You see my colleagues today; they are making themselves footnotes and foot soldiers in the history books that will chronicle Donald Trump's corruption.

You violated department policy by issuing a statement while your investigation was ongoing, didn't you?

Don Jr. when offered dirt as part of what was described as Russian government effort to help the Trump Campaign said, 'if it's what you say, I love it.'

Yes, they did what they did and in glaring contrast how they treated the Trump investigation which was kept secret before the election whereas the Clinton investigation was discussed publicly affecting the outcome. Isn't that correct?

Let's go to invited Russian help. Mr. Durham, you're aware of Donald Trump's public statements along the lines of, hey, Russia, if you're listening, hack Hillary's emails.

Chair Jordan seems to be looking for any excuse to discredit law enforcement and DOJ, who are finally holding Donald Trump accountable for his serious violations of the law.

It is simply not true, as the most extreme voices in this room have claimed, that the investigation was somehow launched by the Clinton Campaign.

The only distinguishment between his investigation and yours is he refused to bring charges where he couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and you did.

the Durham Report unequivocally concludes that the FBI not only have the evidence to open an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, but actually had an affirmative obligation to investigate ties between the Russian…

Are you aware, Mr. Durham, that Mueller and Congressional investigations also revealed that Don Jr. was informed that a Russian official was offering the Trump Campaign, quote, 'very high-level and sensitive information,' that would be…

House Republicans do not want to talk about any of that. They seem incapable of assigning any agency or responsibility to Donald Trump for problems that are Trump's and Trump's alone.

There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion. I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.

This is political payback, but it's also I think, you know, frankly, quite flattering.

If they're defending the indefensible, then moderate Republicans and Independents, they are going to be disillusioned with the GOP.

The allegations are so premeditated in terms of Donald Trump's deliberate effort to hide these materials.

These are not the policies of an open border. They are the opposite.

This is not a serious process.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we are still hearing the same claims that we heard at our first immigration hearing this year.

Today Judiciary Republicans are laying the groundwork to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkis.

They have decided to make their first target Secretary Mayorkis. Why? Because they have policy disagreements.

Paradoxically then instead of protecting his Constitutional prerogatives, H.R. 3446 would thwart Congress' will.

The antiregulatory measures for the bulk of today's discussion however do not address legitimate concerns, they are a distraction from the important work we could accomplish together.

The majority likes to spin tails of nefarious motives and collusion with liberal groups.

I am deeply disappointed that Committee Republicans have chosen to shoehorn into this antiregulatory hearing, what is an otherwise worthy discussion of civil asset forfeiture reform.

To be clear, where there is a legitimate issue to address, we are prepared to work with our Republican colleagues.