Emery Gainey (00:00):
… aren't engaged in this. It's affected the department's reputation and why I'm such a big believer in Pam Bondi and what she can do, and try to restore credibility to an agency that has been weaponized and politicized and get it back to its core function, which is objectively administering justice and taking on violent crime. And I just want to ask you, in your experience with Pam Bondi, this has been what she's done. She's a career prosecutor, right? I mean, you can see her embracing this role of working with, whether it's the US Attorneys or other law enforcement around the country, of taking on violent crime, because we need leadership there. We've got a lot of… Crime has gone up. And I'm from a state that has st. Louis and Kansas City, and we had partnerships when I was attorney general with the US Attorneys Office to take on violent crime. And when Joe Biden came into office, those were severed for political reasons, which is wrong. It's not a partisan issue. Do you see that as a role that she will play as attorney general?
Mr. Cox (01:03):
Absolutely. But what you just described about the relations with law enforcement is what not only she practiced, she encouraged all of us around her to do, and I could not agree more with you about your assessment of Ms. Bondi on that. Look, we're prosecutors. I mean, in her heart, Pam's a prosecutor, and our job is to go in and fight crime. But we don't take lightly, those of us that are career prosecutors, that our job is to do justice. I mean, that's what the courts have said. And in her heart, 100%, that's Pam Bondi. It really is. So yes, and she… Pam loves law enforcement. I mean, let's not kid each other, we all love law enforcement and everything they stand for. And so yes, sir, I believe she would do that with law enforcement and prosecutors. She did it in Florida.
Emery Gainey (01:54):
And we'll talk offline about your role. It's an interesting role. Because in Missouri, the local prosecutors are the ones… There's no Office of Statewide Prosecutors, so I'm not going to ask you about that, I just find that-
Mr. Cox (02:05):
Not common.
Emery Gainey (02:05):
It's not a common thing. But in your experience in serving with Pam Bondi, did you find her committed to enforcing the law equally and impartially?
Mr. Cox (02:18):
Oh, yes, sir, I did. I mean, that's what we're supposed to do, and she embraced it. Yes, sir, she did.
Emery Gainey (02:23):
Thank you.
Mr. Cox (02:24):
She is a complete prosecutor. She is a total prosecutor. And that's why when I speak to her independence, it's because she believes in it and it's in [inaudible 00:02:34]. I mean, seeing her recently, I mean, I know that's where she is. I really truly meant it when I said to my colleagues at the US Department of Justice, "If confirmed, you're going to love working with Pam Bondi."
Emery Gainey (02:45):
I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I was thrilled to be able to give that introduction yesterday of Pam. I think she's going to be an outstanding attorney general, and I think she… Like I said yesterday, I think she deserves a bipartisan vote, not only in this committee, but on the Senate floor. Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Cox (03:00):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
Senator Welch, you're next.
Senator Welch (03:04):
Thank you very much. And I thank all the witnesses, I read your statements in Washington. I want to thank the Florida folks for being here on behalf of somebody that you know well and worked with a long time. She clearly is a competent person and has quite a resume. So you've reaffirmed that.
(03:24)
The couple of questions that I have are less about her and her qualifications and more about this question that looms out there, where there's a mutual concern here about not using the justice system for political reasons. And there's a point of view with my Republican colleagues, it's been used that way in the prosecutions against Donald Trump. I don't agree with that, but I hear them on that. And there's a concern on my part, and I think a lot of others, that Donald Trump has made very explicit statements that he intends to pursue political adversaries, and he's named them, including my colleague Mr. Schiff, Liz Cheney.
(04:12)
And he's a… He is now a president who enjoys the benefit of the… He will be a president who enjoys the benefit of the immunity decision by the Supreme Court. I strongly disagree with that decision. I don't think anybody is above the law. That's the whole basis upon which our country was founded. But I take him seriously when he says he wants a prosecutor to go after his political adversaries. And the tradition in the Justice Department since Watergate has been to really create a near firewall between the administration, the executive in the Justice Department, because of its special role. And all of you are law enforcement, so you just know how awesome that power is that you have and you have to have restraint as well as aggression.
(05:07)
So how does a attorney general handle a president who has already put an immense amount of pressure on Bill Barr, one of his attorney general, who did it on Mr. Sessions? And shouldn't we take seriously the president's threat, President Trump's threat, that he's going to go after his political adversaries? And how do we deal with that and how do we assess that in terms of this decision? I'll ask you, Ms. McCord, to start.
