WATCH: Bessent RAGES After Pathetic Trump Defense Gets RIDICULED

You're telling me DOJ gave the president this without you knowing about it? Again, they settle on our behalf. That's not how the law works, sir. I'm not a lawyer, but you have a bunch of them behind you. You should see the faces they're making at me behind you. They're all scowling at me back over here. Well, I think that's a different reason, sir. We obey the law, Representative. I hope that you're proud of your performance today, Mr. Secretary. Because I think it's pretty safe to say that this is probably the most corrupt Treasury Department in our nation's history. While you dance around questions to protect Trump, Americans are suffering in Trump's spiraling economy. It's a very simple fact question. Was there or was there not consideration? Again, there's ongoing litigation, and I suggest that you speak with the Treasury attorneys. If this kind of behavior is okay with the chairman, I'll just pursue other questions. I think it's completely inappropriate to have this game of dodgem be pursued without any consequences. Mr. Secretary, I've searched hard to find constituents in my district who believe that this economy is golden. In fact, many of them are struggling more today than they were the last time you were in front of this committee. Personal savings are shrinking, disposable income is down, and families are paying more and more for basic necessities. So I would like to ask you a couple of yes or no questions about this golden economy. Electricity bills are up 8.5 percent. Is that golden? Sir, you can ask— Yes or no? You can ask a question. You can't tell me how to answer it. Okay, let me put it this way, Mr. Secretary, because you're obviously not here to answer questions. It's my time, Mr. Secretary. It's my time. Health insurance costs are up 26 percent. That's not golden. Child care costs are up 9 percent. That's not golden. Gas prices are up nearly 50 percent. That's not golden. Grocery prices are still straining family budgets. That's not golden. Mr. Secretary, working families don't feel like they're living through a golden age. And while H.R. 1 may have delivered modest tax cuts for some Americans, many families are seeing those savings wiped out by higher costs everywhere they shop. Is that what this administration considers a golden age? And it's rhetorical, so you don't even have to try and talk over me. Mr. Secretary, my concern is that this addendum's not been getting a lot of attention. There's colleagues on this panel that think this slush fund is a bunch of b****, and they've called out to say, get rid of it. Now, people need to say, are you okay with one person in America, because the Secretary of Treasury, I'm guessing, conferred with the Department of Justice, because you're named on this lawsuit, sir. These are all the transactions from the President as well, and I'm going to ask you this next question as well. You were bragging to one of my colleagues that you've been sanctioning people doing bad things in America. People that get sanctioned, like Iran or terrorists, they're told not to do business in the United States with partners. Is that your understanding, sir, me as a layman? It is. You hold these bad people accountable. I congratulate you for that. So this little giveaway to President Trump and his family gets them off scot-free. Does every American become part of this addendum? If someone didn't pay their taxes or violated tax law or did bad things, are they told, can't prosecute you, you're good? Everyone going back to the date of this, or is this only for President Trump and his affiliates? Senator, do you have specific knowledge that President Trump's being audited? Sir, I have specific knowledge of this addendum that you don't know a damn thing about. That is for the Department of Treasury that your lawyer at the Department of Justice signed you up for. Why is it that you are allowing President Trump to have complete immunity from being audited? Again, I'm going to have to refer you to my previous statements and- What was your previous statement, sir? I am unable to comment on any of the ongoing litigation. Okay, can you name the ongoing case concerning President Trump's immunity from audit? Sorry? Can you name- There are three cases- Can you name them, please? That are out there now, and I will be happy to get them back, get back to you on those because, again, I am not a lawyer. We are represented by the DOJ. Great, you said that you can't because there's ongoing litigation. You'll get me the name of the ongoing litigation because the only ongoing litigation that I know of is surrounding the $1.8 million slush fund, which has already been suspended. The fact is that the judge's ruling in the litigation that references that slush fund only addresses the anti-weaponization fund. It doesn't even address Trump's immunity from audit. So I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the judge's order in the Floyd v. Department of Justice case. Without objection. Thank you. Now, Secretary, you said you're not an attorney, is that correct? Mercifully. Okay, well, I am, and I'm actually proud to be an attorney and know the laws, and I know how to read a judicial ruling. Furthermore, I know that since 1962, the Supreme Court has held that ongoing litigation does not prevent someone from testifying in a congressional hearing. So once again, I'm going to ask, why are you allowing President Trump and his family to have complete immunity from being audited? Again, since you're a lawyer, you will understand that the U.S. Treasury and the IRS are represented by the Justice Department and the acting Attorney General. Yes, but I just mentioned a Supreme Court case that doesn't bar you from testifying. It's pretty clear to me, though, however, that you're not interested in answering questions, you're interested in arguing. Have you identified any precedent in Treasury or IRS history for the agreement not to audit, investigate, or pursue any tax claims against the Trump family or businesses? I can't identify any precedent where 400,000 tax returns, including the people you just mentioned and all of their employees, were leaked in a violation of one of the most sacred duties of the IRS. So let me cut to that, Senator. The leak was by a contractor. Can you tell me what contribution is being sought by Treasury or by the IRS for the harm done by the contractor? To a certain extent, your organization and the IRS are the victim of the contractor's malfeasance or negligence. What is being pursued by way of contribution by that contractor? Well, the ranking member chastised me for cutting the contractor's contracts off, and we have removed their contracts, their ability to do business with Treasury and the IRS. But there is no contribution into this particular case? Again, Senator, you weren't here earlier, but I'm unable to discuss most of this because of ongoing litigation. Yeah, I know everybody likes to say that, but the constitutional... We like to follow the law, Senator. And the law is that Congress has constitutional oversight functions that do not disappear simply because there is litigation, however convenient it may be, by way of providing answers. So we have no precedent for it. No contribution is being sought from the contractor at fault. Was there any consideration to the government in return for the benefits of no audit, no investigation, no challenge or pursuit of refunds or other penalties? Again, Senator, I'm unable to comment because of litigation. Treasury is represented by the Department of Justice in all matters. They act as our attorneys, so I would suggest that you direct your questions to Acting Attorney General Blanch. Yeah, well, I've had a lot of times people who are before us invite me to ask my questions of somebody who's not before us, but you're the one who is before us, and I think you ought to know if there was any consideration offered or paid in return for that settlement. It's a very simple fact question. Was there or was there not consideration? Again, there's ongoing litigation, and I suggest that you speak with the Treasury attorneys. If this kind of behavior is okay with the chairman, I'll just pursue other questions, but what goes around comes around in terms of dodging questions. I believe it's very clear that witnesses of any kind cannot discuss ongoing litigation. They can certainly discuss a fact that they are aware of. The fact that there is some litigation out there doesn't mean that a witness can't say, yeah, there was no consideration or yes, there was consideration.