Transcripts For CNNW At This Hour With Kate Bolduan 20171114

It seems to me that a president ial campaign using a law firm as a conduit to pay for activities with which the campaign it itself doesnt want to be directly associated, is more than just dirty politics. Its also quite possibly illegal. To me, it seems that this is at least the violation of Campaign Finance laws for failure to accurately disclose the actual recipients of campaign dispersements. However this type of arrangement is not illegal. If its not illegal under current law i fear were risking opening pandoras box with all sorts of underhanded activities which campaigns being laundered through law firms and shielded und und under Attorney Client privilege. Do you share a similar concern and in your opinion is it legal under current law for a president ial campaign to hide its funding of the com pilation and dissemination of political dirt on its opponent by using a law firm to directly pay for the work . I would think that those matters are worthy of consideration, but as to the details of them and for me to express an ultimate comment today im unable to do so. Thank you. Let me shift over to something entirely different. Federal law currently still cites marijuana as a dangerous drug. Still prohibited. Its still illegal under federal law. Yet, a number of states have, for both medical purposes, now even for recreational purposes, have basically made it legal. What is your departments policy on that relative to enforcing the law . Our policy is that the same really fundamentally as the holder lynch policy, which is that the federal law remains in effect and a state can legalize marijuana for its Law Enforcement purposes, but it still remains illegal with regard to federal purposes. Okay. It seems to me that theres always been a tremendous amount of gray area in that whole field which i think as a nation, you know, we need to look much more closely at, both from the states point of view and the federal Government Point of view, but thats just my feeling on that. Im running out of time. Four other things. But let me go to one final thing here. Ive been very involved in the area of victims rights. I was the following henry hydes leadership on this introduced the victims rights cube stugsal amendment years back, various pieces of legislation on victims rights and ive also worked closely with the parents of murdered children. And when you talk about something that affects ones family, theres nothing that affects a family more adversely than Something Like that happening and we still have Capital Punishment on the books both at the federal level and many of our states. Yet, these families are dragged left and right up and down back and forth into hearing after hearing. These cases can drag on for more than 20 years before the imposition of Capital Punishment actually occurs in many instances obviously it never does, while these people are behind bars oftentimes they attack, sometimes kill guards and sometimes attack and kill other inmates. So what is i would be interested to see what is your what is your intentions relative to Capital Punishment in this country . Well, many states have Capital Punishment. The federal government has Capital Punishment for a number of offenses and specifically control we have within the department a recommendation process through our appointed committee to seek or not seek a Death Penalty when a case is charged. Sometimes its a complex thing. But i believe the Death Penalty, the federal Death Penalty, is a part of our law. I think its a legitimate penalty. Its constitutional and we will do our duty even in those circumstances that require the imposition of the Death Penalty. Thank you very much. My time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentle woman from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman and mr. Attorney general for being here today. Former National Security adviser Michael Flynn is under investigation because of his work and ties to Foreign Governments. According to various reports, much of his work with these Foreign Governments went unreported when mr. Flynn was required to make certain disclosures by law. Now, as chairman of the Trump Campaign, National Security Adviser Committee and lead adviser on the trump transition team, i think you worked closely with mr. Flynn and i would like you to answer a few yes or no questions about mr. Flynn and knowing that mr. Flynn is under investigation, im going to stick to subject matter that predates both the special counsels investigation and your appointment as attorney general. Now, the Foreign Policy platform at the Republican National convention undertook dramatic changes. Did you discuss changes to the republican Foreign Policy platform with mr. Flynn at any point during the campaign . I dont recall it. I was not at the convention when the Platform Committee met. Youre the you were the lead of the campaign but you dont recall discussing it with him . Well, that may be a bit of a stretch. I was asked to lead and form and find some people who would join and meet with mr. Trump to give him advice and support regarding Foreign Policy and i did so, although we were not a very Effective Group really. You met with ambassador kislyak in november of 2016. Did you discuss your meetings with ambassador kislyak with mr. Flynn . Did i discuss mr. Flynn with him . Did you discuss your meeting with the ambassador with mr. Flynn . The ambassador i met with i think some 25 ambassadors that year. I did meet once in my office with mr. Kislyak. And i do not recall and dont believe i communicated any of that information to mr. Flynn. Are you aware of any meetings between ambassador kislyak and mr. Flynn that might have occurred around the time of your meeting with the ambassador . I do not. Okay. In her testimony before the senate in may, former acting attorney general sally yates testified that one week into the Trump Administration, she notified the administration that mr. Flynn had lied to Vice President pence about discussing sanctions with ambassador kislyak. As part of the transition team, and the president s pick for attorney general, in january were you notified when