Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • >>> THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL

  • REPORT.

  • THE SESSIONS HEARING.

  • HERE'S LESTER HOLT.

  • >> GOOD DAY, EVERYONE.

  • WE'RE ABOUT TO WITNESS THE

  • LATEST TURN IN THE INVESTIGATION

  • INTO WHETHER THERE ARE TIES

  • BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S

  • CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN OFFICIALS.

  • IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS WILL

  • TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE

  • INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN AN

  • OPEN SESSION.

  • MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE

  • EXPECTED TO QUESTION SESSIONS

  • ABOUT THE FIRING OF FBI DIRECTOR

  • JAMES COMEY, ABOUT HIS RUSSIAN

  • CONTACTS DURING THE CAMPAIGN AND

  • HIS DECISION BY SESSIONS TO

  • RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE RUSSIA

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • OUR TEAM IS STANDING BY WITH

  • FULL COVERAGE OF THIS DAY.

  • NBC'S PETER ALEXANDER IS IN THE

  • HEARING ROOM.

  • PETER, SET THE STAGE.

  • A WEEK AFTER THE COMEY HEARING.

  • >> YEAH, LESTER.

  • THIS IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER

  • HIGH-TENSION DAY OF TESTIMONY

  • EXPECTED FROM THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL, JEFF SESSIONS.

  • TO GIVE YOU A SENSE, THIS IS THE

  • FIRST TIME THAT HE IS GOING TO

  • BE TESTIFYING IN AN OPEN HEARING

  • SINCE HE WAS CONFIRMED.

  • THAT'S ABOUT FIVE MONTHS AGO.

  • WE'LL DRILL DOWN ON SOME OF THE

  • LIKELY QUESTIONS HE'LL FACE.

  • AMONG THEM, IF HE RECUSED

  • HIMSELF FROM THE RUSSIA

  • INVESTIGATION, WHY DID HE STILL

  • TAKE PART IN RECOMMENDING THE

  • FIRING OF THE FBI DIRECTOR,

  • JAMES COMEY.

  • BEYOND THAT, HIS MEETINGS, HIS

  • CONTACTS WITH THE RUSSIAN

  • AMBASSADOR, SERGEY KISLYAK.

  • HE INITIALLY WAS NOT FORTHCOMING

  • ABOUT TWO OF THEM.

  • THERE IS SOME SUSPICION THERE

  • MAY HAVE BEEN A THIRD MEETING AS

  • WELL TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE DURING

  • THE CAMPAIGN.

  • WHAT WILL HE SAY ABOUT THAT.

  • BEYOND THAT, HOW DID HE TAKE

  • JAMES COMEY'S COMMENTS TO HIM

  • SUGGESTING THAT COMEY DIDN'T

  • WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE WITH

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP.

  • DID HE ACT ON THAT, WHAT ACTIONS

  • DID HE TAKE.

  • THOSE WILL BE AMONG THE

  • QUESTIONS THAT SESSIONS IS

  • PRESSED ON DURING THE COURSE OF

  • THIS HEARING TODAY.

  • >> ALL RIGHT, PETER, AS WE WATCH

  • MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE SLOWLY

  • FILE IN AND TAKE THEIR SEATS AND

  • CONFERRING WITH STAFF THERE,

  • LET'S CONTINUE AROUND THE HORN.

  • OUR POLITICAL DIRECTOR AND

  • MODERATOR OF "MEET THE PRESS"

  • CHUCK TODD IS IN OUR WASHINGTON

  • BUREAU.

  • CHUCK, WILL WE LARGELY BE

  • LOOKING FOR A REBUTTAL TO WHAT

  • COMEY SAID HERE?

  • >> WE'LL SEE IF IT'S A

  • FULL-FLEDGED REBUTTAL.

  • I THINK JEFF SESSIONS HAS A

  • COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CHALLENGES

  • AND THEY MAY BE IN COMPETITION

  • WITH EACH OTHER.

  • ON ONE HAND HE HAS TO

  • RE-ESTABLISH HIS OWN CREDIBILITY

  • TO LEAD A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

  • THAT FEELS LIKE IT'S BEEN BADLY

  • DAMAGED POLITICALLY, BADLY

  • DAMAGED BY THE TESTIMONY FROM

  • JAMES COMEY, BADLY DAMAGED BY

  • SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT PERHAPS

  • THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID

  • INADVERTENTLY OR NOT WHEN IT

  • COMES TO THOSE LACK OF REPORTING

  • THOSE MEETINGS ON RUSSIA.

  • BUT HE'S ALSO GOT A CREDIBILITY

  • PROBLEM WITH HIS BOSS, THE

  • PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

  • WHO IS ANGRY AT HIM FOR RECUING

  • HIMSELF IN THE FIRST PLACE SO

  • HE'S GOT DIFFERENT MASTERS HE'S

  • TRYING TO FEED.

  • HE'S GOT A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

  • UNDER SIEGE AND HE'S GOT TO

  • REPRESENT THE CAREER FOLKS

  • THERE, AND AT THE SAME TIME

  • SOMEHOW RE-ESTABLISH CREDIBILITY

  • WITH HIS BOSS.

  • I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO BOTH

  • AT THE SAME TIME.

  • >> ALL RIGHT, CHUCK.

  • OUR CHIEF WHITE HOUSE

  • CORRESPONDENT, HALLIE JACKSON,

  • IS WATCHING ALL THIS.

  • HALLIE, AFTER THE COMEY HEARING,

  • THE PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY

  • DROPPED THE MIKE, SAID THAT HE

  • GOT A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH,

  • THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION AND

  • ALL BUT DECLARED IT OVER.

  • HOW CLOSELY WILL THE WHITE HOUSE

  • BE WATCHING THIS PARTICULAR

  • SESSION?

  • >> WELL, THE PRESIDENT WON'T BE

  • WATCHING IT, WE KNOW, LESTER,

  • FROM HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND

  • THAT IS BECAUSE HE IS ON AIR

  • FORCE ONE RIGHT NOW HEADED TO

  • WISCONSIN.

  • THAT PLANE DOES HAVE A

  • TELEVISION, SO IT IS LIKELY THE

  • PRESIDENT COULD SEE THE

  • BEGINNING OF THE TESTIMONY

  • BEFORE HE HEADS TO MILWAUKEE TO

  • TALK WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.

  • I THINK THAT'S SYMBOLIC HERE.

  • THE PRESIDENT, THIS WHITE HOUSE,

  • WANTS TO BE TALKING ABOUT

  • ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT WE

  • ARE DISCUSSING.

  • THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT HEALTH

  • CARE, AS THE PRESIDENT HOSTED

  • REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,

  • REPUBLICAN SENATORS HERE FOR

  • LUNCH EARLIER TODAY.

  • THEY WANT TO TALK TAX REFORM.

  • THEY WANT TO TALK VETERANS

  • ISSUES AS WELL.

  • BUT THIS, WHAT WE ARE WATCHING

  • NOW ON CAPITOL HILL, CONTINUES

  • TO BE THE DOMINANT FORCE AND THE

  • DOMINANT THEME DRIVING A LOT OF

  • IT.

  • THAT IS FRUSTRATING TO THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • YOU HEAR ABOUT IT BOTH PRIVATELY

  • BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND HEAR

  • ABOUT IT PUBLICLY AS THE

  • PRESIDENT TWEETS LIKE HE DID

  • TODAY ABOUT WHAT HE DESCRIBES AS

  • AN AGENDA OF HATE COMING FROM

  • MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA.

  • AS FAR AS THE STRATEGY HERE, A

  • LOT OF THIS LOOKS SIMILAR TO

  • WHAT WE SAW JUST LAST THURSDAY.

  • THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A

  • COUNTER STRATEGY IN THE SENSE

  • THAT WE SAW WITH JAMES COMEY, AN

  • EXPLICIT SORT OF OPPOSITION TO

  • WHAT YOU WERE HEARING IN THAT

  • SEAT.

  • INSTEAD IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT

  • OF BACKING UP WHAT SESSIONS HAD

  • TO SAY FROM ALLIES OF THE

  • PRESIDENT, POINTING TO HIS

  • EAGERNESS TO TESTIFY AS AN

  • INDICATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP

  • HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, LESTER.

  • >> ALL RIGHT, HALLIE JACKSON.

  • AGAIN, WE'RE WAITING FOR THE

  • GAVEL TO FALL, STILL WAITING FOR

  • MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ITSELF

  • TO FILL THOSE SEATS.

  • PHOTOGRAPHERS AT THE READY TO

  • GET A PICTURE OF ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL SESSIONS AS HE TAKES HIS

  • SEAT THERE AND PREPARES TO TAKE

  • THE OATH BEFORE TESTIFYING.

  • I WANT TO CHECK IN WITH OUR

  • JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, PETE

  • WILLIAMS.

  • PETE, WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS

  • THAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL NEED

  • AND LIKELY WANT TO HONE IN ON?

  • >> WELL, YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT SOME

  • OF THEM FROM PETER, ABOUT THE

  • MEETINGS WITH THE RUSSIANS, WHY

  • HE -- IF HE WAS RECUSED HE TOOK

  • PART IN THE COMEY FIRING, WHAT

  • HE DID ABOUT MR. COMEY'S PLEA

  • NOT TO LEAVE HIM ALONE WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT, AND OF COURSE THEN

  • THERE'S THE QUESTION OF THE

  • SECURITY OF THE JOB FOR ROBERT

  • MUELLER.

  • NOW, MR. SESSIONS IS COMPLETELY

  • RECUSED FROM THAT.

  • BUT EARLIER TODAY ON THE OTHER

  • SIDE OF CAPITOL HILL, HIS

  • DEPUTY, ROD ROSENSTEIN, WAS

  • ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT

  • GIVEN THE FACT THAT SOME OF MR.

  • TRUMP'S FRIENDS HAVE SAID THEY

  • THINK HE'S THINKING ABOUT FIRING

  • COMEY.

  • ROD ROSENSTEIN SAID AS FAR AS HE

  • KNOWS THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE

  • CASE.

  • I'M ASSUMING FROM THE SOUND OF

  • THE SHUTTERS THAT THERE COMES

  • THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • >> YEAH, HE'S ENTERING THE ROOM

  • RIGHT NOW, GREETING A FEW FOLKS,

  • THE CAMERAS CLICKING AWAY AS HE

  • PREPARES TO TAKE HIS SEAT THERE.

  • WE PRESUME WILL BE SWORN IN,

  • ASSUMING HE WASN'T SWORN IN OUT

  • OF CAMERA RANGE HERE.

  • BUT HE'LL BE TAKING QUESTIONS

  • FOR WHAT WILL PROBABLY -- THE

  • WHOLE HEARING WILL PROBABLY LAST

  • AROUND TWO HOURS OR SO FROM THE

  • GUIDANCE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED.

  • I WANT TO BRING IN ONE MORE TIME

  • CHUCK TODD.

  • CHUCK, WHAT ARE THE TRAPS THAT

  • HE HAS TO CONSIDER AS HE TAKES

  • THIS OATH?

  • >> I THINK THE BIGGEST ONE IS

  • HIS ROLE IN THE FIRING OF COMEY.

  • AND THE -- THE LETTER, WHY DID

  • HE PLAY A ROLE.

  • I THINK THAT IS THE MOST

  • DIFFICULT QUESTION HE'S GOING TO

  • FACE.

  • AND IT'S NOT WHAT IS HIS ANSWER,

  • WHAT DOES HE BELIEVE THE LINE IS

  • BETWEEN RECUSAL ON THE RUSSIA

  • INVESTIGATION AND OVERALL

  • OVERSIGHT OF THE FBI.

  • I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE

  • HARDEST QUESTION FOR HIM TO

  • ANSWER, AND THE ONE I HAVE NO

  • IDEA WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY.

  • >> WE SAW CHAIRMAN BURR A MOMENT

  • AGO MAKING HIS WAY UP TO THE

  • PANEL.

  • HE WILL TAKE HIS SEAT HERE

  • SHORTLY AND WE WILL BE UNDER

  • WAY.

  • TWO WEEKS IN A LOW NOW MARQUEE

  • PLAYERS IN FRONT OF THIS

  • COMMITTEE AS CONGRESS TRIES TO

  • MAP OUT WHAT COORDINATION OR

  • WHAT RELATIONSHIP THE TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD

  • WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS AND SOME

  • OF THOSE KEY QUESTIONS, THE

  • MEETINGS THAT JEFF SESSIONS HAD

  • WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS THAT WERE

  • NOT INITIALLY DISCLOSED DURING

  • HIS CONFIRMATION.

  • LET'S GO TO PETER ALEXANDER ONE

  • MORE TIME.

  • PETER, WHAT'S THE MOOD IN THE

  • ROOM THERE?

  • >> LESTER, RIGHT NOW YOU CAN SEE

  • THE INDIVIDUALS BEHIND US.

  • THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO

  • GREET JEFF SESSIONS HERE.

  • ONE THING THAT STRIKES ME THAT

  • I'LL BE FOCUSED ON --

  • >> I'LL CALL THIS TO ORDER,

  • PLEASE.

  • >> THE GAVEL HAS FALLEN.

  • LET'S TAKE YOU INSIDE THE

  • HEARING.

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS,

  • APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO

  • APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

  • TODAY.

  • I THANK YOU FOR YOUR YEARS OF

  • DEDICATED SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF

  • THIS BODY AND YOUR RECENT

  • LEADERSHIP AT THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE.

  • AS I MENTIONED WHEN DIRECTOR

  • COMEY APPEARED BEFORE US LAST

  • WEEK, THIS COMMITTEE'S ROLE IS

  • TO BE THE EYES AND EARS FOR THE

  • OTHER 85 MEMBERS OF THE UNITED

  • STATES SENATE AND FOR THE

  • AMERICAN PEOPLE, ENSURING THAT

  • THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS

  • OPERATING LAWFULLY AND HAS THE

  • NECESSARY TOOLS TO KEEP AMERICA

  • SAFE.

  • THE COMMUNITY IS A LARGE AND

  • DIVERSE PLACE.

  • WE RECOGNIZE THE GRAVITY OF OUR

  • INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA'S

  • INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S.

  • ELECTIONS.

  • BUT I REMIND OUR CONSTITUENTS

  • THAT WHILE WE INVESTIGATE

  • RUSSIA, WE ARE SCRUTINIZING

  • CIA'S BUDGET -- WHILE WE'RE

  • INVESTIGATING RUSSIA, WE ARE

  • STILL SCRUTINIZING CIA'S BUDGET,

  • NSA'S 702 PROGRAM, OUR NATION'S

  • SATELLITE PROGRAM, AND THE

  • ENTIRE IC EFFORT TO RECRUIT AND

  • RETAIN THE BEST TALENT WE CAN

  • FIND IN THE WORLD.

  • MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE

  • COMMITTEE CONDUCTS ITS WORK

  • BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, A NECESSARY

  • STEP TO ENSURE THAT OUR MOST

  • SENSITIVE FORCES AND METHODS ARE

  • PROTECTED.

  • THE SANCTITY OF THESE SOURCES

  • AND METHODS ARE AT THE HEART OF

  • THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S

  • ABILITY TO KEEP US SAFE AND TO

  • KEEP OUR ALLIES SAFE FROM THOSE

  • WHO SEEK TO HARM US.

  • I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT I DO

  • NOT BELIEVE ANY COMMITTEE --

  • THAT THE COMMITTEE DOES SHOULD

  • BE DONE IN PUBLIC, BUT I ALSO

  • RECOGNIZE THE GRAVITY OF THE

  • COMMITTEE'S CURRENT

  • INVESTIGATION AND THE NEED FOR

  • THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE

  • PRESENTED THE FACTS SO THAT THEY

  • MIGHT MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS.

  • IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT THIS

  • COMMITTEE HAS NOW HELD ITS TENTH

  • OPEN HEARING OF 2017, MORE THAN

  • DOUBLE THAT OF THE COMMITTEE IN

  • RECENT YEARS AND THE FIFTH ON

  • THE TOPIC OF RUSSIAN

  • INTERFERENCE.

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS, THIS

  • VENUE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO

  • SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION AND

  • TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON A

  • NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS REPORTED

  • IN THE PRESS.

  • FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE SEVERAL

  • ISSUES THAT I'M HOPEFUL WE WILL

  • ADDRESS TODAY.

  • ONE, DID YOU HAVE ANY MEETINGS

  • WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS OR THEIR

  • PROXIES ON BEHALF OF THE TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN OR DURING YOUR TIME AS

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • TWO, WHAT WAS YOUR INVOLVEMENT

  • WITH CANDIDATE TRUMP'S FOREIGN

  • POLICY TEAM AND WHAT WERE THEIR

  • POSSIBLE INTERACTIONS WITH

  • RUSSIANS.

  • THREE, WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO

  • RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THE

  • GOVERNMENT'S RUSSIA

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • AND FOURTH, WHAT ROLE, IF ANY,

  • DID YOU PLAY IN THE REMOVAL OF

  • THEN FBI DIRECTOR COMEY.

  • I LOOK FORWARD TO A CANDID AND

  • HONEST DISCUSSION AS WE CONTINUE

  • TO PURSUE THE TRUTH BEHIND

  • RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN THE

  • 2016 ELECTIONS.

  • THE COMMITTEE'S EXPERIENCED

  • STAFF IS INTERVIEWING THE

  • RELEVANT PARTIES.

  • HAVING SPOKEN TO MORE THAN 35

  • INDIVIDUALS TO DATE, TO INCLUDE

  • JUST YESTERDAY AN INTERVIEW OF

  • FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY

  • SECRETARY JEH JOHNSON.

  • WE ALSO CONTINUE TO REVIEW SOME

  • OF THE MOST SENSITIVE

  • INTELLIGENCE IN OUR COUNTRY'S

  • POSSESSION.

  • AS I'VE SAID PREVIOUSLY, WE WILL

  • ESTABLISH THE FACTS, SEPARATE

  • FROM RAMPANT SPECULATION AND LAY

  • THEM OUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  • TO MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT.

  • ONLY THEN WILL WE AS A NATION BE

  • ABLE TO PUT THIS EPISODE TO REST

  • AND LOOK TO THE FUTURE.

  • I'M HOPEFUL THAT MEMBERS WILL

  • FOCUS THEIR QUESTIONS TODAY ON

  • THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND NOT

  • SQUANDER THE OPPORTUNITY BY

  • TAKING POLITICAL OR PARTISAN

  • SHOTS.

  • THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND I CONTINUE

  • TO LEAD THIS INVESTIGATION

  • TOGETHER ON WHAT IS A HIGHLY

  • CHARGED POLITICAL ISSUE.

  • WE MAY DISAGREE AT TIMES, BUT WE

  • REMAIN A UNIFIED TEAM WITH A

  • DEDICATED, FOCUSED AND

  • PROFESSIONAL STAFF WORKING

  • TIRELESSLY ON BEHALF OF THE

  • AMERICAN PEOPLE TO FIND THE

  • TRUTH.

  • THE COMMITTEE HAS MADE MUCH

  • PROGRESS AS THE POLITICAL WINDS

  • BLOW FORCEFULLY AROUND US, AND I

  • THINK ALL MEMBERS WOULD AGREE

  • THAT DESPITE A TORRENT OF PUBLIC

  • DEBATE ON WHO AND WHAT COMMITTEE

  • MIGHT BE BEST SUITED TO LEAD ON

  • THIS ISSUE, THE INTELLIGENCE

  • COMMITTEE HAS LIVED UP TO ITS

  • OBLIGATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH

  • PURPOSE AND ABOVE POLITICS.

  • MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT'S GOOD

  • TO HAVE YOU BACK.

  • I WOULD NOW TURN TO THE VICE

  • CHAIRMAN FOR ANY REMARKS HE

  • MIGHT HAVE.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • AND I WANT TO ALSO THANK THE WAY

  • THAT WE ARE PROCEEDING ON THIS

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT'S GOOD

  • TO SEE YOU AGAIN AND WE

  • APPRECIATE YOUR APPEARANCE ON

  • THE HEELS OF MR. COMEY'S REVEAL

  • TESTIMONY LAST WEEK.

  • I DO, THOUGH, WANT TO TAKE A

  • MOMENT AT THE OUTSET AND FIRST

  • EXPRESS SOME CONCERN WITH THE

  • PROCESS BY WHICH WE ARE SEEING

  • YOU, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

  • TODAY.

  • IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU

  • WERE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO

  • TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE

  • AND SENATE APPROPRIATIONS

  • COMMITTEES TODAY.

  • I KNOW THOSE APPEARANCES HAVE

  • BEEN CANCELLED TO COME HERE

  • INSTEAD.

  • WHILE WE APPRECIATE HIS

  • TESTIMONY BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE,

  • I BELIEVE AND I SPEAK -- I

  • BELIEVE I SPEAK FOR MANY OF MY

  • COLLEAGUES THAT I BELIEVE HE

  • SHOULD ALSO ANSWER QUESTIONS

  • FROM MEMBERS OF THOSE COMMITTEES

  • AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS

  • WELL.

  • MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT'S MY

  • HOPE THAT YOU WILL RESCHEDULE

  • THOSE APPEARANCES AS SOON AS

  • POSSIBLE.

  • IN ADDITION, I WANT TO SAY AT

  • THE OUTSET THAT WHILE WE

  • CONSIDER YOUR APPEARANCE TODAY

  • AS JUST THE BEGINNING OF OUR

  • INTERACTION WITH YOU AND YOUR

  • DEPARTMENT, MR. ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL, WE HAD ALWAYS EXPECTED

  • TO TALK TO YOU AS PART OF OUR

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • WE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE ACTUALLY

  • LATER IN THE PROCESS.

  • WE'RE GLAD TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR

  • REQUEST TO SPEAK TO US TODAY.

  • BUT WE ALSO EXPECT TO HAVE YOUR

  • COMMITMENT TO COOPERATE WITH ALL

  • FUTURE REQUESTS AND TO MAKE

  • YOURSELF AVAILABLE AS NECESSARY

  • TO THIS COMMITTEE FOR, AS THE

  • CHAIRMAN HAS INDICATED, THIS

  • VERY IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION.

  • NOW LET'S MOVE TO THE SUBJECT OF

  • TODAY'S DISCUSSION.

  • LET'S START WITH THE CAMPAIGN.

  • YOU WERE AN EARLY AND ARDENT

  • SUPPORTER OF MR. TRUMP.

  • IN MARCH YOU WERE NAMED AS

  • CHAIRMAN OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN'S

  • NATIONAL SECURITY ADVIORY

  • COMMITTEE.

  • YOU WERE MUCH MORE THAN A

  • SURROGATE, YOU WERE A STRATEGIC

  • ADVISOR WHO HELPED SHAPE MUCH OF

  • THE CAMPAIGN'S NATIONAL SECURITY

  • STRATEGY.

  • NO DOUBT YOU WILL HAVE KEY

  • INSIGHTS ABOUT SOME OF THE KEY

  • TRUMP ASSOCIATES THAT WE'RE

  • SEEKING TO HEAR FROM IN THE

  • WEEKS AHEAD.

  • QUESTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN RAISED

  • ABOUT SOME OF YOUR OWN

  • INTERACTIONS WITH RUSSIAN

  • OFFICIALS DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

  • DURING YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING

  • IN JANUARY, YOU SAID, QUOTE, YOU

  • DID NOT HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH

  • RUSSIANS.

  • SENATOR LEAHY LATER ASKED YOU IN

  • WRITING WHETHER YOU HAD BEEN IN

  • CONTACT WITH ANYONE CONNECTED TO

  • ANY PART OF THE RUSSIAN

  • GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE 2016

  • ELECTION.

  • YOU ANSWERED, I BELIEVE WITH A

  • DEFINITIVE NO.

  • DESPITE THAT FACT -- DESPITE

  • THAT, THE FACT IS, AS WE

  • DISCOVERED LATER, THAT YOU DID

  • HAVE INTERACTIONS WITH RUSSIAN

  • GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DURING THE

  • COURSE OF THE CAMPAIGN.

  • IN MARCH, YOU ACKNOWLEDGED TWO

  • MEETINGS WITH THE RUSSIAN

  • AMBASSADOR.

  • YET THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME

  • PUBLIC REPORTS OF A POSSIBLE

  • THIRD MEETING AT THE MAYFLOWER

  • HOTEL ON APRIL 27th.

  • I HOPE THAT TODAY YOU WILL HELP

  • CLEAR UP THOSE DISCREPANCIES.

  • WE ALSO EXPECT AND HOPE THIS IS

  • VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU'LL BE

  • WILLING TO PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE

  • WITH ANY DOCUMENTS THAT WE WOULD

  • NEED TO SHED LIGHT ON THIS

  • ISSUE, SUCH AS E-MAILS OR

  • CALENDARS.

  • THEN THERE'S THE TOPIC OF THE

  • FIRING OF FORMER FBI DIRECTOR

  • COMEY.

  • LAST THURSDAY WE RECEIVED

  • TESTIMONY FROM MR. COMEY UNDER

  • OATH.

  • HE OUTLINED HIS VERY TROUBLING

  • INTERACTIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

  • AS WELL AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF

  • HIS FIRING.

  • A FEW DISTURBING POINTS STOOD

  • OUT.

  • FIRST, MR. COMEY, WHO HAS

  • DECADES OF EXPERIENCE AT THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND AT THE

  • FBI, SERVING UNDER PRESIDENTS OF

  • BOTH PARTIES, WAS SO UNNERVED BY

  • THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT

  • THAT HE FELT, QUOTE, COMPELLED

  • TO FULLY DOCUMENT EVERY

  • INTERACTION THEY HAD.

  • MR. COMEY SAT WHERE YOU'RE

  • SITTING TODAY AND TESTIFIED THAT

  • HE WAS CONCERNED THAT THE

  • PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  • MIGHT LIE ABOUT THE NATURE OF

  • THEIR MEETINGS.

  • THAT'S A SHOCKING STATEMENT FROM

  • ONE OF OUR NATION'S TOP LAW

  • ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

  • WE ALSO HEARD THAT DIRECTOR

  • COMEY TOOK IT AS A DIRECTION

  • FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS

  • TO DROP THE FBI'S INVESTIGATION

  • INTO FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY

  • ADVISOR GENERAL MIKE FLYNN.

  • FINALLY WE HEARD FROM MR. COMEY

  • THAT HE BELIEVES HE WAS FIRED

  • OVER HIS HANDLING OF THE RUSSIA

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CONFIRMED

  • THIS IN STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA.

  • THIS IS DEEPLY TROUBLING FOR ALL

  • OF US WHO BELIEVE ON BOTH SIDES

  • OF THE AISLE IN PRESERVING THE

  • INDEPENDENCE OF THE FBI.

  • WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK IN ORDER

  • TO FOLLOW UP ON THESE ALARMING

  • DISCLOSURES.

  • MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOUR

  • TESTIMONY TODAY IS AN

  • OPPORTUNITY TO BEGIN THE PROCESS

  • OF ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS.

  • FOR INSTANCE, AGAIN, AND I KNOW

  • OTHERS WILL ASK YOU ABOUT THIS,

  • YOU RECUSED YOURSELF FROM THE

  • RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, YET YOU

  • PARTICIPATED IN THE FIRING OF

  • MR. COMEY OVER THE HANDLING OF

  • THAT SAME INVESTIGATION.

