Adam Schiff Exposes Stunning Evasion During Confirmation Hearing

Added: 2026-06-08

[00:00:00][clears throat] Mr. McDonald, uh, were you part of the DOJ's weaponization working group?

[00:00:09]>> Senator, as referenced uh earlier in some questioning uh during the hearing today, uh the weaponization working group as commissioned by the president, >> a simple yes or no would do. Were you part of the weaponization working group, >> Senator? As I referenced uh earlier uh in in questions uh before the panel uh the weaponization working group as commissioned by the president and then the attorney general.

[00:00:34]>> I still I still haven't gotten an answer. Were you involved with the weaponization working group? Yes or no?

[00:00:40]It's a simple question. You were either involved with it or you weren't.

[00:00:43]>> Senator Yes, Mr. Yes or no, Mr. McDonald.

[00:00:47]>> Senator, as are you refusing? I'm not interested in what you referenced earlier. I'm asking you a simple question right now. Not earlier, but right now. Were you part of the weaponization working group at Justice?

[00:00:57]Yes or no?

[00:00:59]>> Senator, as I referenced earlier, >> okay, you're not going to answer. You're not going to answer the question.

[00:01:03]>> Was right.

[00:01:04]>> I don't know why you won't answer a simple question, but let me ask you a different question.

[00:01:08]>> Do you believe that members of the weaponization working group need to abide by abide by the Justice Department manual? Yes or no?

[00:01:21]Senator, as a career federal prosecutor, ask a simple question. Very well familiar with the US Department of Justice justice manual.

[00:01:29]>> I'm glad you are. Do you feel the manual applies to people in the weaponization working group? Do they have to abide by it?

[00:01:35]>> Yes or no?

[00:01:36]>> Senator, as you know, >> why is that a difficult question for you to answer?

[00:01:41]>> Do you believe that members of the weaponization work group have to abide by ethical practices?

[00:01:47]Senator, all Department of Justice employees.

[00:01:51]>> So, is that is that a yes every day?

[00:01:53]>> I'm I'm asking a very specific question, not about all department employees, but about employees in the weaponization working group. Do they have to abide by the Justice Department manual? Yes or no?

[00:02:07]>> Senator, all Department of Justice employees, >> so that's a yes, >> operate within.

[00:02:14]Mr. McDonald, is that a yes, >> Senator? I would refer you to the >> Is the weaponization working group something different?

[00:02:21]>> Are you suggesting that it's different?

[00:02:23]That it doesn't have to abide by the ethics manual that it doesn't have to abide by ethics at all? Why are you refusing to answer a simple question?

[00:02:32]>> Senator, I'm not refusing to answer your question.

[00:02:34]>> Well, do the members of the working group have to abide by the Justice Department manual? Senator, as I referenced in my interest all Department of Justice, >> I'm not interested in your previous answers. You can't answer a simple question or you won't, which leads me to suspect you believe they don't have to apply. They don't have to live up to the standards of the justice manual. So, let me ask you a different question. In your time working with this group, did you ever observe any of the other members of the weaponization working group violate the Justice Department manual? Yes or no?

[00:03:12]Senator, the weaponization working group has been working to illuminate I'm not interested in a filibuster of an answer.

[00:03:20]>> Did you observe members of the working group or did you yourself violate the Justice Department manual?

[00:03:27]>> Senator, as referenced, >> you're refusing to answer that question.

[00:03:31]So, let me ask you working group.

[00:03:34]Did you witness members of the weapon weaponization working group mishandle grand jury material?

[00:03:45]>> Senator, as I referenced earlier, I'm not interested in the weaponization working group has been working to understand the facts and events underlying significant weaponization of the government during the Biden administration.

[00:03:59]>> Mr. Chairman, I'm asking for a simple question. I would ask your help in getting a direct answer. I've asked the witness whether he believes members of the weaponization working group at the Justice Department need to abide by the Justice Department's own justice manual.

[00:04:16]Um, would you assist him me in getting an answer to that question?

[00:04:20]>> No, I will not assist you.

[00:04:22]>> Okay. Well, you have the chairman's support in not answering the question.

[00:04:26]So, let me try another question or let me see if I can get clarity again.

