USA LIVE: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Faces Congressional Hearing on Donald Trump Prosecution | N18G

January 2021 Mr brag stated I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump close quote he said that it'd be hard to argue with the fact that any case against President Trump would be the most important most high-profile case Mr brag won and took office in January 2022 few weeks after taking office he told one of his prosecutors mark pomerance quote he could not see a world in which he would indict president Trump and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness that's right after campaigning on going after the former president brag gets into office and realizes the case against President Trump is ridiculous that is why the southern district of New York didn't bring it it's why his predecessor cyance didn't bring it why did brag change his mind Mark pomerance Special Assistant district attorney resigned in protest and he and his fellow assistant district attorney Carrie dun leaked their resignation letter to the New York Times after that the left began the pressure campaign on Alvin Bragg and suddenly the zombie case was resurrected one of the first things Alvin brag did was hire Matthew Colangelo a top official in the Biden justice department who had a history of taking on President Trump and his family's businesses it's also interesting to note who Mr Colangelo listed as his references when he applied for the job at the justice department he listed Tom Perez former Dean chair and Jeff Zs who is now President Biden's chief of staff that's right the head of the DNC and the Biden white house chief of staff those were his references that's the guy who went to work to be the lead prosecutor on the case against President Trump Alvin Bragg Matthew Colangelo picked their target searched for a crime and then they prosecuted president Trump the partisan da that campaigned on going after president Trump whose newly hired lead prosecutor for the case also had a history of taking on President Trump also had their case in front of a partisan judge a judge who donated to President Biden who imposed a gag order on President Trump who told the jury they didn't need to reach a unanimous decision and prevented one of our Witnesses today Mr Smith an expert on campaign Finance from giving real testimony to the court today Mr Smith will be given an opportunity to tell Congress and tell the country what he wasn't permitted to tell the court but he wasn't permitted to tell the jury remember bragon Colangelo bootstrapped charges that are normally misdemeanor to some underlying crime to make the charges a felony but what was the underlying crime prosecutors didn't reveal that until after the trial began Mr Colangelo in his opening statement accused president Trump of violating the federal elections Campaign Act but the problem is in the plain reading of that act doesn't support the indictment or the verdict as commissioner Smith stated allowing this prosecution to go forward and the ultimate jury decision threaten the enforcement proced procedures established by Congress under the act and stretched the meaning of the statute in such a way as to threaten due process of law although judge mhan wouldn't permit the leading expert on campaign Finance to provide this testimony he did let someone else speak in the court on this issue and others Michael Cohen Michael Cohen a convicted perjurer someone even his former lawyer said you couldn't trust Michael Cohen who lied to Congress lied to the FBI and lied to the court it's not often you have a witness that can lie to all three branches of government and then become the star witness in the prosecution of a former president but that's exactly what took place in New York it is clear Manhattan District Judge Juan maron's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly prejudiced the outcome of the trial and violated president Trump's due process rights br's prosecution of President Trump with the help of Judge M opened the door for politically motivated prosecutions and it will not be easy to undo the damage that's already been done as we have seen other ambitious prosecutors have followed Bragg's lead and pursued politically motivated indictments against the former president rather than debate political opponents on substance the Democrats strategy to win the 2024 election is through the use of partisan lawfare tactics these politically motivated local prosecutions raise substantial Federal interest and potential collusion between federal and state authorities and that is precisely why we are here today Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump was personal it was based on politics and it was wrong we now recognize the ranking member for an opening statement and then we'll get to our Witnesses thank you Mr chairman good morning thank you to our Witnesses for being here I especially like to thank um witness former un US Federal prosecutor and former United States Department of Justice attorney Shan wo um my colleagues thank you to the American people watching around the country for joining another hearing of the Congressional committee to undermine American independence and to defend Donald Trump from the early days of our nation's formation our founding fathers were very clear the upkeep of democracy requires constant proactive maintenance in his letters to fellow founding father and his political opponent John Taylor then fored former President John Adams wrote Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy remember democracy never lasts long it soon Wast exhausts and murders itself there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide those passions are the same in all men under all forms of government when unchecked produce the same effects of fraud violence and cruelty American democracy has always been a question of progress not finality democracy has been given to us with the blood sweat tears and efforts of Americans who came before us who struggled long and hard to build and protect every Democratic institution we have indeed our country's dark past the very Foundation of our economic Juggernaut on the world was premised on a sick institution called slavery that some now want to even erase this democracy that our ancestors struggled to bring us all into these rights some of which some Americans do not even have all of are fragile remember that the great Republic of Rome was destroyed Greece was destroyed Germany of the early 20th century destroyed Spain these great Empires are gone human history is Laden with examples of great Nations republics and democracies that were once beacons of human progress and eventually destroyed by hubris autocrats and the Rabid Ambitions of an empowered few Falls do not happen overnight but the signs are there if you want to see them in those republics those democracies slowly but surely rights are Stripped Away my fellow Americans that's happening here in this country the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body Stripped Away in 15 states immigrant children being stripped away from their families the gains of blacks for fair representation voting rights recognition of the historic lack of a playing fi of creating a even playing field Stripped Away slowly but surely the structures the laws and the institutions intended to make the nation great have been and continue to be eroded not to mention the souls of the human race and minorities being eroded every day by injustices we have a blueprint that we can see how that's being done project 2025 plans to upend structures institutions and the basic rights that have supposedly been afforded to Americans to make it great it's a playbook for Donald Trump's second term and a plan for the destruction of America as we know it despite flashy headlines printed over American flags and the likes of obnoxious men who give loud speeches about their love for making America great again project 2025 delivers No Such Thing project 2025 will slowly but surely strip away our rights I've asked for a hearing about project 2025 because I believe it is a dire warning to us all of an individual and others around him's desire to weaponize the government for their own empowerment it will Rip our experts out of agencies to be replaced by sycophant political appoes it will strip women of even more Healthcare access and rights it will further de humanize undocumented immigrants and punish their family members even those who are American citizens for daring to be associated with them it will restrict free speech in schools to only allow farri approved agendas and curriculum it will erode our freedoms all under the vague guise of making America great and yes because it is a grand Republican plan project 2025 calls for severe cuts to Medicare and Social Security I'm not just saying that the authors of project 2025 are saying that here's a video out2 believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if her doctor says that she needs one is a yes or no question abortion is not Healthcare abortion is murder of a human being we're also going to have teams cuz we can multitask to deconstruct the administrative State and to go after criminals and the traitors in the Deep state so suck on that we need to have the biggest Mass deportation system ever in the history of America because it is unjust and illegal and evil that more than 10 million illegal aliens have come to this country there are great plans using the Department of Homeland Security to return these people back to South of the Border the best thing that people can do right now if you're a young person is get involved in one of these things like American moment or project 2025 or the Trump campaign we got to fill up the White House with brers project 2025 is something that's going to transcend the next four years the next 10 years it really is for the first time in the history of the conservative movement the apparatus for policy and Personnel we are in the process of the second American Revolution which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be playing patriotic music claiming to Love Freedom demonizing every group in the nation that is not like you will not protect you and your civil rights the project 2025 Playbook is a plan to give Donald Trump the powers of a dictator just as he wants that's the plan this is the man who threatened to send the Department of Justice after political opponents Trump even sent his lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that he should have criminal immunity even if he uses the military to assassinate someone who simply disagrees with him we we heard his secretary of defense say that he asked the military to shoot people because they were protesting yes that's what his defense secretary said on TV and there's recordings of it this is the man who jokes about being a dictator just for a day and teases the idea of a third term for US president this is a man who wants to implement siop Fant loyalty tests he's a man who will fire every employee in every agency who upholds their pledge to serve their country over the president Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the continuation of American democracy as I as we know it we are using this Congressional committee for the third time to attack a state level felony conviction of a former president by a jury of his peers Republicans on this committee have used $20 million of federal taxpayer dollars to deliver Trump more power and attack his Rivals they are threatening public servants far outside their legal jurisdiction and even threatening private citizens who dare not to give Trump what he wants the reign of Lord Trump has already begun and he isn't even in a second term it's vital we remember our founding father's principles and that we see project 2025 for what it is a republican plan to slowly but surely strip away rights this is about Freedom versus fascism I beg every American watching don't be fooled by plastic patriotism don't be fooled by those rhetorically referring to freedom without the substance to back it up without any care for all people's rights a true understanding of Freedom comes from respecting the sacrifices of our ancestors our Democratic Institutions and a robust rule of law our country is not and has never been perfect but our country is great and it's our duty to keep it that way our country has never shied away from improving our flaws but what is being promoted is a distraction it's counterproductive and threatens years decades centuries of progress let's keep moving forward let's not go back to the dark times iel back gent's back without objection all their opening statements we'll be included in the record we will now introduce today's Witnesses The Honorable Brad Smith is the Josiah H Blackmore second and Shirley m not professor of law at Capital University law school Professor Smith previously served as commissioner on the federal elections commission including a term as chairman uh Mr Jonathan fahe is a partner at Holzman Vogal he is a former prosecutor having served for 17 years in the US attorney's office for the eastern district of Virginia Mr Fay he also served in various positions at the Department of Homeland Security including as acting director of US immigration and custom enforcement The Honorable John Wilson is a former judge having served on the Bronx County Civil Court and Kings County criminal court for 10 years judge Wilson also previously served as a prosecutor in the Bron Bronx County uh District Attorney's office and in private practice following his departure From the Bench judge Wilson served as Chief prosecutor for the Standing Rock reservation in Fort Yates North Dakota and Mr Shan Woo is an attorney focusing on White Collar defense and cases involving college students he previously served as a federal prosecutor and is councel to former Attorney General Janet Reno he also works as a contributor for CNN and MSNBC we welcome our Witnesses and thank them for appearing today we will Begin by swearing uh swearing you in would you please rise and raise your right hand do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief so help you God let the record uh reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative thank you please be seated uh please know your written testimony uh will be entered into the record in its entirety accordingly we ask that you summarize your testimony in in uh in approximately 5 minutes uh and we're going to just move right down the line like we introduced you we'll start with Professor Smith and go right down and finish with Mr Woo so Mr Smith you're recognize for uh for five minutes thank you chairman Jordan ranking member plaset in the written testimony I I explain at length uh why the convictions of Donald Trump in New York in May because they relied in the end on alleged violations of federal election campaign act or F were incorrect as a matter of Law and I discussed some of the errors of law made by prosecutors and and judges in the case to quickly summarize uh the payments that were made to uh Stormy Daniels were not under current law and should not be as a matter of policy treated as campaign expenditures and thus Michael Cohen's brief fronting of the money which was repaid to him shortly thereafter uh does not constitute an illegal contribution but moreover the prosecution Theory uh that the defendant Trump had to engage in a vast conspiracy because of a desperate desire to hide stormy Daniel's allegations from the public and thus uh ignore campaign Finance laws simply makes no sense because even had they treated these as campaign expenditures which again I I think they correct not to do so nothing would have come out before the election as I explained under the reporting schedules nothing would have been reported until after the election uh and the idea that illegality was needed is simply laughable in fact Donald Trump and the Trump for president campaign had plenty of cash to pay for the daniels's non-disclosure agreement uh as of October 27th 2016 they did not need Michael Cohen to front them money for that purpose further even assuming the expense was a campaign expenditure no public disclosure of the expense would have been required until 20 days after the election and repeatedly the prosecution emphasized that the main uh desire of trump was to hide this information until after the election as a practical matter then having Michael Cohen front the money for the non-disclosure agreement between Mr Trump and Stormy Daniels could have no influence on the 2016 election despite the repeated claims by the prosecution that that was the core of the case and this undercuts the entire theory of the case offered by the prosecution uh this is explained in my written testimony I'm happy to answer questions on that as we go forward but right now I just want to emphasize that this New York prosecution uh is uh something that is a uh a very bad precedent let's just put it that way not only because it threatens the rule of law and and generally we have not uh short uh in our defense of democracy we've not been willing to Short Change uh procedures of law but because it also threatens the bipartisan campaign enforcement system established by Congress if allowed to stand any state could do what New York has done that is pass a law making it a felony to try to influence an election by unlawful means then the state court could effectively try defendants for those alleged violations of f remember in the Trump case there was no finding by the department of Justice uh that Trump had violated the law indeed they decided not to pursue it there is no finding that by the Federal Election Commission that Trump had violated the law they also decided not to pursue it no federal body had found violations here um and effectively the state was simply making up the law and enforcing federal law in a partisan with elected judges elected prosecutors unlike the nonpartisan bipartisan system set up uh by the federal election campaign Act and the members of this committee and there are several who live in states that are dominated by the opposing party at a state level uh might want to take heed of that possibility that this that this game can be played in many different ways and one can run run the risk of being prosecuted for violating F even though uh the FBC found no wrongdoing it should be pointed out here that judge meron during the case took great pains to make sure that the jury was not informed that neither the Department of Justice nor the Federal Election Commission had decided not to pursue allegations against Mr Trump but at the same time uh allowed in uh repeatedly statements by the prosecutors and by witness Michael Cohen uh stating that he had clearly violated the law and there was no doubt about that and and thus implying that Mr Trump had done so as well uh it's worth noting in in the end that um it's right for this committee I guess I would say this it's right for this committee to take up this issue because it is a Fed issue not only of due process but of that enforcement of the statute and we could have a tremendous amount of chaos and and uh every Federal campaign will be governed essentially by whatever one can get a state judge and a state jury to do uh that's not how the federal election campaign Act was set up and that's not how this should be pursued so I hope that this body will recognize that this is clearly a federal issue and uh not only are there major constitutional questions about due process but again it may even be something where some legislation is necessary to make sure that state prosecutors cannot try this again thank you thank you Professor uh Mr F you recognize for five minutes thank you make sure you have that mic on and pull it close thank you you bet uh good morning chairman Jordan ranking member plaset members of the committee uh I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today my name is Jonathan fahe and I'm an attorney with the law firm of Holzman vogle I'm in private practice now but I spent most of my 25 years as an attorney as a prosecutor both as a state and federal prosecutor the reason I went to law school was because I wanted to be a prosecutor didn't want to be a law firm lawyer or anything else I wanted to be a prosecutor and the reason for that is my mom uh when I was growing up my mom was an assistant commis attorney in Arlington County Virginia and then she was eventually uh elected to be the commonweal attorney as a democrat in Arlington and later appointed by President Clinton to be the United States Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and I learned from my mom what I would go to court I would sometimes watch trials and things like that but I learned from her about the importance of being a prosecutor in terms of what it means to the public in terms of Public Safety but I also learned what it meant to administer Justice to be fair when you're entrusted with so much power how you administer that reflects not only on the person that that is the subject of that but as the whole Community how we treat the accused how we treat the most vulnerable victims and you know I learned from her that being a prosecutor really wasn't a partisan job it was a public safety job it was a speaking for victims job and that's the way it had really been in Virginia where I live and most of the country uh up until about 10 years ago and you know I say that because you could go through the country and you could see prosecutors that are Democrats prosecutors that are Republicans but they really approached the job the same way until recently but I began my career after law school after clerking in state court I became a state prosecutor in Fairfax County uh there I served under Bob heran who was a elected Democrat and he had been the C attorney for probably 30 years or so at that point and I had the opportunity to prosecute cases anywhere from the lowest level misdemeanor cases to the most violent felons and again I learned a lot of lessons there but the most important lesson I learned was you're entrusted with so much power from the the position from the community and how you administer that power is what's most important you you don't prosecute people because you don't like them or you have some other ulterior motive you prosecute them because um they violated the law and you're treating people equally equally regardless of the political motivations or political parties or anything else they might have um I went over from the C attorney's office the US attorney's office in the eastern district of Virginia where I served for 17 years I served under multiple administrations but from uh George W bush to Obama to president Trump and also what I learned there no matter who was within that office people were professional I I had a chance to work with the most talented probably attorneys I've ever worked with and one thing that that during that tenure people's political whatever their political leanings were you rarely knew other that may be outside of work and while I was there I had the opportunity to to prosecute drug traffickers gang members frauders other types of crimes I also had the opportunity to prosecute um to train younger prosecutors on how to prosecute cases ethics things of that nature uh the reason I go to my background and I know the time is short is the reason I'm here today I would say is because of the progressive prosecutor movement you know funded by these outside groups um this started about 10 years ago these Progressive prosecutors being elected through funding from Outsiders groups as uh mostly in Democrat jurisdictions they defeated incumbent Democrats and the movement basically is sort of the underlining premise was the entire system was unjust therefore the prosecutor can do whatever they want and you see saw that in Philadelphia you see it in Chicago which incidentally I think had a 100 plus people shot over the weekend you see in La other places and essentially what these prosecutors have done is to Institute what they would call Criminal Justice Reform they would go into office and they would nullify any laws they did not like and that seems somewhat benign in some respects but the problem with it as you see with Alvin brag which I'll get into briefly at the end of my five minutes here but Alvin brag has taken this he was a progressive prosecutor in New York he ran on this Progressive prosecutor uh I guess as a progressive prosecutor and when he got into office his main theme was deciding not to prosecute cases basically not in Prosecuting any mrd meters whatsoever reducing MISD meters to felonies and reducing serious felonies to lesser felonies so all of his theme for running his in-office practice has led to I think New York the last two years have had the highest uh crime rate on the big seven crimes in the last 20 years but he's taken this a step further because again it's somewhat benign to say I won't prosecute trespassing but this sort of opened the door for the political prosecution of Donald Trump which as we've seen you know now it's taken from not Prosecuting to identifying a political opponent and Prosecuting them for political reasons I'll talk to someone in my testimony hopefully about the reasons behind the prosecution the errors in the case and how the immunity decision affects the case and I thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions and I apologize for going a little bit over that's fine Mr F thank you uh judge you're uh recognized for five minutes members of the House Judiciary Committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the criminal trial of former president Donald Trump held before judge Juan Maran and New York County Supreme Court criminal term earlier this year as you may be aware I served as a criminal court judge in and for both Kings County and Bronx County New York City from 2005 to 2014 for 5 years of my term I served as a night court arraignment judge in Kings County where I was designated an acting Supreme Court Justice before my election to the bench in 2004 I served as an assistant district attorney in Bronx County and as a criminal defense attorney although I never tried a felony case as a judge I tried a number of felony cases as defense counsel including homicides child molestation drug sales Etc I was involved in all phases of criminal litigation for approximately 30 years I have sat in all three seats prosecutor defense counsel and judge I do not personally know judge Juan masan but I am intimately familiar with New York County Supreme and Criminal Court having spent most of my career in those courtrooms based on my experience I can tell you in no uncertain terms that former president Trump did not receive a fair trial from Judge Juan masan in fact if the court of appeals is fair and I believe the court will be fair based upon the reversal of Harvey Weinstein's illegal conviction Donald Trump's conviction is aured reversal a reversal that would be premised upon the fundamental errors committed by judge Juan michan if I may be blunt Donald Trump was railroaded and Juan michan was the driver of that train for the purpose of this statement I would like to concentrate on the most glaring problems presented by judge maran's conduct of this trial I believe the following one the indictment was legally insufficient and judge Maran should have dismissed the indictment before trial in my book The Making of a modder and Analysis of the indictments of Donald Trump I wrote that my review of the New York County indictment revealed that Donald Trump was accused of causing a false centry to be made in his business records for the purpose of concealing or committing another crime what other crime the indictment does not say simply put how was former president Trump's prepare defense if he is not informed of the other crime he intended to commit or conceal when he allegedly falsified his business records judge m was obligated to dismiss an indictment and failed to identify the underlying crime number two the failure to dismiss the indictment led to charges being added during trial that were not included in the indictment in doing so former president Donald Trump was not given a fair chance to prepare a defense to these added charges thus depriving him of his right to prepare a defense this was a violation of Donald Trump's right to fundamental fairness and notice of the charges he faced prior to trial further the jury instructions given by judge michan were illegal and that they included these additional charges and allowed for a non-unanimous verdict a non-unanimous verdict is unprecedented in any felony trial in American Juris prudence and recently the US Supreme Court reiterated the necessity for a unanimous jury verdict in the case of erlinger versus United States number three judge Juan michan made uncons constitutional and prejudicial rulings that impacted Donald Trump's ability to present the defense and that he allowed the prosecutor to use civil penalties and uncharged sexual assault charges against Donald Trump where he had testify in his own defense this deprived the former president of his right to present evidence in his own defense and was the very basis for the court of appeals reversal of the conviction of Harvey Weinstein earlier this year number four judge michan should have recused himself from presiding over over this matter based upon the appearance of impropriety in having contributed to political campaigns regardless of the amount and based upon his daughter's political activities regardless of the ethics opinions he received which absolved him of any actual unethical activity there are of course other appell issues which which exist in this case allowing the prosecution to claim federal election law violations without presenting any evidence to support those allegations not allowing the defense to present the witness regarding federal election law after allowing the prosecution to make the aforementioned statements and allowing stormmy Daniels to testify knowing that the prejudicial effect of her testimony outweighed any probative value are several it is my belief however that the ones I have outlined are the strongest issues to be presented on appeal therefore it is my considered opinion based upon my years of legal training experience that former president Donald Trump did not receive a fair trial that judge Juan masan failed his obligation to be fair and impartial that judge michan committed a series of errors that necessitate reversal of this conviction to be direct I do not believe anyone can reasonably state that former president Trump received a fair trial in New York County Supreme Court from Judge Juan masan thank you for your attention I'll be happy to answer your questions thank you judge Mr will your recognition 5 minutes thank you uh good morning members of the subcommittee and thank you chairman Jordan and ranking member Miss plasket for inviting me here today uh my name is Shan woo I'm the child of immigrants from China who came here seeking freedom and to avoid political persecution under the communist government there great love for family despite the fact that I had no extended family growing up as well as a very strong sense of Public Service my father served under two New York City Mayors as a New York City Human Rights commissioner and his example of Public Service led me to attend law school and then later to become a federal prosecutor where I served as an assistant us attorney for 10 years and had the privilege in the last year of the Clinton Administration to serve as Council to then attorney general Jan Reno from that particular position where my portfolio included leaz oning uh for the office of pardon attorney overseeing various criminal issues as well as briefing the Attorney General on a number of daily issues that would arise in the Justice Department it gave me very much of a bird's eyee view of the kinds of issues and the approach that the department takes uh as what is appropriately calling them the nation's Law Firm it is through this lens uh that I give you my personal opinion today which does not reflect the opinions of my Law Firm mcry Stafford or any other entities uh the view that I have of the recent conviction of the former president in the Manhattan da Alvin Braggs case where he was convicted of 34 felony counts and also my impressions of the recent presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court and whether or not that affects the verdict in that case in any way and lastly My Views that there is a growing Shadow a threat to American democracy presented by many of the former president's views as well as the way that those views are expressed in certain types of writings such as the plan for presidential transition known as project 2025 in particular because of my experience at the justice department I would highlight some of the issues with these plans as they relate to the justice department when I was at the justice department I found that there is enormous value in the career employees there they were the heart and soul of the department the conscience as well as the institutional wisdom there I remember on an almost daily basis when there were thorny Issues new issues that came up that Miss Reno the Attorney General would always want to know what the take was from career civil servants there and it was not just the more famous ones such as David margolus or Jack Keeney who served for decades at the department but the rank and file people who were unsung heroes who always provided their best advice and that advice is important because they as career employees their tenures cut across administrations they weren't simply put in there by the latest Administration and therefore they did not always reflect the political views or even the policy goals of the new Administration and in that sense they supplied a very healthy buffer zone to make sure that whatever new policy ideas would be measured against what the department had done in the past and what their experience told them was wise for the Department to me that gives the institution both a sense of Integrity as well as steadiness and that kind of steadiness and integrity is what allows the American people to have confidence in their institutions my parents were cut off from their families but they stayed here and they stayed because of the great love of the freedoms that this country has tried to give all of its people and as I see the current climate today one of my concerns is that those freedoms are endangered by an increasing trajectory towards authoritarianism autocracy and even dictatorship types of Tendencies um my testimony is prepared in writing as well and of course very happy to answer any questions gentlemen Yi's back we will now proceed on the five minute rule the chair recognize the gentleman from Ohio for five minutes um I thank all of our Witnesses I think the chairman for holding this meeting look in my eight years in Congress that came in in June of 2016 uh we've seen an unprecedented amount of weaponized government we've seen it abused in every way imaginable uh this isn't a a new phenomenon as bosot recognized when law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law frankly the radicals are counting on it we've seen the IRS go after after religious and conservative nonprofits the ATF go after law-abiding gun collectors pro-life grandmothers sent to prison for years for peaceful protests here in Washington DC parents targeted for speaking up at Schoolboard meetings fintech companies targeted and debanked because they posed a threat to the status quo the list goes on the American Bar Association estimates that there are some 400,000 potential crimes that agencies can prosecute that exist between the federal code and mountains of politicized rule makings and regulations hopefully thinned out by the recent Chevron Defence decision and uh the administration strative law judge decision and some other good ones over the past uh two weeks the average American uh likely commits something that can be construed by a corrupt prosecutor as a federal crime uh what happened to president Trump can happen to any American who has the audacity to upset someone in a powerful position that's not supposed to happen in the United States of America Western Civilization is based on the rule of law and that this law must be both impartially administered and fairly adjudicated Kangaroo Court spectacles such as what we witnessed in New York are fundamentally an attack on and perversion of the rule of law and its foundation in our society the list of abuses to Railroad President Trump is obscene and outrageous but calling it that is an understatement let's be clear Alvin Bragg campaigned openly on his persecution of President Trump his was clearly a political act and that is the only reason this case was designed and executed against the current administration's political enemy Professor Smith has there ever been a citizen named not named Donald Trump that has been prosecuted with these same crimes anywhere in America well it depends on what one considers the crime for example they'll say well lots of people are prosecuted for false records under New York law what they're not prosecuted for is for false records covering up a crime under New York law that makes it illegal to violate some unnamed law to influence an election and no I I've I've never seen anything like that has anyone ever successfully uh paid a hush money settlement to anyone and counted it as a campaign expense well not that I I know of and I think Common Sense would tell us that uh paying uh for a non-disclosure agreement or any kind of legal settlement is not based on things done outside of office like 10 years before you were a candidate is not a campaign expense and we wouldn't want it to be because if you think about it that would mean that candidates could use their campaign funds for exactly that kind of thing it be a horrible precedent right um every day we see headlines coming out of New York City illegal immigrants all kinds of cases and some of you in your opening statements highlighted how Mr Fey highlighted in particular how Alvin Bragg ran on this Progressive platform uh as a prosecutor you know as a former prosecutor in your career If You Were Never Bound by the sixth amendment if you could turn any action retroactively into a crime if you could bias a jury by whatever means you wanted to is there a single citizen in America who would be safe safe from a politicized prosecution I don't really think so if you really targeted someone and looked for a way to charge them I don't want to say that I mean I'm sure there's some people that could not be and theoretically but there are so many people that would be vulnerable to being prosecuted if somebody is targeting them for political reasons or whatever reasons and that's really what's scary about this and I I think your point with Alvin Bragg with it it's funny that on one hand he he runs on not Prosecuting the law and then all of a sudden on this case it's this is the most aggressive stance that's ever been taken probably on these set of clearly not the rule of law and and crime is going through the roof I think you know seven you know the seven biggest felonies the last two years are the highest year since 06 so it's like he's not Prosecuting the law equally or against you know other people and more serious criminals thank you and look judge Wilson you referenced it in your statements about the president uh in the Court's recognition in Ness versus the United States but as early as 1898 the court said that a defendant enjoy a quote constitutional right to demand that his Liberty should not be taken except by The Joint action of the court and a unanimous verdict of a jury of 12 persons I thank chairman Jordan for holding this vital hearing today what we are witnessing is an unprecedented attack on the rule of law and a weaponization of our criminal justice system and it's a shame I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Massachusetts recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and thank you to the ranking member and I appreciate the attendance of our our Witnesses this morning um I've served on the oversight committee here in Congress uh which is the principal investigatory Committee in this house uh for over 20 years and I have to admit I cannot point to a single case during my tenure and we have had Republican leadership and and Democratic Leadership where the chair has BL ly and persistently uh interfered with a state criminal proceeding as I have seen it interfere in the case of the people of the state of New York versus Donald Trump even before New York district attorney Alvin Bragg announced a 34 count felony indictment against the former president in April of 2023 chairman Jordan joined by other Republican committee chairs had already sent a letter to district attorney Bragg demanding his testimony before Congress it also warned him of the quote serious consequences close quote of pursuing criminal charges against Donald Trump and over the next year in the midst of ongoing state criminal proceedings chairman Jordan proceeded to send nearly a dozen frivolous investigatory letters and subpoena threat threats to current and former employees of the New York District Attorney's office on top of that he listed a series of documents that this is an ongoing criminal trial in the state of New York at the time asking for all documents and Communications between and among the New York County District Attorney's Office all documents and Communications are received uh by certain employees all documents and Communications referring or relating to New York City district attorney receipts and other uh use of federal funds clearly clearly trying to intimidate uh the New York District Attorney's office and dissuade them from their prosecution of of Donald Trump uh Mr Woo a a as a federal prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney [Music] um what what is the danger in in having Congress which is a legislative body uh use those type of threats against an ongoing uh criminal prosecution in State Court uh Congressman win what the danger is is that it greatly destroys the Integrity of the criminal prosecution the idea that a legislative body which is inherently politically based is looking at a criminal prosecution which is meant to independently assess evidence of criminal ality during the pendency of that case is extremely destructive and quite dangerous for the Integrity of the system and Mr W on top of that over 25 Republican members actually went to the courthouse sat in the courtroom uh to to uh support the defendant in that case um the nonpartisan Brennan Center for justice recently reported that Congressional efforts to compel the production of non-public information about a specific case from a local prosecutor or otherwise medal in their investigation quote crosses the line to political interference that threatens the the rule of law close quote would you agree with that assessment I would agree with that and also I think the presence of those members at the trial while they certainly have a First Amendment right to be there I think it also injected a great deal of political atmosphere into that case Mr Brennan has also warned that Congressional interference in the New York case is reflective of a quote worrying Trend that threatens to intensify close quote can you talk about the impact of this trend on state and federal prosecutions I think uh as we discussed before the trend indicates that the district attorneys in those States as well as Federal prosecutors feel that they aren't free to actually follow the evidence they aren't free to actually follow the law but that they're going to be criticized they're going to be the subject of political leverage if they actually do their job and I think that really undermines the Integrity of our criminal justice system thank you very much what are the ramifications uh for this uh especially following the Supreme Court's decision on on presidential immunity do you think there's there are implications for that as well uh the Supreme Court's decision on immunity I think very much indicates this Court's direction towards overly empowering the Office of the President I don't know exactly how it may trickle down to other kinds of prosecutions but certainly in my view their extremely over Brad opinion frankly would obviate the purpose of this subcommittee which is the weaponization of the justice system against a president is impossible under their view because the president can do anything he wants thank you uh Mr chairman my time has expired and I yield back Gman yields back gent from California just recognize thank you Mr Woo I'm going to stay with you um every day members of Congress are subpoenaed uh on behalf of defendants in prison people that have griefs gripes against the government and the president receives far more than one a day would you suggest that he should have to go to those uh uh places show up and be deposed just because somebody uh wants to depose the president and says they have a basis I I obviously there's a general policy reason not to okay so so the fact is that the Supreme Court's decision un limited immunity or immunity from prosecution immunity from having to show up and be distracted from the work of the president is for a good purpose and only in rare cases such as Bill Clinton's case of a civil suit specifically about actions before he was president has the court ever uh said it doesn't fit there right I think that's exactly the problem you point out is it's so rare that there is no need for them to well let's just get back to rare they there was need they made a decision that uh still stands today that Bill Clinton could be deposed as to his specific State actions prior to being president but they ruled clearly that the president cannot be distracted from that I'm going to switch to Mr Smith uh I'm going to let him drink his water uh you know you you said as a prosecutor I'll go to you and to M judge Wilson that this was not a fair trial that it violated the rules that we count on for the admission of evidence is that correct you both saw that in this case yeah if if I may go first uh I think the most glaring thing was somewhat of some of the Stormy Daniels testimony which you know the implication from her testimony was that she was sexually assaulted by President Trump which is is you know by in any respects so unfairly prejudicial relative to the crime there the judge clearly let evidence in and that that that was surprising to me one that the prosecutors didn't know that ahead of time that this was going to come out and it wasn't vetted ahead of time so that that's the most glaring example that I I I I so as a prosecutor something that you dedicated your career to there's a there is a sense of balance if you get in your unfair twisting you normally expect the judge to uh at least at a minimum allow the defendant to present Witnesses uh in response to that or to to offset it it was pretty unheard of that they only let you hit the the guy and not and no one answer back right that part of it's concerning and when you think about it when we were prosecute cases generally defendants had far more leeway because it was like they're the ones they're in Jeopardy they're you know going to jail or whatever so even if they didn't have necessarily the most viable defense it was rare to have a judge cut them off on it and that that's what just seems so striking on one hand it's the most extreme evidence allowed against President Trump which is hard to justify and then not allowing some sort of at least explanatory as my time's running out but uh yes or no if I could isn't that kind of imbalance very often exactly what a prosecutor doesn't want to see because it leads to a high probability of a case being reversed and based on not being fair in other words If you deny the defendant you have a Jeopardy of of in fact getting a perfectly good conviction overturned because you didn't give them the proper opportunity for defense didn't give them the charges in advance didn't give them uh the evidence that you held is that right yes and it it goes to question the motivation for this case was it just to get the initial conviction and and now let's go to the motivation with uh Mr Smith you were denied the ability to answer a great many questions so hopefully you'll be able to answer uh the ones you want to here today um have you in your history with the FEC have you ever seen the FEC take State charges and Link them to an FEC violation in order to get a felony and then take it to the federal court and charge somebody no so the federal government doesn't grab State cases to L to make something that is normally a fine and make it a crime correct no it does not okay and so if you had a situation in which and this is an if because it didn't happen but if you had a situation in which somebody took their own money and used it and then did not declare it is that usually uh uh you know there was failure to to file is that usually something that you would bring them up at the FEC and refer them for criminal felony charges uh it would be extremely rare that it would be referred for criminal charges you'd have to show clear intent so in this case specifically the FEC made a decision that what they pulled to in addition to state to make this a crime that they could charge a felony on is something that not only normally wouldn't happen but in this case specifically was looked at and didn't happen the FC declined to prosecute because there wasn't a case here right they not only declined to refer it to justice for criminal charges but they declined to bring civil charges themselves it's what You' normally do if you just thought it was an error or something so it wasn't even worth a fine much less a crial prosecution thank you I yield back gentlemen Yi's back gent lady from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman When Donald Trump's Supreme Court overturned roie Wade millions of Americans lost the right to make their own health care decisions since Trump did this 14 States enacted extreme abortion banss wreaking havoc on the lives of American women and families it happened in my home state of Florida and more States will follow suit and now Trump's team has a detailed blueprint for what his next four years God forbid would look like called project 2025 it's 900 pages of legal and administrative assaults on our freedoms rights and progress Mr Woo you're very familiar with Trump's project 2025 and have a deep legal background I want to ask you some rapid fire questions so if you could just start off with yes or no these current abortion bans including one in my home state of Florida are ruining women's Economic Security would project 2025 make those economic hardships worse for American women yes I believe so we know Trump abortion banss keep women in in abusive relationships would project 2025 make those horrible situations even worse yes these Trump abortion bans disproportionately harm already vulnerable populations especially lowincome and communities of color would legal assaults on abortion rights in Project 2025 inflict even more harm on these communities yes thank you Mr W I want to discuss what project 2025 would mean for women who face medical pregnancy issues Trump's abortion bans have already caused irreversible damage to Women's Health across the country country with women having to turn septic and get close to death before a doctor can legally perform a life-saving abortion despite earlier intervention being medically warranted the bottom line Trump's abortion bans have led to inflicting unnecessary brutal pain and harm to women including preventable deaths that's not some democratic talking point that's directly from doctors a majority of OBGYN stated that when Trump overturned roie Wade it increased maternal deaths and discourages doctors from even going into the field in survey 70% of providers say they believe it has also worsened existing racial and ethnic inequalities this comes from the men and women who actually care for their patients doctors who took an oath to do no harm legal hurdles are causing harmful Health outcomes Mr W do you think that innocent women women truly trying to receive necessary healthc care will be unfairly criminalized by project 2025 yes I do and I think in particular some of the language in the project 2025 document such as the phrase is abortion tourism I find to be deeply offensive women do not take vacations in order to have abortions I agree that it is deeply offensive and dangerous to use language like that project 2025 is an explicit 900 page playbook for a second Trump term and it's clear that it targets women Trump's project 2025 lays out plans to make sure that abortion is not considered Healthcare it aims to get the FDA to reverse its decades long approval of the abortion drug mistone in order to get it off the market the Trump plan calls for defunding Planned Parenthood and excluding it from Medicaid which is how millions of women get preventative screenings and other vital Healthcare unrelated to abortions we know the same extreme anti-choice groups that helped craft Trump's project 2025 would also try to exclude some forms of emergency contraception from no cost coverage and gut access to IVF Trump's project 2025 blueprint even calls on the CDC to increase quote unquote abortion surveillance including requiring states to submit invasive privacy violating data and information about patients who receive abortions this creates a modern-day handmaids tale these dangerous alarming policies will ensure that women are second class citizens its extreme magga goals will cause suffering and in some instances death Mr Woo is a legal analyst with extensive experience as a federal prosecutor can you explain some of the dangers American women face by criminalizing abortion like this well immediately what happens is they're being uh forced to choose between their health versus being prosecuted which is a terrible situation no one should ever have to face the point that you make Congressman with regard to surveillance I think that's extremely dangerous I mean that is a weaponization of Health Care statistics to use those statistics to further criminal punishment of innocent women who are simply seeking to protect their own health and to further decisions that really should just be between them and their doctors well I'm glad that in this commit were finally exposing what the real weaponization of government is was under former president Trump and would be again and lastly as my time expires in the next 30 seconds isn't this working towards a complete and total National Abortion ban and isn't that what project 202 2025 makes clear the goal is if former president Trump were reelected again I think it does I mean it sets out a blueprint to get at that goal through numerous ways thank you very much you'll back down my time gent lady yields back uh Professor Smith in your opening excuse me in your written testimony you said that the lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo in his opening statement in the court accused president Trump of violating the federal election campaign act but the FEC didn't bring charges I think you've said a couple times is that true that's correct and the Department of Justice didn't bring charges that's correct and if president Trump campaign had paid for it it wouldn't have been reported until after the election is that right that's correct and did President Trump's campaign have the money to pay for it yes they had plenty of money had like 78 million bucks still in hand on Election Day I think right yes and certainly president Trump had the money to pay for it he's not yes he'd already spent over 60 million AR yeah had they already they already done that was it a political contribution uh no I I do not believe so for a reason stated I can elaborate on those now but you know but not only do you not believe so their star witness didn't believe so Michael Cohen said he was working clear back in 2011 to deal with this Miss Daniels making the allegations of wouldn't make this public and he was doing it for for other reasons isn't that correct yes they had been concerned about Daniels for a long time and keeping her quiet so the obligation wasn't caused by President Trump's candidacy for president of the United States is that right no it was not okay Mr P uh in your written testimony you said one of the most alarming aspects of the case is that the fraud quote fraud did not involve anyone losing money or even being harmed in any way to the extent that The Ledger ENT entries were inaccurate they were entered into the books of a private company that understood what they were for it is unheard of for a fraud case to be brought where no losses were suffered so there weren't any losses in this this case at all were there yeah that's what makes us so remarkable and just you I I can't even imagine someone bringing a fraud case to the United States attorney's office where nobody lost money there were no victims and no one was worse off at the end of it it just makes it laughable even before you get to steps two through probably 20 that make this case really absurd to have been brought to begin with it wasn't a contribution if it was a contribution it would have been wouldn't have been reported until after the election and no one suffered any losses and yet they bring this charge against President Trump I find that just amazing if that's not political motivation I don't know because what other motivation could there be yeah it's really almost in inarguable at this point that the motivation for this case was political it's really I've never heard a serious argument that that it should have been prosecuted otherwise I Know M Mr Woo might might have one but I just haven't haven't heard that because it seems political from the you know from the Inception all the way to the end yeah wasn't a contribution wouldn't have been reported even if it was if they Tre paid that out of the campaign no one suffered loss and yet there was some kind of conspiracy to impact an election but that's not the worst of it the worst of it is they didn't tell the defendant what the crime was he was being charged with isn't that right judge that's correct right from the indictment he was uh Donald Trump was charged with falsifying business records to elevate that crime to a felony uh he had to be concealing or committing other crimes when did the defendant in this trial in this case learn what he was being charged with at the end of the trial at the end of the trial that's not supposed to happen in America is it judge no that is uh illegal so not only did he not know what he's being charged with in the end at the end of the trial when he learned what it was the judge also told the jury oh you don't have to be unanimous in finding what we just discovered the charge actually was it's extraordinarily egregious error to tell a jury they don't have to be unanimous and I might add by the way those charges the three additional ones were never specified they're described generally so we don't know what exactly the jury thought was the illegality that was committed by Donald Trump we we have a very inspe fic verdict campaign Finance uh expert says it wasn't a contribution and even if it was a contribution if they treated as contrib paid it out of the campaign it wouldn't have been reported till after the election so there's no conspiracy to influence the election no one suffered any harm or fraud in the initial case former prosecutor tells us and the judge tells us that the defendant didn't know what he was charged with until the end of the trial and the judge gave instructions to the jury never mind the fact the judge should have recused himself which you point out in your written testimony judge the judge didn't tell the jury or told the jury you don't have to be unanimous but the real thing here is the opportunity cost and you raised this in your testimony Mr fagy the opportunity cost when Alin brag did the day one memo says we are not going to charge all these felonies we're going to bring him down to misdemeanors and let the bad guys roam the streets of New York how that squares with what happened here that to me is the real issue that's the issue that most Americans see like we're going to do this to the the former president of the United States meanwhile take felony charges against really bad guys on the street and bring them down to misdemeanors that's the opportunity cost here I believe in Manhattan you get the last word Mr f yeah exactly when you're letting carjackers out on bail or illegal immigrants that assault police officers aren't getting prosecuted but this is the way you're using your time in addition to the fact you run on a softon crime policy and then you do take the most creative aggressive approach to this crime it's hard to argue as anything other than a political motivation CH now recognizes the gentle lady from Texas okay I got a lot of ground to cover um I do want to clarify Mr fahe when you consistently talk about NY or or New York crime you're speaking um in an opinionated stance you're not speaking from a place of facts correct no I'm speaking from a place of facts okay well let me clarify for you thank you so much I'm reclaiming my time let me clarify for you that NYPD puts out reports and in April it said overall index crime across New York City dropped another 4.9% as it relates to May the report says overall index crime across New York dropped another 2.4% and June's report hasn't come out I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record 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 Woo I'm going to 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 uh 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 um would that be the legislative people or judicial people well it's really the executive it'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 um explain any issues you may have the process would be the judicial appell 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 cuz 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 passed 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 no absolutely not absolutely not cuz he's the EXE huh that's that other Branch correct that's okay okay all right so you have this prosecutor and in this case it's Alvin BR 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 when it with a with a case I'm sorry I moved on 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 pre-trial motions there's pre-trial 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 us 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 uh 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 in this Cas has the judge to and in this case they found him guilty not once not twice not three times not four not5 not 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 appell court the last time I checked he was so that he could go to the appell court and appeal his decision and they will have the final say so thank you so much yes they will uh the Gent lady Yi's back and the gentleman from North Dakota is recognized thank you Mr chair if I may just a quick um I just wanted to say as just as a point of personal privilege um Linda Sanchez is not with us today um and she is at the funeral for her legislative director uh Chandler Mason who served this body and served this country for a number of years and I just want to say on behalf of I believe all of us here that we extend condolences to her family um to the office of congresswoman Sanchez and pray for um God to give them Comfort during this time for the untimely death of Miss Mason no well well said and we I appreciate bringing that attention I should have uh this is my oversight I should have said something about uh our colleague Mr Massie um Mr Davidson and I and our Paulie and Lisa and I had a chance to go down and visit with Thomas a week ago Sunday all he's doing is as good as you can under these these difficult difficult circumstances and his wife Rhonda was an amazing person so to both to both members of this committee thank you for bringing that gentem from North cloud has recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and I very much appreciate uh the uh questioning from my friend from Texas she's one of the few