'I'm Tired Of This': Ralph Norman Admonishes Jerry Nadler During Tense Exchange At Hearing

Summary

In a heated congressional debate, a South Carolina representative criticizes the opposition for using 'smoke screens' and diverting attention from the main issue, which is the alleged withholding of audio tapes related to a case involving Hunter Biden. The speaker expresses frustration over the lack of transparency and accuses the Department of Justice of delaying the release of these tapes. The debate also touches on the legitimacy of trials and the potential consequences for non-compliance with subpoenas, with an underlying tension over executive privilege and the integrity of the judicial process.

Takeaways

• 📜 The speaker expresses frustration with perceived 'smoke screens' and diversions from the main topic of discussion, which seems to be related to a video and its associated transcript.
• 👨‍⚖️ There is a mention of a trial of Donald Trump, where the speaker criticizes the judge involved as being biased, and the context suggests a contentious political climate.
• 🔍 The speaker raises concerns about Hunter Biden, mentioning gun charges, financial dealings with China, and art transactions, indicating a broader investigation or controversy.
• 🗣️ The script includes a debate about the legitimacy and authenticity of a transcript and an audio tape, with accusations of tampering or withholding of evidence.
• 🏛️ The Department of Justice (DOJ) is implicated in the handling of the investigation and the audio tape, with one character, Mr. Her, being highlighted as the investigator.
• 📝 There is a discussion about the process of subpoenas and document production, with the DOJ being criticized for not meeting deadlines and for incomplete document submissions.
• 🤔 The speaker questions the existence and integrity of the audio tape, suggesting that it may have been destroyed or altered, and there is a call for its release.
• 🚫 The assertion of executive privilege by the president is mentioned as a reason for not releasing the audio tape, with a suggestion that this is being contested.
• 📈 The script outlines a timeline of events and correspondence between the committee and the DOJ, indicating a back-and-forth over the production of the requested materials.
• 🛑 The speaker anticipates a vote on the committee and possible consequences for the Attorney General, suggesting a potential legal or political showdown.
• 📢 There is mention of major news outlets suing for access to materials that are being withheld, indicating a high level of public and media interest in the case.

Q & A

What is the main issue being discussed in the transcript?

The main issue is the controversy surrounding the release of a transcript and an audio tape, which some believe may have been altered or is being withheld from the public.

Who is Mr. Her in the context of the transcript?

Mr. Her appears to be a reference to an investigator involved in a case, possibly appointed by Mary Garland, and is associated with the Department of Justice.

What is the significance of the term 'smoke screens' in the transcript?

The term 'smoke screens' is used to describe the perceived diversionary tactics used by the opposing side to distract from the main issue at hand, which is the release of the audio tape and transcript.

What is the role of Mary Garland in this discussion?

Mary Garland is mentioned as the person who appointed Mr. Her to conduct an investigation and is believed to have possession of the audio tape in question.

Why is there a concern about the authenticity of the audio tape and transcript?

There is a concern that the audio tape and transcript may have been altered or are being withheld, and that the Judiciary Committee has previously been accused of altering audios.

What is the connection between the discussion of Hunter Biden and the main issue?

The mention of Hunter Biden seems to be a diversion from the main issue, as the speaker argues that the focus should be on the audio tape and transcript, not on unrelated matters.

What does the speaker mean by 'the Administration is lawless when it comes to obeying the law'?

The speaker is accusing the current administration of not following legal procedures or respecting the rule of law, particularly in the context of the release of the audio tape and transcript.

What is the significance of the mention of executive privilege in this context?

Executive privilege is being asserted by the president, which may be preventing the release of the audio tape. The proper way to dispute this claim is through the courts, not through a contempt citation.

What is the timeline of events described in the transcript?

The timeline includes a request for documents and communications, responses from the Department of Justice, subpoenas issued, and the DOJ's failure to meet deadlines for providing the requested materials.

What is the potential consequence for not complying with the subpoenas?

The potential consequence for not complying with the subpoenas could be a vote of contempt of Congress, which may lead to legal repercussions such as jail time.

Why does the speaker mention Richard Nixon in the context of this discussion?

The mention of Richard Nixon is to draw a historical parallel where once a transcript was released, it could not be claimed as privileged, suggesting that the current situation should be handled similarly.

