I FIND THAT BEHAVIOR ON THIS COMMITTEE DESPICABLE.

COMMITTEE DESPICABLE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. >> SENATOR HARRIS?

>> SENATOR HARRIS? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAS THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE

PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN

HOUSE SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE?

INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE? >> I WOULDN’T, UH --

>> I WOULDN’T, UH -- >> YES OR NO?

>> YES OR NO? >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT

>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?

QUESTION? >> I WILL REPEAT.

>> I WILL REPEAT. HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT

HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR

THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN

SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE?

INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE? YES OR NO, PLEASE, SIR.

YES OR NO, PLEASE, SIR. >> THE PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY

>> THE PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY ELSE?

ELSE? >> SEEMS YOU WOULD REMEMBER

>> SEEMS YOU WOULD REMEMBER SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND BE ABLE

SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND BE ABLE TO TELL US.

TO TELL US. >> YEAH, BUT I’M TRYING TO

>> YEAH, BUT I’M TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH THE WORD "SUGGEST."

GRAPPLE WITH THE WORD "SUGGEST." I MEAN, THERE HAVE BEEN

I MEAN, THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS OUT THERE

DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS OUT THERE THAT THEY’VE NOT ASKED ME TO

THAT THEY’VE NOT ASKED ME TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION.

OPEN AN INVESTIGATION. >> PERHAPS THEY’VE SUGGESTED?

>> PERHAPS THEY’VE SUGGESTED? >> I DON’T KNOW.

>> I DON’T KNOW. I WOULDN’T SAY SUGGESTED.

I WOULDN’T SAY SUGGESTED. >> HINTED.

>> HINTED. >> I DON’T KNOW.

>> I DON’T KNOW. >> INFERRED?

>> INFERRED? YOU DON’T KNOW?

YOU DON’T KNOW? OKAY.

OKAY. IN YOUR MARCH 24th SUMMARY, YOU

IN YOUR MARCH 24th SUMMARY, YOU WROTE THAT, QUOTE, AFTER

WROTE THAT, QUOTE, AFTER REVIEWING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S

REVIEWING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FINAL REPORT --

FINAL REPORT -- >> I DON’T KNOW IF --

>> I DON’T KNOW IF -- >> I’M ASKING A QUESTION.

>> I’M ASKING A QUESTION. IN YOUR MARCH 24th SUMMARY YOU

IN YOUR MARCH 24th SUMMARY YOU WROTE, QUOTE, AFTER REVIEWING

WROTE, QUOTE, AFTER REVIEWING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FINAL

THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FINAL REPORT, DEPUTY ROSENSTEIN AND I

REPORT, DEPUTY ROSENSTEIN AND I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE

HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH

IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN

THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE. NOW THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S

NOW THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION PRODUCE AID GREAT

INVESTIGATION PRODUCE AID GREAT DEAL OF EVIDENCE.

DEAL OF EVIDENCE. I’M LED TO BELIEVE IT INCLUDED

I’M LED TO BELIEVE IT INCLUDED WITNESSES’ NOTES AND EMAILS,

WITNESSES’ NOTES AND EMAILS, WITNESSES’ TESTIMONY, INTERVIEWS

WITNESSES’ TESTIMONY, INTERVIEWS WHICH WERE SUMMARIZED IN THE FBI

WHICH WERE SUMMARIZED IN THE FBI 302 FORMS, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR

302 FORMS, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR COMEY’S MEMOS AND THE

COMEY’S MEMOS AND THE PRESIDENT’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS.

PRESIDENT’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS. MY QUESTION IS IN REACHING YOUR

MY QUESTION IS IN REACHING YOUR CONCLUSION, DID YOU PERSONALLY

CONCLUSION, DID YOU PERSONALLY REVIEW ALL OF THE UNDERLYING

REVIEW ALL OF THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE?

EVIDENCE? >> NO.

>> NO. WE TOOK AN --

WE TOOK AN -- >> DID MR. ROSENSTEIN?

>> DID MR. ROSENSTEIN? >> NO.

>> NO. WE ACCEPTED THE STATEMENTS IN

WE ACCEPTED THE STATEMENTS IN THE REPORT AS FACTUAL RECORD.

THE REPORT AS FACTUAL RECORD. WE DID NOT GO UNDERNEATH IT TO

WE DID NOT GO UNDERNEATH IT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE

SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ACCURATE.

ACCURATE. WE ACCEPTED IT AS ACCURATE.

WE ACCEPTED IT AS ACCURATE. AND MADE OUR --

AND MADE OUR -- >> SO YOU ACCEPTED THE REPORT AS

>> SO YOU ACCEPTED THE REPORT AS THE EVIDENCE?

THE EVIDENCE? >> YES.

>> YES. >> YOU DID NOT QUESTION OR LOOK

>> YOU DID NOT QUESTION OR LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT

AT THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE

SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE REPORT?