the administration was notified of mr. Flynns lie and his susceptibility to russian blackmail . I dont believe so. All right. With. We now know you were aware of the efforts of carter page and George Papadopolous to meet and establish communications with the russian government. Did you at any point well, thats not necessarily so about at least from mr. Carter page says. And i dont recall that. All right. Did you at any point discuss with Michael Flynn the possibility of then candidate trump or his surrogates meeting with the russian government . I do not recall such a conversation. Did you know that flynn was working for the turkish government while acting as a surrogate for the Trump Campaign . I dont believe i had information to that effect. Did you know that he was working for the turkish government at any point after the election . I dont believe so. Were you or anyone on the Trump Campaign aware of mr. Flynns efforts to extradite turkish cleric gulen . Ive read that in the paper recently. But i dont recall ever being made aware of that before this recent release of papers. You just read about it in the newspaper afterwards . After the inauguration, you did not know that the fbi was requested to conduct a new review of turkeys 2016 extradition request for mr. Gulen . The fbi was . Do you know about that . Im aware that the turkish government continued to press the federal government with regard to seeking the return of mr. Gulen to turkey. Did you know and our department had a role to play in that, although im not at liberty to discuss the details of that. Did you know that the turkish government allegedly offered 15 million for mr. Flynn to kidnap mr. Gulen . Absolutely not. You mean no. On time of the gentlecle woman has expired. The gentleman from iowa mr. King for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you general sessions for your testimony here today and your service to our country over the years that you have been front and center. And a number of things i wanted to discuss, one of them is, the daca situation and seems as i recall you made a Public Statement some time back about the constitutionality of the policy that was implemented by president obama. Would you care to reiterate that position today . Well, the president , president obama, indicated multiple times that he felt that daca he didnt have the power to do daca in the way it was done and eventually they must have changed their mind then and executed this policy to take persons who were in the country unlawfully and give them lawful status, work permits and even participation in social security. So i felt for some time that that was not proper. A Federal District court in texas so held. And the fifth Circuit Court of appeals also so held that it was unlawful. So what happened was, we helped work on the research, but the department of Homeland Security withdrew the policy because it was not defensible in my view. And established a day to close it down of march be 5th i think of next year. Thats right. The Homeland Security asked for time to wind this program down. And i thought that was appropriate. And there is a lot of public dialog about what kind of legislation might be passed in conjunction with the daca policy. And thats up in the air right now. Im noticing the democrats are saying were going to have everything we want on daca or well shut the government down. It causes me to think about what should happen if Congress Reaches an impasse and there is no passage of any legislation to extend the daca policy, if the president should decide to on or before that march 5th date that he wants to extend the daca policy what would your position be at that time. Thats hypothetical, senator king. I dont think i should speculate on that. I do think congress will have to give it thought. We have a law now, its in place, congress passed, and congress would have to change it. And i would just remark that im watching a lot of people be rewarded for a violation of the rule of law and i appreciate your emphasis on rule of law in your testimony today multiple times coming back to that point mr. King, i would say it is correct in my view and i think you probably share it, that something is lost whenever you provide an amnesty. A place will be paid if thats done. But sometimes circumstances are such that may need to be done, but we need to be careful. Thank you. And its been weve been made aware here in this committee theres a significant backlog in immigration cases. Have you presented any request to congress or a statement to inform us as to how many resources you might need, judges you might need, to get the backlog caught up and then an idea of how many we might need to maintain an anticipated level . Thats a very good question. Yes, weve worked on it and we have some preliminary information. We are seeking a total of about 360, 370 judges, added about 50 to the total. Weve shortened the time process for selecting people, not shorting the training program, and we will we are adding judges. I would say on the backlog its gone up dramatically, now over 600,000. But the last two or three months, were almost not adding to the backlog and im told by the additional work were doing by january, we will not be adding to the backlog but hopefully reducing it. That would be a real change in the trends we were heading on. Well thank you. I just ask you to reflect as this committee anticipates the potential of a special counsel to broaden this look that i think is forced upon us in a reluctant way but i certainly support the special counsel to look back at some times here that i believe should be incorporated into this and that is, i look back at october 16th, 2015, when barack obama was speaking of Hillary Clinton and whether she whether she might have violated any security clauses in our statute, in particular 18 usc 793 when he said that he had no impression that mrs. Clinton had purposely tried to hide something or squirrel away any information, made the point of intent behind that in april after that, april 10th, a similar statement, she would never, meaning Hillary Clinton, she would never intentionally put america in any kind of jeopardy. Those words of intent caught