other people that has actually practiced criminal defense and Public Defense and as somebody who's done that for a very long time I appreciate that very much uh I never did practice in New York I also have a practice in federal court and I've practiced in state court and passed several bar exams as well uh judge Wilson What's the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York one year uh when was this what is the what is the business records case is a misdemeanor correct the uh underlying crime the falsifying business records yes that's a misad meaned charge so the only way to get to a felony is by committing it or is by in concealment of another crime correct uh and each one of those crimes has specific elements that's right and you have to prove in order to get a conviction at trial you have to prove every element of the crime Beyond A Reasonable Doubt right that's just traditionally how this works that is the right way to do it so in the indictment did they put the underlying crime no they did not they only described it as other crimes okay and in the jury instructions did they put the specific underlying crime no the um falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions there was some brief description of the uh New York state election law violation but there was no description given of the three choice of three crimes there was a description given of falsifying business records which was pretty ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records so and that's also a misdemeanor right that should be yeah so you have 2 plus 2 equals six like if you commit two misdemeanors you get to the felony statute of limitations which they had to get or they could have never brought the Kings that's correct but there there's some more question marks regarding the statue limitations uh it's not cut and dry because the time that Donald Trump spent out of New York uh could be used to toll the step limitations that was the ruling in the court of appeals Harvey Weinstein case he argued that the time that he spent out of California should not have told it out of New York that is in California should not have told the time limitations but the court of appeals ruled against them on that issue so that's I think how they get around the statute limitations problem in this case so was the election law case a federal election law or state election law underlying crime seemed like it was charged as both both when we got to the jury instructions there's a violation of New York election law charged but then there's among the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law and and then the third one was tax violation right also unspecified so all three of those underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime that is correct were any of the elements of those crimes listed no not at all so and this is important and it it's it might not be as robust or anything but when you defend a client in court if you don't know what the elements of the crime you're defending how do you mount a defense you can't that's the very issue of fundamental fairness that I referenced you as a defendant are entitled to know what the charges are against you so that you can defend against those charges Donald Trump was never made aware of what the extent of the charges were against him until the end of the trial and those and the elements of the crime go in the jury instructions I mean traditionally that's how it works federal court State Court in North Dakota State Court in Minnesota I've been in all of these different jurisdictions you actually get the elements of the underlying crime correct any time that I instructed a jury I instructed them what the elements of the crime were and instead in this case they got a grab bag they they got a choice of three when it came to the underlying crimes and we don't even know which ones they chose so we don't know whether or not they could have been unanimous on those three or not that's that's another failing of the jury instruct so not only did we have not the elements of the crime but we had three different crimes with three vastly different elements of the crimes all unspecified none of them in the indictment the elements of the crimes weren't in the Bill of particulars last hearing I had the bill of particulars waved at me like it was some kind of magic document that flew in here with its own Cape so the statement of facts only describes a series of allegations series of actions that believed that Donald Trump took none of them describe any criminal activity none of them describe any um they don't describe any elements of any crime and that's why you believe as do I that when this goes on appeal there's going to be significant legal issues to argue that the jury never actually got them put in front of them I I have very little doubt that this matter will be reversed on appeal and based upon these issues because I've actually been pretty I mean I I I believe jury are still the best way to determine guilt and innocence I just believe juries are only as good as the information put in front of them so and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from New York is recognized thank you Mr chairman I'm I'm happy we're bringing up the appeal in this case um because this uh committee has focused for a year and a half on a fifth circuit case has brought before us as a witness the lawyer for that case twice um to argue that the Biden administration had censored improperly censored social media companies um I'm surprised we haven't yet heard about the ultimate decision on appeal by the Supreme Court which dismissed the case so it's pretty fascinating to me that uh we don't have followup on the appeals of a case that we're so uh excited about the appell it process when the Supreme Court dismissed it Mr F I want to just touch upon a couple things you said before uh I move into the Crux of my questioning uh am I right that I heard you say that it's unheard of to bring a fraud case without losses to individual victims it I cannot think of a situation where that's occurred it it I'm not saying it hasn't so you're saying that every books and Records case has losses to victims I'm saying every fraud case that I was involved either Prosecuting or knowing about usually had somebody that but but this was a books and Records charge yes well I think it's based on a fraud a fraud case that somebody committed fraud on the books and Records yes a fraud on the books and Records yeah I think they put I think the allegation is they were incorrect or fraudulent entries in the books or the records yes right and so you're saying that every single books and Records fraudulent entry which is a false entry has lost to individual victims is that your testimony that's not at all my testimony I said fraud cases are generally not prosecuted without victims that's true murder cases are generally not prosecuted without victims too but we're talking about books and Records here okay are you familiar with the term fraud on the market no not R okay mean you should and you should look into uh let me give you another example of a fraud case that doesn't have an loss to an individual victim which would be any insider trading case so other than they would have potential victims and other people harm this is a case where go look up go look up fraud on the market there are no individual victims with losses and yet those cases are charged there's an overall in those cases you know we're focused here on the weaponization of the government as usual and I'm just struck by the fact that we have a republican majority that is accusing other people of weaponizing government when let's look at what this committee and this Republican majority has done um my colleague Miss Crockett ay went through the separation of powers um Mr Woo were you aware that this committee held a hearing with Robert Costello as a witness who was the former attorney of Michael Cohen yes and that that hearing was during the trial yes uh okay um so do you think that that was an appropriate uh way of trying to elicit testimony to impeach a witness in a trial in a congressional hearing no I think it interferes with the trial now interestingly when he was here I suggested that he go testify in the trial and he did that's the appropriate place for where he should be right exactly and Mr Trump's attorney had an opportunity to cross-examine him did he not yes and Mr Trump's attorney had I believe three days of cross-examination of Michael Cohen did he not yes I think that's right and ultimately the jury heard all of that right and all of the other evidence and decided unanimously that he was guilty that's right are you aware of the uh number about two dozen members of the House Republican party writing an amicus brief to a district judge of about the hunter Biden case uh yes uhuh so let me just get this straight we have legislators elected officials trying to intervene in an ongoing criminal case is that what happened that's what it sounds like and they're proud of it by the way they are so excited and take credit for undermining Hunter Biden's plea agreement by interfering in that case that is the misuse of official Authority and weaponization of this committee this body and what Donald Trump has vowed to do is weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his political Rivals a revenge and retribution tour and the notion that this committee is accusing Democrats of weaponizing the federal government when the president of the United States did not intervene in the prosecution of his own son give me a break why don't you focus on taking care of your own party and your own weaponization and stop projecting where it doesn't exist and I yield back we we appreciate the gentleman uh well the gentleman from North North Carolina is recognized for five minutes thank you uh thank you Mr chairman Mr Woo uh do you think that in American history State Court criminal justice processes have ever been perverted or corrupted for political objectives to affect matters of federal politics such as the course of legislation or the composition of Congress or the control of the presidency uh I'm not sure of a specific instance like that I mean I think there has been a general feeling that some of the state court processes uh have been unfair or biased and that was for example a reason for some of the Civil Rights legisl sure yeah even in in the in the post Civil War era right sure um so I think I have distinct images of that having occurred and and and processes that appear to be ordinary can be used a political effect in such cases right sure even in totalitarian regimes totalitarian systems of government that's a favorite tactic isn't it the the show trial indeed it is is there a um legitimate federal government interest in preventing that where it occurs uh well there's some jurisdictional limits on what the federal government can do there I mean if it's a State Trial they'd have to come in after the fact to examine and where there's been some let me ask you this way was there a legitimate Federal interest when Congress acted as we just made reference to in the post Civil War um uh Civil Rights Acts yes those legislative and they were designed to prevent that kind of misuse right I don't know that they were designed specifically at the court system misuse but I think they were designed to correct Injustice you don't think they were designed to correct misuses and abuses of the court system the state court system uh no that's not why I said it it includes you would agree with me that they were designed for that very purpose uh not only for that purpose yeah I no I certainly agree it wasn't only for that purpose but it was included um how uh how should Congress identify the misuse of state court procedures where it is happening uh certainly they can do investigations uh hold hearings but they should be after the fact of prosecution not during the prosecutions oh so let me just ask you a couple would would evidence of that include overt public vows by candidates for prosecutorial office to Target a candidate or prospective candidate for federal office that certainly something that can be part of the fact finding yes what about the institution of charges for transparent political motivations especially in the sense that the event charged is not regularly or ever charged against others engaged in similar conduct would that be possible evidence of such a problem that's a little bit tougher because the uh prosecutorial discretion wall is pretty thick on that but it's certainly something that could be inquired into how about State Legislative renewal of expired statutes of limitations aimed at such a political Target would that be possibly evidence of such conduct again I don't know whether it's evidence it seems like something that Congress could ask about what about judicial assignment processes resulting in in folks with apparent partisan bias being appointed or ending up administering a trial against such a Target would that be such a evidence I think that's a little bit of a conclusory uh question there but certainly the process for determining uh judicial selections appointments I think that's something legitimately looked at H how about contriving jury instruction or administering a trial to deny the target fundamental fairness in due process anticipating that correction of that would be delayed until after the political impact has run its course in an election would would that be evidence that Congress should be concerned about I think that's more a issue for appeal of the particular conviction uh again respectfully I feel there's a little bit of a conclusory aspect so you think so long as the appeal will eventually set things right the fact that a state perverts its processes to achieve a political result to play out in an intervening election that's okay Congress shouldn't worry about that at all is that right uh I think the appeal needs to run its course first uh and then if Congress has concerns about the case overall they're free to look into it all right I Y back gentem y's back gentle lady from uh ranking members recognize thank you thank you Mr chair um Mr Woo did you conclude your your thoughts on that subject yes I did okay thank you I just wanted to give you time if you needed it um thank you for your analysis of what's happened in the court case in um New York and judge Wilson it's good to see you here I just wanted to give a shout out to a fellow Bronx district attorney um Alum as well thank you um I did want to State for the record you know this discussion about homicide in New York City and the lack of prosecutorial action by um the district attorney in the county of New York that Mr Bragg's first year in office shootings in Manhattan declined by 20% homicides declined by 16% and the data from the NYPD shows that the rates of virtually every index of crime are lower in Manhattan for the first quarter of 2023 than they were at the same timeline last year um so while we may not like him having prosecuted former president Trump I think it's false to say based on the data that Manhattan is suffering from a rise in violent crime that is not in fact uh factually the case would we like to see it further as a born and raised New Yorker of course um but what it is not right now now is a place with a crime spree one of the things that I talked about earlier today was Project 2025 um I've shared with the chairman my concern about this plan and the fact that this I believe fits squarely within the tenants of this committee to have a discussion about it to uh go to those individuals the authors of this plan over a thousand Pages have been written uh that make up the project 2025 uh by the Heritage Foundation which they and its author state is the plan for day one after a a trump second term presidency um Mr Woo looking at Trump's Playbook that Playbook being project 20125 which is authored by individuals that are within his prior Administration how would it hurt Americans if these proposals were made into law I think one way that I've touched upon is the removal or decimation of the career civil servants I think is very dangerous of also some of the other examples the idea of removing the general counsel at the FBI to replace that with the political employes Council again you lose the experience and the context of that position and similarly trying to do away with the 10e term for the FBI director which is there to ensure that they can be in place over the course of different administrations I think all those particularly at the justice department would Gravely hurt the integrity and steadiness of the department I agree having been a political appointee in the Bush Administration at the Department of Justice working under the deputy attorney general uh La Larry Thompson and then under uh James Comey who could have fared without a David margolus having been in that office um being someone who had been there since the time of Kennedy he came in as an honors uh graduate from law school and provided consistency across the board to multiple administrations under project 2025 if this individual did not if David Mar an individual like David margolus had not passed the Loyalty test would he still be in in have that position no um one of the key tenants is also to defeat the anti-American left that's a quote Trump has promised to root out liberal prosecutors individuals on this committee have used the power of congress to go after anyone who dares to indict Trump on crimes and publicly attack judges rule against Trump or his defense team does this look like a fair and impartial system of justice to you no it doesn't I think it undermines the Democracy um as a former Federal prosecutor for many was it your experience that prosecutors in Liberal jurisdictions approach the criminal justice system with an anti-conservative bias no it was not and what was your experience my experience was that Federal prosecutors around the country uh tended to be very independent minded sometimes they would butt heads uh with what we call Main Justice uh but I pretty much never have seen an instance that I would identify as a politically motivated Federal prosecution thank you you and um I'm not going to go into blocking financial aid for American college students if the states permit kids like dreamers to access inate tuition getting rid of school lunch programs Summer School uh summer programs taking aim at free speech and free thinking in American universities aim at renewable energy and what will make American women second class citizens by taking a closer to a National Abortion ban restricting access access to women's healthare and abortion drugs across the market this again Mr chairman I believe is a document that we along with um others throughout Congress need to take a closer look at I yield back lady yields back gentleman from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman Joe Biden's doj has utilized their power and weaponized the justice system to go after his political opponent from Florida courts in Georgia courts in New York the farce that occurred in New York is a pathetic and that abuse of the legal system by a rogue Democratic prosecutor and an obviously biased judge as judge Wilson aptly noted in his testimony president Trump was railroaded and judge Merchant drove the train not only did Judge Merchant seek to silence president Trump from informing the world about the judge's own conflicts of interest in the case but he made sure to effectively muzzle president Trump's key expert witness Professor Bradley Smith on a central element of the case Professor Smith you correctly pointed out in your testimony that the District Attorney's theory of the case revolved around a state law that prohibits promoting a political cany by unlawful means in this case the prosecutor alleged that the unlawful means resulted from a violation of the federal election campaign Act is that correct that's correct and you were once the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is that correct that is correct given your obvious status as an expert in campaign Finance law can you explain why the definition of an expenditure is so important to the case yes uh the definition of this expenditure if you just read the statute says anything for the purpose of influencing an election so a normal person might hear that and say well why did they make that expenditure but if you read further into the statute the provisions regarding personal use and if you read the FC's uh regulations and its explanation of those regulations but it's clear what they mean is for the purpose of a federal of influencing an election is not the subjective motivation of the spender it's an objective motivation so setting up a campaign headquarters hiring a campaign manager buying tv ads printing bumper stickers whatever else you do like that that's for the purpose of running a campaign but the mere fact that you do something that might be helpful to your campaign like uh taking a weight loss program so you look better on the campaign Trail buying a house in New York so you can run for US Senate from New York settling complaints against your business and your private life sealing your divorce records those are not things that arose from your campaign those are things that people sometimes do anyway and those would not be campaign expenditures and were you allowed to provide any of that context to the jury uh through expert testimony uh no and what is your expert opinion of the instructions that judge Merchant gave to the jury regarding the federal election campaign act well I think the judge's instruction clearly wanting all he gave them was that barebones if this was for the purpose of influencing an election you've got a problem and again this has been noted in this hearing he repeatedly allowed witness Michael Cohen who's no exper campaign Finance law and the prosecutors to state that there had clearly been a violation I would note that had I testified of course I would not have testified specifically to what the law is but I would have testified to the reporting system that would have shown that there was no advantage to not reporting this as a campaign expenditure to the contribution system which would have shown that Mr Trump could have clearly paid this without any ramifications had he wanted to do so I would have talked about how the FEC in practice had in many cases found that certain things that look like you know again that for the purpose of were not found to be for the purpose of a of a campaign and let the jury do with that what they will and judge Merchant allowed Michael Cohen who has no expert qualifications in this field whatsoever to provide the jury information on campaign Finance law but he prevented you uh from giving substantive expert testimony on federal election campaign act he he did and then he uh advised the jury now you can't use that to consider Mr Trump guilty that's only for context which is sort of like saying to the jury or sort of like saying to you for the rest of this hearing I don't want any of you to think about a yellow Mini Bus by Volkswagen I mean that's all you're going to think about the rest of the hearing is a yellow VW van um it it kind of flagged it to the jury's attention that Cohen had pleaded guilty uh in this case uh under I think tremendous pressure because he was facing years and years in prison for tax violations so he pleaded guilty to the campaign Finance thing and and basically got a much lighter sentence in in the beginning of questioning by chair Jordan you talked about how we wouldn't want non-disclosure agreements of things that happened before a campaign to be campaign expenses can you just expand upon that right I mean I mean you don't want members of Congress to pay for their you know personal padillas from year before or allegations of such uh I think we should should credit those just as allegations uh using campaign funds you don't want a person to use campaign funds and say uh gee this is something really embarrassing to me that happened in my past think I'd like to seal that up even though it's not relevant it's not something that you create it through from your campaign it's it's the ticket for abuse and this is why the law specifically lists a number of things like for example you can't pay for a country club membership even if the reason you have it is to raise money for your campaign because it's it's something that people do even if they're not running for office and we don't want campaign funds paying for that thank all of you for being here today I yield back a chair I ask back recogniz I ask unanimous consent uh to enter into the record of May 21st 2024 AP News fact check article entitled judge in Trump's hush money trial did not bar campaign Finance expert for testifying to defense um the judge stated that Mr Smith's testimony could was limited in scope of the testimony would could be uh that he could not give instructions to the jury on what the law was and that it was the defense attorneys that decided not to put him on the stand without objection and Mr Smith addresses that in his written testimony the gentleman from Florida is recognized so so Mr Smith following up on Mr stub's question I want to understand the precedent here so if a candidate for federal office wanted to use campaign money now to make a hush money payment could they point to what has occurred in this New York litigation and say well I guess I can go use my donor money to make a hush money payment I suppose they could at least in unless judge Jackson is correct and we'll have to wait for that overturning on appeal but yes that's yeah but so well I guess I want to ask the question if an appell at court does not in some way deal with what has been laid before the country could we could we see people collecting money from donors lobbyists and packs and then using it to make hush money payments yeah and you could do almost anything else you could say for example I'd really like to go to the Super Bowl this year think I'll take a couple donors along and buy your Super Bowl tickets and your whole trip to the Super Bowl because it's for the purpose of of influencing your campaign so in the prosecution to preserve our democracy we have now greenlit potentially the most expansive abuses of campaign funds ever well put so all right I just I have to test the limits of this I do not like wearing ties I would never wear a tie I'm told that when people vote for a congressman they like to see them wearing a tie in their advertisements so does this now mean that when I go to Ross and buy a tie that I should use my campaign credit card because otherwise I'm not really a tie person if you took seriously the subjective standard that was given to the jury as the instruction yes it would mean that if you took the objective standard that appears in the statute no you couldn't so in in the absence of some appet review here and this is why we have appell at courts to try to resolve these things do we not do we not unleash like the this confusion and then this opportunity for fraud because here's here's how this will go politicians will then simply use the gray area to enhance their own personal Lifestyles through their campaign funds right that's correct and one thing we should remember is that that the federal election campaign Act was elected or or enacted against a background in which members could just pocket the campaign funds and that was part of the whole idea was you're not going to be able to do that anymore ah well thank goodness for the the good prosecutors in New York who have unlocked the greatest potential for campaign fraud in the history of the campaign Finance system uh judge Wilson I just want to ask ask you a a precise question was there ever a case that you were presiding over where you had a family member economically benefit from the notoriety of the case no never you sure you don't want to take some more time on that think about it I don't need more time I know that for a fact well I mean if that had ever Arisen would you have allowed a family member to make money off the notoriety of a case I would have recused myself from the case huh well it's just interesting because we had attorney general Garland who was you know spent a good amount of time on the bench and I asked him the same question and you know he said that he wouldn't answer it because it was obviously a reference to what had gone on in New York I mean I thought it was I thought he could might could have answered it but I mean when you look at what happened in New York does it concern you that the judge in that case seemed to have a family member who is economically leveraging the notoriety of the case that greatly concerned me but not so much from the perspective of the ethical violation that would be apparent because that judge did get an ethical opinion from the judicial Ethics Committee in New York that exob exonerated him um from any wrongdoing and listening to the case when his daughter was benefiting what I was concerned about was the appearance of impropriety you know when I sat on the bench sometimes I would get a report from probation or some other organization and they would hand it to me in an envelope and I made certain to open up that envelope and show everybody that it was a report that I was looking at because I didn't want there to be the Imp the appearance of impropriety that I'm receiving an envelope from someone in the courtroom the concept is the same here you you're presiding over a case where your daughter is benefiting and where you've made political contributions in small amounts but it's irrelevant the amount but you've made contributions to uh the political opponents of the defendant before you the these are the the very essence of the appearance of impropriety and I feel strongly that judge Machan should have recused himself on that basis just simple as can be Mr chairman straightforward answer to a straightforward question I wish we could have gotten that from the attorney general a y back Johan's back Mr chair I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record articles um that discuss that the ruling of the New York advisory committee on judicial ethics which judge Mand took the judicious step of raising the issue with them about recusal seeking guidance on whether he would have to recuse himself on the case in which the committee ruled that there was no basis for recusal Mr chairman I'll object pending just a what where were the Articles from I will'll sh I'll give you a copy of those yeah yeah as soon as we have those I'll withdraw my objection thank you uh the gentle lady from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman I actually want to follow up on my colleague from Florida uh in his line of questioning um as representative Gates pointed out the judge's daughter um significantly profited from this case uh to the tune actually of $93 million raised for her Democrat clients clients that include a member of this committee representative Goldman I should point out and put on the record um but also uh authentic campaigns of which Lauren meran uh the daughter of the judge uh she runs this this firm authentic campaigns and was paid nearly $12 million for her work this cycle for her Democrat colleagues uh clients and uh including 9.7 Million by the Biden Harris campaign now I know that there's been a tremendous amount of discussion today about the severe irregularities of the case some of the things uh surrounding jury instructions but I want to talk about the financial motivations for the da and the judge so judge Wilson you just said that he got a waiver from judicial Ethics Committee and you were pointing out how just the appearance of any impropriety it's to be taken very seriously can you talk about the judicial Ethics Committee who makes up that committee and what are some of the the processes that they would use would they consider the $93 million or her clients or a direct immediate relative that is benefiting financially from from this case if you're asking me who makes up the committee it's a uh combination of lawyers and judges uh who are selected by the appell division of New York uh to hear uh issues that judges bring to them asking whether or not they can act ethically in particular circumstances I myself available myself of that committee on several instances um when it comes to whether or not they should consider the amount of the contributions I actually think the amount of the contributions are irrelevant because as you recall I said judge michan shouldn't have made any contribution in any small amounts to political campaigns um that's based upon a Prohibition of Judges being involved in political activities except if they're in a window period uh during their own campaign uh at that time then a judge's campaign may make a contribution to another campaign or to another political organization but that's a a strict um a strict requirement that it' only be during an election when such a campaign is made no um it doesn't matter so much what the amount of the money that was being made it matters that that this is someone of first degree of relationship to the judge who is profiting from activities that oppose the defendant before that judge and even if he had an Ethics opinion exonerating him saying it's okay your daughter's not a witness and none of her interests are uh being tried here so the Ethics Committee thought it was just fine there's still an appearance of impropriety that's of great concern to the public in general and that's what a judge wants to avoid when you're hearing a case you don't want people to feel that your integrity and that your impartiality is being impa compromise right which and that's what happened here and and the judge himself had given contributions and I think you pointed out very appropriately that it doesn't matter if it was a large or small contribution but the judge in this case judge m he contributed to a political action committee called stop Republicans that is inappropriate correct I mean especially overseeing the case of the the Republican nominee on the ticket correct he should have known better than to make those contributions while a sitting judge right and I mean and and I see our Democrat witness Mr Woo you're shaking your head I'm glad that you agree with with us that this is a a tremendous uh question mark on the Integrity of of this this trial but you know I also want to talk a little bit about um da Bragg now I I pointed out in our previous hearing that da Bragg raised $850,000 in campaign contributions immediately upon the announcement of the 34 counts Mr Mr fahe have you seen any other prosecutors run this similar Arc of campaigning on getting a particular person and then using it subsequently to raise campaign cash not that that I can think of there might be somebody that's done it before I think the The Da or st's attorney in Atlanta I think is doing something similar with that case uh Camp using that as a campaign case her case against Trump but other than those I don't know of any it's certainly possible but but you know $800,000 for a DA's race is enormous I know in your circles it's not but but those type of races are usually very low dollar amounts so it's safe to say that there's Financial motivation in the campaigns by multiple different Das and politicians to quote unquote get Trump correct at least a political Financial motivation not necessarily personal correct thank you my time has expired I yield J yields back J from Wyoming is recognized I think there are a few things that should be cleared up today first of all we are not a democracy we are a republic I think it's extremely important to remember that and to understand our form of government I also think that this is one of the reasons why people dislike politicians we we we all know what's happening here we know that Alan Alan Bragg's prosecution of pres president Trump is exhibit a of the left's by any means necessary law fair campaign against President Trump Albin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump opened a dangerous Pandora's box of politically motivated prosecutions of political opponents and Manhattan District Judge Juan maran's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly prejudiced the outcome of the trial and violated president president Trump's due process rights anyone with a li a sense knows that those statements are actually uh cannot be refuted we all watched what happened during the course of the trial Prof Professor Smith have you ever been retained as an expert to testify on campaign Finance matters prior to the case against President Trump yes okay and briefly what were the nature of those cases what issues or federal laws did you testify with regard to uh all of the those were other cases uh in which I was asked to testify about uh past experience with Federal campaign Finance laws customs and campaigns how they pay for things uh there were maybe as many as four I don't like to do expert witness work and I don't normally do it and uh in none of those you mentioned testifying in none of those that I end up testifying either because the case is settled because one is still pending or because in one other case the judge decided that this would be testimony that would go to the law can you briefly describe your qualifications to provide such expert testimony well as as has been mentioned I served as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission including a term as as chairman I've written uh one book specifically on campaign finance and and serve as co-author on two others on campaign finance and election law uh I have been uh at one point uh cited as one of the most cited scholars in the field of election law a recent book from the University of Chicago press suggested that I've had more influence on campaign Finance than any other scholar in the last 40 or 50 years or something like that so devoted my life to this this is what I do you're qualified to testify about Federal campaign Finance law this um would you also agree that campaign Finance law is a complex area and one where a lot of Americans who may have to sit on a jury would benefit from expert witness testimony to understand the alleged crimes that they are being asked to decide extremely so at one point Justice scalo when he was serving on the Supreme Court actually said during the middle of oral argument he says this law is so complex I can't figure it out so Professor Smith to the best of your knowledge is Michael Cohen a campaign Finance law expert and not to my knowledge and not what I've seen well yet judge Bashan allowed him to testify as such during the course of the Trump trial didn't he yes in theory for other purposes but nonetheless you had him repeatedly saying this violated the law you know that violated so judge Maron commented when ruling to limmit the scope of any test that you would provide that quote there is no question that this would result in a battle of the experts which will only serve to confuse and not assist the jury end quote from the standpoint of someone who practiced as a trial for attorney for 34 years I find that to be an extremely bizarre statement because that in fact is the situation anytime you have a case where expert testimony is needed in fact I worked on a Case called Nebraska versus Wyoming at one point and Wyoming had over 25 expert Witnesses in everything from hydrology to a engineering to economics to fival geomorphology to all of these things that Nebraska had something similar yet the judge including the United States Supreme Court was not excluding expert Witnesses simply because there was going to be a battle of the experts is that your experience as well that is and and I would point out one thing I mentioned earlier that there were a number of things I would have testified to that would not have gone to Legal conclusions but rather testifying about Customs practices about simply reporting dates under the law and it appeared from the judge's rulings that even this that kind of testimony would not have been allowed he wasn't going to allow you to testify to those things but he allowed Mr Cohen to sit up there and say president Trump violated federal election laws didn't he yes um Mr uh Professor Smith going on do you believe that the court committed reversible error by allowing Mr Cohen to testify about alleged campaign VI uh campaign or election violations I think it was erroneous uh and I'm not even sure what the standard not being a criminal law guy what the standard of review is for that kind of error and and sometimes if it's abusive discretion courts give trial judges a lot of leeway but it doesn't mean the decision wasn't right was wasn't wrong judge Wilson do you believe that judge Mara committed reversible error in excluding Mr Smith but allowing Mr Cohen to testify on these issues in and of itself that may not be enough to secure a reversal of the conviction but there is a concept uh in app pellet law a cumulative error and what I believe we've seen in the Trump trial is a series of Errors one piled upon the other cumulative errors that when you put them all together show that Donald Trump did not have a fair trial and that his conviction should be reversed I'm absolutely convinced that his conviction will be reversed and I also believe that judge mwn was well aware of that when he made the decisions during the course of trial that he did I found his decisions to be egregious egregious reversible error on so many different levels thank you all for being here today and with that I yield back gent lady yields back gentlemen from South car CH before lady the ranking members recognize um I just for Mi Mr Gates and for your purposes I have an article from Ro Reuters regarding judge and Trump trial as well as the actual opinion of the judicial Advisory Group of May 4th 2023 and we'll make a copy for him okay without objection gentleman from South Carolina is recognized thank you Mr chairman you know it's been a bad week for Democrats um not only is the Border wide open um not only do Main Street feel the pressure of 20% inflation uh but we saw uh a pretty tragic uh debate performance by the Commander in Chief in fact Democrats this week are discovering new tunnels on the way to and from the capital in which to hide from the media and so they are now talking about things like project 2025 and things to distract the American people from what they're really seeing uh which is a country that is not doing well under his leadership is a total distraction let's recap some of the main players we have here today Alvin Bragg used a novel legal Theory to bootstrap a misdemeanor allegation as a felony by alleging that records were falsified to conceal a second crime Alvin Bragg is a pioneer of sorts but in all the wrong ways when you look at what he's done he's paved the way for rogue District Attorneys to campaign on and get elected to prosecute politically uh political enemies or political opponents then we have judge Maran who's a top Democrat donor his daughter worked uh for Cala Harris and even urged a uh Trump organization CFO to be a government witness against President Trump but when President Trump requests that he recuse himself judge Maran said no he performed an examination of his own conscience which he found that he can rule fairly and that it would be not be in the public interest if he recused himself from the case a to Force the the left has really stacked the deck on this trial judge Wilson why should judge Mara we talked about this a second but we're going to wrap up here why should judge Maran have recused himself from hearing the case against President Trump a judge has an obligation to be fair and impartial and to appear fair and impartial now judge Maan has the right to rely upon the ethics opinions that he received he asked the question he got the answer but that isn't the end of the analysis the judge has to also avoid the appearance of impropriety in hearing the case after having made political contributions and having a daughter first degree relationship to the judge um profiting from attacking the subject of the trial that the judge is residing over has the appearance of impropriety Judge have you ever asked have you ever asked specifically uh a potential witness to be a witness in a case um or have you let the prosecutors and the defense Council pick those their own set of witnesses I leave that to the prosecution the defense the prosecution is the burden of proof they decide what Witnesses they want to put forward to prove their case and the defense then has the ability present whatever Witnesses they want sometimes witnesses will be irrelevant cumulative there'll be other reasons they'll not testify but in general the prosec ution defense are the ones that pick the witness so if a judge were to do that in this case judge Maran to ask a a a former Trump CFO to be a witness in a case that would be improper is that correct that's out of the ordinary it's not always improper for a judge to suggest a witness but uh judges don't call Witnesses in 99.99% of cases judge um you talked about this earlier kind of a parade of of errors that that what was the legal term that you used cumulative these are cumulative errors so would the inability of Judge Maran to recuse himself would that be part uh of a stack uh that could be um used as by a court of appeals to reverse the decision I believe so what other grounds for appeal do you think uh are evident uh from your mind on this particular case well I go right back to the indictment and and appell courts like to rule on things that are pretty clear a clear era is usually the basis that an Appel Court will find and not go into a lot of other questionable issues courts like to decide things simply in most cases here the indictment was facially insufficient right from the beginning and it would have been a simple matter for judge Machan to dismiss that indictment and to give the prosecutor leave to represent uh that indictment to get a sufficient one to give uh the defendant proper notice of the charges that the defendant was facing that was not done in this case and that led directly to the next significant error which was not notifying the defendant of those additional charges until he was already a trial and many of them not being notified many of those charges not being not being present until the jury instructions themselves and then the jury instructions of course were wrong too I mean it was a 55 page set of jury instructions that were incredibly confusing uh to an average juror yes as well as to lawyers for that matter because I heard that comment more than once that many didn't know what what those jury instructions bent thank you judge appreciate your time with that Mr chairman I yield back gentleman yields back the chair recogniz the ranking member for uh closing question and comment um I really don't have any questions at this time I just would again um ask my plea to you Mr chair for us to have uh a hearing discussion interview with the authors of project 2025 it is a clear um weaponization plan by its authors against the American people uh should Donald Trump become president again I back County district attorne office began investigating president Trump in 2018 Southern District of New York months later concluded its investigation into the payments by Michael Cohen and determined no charges should be brought against President Trump while this was going on Alvin Bragg was running for the job while on the campaign trial Mr Bragg boasted about the number of times he had already sued president Trump January 2021 Mr brag stated I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump close quote he said that it'd be hard to argue with the fact that any case against President Trump would be the most important most high profile case Mr brag won and took office in January 2022 few weeks after taking office he told one of his prosecutors mark pomerance quote he could not see a world in which he would indict president Trump and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness that's right after campaigning on going after the former president brag gets into office and realizes the case against President Trump is ridiculous that is why the southern district of New York didn't bring it it's why his predecessor sance didn't bring it why did brag change his mind Mark pomerance Special Assistant district attorney resigned in protest and he and his fellow assistant district attorney carry done leaked their resignation letter to the New York Times after that the left began the pressure campaign on Alvin brag and suddenly the zombie case was resurrected one of the first things Alvin brag did was hire Matthew Colangelo a top official in the Biden justice department who had a history of taking on President Trump and his family's businesses it's also interesting to note who Mr Colangelo listed as his references when he applied for the job at the Justice dep Department he listed Tom Perez former DNC chair and Jeff Zs who is now President Biden's Chief of Staff that's right the head of the DNC and the Biden white house chief of staff those were his references that's the guy who went to work to be the lead prosecutor on the case against President Trump Alvin Bragg Matthew Colangelo picked their target searched for a crime and then they prosecuted president Trump the partisan da that campaigned on going after president Trump whose newly hired lead prosecutor for the case also had a history of taking on President Trump also had their case in front of a partisan judge a judge who donated to President Biden who imposed a gag order on President Trump who told the jury they didn't need to reach a unanimous decision and prevented one of our Witnesses today Mr Smith an expert on campaign Finance from giving real testimony to the court today Mr Smith will be given an opportunity to tell Congress and tell the country what he wasn't permitted to tell the court what he wasn't permitted to tell the jury remember brag and Colangelo bootstrapped charges that are normally misdemeanor to some underlying crime to make the charges a felony but what was the underlying crime prosecutors didn't reveal that until after the trial began Mr Colangelo in his opening statement accused president Trump of violating the federal elections Campaign Act but the problem is in the plain reading of that act doesn't support the indictment or the verdict as commissioner Smith stated allowing this prosecution to go forward and the ultimate jury decision threaten the enforcement procedures established by Congress under the act and stretch the meaning of the statute in such a way as to threaten due process of law although judge M wouldn't permit the leading expert on campaign fin Finance to provide this testimony he did let someone else speak in the court on this issue and others Michael Cohen Michael Cohen a convicted perjurer someone even his former lawyer said you couldn't trust Michael Cohen who lied to Congress lied to the FBI and lied to the court it's not often you have a witness that can lie to all three branches of government and then become the star witness in the prosecution of a former president but that's exactly what took place in New York it is clear Manhattan District Judge Juan maron's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly prejudiced the outcome of the trial and violated president Trump's due process rights Bragg's prosecution of President Trump with the help of Judge M opened the door for politically motivated prosecutions and it will not be easy to undo the damage that's already been done as we have seen other ambitious prosecutors have follow Bragg's lead and pursued politically motivated indictments against the former president rather than debate iCal opponents on substance the Democrats strategy to win the 2024 election is through the use of partisan lawfare tactics these politically motivated local prosecutions rais substantial Federal interest and potential collusion between federal and state authorities and that is precisely why we are here today Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump was personal it was based on politics and it was wrong we now recognize the ranking member for an opening statement and then we'll get to our Witnesses thank you Mr chairman good morning thank you to our Witnesses for being here I especially like to thank um witness former you US Federal prosecutor and former United States Department of Justice attorney Shan woo um my colleagues thank you to the American people watching around the country for joining another hearing of the Congressional committee to undermine American independence and to defend Donald Trump from the early days of our nation's formation our founding fathers were very clear the upkeep of democracy requires constant proactive maintenance in his letters to fellow founding father and his political opponent John Taylor then former President John Adams wrote Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy remember democracy never last lasts long it soon wastes exhausts and murders itself there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide those passions are the same in all men under all forms of government when unchecked produce the same effects of fraud violence and cruelty American democracy has always been a question of progress not finality democracy has been given to us with the blood sweat tears and efforts of Americans who came before us who struggled long and hard to build and protect every Democratic institution we have indeed our country's dark past the very Foundation of our economic Juggernaut on the world was premised on a sick institution called slavery that some now want to even erase this democracy that our ancestors struggled to bring us all to these rights some of which some Americans do not even have all of are fragile remember that the great Republic of Rome was destroyed Greece was destroyed Germany of the early 20th century destroyed Spain these great Empires are gone human history is Laden with examples of great Nations republics and democracies that were once beacons of human progress and eventually destroyed by hubris autocrats and the Rabid Ambitions of an empowered few Falls do not happen overnight but the signs are there if you want to see them in those republics those democracies slowly but surely rights are Stripped Away my fellow Americans that's happening here in this country the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body Stripped Away in 15 states immigrant children being stripped away from their families the gains of blacks for fair representation voting rights recognition of the historic lack of a playing fi of creating a even playing field Stripped Away slowly but surely the structures the laws and the institutions intended to make the nation great have been and continue to be eroded not to mention the souls of the human race and might minorities being eroded every day by injustices we have a blueprint that we can see how that's being done project 2025 plans to upend structures institutions and the basic rights that have supposedly been afforded to Americans to make it great it's a playbook for Donald Trump's second term and a plan for the destruction of America as we know it despite flashy headlines printed over American flags and the of obnoxious men who give loud speeches about their love for making America great again project 2025 delivers No Such Thing project 2025 will slowly but surely strip away our rights I've asked for a hearing about project 2025 because I believe it is a dire warning to us all of an individual and others around him desire to weaponize the government for their own empowerment it will Rip our experts out of agencies to be replaced by sycophant political appointees it will strip women of even more healthc care access and rights it will further dehumanize undocumented immigrants and punish their family members even those who are American citizens for daring to be associated with them it will restrict free speech in schools to only allow farri approved agendas and curriculum it will erode our freedoms all under the vague guise of making America great and yes because it is a grand Republican plan project 2025 calls for severe cuts to Medicare and Social Security I'm not just saying that the authors of project 2025 are saying that here's a video outlining 25 believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if her doctor says that she needs one it's a yes or no question abortion is not Healthcare murder of a human being we're also going to have teenss cuz we can multitask to deconstruct the administrative State and to go after criminals and the traitors in the Deep state so suck on that we need to have the biggest Mass deportation system ever in the history of America because it is unjust and illegal and evil that more than 10 million illegal aliens have come to this country there are great plans using the Department of Homeland Security to return these people back to South of the Border the best thing that people can do right now if you're a young person is get involved in one of these things like American moment or project 2025 or the Trump campaign we got to fill up the White House with brers project 20125 is something that's going to transcend the next four years the next 10 years it really is for the first time the history of the conservative movement the apparatus for policy and Personnel we are in the process of the second American Revolution which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be playing patriotic music claiming to Love Freedom demonizing every group in the nation that is not like you will not protect you and your civil rights the project 2025 Playbook is a plan to give Donald Trump the powers of a dictator just as he wants that's the plan this is the man who threatened to send the Department of Justice after political opponents Trump even sent his lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that he should have criminal immunity even if he uses the military to assassinate someone who simply disagrees with him we heard his secretary of defense say that he asked the military to shoot people because they were protesting yes that's what his defense secretary said on TV and there's recordings of it this is the man who jokes about being a dictator just for a day and teases the idea of a third term for US president this is a man who wants to implement cofant loyalty tests he's a man who will fire every employee in every agency who upholds their pledge to serve their country over the president Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the continuation of American democracy as I as we know it we are using this Congressional committee for the third time to attack a state level felony conviction of a former president by a jury of his peers Republicans on this committee have used $20 million of federal taxpayer dollars to deliver Trump more power and attack his Rivals they're threatening public servants far outside their legal jurisdiction and even threatening private citizens who dare not to give Trump what he wants the reign of Lord Trump has already begun and he isn't even in a second term it's vital to remember our founding father's principles and that we see project 2025 for what it is a republican plan to slowly but surely strip away rights this is about Freedom versus fascism I beg every American watching don't be fooled by plastic patriotism don't be fooled by those rhetorically referring to freedom without the substance to back it up without any care for all people's rights a true understanding of Freedom comes from respecting the sacrifices of our ancestors our Democratic institutions and a robust rule of law our country is not and has never been perfect but our country is great and it's our duty to keep it that way our country has never shied away from improving our flaws but what is being promoted is a distraction it's counterproductive and threatens years decades centuries of progress let's keep moving forward let's not go back to the dark times iel back gent's back without objection all the opening statements will be included in the record we will now introduce today's Witnesses The Honorable Brad Smith is the Josiah H Blackmore second and Shirley m not professor of law at Capitol University law school Professor Smith previously served as commissioner on the federal elections commission including a term as chairman uh Mr Jonathan fahe is a partner at Holzman Vogal he is a former prosecutor having served for 17 years in the US attorney's office for the eastern district of Virginia Mr F he also served in various positions at the Department of Homeland Security including as acting director of US immigration and custom enforcement The Honorable John Wilson is a former judge having served on the Bronx County Civil Court and Kings County criminal court for 10 years judge Wilson also previously served as a prosecutor in the Bron Bronx County uh District Attorney's office and in private practice following his departure from the bench judge Wilson served as Chief prosecutor for the Standing Rock reservation in Fort Yates North Dakota and Mr Shan wo is an attorney focusing on White Collar defense and cases involving college students he previously served as a federal prosecutor and is counsel to former Attorney General Janet Reno he also works as a contributor for CNN and MSNBC we welcome our Witnesses and thank them for appearing today we will Begin by swearing uh swearing you in would you please rise and raise your right hand do you swear affirm under penalty of purgery that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief so help you God let the record uh reflect that the witnesses I've answered in the affirmative thank you please be seated uh please know your written testimony uh will be entered into the record in its entirety accordingly we ask that you summarize your testimony in uh in approximately five minutes uh and we're going to just move right down the line like we introduced you we'll start with Professor Smith and go right down and finish with Mr Woo so Mr Smith you're recognized for uh for five minutes thank you chairman Jordan ranking member PL in the written testimony I I explain at length uh why the convictions of Donald Trump in New York in May because they relied in the end on alleged violations of federal election campaign act or F were incorrect as a matter of Law and I discussed some of the errors of law made by prosecutors and and judges in the case to quickly summarize uh the payments that were made to uh Stormy Daniels were not under current law and should not be as a matter of policy treated as campaign expenditures and thus Michael Cohen's brief fronting of the money which was repaid to him shortly thereafter uh does not constitute an illegal contribution but moreover the prosecution Theory uh that the defendant Trump had to engage in a vast conspiracy because of a desperate desire to hide stormy Daniel's allegations from the public and thus uh ignore campaign Finance laws simply makes no sense because even had they treated these as campaign expenditures which again I I think they correct not to do so nothing would have come out before the election as I explained under the reporting schedules nothing would have been reported until after the election uh and the idea that illegality was needed is simply laughable in fact Donald Trump and the Trump for president campaign had plenty of cash to pay for the Daniel's non-disclosure agreement uh as of October 27th 2016 they did not need Michael Cohen to front them money for that purpose further even assuming the expense was a campaign expenditure no public disclosure of the expense would have been required until 20 days after the election and repeatedly the prosecution emphasized that the main uh desire of trump was to hide this information until after the election as a practical matter then having Michael Cohen front the money for the non-disclosure agreement between Mr Trump and Stormy Daniels could have no influence on the 2016 election despite the repeated claims by the prosecution that that was the core of the case and this undercuts the entire theory of the case offered by the prosecution uh this is explained in my written testimony I'm happy to answer questions on that as we go forward but right now I just want to emphasize that this New York prosecution uh is uh something that is a