REPORT? >> NO.

>> NO. >> DID MR. ROSENSTEIN REVIEW THE

>> DID MR. ROSENSTEIN REVIEW THE EVIDENCE THAT UNDERLINES AND

EVIDENCE THAT UNDERLINES AND SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE

SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE REPORT?

REPORT? TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. WE ACCEPTED THE STATEMENTS IN

WE ACCEPTED THE STATEMENTS IN THE REPORT AND THE CHARACTERer

THE REPORT AND THE CHARACTERer CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EVIDENCE

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EVIDENCE AS TRUE.

AS TRUE. >> DID ANYONE IN YOUR EXECUTIVE

>> DID ANYONE IN YOUR EXECUTIVE OFFICE REVIEW THE EVIDENCE

OFFICE REVIEW THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE REPORT?

SUPPORTING THE REPORT? >> NO.

>> NO. >> NO?

>> NO? YET YOU REPRESENTED TO THE

YET YOU REPRESENTED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THE

AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT, QUOTE,

EVIDENCE WAS NOT, QUOTE, SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN

SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR FACTS.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR FACTS. >> THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE

>> THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE REPORT.

REPORT. THIS IS NOT MISTHERIOUS PROCESS.

THIS IS NOT MISTHERIOUS PROCESS. WE HAVE DECLARATION MEMOS EVERY

WE HAVE DECLARATION MEMOS EVERY DAY COMING UP AND WE DON’T GO

DAY COMING UP AND WE DON’T GO AND LOOK AT UNDERLYING EVIDENCE.

AND LOOK AT UNDERLYING EVIDENCE. WE TAKE THE CHARACTERIZATION OF

WE TAKE THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EVIDENCE AS TRUE.

THE EVIDENCE AS TRUE. >> AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

>> AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU RUN THE

THE UNITED STATES, YOU RUN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JUSTICE. IF IN ANY U.S. ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE

IF IN ANY U.S. ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE AROUND THE COUNTRY, THE HEAD

AROUND THE COUNTRY, THE HEAD THAT HAVE OFFICE, WHEN BEING

THAT HAVE OFFICE, WHEN BEING ASKED TO MAKE A CRITICAL

ASKED TO MAKE A CRITICAL DECISION ABOUT, IN THIS CASE,

DECISION ABOUT, IN THIS CASE, THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE HIGHEST

THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND AND WHETHER

OFFICE IN THE LAND AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON COMMITTED A

OR NOT THAT PERSON COMMITTED A CRIME, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THEM

CRIME, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THEM RECOMMENDING A CHARGING DECISION

RECOMMENDING A CHARGING DECISION TO YOU IF THEY HAD NOT REVIEWED

TO YOU IF THEY HAD NOT REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE?

THE EVIDENCE? >> THAT’S A QUESTION FOR BOB

>> THAT’S A QUESTION FOR BOB MUELLER.

MUELLER. HE IS THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

HE IS THE U.S. ATTORNEY. HE IS THE ONE WHO PRESENTS THE

HE IS THE ONE WHO PRESENTS THE REPORT.

REPORT. >> BUT IT WAS YOU WHO MADE THE

>> BUT IT WAS YOU WHO MADE THE CHARGING DECISION, SIR.

CHARGING DECISION, SIR. YOU MADE THE DECISION NOT TO

YOU MADE THE DECISION NOT TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT.

CHARGE THE PRESIDENT. >> IN A CROSS MEMO AND

>> IN A CROSS MEMO AND DECLARATION MEMO.

DECLARATION MEMO. >> YOU SAID IT WAS YOUR BABY.

>> YOU SAID IT WAS YOUR BABY. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> IT WAS MY BABY TO LET -- TO

>> IT WAS MY BABY TO LET -- TO DECIDE WHETHER TO DISCLOSE IT TO

DECIDE WHETHER TO DISCLOSE IT TO THE PUBLIC.

THE PUBLIC. >> WHO HAD THE POWER TO MAKE THE

>> WHO HAD THE POWER TO MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT

DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO

THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER

MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN AN OBSTRUCTION OF

THERE HAD BEEN AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

JUSTICE? >> PROSECUTION MEMOS GO UP TO

>> PROSECUTION MEMOS GO UP TO THE SUPERVISOR.

THE SUPERVISOR. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS THE

IN THIS CASE, IT WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE DEPUTY

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO DECIDE ON

ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO DECIDE ON THE FINAL DECISION.

THE FINAL DECISION. AND THAT IS BASED ON THE MEMO AS

AND THAT IS BASED ON THE MEMO AS PRESENTED BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S

PRESENTED BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.

OFFICE. OFFICE.

OFFICE. >> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR YOU

>> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR YOU DIDN’T LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND

DIDN’T LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND WE CAN MOVE ON.