my attention when i heard james comey use that very word july 5th of 2016 and it seems as though he latched on to the statements made by president obama and a more or less implied and implemented into the interpretation of the statute the word intent as if it were a condition before there could be any prosecution for a violation of 18 usc 793. I dont know that i have a question on that. I want to make sure i put that into the record so its under consideration by the doj. Time of the gentleman has expired. Chair recognizes the woman from texas, miss jackson lee, for five minutes. Thank you very much. Mr. Attorney general, do you believe in the book the constitution of the United States . Yes. And will abide by it with all of your intentions . Thats exactly correct. I thank you so very much. I took the liberty of reviewing federal crimes against children, particularly those dealing with sexual or physical abuse. As you well know, leigh coffman, debbie glibson, gloria, and Beverly Young nelson, these young women have accused this individual, judge moore, who is running for a federal office, the United States senate, of child sexual activity. Do you believe these young women . I am i have no reason to doubt these young women. With that in mind if you believe these young women, do you believe judge moore should be seated in the senate if he wins and would you introduce investigations by the doj regarding his actions . We will evaluate every case as to whether or not it should be investigated. This kind of case would normally be a state case. I would say, representative jackson lee, that the ethics people at the department of justice, and i talked to them about that when this campaign started, its the seat i used to hold, they advised me that the attorney general should not be involved in this campaign. I have thank you. Friends in the campaign. Thank you. I only have a short period of time. I want to make sure if he comes to the United States senate i think i should continue to do so. If he comes to the United States senate that there would be the possibility of referring his case for at least a federal review by the department of justice. We will do our duty. Let me also refer you back to the meeting on march 31st, 2016, with mr. Papadopolous. You well know that mr. Papadopolous, in addition to his comments in the meeting regarding a meeting between trump and mr. Putin, had series of meetings dealing with and as you can see trump, mr. Papadopolous and you leading that committee, i cannot imagine your memory would fail you so much. But moving on, he was in that meeting but you also had Stephen Miller who was a Senior Policy Adviser who was noted in the stipulated statement of offense to receive conversation from mr. Papadopolous about his constant interaction with the russians to intrude in the 2016 election. You continued in the october 18th meeting before the Judiciary Committee or hearing in the senate to not answer the question. Now, in light of the facts that are now part of the record, do you wish to change your testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee on june 13, 2017, where you said, i have never met with or had any conversation with any russians or any foreign officials. Jump to the final part, no knowledge i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump Campaign. Do you want to admit under oath that you did not tell the truth or misrepresented it or correct your testimony right now . Youre referring to my testimony at con firmation. Before the Senate Intelligence committee. My time is short and two more questions, please. Im not able to respond because i dont think i understand what you are saying. Your Intelligence Committee testimony do you want to change it where you indicated you had no knowledge of involvement of the trump individuals involved in conversations regarding the Trump Campaign, russians and mr. Miller, gave supported mr. Trumps press conference where he said russia if youre listening i hope youll be able to find the 30,000 emails, do you want to change your testimony that was where you said i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump Campaign regarding russians involved in the campaign . That was a testimony on june 13. Im not able to understand. Let me move forward to let me say this, mr. Chairman, can i let me move to a document the witness is allowed to answer the question. The gentleman keeps saying he cannot recall, he cannot recall. The gentle woman will suspend the witness wants to answer the question she asked. I should be given extra time and i do not have extra time. Let me move to the the gentle woman will suspend and the witness will answer the question. Yes or no. Does he want to change his testimony in the Intelligence Committee . I would just say this, i stand by this testimony at the Intelligence Committee. I have never met with or had any conversation with any russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with the campaign or election in the United States further i have no knowledge of any such conversations. By anyone connected to the Trump Campaign. Thank you very much for that. What i did say in my Opening Statement i explained that when i was asked, in october, just a few weeks ago, when i was asked about the matter, did i have any knowledge of anyone who had talked with to the russians i indicated that i had not recalled that meeting when that occurred. But i would have been pleased to have responded and explained it if i recalled it. Ive tried to be honest about that and give you my best response and did throughout all the testimony ive given. Miss lee. You stand by your testimony. Thank you very much. Are you familiar with the names eric garner, walter scott, jameer rice. My question is as i hold up the poster dealing with the report under your jurisdiction, black identity extremists, it is interesting to me that you are opposing individuals who are opposing lethal force, similar to the attack on reverend dr. Martin luther king, but there seems to be no report dealing with the tiki torch parade in charlottesville. Why is there an attack on black activists versus any reports dealing with the ahlright and the white nationalists . Im