have policies that resulted in the mass separation of parents and children. And on rare occasions, separations occurred, this was due to suspicion of trafficking or fraud, not because of intentional cruel policy to separate children.

The Justice Department's inspector general conducted an investigation of the zero-tolerance policy and noted that the Justice Department was, quote, the driving force, close quote, in that policy. There is still a lot that we do not know about that policy and the accountability for the officials who were responsible for it.

So let me ask you this. This committee is going to hold oversight hearings to get to the bottom of it. Will you commit to cooperate with those investigations?

GARLAND: Senator, I think the over sight responsibility of this committee is one of its very most important things. It is a duty imposed by the Constitution and I greatly respect it. I think that the policy was shameful. I can't imagine anything worse than tearing parents from their children. And we will provide all of the cooperation that we possibly can.

DURBIN: I thank you for that.

When it comes to congressional oversight, this committee has a role in restoring independence and integrity to the Justice Department through oversight hearings. It has a longstanding tradition of holding annual Justice Department oversight hearings. But, sadly, it is been three years since the attorney general has been called before this committee. I pledge that as chairman, I will hold annual DOJ oversight hearings where members from both sides of the aisle can ask important questions of you and in that capacity.

I don't want to go into detail but ask you, obviously, would you agree to cooperate in that commitment to oversight hearing?

GARLAND: Of course, if I'm confirmed, I will certainly cooperate.

DURBIN: And when requests are made for information by members of the committee, I hope that I can also have your commitment to cooperation in providing timely answers?

GARLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will be as responsive as we possibly can. As I said, I have great respect for and belief in the oversight role of this committee.

DURBIN: Thank you. Senator Grassley?

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Yes. Since you're currently a sitting judge, you're bound by the code of conduct of U.S. judges. Nevertheless, I hope that we could get frank answers from you on your views. And when we talked last on the phone, you told me you would get guidance from the administrative office on what you can or can't say. I assume that you sought that guidance. If so, what did they advise you?

GARLAND: Yes, Senator Grassley, I did. And they advised me just as you and I thought that they would, cannon three bars me from commenting on any pending or impending case that is in any court.

[10:20:07]

But I am free to talk about policy with you.

GRASSLEY: Okay. I'm going to go to the Durham investigation. At Barr's hearing, he stated the following with regard to Mueller's investigation, quote, it is virtually that the Special Council be allowed to complete his investigation. Also at that same hearing, Senator Feinstein asked, quote, will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation, end of quote, Attorney General Barr answered, Senator Feinstein, with a one word, yes.

With respect to Special Council Durham's investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation. If confirmed, will you commit to providing Special Council Durham with the staff resources, funds and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation?

GARLAND: Well, Senator, I don't have any information about the investigation as I sit here today. And another one of the very first things I'm going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham, figure out how his investigation is going.

I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position. And sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision.

GRASSLEY: Okay. And I suppose that would be an answer that he would only be removed for cause then, would that be your position?

GARLAND: Well, Senator, I really do have to have an opportunity to talk with him. I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don't have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don't have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.

GRASSLEY: If confirmed, would you commit to publicly releasing Special Council Durham's report just like Mueller report was made public?

GARLAND: So, Senator, I'm a great believer in transparency. I would though have to talk with Mr. Durham and understand the nature of what he's been doing and the nature of the report. But I am very much committed to transparency and to explaining Justice Department decision-making.

GRASSLEY: At this point, I'm not going to take exception to the answers you gave me about Durham because I think you're an honorable person. They're not quite as explicit as I hope they would be, like we got from Barr for the Mueller investigation, but I think you've come close to satisfying me, but maybe not entirely.

We're in the midst of poly drug crisis in addition to opioids, methamphetamine and cocaine and fentanyl, and fentanyl analogs are plaguing our country, increasingly sophisticated drug trafficking organizations both domestic and internationally try to skirt the law by changing their molecular structure.

So the Center for Disease Control has found that drug overdose deaths rose to their highest level ever measured during the pandemic, with the overall jump in deaths being driven most substantially by drugs like fentanyl. We must stop this fentanyl substance from entering our neighborhoods and killing thousands of Americans.

So my question is, as you lead the Justice Department, having oversight over the drug enforcement administration within that department, and they will be addressing the spread of fentanyl analogs and related substances by pushing for continued class-wide prohibition of fentanyl.

So I didn't quite make my question clear. Would you lead the Justice Department in pushing for continued class-wide prohibition of fentanyl dialogues?

GARLAND: Senator, I'm familiar with this problem. One of my roles as the chief judge of the D.C. circuit was to serve on the pre-trial serves committee for the pre-trial services agency for the district and we were constantly advised of the fact that the formula was being slightly changed constantly. And this was a problem both for detection as well as for the problem of enforcement.

[10:25:05] To be honest, I'm no chemist. This is one of the reasons I ended up being a lawyer instead of a doctor. But I would need to look at what would be proposed. But I do understand the scope of this problem and I'm in favor of doing something either by scheduling or legislation, if I'm confirmed, that would address the problem that you're talking about, which is an enormous problem for enforcement.

GRASSLEY: Yes. I want to go to the death penalty, because we have some people already prosecuted where the death penalty has been advocated or sought, and one of those is the people that were involved in Boston marathon. So, the question the Justice Department, again, under the Obama administration sought and received and appropriate death sentence of death, that sentence is currently being appealed. Will you commit to defending these sentences on appeal?

GARLAND: Well, Senator, this now we're rubbing up against the exactly problem that you asked me about in the beginning. These are pending cases. And as a sitting judge, the cannons bar me from making comment on pending cases.

GRASSLEY: My last question will have to deal with the investigation that is underway by some of us in Congress about Hunter Biden. Have you discussed the case with the president or anyone else? And I don't expect you to discuss your private conversations with the president, but members of this committee always asked judges or other people, what did you discuss with the president, for instance, your position on abortion. So have you discussed this Hunter Biden case with the president or anyone else?

GARLAND: I have not. The president made abundantly clear in every public statement before and after my nomination that decisions about investigations and prosecutions will be left to the Justice Department. That was the reason that I was willing to take on this job. And so the answer to your question is no.

GRASSLEY: Okay, thank you.

DURBIN: Thanks, Senator Grassley. Senator Leahy would be next but he is outside of the jurisdiction of Zoom at the moment. I guess that is appropriate. And so Senator Feinstein will be recognized.

SEN. DIANE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome.

Throughout your career, you have been praised by people on both sides of the aisle. When you were nominated at the Supreme Court, President Obama said you, quote, someone who would bring a spirit of decency, modesty and integrity, even-handedness and excellence, end quote.

Similarly Senator Orrin Hatch calls you, a quote, fine man who would be a, quote, moderate choice for the court. Even Kerry Severino of the Conservative Judicial Crisis Network once called you, quote, the best scenario we could hope for to bring attention and the politics in the city down a notch.

At a time when America feels more polarized than ever before, this sort of bipartisanship is truly rare. So I ask this question, can all Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, counts on you to faithfully and fairly enforce our laws?

GARLAND: Yes, Senator, that is my personality. That is everything I've done in my career and that is my vision for the Justice Department, to dispense the law fairly and impartially without respect to persons and without respect to political parties.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you for that statement. On January 6th, a group of white supremacists launched a terrorist attack on our Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of a democratic election. Their attempt failed and resulted in at least five fatalities, including a Capitol police officer. It also led federal prosecutors to file over 180 charges and initiate 25 domestic terrorism cases.

[10:30:03]

So this is not the first time the Justice Department has been forced to investigate and prosecute.