  • WE'LL WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT HOW

  • YOU VIEWED YOUR RECUSAL AND

  • WHETHER YOU BELIEVE YOU COMPLIED

  • WITH IT FULLY.

  • IN ADDITION, WE HEARD FROM MR.

  • COMEY LAST WEEK THAT THE

  • PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO LEAVE THE

  • OVAL OFFICE SO HE COULD SPEAK

  • ONE ON ONE WITH MR. COMEY.

  • AGAIN, A VERY CONCERNING ACTION.

  • WE WILL NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU

  • ABOUT HOW YOU REVIEWED -- HOW

  • YOU VIEWED THE PRESIDENT'S

  • REQUEST AND WHETHER YOU THOUGHT

  • IT WAS APPROPRIATE.

  • WE'LL ALSO WANT TO KNOW IF YOU

  • ARE AWARE OF ANY ATTEMPTS BY THE

  • PRESIDENT TO ENLIST LEADERS IN

  • THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO

  • UNDERMINE THIS VERY SAME RUSSIA

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • MOST IMPORTANTLY, OUR COMMITTEE

  • WILL WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU ARE

  • DOING TO ENSURE THAT THE

  • RUSSIANS OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN

  • ADVERSARIES CANNOT ATTACK OUR

  • DEMOCRATIC PROCESS LIKE THIS

  • EVER AGAIN.

  • I'M CONCERNED THAT THE PRESIDENT

  • STILL DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE

  • SEVERITY OF THE THREAT.

  • HE, TO DATE, I BELIEVE, HAS NOT

  • ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONCLUSIONS OF

  • THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

  • THAT RUSSIA MASSIVELY INTERVENED

  • IN OUR ELECTIONS.

  • THE THREAT WE FACE IS REAL, AND

  • IT'S NOT LIMITED TO US.

  • THE RECENT EVENTS IN FRANCE ARE

  • AGAIN A STARK REMINDER THAT ALL

  • WESTERN DEMOCRACIES MUST TAKE

  • STEPS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.

  • I BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES CAN

  • AND MUST BE A LEADER IN THIS

  • EFFORT, BUT IT WILL REQUIRE OUR

  • ADMINISTRATION TO GET SERIOUS

  • ABOUT THIS MATTER.

  • FINALLY, IN THE PAST SEVERAL

  • WEEKS WE'VE SEEN A CONCERNING

  • PATTERN OF ADMINISTRATION

  • OFFICIALS REFUSING TO ANSWER

  • PUBLIC UNCLASSIFIED QUESTIONS

  • ABOUT ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE

  • PRESIDENT AND THIS

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • WE HAD A HEARING WITH THIS

  • SUBJECT LAST WEEK.

  • I WANT TO COMMEND THE CHAIRMAN

  • WHO AT THE END OF THAT HEARING

  • MADE VERY CLEAR THAT OUR

  • WITNESSES -- IT WAS NOT

  • ACCEPTABLE FOR OUR WITNESSES TO

  • COME BEFORE CONGRESS WITHOUT

  • ANSWERS.

  • THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO

  • KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

  • THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • I LOOK FORWARD TO THE WITNESS'S

  • TESTIMONY.

  • >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIRMAN.

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS, IF

  • YOU WOULD STAND, I WILL

  • ADMINISTER THE OATH TO YOU.

  • RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, IF YOU

  • WOULD, PLEASE.

  • DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL

  • THE TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TRUTH

  • AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO

  • HELP YOU GOD?

  • >> I DO.

  • >> PLEASE BE SEATED.

  • THANK YOU, ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • SESSIONS.

  • THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

  • >> THANK YOU MUCH -- THANK YOU

  • VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN BURR, AND

  • RANKING MEMBER WARNER, FOR

  • ALLOWING ME TO PUBLICLY APPEAR

  • BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE TODAY.

  • I APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S

  • CRITICALLY IMPORTANT EFFORTS TO

  • INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE

  • WITH OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES.

  • SUCH INTERFERENCE CAN NEVER BE

  • TOLERATED AND I ENCOURAGE EVERY

  • EFFORT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF

  • ANY SUCH ALLEGATIONS.

  • AS YOU KNOW, THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL HAS APPOINTED A SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE

  • MATTERS RELATED TO THE RUSSIAN

  • INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016

  • ELECTION.

  • I'M HERE TODAY TO ADDRESS

  • SEVERAL ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN

  • SPECIFICALLY RAISED BEFORE THIS

  • COMMITTEE.

  • AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY

  • TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AS FULLY

  • AS THE LORD ENABLES ME TO DO SO.

  • BUT AS I ADVISE YOU, MR.

  • CHAIRMAN, AND CONSISTENT WITH

  • LONG STANDING DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE PRACTICE, I CANNOT AND

  • WILL NOT VIOLATE BY DUTY TO

  • PROTECT THE CONFIDENTIAL

  • COMMUNICATIONS I HAVE WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • NOW LET ME ADDRESS SOME ISSUES

  • DIRECTLY.

  • I DO NOT HAVE ANY PRIVATE

  • MEETINGS NOR DO I RECALL ANY

  • CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY RUSSIAN

  • OFFICIALS AT THE MAYFLOWER

  • HOTEL.

  • I DID NOT ATTEND ANY MEETINGS AT

  • THAT EVENT SEPARATE.

  • PRIOR TO THE SPEECH I ATTENDED

  • BY THE PRESIDENT TODAY, I

  • ATTENDED A RECEPTION WITH MY

  • STAFF THAT INCLUDED AT LEAST TWO

  • DOZEN PEOPLE AND PRESIDENT

  • TRUMP.

  • THOUGH I DO RECALL SEVERAL

  • CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD DURING

  • THAT PRESPEECH RECEPTION, I DO

  • NOT HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF

  • MEETING OR TALKING TO THE

  • RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR OR ANY OTHER

  • RUSSIAN OFFICIALS.

  • IF ANY BRIEF INTERACTION

  • OCCURRED IN PASSING WITH THE

  • RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR DURING THAT

  • RECEPTION, I DO NOT REMEMBER IT.

  • AFTER THE SPEECH, I WAS

  • INTERVIEWED BY THE NEWS MEDIA.

  • THERE WAS AN AREA FOR THAT IN A

  • DIFFERENT ROOM AND THEN I LEFT

  • THE HOTEL.

  • BUT WHETHER I EVER ATTENDED A

  • RECEPTION WHERE THE RUSSIAN

  • AMBASSADOR WAS ALSO PRESENT IS

  • ENTIRELY BESIDE THE POINT OF

  • THIS INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN

  • INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016

  • CAMPAIGN.

  • LET ME STATE THIS CLEARLY,

  • COLLEAGUES.

  • I HAVE NEVER MET OR HAD ANY

  • CONVERSATION WITH ANY RUSSIANS

  • OR ANY FOREIGN OFFICIALS

  • CONCERNING ANY TYPE OF

  • INTERFERENCE WITH ANY CAMPAIGN

  • OR ELECTION IN THE UNITED

  • STATES.

  • FURTHER, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF

  • ANY SUCH CONVERSATIONS BY ANYONE

  • CONNECTED TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

  • I WAS YOUR COLLEAGUE IN THIS

  • BODY FOR 20 YEARS, AT LEAST SOME

  • OF YOU, AND I PARTICIPATE -- AND

  • THE SUGGESTION THAT I

  • PARTICIPATED IN ANY COLLUSION,

  • THAT I WAS AWARE OF ANY

  • COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIAN

  • GOVERNMENT TO HURT THIS COUNTRY,

  • WHICH I HAVE SERVED WITH HONOR

  • FOR 35 YEARS OR TO UNDERMINE THE

  • INTEGRITY OF OUR DEMOCRATIC

  • PROCESS IS AN APPALLING AND

  • DETESTABLE LIE.

  • RELATEDLY, THERE IS THE

  • ASSERTION THAT I DID NOT ANSWER

  • SENATOR FRANKEN'S QUESTION

  • HONESTLY AT MY CONFIRMATION

  • HEARING.

  • COLLEAGUES, THAT IS FALSE.

  • I CAN'T SAY COLLEAGUES NOW, I'M

  • NO LONGER A PART OF THIS BODY,

  • BUT FORMER COLLEAGUES, THAT IS

  • FALSE.

  • THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.

  • SENATOR FRANKEN ASKED ME A

  • RAMBLING QUESTION AFTER SOME SIX

  • HOURS OF TESTIMONY THAT INCLUDED

  • DRAMATIC NEW ALLEGATIONS THAT

  • THE UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE

  • COMMUNITY, THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE

  • COMMUNITY HAD ADVISED

  • PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP, QUOTE,

  • THAT THERE WAS A CONTINUING

  • EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION DURING

  • THE CAMPAIGN BETWEEN TRUMP'S

  • SURROGATES AND INTERMEDIARIES

  • FOR THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT,

  • CLOSE QUOTE.

  • I WAS TAKEN ABACK BY THAT

  • EXPLOSIVE ALLEGATION, WHICH HE

  • SAID WAS BEING REPORTED AS

  • BREAKING NEWS THAT VERY DAY AND

  • WHICH I HAD NOT HEARD.

  • I WANTED TO REFUTE THAT

  • IMMEDIATELY.

  • ANY SUGGESTION THAT I WAS PART

  • OF SUCH AN ACTIVITY.

  • I REPLIED, QUOTE, I REPLIED TO

  • SENATOR FRANKEN THIS WAY, QUOTE,

  • SENATOR FRANKEN, I'M NOT AWARE

  • OF ANY OF THOSE ACTIVITIES.

  • I HAVE BEEN CALLED A SURROGATE A

  • TIME OR TWO IN THAT CAMPAIGN AND

  • I DID NOT -- DIDN'T HAVE, DID

  • NOT HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE

  • RUSSIANS AND I'M UNABLE TO

  • COMMENT ON IT, CLOSE QUOTE.

  • THAT WAS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH I

  • WAS ASKED THE QUESTION, AND IN

  • THAT CONTEXT MY ANSWER WAS A

  • FAIR AND CORRECT RESPONSE TO THE

  • CHARGE AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.

  • I WAS RESPONDING TO THIS

  • ALLEGATION THAT SURROGATES HAD

  • BEEN MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS

  • ON A REGULAR BASIS.

  • IT SIMPLY DID NOT OCCUR TO ME TO

  • GO FURTHER THAN THE CONTEXT OF

  • THE QUESTION AND TO LIST ANY

  • CONVERSATIONS THAT I MAY HAVE

  • HAD WITH RUSSIANS IN ROUTINE

  • SITUATIONS, AS I HAD MANY

  • ROUTINE SITUATIONS -- MEETINGS

  • WITH OTHER FOREIGN OFFICIALS.

  • SO PLEASE HEAR ME NOW.

  • AND IT WAS ONLY IN MARCH AFTER

  • MY CONFIRMATION HEARING THAT A

  • REPORTER ASKED MY SPOKESPERSON

  • WHETHER I HAD EVER MET WITH ANY

  • RUSSIAN OFFICIALS.

  • THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT

  • QUESTION HAD SQUARELY BEEN POSED

  • TO ME.

  • ON THE SAME DAY, WE PROVIDED

  • THAT REPORTER WITH THE

  • INFORMATION RELATED TO THE

  • MEETING THAT I AND MY STAFF HELD

  • IN MY SENATE OFFICE WITH

  • AMBASSADOR KISLYAK AS WELL AS

  • THE BRIEF ENCOUNTER IN JULY

  • AFTER A SPEECH THAT I HAD GIVEN

  • DURING THE CONVENTION IN

  • CLEVELAND, OHIO.

  • I ALSO PROVIDED THE REPORTER

  • WITH A LIST OF 25 FOREIGN

  • AMBASSADOR MEETINGS THAT I'D HAD

  • DURING 2016.

  • IN ADDITION, I PROVIDED

  • SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY TO THE

  • SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO

  • EXPLAIN THIS EVENT.

  • SO I READILY ACKNOWLEDGE THESE

  • TWO MEETINGS AND CERTAINLY NOT

  • ONE THING HAPPENED THAT WAS

  • IMPROPER IN ANY ONE OF THOSE

  • MEETINGS.

  • LET ME ALSO EXPLAIN CLEARLY THE

  • CIRCUMSTANCES OF MY RECUSAL FROM

  • THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE

  • RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE

  • 2016 ELECTION.

  • PLEASE, COLLEAGUES, HEAR ME ON

  • THIS.

  • I WAS SWORN IN AS ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY

  • 9th.

  • THE VERY NEXT DAY AS I HAD

  • PROMISED TO THE JUDICIARY

  • COMMITTEE I WOULD DO, AT LEAST

  • AT AN EARLY DATE, I MET WITH

  • CAREER DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS,

  • INCLUDING SENIOR -- A SENIOR

  • ETHICS OFFICIAL TO DISCUSS SOME

  • THINGS PUBLICLY REPORTED IN THE

  • PRESS THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME

  • BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT I

  • SHOULD RECUSE MYSELF IN THIS

  • CASE.

  • FROM THAT POINT, FEBRUARY 10th,

  • UNTIL I ANNOUNCED MY FORMAL

  • RECUSAL ON MARCH 2nd, I WAS

  • NEVER BRIEFED ON ANY

  • INVESTIGATIVE DETAILS, DID NOT

  • ACCESS ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • I RECEIVED ONLY THE LIMITED

  • INFORMATION THAT THE

  • DEPARTMENT'S CAREER OFFICIALS

  • DETERMINED WAS NECESSARY FOR ME

  • TO FORM AND MAKE A RECUSAL

  • DECISION.

  • AS SUCH, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE

  • ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION AS IT

  • IS ONGOING TODAY BEYOND WHAT HAS

  • BEEN PUBLICLY REPORTED.

  • I DON'T EVEN READ THAT

  • CAREFULLY, AND I HAVE TAKEN NO

  • ACTION WHATSOEVER WITH REGARD TO

  • ANY SUCH INVESTIGATION.

  • ON THE DATE OF MY FORMAL

  • RECUSAL, MY CHIEF OF STAFF SENT

  • AN E-MAIL TO THE HEADS OF

  • RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING

  • BY NAME TO DIRECTOR COMEY OF THE

  • FBI, TO INSTRUCT THEM, TO INFORM

  • THEIR STAFFS OF THIS RECUSAL AND

  • TO ADVISE THEM NOT TO BRIEF ME

  • OR INVOLVE ME IN ANY WAY IN ANY

  • SUCH MATTERS, AND IN FACT THEY

  • HAVE NOT.

  • IMPORTANTLY, I RECUSED MYSELF

  • NOT BECAUSE OF ANY ASSERTED

  • WRONGDOING OR ANY BELIEF THAT I

  • MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY

  • WRONGDOING IN THE CAMPAIGN, BUT

  • BECAUSE A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  • REGULATION 28 CFR 45.2 I FELT

  • REQUIRED IT.

  • THAT REGULATION STATES IN EFFECT

  • THAT DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES SHOULD

  • NOT PARTICIPATE IN

  • INVESTIGATIONS OF A CAMPAIGN IF

  • THEY SERVED AS A CAMPAIGN

  • ADVISOR.

  • SO THE SCOPE OF MY RECUSAL,

  • HOWEVER, DOES NOT AND CANNOT

  • INTERFERE WITH MY ABILITY TO

  • OVERSEE THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE, INCLUDING THE FBI WHICH

  • HAS AN $8 BILLION BUDGET AND

  • 35,000 EMPLOYEES.

  • I PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT MY

  • CONCERNS AND THOSE OF DEPUTY

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN

  • ABOUT THE ONGOING LEADERSHIP

  • ISSUES AT THE FBI AS STATED IN

  • MY LETTER RECOMMENDING THE

  • REMOVAL OF MR. COMEY ALONG WITH

  • THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

  • MEMORANDUM ON THAT ISSUE, WHICH

  • HAD BEEN RELEASED PUBLICLY BY

  • THE WHITE HOUSE.

  • THOSE REPRESENT A CLEAR

  • STATEMENT OF MY VIEWS.

  • I ADOPTED DEPUTY ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL ROSENSTEIN'S POINTS THAT

  • HE MADE IN HIS MEMORANDUM AND

  • MADE MY RECOMMENDATION.

  • IT IS ABSURD, FRANKLY, TO

  • SUGGEST THAT A RECUSAL FROM A

  • SINGLE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION

  • WOULD RENDER THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL UNABLE TO MANAGE THE

  • LEADERSHIP OF THE VARIOUS

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW

  • ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS THAT

  • CONDUCT THOUSANDS OF

  • INVESTIGATIONS.

  • FINALLY, DURING HIS TESTIMONY,

  • MR. COMEY DISCUSSED A

  • CONVERSATION THAT HE AND I HAD

  • ABOUT THE MEETING MR. COMEY HAD

  • WITH THE PRESIDENT.

  • I'M HAPPY TO SHARE WITH THE

  • COMMITTEE MY RECOLLECTION OF

  • THAT CONVERSATION THAT I HAD

  • WITH MR. COMEY.

  • FOLLOWING A ROUTINE MORNING

  • THREAT BRIEFING, MR. COMEY SPOKE

  • TO ME AND MY CHIEF OF STAFF.

  • WHILE HE DID NOT PROVIDE ME WITH

  • ANY OF THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS

  • CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT,

  • APPARENTLY THE DAY BEFORE, MR.

  • COMEY EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT

  • PROPER COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL

  • WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AND WITH

  • THE PRESIDENT.

  • I RESPONDED -- HE DIDN'T RECALL

  • THIS, BUT I RESPONDED TO HIS

  • COMMENT BY AGREEING THAT THE FBI

  • AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  • NEEDED TO BE CAREFUL TO FOLLOW

  • DEPARTMENT POLICIES REGARDING

  • APPROPRIATE CONTACTS WITH THE

  • WHITE HOUSE.

  • MR. COMEY HAD SERVED IN THE

  • DEPARTMENT FOR BETTER THAN TWO

  • DECADES AND I WAS CONFIDENT THAT

  • HE UNDERSTOOD AND WOULD ABIDE BY

  • THE WELL ESTABLISHED RULES

  • LIMITING COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE

  • WHITE HOUSE, ESPECIALLY ABOUT

  • ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS.

  • THAT'S WHAT'S SO IMPORTANT TO

  • CONTROL.

  • MY COMMENTS ENCOURAGED HIM TO DO

  • JUST THAT AND INDEED AS I

  • UNDERSTAND IT HE DID THAT.

  • OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RULES

  • ON PROPER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN

  • THE DEPARTMENT AND THE WHITE

  • HOUSE HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR

  • YEARS.

  • MR. COMEY WELL KNEW THEM.

  • I THOUGHT AND ASSUMED CORRECTLY

  • THAT HE COMPLIED WITH THEM.

  • SO I'LL FINISH WITH THIS.

  • I RECUSED MYSELF FROM ANY

  • INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAMPAIGN

  • FOR PRESIDENT, BUT I DID NOT

  • RECUSE MYSELF FROM DEFENDING MY

  • HONOR AGAINST SCURRILOUS AND

  • FALSE ALLEGATIONS.

  • AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE

  • COURSE OF THE CAMPAIGN, THE

  • CONFIRMATION PROCESS AND SINCE

  • BECOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, I

  • HAVE DEDICATED MYSELF TO DO

  • HIGHEST STANDARDS.

  • I HAVE EARNED A REPUTATION FOR

  • THAT AT HOME AND IN THIS BODY, I

  • BELIEVE, OVER DECADES OF

  • PERFORMANCE.

  • THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY

  • EXPECT AN HONEST AND TRANSPARENT

  • GOVERNMENT AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE

  • GIVING THEM.

  • THIS PRESIDENT WANTS TO FOCUS ON

  • THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY TO

  • ENSURE THEY ARE TREATED FAIRLY

  • AND KEPT SAFE.

  • THE TRUMP AGENDA IS TO IMPROVE

  • THE LIVES OF THE AMERICAN

  • PEOPLE.

  • I KNOW SOME HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS

  • OF ACHIEVING THIS AND DIFFERENT

  • AGENDA, BUT THAT IS HIS AGENDA

  • AND IT'S ONE I SHARE.

  • IMPORTANTLY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL,

  • I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO

  • ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THIS NATION,

  • TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY FROM ITS

  • ENEMIES, AND TO ENSURE THE FAIR

  • ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND I

  • INTEND TO WORK EVERY DAY WITH

  • OUR FINE TEAM AND THE SUPERB

  • PROFESSIONALS IN THE DEPARTMENT

  • OF JUSTICE TO ADVANCE THE

  • IMPORTANT WORK WE HAVE TO DO.

  • THESE FALSE ATTACKS, THE

  • INNUENDOS, THE LEAKS, YOU CAN BE

  • SURE WILL NOT INTIMIDATE ME.

  • IN FACT THESE EVENTS HAVE ONLY

  • STRENGTHENED MY RESOLVE TO

  • FULFILL MY DUTY.

  • MY DUTY TO REDUCE CRIME, TO

  • SUPPORT OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND

  • LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

  • WHO WORK ON OUR STREETS EVERY

  • DAY.

  • JUST LAST WEEK IT WAS REPORTED

  • THAT OVERDOSE DEATHS IN THIS

  • COUNTRY ARE RISING FASTER THAN

  • EVER RECORDED.

  • LAST YEAR WAS 52,000.

  • "THE NEW YORK TIMES" JUST

  • ESTIMATED NEXT YEAR WILL BE

  • 62,000 OVERDOSE DEATHS.

  • THE MURDER RATE IS UP OVER 10%.

  • THE LARGEST INCREASE SINCE 1968.

  • TOGETHER WE ARE TELLING THE

  • GANGS, THE CARTELS, THE

  • FRAUDSTERS AND THE TERRORISTS WE

  • ARE COMING AFTER YOU.

  • EVERY ONE OF OUR CITIZENS, NO

  • MATTER WHO THEY ARE OR WHERE

  • THEY LIVE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE

  • SAFE IN THEIR HOMES AND

  • COMMUNITIES.

  • I WILL NOT BE DETERRED, I WILL

  • NOT ALLOW THIS GREAT DEPARTMENT

  • TO BE DETERRED FROM ITS VITAL

  • MISSION.

  • THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING

  • MEMBER WARNER.

  • I HAVE A GREAT HONOR TO APPEAR

  • BEFORE YOU TODAY AND I WILL DO

  • MY BEST TO ANSWER YOUR

  • QUESTIONS.

  • >> GENERAL SESSIONS, THANK YOU.

  • THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY.

  • I'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR MEMBERS THE

  • CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIRMAN WILL

  • BE RECOGNIZED FOR TEN MINUTES.

  • MEMBERS WILL BE RECOGNIZED FOR

  • FIVE MINUTES, AND I'D LIKE TO

  • REMIND OUR MEMBERS THAT WE ARE

  • IN OPEN SESSION.

  • NO REFERENCES TO CLASSIFIED OR

  • COMMITTEE SENSITIVE MATERIALS

  • SHOULD BE USED RELATIVE TO YOUR

  • QUESTIONS.

  • WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE MYSELF AT

  • THIS TIME FOR TEN MINUTES.

  • GENERAL SESSIONS, YOU TALKED

  • ABOUT THE MAYFLOWER HOTEL WHERE

  • THE PRESIDENT GAVE HIS FIRST

  • FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH.

  • IT'S BEEN COVERED IN THE PRESS

  • THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS THERE,

  • YOU WERE THERE, OTHERS WERE

  • THERE.

  • FROM YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SAID YOU

  • DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER

  • AMBASSADOR KISLYAK WAS THERE,

  • THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR, IS THAT

  • CORRECT?

  • >> I DID NOT REMEMBER THAT, BUT

  • I UNDERSTAND HE WAS THERE.

  • SO I DON'T DOUBT THAT HE WAS.

  • I BELIEVE THAT REPRESENTATIONS

  • ARE CORRECT.

  • IN FACT I RECENTLY SAW A VIDEO

  • OF HIM COMING INTO THE ROOM.

  • >> BUT YOU NEVER REMEMBER HAVING

  • A CONVERSATION OR A MEETING WITH

  • AMBASSADOR KISLYAK?

  • >> I DO NOT.

  • >> AND IN THAT EVENT WAS THERE

  • EVER A PRIVATE ROOM SETTING THAT

  • YOU WERE INVOLVED IN?

  • >> NO.

  • >> WITH ANY --

  • >> OTHER THAN THE RECEPTION AREA

  • THAT WAS SHUT OFF FROM I GUESS

  • THE MAIN CROWD.

  • TWO TO THREE DOZEN PEOPLE.

  • >> I WOULD TAKE FOR GRANTED AT

  • AN EVENT LIKE THIS THE PRESIDENT

  • SHOOK SOME HANDS.

  • >> YES, HE CAME IN AND SHOOK

  • HANDS IN THE GROUP.

  • >> YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE SOME

  • STAFF THAT WERE WITH YOU AT THAT

  • EVENT.

  • >> MY LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR AT

  • THE TIME.

  • >> YOUR SENATE STAFF?

  • >> SENATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

  • WHO WAS A RETIRED U.S. ARMY

  • COLONEL WHO HAD SERVED ON THE

  • ARMED SERVES STAFF WITH SENATOR

  • JOHN WARNER BEFORE SHE JOINED MY

  • STAFF WAS WITH ME IN THE

  • RECEPTION AREA AND THROUGHOUT

  • THE REST OF THE EVENTS.

  • >> WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE

  • THERE AS A UNITED STATES SENATOR

  • OR AS A SURROGATE OF THE

  • CAMPAIGN FOR THIS EVENT?

  • >> I CAME THERE AS AN INTERESTED

  • PERSON, VERY ANXIOUS TO SEE HOW

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD DO IN HIS

  • FIRST MAJOR FOREIGN POLICY

  • ADDRESS.

  • I BELIEVE HE'D ONLY GIVEN ONE

  • MAJOR SPEECH BEFORE.

  • THAT WAS MAYBE AT THE JEWISH

  • APAC EVENT.

  • AND SO IT WAS AN INTERESTING

  • TIME FOR ME TO OBSERVE HIS

  • DELIVERY AND THE MESSAGE HE

  • WOULD MAKE.

  • THAT WAS MY MAIN PURPOSE OF

  • BEING THERE.

  • >> NOW, YOU REPORTED TWO OTHER

  • MEETINGS WITH AMBASSADOR

  • KISLYAK, ONE IN JULY ON THE

  • SIDELINES OF THE REPUBLICAN

  • CONVENTION, I BELIEVE, AND ONE

  • IN SEPTEMBER IN YOUR SENATE

  • OFFICE.

  • HAVE YOU HAD ANY OTHER

  • INTERACTIONS WITH GOVERNMENT

  • OFFICIALS OVER THE YEAR IN A

  • CAMPAIGN CAPACITY?

  • I'M NOT ASKING YOU FROM A

  • STANDPOINT OF YOUR SENATE LIFE

  • BUT IN THE CAMPAIGN CAPACITY?

  • >> NO, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • I'VE STRETCHED MY -- RACKED MY

  • BRAIN TO MAKE SURE I COULD

  • ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS

  • CORRECTLY, AND I DID NOT.

  • I WOULD JUST OFFER FOR YOU THAT

  • WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHETHER I HAD

  • HAD ANY MEETINGS WITH RUSSIANS

  • BY THE REPORTER IN MARCH, WE

  • IMMEDIATELY RECALLED THE

  • CONVERSATION, THE ENCOUNTER I

  • HAD AT THE CONVENTION AND THE

  • MEETING IN MY OFFICE AND MADE

  • THAT PUBLIC.