not aware anyone investigating that. When was the report completed. August of 2017. I have not studied that report. I ask you to because its an attack on individuals who are simply trying to petition the government in the redress of grievances. Criminal Justice Reform, we have found that mandatory minimums and over incarceration has been the history of criminal justice. We are moving toward criminal Justice Reform as you owes pose as a United States senator and now you intend to return to discredit nixon era law and order policies going to make America Great or not waste precious taxpayer dollars. Do you have interest rehabilitating those incarcerated recognizing minimums created the opportunity for over incarceration rather than telling your prosecutors to prosecute on every single crime, is there any opportunity to work with your office to deal with progressive ways of dealing with criminal Justice Reform at this time, yes or no . Yes. All right. I would just respond and say senator durbin and i worked together to reduce the crack cocaine penalties some years ago. It probably remains the largest will you pull back on the time of the gentle woman has expired. The witness is allowed to answer the last question. Im sorry. The time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. Isa for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General sessions its good to see you again. Yes, sir. I i dont speak russian and i dont meet with russians and i dont really want to ask about those questions today but i have very important questions. Congressman isa, you said that, but i bet you have met with some russians and if you in your lifetime and taking those words at face value, somebody might accuse you of not being honest. Youre absolutely thats what theyve done to me. Youre right, attorney general sessions, that is the challenge, as a member of the Foreign Affairs committee, my et with lots of ambassadors and i dont want to try to remember everyone and everything that was discussed in what i thought was a meeting. There are a couple areas that are leftover from the Previous Administration that i would like to talk to you about. One of them is we sent Loretta Lynch a letter related to sober homes and a predicament and the predix sment is fairly straightforward. If and her answer to be honest to chairman goodlatte and the rest of us was not sfaerry and weve given your staff a copy of it. Sober living homes are nothing but boarding houses, theyre required to provide no care whatsoever to the alcoholic or recovering drug abuser because that has to be done somewhere else or they dont qualify as sober homes. And yet, currently, there is in the ninth circuit decisions that cause cities to be unable to regulate them in a way that would prevent people from simply buying houses in a row in a very prestigious neighborhood and turning them into these, if you will, sober living homes, again boarding houses with 15 or more people. Will you agree to work with us to try to find an appropriate way to align your enforcement of the americans with disability act and your enforcement of the fair housing act, with the necessity for cities to be able to essentially regulate how many people live in a home . Yes. I would be pleased to do that. This is an important act. Yes. Issues because a lot of money is being spent and some of it not wisely in these areas. A lot is federal dollars being squandered to the benefit of people speculating. The second one is, a Trial Court Ruling in the durante nursery in the army corps of engineers case. Are you familiar with the case . Im not. I would like you to become familiar because during your administration, an assistant u. S. Attorney on your behalf argued that the waters of the u. S. Which is not a valid regulation delivered to congress and eligible under cra to be considered or rejected, continued to argue that that was law. Would you agree that your attorneys on your behalf should not argue regulations which have not been delivered to congress and as a result, are not eligible for cra review . Mr. Isa, i have now recalled the case. I didnt recall it by name. That matter was intensely reviewed by a new assistant attorney general for the acting at least for the environmental of Natural Resources division. After great consideration, we felt it was advised to me and i proved Going Forward with that position in court. So i will take responsibility for it. But i got to tell you, we did look at it very hard. In general if a regulation is created or some other words of the executive branch they dont have the weight of law unless theyre delivered to congress so we have an opportunity to review them under the congressional review act. That would sound correct. Thank you. My last question, is less of a softball and neither one of these are softball theyre very important to california. But in a previous congress, the ways and Means Committee of the United States house voted for and referred criminal charges against lois learner. I was involved in investigating her wrongful activity. They referred criminal charges and they did so under a statute that says and ill paraphrase it as well as i can that the u. S. Attorney for the district of columbia shall present to the grand jury the following. And then they laid out the criminal charges. The previous attorney general ordered the u. S. Attorney or u. S. Attorney in the district made a decision not to enforce that. Now, the statute as we understand it is not a statute that says you will look at this and decide independently. It actually says it shall be presented to the grand jury. Will you commit to review that and if you agree with us what the statute says and we think its plain eng initial order a attorney to present to a grand jury and if they no bill it fine present it consistent with congressional and statutory law . I will review that more personally, but the department of justice view has been it takes a full vote of the house to accomplish that act and im not sure where that leaves us. I will give it a personal review which i have not done. If you can stop the clock for one second. If the entire house voted to the the time of the gentleman the time of the gentleman