uh a very bad precedent let's just put it that way not only because it threatens the rule of law and and generally we have not uh short uh in our defense of democracy we've not been willing to Short Change uh procedures of law but because it also threatens the bipartisan campaign enforcement system established by Congress if allowed to stand any state could do what New York has done that is pass a law making it a felony to try to influence an election by unlawful means then the state court could effectively try defendants for those alleged violations of FICA remember in the Trump case there was no finding by the Department of Justice uh that Trump had violated the law indeed they decided not to pursue it there was no finding that by the Federal Election Commission that Trump had violated the law they also decided not to pursue it no federal body had found violations here um and effectively the state was simply making up the law and enforcing federal law in a partisan with elected judges elected prosecutors unlike the nonpartisan bipartisan system set up uh by the federal election campaign Act and the members of this committee and there are several who live in states that are dominated by the opposing party at a state level uh might want to take heed of that possibility that this that this game can be played in many different ways way and one can run run the risk of being prosecuted for violating F even though uh the FBC found no wrongdoing it should be pointed out here that judge meron during the case took great pains to make sure that the jury was not informed that neither the Department of Justice nor the Federal Election Commission had decided not to pursue allegations against Mr Trump but at the same time uh allowed in uh repeatedly statements by the prosecutors and by witness Michael Cohen uh stating that he had clearly violated the law and there was no doubt about that and and thus implying that Mr Trump had done so as well it's worth noting in in the end that um it's right for this committee I guess I would say this it's right for this committee to take up this issue because it is a federal issue not only of due process but of that enforcement of the statute and we could have a tremendous amount of chaos and and uh every Federal campaign will be governed essentially by whatever one can get a state judge and a state jury to do uh that's not how the federal election campaign Act was set up and that's not how this should be pursued so I hope that this body will recognize that this is clearly a federal issue and uh not only are there major constitutional questions about due process but again it may even be something where some legislation is necessary to make sure that state prosecutors cannot try this again thank you thank you Professor uh Mr F you recognize for five minutes thank you make sure you have that mic on and pull close thank you you bet uh good morning chairman Jordan ranking member plaset members of the committee uh I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today my name is Jonathan fahe and I'm an attorney with the law firm of Holzman vogle I'm in private practice now but I spent most of my 25 years as an attorney as a prosecutor both as a state and federal prosecutor the reason I went to law school was because I wanted to be a prosecutor didn't want to be a law firm lawyer or anything else I wanted to be a prosecutor and the reason for that is my mom uh when I was growing up my mom was an assistant Comm attorney in Arlington County Virginia and then she was eventually uh elected to be the Commonwealth Attorney as a democrat in Arlington and later appointed by President Clinton to be the United States Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and I learned from my mom what I would go to court I would sometimes watch trials and things like that but I learned from her about the importance of being a prosecutor in terms of what it means to the public in terms of Public Safety but I also learned what it meant to administer Justice to be fair when you're entrusted with so much power how you administer that reflects not only on the person that that is the subject of that but as the whole Community how we treat the accused how we treat the most vulnerable victims and you know I learned from her that being a prosecutor really wasn't a partisan job it was a public safety job it was a speaking for victims job and that's the way it had really been in Virginia where I live and most of the country uh up until about 10 years ago and you know I say that because you could go through the country and you could see prosecutors that are Democrats prosecutors that are Republicans but they really approached the job the same way until recently but I began my career after law school after clerking in state court I became a state prosecutor in Fairfax County uh there I served under Bob heran who was a elect Democrat and he had been the C attorney for probably 30 years or so at that point and I had the opportunity to prosecute cases anywhere from the lowest level misdemeanor cases to the most violent felons and again I learned a lot of lessons there but the most important lesson I learned was you're entrusted with so much power from the the position from the community and how you administer that power is what's most important you you don't prosecute people because you don't like them or you have some other ior motive you prosecute them because um they violated the law and you're treating people equally equally regardless of the political motivations or political parties or anything else they might have um I went over from the Cel attorney's office to the US attorney's office in the eastern district of Virginia where I served for 17 years I served under multiple administrations but from uh George W bush to Obama to president Trump and also what I learned there no matter who was within that office people were professional I I had a chance to work with the most talented probably attorneys I've ever worked with and one thing that that during that tenure people's political whatever their political leanings were you rarely knew other than maybe outside of work and while I was there I had the opportunity to to prosecute drug traffickers gang members fraudsters other types of crimes I also had the opportunity to prosecute um the to train younger prosecutors on how to prosecute cases ethics things of that nature uh the reason I go to my background and I know the time is short is the reason I'm here today I would say is because of the progressive prosecutor movement you know funded by these outside groups um this started about 10 years ago these Progressive prosecutors being elected through funding from outside's groups as U mostly in Democrat jurisdictions they defeated incumbent Democrats and the movement basically is sort of the underlining premise was the entire system was unjust therefore the prosecutor can do whatever they want and you see saw that in Philadelphia you see it in Chicago which incidentally I think had a 100 plus people shot over the weekend you see in La other places and essentially what these prosecutors have done is to Institute what they would call Criminal Justice Reform they would go into office and they would nullify any laws they did not like and that seems somewhat benign in some respects but the problem with it as you see with Alvin Bragg which I'll get into briefly at the end of my five minutes here but Alvin brag has taken this he was a progressive prosecutor in New York he ran on this Progressive prosecutor uh I guess as a progressive prosecutor and when he got into office his main theme was deciding not to prosecute cases basically not in Prosecuting any misdemeanors whatsoever reducing misdemeanors to felonies and reducing serious felonies to lesser felonies so all of his theme for running his in office practice has led to I think New York the last two years have had the highest uh crime rate on the big seven crimes in the last 20 years but he's taken this a step further because again it's somewhat benign to say I won't prosecute trespassing but sort of opened the door for the political prosecution of Donald Trump which as we've seen you know now it's taken from not Prosecuting to identifying a political opponent and Prosecuting them for political reasons I'll talk to someone in my testimony hopefully about the reasons behind the prosecution the errors in the case and how the immunity decision affects the case and I thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions and I apologize for going a little over that's fine Mr F thank you uh judge you're recognized for 5 minutes members of the House Judiciary Committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the criminal trial of former president Donald Trump held before judge Juan Maran in New York County Supreme Court criminal term earlier this year as you may be aware I served as a criminal court judge in and for both Kings County and Bronx County New York City from 2005 to 2014 for 5 years of my term I served as a night court arraignment judge in Kings County where I was designated an acting Supreme Court Justice before my election to the bench in 2004 I served as an assistant district attorney in Bronx County and as a criminal defense attorney although I never tried a felony case as a judge I tried a number of felony cases as defense councel including homicides child molestation drug sales Etc I was involed involved in all phases of criminal litigation for approximately 30 years I have sat in all three seats prosecutor defense counsel and judge I do not personally know judge Juan masan but I am intimately familiar with New York County Supreme and Criminal Court having spent most of my career in those courtrooms based on my experience I can tell you in no uncertain terms that former president Trump did not receive a fair trial from Judge Juan michan in fact if the court of appeals is fair and I believe the court will be fair based upon the reversal of Harvey Weinstein's illegal conviction Donald Trump's conviction is aured reversal a reversal that would be premised upon the fundamental errors committed by judge Juan michan if I may be blunt Donald Trump was railroaded and Juan michan was the driver of that train for the purpose of this statement I would like to concentrate on the most glaring problems presented by judge michan's conduct of this trial I believe the following one the indictment was legally insufficient and judge Maran should have dismissed the indictment before trial in my book The Making of a mod and Analysis of the indictments of Donald Trump I wrote that my review of the New York County indictment revealed that Donald Trump was accused of causing a false ENT to be made in his business records for the purpose of concealing or committing another crime what other crime the indictment does not say simply put how was former president Trump's prepared defense if he is not informed of the other crime he intended to commit or conceal when he allegedly falsified his business records judge michan was obligated to dismiss an indictment that failed to identify the underlying crime number two the failure to dismiss the indictment led to charges being added during trial that were not included Ed in the indictment in doing so former president Donald Trump was not given a fair chance to prepare a defense to these added charges thus depriving him of his right to prepare a defense this was a violation of Donald Trump's right to fundamental fairness and notice of the charges he faced prior to trial further the jury instructions given by judge M were illegal and that they included these additional charges and allowed for a non-unanimous verdict a non-unanimous verdict is unprecedented in any felony trial in American Juris prudence and recently the US Supreme Court reiterated the necessity for a unanimous jury verdict in the case of erlinger versus United States number three judge Juan masan made unconstitutional and prejudicial rulings that impacted Donald Trump's ability to present the defense and that he allowed the prosecutor to use civil penalties and uncharged sexual assault charges against Donald Trump where he had testify his own defense this deprived the former president of his right to present evidence in his own defense and was the very basis for the court of appeals reversal of the conviction of Harvey Weinstein earlier this year number four judge michan should have recused himself from presiding over this matter based upon the appearance of impropriety in having contributed to political campaigns regardless of the amount and based upon his daughter's political activities regardless of the ethics opinions he received which absolved him of any actual unethical activity there are of course other appell issues which which exist in this case allowing the prosecution to claim federal election law violations without presenting any evidence to support those allegations not allowing the defense to present the witness regarding federal election law after allowing the prosecution to make the aforementioned statements and allowing stormmy Daniels to testify knowing that the prejudicial effect of her testimony outweighed any probative value are several it is my belief however at the ones I have outlined are the strongest issues to be presented on appeal therefore it is my considered opinion based upon my years of legal training experience that former president Donald Trump did not receive a fair trial that judge Juan masan failed in his obligation to be fair and impartial that judge michan committed a series of errors that necessitate reversal of this conviction to be direct I do not believe anyone can reasonably state that former president Trump received a fair trial in New York County Supreme Court from Judge Juan michan thank you for your attention I'll be happy to answer your questions thank you judge Mr will you're recognized for five minutes thank you uh good morning members of the subcommittee and thank you chairman Jordan and ranking member Miss plaset for inviting me here today uh my name is Shan wo I'm the child of immigrants from China who came here seeking freedom and to avoid political persecution under the communist government there and they came here as graduate students and after the Communist Revolution they were stranded here and made a life here luckily for me they did come here because they didn't know each other in China so they met here uh and they had me and they instilled in me a great love for family despite the fact I had no extended family growing up as well as a very strong sense of Public Service my father served under two New York City Mayors as a New York City Human Rights commissioner and his example of Public Service led me to attend law school and then later to become a federal prosecutor where I served as an assistant us attorney for 10 years and had the privilege in the last year of the Clinton Administration to serve as Council to then attorney general Jan Reno from that particular position where my portfolio included leaz oning uh for the office of Pardon attorney overseeing various criminal issues as well as briefing the Attorney General on a number of daily issues that would arise in the Justice Department it gave me very much of a bird's eyee view of the kinds of issues and the approach that the department takes uh as what is appropriately calling them the nation's Law Firm it is through through this lens uh that I give you my personal opinion today which does not reflect the opinions of my Law Firm mentry Stafford or any other entities uh the view that I have of the recent conviction of the former president in the Manhattan da Alvin Braggs case where he was convicted of 34 felony counts and also my impressions of the recent presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court and whether or not that affects the verdict in that case in any way and lastly My Views that there is a growing Shadow a threat to American democracy presented by many of the former president's views as well as the way that those views are expressed in certain types of writings such as the plan for presidential transition known as project 2025 in particular because of my experience at the justice department I would highlight some of the issues with these plans as they relate to the justice department when I was at the justice department I found that there is enormous value in the career employees there they were the heart and soul of the department the conscience as well as the institutional wisdom there I remember on an almost daily basis when there were thorny Issues new issues that came up that Miss Reno the Attorney General would always want to know what the take was from career civil servants there and it was not just the more famous ones such as David margolus or Jack Keeney who served for decades at the department but the rank and file people who were unsung heroes who always provided their best advice and that advice is important because they as career employees their tenures cut across Administrations they weren't simply put in there by the latest Administration and therefore they did not always reflect the political views or even the policy goals of the new Administration and in that sense they supplied a very healthy buffer zone to make sure that whatever new policy ideas would be measured against what the department had done in the past and what their experience told them was wise for the Department to me that gives the institution both a sense of Integrity as well as steadiness and that kind of steadiness and integrity is what allows the American people to have confidence in their institutions my parents were cut off from their families but they stayed here and they stayed because of the great love of the freedoms that this country has tried to give all of its people and as I see the current climate today one of my concerns is that those freedoms are endangered by an increasing trajectory towards authoritarianism autocracy and even dictatorship types of Tendencies um my testimony is prepared in writing as well and of course very happy to answer any questions gentleman Yi's back we will now proceed under the five minute rule the chair recognize the gentleman from Ohio for five minutes um I thank all of our Witnesses I think the chairman for holding this meeting look in my eight years in Congress that came in in June of 2016 uh we've seen an unprecedented amount of weaponized government we've seen it abused in every way imaginable uh this isn't a a new phenomenon as bosot recognized when law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law law frankly the radicals are counting on it we've seen the IRS go after religious and conservative nonprofits the ATF go after law-abiding gun collectors pro-life grandmothers sent to prison for years for peaceful protests here in Washington DC parents targeted for speaking up at school board meetings fintech companies targeted and debanked because they posed a threat to the status quo the list goes on the American Bar Association estimates that there are some 400,000 po potential crimes that agencies can prosecute that exist between the federal code and mountains of politicized rule makings and regulations hopefully thinned out by the recent Chevron Defence decision and uh the administration strative law judge decision and some other good ones over the past uh two weeks the average American uh likely commits something that can be construed by a corrupt prosecutor as a federal crime uh what happened to president Trump can happen to any American who has the audacity to upset someone in a powerful position that's not supposed to happen in the United States of America Western Civilization is based on the rule of law and that this law must be both impartially administered and fairly adjudicated Kangaroo Court spectacles such as what we witnessed in New York are fundamentally an attack on and perversion of the rule of law and its foundation in our society the list of abuses to Railroad President Trump is obscene and outrageous but calling it that is an understatement let's be clear Alvin Bragg campaigned openly on his persecution of President Trump is was clearly a political act and that is the only reason this case was designed and executed against the current administration's political enemy Professor Smith has there ever been a citizen named not named Donald Trump that has been prosecuted with these same crimes anywhere in America well it depends on what one considers the crime for example they'll say well lots of people are prosecuted for false records under New York law what they're not prosecuted for is for false records covering up a crime under New York law that makes it illegal to violate some unnamed law to influence an election and no I I've I've never seen anything like that has anyone ever successfully uh paid a hush money settlement anyone and counted it as a campaign expense well not that I I know of and I think Common Sense would tell us that uh paying uh for a non-disclosure agreement or any kind of legal settlement is not based on things done outside of office like 10 years before you were a candidate is not a campaign expense and we wouldn't want it to be because if you think about it that would mean that candidates could use their campaign funds for exactly that kind of thing be a horrible presedent right um every day we see headlines coming out in New York City illegal immigrants all kinds of cases and some of you in your opening statements highlighted how Mr Fey highlighted in particular how Alan brag ran on this Progressive platform uh as a prosecutor you know as a former prosecutor in your career If You Were Never Bound by the sixth amendment if you could turn any action retroactively into a crime if you could bias a jury by whatever means you wanted to is there a single citizen in America who would be safe from a politicized prosecution I don't really think so if you really targeted someone and looked for a way to charge them I don't want to say that I mean I'm sure there's some people that could not be and theoretically but there are so many people that would be vulnerable to being prosecuted if somebody is targeting them for political reasons or whatever reasons and that's really what's scary about this and I I think your point with Alvin Bragg with it it's funny that on one hand he he run on not Prosecuting the law and then all of a sudden on this case it's this is the most aggressive stance that's ever been taken probably on these set of not the rule of law and and crime is going through the roof I think you know seven you know the seven biggest felonies the last two years are the highest year since 06 so it's like he's not Prosecuting the law equally or against you know other people and more serious criminals thank you and look judge Wilson you referenced it in your statements about the president uh in the Court's recognition in Ness versus the United States but as early as 1898 the court said that a defendant enjoys a quote constitutional right to demand that his Liberty should not be taken except by The Joint action of the court and a unanimous verdict of a jury of 12 persons I think chairman Jordan for holding this vital hearing today what we are witnessing is an unprecedented attack on the rule of law and a weaponization of our criminal justice system and it's a shame I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Massachusetts Rec recogniz for 5 minutes thank you Mr chairman and thank you to the ranking member and I appreciate the attendance of our our Witnesses this morning um I've served on the oversight committee here in Congress uh which is the principal investigatory Committee in this house uh for over 20 years and I have to admit I cannot point to a single case during my tenure and we have had Republican leadership and and Democratic Leadership where the chair has blatantly and persistently uh interfered with a state criminal proceeding as I have seen it interfere in the case of the people of the state of New York versus Donald Trump even before New York district attorney Alvin Bragg announced a 34 count felony indictment against the former president in April of 2023 chairman Jordan joined by other Republican committee chairs had already sent a letter to district attorney Bragg demanding his testimony before Congress it also warned him of the quote serious consequences close quote of pursuing criminal charges against Donald Trump and over the next year in the midst of ongoing state criminal proceedings chairman Jordan proceeded to send nearly a dozen frivolous investigatory letters and subpoena threats to current and former employees of the New York District Attorney's office on top of that he listed a series of documents that this is an ongoing criminal trial in the state of New York at the time asking for all documents and Communications between and among the New York County District Attorney's Office all documents and Communications are received uh by certain employees all documents and Communications referring or relating to New York City district attorney receipts and other uh use of federal funds clearly clearly trying to intimidate uh the New York District Attorney's office and dissuade them from their prosecution of of Donald Trump uh Mr Woo a as a federal prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney um what what is the danger in in having Congress which is a legislative body uh use those type of threats against an ongoing uh criminal prosecution in State Court uh Congressman win what the danger is is that it greatly destroys the Integrity of the criminal prosecution the idea that a legislative body which is inherently politically based is looking at a criminal process prosecution which is meant to independently assess evidence of criminality during the pendency of that case is extremely destructive and quite dangerous for the Integrity of the system and Mr W on top of that over 25 Republican members actually went to the courthouse sat in the courtroom uh to to uh support the defendant in that case um the nonpartisan Brennan Center for justice recently reported that Congressional efforts to compel the production of non-public information about a specific case from a local prosecutor or otherwise medal in their investigation quote crosses the line to political interference that threatens the the rule of law close quote would you agree with that assessment I would agree with that and also I think the presence of those members of the trial while they certainly have a First Amendment right to be there I think it also injected a great deal political atmosphere into that case Mr rther Brennan Senator has also warned that Congressional interference in the New York case is reflective of a quote worrying Trend that threatens to intensify close quote can you talk about the impact of this trend on state and federal prosecutions I think uh as we discussed before the trend indicates that the district attorneys in those States as well as Federal prosecutors feel that they AR aren't free to actually follow the evidence they aren't free to actually follow the law but that they're going to be criticized they're going to be the subject of political leverage if they actually do their job and I think that really undermines the Integrity of our criminal justice system thank you very much what are the ramifications uh for this uh especially following the Supreme Court's decision on on presidential immunity do you think there's there are implications for that as well uh the Supreme Court's decision on immunity I think very much indicates this Court's direction towards overly empowering the Office of the President I don't know exactly how it may trickle down to other kinds of prosecutions but certainly in my view they're extremely over Brad opinion frankly would obviate the purpose of this subcommittee which is the weaponization of the justice system against a president is impossible under their view because the president can do anything he wants thank you uh Mr chairman my time has expired and I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from California is recogniz thank you Mr wo I'm going to stay with you um every day members of Congress are subpoena uh on behalf of defendants in prison people that have griefs gripes against the government and the president receives far more than one a day would you suggest that he should have to go to those uh uh places show up and be deposed just because because somebody uh wants to depose the president and says they have a basis I I obviously there's a general policy reason not to okay so so the fact is that the Supreme Court's decision on limited immunity or immunity from prosecution immunity from having to show up and be distracted from the work of the president is for a good purpose and only in rare cases such as Bill Clinton's case of a civil suit specifically about before he was president has the court ever uh said it doesn't fit there right I think that's exactly the problem you point out is it's so rare that there was no need for them to well let's just get back to rare they there was need they made a decision that uh still stands today that Bill Clinton could be deposed as to his specific State actions prior to being president but they ruled clearly that the president cannot be distracted from that I'm going to switch to Mr Smith uh I'm going to let him drink his water um you know you you said as a prosecutor I'll go to you and to Mr judge Wilson that this was not a fair trial that it violated the rules that we count on for the admission of evidence is that correct you both saw that in this case yeah if if I may go first uh I think the most glaring thing was somewhat of some of the Stormy Daniels testimony which you know the implication from her testimony was that she was sexually assaulted by President Trump which is you know by in any respects so unfairly prejudicial relative to the crime the judge clearly let evidence in and that that that was surprising to me one that the prosecutors didn't know that ahead of time that this was going to come out and it wasn't vetted ahead of time so that that's the most glaring example that I I I I so as a prosecutor something that you dedicated your career to there's a there is a sense of balance if you get in your unfair twisting you normally expect the judge to uh at least at a minimum allow the defendant to present Witnesses uh in response to that or to to offset it it was pretty unheard of that they only let you hit the the guy and not and no one answer back right that part of it's concerning and when you think about it when we were prosecute cases generally defendants had far more leeway because it was like they're the ones they're in Jeopardy they're you know going to jail or whatever so even if they didn't have necessarily the most viable defense it was rare to have a judge cut them off on it and that that's what just seems so striking on one hand it's the most extreme evidence allowed against President Trump which is hard to justify and then not allowing some some sort of at least explanatory evidence my time's running out but uh yes or no if I could isn't that kind of imbalance very often exactly what a prosecutor doesn't want to see because it leads to a high probability of a case being reversed and on based on not being fair in other words If you deny the defendant you have a Jeopardy of of in fact getting a perfectly good conviction overturned because you didn't give them the proper opportunity for defense didn't give them the charges in advance didn't give them uh the evidence that you held is that right yes and it it goes to question the motivation for this case was it just to get the initial conviction and and now let's go to the motivation with uh Mr Smith you were denied the ability to answer a great many questions so hopefully you'll be able to answer uh the ones you want to here today um have you in your history with the FEC have you ever seen the FEC take State charges and Link them to an FEC violation in order to get a felony and then take it to the federal court and charge somebody no so the federal government doesn't grab State cases to L to make something that is normally a fine and make it a crime correct no it does not okay and so if you had a situation in which and this is an if because it didn't happen but if you had a situation in which somebody took their own money and used it and then did not declare it is that usually uh uh you know there was failure to to file is that usually something that you would bring them up at the FEC and refer them for criminal felony charges uh it would be extremely rare that it would be referred for for criminal charges you'd have to show clear intent so in this case specifically the FEC made a decision that what they pulled to in addition to state to make this a crime that they could charge a felony on is something that not only normally wouldn't happen but in this case specifically was looked at and didn't happen the FEC declined to prosecute because there wasn't a case here right they not only declined to refer it to justice for criminal charges but they declined to bring civil charges themselves it's what You' normally do if you just thought it was an error or something so it wasn't even worth a fine much less a criminal prosecution thank you I yield back gentlemen yields back gent from Florida's recognize thank you Mr chairman When Donald Trump's Supreme Court overturned roie Wade millions of Americans lost the right to make their own Healthcare decisions since Trump did this 14 States enacted extreme abortion banss wreaking havoc on the lives of American women and families it happened in my home state of Florida and more States will follow suit and now Trump's team has a detailed blueprint for what his next four years God forbid would look like called project 2025 it's 900 pages of legal and administrative assaults on our freedoms rights and progress Mr Woo you're very familiar with Trump's project 2025 and have a deep legal background I want to ask you some rapid fire questions so if you could just start off with yes or no these current abortion banss including one in my home state of Florida are ruining women's Economic Security would project 2025 make those economic hardships worse for American women yes I believe so we know Trump abortion bans keep women in in abusive relationships would project 2025 make those horrible situations even worse yes these Trump abortion bans disproportionately harm already vulnerable populations especially lowincome and communities of color would legal assaults on abortion rights in Project 2025 inflict even more harm on these communities yes thank you Mr W I want to discuss what project 2025 would mean for women who face medical pregnancy issues Trump's abortion bans have already caused irreversible damage to Women's Health across the country with women having to turn septic and get close to death before a doctor can legally perform a life-saving abortion despite earlier intervention being medically warranted the bottom line Trump's abortion bans have led to inflicting unnecessary brutal pain and harm to women including preventable deaths that's not some democratic talking point that's directly from doctors a majority of OBGYN stated that when Trump overturned roie Wade it increased maternal deaths and discourages doctors from even going into the field in a survey 70% of providers say they believe it has also worsened existing racial and ethnic inequalities this comes from the men and women who actually care for their patients doctors who took an oath to do no harm legal hurdles are causing harmful Health outcomes Mr W do you think that innocent women women truly trying to receive necessary healthc care will be unfairly criminalized by project 2025 yes I do and I think in particular particular some of the language in the project 2025 document such as the phrase abortion tourism I find to be deeply offensive women do not take vacations in order to have abortions I agree that it is deeply offensive and dangerous to use language like that project 2025 is an explicit 900 page playbook for a second Trump term and it's clear that it targets women Trump's project 2025 lays out plans to make sure that abortion is not considered Healthcare it aims to get the FDA to reverse its ades long approval of the abortion drug mistone in order to get it off the market the Trump plan calls for defunding Planned Parenthood and excluding it from Medicaid which is how millions of women get preventative screenings and other vital Healthcare unrelated to abortions we know the same extreme anti-choice groups that helped craft Trump's project 2025 would also try to exclude some forms of emergency contraception from no cost coverage and gut access to IVF Trump's project 2025 blueprint even calls on the CDC to increase quot un quote abortion surveillance including requiring states to submit invasive privacy violating data and information about patients who receive abortions this creates a modern-day handmaids tale these dangerous alarming policies will ensure that women are second-class citizens its extreme magga goals will cause suffering and in some instances death Mr Woo is a legal analyst with extensive experience as a federal prosecutor can you explain some of the dangers American women face by criminalizing abortion like this well immediately what happens is they're being uh forced to choose between their health versus being prosecuted which is a terrible situation no one should ever have to face the point that you make Congressman with regard to surveillance I think that's extremely dangerous I mean that is a weaponization of healthc care statistics to use those statistics to further criminal punishment of innocent women who are simply seeking to protect their own health and to further decisions that really should just be between them and their doctors well I'm glad that in this committee we're finally exposing what the real weaponization of government is was under former president Trump and would be again and lastly as my time expires in the next 30 seconds isn't this working towards a complete and total National Abortion ban and isn't that what project 202 2025 makes clear the goal is if former president Trump were reelected again I think it does I mean it sets out a blueprint to get at that goal through numerous ways thank you very much I yield back balance of my time G lady yields back uh Professor Smith in your opening uh excuse me in your written testimony you said that the lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo in his opening statement in the court accused president Trump of violating the federal election campaign act but the FEC didn't bring charges I think you've said a couple times is that true that's correct and the Department of Justice didn't bring charges that's correct and if president Trump campaign had paid for it it wouldn't have been reported until after the election is that that right that's correct and did President Trump's campaign have the money to pay for it yes they had plenty of money like 78 million bucks still in hand on Election Day I think right yes and certainly president Trump had the money to pay for it he's not yes he'd already spent over 60 million yeah he had they they already they already done that was it a political contribution uh no I I do not believe so for a reason stated I can elaborate on those now but you know but not only do you not believe so their star witness didn't believe so Michael Cohen said he was working clear back in 2011 to deal with this Miss Daniels making the allegations of wouldn't Bank this public and he was doing it for other reasons isn't that correct yes they had been concerned about Daniels for a long time and keeping her quiet so the obligation wasn't caused by President Trump's candidacy for president of the United States is that right no it was not okay Mr phe uh in your written testimony you said one of the most alarming aspects of the case is that the fraud quote fraud did not involve anyone losing money or even being harmed in any way to the extent that The Ledger entry entries were inaccurate they were entered into to the books of a private company that understood what they were for it is unheard of for a fraud case to be brought where no losses were suffered so there weren't any losses in this this case at all were there yeah that's what makes this so remarkable and just you I I can't even imagine someone bringing a fraud case to the United States attorney's office where nobody lost money there were no victims and no one was worse off at the end of it it just makes it laughable even before you get to steps two through probably 20 that make this case really absurd to have been brought to begin with it wasn't a contribution if it was a contribution it would have been wouldn't had have been reported until after the election and no one suffered any losses and yet they bring this charge against President Trump I find that just amazing if that's not political motivation I don't know cuz what other motivation could there be yeah it's really almost inarguable at this point that the motivation for this case was political it's really I've never heard a serious argument that that it should have been prosecuted otherwise I Know M Mr W might might have one but I just haven't haven't heard that because it seems political from the you know from the Inception all the way to the end yeah wasn't a contribution wouldn't have been reported even if it was if they Tre paid that out of the campaign no one suffered loss and yet there was some kind of conspiracy to impact an election but that's not the worst of it the worst of it is they didn't tell the defendant what the crime was he was being charged with isn't that right judge that's correct right from the indictment he was uh Donald Trump was charged with falsifying business records to elevate that crime to a felony uh he had to be concealing or committing other crimes when did the defendant in this trial in this case learn what he was being charged with at the end of the trial at the end of the trial that's not supposed to happen in America is it judge no that is uh illegal so not only did you not know what he's being charged with in the end at the end of the trial when he learned what it was the judge also told the jury oh you don't have to be unanimous in finding what we just discovered the charge actually was it's extraordinarily egregious error to tell a jury they don't have to be unanimous and I might add by the way those charges the three additional ones were never specified they're described generally so we don't know what exactly the jury thought was the illegality that was committed by Donald Trump we we have a very INSP specific verdict campaign Finance uh expert says it wasn't a contribution and even if it was a contribution if they treated as a contrib paid it out of the campaign it wouldn't have been reported till after the election so there's no conspiracy to influence the election no one suffered any harm or fraud in the initial case former prosecutor tells us and the judge tells us that the defendant didn't know what he was charged with until the end of the trial and the judge gave instructions to the jury never mind the fact the judge should have recused himself which you point out in your written testimony judge the judge didn't tell the jury or told the jury you don't have to be unanimous but the real thing here is the opportunity cost and you this in your testimony Mr fagy the opportunity cost when Alvin brag did the day one memo says we are not going to charge all these felonies we're going to bring him down to misdemeanors and let the bad guys roam the streets of New York how that squares with what happened here that to me is the real issue that's the issue that most Americans see like we're going to do this to the the former president of the United States meanwhile take felony charges against really bad guys on the street and bring them down to misdemeanors that's the opport opportunity cost here I believe in Manhattan you get the last word Mr F yeah exactly when you're letting carjackers out on bail or illegal immigrants that assault police officers aren't getting prosecuted but this is the way you're using your time in addition to the fact you run on a softon crime policy and then you do take the most creative aggressive approach to this crime it's hard to argue as anything other than a political motivation chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Texas okay I got a lot of ground to cover um I do want to clarify Mr fahe when you consistently talk about NY or or New York crime you're speaking um in an opinionated stance you're not speaking from a place of fact correct no I'm speaking from a place of facts okay well let me clarify for you thank you so much I'm reclaiming my time let me clarify for you that NYPD puts out reports in in April it said overall index crime across new New York City dropped another 4.9% as it relates to May the report says overall index crime across New York dropped another 2.4% and June's report hasn't come out I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record 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 Woo I'm going to need you to help me out because I don't know that I trust that other people will know the answer answers to these questions number one how many branches of government do we have uh 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 um would that be the leg islative people or judicial people well it's really the executive it'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 opposed to be able to um explain any issues you may have the process would be the judicial appell 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 cuz 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 cuz 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 no absolutely not absolutely not cuz he's the executive huh that's that other Branch correct that's okay okay all right so you have this prosecutor and in this case it's Alvin BR 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 or no no no when it with a with a case I'm sorry I moved on 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 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 pre-trial motions there's pre-trial 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 US 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 uh 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 has the judge wter and in this case they found him guilty not once not twice not three times not four not five not 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 appell court the last time I checked he was raising money so that he could go to the appell court and appeal his decision and they will have the final say so thank you so much yes they will uh the gentle lady Yi's back and the gentleman from North Dakota is recognized thank you Mr chair if I may just a quick um I just wanted to say as just as a point of personal privilege um Linda Sanchez is not with us today um and she is at the funeral for her legislative director uh ch Mason who served this body and served this country for a number of years and I just want to say on behalf of I believe all of us here that we extend condolences to her family um to the office of congresswoman Sanchez and pray for um God to give them Comfort during this time for the untimely death of Miss Mason no well well said and we I appreciate bringing that attention I should have uh this is my over I should have said something about uh our colleague Mr Massie um Mr Davidson and I and our Paulie and Lisa and I had a chance to go down and visit with Thomas a week ago Sunday uh he's doing is as good as you can under these these difficult difficult circumstances and his wife Ronda was an amazing person so to both to both members of this committee thank you for bringing that up gentleman from North cloud is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and I very much appreciate uh the uh questioning from my friend from Texas she's one of with a few other people that has actually practiced criminal defense and Public Defense and as somebody who's done that for a very long time I appreciate that very much uh I never did practice in New York I also have a practiced in federal court and I've practiced in state court and passed several bar exams as well uh judge Wilson What's the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York one year uh uh when was this what is the what is the business records case is a misdemeanor correct the uh underlying crime the falsifying business records yes that's a misdemeanor charge so the only way to get to a felony is by committing or is by in concealment of another crime correct uh and each one of those crimes has specific elements that's right and you have to prove in order to get a conviction at trial you have to prove every element of the crime Beyond A Reasonable Doubt right that's just traditionally how this works that is the right way to do it so in the indictment did they point the underlying crime no they did not they only described it as other crimes okay and in the jury instructions did they put the specific underlying crime no the um falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions there was some brief description of the uh New York state election law violation but there was no description given of the three choice of three crimes there was a description given of false FAL ifying business records which was pretty ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records so and that's also a misdemeanor right that should be yeah so you have 2 + 2 equals 6 like if you commit two misdemeanors you get to the felony statute of limitations which they had to get or they could have never brought the case that's correct but there there's some more question marks regarding the statue limitations uh it's not cut and dry because the time that Donald Trump spent out of New York uh could be used to toll the statu limitations that was the ruling in the court of appeals Harvey Weinstein case he argued that the time that he spent out of California should not have told it out of New York that is in California should not have told the time limitations but the court of appeals ruled against them on that issue so that's I think how they get around the statute limitations problem in this case so was the election law case a federal election law or state election law underlying crime seemed like it was charged as both when we got to the jury instructions there's a violation of New York election law charged but then there's among the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law and and then the third one was tax violation right also unspecified so all three of those underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime that is correct were any of the elements of those crimes listed no not at all so and this is important and it it's it might not be as robust or anything but when you defend a client in court if you don't know what the elements of the crime you're defending how do you mount a defense you can't that's the very issue of fundamental fairness that I referenced you as a defendant are entitled to know what the charges are against you so that you can defend against those charges Donald Trump was never made aware of what the extent of the charges were against them until the end of the trial and those and the elements of the crime go in the jury instructions I mean traditionally that's how it works federal court State Court in North Dakota State Court in Minnesota I've been in all of these different jurisdictions you actually get the elements of the underlying crime correct any time that I instructed a jury I instructed them what the elements of the crime were and instead in this case they got a grab bag they they got a choice of three when it came to the underlying crime and we don't even know which ones they chose so we don't know whether or not they could have been unanimous on those three or not that's that's another failing of the jury instruct so not only did we have not the elements of the crime but we had three different crimes with three vastly different elements of the crimes all unspecified none of them in the indictment the elements of the crimes weren't in the Bill of particulars last hearing I had the bill of particulars waved at me like it was some kind of magic document that flew in here with its own Cape so the uh statement of facts only describes a series of allegations a series of actions that believed that Donald Trump took none of them describe any criminal activity none of them describe any um they don't describe any elements of any crime and that's why you believe as do I that when this goes on appeal there's going to be significant legal issues to argue that the jury never actually got them put in front of them I I have very little doubt that this matter will be reversed on appeal and based upon these issues because I've actually been pretty I mean I I I believe jury trials are still the best way to determine guilt and innocence I just believe juries are only as good as the information put in front of them so and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from New York is recognized thank you Mr chairman I'm I'm happy we're bringing up the appeal in this case um because this uh committee has focused for a year and a half on a fifth circuit case has brought before us as a witness the lawyer for that case twice um to argue that the Biden administration had censored improperly censored social media companies um I'm surprised we haven't yet heard about the ultimate decision on appeal by the Supreme Court which dismissed the case so it's pretty fascinating to me that uh we don't have followup on the appeals of a case that were so uh excited about the appell it process when the Supreme Court dismissed it Mr Fay I want to just touch upon a couple things you said before uh I move into the Crux of my questioning uh am I right that I heard you say that it's unheard of to bring a fraud case without losses to individual victims it I cannot think of a situation where that's occurred it it I'm not saying it hasn't so you're saying that every books and Records case has losses to victims I'm saying every fraud case that I was involved either Prosecuting or knowing about usually had somebody that but but this was a books and Records charge yes well I think it's based on a fraud fraud case that somebody committed fraud on the books and Records yes a fraud on the books and Records yeah I think they put I think the allegation is they were incorrect or fraudulent entries in the books or the records yes right and so you're saying that every single books in records fraudulent entry which is a false entry has lost to individual victims is that your testimony that's not at all my testimony I said fraud cases are generally not prosecuted without victims and that's true murder cases are generally not prosecuted without victims too but we're talking about books and Records here okay have you familiar with the term fraud on the market no not really okay I mean you and you should look into uh let me give you another example of a fraud case that doesn't have an loss to an individual victim which would be any insider trading case so other than they they would have potential victims and other people harmed this is a case where go look up go look up fraud on the market there are no individual victims with losses and yet those cases are charged there's an overall the harm in those cases we're focused here on the weaponization of the government as usual and I'm just struck by the fact that we have a republican majority that is accusing other people of weaponizing government when let's look at what this committee and this Republican majority has done um my colleague Miss Crockett able went through the separation of powers um Mr Woo were you aware that this committee held a hearing with Robert Costello as a witness who was the former attorney of Michael Cohen yes and that that hearing was during the trial yes uh okay um so do you think that that was an appropriate uh way of trying to elicit testimony to impeach a witness in a trial in a congressional hearing no I think it interferes with the trial now interestingly when he was here I suggested that he go testify in the trial and he did that's the appropriate place for where he should be right exactly and Mr Trump's attorney had an opportunity to cross-examine him did he not yes and Mr Trump's attorney had I believe 3 days of cross-examination of Michael Cohen did he not yes I think that's right and ultimately the jury heard all of that right and all of the other evidence and decided unanimously that he was guilty that's right are you aware of the uh number about two dozen members of the House Republican party writing an amicus brief to a district judge of about the hunter Biden case uh yes uhuh so let me just get this straight we have legislators elected officials trying to intervene in an ongoing criminal case is that what happened that's what it sounds like and they're proud of it by the way they are so excited and take credit for undermining Hunter Biden's plea agreement by interfering in that case that is the misuse of official Authority and weaponization of this committee this body and what Donald Trump has vowed to do is weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his political Rivals a revenge and retribution tour and the notion that this committee is accusing Democrats of weaponizing the federal government when the president of the United States did not intervene in the prosecution of his own son give me a break why don't you focus on taking care of your own party and your own weaponization and stop projecting where it doesn't exist and I yield back we appreciate the gentleman uh well gentleman from North North Carolina is recognized for five minutes thank you uh thank you Mr chairman Mr Woo uh do you think that in American history State Court criminal justice processes have ever been perverted or corrupted for political objectives to affect matters of federal politics such as the course of leg ation or the composition of Congress or the control of the presidency uh I'm not sure of a specific instance like that I mean I think there has been a general feeling that some of the state court processes uh have been unfair or biased and that was for example a reason for some of the Civil Rights legisl sure yeah like even in in the in thei post Civil War era right sure um so I think I have distinct images of that having occurred and and and processes that appear be ordinary can be used to political effect in such cases right sure even in totalitarian regimes totalitarian systems of government that's a favorite tactic isn't it the the show trial indeed it is okay is there a um legitimate federal government interest in preventing that where it occurs uh well there's some jurisdictional limits on what the federal government can do there I mean if it's a State Trial they'd have to come in after the fact to examine whether there's been some let me ask you this way was there legitimate Federal interest when Congress acted as we just made reference to in the post Civil War um uh Civil Rights Acts yes those legislative and they were designed to prevent that kind of misuse right I don't know that they were designed specifically at the court system misuse but I think they were designed to correct Injustice you don't think they were designed to correct misuses and abuses of the court system the state court system uh no that's not why I said it it includes you do you would agree with me that they were designed for that very purpose uh not only for that purpose yeah I no I certainly agree it wasn't only for that purpose but it was included um how uh how should Congress identify the misuse of state court procedures where it is happening uh certainly they can do investig ations uh hold hearings but they should be after the fact of prosecutions not during the prosecutions oh so let me just ask you a couple would would evidence of that include overt public vows by candidates for prosecutorial office to Target a candidate or prospective candidate for federal office that certainly something that can be part of the fact finding us what about the institution of charges for transparent political motivations especially in the sense that the event charged is not regularly or ever charged against others engaged in similar conduct would that be possible evidence of such a problem that's a little bit tougher because the uh prosecutorial discretion wall is pretty thick on that but it's certainly something that could be inquired into how about State Legislative renewal of expired statutes of limitations aimed at such a political Target would that be possibly evidence of such conduct again I don't know whether it's evidence but it seems like something that Congress could ask about what about judicial assignment processes resulting in in folks with apparent partisan bias being appointed or ending up administering a trial against such a Target would that be such evidence I think that's a little bit of a conclusory uh question there but certainly the process for determining uh judicial selections appointments I think that's something which looked that H how about contriving jury instructions or administering a trial to deny the target fundamental fairness in due process anticipating that correction of that would be delayed until after the political impact has run its course in an election would would that be evidence that Congress should be concerned about I think that's more a issue for appeal of the particular conviction uh again respectfully I feel there's a little bit of a conclus aspect so you think so long as the appeal will eventually set things right the fact that a state perverts its processes to achieve a political result to play out in an intervening election that's okay Congress shouldn't worry about that at all is that right uh I think the appeal needs to run its course first uh and then if Congress has concerns about the case overall they're free to look into it all right I Y back gentem y's back gentle lady from uh ranking members recognize thank you thank you than you Mr chair um Mr Woo did you conclude your your thoughts on that subject yes I did okay thank you I just wanted to give you time if you needed it um thank you for your analysis of what's happened in the court case in um New York and judge Wilson it's good to see you here I just wanted to give a shout out to a fellow Bronx district attorney um Alum as well thank you um I did want to State for the record you know this discussion about homicides in New York City and the lack of prosecutorial action by um the district attorney in the county of New York that Mr Bragg's first year in office shootings in Manhattan declined by 20% homicides declined by 16% and the data from the NYPD shows that the rates of virtually every index of crime are lower in Manhattan for for the first quarter of 2023 than they were at the same time last year um so while we may not like him having prosecuted former president Trump I think it's false to say based on the data that Manhattan is suffering from a rise in violent crime that is not in fact uh factually the case would we like to see it further as a born and raised New York worker of course um but what it is not right now is a place with a crime spree one of the things that I talked about earlier today was Project 2025 um I've shared with the chairman my concern about this plan and the fact that this I believe fits squarely within the tenants of this committee to have a discussion about it to uh go to those individuals the authors of this plan over a thousand Pages have been written uh that make up the project 2025 uh by the Heritage Foundation which they and its authors state is the plan for day one after a a trump second term presidency um Mr Woo looking at Trump's Playbook that Playbook being project 2025 which is author Ed by individuals that are within his prior Administration how would it hurt Americans if these proposals were made into law I think one way that I've touched upon is the removal or decimation of the career civil servants I think is very dangerous of also some of the other examples the idea of removing the general counsel at the FBI to replace that with the political employes Council again you lose the experience and the cont EXT of that position and similarly trying to do away with