Ms. McCord (05:38):
Thank you, Senator. As we know that in the first Trump administration, Attorney General Sessions made the decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because of his work with Donald Trump during the campaign and because of meetings he had had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. He recognized that appearance of impropriety and the need for independence. He also appointed a special counsel to take over that investigation. Those are the kind of steps that are required when there could be pressure, and there was pressure put on Attorney General Sessions. Indeed, I think forever after that recusal decision, he fell out of favor with the president, and ultimately was fired. But those are the things that an independent attorney general needs to take seriously and needs to do to demonstrate that commitment to independence from political influence.
Senator Welch (06:33):
And what's difficult here is that none of us know… Whoever is in that job and is confronted by a very determined President Trump to do something that, from the prosecution point of view, may not be appropriate, a political prosecution of an adversary for payback. There's no way to know how any of us, as committed as we are, would be able to withstand that pressure. But I'll talk to you, sir. You work… Yeah. You work with Pam Bondi and have a high opinion of her. I'll just get you… I'll give you the opportunity to say how she would be able to withstand what I think is inevitably going to be an enormous amount of pressure by the president, at a certain point, when he decides, directed towards whoever serves as his attorney general.
Mr. Cox (07:33):
Let me start out by saying I've been fortunate enough not to be in that situation because I've had attorneys general that I work for, like Pam Bondi and Ashley Moody. However, a prosecutor's job is a solemn thing. The impact we have on lives is… You mentioned the power and you're absolutely right. It's got to be respected, it's got to be appreciated, it's got to be embraced. And sometimes that means that I've been in positions before where I've thought, "If I do or say this, I could lose my job." But you've got to be willing to do that. I don't know how else to say it. It's tough. It's very tough. My job, fortunately, is really not a political job because of my AGs, but you do have to be in the position sometimes when right is right to have to stand up and buck up.
Senator Welch (08:31):
All right. Well, thank you very much. I yield back
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz (08:36):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to each of the witnesses who are here today. Mr. Cox, let me start with you.
Mr. Cox (08:42):
Yes, sir.
Senator Cruz (08:43):
You worked with Attorney General Bondi for over 35 years.
Mr. Cox (08:47):
Yes, sir.
Senator Cruz (08:48):
Can you speak to her leadership style and how she managed the Attorney Generals Office?
Mr. Cox (08:54):
Fair. Of course, very kind, but firm. She
Mr. Cox (09:00):
She was very decisive. That's what I liked about her. But in her decision, Ms. Bondi always listened. There were times she, and I disagreed, several times, many times where we would disagree, and she would hear me out. Sometimes I'd change her mind, believe it, or not. It wasn't often, but it happened. But sometimes she would listen to me, and go the way she felt. That was her job. She was the attorney general. But she is very firm. She's very decisive. And I will tell you the number of times I walked with her, she appreciates my role, and our role as prosecutors. The number of times I would walk away from her, and she wouldn't agree with my decision, maybe on a particular case, and she would tell me, "Do what you got to do." I mentioned it earlier in my statement, that's the Pam Bondi that I worked with. That's why I'm so confident in her that she can fill this role.
Senator Cruz (09:53):
So, I think the single most important responsibility that General Bondi will have at the Department of Justice is restoring integrity to the department. I think over the last four years we have seen a pattern of politicization, and weaponization of the Department of Justice that has done massive damage to that institution, a storied institution that is incredibly important for the rule of law. Speak to your assessment of General Bondi's integrity, and her ability to restore integrity to DOJ.
Mr. Cox (10:33):
Might I just answer that first off by saying she's a prosecutor, and that's what we're supposed to do. I've spoke to it several times, and I won't repeat myself, senator. At her heart, she believes in the system. She believes in what we do. I don't think it gets more, with all due respect to everybody in this room, and that may be listening, I don't know how much more serious it gets on impacting lives than being a prosecutor, and being a judge who has to handle these cases. And she's always respected that. I mentioned in my statement, she's never forgotten, she's never lost her humanity, and she hasn't. She, might I say, I don't know if this is answering your question, Pam Bondi likes people, and she wants people to like her. And I don't know that that's so bad for an attorney general either, but she appreciates the impact of this job. I hope I've answered your question, senator.