WE CAN MOVE ON. WILL YOU CONSULT DOJ OFFICIALS

WILL YOU CONSULT DOJ OFFICIALS ABOUT WHETHER THE RECUSAL IS

ABOUT WHETHER THE RECUSAL IS NECESSARY?

NECESSARY? >> I DON’T SEE ANY BASIS ON IT.

>> I DON’T SEE ANY BASIS ON IT. >> YOU HAVE CONSULTED WITH THEM

>> YOU HAVE CONSULTED WITH THEM ABOUT THE 14 OTHER

ABOUT THE 14 OTHER INVESTIGATIONS?

INVESTIGATIONS? >> ABOUT THE MUELLER CASE.

>> ABOUT THE MUELLER CASE. >> HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH THE

>> HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH THE CAREER DOJ ETHICS OFFICIALS

CAREER DOJ ETHICS OFFICIALS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF YOU

ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF YOU BEING INVOLVED OR RECUSING

BEING INVOLVED OR RECUSING YOURSELF FROM THE 14 OTHER

YOURSELF FROM THE 14 OTHER INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN

INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED OUT?

REFERRED OUT? >> ON WHAT BASIS?

>> ON WHAT BASIS? >> CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CLEAR

>> CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST. >> WHAT’S THE CONFLICT OF

>> WHAT’S THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

INTEREST? >> THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAVE SEEN

>> THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAVE SEEN QUITE WELL YOU’RE BIASED IN THIS

QUITE WELL YOU’RE BIASED IN THIS SITUATION AND HAVE NOT BEEN

SITUATION AND HAVE NOT BEEN OBJECTIVE.

OBJECTIVE. >> I HAVEN’T BEEN THE ONLY

>> I HAVEN’T BEEN THE ONLY DECISION MAKER HERE NOW.

DECISION MAKER HERE NOW. LET’S TAKE THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY

LET’S TAKE THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN, APPROVED

GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN, APPROVED BY THE SENATE 94-6 WITH SPECIFIC

BY THE SENATE 94-6 WITH SPECIFIC DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR THAT HE

DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR THAT HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISING THE RUSSIAN

SUPERVISING THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION.

INVESTIGATION. >> I’M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.

>> I’M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. THAT’S A GREAT TOPIC.

THAT’S A GREAT TOPIC. >> 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE AND A

>> 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE AND A NUMBER OF SENIOR PROSECUTORS IN

NUMBER OF SENIOR PROSECUTORS IN THE DEPARTMENT INVOLVED IN THIS

THE DEPARTMENT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, BOTH CAREER AND

PROCESS, BOTH CAREER AND NONCAREER.

NONCAREER. >> YES, I’VE READ THE PROCESS,

>> YES, I’VE READ THE PROCESS, SIR.

SIR. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. AND I’M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT

AND I’M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT SUBJECT UP, BECAUSE I HAVE A

SUBJECT UP, BECAUSE I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

QUESTION ABOUT THAT. EARLIER TODAY IN RESPONSE TO

EARLIER TODAY IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR GRAHAM YOU SAID, QUOTE,

SENATOR GRAHAM YOU SAID, QUOTE, THAT YOU CONSULTED WITH

THAT YOU CONSULTED WITH ROSENSTEIN CONSTANTLY, UNQUOTE,

ROSENSTEIN CONSTANTLY, UNQUOTE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL

WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION AND

COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION AND REPORT BUT DEPUTY ATTORNEY

REPORT BUT DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROSENSTEIN WAS ALSO A

GENERAL ROSENSTEIN WAS ALSO A KEY WITNESS IN THE FIRING OF FBI

KEY WITNESS IN THE FIRING OF FBI DIRECTOR COMEY.

DIRECTOR COMEY. DID YOU CONSULT WITH --

DID YOU CONSULT WITH -- >> WELL, THAT’S --

>> WELL, THAT’S -- >> DID YOU CONSULT WITH DOJ

>> DID YOU CONSULT WITH DOJ ETHICS OFFICIALS BEFORE YOU

ETHICS OFFICIALS BEFORE YOU ENLISTED ROD ROSENSTEIN TO

ENLISTED ROD ROSENSTEIN TO PARTICIPATE IN A CHARGING

PARTICIPATE IN A CHARGING DECISION IN AN INVESTIGATION FOR

DECISION IN AN INVESTIGATION FOR THE SUBJECT OF WHICH HE IS ALSO

THE SUBJECT OF WHICH HE IS ALSO A WITNESS?

A WITNESS? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE HAD BEEN CLEARED ALREADY TO

HAD BEEN CLEARED ALREADY TO PARTICIPATE IN IT?

PARTICIPATE IN IT? >> YOU HAD CONSULTED WITH THEM

>> YOU HAD CONSULTED WITH THEM AND THEY CLEARED IT?

AND THEY CLEARED IT? >> NO.

>> NO. I THINK THEY CLEARED IT WHEN HE

I THINK THEY CLEARED IT WHEN HE TOOK OVER THE INVESTIGATION.