FNN: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testifies on Mueller's Russia influence investigation

good morning the Judiciary Committee will come to order without objection the chairs authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight hearing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I'll begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement Thank You deputy general Rosen attorney general Rosenstein for appearing for the first time in front of this committee there is much to discuss today we look forward to your testimony and answers to your questions as chairman of the committee with primary oversight of the Department of Justice and the FBI I have always supported the Department and the FBI in performing their valuable missions to keep our nation safe and to hold individuals accountable for criminal conduct yet I and many on this committee now find ourselves in the very difficult position of questioning the actions of both prior and current Department and FBI leadership you have a unique role at the Department of Justice in that you appointed special counsel Muller and have a supervisory role over his investigation it is therefore very appropriate for you to appear before this committee to answer questions related to the scope of the special counsels investigation as well as its current efficacy in light of various events calling into question its impartiality reports on the political predisposition and potential bias of certain career agents and Department lawyers on special counsel Muller's team are deeply deeply troubling to all citizens who expect a system of blind and equal justice the Department of Justice investigations must not be tainted by individuals imposing their own political prejudices we are now beginning to better understand the magnitude of this insider bias on mr. Muller's team first we have FBI agent Peter struck and FBI lawyer Lisa Paige exchanging communications showing extreme bias against President Trump a fact that would be bad enough if it weren't for the fact that these two individuals were employed as part of the Muller dream team investigating the very person for whom they were showing disdain and calling it mere disdain is generous according to the documents produced last night to this committee mr. struck and Ms page referred to the president as an utter idiot a loathsome human and awful while continually praising Hillary Clinton and the Obamas these text messages prove what we all suspected high-ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgment and this was only an initial disclosure containing heavy redactions second former FB embattled FBI general counsel and current Muller prosecutor Andrew Weissman expressed his aw of a former DOJ official for shunning the president and failing to faithfully execute the law however we are the ones now in awe that someone like mr. Weissman remains on an investigative team that looks more and more partisan third we have learned that a top mulher prosecutor Jean Erie in addition to the other actions that would normally justify recusal served as an attorney for the Clinton Foundation our Department of Justice attorneys advised to avoid even the appearance of impropriety a former Clinton employee is now investigating president Trump this seems to be the very definition of appearance of impropriety fourth we have just recently learned that another top Department of Justice official Bruce Orr has been reassigned because of his wife and his connections with the infamous dossier and the company from whom the opposition research document originated we hope to hear your assessment of the foregoing conflicts whether individuals are being held accountable and whether you still have confidence in the judgment of the special counsel you named and supervised regarding the Clinton email scandal you along with attorney general sessions have to date declined to appoint a second special counsel to investigate the impropriety of that continued a surface related to the handling of the Clinton email investigation and other events surrounding the 2016 election these are some of the important issues on which we will focus our energy and questions today we want to understand your participation and the department's involvement in addressing both investigations mr. Deputy Attorney General the Department of Justice's reputation as an impartial arbiter of justice has been called into question this taint of politicization should concern all Americans who have pride in the fairness of our nation's justice system while we continue to call on you to appoint a second special counsel as you are aware we have also opened our own joint investigation with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to review FBI and the Department of Justice's handling of the Clinton email investigation I want to thank you and attorney general sessions for recently committing to provide us relevant documents to enable robust congressional oversight of this matter I implore you to continue to work with us on these and other important matters facing our nation one of these matters involves a critical program for our national security FISA section 702 this committee passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis the USA Liberty Act which maintains the integrity of the program while protecting cherished civil liberties this overwhelming vote occurred despite the department's lobbying efforts against our bill the USA Liberty Act was characterized as bad for the program highly problematic unworkable and a proposal that would effectively dismantle section 702 however the reality is that this committee is legislation struck a balance that promotes national security and civil liberties I hope to hear from you why the Department of Justice felt it necessary to oppose a bill that would reauthorize 702 and instill confidence in the American people that their privacy and civil liberties are respected by a government whose Duty it is to protect them the department of justice must reacquire the trust of the American people I know there are thousands of Department of Justice employees and line agents in the department in the Bureau of embeddable of investigation that are dedicated individuals that are dedicated to upholding the rule of law and protecting the American people and I hope that we can come to a conclusion about those people who have not met that standard in this hearing today Thank You mr. Deputy Attorney General for appearing today I now yield to the gentleman from New York the ranking member of the committee mr. Nadler for his comments Thank You mr. chairman before I begin my statement first let me wholly endorse the comments of the Chairman with reference to section 702 into the legislation that we reported out of this committee and second I want to acknowledge the letter the Chairman and I received last night from the Democratic women of this committee our colleagues have written to ask that we convene a hearing regarding a serious and credible allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct leveled against President Trump by at least 19 women without objection I ask that this letter be made part of the record objection it will be made a partner and let me be clear I unequivocally endorse this letter we should convene this hearing as soon as possible this is an opportunity for us to lead and to show the country that this kind of behavior is unacceptable at any level of government mr. chairman let me start by saying welcome to the House Judiciary Committee mr. Rosenstein for the better part of a year my colleagues and I have employed this committee to conduct real oversight of the Department of Justice On January 24th 2017 we wrote to chairman Goodlatte insisting that the committee hold hearings on president Trump's conflicts of interests at home and abroad citing to experts across the political spectrum we showed that quote the administration's attempts to address its ongoing conflicts of interest are so far wholly inadequate close quote six weeks later attorney general sessions was forced to recuse himself from the Russian investigation but we have not held a single hearing on the question of conflicts of interest on March 8th we wrote again to the Chairman encouraged him to court encouraging him to call hearings on quote Russia's alleged interference in the u.s. election again no such hearings were ever held in fact this committee which during the Obama administration held half a dozen hearings around Operation Fast and Furious received testimony from FBI director Comey three times and thirteen months and detailed staff and resources to a Benghazi investigation that cost the public almost eight million dollars this committee from inauguration day until four weeks ago was largely silent in terms of oversight we haven't lifted a finger on election security attorney general sessions told us on November 14th that he has done nothing to secure the next election from threats from at home and abroad we have not once discussed the president's abuse of the pardon power while the hurricane bore down on Houston President Trump sidelined the office of the pardon attorney to pardon a serial human rights abuser who bragged about running a concentration camp in Arizona and we have not held a single hearing on allegations of obstruction of justice at the White House not for lack of evidence but because of the Chairman's words quote there is a special counsel in place examining the issue unquote and quote several other congressional committees are looking into the matter and the committee quote does not at the time to conduct this critical oversight I ask my colleagues to keep those excuses in mind now with the year coming to a close with the leadership of the Department of Justice finally before us what do my Republican colleagues want to discuss Hillary Clinton's emails let me repeat that with all of these unresolved issues left on our docket a week before we adjourn for the calendar year the majority's highest oversight priority is Hillary's email Hillary Clinton's emails and a few related text messages as we saw in our recent hearings with the Department of Justice and the FBI my Republican colleagues seem seem singularly focused on their call for a second special counsel and failing that on the need to investigate the investigators themselves ourselves the White House has now joined the call by House Republicans for new special counsel to investigate the FBI the president's private lawyers have done the same I understand I understand the instinct to want to change the subject after the Flynn and manna Ford indictments but this request is grossly misguided for a number of reasons first it shows a fundamental misunderstanding the special council regulations work some criminal investigations pose a conflict of interest to the Department of Justice the Russian investigation is such a case because of the Attorney General's ongoing recusal and because Department leadership assisted in the removal of the director Comey among other reasons in cases like these the Attorney General may use a special counsel to manage the investigation outside of the ordinary chain of command but the key here is the criminal investigation that's what special counsel does the department cannot simply assign a special counsel to look at things that bother the White House there has to be enough evidence to have predicated a criminal investigation in the first place then and only then if the facts warrant and a special counsel be assigned to the case so far there's been no credible factual legal claim that anybody at the Department of Justice violated any law by deciding not to bring charges against Hillary Clinton or by attempting to meet with fusion GPS in other words there is no investigation to which the department could even assign a new Special Counsel second the list of grievances raised by the majority for review by a new special counsel also seems wildly off the mark for example there is nothing unlawful about directors commis sitting down to draft an early statement about the Clinton investigation nor would it have been unethical to outline his conclusions before the investigation was over if the clear weight of the evidence pointed in one direction nor is there anything wrong with FBI agents expressing their private political views via private text message as Peter struck and Lisa Paige appeared to have done in the 375 text messages we received last night in fact Department regulations expressly permit that sort of private communication I reviewed those text messages and I'm left with two thoughts first Peter struck did not say anything about Donald Trump that the majority of Americans weren't also thinking at the same time and second in a testament his integrity and situational awareness when the office of the Inspector General made mr. Muller aware of these exchanges he immediately removed mr. struck from his team to the extent that we are now engaged in oversight of political bias at the FBI this committee should examine evidence of a coordinated effort by some agents involve the clinton investigation to change the course of the campaign in favor of President Trump by leaking sensitive information to the public and by threatening to leak additional information about new emails after the investigation was closed on Monday ranking member Cummings and I sent a letter to the department asking for additional materials related to these leaks as well as to the claims that these efforts may have been coordinated with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani former national security adviser Michael Flynn and other senior figures in the Trump campaign third the president's call for an investigation of the investigation is at best wildly dangerous to our democratic institutions on the one hand the president the president's old locker up Shearer seems quaint after a couple of guilty pleas by Trump associates on the other s former attorney general Mike Lemieux KZ no fan of Hillary Clinton has said the president's continued threats to prosecute his political opponents as quote something we don't do here if the president were to carry out his threat quote again from attorney general Mukasey it would be like a banana republic finally and most important this investigation into the investigation cannot credibly be a priority for this committee at this time I understand the instinct to want to give cover to the president I am fearful that the majority's effort to turn the tables on the special counsel will get louder and more frantic as the walls continue to close in around the president but this committee has a job to do president Trump has engaged in a persistent and dangerous effort to discredit both the Free Press and the Department of Justice these are the agencies and institutions under our jurisdiction every minute that our majority wastes uncovering for president Trump is a minute lost on finding a solution for the dreamers or curving a vicious spike in hate crimes or preventing dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms or stopping the president from further damaging the constitutional order I hope my colleagues will use today's hearing as an opportunity to find their way back to the true work of the House Judiciary Committee I thank the chairman and then you'll back the balance of my time we welcome our distinguished witness if you I'll begin by swearing you in do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God thank you let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative mr. OTT Rosenstein was sworn in as the 37th Deputy Attorney General of the United States on April 26 2017 by Attorney General Jeff Sessions mr. Rosenstein has had a distinguished career in public service he began his legal career in the Public Integrity section of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division and later served as counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and principal deputy assistant attorney general for the tax division until his appointment by President Trump mr. Rosen Stein served for 12 years as the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland he holds a bachelor's degree in economics from the Wharton School and a JD from the from Harvard Law School general Rosen Stein your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety and we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes welcome we're pleased to have you here chairman Goodlatte ranking member and Adler members of the committee I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify as part of your oversight of the United States Department of Justice I appreciate your support and concern for the Department of Justice I know several of you are alumni of the department too in fact served alongside me as United States Attorney's and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to be with you today as Deputy Attorney General my job is to help the Attorney General to manage our departments components including seven main justice litigating divisions 94 US Attorneys offices the Federal Bureau of Investigation the Drug Enforcement Administration the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives the United States Marshals Service the office of Justice programs the Federal Bureau of Prisons the Office of the Inspector General and many others our department includes over a hundred and fifteen thousand employees and tens of thousands of contractors stationed in every state and territory and in many foreign nations we prevent terrorism and violent crime illegal drug distribution fraud corruption child abuse civil rights violations and countless other threats to the American people we enforce tax laws antitrust laws and environmental laws we represent the United States in the Supreme Court the courts of Appeal and the district courts and in state and territorial courts we protect federal judges manage federal prisons review parole applications oversee the bankruptcy system we manage we assist tribal governments and we adjudicate immigration cases we provide legal advice to the President and to every federal agency we implement grant programs and support state and local law enforcement we combat waste fraud and other misconduct involving employees and contractors we resolve foreign claims and represent our government in international law enforcement forums we collect analyze and disseminate law enforcement data and we perform countless other important functions for the American people Department of Justice employees are united by a shared understanding that our mission is to pursue justice protect public safety preserve government property defend civil rights and promote the rule of law the mission attracted me to law enforcement but the people who carry out that mission or what I treasure most about my job with a very few exceptions they are honorable principled and trustworthy America's federal state and local law enforcement agencies are more professional today than ever rigorous scrutiny by internal affairs offices and external oversight agencies has resulted in increased accountability at higher standards when wrongdoing occurs we are more likely to discover it and we remedy that is critical to building and maintaining public confidence over the past eight months I've spoken with thousands of Department employees around the country I remind them the Justice is not only our name justice is our mission justice requires a fair and impartial process and that's why we have a special responsibility to follow ethical and professional standards in 1941 attorney General Robert Jackson said that the citizens safety lies in the prosecutor who temple tempers zeal with human kindness seeks truth and not victims serves the law and not factional purposes and approaches the task with humility under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and an experienced team appointed by President Trump the Department of Justice is working tirelessly to protect American citizens and to uphold the rule of law today I look forward to discussing some of our departments important work following the US Attorney's manual and the examples set by past Department of Justice officials we always seek to accommodate congressional oversight requests while protecting the integrity of our investigations preserving the department's independence and safeguarding sensitive information Thank You mr. chairman I look forward to your questions Thank You mr. Rosenstein I'll start by recognizing myself four questions last week director ray indicated that the normal procedures were not followed in the investigation of former secretary Clinton's email server he said it was not normal protocol to have witnesses sit in the room during an interview of the target of an investigation if the Inspector General determines that normal protocol was not followed or that the investigation was closed or otherwise tainted for political purposes would that be a justification in your mind to reopen the investigation mr. chairman we are certainly anticipating the outcome of that inspector general investigation as you know that's been ongoing for some time I'm hopeful that it'll be concluded within the next couple of months and when we get those results we'll take appropriate action I don't know exactly what the findings are going to be but it's always appropriate for us to review any findings of impropriety or misconduct and take appropriate action when you announced your decision to terminate the employment of FBI director Comey in that decision you announced some practices that I took it to mean you thought were inappropriate actions on the part of the former FBI director do you think that those actions on his part would merit further investigation and how that whole matter was conducted mr. chairman as you're aware the Inspector General is conducting an investigation into the handling of that Hillary Clinton email investigation and I believe that matters that you've referred to our part of his investigation the memo that you're familiar with that I provided reflects my personal opinion it's not an official finding of misconduct that's the Inspector General's job he'll reach his own independent determination but as you pointed out my views about it are already known are you aware of any prior efforts by the Judiciary Committee of this committee to unduly restrict the ability of the intelligence community to do its job of protecting our national security I'm not personally aware of any no sir are you aware that this committee has primary oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act due in part to the significant constitutional and legal questions that government surveillance raises Sharon I'd I respect the Congress's decision about which committee has oversight I know that both this committee and the Intelligence Committee have an interest in that issue well given given that you understand this committees jurisdiction in its history of providing the intelligence community with the tools it needs why would we in the words of the Department you well given given that you understand this committees jurisdiction in its history of providing the intelligence community with the tools it needs why would we in the words of the department attempt to quote dismantle section 702 of our nation's most important surveillance program well I certainly would hope that wouldn't be the case I don't know who made the statement you're referring to I know the department obviously has expressed its opinion about the reauthorization which we think is critically important to section 702 I respect there are differences of opinion but I think the department's were very clear that we believe it's essential to national security that section 702 be reauthorized we agree with you that it's essential that section seminar to be reauthorized we also believe that it's essential that the