Senator Cruz (11:27):
All right, Mr. Aronberg let's turn to you. So, you, and I have known each other 30 years. We were classmates in law school. It's good to see you. Welcome to the swamp. You live in Palm Beach, which is a lot nicer weather than it is up here. And you spent three terms as the elected state attorney in Palm Beach County. You're a Democrat. You ran as a Democrat, were elected as a Democrat. And you also in this last election voted for Kamala Harris. Is that right?
Hon. Dave Aronberg (12:05):
Correct.
Senator Cruz (12:06):
You have also worked closely with General Bondi.
Hon. Dave Aronberg (12:11):
Correct.
Senator Cruz (12:12):
In your judgment, describe same question I asked Mr. Cox, how would you describe her leadership style, and how would you describe her integrity?
Hon. Dave Aronberg (12:21):
Yeah. Well, Senator Cruz, in full disclosure, we weren't just classmates, you, and I, We lived in the same dorm, first year before either of us had any gray hair.
Senator Cruz (12:30):
And burn those pictures.
Hon. Dave Aronberg (12:33):
Fair enough. Mr. Cox is right. She has a very hands-on style. Everyone in the office knows her. She was not isolated from the rest of us. She walked the hallways. She was friends with everyone. She brought her dog to work sometimes, even though it probably violated code, and it was a big dog, the St. Bernard, she was a very likable.
Senator Cruz (12:57):
It didn't have a barrel of whiskey under her [inaudible 00:12:59], did it?
Hon. Dave Aronberg (12:59):
Only in Bugs Bunny cartoons. She's a very likable person, and I think you'll find that from everyone who knows her in Tallahassee, and throughout Florida. It's hard not to like. You can disagree with her politically, and she, and I have our political differences. But as far as a boss, she never tried to big time anyone. She's a person like everyone else. She expects the best from people, but she has a real human touch about her.
Senator Cruz (13:26):
Now, you also worked with her very closely, in particular in going after pill mills. Can you describe what you, and she were able to accomplish together on that?
Hon. Dave Aronberg (13:34):
We were able to shut down the pill mills, Florida was the pill supplier for the rest of the country. 98 of the top a hundred doctors who dispense pills were in Florida. It was a national embarrassment. The Oxycontin Express was from Appalachia down to Florida. People would come down, buy their drugs, use abuse, and then go home, and sell them for a profit. We ended that. She appointed me to be the lead person, but we could not have done it without her. She was the person who got the legislature to change the laws. We couldn't have done any of that without that. She was the one who convinced them to pass the prescription drug monitoring program that was indispensable. So, it was her leadership that really led to a dramatic decrease in the number of deaths from opioid overdoses.
Senator Cruz (14:16):
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Welch (14:22):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for testifying today. Professor McCord, I'd like to ask you about January 6th attack on the US Capitol. Can you succinctly define domestic terrorism?
Ms. McCord (14:37):
Domestic terrorism under the United States Code is an act of violence that is a crime under federal, or state law that is done with the attempt to influence a policy of government through intimidation, or coercion.
Senator Welch (14:51):
Based on that definition, were some of the acts committed on January 6th acts of domestic terrorism?
Ms. McCord (14:57):
Certainly the acts of violence that violate the criminal code do seem to have appeared for many of the people based on their own statements, many of the defendants in cases that are being prosecuted, they seem to have been done to influence the policy of the government, and specifically to not certify the electoral college ballots on January 6th.
Senator Welch (15:17):
Yesterday, Ms. Bondi refused to disavow President Trump calling the insurrectionists hostages, and patriots. What effect would President Trump's pardoning of these criminals have on our country? [inaudible 00:15:34] message if that were to happen?
Ms. McCord (15:38):
Senator, I believe it would've an enormous impact on the criminal legal system. And I would say also on our judiciary. In fact, I published a piece about that this morning in the Atlantic. We have our federal judges here appointed by Republicans, Democrats, and President Trump himself, who uniformly have condemned the crimes of those who have been convicted due to their attack on the US Capitol. That anything close to a blanket, pardon, which is what has been suggested but not promised by Donald Trump without individual consideration of cases, would severely undermine these federal judges, and undermine the criminal legal system.
Senator Welch (16:20):
We know, and this has come up with one of my colleagues. We know from the disastrous Supreme Court immunity decision that President Trump pretty much has a free pass to do what he wants. An unfettered president is even more dangerous if the Department of Justice is not independent. So, based on your extensive experience of the DOJ, are there warning signs that we should watch for to signal that the DOJ has lost its independence?