the 10-year term for the FBI director which is there to ensure that they can be in place over the course of different administrations I think all of those particularly at the justice department would Gravely hurt the integrity and steadiness of the department I agree having been a political appointee in the Bush Administration at the Department of Justice working under the deputy attorney general uh La Larry Thompson and then under uh James Comey who could have fared without a David margolus having been in that office um being someone who had been there since the time of Kennedy he came in as an honors uh graduate from law school and provided consistency across the board to multiple administrations under project 2025 if this individual did not if David Mar an individual like David margolus had not passed the loyalty test would he still be in in have that position no um one of the key tenant is also to defeat the anti-American left that's a quote Trump has promised to root out liberal prosecutors individuals on this committee have used the power of congress to go after anyone who dares to indict Trump on crimes and publicly attack judges rule against Trump or his defense team does this look like a fair and impartial system of justice to you no it doesn't I think it undermines democracy um as a former Federal prosecutor for many years was it your experience that prosecutors in Liberal jurisdictions approach the criminal justice system with an anti-conservative bias no it was not and what was your experience my experience was that Federal prosecutors around the country uh tended to be very independent minded sometimes they would butt heads uh with what we call Main Justice uh but I pretty much never have seen an instance that I would ident ify as a politically motivated Federal prosecution thank you and um I'm not going to go into blocking financial aid for American college students if their states permit kids like dreamers to access inate tuition getting rid of school lunch programs Summer School uh summer programs taking aim at free speech and free thinking in American universities aim at renewable energy and what will make American women second-class citizens by taking a closer to a National Abortion ban restricting access to Women's Healthcare and abortion drugs across the market this again Mr chairman I believe is a document that we along with um others throughout Congress need to take a closer look at a yield back lady Yi's back gentlemen from Florida's recognized thank you Mr chairman Joe Biden's doj has utilize their power and weaponize the justice system to go after his political opponent from Florida Court in Georgia courts in New York the farce that occurred in New York is a pathetic and sad abuse of the legal system by a rogue Democratic prosecutor and an obviously biased judge as judge Wilson aptly noted in his testimony president Trump was railroaded and judge Merchant drove the train not only did Judge Merchant seek to silence president Trump from informing the world about the judge's own conflicts of interest in the case but he made sure to effectively muzzle president Trump's key expert witness Professor Bradley Smith on a central element of the case professor Smith you correctly pointed out in your testimony that the District Attorney's theory of the case revolved around a state law that prohibits promoting a political cany by unlawful means in this case the prosecutor alleged that the unlawful means resulted from a violation of the federal election campaign Act is that correct that's correct and you were once the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is that correct that is correct given your obvious status as an expert in campaign Finance law can you explain why the definition of an expenditure is so important to the case yes uh the definition of this expenditure if you just read the statute says anything for the purpose of influencing an election so normal person might hear that and say well why did they make that expenditure but if you read further into the statute the provisions regarding personal use and if you read the FC's uh regulations and its explanation of those regulations but it's clear what they mean is for the purpose of a federal of influencing an election is not the subjective motivation of the spender it's an objective motivation so setting up a campaign headquarters hiring a campaign manager buying tv ads printing bumper stickers whatever else you do like that that's for the purpose of running a campaign but the mere fact that you do something that might be helpful to your campaign like uh taking a weight loss program so you look better on the campaign Trail buying a house in New York so you can run for US Senate from New York settling complaints against your business and your private life sealing your divorce records those are not things that arose from your campaign those are things that people sometimes do anyway and those would not be campaign expenditures and were you allowed to provide any of that context to the jury uh through expert testimony uh no and what is your expert opinion of the instructions that judge Merchant gave to the jury regarding the federal election campaign act well I think the judge's instruction clearly wanting all he gave them was that barebones if this was for the purpose of influencing an election you've got a problem and again has been noted in this hearing he repeatedly allowed witness Michael Cohen who's no expert in campaign Finance law and the prosecutors to state that there had clearly been a violation I would note that had I testified of course I would not have testified specifically to what the law is but I would have testified to the reporting system that would have shown that there was no advantage to not reporting this as a campaign expenditure to the contribution system which would have shown that Mr Trump could have clearly paid this without any ramifications had he wanted to do so I would have talked about how the FEC in practice had in many cases found that certain things that look like you know again that for the purpose of were're not found to be for the purpose of a of a campaign and let the jury do with that what they will and judge Merchant allowed Michael Cohen who has no expert qualifications in this field whatsoever to provide the jury information on campaign Finance law but he prevented you uh from giving substantive expert testimony on federal election campaign act he he did and then he uh advised the jury now you can't use that to consider Mr Trump guilty that's only for context which is sort of like saying to the jury or sort like saying to you for the rest of this hearing I don't want any of you to think about a yellow mini buus by Volkswagen I mean that's all you're going to think about the rest of the hearing is a yellow VW van um it it kind of flagged it to the jury's attention that Cohen had pleaded guilty uh in this case uh under I think tremendous pressure because he was facing years and years in prison for tax violations so he pleaded guilty to the campaign Finance thing and and basically got a much slighter sentence in in the beginning of questioning by chair Jordan you talked about how we wouldn't want want non-disclosure agreements of things that happened before a campaign to be campaign expenses can you just expand upon that right I mean I mean you don't want members of Congress to pay for their you know personal padillos from year before uh or allegations of such uh I think we should should credit those just as allegations uh using campaign funds you don't want a person to use campaign funds and say uh gee this is something really embarrassing to me that happened in my past I think I'd like to seal that up even though it's not relevant it's not something that you create it through from your campaign it's it's the ticket for abuse and this is why the law specifically lists a number of things like for example you can't pay for a country club membership even if the reason you have it is to raise money for your campaign because it's it's something that people do even if they're not running for office and we don't want campaign funds paying for that thank all of you for being here today I yield back the chair I ask back recogniz I ask unanimous consent uh to enter into the record of May 21st 2024 AP News fact check article entitled judge in Trump's hush money trial did not bar campaign Finance expert for testifying to defense um the judge stated that Mr Smith's testimony could was limited in scope of the testimony could be uh that he could not give instructions to the jury on what the law was and that it was the defense attorneys that decided not to put him on the St without objection and Mr Smith addresses that in his written testimony the gentleman from Florida is recognized so so Mr Smith following up on Mr st's question I want to understand the precedent here so if a candidate for federal office wanted to use campaign money now to make a hush money payment could they point to what has occurred in this New York litigation and say well I guess I can go use my donor money to make a hush money payment I suppose they could at least unless judge Jackson is correct and we'll have to wait for that overturning on appeal but yes that's yeah but so well I guess I want to ask the question if an appell at court does not some way deal with what has been laid before the country could we could we see people collecting money from donors lobbyists and packs and then using it to make hush money payments yeah and you could do almost anything else you could say for example I'd really like to go to the Super Bowl this year think I'll take a couple donors along and buy your Super Bowl tickets and your whole trip to the Super Bowl because it's for the purpose of of influencing your campaign so in the prosecution to preserve our democracy we have now greenlit potentially the most expansive abuses of campaign funds ever well put so all right I just I have to test the limits of this I do not like wearing ties I would never wear a tie I'm told that when people vote for a congressman they like to see them wearing a tie in their advertisements so does this now mean that when I go to Ross and buy a tie that I should use my campaign credit card because otherwise I'm not really a tie person if you took serious seriously the subjective standard that was given to the jury as the instruction yes it would mean that if you took the objective standard that appears in the statute no you couldn't so in in the absence of some appet review here and this is why we have appet courts to try to resolve these things do we not do we not unleash like the this confusion and then this opportunity for fraud because here's here's how this will go politicians will then simply use the gray area to enhance their own personal Lifestyles through their campaign funds right that's correct and one thing we should remember is that that the federal election campaign Act was elected or or enacted against a background in which members could just pocket the campaign funds and that was part of the whole idea was you're not going to be able to do that anymore ah well thank goodness for the the good prosecutors in New York who have unlocked the greatest potential for campaign fraud in the history of the campaign Finance system uh judge Wilson I just want to ask ask you uh uh a precise question was there ever a case that you were presiding over where you had a family member economically benefit from the notoriety of the case no never you sure you don't want to take some more time on that think about it I don't need more time I know that for a fact well I mean if that had ever Arisen would you have allowed a family member to make money off the notoriety of a case I would have recused myself from the case huh well it's just interesting because we had attorney general Garland who was you know spent a good amount of time on the bench and I asked him the same question and you know he said that he wouldn't answer it because it was obviously a reference to what had gone on in New York I mean I thought it was I thought he could might could have answered it but I mean when you look at what happened in New York does it concern you that the judge in that case seemed to have a family member who is economically leveraging the notoriety of the case that greatly concerned me but not so much from the perspective of the ethical violation that would be apparent because that judge did get an ethical opinion from the judicial Ethics Committee in New York that ex exonerated him um from any wrongdoing and listening to the case when his daughter was benefiting what I was concerned about was the appearance of impropriety you know when I sat on the bench sometimes I would get a report from probation or some other organization and they would hand it to me in an envelope and I made certain to open up that envelope and show everybody that it was a report that I was looking at because I didn't want there to be the in the appearance of impropriety that I'm receiving an envelope from someone in the courtroom the concept is the same here you you're presiding over a case where your daughter is benefiting and where you've made political contributions in small amounts but it's irrelevant the amount but you've made contributions to uh the political opponents of the the defendant before you the these are the very essence of the appearance of impropriety and I feel strongly that judge Machan should have recused himself on that basis just simple as can be Mr chairman straightforward answer to a straightforward question I wish we could have gotten that from the attorney general I yield back gentleman yield back Mr chair I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record articles um that discuss that the ruling of the New York advisory committee on judicial ethics which judge Mand took the judicious step of raising the issue with them about recusal seeking guidance on whether he would have to recuse himself on the case in which the committee ruled that there was no basis for recusal Mr chairman I'll object pending just a what where were the Articles from I will sh I'll give you a copy of those yeah as soon as we have those I'll withdraw my objection thank you uh the general lady from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman I actually want to follow up on my colleague from Florida uh and his line of questioning um as representative Gates pointed out the judge's daughter um significantly profited from this case uh to the tune actually of 93 million raised for her Democrat clients clients that include a member of this committee representative Goldman I should point out and put on the record um but also uh authentic campaigns of which Lauren meran uh the daughter of the judge uh she runs this this firm authentic campaigns and was paid nearly $12 million for her work this cycle for her Democrat colleagues uh clients and uh including 9.7 Million by the Biden Harris campaign now I know that there's been a tremendous amount of discussion today about the severe irregularities of the case some of the things uh surrounding jury instructions but I want to talk about the financial motivations for the da and the judge so judge Wilson you just said that he got a waiver from judicial Ethics Committee and you were pointing out how just the appearance of any impropriety it's to be taken very seriously can you talk about the judicial Ethics Committee who makes up that committee and what are some of the the processes that they would use would they consider the $93 million or her clients or a direct immediate relative that is benefiting financially from from this case if you're asking me who makes up the committee it's say a combination of lawyers and judges uh who are selected by the appell division of New York uh to hear uh issues that judges bring to them asking whether or not they can act ethically in particular circumstances I myself availed myself of that committee on several instances um when it comes to whether or not they should consider the amount of the contributions I actually think the amount of the contributions are irrelevant because as you recall I said judge michan shouldn't have made any contribution in any small amount to political campaigns um that's based upon a prohibition of Judges being involved in political activities except if they're in a window period uh during their own campaign uh at that time then a judge's campaign may make a contribution to another campaign or to another political organization but that's a a strict um a strict requirement that it only be during an election when such a campaign is made no um it doesn't matter so much what the amount of the money that was being made it matters that this is someone of first degree of relationship to the judge who is profiting from activities that oppose the defendant before that judge and even if he had an Ethics opinion exonerating him saying it's okay your daughter's not a witness and none of her interests are uh being tried here so the Ethics Committee thought it was just fine there's still an appearance of impropriety that's of great concern to the public in general and that's what a judge wants to avoid when you're hearing a case you don't want people to feel that your integrity and that your impartiality is being impa compromised right which and that's what happened here and and the judge himself had given contributions and I think you pointed out very appropriately that it doesn't matter if it was a large or small contribution but the judge in this case judge Maran he contributed to a political action committee called stop Republicans that is inappropriate correct I mean especially overseeing the case of the the Republican nominee on the ticket correct he should have known better than to make those contributions while a sitting judge right and I mean and and I see our Democrat witness Mr Woo you're shaking your head I'm glad that you agree with with us that this is a a tremendous uh question mark on the Integrity of of this this trial but you know I also want to talk a little bit about um da Bragg now I I pointed out in our previous hearing that da Bragg raised $850,000 in campaign contributions immediately upon the announcement of the 34 counts Mr Mr fahe have you seen any other prosecutors run this similar Arc of campaigning on getting a par particular person and then using it subsequently to raise campaign cash not that I can think of there might be somebody that's done it before I think the The Da or State's Attorney in Atlanta I think is doing something similar with that case uh Campa using that as a campaign case her case against Trump but other than those I don't know of any it's certainly possible but but you know $800,000 for a DA's race is enormous I know in your circles it's not but but those type of races are usually very low dollar amounts so it's safe to say that there's Financial motivation in the campaigns by multiple different Das and politicians to quote unquote get Trump correct at least a political Financial motivation not necessarily personal correct thank you my time has expired I yield J lady yields back J from Wyoming is recognized I think there are a few things that should be cleared up today first of all we are not a democracy we are a republic I think it's extremely important to remember that and to understand our form of government I also think that this is one of the reasons why people dislike politicians we we all know what's happening here we know that Al Alan Bragg's prosecution of pres president Trump is exhibit a of the left's by any means necessary law fair campaign against President Trump Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump opened a dangerous Pandora's box of politically motivated prosecutions of political opponents and Manhattan District Judge Juan maran's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly Prejudice the outcome of the trial and violated president Trump's due process rights anyone with a li a sense knows that those statements are actually uh cannot be refuted we all watched what happened during the course of the trial Pro Professor Smith have you ever been retained as an expert to testify on campaign Finance matters prior to the case against President Trump yes okay and briefly what were the nature of those cases what issues federal laws did you testify with regard to uh all of those were other cases uh in which I was asked to testify about uh past experience with Federal campaign Finance laws customs and campaigns how they pay for things uh there were maybe as many as four I don't like to do expert witness work and I don't normally do it and uh in none of those You' mentioned testifying and none of those did I end up testifying either because the case is settled because one is still pending uh or because in one other case the judge decided that this would be testimony that would go to the law can you briefly describe your qualifications to provide such expert testimony well as as has been mentioned I served as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission including a term as as chairman I've written uh one book specifically on campaign finance and and sered as co-author on two others on campaign finance and election law uh I have been uh at one point uh cited as one of the most cited Scholars in the field of election law a recent book from University of Chicago press suggested that I've had more influence on campaign Finance than any other scholar in the last 40 or 50 years or something like that so devoted my life to this this is what I do you're qualified to testify about Federal campaign Finance law um would you also agree that campaign Finance law is a complex area and one where a lot of Americans who may have to sit on a jury would benefit from expert witness testimony to understand the alleged crimes that they are being asked to decide extremely so at one point Justice Scalia when he was serving on the Supreme Court actually said during the middle of oral argument he says this law is so complex I can't figure it out so Professor Smith to the best of your knowledge is Michael Cohen a campaign Finance law expert and not to my knowledge and not what I've seen well yet judge Bashan allowed him to testify as such during the course of the Trump trial didn't he yes in theory for other purposes but nonetheless you had him repeatedly saying this violated the law you know that violated so judge Maron commented when ruling to limit the scope of any testimony that you would provide that quote there is no question that this would result in a battle of the experts which will only serve to confuse and not assist the jury end quote from the standpoint of someone who practiced as a trial for attorney for 34 years I find that to be an extremely bizarre statement because that in fact is the situation anytime you have a case where expert testimony is needed in fact I worked on a case called Nebraska versus Wyoming at one point and Wyoming had over 25 expert Witnesses in everything from hydrology to a engineering to economics to fial geomorphology to all of these things that Nebraska had something similar yet the judge including the United States Supreme Court was not excluding expert Witnesses simply because there was going to be a battle of the experts is that your experience as well that is and and I would point out one thing I mentioned earlier that there were a number of things I would have testified to that would not have gone to Legal conclusions but rather testifying about Customs practices about simply reporting dates under the law and it appeared from the judge's rulings that even this that kind of testimony would not have been allowed he wasn't going to allow you to testify to those things but he allowed Mr Cohen to sit up there and say president Trump violated federal election laws didn't he yes um Mr uh Professor Smith going on do you believe that the court committed reversible error by allowing Mr quen to testify about alleged campaign viol uh campaign or election violations I think it was erroneous uh and I'm not even sure what the standard not being a criminal law guy what the standard of review is for that kind of error and and sometimes if it's abusive discretion courts give trial judges a lot of leeway but it doesn't mean the decision wasn't right was wasn't wrong judge Wilson do you believe that judge Mara committed reversible error in excluding Mr Smith but allowing Mr Cohen to testify on these issues in and of itself that may not be enough to secure a reversal of the conviction but there is a concept uh in app pellet law a cumulative error and what I believe we've seen in the Trump trial is a series of Errors one piled upon the other accumulative errors that when you put them all together show that Donald Trump did not have a fair trial and that his conviction should be reversed I'm absolutely convinced that his conviction will be reversed and I also believe that judge M was well aware of that when he made the decisions during the course of Tri it did I found his decisions to be egregious egregious reversible error on so many different levels thank you all for being here today and with that I yield back gentle lady yields back gentleman from South car before lady the ranking members recognize um I just for Mi Mr Gates and for your purposes I have an article from Ro Reuters regarding judge and Trump trial as well as the actual opinion of the judicial Advisory Group of May 4th 2023 and we'll make a copy for him okay without objection gentleman from South Carolina is recognized thank you Mr chairman you know it's been a bad week for Democrats um not only is the Border wide open um not only does Main Street feel the pressure of 20% inflation uh but we saw uh a pretty tragic uh debate performance by the commanderin-chief in fact Democrats this week are discovering new tunnels on the way to and from the capital in which to hide from the media and so they're now talking about things like project 20 225 and things to distract the American people from what they're really seeing uh which is a country that is not doing well under his leadership is a total distraction let's recap some of the main players we have here today Alvin Bragg used a novel legal Theory to bootstrap a misdemeanor allegation as a felony by alleging that records were falsified to conceal a second crime Alvin Bragg is a pioneer of sorts but in all the wrong ways when you look at what he's done he's paved the way for rogue District Attorneys to campaign on and get elected to prosecute politically political enemies or political opponents then we have judge Maran who's a top Democrat donor his daughter worked uh for Cala Harris and even urged a uh Trump organization CFO to be a government witness against President Trump but when President Trump requests that he recuse himself judge Maran said no he performed an examination of his own conscience which he found that he can rule fairly and that would be not be the public interest if he recused himself from the case a total farce the the left has really stacked the deck on this trial judge Wilson why should judge Maran we talked about this a second but we're going to wrap up here why should judge Maron have recused himself from hearing the case against President Trump a judge has an obligation to be fair and impartial and to appear fair and impartial now judge Maan has the right to rely upon the ethics opinions that he receiv received he asked the question he got the answer but that isn't the end of the analysis the judge has to also avoid the appearance of impropriety in hearing the case after having made political contributions and having a daughter first degree of relationship to the judge um profiting from attacking the subject of the trial that the judge is residing over has the appearance of impropriety judge have you ever asked have you ever asked specifically u a potential witness to be a witness in a case um or have you let the prosecutors and the defense Council pick those their own set of witnesses I leave that to the prosecution the defense the prosecution is the burden of proof they decide what Witnesses they want to put forward to prove their case and the defense then has the ability to present whatever Witnesses they want sometimes witnesses will be irrelevant cative there'll be other reasons they'll not testify but in general the prosecution defense are the ones that pick the witness so if a judge were to do that in this case judge Maran to ask a a a former Trump CFO to be a witness in a case that would be improper is that correct that's out of the ordinary it's not always improper for a judge to suggest a witness but uh judges don't call Witnesses in 99.99% of cases judge um you talked about this earlier kind of a parade of of errors that that what was the legal term that you used cumulative these are cumulative errors so would the inability of Judge Maran to recuse himself would that be part uh of a stack uh that could be um used as by a court of appeals to reverse the decision I believe so what other grounds for appeal do you think uh are evident uh from your mind on this particular case well I go right back to the indictments and appell courts like to rule on things that are pretty clear uh a clear error is usually the basis that an appell Court will find and not go into a lot of other questionable issues courts like to decide things simply in most cases here the indictment was facially insufficient right from the beginning and it would have been a simple matter for judge Machan to dismiss that indictment to give the prosecutor leave to represent uh that indictment to get a sufficient one to give uh the defendant proper notice of the charges that the defendant was facing that was not done in this case and that led directly to the next significant error which was not notifying the defendant of those additional charges until he was already a trial and many of them not being notified many of those charges not being not being present until the jury instructions themselves and then the jury instructions of course were wrong too I mean it was a 55 page set of jury instructions that were incredibly confusing uh to an average juror yes as well as to lawyers for that matter because I heard that comment more than once that many didn't know what what those jury instructions meant thank you judge appreciate your time with that Mr chairman I yield back gentlemen y's back the chair recogniz the ranking member for uh closing question and comment um I really don't have any questions at this time I just would again um County District Attorney's Office began investigating president Trump in 2018 southern district of New York months later concluded its investigation into the payments by Michael Cohen and determined no charges should be brought against President Trump while this was going on Alvin brag was running for the job while on the campaign trial Mr brag boasted about the number of times he had already sued president Trump January 2021 Mr brag that I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump close quote he said that it'd be hard to argue with the fact that any case against President Trump would be the most important most high-profile case Mr brag won and took office in January 2022 few weeks after taking office he told one of his prosecutors mark pomerance quote he could not see a world in which he would indict president Trump and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness that's right after campaigning on going after the the former president brag gets into office and realizes the case against President Trump is ridiculous that is why the southern district of New York didn't bring it it's why his predecessor cyance didn't bring it why did brag change his mind Mark pomerance Special Assistant district attorney resigned in protest and he and his fellow assistant district attorney Carrie dun leaked their resignation letter to the New York Times after that the left began the pressure campaign on Alvin Bragg and suddenly the zombie case was resurrected one of the first things Alvin brag did was hire Matthew Colangelo a top official in the Biden justice department who had a history of taking on President Trump and his family's businesses it's also interesting to note who Mr Colangelo listed as his references when he applied for the job at the justice department he listed Tom Perez former DNC chair and Jeff Zs who is now President Biden's Chief of Staff that's right the head of the DNC and the Biden white house chief of staff those were his references that's the guy who went to work to be the lead prosecutor on the case against President Trump Alvin Bragg Matthew Colangelo picked their target searched for a crime and then they prosecuted president Trump the partisan da that campaigned on going after president Trump whose newly hired lead prosecuted for the case also had a history of taking on President Trump also had their case in front of a partisan judge a judge who donated to President Biden who imposed a gag order on President Trump who told the jury they didn't need to reach a unanimous decision and prevented one of our Witnesses today Mr Smith an expert on campaign Finance from giving real testimony to the court today Mr Smith will be given an opportunity to tell Congress and tell the country what he wasn't permitted to tell the court what he wasn't permitted to tell the jury remember brag and Colangelo bootstrapped charges that are normally misdemeanor to some underlying crime to make the charges a felony but what was the underlying crime prosecutors didn't reveal that until after the trial began Mr Colangelo in his opening statement accused president Trump of violating the federal elections Campaign Act but the problem is in plain reading of that act doesn't support the indictment or the verdict as commissioner Smith stated allowing this prosecution to go forward and the ultimate jury decision threaten the enforcement procedures established by Congress under the act and stretched the meaning of the statute in such a way as to threaten due process of law although judge mhan wouldn't permit the leading expert on campaign Finance to provide this testimony he did let someone else speak in the court on this issue and others Michael Cohen Michael Cohen a convicted perjurer someone even his former lawyer said you couldn't trust Michael Cohen who lied to Congress lied to the FBI and lied to the court it's not often you have a witness that can lie to all three branches of government and then become the star witness in the prosecution of a former president but that's exactly what took place in New York it is clear Manhattan District Judge Juan maron's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly prejudiced the outcome of the trial and violated president Trump's due process rights Bragg's prosecution of President Trump with the help of Judge michan open the door for politically motivated prosecutions and it will not be easy to undo the damage that's already been done as we have seen other ambitious prosecutors have followed Bragg's lead and pursued politically motivated indictments against the former president rather than debate political opponents on substance the Democrat strategy to win the 2024 election is through the use of partis lawfare tactics these politically motivated local prosecutions rais substantial Federal interest and potential collusion between federal and state authorities and that is precisely why we are here today Alvin Bragg's prosecution of president Trump was personal it was based on politics and it was wrong we now recognize the ranking member for an opening statement and then we'll get to our Witnesses thank you Mr chairman good morning thank you to our Witnesses for being here I especially like to thank um witness former un US Federal prosecutor and former United States Department of Justice attorney Shan wo um my colleagues thank you to the American people watching around the country for joining another hearing of the Congressional committee to undermine American independence and to defend Donald Trump from the early days of our nation's formation our founding fathers were very clear the upkeep of democracy requires constant proactive maintenance in his letters to fellow founding father and his political opponent John Taylor then former President John Adams wrote Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy remember democracy never lasts long it soon wastes exhausts and murders itself there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide those passions are the same in all men under all forms of government when unchecked produce the same effects of fraud violence and cruelty American democracy has always been a question of progress not finality democracy has been given to us with the blood sweat tears and efforts of Americans who came before us who struggled long and hard to build and protect every Democratic institution we have indeed our country's dark past the very Foundation of our economic Juggernaut on the world was premised on a sick institution called slavery that some now want to even erase this democracy that our ancestors struggled to bring us all into these rights some of which some Americans do not even have all of are fragile remember that the great Republic of Rome was destroyed Greece was destroyed Germany of the early 20th century destroyed Spain the these great Empires are gone human history is Laden with examples of great Nations republics and democracies that were once beacons of human progress and eventually destroyed by hubris autocrats and the Rabid Ambitions of an empowered few Falls do not happen overnight but the signs are there if you want to see them in those republics those democracies slowly but surely rights are Stripped Away my fellow Americans that's happening here in this country the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body Stripped Away in 15 states immigrant children being stripped away from their families the gains of blacks for fair representation voting rights recognition of the historic lack of a playing fit of creating a even playing field Stripped Away slowly but surely the structures the laws and the institutions intended to make the nation great have been and continue to be eroded not to mention the souls of the human race and minorities being eroded every day by injustices we have a blueprint that we can see how that's being done project 2025 plans to upend structures institutions and the basic rights that have supposedly been afforded to Americans to make it great It's A playbook for Donald Trump's second term and a plan for the destruction of America as we know it despite flashy headlines printed over American flags and the likes of obnoxious men who give loud speeches about their love for making America great again project 2025 delivers No Such Thing project 2025 will slowly but stly strip away our rights I've asked for a hearing about project 2025 because I believe it is a dire warning to us all of an individual and others around him's desire to weaponize the government for their own empowerment it will Rip our experts out of agencies to be replaced by sycophant political appointees it will strip women of even more Healthcare access and rights it will further dehumanize undocumented imig migrants and punish their family members even those who are American citizens for daring to be associated with them it will restrict free speech in schools to only allow farri approved agendas and curriculum it will erode our freedoms all under the vague guise of making America great and yes because it is a grand Republican plan project 2025 calls for severe cuts to Medicare and Social Security I'm not just saying that the authors of project 2025 are saying that here's a video outl believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if her doctor says that she needs one is a yes or no question abortion is not Healthcare abortion murder of a human being we also going to have teens cuz we can multitask to deconstruct the administrative State and to go after the criminals and the traitors in the Deep state so suck on that we need to have the biggest Mass deportation system ever in the history of America because it is unjust and illegal and evil that more than 10 million illegal aliens have come to this country there are great plans using the Department of Homeland Security to return these people back to South of the Border the best thing that people can do right now if you're a young person is get involved in one of these things like American moment or project 20 25 or the Trump campaign we got to fill up the White House with workers project 2025 is something that's going to transcend the next four years the next 10 years it really is for the first time in the history of the conservative movement the apparatus for policy and Personnel we are in the process of the second American Revolution which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be playing patriotic music claiming to Love Freedom demonizing every group in the nation that is not like you will not protect you and your civil rights the project 2025 Playbook is a plan to give Donald Trump the powers of a dictator just as he wants that's the plan this is the man who threatened to send the Department of Justice after political opponents Trump even sent his lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that he should have criminal immunity even if he uses the military to assassinate someone who simply disagrees with him we heard his sec Secretary of Defense say that he asked the military to shoot people because they were protesting yes that's what his defense secretary said on TV and there's recordings of it this is the man who jokes about being a dictator just for a day and teases the idea of a third term for US president this is a man who wants to implement siop Fant loyalty test he's a man who will fire every employee in every agency who upholds their pledge to serve their country over the president Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the continuation of American democracy as our as we know it we are using this Congressional committee for the third time to attack a state level felony conviction of a former president by a jury of his peers Republicans on this committee have used $20 million of federal taxpayer dollars to deliver Trump more more power and attacked his Rivals they're threatening public servants far outside their legal jurisdiction and even threatening private citizens who dare not to give Trump what he wants the reign of Lord Trump has already begun and he isn't even in a second term it's vital we remember our founding father's principles and that we see project 2025 for what it is a republican plan to slowly but surely strip away rights this is about Freedom versus fascism I beg every American watching don't be fooled by plastic patriotism don't be fooled by those rhetorically referring to freedom without the substance to back it up without any care for all people's rights a true understanding of Freedom comes from respecting the sacrifices of our ancestors our Democratic institutions and a robust rule of law our country is not and has never been been perfect but our country is great and it's our duty to keep it that way our country has never shied away from impoving our flaws but what is being promoted is a distraction it's counterproductive and threatens years decades centuries of progress let's keep moving forward let's not go back to the dark times I you back gentle 's back without objection all the opening statements will be included in the record we will now introduce today Witnesses The Honorable Brad Smith is the Josiah H Blackmore second and Shirley m not professor of law at Capitol University law school Professor Smith previously served as commissioner on the federal elections commission including a term as chairman uh Mr Jonathan fahe is a partner at Holzman vogle he is a former prosecutor having served for 17 years in the US attorney's office for the eastern district of Virginia Mr Fay he also served in various positions at the Department of Homeland Security including as acting director of US immigration and custom enforcement The Honorable John Wilson is a former judge having served on the Bronx County Civil Court and Kings County criminal court for 10 years judge Wilson also previously served as a prosecutor in the Bron Bronx County uh District Attorney's office and in private practice following his departure From the Bench judge Wilson served as Chief prosecutor for the Standing Rock reservation in Fort Yates North Dakota and Mr Shan wo is an attorney focusing on White Collar defense and cases involving college students he previously served as a federal prosecutor and is counsel to former Attorney General Janet Reno he also works as a contributor for CNN and MSNBC we welcome our Witnesses and thank thank them for appearing today we will Begin by swearing uh swearing you in would you please rise and raise your right hand do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief so help you God let the record uh reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative thank you please be seated uh please know your written testimony uh will be entered into the record in its entirety accordingly we ask that you summarize your testimony in uh in approximately minutes and we're going to just move right down the line like we introduced you we'll start with Professor Smith and go right down and finish with Mr Woo so Mr Smith you're recognized for uh for five minutes thank you chairman Jordan ranking member plaset in the written testimony I I explain at length uh why the convictions of Donald Trump in New York in May because they relied in the end on alleged violations of federal election campaign act or F were incorrect as a matter of Law and I discussed some of the errors of law made by prosecutors and and judges in the case to quickly summarize uh the payments that were made to uh Stormy Daniels were not under current law and should not be as a matter of policy treated as campaign expenditures and thus Michael Cohen's brief fronting of the money which was repaid to him shortly thereafter uh does not constitute an illegal contribution but moreover the prosecution Theory uh that the defendant Trump had to engage in a vast conspiracy because of a desperate desire to hide stormy Daniel's allegations from the public and thus uh ignore campaign Finance laws simply makes no sense because even had they treated these as campaign expenditures which again I I think they correct not to do so nothing would have come out before the election as I explained under the reporting schedules nothing would have been reported until after the election uh and the idea that illegality was needed is simply laughable in fact Donald Trump and the Trump for president campaign had plenty of cash to pay for the daniels's non-disclosure agreement uh as of October 27th 2016 they did not need Michael Cohen to front them money for that purpose further even assuming the expense was a campaign expenditure no public disclosure of the expense would have been required until 20 days after the election and repeatedly the prosecution emphasized that the main uh desire of trump was to hide this information until after the election as a practical matter then having Michael Cohen front the money for the non-disclosure agreement between Mr Trump and Stormy Daniels could have no influence on the 2016 election despite the repeated claims by the prosecution that that was the core of the case and this undercuts the entire theory of the case offered by the prosecution uh this is explained in my written testimony I'm happy to answer questions on that as we go forward but right now I just want to emphasize that this New York prosecution uh is uh something that is a uh a very bad precedent let's just put it that way not only because it threatens the rule of law and and generally we have have not uh short uh in our defense of democracy we have not been willing to Short Change uh procedures of law but because it also threatens the bipartisan campaign enforcement system established by Congress if allowed to stand any state could do what New York has done that is pass a law making it a felony to try to influence an election by unlawful means then the state court could effectively try defendants for those alleged violations of f remember in the Trump case there was no finding by the Department of Justice uh Trump had violated the law indeed they decided not to pursue it there is no finding that by the Federal Election Commission that Trump had violated the law they also decided not to pursue it no federal body had found violations here um and effectively the state was simply making up the law and enforcing federal law in a partisan with elected judges elected prosecutors unlike the nonpartisan bipartisan system set up uh by the federal election campaign Act and the members of this committee and there are several who live in states that are dominated by the opposing party at a state level uh might want to take heed of that possibility that this that this game can be played in many different ways and one can run run the risk of being prosecuted for violating F even though uh the FBC found no wrongdoing it should be pointed out here that judge meron during the case took great pains to make sure that the jury was not informed that neither the Department of Justice nor the Federal Election Commission had decided not to pursue allegation ations against Mr Trump but at the same time uh allowed in uh repeatedly statements by the prosecutors and by witness Michael Cohan uh stating that he had clearly violated the law and there was no doubt about that and and thus implying that Mr Trump had done so as well uh it's worth noting in in the end that um it's right for this committee I guess I would say this it's right for this committee to take up this issue because it is a federal issue not only of due process but of that enforcement of the statute and we could have a tremendous amount of chaos and and uh every Federal campaign will be governed essentially by whatever one can get a state judge and a state jury to do uh that's not how the federal election campaign Act was set up and that's not how this should be pursued so I hope that this body will recognize that this is clearly a federal issue and uh not only are there major constitutional questions about due process but again it may even be something where some legislation is necess NE to make sure that state prosecutors cannot try this again thank you thank you Professor uh Mr Fe you recognize for 5 minutes thank you make sure you have that mic on and pull it close thank you you bet uh good morning chairman Jordan ranking member plasket members of the committee uh I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today my name is Jonathan fahe and I'm an attorney with the law firm of Holtzman vogle I'm in private practice now but I spent most of my 25 years as an attorney as a a prosecutor both as a state and federal prosecutor the reason I went to law school was because I wanted to be a prosecutor didn't want to be a law firm lawyer or anything else I wanted to be a prosecutor and the reason for that is my mom uh when I was growing up my mom was an assistant Comm attorney in Arlington County Virginia and then she was eventually uh elected to be the Comm attorney as a democrat in Arlington and later appointed by President Clinton to be the United States Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and I learned from my mom what I would go to court I would sometimes watch trials and things like that but I learned from her about the importance of being a prosecutor in terms of what it means to the public in terms of Public Safety but I also learned what it meant to administer Justice to be fair when you're entrusted with so much power how you administer that reflects not only on the person that that is the subject of that but as the whole Community how we treat the accused how we treat the most vulnerable victims and you know I learned from her that being a prosecutor really wasn't a partisan job it was a public safety job it was a speaking for victims job and that's the way it had really been in Virginia where I live and most of the country uh up until about 10 years ago and you know I say that because you could go through the country and you could see prosecutors that are Democrats prosecutors that are Republicans but they really approached the job the same way until recently but I began my career after law school after clerking in state court I became a state prosecutor in Fairfax County uh there I served under Bob heran who was a elected Democrat and he had been the Cal attorney for probably 30 years or so at that point and I had the opportunity to prosecute cases anywhere from the lowest level misdemeanor cases to the most violent felons and again I learned a lot of lessons there but the most important lesson I learned was you're entrusted with so much power from the the position from the community and how you administer that power is what's most important you you don't prosecute people because you don't like them or you have some other ulterior motive you prosecute them because um they violated the law and you're treating people equally equally regardless of the political motivations or political parties or anything else they might have um I went over from the Cel attorney's office to the US attorney's office and the Easter District of Virginia where I served for 17 years I served under multiple administrations but from uh George W bush to Obama to president Trump and also what I learned there no matter who was within that office people were professional I I had a chance to work with the most talented probably attorneys I've ever worked with and one thing that that during that tenure people's political whatever their political leanings were you rarely knew other than maybe outside of work and while I was there I had the opportunity to to prosecute drug traffickers gang members frauders other types of crimes I also had the opportunity to prosecute um to train younger prosecutors on how to prosecute cases ethics things of that nature uh the reason I go to my background and I know the time is short is the reason I'm here today I would say is because of the progressive prosecutor movement you know funded by these outside groups um this started about 10 years ago these Progressive prosecutors being elected through funding from Outsiders groups as uh mostly in Democrat jurisdictions they defeated incumbent Democrats and the movement basically is sort of the underlining premise was the entire system was unjust therefore the prosecutor can do whatever they want and you see saw that in Philadelphia you see it in Chicago which entally I think had 100 plus people shot over the weekend you see in La other places and essentially what these prosecutors have done is to Institute what they would call Criminal Justice Reform they would go into office and they would nullify any laws they did not like and that seems somewhat benign in some respects but the problem with it as you see with Alvin brag which I'll get into briefly at the end of my five minutes here but Alvin brag has taken this he was a PR Progressive prosecutor in New York he ran on this Progressive prosecutor uh I guess as a progressive prosecutor and when he got into office his main theme was deciding not to prosecute cases basically not in Prosecuting any misdem meters whatsoever reducing misdem meters to felonies and reducing serious felonies to lesser felonies so all of his theme for running his in office practice has led to I think New York the last two years have had the highest uh crime rate on the big seven crimes in the last 20 years but he's taken this a step further because again it's somewhat benign to say I won't prosecute trespassing but this sort of opened the door for the political prosecution of Donald Trump which as we've seen you know now it's taken from not Prosecuting to identifying a political opponent and Prosecuting them for political reasons I'll talk to somewhat in my testimony hopefully about the reasons behind the prosecution the errors in the case and how the immunity decision affects the case and I thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions and I apologize for going a little bit over that's fine Mr F thank you uh judge you're recognized for five minutes members of the House Judiciary Committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the criminal trial of former president Donald Trump held before judge Juan Maran in New York County Supreme Court criminal term earlier this year as you may be aware I served as a criminal court judge in and for both Kings County and Bronx County New York City from 2005 to 2014 for 5 years of my term I served as a night court arraignment judge in Kings County where I was designated an acting Supreme Court Justice before my election to the bench in 2004 I served as an assistant district attorney in Bronx County and as a criminal defense attorney although never tried a felony case as a judge I tried a number of felony cases as defense counsel including homicides child molestation drug sales Etc I was involved in all phases of criminal litigation for approximately 30 years I have sat in all three seats prosecutor defense counsel and judge I do not personally know judge Juan masan but I am intimately familiar with New York County Supreme and Criminal Court having spent most of my career in those courtrooms based on my experience I can tell you in no uncertain terms that former president Trump did not receive a fair trial from Judge Juan michan in fact if the court of appeals is fair and I believe the court will be fair based upon the reversal of Harvey Weinstein's illegal conviction Donald Trump's conviction is aured reversal a reversal that would be premised upon the fundamental errors committed by judge Juan michan if I may be BL mon Donald Trump was railroaded and Juan michan was the driver of that train for the purpose of this statement I would like to concentrate on the most glaring problems presented by judge michan's conduct of this trial I believe the following one the indictment was legally insufficient and judge mhan should have dismissed the indictment before trial in my book The Making of a mod and Analysis of the indictments of Donald Trump I wrote that my review of the New York County indictment revealed that Donald Trump was accused of causing a false centry to be made in his business records for the purpose of concealing or committing another crime what other crime the indictment does not say simply put how was former president Trump's prepared defense if he is not informed of the other crime he intended to commit or conceal when he allegedly falsified his business records judge michan was obligated to dismiss indictment that failed to identify the underlying crime number two the failure to dismiss the indictment led to charges being added during trial that were not included in the indictment in doing so former president Donald Trump was not given a fair chance to prepare a defense to these added charges thus depriving him of his right to prepare a defense this was a violation of Donald Trump's right to fundamental fairness and notice of the charges he face prior to trial further the jury instructions given by judge michan were illegal and that they included these additional charges and allowed for a non-unanimous verdict a non-unanimous verdict is unprecedented in any felony trial in American jur prudence and recently the US Supreme Court reiterated the necessity for a unanimous jury verdict in the case of erlinger versus United States number three judge Juan masan made unconstitutional and prejudicial ruling that impacted Donald Trump's ability to present the defense and that he allowed the prosecutor to use civil penalties and uncharged sexual assault charges against Donald Trump where he had testify in his own defense this deprived the former president of his right to present evidence in his own defense and was the very basis for the court of appeals reversal of the conviction of Harvey Weinstein earlier this year number four judge michan should have recused himself from presiding over this matter based on upon the appearance of impropriety in having contributed to political campaigns regardless of the amount and based upon his daughter's political activities regardless of the ethics opinions he received which absolved him of any actual unethical activity there are of course other appell issues which which exist in this case allowing the prosecution to claim federal election law violations without presenting any evidence to support those allegations not allowing the defense to present the witness regarding federal election law after allowing the prosecution to make the aforementioned statements and allowing stormmy Daniels to testify knowing that the prejudicial effect of her testimony outweighed any probative value are several it is my belief however that the ones I have outlined are the strongest issues to be presented on appeal therefore it is my considered opinion based upon my years of legal training experience that former president Donald Trump did not receive a fair trial that judge Juan masan failed his obligation to be fair and impartial that judge michan committed a series of errors that necessitate reversal of this conviction to be direct I do not believe anyone can reasonably state that former president Trump received a fair trial in New York County Supreme Court from Judge Juan masan thank you for your attention I'll be happy to answer your questions thank you judge Mr will you're recognized for 5 minutes thank you uh good morning members of the subcommittee and thank you chairman Jordan and ranking member Miss plaset for inviting me here today uh my name is Shan wo I'm the child of immigrants from China who came here seeking freedom and to avoid political persecution under the communist government there and they came here as graduate students and after the Communist Revolution they were stranded here and made a life here luckily for me they did come here cuz they didn't know each other in China so they met here uh and they had me and they instilled in me a great love for family despite the fact that I had no extended family growing up as well as a very strong sense of Public Service my father served under two New York City Mayors as a New York City Human Rights commissioner and his example of Public Service led me to attend law school and then later to become a federal prosecutor where I served as an assistant us attorney for 10 years and had the privilege in the last year of the Clinton Administration to serve as Council to then attorney general Janet Reno from that particular position where my portfolio included leaz oning uh for the office of Pardon attorney overseeing various criminal issues as well as briefing the Attorney General on a number of daily issues that would arise in the Justice Department it gave me very much of a bird's eyee View of the kinds of issues and the approach that the department takes uh as what is appropriately calling them the nation's Law Firm it is through this lens uh that I give you my personal opinion today which does not reflect the opinions of my Law Firm mcry Stafford or any other entities uh the view that I have of the recent conviction of the former president in the Manhattan da Alvin Braggs case where he was convicted of 34 felony counts and also my impressions of the recent presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court and whether or not that affects the verdict in that case in any way and lastly My Views that there is a growing Shadow a threat to American democracy presented by many of the former president's views as well as the way that those views are expressed in certain typ of writings such as the plan for presidential transition known as project 2025 in particular because of my experience at the justice department I would highlight some of the issues with these plans as they relate to the justice department when I was at the justice department I found that there is enormous value in the career employees there they were the heart and soul of the department the conscience as well as the institution wisdom there I remember on an almost daily basis when there were thorny Issues new issues that came up that Miss Reno the Attorney General would always want to know what the take was from career civil servants there