Civil Liberties of American citizens be protected and that a standard be imposed on the examination of information about US citizens incidentally gathered as a part of the section 702 program with the surveillance of non-us citizens outside the United States but incidentally gathering information about US citizens and then being looked into by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation without a warrant I'm not aware of that being appropriate and any other type of investigation that they might be conducting we're not talking about terrorist attacks we're not talking about national security because we have clearly distinguished that we're simply talking about crimes that have already occurred that are being investigated as they should be investigated by the department but under the procedures that the American people would expect they would follow to protect their civil liberties and other other circumstances mr. chairman I'd you know I've had the advantage over the last eight months of having a role in overseeing our national security operations I discussed this with director ray yesterday and if you'd like I could give you a detailed explanation it might take a couple of minutes but I'd be happy to give you some details but the bottom line is that it really is critical to national security that the FBI have the ability to query the data that's the issue here and our legislation allows them to do that but if the query provides a hit that they want to read an email they want to see other documentation want to see in its full-form they're required to get a warrant under those circumstances and I discussed this direct array and what happens when the FBI conducts these queries chairman is that typically their leads that are not necessarily based on probable cause but based on a lead a suspicion and the ability to query that data and then follow up on it gives the FBI the opportunity to put two and two together to connect the dots there are lots of leads that any law-enforcement person would like to pursue but we have protections against them pursuing it without appropriate standard for doing it in a whole host of other ways to protect people from unreasonable searches and this is a search of information about a United States citizen well it's it's a query as a constitutional matter what we're the initial query once that results in something the agent wants to look at I don't see how you distinguish the further reading of emails or other things from a search if I could take a couple of minutes I can explain to you I talked with director ray about an appropriate way to explain this publicly hypothetically let's say for example local police department receives a call that somebody has purchased a large quantity of hydrogen peroxide and something made the clerk at the store suspicious about that so he contacts the local police there's no probable cause there's nothing illegal about what the person did but something that caused concern the local police may Generosa son let me interrupt you because the very specific instance that you are citing was cited to us in our discussions with the FBI and that very specific protection for the FBI was added to our legislation well the example I'm providing is a situation where there would not be probable cause but we think would be appropriate for the FBI to follow up and what we're trying to avoid is a situation where we react reelect a wall that would prevent the FBI from gaining access to information that might allow them to connect the lead to information that implicates national security thank you my time has expired recognizes the gentleman from New York mr. Nadler for five minutes thank you on Monday ranking member Cummings and I wrote you a letter sir about the majority's ongoing investigation into the investigation of former Secretary Clinton without objection I ask unanimous consent that I let it be placed into the record without objection it will be made a part of the row thank you for the first part of our letter discusses the department's failure to provide the minority with access to the documents you've already provided to the majority yes or no will you commit to ensuring that the minority that we receive equal access to any materials you may provide to this community in the future yes and I believe we my understanding is that that information may have been provided to them pass at this point thank you that's all I wanted I'd have to be I have a lot of questions the majority this committee the White House and President Trump's private attorneys have all called for the Department of Justice to appoint the new special counsel to investigate a number of Hillary Clinton related matters I think we could benefit from your experience and other special counsel regulations work the regulations say the Attorney General or in your case the acting Attorney General will appoint the special counsel when you determine that one criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and to the investigation either presents a conflict of interest to the department or some other strong public interest requires you to appoint a special counsel that first part when he or she determines the criminal investigation of a personal matter is warranted is that part of the regulation is optional no that it's okay regulation thank you so a criminal investigation must first be determined to be warranted before you can assign a special counsel to the matter yes thank you and that the Department of Justice a criminal investigation requires an initial assessment and a preliminary view of the evidence correct has that assessment been made with respect to former director Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation I'm not going to comment on any investigations in the normal course before we made a determination we would conduct an appropriate review and I assume your answer would be the same if I ask you about the FBI's interaction with fusion GPS would be the same for anything yes then presuming for a moment presuming for a moment that the department has conducted an initial assessment and found no predicate for a criminal investigation so in plain English there is no ongoing criminal investigation under this presumption could you or the Attorney General Sessions simply appoint a special counsel to look into these matters no as I said earlier to my knowledge there's been no credible factual or legal claim that anybody at the department violated any law by deciding not to bring charges or by attempting to meet with Fuzion GPS if that is true if there is no underlying criminal investigation because there is insufficient evidence of a crime in this or any other case do the regulations permit you to appoint the Special Counsel no thank you according to the department the office of the Inspector General informed Special Counsel Muller of the existence of these text messages between Peter struck and Lisa page on July 27th 2017 the tax you sent us last night Mr Muller immediately concluded the mr. structured no longer a participating investigation and he was removed from the team the same day did mr. Muller take appropriate action in this case yes he did thank you and testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee you said that you would only fire special counsel Muller for good cause and that you had not seen any yet several months have passed since then have you seen good cause to fire special counsel Muller no thank you if you were ordered today to fire mr. Muller what would you do so I've explained previously I would follow the regulation if there were good cause I would act if there were no good cause I would not and you've seen no good cause so far correct thank you on May 1st the office of legal counsel issued an opinion arguing that ranking minority members do not have the authority to conduct oversight unquote shortly thereafter Politico reported that the white House Counsel instructed federal agencies not to cooperate with oversight requests from Democrats since then Democrats on this committee have written more than 40 letters to administration without any meaningful response thus far can you clarify your current position on responding to letters from the minority and are you concerned that the department's may first opinion serve suggest by a policy of stonewalling by the administration my position congressman is that we make every effort to respond to any legitimate inquiry a member of Congress obviously we prioritize inquiries propounded by the chair on behalf of the committee but we'll make an effort to respond to any inquiry we get a lot of letters I'm sure and so I apologize if there's a prioritized after letters from the chair letters from Munnar D our goal is to respond to all those letters in a reasonable manner in fact when our new assistant attorney general Stephen Boyd took office there's quite a backlog would you encourage the office of legal counsel to withdraw its May 1st opinion I'll take a look at it congressman but as I said the without regard to what the law may require our policy is to try to I understand that but you would take a look at the whether you would encourage the office of legal counsel to withdraw that May 1st opinion or foreign or terrorism investigation you don't need a warrant to quite to query section 702 data but where you're conducting an investigation of domestic crimes then like any other investigation of domestic crimes you would need a warrant so that the danger that I think you were referring to is taken care of by the bill and I endorse the comments of the Chairman to that effect and I think you should take a look at that I urge you to take a look at it thank you I yield back chair thanks gentleman recognized the gentle from Texas mr. Smith for five minutes and Thank You mr. chairman mr. Rosenstein I am concerned that the special counsel may be casting too wide of a net that he is trying to catch all the fish in the ocean not just the Soviet sharks and if the special counsel were to obtain information not directly related to Russian interferes with the election and he wanted to investigate that further would he need to obtain your authority to expand the investigation yes he would okay has he ever asked to expand the scope of the investigation I appreciate that question congressman if I could explain briefly there are a lot of media stories speculating about what the Special Counsel may or may not be doing I know what he's doing I'm appropriately exercising my oversight responsibilities and so I can assure you that the Special Counsel is conducting himself consistently with our understanding about the scope of his investigation right that really wasn't my question my question was has he asked you or consulted with you about a desire to expand the investigation beyond the original scope well the consultation actually is much more detailed than that he consults with me his office consults with me about their investigation both within and without the scope so I know what they're authorized to do yeah I know you know what they're doing but has he requested to expand the scope of the original investment of the original jurisdiction the scope of the original jurisdiction as you know is publicly set forth in that order but the specific matters are not identified in the order so I discussed that with director Muller when he started and we've had ongoing discussion about exactly what is within the scope his investigation and to the extent there was any ambiguity about it he's received my permission to include those matters within his investigation so he has asked to expand the scope and you've given him permission well yeah you're characterizing as an expansion as I said it's a clarification in most cases but he understands that this is a special counsel it's not an independent counsel and I'm accountable for what they're doing I need to know what they're doing yeah clarification may be an expansion and we may be caught up on the middie of those words but I do think regardless I think the American people have a right to know if the original jurisdiction has been expanded do you agree with that difficulty congressman is that I have a responsibility not to talk about what's being investigated and that's why the original order doesn't identify any persons or charges but we know what's under investigate I'm not asking you to go into any specifics or to name names or to even talk about this subject just whether or not the request had been made to expand it you said you've clarified his jurisdiction I assume that that would involve an expansion as you suggested I want to make sure I'm a hundred percent accurate and I'll need to check and get back to you as to whether or not we considered particular issues to be a clarification or an expansion okay but but whatever it may be I'm responsible for and I know what is investigating okay please do get back to me on the difference between those two do you feel that the special counsel is authorized to investigate the personal finances of the Trump family members congressman that would implicate the concern that I've expressed but we just don't talk about what's under investigation so I hope you don't draw an inference pro or con but we're simply not going to discuss it well do you think the personal finances come under the original jurisdiction of direct involvement Russian interference with the election I certainly appreciate your concern congressman I hope you appreciate in my position that I start answering what is and isn't I've gone down that road that I just don't want to go down of discussing what's under investigation have been for persons have been charged those are known and ordinarily the Department of Justice that's what we publicize if we charge somebody with a crime we publicize it if we don't charge anybody with a crime we don't talk about it but some of the people charged have been charged with crimes not directly connected to Russian interference with the election the crimes with which their charts are publicly known okay so in other words you do feel that the special counsel can go into the personal finances not connected to Russian interference I hope I've been clear congressman I am NOT commenting on the scope of the investigation how many what about can the Special Counsel investigate the personal actions of staff unconnected to the Russian interference of the with the election only if I determine that it's appropriate for him to do so okay so that's your determination not the special counsels that as I said congressman I know what he's doing if I felt he was doing something inappropriate I would take action right let me just maybe summarize by saying that I think the American people and deserve to know who is being investigated and why I had one final question in my last couple of seconds here as you know and as many of us know and the lawyers code of ethics attorneys are supposed to avoid not just the actual info Friday itself but the appearance of impropriety the Special Counsel has hired at least eight attorneys who have direct connections to both the to either the Obama or Clinton campaigns don't you think that creates an appearance of impropriety and I'm not saying well you think they can do their job don't you think it creates an appearance of impropriety I suppose the time of the gentleman has expired the witness is permitted to answer the question I do not believe I'm not aware of any impropriety we do have regulations of special counsel a subject to all the department's rules and subject to oversight by the department including the inspector general I'm not aware of any violation of those rules by the special counsel employees so you don't think it creates the appearance of impropriety well appearances to some extent in the eye of the beholder we apply the department's rules and regulations and making a determination and we do have career ethics advisers who provide us counsel about billing and thank you mr. Rosenstein Thank You Mickey Sherman the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California miss Lufkin for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman and thank you mr. Rosenstein for being here with us today you're a career attorney in the department isn't that right I would say I was a career attorney was a career attorney you spent your whole life working for the people of the United States as a career attorney until you were asked to fulfill the current function that yours as the US attorney I was political appointee so the past twelve years I've been a political appointee 15 years prior to that as a career attorney so let me ask you I in taking a look at the individuals who are working on the matters that we are discussing are they career attorneys in the department and we're working on this some of them are congresswoman under the regulation the special counsel is permitted to request the detail of attorneys in the department who he believes will be helpful he also has authority to hire attorneys from outside the department and he's used both approaches so wouldn't they be subject to the principles the merit system principles in the Civil Service Reform Act yes I believe they are so you know I was we've been on the committee here for a long time and I remember back in 2008 there were allegations that the Department of Justice had used politics as a basis for hiring and firing in the department and the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility issued a report outlining the impropriety of using politics and personnel decisions one of the things they said was that the department's policy on non-discrimination includes the Department of Justice needs to seek to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race color religion sex sexual orientation national origin marital status political affiliation age and the like so wouldn't that policy be governing the actions of the individuals working on this you couldn't discriminate based on this whole list including their political affiliation congressman when one of the advantages that I bring to the job is having been in and around the department for a while I've seen mistakes that are made made in the past and that is precisely one of the issues that I've discussed with our political appointees that we're not going to do that that we are not going to improperly consider political affiliation with regard to career employees of the department thank you very much you know I wanted to ask about a couple of concerns and you may or may not have responsibility for this if so just let me know I am concerned that the department has had a change in position on certain important voting rights issues one has to do with the purging of roles in Ohio the department had previously argued against purging those roles because the National Voter Registration Act prohibits the purging of voters simply because they haven't voted in a given period of time and it's my understanding that the department is now arguing that Ohio can purge individuals from roles even without evidence that they have moved additionally the Department had argued that the state of Texas ID law had discriminated against individuals and that the department has changed its position on that and it's the law as currently drafted probably excludes up to 600,000 Americans from being able to vote because of the idea that draconian ID laws can you give us any insight into why the department changed its position on these key voting rights issues congresswoman I'm generally familiar I don't all the details of both of those matters but as a general matter it's important to understand that the determination about ultimate determination about what the law means is made by a judge Department officials obviously need to make a decision based upon a good faith analysis of the facts in the law what position to take it may be that new leadership of the department takes a different position but I can assure you that's based on a good faith analysis and there may be legitimate and vacuity and some of these provisions and we were responsible for making our determination just like the prior administration made theirs but ultimately it will be up to a judge let me just ask a final question it's my understanding that under the order appointing him mr. Muller has the authority to investigate matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation which would include crimes uncovered while he is an investigating the main mission so for example if he is looking at the Russia investigation and he finds out that the person he's looking at committed a bank robbery he isn't required to ignore a bank robbery would that be a fair assessment of his responsibilities it's a fair assessment gentleman has expired mr. Rosen sign me answer the question congressman also it's important to recognize because it's a special counsel not an independent counsel those issues are worked out with the department so in the event that II came across evidence that was not appropriate for him to prosecute he could refer it to other components of the department so we wouldn't allow something like that to slip through the cracks but we would make sure to route it to the appropriate prosecutor Thank You mr. chairman Jay I recognize the gentleman from Ohio mr. Chabot for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman mr. Rosen Stein you already indicated that mr. struck was removed for impropriety it's beyond me how the other people that were mentioned by the chairman and and mr. Smith were not removed for impropriety as well let me ask you first of all I assume that the team you put together you felt was going to be that new or put together was gonna be fair and unbiased correct correct I selected mr. Muller and he selected the team right now let me just review a few facts about the supposedly unbiased group of people that mr. Muller pulled together 9 of the 16 have made political contributions to be fair let's just go through them in alphabetic order first Greg Andres gave $1,000 to the Democrat running to hold the seat the Senate seat previously held by Barack Obama he gave $2,600 to Democrat Senator Gillibrand who just this week led the charge of Democratic senators demanding that President Trump resign and oh yeah mr. Andrews gave zero to the Trump campaign or to any Republican for that matter next again in alphabetical order rush Atkinson he donated to the Clinton campaign last year again zero to the Trump campaign third Kelly Franey contributed to both Obama campaigns and Hillary Clinton's campaign zero to the Trump campaign next Andrew Goldstone he donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns against zero to the Trump campaign fifth Elizabeth pre lager who clerked for liberal Supreme Court justices Ginsburg and Kagan contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns zero to trump next James Quarles he's contributed to the Democratic presidential campaigns of Dukakis Kerry Obama and Hillary Clinton and gore as well he did contribute the former congressman Chaffetz and Senator Allen but he contributed over $20,000 to Democratic House and Senate candidates and again gave zero to trump seventh January she actually represented as was previously mentioned Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits she's donated sixteen thousand dollars to Democrats contributed fifty four hundred dollars to the Clinton campaign and zero to the Trump campaign eighth Brandon Vondrak contributed to act blue the fundraising outfit organized to elect Democratic congressional candidates contributed to the Obama presidential campaign and of course gave nothing to Trump and finally Andrew Wiseman he contributed two thousand at a Democratic National Committee twenty three hundred to the Obama campaign twenty three hundred to the Clinton campaign and zero to Donald Trump he's also the guy who praised the holdover acting Attorney General Susan Yates