  • I NEVER INTENDED NOT TO INCLUDE

  • THAT.

  • I WOULD HAVE GLADLY HAVE

  • REPORTED THE MEETING, THE

  • ENCOUNTER THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED

  • THAT SOME SAY OCCURRED IN THE

  • MAYFLOWER IF I HAD REMEMBERED IT

  • OR IF IT ACTUALLY OCCURRED,

  • WHICH I DON'T REMEMBER THAT IT

  • DID.

  • >> GENERAL SESSIONS, ON MARCH

  • 2nd, 2017, YOU FORMALLY RECUSED

  • YOURSELF FROM ANY INVOLVEMENT IN

  • THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION BEING

  • CONDUCTED BY THE FBI AND THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

  • WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC REASONS

  • THAT YOU CHOSE TO RECUSE

  • YOURSELF?

  • >> WELL, THE SPECIFIC REASON,

  • MR. CHAIRMAN, IS A CFR, CODE OF

  • FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PUT OUT BY

  • THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PART

  • OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  • RULES.

  • AND IT SAYS THIS.

  • I'LL READ FROM IT.

  • 28 CFR 45.2.

  • UNLESS AUTHORIZED, NO EMPLOYEE

  • SHALL PARTICIPATE IN A CRIMINAL

  • INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION IF

  • HE HAS A PERSONAL OR POLITICAL

  • RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY PERSON

  • INVOLVED IN THE CONDUCT OF AN

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • IT GOES ON TO SAY FOR

  • POLITICAL -- IN A POLITICAL

  • CAMPAIGN.

  • AND IT SAYS IF YOU HAVE A CLOSE

  • IDENTIFICATION WITH AN ELECTED

  • OFFICIAL OR CANDIDATE ARISING

  • FROM SERVICE AS A PRINCIPAL

  • ADVISOR, YOU SHOULD NOT

  • PARTICIPATE IN AN INVESTIGATION

  • OF THAT CAMPAIGN.

  • SO MANY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT MY

  • RECUSAL IS BECAUSE I FELT I WAS

  • A SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION

  • MYSELF, THAT I MAY HAVE DONE

  • SOMETHING WRONG, BUT THIS IS THE

  • REASON I RECUSED MYSELF.

  • I FELT I WAS REQUIRED TO UNDER

  • THE RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE AND AS THE LEADER OF THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, I SHOULD

  • COMPLY WITH THE RULES OBVIOUSLY.

  • >> SO DID YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL

  • BASICALLY KNOW FROM DAY ONE YOU

  • WOULD HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF OF

  • THIS INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF

  • THE CURRENT STATUTE?

  • >> WELL, I DO HAVE A TIMELINE OF

  • WHAT OCCURRED.

  • I WAS SWORN IN ON THE 9th, I

  • BELIEVE, OF FEBRUARY.

  • I THEN ON THE 10th HAD MY FIRST

  • MEETING TO GENERALLY DISCUSS

  • THIS ISSUE WHERE THE CFR WAS NOT

  • DISCUSSED.

  • WE HAD SEVERAL OTHER MEETINGS

  • AND IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME OVER

  • TIME THAT I QUALIFIED AS A

  • SIGNIFICANT -- A PRINCIPAL

  • ADVISOR TYPE PERSON TO THE

  • CAMPAIGN AND IT WAS THE

  • APPROPRIATE AND RIGHT THING FOR

  • ME TO RECUSE MYSELF.

  • >> SO THIS COULD EXPLAIN

  • DIRECTOR COMEY'S COMMENTS THAT

  • HE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A

  • LIKELIHOOD YOU WERE GOING TO

  • RECUSE YOURSELF BECAUSE HE WAS

  • PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THE SAME

  • STATUTE?

  • >> I THINK PROBABLY SO.

  • I'M SURE THAT THE ATTORNEYS IN

  • THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  • PROBABLY COMMUNICATED WITH HIM,

  • BECAUSE, MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME

  • SAY THIS TO YOU CLEARLY.

  • IN EFFECT, AS A MATTER OF FACT,

  • I RECUSED MYSELF THAT DAY.

  • I NEVER RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION

  • ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN.

  • I THOUGHT THERE WAS A PROBLEM

  • WITH ME BEING ABLE TO SERVE AS

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL OVER THIS

  • ISSUE, AND I FELT I WOULD

  • POSSIBLY HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF.

  • I TOOK THE POSITION CORRECTLY, I

  • BELIEVE, NOT TO INVOLVE MYSELF

  • IN THE CAMPAIGN IN ANY WAY AND I

  • DID NOT.

  • >> YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO YOUR

  • CHIEF OF STAFF SENDING OUT AN

  • E-MAIL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFYING

  • INTERNALLY OF YOUR DECISION TO

  • RECUSE.

  • WOULD YOU ASK YOUR CHIEF OF

  • STAFF TO MAKE THAT E-MAIL

  • AVAILABLE.

  • >> WE WOULD BE PLEASED TO DO SO,

  • AND I THINK I HAVE IT WITH ME

  • NOW.

  • >> THANK YOU, GENERAL SESSIONS.

  • HAVE YOU HAD ANY INTERACTIONS

  • WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, ROBERT

  • MUELLER, SINCE HIS APPOINTMENT?

  • >> I HAVE NOT.

  • WITH REGARD TO THE E-MAIL WE

  • SENT OUT, MR. COMEY, DIRECTOR

  • COMEY INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT

  • KNOW WHEN I RECUSED MYSELF OR

  • DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE.

  • ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS WENT TO HIM

  • BY NAME, SO A LOT HAPPENS IN OUR

  • OFFICES.

  • I'M NOT ACCUSING HIM OF ANY

  • WRONGDOING, BUT IN FACT IT WAS

  • SENT TO HIM AND TO HIS NAME.

  • >> OKAY.

  • GENERAL SESSIONS, AS YOU SAID,

  • MR. COMEY TESTIFIED AT LENGTH

  • BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ABOUT HIS

  • INTERACTIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT,

  • IN SOME CASES HIGHLIGHTING YOUR

  • PRESENCE AT THOSE MEETINGS.

  • YOU ADDRESSED THE MEETING WHERE

  • ALL WERE ASKED TO LEAVE EXCEPT

  • FOR DIRECTOR COMEY AND HE HAD A

  • PRIVATE MEETING WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • AND YOU SAID THAT HE DID INFORM

  • YOU OF HOW UNCOMFORTABLE THAT

  • WAS AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS

  • THAT THE FBI AND DOJ NEEDED TO

  • FOLLOW THE RULES LIMITING

  • FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE.

  • DID DIRECTOR COMEY EVER EXPRESS

  • ADDITIONAL DISCOMFORT WITH

  • CONVERSATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT

  • MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH HIM, BECAUSE

  • HE HAD TWO ADDITIONAL MEETINGS

  • AND I THINK A TOTAL OF SIX PHONE

  • CALLS.

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT HAVING A COMMUNICATION

  • WITH THE FBI DIRECTOR.

  • WHAT IS PROBLEMATIC FOR ANY

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EMPLOYEE

  • IS TO TALK TO ANY CABINET

  • PERSONS OR WHITE HOUSE

  • OFFICIALS, HIGH OFFICIALS ABOUT

  • ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE

  • NOT PROPERLY CLEARED THROUGH THE

  • TOP LEVELS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE.

  • AND SO IT WAS A REGULATION I

  • THINK IS HEALTHY.

  • I THOUGHT WE NEEDED AND STRONGLY

  • BELIEVE WE NEEDED TO RESTORE

  • DISCIPLINE WITHIN OUR

  • DEPARTMENT, TO ADHERE TO JUST

  • THOSE KIND OF RULES, PLUS

  • LEAKING RULES AND SOME OF THE

  • OTHER THINGS THAT I THINK ARE A

  • BIT LAX AND NEED TO BE RESTORED.

  • >> YOU COULDN'T HAVE HAD A

  • CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT

  • ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE

  • YOU WERE NEVER BRIEFED ON THE

  • INVESTIGATION?

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • I DO -- WOULD NOTE THAT WITH

  • REGARD TO THE PRIVATE MEETING

  • THAT DIRECTOR COMEY HAD BY HIS

  • OWN ADMISSION, I BELIEVE, THERE

  • ARE AS MANY AS SIX SUCH

  • MEETINGS.

  • SEVERAL OF THEM HE HAD WITH

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP.

  • I THINK HE HAD TWO WITH

  • PRESIDENT OBAMA.

  • SO IT'S NOT IMPROPER PER SE.

  • BUT IT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED

  • FOR A DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TO

  • SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT AN

  • ONGOING INVESTIGATION WITHOUT

  • PRIOR REVIEW AND CLEARANCE FROM

  • ABOVE.

  • >> GENERAL SESSIONS, JUST ONE

  • LAST QUESTION.

  • YOU WERE THE CHAIR OF THIS

  • FOREIGN POLICY TEAM FOR THE

  • TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

  • TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE,

  • DID THAT TEAM EVER MEET?

  • >> WE MET A COUPLE OF TIMES

  • MAYBE.

  • SOME OF THE PEOPLE DID.

  • BUT WE NEVER FUNCTIONED FRANKLY,

  • MR. CHAIRMAN, AS A COHERENT

  • TEAM.

  • >> WERE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF

  • THAT TEAM YOU NEVER MET?

  • >> YES.

  • >> OKAY.

  • VICE CHAIRMAN.

  • >> THANK YOU, GENERAL SESSIONS.

  • AS I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING

  • STATEMENT, WE APPRECIATE YOUR

  • APPEARANCE HERE, BUT WE DO SEE

  • THIS AS THE FIRST STEP.

  • I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET YOUR

  • COMMITMENT THAT YOU WILL AGREE

  • TO MAKE YOURSELF AVAILABLE AS

  • THE COMMITTEE NEEDS IN THE WEEKS

  • AND MONTHS AHEAD?

  • >> SENATOR WARNER, I WILL COMMIT

  • TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE

  • AND OTHER COMMITTEES AS

  • APPROPRIATE.

  • I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD POLICY

  • TO CONTINUALLY BRING CABINET

  • MEMBERS OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • FOR MULTIPLE COMMITTEES GOING

  • OVER THE SAME THINGS OVER AND

  • OVER.

  • >> I KNOW OTHER MEMBERS OF THE

  • JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND

  • APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MAY

  • WANT TO RAISE THOSE ISSUES BUT

  • LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS

  • COMMITTEE.

  • >> I JUST GAVE YOU MY ANSWER.

  • >> CAN WE GET YOUR COMMITMENT

  • SINCE THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT

  • SOME OF THESE MEETINGS THAT TOOK

  • PLACE OR NOT THAT WE COULD GET

  • ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS OR MEMORANDA

  • OR YOUR DAY BOOK --

  • >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WILL BE GLAD

  • TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE RESPONSES

  • TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

  • >> YESTERDAY A FRIEND OF THE

  • PRESIDENT WAS REPORTED TO

  • SUGGESTING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP

  • WAS CONSIDERING REMOVING

  • DIRECTOR MUELLER AS SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL.

  • DO YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN

  • DIRECTOR MUELLER'S ABILITY TO

  • CONDUCT HIS INVESTIGATION FAIRLY

  • AND IMPARTIALLY?

  • >> FIRST, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT

  • THESE REPORTS AND HAVE NO

  • BASIS --

  • >> BUT I'M ASKING YOU, SIR --

  • >> THEIR VALIDITY.

  • I HAVE KNOWN MR. MUELLER OVER

  • THE YEARS.

  • HE SERVED 12 YEARS AS FBI

  • DIRECTOR.

  • I KNEW HIM BEFORE THAT.

  • I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN MR.

  • MUELLER.

  • >> SO YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE HE CAN

  • DO HIS JOB?

  • >> BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS

  • ANY HYPOTHETICALS OR WHAT MIGHT

  • BE A FACTUAL SITUATION IN THE

  • FUTURE THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF

  • TODAY BECAUSE I KNOW NOTHING

  • ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION AND

  • FULLY RECUSED MYSELF.

  • >> I'VE GOT A SERIES OF

  • QUESTIONS, SIR.

  • DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT HAS

  • CONFIDENCE IN DIRECTOR MUELLER?

  • >> I HAVE NO IDEA.

  • I'VE NOT TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT.

  • >> NOW, IF THE -- WILL YOU

  • COMMIT TO THIS COMMITTEE NOT TO

  • TAKE ANY PERSONAL ACTIONS THAT

  • MIGHT RESULT IN DIRECTOR

  • MUELLER'S FIRING OR DISMISSAL?

  • >> WELL, I THINK I PROBABLY

  • COULD SAY THAT WITH CONFIDENCE

  • BECAUSE I'M RECUSED FROM THE

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • IN FACT THE WAY IT WORKS,

  • SENATOR WARNER, IS THAT THE

  • ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL --

  • >> I'M AWARE OF THE -- I JUST

  • WANTED TO GET YOU ON THE

  • RECORD --

  • >> DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD

  • ROSENSTEIN --

  • >> WITH YOU ARE RECUSAL, YOU

  • WOULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTIONS TO

  • TRY TO HAVE SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR

  • MUELLER REMOVED?

  • >> I WOULDN'T THINK THAT WOULD

  • BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO DO.

  • >> YES, SIR, I AGREE.

  • TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAVE ANY

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS

  • BEEN INVOLVED WITH CONVERSATIONS

  • ABOUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF

  • PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS ABOUT ANY

  • OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED WITH

  • THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION?

  • >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT ABLE TO

  • COMMENT ON CONVERSATIONS WITH

  • HIGH OFFICIALS WITHIN THE WHITE

  • HOUSE.

  • THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE

  • COMMUNICATIONS RULE THAT I HAVE

  • TO --

  • >> JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND.

  • IS THE BASIS OF THAT

  • UNWILLINGNESS TO ANSWER BASED ON

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE?

  • >> IT'S A LONG STANDING POLICY,

  • THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOT TO

  • COMMENT ON CONVERSATIONS THAT

  • THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS HAD

  • WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

  • STATES FOR CONFIDENTIAL REASONS

  • THAT REALLY ARE FOUNDED IN THE

  • CO-EQUAL BRANCH POWERS AND THE

  • CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

  • STATES.

  • >> BUT THAT -- SO JUST SO I'M

  • UNDERSTANDING, DOES THAT MEAN --

  • ARE YOU CLAIMING EXECUTIVE

  • PRIVILEGE HERE TODAY, SIR?

  • >> I'M NOT CLAIMING EXECUTIVE

  • PRIVILEGE BECAUSE THAT'S THE

  • PRESIDENT'S POWER AND I HAVE NO

  • POWER TO CLAIM EXECUTIVE

  • PRIVILEGE.

  • >> WHAT ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH

  • OTHER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR

  • OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS

  • ABOUT POTENTIAL PARDONS?

  • NOT THE PRESIDENT, SIR.

  • >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT IN ANY

  • WAY SUGGESTING THAT I HAVE HAD

  • ANY CONVERSATIONS CONCERNING

  • PARDONS, TOTALLY APART FROM

  • THAT, THERE ARE PRIVILEGES OF

  • COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT WE

  • SHARE, ALL OF US DO.

  • WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE FULL AND

  • ROBUST DEBATE WITHIN THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

  • WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO SPEAK UP

  • AND ARGUE CASES ON DIFFERENT

  • SIDES.

  • THOSE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT

  • REVEALED.

  • HISTORICALLY WE'VE SEEN THEY

  • SHOULDN'T BE REVEALED.

  • >> I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD

  • AGREE SINCE YOU'VE RECUSED

  • YOURSELF FROM THIS INVESTIGATION

  • THAT IF THE PRESIDENT OR OTHERS

  • WOULD PARDON SOMEONE DURING THE

  • MIDST OF THIS INVESTIGATION

  • WHILE OUR INVESTIGATION OR

  • DIRECTOR MUELLER'S

  • INVESTIGATION, THAT WOULD BE I

  • WOULD THINK PROBLEMATIC.

  • LET ME -- ONE OF THE COMMENTS

  • YOU MADE IN YOUR TESTIMONY WAS

  • THAT YOU'D REACHED THIS

  • CONCLUSION ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE

  • OF THEN DIRECTOR COMEY'S ABILITY

  • TO LEAD THE FBI, THAT YOU AGREED

  • WITH DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • ROSENSTEIN'S MEMO.

  • THE FACT THAT YOU HAD WORKED

  • WITH DIRECTOR COMEY FOR SOME

  • TIME, DID YOU EVER HAVE A

  • CONVERSATION AS A SUPERIOR OF

  • DIRECTOR COMEY WITH HIS FAILURE

  • TO PERFORM OR SOME OF THESE

  • ACCUSATIONS THAT HE WASN'T

  • RUNNING THE FBI IN A GOOD WAY

  • AND THAT SOMEHOW THE FBI IS IN

  • TURMOIL?

  • DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS

  • WITH DIRECTOR COMEY ABOUT THOSE

  • SUBJECTS?

  • >> I DID NOT.

  • >> SO YOU WERE HIS SUPERIOR AND

  • THERE WERE SOME FAIRLY HARSH

  • THINGS SAID ABOUT DIRECTOR

  • COMEY.

  • YOU NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS

  • APPROPRIATE TO RAISE THOSE

  • CONCERNS BEFORE HE WAS ACTUALLY

  • TERMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT?

  • >> I DID NOT DO SO.

  • A MEMORANDA WAS PREPARED BY THE

  • DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO

  • EVALUATED HIS PERFORMANCE, NOTED

  • SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH IT.

  • >> AND YOU AGREED WITH THOSE?

  • >> I AGREED WITH THOSE.

  • IN FACT, SENATOR WARNER, WE HAD

  • TALKED ABOUT IT EVEN BEFORE I

  • WAS CONFIRMED AND BEFORE HE WAS

  • CONFIRMED.

  • IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE BOTH

  • AGREED TO, THAT A FRESH START AT

  • THE FBI WAS PROBABLY THE BEST

  • THING.

  • >> IT JUST AGAIN SEEMS A

  • LITTLE -- I CAN UNDERSTAND IF

  • YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU

  • CAME ON.

  • YOU HAD A CHANCE FOR A FRESH

  • START.

  • THERE WAS NO FRESH START.

  • SUDDENLY WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF

  • THE INVESTIGATION AND WITH

  • TIMING THAT SEEMS A LITTLE

  • PECULIAR, WHAT KIND OF AT LEAST

  • TO ME WAS OUT OF THE BLUE, THE

  • PRESIDENT FIRES THE FBI

  • DIRECTOR.

  • IF THERE ARE ALL THESE PROBLEMS

  • OF DISARRAY AND LACK OF ACCORD

  • AT THE FBI, ALL THINGS THAT THE

  • ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE FBI

  • DENIED WAS THE CASE, I WOULD

  • HAVE THOUGHT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE

  • HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH

  • DIRECTOR COMEY.

  • HE AT LEAST WAS OWED THAT.

  • LET'S GO TO THE APRIL 27th

  • MEETING HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, I

  • THINK THE CHAIRMAN HAS BROUGHT

  • IT UP.

  • BY THE TIME APRIL 27th CAME

  • AROUND, YOU HAD ALREADY BEEN

  • NAMED OF THE CHAIR OF CANDIDATE

  • TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY

  • ADVISORY SO SHOWING UP AT THAT

  • MEETING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE --

  • >> THAT WAS THE MAYFLOWER HOTEL?

  • >> YES, SIR, YES, SIR.

  • AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT

  • THE PRESIDENT'S SON-IN-LAW,

  • JARED KUSHNER, WAS AT THAT

  • MEETING AS WELL?

  • >> I BELIEVE HE WAS, YES.

  • >> YOU DON'T RECOLLECT WHETHER

  • MR. KUSHNER HAD ANY

  • CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR

  • KISLYAK AT THAT SESSION?

  • >> I DO NOT.

  • >> AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR

  • MEMORY, YOU HAD NO CONVERSATION

  • WITH AMBASSADOR KISLYAK AT THAT

  • MEETING?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL THAT, SENATOR

  • WARNER.

  • IT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- CERTAINLY

  • I CAN ASSURE YOU NOTHING

  • IMPROPER IF I'D HAD A

  • CONVERSATION WITH HIM.

  • AND IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT THAT

  • OCCURRED, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER

  • IT.

  • >> BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN YOUR

  • NOTES OR MEMORY SO THAT WHEN YOU

  • HAD A CHANCE, AND YOU DID, I

  • APPRECIATE, CORRECT THE RECORD

  • ABOUT THE OTHER TWO SESSIONS IN

  • RESPONSE TO SENATOR FRANKEN AND

  • SENATOR LEAHY, THIS ONE DIDN'T

  • POP INTO YOUR MEMORY THAT MAYBE

  • IN THE OVERABUNDANCE OF CAUTION

  • THAT YOU OUGHT TO REPORT THAT --

  • THIS SESSION AS WELL?

  • >> WELL, I GUESS I COULD SAY

  • THAT I POSSIBLY HAD A MEETING,

  • BUT I STILL DO NOT RECALL IT.

  • I DID NOT IN ANY WAY FAIL TO

  • RECORD SOMETHING IN MY TESTIMONY

  • OR IN MY SUBSEQUENT LETTER

  • INTENTIONALLY FALSE.

  • >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, SIR.

  • I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND

  • WHEN YOU CORRECTED THE RECORD

  • AND CLEARLY BY THE TIME YOU HAD

  • A CHANCE TO CORRECT THE RECORD,

  • I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT YOU

  • WOULD HAVE KNOWN AMBASSADOR

  • KISLYAK WAS AT THAT APRIL 27th

  • SESSION AND RECEIVED QUITE A BIT

  • OF PRESS NOTORIETY.

  • AND AGAIN, ECHOING WHAT THE

  • CHAIRMAN HAS SAID, JUST AGAIN

  • FOR THE RECORD, THERE WAS NO

  • OTHER MEETING WITH ANY OTHER

  • OFFICIALS OF THE RUSSIAN

  • GOVERNMENT DURING THE CAMPAIGN

  • SEASON?

  • >> NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION.

  • I WILL JUST SAY WITH REGARD TO

  • THE TWO ENCOUNTERS, ONE AT THE

  • MAYFLOWER HOTEL THAT YOU

  • REFERRED TO, I CAME THERE NOT

  • KNOWING HE WAS GOING TO BE

  • THERE.

  • I DON'T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF

  • EVEN KNOWING HE WOULD BE THERE.

  • I DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS

  • WITH HIM BEFORE OR AFTER THAT

  • EVENT.

  • AND LIKEWISE, AT THE EVENT AT

  • THE CONVENTION, I WENT OFF THE

  • CONVENTION GROUNDS COLLEGE

  • CAMPUS FOR AN EVENT --

  • >> BUT AT THE MAYFLOWER EVENT --

  • >> LET ME JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT

  • ONE.

  • I DIDN'T KNOW HE WOULD BE IN THE

  • AUDIENCE AND HAD NO --

  • >> SO AT THE MAYFLOWER.

  • >> OKAY.

  • >> THERE WAS THIS VIP RECEPTION

  • FIRST AND THEN PEOPLE WENT INTO

  • THE SPEECH.

  • IS THAT -- JUST SO I GET A --

  • >> THAT'S MY IMPRESSION.

  • THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

  • >> AND YOU WERE PART OF THE VIP

  • RECEPTION?

  • >> YES.

  • >> GENERAL SESSIONS, ONE OF THE

  • TROUBLING THINGS THAT I NEED TO

  • SORT THROUGH IS MR. COMEY'S

  • TESTIMONY LAST WEEK WAS THAT HE

  • FELT UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN THE

  • PRESIDENT ASKED EVERYONE ELSE TO

  • LEAVE THE ROOM.

  • HE LEFT THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU

  • LINGERED PERHAPS THE SENSE THAT

  • YOU FELT UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT IT

  • AS WELL.

  • I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO

  • OBVIOUSLY ANSWER AND CORRECT IF

  • THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT IMPRESSION.

  • AFTER THIS MEETING TOOK PLACE,

  • WHICH CLEARLY MR. COMEY FELT HAD

  • SOME LEVEL OF UNCOMFORTABLENESS,

  • YOU NEVER ASKED DIRECTOR COMEY

  • WHO TOOK PLACE IN THAT MEETING?

  • >> WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY IT

  • THIS WAY.

  • WE WERE THERE.

  • I WAS STANDING THERE.

  • AND WITHOUT REVEALING ANY

  • CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE,

  • WHAT I DO RECALL IS THAT I DID

  • DEPART.

  • I BELIEVE EVERYONE ELSE DID

  • DEPART AND DIRECTOR COMEY WAS

  • SITTING IN FRONT OF THE

  • PRESIDENT'S DESK AND THEY WERE

  • TALKING.

  • SO THAT'S WHAT I DO REMEMBER.

  • I BELIEVE IT WAS THE NEXT DAY

  • THAT HE SAID SOMETHING,

  • EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT BEING

  • LEFT ALONE WITH THE PRESIDENT.

  • BUT THAT IN ITSELF IS NOT

  • PROBLEMATIC.

  • HE DID NOT TELL ME AT THAT TIME

  • ANY DETAILS ABOUT ANYTHING THAT

  • WAS SAID THAT WAS IMPROPER.

  • I AFFIRMED HIS CONCERN THAT WE

  • SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THE PROPER

  • GUIDELINES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE AND BASICALLY BACKED HIM

  • UP IN HIS CONCERNS AND THAT HE

  • SHOULD NOT CARRY ON ANY

  • CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT

  • OR ANYONE ELSE ABOUT AN

  • INVESTIGATION IN A WAY THAT WAS

  • NOT PROPER.

  • I FELT HE SO LONG IN THE

  • DEPARTMENT, FORMER DEPUTY

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL AS I RECALL,

  • KNEW THOSE POLICIES PROBABLY A

  • GOOD DEAL BETTER THAN I DID.

  • >> THANK YOU, SIR.

  • I THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • BUT IT DID APPEAR THAT MR. COMEY

  • FELT THAT THE CONVERSATION WAS

  • IMPROPER?

  • >> HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

  • HIS RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HE SAID

  • TO ME ABOUT HIS CONCERN I

  • DON'T -- IS CONSISTENT WITH MY

  • RECOLLECTION.

  • >> SENATOR RISCH.

  • >> ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS,

  • GOOD TO HEAR YOU TALK ABOUT HOW

  • IMPORTANT THIS RUSSIAN

  • INTERFERENCE AND ACTIVE MEASURES

  • IN OUR CAMPAIGN IS.

  • I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY

  • AMERICAN WHO WOULD DISAGREE WITH

  • THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO DRILL

  • DOWN TO THIS, KNOW WHAT

  • HAPPENED, GET IT OUT IN FRONT OF

  • THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND DO WHAT

  • WE CAN TO STOP IT.

  • AND THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE

  • WAS CHARGED TO DO AND THAT'S

  • WHAT THIS COMMITTEE STARTED TO

  • KNOW.

  • AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW ON FEBRUARY

  • 14th, "THE NEW YORK TIMES"

  • PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE ALLEGING

  • THAT THERE WERE -- THERE WAS

  • CONSTANT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN

  • THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE

  • RUSSIANS AND COLLUSION REGARDING

  • THE ELECTION.