and it was not just the more famous ones such as David margolus or Jack Keeney who served for decades at the department but the rank and file people who were unsung heroes who always provided their best advice and that advice is important because they as career employees their tenures cut across administrations they weren't simply put in there by the latest Administration and therefore they did not always reflect the political views or even the policy goals of the new Administration and in that sense they supplied a very healthy buffer zone to make sure that whatever new policy idea is would be measured against what the department had done in the past and what their experience told them was wise for the Department to me that gives the institution both a sense of Integrity as well as steadiness and that kind of steadiness and integrity is what allows the American people to have confidence in their institutions my parents were cut off from their families but they stayed here and they stayed because of the great love of the freedoms that this country has tried to give all of its people and as I see the current climate today one of my concerns is that those freedoms are endangered by an increasing trajectory towards authoritarianism autocracy and even dictatorship types of Tendencies um my testimony is prepared in writing as well and of course very happy to answer any questions gentleman Yi's back we will now proceed on the 5minute rule the chair recognize and gentleman from Ohio for 5 minutes um I thank all of our Witnesses I thank the chairman for holding this meeting look in my eight years in Congress I came in in June of 2016 uh we've seen an unprecedented amount of weaponized government we've seen it abused in every way imaginable um this isn't a a new phenomenon as bosot recognized when law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law frankly the radicals are counting on it we've seen the IRS go after religious and conservative nonprofits the ATF go after law-abiding gun collectors pro-life grandmothers sent to prison for years for peaceful protests here in Washington DC parents targeted for speaking up at Schoolboard meetings fintech companies targeted and debanked because they posed a threat to the status quo the list goes on the American Bar Association estimates that there are some 400,000 potential crimes that agencies can prosecute that exist between the federal code in mountains of politicized rule makings and regulations hopefully thinned out by the recent Chevron Defence decision and uh the administration strative law judge decision and some other good ones over the past uh two weeks the average American uh likely commits something that can be construed by a corrupt prosecutor as a federal crime uh what happened to president Trump can happen to any American who has the audacity to upset someone in a powerful position that's not supposed to happen in the United States of America Western Civilization is based on the rule of law and that this law must be both impartially administered and fairly adjudicated kangaroo court spectac schools such as what we witnessed in New York are fundamentally an attack on and perversion of the rule of law and its foundation in our society the list of abuses to Railroad President Trump is obscene and outrageous but calling it that is an understatement let's be clear Alvin Bragg campaigned openly on his persecution of President Trump his was clearly a political act and that is the only reason this case was designed and executed against the current administration's political enemy Professor Smith has there ever been a citizen named not named Donald Trump that has been prosecuted with these same crimes anywhere in America well it depends on what one considers the crime for example they'll say well lots of people are prosecuted for false records under New York law what they're not prosecuted for is for false records covering up a crime under New York law that makes it illegal to violate some un named law to influence an election and no I I've I've never seen anything like that has anyone ever successfully uh paid a hush money settlement to anyone and counted it as a campaign expense well not that I I know of and I think Common Sense would tell us that uh paying uh for a non-disclosure agreement or any kind of legal settlement is not based on things done outside of office like years before you were a candidate is not a campaign expense and we wouldn't want it to be because if you think about it that would mean that candidates could use their campaign funds for exactly that kind of thing it' be a horrible precedent right um every day we see headlines coming out of New York City illegal immigrants all kinds of cases and some of you in your opening statements highlighted how Mr F he highlighted in particular how Alvin Bragg ran on this Progressive platform uh as a prosecutor you know as a former prosecutor in your career If You Were Never Bound by the sixth amendment if you could turn any action retroactively into a crime if you could bias a jury by whatever means you wanted to is there a single citizen in America who would be safe from a politicized prosecution I don't really think so if you really targeted someone and looked for a way to charge them I don't want to say that I mean there I'm sure there's some people that could not be and theoretically but there are so many people that would be vulnerable to being prosecuted if somebody is targeting them for political reasons or whatever reasons and that's really what's scary about this and I I think your point with Alvin BR with it it's funny that on one hand he he runs on not Prosecuting the law and then all of a sudden on this case it's this is the most aggressive stance that's ever been taken probably on these set ofly not the rule of law and and crime is going through the roof I think you know seven you know the seven biggest felonies the last two years are the highest year since 06 so it's like he's not Prosecuting the equally or against you know other people and more serious criminals thank you and look judge Wilson you referenced it in your statements about the precedent uh in the Court's recognition in Ness versus the United States but as early as 1898 the court said that a defendant enjoys a quote constitutional right to demand that his Liberty should not be taken except by The Joint action of the court and a unanimous verdict of a jury of 12 persons I thank chairman Jordan for holding this vital hearing today what we are w wiing is an unprecedented attack on the rule of law and a weaponization of our criminal justice system and it's a shame I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Massachusetts recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and thank you to the ranking member and I appreciate the attendance of our our Witnesses this morning um I've served on the oversight committee here in Congress uh which is the principal investigatory Committee in this house uh for over 20 years years and I have to admit I cannot point to a single case during my tenure and we have had Republican leadership and and Democratic Leadership where the chair has blatantly and persistently uh interfered with a state criminal proceeding as I have seen it interfere in the case of the people of the state of New York versus Donald Trump even before New York district attorney Alvin Bragg announced a 34 count felony indictment against the former president in April of 2023 chairman Jordan joined by other Republican committee chairs had already sent a letter to district attorney Bragg demanding his testimony before Congress it also warned him of the quote serious consequences close quote of pursuing criminal charges against Donald Trump and over the next year in the midst of ongoing state criminal proceedings chairman Jordan proceeded to send nearly a dozen frivolous investigatory letters and subpoena threats to current and former employees of the New York District Attorney's office on top of that he listed a series of documents that this is an ongoing criminal trial in the state of New York at the time asking for all documents and Communications between and among the New York County District Attorney's Office all documents and Communications are received uh by certain employees all documents and Communications referring or relating to New York City district attorney receipts and other uh use of federal funds clearly clearly trying to intimidate uh the New York District Attorney's office and dissuade them from their prosecution of of Donald Trump uh Mr Woo a a as a federal prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney uh what what is the danger in in having Congress which is a legislative body uh use those type of threats against an ongoing uh criminal prosecution in State Court uh Congressman lnch what the danger is is that it greatly destroys the Integrity of the criminal prosecution the idea that a legislative body which is inherently politically based is looking at a criminal prosecution which is meant to independently assess evidence of criminality during the pendency of that case is extremely destructive and quite dangerous for the Integrity of the system and Mr wo on top of that over 25 Republican members actually went to the courthouse sat in the courtroom uh to to uh support the defendant in that case um the nonpartisan Brennan Center for justice recently reported that Congressional efforts to compel the production of non-public information about a specific case from a local prosecutor or otherwise medal in their investigation quote crosses the line to political interference that threatens the L the rule of law close quote would you agree with that assessment I would agree with that and also I think the presence of those members at the trial while they certainly have a First Amendment right to be there I think it also injected a great deal of political atmosphere into that case Mr wther Brennan Senator has also warned that Congressional interference in the New York case is reflective of a quote worrying Trend that threatens to intensify close quote can you talk about the impact of this trend on state and federal prosecutions I think uh as we discussed before the trend indicates that the district attorneys in those States as well as Federal prosecutors feel that they aren't free to actually follow the evidence they aren't free to actually follow the law but that they're going to be criticized they're going to be the subject of political leverage if they actually do their job and I think that really undermines the Integrity of our criminal justice system thank you very much what are the ramifications uh for this uh especially following the Supreme Court's decision on on presidential immunity do you think there's there are implications for that as well uh the Supreme Court's decision on immunity I think very much indicates this Court's direction towards overly empowering the Office of the President I don't know exactly how it may trickle down to other kinds of prosecutions but certainly in my view their extremely over Brad opinion frankly would obviate the purpose of this subcommittee which is the weaponization of the justice system against a president is impossible under their view because the president can do anything he wants thank you uh Mr chairman my time has expired and I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from California is recognize thank you Mr W I'm going to stay with you um every day members of Congress are subpoenaed uh on behalf of defendants in prison people that have griefs gripes against the government and the president receives far more than one a day would you suggest that he should have to go to those uh uh places show up and be deposed just because somebody uh wants to depose the president and says they have a basis I I obviously there's a general policy reason not to okay so so the fact is that the Supreme Court's decision on limited immunity or immunity from prosecution immunity from having to show up and be distracted from the work of the president is for a good purpose and only in rare cases such as Bill Clinton's case of a civil suit specifically about actions before he was president has the court ever uh said it doesn't fit there right I think that's exactly the problem you point out is it's so rare that there is no need for them to well let's just get back to rare they there was need they made a decision that uh still stands today that Bill Clinton could be deposed as to his specific State actions prior to being president but they ruled clearly that the president cannot be distracted from that I'm going to switch to Mr Smith uh I'm going to let him drink his water um you know you you said as a prosecutor I'll go to you and to M judge Wilson that this was not a fair trial that it violated the rules that we count on for the admission of evidence is that correct you both saw that in this case yeah if if I may go first uh I think the most glaring thing was somewhat of some of the Stormy Daniels testimony which you know the implication from her testimony was that she was sexually assaulted by President Trump which is you know by in any respects so unfairly prejudicial relative to the crime the judge clearly let evidence in and that that that was surprising to me one that the prosecutors didn't know that ahead of time that this was going to come out and it wasn't vetted ahead of time so that that's the most glaring example that I I I I so as a prosecutor something that you dedicated your career to there's a there is a sense of balance if you get in your unfair twisting you normally expect the judge to uh at least at a minimum allow the defendant to present Witnesses uh in response to that or to to offset it it would pretty unheard of that they only let you hit the the guy and not and no one answer back right that part of it's concerning and when think about it when we were prosecute cases generally defendants had far more leeway because it was like they're the ones they're in Jeopardy they're you know going to jail or whatever so even if they didn't have necessarily the most viable defense it was rare to have a judge cut them off on it and that that's what just seems so striking on one hand it's the most extreme evidence allowed against President Trump which is hard to justify and then not allowing some sort of at least explanatory as my time's running out but uh yes or no if I could isn't that kind of imbalance very often exactly what a prosecutor doesn't want to see because it leads to a high probability of a case being reversed and based on not being fair in other words If you deny the defendant you have a Jeopardy of of in fact getting a perfectly good conviction overturned because you didn't give them the proper opportunity for defense didn't give them the charges in advance didn't give them uh the evidence that you held is that right yes and it it goes to question the motivation for this case was it just to get the initial conviction and and now let's go to the motivation with uh Mr Smith you were denied the ability to answer a great many questions so hopefully you'll be able to answer uh the ones you want to here today um have you in your history with the FEC have you ever seen the FEC take State charges and Link them to an FEC violation in order to get a felony and then take it to the federal court and charge somebody no so the federal government doesn't grab State cases to L to make something that is normally a fine and make it a crime correct no it does not okay and so if you had a situation in which and this is an if because it didn't happen but if you had a situation in which somebody took their own money and used it and then did not declare it is that usually uh uh you know there was failure to to file is that usually something that you would bring them up at the FEC and refer them for criminal felony charges uh it would be extremely rare that it would be referred for criminal charges you'd have to show clear intent so in this case specifically the FEC made a decision that what they pulled to in addition to state to make this a crime that they could charge a felony on is something that not only normally wouldn't happen but in this case specifically was looked at and didn't didn't happen the FEC declined to prosecute because there wasn't a case here right they not only declined to refer it to justice for criminal charges but they declined to bring civil charges themselves it's is what you'd normally do if you just thought it was an error or something so it wasn't even worth a fine much less a criminal prosecutor thank you I yield back gentlemen yields back gent from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman When Donald Trump's Supreme Court overturned roie Wade millions of Americans lost the right to make their own healthc care decisions since Trump did this 14 States enacted extreme abortion bans wreaking havoc on the lives of American women and families it happened in my home state of Florida and more States will follow suit and now Trump's team has a detailed blueprint for what his next four years God forbid would look like called project 2025 it's 900 pages of legal and administrative assaults on our freedoms rights and progress Mr Woo you're very familiar with Trump's project 2025 and have a deep legal background I want to ask you some rapid fire questions so if you could just start off with yes or no these current abortion bans including one in my home state of Florida are ruining women's Economic Security would project 20125 make those economic hardships worse for American women yes I believe so we know Trump abortion bans keep women in in abusive relationships would project 2025 make those horrible situations even worse yes these Trump abortion bans disproportionately harm already vulnerable populations especially lowincome and communities of color with legal assaults on abortion right rights in Project 2025 inflict even more harm on these communities yes thank you Mr W I want to discuss what project 2025 would mean for women who face medical pregnancy issues Trump's abortion bans have already caused irreversible damage to Women's Health across the country with women having to turn septic and get close to death before a doctor can legally perform a life-saving abortion despite earlier intervention being medically warranted the bottom line Trump's abortion bans have led to inflicting unnecessary brutal pain and harm to women including preventable deaths that's not some democratic talking point that's directly from doctors a majority of OBGYN stated that when Trump overturned roie Wade it increased maternal deaths and discourages doctors from even going into the field in a survey 70% of providers say they believe it has also worsened existing racial and ethnic inequalities this comes from the men and women who actually care for their patients doctors who took an oath to do no harm legal hurdles are causing harm Health outcomes Mr W do you think that innocent women women truly trying to receive necessary Health Care will be unfairly criminalized by project 2025 yes I do and I think in particular some of the language in the project 2025 document such as the phrase abortion tourism I find to be deeply offensive women do not take vacations in order to have abortions I agree that it is deeply offensive and dangerous to use language like that project 2025 is an explicit 900 page Playbook for a second Trump term and it's clear that it targets women Trump's project 2025 lays out plans to make sure that abortion is not considered healthare it aims to get the FDA to reverse its decades long approval of the abortion drug myth pistone in order to get it off the market the Trump plan calls for defunding Planned Parenthood and excluding it from Medicaid which is how millions of women get preventative screenings and other vital Healthcare unrelated to abortions we know the same extreme anti-choice groups that helped craft Trump's project 2025 would also try to exclude some forms of emergency contraception from no cost coverage and gut access to IVF Trump's project 2025 blueprint even calls on the CDC to increase quote unquote abortion surveillance including requiring states to submit invasive privacy violating data and information about patients who receive abortions this creates a modern-day handmaid tale these dangerous alarming policies will ensure that women are second-class citizens its extreme magga goals will cause suffering and in some instances death Mr Woo as a legal analyst with extensive experience as a federal prosecutor can you explain some of the dangers American women face by criminalizing abortion like this well immediately what happens is they're being uh forced to choose between their health versus being prosecuted which is a terrible situation no one should ever have to face the point that you make Congressman with regard to surveillance I think that's extremely dangerous I mean that is a weaponization of healthcare statistics to use those statistics to further criminal punishment of innocent women who are simply seeking to protect their own health and to further decisions that really should just be between them and their doctors well I'm glad that in this committee we finally exposing what the real weaponization of government is was under former president Trump and would be again and lastly as my time expires in the next 30 seconds isn't this working towards a complete and total National Abortion ban and isn't that what project 202 2025 makes clear the goal is if former president Trump were reelected again I think it does I mean it sets out a blueprint to get at that goal through numerous ways thank you very much I yeld back B with my time G lady yields back uh Professor Smith in your opening uh excuse me in your written testimony you said that the lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo in his opening statement in the court accused president Trump of violating the federal election campaign act but the FEC didn't bring charges I think you've said a couple times is that true that's correct and the Department of Justice didn't bring charges that's correct and if president Trump campaign had paid for it it wouldn't have been reported until after the election is that right that's correct and did President Trump's campaign have the money to pay for it yes they had plenty of money had like 7 eight million bucks still in hand on Election Day I think right yes and certainly president Trump had the money to pay for it he's not yes he'd already spent over 60 million yeah he had they already they already done that was it a political contribution uh no I do not believe so for a reason stated I can elaborate on those now but you know but not only do you not believe so their star witness didn't believe so Michael Cohen said he was working clar back in 2011 to deal with this Miss Daniels making the allegations of wouldn't Bank this public and he was doing it for other reasons isn't that correct yes they had been concerned about Daniels for a long time and keeping her quiet so the obligation wasn't caused by President Trump's candidacy for president of the United States is that right no it was not okay Mr fhee uh in your written testimony you said one of the most alarming aspects of the case is that the fraud quote fraud did not involve anyone losing money or even being harmed in any way to the extent that The Ledger entry entries were inaccurate they were entered into the books of a private company that understood what they were for it is unheard of for a fraud case to be brought where no losses were suffered so there weren't any losses in this this case at all were there yeah that's what makes us so remarkable and just yeah I I can't even imagine someone bringing a fraud case to the United States of attorney's office where nobody lost money there were no victims and no one was worse off at the end of it it just makes it laughable even before you get to steps two through probably 20 that make this case really absurd to have been brought to begin with it wasn't a contribution if it was a contribution it would have been wouldn't have been reported until after the election and no one suffered any losses and yet they bring this charge against President Trump I find that just amazing if that's not political motivation I don't know cuz what other motivation could there be yeah it's really almost inarguable at this point that the motivation for this case was political it's really I've never heard a serious argument that that it should have been prosecuted otherwise I Know M Mr wo might might have one but I just haven't haven't heard that because it seems political from the you know from the Inception all the way to the end yeah wasn't a contribution wouldn't have been reported even if it was if they Tre paid that out of the campaign no one suffered loss and yet there was some kind of a conspiracy to impact an election but that's not the worst of it the worst of it is they didn't tell the defendant what the crime was he was being charged with isn't that right judge that's correct right from the indictment he was uh Donald Trump was charged with falsifying business records to elevate that crime to a felony uh he had to be concealing or committing other crimes when did the defendant in this trial in this case learn what he was being charged with at the end of the trial at the end of the trial that's not supposed to happen in America is it judge no that is uh illegal so not only did you not know what he's being charged with in the end at the end of the trial when he learned what it was the judge also told the jury oh you don't have to be unanimous in finding what we just discovered the charge actually was it's extraordinarily egregious error to tell a jury they don't have to be unanimous and I might add by the way those charges the three additional ones were never specified they're described generally so we don't know what exactly the jury thought thought was the illegality that was committed by Donald Trump we we have a very inspe verdict campaign Finance uh expert says it wasn't a contribution and even if it was a contribution if they treated as contrib paid it out of the campaign it wouldn't have been reported till after the election so there's no conspiracy to influence the election no one suffered any harm or fraud in the initial case former prosecutor tells us and the judge tells us that the defendant didn't know what he was charged with until the end of the trial and the judge gave instructions to the the jury never mind the fact the judge should have recused himself which you point out in your written testimony judge the judge didn't tell the jury or told the jury you don't have to be unanimous but the real thing here is the opportunity cost and you rais this in your testimony Mr fagy the opportunity cost when Alvin brag did the day one memo says we are not going to charge all these felonies we're going to bring him down to misdemeanors and let the bad guys roam the streets of New York how that squares with what happened here that to me is the real issue that's the issue that most Americans see like we're going to do this to the the former president of the United States meanwhile take felony charges against really bad guys on the street and bring them down to misdemeanors that's the opportunity cost here I believe in Manhattan you get the last word Mr F yeah exactly when you're letting carjackers out on bail or illegal immigrants that assault police officers aren't getting prosecuted but this is the way you're using your time in addition to the fact you run on a softon crime policy and then you do take the most creative aggressive approach to this crime it's hard to argue as anything other than a political motivation CH now recognizes the gentle lady from Texas okay I got a lot of ground to cover um I do want to clarify Mr fahe when you consistently talk about NY or or New York crime you're speaking um in an opinionated stance you're not speaking from a place of facts correct no I'm speaking from a place of facts okay well let me clarify for you thank you so much I'm reclaiming my time let me clarify for you that NYPD puts out reports in in April it said overall index crime across New York City dropped another 4.9% as it relates to May the report says overall index crime across New York dropped another 2.4% and June's report hasn't come out I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record 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 Woo I'm going to 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 uh 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 um would that be the legislative people or judicial people well it's really the executive it'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 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 um explain any issues you may have the process would be the judicial appell 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 cuz 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 cuz 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 passed 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 no absolutely not absolutely not cuz he's the executor huh that's that other Branch correct that's okay okay all right so you have this prosecutor and in this case it's Alvin BR who was duly elected correct correct not appointed by the president correct right duy 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 no when it with a with a case I'm sorry I moved on 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 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 and then there's pre-trial motions there's pre-trial 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 won a jury trial correct correct and a jury trial is comprised of US 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 f plent amount of time as a defendant are you not entitled to uh 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 has the judge to and in this case they found him guilty not once not twice not three times not four not five not6 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 appell court the last time I checked he was raising money so that he could go to the appell court and appeal his decision and they will have the final say so thank you so much yes they will uh the G lady y's back and the gentleman from North Dakota is recognized thank Mr chair if I may just a quick um I just wanted to say as just as a point of personal privilege um Linda Sanchez is not with us today um and she is at the funeral for her legislative director uh Chandler Mason who served this body and served this country for a number of years and I just want to say on behalf of I believe all of us here that we extend condolences to her family um to the office of congresswoman Sanchez and pray for um God to give them Comfort during this time for the untimely death of Miss Mason no well well said and we I appreciate bringing that attention I should have uh this is my oversight I should have said something about uh our colleague Mr Massie um Mr Davidson and I and our Paulie and Lisa and I had a chance to go down and visit with Thomas a week ago Sunday he's doing is as good as you can under these these difficult difficult circumstances and his wife Rhonda was an amazing person so to both to both Meers this committee thank you for bringing that up gentleman from North C is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and I very much appreciate uh the uh questioning from my friend from Texas she's one of the few other people that has actually practiced criminal defense and Public Defense and as somebody who's done that for a very long time I appreciate that very much uh I never did practice in New York I also have a practi in federal court and I've practiced in state court and passed several bar exams as well uh judge will What's the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York one year uh when was this what is the what is the business records case is a misdemeanor correct the uh underlying crime the falsifying business records yes that's a misad meaned charge so the only way to get to a felony is by committing it or is by in concealment of another crime correct uh and each one of those crimes has specific elements that's right and you have to prove in order to get a conviction at trial you have to prove every element of the crime Beyond A Reasonable Doubt right that's just traditionally how this works that is the right way to do it so in the indictment did they put the underlying crime no they did not they only described it as other crimes okay and in the jury instructions did they put the specific underlying crime no the um falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions there was some brief description of the uh New York state election law violation but there was no description given of the three choice of three crimes there was a description given of falsifying business records which was pretty ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records so and that's also a misdemeanor right that should be yeah so you have 2 plus 2 equals six like if you commit two misdemeanors you get to the felony statute of limitations which they had to get or they could have never brought the case that's correct but there there's some more question marks regarding the statue limitations uh it's not cut and dry because the time that Donald Trump spent out of New York uh could be used to toll the stat limitations that was the ruling in the court of appeals Harvey Weinstein case he argued that the time that he spent out of California should not have told it out of New York that is in California should not have told the time limitations but the court of appeals ruled against them on that issue so that's I think how they get around the statute limitations problem in this case so was the election law case a federal election law or state election law underlying crime seemed like it was charged as both when we got to the jury instructions there's a violation of New York election law charged but then there's among the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law and and then the third one was tax violation right also unspecified so all three of those underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime that is correct were any of the elements of those crimes listed no not at all so and this is important and it it's it might not be as robust or anything but when you defend a client in court if you don't know what the elements of the crime you're defending how do you mount a defense you can't that's the very issue of fun mental fairness that I referenced you as a defendant are entitled to know what the charges are against you so that you can defend against those charges Donald Trump was never made aware of what the extent of the charges were against him until the end of the trial and those and the elements of the crime go in the jury instructions I mean traditionally that's how it works federal court State Court in North Dakota State Court in Minnesota I've been in all of these different jurisdictions you actually get the elements of the underlying crime correct any time that I in instructed a jury I instructed them what the elements of the crime were and instead in this case they got a grab bag they they got a choice of three when it came to the underlying crimes and we don't even know which ones they chose so we don't know whether or not they could have been unanimous on those three or not that's that's another failing of the jury instruct so not only did we have not the elements of the crime but we had three different crimes with three vastly different elements of the crimes all specified none of them in the indictment the elements of the crimes weren't in the Bill of particulars last hearing I had the bill of particulars waved at me like it was some kind of magic document that flew in here with its own Cape so the statement of facts only describes a series of allegations a series of actions that believed that Donald Trump took none of them describe any criminal activity none of them describe any um they don't describe any elements of any crime and that's why you believe as do I that when this goes on appeal there's going to be significant legal issues to argue that the jury never actually got them put in front of them I I have very little doubt that this matter will be reversed on appeal and based upon these issues because I've actually been pretty I mean I I I believe jury Charles are still the best way to determine guilt and innocence I just believe juries are only as good as the information put in front of them so and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from New York is recognized thank you Mr chairman I'm I'm happy we're bringing up the appeal in this case uh um because this uh committee has focused for a year and a half on a fifth circuit case has brought before us as a witness the lawyer for that case twice um to argue that the Biden administration had censored improperly censored social media companies um I'm surprised we haven't yet heard about the ultimate decision on appeal by the Supreme Court which dismissed the case so it's pretty fascinating to me that uh we don't have followup on the appeals of a case that we're so uh excited about the appell it process when the Supreme Court dismissed it Mr Fay I want to just touch upon a couple things you said before uh I move into the Crux of my questioning uh am I right that I heard you say that that it's unheard of to bring a fraud case without losses to individual victims it I cannot think of a situation where that's occurred it it I'm not saying it hasn't so you're saying that every books and Records case has losses to victims I'm saying every fraud case that I was involved either Prosecuting or knowing about usually had somebody that but but this was a books and Records charge yes well I think it's based on a fraud a fraud case that somebody committed fraud on the books and Records yes a fraud on the books and Records yeah I think they put I think the allegation is they were incorrect or fraudulent entries in the books or the records yes right and so you're saying that every single books and Records fraudulent entry which is a false entry has lost to individual victims is that your testimony that's not at all my testimony I said fraud cases are generally not prosecuted without victims and that's true murder cases are generally not prosecuted without victims too but we're talking about books and Records here okay have you familiar with the term fraud on the market no not really okay I mean you should into and you should look into uh let me give you another example of a fraud case that doesn't have an loss to an individual victim which would be any insider trading case so other than they would have potential victims and other people harm this is a case where go look up go look up fraud on the market there are no individual victims with losses and yet those cases are charged there's an overall the in those cases you know we're focused here on the weaponization of the government as usual and I'm just struck by the fact that we have a republican majority that is accusing other people of weaponizing government when let's look at what this committee and this Republican majority has done um my colleague Miss Crockett a went through the separation of powers um Mr Woo were you aware that this committee held a hearing with Robert Costello as a witness who was the former attorney of Michael Cohen yes and that that hearing was during the trial yes uh okay um so do you think that that was an appropriate uh way of trying to elicit testimony to impeach a witness in a trial in a congressional hearing no I think it interferes with the trial now interestingly when he was here I suggested that he' go testify in the trial and he did that's the place for where he should be right exactly and Mr Trump's attorney had an opportunity to cross-examine him did he not yes and Mr Trump's attorney had I believe three days of cross-examination of Michael Cohen did he not yes I think that's right and ultimately the jury heard all of that right and all of the other evidence and decided unanimously that he was guilty that's right are you aware of the uh about two dozen members of the House Republican Party writing an amicus brief to a district judge of about the hunter Biden case uh yes uh so let me just get this straight we have legislators elected officials trying to intervene in an ongoing criminal case is that what happened that's what it sounds like and they're proud of it by the way they are so excited and take credit for undermining Hunter Biden's plea agreement by interfering in that case that is the misuse of official Authority and weaponization of this committee this body and what Donald Trump has vowed to do is weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his political Rivals a revenge and retribution tour and the notion that this committee is accusing Democrats of weaponizing the federal government when the president of the United States did not intervene in the prosecution of his own son give me a break why don't you focus on taking care of your own party and your own weaponization and stop projecting where it doesn't exist and I yield back we appreciate the gentleman uh well the gentleman from North North Carolina is recognized for five minutes thank you uh thank you Mr chairman Mr Woo uh do you think that in American history State Court criminal justice processes have ever been perverted or corrupted for political objectives to affect matters of federal politics such as the course of legislation or the composition of Congress or the control of the presidency uh I'm not sure of a specific instance like that I mean I think there has been a general feeling that some of the state court processes uh have been unfair or biased and that was for example a reason for some of the Civil Rights legisl yeah like even in in the in thei post Civil War era right um so I think I have distinct images of that having occurred and and and processes that appear to be ordinary can be used to political effect in such cases right sure even in totalitarian regimes totalitarian systems of government that's a favorite tactic isn't it the the show trial indeed it is is there a um legitimate federal government interest in preventing that where it occurs uh well there's some jurisdictional limits on what the federal government can do there I mean if it's a State Trial they'd have to come in after the fact to examine whe there's been some let me ask you this way was there a legitimate Federal interest when Congress acted as we just made reference to in the post Civil War um uh Civil Rights Acts yes those legislative and they were designed to prevent that kind of misuse right I don't know that they were designed specifically at the court system misuse but I think they were designed to correct Injustice you don't think they were designed to correct misuses and abuses of the court system the state court system uh no that's not why I said it it includes you you would agree with me that they were designed for that very purpose uh not only for that purpose yeah I no I certainly agree it wasn't only for that purpose but it was included um how uh how should Congress identify the misuse of state court procedures where it is happening uh certainly they can do investigations uh hold hearings but they should be after the fact of prosecutions not during the prosecutions oh so let me just ask you a couple would would evidence of that include overt public vows by candidates for prosecutorial office to Target a candidate or Prospect Ive candidate for federal office that certainly something that can be part of the fact finding yes what about the institution of charges for transparent political motivations especially in the sense that the event charged is not regularly or ever charged against others engaged in similar conduct would that be possible evidence of such a problem that's a little bit tougher because the uh prosecutorial discretion wall is pretty thick on that but it's certainly something that could be inquired into how about State Legislative renewal of expired statutes of limitations aimed at such a political Target would that be possibly evidence of such conduct uh again I don't know whether it's evidence but it seems like something that Congress could ask about what about judicial assignment processes resulting in in folks with apparent partisan bias being appointed or ending up administering a trial against such a target with that be such evidence I think that's a little bit of a conclusory uh question there but certainly the process for determining uh judicial selections appointments I think that's something legitimately looked at H how about contriving jury instructions or administering a trial to deny the target fundamental fairness in due process anticipating that correction of that would be delayed until after the political impact has run its course in an election would would that be evidence that Congress should be concerned about I think that's more a issue for appeal of the particular conviction uh again respectfully I feel there's a little bit of a conclusory aspect so you think so long as the appeal will eventually set things right the fact that a state perverts its processes to achieve a political result to play out in an intervening election that's okay Congress shouldn't worry about that at all is that right uh I think the appeal needs to run its course first uh and then if Congress has concern concerns about the case overall they're free to look into it all right I Y back gent y's back gentle lady from uh ranking members recognize thank you thank you Mr chair um Mr Woo did you conclude your your thoughts on that subject yes I did okay thank you I just wanted to give you time if you needed it um thank you for your analysis of what's happened in the court case in um New York and judge Wilson it's good to see you here I just wanted to give a shout out to a fellow Bronx district attorney um Alum as well thank you um I did want to State for the record you know this discussion about homicides in New York City and the lack of prosecutorial action by um the district attorney in the county of New York that Mr Bragg's first year in office shootings in manatt declin by 20% homicides declin by 16% and the data from the NYPD shows that the rates of virtually every index of crime are lower in Manhattan for the first quarter of 2023 than they were at the same time last year um so while we may not like him having prosecuted former president Trump I think it's false to say based on the data that Manhattan is suffering from a rise in violent crime that is not in fact uh factually the case would we like to see it further as a born and raised New Yorker of course um but what it is not right now is a place with a Crim spree one of the things that I talked about earlier today was Project 2025 um I've shared with the chairman my concern about this plan and the fact that this I believe fits squarely within the tenants of this committee to have a discussion about it to uh go to those individuals the authors of this plan over a thousand Pages have been written uh that make up the project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation which they and its author state is the plan for day one after a a trump second term presidency um Mr Woo looking at Trump's Playbook that Playbook being project 2025 which is authored by individuals that are within his prior Administration how would it hurt Americans if these proposals were made into law I think one way that I've touched upon is the removal or decimation of the career civil servants I think is very dangerous of also some of the other examples examples the idea of removing the general counsel at the FBI to replace that with the political employes Council again you lose the experience and the context of that position and similarly trying to do away with the 10-year term for the FBI director which is there to ensure that they can be in place over the course of different administrations I think all of those particularly at the justice department would Gravely hurt the integrity and steadiness of the department I agree having been a political appointee in the Bush Administration at the Department of Justice working under the deputy attorney general uh La Larry Thompson and then under uh James Comey who could have fared without a David margolus having been in that office um being someone who had been there since the time of Kennedy he came in as an honors uh graduate from law school and provided consistency across the board to multiple administrations under project 2025 if this individual did not if David Mar an individual like David margolus had not passed the Loyalty test would he still be in in have that position no um one of the key tenants is also to defeat the anti-American left that's a quote Trump has promised to root out liberal prosecutors individuals on this committee have used the power of congress to go after anyone who dares to indict Trump on crimes and publicly attack judges rule against Trump or his defense team does this look like a fair and impartial system of justice to you no it doesn't I think it undermines the Democracy um as a former Federal prosecutor for many years was it your experienc that prosecutors in Liberal jurisdictions approach the criminal justice system with an anti-conservative bias no it was not and what was your experience my experience was that Federal prosecutors around the country uh tended to be very independent minded sometimes they would butt heads uh with what we call Main Justice uh but I pretty much never have seen an instance that I would identify as a politically motivated Federal prosecution thank you and um I'm not going to go into blocking financial aid for American college students if they States permit kids like dreamers to access in state tuition getting rid of school lunch programs Summer School uh summer programs taking aim at free speech and free thinking in American universities aim at renewable energy and what will make American women second-class citizens by taking a closer to a National Abortion ban restricting access to Women's Healthcare and abortion drugs across the market this again Mr chairman I believe is a document that we along with um others throughout Congress need to take a closer look at a yeld back lady y's back gentlemen from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman Joe Biden's doj has utilized their power and weaponized the justice system to go after his political opponent from Florida courts in Georgia courts in New York the farce that occurred in New York is a pathetic and sad abuse of the legal system by a rogue Democratic prosecutor and an obviously biased judge as judge Wilson aptly noted in his testimony president Trump was railroaded and judge Merchant drove the train not only did Judge Merchant seek to silence president Trump from informing the world about the judge's own conflicts of interest in the case but he made sure to effectively muzzle president Trump's key expert witness Professor Bradley Smith on a central element of the case Professor Smith you correctly pointed out in your testimony that the District Attorney's theory of the case revolved around a state law that prohibits promoting a political cacy by unlawful means in this case the prosecutor alleged that the unlawful means resulted from a violation of the federal election campaign Act is that correct that's correct and you were once the chair chman of the Federal Election Commission is that correct that is correct given your obvious status as an expert in campaign Finance law can you explain why the definition of an expenditure is so important to the case yes uh the definition of this expenditure if you just read the statute says anything for the purpose of influencing an election so normal person might hear that and say well why did they make that expenditure but if you read further into the statute the provisions regarding personal use and if you read the FC's uh uh regulations and its explanation of those regulations but it's clear what they mean is for the purpose of a federal of influencing an election is not the subjective motivation of the spender it's an objective motivation so setting up a campaign headquarters hiring a campaign manager buying tv ads printing bumper stickers whatever else you do like that that's for the purpose of running a campaign but the mere fact that you do something that might be helpful to your campaign like uh taking a weight loss program so you look better on the campaign Trail buying a house in New York so you can run for us Senate from New York settling complaints against your business and your private life sealing your divorce records those are not things that arose from your campaign those are things that people sometimes do anyway and those would not be campaign expenditures and were you allowed to provide any of that context to the jury uh through expert testimony uh no and what is your expert opinion of the instructions that judge Merchant gave to the jury regarding the federal election campaign act well I think the judge's instruction clearly wanting all he gave them was that barebones if this was for the purpose of influencing an election you've got a problem and again this has been noted in this hearing he repeatedly allowed witness Michael Cohen who's no expert in campaign Finance law and the prosecutors to state that there had clearly been a violation I would note that had I testified of course I would not have testified specifically to what the law is but I would have testified to the reporting system that would have shown that there was no advantage to not reporting this as a campaign expenditure to the contribution system which would have shown that Mr Trump could have clearly paid this without any ramifications had he wanted to do so I would have talked about how the FEC in practice had in many cases found that certain things that look like you know again that for the purpose of were not found to be for the purpose of a of a campaign and let the jury do with that what they will and judge Merchant allowed Michael Cohen who has no expert qualifications in this field whatsoever to provide the jury information on campaign Finance law but he prevented you uh from giving substantive expert testimony on federal election Campaign Act he he did and then he uh advised the jury now you can't use that to consider Mr Trump guilty uh that's only for context which is sort of like saying to the jury or sort of like saying to you for the rest of this hearing I don't want any of you to think about a yellow Mini Bus by Volkswagen I mean that's all you're going to think about the rest of the hearing is a yellow VW van um it it kind of flagged it to the jury's attention that coand had pleaded guilty uh in this case uh under I think tremendous pressure because he was facing years and years prison for tax violations so he pleaded guilty to the campaign Finance thing and and basically got a much lighter sentence in in the beginning of questioning by chair Jordan you talked about how we wouldn't want non-disclosure agreements of things that happened before a campaign to be campaign expenses can you just expand upon that right I mean I mean you don't want members of Congress to pay for their you know personal padillos from year before or allegations of such uh I think we should should credit those just as allegations uh using campaign funds you don't want a person to use campaign funds and say uh gee this is something really embarrassing to me that happened in my past think I'd like to seal that up even though it's not relevant it's not something that you create through from your campaign it's it's the ticket for abuse and this is why the law specifically lists a number of things like for example you can't pay for a country club membership even if the reason you have it is to raise money for your campaign because it's it's something that people do even if they're not running for office and we don't want campaign funds paying for that thank all of you for being here today I yeld back the chair I ask back I ask unanimous consent uh to enter into the record of May 21st 2024 AP News fact check article entitled judge in Trump's hush money trial did not bar campaign Finance expert for testifying to defense um the judge stated that Mr Smith's testimony could was limited in scope of the testimony would could be uh that he could not give instructions to the jury on what the law was and that it was the defense attorneys that decided not to put him on the St without objection and Mr Smith addresses that in his written testimony the gentleman from Florida is recognized so so Mr Smith following up on Mr stub's question I want to understand the precedent here so if a candidate for federal office wanted to use campaign money now to make a hush money payment could they point to what has occurred in this New York litigation and say well I guess I can go use my donor money to make a hush money payment I suppose they could at least unless judge Jackson is correct and we'll have to wait for that overturning on appeal but yes that's yeah but so well I guess I want to ask the question if an appell at court does not in some way deal with what has been laid before the country could we could we see people collecting money from donors lobbyists and packs and then using it to make hush money payments yeah and you could do almost anything else you could say for example I'd really like to go to the Super Bowl this year think I'll take a couple donors along and buy your Super Bowl tickets and your whole trip to the Super Bowl because it's for the purpose of of influencing your campaign so in the prosecution to preserve our democracy we have now greenlit potentially the most expansive abuses of campaign funds ever well put so all right I just I have to test the limits of this I do not like wearing ties I would never wear a tie I'm told that when people vote for a congressman they like to see them wearing a tie in their advertisements so does this now mean that when I go to Ross and buy a tie that I should use my campaign credit card because otherwise I'm not really a tie person if you took seriously the subjective standard that was given to the jury as the instruction yes it would mean that if you took the objective standard that appears in the statute no you couldn't so in in the absence of some appet review here and this is why we have appell at courts to try to resolve these things do we not do we not unleash like the this confusion and then this opportunity for fraud because here's here's how this will go politicians will then simply use the gray area to enhance their own personal Lifestyles through their campaign funds right that's correct and one thing we should remember is that that the federal election campaign Act was elected or or enacted against a background in which members could just pocket the campaign funds and that was part of the whole idea was you're not going to be able to do that anymore ah well thank goodness for the the good prosecutors in New York who have unlocked the greatest potential for campaign fraud in the history of the campaign Finance system uh judge Wilson I just want to ask ask you a a precise question was there ever a case that you were presiding over where you had a family member economically benefit from the notoriety of the case no never you sure you don't want to take some more time on that think about it I don't need more time I know that for a fact well I mean if that had ever Arisen would you have allowed a family member to make money off the notoriety of a case I would have recused myself from the case huh well it's just interesting because we had attorney general Garland who was you know spent a good amount of time on the bench and I asked him the same question and you know he said that he wouldn't answer it because it was obviously a reference to what had gone on in New York I mean I thought it was I thought he could might could have answered it but I mean when you look at what happened in New York does it concern you that the judge in that case seem to have a family member who is economically leveraging the notoriety of the case that greatly concerned me but not so much from the perspective of the ethical violation that would be apparent because that judge did get an ethical opinion from the judicial Ethics Committee in New York that EXO exonerated him um from any wrongdoing and listening to the case when his daughter was benefiting what I was concerned about was the appearance of impropriety you know when I sat on the bench sometimes I would get a report from probation or some other organization and they would hand it to me in an envelope and I made certain to open up that envelope and show everybody that it was a report that I was looking at because I didn't want there to be the in the appearance of impropriety that I'm receiving an envelope from someone in the courtroom the concept is the same here you you're presiding over a case where your daughter is benefiting and where you've made political contributions in small amounts but it's irrelevant the amount but you've made contributions to uh the political opponents of the defendant before you the these are the very essence of the appearance of impropriety and I feel strongly that judge Machan should have recused himself on that basis just simple as can be Mr chairman straightforward answer to a straightforward question I wish we could have gotten that from the attorney general I yeld back gentan Yi's back Mr chair I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record articles um that discussed that the ruling of the New York advisory committee on judicial ethics which judge Mand took the judicious step of raising the issue with them about recusal seeking guidance on whether he would have to recuse himself on the case in which the committee ruled that there was no basis for recusal Mr chairman I'll object pending just a dis what where were the Articles from I will'll sh I'll give you a copy of those yeah yeah as soon as we have those I'll withdraw my objection thank you uh the gentle lady from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman I actually want to follow up on my colleague from Florida uh and his line of questioning um as representative Gates pointed out the judge's daughter um significantly profited from this case uh to the tune actually of $93 million raised for her Democrat clients clients that include a member of this committee representative Goldman I should point out and put on the record um but also uh authentic campaigns of which Lauren meran uh the daughter of the judge uh she runs this this firm authentic campaigns and was paid nearly $12 million for her work this cycle for her Democrat colleagues uh clients and uh including 9.7 Million by the Biden Harris campaign now I know that there's been a tremendous amount of discussion today about the severe irregularities of the case some of the things uh surrounding jury instructions but I want to talk about the financial motivations for the da and the judge so judge Wilson you just said that he got a waiver from judicial Ethics Committee and you were pointing out how just the appearance of any impropriety it's to be taken very seriously can you talk about the judicial Ethics Committee who makes up that committee and what are some of the the processes that they would use would they consider the $93 million or her clients or a direct immediate relative that is benefiting financially from from this case if you're asking me who makes up the committee it's a uh combination of lawyers and judge Jes uh who are selected by the appell division of New York uh to hear uh issues that judges bring to them asking whether or not they can act ethically in particular circumstances I myself availed myself of that committee on several instances um when it comes to whether or not they should consider the amount of the contributions I actually think the amount of the contributions are IR relevant because as you recall I said judge michan shouldn't have made any contribution in any small amount to political campaigns um that's based upon a Prohibition of Judges being involved in political activities except if they're in a window period uh during their own campaign uh at that time then a judge's campaign may make a contribution to another campaign or to another political organization but that's a a strict um a strict