 Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing. Mr. Tubin, this morning on national television you said in talking about the whistleblower complaint relative to the phone conversation the President of the United States had with the President of Ukraine and the President's conduct relative to that country, you said today's Justice Department has been corrupted. Is that an accurate representation of the statement you made? Sure is. And you were making that relative to the complaint that was filed and that you guys were talking about in the, it was a group discussion on the show this morning, is that right? Yep. Okay, have you read the Department of Justice statement relative to this matter? I have. Can I just read it for the, I might just read it here so we all have, the President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son. The President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine on this or any other matter. The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine on this or any other subject nor has the Attorney General discussed this matter or anything relating to Ukraine with Mr. Giuliani. You're familiar with that? I am. And you stand by your statement that the Justice Department is corrupted and it's based on what the whistleblower said in the complaint? No, it is not based entirely on that. I just asked you what you were talking about the whistleblower and you said it was based on the whistle, you said the Justice Department was corrupted based on what you saw in the complaint. It was based on the, the whistleblower's complaint, it was based on the partial trend. It was based on the whistleblower's complaint? In part, and if you let me finish my answer, it is also based on the further I'm going to interject here and caution my friend from Ohio that this subject is not germane to this hearing and it's disruptive and it's disrespectful. Mr. Chairman, you've been through this. Our process that we would have, well, no, let me finish. Okay. It's disrespectful to the process that we would bastardize it for political purposes. It's within my discretion to allow you to continue along this line and I'm going to do so from, I'm going to allow you to continue but I just want to caution you that in the future I'm not going to tolerate this kind of imposition in my subcommittee hearing. I'll do respect. It's entirely germane. I would like my time. I would like my time. I'll restore. You said it's 3 minutes 35 seconds. You have no right to demand that. The heck I don't. But I will. The heck I don't, it's my time. And it was 3.35, and I have every right to ask the witness, actually, in his opening statement brought up Ukraine. I didn't. The witness said on national television, the very statement I said that he said on TV, and he said he agreed that that was an accurate representation of what he said. He brought up Ukraine in his opening statement. And you know I have full discretion to ask the kind of questions I want. And I need three minutes and 35 seconds on the clock. I'm going to restore your time. Appreciate it. I'm going to ask you that in the future, you respect the integrity. Hold on. I want you to respect the integrity of my subcommittee hearings and not bring in this extraneous issue that has no. Chairman, you'll for a question? That is not germane to this particular issue. This is the Judiciary Committee. We have a witness testifying in front of the Judiciary Committee who today on national television said the Justice Department is corrupt. If that's not relevant, tell me what is for this committee. No, this hearing is about secrecy in. It doesn't change the fact that the witness brought up Ukraine in his opening statement this morning on national television said the Justice Department is corrupt. Mr. Jordan, if we're going to have a discourse, I'm going to need for you to listen to me just as I'm listening to you. I object to you bringing this subject into this hearing because it's not germane. But I'm going to allow you to continue. But I'm going to ask that in the future you limit yourself to this hearing intruding with extraneous materials such as this. And with that, I will do my best, Mr. Chairman. I will thank you. And I'll yield you three minutes and 30 seconds to continue your questioning. Our witness who said this morning the Justice Department is corrupt on national television basing that, at least in part, earlier said basing it on the whistleblower complaint. We need to remember a few things about this whistleblower. He had no firsthand knowledge of the phone call. He wasn't on the call. But we do know one thing about this whistleblower, Mr. Tuman. He had a political bias. We learned that from the Inspector General. Inspector General told us there was indicia of arguable political bias. You know what that is? That's Washington speak for this guy hated Trump. And yet that is the basis for our witness telling us that the Justice Department is corrupt. Let me give you a few facts. Would you like an answer? I will in a second. Let me give you a few facts just to give a little context to this, facts that happen in the Justice Department prior to Bill Barr taking over the Justice Department. In fact, the things that happen in the Obama Justice Department, you familiar with this, Mr. Tuman? That the Obama Justice Department's FBI spied on two Americans associated with the presidential campaign. You familiar with that? You familiar with the fact that the Obama Justice Department's FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation on the Republican Party's presidential candidate and didn't tell the candidate they had an investigation, the counterintelligence investigation opened on him? Didn't tell him what was going on? You familiar with the fact that the Obama Justice Department's FBI allowed Peter Struck and Andy McCabe to run that investigation? Peter Struck, the guy who said, don't worry, Lisa, we'll stop Trump. Trump should lose 100 million to zero. Andy McCabe, that's not Jim Jordan talking. This is now the Inspector General. The Inspector General said Andy McCabe lied three times under oath. The Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, said that Peter Struck should have never been allowed to head up that investigation. Not because he had this bias against Clinton or bias against Trump in favor of Clinton, I should say, but because he ran the Clinton investigation, he should have been prohibited from running that. But the Obama Justice Department allowed it to happen. The Obama Justice Department allowed the Clinton campaign paid for document to dossier to be used to go to a secret court, Mr. Tubin, to spy on one of the people associated with the Trump campaign. And the former FBI director leaked information through his friend of the New York Times in an effort to get a special counsel which he was successful in doing. And finally, I would just say this, on January 6th, the Obama Justice Department went to the Trump Tower when it was President-elect Trump. January 6th, 2017, they told the president-elect he was not under investigation all the while trying to set him up as part of their Trump-Russia investigation. And again, not my words, that was in the report released just three and a half weeks ago by the Inspector General Michael Horowitz. And yet today, based on a whistleblower that had no firsthand knowledge, wasn't on the phone call, has a political bias against the president, you're saying this Justice Department is somehow corrupt. Well, if you wanna just talk about the whistleblower, one of the extraordinary things about the whistleblower was that in the whistleblower's report, there is a summary of the phone call between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine. And of course, as you point out, the whistleblower did not have access to the partial transcript that we've not seen, but not withstanding the absence of firsthand access to that transcript, the whistleblower's summary of that phone call was extremely accurate, which suggests a great deal of credibility on the part of the whistleblower, wouldn't you say? How do you know it's extremely accurate? Mr. Chairman, are you kidding me? The gentleman, yes, it has expired. The gentleman's time has expired, and let me say that- You got a second round? It won't be a second round on this line. The heck it won't. No, it won't. And I want the gentleman to know that the next time he comes in- Well, the chairman, I want the gentleman- Oh, one more question for Mr. Chairman. I want the gentleman to know that the next time he comes into my subcommittee and disrupts it in this way- How is this disrupted? Yeah, because you're off topic. And so if this should happen again, I'm gonna be prepared through our rules to hold you accountable, and with that- Mr. Chairman, the rules allow me to ask the questions I wanna ask. The only thing disruptive here is your behavior and limiting and interrupting my question. It was my five minutes. You interrupted. I got one more question that I would appreciate being able to ask the witness. With that, the gentleman is no longer recognized.