has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee mr. Cohen for five minutes. Thank you, sir. Mr. Attorney general, first, i noted you went to the 50th anniversary of the selma alabama march. I commend you for that and you are a sponsor for the gold medal for the folks that marched. Having done that, i would like to ask you, what have you done as attorney general to see to it that africanamericans and others who have been discriminated for years in voting have more access to the ballot box . We will absolutely resolutely defend the right of all americans to vote including our africanamerican brothers and sisters. It conditions ever be suggested that people are blocked from voting and we have done a number of things in the department of justice. Let me ask you this, mr. Attorney general, its a fact and there have been studies to show that voter i. D. Is more discriminatory in its effect on africanamericans and latinos than anything else. Will you stop defending voter i. D. Law cases . No. The Supreme Court has aproeprov voter i. D. Other courts have too. It can be done in a discriminatory way which is not proper and cannot be proved, but its settled law that a properly handled and written voter i. D. Law is lawful. Let me suggest with all due respect we come from a similar region. I think we have a greater responsibility than anybody else in this country to see to it that africanamericans get a chance at the ballot. When they were discriminated against, they were slaves for 200 plus years, they were under jim crow, werent allowed to vote and still being discriminated against and i would submit and ask you to look at voter i. D. Laws, access to the ballot, election day voting, early voting, and other indices that allow people to vote that have been stopped. Secondly, on marijuana, you said that you are basically doing the same as holder and lynch. I believe general holder and general lynch abided by congressional appropriations that limited the Justice Department in enforcing marijuanas laws where states had passed laws on medical marijuana and others. Will you abide by congressional appropriations limitations on marijuana ken it sun sfwikconfl with state laws. I believe were bound that. I saw what you did on crack cocaine was got. Your proposal was a 20 to 1 ratio, mr. Durbins 10 to 1 ratio, yall decided on 18 to 1. You were a good negotiator. Mr. Durbin took what he could get. Should have been 1 to 1. But you admitted in that hearing it could discriminate against the disparity against africanamericans and minorities and you ought it lock look at that. The net effect of that legislation was to reduce the penalty one is subjected to for dealing with crack cocaine. Yes, sir. That may be a better analysis than the 18 to 1 of whatever it is. Its generally considered a more dangerous drug. Marijuana is no the as dangerous as heroin, would you agree with that . I think thats correct. Well thank you, sir. I would hope in your enforcement that you would look at the limitations youve got. Theres always an opportunity cost. And put your opportunity costs, your enforcement on crack, on cocaine, on meth, an opioids and heroin. Marijuana is the least bothersome of all. 28 states or 29 states and the district of columbia have legalized it for medical purposes. Saturday states and the district of columbia for recreational purposes. The justice famous said the states of democracy i hope you look at marijuana and the states as laboratories of democracy and see how theyve helped. In states where they have medical marijuana they have 25 less opioid use. It gives people a way to relieve pain without using opioids which inevitably leads to death and crime. And so i would hope you take a look at that. We will take a look at it and well be looking at some rigorous analysis of the marijuana usage and how it plays out. Im not as optimistic as you. You said one time that good people dont smoke marijuana. Which of these people would you say are not good people . Let me explain how that occurred. All right. And i explained quickly. John kasich a good person . George pataki, rick santorum, newt gingrich, jeb bush, arnold schwarzenegger, judge Clarence Thomas which are not good people . Let me tell you how that came about, congressman. So the question was what do you do about drug use the epidemic were seeing in the country and how you reverse it. Part of that is a cultural thing. I explained how when i became the United States attorney in 1981, and the drugs were being used widely, over a period of years, it became unfashionable, unpopular, and people were seeing it was seen as such that good people didnt use marijuana. Whats your that was the context of that statement. Time of the gentleman has expired. Chair recognizes one last question alabama or auburn . The gentlemans time has expired. Although i went to law school i love alabama. Mr. Jordan for five minutes. Mr. Attorney general, did the fbi pay Christopher Steele . Where am i yeah. The fbi pay Christopher Steele the author of the dossier . Those are matters you will have to direct to the i think maybe the special counsel. Why is that . Im just asking im not able to reveal internal investigator to manners. You know thats under the investigation of anybody, but particularly i think the this happened in the summer of 2016. The clinton campaign, the Democrat Campaign paid through a law firm to produce the dossier, the author Christopher Steele, reported he was on the pay rom of the fbi. I want to know if that is the case . Im not able to provide an answer to you. Did the fbi present the dossier to the fisa court . Im not able to answer that. Do you know if the fbi did the established process protocol in evaluating claims made in the dossier . Im not able to answer that. On january 6th, then fbi directors james comey, briefed president elect trump up in new york about the dossier. Shortly thereafter, that the fact that meeting took place and the subject of the meeting was the dossier was leaked to cnn. Do you know who leaked that information . I do not. Are you investigating who leaked that information . That would be a matter within the invest gaer to powers. You a number of investigations going on