Thats it for us at this hour. We are picking up with inside politics. Welcome to inside politics. Im dana bash for john king. Attorney general Jeff Sessions is in the hottest of hot seats on capitol hill facing an unrelenting house judiciary on the democratic side, that is. About holes and errors in his previous testimonies. They are in a break right now, but we will join it as soon as they come back. I want to give you all a look at what he has been up against. Three times the attorney general neglected to disclose information saying he was not aware of contacts. We learned that two advisers did tell sessions about contact with russia during the campaign. Today he veamentially rejected the accusation that he lied. He offered this explanation for lapses in his memory. Most of you have not participated in a president ial campaign and none of you had a part in the Trump Campaign. It was a Brilliant Campaign, i think, in many ways, but it was a form of chaos every day from day one. We traveled sometimes to several places in one day. Sleep was in short supply and i was still a full time senator with a very full schedule. During this year i spent close to 20 hours testifying before congress before today. 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. 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. Here to share their reporting and insights of the new york times. Molly ball with time magazine. Bloomberg and Mary Katherine hamm with the federalist. Wie are waiting for them to come back after a short break. What a morning. You sort of have the sense of these two major forces colliding. The collected weight of the reporting that on the russia story combined with the mueller revelations from the guilty plea of papadopoulos to the indictment of manafort. That is colliding with Jeff Sessionss testimony over the past six, seven, eight months which at times has been at odds with all of that. This is an attempt, clunky as the political system is to try to reconcile the differences. What he said is i kind of forgot. Thats the boil down and the essence of his testimony. He couldnt remember. Jeff sessions is sitting down. We are going to wait for him to start. As we do, molly, your thoughts . How credible you find Jeff Sessions depends on how many of these contacts come to light. If he said he met with a ton of ambassadors and its reported as a senator he had not had much involvement and in his role they were getting up to speed, but when it happens again and again, you have to wonder. We will go back to the hearing room. General sessions, who do you work for . The American People or the president of the United States . Im a member of the executive branch and i work for the American People. Its with that in mind, your work on behalf of the American People that i want to ask you questions about facts and public media reports. On february 14th, the president asked fbi director about the Flynn Investigation and i quote, he said i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go. To letting flynn go. Hes a good guy and i hope you can let this go. Closed quote. On may 9th, the president fired comey. On may 11th, he went on television and announced he fired comey because of and i quote, the russia thing with trump and russia. Closed quote. General sessions, do you think it would be reasonable for the members of this committee to conclude that the president by first interfering in one investigation and then interfering in an investigation into himself committed obstruction of justice . I dont believe thats a fair conclusion. Its a matter i guess in the rest of the special counsel. And obstruction justice among others being in statue that endeavors to influence the obstructor, the obstruction of justice, thats exactly what the president did in both of those cases. In spite of moving on to the special counsel, you brought up in spite of efforts, bipartisan efforts to protect the special counsel, the Republican Leadership and we refused to take action to make sure he is protected. Do you believe the president has the authority to fire special counsel mueller . Im not able to express an opinion on that. Can he fire members of the team . Im not able to answer that. General sessions, do you believe the president should have the authority to block investigations into his own campaign. They have to be conducted by the appropriate officers without fear and favor and without politics or bias. Without fear of being dism s dismissed by the president to block that investigation, buzz because again that would appear to represent obstruction of justice. When you fail to acknowledge that, its like the president to do that. I wanted to talk about the special counsels investigation. Thus far there are indictments and a guilty plea. Does the president have the power to pardon George Papadopoulos . That are would be premature to comment on that i believe. Because . The president has power to pardon. No doubt about that. Does he have the power to pardon Paul Manafort and rick gates ahead of trial and a conviction . Im not able to comment on that. I arent researched that question. I think its settled, but what do you think the set of laws are . I dont know. Does he have the power to pardon michael flynn. Does he have the power to pardon family members like donald trump jr. For among other things being in contact with wikileaks . Could he make the pardons today before there is anything further that comes from it . I would not be able to answer that with any authority. General sessions, you said that you are the American Peoples lawyers. You are not recused from giving answers and you are not comfortable giving answers. Heres the problem we have. You said when you started the testimony there is nothing more important than advancing the rule of law. When you answer the way you have, it suggests that the rule of law is crumbling at our feet. You took an oath to uphold the constitution. We took that oath. While members in the majority may choose to advocate with regard to the very important matters, you cannot and the interference, what you have told us today in just this exchange, what we should be concerned about is another saturday night massacre if you cant tell us the president shouldnt fire or can fire the special counsel and everyone who works for him. We should be worried if you are telling us the president may be able to pardon in advance all of those who are being investigated. We should be worried about the pursuit of the rule of law. General sessions, again, we may in this committee. The time of the general has expired. One of the things if you respect the rule of law, the attorney general should not be giving legal opinions from the seat of his britches. You need to be careful about that. Thats what im saying to you today. I do appreciate that, but these are not new issues that require you to give opinion from the rule of your britches. Im over here on this side. Pursuant to a warrant there is a wire tap conversation that is seized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and one person is a Foreign Agent and the other an american citizen. Is the release of the information regarding who the american citizen is and or the conversation of the american citizen a violation of federal law . I believe it is. If