See Why Project 2025 Is NO MATCH For Jasmine Crockett

Mr. Hamilton, I don't want you to feel left out of this conversation, so I'm going to make sure I ask you some questions. Let me know if you're having problems answering them, because they really should be yes or no. Let's see, you're the executive director for the American America First legal, correct? - That's correct. - All right. And America First Legal is a member of project 2025, which is dedicated to creating the playbook for the next conservative administration and what it calls the project pillars. Correct. We are proud contributors to project 2025. Okay. And are you familiar with project 2020 five's mandate for leadership? - In fact, I am. - Okay. And in fact, you wrote some of the sections of this mandate related to the DOJ, correct? Sure did. And the mandate outlines policy priorities for the next conservative president. - Is that correct? - It does. You You've done a great job. I just want to let you know. All right, so let's walk through some of the provisions of the mandate. It calls for eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, deploying the military for the use of domestic law enforcement against protesters under the Insurrection Act of 1807. It also has the repealing of schedule F status for thousands of federal employees to allow a president to replace career civil servants with unqualified Partizan loyalists. That's probably my favorite of it. It also prohibits the FBI from combating the spread of misinformation and disinformation, like Russia and China, who are actively trying to interfere with American elections. I don't know why or how anybody can support project 2025, and I know that there was allegedly a joke About dictators and whether or not that's funny. But in in the United States of America, dictatorships are never funny, and project 2025 is giving the playbook for authoritarianism as well as the next dictator to come in. Have any of you ever heard of project 2025? This isn't a trick question either, and no one has responded, so let me help you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter the Heritage Foundation's mandate for leadership. The Conservative Promise Project 2025, chapter ten, Department of Agriculture, pages 289 through 318. - Into the record. - Without objection. Thank you so much. This action plan, written by Trump's closest advisors, has a whole lot to say about the farm bill that I don't think my colleagues on this committee will like. It calls for the elimination of the sugar program, which would destroy what is left of our domestic sugar industry at a time when they are already struggling. These Trump advisers also called to eliminate the Vital Conservation Reserve program, pulling the rug out from farmers and ranchers all across the country. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. I encourage everyone watching this to read what I just entered into the record. Let me try to sum it up in just a couple of words. My question for each member of the panel. In a word, what would be the impact if the next farm bill completely eliminated Arc and PLC payments? If there's anyone that can answer. No one. Okay, so no one knows. Well, I will tell you the unthinkable what happened. Trump's advisors and project 2025 also called for the elimination of these vital programs. What we on the Agriculture Committee know to be a vital support to ensure our farmers and ranchers don't lose their land because of the cyclical nature of production of agriculture. Trump's advisers view as, and I quote, especially egregious examples of what they think needs to be cut. Frankly, if you want to put more farm in the farm bill, we need to get a farm bill reauthorized and out the gate before these anti-farmer advisors have a chance to be in the white House, depending on how the November election goes. Now moving on. I just want to level set because I feel as if some people don't understand how government works, and I don't know how they got to Congress. So, Mr. Wu, I'm gonna need you to help me out, because I don't know that I trust that other people will know the answers to these questions. Number one, how many branches of government do we have? - Three. - Three. Okay. Sounds good. So can you name them for me? Legislative, judiciary and executive. Very good. Okay. So currently, I think that I serve in the legislative branch. Would you agree I agree. Okay, fine. Can you tell me when somebody goes to court, such as a criminal convicted of 34 felony counts. State court in New York. Would that be the legislative people or judicial people? Well, it's really the executive that's prosecuting, and then it's within the judiciary to run the trial properly. Okay. Very good. So judiciary. So typically if someone has an issue with, say, what happens in court, do they then somehow hop from state court all the way to the federal legislative branch? Or is there a different process in which you are supposed to be able to explain any issues you may have? The process would be the judicial appellate process holding aside the issue of state versus federal. Oh, interesting. Okay. All right. So normally people don't get convicted on a state level and somehow end up litigating the issue on the federal level in the legislative branch. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right. So something is different about what's going on today. I just wanted to clarify, because I thought I was living in the Upside Down for a second. Now I want to move on and talk about how someone is prosecuted currently. Because under project 2025, we'll get there. There will be a different way to prosecute people. But currently it is my understanding and I only kind of went to law school past a couple of bar exams and practice on the state and federal levels. But just clarify for me, when someone goes in to be prosecuted, is it, say, the president of the United States that somehow becomes the state prosecutor in New York? Oh, absolutely not. Absolutely not. Because he's the executor. That's that other branch. Correct. Okay, okay. All right. So you have this prosecutor, and in this case, it's Alvin Bragg who was duly elected. Correct? Correct. Not appointed by the president. Correct. Right. Duly elected by the citizens in his jurisdiction Right, right. So he's elected, and usually there's some sort of an investigation that takes place. Correct. Prior to his election. No no, no. With a with a case. I'm sorry. Yes. I've moved on. Yes. All right, so the very first part of a case is that we go through an investigation. After that investigation, then the prosecutor usually has what we would consider to be some sort of prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not they want to go forward. Correct? Correct. All right. And then they use that discretion. But then when it's somebody that is facing a felony amount of time, which is usually in most states over a year, then they have to present it to a grand jury. Is that right? That's right. Now a grand jury is comprised of citizens. Correct? Correct. US citizens from that area. Correct. Right. Okay. So they have to come to the conclusion that they are going to issue what we call a true bill. Correct? Correct. All right. So then we have an indictment and then there's pretrial motions. There's pretrial hearings all kinds of stuff. Right? Right. All right. And then ultimately, depending on where you are, you have the opportunity to say, hey, I want a jury trial. Correct? Correct. And a jury trial is comprised of U.S. Citizens again. Right? Right. Okay. Very good. All right. So can you tell me so far if all of this took place in the case in New York? Yes. It did. Oh, okay. Okay. All right, so you get to trial now when you show up to trial and you're facing a felony amount of time as a defendant, are you not entitled to an attorney? Yes you are. And your attorney is allowed to pick the jury. They're allowed to present evidence. And ultimately, it is a jury of your peers who decides whether or not you are guilty or not. Correct. Correct. And in this case. - The judge involved, too. - And in this case, they found him guilty. Not once, not twice, not three times, not four, not five, nine, six. I could keep going on, but 34 counts were given. So the opinions of these people who were not juries is not what we do in this country. In this country, we have a system in which jurors decide who is found guilty. And if you have a problem with that, you go to the appellate court, which the last time I checked, he was raising money so that he could go to the appellate court and appeal his decision, and they will have the final say. - So thank you so much. - So lady from Texas recognized. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. This is so interesting. I a couple of things I'm just curious to know, as we're talking about lawyers and the obligations of lawyers and whether or not maybe the former president has any idea of what good lawyer obligations look like. I'm just going to ask. We're going to do we're not going to play. We're going to do. Miss Wine-banks, have you heard of any of these lawyers? I've got Robert Cheeley, Kenneth Chesbrough, Jeffrey Clark, Matthew Deperno, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Michael Ferrigno, Rudy Giuliani, Julia Hallier. I got a long list. - Have you heard of any of these people? - I have. Are you aware as to whether or not any of them have faced criminal penalties? Yes. And also been disbarred or suspended? Oh, yeah. Okay, so they've had some issues, but these are the hand-picked lawyers for Trump. I'm assuming that y'all have never been Trump lawyers, Mr. Trusty or Mr. Costello. - No, I was for a year. - Oh, you were. And you still have your bar card. - I'm sorry. - You still have your bar card? Yeah, well, unless I get targeted for daring to represent a former president, you. Have you have absolutely done a lot better than most that deal with him. So, so good for you. I also want to make sure that we talk about what two tier really looks like. And, Mr. Trusty, since you've been a prosecutor before I'm curious to know, have you ever had a criminal defendant that had over 80 counts in four different jurisdictions and somehow was not held pretrial? I know that you talked in your opening about your interpretation of what speedy trial looks like, and it's really only for those that are held pretrial. And and last time I checked, most of the time those people held pretrial. They don't have anywhere near 80 counts pending against them. But I'm curious to know, in your experience, have you ever had someone that had over 80 counts pending in four different jurisdictions and they were not held pretrial? Yes or no? Well, no specific recall, but I could answer more if you'll let me. You told me no, and I understand because I hadn't either. So in addition to that, there's been a gag order since we're going to talk about the pending trial that's going on right now. Have you ever had a defendant that violated a gag order, and then you went to the judge and the judge didn't lock them up, and they hadn't done it at least ten times. I think it's ten. I'm losing count right now. Have you ever had somebody violate 35 years? - I had never seen a defendant gagged. - Okay. Not