  • DO YOU RECALL THAT ARTICLE WHEN

  • IT CAME OUT?

  • >> NOT EXACTLY.

  • >> GENERALLY?

  • >> THAT WAS GENERALLY, I

  • REMEMBER THOSE CHARGES.

  • >> MR. COMEY TOLD US WHEN HE WAS

  • HERE LAST WEEK THAT HE HAD A

  • VERY SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION.

  • IN FACT HE CHASED IT DOWN

  • THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE

  • COMMUNITY AND WAS NOT ABLE TO

  • FIND A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE TO

  • THAT EFFECT.

  • THEN HE SOUGHT OUT REPUBLICANS

  • AND DEMOCRATS TO TELL THEM THAT

  • THIS WAS FALSE.

  • THERE WAS NO -- NO SUCH FACTS

  • ANYWHERE THAT CORROBORATED WHAT

  • "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED.

  • NONETHELESS, AFTER THAT, THIS

  • COMMITTEE TOOK THAT ON AS ONE OF

  • THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SPENT

  • REALLY SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TIME

  • ON THAT THAN WE HAVE ON THE

  • RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES.

  • WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THOUSANDS OF

  • PAGES OF INFORMATION,

  • INTERVIEWED WITNESSES AND

  • ANYWHERE ELSE AND WE'RE REALLY

  • NO DIFFERENT THAN WE WERE WHEN

  • THIS WHOLE THING STARTED.

  • BUT -- AND THERE'S BEEN NO

  • REPORTS THAT I KNOW OF, OF ANY

  • FACTUAL INFORMATION.

  • ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SUCH

  • INFORMATION OF COLLUSION?

  • >> IS THAT AROSE FROM THE

  • DOSSIER, SO-CALLED DOSSIER,

  • SENATOR RISCH?

  • >> WELL, ANYWHERE.

  • >> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE REPORT

  • THAT SENATOR FRANKEN HIT ME WITH

  • WHEN I WAS TESTIFYING.

  • IT, I THINK, HAS BEEN PRETTY

  • SUBSTANTIALLY DISCREDITED, BUT

  • YOU WOULD KNOW MORE THAN I.

  • BUT WHAT WAS SAID THAT WOULD

  • SUGGEST I PARTICIPATED IN

  • CONTINUING COMMUNICATIONS WITH

  • RUSSIANS AS A SURROGATE IS

  • ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

  • >> MR. SESSIONS, THERE'S BEEN

  • ALL THIS TALK ABOUT

  • CONVERSATIONS AND THAT YOU HAD

  • SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THE

  • RUSSIANS.

  • SENATORS UP HERE WHO ARE ON

  • EITHER FOREIGN RELATIONS,

  • INTELLIGENCE, ARMED SERVICES,

  • CONVERSATIONS WITH OFFICERS OF

  • OTHER GOVERNMENTS OR AMBASSADORS

  • OR WHAT HAVE YOU ARE EVERYDAY

  • OCCURRENCES HERE, MULTIPLE TIME

  • OCCURRENCES FOR MOST OF US, IS

  • THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

  • >> I THINK IT IS, YES.

  • >> INDEED, IF YOU RUN INTO ONE

  • IN THE GROCERY STORE, YOU'RE

  • GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION

  • WITH THEM, IS THAT FAIR?

  • >> COULD VERY WELL HAPPEN AND BE

  • NOTHING IMPROPER.

  • >> ON THE OTHER HAND, COLLUSION

  • WITH THE RUSSIANS OR ANY OTHER

  • GOVERNMENT FOR THAT MATTER WHEN

  • IT COMES TO OUR ELECTIONS

  • CERTAINLY WOULD BE IMPROPER AND

  • ILLEGAL.

  • WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?

  • >> ABSOLUTELY.

  • >> ARE YOU WILLING TO SIT HERE

  • AND TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  • UNFILTERED BY WHAT THE MEDIA

  • WILL PUT OUT THAT YOU

  • PARTICIPATED IN NO CONVERSATIONS

  • OF ANY KIND WHERE THERE WAS

  • COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN AND ANY OTHER FOREIGN

  • GOVERNMENT?

  • >> I CAN SAY THAT ABSOLUTELY AND

  • I HAVE NO HESITATION TO DO SO.

  • >> MR. SESSIONS, YOU'RE A FORMER

  • U.S. ATTORNEY, FORMER UNITED

  • STATES SENATOR AND ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.

  • YOU'VE PARTICIPATED IN THE TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN.

  • AS SUCH YOU TRAVELED WITH THE

  • CAMPAIGN, I GATHER?

  • >> I DID.

  • >> YOU SPOKE FOR THE CAMPAIGN AT

  • TIMES?

  • >> ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS.

  • I WAS NOT CONTINUALLY ON THE --

  • >> BASED UPON YOUR EXPERIENCE

  • AND BASED UPON YOUR

  • PARTICIPATION IN THE CAMPAIGN,

  • DID YOU HEAR EVEN A WHISPER OR A

  • SUGGESTION OR ANYONE MAKING

  • REFERENCE WITHIN THAT CAMPAIGN

  • THAT SOMEHOW THE RUSSIANS WERE

  • INVOLVED IN THAT CAMPAIGN?

  • >> I DID NOT.

  • >> WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE IF

  • YOU'D HAVE HEARD THAT?

  • >> WELL, I WOULD HAVE BEEN

  • SHOCKED AND KNOWN THAT IT WAS

  • IMPROPER.

  • >> AND HEADED FOR THE EXIT, I

  • SUPPOSE?

  • >> MAYBE.

  • THIS WAS SERIOUS -- THIS IS A

  • SERIOUS MATTER BECAUSE WHAT

  • YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, HACKING

  • INTO A PRIVATE PERSON OR DNC

  • COMPUTER AND OBTAINING

  • INFORMATION AND SPREADING THAT

  • OUT, THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT AND I

  • BELIEVE IT'S LIKELY THAT LAWS

  • WERE VIOLATED IF THAT ACTUALLY

  • OCCURRED.

  • SO IT'S AN IMPROPER THING.

  • >> MR. SESSIONS, HAS ANY PERSON

  • FROM THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE

  • ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING THE

  • PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

  • EITHER DIRECTED YOU OR ASKED YOU

  • TO DO ANY UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL

  • ACT SINCE YOU'VE BEEN ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES?

  • >> NO, SENATOR RISCH, THEY HAVE

  • NOT.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • >> SENATOR FEINSTEIN.

  • >> THANKS VERY MUCH, MR.

  • CHAIRMAN.

  • WELCOME, ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • >> ON MAY 19th, MR. ROSENSTEIN

  • IN A STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE OF

  • REPRESENTATIVES ESSENTIALLY TOLD

  • THEM THAT HE LEARNED ON MAY 8th

  • THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP INTENDED TO

  • REMOVE DIRECTOR COMEY.

  • WHEN YOU WROTE YOUR LETTER ON

  • MAY 9, DID YOU KNOW THAT THE

  • PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO

  • FIRE DIRECTOR COMEY?

  • >> SENATOR FEINSTEIN, I WOULD

  • SAY THAT I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN

  • MADE PUBLIC THAT THE PRESIDENT

  • ASKED US OUR OPINION, IT WAS

  • GIVEN, AND HE ASKED US TO PUT

  • THAT IN WRITING.

  • I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE HE

  • SAID ABOUT IT THAN THAT, BUT I

  • BELIEVE HE HAS TALKED ABOUT IT.

  • I WOULD LET HIS WORDS SPEAK FOR

  • THEMSELVES.

  • >> WELL, ON MAY 11th ON NBC

  • NIGHTLY NEWS, TWO DAYS LATER,

  • THE PRESIDENT STATED HE WAS

  • GOING TO FIRE COMEY REGARDLESS

  • OF THE RECOMMENDATION.

  • SO I'M PUZZLED ABOUT THE

  • RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THE

  • DECISION HAD BEEN MADE.

  • SO WHAT WAS THE NEED FOR YOU TO

  • WRITE A RECOMMENDATION?

  • >> WELL, WE WERE ASKED OUR

  • OPINION.

  • AND WHEN WE EXPRESSED IT, WHICH

  • WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE

  • MEMORANDUM AND LETTER WE WROTE,

  • I FELT COMFORTABLE IN I GUESS

  • THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DID

  • TOO IN PROVIDING THAT

  • INFORMATION IN WRITING.

  • >> SO DO YOU CONCUR WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS GOING TO

  • FIRE COMEY REGARDLESS OF

  • RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THE

  • PROBLEM WAS THE RUSSIAN

  • INVESTIGATION?

  • >> SENATOR FEINSTEIN, I GUESS

  • I'LL JUST HAVE TO LET HIS WORDS

  • SPEAK FOR HIMSELF.

  • I'M NOT SURE WHAT WAS IN HIS

  • MIND EXPLICITLY WHEN WE TALKED

  • WITH HIM.

  • >> DID YOU EVER DISCUSS DIRECTOR

  • COMEY'S FBI HANDLING OF THE

  • RUSSIA INVESTIGATIONS WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE?

  • >> SENATOR FEINSTEIN, THAT WOULD

  • CALL FOR A COMMUNICATION BETWEEN

  • THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE

  • PRESIDENT AND I'M NOT ABLE TO

  • COMMENT ON THAT.

  • >> YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ANSWER

  • THE QUESTION HERE WHETHER YOU

  • EVER DISCUSSED THAT WITH HIM?

  • >> THAT'S CORRECT.

  • >> AND HOW DO YOU VIEW THAT,

  • SINCE YOU DISCUSSED HIS

  • TERMINATION, WHY WOULDN'T YOU

  • DISCUSS THE REASONS?

  • >> WELL, I -- THOSE WERE PUT IN

  • WRITING AND SENT TO THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • HE MADE THOSE PUBLIC, SO HE MADE

  • THAT PUBLIC, NOT --

  • >> SO YOU HAD NO VERBAL

  • CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT THE

  • FIRING OF MR. COMEY?

  • >> WELL, I'M NOT ABLE TO DISCUSS

  • WITH YOU OR CONFIRM OR DENY THE

  • NATURE OF PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS

  • THAT I MAY HAVE HAD WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT ON THIS SUBJECT OR

  • OTHERS.

  • I KNOW HOW THIS WILL BE

  • DISCUSSED, BUT THAT'S THE RULE

  • THAT HAS BEEN LONG ADHERED TO BY

  • THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AS

  • YOU KNOW, SENATOR FEINSTEIN.

  • >> YOU'RE A LONG-TIME COLLEAGUE.

  • BUT WE HEARD MR. COATS AND WE

  • HEARD ADMIRAL ROGERS SAY

  • ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING, WHEN

  • IT WAS EASY JUST TO SAY IF THE

  • ANSWER WAS NO, NO.

  • >> WELL, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY

  • TO SAY IF IT WAS YES, YES, BUT

  • BOTH WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPROPER.

  • >> OKAY.

  • SO HOW EXACTLY WERE YOU INVOLVED

  • IN THE TERMINATION OF DIRECTOR

  • COMEY, BECAUSE I AM LOOKING AT

  • YOUR LETTER DATED MAY 9 AND YOU

  • SAY THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI MUST

  • BE SOMEONE WHO FOLLOWS

  • FAITHFULLY THE RULES AND

  • PRINCIPLES, WHO SETS THE RIGHT

  • EXAMPLE FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT

  • OFFICIALS, THEREFORE, I MUST

  • RECOMMEND THAT YOU REMOVE

  • DIRECTOR COMEY AND IDENTIFY AN

  • EXPERIENCED AND QUALIFIED

  • INDIVIDUAL TO LEAD THE GREAT MEN

  • AND WOMEN OF THE FBI.

  • DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS

  • HAD TO DO WITH DIRECTOR COMEY'S

  • PERFORMANCE WITH THE MEN AND

  • WOMEN OF THE FBI?

  • >> THERE WAS A CLEAR VIEW OF

  • MINE AND OF DEPUTY ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL ROSENSTEIN AS HE SET OUT

  • AT SOME LENGTH IN HIS MEMORANDA

  • WHICH I ADOPTED AND SENT FORWARD

  • TO THE PRESIDENT THAT WE HAD

  • PROBLEMS THERE, AND IT WAS MY

  • BEST JUDGMENT THAT A FRESH START

  • AT THE FBI WAS THE APPROPRIATE

  • THING TO DO.

  • AND WHEN ASKED, SAID THAT TO THE

  • PRESIDENT IS SOMETHING I WOULD

  • ADHERE TO.

  • DEPUTY ROSENSTEIN'S LETTER DEALT

  • WITH A NUMBER OF THINGS.

  • WHEN MR. COMEY DECLINED THE

  • CLINTON PROSECUTION, THAT WAS

  • REALLY A USURPATION OF THE

  • AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL

  • PROSECUTORS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE.

  • IT WAS A STUNNING DEVELOPMENT.

  • THE FBI IS THE INVESTIGATIVE

  • TEAM.

  • THEY DON'T DECIDE PROSECUTION

  • POLICIES.

  • AND SO THAT WAS A THUNDEROUS

  • THING.

  • HE ALSO COMMENTED AT SOME LENGTH

  • ON THE DECLINATION OF THE

  • CLINTON PROSECUTION, WHICH YOU

  • SHOULD NOT -- YOU SHOULDN'T DO.

  • POLICIES HAVE BEEN HISTORIC, IF

  • YOU DECLINE, YOU DECLINE AND YOU

  • DON'T TALK ABOUT IT.

  • THERE WERE OTHER THINGS THAT HAD

  • HAPPENED THAT INDICATED TO ME A

  • LACK OF DISCIPLINE AND IT CAUSED

  • CONTROVERSY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE

  • AISLE.

  • I HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION

  • THAT A FRESH START WAS

  • APPROPRIATE AND DID NOT MIND

  • PUTTING THAT IN WRITING.

  • >> MY TIME IS UP.

  • THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

  • >> SENATOR RUBIO.

  • >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE,

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • I WANT TO GO BACK TO FEBRUARY

  • 14th AND CLOSE THE LOOP ON THE

  • DETAILS.

  • DIRECTOR COMEY WAS HERE AND

  • PROVIDED GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THAT

  • DAY.

  • WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR IS THERE

  • WAS A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE

  • ON THE 14th.

  • YOU RECALL BEING THERE ALONG

  • WITH HIM.

  • AT SOME POINT THE MEETING

  • CONCLUDED.

  • THE PRESIDENT, EVERYONE GOT UP

  • TO LEAVE.

  • THE PRESIDENT ASKED DIRECTOR

  • COMEY TO STAY BEHIND.

  • CORRECT?

  • >> WELL, THAT'S A COMMUNICATION

  • IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT I WOULD

  • NOT COMMENT ON.

  • I DO --

  • >> YOU REMEMBER SEEING HIM STAY

  • BEHIND?

  • >> YES.

  • >> AND HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT

  • YOU LINGERED, AND HIS VIEW OF IT

  • WAS YOU LINGERED BECAUSE YOU

  • KNEW THAT NEEDED TO STAY.

  • THAT WAS HIS CHARACTERIZATION.

  • DO YOU REMEMBER LINGERING?

  • DO YOU REMEMBER FEELING LIKE YOU

  • NEEDED TO STAY?

  • >> I DO RECALL BEING ONE OF THE

  • LAST ONES TO LEAVE.

  • >> DID YOU DECIDE TO BE ONE OF

  • THE LAST ONES TO LEAVE?

  • >> I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT

  • OCCURRED.

  • WE HAD FINISHED A -- I THINK A

  • TERRORISM, COUNTERTERRORISM

  • BRIEFING, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE

  • WERE THERE AND PEOPLE WERE

  • FILTERING OUT.

  • AND I EVENTUALLY LEFT.

  • I DO RECALL THAT I THINK I WAS

  • THE LAST OR ONE OF THE LAST TWO

  • OR THREE TO LEAVE.

  • >> WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT

  • YOU FELT LIKE PERHAPS YOU NEEDED

  • TO STAY BECAUSE IT INVOLVED THE

  • FBI DIRECTOR?

  • >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW I

  • WOULD CHARACTERIZE THAT, SENATOR

  • RUBIO.

  • I LEFT.

  • IT DIDN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE A

  • MAJOR PROBLEM.

  • I KNEW THAT DIRECTOR COMEY, LONG

  • TIME EXPERIENCED IN THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE --

  • >> HE CHARACTERIZED IT THAT HE

  • WENT UP AND SAID NEVER LEAVE ME

  • ALONE WITH THE PRESIDENT AGAIN,

  • IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.

  • AND HE SAID, THIS IS HIS

  • CHARACTERIZATION, YOU JUST KIND

  • OF SHRUGGED AS IF TO SAY WHAT AM

  • I SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT IT.

  • >> I THINK I DESCRIBED IT MORE

  • COMPLETELY, CORRECTLY.

  • HE RAISED THAT ISSUE WITH ME I

  • BELIEVE THE NEXT DAY, I THINK

  • THAT WAS CORRECT.

  • AND HE EXPRESSED CONCERN TO ME

  • ABOUT THAT PRIVATE CONVERSATION.

  • AND I AGREED WITH HIM

  • ESSENTIALLY THAT THERE ARE RULES

  • ON PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH

  • THE PRESIDENT.

  • BUT THERE IS NOT A PROHIBITION

  • ON A PRIVATE DISCUSSION WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT, AS I BELIEVE HE'S

  • ACKNOWLEDGED SIX OR MORE HIMSELF

  • WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA AND

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP.

  • SO I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S --

  • HE GAVE ME NO DETAIL ABOUT WHAT

  • IT WAS THAT HE WAS CONCERNED

  • ABOUT.

  • >> SO DID HE --

  • >> SO I DIDN'T SAY I WOULDN'T BE

  • ABLE TO RESPOND IF HE CALLED ME.

  • HE CERTAINLY KNEW THAT WITH

  • REGARD -- THAT HE COULD CALL HIS

  • DIRECT SUPERVISOR, WHICH IN THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE

  • DIRECT SUPERVISOR TO THE FBI IS

  • THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • HE COULD HAVE COMPLAINED TO THE

  • DEPUTY OR TO ME AT ANY TIME IF

  • HE FELT PRESSURED, BUT I HAD NO

  • DOUBT THAT HE WOULD NOT YIELD TO

  • ANY PRESSURE.

  • >> DO YOU KNOW IF THE PRESIDENT

  • RECORDS CONVERSATIONS IN THE

  • OVAL OFFICE OR ANYWHERE IN THE

  • WHITE HOUSE?

  • >> I DO NOT.

  • >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

  • IF IN FACT ANY PRESIDENT WAS TO

  • RECORD CONVERSATIONS IN THEIR

  • OFFICIAL DUTIES IN THE WHITE

  • HOUSE OR THE LIKE, WOULD THERE

  • BE AN OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE

  • THOSE RECORDS?

  • >> I DON'T KNOW, SENATOR RUBIO.

  • PROBABLY SO.

  • >> I WANT TO GO TO THE CAMPAIGN

  • FOR A MOMENT.

  • AS I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE, IT'S

  • BEEN WIDELY REPORTED RUSSIAN

  • INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OFTEN POSE

  • NOT SIMPLY AS AN OFFICIAL BUT IN

  • COVERS AS BUSINESSMEN, A

  • JOURNALIST AND THE LIKE.

  • AT ANY POINT DURING THE CAMPAIGN

  • DID YOU HAVE AN INTERACTION WITH

  • ANYONE WHO IN HINDSIGHT YOU LOOK

  • BACK AND SAY THEY WERE TRYING TO

  • INFLUENCE ME OR GAIN INSIGHT,

  • THAT IN HINDSIGHT YOU LOOK AT

  • AND WONDER?

  • >> I DON'T BELIEVE IN MY

  • CONVERSATIONS WITH THE THREE

  • TIMES --

  • >> NOT THE AMBASSADOR, JUST IN

  • GENERAL.

  • >> WELL, I MET A LOT OF PEOPLE,

  • A LOT OF FOREIGN OFFICIALS WHO

  • WANTED TO ARGUE THEIR CASE FOR

  • THEIR COUNTRY AND TO POINT OUT

  • THINGS THAT THEY THOUGHT WERE

  • IMPORTANT FOR THEIR COUNTRIES.

  • THAT'S A NORMAL THING I GUESS WE

  • TALK ABOUT.

  • >> RIGHT.

  • BUT AS FAR AS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT

  • AN OFFICIAL FROM ANOTHER

  • COUNTRY, JUST A BUSINESSMAN OR

  • ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET

  • WHO STRUCK YOU AS SOMEONE WHO

  • WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU

  • WERE UP TO OR THE CAMPAIGN WAS

  • UP TO, YOU NEVER REMEMBER THAT

  • IN HINDSIGHT APPEARS SUSPICIOUS?

  • >> WELL, I'D HAVE TO RACK MY

  • BRAIN, BUT I DON'T RECALL IT

  • NOW.

  • >> MY LAST QUESTION.

  • YOU WERE ON THE FOREIGN POLICY

  • TEAM.

  • THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM WAS

  • CHANGED TO NOT PROVIDE DEFENSIVE

  • WEAPONS TO UKRAINE.

  • WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THAT

  • DECISION?

  • DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT CHANGE WAS

  • MADE OR WHO WAS INVOLVED IN

  • MAKING THAT CHANGE?

  • >> I HAVE NOT ACTIVE IN THE

  • PLATFORM COMMITTEE, DID NOT

  • PARTICIPATE IN THAT AND DON'T

  • THINK I HAD ANY DIRECT

  • INVOLVEMENT.

  • >> DO YOU KNOW WHO DID?

  • OR YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF A

  • DEBATE ABOUT THAT ISSUE

  • INTERNALLY IN THE CAMPAIGN?

  • >> I NEVER WATCHED THE DEBATE.

  • IF IT OCCURRED ON THE PLATFORM

  • COMMITTEE.

  • I THINK IT DID.

  • SO I DON'T RECALL THAT, SENATOR

  • RUBIO.

  • I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • >> SENATOR WYDEN.

  • >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.

  • CHAIRMAN.

  • MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO THANK

  • YOU FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING IN

  • THE OPEN IN FULL VIEW OF THE

  • AMERICAN PEOPLE WHERE IT

  • BELONGS.

  • I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  • HAVE HAD IT WITH STONEWALLING.

  • AMERICANS DON'T WANT TO HEAR

  • THAT ANSWERS TO RELEVANT

  • QUESTIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND OFF

  • LIMITS OR THAT THEY CAN'T BE

  • PROVIDED IN PUBLIC OR THAT IT

  • WOULD BE, QUOTE, INAPPROPRIATE

  • FOR WITNESSES TO TELL US WHAT

  • THEY KNOW.

  • WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN ATTACK

  • ON OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

  • AND STONEWALLING OF ANY KIND IS

  • UNACCEPTABLE.

  • GENERAL SESSIONS HAS

  • ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE IS NO

  • LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS

  • STONEWALLING.

  • SO NOW TO QUESTIONS.

  • LAST THURSDAY I ASKED FORMER

  • DIRECTOR COMEY ABOUT THE FBI'S

  • INTERACTIONS WITH YOU, GENERAL

  • SESSIONS, PRIOR TO YOUR STEPPING

  • ASIDE FROM THE RUSSIAN

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • MR. COMEY SAID THAT YOUR

  • CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT WITH THE

  • RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION WAS,

  • QUOTE, PROBLEMATIC AND HE, MR.

  • COMEY, COULD NOT DISCUSS IT IN

  • PUBLIC.

  • MR. COMEY ALSO SAID THAT FBI

  • PERSONNEL HAD BEEN CALLING FOR

  • YOU TO STEP ASIDE FROM THE

  • INVESTIGATION AT LEAST TWO WEEKS

  • BEFORE YOU FINALLY DID SO.

  • NOW, IN YOUR PREPARED STATEMENT

  • YOU STATED YOU RECEIVED ONLY,

  • QUOTE, LIMITED INFORMATION

  • NECESSARY TO INFORM YOUR RECUSAL

  • DECISION.

  • BUT GIVEN DIRECTOR COMEY'S

  • STATEMENT, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT

  • THAT WAS.

  • WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY CONCERNS

  • THAT THE FBI OR ELSEWHERE IN

  • GOVERNMENT ABOUT YOUR CONTACTS

  • WITH THE RUSSIANS OR ANY OTHER

  • MATTERS RELEVANT TO WHETHER YOU

  • SHOULD STEP ASIDE FROM THE

  • RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION?

  • >> SENATOR WYDEN, I AM NOT

  • STONEWALLING.

  • I AM FOLLOWING THE HISTORIC

  • POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE.

  • YOU DON'T WALK INTO ANY HEARING

  • OR COMMITTEE MEETING AND REVEAL

  • CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH

  • THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

  • STATES WHO'S ENTITLED TO RECEIVE

  • CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS IN

  • YOUR BEST JUDGMENT ABOUT A HOST

  • OF ISSUES.

  • AND HAVE TO BE ACCUSED OF

  • STONEWALLING FOR NOT ANSWERING

  • THEM.

  • SO I WOULD PUSH BACK ON THAT.

  • SECONDLY, MR. COMEY, PERHAPS HE

  • DIDN'T KNOW, BUT I BASICALLY

  • RECUSED MYSELF THE DAY -- THE

  • FIRST DAY I GOT INTO THE OFFICE

  • BECAUSE I NEVER ACCESSED FILES,

  • I NEVER LEARNED THE NAMES OF

  • INVESTIGATORS, I NEVER MET WITH

  • THEM, I NEVER ASKED FOR

  • DOCUMENTATION.

  • THE DOCUMENTATION, WHAT LITTLE I

  • RECEIVED, WAS MOSTLY ALREADY IN

  • THE MEDIA AND WAS PRESENTED BY

  • THE SENIOR ETHICS PUBLIC

  • RESPONSIBILITY -- PROFESSIONAL

  • RESPONSIBILITY ATTORNEY IN THE

  • DEPARTMENT AND I MADE AN HONEST

  • AND PROPER DECISION TO RECUSE

  • MYSELF AS I TOLD SENATOR

  • FEINSTEIN AND THE MEMBERS OF THE

  • COMMITTEE I WOULD DO WHEN THEY

  • CONFIRMED ME.

  • >> GENERAL SESSIONS,

  • RESPECTFULLY YOU'RE NOT

  • ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

  • >> WELL, WHAT IS THE QUESTION?

  • >> THE QUESTION IS, MR. COMEY

  • SAID THAT THERE WERE MATTERS

  • WITH RESPECT TO THE RECUSAL THAT

  • WERE PROBLEMATIC AND HE COULDN'T

  • TALK ABOUT THEM.

  • WHAT ARE THEY?

  • >> WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME?

  • THERE ARE NONE, SENATOR WYDEN.

  • THERE ARE NONE.

  • I CAN TELL YOU THAT FOR AOLUTE

  • CERTAINTY.

  • >> WE CAN --

  • >> YOU TELL -- THIS IS A SECRET

  • INNUENDO BEING LEAKED OUT THERE

  • ABOUT ME AND I DON'T APPRECIATE

  • IT AND I HAVE TRIED TO GIVE MY

  • BEST AND TRUTHFUL ANSWERS TO ANY

  • COMMITTEE I'VE APPEARED BEFORE

  • AND IT'S REALLY -- PEOPLE ARE

  • SUGGESTING THROUGH INNUENDO THAT

  • I HAVE BEEN NOT HONEST ABOUT

  • MATTERS AND I'VE TRIED TO BE

  • HONEST.