regarding leaks. Is that one of them youre investigating . Im not able to reveal the existence of investigations or not. I appreciate your service in the senate, i appreciate your service at the Justice Department. Consider you a friend. And frankly i appreciate yesterdays letter saying you were considering appointing a special counsel. That you sent us. But my concern is we sent you a letter three and a half months ago asking for a Second Special counsel and if youre now just considering it, i whats it going to take to get a special counsel . We know that we know that former fbi director james comey misled the American People in the summer of 2016 when he called the clinton investigation a matter. Obviously an investigation. We know fbi director comey was drafting an exoneration letter before the investigation was complete and Loretta Lynch one day before the benghazi report came out, five days before secretary clinton was scheduled to be interviewed by the fbi met with bill clinton on a tarmac in fee mix. We know after that meeting when she was corresponding with Public Relations people at the Justice Department, she was using the name elizabeth carlisle. As ive said before, seems to me if youre just talking golf and grandkids you can probably use your real name. We know that mr. Comey publicized the investigation and we know he made the final decision whether to prosecute or not. And then when he gets fired he leaks a government document through a friend to the New York Times and what was his goal . To create momentum for a special counsel and it cant just be any special counsel its got to be bob mueller his best friend predecessor and meantor the sam bob mueller who was involved with the informant regarding russian businesses wanting to do business with the uranium business in the United States regarding the uranium one deal. So i guess my main question is whats it going to take if all of that, not to mention the dossier information, whats it going to take to actually get a special counsel . It would take a factual basis that meets the standards of the appointment of a special counsel. Is that is that analysis going on right now . Its in the manual of the department of justice about whats required. Weve only had two. The first one was the waco janet reno senator danforth who took over that investigation as special counsel and mr. Mueller. Each of those are pretty special factual situations. Let me ask it this way we will use the proper standards and thats the only thing i can tell you, mr. Jordan. I appreciate you can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it needs meets the standard required a special counsel. Well, we know one fact we know the clinton campaign, the Democrat National committee, paid for through the law firm paid for the dossier. We know that happened. It sure looks like the fbi was paying the author of that document and it sure looks like a Major Political party was working with the federal government to then turn an Opposition Research document the equivalent of some national enchoir ir story into an intelligence document take that to the fisa court they could then get a warrant to spy on Americans Associated with President Trumps campaign. Thats what it looks like. Doesnt that warrant in addition to the things we know about james comey in 2016 doesnt that warrant naming a Second Special counsel as 20 members of the committee wrote you asking you to do . Well, mr. Comey is no longer the director of the fbi. Thank goodness. We have an excellent man of integrity and ability in chris wray and he will do an outstanding job and im happy hes not here today, attorney general sessions you are im asking the time of the gentleman expired. Looks like not enough basis to appoint a special counsel. Time has expired. The gentleman in georgia for five minutes. Thank you. General, you have led a remarkable and notable career over the last 42 years as an attorney in private practice, as the attorney general of alabama. Then the u. S. Attorney in alabama. Later the u. S. Senator of alabama. And now the attorney general of the United States of america. And you made a professional judgment call when you recused yourself from the investigation of the russian interference in the 2016 elections and youve caught a lot of flack for that decision. What i want to know is, why did you recuse yourself . Well, thank you very much. I told the senate Judiciary Committee when i was confirmed that i would evaluate those matters, i would seek the counsel of the senior ethics advis adviser why did you recuse yourself . I will get there. I dont want you to filibuster. I did do that. I evaluated that. They showed me something i was not familiar with, one of the code of federal regulations, that says if you participate in a substantial role in a campaign, a department of justice employee should not participate in investigating that campaign. All right. Thank you. I felt that was correct. It was not because i had any concern about anything i had done previously. But it with was to me, if i were not bound by that, i dont see how other people in the department of justice could be expected to follow the rules of the department either. Well thank you, sir. And after you recused yourself you did participate in the firing of the fbi director who was leading the investigation into the russian interference with the 2016 elections. Prior to jim comeys termination, were you contacted by the donald Trump Administration, anyone in that administration, donald trump himself, or any of his political or campaign officials, about their quest to fire jim comey . I am not able to and cannot reveal conversations with the president of the United States or his top advisors. Let me ask you this question, with regards to the at t proposed acquisition of time warner, which owns cnn, it appears to be a vertical merger, much like the comcast Nbc Universal merger that doj approved. But unlike its treatment of comcast Nbc Universal, doj has suggested strongly that it will not approve the at t time warner merger unless time warner sells off cnns Parent Company turner broadcasting. Its well known that your boss, President Trump, has great disdain for cnn, which he calls