requirement that it' only be during an election when such a campaign is made no um it doesn't matter so much what the amount of the money that was being made it matters that this is someone of first degree of relationship to the judge who is profiting from activities that oppose the defendant before that judge and even if he had an Ethics opinion exonerating him saying it's okay your daughter's not a witness and none of her interests are uh being tried here so the Ethics Committee thought it was just fine there's still an appearance of impropriety that's of great concern to the public in general and that's what a judge wants to avoid when you're hearing a case you don't want people to feel that your integrity and that your imp partiality is being impct is compromised right which and that's what happened here and and the judge himself had given contributions and I think you pointed out very appropriately that it doesn't matter if it was a large or small contribution but the judge in this case judge Maran he contributed to a political action committee called stop Republicans that is inappropriate correct he I mean especially overseeing the case of the the Republican nominee on the ticket correct he should have known better than to make those contributions while a sitting judge right and I mean and and I see our Democrat witness Mr Woo you're shaking your head I'm glad that you agree with with us that this is a a tremendous uh question mark on the Integrity of of this this trial but you know I also want to talk a little bit about um da Bragg now I I pointed out in our previous hearing that da Bragg raised $850,000 in campaign contrib immediately upon the announcement of the 34 counts Mr Mr fahe have you seen any other prosecutors run this similar Arc of campaigning on getting a particular person and then using it subsequently to raise campaign cash not that I can think of there might be somebody that's done it before I think the The Da or st's attorney in Atlanta I think is doing something similar with that case uh Camp using that as a campaign case her case against Trump but other than those I don't know of any it's certainly possible but but you know $800,000 for a DA's race is enormous I know in your circles it's not but but those type of races are usually very low dollar amounts so it's safe to say that there's Financial motivation in the campaigns by multiple different Das and politicians to quote unquote get Trump correct at least a political Financial motivation not necessarily personal correct thank you my time has expired I yield G lady yields back from Wyoming is recognized I think there are a few things that should be cleared up today first of all we are not a democracy we are a republic I think it's extremely important to remember that and to understand our form of government I also think that this is one of the reasons why people dislike politicians we we all know what's happening here we know that Alan Alan Bragg's prosecution of pres president Trump is exhibit a of the left's by any means necessary law fair campaign against President Trump Albin Bragg's prosecu tion of President Trump opened a dangerous Pandora's box of politically motivated prosecutions of political opponents and Manhattan District Judge Juan maran's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly prejudiced the outcome of the trial and violated president Trump's due process rights anyone with a li a sense knows that those statements are actually uh cannot be refuted we all watched what happened during the course of the trial Prof Professor Smith have you ever been retained as an expert to test testify on campaign Finance matters prior to the case against President Trump yes okay briefly what were the nature of those cases what issues or federal laws did you testify with regard to uh all of those were other cases uh in which I was asked to testify about uh past experience with Federal campaign Finance laws customs and campaigns how they pay for things uh there were maybe as many as four I don't like to do expert witness work and I don't normally do it and uh in none of those that you mentioned testifying in none of those that I end up testifying either because the case is settled because one is still pending uh or because in one other case the judge decided that this would be testimony that would go to the law can you briefly describe your qualifications to provide such expert testimony well as as has been mentioned I served as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission including a term as as chairman I've written uh one book specifically on campaign finance and and serve as co-author on two others on campaign finance and election law uh I have been uh at one point uh cited as one of the most cited scholars in the field of election law a recent book from the University of Chicago press suggested that I've had more influence on campaign Finance than any other scholar in the last 40 or 50 years or something like that so my life to this this is what I do you're qualified to testify about Federal campaign Finance law um would you also agree that campaign Finance law is a complex area and one where a lot of Americans who may have to sit on a jury would benefit from expert witness testimony to understand the alleged crimes that they are being asked to decide extremely so at one point Justice scalo when he was serving on the Supreme Court actually said during the middle of oral argument he says this law is so complex I can't figure it out so Professor Smith to the best of your knowledge is Michael Cohen a campaign Finance law expert and not to my knowledge and not what seene well yet judge Bashan allowed him to testify as such during the course of the Trump trial didn't he yes in theory for other purposes but nonetheless you had him repeatedly saying this violated the law you know that violated so judge Maran commented when ruling to limit the scope of any testimony that you would provide that quote there is no question that this would result in a battle of the experts which will only serve to confuse and not assist the jury end quote from the standpoint of someone who practiced as a trial for attorney for 34 years I find that to be an extremely bizarre statement because that in fact is the situation anytime you have a case where expert testimony is needed in fact I worked on a Case called Nebraska versus Wyoming at one point and Wyoming had over 25 expert Witnesses and everything from hydrology to a engineering to economics to fival geomorphology to all of these things that Nebraska had something similar yet the judge including the United States Supreme Court was not excluding expert Witnesses simply because there was going to be a battle of the experts is that your experience as well that is and and I would point out one thing I mentioned earlier that there were a number of things I would have testified to that would not have gone to Legal conclusions but rather testifying about Customs practices about simply reporting dates under the law and it appeared from the judge's rulings that even this that kind of testimony would not have been allowed he wasn't going to allow you to testify to those things but he allowed Mr Cohen to sit up there and say president Trump violated federal election laws didn't he yes um Mr uh Professor Smith going on do you believe that the court committed reversible error by allowing Mr quen to testify about alleged campaign viol uh campaign or election violations I think it was erroneous uh and I'm not even sure what the standard not being a criminal law guy what the standard of review is for that kind of error and and sometimes if it's abusive discretion courts give trial judges a lot of leeway but it doesn't mean the decision wasn't right was wasn't wrong judge Wilson do you believe that judge Mara committed reverse ible error in excluding Mr Smith but allowing Mr Cohen to testify on these issues in and of itself that may not be enough to secure a reversal of the conviction but there is a concept uh in app pellet law a cumulative error and what I believe we've seen in the Trump trial is a series of Errors one piled upon the other cumulative errors that when you put them all together show that Donald Trump did not of a fair trial and that his conviction should be reversed I'm absolutely convinced that his conviction will be reversed and I also believe that judge Maran was well aware of that when he made the decisions during the course of trial that he did I found his decisions to be egregious egregious reversible error on so many different levels thank you all for being here today and with that I yield back gentle yields back gentleman from South Mr chair before that lady the ranking members recognize um I just for M Mr Gates and for your purpose is I have an article from Ro Reuters regarding judge and Trump trial as well as the actual opinion of the judicial Advisory Group of May 4th 2023 and we'll make a copy for him okay without objection gentleman from South Carolina is recognized thank you Mr chairman you know it's been a bad week for Democrats um not only is the Border wide open um not only do just Main Street feel the pressure of 20% inflation uh but we saw uh a pretty tragic uh debate performance by the commanderin-chief in fact Democrats this week are discovering new tunnels on the way to and from the capital in which to hide from the media and so they're now talking about things like project 2025 and things to distract the American people from what they're really seeing uh which is a country that is not doing well under his leadership is a total distraction let's recap some of the main players we have here today Alvin Bragg used a novel legal Theory to bootstrap a misdemeanor allegation as a felony by alleging that records were falsified to conce seal a second crime Alvin Bragg is a pioneer of sorts but in all the wrong ways when you look at what he's done he's paved the way for rogue District Attorneys to campaign on and get elected to prosecute politically uh political enemies or political opponents then we have judge Maran who's a top Democrat donor his daughter worked uh for Cala Harris and even urged a uh Trump organization CFO to be a government witness against President Trump but when President Trump request that he recuse himself judge Maran said no he performed an examination of his own conscience which he found that he can rule fairly and that it would be not be in the public interest if he recused himself from the case a total farce the the left has really stacked the deck on this trial judge Wilson why should judge Mara we talked about this a second but we're going to wrap up here why should judge Maran have recused himself from hearing the case against President Trump a judge has an obligation to be fair and impartial and to appear fair and impartial now judge Maan has the right to rely upon the ethics opinions that he received he asked the question he got the answer but that isn't the end of the analysis the judge has to also avoid the appearance of impropriety in hearing the case after having made political contributions and having a daughter first degree relationship to the judge um profiting from attacking the subject of the trial that the judge is residing over has the appearance of impropriety Judge have you ever asked have you ever asked specifically u a potential witness to be a witness in a case um or have you let the prosecutors and the defense Council pick those their own set of witnesses I leave that to the prosecution the defense the prosecution is the burden of pro Pro they decide what Witnesses they want to put forward to prove their case and the defense then has the ability present whatever Witnesses they want sometimes witnesses will be irrelevant cumulative there'll be other reasons they'll not testify but in general the prosecution defense are the ones that pick the witness so if a judge were to do that in this case judge Maran to ask a a a former Trump CFO to be a witness in a case that would be improper is that correct that's out of the ordinary it's not not always improper for a judge to suggest a witness but uh judges don't call Witnesses in 99.99% of cases judge um you talked about this earlier kind of a parade of of errors that that what was the legal term that you used cumulative these are cumulative errors so would the inability of Judge Maran to recuse himself would that be part uh of a stack uh that could be um used as by a court of appeals to reverse the decision I believe so what other grounds for appeal do you think uh are evident uh from your mind on this particular case well I go right back to the indictments and appell courts like to rule on things that are pretty clear uh a clear era is usually the basis that an appell Court will find and not go into a lot of other questionable issues courts like to decide things simply in most cases here the indictment was facially insufficient right from the beginning and it would have been a simple matter for judge Machan to dismiss that indictment and to give the prosecutor leave to represent uh that indictment to get a sufficient one to give uh the defendant proper notice of the charges that the defendant was facing that was not done in this case and that led directly to the next significant error which was not notifying the defend of those additional charges until he was already a trial and many of them not being notified many of those charges not being not being present until the jury instructions thems and then the jury instructions of course were wrong too I mean it was a 55 page set of jury instructions that were incredibly confusing uh to an average juror yes as well as to lawyers for that matter because I heard that comment more than once that many didn't know what what those jury instructions meant thank you judge appreciate your time with that Mr chairman I yield back gentleman yields back the chair recognizes the ranking member for uh closing questions and comments um I really don't have any questions at this time I just would again um County District Attorney's Office began investigating president Trump in 2018 southern district of New York months later concluded its investigation into the payments by Michael Cohen and determined no charges should be brought against President president Trump while this was going on Alvin Bragg was running for the job while on the campaign trial Mr Bragg boasted about the number of times he had already sued president Trump January 2021 Mr brag stated I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump close quote he said that it'd be hard to argue with the fact that any case against President Trump would be the most important most high-profile case Mr brag won and took office in January 2022 few weeks after taking office he told one of his prosecutors mark pomerants quote he could not see a world in which he would indict president Trump and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness that's right after campaigning on going after the former president brag gets into office and realizes the case against President Trump is ridiculous that is why the southern district of New York didn't bring it it's why his predecessor sance didn't bring it why did brag change his mind Mark pomerance Special Assistant district attorney resigned in protest and he and his fellow assistant district attorney Kerri dun leaked their resignation letter to the New York Times after that the left began the pressure campaign on Alvin brag and suddenly the zombie case was resurrected one of the first things Alvin brag did was hire Matthew Colangelo a top official in the Biden justice department who had a history of taking on President Trump and his family's businesses it's also interesting to note who Mr Colangelo listed as his references when he applied for the job at the justice department he listed Tom Perez former DNC chair and Jeff Z who was now President Biden's Chief of Staff that's right the head of the DNC and the Biden white house chief of staff those were his references that's the guy who went to work to be the lead prosecutor on the case against President Trump Alvin Bragg Matthew Colangelo picked their target searched for a crime and then they prosecuted president Trump the partisan da that campaigned on going after president Trump whose newly hired lead prosecutor for the case also had a history of taking on President Trump also had their case in front of a partisan judge a judge who donated to President Biden who imposed a gag order on President Trump who told the jury they didn't need to reach a unanimous decision and prevented one of our Witnesses today Mr Smith an expert on campaign Finance from giving real testimony to the court today Mr Smith will be given an opportunity to tell Congress and tell the country what he wasn't permitted to tell the court what he wasn't permitted to tell the jury remember brag and Colangelo bootstrapped charges that are normally misdemeanor to some underlying crime to make the charges a felony but what was the underlying crime prosecutors didn't reveal that until after the trial began Mr Colangelo and his opening statement accused president Trump of violating the federal elections Campaign Act but the problem is in plain reading of that act doesn't support the indictment or the verdict as commissioner Smith stated allowing this prosecution to go forward and the ultimate jury decision threaten the enforcement procedures established by Congress under the act and stretched the meaning of the statute in such a way as to threaten due process of law although judge mhan wouldn't permit the leading expert on campaign Finance to provide this testimony he did let someone else speak in the court on this issue and others Michael Cohen Michael Cohen a convicted perjurer someone even his former lawyer said you couldn't trust Michael Cohen who lied to Congress lied to the FBI and lied to the court it's not often you have a witness that can lie to all three branches of government and then become the star witness in the prosecution of a former president but that's exactly what took place in New York it is clear Manhattan District Judge Juan maran's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly Prejudice the outcome of the trial and violated president Trump's due process rights Bragg's prosecution of President Trump with the help of Judge michan opened the door for politically motivated prosecutions and it will not be easy to undo the damage that's already been done as we have seen other ambitious prosecutors have followed Bragg's lead and pursued politically motivated indictments against the former president rather than debate political opponents on substance the Democrat strategy to win the 2024 election is through the use of partisan lawfare tactics these politically motivated local prosecutions rais substantial Federal interest and potential collusion between federal and state authorities and that is precisely why we are here today Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump was personal it was based on politics and it was wrong now recognize the ranking member for an opening statement and then we'll get to our Witnesses thank you Mr chairman good morning thank you to our Witnesses for being here I especially like to thank um witness former US Federal prosecutor and former United States Department of Justice attorney Shan wo um my colleagues thank you to the American people watching around the country for joining another hearing of the Congressional committee to undermine American independence and to defend Donald Trump from the early days of our nation's formation our founding fathers were very clear the upkeep of democracy requires constant proactive maintenance in his letters to fellow founding father and his political opponent John Taylor then former President John Adams wrote Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy remember democracy never lasts long it soon wastes exhausts and murders itself there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide those passions are the same in all men under all forms of government when unchecked produce the same effects of fraud violence and cruelty American democracy has always been a question of progress not finality democracy has been given to us with the blood sweat tears and efforts of Americans who came before us who struggled long and hard to build and protect every Democratic institution we have indeed our country's dark past the very Foundation of our economic Juggernaut on the world was premised on a sick institution called slavery that some now want to even erase this democracy that our ancestors struggle to bring us all into these rights some of which some Americans do not even have all of are fragile remember that the great Republic of Rome was destroyed Greece was destroyed Germany of the early 20th century destroyed Spain these great Empires are gone human history is Laden with examples of great Nations republics and democracies that were once beacons of human progress and eventually destroyed by hubris autocrats and the Rabid Ambitions of an empowered few Falls do not happen overnight but the signs are there if you want to see them in those republics those democracies slowly but surely rights are Stripped Away my fellow Americans that's happening here in this country the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body Stripped Away in 15 states immigrant children being stripped away from their families the gains of blacks for fa representation voting rights recognition of the historic lack of a playing F of creating a even playing field Stripped Away slowly but surely the structures the laws and the institutions intended to make the nation great have been and continue to be eroded not to mention the souls of the human race and minorities being eroded every day by injustices we have a blueprint that we can see how that's being done project 2025 plans to upend structures institutions and the braic rights that have supposedly been afforded to Americans to make it great it's a playbook for Donald Trump's second term and a plan for the destruction of America as we know it despite flashy headlines printed over American flags and the likes of obnoxious men who give loud speeches about their love for making America great again project 202 delivers No Such Thing project 2025 will slowly but surely strip away our rights I've asked for a hearing about project 2025 because I believe it is a dire warning to us all of an individual and others around him's desire to weaponize the government for their own empowerment it will Rip our experts out of agencies to be replaced by sycophant political appointees it will strip women of even more Healthcare access and rights it will further dehumanize undocumented immigrants and punish their family members even those who are American citizens for daring to be associated with them it will restrict free speech in schools to only allow farri approved agendas and curriculum it will erode our freedoms all under the vague guise of making America great and yes because it is a grand Republican plan project 2025 calls for severe cuts to Medicare and Social Security I'm not just saying that the authors of project 2025 are saying that here's a video out2 believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if her doctor says that she needs one is a yes or no question abortion is not Healthcare of murder of a human being we're also going to have teenss cuz we can multitask to deconstruct the administrative State and to go after criminals and the traitor in the Deep state so suck on that we need to have the biggest Mass deportation system ever in the history of America because it is unjust and illegal and evil that more than 10 million illegal aliens have come to this country there are great plans using the department of Homeland Security to return these people back to South of the Border the best thing that people can do right now if you're a young person is get involved in one of these things like American moment or project 2025 or the Trump campaign we got to fill up the White House with workers project 2025 is something that's going to transcend the next four years the next 10 years it really is for the first time in the history of the conservative movement the apparatus for policy and Personnel we are in the process of the second American Revolution which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be playing patriotic music claiming to Love Freedom demonizing every group in the nation that is not like you will not protect you and your civil rights the project 20125 Playbook is a plan to give Donald Trump the powers of a dictator just as he wants that's the plan this is the man who threatened to send the Department of Justice after political opponents Trump sent his lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that he should have criminal immunity even if he uses the military to assassinate someone who simply disagrees with him we heard his secretary of defense say that he asked the military to shoot people because they were protesting yes that's what his defense secretary said on TV and there's recordings of it this is the man who jokes about being a dictator just for a day and teases the idea of the third term for US president this is a man who wants to implement cofant loyalty tests he's a man who will fire every employee in every agency who upholds their pledge to serve their country over the president Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the continuation of American democracy as I as we know it we are using this Congressional committee for the third time to attack a state level felony conviction of a former president by a jury of his peers Republicans on this committee have used $20 million of federal taxpayer dollars to deliver Trump more power and attack his Rivals they're threatening public servants far outside their legal jurisdiction and even threatening private citizens who dare not to give Trump what he wants the reign of Lord Trump has already begun and he isn't even in a second ter it's vital to remember our founding father's principles and that we see project 2025 for what it is a republican plan to slowly but surely strip away rights this is about Freedom versus fascism I beg every American watching don't be fooled by plastic patriotism don't be fooled by those rhetorically referring to freedom without the substance to back it up without any care for all people's rights true understanding of Freedom comes from respecting the sacrifices of our ancestors our Democratic institutions and a robust rule of law our country is not and has never been perfect but our country is great and it's our duty to keep it that way our country has never shied away from improving our flaws but what is being promoted is a distraction it's counterproductive and threatens years decades centuries of progress let's keep moving forward let's not go back to the dark times iel back gent's back without objection all the opening statements will be included in the record we will now introduce today's Witnesses The Honorable Brad Smith is the Josiah H Blackmore second and Shirley m not professor of law at Capitol University law school Professor Smith previously served as commissioner on the federal elections commission including a term as chairman uh Mr Jonathan fahe is a partner at Holzman Vogal he is a former prosecutor having served for 17 years in the US attorney's office office for the eastern district of Virginia Mr Fay he also served in various positions at the Department of Homeland Security including as acting director of US immigration and custom enforcement The Honorable John Wilson is a former judge having served on the Bronx County Civil Court and Kings County criminal court for 10 years judge Wilson also previously served as a prosecutor in the Bron Bronx County uh District Attorney's office and in private practice following his departure From the Bench judge Wilson served as Chief prosecutor for the Standing Rock reservation in Fort Yates North Dakota and Mr Shan Woo is an attorney focusing on white color defense in cases involving college students he previously served as a federal prosecutor and is counsel to former Attorney General Janet Reno he also works as a contributed for CNN and MSNBC we welcome our Witnesses and thank them for appearing today we will Begin by swearing uh swearing you in would you please rise and raise your right hand do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief so help you God let record uh reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative thank you please be seated uh please know your written testimony uh will be entered into the record in its entirety accordingly we ask that you summarize your testimony in uh in approximately five minutes uh and we're going to just move right down the line like we introduced you we'll start with Professor Smith and go right down and finish with Mr Woo so Mr Smith you're recognized for uh for five minutes thank you chairman Jordan ranking member plaset in the written testimony I I explain at length uh why the convictions of Donald Trump in New York and may because they relied in the on alleged violations of federal election campaign act or F were incorrect as a matter of Law and I discussed some of the errors of law made by prosecutors and and judges in the case to quickly summarize uh the payments that were made to uh Stormy Daniels were not under current law and should not be as a matter of policy treated as campaign expenditures and thus Michael Cohen's brief fronting of the money which was repaid to him shortly thereafter uh does not constitute an illegal contribution but moreover the prosecution Theory uh that the defendant Trump had to engage in a vast conspiracy because of a desperate desire to hide stormy Daniel's allegations from the public and thus uh ignore campaign Finance laws simply makes no sense because even had they treated these as campaign expenditures which again I I think they correct not to do so nothing would have come out before the election as I explained under the reporting schedules nothing would have been reported until after the election uh and the idea that illegality was needed is simply laughable in fact Donald Trump and the Trump for president campaign had plenty of cash to pay for the Daniels non-disclosure agreement uh as of October 27th 2016 they did not need Michael Cohen to front them money for that purpose further even assuming the expense was a campaign expenditure no public disclosure of the expense would have been required until 20 days after the election and repeatedly the prosecution emphasized that the main uh desire of trump was to hide this information until after the election as a practical matter then having Michael Cohen front the money for the non-disclosure agreement between Mr Trump and Stormy Daniels could have no influence on the 2016 election despite the repeated claims by the prosecution that that was the core of the case and this undercuts the entire theory of the case offered by the prosecution uh this is explained in my written testimony I'm happy to answer questions on that as we go forward but right now I just want to emphasize that this New York prosecution uh is uh something that is a uh a very bad precedent let's just put it that way not only because it threatens the rule of law and and generally we have not uh short uh in our defense of democracy we have not been willing to Short Change uh procedures of law but because it also threatens the bipartisan campaign enforcement system established by Congress if allowed to stand any state could do what New York has done that is pass a law making it a felony to try to influence an election by unlawful means then the state court could effectively try defendants for those alleged violations of f remember in the Trump case there was no finding by the Department of Justice uh that Trump had violated the law indeed they decided not to pursue it there was no finding that by the Federal Election Commission that Trump had violated the law they also decided not to pursue it no federal body had found violations here um and effectively the state was simply making up the law and enforcing federal law in a partisan with elected judges elected prosecutors unlike the nonpartisan bipartisan system set up uh by the federal election campaign Act and the members of this committee and there are several who live in states that are dominated by the opposing party at a state level uh might want to take heed of that possibility that this that this game can be played in many different ways and one can R run the risk of being prosecuted for violating F even though uh the FBC found no wrongdoing it should be pointed out here that judge meron during the case took great pains to make sure that the jury was not informed that neither the Department of Justice nor the Federal Election Commission had decided not to pursue allegations against Mr Trump but at the same time uh allowed in uh repeatedly statements by the prosecutors and by witness Michael Cohen uh stating that he had clearly violated the law and there was no doubt about that and and thus implying that Mr Trump had done so as well it's worth noting in in the end that um it's right for this committee I guess I would say this it's right for this committee to take up this issue because it is a federal issue not only of due process but of that enforcement of the statute and we could have a tremendous amount of chaos and and uh every Federal campaign will be governed essentially by whatever one can get a state judge and a state jury to do uh that's not how the federal election campaign Act was set up and that's not how this should be pursued so I hope that this body will recognize that this is clearly a federal issue and uh not only are there major constitutional questions about due process but again it may even be something where some legislation is necessary to make sure that state prosecutors cannot try this again thank you thank you Professor uh Mr F you recognize for five minutes thank you make sure you have that mic on and pull it close thank you you bet uh good morning chairman Jordan ranking member plasket members of the committee uh I thank you for the opport to testify here today my name is Jonathan fahe and I'm an attorney with the law firm of Holzman vogle I'm in private practice now but I spent most of my 25 years as an attorney as a prosecutor both as a state and federal prosecutor the reason I went to law school was because I wanted to be a prosecutor didn't want to be a law firm lawyer or anything else I wanted to be a prosecutor and the reason for that is my mom uh when I was growing up my mom was an assistant commis attorney in Arlington County Virginia and then she was eventually uh elected to be the commonweal attorney as a democrat in Arlington and later appointed by President Clinton to be the United States Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and I learned from my mom what I would go to court I would sometimes watch trials and things like that but I learned from her about the importance of being a prosecutor in terms of what it means to the public in terms of Public Safety but I also learned what it meant to administer Justice to be fair when you're entrusted with so much power how you administer that reflects not only on the person that that is the subject of that but as the whole Community how we treat the accused how we treat the most vulnerable victims and you know I learned from heard that being a prosecutor really wasn't a partisan job it was a public safety job it was a speaking for victims job and that's the way it had really been in Virginia where I live and most of the country uh up until about 10 years years ago and you know I say that because you could go through the country and you could see prosecutors that are Democrats prosecutors that are Republicans but they really approached the job the same way until recently but I began my career after law school after clerking in state court I became a state prosecutor in Fairfax County uh there I served under Bob heran who was a elected Democrat and he had been the C attorney for probably 30 years or so at that point and I had the opportunity to prosecute cases anywhere from the lowest level misdemeanor cases to the most violent felons and again I learned a lot of lessons there but the most important lesson I learned was you're entrusted with so much power from the the position from the community and how you administer that power is what's most important you you don't prosecute people because you don't like them or you have some other ulterior motive you prosecute them because um they violated the law and you're treating people equally equally regard less of the political motivations or political parties or anything else they might have um I went over from the Cel attorney's office to the US attorney's office in the eastern district of Virginia where I served for 17 years I served under multiple administrations but from uh George W bush to Obama to president Trump and also what I learned there no matter who was within that office people were professional I I had a chance to work with the most talented probably attorneys I've ever worked with and one thing that that during that tenure people's political whatever their political leanings were you rarely knew other than maybe outside of work and while I was there I had the opportunity to to prosecute drug traffickers gang members frauders other types of crimes I also had the opportunity to prosecute um to train younger prosecutors on how to prosecute cases ethics things of that nature uh the reason I go to my background and I know the time is short is the reason I'm here today I would say is because of the progressive prosecutor movement you know funded by these outside groups um this started about 10 years ago these Progressive prosecutors being elected through funding from outside's groups as uh mostly in Democrat jurisdictions they defeated incumbent Democrats and the movement basically is sort of the underly in premise was the entire system was unjust therefore the prosecutor can do whatever they want and you see saw that in Philadelphia you see it in Chicago which incidentally I think had a 100 plus people shot over the weekend you see in La other places and essentially what these prosecutors have done is to Institute what they would call Criminal Justice Reform they would go into office and they would nullify any laws they did not like and that seems somewhat nine in some respects but the problem with it as you see with Alvin brag which I'll get into briefly at the end of my five minutes here but Alvin Brank has taken this he was a progressive prosecutor in New York he ran on this Progressive prosecutor uh I guess as a progressive prosecutor and when he got into office his main theme was deciding not to prosecute cases basically not in Prosecuting any mrd meters whatsoever reducing misdemeanors to felonies and reducing serious felonies to lesser felonies so all of his theme for running his in office practice has led to I think New York the last two years have had the highest uh crime rate on the big seven crimes in the last 20 years but he's taken this a step further because again it's somewhat benign to say I won't prosecute trespassing but this sort of opened the door for the political prosecution of Donald Trump which as we've seen you know now it's taken from not Prosecuting to identifying a political opponent and Prosecuting them for political reasons I'll talk to someone in my testimony hopefully about the reasons behind the prosecution the errors in the case and how the immunity decision affects the case and I thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions and I apologize for going a little bit over that's fine Mr F thank you uh judge you're recognized for 5 minutes members of the House Judiciary Committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the criminal trial of former president Donald Trump held before judge Juan Maran in New York County Supreme Court criminal term earlier this year as you may be aware I served as a criminal court judge in and for both Kings County and Bronx County New York City from 2005 to 2014 for 5 years of my term I served as a night court arraignment judge in Kings County where I was designated an acting Supreme Court Justice before my election to the bench in 2004 I served as an assistant district attorney in Bronx County and as a criminal defense attorney although I never tried a felony case as a judge I tried a number of felony cases as defense counsel including homicides child molestation drug sales Etc I was involved in all phases of criminal litigation for approximately 30 years I have sat in all three seats prosecutor defense Council and judge I do not personally know judge Juan masan but I am intimately familiar with New York County Supreme and Criminal Court having spent most of my career in those courtrooms based on my experience I can tell you in no uncertain terms that former president Trump did not receive a fair trial from Judge Juan michan in fact if the court of appeals is fair and I believe the court will be fair based upon the reversal of Harvey Weinstein's illegal conviction Donald Trump's conviction is aured reversal a reversal that would be premised upon the fundamental errors committed by judge Juan michan if I may be blunt Donald Trump was railroaded and Juan michan was the driver of that train for the purpose of this statement I would like to concentrate on the most glaring problems presented by judge michan's conduct of this trial I believe the following one the indictment was legally and sufficient and judge Maran should have dismissed the indictment before trial in my book The Making of a mod and Analysis of the indictments of Donald Trump I wrote that my review of the New York County indictment revealed that Donald Trump was accused of causing a false entry to be made in his business records for the purpose of concealing or committing another crime what other crime the indictment does not say simply put how was former president Trump prepared defense if he is not informed of the other crime he intended to commit or conceal when he allegedly falsified his business records judge michan was obligated to dismiss an indictment that failed to identify the underlying crime number two the failure to dismiss the indictment led to charges being added during trial that were not included in the indictment in doing so former president Donald Trump was not given a fair chance to prepare a defense to these added charges thus depriving him of his right to prepare a defense this was a violation of Donald Trump's write the fundamental fairness and notice of the charges he faced prior to trial further the jury instructions given by judge michan were illegal and that they included these additional charges and allowed for a non-unanimous verdict a non-unanimous verdict is unprecedented in any felony trial in American Juris prudence and recently the US Supreme Court reiterated the necessity for a unanimous jury verdict in the case of erlinger versus United States number three judge Juan masan made unconstitutional and prejudicial rulings that impacted Donald Trump's ability to present the defense and that he allowed the prosecuted to use civil penalties and uncharged sexual assault charges against Donald Trump where he had testify in his own defense this deprived the former president of his right to present evidence in his own defense and was the very basis for the court of appeals reversal of the conviction of Harvey Weinstein earlier this year number four judge michan should have recused himself from presiding over this matter based upon the appearance of impropriety and having contributed to political campaigns regardless of the amount and based upon his daughter's political activities regardless of the ethics opinions he received which absolved him of any actual unethical activity there are of course other appell isues which which exist in this case allowing the prosecution to claim federal election law violations without presenting any evidence to support those allegations not allowing the defense to present the witness regarding federal election law after allowing the prosecution to make the aformentioned statements and allowing stormmy Daniels to testify knowing that the prejudicial effect of her testimony outweighed any probative value are several it is my belief however at the ones I have outlined are the strongest issues to be presented on appeal therefore it is my considered opinion based upon my years of legal training experience that former president Donald Trump did not receive a fair trial that judge Juan masan failed his obligation to be fair and impartial that judge michan committed a series of errors that necessitate reversal of this conviction to be direct I do not believe anyone can reasonably state that former president Trump received a fair trial in New York County Supreme Court from Judge Juan michan thank you for your attention I'll be happy to answer your questions thank you judge Mr will you're recognized for five minutes thank you uh good morning members of the subcommittee and thank you chairman Jordan and ranking member Miss plasket for inviting me here today uh my name is Shan woo I'm the child of immigrants from China who came here seeking freedom and to avoid iCal persecution under the communist government there and they came here as graduate students and after the Communist Revolution they were stranded here and made a life here luckily for me they did come here because they didn't know each other in China so they met here uh and they had me and they instilled in me a great love for family despite the fact that I had no extended family growing up as well as a very strong sense of Public Service my father served uh under two new New York City Mayors as a New York City Human Rights commissioner and his example of Public Service led me to attend law school and then later to become a federal prosecutor where I served as an assistant us attorney for 10 years and had the privilege in the last year of the Clinton Administration to serve as Council to then attorney general Jan Reno from that particular position where my portfolio included leaz oning uh for the office of Pardon attorney overseeing various criminal issues as well as briefing the Attorney General on a number of daily issues that would arise in the Justice Department it gave me very much of a bird's eye view of the kinds of issues and the approach that the department takes uh as what is appropriately calling them the nation's Law Firm it is through this lens uh that I give you my personal opinion today which does not reflect the opinions of U my W firm mcry Stafford or any other entities uh the view that I have of the recent conviction of the former president in the Manhattan da Alvin Braggs case where he was convicted of 34 felony counts and also my impressions of the recent presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court and whether or not that affects the verdict in that case in any way and lastly My Views that there is a growing Shadow a threat to American democracy presented by many of the former president's views as well as the way that those views are expressed in certain types of writings such as the plan for presidential transition known as project 2025 in particular because of my experience at the justice department I would highlight some of the issues with these plans as they relate to the justice department when I was at the justice Department I found that there is enormous value in the career employees there they were the heart and soul of the department the conscience as well as the institutional wisdom there I remember on an almost daily basis when there were thorny Issues new issues that came up that Miss Reno the Attorney General would always want to know what the take was from career civil servants there and it was not just the more famous ones such as David margolus or Jack Keeney who served for decades at the department but the rank and file people who were unsung heroes who always provided their best advice and that advice is important because they as career employees their tenures cut across administrations they weren't simply put in there by the latest Administration and therefore they did not always reflect the political views or even the policy goals of the new Administration and in that sense they supplied a very healthy buffer zone to make sure that whatever new policy ideas would be measured against what the department had done in the past and what their experience told them was wise for the Department to me that gives the institution both a sense of Integrity as well as steadiness and that kind of steadiness and integrity is what allows the American people to have confidence in their institutions my parents were cut off from their families but they stayed here and they stayed because of the great love of the freedoms that this country has tried to give all of its people and as I see the current climate today one of my concerns is that those freedoms are endangered by an increasing trajectory towards authoritarianism autocracy and even dictatorship types of Tendencies um my testimony is prepared in writing as well and of course very happy to answer any questions gentleman Yi's back we will now proceed on the five minute rule the chair recognize the gentleman from Ohio for five minutes um I thank all of our Witnesses I think the chairman for holding this meeting look in my eight years in Congress that came in in June of 2016 uh we've seen an unprecedented amount of weaponized government we've seen it abused in every way imaginable uh this isn't a a new phenomenon as bastiat recognized when law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law frankly the radicals are counting on it we've seen the IRS go after religious and conservative nonprofits the TF go after law-abiding gun collectors pro-life grandmothers sent to prison for years for peaceful protests here in Washington DC parents targeted for speaking up at Schoolboard meetings fintech companies targeted and debanked because they posed a threat to the status quo the list goes on the American Bar Association estimates that there are some 400,000 potential crimes that agencies can prosecute that exist between the federal code and mountains of politicized rul making and regulations hopefully thinned out by the recent Chevron Defence decision and the administration strative law judge decision and some other good ones over the past uh two weeks the average American uh likely commits something that can be construed by a corrupt prosecutor as a federal crime uh what happened to president Trump can happen to any American who has the audacity to upset someone in a powerful position that's not supposed to happen in the United States of America Western Civilization is based on the rule of law and that this law must be both impartially administered and fairly adjudicated Kangaroo Court spectacles such as what we witnessed in New York are fundamentally an attack on and perversion of the rule of law and its foundation in our society the list of abuses to Railroad President Trump is obscene and outrageous but calling it that is an understatement let's be clear Alvin Bragg campaigned open on his persecution of President Trump his was clearly a political act and that is the only reason this case was designed and executed against the current administration's political enemy Professor Smith has there ever been a citizen named not named Donald Trump that has been prosecuted with these same crimes anywhere in America well it depends on what one considers the crime for example they'll say well lots of people are prosecuted for false records under New York law what they're not prosecuted for is for false records covering up a crime under New York law that makes it illegal to violate some unnamed law to influence an election and no I I've I've never seen anything like that has anyone ever successfully uh paid a hush money settlement to anyone and counted it as a campaign expense well not that I I know of and I think Common Sense would tell us that uh paying uh for a non-disclosure agreement or any kind of legal settlement is not based on things done outside of office like 10 years before you were a candidate is not a campaign expense and we wouldn't want it to be because if you think about it that would mean that candidates could use their campaign funds for exactly that kind of thing it be a horrible precedent right um every day we see headlines coming out in New York illegal immigrants all kinds of cases and some of you in your opening statements highlighted how Mr Fey highlighted in particular how alvan Bragg ran on this Progressive platform uh as a prosecutor you know as a former prosecutor in your career If You Were Never Bound by the sixth amendment if you could turn any action retroactively into a crime if you could bias a jury by whatever means you wanted to is there a single citizen in America who would be safe from a politicized prosecution I don't really think so if you really targeted someone and looked for a way to charge them I don't want to say that I mean I'm sure there's some people that could not be and theoretically but there are so many people that would be vulnerable to being prosecuted if somebody is targeting them for political reasons or whatever reasons and that's really what's scary about this and I I think your point with Alvin Bragg with it it's funny that on one hand he he runs on not Prosecuting the law and then all of a sudden on this case it's this is the most aggressive stance that's ever been taken probably these clearly not the rule of law and and crime is going through the roof I think you know seven you know the seven biggest felonies the last two years are the highest year since 06 so it's like he's not Prosecuting the law equally or against you know other people and more serious criminals thank you and look judge Wilson you referenced it in your statements about the president uh in the Court's recognition in Andress versus the United States but as early as 1898 the court said that a defendant enjoys a quote constitutional right to demand that his Liberty should not be taken except by The Joint action of the court and a unanimous verdict of a jury of 12 persons I think chairman Jordan for holding this vital hearing today what we are witnessing is an unprecedented attack on the rule of law and a weaponization of our criminal justice system and it's a shame I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Massachusetts recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and thank you to the ranking member and I appreciate the attendance of our our Witnesses this morning um I've served on the oversight committee here in Congress uh which is the principal investigatory Committee in this house uh for over 20 years and I have to admit I cannot point to a single case during my tenure and we have had Republican leadership and and Democratic Leadership where the chair has blatantly and persistently uh interfered with a state criminal proceeding as I have seen it interfere in the case of the people of the state of New York versus Donald Trump even before New York district attorney Alvin Bragg announced a 34C count felony indictment against the former president in April of 2023 chairman Jordan joined by other Republican committee chairs had already sent a letter to district attorney Bragg demanding his testimony before Congress it also warned him of the quote serious consequences close quote of pursuing criminal charges against Donald Trump and over the next year in the midst of ongoing state criminal proceedings chairman Jordan proceeded to send nearly a dozen frivolous investigatory letters and subpoena threats to current and former employees of the New York District Attorney's office on top of that he listed a series of documents that this is an ongoing criminal trial in the state of New York at the time asking for all documents and Communications between and among the New York County District Attorney's Office all documents and Communications are received uh by certain employees all documents and Communications referring or relating to New York City district attorney receipts and other uh use of federal funds clearly clearly trying to intimidate uh the New York District Attorney's office and dissuade them from their prosecution of of Donald Trump uh Mr wo a a as a federal prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney uh what what is the danger in in having Congress which is a legislative body uh used those type of threats against an ongoing uh criminal prosecution in State Court uh Congressman Lynch what the danger is is that it greatly destroys the Integrity of the criminal prosecution the idea that a legislative body which is inherently politically based is looking at a criminal prosecution which is meant to independently assess evidence of criminality during the pendency of that case is extremely destructive and quite dangerous for the Integrity of the system and Mr wo on top of that over 25 Republican members actually went to the courthouse sat in the courtroom uh to to uh support the defendant in that case um the nonpartisan Brennan Center for justice recently reported that Congressional efforts to compel the production of nonpublic information about a specific case from a local prosecutor or otherwise medal in their investigation quote crosses the line to political interference that threatens the L the rule of law close quote would you agree with that assessment I would agree with that and also I think the presence of those members at the trial while they certainly have a First Amendment right to be there I think it also injected a great deal of political atmosphere into that case Mr wther Brennan Senator has also warned that Congressional interference in the New York case is reflective of a quote worrying Trend that threatens to intensify close quote can you talk about the impact of this trend on state and federal prosecutions I think uh as we discussed before the trend indicates that the district attorneys in those States as well as Federal prosecutors feel that they aren't free to actually follow the evidence they aren't free to actually follow the law but that they're going to be criticized they're going to be the subject of political leverage if they actually do their job and I think that really undermines the Integrity of our criminal justice system thank you very much what are the ramifications uh for this uh especially following the Supreme Court's decision on on presidential immunity do you think there's there are implications for that as well uh the Supreme Court's decision on immunity I think very much indicates this Court's direction towards over overly empowering the Office of the President I don't know exactly how it may trickle down to other kinds of prosecutions but certainly in my view their extremely over Brad opinion frankly would obviate the purpose of this subcommittee which is the weaponization of the justice system against a president is impossible under their view because the president can do anything he wants thank you uh Mr chairman my time is expired and I yield back gentleman yields back gentlemen from California is recognize you thank you Mr W I'm going to stay with you um every day members of Congress are subpoena uh on behalf of defendants in prison people that have griefs gripes against the government and the president receives far more than one a day would you suggest that he should have to go to those uh uh places show up and be deposed just because somebody uh wants to depose the President says they have a basis I I obviously there's a general policy reason not to okay so so the fact is that the Supreme Court's decision on limited immunity or immunity from prosecution immunity from having to show up and be distracted from the work of the president is for a good purpose and only in rare cases such as Bill Clinton's case of a civil suit specifically about actions before he was president has the court ever uh said it doesn't fit there right I think that's exact exctly the problem you point out is it's so rare that there was no need for them to well let's just get back to rare they there was need they made a decision that uh still stands today that Bill Clinton could be deposed as to his specific State actions prior to being president but they ruled clearly that the president cannot be distracted from that I'm going to switch to Mr Smith uh I'm going to let him drink his water um you know you you said as a prosecutor I'll go to you and to M judge Wilson that this was not a fair trial that it violated the rules that we count on for the admission of evidence is that correct you both saw that in this case yeah if if I may go first uh I think the most clearing thing was somewhat of some of the Stormy Daniels testimony which you know the implication from her testimony was that she was sexually assaulted by President Trump which is you know by in any respects so unfairly prejudicial relative to the crime the judge clearly let evidence in and that that that was surprising to me one that the prosecutors didn't know that ahead of time that this was going to come out and it wasn't vetted ahead of time so that that's the most glaring example that I I I I so as a prosecutor something that you dedicated your career to there's a there is a sense of balance if you get in your unfair twisting you normally expect the judge to uh at least at a minimum allow the defendant to present Witnesses uh in response to that or to to offset it it was pretty unheard of that they only let you hit the the guy and not and no one answer back right that part of it's concerning yeah and when you think about it when we were prosecute cases generally defendants had far more leeway because it was like they're the ones they're in Jeopardy they're you know going to jail or whatever so even if they didn't have necessarily the most viable defense it was rare to have a judge cut them off on it and that that's what just seems so striking on one hand the most extreme evidence allowed against President Trump which is hard to justify and then not allowing some some sort of at least explanatory as my time's running out but uh yes or no if I could isn't that kind of imbalance very often exactly what a prosecutor doesn't want to see because it leads to a high probability of a case being reversed and based on not being fair in other words If you deny the defendant you have a Jeopardy of of in fact getting a perfectly good conviction overturned because you didn't give them the proper opportunity for defense didn't give them the charges in advance didn't give them uh the evidence that you held is that right yes and it it goes to question the motivation for this case was it just to get the initial conviction and and now let's go to the motivation with uh Mr Smith you were denied the ability to answer a great many questions so hopefully you'll be able to answer uh the ones you want to here today um have you in your history with the FEC have you ever seen the FEC take State charges and Link them to an FEC violation in order to get a felony and then take it to the federal court and charge somebody no so the federal government doesn't grab State cases to L to make something that is normally a fine and make it a crime correct no it does not okay and so if you had a situation in which and this is an if because it didn't happen but if you had a situation in which somebody took their own money and used it and then did not declare it is that usually uh uh you know there was failure to to file is that usually something that you would bring them up at the FEC and refer them for criminal felony charges uh it would be extremely rare that it would be referred for criminal charges you'd have to show clear intent so in this case specifically the FEC made a decision that what they pulled to in addition to state to make this a crime that they could charge a felony on is something that not only would normally wouldn't happen but in this case specifically was looked at and didn't happen the FEC declined to prosecute because there wasn't a case here right they not only declined to refer it to justice for criminal charges but they declined to bring civil charges themselves so it's what You' normally do if you just thought it was an error or something so it wasn't even worth a fine much less a criminal prosecution thank you I yield