  • >> MY TIME IS SHORT, YOU'VE MADE

  • YOUR POINT THAT YOU THINK MR.

  • COMEY IS ENGAGING IN INNUENDO.

  • WE'RE GOING TO DEEP DIGGING ON

  • THIS.

  • >> SENATOR WYDEN --

  • >> HE SAID IT WAS PROBLEMATIC.

  • I ASKED YOU WHAT WAS PROBLEMATIC

  • ABOUT IT?

  • >> SOME OF THAT LEAKED OUT OF

  • THE COMMITTEE THAT HE SAID IN

  • CLOSED SESSIONS.

  • >> OKAY.

  • ONE MORE QUESTION.

  • I ASKED FORMER FBI DIRECTOR

  • WHETHER YOUR ROLE IN FIRING HIM

  • VIOLATED YOUR RECUSAL GIVEN THAT

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID HE FIRED

  • COMEY BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIAN

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • DIRECTOR COMEY SAID THIS WAS A

  • REASONABLE QUESTION.

  • SO I WANT TO ASK YOU JUST POINT

  • BLANK, WHY DID YOU SIGN THE

  • LETTER RECOMMENDING THE FIRING

  • OF DIRECTOR COMEY WHEN IT

  • VIOLATED YOUR RECUSAL?

  • >> IT DID NOT VIOLATE MY

  • RECUSAL.

  • IT DID NOT VIOLATE MY RECUSAL.

  • THAT WOULD BE THE ANSWER TO

  • THAT.

  • AND THE LETTER THAT I SIGNED

  • REPRESENTED MY VIEWS THAT HAD

  • BEEN FORMULATED FOR SOME TIME.

  • >> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST SO I CAN

  • FINISH, THAT ANSWER IN MY VIEW

  • DOESN'T PASS THE SMELL TEST.

  • THE PRESIDENT TWEETED REPEATEDLY

  • ABOUT HIS ANGER AT

  • INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS

  • ASSOCIATES AND RUSSIA.

  • THE DAY BEFORE YOU WROTE YOUR

  • LETTER HE TWEETED THAT THE

  • COLLUSION STORY WAS A TOTAL HOAX

  • AND ASKED WHEN WILL THIS

  • TAXPAYER FUNDED CHARADE END.

  • I DON'T THINK YOUR ANSWER PASSES

  • THE SMELL TEST.

  • >> SENATOR WYDEN, I THINK I

  • SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BRIEFLY

  • RESPOND AT LEAST AND WOULD SAY

  • THE LETTER, THE MEMORANDUM THAT

  • SENATOR -- THAT DEPUTY

  • ROSENSTEIN WROTE AND MY LETTER

  • THAT ACCOMPANIED IT REPRESENTED

  • MY VIEWS OF THE SITUATION.

  • >> I'LL ASK THAT ON THE SECOND

  • ROUND.

  • THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • >> SENATOR COLLINS.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS, I

  • WANT TO CLARIFY WHO DID WHAT

  • WITH REGARD THE FIRING OF MR.

  • COMEY.

  • FIRST OF ALL, LET ME ASK YOU,

  • WHEN DID YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST

  • CONVERSATION WITH ROD ROSENSTEIN

  • ABOUT MR. COMEY?

  • >> WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE

  • EITHER ONE OF US WERE CONFIRMED.

  • IT WAS A TOPIC OF, YOU KNOW,

  • CONVERSATION AMONG PEOPLE WHO

  • HAD SERVED IN THE DEPARTMENT A

  • LONG TIME.

  • THEY KNEW THAT WHAT HAD HAPPENED

  • THAT FALL WAS PRETTY

  • DRAMATICALLY UNUSUAL.

  • MANY PEOPLE FELT IT WAS VERY

  • WRONG.

  • SO IT WAS IN THAT CONTEXT THAT

  • WE DISCUSSED IT AND WE BOTH

  • FOUND THAT WE SHARED A COMMON

  • VIEW THAT A FRESH START WOULD BE

  • APPROPRIATE.

  • >> AND THIS WAS BASED ON MR.

  • COMEY'S HANDLING OF THE

  • INVESTIGATION INVOLVING HILLARY

  • CLINTON IN WHICH YOU SAID THAT

  • HE USURPED THE AUTHORITY OF

  • PROSECUTORS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE?

  • >> YES, THAT WAS PART OF IT.

  • AND THE COMMENTING ON THE

  • INVESTIGATION IN WAYS THAT GO

  • BEYOND THE PROPER POLICIES.

  • WE NEED TO RESTORE, SENATOR

  • COLLINS, I THINK THE CLASSIC

  • DISCIPLINE IN THE DEPARTMENT.

  • MY TEAM, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS,

  • THERE'S BEEN TOO MUCH LEAKING

  • AND TOO MUCH TALKING PUBLICLY

  • ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.

  • IN THE LONG RUN, THE DEPARTMENT

  • HISTORIC RULE THAT YOU REMAIN

  • MUM ABOUT ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS

  • IS THE BETTER POLICY.

  • >> NOW, SUBSEQUENTLY THE

  • PRESIDENT ASKED FOR YOU TO PUT

  • YOUR VIEWS IN WRITING.

  • YOU'VE TESTIFIED TODAY.

  • I BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE RIGHT TO

  • RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THE ONGOING

  • RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION.

  • BUT THEN ON MAY 9th YOU WROTE TO

  • THE PRESIDENT RECOMMENDING THAT

  • MR. COMEY BE DISMISSED.

  • OBVIOUSLY THIS WENT BACK MANY

  • MONTHS TO THE EARLIER

  • CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD HAD WITH

  • MR. ROSENSTEIN.

  • BUT MY QUESTION IS WHY DO YOU

  • BELIEVE THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION

  • TO FIRE DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT

  • INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR MARCH 2nd

  • RECUSAL?

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • THE RECUSAL INVOLVED ONE CASE

  • INVOLVED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE AND IN THE FBI.

  • THEY CONDUCT THOUSANDS OF

  • INVESTIGATIONS.

  • I'M THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

  • UNITED STATES.

  • IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR

  • JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND OTHER

  • COMMITTEES TO ENSURE THAT THAT

  • DEPARTMENT IS RUN PROPERLY.

  • I HAVE TO MAKE DIFFICULT

  • DECISIONS.

  • AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS

  • A SOUND POSITION TO SAY THAT IF

  • YOU'RE RECUSED FOR A SINGLE CASE

  • INVOLVING ANY ONE OF THE GREAT

  • AGENCIES LIKE DEA OR U.S.

  • MARSHALS OR ATF THAT ARE A PART

  • OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

  • YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ABOUT

  • THE LEADERSHIP IN THAT AGENCY.

  • >> NOW, IF YOU HAD KNOWN THAT

  • THE PRESIDENT SUBSEQUENTLY WAS

  • GOING TO GO ON TV AND IN AN

  • INTERVIEW WITH LESTER HOLT OF

  • NBC WOULD SAY THAT THIS RUSSIAN

  • THING WAS THE REASON FOR HIS

  • DECISION TO DISMISS THE FBI

  • DIRECTOR, WOULD YOU HAVE FELT

  • UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT THE TIMING

  • OF THE DECISION?

  • >> WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY THIS,

  • SENATOR COLLINS.

  • I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE

  • TO DEAL WITH THOSE KIND OF

  • HYPOTHETICALS.

  • I HAVE TO DEAL IN ACTUAL ISSUES.

  • I WOULD RESPECTFULLY NOT COMMENT

  • ON THAT.

  • >> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

  • IN RETROSPECT DO YOU BELIEVE

  • THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER

  • FOR YOU TO HAVE STAYED OUT OF

  • THE DECISION TO FIRE DIRECTOR

  • COMEY?

  • >> I THINK IT'S MY

  • RESPONSIBILITY.

  • I MEAN I WAS APPOINTED TO BE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPERVISING ALL

  • THE FEDERAL AGENCIES IS MY

  • RESPONSIBILITY.

  • TRYING TO GET THE VERY BEST

  • PEOPLE IN THOSE AGENCIES AT THE

  • TOP OF THEM IS MY

  • RESPONSIBILITY.

  • AND I THINK I HAD A DUTY TO DO

  • SO.

  • >> NOW, DIRECTOR COMEY TESTIFIED

  • THAT HE WAS NOT COMFORTABLE

  • TELLING YOU ABOUT HIS ONE-ON-ONE

  • CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT

  • ON FEBRUARY 14th BECAUSE HE

  • BELIEVED THAT YOU WOULD SHORTLY

  • RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THE RUSSIAN

  • INVESTIGATION, WHICH YOU DID.

  • YET DIRECTOR COMEY TESTIFIED

  • THAT HE TOLD NO ONE ELSE AT THE

  • DEPARTMENT OUTSIDE OF THE SENIOR

  • LEADERSHIP TEAM AT THE FBI.

  • DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DIRECTOR

  • HAD AN OBLIGATION TO BRING THE

  • INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT

  • SAYING THAT HE HOPED HE COULD

  • LET MICHAEL FLYNN GO TO SOMEONE

  • ELSE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE?

  • THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF

  • LAWYERS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE, SOME 10,000 BY LAST

  • COUNT.

  • >> I THINK THE APPROPRIATE THING

  • WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR DIRECTOR

  • COMEY TO TALK WITH THE ACTING

  • DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO IS

  • HIS DIRECT SUPERVISOR.

  • THAT WAS DANA BOENTE, WHO HAD 33

  • YEARS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE, AND WAS EVEN THEN STILL

  • SERVING FOR SIX YEARS AND

  • CONTINUES TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT

  • OBAMA.

  • SO HE'S A MAN OF GREAT INTEGRITY

  • AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.

  • A MAN OF DECENCY AND JUDGMENT.

  • IF HE HAD CONCERNS, I THINK HE

  • SHOULD HAVE RAISED IT TO DUT

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL BOENTE WHO

  • WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON

  • IN ANY CASE, REALLY, BUT IF HE

  • HAD ANY CONCERN THAT I MIGHT BE

  • RECUING MYSELF, THAT WOULD BE

  • ANOTHER REASONABLE TO --

  • >> YOU'RE WATCHING NBC LIVE

  • COVERAGE OF THE TESTIMONY OF

  • JEFF SESSIONS TESTIMONY BEFORE

  • CONGRESS.

  • WE WILL PAUSE FOR JUST A MOMENT

  • TO ALLOW SOME STATIONS TO RETURN

  • TO REGULAR PROGRAMMING.

  • >> I'M NOT ABLE TO SHARE WITH

  • THIS COMMITTEE --

  • >> BECAUSE YOU'RE INVOKING

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE?

  • >> I'M NOT ABLE TO INVOKE

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

  • THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S

  • PREROGATIVE.

  • >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU

  • TOOK AN OATH, YOU RAISED YOUR

  • RIGHT HAND HERE TODAY AND SAID

  • THAT YOU WOULD SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO

  • TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH

  • AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

  • AND NOW YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING

  • QUESTIONS.

  • YOU'RE IMPEDING THIS

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL

  • STANDARD IS THAT YOU EITHER

  • ANSWER THE QUESTION, THAT'S THE

  • BEST OUTCOME.

  • YOU SAY THIS IS CLASSIFIED,

  • CAN'T ANSWER IT HERE.

  • I'LL ANSWER IT IN CLOSED

  • SESSION.

  • THAT'S BUCKET NUMBER TWO.

  • BUCKET NUMBER THREE IS TO SAY

  • I'M INVOKING EXECUTIVE

  • PRIVILEGE.

  • THERE IS NO APPROPRIATENESS

  • BUCKET.

  • IT IS NOT A LEGAL STANDARD.

  • CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT ARE THESE

  • LONG STANDING DOJ RULES THAT

  • PROTECT CONVERSATIONS MADE IN

  • THE EXECUTIVE WITHOUT INVOKING

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

  • >> SENATOR, I'M PROTECTING THE

  • PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

  • BY NOT GIVING IT AWAY BEFORE HE

  • HAS A CHANCE TO VIEW IT AND,

  • SECONDLY, I AM TELLING THE TRUTH

  • IN ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION IN

  • SAYING IT'S A LONG STANDING

  • POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE --

  • >> ARE THOSE POLICIES WRITTEN?

  • >> AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE

  • PRESIDENT HAS FULL OPPORTUNITY

  • TO DECIDE THESE ISSUES.

  • >> CAN YOU SHARE THOSE POLICIES

  • WITH US?

  • ARE THEY WRITTEN DOWN AT THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?

  • >> I BELIEVE THEY ARE.

  • CERTAINLY --

  • >> THIS IS AN APPROPRIATENESS

  • LEGAL STANDARD FOR NOT ANSWERING

  • CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES.

  • >> IT'S MY JUDGMENT THAT IT

  • WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO

  • ANSWER AND REVEAL PRIVATE

  • CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

  • WHEN HE HAS NOT HAD A FULL

  • OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE

  • QUESTIONS AND TO MAKE A DECISION

  • ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE

  • SUCH AN ANSWER, ONE.

  • THERE ARE ALSO OTHER PRIVILEGES

  • THAT COULD BE INVOKED.

  • ONE OF THE THINGS DEALS WITH THE

  • INVESTIGATION OF THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL --

  • >> WE'RE NOT ASKING QUESTIONS

  • ABOUT THAT INVESTIGATION.

  • IF I WANTED TO ASK QUESTIONS

  • ABOUT THAT INVESTIGATION, I'D

  • ASK THOSE OF ROD ROSENSTEIN.

  • I'M ASKING ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL

  • KNOWLEDGE FROM THIS COMMITTEE,

  • WHICH HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL

  • OBLIGATION TO GET TO THE BOTTOM

  • OF THIS.

  • THERE ARE TWO INVESTIGATIONS

  • HERE.

  • THERE IS A SPECIAL COUNSEL

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • THERE IS ALSO A CONGRESSIONAL

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • AND YOU ARE OBSTRUCTING THAT

  • CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION --

  • INVESTIGATION BY NOT ANSWERING

  • THESE QUESTIONS.

  • AND I THINK YOUR SILENCE, LIKE

  • THE SILENCE OF DIRECTOR COATS,

  • LIKE THE SILENCE OF ADMIRAL

  • ROGERS, SPEAKS VOLUMES.

  • >> I WOULD SAY THAT I HAVE

  • CONSULTED WITH SENIOR CAREER

  • ATTORNEYS IN THE DEPARTMENT --

  • >> I SUSPECT YOU HAVE.

  • >> AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH

  • MY DUTIES.

  • >> SENATOR RISCH ASKED YOU A

  • QUESTION ABOUT APPROPRIATENESS.

  • IF YOU HAD KNOWN THAT THERE HAD

  • BEEN ANYTHING UNTOWARD WITH

  • REGARD TO RUSSIA AND THE

  • CAMPAIGN, WOULD YOU HAVE HEADED

  • FOR THE EXITS?

  • YOUR RESPONSE WAS MAYBE.

  • WHY WASN'T IT A SIMPLE YES?

  • >> WELL, THERE WAS AN IMPROPER,

  • ILLEGAL RELATIONSHIP IN AN

  • EFFORT TO IMPEDE OR INFLUENCE

  • THIS CAMPAIGN, I ABSOLUTELY

  • WOULD HAVE DEPARTED.

  • >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ANSWER.

  • I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WASN'T THE

  • ANSWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  • >> I THOUGHT I DID ANSWER IT.

  • >> I FOUND IT STRANGE THAT

  • NEITHER YOU NOR DEPUTY ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL ROSENSTEIN BROUGHT UP

  • PERFORMANCE ISSUES WITH DIRECTOR

  • COMEY.

  • IN FACT DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR

  • McCABE HAS DIRECTLY REFUTED ANY

  • ASSERTION THAT THERE WERE

  • PERFORMANCE ISSUES.

  • THIS IS TROUBLING BECAUSE IT

  • APPEARS THAT THE PRESIDENT

  • DECIDED TO FIRE DIRECTOR COMEY

  • BECAUSE HE WAS PURSUING THE

  • RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND HAD

  • ASKED YOU TO COME UP WITH AN

  • EXCUSE.

  • WHEN YOUR ASSESSMENT OF DIRECTOR

  • COMEY DIDN'T HOLD UP TO PUBLIC

  • SCRUTINY, THE PRESIDENT FINALLY

  • ADMITTED THAT HE HAD FIRED

  • DIRECTOR COMEY BECAUSE HE WAS

  • PURSUING THE RUSSIA

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • I.E. THE LESTER HOLT INTERVIEW.

  • YOU'VE CLAIMED THAT YOU DID NOT

  • BREAK RECUSAL WHEN PARTICIPATING

  • IN DIRECTOR COMEY'S FIRING, BUT

  • IT APPEARS THAT HIS FIRING WAS

  • DIRECTLY RELATED TO RUSSIA, NOT

  • DEPARTMENTAL MISMANAGEMENT.

  • HOW DO YOU SQUARE THOSE TWO

  • THINGS?

  • >> WELL, YOU HAD A LOT IN THAT

  • QUESTION.

  • LET ME SAY FIRST, WITHIN A WEEK

  • OR SO, I BELIEVE MAY 3rd,

  • DIRECTOR COMEY TESTIFIED THAT HE

  • BELIEVED THE HANDLING OF THE

  • CLINTON DECLINATION WAS A PROPER

  • AND APPROPRIATE AND HE WOULD DO

  • IT AGAIN.

  • I KNOW THAT WAS A GREAT CONCERN

  • TO BOTH OF US BECAUSE IT DID

  • NOT -- THAT REPRESENTED

  • SOMETHING THAT I THINK MOST

  • PROFESSIONALS IN THE DEPARTMENT

  • OF JUSTICE WOULD TOTALLY AGREE

  • THAT THE FBI INVESTIGATIVE

  • AGENCY DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER

  • TO PROSECUTE OR DECLINE CRIMINAL

  • CASES.

  • PRETTY BREATH TAKING USURPATION

  • OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • SO THAT'S HOW WE FELT.

  • THAT WAS SORT OF ADDITIONAL

  • CONCERN THAT WE HAD HEADING THE

  • FBI SOMEONE WHO BOLDLY ASSERTED

  • THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE

  • SUCH DECISIONS.

  • THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE

  • DISCUSSED.

  • THAT WAS IN THE MEMORANDUM, I

  • BELIEVE, AND IT WAS ALSO AN

  • IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR US.

  • >> BEFORE I RECOGNIZE SENATOR

  • BLUNT, I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD

  • TO SHOW THAT LAST NIGHT ADMIRAL

  • ROGERS SPENT ALMOST TWO HOURS IN

  • CLOSED SESSION WITH ALMOST THE

  • FULL COMMITTEE FULFILLING HIS

  • COMMITMENT TO US IN THE HEARING

  • THAT IN CLOSED SESSION HE WOULD

  • ANSWER THE QUESTION, AND I THINK

  • IT WAS THOROUGHLY ANSWERED AND

  • ALL MEMBERS WERE GIVEN AN

  • OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.

  • I JUST WANT THE RECORD TO SHOW

  • THAT WITH WHAT SENATOR HEINRICH

  • STATED.

  • SENATOR BLUNT.

  • >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT'S GOOD TO

  • SEE YOU HERE.

  • IT'S GOOD TO SEE MARY.

  • I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY

  • OTHER PLACES YOU'D BOTH RATHER

  • BE TODAY BUT YOU'VE ALWAYS

  • LOOKED AT PUBLIC SERVICE AS

  • SOMETHING YOU DID TOGETHER, AND

  • IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE

  • TOGETHER AND KNOW THAT YOUR

  • FAMILY CONTINUES TO BE PROUD AND

  • SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT YOU DO.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • I'VE BEEN BLESSED INDEED.

  • >> I AGREE WITH THAT.

  • I AGREE WITH THAT.

  • LET ME JUST GET A COUPLE OF

  • THINGS CLEAR IN MY MIND HERE OF

  • NOTES THAT I'VE TAKEN WHILE

  • PEOPLE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS AND

  • YOU WERE TALKING.

  • ON THE APRIL 27th, 2016, EVENT,

  • I THINK THAT'S THE MAYFLOWER

  • HOTEL SPEECH THAT THE

  • PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GAVE ON

  • FOREIGN POLICY, YOU DIDN'T HAVE

  • A ROOM AT THAT EVENT WHERE YOU

  • HAD PRIVATE MEETINGS, DID YOU?

  • >> NO, I DID NOT.

  • >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU WENT

  • TO A RECEPTION THAT WAS ATTENDED

  • BY HOW MANY PEOPLE?

  • >> I THINK TWO TO THREE DOZEN.

  • >> TWO TO THREE DOZEN PEOPLE.

  • YOU WENT AND HEARD A SPEECH, AND

  • THEN MAY HAVE SEEN PEOPLE ON

  • YOUR WAY OUT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> SO WHEN YOU SAID YOU POSSIBLY

  • HAD A MEETING WITH MR. KISLYAK,

  • DID YOU MEAN YOU POSSIBLY MET

  • HIM?

  • >> I DIDN'T HAVE ANY FORMAL

  • MEETINGS, I'M CONFIDENT OF THAT.

  • BUT I MAY HAVE HAD AN ENCOUNTER

  • DURING THE RECEPTION.

  • THAT'S THE ONLY THING I CANNOT

  • SAY WITH CERTAINTY I DID NOT.

  • >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU

  • WERE SAYING BUT SOMETIMES WHEN I

  • HEAR I HAD A MEETING THAT WOULD

  • MEAN MORE THAN I MET SOMEBODY.

  • YOU MIGHT HAVE MET HIM AT THE

  • RECEPTION.

  • COULD YOU HAVE MET OTHER

  • AMBASSADORS AT THAT RECEPTION AS

  • WELL?

  • >> I COULD.

  • I REMEMBER ONE IN PARTICULAR

  • THAT WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH,

  • WHOSE COUNTRY HAD BEEN

  • INVESTMENT IN ALABAMA AND WE

  • TALKED AT A LITTLE LENGTH ABOUT

  • THAT.

  • I REMEMBER THAT.

  • BUT OTHERWISE I HAVE NO

  • RECOLLECTION OF A DISCUSSION

  • WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR.

  • >> ALL RIGHT.

  • SO YOU WERE THERE.

  • YOU'VE READ SINCE HE WAS THERE,

  • YOU MAY HAVE SEEN HIM, BUT YOU

  • HAD NO ROOM WHERE YOU WERE

  • HAVING MEETINGS WITH INDIVIDUALS

  • TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS AT THE

  • MAYFLOWER HOTEL THAT DAY?

  • >> NO, THAT IS CORRECT.

  • >> WHENEVER YOU TALKED TO MR.

  • COMEY AFTER HE HAD HAD HIS

  • MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, YOU

  • THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY THE NEXT

  • DAY, YOU DIDN'T STAY AFTERWARDS

  • AND SEE HIM AFTER HE LEFT THE

  • OVAL OFFICE THAT NIGHT?

  • >> NO.

  • I UNDERSTAND HIS TESTIMONY MAY

  • HAVE SUGGESTED THAT IT HAPPENED

  • RIGHT AFTERWARDS, BUT IT WAS

  • EITHER THE NEXT MORNING, WHICH I

  • THINK IT WAS, OR MAYBE THE

  • MORNING AFTER THAT.

  • WE HAD THREE TIMES A WEEK A

  • NATIONAL SECURITY BRIEFING WITH

  • FBI THAT I UNDERTAKE.

  • SO IT WAS AFTER THAT, THAT WE

  • HAD THAT CONVERSATION.

  • >> WHERE YOU HAD THAT

  • CONVERSATION.

  • NOW, WHAT I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR ON

  • IS DID YOU RESPOND WHEN HE

  • EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN OR NOT?

  • >> YES, I DID RESPOND.

  • I THINK HE WAS INCORRECT.

  • HE INDICATED, I BELIEVE, THAT HE

  • WAS NOT TOTALLY SURE OF THE

  • EXACT WORDING OF THE MEETING,

  • BUT I DO RECALL MY CHIEF OF

  • STAFF WAS WITH ME AND WE RECALL

  • THAT I DID AFFIRM THE LONG

  • STANDING WRITTEN POLICIES OF THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONCERNING

  • COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WHITE

  • HOUSE.

  • WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES

  • AND IN THE LONG RUN YOU'RE MUCH

  • BETTER OFF IF YOU DO.

  • THEY DO NOT PROHIBIT

  • COMMUNICATIONS ONE ON ONE BY THE

  • FBI DIRECTOR WITH THE PRESIDENT,

  • BUT IF THAT CONVERSATION MOVES

  • INTO CERTAIN AREAS, IT'S THE

  • DUTY -- THE RULES APPLY TO THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

  • SO IT'S A DUTY OF THE FBI AGENT

  • TO SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, I CAN'T

  • TALK ABOUT THAT.

  • THAT'S THE WAY THAT SHOULD WORK.

  • APPARENTLY IT DID BECAUSE HE

  • SAYS HE DID NOT IMPROPERLY

  • DISCUSS MATTERS WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • >> WHEN MR. COMEY TALKED TO YOU

  • ABOUT THAT MEETING, DID HE

  • MENTION MR. FLYNN?

  • >> NO.

  • HE MENTIONED NO FACTS OF ANY

  • KIND.

  • HE DID NOT MENTION TO ME THAT HE

  • HAD BEEN ASKED TO DO SOMETHING

  • HE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPROPER.

  • HE JUST SAID HE WAS

  • UNCOMFORTABLE, I BELIEVE, WITH

  • IT.

  • >> AFTER THAT DISCUSSION WITH

  • MR. COMEY --

  • >> ACTUALLY I DON'T KNOW THAT HE

  • SAID HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE.

  • I THINK HE SAID MAYBE -- MAYBE

  • IT WAS WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO WAS

  • PERHAPS THE CORRECT WORDING.

  • I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT HE

  • SAID, BUT I DON'T DISPUTE IT.

  • >> WELL, EXACTLY WHAT I THINK --

  • WHAT I REMEMBER HIM SAYING WAS

  • THAT YOU DIDN'T REACT AT ALL AND

  • KIND OF SHRUGGED, BUT YOU'RE

  • SAYING YOU REFERRED HIM TO THE

  • NORMAL WAY THESE MEETINGS ARE

  • SUPPOSED TO BE CONDUCTED.

  • >> I TOOK IT AS A CONCERN THAT

  • HE MIGHT BE ASKED SOMETHING THAT

  • WAS IMPROPER, AND I AFFIRMED TO

  • HIM HIS WILLINGNESS TO SAY NO OR

  • NOT GO IN AN IMPROPER WAY --

  • IMPROPER DIRECTION.

  • >> FINALLY, I'M ASSUMING YOU

  • WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE

  • IT WOULD RELATE TO THE MAY 8th

  • MEETING, BUT MY SENSE IS THAT NO

  • DECISION IS FINAL UNTIL IT'S

  • CARRIED OUT.

  • MY GUESS IS THAT THERE ARE

  • PEOPLE AT THIS DAIS WHO HAVE

  • SAID THEY WERE GOING TO LET

  • SOMEBODY GO OR FIRE SOMEBODY

  • THAT NEVER DID THAT, SO THE FACT

  • THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT ON

  • MAY 8th DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE

  • INFORMATION HE GOT FROM YOU ON

  • MAY 9th WAS NOT NECESSARY OR

  • IMPACTFUL AND I'M SURE YOU'RE

  • NOT GOING TO SAY HOW MANY TIMES

  • THE PRESIDENT SAID WE OUGHT TO

  • GET RID OF THAT PERSON.