my. - So you've. - Never. It's hard to get to the second part if they're never, never had it. You're absolutely right. All right, so finally, when it comes down to intimidating witnesses, because maybe you haven't had gag orders, intimidating witnesses. Have you ever had a defendant that you were prosecuting? And they were intimidating witnesses, and they didn't somehow end up in the clank Clank for at least a day or two? I've had criminal death penalty prosecutions based on witness retaliation. I'm very familiar with gang cases and Mafia cases. Most of those defendants were already incarcerated when they would orchestrate some sort of obstruction. Okay. If there's provable physical violence based obstruction, it certainly makes sense that they'd be incarcerated. I don't know why or how anybody can support project 2025. And I know that there was allegedly a joke about dictators and whether or not that's funny. But in in the United States of America, dictatorships are never funny, and project 2025 is giving the playbook for authoritarianism as well as the next dictator to come in. And I know that you are doing your jobs here by making sure that hopefully some juror turns on and finds some viral moment of you spewing more of the nonsense as it relates to the president. But as practicing lawyers or licensed attorneys, I hope that we can all agree that no one gets indicted because someone says so. There takes a grand jury, and the grand jury is comprised of American citizens that sit down and review evidence, and they make the determination and when and if Trump is convicted, it will be a jury of his peers and it won't be the president of the United States. I thought you were going to get to a question somewhere in that 90s for Mr. Hamilton, after you went after his 2025. I will point out the inspector general just released a report that said the FBI retaliated against whistleblowers. One of the reasons we do need some changes, but there was no question there. But, Mr. Hamilton, if you want to give it some kind of response, you're more than welcome to do that. Mr. Chairman, my only response would be to say that there are a great number of policy options that have been provided to any future conservative administration through project 2025, and it's an attempt to restore the rule of law in this country. And I reject the Huffington Post style characterizations of the recommendations. All right. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman. The gentle lady from, we'll go to the gentlelady from Wyoming and the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Chair, I'd ask you. Excuse me. This is. Oh, I'll get you as soon as we get after this. - Just unanimous consent. - Yes. Just unanimous consent to enter the mandate for leadership. Without objection. Without objection, the gentleman. The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin my official remarks, I'm just curious to know, are any of the witnesses of the opinion that inflation is something that only hit the United States, or is it something that was global? Does anyone know the answer to this strict question? Anybody? Inflation global or limited to United States? I think that's correct. No one knows. Interesting. I'll give you the answer. It was global because the pandemic was global. So this is going to be an interesting time. Let me get to my official remarks. I hope we can get some answers on some of these questions. We all agree that a five year farm bill authorization has a significant impact on the farm economy. We are here to talk about today. Unfortunately, in pursuing pointless Partizan political pandering policies for the Heritage Foundation types like cruelly cutting snap. My Republican colleagues have forestalled any kind of bipartisan deal needed to actually pass a bill in a divided government. Now, we all know that jumping from extension to extension is hurting our farmers and ranchers who aren't able to pay or plan for the future when they don't know what the policy will be. That is why I thought we were all on the same page, that we needed to get a bipartisan farm bill reauthorized as soon as possible. Yet over the last few weeks, more and more of my Republican colleagues are suggesting that it wouldn't be so bad if we waited until 2025 to pass a farm bill. Well, I want to nip that talk right in the bud and make sure everyone understands just how devastating that could be for the farm economy and in fact, the entire economy. You see, my Republican colleagues who think a 2025 farm bill would be worth waiting for. Think that way because they think a potential Trump administration would be good for the bill. For those who think that a potential Trump administration wouldn't actually take steps to achieve these policies, let me remind you of something many Americans have forgotten in the waning days of the Trump administration. December 2020 the president of the United States vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. Two days before Christmas, funding for our troops was jeopardized because advisers wanted to show their support for Confederate traitors and an emboldened potential next Trump administration. It is sadly, far too easy to imagine a veto of the farm bill that doesn't have these terrible provisions. So to my Republican colleagues gambling on a potential Trump administration, I am asking you to put our farmers and ranchers first. Drop this nonsensical nonstarter, snap cut, come back to the negotiating table, and work with Democrats to get the farm bill passed this year. Failing to do so by far is the biggest threat to our farm economy. With that I yield.