for defying President Trump on the travel ban now my question to you is how with a straight face can you say that this group of Democrat partisans are unbiased and will give President Trump a fair shake well congressman I think it's important to recognize that when we talk about political affiliation that all demonstrates political affiliation the issue of bias is something different I've discussed this with director Muller and he and I collectively have a lot of experience managing offices in the Department of Justice we recognize we have employees with political opinions and it's our responsibility to make sure those opinions do not influence their actions pardon me and so I believe that director Muller understands that and that he is running that office appropriately recognizing that people have political views but ensuring that those views are not in any way a factor and how they conduct themselves in office well when you say he's running it appropriately I think putting the committee the people his investigators together to be again this investigation in the first place is part of the investigation and how these people the group he put together it's considered an unbiased I don't know how anyone can possibly reach that conclusion you know when when this whole Russia was involved in our elections flap surfaced and you picked Robert Mueller de to lead the investigation I was at first encouraged it seemed like a serious matter and it deserved a serious investigation and I assumed as many of us did that mr. Muir would pull together an unbiased team but rather than wearing stripes as umpires and referees might wear I would submit that the Mueller team overwhelmingly ought to be attired with democratic donkeys on their jerseys or I'm with Hillary t-shirt certainly not with let's make America great again and I think that's a shame because I think the American people deserve a lot better than the very biased team that they're getting under Robert Mueller and I think it's really sad you back the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas miss Jackson Lee for five minutes Deputy Attorney General thank you welcome and thank you for your service to the nation allow me just for a moment as I move on my questions to indicate and that I am shocked and baffled the way some in the right-wing media and some of our friends on the other side show such contempt for the Department of Justice and the FBI and so much skepticism or mistrust of the Russian government let me briefly review for the record the FBI and DOJ brought to justice and put away Timothy McVeigh domestic terrorists who killed 168 Americans Klansmen who murdered civil rights workers Goodman Chaney and Schwerner the Unabomber terrorists will bomb US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania organized crime family kingpins the murder assassinated Medgar Evers Pan Am 103 bombing Soviet diplomat that had a spy ring during World War two all dreams Richard Hansen Alger Hiss and others for espionage world Trey Center bombing in 1993 TWA 847 hijacking Lindbergh kidnapping Beltway snipers Klansmen will kill four little girls in a sixteenth Street Church in Birmingham and of course on the other hand Russians are known for shooting down a civilian airliner al 0:07 killing 269 passengers and crew annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine killing journalists propping up Assad the butcher of Damascus building the Berlin wall imposing an Iron Curtain against freedom and committing cyber theft and schemata and conspiring and doing sabotage of the American presidential election in 2016 perhaps our friends on the other side of the owl can show more respect for the FBI and the DOJ as so many of us do including myself so let me ask these questions and with my limited time I really need just a yes or no are you in the business of helping to secure the elections in 2018 and making sure that there is an infrastructure none DOJ to help states have secure elections yes or no yes special counsel Muller I'm reminded some of us would say we read it in the history books of the Saturday night massacre I know you must be aware of it during the meeting of May 8th you of the Saturday night massacre I know you must be aware of it during the meeting of May 8 2017 with you sessions and president in the president the day before Comey was fired what did you discuss regarding the FBI investigation congresswoman I've explained previously I'm not going to be discussing anything related to that until after the investigation thank you very much mr. Deputy Attorney General let me then go forward with the question of the protection of the special prosecutor do you have in place a protection scheme or system that would void a potential Saturday night massacre do you in fact have the authority to stand up against the president who is putting out the right-wing media to taint the investigation will you protect mr. Muller if he deserves a protection and has done nothing to violate his duties and responsibilities as I've explained if he hasn't violated is that yes or no mr. Deputy Attorney General I won't take any action unless he is violated his duties let me show you these individuals here it says that the Trump accusers want a day in court or at least want to be heard the president is a chief executive and law enforcement office of the United States therefore he is an officer of the United States what the Department of Justice what intentions do you have to allow these women were accusing the president of sexual misconduct and have never been heard in terms of a public setting as many of us on this committee women on this committee democratic women on this committee of asked for this committee to hold a hearing with these women what does Department of Justice intend to do in light of the fact that the president is a chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America I don't think I have any position on that congresswoman if they're they file a lawsuit they're free to do so it wouldn't be an apartment matter would you not believe that it's important to give these women a forum to be heard the Department of Justice the FBI investigates I just gave a long litany of the great successes of the Department of Justice if there's anything that warrants federal investigation congresswoman we certainly look at it so can I refer these women can we refer these women to the Department of Justice if they walked up to the of justice would there be an intake officer an FBI officer that would take their complaints if if somebody wants to file a complaint of a potential federal crime yes they can report that to the FBI or they can write anybody can do that at any time in many then let me publicly say to these women you have one option at this time is to go to the Department of Justice as the Deputy Attorney General has just said to us to be able to file a complaint and I would encourage them to do that I would also encourage this hearing as well so the use of private prisons that was by Eric Holder what is the position of the US Department of Justice as relates to a fair and just commutation program and also the issues dealing with over prosecution and the sentencing policy that was offered by Eric Holder which was considered fair and just and the use of private prisons had been known to be abusive to prisoners and do not allow folia request to go forward what is your position on that time of the gentleman has expired the deputy trained gentle man sir the question I think you've raised a number of issues congresswoman I don't know that I have time to respond to them all but I do just want to clarify anybody is free to report to the Department of Justice when they believe that crime is committed it's not a complaint in the way that you might file a complaint and some local police departments you're free to report any allegations and the department will conduct appropriate review as we do with any allegations of alleged criminal conduct we initiate investigations though only if we determine there's proper predication under our policies well I'm yelling I'm yelling back mr. chairman but he did not answer my questions I mean no one has already expired the chair recognizes the gentleman from California mr. ice for five minutes Thank You mr. Deputy Attorney General if someone comes in to make that complaint or to file that information they're gonna have their identification checked for who they are right to get into the building I'm not certain if they were to admitted to the building you actually can walk into most FBI offices I think without having to go through security but you wouldn't consider it draconian if while they're filing this complaint or allegation their driver's license was looked at would you well if we're going to connect investigate we need to know who the witnesses are thank you I I just wanted to know that that wasn't draconian in the case of mr. struck the you know there was an appearance of impropriety that people are observing but you you said well there may not have been the reason but if it wasn't the appearance of impropriety based on his numerous rather strident tweets or not tweets but texts a commenting adversely on the president what was it I find said that congressman that it was inadvertent the decision to move mr. Strunk off that case was made by director Muller based upon the circumstances known to him it's important to understand though that those text messages were uncovered in the course of an inspector general investigation that's not complete so we won't be able to make any determination about what if any discipline is wrong let me go to the inspector general now this is Michael Horowitz right correct Michael Horowitz has repeatedly complained that he cannot in fact he doesn't have the authority to to look for impropriety by lawyers as to their conduct as lawyers because the office of the office the OPF the OPR has that authority that's still true isn't it it's true but he does have authority for certain types of misconduct by lawyers okay so we have a situation in which he can look at some of the misconduct not others so one of the pieces of misconduct he cannot look at would be the question of a bias or the appearance of bias in their investigations in how they're conducting it or and or decisions that is uniquely excluded to the inspector general in your cabinet position versus all other cabinet positions if I'm not certain about that and if I may I'll check and get back to you on that but it would even he is excluded it would either be OPR or the Inspector General and with regard to conflicts of interest I believe certain of those are within the jurisdiction of the inspector general but I'd have to verify okay well you can get back to me on that the you know these political views that mr. Chabot mentioned and they're pretty that these are people who who had a strong preference but notwithstanding that let's be very candid nobody up here is going to claim to be without their political bias so one of the reasons that when there is a conflict of interest people recuse themselves and when there is a an appearance of impropriety they're excused and one of the reasons that we look to a special prosecutor and that you appointed a special prosecutor was to not only get past the politics on this dais but to get past the appearance of any conflict by the Department of Justice is that fair to say do you minimize any appearance on either side of bias correct okay but the prosecutor under the remaining statute how it's done is still a group looking for wrongdoing that is their charge is they're not looking for right doing they're looking for wrongdoing that's fair to say like like any prosecutor you're not looking for innocence the way I would characterize a congressman is that they're looking for the truth and then they'll make a determination about whether or not it's appropriate to prosecute okay so my question to you is if that's the case if we accept that my assumption that they're looking to if they can to hang the president or people around him hear me out for a moment then there really isn't a problem with having people that are dead set on trying to find anything that will incriminate the administration in a Russian connection which is somewhat their charge so I'll posture to you that maybe it's not that bad to have people who really just like the president would like to hang him having said that when there's impropriety such as mr. struck when there is in fact a history at the FBI of withholding information from Congress when there is the appearance of impropriety by the Department of Justice and when the Inspector General is limited under the statute both because he doesn't have full access and because certain portions are out of it wouldn't you say that this is a classic example where in order to investigate the FBI and the Department of Justice a special prosecutor who is equally looking for the truth if it exists adversely to the conduct of the FBI and the Department of Justice is within your charge and responsibility to see that happens gentleman has expired you've got a number assumption claiming a congressman and my my simple answer to it would be that if we believe there was a basis for an investigation or a special counsel I can assure you that we would act well mr. chairman I would say that since we've already had dismissals for wrongdoing since there's ongoing internal investigations the elements necessary to ask for a special prosecutor to in fact see what was done wrong already exist time of gentleman has expired the chair recognizes gentle from Tennessee mr. Cohen for five minutes Thank You mr. chair first I want to thank you for your service to the country and for accepting the difficult position under the difficult circumstances that you have has president Trump ever communicated with you about removing robert muller from his role of special counsel congressman I am NOT going to be discussing my communications with the president but I can tell you that nobody has communicated to me a desire to remove Robert Miller you said you're not going to relate your conversations with President Trump how many conversations have you had since your appointment with President Trump I'm the Deputy Attorney General congressman and it's appropriate for me to talk with the president about law enforcement issues and I don't believe that's an appropriate issue for discussion when you chose robert muller to be the special counsel what were his characteristics his history and the reasons for you to have chosen him for this important position I think it would be very difficult congressman for anybody to pose in him for this important position I think it would be very difficult congressman for anybody to find someone been a dedicated and respected and heroic public servant he after college volunteered to serve as a marine in Vietnam where he was wounded in combat the attended law school and then devoted most of his career to serving as a federal prosecutor with the exception of brief stints and private practice he served as United States Attorney in two districts in Massachusetts Center in Northern California he served in many other positions in the department after he lost his position as the head of the Criminal Division when President Clinton was elected in 1992 mr. Muller briefly went into private practice and then he went back at an entry-level position as a homicide prosecutor trying to help with the violent crime problem in the District of Columbia in the early 1990s he then rose once again through the ranks and ultimately was confirmed I believe unanimously as FBI director protected this nation after 9/11 and then when his 10-year term expired he was so well respected that he his term was extended I believe also almost unanimously for another two years so I believe that based upon his reputation his service his patriotism and his experience with the department and with the FBI I believe he was an ideal choice for this task thank you sir I agree with you FBI director Ray agrees with you he said that the similar thoughts he said he was a smart lawyer or a dedicated public servant well respect within the FBI I think everybody on the other side of the aisle agreed with you when you appointed him and everybody in this Judiciary Committee and probably everybody in this Congress agreed with this appointment as FBI director which was which was unanimous his reappointment which was unanimous Bible Republican Bush and Democrat Obama everybody respects that man in this country he met dead man in this obviously that we knew that would be an exception but the fact is they didn't start to dislike him until he started to get think it that affected the president that currently serves this country and because of that they said the FBI was in tatters that the FBI the chief law enforcement top law enforcement folks in this country are questionable some of their allies on television said they're like the KGB they've questioned you they've questioned the Justice Department they've questioned some of the most loyal dedicated fearless people in our country who serve the rule of law and I find it repugnant and awful and I wonder what you think about it when you hear about the FBI which works under you being suggested it's in tatters and that there's something wrong with the FBI and that they're somehow like the KGB congressman as I know you're aware I've expressed concern with certain aspects of certain things done by the FBI but in general throughout my experience working with FBI agents over the decades I found them to be an exceptional group of public servants a very loyal faithful and dedicated and I believe some of the finest people that I know are agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation I thought about them sir when I watched the army-navy game and I thought about it because I have the honour as everybody up here has of recommending some folks to be at West Point and Annapolis those are the cream of the crop and the people at the FBI are in law enforcement they're the cream of the crop and Justice Department attorneys are too it's not easy yet a job injustice no matter where you went to law school and what you did you hire the best you always have I compliment you on that I hope and know you will continue to hold the Department of Justice up as a pantheon of outstanding lawyers and jurist and take justice where it should go as truth demands and justice dictates I yield back the balance of my time the chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa mr. King for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman and thank you mr. Rosen's time for your testimony here and your service number of things I'm curious about here first of all in the in the interview of Hillary Clinton that took place reportedly a July 2nd of 2016 how many people were in the room for that how many people had the opportunity to question her no I do not know the answer that I believe when the Inspector General completes his review we may have additional information but I personally do not know and would you know who selected that team no I do not really okay I recall the testimony here by James Comey and also by then Attorney General Loretta Lynch to testify one of the two of them that there were three representatives of the FBI and three hours a DOJ in that room doing that interview would that be consistent with practice that you would anticipate am I am I gonna hear IG again typically we would have at least two agents conduct an interview and there may be any number of attorneys based upon who's on the case I just don't know the details of that particular decision okay and the practice in an interview like that would there be records kept of that interview yes if there were FBI agents present typically they would take notes and produce a report summarizing the interview would there be a videotape audio tape or a transcript generally no uh-huh and why not well it's just not it's not the practice to do it it needs to become the practice and to practice out across the countryside many of our local law enforcement is it if you're a County deputy and your interview somebody for drunk driving you tape that interview and we have deputy sheriff's out there that will say if they don't do that that's cause for discipline now we're sitting here with a mystery on what went on in that interview of July 2nd and as many questions have been asked about that before and after and they will they will trickle through history until we get to the bottom of it we don't know yet who was in the room at least you can't tell me who was in the room do you have any knowledge that Peter struck might have been one of those people I do not know it's been reported in the news that he was one of those people are you aware that I've read a lot of news reports I may have seen that in the news but I personally do not know I see and when I look through that just a timeline here I just so quickly drop this into the record may April May of 2016 Peter struck interviews Omaha Medina and Cheryl Mills who Cheryl Mills who happen to be in the room with Hillary Clinton and her general counsel energy for staff and a subject to the investigation then may 2nd Comey e-mails FBI officials a draft statement a couple of months before his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton and in that chain Peter Struck's name shows up has been reported that he's the one that swapped out the references from gross negligent to extremely carelessness I don't know if that's true do you have any knowledge about that no but I would point out congressman that it's the Inspector General review that has turned up I thought that was going to be the answer and then also skipping forward to July 24th FBI interviews Michael Flynn on Russia is reported in the news the Peter struck is in that interview no knowledge to disagree with the reports that are in the news however correct and then then we get the news later on at some time in mid-summer Peter stock had been removed from from Mueller's investigative team we find out December 4th that that took place is publicly I kind of understand that if that had drifted into the end of the jet stream perhaps we wouldn't be into the middle of this controversy but what a what about if his hands are in so many things and I'm not touched them all by any means but if he has his hands and this many things what about the fruit of the poisonous tree it's a this is the reverse of this these are the this is the voids of the fruit of the poisonous tree and I'm looking at what was reported this morning I just took a picture of the television set on my iPhone just so that we all know what I'm talking about here a quote from August 6 2016 text lisa page 2 peter struck and they're talking about president Trump and maybe you're meant she's speaking to Peter struck earth lover I hear and maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you are meant to protect the country from that menace and Peter strikes responses thanks it's absolutely true that we're both very fortunate and of course I'll try and approach it that way I just don't know it will be so it will be tough at times I can protect our country at many levels not sure if that helps does that sound like a declaration that he would use his job to to leverage his work against the President of the United States congressman the inspector general's investigation includes interviews of numerous witnesses and I anticipate hopefully in the near future we'll have a report with the Inspector General's conclusions would you have any any opinion on the lack of the fruit from the poisonous tree that might have been erased by Peter struck well as a legal matter congressman I can tell you that if evidence is tainted and that would raise a concern for me typically our cases would be prosecuted based upon witnesses and document and not upon the