  • BUT I'M SURE THAT'S HAPPENED.

  • MR. CHAIRMAN --

  • >> SENATOR KING.

  • >> MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THANK

  • YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY.

  • I RESPECT YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE

  • HERE.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • >> YOU TESTIFIED A FEW MINUTES

  • AGO I'M NOT ABLE TO INVOKE

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THAT'S UP

  • TO THE PRESIDENT.

  • HAS THE PRESIDENT INVOKED

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THE CASE

  • OF YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY?

  • >> HE HAS NOT.

  • >> THEN WHAT IS THE BASIS OF

  • YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER THESE

  • QUESTIONS?

  • >> SENATOR KING, THE PRESIDENT

  • HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL --

  • >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE

  • PRESIDENT HASN'T ASSERTED IT.

  • >> WELL, I --

  • >> YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE THE

  • POWER TO ASSERT THE POWER OF

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

  • SO WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR

  • YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER THESE

  • QUESTIONS?

  • >> I AM PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF

  • THE PRESIDENT TO ASSERT IT IF HE

  • CHOOSES AND THERE MAY BE OTHER

  • PRIVILEGES THAT COULD APPLY IN

  • THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

  • >> WELL, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW

  • YOU CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

  • THE PRESIDENT CAN'T NOT ASSERT

  • IT AND YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT

  • ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN ASSERT

  • IT.

  • AND YET I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND

  • THE LEGAL BASIS FOR YOUR REFUSAL

  • TO ANSWER.

  • >> WHAT WE TRY TO DO, I THINK

  • MOST CABINET OFFICIALS, OTHERS

  • THAT YOU QUESTIONED RECENTLY,

  • OFFICIALS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

  • PROTECT THE PRESIDENT'S RIGHT TO

  • DO SO.

  • IF IT COMES TO A POINT WHERE AN

  • ISSUE IS CLEAR AND THERE'S A

  • DISPUTE ABOUT IT, AT SOME POINT

  • THE PRESIDENT WILL EITHER ASSERT

  • THE PRIVILEGE OR NOT OR SOME

  • OTHER PRIVILEGE CAN BE -- WOULD

  • BE ASSERTED.

  • BUT AT THIS POINT I BELIEVE IT'S

  • PREMATURE FOR ME --

  • >> YOU'RE ASSERTING THE

  • PRIVILEGE THAT THE PRESIDENT --

  • >> IT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR ME

  • TO DENY THE PRESIDENT A FULL AND

  • INTELLIGENT CHOICE ABOUT

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

  • THAT'S NOT NECESSARY AT THIS

  • POINT.

  • >> YOU TESTIFIED A FEW MINUTES

  • AGO THAT, QUOTE, WE WERE ASKED

  • FOR OUR OPINION.

  • WHO ASKED FOR YOUR OPINION?

  • >> YOU MEAN --

  • >> YOU TESTIFIED WE WERE ASKED

  • FOR OUR OPINION.

  • >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS I BELIEVE

  • I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THE

  • PRESIDENT HAS SAID SO --

  • >> HE DIDN'T ASK YOU DIRECTLY?

  • >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING

  • ABOUT THE PRIVILEGE.

  • >> NO, NO.

  • >> IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK.

  • >> I'M SAYING YOU SAID, QUOTE,

  • WE WERE ASKED FOR OUR OPINION.

  • YOU AND MR. ROSENSTEIN.

  • >> I BELIEVE THAT WAS

  • APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO SAY THAT

  • BECAUSE I THINK THE PRESIDENT --

  • >> NO, I'M JUST ASKING YOU WHO

  • ASKED YOU FOR YOUR OPINION?

  • WHO ASKED YOU FOR AN OPINION?

  • >> YES, RIGHT.

  • THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR OUR

  • OPINION.

  • >> ALL RIGHT.

  • SO YOU JUST TESTIFIED AS TO THE

  • CONTENT OF A COMMUNICATION TO

  • THE PRESIDENT.

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT, BUT I

  • BELIEVE HE'S ALREADY REVEALED

  • THAT.

  • I BELIEVE I'M CORRECT IN SAYING

  • THAT.

  • THAT'S WHY I INDICATED THAT WHEN

  • I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

  • BUT IF HE HASN'T AND I'M IN

  • ERROR, I WOULD HAVE CONSTRICTED

  • HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF

  • PRIVILEGE.

  • YOU'RE CORRECT.

  • >> SO YOU'RE BEING SELECTIVE

  • ABOUT THE USE --

  • >> NO, I'M NOT INTENTIONALLY.

  • I'M DOING SO ONLY BECAUSE I

  • BELIEVE HE MADE THAT --

  • >> IN ANY OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS

  • ABOUT THE FIRING OF JAMES COMEY,

  • DID THE QUESTION OF THE RUSSIAN

  • INVESTIGATION EVER COME UP?

  • >> I CANNOT ANSWER THAT BECAUSE

  • IT WAS A COMMUNICATION BY THE

  • PRESIDENT OR IF ANY SUCH

  • OCCURRED, IT WOULD BE A

  • COMMUNICATION THAT HE HAS NOT

  • WAIVED.

  • >> BUT HE HAS NOT ASSERTED

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

  • >> HE HAS NOT ASSERTED EXECUTIVE

  • PRIVILEGE.

  • >> DO YOU BELIEVE THE RUSSIANS

  • INTERFERED WITH THE 2016

  • ELECTIONS?

  • >> IT APPEARS SO.

  • THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY SEEMS

  • TO BE UNITED IN THAT.

  • BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU, SENATOR

  • KING, I KNOW NOTHING BUT WHAT

  • I'VE READ IN THE PAPER.

  • I'VE NEVER RECEIVED ANY DETAILED

  • BRIEFING ON HOW HACKING OCCURRED

  • OR HOW INFORMATION WAS ALLEGED

  • TO HAVE INFLUENCED THE CAMPAIGN.

  • >> BETWEEN THE ELECTION THERE

  • WAS A MEMORANDUM FROM THE

  • INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ON

  • OCTOBER 9th THAT DETAILED WHAT

  • THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING.

  • AFTER THE ELECTION BEFORE THE

  • INAUGURATION, YOU NEVER SOUGHT

  • ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS

  • RATHER DRAMATIC ATTACK ON OUR

  • COUNTRY?

  • >> NO.

  • >> YOU NEVER ASKED FOR A

  • BRIEFING OR ATTENDED A BRIEFING

  • OR READ THE INTELLIGENCE

  • REPORTS?

  • >> YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN VERY

  • CRITICAL OF ME IF I AS AN ACTIVE

  • PART OF THE CAMPAIGN WAS SEEKING

  • INTELLIGENCE RELATING TO

  • SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT

  • TO THE CAMPAIGN.

  • I'M NOT SURE --

  • >> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE

  • CAMPAIGN.

  • I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE

  • RUSSIANS DID.

  • YOU RECEIVED NO BRIEFING ON THE

  • RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES IN

  • CONNECTION WITH THE 2016

  • ELECTION?

  • >> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER

  • DID.

  • >> LET'S GO TO YOUR LETTER OF

  • MAY 9th.

  • YOU SAID BASED UPON MY

  • EVALUATION AND FOR THE REASONS

  • EXPRESSED BY THE DEPUTY, WAS

  • THAT A WRITTEN EVALUATION?

  • >> MY EVALUATION WAS AN

  • EVALUATION THAT HAD BEEN GOING

  • ON FOR SOME MONTHS.

  • >> IS THERE A WRITTEN

  • EVALUATION?

  • >> I DID NOT MAKE ONE.

  • I THINK YOU COULD CLASSIFY

  • DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • ROSENSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM AS AN

  • EVALUATION, ONE THAT -- AND HE

  • WAS THE DIRECT SUPERVISOR OF THE

  • FBI DIRECTOR.

  • >> AND HIS EVALUATION WAS BASED

  • 100% ON THE HANDLING OF THE

  • HILLARY CLINTON E-MAILS, IS THAT

  • CORRECT?

  • >> WELL, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER

  • MATTERS AS I RECALL.

  • BUT HE DID EXPLICITLY LAY OUT

  • THE ERRORS THAT HE THOUGHT HAD

  • BEEN MADE IN THAT PROCESS BY THE

  • DIRECTOR OF THE FBI.

  • I THOUGHT THEY WERE COGENT AND

  • ACCURATE AND FAR MORE

  • SIGNIFICANT THAN I THINK A LOT

  • OF PEOPLE HAVE UNDERSTOOD.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • >> SENATOR LANKFORD.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS, GOOD

  • TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • >> YOU SPEAK AS A MAN EAGER TO

  • SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

  • YOU HAVE SPOKEN VERY PLAINLY

  • FROM THE VERY BEGINNING FROM

  • YOUR OPENING STATEMENT ALL THE

  • WAY THROUGH THIS TIME.

  • I AM AMAZED AT THE CONVERSATIONS

  • AS IF AN ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS

  • NEVER SAID THERE WERE PRIVATE

  • CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

  • AND WE DON'T NEED TO DISCUSS

  • THOSE.

  • IT SEEMS TO BE A SHORT MEMORY

  • ABOUT SOME OF THE STATEMENTS

  • ERIC HOLDER WOULD AND WOULD NOT

  • MAKE TO ANY COMMITTEE IN THE

  • HOUSE OR THE SENATE AND WOULD OR

  • WOULD NOT TURN OVER DOCUMENTS

  • EVEN REQUESTED THAT HAD TO GO

  • ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE COURT

  • SYSTEM TO FINALLY THE COURTS

  • SAYING, NO, THE PRESIDENT CAN'T

  • HOLD BACK DOCUMENTS AND THE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN'T DO THAT.

  • SO SOMEHOW SOME ACCUSATION THAT

  • YOU'RE NOT SAYING EVERY

  • CONVERSATION ABOUT EVERYTHING,

  • THERE'S A LONG HISTORY OF

  • ATTORNEY GENERALS STANDING

  • BESIDE THE PRESIDENT SAYING

  • THERE ARE SOME CONVERSATIONS

  • THAT ARE CONFIDENTIAL.

  • AND THEN IT CAN BE DETERMINED

  • FROM THERE.

  • IT DOES SEEM AS WELL THAT EVERY

  • UNNAMED SOURCE STORY SOMEHOW

  • GETS A HEARING.

  • I WAS IN THE HEARING THIS

  • MORNING WITH ROD ROSENSTEIN AS

  • WE DEALT WITH THE APPROPRIATIONS

  • REQUESTS THAT ORIGINALLY

  • OBVIOUSLY YOU WERE SCHEDULED TO

  • BE AT THAT ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS

  • TAKING YOUR PLACE AND HAD TO

  • COVER.

  • HE WAS VERY CLEAR.

  • HE WAS PEPPERED WITH QUESTIONS

  • ABOUT RUSSIA.

  • DURING THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL

  • HE WAS VERY CLEAR THAT HE HAS

  • NEVER HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU

  • ABOUT THAT AND THAT YOU HAVE

  • NEVER REQUESTED CONVERSATIONS

  • ABOUT PEPPERED WITH

  • QUESTIONS OF THE LATEST RUMOR OF

  • THE DAY, THAT IS THAT THE

  • PRESIDENT IS THINKING ABOUT

  • FIRING ROBERT MUELLER AND

  • GETTING RID OF HIM AND WAS VERY

  • CLEAR THAT ROSENSTEIN HIMSELF

  • SAID THAT I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT

  • COULD DO THAT AND I'M NOT

  • CONTEMPLATING THAT NOR WOULD I

  • DO THAT AND NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA

  • WHERE THE LATEST UNNAMED SOURCE

  • STORY OF THE DAY IS COMING FROM

  • BUT SOMEHOW IT'S GRABBING ALL

  • THE ATTENTION.

  • I DO WANT TO BRING UP A COUPLE

  • OF THINGS SPECIFICALLY.

  • ONE IS TO DEFINE THE WORD

  • "RECUSE."

  • AND I COME BACK TO YOUR E-MAIL

  • THAT YOU SENT TO JIM COMEY AND

  • OTHERS THAT DAY ON MARCH THE

  • 2nd.

  • THIS WAS WHAT YOU HAD SAID

  • DURING YOUR -- IN YOUR E-MAIL.

  • AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION

  • FOLLOWING MEETINGS WITH CAREER

  • DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS OVER THE

  • COURSE OF THIS PAST SEVERAL

  • WEEKS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS

  • DECIDED TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM

  • ANY EXISTING OR FUTURE

  • INVESTIGATIONS OF ANY MATTERS

  • RELATED IN ANY WAY TO THE

  • CAMPAIGNS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE

  • UNITED STATES.

  • THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RECUSAL

  • IS NOT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO SUCH

  • INVESTIGATIONS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO

  • EXTENDS TO THE DEPARTMENT'S

  • RESPONSES TO CONGRESSIONAL AND

  • MEDIA INQUIRIES RELATED TO SUCH

  • INVESTIGATIONS.

  • IS THAT SOMETHING YOU HAVE

  • MAINTAINED FROM MARCH 2nd ON?

  • >> ABSOLUTELY.

  • ACTUALLY I MAINTAINED IT FROM

  • THE FIRST DAY I BECAME ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL.

  • WE DISCUSSED THOSE MATTERS AND I

  • FELT UNTIL AND IF I EVER MADE A

  • DECISION TO NOT RECUSE MYSELF, I

  • SHOULD NOT AS AN ABUNDANCE OF

  • CAUTION, INVOLVE MYSELF IN

  • STUDYING THE INVESTIGATION OR

  • EVALUATING IT.

  • SO I DID NOT.

  • I ALSO WOULD NOTE THAT THE

  • MEMORANDUM FROM MY CHIEF OF

  • STAFF DIRECTS THESE AGENCIES,

  • AND ONE OF THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY

  • IT WAS SENT TO WAS JAMES B.

  • COMEY, DIRECTOR OF THE FBI.

  • YOU SHOULD INSTRUCT MEMBERS OF

  • YOUR STAFFS NOT TO BRIEF THE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY OTHER

  • OFFICIALS IN THE OFFICE OF THE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT OR

  • OTHERWISE INVOLVE THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL OR OTHER OFFICIALS IN

  • THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL IN ANY SUCH MATTERS

  • DESCRIBED ABOVE.

  • >> AND YOU HAVE REQUESTED --

  • >> SO WE TOOK THE PROPER AND

  • FIRM AND CRYSTAL CLEAR POSITION

  • THAT THE RECUSAL MEANT RECUSAL.

  • >> RELATING TO THIS APRIL 27th

  • MEETING/NONMEETING IN THE SAME

  • ROOM AT THE SAME TIME, THE

  • NATIONAL INTEREST WAS ASKED

  • ABOUT THIS AS WELL, WHO WAS THE

  • HOST OF THIS EVENT.

  • THEY STATED THIS.

  • AS THE HOST, THE CENTER FOR

  • NATIONAL INTERESTS DECIDED WHOM

  • TO INVITE AND ISSUED THE

  • INVITATIONS.

  • THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DID NOT

  • DETERMINE OR APPROVE THE

  • INVITATION LIST.

  • GUESTS INCLUDED DEMOCRATS AN

  • REPUBLICANS WITH SOME OF THE

  • LATTER SU POURING THE

  • CANDIDATES.

  • MOST WERE WASHINGTON-BASED --

  • AND SEVERAL OTHER AMBASSADOR TO

  • THE SPEECH.

  • WE REGULARLY INVITE AMBASSADORS

  • AND OTHERS TO OUR EVENTS TO

  • FACILITATE DIALOGUE AND THEN

  • STATED WE SEATED ALL FOUR IN THE

  • FRONT ROW DURING THE SPEECH IN

  • DEFERENCE TO THEIR DIPLOMATIC

  • STATUS.

  • THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD NOTHING

  • TO DO WITH THE SEATING

  • ARRANGEMENT.

  • THE CENTER FOR NATIONAL INTEREST

  • EXTENDED EQUAL TREATMENT TO THE

  • FOREIGN INVESTORS AND INVITED

  • EACH TO A SHORT RECEPTION PRIOR

  • TO THE TRUMP SPEECH.

  • THE RECEPTION INCLUDED

  • APPROXIMATELY TWO DOZEN GUESTS

  • IN A RECEIVING LINE.

  • THE LINE MOVED QUICKLY AND ANY

  • CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. TRUMP

  • WERE INHERENTLY BRIEF AND COULD

  • NOT BE PRIVATE.

  • OUR RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE

  • INTERACTION BETWEEN MR. TRUMP

  • AND AMBASSADOR KISLYAK WAS

  • LIMITED TO POLITE EXCHANGE OF

  • PLEASANTRIES, APPROPRIATE ON

  • SUCH OCCASIONS.

  • WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY

  • CONVERSATION BETWEEN AMBASSADOR

  • KISLYAK AND SENATOR JEFF

  • SESSIONS.

  • WE CONSIDER IT UNLIKELY ANYONE

  • COULD HAVE ENGAGED IN A

  • MEANINGFUL PRIVATE CONVERSATION

  • WITHOUT DRAWING ATTENTION FROM

  • OTHERS PRESENT.

  • DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO

  • DISAGREE WITH THAT PORTRAYAL?

  • >> NO, I THINK THAT'S A VERY

  • FAIR DESCRIPTION OF THE

  • RECEPTION SITUATION.

  • I APPRECIATE THEM HAVING MADE

  • THAT STATEMENT.

  • >> GREAT.

  • I YIELD BACK.

  • >> SENATOR MANCHIN.

  • >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.

  • THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

  • SIR, I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT

  • SENATOR KING HAD ASKED

  • CONCERNING YOU AND I ARE ABOUT

  • THE SAME VINTAGE.

  • WE REMEMBER BACK IN OUR LIFETIME

  • WE'VE NEVER KNOWN THE RUSSIANS

  • TO BE -- THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT

  • OR THE RUSSIAN MILITARY TO EVER

  • BE OUR FRIEND AND WANTING THE

  • SAME THINGS WE WANTED OUT OF

  • LIFE.

  • WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE

  • SERIOUSNESS OF THIS RUSSIAN

  • HACKING IS VERY SERIOUS TO ME

  • AND CONCERNING.

  • YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HAD NOT

  • BEEN BRIEFED ON THAT.

  • OCTOBER -- I THINK IT WAS

  • OCTOBER 9th, THE ONE THAT WAS

  • KNOWN THAT THE ODNI AT THAT

  • TIME, I THINK MR. CLAPPER AND

  • MR. JEH JOHNSON, HOMELAND

  • SECURITY, MADE THAT PUBLIC WHAT

  • WAS GOING ON.

  • THEN ON DECEMBER 29th, PRESIDENT

  • OBAMA AT THAT TIME EXPELLED 35

  • RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS, DENIED ACCESS

  • TO TWO RUSSIAN COMPOUNDS AND

  • BROADENED THE EXISTING

  • SANCTIONS.

  • SIR, I WOULD ASK, DID YOU HAVE

  • ANY DISCUSSIONS AT ALL, HAVE YOU

  • HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS OR SET IN ON

  • ANY TYPE MEETINGS WHERE

  • RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE TO

  • REMOVE THOSE SANCTIONS?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL ANY SUCH

  • MEETING.

  • >> AND DURING THE TIME NOT FROM

  • THE PRESIDENT BEING INAUGURATED

  • ON JANUARY 20th, PRIOR TO THAT

  • IN THE CAMPAIGN UP THROUGH THE

  • TRANSITION, WAS THERE EVER ANY

  • MEETINGS WHERE HE SHOWED ANY

  • CONCERN OR CONSIDERATION OR JUST

  • INQUISITIVE OF WHAT THE RUSSIANS

  • WERE REALLY DOING AND IF THEY

  • REALLY DONE IT?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL ANY SUCH

  • CONVERSATION.

  • I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD YOUR

  • QUESTION.

  • MAYBE I BETTER LISTEN AGAIN.

  • >> WELL, YOU WERE PART OF THE

  • NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM.

  • >> YEAH.

  • >> SO IF HE WOULD HAVE HEARD

  • SOMETHING ABOUT RUSSIA AND WITH

  • THEIR CAPABILITIES AND OUR

  • CONCERN ABOUT WHAT THEY COULD DO

  • TO OUR ELECTION PROCESS, WAS

  • THERE EVER ANY CONVERSATIONS

  • CONCERNING THAT WHATSOEVER?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL IT, SENATOR

  • MANCHIN.

  • >> I KNOW IT'S BEEN ASKED OF

  • YOU, THE THINGS THAT YOUR

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN

  • PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT AND I

  • UNDERSTAND THAT.

  • BUT ALSO WHEN WE HAD MR. COMEY

  • HERE, YOU KNOW, HE COULDN'T

  • ANSWER A LOT OF THINGS IN OPEN

  • SESSION.

  • HE AGREED TO GO INTO A CLOSED

  • SESSION.

  • WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO GO INTO

  • CLOSED SESSION, WOULD IT CHANGE

  • YOUR ANSWERS TO US OR YOUR

  • ABILITY TO SPEAK MORE FRANKLY ON

  • SOME THINGS WE WOULD WANT TO

  • KNOW?

  • >> SENATOR MANCHIN, I'M NOT

  • SURE.

  • THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS NOT

  • WAIVED BY GOING IN CAMERA, OR IN

  • CLOSED SESSION.

  • IT MAY BE THAT ONE OF THE

  • CONCERNS IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE

  • AN INVESTIGATION ONGOING AS THE

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL DOES, IT'S OFTEN

  • VERY PROBLEMATIC TO HAVE

  • PERSONS, YOU KNOW, NOT

  • COOPERATING WITH THAT COUNSEL IN

  • THE CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION

  • WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A FACTOR

  • IN GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION.

  • >> IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL, I

  • THINK, THE COMMITTEE THERE'S A

  • LOT OF QUESTIONS THEY'D LIKE TO

  • ASK AN I KNOW YOU'D LIKE TO

  • ANSWER IF POSSIBLE.

  • MAYBE WE CAN CHECK INTO THAT A

  • LITTLE FURTHER.

  • IF I COULD, SIR, DID YOU HAVE

  • ANY OTHER MEETINGS WITH RUSSIAN

  • GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT HAVE

  • NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED?

  • >> I HAVE RACKED MY BRAIN AND I

  • DO NOT BELIEVE SO.

  • >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER --

  • >> I WOULD -- I CAN ASSURE YOU

  • THAT NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS

  • DISCUSSED MANIPULATING A

  • CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED STATES IN

  • ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM OR ANY

  • HACKING OR ANY SUCH IDEA AS

  • THAT.

  • >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEETINGS

  • BETWEEN RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT

  • OFFICIALS AND ANY OTHER TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATES THAT HAVE

  • NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED

  • THAT YOU KNOW OF?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL ANY.

  • >> TO THE BEST OF YOUR

  • KNOWLEDGE, DID ANY OF THE

  • FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS MEET WITH

  • RUSSIAN OFFICIALS AT ANY POINT

  • DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

  • YOU CAN GO YES OR NO.

  • PAUL MANAFORT.

  • >> REPEAT THAT NOW.

  • START OVER.

  • >> TO THE BEST OF YOUR

  • KNOWLEDGE, SIR, DID ANY OF THESE

  • FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS MEET WITH

  • RUSSIAN OFFICIALS AT ANY POINT

  • DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

  • YOU CAN JUST YES OR NO ON THIS.

  • PAUL MANAFORT?

  • >> I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION

  • THAT HE HAD DONE SO.

  • HE SERVED AS CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN

  • FOR A FEW MONTHS.

  • >> STEVE BANNON?

  • >> I HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT HE

  • DID.

  • >> GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL IT.

  • >> REINCE PRIEBUS?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL.

  • >> STEVE MILLER?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL HIM EVER

  • HAVING SUCH A CONVERSATION.

  • >> COREY LEWANDOWSKI?

  • >> I DO NOT RECALL ANY OF THOSE

  • INDIVIDUALS HAVING ANY MEETING

  • WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS.

  • >> CARTER PAGE?

  • >> I DON'T KNOW.

  • >> AND I WOULD FINALLY ASK THIS

  • QUESTION, BECAUSE I ALWAYS THINK

  • WE -- WE TRY TO GET -- YOU HAVE

  • INNATE KNOWLEDGE --

  • >> THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME

  • PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS OF MR. PAGE

  • TALKING WITH THE RUSSIANS, I'M

  • NOT SURE.

  • I DON'T RECALL.

  • >> AS A FORMER SENATOR, YOU

  • BRING A UNIQUE HOLISTIC

  • PERSPECTIVE TO THIS

  • INVESTIGATION BECAUSE YOU'VE

  • BEEN ON BOTH SIDES.

  • >> I HAVE INDEED.

  • ALL IN ALL, IT'S BETTER ON THAT

  • SIDE.

  • >> IF YOU WERE SITTING ON THIS

  • SIDE OF THE DAIS --

  • >> NOBODY GETS TO ASK YOU ABOUT

  • YOUR PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH

  • YOUR STAFF.

  • >> HERE WE GO.

  • IT'S YOUR CHANCE TO GIVE US SOME

  • ADVICE.

  • IF YOU WERE SITTING ON THIS SIDE

  • OF THE DAIS, WHAT QUESTION WOULD

  • YOU BE ASKING?

  • >> I WOULD BE ASKING WHETHER OR

  • NOT -- I WOULD BE ASKING

  • QUESTIONS RELATED TO WHETHER OR

  • NOT THERE WAS AN IMPACT ON THIS

  • ELECTION.

  • >> AND WHAT PART OF THE STORY --

  • >> BY A FOREIGN POWER,

  • PARTICULARLY THE RUSSIANS, SINCE

  • THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS

  • SUGGESTED AND STATED THAT THEY

  • BELIEVE THEY DID.

  • BUT I DO THINK MEMBERS OF THIS

  • GOVERNMENT HAVE OFFICES TO RUN

  • AND DEPARTMENTS TO MANAGE AND,

  • YOU KNOW, THE QUESTIONS SHOULD

  • BE FOCUSED ON THAT.

  • >> IS THERE PART OF THE STORY

  • WE'RE MISSING?

  • I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • IS THERE PART OF THE STORY WE'RE

  • MISSING?

  • >> I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I'M NOT

  • INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN AND HAD

  • NO INFORMATION CONCERNING IT.

  • I HAVE NO IDEA AT WHAT STAGE IT

  • IS.

  • YOU MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

  • KNOW A LOT MORE THAN I.

  • >> THANK YOU, GENERAL SESSIONS.

  • >> GENERAL SESSIONS, I WILL

  • ASSURE YOU WE ARE VERY MUCH

  • FOCUSED ON RUSSIA'S INVOLVEMENT.

  • >> IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT.

  • >> OUR HOPE IS AS WE COMPLETE

  • THIS PROCESS, WE WILL LAY THOSE

  • FACTS OUT FOR THE AMERICAN

  • PEOPLE SO THEY CAN MAKE THEIR

  • OWN DETERMINATIONS AS WELL.

  • WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT YOU'VE

  • DONE.

  • SENATOR COTTON.

  • >> WELL, I AM ON THIS SIDE OF

  • THE DAIS SO I CAN SAY A VERY

  • SIMPLE QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE

  • ASKED IS DID DONALD TRUMP OR ANY

  • OF HIS ASSOCIATESCOLLUDE WITH R?