Outlines

00:00

😤 Frustration Over Smokescreens and Executive Privilege

The speaker expresses frustration with perceived smokescreens and distractions during a debate, possibly about a political trial or investigation. They criticize the other side for bringing up unrelated issues, such as the trial of Donald Trump and allegations against Hunter Biden, instead of focusing on the main issue, which seems to be a video involving Hunter Biden. The speaker also questions the authenticity of a transcript and the existence of an audiotape, suggesting that the Department of Justice and an individual named Mary Garland are withholding evidence. There is a discussion about executive privilege being asserted by the president, and the proper legal channels to contest it, indicating a complex legal and political situation.

05:00

📜 Timeline of Document and Audiotape Request Dispute

This paragraph outlines a detailed timeline of events concerning a request for documents and audiotapes, which were not fully complied with by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The speaker recounts a series of correspondences and deadlines, highlighting the committee's efforts to accommodate the DOJ and their disappointment with the lack of full compliance. The speaker also raises the question of consequences for non-compliance, hinting at potential legal actions against the Attorney General, Merrick Garland. There is a mention of a declaration by a DOJ official confirming the accuracy of interview transcripts, but the speaker dismisses this as a potential cover-up, insisting on the need to release the original audiotapes for public scrutiny.

Keywords

💡Privilege

In the context of the video, 'privilege' refers to the legal right of the president or other high officials to withhold certain information from disclosure, especially in legal proceedings. It is a central theme as the speaker discusses the assertion of executive privilege in relation to withheld audio tapes, suggesting a conflict between transparency and the protection of sensitive information.

💡Smoke screens

The term 'smoke screens' is used metaphorically in the script to describe diversionary tactics or attempts to distract from the main issue at hand. The speaker accuses the opposing side of using 'smoke screens' to avoid discussing the core issue of the audio tapes and transcripts, indicating a perceived lack of transparency or honesty.

💡Executive privilege

This concept refers to the right of the president and other high-level executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and the public. In the script, it is mentioned as the reason for not releasing the audio tapes, which is a point of contention in the debate over transparency and the rule of law.

💡Transcripts

Transcripts are written versions of spoken language, typically used for legal or official records. The script discusses the release of transcripts as opposed to the original audio tapes, suggesting concerns about authenticity and the potential for alteration or omission of content.

💡Altering

The term 'altering' in the script refers to the potential manipulation or modification of the original audio tapes. It is a point of concern for the speaker, who questions the integrity of the audio if it has been altered and whether the public is being deceived by an inaccurate representation of events.

💡Contempt of Congress

Contempt of Congress is a legal charge for refusing to comply with a subpoena or to testify before Congress. The script mentions the possibility of the Attorney General facing contempt charges for not producing the audio tapes, highlighting the severity of the situation and the potential legal consequences.

💡Audio tapes

The 'audio tapes' are the central piece of evidence discussed in the script. They are the subject of a subpoena and are withheld under claims of executive privilege. The speaker is concerned about their existence, authenticity, and the reasons behind their non-disclosure.

💡Merrick Garland

Merrick Garland is the current Attorney General of the United States. In the script, he is mentioned in relation to the handling of the audio tapes and the potential legal consequences of not complying with the subpoena, indicating his role in the ongoing dispute.

💡Subpoenas

A subpoena is a legal document that compels someone to testify in a court or produce evidence. In the script, the issuance of subpoenas to Garland for the audio tapes and the subsequent non-compliance are discussed, emphasizing the legal mechanisms at play in this situation.

💡Appeal

The term 'appeal' in the script refers to the legal process of seeking a higher court's review of a lower court's decision. It is mentioned in the context of a trial involving a public figure, suggesting that the legitimacy of the trial and its rulings may be subject to further judicial scrutiny.

💡Legitimacy

Legitimacy in the script pertains to the validity and acceptability of legal processes and decisions. The speaker questions the legitimacy of the trial and the handling of evidence, indicating a broader concern about the fairness and integrity of the justice system.

Highlights

Privilege was asserted with compliance and the speaker yields back, addressing the gentleman from South Carolina.

The speaker criticizes the other side for using smoke screens and bringing up the trial of Donald Trump.