agent less the agent personally were witness in the case but I would certainly concern us if there were any tainted evidence in the case Thank You mr. Rosen Stein I appreciate it now yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia mr. Johnson for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman and thank you for your service to the country mr. Rosen Stein based on the language in your special counsel order or the your order appointing special counsel does the Special Counsel have the authority to investigate any individual who may have obstructed the investigation that FBI director Comey confirmed on March 20th of this year which was the Russian interference with the 2016 elections the special counsel does have authority to investigate any obstruction related to his jurisdiction does DISA thority to investigate possible obstruction include investigating President Trump I hope you won't take an inference one way or the other congressman but as I've explained that's simply something we do not do we do not discuss who may or may not be under investigation well I'm not asking you whether or not the president is under investigation I'm just simply asking whether or not your order appointing the special counsel authorizes the special counsel to investigate the president it authorizes him to investigate to anybody who there's predication to believe obstructed justice and that includes the president correct it'll include anybody who was suspected of obstructing justice all right does do you think that it's appropriate for the president to comment publicly on any pending investigation congressman the decision about whether people in political positions comment on investigations is not mine my responsibility is to ensure that our investigations are not impacted improperly by any opinion whether it be a member of Congress or anybody else well it would not be appropriate you to come in about any pending investigation isn't that correct correct and the president is the chief law enforcement officer he considers himself in the country it would be inappropriate for him then to comment on a pending investigation would it not congressman I believe over the years there have been presidents who have made comments about investigations and it's simply not my responsibility to make that decision well do you think it's appropriate for the president to publicly call for the investigation of specific individuals I'm simply not going to comment on that Congress in other than to tell you it's my responsibility along with the Attorney General to make sure that those decisions are made independently by the department based upon the facts and the law has the president ever contacted you to urge action in any pending investigation congressman I have not received any improper orders and I'm not going to be talking about particular communications I may have with which are appropriate communications with the White House what would be your legal basis for refusing to answer the question whether or not the president has contacted you to urge any action in any pending investigation what would be your legal basis for refusing answer that question congressman this is not a partisan issue I worked in an investigation where the previous president encouraged the department to do an expeditious investigation and so the question for me is are we are we not appropriately making an independent determination regardless of who comments on it well my question I respect your question but my question is has the president ever contacted you to urge action in any pending investigation yes or no I have nothing further to say about it congressman so you're gonna refuse to answer a question from a member of Congress seeking to do oversight I've told you congressman that I have not received any improper orders and I'm simply not going to talk about communications I think in administration senior law enforcement officers have to be able to communicate with the President and his officials about appropriate matters within their responsibilities and not comment on it so you shouldn't draw any inference it's simply not appropriate for me to talk about communications I may have with the administration so it would I would tell you if something happened that was that was wrong if somebody ordered me to do something that was improper but that does not happen well it would be improper for the for the president to ever contact you about initiating an investigation of someone would it not we've discussed this previously congressman presidents have commented publicly and no no I'm my question is it would be improper for a president to contact you about initiating a investigation of someone it would be improper wouldn't it be improper for the president to order me to conduct an investigation it would be improper for the president to ask you to initiate an investigation would it not if it were for improper reasons yes and so is it your testimony today that the president has not asked you to investigate someone specifically Congress I understand what you're getting at but as I said I was in the last administration and the president last administration about being very artful in know I'm not jumping around and evading answering my question and and so you're not gonna answer it and I'm not evading that's unfortunate are you afraid of President Trump firing you no I'm not congressman with that I will yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas mr. Gohmert for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman thanks for being here roads and sound thank you did you ever tell Special Counsel robert muller that in essence everything you do must not only be just and fair but must also appear beyond reproach anything like that in essence yes yes well since Attorney General Sessions recused himself you are effectively the boss of the special counsel and staff correct you it is correct that I am effectively the boss and well we all know that FBI director James Comey was fired we know of your letter we know of your public statements but here's a question to your knowledge who first proposed the idea of firing James Comey is FBI director congressman I'm not going to comment on that the president has explained that he made the decision and I'm not going to comment beyond that at the time you wrote the letter suggesting a firing did you believe what you put in that ret letter yes I did all right if an FBI employee goes into a meeting and as part of his job in furtherance of his job someone in the government and he comes out and he makes a memo memorializing the meeting perhaps a in the future present a smell refreshed is that memo DOJ property generally congressman I would think that it would be it might depend on what's in the memo what the subject matter is but generally the answer would be yes well an FBI employment agreement earth yeah employment agreement whose statement it says that and this is the person agreeing to work for the FBI all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material which I have access from any property of the United States of America I will not reveal by any means any of information material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment if you make a memo of things that were discussed in as part of your job then it would be a violation of that agreement to send that to someone to leaked to the press isn't that right it will may be all right in the question I'm about to ask I'm not asking what you may have told Attorney General Jeff Sessions I don't want to know any words used or ideas conveyed nor sources reference in fact I'm asking a question that could not possibly have any other answer other than one of two words that would be yes or no you are completely free - holy answer this question with one of those two words and neither word is privileged confidential or classified here's the question as Attorney General Jeff Sessions deputy did you give Jeff Sessions any advice regarding whether or not he should recuse himself in the matter of the Russian investigation yes or no no can I give a little bit of explanation congressman I appreciate your asking that question I wasn't there I was confirmed I believe on April 25th and took office on AP 26th I was not there at the time the riku and you you ever talked to Bruce or he yes and one name four doors down from yours you know I haven't counted but he was down the hall and of course he's been demoted over the relationship with fusion GPS and then of course we found out that his wife Nellie was a Russian expert and was paid by fusion GPS through summer in fall of 2016 helping the Clinton campaign get a parent dossier from the Russians how well do you know the people that work on your haul well it varies congressman I think that's the precise thing it varies some of them I know well something I don't know as well all right of course everybody has some opinions political opinions or otherwise the key is not having those affect or bias you in the Department of Justice correct well here is mr. Strock some of his texts talking about Trump he's an idiot like Trump and Martin O'Malley said well a D word I'm not watching I can't tell you how little I care right now it's talking about the Republican convention so much more substantive than the representative debates he goes on at some point the Republican Party needs to pull their heads out of their blank shows no sign of occurring anytime soon of course he's you know the f we were told by Christopher Rea stands for fidelity but this these were all made in the course of infidelity and then he makes slurs against Kasich he is just unbelievable I truly hate these people talking about the Republicans no support for the women who actually has to spend the rest of her life hearing this child but we care about quote life and then a-holes how can he how the F can he be a Republican and on and on it goes America will get what the voting public deserves and that's what I'm afraid of God Hillary should win a hundred 100 million to zero did you hear them make a comment the size of anyway this is not just political opinions this is disgusting unaccountable bias and there's no way that could not affect a person's work were you aware of just how biased mr. struck was no I was not thank you one final thing you I'm asking question the answer is not classified on privilege based on information believe the best of your knowledge has the FBI ever used work product or report any part of which was paid for by a political campaign political party political candidate or / are prepared on a candidates behalf congressman the the issue that you're the time of the gentleman has expired the witness may answer the question I know that we're working with at least one committee House Intelligence that has access to that information I believe that they'll get whatever information I'm asking a general question I'm not specific time of the gentleman has expired Massachusetts getting ready in the for that was already my personal knowledge but I'm not representing I don't know everything about the FBI and mr. chairman point of personal privilege since my character was slandered by mr. Cohen who said that I never we never a challenged molar until he came after the administration when he knows how tough I went after FBI director Muller he's been here when I went after Muller while Bush was president he knows I have been after him because of the damage he did and what he stated about me is a life and I need the record to properly reflect that the gentleman's comment is duly noted the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California miss bast for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman according to an August 17th FBI intelligence assessment titled black identity extremists likely motivated to target law enforcement officers quote it is very likely the black identity extremists perceptions of police brutality against African Americans spurred an increase in retaliatory violence so I've tried to get to the bottom of where this report came from who did it what its status is I've asked Attorney General Sessions I've asked director ray and so now I want to ask you did you order the FBI to conduct this assessment sorry what was the date August 2017 August of this year no I did not do you know who authored the report are you familiar with the report nothing with the report I'm familiar with a general issue and so maybe you could talk a little bit about the general issue in particular when the FBI began tracking black identity extremism I think it's important we to explain congresswoman that the FBI does not make a determination with regard to domestic groups to investigate them based upon their First Amendment views or their affiliation it bases its decisions on evidence of a propensity to violence so with regard to members of any ideology domestically the FBI would only be investigating if there were some indication you believe that there's a political movement in the country called black identity extremism I don't believe the FBI intends that to encompass a particular political movement what they do is they try to categorize different threats that that they identify so you said investigate but before you do an investigation their surveillance correct generally no there may need to be a determination first that there was a basis for an investigation typically before any surveillance so how does that determination take place and where has it taken place I if you want details I need to get back to you but the FBI does have very strict guidelines as you know several decades ago there was quite a bit of controversy about this issue and the FBI has very detailed guidelines for when they initiate investigations and I'm not aware of any departure from those guidelines so one thing that and I am aware of the FBI's history from many years ago COINTELPRO and many people are looking at this document black identity extremism is COINTELPRO - one of the concerns that has been raised and that I raised with attorney general sessions and director Ray is that this document for whatever reason was mass distributed to law enforcement officers around the country are you aware of that no I'm not so when we talked to director Ray it wasn't clear how this term was even developed in other words what evidence was it based on to even come up with a term like that and then to write a document about it and then to distribute it to law enforcement around the country I don't know the answer that congresswoman but if it's of any reassurance I've been in this job for eight months I haven't seen any indication that the FBI is approaching this in a biased way they're conducting investigations where they believe the person who is the subject represents a potential threat and not simply because they believe in an ideology or associate with an ideology but because they represent a particular threat and I believe that the AI guidelines are designed specifically to ensure that there are no abuses so what I am hearing from activists around the country in particular activists who were protesting law enforcement and you know police brutality or deaths at the hands of law enforcement is that they're being visited by the FBI that the FBI is leaving you know business cards and then what the concern about that is is that if they do engage in a conversation with an FBI agent and perhaps make a mistake or maybe say something that isn't true then they're vulnerable to be prosecuted for lying to a law enforcement officer so the activists that have received visits by the FBI have never been involved in violence at all are you aware of that happening in any of your offices around the country no let me just express another concern about this when a document that doesn't seem to have any scientific basis that develops a category called black identity extremism that nobody can say whether or not it really exists when you send a document like that to law enforcement around the country you know in some places I will worry that they will take that to say that any time there is a officer-involved shooting and then there is a protest that the people that protests might be black identity extremists congressmen to the best of my knowledge the FBI is not investigating people who are peacefully protesting I said I haven't read that document I'll review it and see what it says I would appreciate it if you would and if there is no basis for this term that then the FBI take the step to retract the document and send a message to law enforcement around the country that no such category exists I yield back my time the chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio mr. Jordan for five minutes did the FBI pay Christopher Steele and was the dossier the basis for securing warrants at the FISA Court to spy on Americans associated with the Trump campaign really when you sum it all up it boils it boils down to those fundamental questions did you pay the guy who wrote it and did you use what he wrote disproven discredited dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign did you use it to go get warrants to spy on Americans that's what it comes down to and you're the guy can answer those questions and I was contested I was convinced that the answer those questions was probably yes but today I'm even more convinced the answer is yes based on the text messages we got to read early this morning mr. Rosen Stein you know Peter struck you familiar with that name yes something with the name former deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI Peter struck that one I don't know it's precise title but yes he had a significant role in Peter struck ran the Clinton campaign interviewed Mills Abidine Clinton changed the exoneration letter from gross negligence to extreme careless Peter struck who ran the Russian investigation interviewed Mike Flynn Peter struck selected by mr. Mulder to be on his team that Peter struck we learned had all these text messages we got to read some of them that early this morning now as my colleagues have point out some of them are you know they're show he didn't like Trump he and Miss Paige are exchanging text messages back and forth show they don't like the president but that's nothing new everyone on Muller's team no one on Miller's team likes Trump we already knew that but I want to focus on one in particular one in particular and this this is a text message from mr. straw to miss Paige recalling a conversation and a meeting that took place in ND Andrew McCabe's office deputy director of the FBI recalling a meeting earlier and mr. struck says this I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration and Andy's office then there's a break - it says that there's no way he gets elected no way Trump gets elected he says I want to believe that you said that in the meeting and Andrew McCabe's office I want to believe that but then he goes but I'm afraid we can't take that risk this goes to intent he says we can't take the risk that you know the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump president we can't take this risk this is Peter struck head of counterintelligence to the FBI this is Peter struck who I think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the FISA Court he's saying we can't take the risk we have to do something about it don't forget the timeline here either mr. Rosenstein Peter struck January 10th he's the guy who changes the exoneration letter from gross negligence criminal standard to extreme carelessness July 2nd he's the guy who sets in on the Clinton interview July 5th 2016 that's when Comey has the press conference says we're not gonna prosecute Clinton's okay we're not gonna prosecute and then August 2016 we have this text message the same month that the Russian investigation is opened at the FBI August 2016 and my guess is that's the same month that the application was taken to the FISA Court to get the warrants to spy on Americans using this dossier that Clinton pain paid for Democrats paid for fake news all dressed up taken to the court so I got really just a couple basic questions cuz it seems to me if the answer to any of these of those two questions if the answer is yes if you guys paid Christopher steel at the same time the Democrats and the Clinton campaign were painting or if you took the dossier dress it all up took it to the FISA Court and use that as the basis to get warrants and now we have intent in this in this text message saying that there's another text message my colleague represent our where mister struck says I can protect our country at many levels says it with all the humility he could muster I can protect our country at many levels this guy thought he was super agent James Bond at the FBI this is obvious I'm afraid we can't take that risk we can't there's no way we can let the American people make Donald Trump the next president I got to protect our country this is unbelievable and I'm here to tell you mister Rosenstein I think the public trust in this whole thing is gone so sees me you got two things you can do you're the guy in charge you're the guy pick Muller you're the guy who wrote the memo saying why you needed a fire Comey you're the guy in charge you could disband the Muller special prosecutor and you can do what we've all called for appoint a second special counsel to look into this to look into Peter struck Bruce or everything else we've learned in the last several weeks yes congressman and I can assure you that I considered it very important to make sure the thorough review is done and our Inspector General is doing a thorough review that's how we found those text messages as part of that review let me a you guys that you've given that answer like 15 times let me ask you this are you concerned I mean this is what a lot of Americans are believing right now and I certainly do that the Comey FBI and the Obama Justice Department worked with one campaign to go after the other campaign that's what everything points to think about what we've learned in the last several weeks we first learned they paid for the dossier then we learn about Peter struck and last week we learned about Bruce or and his wife Nellie I mean this is unbelievable so what's he going to take to get a second special counsel to answer these questions and find out was Peter struck really up to what I think he was I think it's important to understand congressman we have an inspector general has 500 employees and a hundred million dollar budget and that's what he does he investigates allegations of misconduct involving department employees that review that he is conducting is what turned up those text messages it will also involve interviews of those persons and of other witnesses we're looking forward to his report and we've met with mr. Horowitz and we're anxiously awaiting that report but that doesn't dismiss the fact that the country thinks we need a second special counsel 20 members of this committee the Judiciary Committee with primary jurisdiction over the Justice Department thinks we need a second special counsel all kinds of senators think we need a special counsel and what fact pattern do you have to have what kind of text message do you have to see before you say it's time for a second special counsel I want to assure you congressman I think the Attorney General explained we take very seriously the concerns of 20 members of this committee or one member of this committee we have a responsibility to make an independent determination and we will thank the chair the chair recognizes the gentleman from New York mr. Jeffries for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman mr. Rosen Stein there are approximately 14,000 special agents within the FBI is that correct 37,000 total employees and is it fair to say that a majority of those FBI Special Agents are registered Republicans I haven't asked them and I wouldn't want to