Ms. McCord (16:57):
Senator, I think as we've seen sometimes in the past, that when there are concerns among the career prosecutors, and law enforcement officials at the department who have responsibility over investigations, and cases, when they have felt pressured, many of them have actually resigned. We saw that during the first Trump administration with respect to some of the prosecutions involving Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone.
Senator Welch (17:21):
So, I take it that people resigning is one indication that all is not well, that independence is maybe not what's in practice. I'm just wondering if we were to ask the attorney general, if the President ordered you, or suggested, or hinted that you go after his perceived political enemies, would the attorney general be able to cite attorney-client privilege, and not respond to us?
Ms. McCord (17:52):
I don't want to give a legal opinion on that, senator. I do think that that is the
Ms. McCord (18:00):
… type of pressure that we are looking to an attorney general to stand up to from the White House. And I certainly want to take Ms. Bondi at her word when she under oath yesterday said she would exercise independence.
Senator Welch (18:12):
Well, the thing is what's deeply concerning about Ms. Bondi is that she's very loyal to President-elect Trump and he demands 100% loyalty of all of his people. So yesterday, Ms. Bondi could not say that President Biden had won the election in 2020. That is a basic fact. And I think that it was her loyalty to President-elect Trump that basically made it hard for her, impossible for her, to say that President Biden had won the election. So that is concerning.
(18:55)
Based on what we heard yesterday, I'm very concerned that if confirmed Attorney General Bondi will say yes, if and when President Trump asked her to do something illegal. And the thing is that not much of what President-elect Trump will do is going to be deemed illegal because of the Supreme Court's disastrous immunity decision. I'm really struggling with how are we to know that all is not well in terms of the independence of the DOJ? One thing would be if they adopt the policy, if the president adopts a policy, that he will not order the DOJ around, even if this incoming president has said that the Justice Department is basically his law firm. So if you have any further suggestions aside from people actually resigning, to indicate that the kind of independence we are looking for is not being followed, I would welcome that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Britt (20:03):
Yes. And Senator Hirono, your time is up. Thank you.
Senator Welch (20:03):
Please respond.
Senator Britt (20:04):
Thank you. Let's see. Mr. Cox? I'd like to start with you. I heard your comments with regards to both Pam Bondi, who we are here for today, and you heap praise on Attorney General Moody, who you work for as well. I'd like to say a public congratulations to her being named Senate designee and be the next senator from Florida. Oh, look, I get to deliver the news to you. So DeSantis just came out and said she will be joining us. I am thrilled. I mean, as a mom of school-aged kids, to have another woman sitting right here next to me fighting for the people that we serve with what I understand is her brilliant intellect, her ability and her passion for the people of Florida, which I know she will bring to the United States Senate. I cannot wait to call her a colleague. So on behalf of me and all of us, welcome to Attorney General Moody as new senate designee. We look forward to her taking the ranks.
Mr. Cox (21:10):
Might I respond or comment just briefly?
Senator Britt (21:11):
Sure. Absolutely.
Mr. Cox (21:13):
Senators, you're going to love Ashley Moody. She is a wonderful person to work with. She's brilliant. That is … wow.
Senator Britt (21:24):
Wow, right?
Mr. Cox (21:24):
Thank you for telling me.
Senator Britt (21:26):
I'm so excited. I got to tell you.
Mr. Cox (21:27):
Best thing about it is I can say I learned that in the United States Senate.
Senator Britt (21:30):
In the United States Senate. That's right. And hopefully she will be here just in the next few days after we confirm Senator Rubio, who's going to do an exceptional job as Secretary of State. So congratulations to Ashley and cannot wait to serve with her.
Mr. Cox (21:43):
Thank you.
Senator Britt (21:43):
So now let's talk about another amazing woman, Pam Bondi. I have heard you over and over again when you respond to questions talking about her, I think you said she is fair, kind, and firm. You have talked about the fact that she is transparent and impartial. I would like for you one more time to say to the American people, based on your previous work with Pam Bondi, can you explain how she'll continue to operate, you believe in that manner, in a fair and transparent manner, as she takes the helm of the Justice Department.
Mr. Cox (22:16):
Because she believes in everything you just questioned me about and she practiced it in Florida. Whether you agreed with her or not, Pam Bondi, like I said, is a person who really likes people. I think we should welcome that into government. I think that sometimes we lose sight of … Prosecutors. I'm going to speak to myself. We can lose sight of the fact of the ranking member mentioned the immense power that we have and we get caught up in it. Pam Bondi doesn't get caught up in those kinds of trappings.
