字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント >>> 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.
B1 中級 米 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 シェア シェア 保存 報告 動画の中の単語