speculate fair to say that a majority of the 14,000 FBI special agents have conservative-leaning political views like much of the law enforcement community throughout the entire nation I'm certain that many of them do I haven't counted now the Department of Justice apparently last evening invited a group of reporters to its offices to view the private text messages that were sent during the election by Peter struck and Lisa page is that correct I believe that's correct now who exactly authorized the Department of Justice in advance of a congressional hearing to invite reporters to come view private text message communications between two Department of Justice employees who are the subject of a pending investigation did you give that Otto something there's a very important question you asked congressman because that was one of my concerns about this issue is what is the status of these messages and is it appropriate to release them and the determination was made and that it is so we gave notice to their attorneys we notify the committee and our goal congressman is to make sure that it's clear to you and the American people we are not concealing anything that's embarrassing the FBI so is it extraordinary that you would invite reporters for a private viewing in advance of a congressional hearing only if the information is appropriate for public release if it's not appropriate for public release it is never appropriate to disclose it to report okay now shannon bream is a fox news supreme court reporter she tweeted last evening at 9:29 that fox news producer jake gibson has approximately 10,000 text messages between Peter struck and Lisa page now it's my understanding that only about 350 or so were released to this committee is that correct there are others that are being reviewed and we've assured the committee chairs that we're going to produce them as soon as we have them available there's some redactions that need to be made how is it possible that fox news apparently has 10,000 text messages i wouldn't assume that's true just because it was in the news congressman I'm not aware of that okay but this is a Fox News reporter who's indicating that I'm sure we're gonna get to the bottom of it hopefully the chairman in the bipartisan way would be interested and what he's really a it would be a violation of law and Department of Justice proceedings if there were any evidence that we disclosed information to a reporter that wasn't appropriate for public release or wasn't disclosed to the Congress I would agree with you I'm not aware of that okay now the Department of Justice investigation should be free of political interference true absolutely we put up a tweet from Donald Trump on November 3rd at 3:57 a.m. in the morning god knows what he was doing at that time other than tweeting it says everybody we put that suite up it's your math you know just consent that the clocks stop while we're trying to do what was the gentleman's request yeah the committee had been given notice of a tweet that I wanted displayed on the screen last evening and I've been asked asking for that to be put up and and there's some technical difficulty in doing that yes right yeah we will suspend as chairman I believe the gentleman had a minute and 45 seconds we'll make sure he gets plenty time I can mr. gates well in the interest of time mr. chairman I'll I'll just read what was written by the president he said everybody is asking why the Justice Department and FBI isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with crooked Hillary and the Dems let me ask you a question is it ever appropriate for a president any president of the to encourage the Department of Justice to launch criminal investigations against his or her perceived political enemies I'm not going to comment on that congressman as I've explained previously president has put a team of experienced folks in charge of the Department of Justice and we are not going to be influenced by anything other than the facts the law was that an appropriate tweet for the President of the United States to send it's not my role to opine on that the president's repeated attempts to encourage criminal prosecutions against perceived political enemies concern you sir congressman as I said we understand our responsibility and we're gonna continue to conduct our responsibilities in accordance with the facts of the law and I am grateful that the president has put an experienced team in charge of the Justice Department who understand what to do okay thanks on June 20th the New York Times published a wide-ranging interview with Donald Trump in it the president criticized you for being from Baltimore saying there are very few Republicans in Baltimore if any so he's from Baltimore true mr. Rosen Stein are you unable to be fair and impartial because you're from Baltimore well I'm actually not from ball - I did work in Baltimore for 12 years it's true that there not a lot of Republicans in Baltimore okay Donald Trump statement had no basis in reality correct well as I said that that part of it was true okay Preet Bharara is a former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York true he yes and he was fired by Donald Trump in March is that correct along with almost all sitting US Attorney's the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has prosecutorial jurisdiction over Trump Tower incorrect as jurisdiction over everything in its jurisdiction okay and presidential interviews of US attorney candidates as has been reported to be the case for preper hours replacement that would be a departure from traditional presidential protocol correct for the president personally it again took the interview that's right I'm not aware of all the prior practices I don't think it was done in the last two administrations and I'm familiar with okay and you were appointed by President Bush and then continued in that position as US attorney for Maryland by Barack Obama that's correct that's correct as a matter of law I was appointed and never removed okay well you ever asked by President Bush boil oil tea plates no we have asked by President Barack Obama to take a loyalty pledge no is it ever appropriate for the President of the United States Adam and the Department of Justice official or FBI director take a loyalty pledge I don't have any opinion about that congressman nobody's asked me to take a loyalty pledge other than oath of office Thanks I yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas mr. Poe for five minutes I thank the chairman thank you for being here just so it's clear I'm one of the numerous members of the Judiciary Committee that have asked for a second special prosecutor based on what mr. jordan earlier said the Justice Department is responsible for investigating criminal conduct would that include criminal conduct by the NSA yes okay we all learned under the prison that was happening years ago by the NSA that a NSA was doing in my opinion unconstitutional surveillance on Americans and their emails by tracking it and hacking in to see that as emails came to light under Snowden after Snowden if I care nothing for I brought that to America's attention NSA said we're not going to do that anymore the which i think is appropriate because I thought it was unconstitutional and we've heard reports through the media that there has been unmasking of information what I what I mean by that is it classified information is seized on somebody and someone else an American that their name is caught up in the communication and if someone leaks who that was unmasked that individual my understanding is it's classified information whoever does that unmasking has committed a felony is that correct the only distinction I would make congressman is the unmasking typically something done in the course of the intelligence analysis the leaking would be a violation that's why I'm talking about the leaking of that information and as of today has anybody been indicted under prism has anybody been indicted under leaking information on own unmasking up until today as the Justice Department indicted anybody under those two scenarios and events we have indicted prosecuted people for leaking I'm not certain whether I don't believe any of them related to unmasking so no one's been indicted to your knowledge which I want to bring up now the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that has been discussed by this committee numerous times it's the law that allows secret courts to issue secret warrants to try to go get terrorists that are operating overseas and get their information do does the Justice Department present those FISA warrants to a FISA judge in situations where a warrant is required yes that needs to be obtained from a federal judge that's right but the Justice Department is responsible for that is that correct also under FISA once again Americans are are brought into the scenario because you target a foreign terrorist and then you go after their emails and then you find emails of Americans and those are inadvertently caught in the surveillance of the target according to the Washington Post recently 90 percent of those inadvertent emails are on Americans and my question to you is has why hasn't the Justice Department the FBI the intelligence community presented to Congress and our quest that took place years ago how many of those inadvertent emails communications text messages conversations have been on Americans we've been asked for the number do you know why that has not been brought to our attention and let me just follow up with this reason here's the reason we need it we're getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702 which I have a lot of problems with I think it's unconstitutional in many other ways but beside the point here we are at a deadline getting ready to reauthorize it and still the intelligence community refuses to tell us how many Americans information has been seized can you tell us why we haven't gotten that information that we've asked for for years no I testified at a hearing with director Coates who I think would be a more appropriate person to answer that because he has access to the data and he's he has explained it but I would simply point out that you use the term inadvertent if the term that we use is incidental if you're an incidental I don't mind the problem the name point simply if you're investigating a foreign terrorist knowing with whom that person is communicating into your investigation and so it's not that's not my question my question was we're getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702 I don't think we ought to reauthorize it until we find out from the intelligence community where there are no indictments that have been issued against the intelligence community based upon the statements that you have made to see whether or not they're violating the law and they refuse to give this committee the information about how many people have been caught up in that and we've been in Stonewall by the intelligence community saying well we just can't can't do it why can't the committee televisions community get some geek over it Best Buy and have them come in and answer that question with a few little taps into the big computer system we just won't the number a time of the gentleman has inspired the witness may answer the question as I explained congressman I've heard director coats explain this and he's better positioned than I so we don't know still don't know Thank You mr. chairman chair thanks gentlemen the the gentleman from Illinois mr. Gutierrez recognized for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman I'd like to ask you about sexual assault by the President of the United States of America over the past few he feuded a legate against the president in the past several years at least 16 women have come forward to say that the President of the United States felt them up kissed them without permission put his hands under their clothing without permission groped them touched their genitalia walked into dressing rooms unannounced to see them naked and made other unwanted sexual advances that to everyone are clear violations of the law now I believe the women and I German really give the women and their word a lot of weight and when the Heming question is Donald Trump there really should be no further discussion because there's everybody regardless of their political affiliations or partisanship can clearly see we have a man in the presidency who has a very difficult relationship with the truth in this case we have women who were made to feel powerless and insignificant who a great personal cost and risk have come forward and I believe them I do our Franken is resigning from the Senate and it goes no further than this committee where two senior members resigned because women came forward and made credible claims that just happened last week and others on this day is right now are among the additional members of the body who are accused credibly accused of misconduct right now with the number two person in the Justice Department before a committee and sworn to tell the truth I think it's important to get your opinion on whether there are grounds for a criminal investigation or an ethics investigation against the President of the United States of America for example Rachel crooks is one of the 16 women that we know of who have come forward she said that President Trump before he was president quote kissed me directly on the mouth it was so inappropriate he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that end quote Jo hearth another one of the 16 women said quote he groped me he absolutely groped me and he just slipped his hand there touching my private parts end quote now these are just two examples of unwelcome sexual advances I think were he on the subway or in a restaurant would not either or both of these incidents be enough to get him arrested in your experience as the number two most important law enforcement officer in the United States but before you answer that how about these cases Christian Andersen in an interview said quote the person on my right who unbeknownst to me at the time was Donald Trump put their hand up my skirt he did touch my vagina through my underwear end quote and Cassandra Cyril said he continually groped my ass and invited me to his hotel room end quote these are very serious allegations of crimes committed by the president are they not but before you answer the question I think it's important to point out that these stories are corroborated by one of the most important witnesses of all the President himself corroborates this he told Billy he told TV host Billy Bush when he was miked up for an interview with Entertainment Tonight quote I just started kissing them it's like a magnet just kiss I don't even wait and when you're a star they let you do it you can do anything you continued said grab them by and you know what he said you can do anything end quote Samantha hugly said a national television that when she was a contestant in a beauty contest Trump would come back unannounced to the dressing room and she tells her story and once again we have audio tape of the president corroborating hit this account when he told Howard Stern well quote I'll tell you the funny is is that before a show I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed and everything else and you know no men are anywhere but I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner and he went on to say the chicks will be almost naked and quote mr. Russ is gent I see you as a law enforcement officer and I value your opinion on these matters would it be appropriate for you to investigate these and other allegations of assault and unwanted sexual advances by the President of the United States congressman I'm happy to take any questions regarding oversight of the Department of Justice with regard to that matter any other allegation that you think warrants investigation I would invite you to submit the evidence and the department will review it if you believe there's a federal crime that applies to any alleged violation by any person and that's all I have to say about that but mr. Rosen senior the number two top law enforcement officer in the nation let me ask you if a person on a train went and kissed a woman is that a crime if it's a federal crime a federal train it might be a federal crime Congress states Amtrak just not going answering States Amtrak wouldn't be appropriate for you answering it wouldn't be appropriate you think that it's okay as the number two law enforcement obviously you don't think it's a crime for a woman to be on a train to be in a restaurant sitting in er a stranger unwanted stranger would come up to her and grope her and kiss her that that's not a crime so if you ask me time of the gentleman has expired the witness may answer the question I would have to know the facts and I'd have to evaluate the law I've never prosecuted a case like that in federal court congressman but if you have an allegation by any person at any time you should feel free to submit it the women have made the other gentleman have this environment recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania mr. Marino for five minutes Thank You chairman Deputy Attorney General it's good to see you again thank you we did a lot of good work together over the years sir and I'm proud of it and I'm still proud to tell people that I was part of the Justice Department actually I have a strong bias for the Justice Department I know your character I know what kind of man you are and I have the most confidence in you that you will direct that agency rule of law and to see that everything is above board 99% of the 0.99 of the people that I worked with there are good honest law enforcement ultimate respect for them they helped me in many cases even when I was a DA I do would like to ask you to clarify a procedure and first of all would you tell me if I'm right here special counsel is appointed by the Attorney General or under the circumstances by you and that special counsel reports to you correct am I correct in saying that an independent counsel is again appointed by the Attorney General or you but that counsel is independent and not report to anyone in the essence of can I do a B or C is that correct under the Independent Counsel statute that laughs in 1999 the appoint would actually be made by a federal judge so there would be no role for the department in the selection or oversight DOJ wouldn't be involved it at all correct it did let's talk a moment about I've been in many interviews with FBI agents DEA agents concerning potential cases and what I've seen handled was aboveboard but wouldn't you explain to the kidney what a 302 is yes a 302 is simply the form number for an FBI interview report so after conducting a witness interview an FBI agent would write a summary of the interview and we refer to that as a form 302 and during that during an interview whether it's done by attorneys or investigators at the Department of Justice or it's done back in my district in the middle of Pennsylvania at some point is there usually an assistant US attorney present in those interviews there's no rule against the congressman but typically not I would say the majority of interviews would be conducted by two agents without a prosecutor who makes the final determination on whether immunity is granted it's not by the US attorney or the the attorney at Justice Department who could perhaps be handling that case that's correct it would be a prosecutor who would need to make that determination and depending upon what type of immunity it might require a higher level of review and before any immunity is given to anyone whether it's absolute or not we in law enforcement look for a proffer is that correct from the pro not an individual or their attorney what are you going to tell us that why why should we give you immunity we have a strong preference for obtaining a proper prior to any grant of immunity we don't always do it but we have a strong preference for it I have never been in a situation and perhaps it's not unique where immunity has been given where there has not been a proffer is that it would that be an extreme unusual situation where someone would say get their immunity but we have no idea what they're going to say I wouldn't want to characterize it congressman as a US Attorney I had to approve formal immunity and in the majority of the cases there had been a proper if there wasn't a proper I typically would ask why so I can't characterize what percentage of cases might fall into that category and also any evidence that was was would be collected such as laptops computers things of that nature pursuant to the investigation again there would be a thorough investigation of that equipment before immunity would be given to someone it would depend upon the circumstances congressman we'd have to make a determination of whether we believed what was the data might be relevant to the decision but there is we just don't give blanket immunity because someone asks for it or just to get them in to talk we should not give immunity just because somebody asked for it directly that's all I have thank you very much for being here and I know you will keep an eye on things and keep everything about or it's a pleasure to see you again likewise thank you I thank the gentleman the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida mr. Deutsch Thank You mr. chairman thank you for being here there's been there's been a lot of talk about dates and timelines I'd like to actually just walk through for the benefit of my colleagues just a short timeline from this year in January the FBI CIA and NSA concluded the following and I quote we assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the u.s. presidential election Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the u.s. democratic process denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency we further assess Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for president elect Trump close quote mr. Rosen's he'd give any reason to dispute that no in January also in January January 24th Michael Flynn denied to the FBI agents that he discussed the u.s. sanctions with Russia before he took office on January 26th acting Attorney General Sally Yates told the White House Counsel that Flynn lied about the nature of his calls with kiss lyac and is vulnerable to blackmail on February 13th of this year Flynn resigned over his conversations with the vice president on February 15th public reports of telephone records that show that members of the Trump campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election on March 16th documents released by representative Cummings show that Flynn received 30 $3,750 from Russia's state-owned TV for a speech that he made in Moscow on March 20th they have acknowledged an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia on may night the president fired the FBI director on May 10th Trump met with Russian diplomats in the White House and revealed classified information and told them that he fired the head of FBI called him a nutjob and said and I quote I face great pressure because of Russia that's taken off close quote on May 11th the president told NBC News that the Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story on June 7th we learned President Trump urged call me to drop the Flint investigation on July 8th we learned of undisclosed and undisclosed Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump jr. Jared Kushner Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer the next day five sources stated that Donald Trump jr. agreed to the meeting on the premise the damaging information on Hillary Clinton would be provided and five days after that a veteran of the Russian military we learned also attempted that Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump jr. Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner on October the fifth about George papadopolis one of five people the president identified as a policy adviser pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement to the FBI on January 27th about the timing extent and nature of relationships and interactions with certain foreign nationals in the statement of offense we learned that he reached out regarding his connections that he could help arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin on October 27th former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and campaign advisor riff Gates were indicted on multiple counts including conspiracy against the United States in November the president of the United States met with Vladimir Putin and said and I quote he said he didn't medal he said he didn't medal I asked him again you can only ask so many times every time he sees me he says I didn't do that and I really believe that when he tells me that he means it president went on to say I mean give me a break talking about the the national security folks who put together that report that I quoted earlier give me a break they are political hacks on December 1st former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement to the FBI about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions this is a little walk through what happened over the past year I would like to ask you mr. Rosenstein I'd like to quote some of my colleagues from this committee one of them said that the special counsels investigation into whether the Trump campaign assisted in its effort to interfere in the election is actually an attempt to overthrow the government in the United States do you believe that mr. Rosenstein no he said we're at risk of a coup d'etat in this country if we allow an unaccountable person is the Special Counsel unaccountable here no he's not an accountant he went on to say with no oversight is there no oversight at all of the special counsel there is oversight and then he went on to say that if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to under to undermine the duly elected president knighted States is pursuing the rule of law undermining the duly elected president of the United States mr. Rosenstein note is not one of my other colleagues said we've got to clean this town up he talked about firing Mahler one of our former colleagues on this committee accused Muller of having a vendetta against President Trump because he fired James Comey mr. Rosenstein do you believe that he has a vendetta against no president no I do not I I would just conclude that this little walk through this one year in American history makes it impossible to understand how it is that my colleagues on the other side continue to launch attacks not only against reporters against the FBI against the Special Counsel but they do so to throw dirt on this story to make it try to go away they may want to bury their heads in the sand but mr. chairman I want to make clear that they will not bury the rule of law in the United States of America and I yield back the gentleman's time has expired the chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina mr. Gowdy for five minutes thank you judge Poe there are a lot of issues that I would like to ask you about mr. deputy attorney general we had a terrorist incident in New York this week we have 702 reauthorization that is pending in Congress gun violence the opioid epidemic criminal justice reform but when I go home to South Carolina this weekend trust me when I tell you no one is going to ask me about any of those issues they're gonna ask me what in the hell is going on with the Department of Justice and the FBI the reason we have special counsel this is a very of Fortin point that are written you know it the reason we have special counsel is because of a conflict of interest the regulation itself specifically makes reference to a conflict of interest and and we don't like conflicts of interest because it undercuts people's confidence and both the process and the result so so let's be really clear why we have special counsel there was either a real or perceived conflict of interest that we were fearful would either impact the result or people's confidence in the process that's why we have something called special counsel and that's why we have special counsel in this fact pattern and then lo and behold those who are supposed to make sure there are no conflicts of interests seem to have a few of their own there's a senior prosecutor who said obsequious emails to a fact witness I she can be described as nothing other than a fact witness she's a really important fact witness if you pursue the line of inquiry that my Democrat friends want to pursue they got off of collusion and now their own obstruction of justice she may be the most important fact witness in an obstruction of justice case and the senior prosecutor for this conflict of interest free special counsel sent a fawning obsequious email to a fact witness and then we have prosecutors assigned to conduct this investigation who donated almost exclusively to one candidate over another and then we have a prosecutor assigned to this conflict of interest free team that attended what was supposed to be what he'd hoped to be a victory party for Secretary Clinton and we have a senior DOJ official mr. Deputy Attorney General with an office it used to be two doors now from yours leading with fusion GPS and fusion GPS of course was paying for Russian dirt on the very person that they're supposed to be objectively investigating and then that same senior DOJ officials wife the that met with fusion GPS his wife was on the payroll of fusion GPS and then we have a senior agent assigned to investigate secretary Clinton's email helped draft the exoneration letter will we change the language from the grossly negligent to extremely careless interviewed Secretary Clinton in an interview I've never seen and I doubt you have either in your career as a prosecutor interviewed Michael Flynn was actively involved in the investigation into the trunk campaign before the Inspector General found his text so this agent in the middle of almost everything related to Secretary Clinton in President Trump sent pro Clinton tax anti-trump text to his paramour in response to being told maybe he is where he is to protect the country from that Menace Donald Trump he said I can protect our country at many levels and then he said Hillary Clinton should win 100 million to nothing I think about that mr. Deputy Attorney General that's a pretty overwhelming victory 100 million to zero and when I read that last night what I thought was this conflict of interest free senior agent of the FBI I can't think of a single solitary American who would vote for Donald Trump that's where the zero comes in not a single solitary American he can imagine would vote for Donald Trump this is the conflict of interest free special agent assigned and then he went on if that weren't enough to belittle Trump supporters by saying he could smell them at a Walmart in Virginia this is the person we needed to avoid a conflict of interest and then he said this they fully deserve to go and demonstrate the absolute bigoted nonsense of trunk but he wasn't content to just disparage Donald Trump he had to disparage Donald Trump's family this is what he said mr. Deputy Attorney General he said the douche bags are about to come out he's talking about our first lady and children this conflict of interest free special agent of the FBI this is who we were told we needed to have an objective impartial fair conflict of interest free investigation so he's openly pulling for the candidate he had a role in clearing and he's openly investigating a candidate that he has bias against and then if that's not enough he says Trump is an effing idiot what the f just happened to our country this is the same man that said he would save our country what happens when people who are supposed to cure the conflict of interest have even greater conflicts of interest than those they replace I that's not a rhetorical question you nor I nor anyone else whatever sit Peter struck on a jury we wouldn't have him objectively dispassionately investigate anything knowing what we know now why didn't we know what ahead of time and and my last question my final question to you and I appreciate the Chairman's patience how would you help me answer that question when I go back to South Carolina this weekend congressman first of all with regard to the special counsel mr. struck was already working on the investigation when the special counsel was appointed the appointment I made was to Robert Muller's what I'd recommend that you tell your constituents is that Robert Muller and rod Rosen Stein and Chris Rea are accountable and that we will ensure that no bias is reflected in any of the actions taken by the special counsel or in any matter within the jurisdiction the Department of Justice when we have evidence of any inappropriate conduct we're going to take action on it and that's what mr. Muller did here as soon as he learned about this issue he took action and that's what I anticipate that the rest of our prosecutors are a new group of US Attorney's our Justice Department of priorities they understand the rules and they understand the responsibility to defend the integrity of the department if they find evidence of improper conduct they're going to take action so congressman that's the best assurance I can give you but actually there's one other point which is you should tell your constituents that we exposed this issue because we're ensuring that the Inspector General conducts a thorough and effective investigation and if there is any evidence of impropriety he's going to surface it and report about it publicly I'll try I'm a gentleman has expired she recognizes gentleman from Rhode Island mr. Cicilline for five minutes Thank You mr. Jim Thank You mr. Rosenstein in February the Department of Justice changed its litigation position and VZ versus Abbott the Texas photo ID case did you have any involvement in this decision to reverse the Justice Department's long-standing position in this case that the Texas voter ID law was intentional and discriminatory no I did not in August the department justice changed this litigation position in the case husted versus H 12 Randolph Institute the Justice Department is now defending Ohio's vota purging law were you involved in the decision has changed this litigation position and now side with the voter purging law I was at the department at that time but I I don't believe I had any involvement in this and were you involved in the Justice Department's decision should file an amicus brief in masterpiece cake shop versus Colorado Civil Rights Commission on behalf of the Baker who seeks to deny baking wedding cakes to same-sex couples that decision was made by our inspector general pardon me our Solicitor General you described the Special Counsel as a heroic figure who served his country a career prosecutor someone who was confirmed unanimously as FBI director someone of extraordinary reputation service and patriotism I take it your judgment on mr. Miller has not changed today correct and you would not have appointed a special counsel or appointed mr. Muller if you thought he was going to engage in a witch-hunt correct correct and so it's you you then would disagree with the president's labeling of the special counsels investigation as a witch-hunt I assume I don't know exactly what the president meant by that congressman the special counsels investigation is not a which other well it's not a witch-hunt the president said is you disagree I mean you're supposed to be independent you you can answer a question contrasting there to present you disagree it's a which shot the presents wrong correct I do not know what the president meant by that conversation I can only answer for myself do you believe that the repeated attacks on the credibility of Special Counsel Miller whether by conservative pundits on TV or by my colleagues here in Congress threat to undermine the credibility of the independent investigation the independence and integrity investigations not going to be affected by anything that anybody says you delivered remarks on October 25th before the US Chamber of Commerce and I quote you said if we permit the rule of law to erode when it does not directly harm our personal interests the erosion may eventually consume us as well the rule of law is not self-executing if it collapses if the people lose faith in the rule of law then everyone will suffer end quote in the context of the president's attacks this is what the American people are really witnessing an unprecedent attack on our democratic institutions by this president first ministeria sness of the investigation which is underway about Vladimir Putin's interference on our elections attacks on the judiciary attacks on the Free Press the one institution which continues to enjoy broad public support and remains key to protecting the rule of law is the Federal Bureau of an investigation in the Department of Justice America is counting on your integrity and your commitment to protecting the Independence of the special counsel to reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and so when you said just a moment ago that you don't have an opinion about a loyalty oath from the president being asked of people it might be useful to remind you sir that members of the Department of Justice taken oath to the Constitution and so a loyalty oath to the President I states is inappropriate for any president to ask for it and for anyone to swear it do you agree congressman nobody has asked me for a law to you that's not my question sir my question is you are here to to demonstrate the independence of your office and you are unwilling to say that an oath to the president I says rather than to the Constitution is not inappropriate that does not install a lot of confidence and oath to the president the United States rather than the Constitution would be inappropriate or no president I'd say it's period is not appropriate Congress inert awk about a hypothetical it's not clear what what was asked for what was said you also as long as you are following your oath of office you can also be faithful to the administrator that's not faithful is not because no I moved to a new question you also said you would not respond to the question to say whether or not the president I states had asked you to initiate criminal prosecutions against political adversaries you would not disclose whether or not those conversations took place I said I would disclose if any if I was told to do something improper well if what about if you were encouraged to do something improper whatever you are encouraged to initiate a criminal investigation that's not appropriate to do is it several of your colleagues on both sides have encouraged me today congressman and as I've explained I'm going to base my decisions on the facts and the law I understand that mr. Z but the the action of a President to encourage you to initiate a criminal prosecution separate apart what you will do with that that very action is not appropriate you're free to make that judging you in your judgment isn't that inappropriate my judgment is it would be inappropriate for somebody to order me to do something but it wouldn't be inappropriate for us for your supervisor the person you serve the president decides to tell you or suggest you or encourage you to initiate a chronal prosecution against a political adversary congressman I think I've been very clear about this that nobody's I'll just end with this direct I'll just end with this mr. Deputy Attorney General you know we've heard you very proudly here talk about the integrity of the Department of Justice and the work of the FBI we heard director ray say the same thing these two agencies the FBI and the Department of Justice are in the midst of an unprecedented attack by individuals who are trying to undermine the credibility of this independent counsels investigation these are the same group of individuals who praised Robert Walden when he was appointed Spectacular was was was praised uniformly and now the only thing that's changed is two indictments to please Michael Flynn part of the president's inner circle now cooperating with the government that's the only thing that's changed we need to hear your voice defending the integrity of this department rule of law the Independence of this investigation because the very future of our democracy is at stake if you fail to do that and so I urge you to do someone with I yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho mr. Labrador for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman Thank You mr. Rosenstein for being here today I should her at some of the questions from the other side and I just want to ask you a quick question have you ever said that you are the president's wingman no sir has the current Attorney General of the United States ever said that he is the president's wingman not to our knowledge but yet the Attorney General under President Obama said that he was the president's wingman and I never heard a single Democrat object to that so it's kind of ridiculous to sit here and try to question you he as reflected in their public report is that the goal of the Russians was to undermine American confidence and democracy so to undermine the Americans at some of the paraphrasing contract I have in front of me so they try to undermine the public faith in the US democratic process is that correct leave that's correct I believe that no one in the United States has done more to undermine the belief in the United States democratic process and the Democrats and the press in some cases when they continue to report on false allegation after allegation after allegation in fact what you see from the Democrats is that they move from one allegation that allegation is proven to be false and they move to the next one and they move to the next one and they do move to the next one because they're unhappy with the results of the election can you tell me why the Independent Counsel was actually appointed special counsel congressman I've explained publicly that I appointed the special counsel based upon the unique circumstances in order to promote public confidence and I have nothing to add to that so why when mr. Miller was charged with investigating he was charged with investigating quote any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and any matters that are rose or may arise directly from the investigation end quote that charge is overly broad but there's been two prosecutions or at least two charges so far brought by the Independent Counsel is that correct for individuals charged to pleaded guilty and to will stand trial have any of them been charged with any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with that campaign for president Irishman the charges speak for themselves I'm not going to comment beyond what's in the charging documents but is there anything in those charging documents that there was a coordination between the Trump administration and the Russians congressman I'm not going to comment beyond what's in the charging documents I think you can draw your own conclusion so something I do agree with my friends on the other side is that we should get to the bottom of do we should know the truth we should know whether there was collusion between Russia and the President of the United States we should also know whether there was collusion between any Department who tried to interfere with our elections so can you tell me was there collusion between the DOJ and fusion GPS to use a democratic funded document for political and legal purposes I don't know the answer to that congressman I'm simply point out that the language I actually used in the Poynting order was coordination and I believe that was the language used by director Comey when he publicly testified about an ongoing investigation I did not use the word collusion okay so that coordination as it was there any coordination between the DOJ and fusion GPS to try to undermine an election of the United States if there were congressmen I'd be very concerned about it as you know there are ongoing reviews and I'm not positioned to comment about that so there are ongoing reviews so there could potentially be an investigation whether the DOJ and members of the DOJ actually colluded with an enemy of a political party in a political candidate to undermine the elections of the United States if there's any evidence that warrants that congressman will do what's appropriate all right so I think if you want to to restore the trust of the American people I think the Department of Justice has a duty to give us all the information that we have been asking for we need to find out who started this investigation we need to find out what the purpose was if you have an individual who actually had a desire to have an outcome in a political race and they decided to use the Department of Justice to investigate their political opponents I think that is one of the worst crimes that has occurred in the history of the United States when it comes to politics do you agree with that it would if that were what happened congressman it would certainly be of great concern all right well I hope that you are truly investigating this and that we get to the bottom of this thank very much and I yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from California mr. swallow for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman welcome mr. Rosenstein and please express my thanks to your employees who serve at our national interest every day and do very important work at the department mr. Rosen Stein have you spoken with the president since you were appointed of course and is that in a one-on-one setting I've never spoken with the president in a one-on-one setting okay has he called you since you've been appointed by telephone yes okay and what was discussed as I said congressman I've told you that if we're told to do anything inappropriate I talked about it but if the president's consulting me about matters within my official responsibilities that's part of the way you run the government did he discuss at all mr. Moeller's investigation I'm not going to comment congressman about my communications with the president how many times has he called you congressman I do not I'm not going to comment about my communications with the president there is nothing wrong with the president consulting with his Deputy Attorney General about matters within the jurisdiction the Justice Department as long as it's not inappropriate mr. Rosen I agree except that this president has demonstrated and that's been expressed through a that testimony from James Comey that has not been contradicted under oath multiple times that he is willing to talk to individuals at the department about ongoing investigations that that's where the concern arises with respect to attorney general sessions is recusal was he involved at all in the decision by the department to allow reporters to review the text messages that you discussed earlier not to my knowledge will you tell us if he was fine if I learn about it if it matters congressman as I said there's nothing we're of any impropriety in what the department has done in making these text messages available but attorney general sessions is recused from Bob Miller's investigation right attorney general sessions is recused from director Miller's investigation correct and these text messages related to an individual on Bob Muller's investigation I don't want to argue with the congressman well just somewhere the recusal and I'm not aware of any evidence that the Eternals violated is recusal mr. Rosenstein if you are overseeing an investigation and lead a team of