Concerns about Hunter Biden's gun charge and financial dealings, including money from China and paintings.

The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of discussion on the actual topic and the use of smoke screens.

Miss Hagerman raises the issue of trusting the authenticity of the transcript and the irrelevance of the audio.

The speaker questions the Administration's lawfulness and their attempts to prevent the public from seeing a video.

Discussion about the existence of the audio tape and who has it, implicating Mary Garland.

Concerns about the potential destruction or alteration of the audio tape.

The speaker hopes that the audio tape still exists and has not been destroyed or tampered with.

Mr. Comr Mr. N asserts that there is no reason to believe the tapes don't exist and discusses executive privilege.

The speaker points out that Hunter Biden was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers, not the subject of the current discussion.

The speaker criticizes the Judiciary Committee for potentially altering audios and producing fake versions.

Miss Can responds to the accusation, stating it is untrue and expressing embarrassment at the situation.

The speaker outlines a timeline of events regarding the request for documents and communications, including videos.

The Department of Justice's response to the request and the subsequent subpoenas issued to Garland.

The committee's notification of an inadequate production of documents and the extension offered to the DOJ.

The DOJ's failure to meet the committee's deadline and the subsequent response from the committee.

The speaker speculates on the consequences for Garland if he does not comply with the subpoenas.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of audio evidence and the need for its release to the public.