back gentlemen yields back Gent from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman When Donald Trump's Supreme Court overturned roie Wade millions of Americans lost the right to make their own health care decisions since Trump did this 14 States enacted extreme abortion bans wreaking havoc on the lives of American women and families it happened in my home state of Florida and more States will follow suit and now Trump's team has a detailed blueprint for what his next four years God forbid would look like called project 2025 it's 900 pages of legal and administrative assaults on our freedoms rights and progress Mr Woo you're very familiar with Trump's project 2025 and have a deep legal background I want to ask you some rapid fire questions so if you could just start off with yes or no these current abortion bans including one in my home state of Florida are ruining women's Economic Security would project 2025 make those economic hardships worse for American women yes I believe so we know Trump abortion bans keep women in in abusive relationships would project 2025 make those hard situations even worse yes these Trump abortion bans disproportionately harm already vulnerable populations especially low income and communities of color would legal assaults on abortion rights in Project 2025 inflict even more harm on these communities yes thank you Mr W I want to discuss what project 2025 would mean for women who face medical pregnancy issues Trump's abortion bans have already caused irreversible damage to Women's Health across the country with women having to turn septic and get close to death before a doctor can legally perform a life-saving abortion despite earlier intervention being medically warranted the bottom line Trump's abortion bans have led to inflicting unnecessary brutal pain and harm to women including preventable deaths that's not some democratic talking point that's directly from doctors a majority of OBGYN stated that when Trump overturned roie Wade it increased maternal deaths and discourages doctors from even going into the field in a survey 70% of providers say they believe it has also worsened existing racial and ethnic inequalities this comes from the men and women who actually care for their patients doctors who took an oath to do no harm legal hurdles are causing harmful Health outcomes Mr W do you think that innocent women women truly trying to receive necessary healthc care will be unfairly criminalized by project 2025 yes I do and I think in particular some of the language in the project 2025 document such as the phrase abortion tourism I find to be deeply offensive women do not take vacations in order to have abortions I agree that it is deeply offensive and dangerous to use language like that project 2025 is an explicit 900 page playbook for a second Trump term and it's clear that it targets women Trump's project 2025 lays out plans to make sure that abortion is not considered Healthcare it aims to get the FDA to reverse its decades long approval of the abortion drug myth aistone in order to get it off the market the Trump plan calls for defunding Planned Parenthood and excluding it from Medicaid which is how millions of women get preventative screenings and other vital Healthcare unrelated to abortions we know the same extreme anti- Choice groups that helped craft Trump's project 2025 would also try to exclude some forms of emergency contraception from no cost coverage and gut access to IVF Trump's project 2025 blueprint even calls on the CDC to increase quote unquote abortion surveillance including requiring states to submit invasive privacy violating data and information about patients who receive abortions this creates a modern-day handmaids tale these dangerous alarming policies will ensure that women are second class citizens its extreme magga goals will cause suffering and in some instances death Mr Woo is a legal analyst with extensive experience as a federal prosecutor can you explain some of the dangers American women face by criminalizing abortion like this well immediately what happens is they're being uh forced to choose between their health versus being prosecuted which is a terrible situation no one should ever have to face the point that you make Congressman with regard to surveillance I think that's extremely dangerous I mean that is a weaponization of healthc care statistics to use those statistics to further criminal punishment of innocent women who are simply seeking to protect their own health and to further decisions that really should just be between them and their doctors well I'm glad that in this committee we're finally exposing what the real weaponization of government is was under former president Trump and would be again and lastly as my time expires in the next 30 seconds isn't this working towards a complete and total National Abortion ban and isn't that what project 202 2025 makes clear the goal is if former president Trump were reelected again I think it does I mean it sets out a blueprint to get at that goal through numerous ways thank you very much I yield back the balance of my time G lady yields back uh Professor Smith in your excuse me your written testimony you said that the lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo in his opening statement in the court accused president Trump of violating the federal election campaign act but the FEC didn't bring charges I think you've said a couple times is that true that's correct and the Department of Justice didn't bring charges that's correct and if president Trump campaign had paid for it it wouldn't have been reported until after the election is that right that's correct and did President Trump's campaign have the money to pay for it yes they had plenty of money like 78 million bucks still in hand on Election Day think right yes and certainly president Trump had the money to pay for it he's not yes he'd already spent over 60 million yeah he had they already they already done that was it a political contribution uh no I I do not believe so for a reason stated I can elaborate on those now but you know but not only do you not believe so their star witness didn't believe so Michael Cohen said he was working clear back in 2011 to deal with this Miss Daniels making the allegations and wouldn't make this public and he was doing it for other reasons isn't that correct yes theyve been concerned about Daniels for a long time and keeping her quiet so the obligation wasn't caused by President Trump's candidacy for president of the United States is that right no it was not okay Mr fahe uh in your written testimony you said one of the most alarming aspects of the case is that the fraud quote fraud did not involve anyone losing money or even being harmed in any way to the extent that The Ledger entry entries were inaccurate they were entered into the books of a private company that understood what they were for it is unheard of for a fraud case to be brought where no losses were suffered so there weren't any losses in this this case at all were there yeah that's what makes this so remarkable and just you I I can't even imagine someone bringing a fraud case to the United States attorney's office where nobody lost money there were no victims and no one was worse off at the end of it it just makes it laughable even before you get to steps two through probably 20 that make this case really absurd to have been brought to begin with it wasn't a contribution if it was a contribution it would have been wouldn't have been reported until after the election and no one suffered any losses and yet they bring this charge against President Trump I find that just amazing if that's not political motivation I don't know because what other motivation could there be yeah it's really almost inarguable at this point that the motivation for this case was political it's really I've never heard a serious argument that that it should have been prosecuted otherwise I Know M Mr Woo might might have one but I just haven't haven't heard that because it seems political from the you know from the Inception all the way to the end yeah wasn't a contribution wouldn't have been reported even if it was if they Tre paid that out of the campaign no one suffered loss and yet there was some kind of conspiracy to impact an election but that's not the worst of it the worst of it is they didn't tell the defendant what the crime was he was being charged with isn't that right judge that's correct right from the indictments he was uh Donald Trump was charged with falsifying business records to elevate that crime to felony uh he had to be concealing or committing other crimes when did the defendant in this trial in this case learn what he was being charged with at the end of the trial at the end of the trial that's not supposed to happen in America is it judge no that is uh illegal so not only did you not know what he's being charged with in the end at the end of the trial when he learned what it was the judge also told the jury oh you don't have to be unanimous in finding what we just discovered the charge actually was it's an extraordinarily egregious error to tell a jury they don't have to be unanimous and I might add by the way those charges the three additional ones were never specified they're described generally so we don't know what exactly the jury thought was the illegality that was committed by Donald Trump we we have a very inspe fic verdict campaign Finance uh expert says it wasn't a contribution and even if it was a contribution if they treated as cont paid it out of the campaign it wouldn't have been reported till after the election so there's no conspiracy to influence the election no one suffered any harm or fraud in the initial case former prosecutor tells us and the judge tells us that the defendant didn't know what he was charged with until the end of the trial and the judge gave instructions to the jury never mind the fact the judge should have recused himself which you point out in your written testimony judge the judge didn't tell the jury or told the jury you don't have to be unanimous but the real thing here is the opportunity cost and you raised this in your testimony Mr fagy the opportunity cost when Alvin brag did the day one memo says we are not going to the charge all these felonies were going to bring him down to misdemeanors and let the bad guys roam the streets of New York how that squares with what happened here that to me is the real issue that's the issue that most Americans see like we're going to do this to the the former president of the United States meanwhile take felony charges against really bad guys on the street and bring them down to misdemeanors that's the opportunity cost here I believe in Manhattan you get the last word Mr F yeah exactly when you're letting carjackers out on bail or illegal immigrants that assault police officers aren't getting prosecuted but this is the way you're using your time in addition to the fact you run on a softon crime policy and then you do take the most creative aggressive approach to this crime it's hard to argue as anything other than a political motivation chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Texas okay I got a lot of ground to cover um I do want to clarify Mr fahe when you consistently talk about about NY or or New York crime you're speaking um in an opinionated stance you're not speaking from a place of fact correct no I'm speaking from a place of facts okay well let me clarify for you thank you so much I'm reclaiming my time let me clarify for you that NYPD puts out reports in in April it said overall index crime across New York City dropped another 4.9% as it relates to May the report says overall index crime across New York dropped another 2.4% and June's report hasn't come out I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record 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 Woo I'm going to 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 uh 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 um would that be the legislative people or judicial people well it's really the executive it's Prosecuting and 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 um explain any issues you may have the process would be the judicial appell process holding a 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 cuz under project 2025 we'll get there will be a different way to prosecute people but currently it is my understanding and I only kind of went to law school passed 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 cuz he's the executive huh that's that other Branch correct that's that okay okay all right so you have this prosecutor and in this case it's Alvin brag 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 no when it with a with a case I'm sorry I moved on 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 corre all right so then we have an indictment and then there's pre-trial motions there's pre-trial 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 US 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 uh 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 in this the has the judge invol to and this case they found him guilty not once not twice not three times not four not five not 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 appellant court the last time I checked he was raising money so that he could go to the appell court and his decision and they will have the final say so thank you so much yes they will uh the gentle lady yields back and the gentleman from North Dakota is recognized thank you Mr chair if I may just a quick um I just wanted to say as just as a point of personal privilege um Linda Sanchez is not with us today um and she is at the funeral for her legislative director uh Chandler Mason who served this body and served this country for a number of years and I just want to say on behalf of I believe all of us here that we extend condolences to her family um to the office of congresswoman Sanchez and pray for um God to give them Comfort during this time for the untimely death of Miss Mason no well well said and we I appreciate bringing that attention I should have uh this is my oversight I should have said something about uh our colleague Mr Massie um Mr Davidson and I and our Paulie and Lisa and I had a chance to go down and visit with Thomas a week ago Sunday uh he's doing is as good as you can under these these difficult difficult circumstances and his wife Ronda was an amazing person so to both to both members of this committee thank you for bringing that up gentleman from North is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and I very much appreciate uh the uh questioning from my friend from Texas she's one of the few other people that is actually practice criminal defense and Public Defense and as somebody who's done that for a very long time I appreciate that very much uh I never did practice in New York I also have a practiced in federal court and I've practiced in state court and passed several bar exams as well uh judge Wilson What's the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York one year uh when was this what is the what is the business records case is a misdemeanor correct the uh underlying crime the falsifying business records yes that's a misdemeanor charge so the only way to get to a felony is by committing or is by in concealment of another crime correct uh and each one of those crimes has specific elements that's right and you have to prove in order to get a conviction at trial you have to prove every element of the crime Beyond A Reasonable Doubt right that's just traditionally how this works that is the right way to do it so in the indictment did they put the underlying crime no they did not they only described it as other crimes okay and in the jury instruction did they put the specific underlying crime no the um falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions there was some brief description of the uh New York state election law violation but there was no description given of the three choice of three crimes there was a description given of falsifying business records which was pretty ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records so and that's also a misdemeanor right that should be yeah so you have 2 + 2 equals 6 like if you commit two misdemeanors you get to the felony statute of limitations which they had to get or they could have never brought the case that's correct but there there's some more question marks regarding the statue limitations uh it's not cut and dry because the time that Donald Trump spent out of New York uh could be used to toll the statute limitations that was the ruling in the court of appeals Harvey Weinstein case he argued that the time that he spent out of California should not have told it out of New York that is in California should not have told the time limitations but the court of appeals ruled against them on that issue so that's I think how they get around the statute limitations problem in this case so was the election law case a federal election law or state election law underlying crime seemed like it was charged as both when we got to the jury instructions there's a vition of New York election law charged but then there's among the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law and and then the third one was tax violation right also unspecified so all three of those underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime that is correct were any of the elements of those crimes listed no not at all so and this is important and it it's it might not be as robust or anything but when you defend a client in court if you don't know what the elements of the crime you're defending how do you mount to defense you can't that's the very issue of fundamental fairness that I referenced you as a defendant are entitled to know what the charges are against you so that you can defend against those charges Donald Trump was never made aware of what the extent of the charges were against them until the end of the trial and those and the elements of the crime go in the jury instruction I mean traditionally that's how it works federal court State Court in North Dakota State Court in Minnesota I've been in all of these different jurisdictions you actually get the elements of the underlying crime correct any time that I instructed a jury I instructed them what the elements of the crime were and instead in this case they got a grab bag they they got a choice of three when it came to the underlying crimes and we don't even know which ones they chose so we don't know whether or not they could have been unanimous on those three or that's that's another failing of the jury instruction so not only did we have not the elements of the crime but we had three different crimes with three vastly different elements of the crimes all unspecified none of them in the indictment the elements of the crimes weren't in the Bill of particulars last hearing I had the bill of particulars waved at me like it was some kind of magic document that flew in here with its own Cape so the statement of facts only describes a series of allegations a series of actions that's believed that Donald Trump took none of them describe any criminal activity none of them describe any um they don't describe any elements of any crime and that's why you believe as do I that when this goes on appeal there's going to be significant legal issues to argue that the jury never actually got them put in front of them I I have very little doubt that this matter will be reversed on appeal and based upon these issues because I've actually been pretty I mean I I I believe jury trials are still the best way to determine guilt and innocence I just believe juries are only as good as the information put in front of them so and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from New York is recognized thank you Mr chairman I'm I'm happy we're bringing up the appeal in this case um because this uh committee has focused for a year and a half on a fifth circuit case has brought before us as a witness the lawyer for that case twice um to argue that the Biden Administration had censored improperly censored social media companies um I'm surprised we haven't yet heard about the ultimate decision on appeal by the Supreme Court which dismissed the case so it's pretty fascinating to me that uh we don't have followup on the appeals of a case that were so uh excited about the appell it process when the Supreme Court missed it Mr F I want to just touch upon a couple things you said before uh I move into the Crux of my questioning uh am I right that I heard you say that it's unheard of to bring a fraud case without losses to individual victims it I cannot think of a situation where that's occurred it it I'm not saying it hasn't so you're saying that every books and Records case has losses to victims I'm saying every fraud case that I was involved either Prosecuting or knowing about usually had somebody that but but this was a books and Records charge yes well I think it's based on a fraud a fraud case that somebody committed fraud on the books and Records yes a fraud on the books and Records yeah I think they put I think the allegation is they were incorrect or fraudulent entries in the books or the records yes right and so you're saying that every single books and Records fraudulent entry which is a false entry has lost to individual victims is that your testimony that's not at all my testimony I said fraud cases are generally not prosecuted without victims and that's true murder cases are generally not prosecuted without victims too but we're talking about books and Records here okay have you familiar with the term fraud on the market no not really okay I mean you should and you should look into uh let me give you another example of a fraud case that doesn't have an loss to an individual victim which would be any insider trading case so other than they they would have potential victims and other people harmed this is a case where go look up no look up fraud on the market there are no individual victims with losses and yet those cases are charged an overall the in those Cas you know we're focused here on the weaponization of the government as usual and I'm just struck by the fact that we have a republican majority that is accusing other people of weaponizing government when let's look at what this committee and this Republican majority has done um my colleague Miss Crockett able went through the separation of powers um Mr Woo were you aware that this committee held a hearing with Robert Costello as a witness who was the former attorney of Michael Cohen yes and that that hearing was during the trial yes uh okay um so do you think that that was an appropriate uh way of trying to elicit testimon to impeach a witness in a trial in a congressional hearing no I think it interferes with the trial now interestingly when he was here I suggested that he go testifying the trial and he did that's the appropriate place for where he should be right exactly and Mr Trump's attorney had an opportunity to cross-examine him did he not yes and Mr Trump's attorney had I believe three days of cross-examination of Michael Cohen did he not yes I think that's right and ultimately the jury heard all of that right and all of the other evidence and decided unanimously that he was guilty that's right are you aware of the uh number about 2 doen members of the House Republican party writing an amicus brief to a district judge of about the hunter Biden case uh yes uhuh so let me just get this straight we have legislators elected officials trying to intervene in an ongoing criminal case is that what happened that's what it sounds like and they're proud of it by the way they are so excited and take credit for undermining Hunter Biden's plea agreement by interfering in that case that is the misuse of official Authority and weaponization of this committee this body and what Donald Trump has vowed to do is weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his political Rivals a revenge and retribution tour and the notion that this committee is accusing Democrats of weaponizing the federal government when the president of the United States did not intervene in the prosecution of his own son give me a break why don't you focus on taking care of your own party and your own weaponization and stop projecting where it doesn't exist and I yield back we we appreciate the gentleman uh well gentleman from North North Carolina is recognized for five minutes thank you uh thank you Mr chairman Mr Woo uh do you think that in American history State Court criminal justice processes have ever been perverted or corrupted for political objectives to affect matters of federal politics such as the course of legislation or the composition of Congress or the control of the presidency uh I'm not sure of a specific instance like that I mean I think there has been a general feeling that some of the state court processes uh have been unfair or biased and that was for example a reason for some of the Civil Rights legisl sure yeah like even in in the in thei post Civil War era right sure um so I think I have distinct images of that having occurred and and and processes that appear to be ordinary can be used to political effect in such cases right sure even in totalitarian regimes totalitarian systems of government that's a favorite tactic isn't it the the show trial indeed it is is there a um legitimate federal government interest in preventing that where it occurs uh well there's some jurisdictional limits on what the federal government can do there I mean if it's a State Trial they'd have to come in after the fact to examine whether there's been some well let me ask you this way was there legitimate Federal interest when Congress acted as we just made reference to in the post Civil War um uh Civil Rights Acts yes those legislative and they were designed to prevent that kind of misuse right I don't know that they were designed specifically at the court system misuse but I think they were designed to correct injustic you don't think they were designed to correct misuses and abuses of the court system the state court system uh no that's not why I said it it includes would agree with me that they were designed for that very purpose uh not only for that purpose yeah I no I certainly agree it wasn't only for that purpose but it was included um how um how should Congress identify the misuse of state court procedures where it is happening uh certainly they can do investigations uh hold hearings but they should be after the fact of prosecutions not during the prosecutions oh so let me just ask you a couple would would evidence of that include overt public vows by candidates for prosecutorial office to Target a candidate or prospective candidate for federal office that certainly something that can be part of the fact finding yes what about the institution of charges for transparent political motivations especially in the sense that the event charged is not regularly or ever charged against others engaged in similar conduct would that be possible evidence of such a problem that's a little bit tougher because the uh prosecutorial discretion wall is pretty thick on that but it's certainly something that could be inquired into how about State Legislative renewal of expired statutes of limitations aimed at such a political Target would that be possibly evidence of such conduct again I don't know whether it's evidence but it seems like something that Congress could ask about what about Jud judicial assignment processes resulting in in folks with apparent partisan bias being appointed or ending up administering a trial against such a Target would that be such evidence I think that's a little bit of a conclusory uh question there but certainly the process for determining uh judicial selections appointments I think that's something legitimately looked at H how about contriving jury instructions or administering a trial to deny the target fundamental fairness in due process anticipating that correction of that would be delayed until after the political impact has run its course in an election would would that be evidence that Congress should be concerned about I think that's more a issue for appeal of the particular conviction uh again respectfully I feel there's a little bit of a conclusory aspect so you think so long as the appeal will eventually set things right the fact that a state perverts its processes to achieve a political result to play out in an intervening election that's okay Congress shouldn't worry about that at all is that right uh I think the appeal needs to run its course first uh and then if Congress has concerns about the case overall they're free to look into it all right I Y back uh gent's back gentle lady from uh ranking members recognize thank you thank you Mr chair um Mr Woo did you conclude your your thoughts on that subject yes I did okay than thank you I just wanted to give you time if you needed it um thank you for your analysis of what's happened in the court case in um New York and judge Wilson it's good to see you here I just wanted to give a shout out to a fellow Bronx district attorney um Alum as well thank you um I did want to State for the record you know this discussion about homicides in New York City and the lack of prosecutorial action by um the district attorney in the county of New York that Mr Bragg's first year in office shootings in Manhattan declined by 20% homicides declined by 16% and the data from the NYPD shows that the rates of virtually every index of crime are lower in Manhattan for the first quarter of 2023 than they were at the same time last year um so why we may not like him having prosecuted former president Trump I think it's false to say based on the data that Manhattan is suffering from a rise in violent crime that is not in fact uh factually the case would we like to see it further as a born and raised New Yorker of course um but what it is not right now is a place with a crime spree one of the things that I talked about earlier today was Project 2025 um I've shared with the chairman my concern about this plan and the fact that this I believe fits squarely within the tenants of this committee to have a discussion about it to uh go to those individuals the authors of this plan over a thousand Pages have been written uh that make up the project 2025 uh by the Heritage Foundation which they and its authors state is the plan for day one after a a trump second term presidency um Mr Woo looking at Trump's Playbook that Playbook being project 2025 which is authored by individuals that are within his prior Administration how would it hurt Americans if these proposals were made into law I think one way that I've touched upon is the removal or decimation of the career civil servants I think is very dangerous of also some of the other examples the idea of removing the general counsel at the FBI to replace that with the political employes Council again you lose the experience and the context of that position and similarly trying to do away with the 10-year term for the FBI director which is there to ensure that they can be in place over the course of different administrations I think all of those particularly at the justice department would Gravely hurt the integrity and steadiness of the department I agree having been a political appointee in the Bush Administration at the Department of Justice working under the deputy attorney general uh La Larry Thompson and then under uh James Comey who could have fared without a David margolus having been in that office um being someone who had been there since the time of Kennedy he came in as an honors uh graduate from law school and provided consistency across the board to multiple administrations under project 2025 if this individual did not if David Mar an individual like David Margolis had not passed the Loyalty test would he still be in in have that position no um one of the key tenants is also to defeat the anti-American left that's a quote Trump has promised to root out liberal prosecutors individuals on this committee have used the power of congress to go after anyone who dares to indict Trump on crimes and publicly attack judges rule against Trump or his defense team does this look like a fair and impartial system of justice to you no it doesn't I think it undermines the Democracy um as a former Federal prosecutor for many years was it your experience that prosecutors in Liberal jurisdictions approach the criminal justice system with an anti-conservative bias no it was not and what was your experience my experience was that Federal prosecutors around the country uh tended to be very independent minded sometimes they would butt heads uh with what we call Main Justice uh but I pretty much never have seen an instance that I would identify as a politically motivated Federal prosecution thank you and um I'm not going to go into blocking financial aid for American college students if their states permit kids like dreamers to access inate tuition getting rid of school lunch programs Summer School uh summer programs taking aim at free speech and free thinking in American universities aim at renewable energy and what will make American women second class citizens by taking a closer to a National Abortion ban restricting access to Women's Healthcare and abortion drugs across the market this again Mr chairman I believe is a document that we along with um others throughout Congress need to take a closer look at a yield back lady Yi's back gentlemen from Florida's recognized thank you Mr chairman Joe Biden's doj has utilized their power and weaponized the justice system to go after his political opponent from Florida courts in Georgia courts in New York the farce that occurred in New York is a pathetic and sad abuse of the legal system by a rogue Democratic prosecutor and an obviously biased judge as judge Wilson aptly noted in his testimony president Trump was railroaded and judge Merchant drove the train not only did Judge Merchant seek to silence president Trump from informing the world about the judge's own conflicts of interest in the case but he made sure to effectively muzzled president Trump's key expert witness Professor Bradley Smith on a central element of the case Professor Smith you correctly pointed out your testimony that the District Attorney's theory of the case revolved around a state law that prohibits promoting a itical cany by unlawful means in this case the prosecutor alleged that the unlawful means resulted from a violation of the federal election campaign Act is that correct that's correct and you were once the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is that correct that is correct given your obvious status as an expert in campaign Finance law can you explain why the definition of an expenditure is so important to the case yes uh the definition of this expenditure if you just read the statute says any anything for the purpose of influencing an election so normal person might hear that and say well why did they make that expenditure but if you read further into the statute the provisions regarding personal use and if you read the FC's uh regulations and its explanation of those regulations but it's clear what they mean is for the purpose of a federal of influencing an election is not the subjective motivation of the spender it's an objective motivation so setting up a campaign headquarters hiring a campaign manager buying tv ads printing bumper stickers whatever else you do like that that's for the purpose of running a campaign but the mere fact that you do something that might be helpful to your campaign like uh taking a weight loss program so you look better on the campaign Trail buying a house in New York so you can run for US Senate from New York settling complaints against your business and your private life sealing your divorce records those are not things that arose from your campaign those are things that people sometimes do anyway and those would not be campaign expenditures and were you allowed to provide any of that context to the jury uh through expert testimony uh no and what is your expert opinion of the instructions that judge Merchant gave to the jury regarding the federal election campaign act well I think the judge's instruction clearly wanting all he gave them was that barebones if this was for the purpose of influencing an election you've got a problem and again this has been noted in this hearing he repeatedly allowed witness Michael Cohen who's no expert in campaign Finance law and the prosecutors to state that there had clearly been a violation I would note that had I testified of course I would not have testified specifically to what the law is but I would have testified to the reporting system that would have shown that there was no advantage to not reporting this as a campaign expenditure to the contribution system which would have shown that Mr Trump could have clearly paid this without any ramifications had he wanted to do so I would have talked about how the FEC in practice had in many cases found that certain things that look like you know again that for the purpose of were not found to be for the purpose of a of a campaign and let the jury do with that what they will and judge Merchant allowed Michael Cohen who has no expert qualifications in this field whatsoever to provide the jury information on campaign Finance law but he prevented you uh from giving substantive expert testimony on federal election campaign act he he did and then he uh advised the jury now you can't use that to consider Mr Trump guilty that's only for context which is sort of like saying to the jury or sort of like saying to you for the rest of this hearing I don't want any of you to think about a yellow Mini Bus by Volkswagen I mean that's all you're going to think about the rest of the hearing is a yellow VW van um it it kind of flagged it to the jury's attention that Cohen had pleaded guilty uh in this case uh under I think tremendous pressure because he was facing years and years in prison for tax violations so he pleaded guilty to the campaign Finance thing and and basically got a much lighter sentence in in the beginning of questioning by chair Jordan you talked about how we wouldn't want non-disclosure agreements of things that happened before a campaign to be campaign expenses can you just expand upon that right I mean I mean you don't want members of Congress to pay for their you know personal padillos from year before or allegations of such uh I think we should should credit those just as allegations uh using campaign funds you don't want a person to use campaign funds and say uh ge this is something really embarrassing to me that happened in my past I think I'd like to seal that up even though it's not relevant it's not something that you created through from your campaign it's it's the ticket for abuse and this is why the law specifically lists a number of things like for example you can't can't pay for a country club membership even if the reason you have it is to raise money for your campaign because it's it's something that people do even if they're not running for office and we don't want campaign funds paying for that thank all of you for being here today I yield back the chair I ask back I ask unanimous consent uh to enter into the record of May 21st 2024 AP News fact check article entitled judge and Trump's hush money trial did not bar campaign Finance expert for testifying to defense um the judge stated that Mr Smith's testimony could was limited in scope of the testimony could be uh that he could not give instructions to the jury on what the law was and that it was the defense attorneys that decided not to put him on the stand without objection and Mr Smith addresses that in his written testimony the gentleman from Florida is recognized so so Mr Smith following up on Mr Stu's question I want to understand the presedent here so if a candidate for federal office wanted to use campaign money now now to make a hush money payment could they point to what has occurred in this New York litigation and say well I guess I can go use my donor money to make a hush money payment I suppose they could at least unless judge Jackson is correct and we'll have to wait for that overturning on appeal but yes that's yeah but so well I guess I want to ask the question if an appell at court does not in some way deal with what has been laid before the country could we could we see people collecting money from donors lobbyists and packs and then using it to make hush money payments yeah and you could do almost anything else you could say for example I'd really like to go to the Super Bowl this year think I'll take a couple donors along and buy your Super Bowl tickets and your whole trip to the Super Bowl because it's for the purpose of of influencing your campaign so in the prosecution to preserve our democracy we have now greenlit potentially the most expansive abuses of campaign funds ever well put so all right I just I have to test the limits of this I do not like wearing ties I would never wear a tie I'm told that when people vote for a congressman they like to see them wearing a tie in their advertisements so does this now mean that when I go to Ross and buy a tie that I should use my campaign credit card because otherwise I'm not really a tie person if you took seriously the subjective standard that was given to the jury as the instruction yes it would mean that if you took the objective standard that appears in the statute no you couldn't so in in the absence of some appet review here and this is why we have appet courts to try to resolve these things do we not do we not unleash like the this confusion and then this opportunity for fraud because here's here's how this will go politicians will then simply use the gray area to enhance their own personal Lifestyles through their campaign funds right that's correct and one thing we should remember is that that the federal election camp Campaign Act was elected or or enacted against a background in which members could just pocket the campaign funds and that was part of the whole idea was you're not going to be able to do that anymore ah well thank goodness for the the good prosecutors in New York who have unlocked the greatest potential for campaign fraud in the history of the campaign Finance system uh judge Wilson I just want to ask ask you a a precise question was there ever a case that you were presiding over where you had a family member economically benefit from the notoriety of the case no never you sure you don't want to take some more time on that think about it I don't need more time I know that for a fact well I mean if that had ever Arisen would you have allowed a family member to make money off the notoriety of a case I would have recused myself from the case huh well it's just interesting because we had attorney general Garland who was you know spend a good amount of time on the bench and I asked him the same question and you know he said that he wouldn't answer it because it was obviously a reference to what had gone on in New York I mean I thought it was I thought he could might could have answered it but I mean when you look at what happened in New York does it concern you that the judge in that case seemed to have a family member who is economically leveraging the notoriety of the case it greatly concerned me but not so much from the perspective of the ethical violation that would be apparent because that judge did get an ethical opinion from the judicial ethics Committee in New York that EXO exonerated him um from any wrongdoing and listening to the case when his daughter was benefiting what I was concerned about was the appearance of impropriety you know when I sat on the bench sometimes I would get a report from probation or some other organization and they would hand it to me in an envelope and I made certain to open up that envelope and show everybody that it was a report that I was looking at because I didn't want the to be the Imp the appearance of impropriety that I'm receiving an envelope from someone in the courtroom the concept is the same here you you're presiding over a case where your daughter is benefiting and where you've made political contributions in small amounts but it's irrelevant the amount but you've made contributions to uh the political opponent of the defendant before you the these are the very essence of the appearance of impropriety and I feel strongly that judge Machan should have recused himself on that basis just simple as can be Mr chairman straightforward answer to a straightforward question I wish we could have gotten that from the attorney general I yield back gentleman Yi's back Mr chair I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record articles um that discuss that the ruling of the New York advisory committee on judicial ethics which judge Mand took the judicious step of raising the issue with them about recusal seeking guidance on whether he would have to recuse himself on the case in which the committee ruled that there was no basis for recusal Mr chairman I'll object pending just a what where were the Articles from I will sh I'll give you a copy of those yeah as soon as we have those I'll withdraw my objection thank you uh the gentle lady from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman I actually want to follow up on my colleague from Florida uh and his line of questioning um as representative Gates pointed out the judge's daughter um significantly profited from this case uh to the tune actually of 993 million raised for her Democrat clients clients that include a member of this committee representative Goldman I should point out and put on the record um but also uh authentic campaigns of which Lauren meran uh the daughter of the judge uh she runs this this firm authentic campaigns and was paid nearly $12 million for her work this cycle for her Democrat colleagues uh clients and uh including 9.7 Million by the Biden Harris campaign now I know that there's been a tremendous amount of discussion today about the severe irregularities of the case some of the things uh surrounding jury instructions but I want to talk about the financial motivations for the da and the judge so judge Wilson you just said that he got a waiver from judicial Ethics Committee and you were pointing out how just the appearance of any impropriety it's to be taken very seriously can you talk about the judicial Ethics Committee who makes up that committee and what are some of the the processes that they would use would they consider the $93 million or her client or a direct immediate relative that is benefiting financially from from this case if you're asking me who makes up the committee it's a uh combination of lawyers and judges uh who are selected by the appell division of New York uh to hear uh issues that judges bring to them asking whether or not they can act ethically in particular circumstances I myself availed myself of that committee on several instances um when it comes to whether or not they should consider the amount of the contributions I actually think the amount of the contributions are irrelevant because as you recall I said judge michan shouldn't have made any contribution in any small amount to political campaigns um that's based upon a Prohibition of Judges being involved in political activities except if they're in a window period uh during their own campaign uh at that time then a judge's campaign may make a contribution to another campaign or to another political organization but that's a a strict um a strict requirement that it only be during an election when such a campaign is made no um it doesn't matter so much what the amount of the money that was being made it matters that this is someone of first degree of relationship to the judge who is profiting from activities that oppose the defendant before that judge and even if he had an Ethics opinion exonerating him saying it's okay you your daughter's not a witness and none of her interest are uh being tried here so the Ethics Committee thought it was just fine there's still an appearance of impropriety that's of great concern to the public in general and that's what a judge wants to avoid when you're hearing a case you don't want people to feel that your integrity and that your impartiality is being impact compromised right which and that's what happened here and and the judge himself had given contributions and I think you pointed out very appropriately that it doesn't matter if it was a large or small contribution but the judge in this case judge Maran he contributed to a political action commit called stop Republicans that is inappropriate correct I mean especially overseeing the case of the the Republican nominee on the ticket correct he should have known better than to make those contributions while a sitting judge right and I mean and I see our Democrat witness Mr Woo you're shaking your head I'm glad that you agree with with us that this is a a tremendous uh question mark on the Integrity of of this this trial but you know I also want to talk a little bit about um da Bragg now I I pointed out in our previous hearing that da brag raised $850,000 in campaign contributions immediately upon the announcement of the 34 counts Mr Mr fahe have you seen any other prosecutors run this similar Arc of campaigning on getting a particular person and then using it subsequently to raise campaign cash not that I can think of there might be somebody that's done it before I I think the The Da or State's Attorney in Atlanta I think is doing something similar with that case uh Campa using that as a campaign case her case against Trump but other than those I don't know of any it's certainly possible but but you know $800,000 for a DA's race is enormous I know in your circles it's not but but those type of races are usually very low dollar amounts so it's safe to say that there's Financial motivation in the campaigns by multiple different da and politicians to quote unquote get Trump correct at least a political Financial motivation not necessarily personal correct thank you my time has expired I yield J lady yields back General from Wyoming is recognized I think there are a few things that should be cleared up today first of all we are not a democracy we are a republic I think it's extremely important to remember that and to understand our form of government I also think that this is one of the reasons why people dislike politicians we we all know what's happening here we know that Alan Alan Bragg's prosecution of presid President Trump is exhibit a of the left's by any means necessary lawfare campaign against President Trump Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump opened a dangerous Pandora's box of politically motivated prosecutions of political opponents and Manhattan District Judge Juan maran's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly Prejudice the outcome of the trial and violated president Trump's due process rights anyone with a look of knows that those statements are actually uh cannot be refuted we all watched what happened during the course of the trial Pro Professor Smith have you ever been retained as an expert to testify on campaign Finance matters prior to the case against President Trump yes okay and briefly what were the nature of those cases what issues or federal laws did you testify with regard to uh all of those were other cases uh in which I was asked to testify about about uh past experience with Federal campaign Finance laws customs in campaigns how they pay for things uh there were maybe as many as four I don't like to do expert witness work and I don't normally do it and uh in none of those you mentioned testifying and none of those that I end up testifying either because the case is settled because one is still pending uh or because in one other case the judge decided that this would be testimony that would go to the law can you briefly describe your qualification to provide such expert testimony well as as has been mentioned I served as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission including a term as as chairman I've written uh one book specifically on campaign finance and and serve as co-author on two others on campaign finance and election law uh I have been uh at one point uh cited as one of the most cited scholars in the field of election law a recent book from the University of Chicago press suggested that I've had more influence on campaign Finance than any other scholar in the last 40 or 50 years or something like that so devoted my life to this this is what I do you're qualified to testify about Federal campaign Finance law um would you also agree that campaign Finance law is a complex area and one where a lot of Americans who may have to sit on a jury would benefit from expert witness testimony to understand the alleged crimes that they are being asked to decide extremely so at one point Justice scalo when he was serving on the Supreme Court actually said during the middle of oral argument he says this law is so complex I can't figure it out so Professor Smith to the best of your knowledge is Michael Cohen a campaign Finance law expert and not to my knowledge and not what I've seen well yet judge Bashan allowed him to testify as such during the course of the Trump trial didn't he yes in theory for other purposes but nonetheless you had him repeatedly saying this violated the law you know that violated so judge Maran commented when ruling to limit the scope of any testimony that you would provide that quote there is no question that this would result in a battle of the experts which will only serve to confuse and not assist the jury end quote from the standpoint of someone who practiced as a trial for attorney for 34 years I find that to be an extremely bizarre statement because that in fact is the situation anytime you have a case where expert testimony is needed in fact I worked on a Case called Nebraska versus Wyoming at one point and Wyoming had over 25 expert Witnesses in everything from hydrology to agen engineering to economics to fival geomorphology to all of these things that Nebraska had something similar yet the judge including the United States Supreme Court was not excluding expert Witnesses simply because there was going to be a battle of the experts is that your experience as well that is and and I would point out one thing I mentioned earlier that there were a number of things I would have testified to that would not have gone to Legal conclusions but rather testifying about Customs practices about simply reporting dates under the law and it appeared from the judge's rulings that even this that kind of test would not have been allowed he wasn't going to allow you to testify to those things but he allowed Mr Cohen to sit up there and say president Trump violated federal election laws didn't he yes um Mr uh Professor Smith going on do you believe that the court committed reversible error by allowing Mr quen to testify about alleged campaign viol uh campaign or election violations I think it was erroneous uh and I'm not even sure what the standard not being a criminal law guy with the standard of review is for that kind of error and and sometimes if it's abusive discretion courts give trial judges a lot of leeway but it doesn't mean the decision wasn't right was wasn't wrong judge Wilson do you believe that judge Mara committed reversible error in excluding Mr Smith but allowing Mr Cohen to testify on these issues in and of itself that may not be enough to secure a reversal of the conviction but there is a concept uh in appell at law a cumulative error and what I believe we've seen in the Trump trial is a series of Errors one piled upon the other accumulative errors that when you put them all together show that Donald Trump did not have a fair trial and that his conviction should be reversed I'm absolutely convinced that his conviction will be reversed and I also believe that judge mwn was well aware of that when he made the decisions during the course of trial that he did I found his decisions to be egregious egregious reversible error on so many different levels thank you all for being here today and with that I yield back gentle lady yields back gentleman from South car before lady the ranking members recognize um I just for Mi Mr Gates and for your purposes I have an article from Ro Reuters regarding judge and Trump trial as well as the actual opinion of the judicial Advisory Group of May 4th 2023 and we'll make a copy for him okay without objection gentleman from South Carolina is recognized thank you Mr chairman you know it's been a bad week for Democrats um not only is the Border wide open um not only do Main Street feel the pressure of 20% inflation uh but we saw uh a pretty tragic uh debate performance by the commanderin-chief in fact Democrats this week are discovering new tunnels on the way to and from the capital in which to hide from the media and so they're now talking about things like project 2025 and things to distract the American people from what they're really seeing uh which is a country that is not doing well under his leadership is a total distraction let's recap some of the main players we have here today Alvin Bragg used a novel legal Theory to bootstrap a misdemeanor allegation as a felony by alleging that records were falsified to conceal a second crime Alvin Bragg is a pioneer of sorts but in all the wrong ways when you look at what he's done he's paved the way for rogue District Attorneys to campaign on and get elected to prosecute politically political enemies or political opponents then we have judge Maran who's a top Democrat donor his daughter worked uh for Cala Harris and even urged a uh Trump organization CFO to be a government witness against President Trump but when President Trump requests that he recuse himself judge Mara said no he performed an examination of his own conscience which he found that he can rule fairly and that it would be not be in the public interest if he recused himself from the case a total farce the the left has really stacked the deck on this trial judge Wilson why should judge Maran we talked about this a second but we're going to wrap up here why should judge Maron have recused himself from hearing the case against President Trump a judge has an obligation to be fair and impartial and to appear fair and impartial now judge Maan has the right to rely upon the ethics opinions that he received he asked the question he got the answer but that isn't the end of the analysis the judge has to also avoid the appearance of impropriety in hearing the case after having made political contributions and having a daughter first degree of relationship to the judge um profiting from attacking the subject of the trial that the judge is residing over has the appearance of impropriety Judge have you ever asked have you ever asked specifically uh a potential witness to be a witness in a case um or have you let the prosecutors and the defense Council pick those their own set of witnesses I leave that to the prosecution the defense the prosecution is the burden of proof they decide what Witnesses they want to put forward to prove their case and the defense then has the ability to present whatever Witnesses they want sometimes witnesses will be irrelevant cumulative there'll be other reasons they'll not testify but in general the prosecution defense are the ones that pick the witness so if a judge were to do that in this case judge Maran to ask a a a former Trump CFO to be a witness in a case that would be improper is that correct that's out of the ordinary it's not always improper for a judge to suggest a witness but uh judges don't call Witnesses in 99.99% of cases judge um you talked about this earlier kind of a parade of of errors that that what was the legal term that you used cumulative these are cumulative errors so would the inability of Judge Maran to recuse himself would that be part uh of a stack uh that could be um used as by a court of appeals to reverse the decision I believe so what other grounds for appeal do you think uh are evident uh from your mind on this particular case well I go right back to the indictment and pellic courts like to rule on things that are pretty clear uh a clear eror is usually the basis that an appell Court will find and not go into a lot of other questionable issues courts like to decide things simply in most cases here the indictment was facially insufficient right from the beginning and it would have been a simple matter for judge Machan to dismiss that indictment and to give the prosecutor leave to represent uh that indictment to get a sufficient one to give uh the defendant ER notice of the charges that the defendant was facing that was not done in this case and that led directly to the next significant error which was not notifying the defendant of those additional charges until he was already a trial and many of them not being notified many of those charges not being not being present until the jury instructions themselves and then the jury instructions of course were wrong too I mean it was a 55 page set of jury instructions that were incredibly confusing uh to an average juror yes as well as to lawyers for that matter because I heard that comment more than once that many didn't know what what those jury instructions meant thank you judge appreciate your time with that Mr chairman I yield back gentleman yields back the chair recognize the ranking member for uh closing question and comment um I really don't have any questions at this time I just would again um ask County District attorney's office began investigating president Trump in 2018 southern district of New York months later concluded its investigation into the payments by Michael Cohen and determined no charges should be brought against President Trump while this was going on Alvin brag was running for the job while on the campaign trial Mr brag boasted about the number of times he had already sued president Trump January 2021 Mr Bragg stated I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump close quote he said that it'd be hard to argue with the fact that any case against President Trump would be the most important most high-profile case Mr brag won and took office in January 2022 few weeks after taking office he told one of his prosecutors mark pomeran quote he could not see a world in which he would indict president Trump and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness that's right after campaigning on going after the former president Brad gets into office and realizes the case against President Trump is ridiculous that is why the southern district of New York didn't bring it it's why his predecessor cyance didn't bring it why did brag change his mind Mark pomerance Special Assistant district attorney resigned in protest and he and his fellow assistant district attorney Carrie dun leaked their resignation letter to the New York Times after that the left began the pressure campaign on Alvin brag and suddenly the zombie case was resurrected one of the first things Alvin brag did was hire Matthew Colangelo a top official in the Biden justice department who had a history of taking on President Trump and his family's businesses it's also interesting to note who Mr Colangelo listed as his references when he applied for the job at the justice department he listed Tom Perez former DNC chair and Jeff Zs who is now President Biden's Chief of Staff that's right the head of the DNC and the Biden white house chief of staff those were his references that's the guy who went to work to be the lead prosecutor on the case against President Trump Alvin Bragg Matthew Colangelo picked their target searched for a crime and then they prosecuted president Trump the partisan da that campaigned on going after president Trump who newly hired lead prosecutor for the case also had a history of taking on President Trump also had their case in front of a partisan judge a judge who donated to President Biden who imposed a gag order on President Trump who told the jury they didn't need to reach a unanimous decision and prevented one of our Witnesses today Mr Smith an expert on campaign Finance from giving real testimony to the court today Mr Smith will be given an opportunity to tell Congress and tell the country what he wasn't permitted to tell the court but he wasn't