Senator Britt (22:47):
I love it.
Mr. Cox (22:48):
Yeah, she loves people and she at her heart, again, is a prosecutor. As Mr. Aronberg had mentioned, nobody has anything to fear from Pam Bondi. She is going to be a breath of fresh air if y'all send her there.
Senator Britt (23:01):
Absolutely. And I think we need to restore those very things, fairness and transparency to the department. And I look forward to her taking the helm. She's going to do that for the American people and it's an exciting new day. So thank you so very much.
Mr. Cox (23:15):
Thank you for the news.
Senator Britt (23:16):
Absolutely. We are thrilled. Mr. Aronberg, I learned obviously that we need to talk with you offline about getting the stories on Cruz, right? And also that she has a St. Bernard. I have a Newfoundland. So who knew that we both had love for the large dogs. And Sheriff Gainey, I know that you've had an opportunity to work with Pam Bondi as well. I want to talk to you specifically, both of you, about the opioid epidemic. About what we've seen with drug trafficking. I mentioned it yesterday. We heard Pam lean into this as well. But there is nowhere in my state that I travel where someone does not tell me a story about losing a loved one to opioid abuse, addiction, overdose.
(23:59)
And so tell me from your experience, and how she works with state and local law enforcement officers, state and local leaders. I'm a big believer that local leaders know best. And you have people that come to DC that somehow get here and believe that we become experts on every issue. And the truth is you have to talk to the boots on the ground to learn what to do, how to do it, and to affect real change. And so can you both speak to her relationships with state and local law enforcement and workforce and how you believe she'll carry that to the Department of Justice, please.
Hon. Dave Aronberg (24:33):
I'll start. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Senator Britt. Thank you for the news about Attorney General Moody. I hope Nick Cox still has a job when he goes home. When I was her Attorney General Bondi's drug czar, we were visited by Gil Kurlikowski, who was President Obama's drug czar nationally. And it was a very productive meeting. I still have the pictures from that meeting. Not once was there ever a discussion that, well, he's from the Feds, we shouldn't trust him. He's a Democrat, we shouldn't trust him. None of that. We were just trying to get the job done.
(25:05)
And so she's seen it from both perspectives as a state official working with the Feds and now being a federal official working with the locals. One, the person who can best talk about how she has a great relationship with local law enforcement is Emery Gainey, because he was the liaison. She had a special liaison within her office to make sure that she had a seamless relationship working with local officials. I saw it. But Mr. Gainey is the best to talk about it.
Senator Britt (25:29):
Yes. And Sheriff Gainey, if you don't mind leaning into that, I am out of time, but would love to hear your response.
Emery Gainey (25:34):
Thank you, Senator. Unequivocally, that's one of the four leaning rules of Pan Bondi, work with our law enforcement leaders, learn and understand the issues that each of those face … I mentioned earlier, we are a large state, as you well know. So there are diverse issues that the law enforcement [inaudible 00:25:54] in our state, the others have to deal with. Pam listens to those. She encourages to those. She asks for advice and wants to know what's happening in the community. Just the whole pill mill and the bath salt issue was brought to her by a Panhandle sheriff, quite frankly.
(26:09)
What we've learned in law enforcement, we often see these things first. We start seeing these trends and then we try to get them to our legislators and our cabinet leaders to say, this is happening in our state. Sometimes they listen to us, other times they don't. Pam listened. She listened right away. She immediately sought out to understand what was causing that issue, and then sought legislation to get it done against some of our Republican legislators at the time who didn't want it. But her tenacity prevailed. She got it done. Our state is a safer state because of Pam Bondi.
Senator Britt (26:43):
Wonderful. Thank you so much. Senator Schiff.
Senator Schiff (26:48):
Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. Greatly appreciate your testimony. Ms. McCord, thank you for all your good work over the years.
Senator Schiff (27:00):
You testified before the committee last September on the repercussions of Trump v. United States, the case on presidential immunity. You wrote, I think in your written testimony, "There's nothing stopping a president from directing the investigation of his political enemies, journalists, or activists, even where there is no basis for doing so."