fake news. And what i want to know is, has the white house or any individual in or on behalf of the Trump Administration or the trump Political Team or campaign, excluding staff from fcc or doj, has anybody contacted you, your office, or your assigns regarding that at t time Warner Acquisition . First, i would say that i dont accept and cannot accept the accuracy of that news report. We have a professional your department has not told time warner and at t they must shed turner broadcasting . Our work the report . Our work is professional. They do meet that is a false report or true report . I just would tell you, i dont think its im able to accept as accurate a news report. I get you. That has come out on that. On october 18th, when testifying before the senate Judiciary Committee, senator sass asked you if the department had taken adequate action to prevent election meddling in the future. You stated there was no review under way of the Cyber Security vulnerabilities. Have you requested a review of what laws need to be updated in order to protect our elections from foreign influence . We have discussed those matters but no completion has been done. Ru why conducting a review at this time . Yes. Our team is looking at that. The fbi has real skills in that area. What individual i think were not anywhere near where i would like us to be yet. Let me ask you this question, what individual with your department is leading that inquiry . We would be working with our Voting Rights section, our criminal section, our National Security section, probably is the most knowledgeable and the hacking and area as well as the expertise in the fbi. Time of the gentleman has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney general, first of all i want to thank you for all your efforts to restore the rule of law. Nothing could be more important to our Justice System and nothing could be more important to protecting the lives of americans and frankly not just protecting the lives but keeping all americans safe. In particular, many of us appreciate your efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities that blatantly ignore federal immigration laws, to combat criminal gangs that prey on our communities, to return to robust prosecutions of drug cases, to protect children from dangerous child predators, and to safeguard ril lus liberties enlined in our constitution. I would like to go back to sanctuary cities, i have been waiting 20 years for a president an administration that would enforce current immigration laws. So happens that i introduced a bill in 1996 with senator al simpson and that among other things outlawed sanctuary cities. So the law is there and i want to thank you for being willing to enforce that law which will protect many innocent americans from harm and perhaps save their lives. More generally, i would like to ask you if you feel that there are any immigration laws and if so which ones that need to be better enforced . There absolutely are. And maybe even some improved. I know youve worked on that and the chairman has worked on that with some extent legislation. Totally believe that the professional legislation. I know the chairman has worked on and youve worked on would be tremendously helpful. Weve got to deal with numbers and so when you create a mecca nism by which mechanism by which whole we had 5,000 people in 2005 who claimed a credible fear last year it was 95,000. This is creating hearings and backlogs that were never intended to be part of the system. Did not happen before. And so theres so many things out there that burden our Law Enforcement officers, make it more difficult, more expensive, more lengthy, to complete these things. We just got to make up our mind. Weve got to make up our mind, do we want a lawful system of immigration that serves the National Interests or do we want open borders and were not going to enforce it. Thank you for your leadership, mr. Smith. I know youll be leaving this body also and ive enjoyed so much the honor of working with you. Thank you, mr. Attorney general. Im not going to ask any questions and im going to end with that, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you. The chair thanks the gentleman. We will take a break, attorney general sessions, so the committee will stand in recess for ten minutes. Thank you. Im kate baldwin and you have been listening to what has been a firey and fascinating hearing between attorney general Jeff Sessions before the house Judiciary Committee. There is a lot to go through here. Kaitlyn huey burns is here and justice correspondent justin perez. Mark preston and chief legal analyst jeffrey tube in here with me. We have been watching this. Say that again, control room . We have been watching this play out together. Hey there, jeffrey. Nice to see you popping up right there. Lets start with you. Give me your take. It has been fascinating so far. On the big question of his prior testimony and the facts that have come out subsequently that showed his prior testimony was inaccurate, he said look, i didnt remember the other meetings. I didnt remember the meetings with George Papadopoulos. Whats peculiar about that is he said he didnt remember meeting papadopoulos, but he does remember telling papadopoulos not to engage with the russians. That seems somewhat contradictory, but his defense as it were of his prior testimony is look, i was a busy guy and the campaign was chaotic and i didnt remember everything. People can evaluate that as they wish. That happened a bit ago. This is the first time they are answering questions in light of the news of the papadopoulos meeting that that Foreign Policy adviser meeting. Lets play that moment. Lets listen to that. I had no recollection of this meeting until i saw the news reports. I do now recall that the march 2016 meeting at the trump hotel that mr. Papadopoulos attended. I have no clear recollection of the details of what he said at that meeting. After reading his account and to the best of my recollection, i believe that i wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the russian government or any other Foreign Government for that matter. I did not recall this event that occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago. I would gladly have reported it had i remembered it. I pushed back. Thats exactly what you were talking about. He said he seemed surprised they would expect him to remember a meeting that happened 18 months ago. Isnt that expected of witnesses on the stand all the time . Of course. 