permitted to tell the jury remember bragon Colangelo bootstrapped charges that are normally misdemeanor to some underlying crime to make the charges a felony but what was the underlying crime prosecutors didn't reveal that until after the trial began Mr Colangelo in his opening statement accused president Trump of violating the federal elections Campaign Act but the problem is in the plain reading of that act doesn't support the indictment or the verdict as commissioner Smith stated allowing this prosecution to go forward and the ultimate jury decision threaten the enforcement procedures established by Congress under the act and stretched the meaning of the statute in such a way as to threaten due process of law although judge M wouldn't permit the leading expert on campaign Finance to provide this testimony he did let someone else speak in the court on this issue and others Michael Cohen Michael Cohen a convicted perjurer someone even his former lawyer said you couldn't trust Michael Cohen who lied to Congress lied to the FBI and lied to the court it's not often you have a witness that can lie to all three branches of government and then become the star witness in the prosecution of a former president but that's exactly what took place in New York it is clear Manhattan District Judge Juan maron's decisions Guided by political bias unfairly prejudiced the outcome of the trial and violated president Trump's due process rights br's prosecution of President Trump with the help of Judge michon open the door for politically motivated prosecutions and it will not be easy to undo the damage that's already been done as we have seen other ambitious prosecutors have followed Bragg's lead and pursued politically the motivated indictments against the former president rather than debate political opponents on substance the Democrats strategy to win the 2024 election is through the use of partisan lawfare tactics these politically motivated local prosecutions raised substantial Federal interest and potential collusion between federal and state authorities and that is precisely why we are here today Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump was personal it was based on politics and it was wrong now recognize the ranking member for an opening statement and then we'll get to our Witnesses thank you Mr chairman good morning thank you to our Witnesses for being here I especially like to thank um witness former un US Federal prosecutor and former United States Department of Justice attorney Shan wo um my colleagues thank you to the American people watching around the country for joining another hearing of the Congressional committee to undermine American independence and to defend Donald Trump from the early days of our nation's formation our founding fathers were very clear the upkeep of democracy requires constant proactive maintenance in his letters to fellow founding father and his political opponent John Taylor then former President John Adams wrote Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy key remember democracy never lasts long it soon wastes exhausts and murders itself there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide those passions are the same in all men under all forms of government when unchecked produce the same effects of fraud violence and cruelty American democracy has always been a question of progress not finality democracy has been given to us with the blood sweat tears and efforts of Americans who came before us who struggled long and hard to build and protect every Democratic institution we have indeed our country's dark past the very Foundation of our economic Juggernaut on the world was premised on a sick institution called slavery that some now want to even erase this democracy that our ancestors struggled to bring us all into these rights some of which some Americans do not even have all of are fragile remember that the great Republic of Rome was destroyed Greece was destroyed Germany of the early 20th century destroyed Spain these great Empires are gone human history is Laden with examples of great Nations republics and democ democracies that were once beacons of human progress and eventually destroyed by hubris autocrats and the Rabid Ambitions of an empowered few Falls do not happen overnight but the signs are there if you want to see them in those republics those democracies slowly but surely rights are Stripped Away my fellow Americans that's happening here in this country the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body Stripped Away in 15 states immigrant children being stripped away from their families the gains of blacks for fair representation voting rights recognition of the historic lack of a playing F of creating a even playing field Stripped Away slowly but surely the structures the laws and the institutions intended to make the nation great have been and continue to be eroded not to mention the souls of the human race and minorities being eroded every day by injustices we have a blueprint that we can see how that's being done project 2025 plans to upend structures institutions and the basic rights that have supposedly been afforded to Americans to make it great it's a playbook for Donald Trump second term and a plan for the destruction of America as we know it despite flashy headlines printed over American flags and the likes of obnoxious men who give loud speeches about their love for making America great again project 2025 delivers No Such Thing project 2025 will slowly but surely strip away our rights I've asked for a hearing about project 2025 because I believe it is a dire warning to us all of an individual and others around him's desire to weaponize the government for their own empowerment it will Rip our experts out of agencies to be replaced by sycophant political appointees it will strip women of even more healthc care access and rights it will further dehumanize undocumented immigrants and punish their family members even those who are American citizens for daring to be associated with them it will restrict free speech in schools to only allow farri approved agendas and curriculum it will erode our freedoms all under the vague guise of making America great and yes because it is a grand Republican plan project 2025 calls for severe cuts to Medicare and Social Security I'm not just saying that the authors of project 2020 25 are saying that here's a video out2 believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if her doctor says that she needs one is a yes or no question abortion is not Healthcare abortion murder of a human being we also going to have teenss cuz we can multitask to deconstruct the administrative State and to go after criminals and the traders in the Deep state so suck on that we need to have them biggest Mass deportation system ever in the history of America because it is unjust and illegal and evil that more than 10 million illegal aliens have come to this country there are great plans using the Department of Homeland Security to return these people back to South of the Border the best thing that people can do right now if you're a young person is get involved in one of these things like American moment or project 2025 or the Trump campaign we got to fill up the White House with workers project 2025 is something that's going to transend the next 4 years the next 10 years it really is for the first time in the history of the conservative movement the apparatus for policy and Personnel we are in the process of the second American Revolution which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be playing patriotic music claiming to Love Freedom demonizing every group in the nation that is not like you will not protect you and your civil rights the project 2025 Playbook is a plan to give Donald Trump the powers of a dictator just as he wants that's the plan this is the man who threatened to send the Department of Justice after political opponents Trump even sent his lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that he should have criminal immunity in if he uses the military to assassinate someone who simply disagrees with him we heard his secretary of defense say did he asked the military to shoot people because they were protesting yes that's what his defense secretary said on TV and there's recordings of it this is the man who jokes about being a dictator just for a day and teases the idea of a third term for US president this is a man who wants to implement sick of Fant loyalty tests he's a man who will fire every employee in every agency who upholds their pledge to serve their country over the president Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the continuation of American democracy as our as we know it we are using this Congressional committee for the third time to attack a state level felony conviction of a former president by a jury of his peers Republicans on this committee have used $20 million of federal taxpayer dollars to deliver Trump more power and attack his Rivals they're threatening public servants far outside their legal jurisdiction and even threat threatening private citizens who dare not to give Trump what he wants the reign of Lord Trump has already begun and he isn't even in a second term it's vital we remember our founding father's principles and that we see project 2025 for what it is a republican plan to slowly but surely strip away rights this is about Freedom versus fascism I beg every American watching don't be fooled by plas patriotism don't be fooled by those rhetorically referring to freedom without the substance to back it up without any care for all people's rights a true understanding of Freedom comes from respecting the sacrifices of our ancestors our Democratic institutions and a robust rule of law our country is not and has never been perfect but our country is great and it's our duty to keep it that way our country has never shied away from improving our flaws but what is being promoted is a distraction it's counterproductive and threatens years decades centuries of progress let's keep moving forward let's not go back to the dark times iiel back gentle y's back without objection all the opening statements will be included in the record we will now introduce today's Witnesses The Honorable Brad Smith is the Josiah H Blackmore second and Shirley m not professor of law at Capitol University law school professor Smith previously served as commissioner on the federal elections commission including a term as chairman uh Mr Jonathan fahe is a partner at Holzman vogle he is a former prosecutor having served for 17 years in the US attorney's office for the eastern district of Virginia Mr Fay he also served in various positions at the Department of Homeland Security including as acting director of US immigration and custom enforcement The Honorable John Wilson is a former judge having served on the Bronx County Civil Court in Kings County criminal court for 10 years judge Wilson also previously served as a prosecutor in the Bron Bronx County uh District Attorney's office and in private practice following his departure From the Bench judge Wilson served as Chief prosecutor for the Standing Rock reservation in Fort Yates North Dakota and Mr Shan Woo is an attorney focusing on White Collar defense and cases involving college students he previously served as a federal prosecutor and is Council to former Attorney General Janet Reno he also works as a contributor for CNN and MSNBC we welcome our Witnesses and thank them for appearing today we will Begin by swearing uh swearing you in would you please rise and raise your right hand do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief so help you God let the record uh reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative thank you please be seated uh please know your written testimony uh will be entered into the record in its entirety accordingly we ask that you summarize your testimony in uh in approximately 5 minutes uh and we're going to just move right down the line like we introduced you we'll start with Professor Smith and go right down and finish with Mr Woo so Mr Smith you're recognized for uh for five minutes thank you chairman Jordan ranking member plaset in the written testimony I I explain at length uh why the convictions of Donald Trump in New York in May because they relied in the end on alleged violations of federal election campaign act or F were incorrect as a matter of Law and I discussed some of the errors of law made by prosecutors and and judges in the case to quickly summarize uh the payments that were made to uh stermy Daniels were not under current law and should not be as a matter of policy treated as campaign expenditures and thus Michael Cohen's brief fronting of the money which was repaid to him shortly thereafter uh does not constitute an illegal contribution but moreover the prosecution Theory uh that the defendant Trump had to engage in a vast conspiracy because of a desperate desire to hide stormy Daniel's allegations from the public and thus uh ignore campaign Finance laws simply makes no sense because even had they treated these as campaign expenditures which again I I think they correct not to do so nothing would have come out before the election as I explained under the reporting schedules nothing would have been reported until after the election uh and the idea that illegality was needed is simply laughable in fact Donald Trump and the Trump for president campaign had plenty of cash to pay for the Daniels non-disclosure agreement uh as of October 27th 2016 they did not need Michael Cohen to front them money for that purpose further even assuming the expense was a campaign expenditure no public disclosure of the expense would have been required until 20 days after the election and repeatedly the prosecution emphasized that the main uh desire of trump was to hide this information until after the election as a practical matter then having Michael Cohen front the money for the non-disclosure agreement between Mr Trump and stormmy Daniels could have no influence on the 2016 election despite the repeated claims by the prosecution that that was the core of the case and this undercuts the entire theory of the case offered by the prosecution uh this is explained in my written testimony I'm happy to answer questions on that as we go forward but right now I just want to emphasize that this New York prosecution uh is uh something that is a uh a very bad precedent let's just put it that way not only because it threatens the rule of law and and generally we have not uh short uh in our defense of democracy we've not been willing to Short Change uh procedures of law but because also threatens the bipartisan campaign enforcement system established by Congress if allowed to stand any state could do what New York has done that is pass a law making it a felony to try to influence an election by unlawful means then the state court could effectively try defendant for those alleged violations of f remember in the Trump case there was no finding by the Department of Justice uh that Trump had violated the law indeed they decided not to pursue it there is no finding that by the Federal Election Commission that Trump had violated the law they also decided not to pursue it no federal body had found violations here um and effectively the state was simply making up the law and enforcing federal law in a partisan with elected judges elected prosecutors unlike the nonpartisan bipartisan system set up uh by the federal election campaign Act and the members of this committee and there are several who live in states that are dominated by the opposing party at a state level uh might want to take heed of that possibility that this that this game can be played in many different ways and one can run run the risk of being prosecuted for violating F even though uh the FBC found no wrongdoing it should be pointed out here that judge meran during the case took great pains to make sure that the jury was not informed that neither the Department of Justice nor the Federal Election Commission had decided not to pursue allegations against Mr Trump but at the same time uh allowed in uh repeatedly statements by the prosecutors and by Witness Michael Cohen uh stating that he had clearly violated the law and there was no doubt about that and and thus implying that Mr Trump had done so as well uh it's worth noting in in the end that um it's right for this committee I guess I would say this it's right for this committee to take up this issue because it is a federal issue not only of due process but of that enforcement of the statute and we could have a tremendous amount of chaos and and uh every Federal campaign will be governed essentially by whatever one can get a state judge and a state jury to do that's not how the federal election campaign Act was set up and that's not how this should be pursued so I hope that this body will recognize that this is clearly a federal issue and uh not only are there major constitutional questions about due process but again it may even be something where some legislation is necessary to make sure that state prosecutors cannot try this again thank you thank you Professor uh Mr F you recognize for 5 minutes thank you make sure you have that mic on and pull it close thank you you bet uh good morning chairman Jordan ranking member plaset members of the committee uh I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today my name is Jonathan fahe and I'm an attorney with the law firm of Holtzman vogle I'm in private practice now but I spent most of my 25 years as an attorney as a prosecutor both as a state and federal prosecutor the reason I went to law school was because I wanted to be a prosecutor didn't want to be a law firm lawyer or anything else I wanted to be a prosecutor and the reason for that is my mom uh when I was growing up my mom was an assistant Comm attorney in Arlington County Virginia and then she was eventually uh elected to be the Comm attorney as a democrat in Arlington and later appointed by President Clinton to be the United States Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and I learned from my mom what I would go to court I would sometimes watch trials and things like that but I learned from her about the importance of being a prosecutor in terms of what it means to the public in terms of Public Safety but I also learned what it meant to administer Justice to be fair when you're entrusted with so much power how you administer that reflects not only on the person that that is the subject of that but as the whole Community how we treat the accused how we treat the most vulnerable victims and you know I learned from her that being a prosecutor really wasn't a part job it was a public safety job it was a speaking for victims job and that's the way it had really been in Virginia where I live and most of the country uh up until about 10 years ago and you know I say that because you could go through the country and you could see prosecutors that are Democrats prosecutors that are Republicans but they really approached the job the same way until recently but I began my career after law school after clerking in state court I became a state prosecutor in Fairfax County uh there I served under Bob heran who was a elected Democrat and he had been the Cal attorney for probably 30 years or so at that point and I had the opportunity to prosecute cases anywhere from the lowest level misdemeanor cases to the most violent felons and again I learned a lot of lessons there but the most important lesson I learned was you're entrusted with so much power from the the position from the community and how you administer that power is what's most important you you don't don't prosecute people because you don't like them or you have some other ulterior motive you prosecute them because um they violated the law and you're treating people equally equally regardless of the political motivations or political parties or anything else they might have um I went over from the C attorney's office to the US attorney's office in the eastern district of Virginia where I served for 17 years I served under multiple administrations but from uh George W bush to Obama to president Trump and also what I learned there no matter who was within that office people were professional I I had a chance to work with the most talented probably attorneys I've ever worked with and one thing that that during that tenure people's political whatever their political leanings were you rarely knew other than maybe outside of work and while I was there I had the opportunity to to prosecute drug traffickers gang members frauders other types of crime I also had the opportunity to prosecute um to train younger prosecutors on how to prosecute cases ethics things of that nature uh the reason I go to my background and I know the time is short is the reason I'm here today I would say is because of the progressive prosecutor movement you know funded by these outside groups um this started about 10 years ago these Progressive prosecutors being elected through funding from Outsiders groups as uh mostly in Democrat jurisdictions they defeated incumbent Democrats and the movement basically is sort of the underlining premise was the entire system was unjust therefore the prosecutor can do whatever they want and you see saw that in Philadelphia you see it in Chicago which incidentally I think had 100 plus people shot over the weekend you see an LA other places and what these prosecutors have done is to Institute what they would call Criminal Justice Reform they would go into office and they would nullify any laws they did not like and that seems somewhat benign in some respects but the problem with it as you see with Alvin Bragg which I'll get into briefly at the end of my five minutes here but Alvin Bragg has taken this he was a progressive prosecutor in New York he ran on this Progressive prosecutor uh I guess as a progressive prosecutor and when he got into office his main theme was deciding not to prosecute cases basically not in Prosecuting any misdem meters whatsoever reducing misdem meters to felonies and reducing serious felonies to lesser felonies so all of his theme for running his in office practice has led to I think New York the last two years have had the highest uh crime rate on the big seven crimes in the last 20 years but he's taken this a step further because again it's somewhat benign to say I won't prosecute trespassing but this sort of opened the door for the political prosecution of Donald Trump which as we've seen you know now it's taken from not Prosecuting to identifying a political opponent and Prosecuting them for political reasons I'll talk to someone in my testimony hopefully about the reasons behind the prosecution the errors in the case and how the immunity decision affects the case and I thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions and I apologize for going a little bit over that's fine Mr F thank you uh judge you're recognized for five minutes members of the House Judiciary Committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the criminal trial of former president Donald Trump held before judge Juan Maran in New York County Supreme Court criminal term earlier this year as you may be aware I served as a criminal court judge in and for both King's County and Bronx County New York City from 2005 to 2014 for 5 years of my term I served as a night court arraignment judge in Kings County where I was designated an acting Supreme Court Justice before my election to the bench in 2004 I served as an assistant district attorney in Bronx County and as a criminal defense attorney although I never tried a felony case as a judge I tried a number of felony cases as defense counsel including homicides child estation drug sales Etc I was involved in all phases of criminal litigation for approximately 30 years I have sat in all three seats prosecutor defense counsel and judge I do not personally know judge Juan masan but I am intimately familiar with New York County's Supreme and Criminal Court having spent most of my career in those courtrooms based on my experience I can tell you in no uncertain terms that former president Trump did not receive a fair trial from Judge Juan masan in fact if the court of appeals is fair and I believe the court will be fair based upon the reversal of Harvey Weinstein's illegal conviction Donald Trump's conviction is aured reversal a reversal that would be premised upon the fundamental errors committed by judge Juan masan if I may be blunt Donald Trump was railroaded and Juan michan was the driver of that train for the purpose of this statement I would like to concentrate on the most glaring problems presented by judge michan's conduct of this trial I believe the following one the indictment was legally insufficient and judge Maran should have dismissed the indictment before trial in my book The Making of a mod and Analysis of the indictments of Donald Trump I wrote that my review of the New York County indictment revealed that Donald Trump was accused of causing a false entry to be made in his business records for the purpose of concealing or committing another crime what other crime the indictment does not say simply put how was former president Trump's prepared defense if he is not informed of the other crime he intended to commit or conceal when he allegedly falsified his business records judge michan was obligated to dismiss an indictment that failed to identify the underlying crime number two the failure to dismiss the indictment led to charges being added during trial that were not included in the indictment in doing so former president Donald Trump was not given a fair chance to prepare a defense to these added charges thus depriving him of his right to prepare a defense this was a violation of Donald Trump's right to fundamental fairness and notice of the charges he faced prior to trial further the jury instructions given by judge michan were illegal and that they included these additional charges and allowed for a non-unanimous verdict a non-unanimous verdict is unprecedented in any felony trial and American Juris prudence and recently the US Supreme Court reiterated the necessity for a unanimous jury verdict in the case of erlinger versus United States number three judge Juan masan made unconstitutional and prejudicial rulings that impacted Donald Trump's ability to present the defense and that he allowed the prosecutor to use civil penalties and uncharged sexual assault charges against Donald Trump where he had testify in his own defense this deprived the former president of his right to present evidence in his own defense and was the very basis for the court of appeals reversal of the conviction of Harvey Weinstein earlier this year number four judge michan should have recused himself from presiding over this matter based upon the appearance of impropriety in having contributed to political campaigns regardless of the amount and based upon his daughter's political activities regardless of the ethics opinions he received which absolved him of any actual unethical activity there are of course other appell issues which which exist in this case allowing the prosecution to claim federal election law violations without presenting any evidence to support those allegations not allowing the defense to present the witness regarding federal election law after allowing the prosecution to make the aformentioned statements and allowing stormy J to testify knowing that the prejudicial effect of her testimony outweighed any probative value are several it is my belief however that the ones I have outlined are the strongest issues to be presented on appeal therefore it is my considered opinion based upon my years of legal training experience that former president Donald Trump did not receive a fair trial that judge Juan masan failed in his obligation to be fair and impartial that judge michan committed a series of errors that necessitate reversal of this conviction to be direct I do not believe anyone can reasonably state that former president Trump received a fair trial in New York County Supreme Court from Judge Juan masan thank you for your attention I'll be happy to answer your questions thank you judge Mr will you're recognized for five minutes thank you uh good morning members of the subcommittee and thank you chairman Jordan and ranking member Miss plaset for inviting me here today uh my name is Shan wo I'm the child of immigrants from China who came here seeking freedom and to avoid political persecution under the communist government there and they came here as graduate students and after the Communist Revolution they were stranded here and made a life here luckily for me they did come here CU they didn't know each other in China so they met here uh and they had me and they instilled in me a great love for family despite the fact that I had no extended family growing up as well as a very strong sense of Public Service my father served under two New York City Mayors as a New York City Human Rights commissioner and his example of Public Service led me to attend law school and then later to become a federal prosecutor where I served as an assistant us attorney for 10 years and had the privilege in the last year of the Clinton Administration to serve as Council to then attorney general Jan Rino from that particular position where my portfolio included leoning uh for the office of Pardon attorney overseeing various criminal issues as well as briefing the Attorney General on a number of daily issues that would arise in the Justice Department it gave me very much of a bird's eyee view of the kinds of issues and the approach that the department takes uh as what is appropriately calling them the nation's Law Firm it is through this lens uh that I give you my personal opinion today which does not reflect the opinions of U my Law Firm mcry Stafford or any other entities uh the view that I have of the recent conviction of the former president in the Manhattan da Alvin Braggs case where he was convicted of 34 felony counts and also my impressions of the recent presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court and whether or not that affects the verdict in that case in any way and lastly My Views that there is a growing Shadow a threat to American democracy presented by many of the former president's views as well as the way that those views are expressed in certain types of writings such as the plan for presidential transition known as project 2025 in particular because of my experience at the justice department I would highlight some of the issues with these plans as they relate to the justice department when I was at the justice department I found that there was enormous value in the career employes there they were the heart and soul of the department the conscience as well as the institutional wisdom there I remember on an almost daily basis when there were thorny Issues new issues that came up that Miss Reno the Attorney General would always want to know what the take was from career civil servants there and it was not just the more famous ones such as David margolus or Jack Keene who served for decades at the department but the rank and file people who were unsung heroes who always provided their best advice and that advice is important because they as career employees their tenures cut across administrations they weren't simply put in there by the latest Administration and therefore they did not always reflect the political views or even the policy goals of the new Administration and in that sense they supplied a very healthy buffer zone to make sure that whatever new policy ideas would be measured against what the department had done in the past and what their experience told them was wise for the Department to me that gives the institution both a sense of Integrity as well as steadiness and that kind of steadiness and integrity is what allows the American people to have confidence in their institutions my parents were cut off from their families but they stayed here and they stayed because of the great love of the freedoms that this country has tried to give all of its people and as I see the current climate today one of my concerns is that those freedoms are endangered by an increasing trajectory towards authoritarianism autocracy and even dictatorship types of Tendencies um my testimony is prepared in writing as well and of course very happy to answer any questions gentlemen yield back we will now proceed on the 5 minute rule the chair recognize the gentleman from Ohio for five minutes um I thank all of our Witnesses I thank the chairman for holding this meeting look in my eight years in Congress I came in in June of 2016 uh we've seen an unprecedented amount of weaponized government we've seen it abused in every way imaginable uh this isn't a a new phenomenon as bastiat recognized when law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alter Al ative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law frankly the radicals are counting on it we've seen the IRS go after religious and conservative nonprofits the ATF go after law-abiding gun collectors pro-life grandmothers sent to prison for years for peaceful protests here in Washington DC parents targeted for speaking up at Schoolboard meetings fintech companies targeted and debanked because they posed a threat to the status quo the list goes on the American Bar Association estimates that there are some 400,000 potential crimes that agencies can prosecute that exist between the federal code and mountains of politicized rule makings and regulations hopefully thinned out by the recent Chevron deference decision and uh the administration strative law judge decision and some other good ones over the past uh two weeks the average American uh likely commits something that can be construed by a corrupt prosecutor as a federal crime uh what happened to president Trump can happen to any American who has the audacity to upset someone in a powerful position that's not supposed to happen in the United States of America Western Civilization is based on the rule of law and that this law must be both impartially administered and fairly adjudicated Kangaroo Court spectacles such as what we witnessed in New York are fundamentally an attack on and perversion of the rule of law and its foundation in our society the list of abuses to Railroad President Trump is obscene and outrageous but calling it that is an understatement let's be clear Alvin Bragg campaigned openly on his persecution of President Trump his was clearly a political act and that is the only reason this case was designed and executed against the current administration's political enemy Professor Smith has there ever been a citizen named not named Donald Trump that has been prosecuted with these same crimes anywhere in America well it depends on what one considers the crime for example they'll say well lots of people are prosecuted for false records under New York law what they're not prosecuted for is for false records covering up a crime under New York law that makes it illegal to violate some unnamed law to influence an election and no I I've I've never seen anything like that has anyone ever successed F uh paid a hush money settlement to anyone and counted it as a campaign expense well not that I I know of and I think Common Sense would tell us that uh paying uh for a non-disclosure agreement or any kind of legal settlement is not based on things done outside of office like 10 years before you were a candidate is not a campaign expense and we wouldn't want it to be because if you think about it that would mean that candidates could could use their campaign funds for exactly that kind of thing it be a horrible precedent right um every day we see headlines coming out of New York City illegal immigrants all kinds of cases and some of you in your opening statements highlighted how Mr fee highlighted in particular how Alvin Bragg ran on this Progressive platform uh as a prosecutor you know as a former prosecutor in your career If You Were Never Bound by the sixth amendment if you could turn any action retroactively into a crime if you could bias a jury by whatever means you wanted to is there a single citizen in America who would be safe from a politicized prosecution I don't really think so if you really targeted someone and looked for a way to charge them I don't want to say there I mean I'm sure there's some people that could not be and theoretically but there are so many people that would be vulnerable to being prosecuted if somebody is targeting them for political reasons or whatever reasons and that's really what's scary about this and I I think your point with Alvin brag with it it's funny that on one hand he he runs on not Prosecuting the law and then all of a sudden on this case it's this is the most aggressive stance that's ever been taken probably on the set of clearly not the rule of law and and crime is going through the roof I think you know seven you the seven biggest felonies the last two years are the highest year since 06 so it's like he's not Prosecuting the law equally or against you know other people and more serious criminals thank you and look judge Wilson you referenced it in your statement M about the precedent uh in the Court's recognition in Andress versus the United States but as early as 1898 the court said that a defendant enjoys a quote constitutional right to demand that his Liberty should not be taken except by The Joint action of the court and a unanimous verdict of a jury of 12 persons I thank chairman Jordan for holding this vital hearing today what we are witnessing is an unprecedented attack on the rule of law and a weaponization of our criminal justice system and it's a shame I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Massachusetts recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and thank you to the ranking member and I appreciate the attendance of our our Witnesses this morning um I've served on the oversight committee here in Congress uh which is the principal investigatory Committee in this house uh for over 20 years and I have to admit I cannot point to a single case during my tenure and we have had Republican leadership and and Democratic Leadership where the chair has blatantly and persistently uh interfered with a state criminal proceeding as I have seen it interfere in the case of the people of the state of New York versus Donald Trump even before New York district attorney Alvin Bragg announced a 34 count felony indictment against the former president in April of 2023 chairman Jordan joined by other Republican committee chairs had already sent a letter to district attorney Bragg demanding his testimony before Congress it also warned him of the quote serious consequences close quote of pursuing criminal charges against Donald Trump and over the next year in the midst of ongoing state criminal proceedings chairman Jordan proceeded to send nearly a dozen frivolous investigatory letters and subpoena threats to current and former employees of the New York District Attorney's office on top of that he listed a series of documents that this is an ongoing criminal trial in the state of New York at the time asking for all documents and Communications between and among the New York County District Attorney's Office all documents and Communications are received uh by certain employees all documents and Communications referring or relating to New York City district attorney receipts and other uh use of federal funds clearly clearly trying to intimidate uh the New York District Attorney's office and dissuade them from their prosecution of of Donald Trump uh Mr Woo a a as a federal prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney um what what is the danger in in having Congress which is a legislative body uh use those type of threats against an ongoing uh criminal prosecution in State Court uh Congressman lnch what the danger is is that it greatly destroys the Integrity of the criminal prosecution the idea that a legislative body which is inherently politically based is looking at a criminal prosecution which is meant to independently assess evidence of criminality during the pendency of that case is extremely destructive and quite dangerous for the Integrity of the system and Mr W on top of that over 25 Republican members actually went to the courthouse sat in the courtroom uh to to uh support the defendant in that case um the nonpartisan Brennan Center for justice recently reported that Congressional efforts to compel the production of non-public information about a specific case from a local prosecutor or otherwise medal in their investigation quote crosses the line to political interference that threatens the L the rule of law close quote would you agree with that assessment I would agree with that and also I think the presence of those members at the trial while they certainly have a First Amendment right to be there I think it also injected a great deal of political atmosphere into that case Mr wther Brennan Center has also warned that Congressional interference in the New York case is reflective of a quote worrying Trend that threatens to intensify close quote can you talk about the impact of this trend on state and federal prosecutions I think uh as we discussed before the trend indicates that the district attorneys in those States as well as Federal prosecutors feel that they aren't free to actually follow the evidence they aren't free to actually follow the law but that they're going to be criticized they're going to be the subject of political leverage if they actually do their job and I think that really undermines the Integrity of our criminal justice system thank you very much what are the ramifications uh for this uh especially following the Supreme Court's decision on on presidential immunity do you think there's there are implications for that as well uh the Supreme Court's decision on immunity I think very much indicates this Court's direction towards overly empowering the Office of the President I don't know exactly how it may trickle down to other kinds of prosecutions but certainly in my view their extremely over Brad opinion frankly would obviate the purpose of this subcommittee which is the weaponization of the justice system against a president is impossible under the view because the president can do anything he wants thank you uh Mr chairman my time has expired and I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from California recognize thank you Mr wo I'm going to stay with you um every day members of Congress are subpoenaed uh on behalf of defendants in prison people that have griefs gripes against the government and the president receives far more than one a day would you suggest that he should have to go to those uh uh places show up and be deposed just because somebody uh wants to depose the president and says they have a basis I I obviously there's a general policy reason not to okay so so the fact is that the Supreme Court's decision on limited immunity or immunity from prosecution immunity from having to show up and be distracted from the work of the president is for a good purpose and only in rare cases such as uh bill 's case of a civil suit specifically about actions before he was president has the court ever uh said it doesn't fit there right I think that's exactly the problem you point out is it's so rare that there is no need for them to well let's just get back to rare they there was need they made a decision that uh still stands today that Bill Clinton could be deposed as to his specific State actions prior to being president but they ruled clearly that the president cannot be distracted from that I'm going to switch to Mr Smith uh I'm going to let him drink his water uh you know you you said as a prosecutor I'll go to you and to M judge Wilson that this was not a fair trial that it violated the rules that we count on for the admission of evidence is that correct you both saw that in this case yeah if if I may go first uh I think the most glaring thing was somewhat of some of the Stormy Daniels test Tony which you know the implication from her testimony was that she was sexually assaulted by President Trump which is you know by in any respects so unfairly prejudicial relative to the crime the judge clearly let evidence in and that that that was surprising to me one that the prosecutors didn't know that ahead of time that this was going to come out and it wasn't vetted ahead of time so that that's the most glaring example that I I I I so as a prosecutor something that you dedicated your career to there's a there is a sense of balance if you get in your unfair twisting you normally expect the judge to uh at least at a minimum allow the defendant to present Witnesses uh in response to that or to to offset it it was pretty unheard of that they only let you hit the the guy and not and no one answer back right that part of it's concerning and when you think about it when we were Prosecuting cases generally defendants had far more leeway because it was like they're the ones they in Deputy they're you know going to jail or whatever so even if they didn't have necessarily the most viable defense it was rare to have a judge cut them off on it and that that's what just seems so striking on one hand it's the most extreme evidence allowed against President Trump which is hard to justify and then not allowing some some sort of at least explanatory as my time's running out but uh yes or no if I could isn't that kind of imbalance very often exactly what a prosecutor doesn't want to see because it leads to a high probability of a case being reversed and based on not being fair in other words If you deny the defendant you have a Jeopardy of of in fact getting a perfectly good conviction overturned because you didn't give them the proper opportunity for defense didn't give them the charges in advance didn't give them uh the evidence that you held is that right yes and it it goes to question the motivation for this case was it just to get the initial conviction and and now let's go to the motivation with uh Mr Smith you were denied the ability to answer a great many questions so hopefully you'll be able to answer uh the ones you want to here today um have you in your history with the FEC have you ever seen the FEC take State charges and Link them to an FEC violation in order to get a felony and then take it to the federal court and charge somebody no so the federal government doesn't grab State cases to L to make something that is normally a fine and make it a crime correct no it does not okay and so if you had a situation in which and this is an if because it didn't happen but if you had a situation in which somebody took their own money and used it and then did not declare it is that usually uh uh you know there was failure to to file is that usually something that you would bring them up at the FEC and refer them for criminal felony charges uh it would be extremely rare that it would be referred for criminal charges you'd have to show clear intent so in this case specifically the FEC made a decision that what they pulled to in addition to state to make this a crime that they could charge a felony on is something that not only normally wouldn't happen but in this case specifically was looked at and didn't happen the FC declined to prosecute because there wasn't a case here right they not only declined to refer it to justice for criminal charges but they declined to bring civil charges themselves which is what You' normally do if you just thought it was an error or something so it wasn't even worth a fine much less a criminal prosecution thank you I yield back gentlemen yields back gent from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman When Donald Trump's Supreme Court overturned roie Wade millions of Americans lost the right to make their own healthc care decisions since Trump did this 14 States enacted extreme abortion banss wreaking havoc on the lives of American women and families it happened in my home state of Florida and more States will follow suit and now Trump's team has a detailed blueprint for what his next four years God forbid would look like called project 2025 it's 900 pages of legal and administrative assaults on our freedoms rights and progress Mr Woo you're very familiar with Trump's project 2025 and have a deep legal background I want to ask you some rapid fire questions so if you could just start off with yes or no these current abortion bans including one in my home state of Florida are ruining women's Economic Security should project 2025 make those economic hardships worse for American women yes I believe so we know Trump abortion bans keep women in in abusive relationships would project 2025 make those horrible situations even worse yes these Trump abortion bans disproportionately harm already vulnerable populations especially lowincome and communities of color would legal assaults on abortion rights in Project 2025 inflict even more harm on these communities yes thank you Mr W I want to discuss what project 2025 would mean for women who face medical pregnancy issues Trump's abortion bans have already caused irreversible damage to Women's Health across the country with women having to turn septic and get close to death before a doctor can legally perform a life-saving abortion despite earlier intervention being medically warranted the bottom line Trump's abortion bans have led to inflicting unnecessary brutal pain and harm to women including preventable deaths that's not some democratic talking point that's directly from doctors a majority of OB GYN stated that when Trump overturned roie Wade it increased maternal deaths and discourages doctors from even going into the field in a survey 70% of providers say they believe it has also worsened existing racial and ethnic inequalities this comes from the men and women who actually care for their patients doctors who took an oath to do no harm legal hurdles are causing harmful Health outcomes Mr W do you think that innocent women women truly trying to receive necessary Healthcare will be unfairly criminalized by project 2025 yes I do and I think in particular some of the language in the project 2025 document such as the phrase abortion tourism I find to be deeply offensive women do not take vacations in order to have abortions I agree that it is deeply offensive and dangerous to use language like that project 2025 is an explicit 900 page playbook for a second Trump term and it's clear that it targets women Trump's project 2025 lays out plans to make sure that abortion is not considered Healthcare it aims to get the FDA to reverse its decades long approval of the abortion drug mistone in order to get it off the market the Trump plan calls for defunding Planned Parenthood and excluding it from Medicaid which is how millions of women get preventative screenings and other vital Healthcare unrelated to abortions we know the same extreme anti-choice groups that helped craft Trump's project 2025 would also try to exclude some forms of emergency contraception from no cost coverage and gut access to IVF Trump's project 2025 blueprint even calls on the CDC to increase quote unquote abortion surveillance including requiring states to submit invasive privacy violating data and information about patients who receive abortions this creates a modern-day handmaids tale these dangerous alarming policies will ensure that women are second-class citizens its extreme magga goals will cause suffering and in some instances death Mr Woo as a legal analyst with extensive experience as a federal prosecutor can you explain some of the danger American women face by criminalizing abortion like this well immediately what happens is they're being uh forced to choose between their health versus being prosecuted which is a terrible situation no one should ever have to face the point that you make Congressman with regard to surveillance I think that's extremely dangerous I mean that is a weaponization of Health Care statistics to use those statistics to further criminal punishment of innocent women who were simply seeking to protect their own health and to further decisions that really should just be between them and their doctors well I'm glad that in this committee we finally exposing what the real weaponization of government is was under former president Trump and would be again and lastly as my time expires in the next 30 seconds isn't this working towards a complete and total National Abortion ban and isn't that what project 202 2025 makes clear the goal is if former president Trump were reelected again I think it does I mean it sets out a blueprint to get at that goal through numerous ways thank you very much I you'll back balance of my time gent lady yields back uh Professor Smith in your opening uh excuse me your written testimony you said that the lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo in his opening statement in the court accused president Trump of violating the federal election campaign act but the FEC didn't bring charges I think you've said a couple times is that true it's correct and the Department of Justice didn't bring charges that's correct and if president Trump camp had paid for it it wouldn't have been reported until after the election is that right that's correct and did President Trump's campaign have the money to pay for it yes they had plenty of money like 7 eight million bucks still in hand on Election Day I think right yes and certainly president Trump had the money to pay for it he's not yes he'd already spent over 60 million yeah he they already they already done that was it a political contribution uh no I I do not believe so for a reason stated I can elaborate on those now but you know but not only do you not believe so their star witness didn't believe so Michael Cohen said he was working clear back in 2011 to deal with this Miss Daniels making the allegations and wouldn't make this public and he was doing it for other reasons isn't that correct yes they have been concerned about Daniels for a long time and keeping her quiet so the obligation wasn't caused by President Trump's candidacy for president of the United States is that right no it was not okay Mr fahe uh in your written testimony you said one of the most alarming aspects of the case is that the fraud quote fraud did not involve anyone losing money or even being harmed in any way to the extent that The Ledger entry entries were inaccurate they were entered into the books of a private company that understood what they were for it is unheard of for a fraud case to be brought where no losses were suffered so there weren't any losses in this this case at all were there yeah that's what makes us so remarkable and just yeah I I can't even imagine someone bringing a fraud case to the United States attorney's office where nobody lost money there were no victims and no one was worse off at the end of it it just makes it laughable even before you get to steps two through probably 20 that make this case really absurd to have been brought to begin with it wasn't a contribution if it was a contribution it would have been wouldn't have been reported until after the election and no one suffered any losses and yet they bring this charge against President Trump I find that just amazing if that's not political motivation I don't know because what other motivation could there be yeah it's really almost inarguable at this point that the motivation for this case was political it's really I've never heard a serious argument that that it should have been prosecuted otherwise I Know M Mr Woo might might have one but I just haven't haven't heard that because it seems political from the you know from the Inception all the way to the end yeah wasn't a contribution wouldn't have been reported even if it was if they Tre paid that out of the campaign no one suffered loss and yet there was some kind of conspiracy to impact an election but that's not the worst of it the worst of it is they didn't tell the defendant what the crime was he was being charged with isn't that right judge that's correct right from the indictment he was uh Donald Trump was charged with falsifying business records to elevate that crime to a felony uh he had to be concealing or committing other crimes when did the defendant in this trial in this case learned what he was being charged with at the end of the trial at the end of the trial that's not supposed to happen in America is it judge no that is uh illegal so not only did you not know what he's being charged with in the end at the end of the trial when he learned what it was the judge also told the jury oh you don't have to be unanimous in finding what we just discovered the charge actually was it's extraordinarily egregious error to tell a jury they don't have to be unanimous and I might add by the way those charges the three additional ones were never specified they're described generally so we don't know what exactly the jury thought was the illegality that was committed by Donald Trump we we have a very inspe verdict campaign Finance uh expert says it wasn't a contribution and even if it was a contribution if they treated as contrib paid it out of the campaign it wouldn't have been reported till after the election so there's no conspiracy to influence the election no one suffered any harm or fraud in the initial case former prosecutor tells us and the judge tells us that the defendant didn't know what he was charged with until the end of the trial and the judge gave instructions to the jury never mind the fact the judge should have recused himself which you point out in your written testimony judge the judge didn't tell the jury or told the jury you don't have to be unanimous but the real thing here is the opportunity cost and you rais this in your testimony Mr fagy the opportunity cost when Alvin brag did the day one memo says we are not going to charge all these felonies we're going to bring him down to misdemeanors and let the bad guys roam the streets of New York how that squares with what happened here that to me is the real issue that's the issue that most Americans see like we're going to do this to the the former president of the United States meanwhile take felony charges against really bad guys on the street and bring them down to misdemeanors that's the opportunity cost here I believe in Manhattan you get the last word Mr F yeah exactly when you're letting carjackers out on bail or illegal immigrants that assault police officers aren't getting prosecuted but this is the way you're using your time in addition to the fact you run on a softon crime policy and then you take the most creative aggressive approach to this crime it's hard to argue as anything other than a political motivation chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Texas okay I got a lot of ground to cover um I do want to clarify Mr fahe when you consistently talk about NY or or New York crime you're speaking um in an opinionated stance you're not speaking from a place of facts correct no I'm speaking from a place of facts okay well let me clarify you thank you so much I'm reclaiming my time let me clarify for you that NYPD puts out reports and in April it said overall index crime across New York City dropped another 4.9% as it relates to May the report says overall index crime across New York dropped another 2.4% and June's report hasn't come out I would ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record 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 I'm going to 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 uh 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 count State Court in New York um would that be the legislative people or judicial people well it's really the executive it'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 legis ative Branch or is there a different process in which you are supposed to be able to um explain any issues you may have the process would be the judicial appell 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 cuz 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 cuz 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 passed 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 no absolutely not absolutely not cuz he's the executor huh that's that other Branch correct that's that okay okay all right so you have this prosecutor and in this case it's Alvin brck 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 Place correct prior to his election no no no when it with a with a case I'm sorry I moved on 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 pre-trial motions there's pre-trial hearings all kinds of stuff right right all right and then ultimately the depending on where you are you have the opportunity to say hey I wanton a jury trial correct correct and a jury trial is comprised of US 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 uh 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 in this case the judge to and in this case they found him guilty not once not twice not three times not four not five not6 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 appellant court the last time I checked he was raising money so that he could go to the appell court and appeal his decision and they will have the final say so thank you so much yes they will uh the general lady y's back and the gentleman from North Dakota is recognized thank you Mr chair if I may just a quick um I just wanted to say is just as a point of personal privilege um Linda Sanchez is not with us today um and she is at the funeral for her legislative director uh Chandler Mason who served this body and served this country for a number of years and I just want to say on behalf of I believe all of us here that we extend condolences to her family um to the office of congresswoman Sanchez and pray for um God to give them Comfort during this time for the untimely death of Miss Mason no well well said we I appreciate bringing that attention I should have uh this is my oversight I should have said something about uh our colleague Mr Massie um Mr Davidson and I and our paully and Lisa and I had a chance to go down and visit with Thomas a week ago Sunday uh he's doing is as good as you can under these these difficult difficult circumstances and his wife Rhonda was an amazing person so to both to both MERS of this committee thank you for bringing that up gentlemen from North dakot is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and I very much appreciate uh the uh questioning from my friend from Texas she's one of the few other people that has actually practiced criminal defense and Public Defense and as somebody who's done that for a very long time I appreciate that very much uh I never did practice in New York I also have a practiced in federal court and I've practiced in state court and passed several bar exams as well uh judge Wilson What's the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York one year uh when was this what is the what is the business records case is a misdemeanor correct the uh underlying crime the falsified business records yes that's a misima charge so the only way to get to a felony is by committing it or is by in concealment of another crime correct uh and each one of those crimes has specific elements that's right and you have to prove in order to get a conviction at trial you have to prove every element of the crime Beyond A Reasonable Doubt right that's just traditionally how this works that is the right way to do it so in the indictment did they put the underlying crime no they did not they only described it as other crimes okay and in the jury instructions did they put the specific underlying crime no the um falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions there was some brief description of the uh New York state election law violation but there was no description given of the three choice of three crimes there was a description given of falsifying business records which was pretty ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records so and that's also a misdemeanor right that should be yeah so you have two plus 2 equals 6 like if you commit two misdemeanors you get to the felony statute of limitations which they had to get or they could have never brought the case that's correct but there there's some more question marks regarding the statute limitations of it's not