Merrick Garland In Serious Legal Trouble - Jim Jordan Drops Hammer

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America, and what if I told

you that the head of the Department of Justice is violating a law that he's jailing someone

else for? Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe

Those little things really help us out, and they help our channel continue to grow

You guys probably know by now that Steve Bannon is going to jail, going to prison, for violating

a congressional subpoena. Peter Navarro already went to jail, went to prison, for violating a congressional subpoena

Apparently, suddenly, we take congressional subpoenas very seriously. I mean, several members of the Obama administration routinely ignored congressional subpoenas

and nothing ever happened to them. But now suddenly, with a Democrat in the Justice Department, we take them very seriously

That is, until they apply to the people at the top of the Justice Department

You see, the audio of Richard Herr's interview with Joe Biden, the one where he calls him

something like a kindly old man with memory problems, that's why he's not prosecuting

him, Congress wants to hear this audio, and they subpoenaed it because they want to know

what they're dealing with in terms of the President's cognitive ability. Merrick Garland asked President, or pushed President Biden, apparently, to claim executive

privilege over it, and now they are subpoenaing it from the Department of Justice

Merrick Garland has defied the subpoena and said he will continue to defy the subpoena

And then he mentions in Congress why he's defying the subpoena. So he's committing the same crime he's putting Steve Bannon in prison for, and he's bragging

about it. Let's take a look. ... which the transcripts that you already have were created

Releasing the audio would shield cooperation with the department in future investigations

and it could influence witnesses' answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement

interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public. In response, certain members of this committee and the Oversight Committee are seeking contempt

as a means of obtaining, for no legitimate purpose, sensitive law enforcement information

that could harm the integrity of future investigations. This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department's work

It comes alongside threats to defund particular department investigations, most recently the

special counsel's prosecution of the former president. It comes alongside false claims that a jury verdict in a state trial brought by a local

district attorney was somehow controlled by the Justice Department. That conspiracy theory is an attack on the judicial process itself

It comes as individual career agents and prosecutors have been singled out just for doing their jobs

It comes as baseless and extremely dangerous falsehoods are being spread about the FBI's

law enforcement operations. And it comes at a time when we are seeing heinous threats of violence being directed

at the Justice Department's career civil servants. These repeated attacks on the Justice Department are unprecedented, and they are unfounded

These attacks have not, and they will not, influence our decision making

I view contempt as a serious matter, but I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors

and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations. I will not be intimidated, and the Justice Department will not be intimidated

We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence, and we will not back

down from defending democracy. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General

We will now proceed to the five-minute rule with questions. The gentleman from Florida is recognized. Mr. Chairman

Gentleman from the ranking members. I have some unanimous consent requests. Does that have to happen right now? No, they could wait

Okay, well, go ahead. Mr. Chair, there was an allegation made in a letter yesterday suggesting that the FBI

was involved in a murder. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that

I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that

I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that

I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that

I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that

I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that