Transcripts

privilege was asserted with compli and I

yield

back sure thanks again L and Lady yields

back the gentleman from South Carolina

is

recognized you know I've sat here for

what two hours probably going to be

three or four you know and listen to

these smoke screens that my friends on

the other side of the aisle are saying

they bring up the trial of Donald Trump

convicted felon really by by a judge

that is a known anti-trumper you bring

out you bring out Mr natal I've got the

floor if if you're going to interrupt Mr

chairman call him down when he

interrupts it's my time and then I'll

let you respond but I'm tired of this

you you talk over everybody it's so rude

of you but he look you bring up the

smoke screen of Hunter

Biden uh I think we're here to talk

about a video Hunter Biden uh it is kind

of you know strange a gun charge what

about the L fake llc's that he's gotten

money from China what about the fake the

the millions he got in paintings we

don't know who contributed to him what

about um I mean you can name a lot of

other charges but we're not talking

about that and I'm tired of these smoke

screens you talking about the

miscarriage of Justice it really is uh

and Miss Hagerman you bring up a very

good point the fact that uh we're to

trust what what they

say that the transcript is real and the

the audio has no bearing on it I don't

understand as as uh our chairman said

they're putting up a

fight to prevent the American people

from seeing hearing the video and using

these lame excuses about altering that

Jordan altered some some tape somewhere

I don't know how you alter a a audio

tape uh can you tell me who has got the

audio tape and I think the chairman had

a valid point do they still exist this

Administration is lawless when it comes

to obeying the law what I can say is

that the information was gathered by Mr

her being the uh the the investigator in

this through the Department of Justice

and that's why the action has been

brought against Mary Garland because

Mary Garland is the one that has the

audio tape as my understanding now I

could be corrected on that but that has

been my assumption because he was the

person who appointed Mr her to conduct

this investigation and I believe that

the report was directed to him so that

has been my assumption throughout this

that they would have the the audio tape

and uh uh they've released they released

the transcript so if he doesn't have it

or if he's destroyed it that's that's a

serious or if they altered or omit or or

whatever they do with it but are you

comfortable I are you feel were you or

Mr com do y'all feel the tape still

exist because they're going to a big

extreme to defer and try to prevent the

American people to from hearing it well

all I can say on their behalf is I sure

hope

so Mr comr Mr n I'll get I I'll get to

you let me just it's my hope and it's my

understanding that they still exist

hopefully they didn't disappear like the

cocaine at the White House hopefully

they're still in existence and haven't

been destroyed Mr all you want to in a

quick way respond to it there is no

reason to believe that the tapes don't

still exist I would point out again that

the president has asserted executive

privilege and the proper forum for

disputing the executive privilege is in

court not by a contempt citation um once

the president Ser the executive

privilege it's not up to Mr uh uh the

Attorney General Mr Garland to present

the tape or not uh it's up to whoever

wants the tape in this case the

committee to go to court and contest the

executive uh privilege I'd also want to

point out on a separate matter that U

Miss Hagman brought up

that Hunter Biden was tried and

convicted by a jury of his peers it's

not about Hunter Biden well this is

about this is about the tape M natal she

brought up a number of things and that

the president or the former president

was was convicted by a a jury of his

peers and the questions she brings and

by the way he made uh evidentiary

rulings for the defense and against the

defense um and whether he his

evidentiary rulings were correct whether

his decision to exclude certain uh

Witnesses was correct will be decided on

appeal in the Appel division or maybe in

the court of appeals of the state of New

York and it's perfectly legitimate to

question that but it's not legitimate to

question the legitimacy of the trial

because that's a that those questions

are appell questions and will be

answered by the appell court well it

didn't work with Richard Nixon once the

once his uh once it was out the

transcript was out he couldn't claim

executive privilege but I guess that's

why the major news outlets are suing to

get something that you're trying to hide

that you don't want the American people

to see it's really an insult to the

American people that that you're going

to these

links uh having all this these words

about all these other uh that have

nothing to do with this let me run down

the timeline timeline and I this is

something I don't understand uh chairman

com Mr com you on Jan February 12th you

sent a letter requesting all the

documents and Communications including

the videos including the

Autos uh on Fe February 16th the doj

responded uh to you stating that they

were being

gathered um on February 27th the the Jud

I and oversight committee issued

identical subpoenas to uh Garland for

relevant information about the

transcripts and and about the the audio

uh the return date was March 7th and the

the doj produced an incomplete set of

documents comprising only correspondence

exchange no audio on March 9th the

committee notified the doj that its

production was inadequate and as an

accommodation you offered to extend the

date of production uh to for the for the

audio on to March 11th at 3 o'cl on

March 11th the doj informed the

committee that documents were undergoing

review by the agency inter agenc they

would not meet the committee's deadline

why is he getting extension after

extension I don't think Steve Bannon got

that I don't think um Peter Navaro got

that and I think you've demonstrated uh

factually the Great Lengths we've gone

to to try to work with them uh to help

them comply it shouldn't take any time

but we've gone to Great Lengths we've

gone above and beyond uh to make it as

convenient as as possible for them to

turn over uh those tapes which we

lawfully subpoenaed and then on April

15th the committee did respond just said

they were not going to produce them

didn't have to that is such a what are

the consequences what do you think and I

think we will vote this it of committee

and I think I hope the the house will

pass this what's the consequences for

Garland doing this will he be going

going to jail or we've seen Merrick

Garland has held others uh accountable

for being held in contempt of congress

so we'll see we'll see what happens he

has a he has set a precedent Meritt

Garland set a precedent of going after

people uh who Congress is held in

contempt for not complying with uh

subpoenas it's just isn't that

complicated audio doesn't lie audio he

either said it uh and they they're going

to these links to smoke screen every

other CA everything else to try to

prevent this to delay real quickly m m I

just want to point out when you talk

about the smoke screen that the senior

most career official at doj fellow named

Brad wein shimer submitted the

Declaration stating that he listen to

every word of the audio files and quote

the the interview transcripts are

accurate transcriptions of the words of

the interview contained in the audio

recording that's in uh paragraph 14 of

the wein shimer Declaration so the

allegations of the transcripts were Al

anyway what's that got to do with what

is that

man's uh his interpretation of the audio

and the transcript what's that got to do

with anything this is just release the

tapes let other people why are the news

networks having to sue to get Garin to

come to as I as I said before the reason

that there is a hesitation about giving

the uh audio to the Judiciary Committee

is that the Judiciary Committee has

previously altered audios uh to produce

um um in effect fake versions uh of Miss

um um we're not talk we're not talking

about that well we are talking about

that because there is a fear that if the

audio was given to the Judiciary

Committee Judiciary Committee Mr Jordan

or the people working for him will alter

that audio as they did for Mr Miss Jen's

audio and produce inaccurate um um uh

audios Miss can you respond to that sure

that accusation is

untrue well thank you for bringing this

uh this is this is an embarrassment to

be honest with you this is an

embarrassment with what they're what

they're doing uh i y back Mr chairman