  • WE HAVE HEARD FROM SIX OF THE

  • EIGHT DEMOCRATS ON THIS

  • COMMITTEE AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE I

  • DON'T THINK A SINGLE ONE OF THEM

  • ASKED THAT QUESTION.

  • THEY HAVE GONE DOWN LOTS OF

  • OTHER RABBIT TRAILS BUT NOT THAT

  • QUESTION.

  • MAYBE THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN JIM

  • COMEY SAID LAST WEEK AS HE SAID

  • TO DONALD TRUMP THAT ON THREE

  • TIMES HE ASSURED HIM HE WAS NOT

  • UNDER INVESTIGATION, MAYBE IT'S

  • BECAUSE MULTIPLE DEMOCRATS ON

  • THIS COMMITTEE HAVE STATED THEY

  • HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE THUS FAR

  • AFTER SIX MONTHS OF OUR

  • INVESTIGATION AND 11 MONTHS OF

  • AN FBI INVESTIGATION OF ANY SUCH

  • COLLUSION.

  • I WOULD JUST SUGGEST, WHAT DO WE

  • THINK HAPPENED AT THE MAYFLOWER?

  • MR. SESSIONS, ARE YOU FAMILIAR

  • WITH WHAT SPIES CALL TRADE

  • CRAFT?

  • >> A LITTLE BIT.

  • >> THAT INVOLVES THINGS LIKE

  • COVERT COMMUNICATIONS AND DEAD

  • DROPS AND BRUSH PASSES, RIGHT?

  • >> THAT IS PART OF IT.

  • >> DO YOU LIKE SPY FICTION,

  • DANIEL SILVA, JASON MATHEWS?

  • >> ALLEN FIRST, DAVID IGNATIUS.

  • >> DO YOU LIKE JASON BOURNE OR

  • JAMES BOND MOVIES?

  • >> NO.

  • YES, I DO.

  • >> HAVE YOU EVER IN ANY OF THESE

  • FANTASTICAL SITUATIONS HEARD OF

  • A PLOT LINE SO RIDICULOUS THAT A

  • SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR

  • AND AN AMBASSADOR OF A FOREIGN

  • GOVERNMENT COLLUDED AT AN OPEN

  • SETTING WITH HUNDREDS OF OTHER

  • PEOPLE TO PULL OFF THE GREATEST

  • CAPER IN THE HISTORY OF

  • ESPIONAGE?

  • >> THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT,

  • SENATOR COTTON.

  • IT'S JUST LIKE THROUGH THE

  • LOOKING GLASS.

  • I MEAN WHAT IS THIS?

  • I EXPLAINED HOW IN GOOD FAITH I

  • SAID I HAD NOT MET WITH RUSSIANS

  • BECAUSE THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT

  • I AS A SURROGATE HAD BEEN

  • MEETING CONTINUOUSLY WITH

  • RUSSIANS.

  • I SAID I DIDN'T MEET WITH THEM.

  • NOW THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, I'M

  • ACCUSED OF SOME RECEPTION

  • BLOTTING SOME SORT OF INFLUENCE

  • CAMPAIGN FOR THE AMERICAN

  • ELECTION.

  • IT'S JUST BEYOND MY CAPABILITY

  • TO UNDERSTAND.

  • I REALLY APPRECIATE, MR.

  • CHAIRMAN, THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT

  • LEAST TO BE ABLE TO SAY PUBLICLY

  • I DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THAT AND

  • KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT.

  • >> AND I GATHER THAT'S ONE

  • REASON WHY YOU WANT TO TESTIFY

  • TODAY IN PUBLIC.

  • LAST WEEK MR. COMEY, AND

  • CHARACTERISTIC DRAMATIC AND

  • THEATRICAL FASHION ALLUDED TO

  • INNUENDO THAT THERE WAS

  • CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE THAT

  • SUGGESTED YOU MIGHT HAVE

  • COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA OR YOU

  • MIGHT HAVE OTHERWISE ACTED

  • IMPROPERLY.

  • YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THOSE

  • ALLEGATIONS HERE TODAY.

  • DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY HE MADE

  • THAT ALLUSION?

  • >> ACTUALLY I DO NOT.

  • NOBODY HAS PROVIDED ME ANY

  • INFORMATION --

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

  • MR. BLUNT ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD

  • SPOKEN IN RESPONSE TO MR.

  • COMEY'S STATEMENT TO YOU AFTER

  • HIS PRIVATE MEETING WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT ON FEBRUARY 14th OR

  • FEBRUARY 15th.

  • YOU SAID THAT YOU DID RESPOND TO

  • MR. COMEY.

  • MR. COMEY'S TESTIMONY SAID THAT

  • YOU DID NOT.

  • DO YOU KNOW WHY MR. COMEY WOULD

  • HAVE SAID THAT YOU DID NOT

  • RESPOND TO HIM ON THAT

  • CONVERSATION WITH YOU ON

  • FEBRUARY 14th OR 15th?

  • >> I DO NOT.

  • IT WAS A LITTLE CONVERSATION,

  • NOT VERY LONG, BUT THERE WAS A

  • CONVERSATION AND I DID RESPOND

  • TO HIM.

  • PERHAPS NOT TO EVERYTHING HE

  • ASKED, BUT I DID RESPOND TO HIM.

  • I THINK IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY.

  • >> DO YOU KNOW WHY MR. COMEY

  • MISTRUSTED PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM

  • THEIR FIRST MEETING ON JANUARY

  • 6th?

  • HE STATED LAST WEEK THAT HE DID

  • BUT DIDN'T STATE ANYTHING FROM

  • THAT MEETING THAT CAUSED HIM TO

  • HAVE SUCH MISTRUST.

  • >> I'M NOT ABLE TO SPECULATE ON

  • THAT.

  • >> LET'S TURN TO THE POTENTIAL

  • CRIMES THAT WE KNOW HAVE

  • HAPPENED, LEAKS OF CERTAIN

  • INFORMATION.

  • HERE'S A SHORT LIST OF WHAT I

  • HAVE.

  • THE CONTENTS OF ALLEGED

  • TRANSCRIPTS OF ALLEGED

  • CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN MR. FLYNN

  • AND MR. KISLYAK, THE CONTENTS OF

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PHONE CALLS

  • WITH AUSTRALIAN AND MEXICO CAL

  • LEADERS, THE CONTENT OF MR.

  • TRUMP'S MEETINGS WITH THE

  • RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER AND

  • AMBASSADOR, THE LEAK OF THE

  • MANCHESTER SUSPECT'S IDENTITY

  • AND CRIME SCENE PHOTOS AND LAST

  • WEEK WITHIN 20 MINUTES OF THIS

  • COMMITTEE MEETING IN A

  • CLASSIFIED SETTING WITH JIM

  • COMEY, THE LEAK OF WHAT THE

  • BASIS OF MR. COMEY'S INNUENDO

  • WAS.

  • ARE THESE LEAKS SERIOUS THREATS

  • TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND IS

  • THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TAKING

  • THEM WITH THE APPROPRIATE DEGREE

  • OF SERIOUSNESS AND INVESTIGATING

  • AND ULTIMATELY GOING TO

  • PROSECUTE THEM TO THE FULLEST

  • EXTENT OF THE LAW?

  • >> THANK YOU, SENATOR COTTON.

  • WE HAVE HAD ONE SUCCESSFUL CASE

  • VERY RECENTLY IN GEORGIA.

  • THAT PERSON HAS BEEN DENIED

  • BAIL, I BELIEVE, AND IS BEING

  • HELD IN CUSTODY.

  • BUT SOME OF THESE LEAKS, AS YOU

  • WELL KNOW, ARE EXTRAORDINARILY

  • DAMAGING TO THE UNITED STATES

  • SECURITY.

  • AND WE HAVE GOT TO RESTORE A

  • REGULAR ORDER PRINCIPLE.

  • WE CANNOT HAVE PERSONS IN OUR

  • INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, OUR

  • INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES OR IN

  • CONGRESS LEAKING SENSITIVE

  • MATTERS OR STAFF.

  • THIS IS I'M AFRAID WILL

  • RESULT -- IS ALREADY RESULTING

  • IN INVESTIGATIONS AND I FEAR

  • THAT SOME OF PEOPLE MAY FIND

  • THAT THEY WISH THEY HADN'T

  • LEAKED.

  • >> THANK YOU, MY TIME IS

  • EXPIRED.

  • FOR THE RECORD IT WAS STATED

  • EARLIER THAT THE REPUBLICAN

  • PLATFORM WAS WEAKENED ON THE

  • POINT OF ARMS FOR UKRAINE.

  • THAT IS INCORRECT.

  • THE PLATFORM WAS ACTUALLY

  • STRENGTHENED AND IT WAS THE

  • DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT WHO REFUSED

  • REPEATED BIPARTISAN REQUESTS OF

  • THIS CONGRESS TO SUPPLY THOSE

  • ARMS TO UKRAINE.

  • >> SENATOR HARRIS.

  • >> ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS,

  • YOU HAVE SEVERAL TIMES THIS

  • AFTERNOON PREFACED YOUR

  • RESPONSES BY SAYING TO THE BEST

  • OF YOUR RECOLLECTION.

  • JUST ON THE FIRST PAGE OF YOUR

  • THREE PAGES OF WRITTEN

  • TESTIMONY, YOU WROTE NOR DO I

  • RECALL, DO NOT HAVE

  • RECOLLECTION, DO NOT REMEMBER

  • IT.

  • SO MY QUESTION IS FOR ANY OF

  • YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, DID YOU

  • REFRESH YOUR MEMORY WITH ANY

  • WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, BE THEY YOUR

  • CALENDAR, WRITTEN

  • CORRESPONDENCE, E-MAILS, NOTES

  • OF ANY SORT?

  • >> I ATTEMPTED TO REFRESH MY

  • RECOLLECTION BUT SO MUCH OF THIS

  • IS IN A WHOLESALE CAMPAIGN OF AN

  • EXTRAORDINARY NATURE THAT YOU'RE

  • MOVING SO FAST THAT YOU DON'T

  • KEEP NOTES.

  • YOU MEET PEOPLE.

  • I DIDN'T KEEP NOTES OF MY

  • CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIAN

  • AMBASSADOR AT THE REPUBLICAN

  • CONVENTION.

  • I'M JUST SAYING I DIDN'T KEEP

  • NOTES ON MOST OF THESE THINGS --

  • >> WILL YOU PROVIDE THIS

  • COMMITTEE WITH THE NOTES THAT

  • YOU DID MAINTAIN?

  • >> AS APPROPRIATE I WILL SUPPLY

  • THE COMMITTEE WITH DOCUMENTS.

  • >> CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT

  • YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY

  • APPROPRIATE.

  • >> I WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT WITH

  • LAWYERS IN THE DEPARTMENT WHO

  • KNOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE BEFORE

  • DISCLOSING DOCUMENTS THAT ARE

  • HELD WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE.

  • I'M NOT ABLE TO MAKE THAT

  • OPINION TODAY.

  • >> SIR, I'M SURE THAT YOU

  • PREPARED FOR THIS HEARING TODAY

  • AND MOST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT

  • HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU WERE

  • PREDICTABLE.

  • SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS DID YOU

  • THEN REVIEW WITH THE LAWYERS OF

  • YOUR DEPARTMENT, IF YOU AS THE

  • TOP LAWYER ARE UNAWARE, WHAT THE

  • LAW IS REGARDING WHAT YOU CAN

  • SHARE WITH US AND WHAT YOU

  • CANNOT SHARE WITH US, WHAT IS

  • PRIVILEGED AND WHAT IS NOT

  • PRIVILEGED?

  • >> WE DISCUSSED THE BASIC

  • PARAMETERS OF TESTIMONY.

  • I FRANKLY HAVE NOT DISCUSSED

  • DOCUMENTARY DISCLOSURE RULES.

  • >> WILL YOU MAKE A COMMITMENT TO

  • THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU WILL

  • SHARE ANY WRITTEN

  • CORRESPONDENCE, BE THEY YOUR

  • CALENDARS, RECORDS, NOTES,

  • E-MAILS OR ANYTHING THAT HAS

  • BEEN REDUCED AT ANY POINT IN

  • TIME IN WRITING TO THIS

  • COMMITTEE WHERE LEGALLY YOU

  • ACTUALLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO

  • DO SO?

  • >> I'LL COMMIT TO REVIEWING THE

  • RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND AS

  • AND WHEN THAT ISSUE IS RAISED TO

  • RESPOND APPROPRIATELY.

  • >> DID YOU HAVE ANY

  • COMMUNICATIONS WITH RUSSIAN

  • OFFICIALS FOR ANY REASON DURING

  • THE CAMPAIGN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN

  • DISCLOSED IN PUBLIC OR TO THIS

  • COMMITTEE?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL IT.

  • BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I CANNOT

  • TESTIFY TO WHAT WAS SAID AS WE

  • WERE STANDING AT THE REPUBLICAN

  • CONVENTION BEFORE THE PODIUM

  • WHERE I SPOKE.

  • >> MY QUESTION ONLY IS TO YOUR

  • KNOWLEDGE.

  • >> I HAVE NO MEMORY OF THAT.

  • >> AS RELATES TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

  • DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION

  • WITH ANY RUSSIAN BUSINESSMAN OR

  • ANY RUSSIAN NATIONALS?

  • >> I DON'T BELIEVE I HAD ANY

  • CONVERSATION WITH RUSSIAN

  • BUSINESSMEN OR RUSSIAN

  • NATIONALS.

  • >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY

  • COMMUNICATIONS --

  • >> ALTHOUGH A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE

  • AT THE CONVENTION.

  • IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT SOMEBODY

  • CAME UP TO ME.

  • >> I HAVE JUST A FEW --

  • >> WELL, I'VE GOT TO QUALIFY IT.

  • IF I DON'T QUALIFY IT, YOU'LL

  • ACCUSE ME OF LYING.

  • I'VE GOT TO BE CORRECT AS BEST I

  • CAN AND I'M NOT ABLE TO BE

  • RUSHED THIS FAST.

  • IT MAKES ME NERVOUS.

  • >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY

  • COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND

  • ASSOCIATES THAT THEY HAD WITH

  • RUSSIAN OFFICIALS OR ANY RUSSIAN

  • NATIONALS.

  • >> I DON'T RECALL THAT.

  • >> AND ARE YOU AWARE OF --

  • >> AT THIS MOMENT.

  • >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY

  • COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANY TRUMP

  • OFFICIALS OR DID YOU HAVE ANY

  • COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANY

  • OFFICIALS ABOUT RUSSIA OR

  • RUSSIAN INTERESTS IN THE UNITED

  • STATES BEFORE JANUARY 20th?

  • >> NO.

  • I MAY HAVE HAD SOME

  • CONVERSATIONS, AND I THINK I

  • DID, WITH THE GENERAL STRATEGIC

  • CONCEPT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF

  • WHETHER OR NOT RUSSIA AND THE

  • UNITED STATES COULD GET ON A

  • MORE HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP AND

  • MOVE OFF THE HOSTILITY.

  • THE SOVIET UNION DID IN FACT

  • COLLAPSE.

  • IT'S REALLY A TRAGIC STRATEGIC

  • EVENT THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET

  • ALONG BETTER THAN WE ARE TODAY.

  • >> BEFORE BEING SWORN IN AS

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL, HOW DID YOU

  • TYPICALLY COMMUNICATE WITH THEN

  • CANDIDATE OR PRESIDENT-ELECT

  • TRUMP?

  • >> WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT.

  • >> BEFORE YOU WERE SWORN IN AS

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL, HOW DID YOU

  • TYPICALLY COMMUNICATE WITH THEN

  • CANDIDATE OR PRESIDENT-ELECT

  • TRUMP?

  • >> I DID NOT SUBMIT MEMORANDA.

  • I DID NOT MAKE FORMAL

  • PRESENTATIONS.

  • >> DID YOU EVER COMMUNICATE WITH

  • HIM IN WRITING?

  • >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

  • >> AND YOU REFERRED TO A LONG

  • STANDING DOJ POLICY.

  • CAN YOU TELL US WHAT POLICY IT

  • IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?

  • >> WELL, I THINK MOST CABINET

  • PEOPLE, AS THE WITNESSES YOU HAD

  • BEFORE YOU EARLIER, THOSE

  • INDIVIDUALS DECLINED TO COMMENT

  • BECAUSE WE'RE ALL ABOUT

  • CONVERSATIONS WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT --

  • >> SIR, I'M JUST ASKING YOU

  • ABOUT THE DOJ POLICY YOU

  • REFERRED TO.

  • >> A POLICY THAT GOES JUST

  • BEYOND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • >> IS THAT POLICY IN WRITING

  • SOMEWHERE?

  • >> I THINK SO.

  • >> SO DID YOU NOT CONSULT IT

  • BEFORE YOU CAME BEFORE THIS

  • COMMITTEE KNOWING WE WOULD ASK

  • YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?

  • >> WELL, WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

  • THE POLICY --

  • >> IT WOULD BE SHOWN TO YOU.

  • >> THE POLICY IS BASED ON THE

  • PRINCIPAL THAT THE PRESIDENT --

  • >> SIR, I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE

  • PRINCIPAL.

  • I'M ASKING ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE

  • ASKED MEEZ QUESTIONS DID YOU NOT

  • ASK YOUR STAFF TO SHOW YOU THE

  • POLICY THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS

  • FOR YOU TO REFUSING TO ANSWER --

  • >> HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO

  • ANSWER THE QUESTION.

  • >> SENATORS WILL ALLOW THE CHAIR

  • TO CONTROL THE HEARING.

  • SENATOR HARRIS, LET HIM ANSWER.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • >> WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE

  • TALKED ABOUT THE REAL PRINCIPLE

  • THAT'S AT STAKE IS ONE THAT I

  • HAVE SOME APPRECIATION FOR AS

  • FAR AS HAVING SPENT 15 YEARS IN

  • THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 12 AS

  • UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, AND THAT

  • PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE

  • CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THE HEAD

  • OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CERTAIN

  • PRIVILEGES AND THAT MEMBERS --

  • ONE OF THEM IS CONFIDENTIALITY

  • OF COMMUNICATIONS.

  • AND IT IS IMPROPER FOR AGENTS OF

  • ANY DEPARTMENT OF -- ANY

  • DEPARTMENTS IN THE EXECUTIVE

  • BRANCH TO WAIVE THAT PRIVILEGE

  • WITHOUT A CLEAR APPROVAL OF THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ASKED --

  • >> AND THAT'S THE SITUATION

  • WE'RE IN.

  • >> I'VE ASKED A QUESTION FOR YES

  • OR NO.

  • >> SO THE ANSWER IS, YES, I

  • CONSULTED.

  • >> DID YOU ASK YOUR STAFF --

  • >> THE SENATOR'S TIME HAS

  • EXPIRED.

  • >> APPARENTLY.

  • >> SENATOR CORNYN.

  • >> ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS,

  • FORMER DIRECTOR COMEY IN HIS

  • LETTER TO FBI EMPLOYEES WHEN HE

  • WAS TERMINATED STARTED THIS WAY.

  • HE SAID I'VE LONG BELIEVED THAT

  • A PRESIDENT CAN FIRE AN FBI

  • DIRECTOR FOR ANY REASON OR NO

  • REASON AT ALL.

  • DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

  • >> YES, AND I THINK THAT WAS

  • GOOD FOR HIM TO SAY BECAUSE I

  • BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A

  • NEW AND EXCELLENT FBI DIRECTOR,

  • A PERSON WHO IS SMART,

  • DISCIPLINED, WITH INTEGRITY AND

  • PROVEN JUDGMENT THAT WOULD BE

  • GOOD FOR THE BUREAU, AND I THINK

  • THAT STATEMENT PROBABLY WAS A

  • VALUABLE THING FOR DIRECTOR

  • COMEY TO SAY.

  • I APPRECIATE THAT HE DID.

  • >> JUST TO REITERATE THE

  • TIMELINE OF YOUR RECUSAL AND THE

  • ROSENSTEIN MEMO AND YOUR LETTER

  • TO THE PRESIDENT RECOMMENDING

  • THE TERMINATION OF DIRECTOR

  • COMEY, YOU RECUSED FROM THE

  • RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION ON MARCH

  • THE 2nd, CORRECT?

  • >> THE FORMAL RECUSAL TOOK PLACE

  • ON THAT DATE.

  • >> THE LETTER THAT YOU WROTE

  • FORWARDING THE ROSENSTEIN MEMO

  • TO THE PRESIDENT AS A BASIS FOR

  • DIRECTOR COMEY'S TERMINATION WAS

  • DATED MAY THE 9th, A COUPLE OF

  • MONTHS AFTER YOU HAD RECUSED

  • FROM THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

  • >> SO ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE

  • RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION DID NOT

  • FACTOR INTO THE -- YOUR

  • RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE DIRECTOR

  • COMEY?

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • >> THE MEMORANDUM WRITTEN BY THE

  • DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOUR

  • LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT

  • FORWARDING THAT RECOMMENDATION

  • DIDN'T MENTION RUSSIA AT ALL.

  • IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION?

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • >> SO LET'S REVIEW WHAT THE

  • BASIS WAS OF DEPUTY ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL ROSENSTEIN'S

  • RECOMMENDATION.

  • HE WROTE IN HIS MEMO ON MAY THE

  • 9th, HE SAID I CANNOT DEFEND THE

  • DIRECTOR'S HANDLING OF THE

  • CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION

  • OF SECRETARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS

  • AND I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HIS

  • REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE NEARLY

  • UNIVERSAL JUDGMENT THAT HE WAS

  • MISTAKEN.

  • OF COURSE HE'S TALKING ABOUT

  • DIRECTOR COMEY.

  • HE WENT ON TO SAY THE DIRECTOR,

  • THAT WAS DIRECTOR COMEY AT THE

  • TIME, WAS WRONG TO USURP THE

  • ATTORNEY'S AUTHORITY ON JULY THE

  • 5th, THAT WAS THE DATE OF THE

  • PRESS CONFERENCE HE HELD.

  • HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE FBI

  • DIRECTOR IS NEVER EMPOWERED TO

  • SUPPLANT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS AND

  • ASSUME COMMAND OF THE JUSTICE

  • DEPARTMENT.

  • FINALLY HE SAID COMPOUNDING THE

  • ERROR, THE DIRECTOR IGNORED

  • ANOTHER LONG STANDING PRINCIPLE,

  • THAT WE DO NOT HOLD PRESS

  • CONFERENCES TO RELEASE

  • DEROGATORY INFORMATION ABOUT THE

  • SUBJECT OF A DECLINED CRIMINAL

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • IN FACT THERE IS WRITTEN POLICY

  • FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

  • IS THERE NOT, ENTITLED ELECTION

  • YEAR SENSITIVITIES.

  • ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE

  • PROHIBITION OF THE JUSTICE

  • DEPARTMENT MAKING ANNOUNCEMENTS

  • OR TAKING OTHER ACTIONS THAT

  • MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL

  • ELECTIONS?

  • >> I AM GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH

  • THAT.

  • SOME OF THOSE WERE AFTER MY TIME

  • IN THE DEPARTMENT.

  • >> LET ME --

  • >> THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN RULES

  • ABOUT IT, THOUGH.

  • >> LET ME READ JUST AN EXCERPT

  • FROM A MEMO FROM THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL.

  • MARCH 9th, 2012, ENTITLED

  • ELECTION YEAR SENSITIVITIES.

  • IT SAYS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

  • AND PROSECUTORS MAY NEVER SELECT

  • THE TIMING OF INVESTIGATIVE

  • STEPS OR CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR

  • THE PURPOSE OF AFFECTING ANY

  • ELECTION OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF

  • GIVING AN ADVANTAGE OR

  • DISADVANTAGE TO ANY CANDIDATE OR

  • POLITICAL PARTY.

  • SUCH A PURPOSE IS INCONSISTENT

  • WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S MISSION

  • AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF

  • FEDERAL PROSECUTION.

  • DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

  • >> ESSENTIALLY, YES.

  • >> SO WHAT ESSENTIALLY THE

  • DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID IS

  • THAT FORMER DIRECTOR COMEY

  • VIOLATED DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  • DIRECTIVES WHEN HE HELD A PRESS

  • CONFERENCE ON JULY THE 5th,

  • 2016.

  • HE ANNOUNCED THAT SECRETARY

  • CLINTON WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS

  • WITH CLASSIFIED E-MAIL AND WENT

  • ON TO RELEASE OTHER DEROGATORY

  • INFORMATION, INCLUDING HIS

  • CONCLUSION THAT SHE WAS

  • EXTREMELY CARELESS, BUT YET WENT

  • ON TO SAY THAT NO REASONABLE

  • PROSECUTOR WOULD PROSECUTE HER.

  • THAT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE FBI

  • DIRECTOR, IS IT?

  • THAT IS A JOB FOR THE

  • PROSECUTORS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE.

  • THAT'S WHAT WAS MEANT BY DEPUTY

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL ROSENSTEIN WHEN

  • HE SAID THAT DIRECTOR COMEY

  • USURPED THE ROLE OF THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  • PROSECUTORS, IS THAT RIGHT?

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • AND FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL

  • BARR WROTE AN OP-ED RECENTLY IN

  • WHICH HE SAID HE HAD ASSUMED

  • THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH HAD

  • URGED MR. COMEY TO MAKE THIS

  • ANNOUNCEMENT SO SHE WOULDN'T

  • HAVE TO DO IT, BUT IN FACT IT

  • APPEARS HE DID IT WITHOUT HER

  • APPROVAL TOTALLY AND THAT IS A

  • PRETTY STUNNING THING.

  • IT IS A STUNNING THING AND IT

  • VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL POWERS.

  • AND THEN WHEN HE REAFFIRMED THE

  • RIGHTNESS HE BELIEVED OF HIS

  • DECISION ON MAY 3rd, I THINK IT

  • WAS, THAT WAS ADDITIONAL

  • CONFIRMATION THAT THE DIRECTOR'S

  • THINKING WAS NOT CLEAR.

  • >> SENATOR REED.

  • >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.

  • CHAIRMAN.

  • FIRST A POINT, ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • SENATOR HEINRICH AND OTHERS

  • RAISED THE ISSUE OF LONG

  • STANDING RULES.

  • IF THERE ARE WRITTEN RULES TO

  • THAT EFFECT, WOULD YOU PROVIDE

  • THEM TO THE COMMITTEE, PLEASE.

  • >> I WILL.

  • >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

  • NOW, SENATOR CORNYN HAS MADE THE

  • POINT THAT THE WHOLE SUBSTANCE

  • OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE

  • PRESIDENT TO DISMISS DIRECTOR

  • COMEY WAS IS UNPROFESSIONAL

  • CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO THE

  • CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, IS THAT

  • CORRECT?

  • >> I SUPPORTED EVERYTHING THAT

  • THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL PUT

  • IN HIS MEMORANDA AS GOOD AND

  • IMPORTANT FACTORS TO USE IN

  • DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT HE

  • HAD CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN A WAY

  • THAT JUSTIFIED CONTINUING IN

  • OFFICE.

  • I THINK IT PRETTY WELL SPEAKS

  • FOR ITSELF.

  • I BELIEVE MOST OF IT DID DEAL

  • WITH THAT.