[00:04:31]Did you ever witness any of the members of the working group violate rules regarding grand jury secrecy?

[00:04:39]Yes or no?

[00:04:41]>> Senator, as I referenced in my prior testimony, the weaponization working group is working diligently to understand historic abuses and weaponization question.

[00:04:53]>> Mr. McDonald, did you ever witness anyone in the weaponization working group violate the law?

[00:05:00]Yes or no?

[00:05:01]>> Senator, I would refer you to my prior question uh prior answer.

[00:05:04]>> Your prior answer was to obfuscate and it's become very clear you're unwilling to answer very simple questions because it's very clear what that weaponization group is all about and that is using the awesome powers of the Department of Justice to go after the president's enemies. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

[00:05:22]>> This was one of the most frustrating and revealing exchanges of the entire hearing. Senator Adam Schiff came prepared with what should have been some of the easiest questions a witness could ever answer. And yet somehow the hearing devolved into a remarkable display of evasion and non-answers.

[00:05:39]Right from the beginning, Schiff asked a simple question. Was Mr. Macdonald part of the DOJ's weaponization working group? That's it, a yes or no question.

[00:05:51]But instead of answering directly, Macdonald repeatedly launched into long explanations about the purpose of the working group and prior testimony.

[00:06:00]Schiff interrupted several times, making it clear that wasn't what he asked. And honestly, this is where the hearing immediately became uncomfortable because viewers could see exactly what Schiff was trying to establish.

[00:06:14]Before discussing the group's conduct, he wanted to know whether the witness had actually participated in it.

[00:06:20]Yet even that basic fact never received a straightforward answer. Then Schiff moved to an even more fundamental question. Do members of the weaponization working group have to follow the Justice Department manual?

[00:06:33]Again, that sounds like an easy question. Every federal prosecutor understands the Justice Manual is supposed to guide DOJ conduct, ethics, procedures, and prosecutorial responsibilities.

[00:06:46]But once again, Schiff was met with lengthy explanations instead of a direct answer.

[00:06:52]And that's where Schiff became visibly irritated.

[00:06:56]At one point, he practically begged for clarity. Do they have to abide by it?

[00:07:01]Yes or no? The answer never came.

[00:07:05]Instead, Macdonald repeatedly returned to generic statements about DOJ employees and departmental practices without directly answering the specific question being asked. Politically, that was a disaster because when someone refuses to answer a question that straightforward, people naturally start asking why. Schiff certainly did. He openly suggested that the refusal itself created the impression that members of the working group may believe they operate under different rules or different standards than the rest of the Justice Department. Then the hearing escalated further. Schiff asked whether Macdonald had ever witnessed members of the working group violate DOJ rules, mishandle grand jury materials, violate grand jury secrecy requirements, or even violate the law. Each time, Schiff requested a simple yes or no answer.

[00:07:57]Each time, he received another non-answer.

[00:08:01]And honestly, that's when the exchange became politically damaging because by that point, Schiff wasn't just questioning the witness. He was questioning the legitimacy and accountability of the entire weaponization working group. Then came perhaps the most striking moment.

[00:08:18]Frustrated by the continued evasiveness, Schiff turned to committee chairman Chuck Grassley and asked for assistance in obtaining a direct answer. Grassly refused.

[00:08:29]Schiff responded that the witness now appeared to have the chairman's support in avoiding the question. That instantly raised the political stakes because what started as a dispute between one senator and one nominee now looked like a broader fight over committee oversight itself. By the final moments, Schiff had clearly reached his conclusion.

[00:08:50]He accused the witness of deliberately obiscating and argued that the refusal to answer basic questions revealed exactly why concerns about the weaponization working group continue to grow.

[00:09:01]Supporters of the nominee may argue he was attempting to provide context and avoid oversimplifying complicated legal matters. Critics argue that simple questions were intentionally dodged because truthful answers would have been politically damaging.

[00:09:16]But visually and politically, Schiff controlled this exchange because every question became simpler and simpler while the answers became longer and longer.

[00:09:26]And by the end of the hearing, the takeaway was hard to miss. When a witness cannot or will not answer the most basic questions about accountability, ethics, and DOJ standards, lawmakers are left wondering what exactly is being hidden from public view.