investigators and you learn that one of the investigators has demonstrated a perceived bias against an individual in the investigation should you a keep the person on the team or be removed the person from the investigation be and knowing that fact pattern what did Bob Moeller do with a similar fact that he chose the correct option mr. Rosenstein the president has said a number of things about you the Attorney General the FBI being in tatters he even compared our intelligence community which your employees are a part of to Nazi Germany and I want to ask considering his continued disparagement of the department and your employees are your employees proud to work for a person who holds their high integrity in such low regard congressman my employees are I believe proud to work for the Department of Justice some of them support a particular president some of them don't but as long as they do their job appropriately that's my concern well I agree and I hope so and I hope that's the case mr. Rosen Stein your testimony today is that you believe Bob Muller is a person of high integrity is that right yes you believe that his investigation is being conducted fairly is that correct yes you also believe that and you understand that he's publicly indicted to individuals with respect to his investigation correct he's also obtained two guilty pleas with respect to his investigation correct is there good cause to fire Bob Moeller as we sit here today not to my knowledge now I am concerned that my House Judiciary Committee colleagues particularly in the majority have signaled quite indiscreetly today that they would probably give the president a pass if he were to fire or order you to fire Bob Muller there have been a number of statements attempting to undermine the good character of Bob Muller that concerns me because that would certainly fly in the face of the rule of law in this country it would not be okay I believe with the American people or spirit that our country was founded upon mr. Deputy Attorney General your investigation is a very narrow bridge the important part I believe for our country is for you to not be afraid during the these trying times we need you to be fearless we have a president who is demonstrated a willingness to involve himself in ongoing investigations that involve he and his family and for the sake of our country for the sake of rule and law rule of law I hope that you continue to demonstrate the character that got you into this position and that has given us as a committee I think faith in your ability to carry out that mission I yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas mr. Farenthold for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman and I know we've talked a lot about this today but I feel obliged on the account of the folks that I represent are always asking me about this to say there is a real concern out there and in Texas certainly and I think around the nation we've got a special counsel who's working 24/7 investigating the Trump administration yet the Department of Justice of various witnesses we've had up here has basically not been able to confirm or deny what investigations if any are going on with respect to the potential misdeeds of the Clinton campaign and their dealings with Russia be it through uranium one various speaking engagements for former President Clinton and the like and you know I'm not asking you to break that confidentiality but I am suggesting that there are a lot of people out there who be sadly disappointed if there isn't an investigation in it who may actually who do actually think that there might ought to be a special prosecutor or special counsel appointed to look at the other side so instead of beating that dead horse I'm going to beat another one I've been talking a lot about and that's specifically the DOJ is opposition to the USA liberty act why is it so hard why is it a warrant requirement so difficult to to deal with on your part when we understand the need to have accident circumstances where things get looked at quickly but it's like the FISA Court and this whole process of obtaining things for foreign intelligent purposes to stop terrorists are being rolled into more normal mainstream criminal investigations where traditionally there's been a need for a warrant why is it so difficult to get a warrant in many cases you can create the necessary probable cause and paperwork in a matter of hours if not minutes there judges on call 24/7 to look at these things why is it such a problem and why are y'all opposed to it I believe I want to duplicate director Ray's comments about this congressman I wish actually that you could join us in the department and see how we go about our work and I think that would actually enhance public confidence the public sees when things go wrong they don't see the 99.9 percent of the time as congressman Moreno pointed out when things go right and it would be it would be burdensome and I certainly respect and I understand the concerns congressman and I think those are serious concerns and we're going to do everything that we can to try to reassure people about it but I can simply tell you and it would take me a lot longer than the time that you have to explain the full process but I believe director Ray is correct about this and the national security community I know many folks who were involved pre 9/11 and post 9/11 have spoken up about how important it is for us to have this tool because we do not want to be in a position again of who were at 9/11 when people said why didn't the FBI put these facts all together and figure out about this threat before the terrorists attacked so that's that's the basis congressman and and I can assure you that if it were easy to do with a warrant I'd be in favor of it but it's not and I believe that we have appropriate safeguards in place and that we have people who are responsible who are conducting these investigations and are going to avoid infringing Americans rights that's our primary concern turns your own sessions has made that one of his priorities to make sure that there are no violations of Americans rights and I do not believe the program as it exists represents a violation of anyone's rights well you and I may respectfully disagree on whether it violates folks rights or not I agree we've got a fight we've got to fight terrorism but there's a reason the Fourth Amendment was included in the Constitution finally I just want to touch for a second on on cyber security I used to run a computer consulting company and you've heard about breaches all throughout the public and private sector can you just give me an overview quickly about what y'all are doing with respect to that and what if anything Congress needs to do to help you it would be hard for me to do it quickly congressman because we do have a lot of resources both the FBI and other agencies that are protecting against the cyber threat it's a significant threat we face both intelligence threat from hostile foreign governments and also a criminal threat from people who try to break into our systems to commit crimes and defraud Americans and so it's a very challenging issue as you know from your experience technology continues to evolve and we need to stay a step ahead of the capabilities of our adversaries and of criminals so the FBI does have a lot of resources devoted to that I testified about our budget a couple of months ago and I think that's going to be an area where we will need increasing support from the Congress to make sure that we keep up with our adversaries I see my time has expired Thank You mr. chairman Thank You chair grams the gentleman from California mr. Liu for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman Thank You W Attorney General Rosen's time for being here today I know for the American people that not only were you appointed by Republican President Donald Trump you're also previously appointed by Republican President George Bush to serve as yours attorney from Maryland and in a profile view in a Washington Post when you were yours attorney a former prosecutor ughter says rod Rosenstein is the poster child for the professional competent ethical and fair-minded prosecutor so thank you for your service to American people and for your exemplary service thank you last week FBI director Chris RA told us that no one is above the law you would agree with that statement correct when it's about the law yes I would now import into our democracy is not only that concept but also that people have to have trust in our law enforcement investigations there are some of my colleagues and some of the media who have suggested that if you make political contributions somehow you cannot be fair and impartial so as you know these plural contributions are matter of public record you previously said that when it comes to special counsel investigation you special counsel Moeller and FBI director ray will be the ones held accountable so we looked up the political contributions of FBI director ray he has made over thirty nine thousand dollars in contributions exclusively to Republicans including $2,500 twice through romney for president $2,600 twice to Perdue for president thousands of dollars in National Republican Senatorial Committee $1,000 the comp sock for Congress and on and on do you believe FBI director Chris array can remain fair and impartial yes I do your colleague associate attorney general Rachel Brandt has made over thirty seven thousand dollars of political contributions exclusively to Republicans you believe she can remain fair and impartial despite her political contributions yes I think is important right now to shut down the silly argument from my colleagues across the aisle that somehow if the department just employee exercises a First Amendment right to make blow contributions and somehow they cannot do their job and it shows a desperation that some people have about the Muller investigation which I now want to turn to you supervise that investigation so you are aware of course of their guilty pleas and indictments and in reviewing the guilty plea of George papadopolis you would agree that there is a solid legal and factual basis for that guilty plea correct and I believe he was represented by competent defense counsel who assisted him in making his decision and he pled guilty to lying to FBI agents about interactions with Russia Russian officials correct I believe that's correct I don't want to comment congressman beyond what's in the charging documents they speak for themselves thank you that the guilty plea of Michael Flynn you must have looked at those as you supervise this investigation you would agree there is a legal and factual basis for that guilty plea as well correct yes and he lied to FBI agents about his interactions with Russian ambassador Sergey Chesley incorrect again congressman the documents speak for themselves a year of read the indictment against Paul Manafort and mr. gates you would agree there is a solid legal factual basis for those indictments correct congressman when we return an indictment we're always careful to say the defendants are presumed innocent but I'm comfortable with the process that was followed with regard to though that indictment you're aware of the various people have been interviewed by Special Counsel Moeller's team you would agree that there was a factual and legal basis to interview those witnesses correct I'm not aware of any of any impropriety you previously had testified about Robert Moeller's exempli record and dedication service you did mention he was a Vietnam veteran I just want to know for the record and I'm sure you know as well he also did receive a Bronze Star for his service of you now incorrect I believe - correct he also received a Purple Heart for a service a Vietnam car yes okay so what do we have here we have a Special Counsel investigation as being supervised by mr. Rosen Stein who's been described as a fair-minded prosecutor appointed twice by Republican presidents being run by special counsel Moeller a man of extraordinary dedication that is a Vietnam veteran Bronze Star winner Purple Heart and in coordination with FBI director Christopher ray who's been appointed by Republican president who's made over thirty nine thousand dollars of contributions exclusively to Republicans that is the leadership of this Special Counsel investigation and I am okay with that I yield back gentleman yields back and in the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida mr. DeSantis for five minutes mr. Deputy Attorney General when Sally Yates defied presidents Trump of travel restriction order at the end of January 2017 was that appropriate what she did I disagreed with her decision so if you're in a position where you get an order your job is to follow the order if you think it's unconstitutional then your response would be to resign your office correct well my response would be I think first to talk with the person who gave birth but ultimately if I concluded it were unconstitutional I would not implement it and obviously you can't have a department operating where each one's a lawn to themselves or if they happen to think something's bad that they just don't follow the orders correct that's exactly right so it was it bothered me then one of the recent revelations you know you have Andrew Weissman yeah he's a big Democrat gonna retire he doesn't disqualify you from being fair II went to Hillary's victim suppose a victory party doesn't mean that necessarily disqualifies you but when she took that action he sends her an email with his DOJ email account saying how he's in awe and so proud of her basically standing up to Trump I mean they was seen as a very direct rebuke to the president so your test was are the political opinions affecting how one conducts himself in office I think that's a fair test but isn't that example of that email an example of his strongly held anti Trump opinions affecting how he's conducting himself on his official email as I mentioned Carson I have discussed this general issue with director Muller on several occasions he understands the importance of ensuring that there is no bias reflected in the conduct of the investigation it looks bad to the public I'm just telling you that right now a part of it is is there an actual bias but as you know as someone very experienced is there an appearance of that and this appears that to be because clearly what she did was not something that that experienced prosecutors would think was good and obviously the Supreme Court has slept at that the Russia investigation who started it who was the aide was it struck who started it who opened it the case congressman the that matter is under review by the Intelligence Committee and there's nothing that I can talk about publicly regarding the creation in the investigation but I can assure you that we're gonna provide appropriate access to the intelligence community committees do what they need to answer the FBI pay for the dossier I'm not I'm not in position to answer that question congressman well you know the answer to the question it is I believe I know the answer but the intelligence committee is the appropriate committee I think that that is not true we have to we have oversight over your department and the FBI and whether public funds were spent on a OCA that is not something that's classified we have every right to that information you should provide it if you're not and they'll probably be things was that info used to get surveillance over anybody associated with Trump I appreciate that question congressman and I know that's been a concern I think that you can say and you may not be able to talk about the sources and message of the substance but if this was used we need to know that do you agree that given so what was the role of Bruce or bruise you met with Christopher Steele before the election was that an authorized meeting congressman I do not know all the details this information is still developing so I don't know the full story but we've agreed to make mr. Moore available for congressional interviews and they'll be free to I mean ask him those questions you need to pursue it it's your department you demoted him he's working with Christopher Steele you have an anti-trump dossier funded by the Democratic Party his wife works for fusion GPS this doesn't look good so we need answers to those questions just thing that I'm disinterested congressman just that we've done oh I get it let me ask you this um the role of mr. struck how much of this Russia investigation was was due to him because yes Muller saw the text obviously I think there was nothing he could do you get rid of him but how much of this whole investigation has been infected with his bias have you made a determination on that I have not but I do want you to know again without talking specifically about this investigation that the FBI does have procedures for all investigations to ensure that they're appropriately vetted so there's no case for any one individual would be able to make decisions and I hope that but if you look at that damning text on 15 August 2016 this is bad he says I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's Andrew McCabe's office that there's no way he meaning Donald Trump gets elected but I'm afraid we can't take that risk we in the FBI can't take that risk it's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 so let me ask you this if you have those Walmart shopping Trump voters that Peter struck so derided in its text messages how did they react to that do they have confidence in their FBI and their Department of Justice when you see that that you can't let the American people vote somebody in who they want to congressman I think what I hope you can tell your constituents and to provide reassurance to the American people is that we have appropriate Internal Affairs officers who will get to the bottom then our Inspector General is the one who exposed that and he's going to deliver a report and we're going to take when is that report do you know Romans at a time leave it's going to be relatively soon I believe he's actually testifying coincidentally next door he knows I want to complete it as quickly as possible but consistent with his responsibilities to make sure he gets it right I thank the gentleman yield back thank you the chair recognizes mr. Raskin for five minutes mr. chairman thank you very much mr. Rosen Stein welcomes good to see you again I'm aware from having been a state senator in Maryland for a decade of your excellent service as US Attorney there and thank you for your service to your country now first questions about the emoluments clause which you know forbids the collection of foreign government payments by the president United States and other public officials more than 180 members of the US Congress brought a lawsuit in the District of Columbia against the president's continuing collection of foreign government money for the Trump Hotel the Trump Tower Trump golf courses and so on the Department of Justice took the position that we don't have standing to raise that if members of Congress who whose permission is required under the monuments clause don't do not have standing to raise the presidents violation of the clause how do we deal with the problem congressman that as you mentioned it's pending litigation the department has taken its position in court it'll be the judges determination whether or not that position prevails and I don't have anything to say beyond that okay so make that decision thank you you said that Robert Muller is a dedicated respected in a heroic public servant whose distinguished military career and career as a prosecutor make him eminently qualified perhaps singularly qualified to be running the Special Counsel investigation right now he's also a registered Republican nominated as FBI director by President Bush and unanimously confirmed by every Republican and Democrat in Congress is his judgment impaired or are his decision suspect because he's a registered Republican no do criminal prosecutors and investigators have a right to contribute money to candidates for public office yes and there are members of this committee who as prosecutors at the federal or state level gave thousands of dollars of contributions while they were prosecutors to candidates for office do you think that that would be the grounds for overturning verdicts that they received against criminal defendants no okay so I want to ask you this on the eve of this hearing we got a dump of hundreds of text messages that we've been spending most of the day talking about between mr. Strock and MS page and they no doubt make for fascinating reading it's a little bit like Anja Anna Karenina to go through that I mean they are of course equal opportunity critics of public officials they trashed Bernie Sanders they trash senator O'Connell they trashed Martin O'Malley the governor of our state and of course they trashed Donald Trump who was repeatedly called an idiot and at one point I think mr. struck says watching the Republican debates OMG he's an idiot which hardly qualifies him for any awards for originality or accept in sight you probably could have found that in millions of tweets across the country but I was amazed to learn from Business Insider that the Department of Justice had invited a select group of reporters yesterday evening to DOJ to screen these emails to look at these private emails and I'm wondering whether you know of any precedent of the Department of Justice calling reporters asking them to come in to look at part of an ongoing investigation outside of a press conference or even if that's taken place during a press conference I was amazed can you just explain that I am I'm accountable congressman as you know I'm not the public affairs officer so I wouldn't know what the precedent was but generally speaking our goal is to be as forthcoming with the media as we can when it's lawful and appropriate to do so so I would not approve anybody disclosing things that weren't appropriate to disclose do you know of any other cases where material in an ongoing investigation were released by the press officer to reporters I don't know the details congressman but and are you are you aware of the IG rule which says that material in an ongoing and vacant cannot be real yes I appreciate that know when this inquiry came in from the Congress we did consult with the inspector general and he determined that he had no objection to the release of material if he had I can assure you I would not have authorized the release okay there's been much propagandistic talk today about fruit of the poisonous tree and so you know that they're there in a mad wild goose chase for a villain and they found their villain and mr. Strock who was promptly removed from the investigation by mr. Muller but they're saying well there might be fruit from the poisonous tree here and of course fruit of the poisonous tree is a Fourth Amendment doctrine that relates to evidence that derives from an illegal search or seizure have you heard any allegation of mr. Strock or any other agent in this case having conducted an illegal search or seizure no thank you very much for your testimony you go back thank you the chair recognizes mr. Radcliffe for five minutes Thank You chairman Johnson mr. Deputy Attorney General good to see you likewise I had a line of questions that I wanted to go into but like many of the folks on this committee last night I had a chance to see a number of these text messages between agent Peter struck and and miss page you've been asked about those have you had a chance to read them not all of them congressman how many have you read I a few dozen I believe okay well I will tell you um I can't read some of these publicly they're that obscene they're that offensive and as someone who served with you at the Department of Justice and Revere's