(27:22)
As you will recall from the hearing yesterday, I asked Ms. Bondi a number of questions about what her intentions were, how she would respond if the president asked her to investigate someone, whether she thought there was a factual predicate for a case, for example, an investigation against Jack Smith or Liz Cheney. For the most part, she refused to answer any specific question, it didn't give me a lot of confidence in her willingness to push back against those kind of improper orders from the President.
(27:55)
What should the Attorney General do if a president is now, by virtue of this dangerous Supreme Court decision, immune from prosecution, from violating the law and using the Department of Justice to do it, it doesn't mean the Attorney General should go along with it. What should the Attorney General do if the president says, "I want you to investigate such and such political opponent?"
Ms. McCord (28:20):
Well, first of all, I would say the immunity decision right now as far as we know, applies only to the president. And so there's no immunity for Attorney General Bondi if she were to engage in illegal activity or unconstitutional activity in carrying out a directive of Donald Trump.
(28:37)
But I think before we even get to that, it would be important for her to make clear that she is not going to direct her department attorneys or the FBI to initiate unfounded investigations. As the Departments of Justice, throughout all of my tenure there, always we followed the facts and the law, and did not target any person for investigation based on political reasons. So it's really, that's why the independence is so much more important even now in the wake of that decision, because she is the first person to have a position of standing up to the president.
Senator Schiff (29:18):
I also asked Ms. Bondi whether she would commit to preserving the evidence that was gathered as a part of the January 6th investigation by the department. She refused to commit to even preserving the evidence. Are there laws in place, or is it merely department policy not to destroy evidence? Should we have any confidence that that evidence will be preserved?
Ms. McCord (29:44):
Well, there certainly are Federal Records Act obligations that require the records be maintained. And so I think that she would be well-advised to consult with attorneys, career attorneys who specialize in that in the Department of Justice and be guided by their counsel. And it's certainly important in these cases, as in every case prosecuted by the Department of Justice or investigated, to maintain records.
Senator Schiff (30:11):
And if I can ask both you and Ms. Gilbert a recusal question, so Ms. McCord, maybe let me ask you about where you think the circumstance would be appropriate for her to recuse herself vis-a-vis her prior representation of the President, and Ms. Gilbert in terms of her corporate clients as a lobbyist, when would it be appropriate for her to recuse herself from working on or influencing department decisions vis-a her former lobbyist clients?
Ms. McCord (30:45):
Senator Schiff, I think with respect to her previous personal representation of Donald Trump, she needs to be very concerned, as William French Smith was when he took on this job for President Reagan, having been Reagan's personal attorney, that anything that would appear to be improper, that would show impartiality, she should recuse from.
(31:09)
So for example, investigations into anyone who was involved in the first impeachment proceedings or prosecution because she defended Donald Trump in those proceedings, even any investigations or prosecutions into those involved with the cases against Donald Trump because she has made public statements about prosecutors and investigators needing to be targeted potentially. She's used the term, "The bad ones." I'm not sure what that means in legal parlance.
(31:39)
So I think these are the types of matters, including also civil matters. There is, Donald Trump has through his attorneys, filed all notice of a civil action against the Department of Justice based on the search of Mar-a-Lago. Clearly it would be improper for her to take any part in responding to that case.
Senator Britt (31:59):
Thank you. And I just would like to note that obviously yesterday she clarified that she'd never represented President Trump in a personal matter, but actually worked there directly with the White House. Also, it's interesting because we have seen this body confirm members who have lobbied for the Chinese Communist Party and confirmed them to positions at ODNI. And it didn't seem that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had an issue with that.
(32:25)
And it's also interesting that we continue to hear General Sessions being brought up at these hearings over and over again. I do want to remind people, obviously he is from the great state of Alabama, but not one member of the Democratic Party in this actual hearing voted for him through his confirmation process. So I just want to make sure that we set the record straight on that as well. But thank you to all of our witnesses.
Senator Schiff (32:54):
Ms. Britt, I know I'm out of time.
Senator Britt (32:54):
Yes?
Senator Schiff (32:55):
Would it be possible for the other witness to answer? She didn't have an opportunity because the clock ran out.
Senator Britt (33:00):
I think we are out of time, but I appreciate that, thank you.
(33:02)
And thank you to our witnesses for testifying today. I know that some of you traveled long and hard to be here and we are grateful that you did that. The record will stay open until 5:00 p.m. tonight, and so if you would like to add something to that, you are more than welcome to, and all written questions are due at that time as well. The hearing is adjourned.