18 months ago is not 18 years ago. Its fairly recent as these things go. Its important to remember that when he was asked questions about the Trump Campaigns interactions with russia which is obviously something that has gotten a lot of attention over the past few months, when al franken asked him about it, he was categorical in saying he was unaware of any connections, any negotiations, any conversations between people regarding the Trump Campaign and russia. And here wa he now remembers is that he told George Papadopoulos dont get involved with the russians. All of us had recollections refreshed by news. There is nothing sinister about that. What is peculiar is going from a very categorical statement to a new statement that is equally categorical and quite different from the first. All categorically important in some regard. Let me bring in evan perez for more on this. One of the very important moments, lets play it before we discuss. Where Jeff Sessions has been accused by some members of perjury and lying since his confirmation hearing in january and the subsequent hearings. Today he said i did not lie. This is sound byte two. I have been asked to remember details from a year ago such as who i saw on what day and what meeting and who said what and when. In all of my testimony i can only do my best to answer your questions as i understand them and to the best of my memory. I will not accept and reject accusations that i have ever lied. That is a lie. Let me be clear. I have at all times conducted myself honorably. He goes on and on to talk about it. He tried his best to, but if he was still in congress, he would have a very hard time with any witness who behaved the way he is behaving. The problem for him is that its not just one problem of recollection, but if you remember during his testimony before he got confirmed, he was asked about any meetings and so on. He did not bring up any of the meetings he had with the former Russian Ambassador here in washington. That was the beginning. Im going to cut you off. We have tape from President Trump aboard air force one. Lets listen. A fantastic job. Its been a great trip. Its also been good in terms of north korea and getting everyone together. We are all together. China has been excellent. Japan and south korea have been excellent. Thats a very important part of the trip. The other important part is relationships. The fit beans is unbelievably important. If you speak to the admirals and the generals, thats a perfect spot. We had no relationship a long period of time with the philippines and we have a Good Relationship there. We are back with them. We have the most important strategic location in that area. We had a great time and i hope you guys are all okay. You all look well. We will be around later. A lot of people are asking and i will tell you when i heard about it two days ago, i had a great conversation with president xi. What they did was unfortunate. You are talk talking about long prison sentences. They dont play games. He was terrific and theyre working on it right now. Hopefully everything is going to work out. I know they are grateful because they were told exactly what happened. Its a very, very rough situation with what happened to them. He has been terrific. President xi has been terrific on that subject. Its not a good subject. Not something that should have happened. Go rest. We might know on thursday or wednesday at the white house . We will go into details of what i said. Deals and concepts and will be pinpointing things. Its minimum 3 300 million. That will be over a trillion. Thats the least significant thing. One of the things we really accomplish side relationships and letting people know things will be reciprocal. We cant have trade deficits in the case of china. We cant do that. We have to have reciprocal trade. Whats good for them is good for us. Why is it so important and is there a risk of getting too close some. Relationship is always important. Its really a relationship based on respect. To me a relationship based on respect is much more important than anything else including friendship. This is something they have to respect our country and they have not respected our country for a long period of time. Thank you very much. A quick review as he makes his way back to washington, d. C. He wants to make that on wednesday tomorrow with regard to north korea trade and his train. I do not want to miss the big moments we have been watching play out in the house Judiciary Committee with attorney general Jeff Sessions this morning as he has been facing a grilling and tough questions about his past testimony and current news that is happening right now. Let me go to monty who is on the hill and listening to all of this. Your twitter feed has been to watch. You have been capturing every important moment coming out. What is the highlight for you. Where is Jeff Sessions going to need to face more questions when they return . I do not recall a number of key episodes that happened in the Campaign Contacts that occurred with russian officials. Those are come exclusively from democrats. Republicans in particular have been steering clear of these issues about trump and russia. This has been mostly democrats exclusively pushing him on the key issues. He is making sure he doesnt get into jeopardy by saying i dont discuss Michael Flynn or i dont recall discussions like that happening. Thats an effort to make sure he doesnt get trap and say he doesnt have these conversations and later revealed he did. I asked the top democrat on the house Judiciary Committee if he has concerns about Jeff Sessionss testimony. He said maybe Jeff Sessions is getting old. He is being candid and doesnt recall these things. Im not sure democrats are giving him the benefit of the doubt. The age defense. That plays out with many other senators who are getting up there in age