the Independence of the Department of Justice I will tell you that I changed my questioning to ask you about them because as I read them I found them so sickening and heartbreaking that I felt compelled to do so now in addition to being sickening and heartbreaking these texts are also evidence they're not evidence of an appearance of impropriety they are evidence of an actual vitriolic bias of actual prejudice of actual hatred for the subject of the special counsels investigation by folks serving as the independent investigators and lawyers on the special counsel itself mr. Deputy Attorney General I guess please tell me that when you read these texts your heart fell and that you were appalled by what you read there but I mean equivalents 'men the the Special Counsel investigation does not have any identified subjects that as individuals other than the persons have already been charged but I can tell you with regard to those text messages we concluded when we learned about him that it was appropriate to complete the inspector general's investigation and if the inspector general reaches the conclusion that it's misconduct and obviously I opinion as anybody may about what it looks like but it's important for me since I supervise that investigation to await in the formal conclusion and then any recommendation before I reach a official decision and take any action well I guess when you line up agents truck and this page along with Bruce or and Erin Zeb Lee and Andrew Weissman and all the other conflicts of interest I would tell you that first of all these aren't run-of-the-mill conflicts of interest you mentioned mister or being a few doors down he's your assistant Deputy Attorney General and you know employees of the department sometimes have spouses that that are involved with corporations but we're not talking about companies like Walmart or want Microsoft here we're talking about fusion GPS company that had 10 employees and his wife was one of them and he was engaged in meetings with that just went Lera 5ma congressman that Mister war was part of my office when I arrived I never involved mister or in the Russian investigation so he had no role assigned by me well I understand that but I guess I'm getting at is you know the the the key the conflict of interest here and the appearance of impropriety are as everyone has said colossal II bad but let's talk beyond that about judgment you said in response to Mr gaudi's questioning that we should have great confidence in mr. Muller and in the direct array and in yourself and you pointed out that as soon as director former director Muller found out about mr. Strock for instance that that he took action but I want to give him credit for removing or reassigning folks but he's neither one that chose them in the first place congressman the mr. Muller was assigned by me to come in as a special counsel and there were a number of folks already working on the investigation so I don't know to what extent mr. Muller his my goal was to get him in and working as quickly as possible so I don't know what if any screening he did do you know what anyone did with respect to vetting this team because you know if you set out to create an appearance of bias or prejudice or impropriety or conflict of interest the only way you would could do a better job of doing it would be to pick this team and then have them wear their I'm with her t-shirts to work every day I regret that you feel that way congressman but as I said I've talked with director Muller and he understands the importance of avoiding any bias in that investigation well deputy attorney general I have talked often about the fact that I think faith and trust in elected officials but if they lose faith and Trust and organizations like the FBI and the Department of Justice fairly investigate and adjudicate violations and we know that you take that charge seriously in the role where you are but as has been said events like these and the daily transgressions that become public one after another are not serving either the Department of Justice or the FBI well and I just encourage you to do everything you can to restore integrity to those organizations that I know that we have both revered if I may mr. chairman I agree with you entirely congressman and I want to assure you that when Attorney General Sessions talked with me about taking on this job he conveyed to me his desire to make certain we do everything we can to enhance public confidence in the rule of law and ensure that the department of justice runs appropriately he like you and me serve as in a US Attorney he had the privilege of serving for twelve years and he was so proud to return because of the deep respect that the trained General Sessions has for the department I think that's reflected in the appointments that have been made to the department setting myself aside we have a superb team of experienced professionals including Chris Ray who are in position to run that department so I cannot assure you that there will be no wrongdoing we have a hundred fifteen thousand employees things go wrong but I can assure you that we will respond appropriately when they do thank you thank you thank you back thank you that the chair recognizes the gentlelady from Washington mr. jayapal for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman and deputy attorney Rosenstein thank you for your service to the country at this consequential time we have spent three hours and many of my colleagues on the other side have continued to harp on the theme of expressing concern with FBI agent Peter struck and the text messages that were just released yesterday but I'd like to remind everyone of where we were just a little over a year ago the FBI was conducting investigations of Hillary Clinton's emails and leaks occurred routinely reports cited anti Hillary Clinton bias within the FBI as the cause of leaks surrounding the investigation of secretary Clinton's emails one current agent even described the FBI as quote trump land another agent said that some within the FBI viewed Secretary Clinton as quote the Antichrist and said quote the reason why agents are leaking is that they're Pro Trump now these leaks had serious consequences and they arguably swung the election results in trumps favor and I didn't hear any of my colleagues on the other side expressing concern about the FBI's bias last year when this was happening despite the very real problems we were seeing I agree with you in your earlier statement that political affiliation is different from bias I believe I'm quoting you correctly when you say that and I want to remind my colleagues that people are allowed to have their personal opinions and their political affiliations for instance special counsel Muller and former FBI director James Comey and you are lifelong Republicans but that is not what is at issue as much as my colleagues on the other side would like to deflect attention away from the urgency of the special counsels investigation into obstruction of justice and collusion at the highest levels of our government it is clear to me after listening to three hours of questioning that none of this is about text messages it is rather a full-fledged irresponsible and very dangerous attempt on the other side to attack and undermine Robert Muller's investigation and the credibility his credibility and to lay the groundwork for a desire to fire Robert Muller or invalidate the results of his investigation acts that I believe would our democracy and acts the likes of which we have not seen since Watergate let me just warn my Republican colleagues and the American people that history will not judge those acts kindly and being dragged into a president's personal vendettas or apparent attempts to undermine the very fundamentals of our democracy is something we must resist and so Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein let me just ask you again in your role overseeing the FBI is it your sense that the FBI's impartiality is at any risk it's important to distinguish the reputation of the FBI from the character of the FBI the reputation obviously is damaged by every incident that comes to public attention but the character of the FBI is a function of the approximately 37,000 employees and as I said earlier I've been very impressed with character of the agents and employees who I know personally and do you believe that the FBI as an agency is politically motivated I don't believe you can characterize any agency Congress when we all recognize there can be individuals who do things they shouldn't do but that's something that we address when it comes to our attention Deputy Attorney General what can you do to protect the integrity of Special Counsel Muller's investigation and the results that it comes out with congressman I don't think there's anything special that I need to do director Muller has his mandate he's conducting his investigation and I believe he'll continue to conduct it until it's concluded and let me ask you one more time you've said this a couple of times but do you have full faith and confidence in director Mueller's ability to conduct this investigation yes I do thank you let me move to election security on November 15th when the Attorney General appeared before this committee I and several of my colleagues asked questions about the Justice Department's actions to ensure the security of our elections and at the time the Attorney General said that he had not yet ordered a review of what laws might need to be updated to protect our elections from foreign influence has such a review yet been ordered I can tell you congressman we have a lot of ongoing work relating to detection of elections I will have enough time to go through it all now but that is a very high priority for us we have met with as the Attorney General and I have met with director Rey and some of his experts and we're going to continue to do everything that we can to ensure that thank you and we'd love to have an update on that let me use my last few minutes last few seconds to ask you about civil rights we have been very concerned that the DOJ is not actively defending civil rights and is instead dismantling critical structures and abandoning tools that for decades have been used by the Department of Justice to protect people from police brutality and discrimination what is the status of the 18 open reform agreements five open investigations and one case in active litigation brought under Section one for one for one that is managed by the department Civil Rights Division I regret I don't have personal knowledge of all those congresswoman but if I may yesterday I attended the annual awards ceremony the Civil Rights Division the Civil Rights Division has a lot of very talented and proud attorneys the Attorney General spoke about his deep respect for the work of the Civil Rights Division and so I'm confident that work will go on I would appreciate just a response to that later when you have a chance thank you I yield back thank you the chair recognizes gentleman from Georgia mr. Collins for five minutes Thank You Monsieur thank you for being here a few things that I'm not good I mean there's been a lot of questions a lot of understanding of tics and bias and a lot of things and I think something was really interesting two things that I want to sort of base some of the questions I'm gonna have them because someone will ask a little bit one of my colleagues asked is the special counsel not accountable is unaccountable and you said no they're accountable to you correct I think which presumes presents my line of questioning in a little bit of way because I think there has to be at least in your mind a little bit of embarrassment of what's going on right now because I think you and good conscience chose director Mueller believing as many of us did and I'm you know just a very respectable record one that we could all trust and now we're starting to find out that this team has been put together with interest one of the questions was also asked about mr. struck was is that did you know of his bias and you responded no now given the indication there the flipside is is you would agree that there is a is it looks at least to be presented in these text messages would you agree with that I agree that the text messages raised concern as I said I'm gonna withhold my judgment until the investigation is completed Leyla brings up an interesting question cuz I spent what time last week with the FBI director Ray and was it was really interesting that he especially some of his comments that he felt like he didn't have to provide to this committee I think after hopefully after that he realized that we do have direct jurisdiction he will be getting us stuff but he brought up this issue of mr. struck and where he is now so I want to focus just these last few minutes on where this this issue is at the time you you give direct accountability to director Mueller when you discuss was there a discussion between you and director Mueller about moving mr. struck off the committee off the investigation I believe director Muller and I work together when we learned from the inspector general about what he had found and by the way when did you have that discussion and he was removed again was approximately July 27 and it is just coming out that he was removed correct publicly I think I think the fact that he was no longer in the case was known the reasons we're not no reason was not no and I think that's an interesting thing because it does and again perception is reality in most parts and whether that's true or false his perceptions reality and perception is is it oh we found a problem this investigation could be tainted we don't really want this to come out and now it's starting to come out but I do have a question just in a process because mr. ray last week said he was not demoted he was just moved to HR I made the comment at that point that said it is funny to me that the second-in-command of in the Investigation Division being put on a very high-profile investigation one of the highest in this town in a long time and then simply being moved over to HR was not a demotion I'm fine why would you put somebody with challenges that you've now seen in the text which we didn't have last week why would you put him in HR there seems to be a little bit of a problem there so I do have a question when he was removed from the investigation did he possess a security clearance I believe he did I don't know personal knowledge but I'm fairly confident he did you don't know if he has a security clearance for working on what he was working on I'm certain he would have had a security clear okay was it revoked or is it revoked or suspended at this point not to my knowledge why would it not be why would it not be revoked why because I think what we're having here is there's a double standard that the new agent coming in working or the new at US attorney in an office coming in and having what is now perceived as bias having working on a case in which that bias would at least be perceived by most average individuals is having an influence on the outcome of an investigation especially being him being involved in all these other parts of this changing letters changing this I think the interesting issue is here is is he being treated differently than a younger agent or line agent out in you know another field office I appreciate that question congressman if I may explain and I can understand why to the average American it might seem unusual but within the Department of Justice we're subject to the government employment regulations and there are very strict rules about what we may or may not do so when we have an allegation of misconduct its investigated and we don't take any disciplinary action lesson until a conclusion is made that it's warranted so the decision to transfer the agent was made based upon what was known at the time that's not a punishment if there is an adverse finding and again I'm supervising the inspector general I need to withhold my judgment but if there is an adverse finding and and our employees have due process rights so they have a right to provide any explanation or defense I don't know what it's going to be but they would like to do that and at the conclusion let me just jump in here because I'm at the end I appreciate where you're headed there I understand investigation but also let me say this is a gentleman who through these text that we have seen is an understand that he wanted to protect America that he didn't like the new president he is still involved in the in the FBI he's still at this point undoubtedly still has his security clearance he is is it does it not strike you that at least this person who had had access to very high risk sensitive security issues dealing in this Russian investigation why would they have not been separated out in under all rules and regulations but at least taken out has he been polygraphed is simply since he's in regards to this Vince responsible for handling that review and and when he concludes it as I said it'll be a public report and with regard to the timing I should clarify I actually anticipated and hoped the report would have been done completed in November but it's not completed yet but I anticipate it'll be ready soon is there a reason why it's not being completed yes because the Inspector General made a determination that he wasn't finished I think the impression here is though again is if somebody's been treated special and that you're looking at it and I think from your having the responsibility accountability for the special counsel it is on you at this point to make sure that that is created in right now there's a lot of mistrust out there thank you and I yield back the gentleman from Illinois mr. Snyder is recognized for five minutes Thank You Deputy Attorney General I believe you touched earlier on this but I want to confirm your answer do you agree with the unanimous finding of the Director of National Intelligence and the 17 agencies of the intelligence community that Russia on orders of Vladimir Putin actively worked to interfere in the 2016 presidential election I agree with the assessment of the intelligence community yes well mr. Rosen Stein in an october interview with the target USA podcasts you stated the following quote if we have foreign countries that are seeking to interfere in our elections i think we need to take appropriate actions in response and quote I wholeheartedly agree with you unfortunately on several occasions including recently before this very committee attorney General Sessions stated that we're not where we need to be on this issue and there's no review underway by the Department on what steps it should be taking you've said that protecting the integrity of our elections a high priority you seem to indicate earlier that you have had conversations with the Attorney General and FBI director have a simple yes or no question has there been a formal review of the attacks made on the 2006 16 election and what do gene DOJ must do to protect the integrity of our 2018 elections congressman that's the second time this issue has been raised and I'd I did not watch all the Attorney General's testimony and I'll have to check but I believe you may have been referring to a review of legislation as opposed to a review of it no if I can reclaim my time I asked him very specifically what steps had been taken following the appearance on the Senate side and a question by senators asked if any steps had been taken to review the elections and to take steps to protect our future elections I'm asking the same question of you simple yes or no has there been a review of what Russia tried to do where any other agencies tried to do to interfere in our elections last year and what must we do to protect our elections next year I believe the answer is yes but I can get further information for you if you like if that answer is yes it has not been shared with us as of today we've had no information shared I think this is an important issue the elections are a short time away and we need to make sure they are secured have there been any specific actions taken by the Attorney General following his appearance before this committee you talked about meetings or is there anything specifically you can share with us as actions to protect our elections yes the FBI has the Attorney General I met with a team of FBI experts and discussed a variety of things that they're doing some of which are classified in addition to that Homeland Security has a role to play in this too in coordination with state local elections officials so there's a lot going on in that area I appreciate that but I think we have to expect that 2016 wasn't the first time the Russians have tried to interfere in our elections they've been interfered in elections around the world they're gonna try to interfere on our future elections there are tax are gonna become more aggressive more intensive more complicated we need to be staying a step ahead of them twice now the Attorney General Sessions first in front of the Senate and then recently in front of this committee said not enough has been done the meeting you were talking about did that happen before November or is that subsequent to mr. sessions appearance here I don't recall the date congressman I'll have me happy when we take a break to review it but I don't think there's any inconsistency in my answer well mister session committed committed to me that the department would brief this committee on any actions taken last month after his appearance I sent a follow-up letter asking for that briefing before the end of the year ideally before this weekend and they intended adjournment of Congress unfortunately I've not even received a response let alone a scheduling of a briefing are you willing to commit that we can have a briefing that you will update this committee on what actions are being taken to make sure our elections are secure next year if the Attorney General commits that congressman I'll make sure it happens and I will make sure we respond to your letter as I mentioned earlier we make every effort to and I'm sure it's in the queue thank you I would hope that this moves to the top of the queue that this is not a priority of a long list of items that may get to eventually I think if the confidence of the American people in our electoral process if the confidence of the American people in our democracy is damaged as the Russians clearly have tried to do then the future of the Republic is challenged we need to this is not a partisan issue it's not Republican it's not Democrat we need to make sure that people respect our elections know that their votes will be counted know that their voices will be heard I am imploring the Department of Justice to work with this committee to work with Congress to make sure that the American people can be confident in the future of our elections I hope I can count on you to work with us absolutely and I want to be absolutely clear that is near the top of the list for us and I know it is for the attorney general as well thank you I look forward to hearing back on our letter from last month I yield back chair thanks gentlemen the committee is advised mr. Snyder and I are advised that we have votes on the floor general Rosen's time we will be back in about 35 or 40 minutes if you want to get a bite to eat whatever we'll have time the committee will reconvene immediately after this vote series I think we have about four to six more at least ask questions

Channel: LiveNOW from FOX

Views: 21,078

Keywords: Deputy Attorney, A.G. Rod Rosenstein, Rosenstein testimony, House judiciary, Mueller, Mueller investigation, Russia investigation, FBI investigation, Rosenstein investigation, Department of Justice, Jim Jordan, Jim Jordan Rosenstein

Id: EkxTULbwyHk

Length: 200min 24sec (12024 seconds)

Published: Wed Dec 13 2017