  • NOW, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HIS

  • PERFORMANCE WAS A BIPARTISAN

  • DISCUSSION.

  • IT BEGAN DURING THE ELECTION

  • TIME.

  • DEMOCRATS WERE VERY UNHAPPY

  • ABOUT THE WAY HE CONDUCTED

  • HIMSELF.

  • AND IN RETROSPECT, IN LOOKING AT

  • IT, I THINK IT WAS MORE

  • EGREGIOUS THAN I MAY HAVE EVEN

  • UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME.

  • WITH REGARD TO THE --

  • >> GENERAL, IF I MAY.

  • I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF.

  • >> ALL RIGHT, I'LL LET YOU GO.

  • >> EXCUSE ME, SIR.

  • ON JULY 7th WHEN MR. COMEY MADE

  • HIS FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT THE

  • CASE, YOU WERE ON FOX NEWS AND

  • YOU SAID, FIRST OF ALL, DIRECTOR

  • COMEY IS A SKILLED FORMER

  • PROSECUTOR AND THEN YOU

  • CONCLUDED BY SAYING ESSENTIALLY

  • THAT IT'S NOT HIS PROBLEM, IT'S

  • HILLARY CLINTON'S PROBLEM.

  • THEN IN NOVEMBER ON NOVEMBER 6th

  • AFTER MR. COMEY AGAIN MADE NEWS

  • IN LATE OCTOBER BY REOPENING, IF

  • YOU WILL, THE INVESTIGATION, YOU

  • SAID, AGAIN, ON FOX NEWS, YOU

  • KNOW, FBI DIRECTOR COMEY DID THE

  • RIGHT THING WHEN HE FOUND NEW

  • EVIDENCE.

  • HE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO REPORT

  • IT TO THE AMERICAN CONGRESS

  • WHERE HE HAD UNDER OATH

  • TESTIFIED.

  • THE INVESTIGATION WAS OVER.

  • HE HAD TO CORRECT THAT AND SAY

  • THIS INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING

  • NOW.

  • I'M SURE IT'S SIGNIFICANT OR

  • ELSE HE WOULDN'T HAVE ANNOUNCED

  • THAT.

  • SO IN JULY AND NOVEMBER,

  • DIRECTOR COMEY WAS DOING EXACTLY

  • THE RIGHT THING.

  • YOU HAD NO CRITICISM OF HIM.

  • YOU FELT AND IN FACT HE WAS A

  • SKILLED PROFESSIONAL PROSECUTOR.

  • YOU FELT THAT HIS LAST STATEMENT

  • IN OCTOBER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED.

  • SO HOW CAN YOU GO FROM THOSE

  • STATEMENTS TO AGREEING WITH MR.

  • ROSENSTEIN AND THEN ASKING THE

  • PRESIDENT OR RECOMMENDING HE BE

  • FIRED?

  • >> I THINK IN RETROSPECT, AS ALL

  • OF US BEGAN TO LOOK AT THAT

  • CLEARLY AND TALK ABOUT IT, AS

  • PERSPECTIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT

  • OF JUSTICE, ONCE THE DIRECTOR

  • FIRST GOT INVOLVED AND EMBROILED

  • IN A PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THIS

  • INVESTIGATION, WHICH WOULD HAVE

  • BEEN BETTER NEVER TO HAVE BEEN

  • DISCUSSED PUBLICLY, AND SAID

  • HE -- IT WAS OVER, THEN WHEN HE

  • FOUND NEW EVIDENCE THAT CAME UP,

  • I THINK HE PROBABLY BECAUSE

  • REQUIRED TO TELL CONGRESS THAT

  • IT WASN'T OVER, THAT NEW

  • EVIDENCE HAD BEEN DEVELOPED.

  • IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN

  • BETTER AND WOULD HAVE BEEN

  • CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO NEVER

  • HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE

  • INVESTIGATION TO BEGIN WITH.

  • ONCE YOU GET DOWN THAT ROAD,

  • THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT

  • YOU GET INTO THAT WENT AGAINST

  • CLASSICAL PROSECUTING POLICIES

  • THAT I LEARNED AND WAS TAUGHT

  • WHEN I WAS A UNITED STATES

  • ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT UNITED

  • STATES ATTORNEY.

  • >> IF I MAY ASK ANOTHER

  • QUESTION.

  • YOUR WHOLE PREMISE IN

  • RECOMMENDING TO THE PRESIDENT

  • WAS THE ACTIONS IN OCTOBER

  • INVOLVING SECRETARY OF STATE

  • CLINTON, THE WHOLE CLINTON

  • CONTROVERSY.

  • DID YOU FEEL MISLED WHEN THE

  • PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED THAT HIS

  • REAL REASON FOR DISMISSING MR.

  • COMEY WAS THE RUSSIAN

  • INVESTIGATION?

  • >> I DON'T HAVE -- I'M NOT ABLE

  • TO CHARACTERIZE THAT.

  • I WOULDN'T TRY TO COMMENT ON

  • THAT.

  • >> SO YOU HAD NO INKLING THAT

  • THERE WAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH

  • RUSSIA UNTIL THE PRESIDENT OF

  • THE UNITED STATES BASICALLY

  • DECLARED IT NOT ONLY ON TV, BUT

  • IN THE OVAL OFFICE TO THE

  • RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER SAYING

  • THE PRESSURE IS OFF NOW, I GOT

  • RID OF THAT NUT JOB.

  • THAT CAME TO YOU AS A COMPLETE

  • SURPRISE?

  • >> WELL, ALL I CAN SAY IS,

  • SENATOR REED, THAT OUR

  • RECOMMENDATION WAS PUT IN

  • WRITING AND I BELIEVE IT WAS

  • CORRECT.

  • I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT VALUED

  • IT, BUT HOW HE MADE HIS DECISION

  • WAS HIS PROCESS.

  • >> AND YOU HAD NO INKLING THAT

  • HE WAS CONSIDERING THE RUSSIAN

  • INVESTIGATION?

  • >> WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO

  • GUESS WHAT --

  • >> NO, THAT'S FAIR.

  • THERE IS -- THERE IS A SCENARIO

  • IN WHICH THIS WHOLE

  • RECAPITULATION OF CLINTON WAS A

  • STORY BASICALLY, A COVER STORY

  • THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO PUT

  • OUT AND THAT HE QUICKLY

  • ABANDONED AND HIS REAL REASON

  • WAS THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION,

  • WHICH IF IT HAD BEEN THE CASE I

  • WOULD HAVE GUESS YOU WOULD NOT

  • HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT.

  • THANK YOU.

  • >> SENATOR McCAIN.

  • >> OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, THE

  • ADMINISTRATION HAS CHARACTERIZED

  • YOUR PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED

  • MEETINGS WITH RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR

  • KISLYAK AS MEETINGS YOU TOOK IN

  • YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A U.S.

  • SENATOR AND A MEMBER OF THE

  • SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE.

  • AS CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE,

  • LET ME ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS

  • ABOUT THAT.

  • AT THESE MEETINGS DID YOU RAISE

  • CONCERNS ABOUT RUSSIAN INVASION

  • OF UKRAINE OR ANNEXATION OF

  • CRIMEA?

  • >> I DID, SENATOR McCAIN, AND I

  • WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP A LITTLE

  • BIT ON THAT.

  • THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I

  • RECALL EXPLICITLY.

  • THE DAY BEFORE MY MEETING WITH

  • THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR, I HAD

  • MET WITH THE UKRAINIAN

  • AMBASSADOR AND I HEARD HIS

  • CONCERNS ABOUT RUSSIA.

  • AND SO I RAISED THOSE WITH MR.

  • KISLYAK AND HE GAVE, AS YOU CAN

  • IMAGINE, NOT ONE INCH.

  • EVERYTHING THEY DID, THE

  • RUSSIANS HAD DONE ACCORDING TO

  • HIM WAS CORRECT.

  • I REMEMBER PUSHING BACK ON IT

  • AND IT WAS A BIT TESTY ON THAT

  • SUBJECT.

  • >> KNOWING YOU ON THE COMMITTEE,

  • I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT.

  • DID YOU RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT

  • RUSSIA'S SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT

  • BASHAR ASSAD AND HIS CAMPAIGN OF

  • INDISCRIMINATE VIOLENCE AGAINST

  • HIS OWN CITIZEN, INCLUDING HIS

  • USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL WHETHER THAT

  • WAS DISCUSSED OR NOT.

  • >> DID YOU RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT

  • RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN OUR

  • ELECTORAL PROCESS OR THE

  • INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTORAL

  • PROCESSES OF OUR ALLIES?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING

  • DISCUSSED.

  • >> AT THOSE MEETINGS HAVE YOU

  • SPOKE WITH AMBASSADOR KISLYAK AS

  • A MEMBER OF THE ARMED SERVICES

  • COMMITTEE YOU PRESUMABLY TALKED

  • WITH HIM ABOUT RUSSIA-RELATED

  • SECURITY ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE

  • DEMONSTRATED AS IMPORTANT TO YOU

  • AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE?

  • >> DID I DISCUSS SECURITY

  • ISSUES --

  • >> I DON'T RECALL YOU AS BEING

  • PARTICULARLY VOCAL ON SUCH

  • ISSUES.

  • >> REPEAT THAT, SENATOR McCAIN.

  • I'M SORRY.

  • >> TO HOLD RUSSIA-RELATED

  • SECURITY ISSUES YOU DEMONSTRATED

  • AS IMPORTANT TO YOU AS A MEMBER

  • OF THE COMMITTEE, DID YOU RAISE

  • THOSE WITH HIM?

  • >> YOU MEAN SUCH ISSUES AS

  • NUCLEAR ISSUES?

  • >> YEAH.

  • IN OTHER WORDS, RUSSIA-RELATED

  • SECURITY ISSUES.

  • IN YOUR CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRMAN

  • OF THE STRATEGIC FORCES

  • SUBCOMMITTEE, WHAT

  • RUSSIA-RELATED SECURITY ISSUES

  • DID YOU HOLD HEARINGS ON OR

  • OTHERWISE DEMONSTRATE A KEEN

  • INTEREST IN?

  • >> WE MAY HAVE DISCUSSED THAT.

  • I JUST DON'T HAVE A REAL RECALL

  • OF THE MEETING.

  • I WAS NOT MAKING A REPORT ABOUT

  • IT TO ANYONE, I JUST WAS

  • BASICALLY WILLING TO MEET AND

  • SEE WHAT HE DISCUSSED.

  • >> AND HIS RESPONSE WAS?

  • >> I DON'T RECALL.

  • >> DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN

  • SEASON, DID YOU HAVE ANY

  • CONTACTS WITH ANY

  • REPRESENTATIVE, INCLUDING ANY

  • AMERICAN LOBBYIST OF ANY RUSSIAN

  • CAPACITY AS A MAURM.

  • ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE?

  • >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

  • >> POLITICO REPORTED IN THE

  • MIDDLE OF THE 2016 ELECTION THE

  • FBI FOUND RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS

  • WHOSE TRAVEL TO THE STATE

  • DEPARTMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO TRACK

  • HAD GONE MISSING.

  • SOME TURNED UP WANDERING AROUND

  • THE DESERT OR DRIVING AROUND

  • KANSAS.

  • REPORTEDLY INTELLIGENCE SOURCES

  • CONCLUDE AFTER ABOUT A YEAR OF

  • INATTENTION, THESE MOVEMENTS

  • INDICATE, ONE, THAT MOSCOW'S

  • ESPIONAGE GROUND GAME HAS GROWN

  • STRONGER AND MORE BRAZEN AND

  • QUIETLY THE KREMLIN HAS BEEN

  • TRYING TO MAP THE UNITED STATES

  • TELECOMMUNICATIONS

  • INFRASTRUCTURE.

  • WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS

  • DEVELOPMENT AND HOW THE JUSTICE

  • DEPARTMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT

  • U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE

  • RESPONDING TO IT?

  • >> WE NEED TO DO MORE, SENATOR

  • McCAIN.

  • I AM WORRIED ABOUT IT.

  • WE ALSO SEE THAT FROM OTHER

  • NATIONS WITH THESE KIND OF

  • TECHNOLOGICAL SKILLS, LIKE CHINA

  • AND SOME OF THE OTHER NATIONS

  • THAT ARE PENETRATING OUR

  • BUSINESS INTERESTS, OUR NATIONAL

  • SECURITY INTERESTS.

  • AS A MEMBER OF THE ARMED

  • SERVICES COMMITTEE, I DID

  • SUPPORT AND ADVOCATE AND I THINK

  • YOU SUPPORTED LEGISLATION THAT

  • WOULD -- AND IT'S ONGOING NOW

  • THAT REQUIRES THE DEFENSE

  • DEPARTMENT TO IDENTIFY

  • WEAKNESSES IN OUR SYSTEM AND HOW

  • WE CAN FIX THEM.

  • BUT I WOULD SAY TO YOU, SENATOR

  • McCAIN, THAT IN MY SHORT TENURE

  • HERE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

  • JUSTICE, I'VE BEEN MORE

  • CONCERNED ABOUT COMPUTER HACKING

  • AND THOSE ISSUES THAN I WAS AT

  • THE -- IN THE SENATE.

  • IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, YOU'RE

  • CORRECT.

  • >> "THE WASHINGTON POST"

  • REPORTED YESTERDAY --

  • >> YOU'RE WATCHING NBC NEWS LIVE

  • COVERAGE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • JEFF SESSIONS' TESTIMONY BEFORE

  • CONGRESS.

  • WE'LL PAUSE FOR JUST A MOMENT TO

  • ALLOW SOME STATIONS TO RETURN TO

  • REGULAR PROGRAMMING NOW.

  • >> TO DISRUPT UKRAINE'S

  • ELECTRICAL GRID IN 2015.

  • CAN YOU DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT IN

  • OPEN SESSION HOW SERIOUS THAT

  • IS?

  • >> I DON'T BELIEVE I CAN DISCUSS

  • THE TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES, JUST

  • TO SAY THAT IT IS VERY

  • DISTURBING THAT THE RUSSIANS

  • CONTINUE TO PUSH HOSTILE ACTIONS

  • IN THEIR FOREIGN POLICY.

  • IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE UNITED

  • STATES OR THE WORLD OR RUSSIA IN

  • MY OPINION.

  • >> DO YOU BELIEVE WE HAVE A

  • STRATEGY IN ORDER TO COUNTER

  • THESE EVER INCREASING THREATS TO

  • OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND OUR

  • WAY OF LIFE?

  • >> NOT SUFFICIENTLY.

  • WE DO NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT

  • STRATEGY DEALING WITH

  • TECHNOLOGICAL AND I.T.

  • PENETRATIONS OF OUR SYSTEM.

  • I TRULY BELIEVE IT'S MORE

  • IMPORTANT THAN I EVER DID

  • BEFORE, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR

  • CONCERN AND LEADERSHIP ON THAT

  • ISSUE AND IN FACT ALL OF

  • CONGRESS IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO

  • BETTER.

  • >> SENATOR'S TIME IS EXPIRED.

  • THE CHAIR WOULD RECOGNIZE THE

  • VICE CHAIR.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • GENERAL SESSIONS, THANK YOU.

  • I PARTICULARLY APPRECIATE YOUR

  • LAST COMMENT WITH SENATOR McCAIN

  • ABOUT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS

  • THREAT AND THAT'S WHY SO MANY OF

  • US ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE

  • CONCERNED WHEN THE WHOLE

  • QUESTION OF RUSSIAN

  • INTERVENTION.

  • THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO REFER

  • TO IT AS A WITCH HUNT AND FAKE

  • NEWS AND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO

  • BE A RECOGNITION OF THE

  • SERIOUSNESS OF THIS THREAT.

  • I SHARE, I THINK, MOST MEMBERS

  • THE CONSENSUS THAT THE RUSSIANS

  • MASSIVELY INTERFERED.

  • THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO

  • INTERFERE.

  • NOT FOR FAVOR ONE PARTY OR THE

  • OTHER BUT TO FAVOR THEIR OWN

  • INTEREST.

  • AND IT IS OF ENORMOUS CONCERN

  • THAT WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM THE

  • ADMINISTRATION HOW THEY'RE GOING

  • TO TAKE THAT ON.

  • I ALSO -- COMMENTS HAVE BEEN

  • MADE HERE ABOUT WHERE WE HEAD IN

  • TERMS OF SOME OF THE TRUMP

  • ASSOCIATES WHO MAY HAVE HAD

  • CONTACTS WITH RUSSIANS.

  • CANDIDLY, WE'VE NOT GOTTEN TO

  • ALL OF THAT YET BECAUSE OF THE

  • UNPRECEDENTED FIRING OF THE FBI

  • DIRECTOR THAT WAS LEADING THIS

  • VERY SAME RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.

  • IT SUPERSEDED SOME OF OUR

  • ACTIVITIES.

  • SO THOSE MEMBERS WHO I HOPE WILL

  • EQUALLY PURSUE THE VERY

  • TROUBLING AMOUNT OF SMOKE AT

  • LEAST THAT'S OUT THERE BETWEEN

  • INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE AFFILIATED

  • WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN,

  • POSSIBLE TIES WITH RUSSIANS.

  • I'VE NOT REACHED ANY CONCLUSION

  • BUT WE'VE GOT TO PURSUE THAT.

  • THE FINAL COMMENT, AND I

  • UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT YOU

  • HAVE TO -- THERE WERE A SERIES

  • OF COMMENTS MADE BY MR. COMEY

  • LAST WEEK.

  • I THINK MEMBERS ON THIS SIDE OF

  • THE AISLE HAVE INDICATED

  • UNDERSTAND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE,

  • UNDERSTAND CLASSIFIED SETTING.

  • I DO THINK WE NEED AS SENATOR

  • REED INDICATED AND SENATOR

  • HARRIS AND OTHERS, IF THERE ARE

  • THESE LONG STANDING WRITTEN

  • PROCEDURES ABOUT THIS ABILITY TO

  • HAVE SOME OTHER CATEGORY TO

  • PROTECT THE CONVERSATIONS WITH

  • THE PRESIDENT, WE'D LIKE TO GET

  • A LOOK AT THEM BECAUSE WE NEED

  • TO FIND OUT IN LIGHT OF SOME OF

  • THE CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN TODAY

  • AND LAST WEEK WHERE THIS ALL

  • HEADS.

  • AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS

  • NOT ONLY, LET ME RESTATE WHAT I

  • THE LAST TIME.

  • IT'S NOT ABOUT RELITIGATING

  • 2016, IT IS ABOUT FINDING OUT

  • WHAT HAPPENED, ABOUT SOME OF THE

  • SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS ABOUT

  • POTENTIAL TIES, BUT ON A GOING

  • FORWARD BASIS MAKING SURE THAT

  • THE RUSSIANS, WHO ARE NOT

  • FINISHED IN TERMS OF THEIR

  • ACTIVITIES, DIDN'T END ON

  • ELECTION DAY ON 2016.

  • WE KNOW THAT IS ONGOING AND WE

  • HAVE TO BE BETTER PREPARED ON A

  • GOING FORWARD BASIS.

  • THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIRMAN.

  • >> MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE BRIEF

  • COMMENT IF YOU MIND.

  • I DO WANT TO SAY THAT A CHANGE

  • AT THE TOP OF THE FBI SHOULD

  • HAVE NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON THE

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • THOSE TEAMS HAVE BEEN WORKING

  • AND THEY'LL CONTINUE TO WORK AND

  • THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED IN

  • ANY WAY.

  • >> BUT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF

  • VERY STRANGE COMMENTS THAT MR.

  • COMEY TESTIFIED LAST WEEK THAT

  • YOU COULD HAVE, I BELIEVE, SHED

  • SOME LIGHT ON BUT WE'LL

  • CONTINUE.

  • THANK YOU, SIR.

  • >> GENERAL SESSIONS, THANK YOU

  • AGAIN FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE

  • HERE.

  • I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU KNEW IT,

  • BUT YOUR REPLACEMENT SAT THROUGH

  • MOST OF THIS HEARING, LUTHER

  • STRANGE.

  • HE'S MADE US REGRET THAT WE

  • DON'T HAVE INTRAMURAL BASKETBALL

  • TEAMS.

  • >> BIG LUTHER IS A GOOD ROUND

  • BALLPLAYER, TULANE.

  • >> YOU'VE BEEN ASKED A WIDE

  • RAE OF QUESTIONS, AND I THINK

  • YOU'VE ANSWERED THINGS RELATED

  • TO CLAIMS ABOUT THE MEETING AT

  • THE MAYFLOWER.

  • YOU'VE ANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT

  • SOUND THE REASONS OF YOUR

  • RECUSAL AND THE FACT THAT YOU

  • HAD NEVER BEEN BRIEFED SINCE DAY

  • ONE ON THE INVESTIGATION.

  • YOU MADE CLEAR THAT YOU CAN'T

  • THINK OF ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS

  • THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH RUSSIAN

  • OFFICIALS.

  • YOU'VE COVERED IN DETAIL THE

  • CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD,

  • THOUGH BRIEF, WITH DIRECTOR

  • COMEY THAT HE REFERENCED TO

  • AFTER HIS PRIVATE MEETING WITH

  • THE PRESIDENT.

  • JUST TO NAME A FEW THINGS THAT I

  • THINK YOU'VE HELPED US TO CLEAR

  • UP.

  • THERE WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS

  • THAT YOU CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER

  • BECAUSE OF CONFIDENTIALITY WITH

  • THE PRESIDENT.

  • I WOULD ONLY ASK YOU NOW TO GO

  • BACK AND WORK WITH THE WHITE

  • HOUSE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY

  • AREAS OF QUESTIONS THAT THEY

  • FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH YOU

  • ANSWERING AND IF THEY DO, THAT

  • YOU PROVIDE THOSE ANSWERS IN

  • WRITING TO THE COMMITTEE.

  • I WOULD ALSO BE REMISS IF I

  • DIDN'T REMIND YOU THAT THOSE

  • DOCUMENTS THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE

  • FOR THE COMMITTEE, THEY WOULD BE

  • HELPFUL TO US FOR THE PURPOSES

  • OF SORTING TIMELINES OUT.

  • ANYTHING THAT SUBSTANTIATES YOUR

  • TESTIMONY TODAY, INDIVIDUALS WHO

  • MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT EVENTS THAT

  • YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, ESPECIALLY

  • THOSE THAT WORK FOR YOU, WOULD

  • BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL.

  • AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, I WANT TO

  • THANK YOU FOR YOUR AGREEMENT TO

  • HAVE A CONTINUING DIALOGUE WITH

  • US AS WE MIGHT NEED TO ASK SOME

  • ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS WE GO A

  • LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • THAT CERTAINLY DOES NOT HAVE TO

  • BE A PUBLIC HEARING.

  • BUT IT MAY BE AN EXCHANGE AND A

  • DIALOGUE THAT WE HAVE.

  • YOU HAVE HELPED US TREMENDOUSLY

  • AND WE'RE GRATEFUL TO YOU AND TO

  • MARY FOR THE UNBELIEVABLE

  • SACRIFICE THAT YOU MADE IN THIS

  • INSTITUTION BUT ALSO NOW IN THIS

  • ADMINISTRATION.

  • THIS HEARING IS NOW ADJOURNED.

  • >>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

  • UNITED STATES, JEFF SESSIONS,

  • COMPLETING SOME TWO HOURS OF

  • TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE

  • INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REGARDING

  • THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND THE

  • TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

  • AMONG THE HEADLINES, SESSIONS

  • DENIES THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL

  • UNDISCLOSED MEETING WITH THE

  • RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR.

  • HE CALLED SUGGESTIONS THAT HE

  • MAY HAVE COLLUDED OR BEEN AWARE

  • OF COLLUSION WITH RUSSIAN

  • OFFICIALS APPALLING AND A

  • DETESTABLE LIE AND SAID HIS

  • DECISION TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM

  • THE RUSSIAN MATTER WAS STRICTLY

  • A MATTER OF FOLLOWING FEDERAL

  • GUIDELINES BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN

  • INVOLVED IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

  • SESSIONS SAID IT WAS APPROPRIATE

  • FOR HIM TO SIGN OFF ON THE

  • FIRING OF JAMES COMEY, OR THE

  • RECOMMENDATION OF THE FIRING OF

  • COMEY AS FBI DIRECTOR DESPITE

  • HIS RECUSAL AND HE ALSO SEEMED

  • TO LARGELY SUPPORT THE BROAD

  • STROKES OF COMEY'S TESTIMONY

  • BEFORE THE SAME COMMITTEE LAST

  • WEEK.

  • HOWEVER, THERE WERE DIFFERENCES

  • ON SOME FINE POINTS.

  • LET ME BRING IN OUR JUSTICE

  • CORRESPONDENT, PETE WILLIAMS,

  • FOR MORE ON THAT.

  • PETE.

  • >> WELL, I THINK THAT THIS

  • HEARING DID LARGELY WHAT JEFF

  • SESSIONS WANTED IT TO, WHICH WAS

  • GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO DEFEND

  • HIMSELF.

  • THAT'S WHAT I THINK THIS TURNED

  • OUT TO BE, LESTER.

  • THIS WAS A MORE, IF YOU WILL,

  • PARTISAN HEARING WITH MORE

  • SUPPORT FROM REPUBLICAN, MORE

  • CRITICISM FROM DEMOCRATS THAN

  • YOU GOT LAST WEEK WITH MR.

  • COMEY'S TESTIMONY.

  • AMONG THE THINGS THAT WE LEARNED

  • TODAY THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE

  • WERE THAT HE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED

  • RECUING HIMSELF FROM THE

  • RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION THE DAY

  • AFTER HE WAS SWORN IN, FEBRUARY

  • 10th.

  • HE HAD GIVEN HINTS THAT HE WAS

  • HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION BUT

  • THAT'S THE FIRST TIME HE EVER

  • SAID HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT

  • THE DAY AFTER HE WAS SWORN IN.

  • ALSO THAT HE HAD CONCLUDED

  • BEFORE HE WAS SWORN IN AS THE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT JAMES

  • COMEY SHOULD LEAVE THE FBI, THAT

  • HE SHOULD BE REPLACED, THAT THE

  • FBI NEEDED WHAT HE CALLED A

  • FRESH START.

  • HE ALSO TOOK A BIT OF A DIG AT

  • MR. COMEY BY SAYING THAT COMEY

  • MADE A MISTAKE IN NOT TAKING HIS

  • CONCERNS ABOUT HIS ONE-ON-ONE

  • MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT TO

  • THE PERSON WHO WAS THEN THE

  • ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • RATHER THAN CHOOSING NOT TO

  • MENTION THEM TO ANYBODY AT THE

  • JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, LESTER.

  • >> ALL RIGHT, PETE WILLIAMS,

  • THANK YOU.

  • THAT'S GOING TO DO IT FOR US FOR

  • NOW.

  • THERE'S CONTINUING COVERAGE ON

  • THIS ON MSNBC AND NBCNEWS.COM.

  • I'LL SEE YOU FOR A COMPLETE

  • WRAP-UP TONIGHT ON NBC NIGHTLY

  • NEWS.

>>> THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

ジェフ・セッションズ司法長官が上院情報委員会の前で証言(全文)|NBCニュース (Attorney General Jeff Sessions Testifies Before Senate Intelligence Committee (Full) | NBC News)

  • 160 4
    EZ Wang に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語