somebody releases that information maybe factual distinctions. Its hypothetical. Somebody releases the information of the name of that person and or the information contained by that person, that is a federal offense. It could be a federal offense. Has anybody been prosecuted under your regime for doing that whether its in the white house or some other Government Agency where we hear about leaks of classified information. Are you prosecuting anybody for that . For release of fisaobtained information . Release of the conversation by the american that is classified information. Has your department investigated anybody for that . I cannot confirm or deny the existence. Are you prosecuting anybody . Nobody is under indictments although we have four indictments of leaks of classified information. We will continue to press those cases. Good. We want to talk about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Secret courts issuing secret warrants to get information on terrorists overseas. Thats generally the purpose of the fisa law and fisa courts. Thats not a perfect summary. Thats the substance to it. Its too short. We know we cant trust the nsa. James clapper testified in 2o 13 that the nsa was not spying on americans and all of a sudden this guy name issd snowden showp and i dont like him and think he should be prosecuted, but the American Public was being spied on by the nsa. Part of that gives the nsa authority to seize information like emails, text messages, communications by these bad guys, Foreign Agents or terrorists overseas to collect their information to make sure that america is safe. During that process as you know, incidental information, information on americans, who they are, and what the conversations may be is also seized. Nsa said thats incidental information. Thats my understanding that the Justice Department is opposed to the usa liberty act which would require that before government goes into that information on americans where they are not the target. The target is terrorists. They go into the information on americans. There has to be a warrant signed by a real judge that states probable cause before that information can be seized. My understanding is that the Justice Department under your leadership is opposed to that warrant requirement. Is that correct . That is absolutely correct. Your former judge a would be judge. A wannabe judge. Im a former judge too. You dont think probable cause and a warrant is required to go into that information that is first of all the seizure is done by government without a warrant. It is seized already. Before it can be searched, you also dont require or believe that a warrant should be required by any court to go into that information. Well im asking the same question. The courts have so helped. Im not asking that question. I agree with the courts, not you, congressman, on that. You get lawfully dont you im reclaiming my time. You agree with the courts and not me. Let me tell you something. It is the responsibility of congress to set the privacy standard for americans. My personal opinion and i think the constitution supports it that before government can go in and seize something and then search it on an american citizen that is incidental to the search on the target. Government should get a warrant. That is spying on americans. We know we cant trust the nsa to keep from doing that. Is that data ever destroyed on americans . Or is it kept forever . It definitely has a limited time span and i think its five years. Americans shouldnt be concerned that information is being collected and you dont have any say so . The time has expired. We recognize the chairman for five minutes. I think i have a solution that can allow the committee to move on to other Important National matters like gun control and immigration. Your side clearly wants an investigation of Hillary Clinton and our side has been begging to hold hearings and start an investigation of the Trump Administration and campaigns improper ties to mr. Putin and russian government. The american taxpayers can save money by eliminating the need for the investigation. We should ask them both to resign. I will go to Hillary Clinton and you can go to donald trump and them both to resign and move on from an election that never seems to end. I did google organizations that Hillary Clinton leads. It came out zero. Im not sure what you are going to get her to resign from. She doesnt appear to be in charge of everything. She got three million more votes than donald trump, but she lost the election. Why dont we move on and look at the nation. I would like to ask you, you said earlier it was a Brilliant Campaign referring to the donald Trump Campaign. Is it true . It was a remarkable thing. In campaigns, candidates make promises during campaigns. You think candidates should fulfill the promises they make during campaigns . People make a lot of promises. You said it was a Brilliant Campaign. As a member of the cabinet of President Trump do you feel an obligation to fulfill those promises when he asked you to come on. Did you think you should fulfill them . The attorney general should enforce the law first and foremost. He said he wanted your help on the muslim ban and immigration issues. He makes decisions and if itsa lawful, we defend it. If its lawful. I like that. If its lawful. You said it was a remarkable and Brilliant Campaign. He said during the second debate if i win, i will center instruct my attorney general, that would be you, to get a special prosecutor to look into the situation referring to Hillary Clinton. There has never been so many lies, so much deception. When Hillary Clinton responded she said because you would be in jail. Are you going to fulfill that promise he made in the second debate. He said he would ask the attorney general. Thats what he said. Quote. I didnt make it up. Are you going to keep that Campaign Promise . I will fulfill my responsibilities. You going to keep the Campaign Promise . Yes or no . Its a promise from your boss that he hired you to fulfill. We will comply with the law with regard to special prosecutor appointments. You going to appoint one as he promised during the campaign . He reminded you a couple of times in a few of his tweets that thats what he wants. I will fulfill my duty as attorney general. A big smile on your face, but you are not going to fulfill his promises. I hope you dont in this particular case so im happy with your answer up until now. Mr. Attorney general, im going to ask you another serious question and i would like to go back to the beginning of the hearing and get you to answer the following question. Are you aware that you are under oath and your answers must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Im aware of that. I brought this salt shaker and you forgive me if i put a little bit of doubt into that answer and remind myself that i might need this. I ask unanimous consent that this article from mother jones magazine saying three times Jeff Sessions made false sessions under oath to congress. I ask this because i dont want to hear in a few days or a few weeks that your answers, mr. Attorney general have changed based on newly uncovered evidence that what you told us before was in fact false, misleading, or something other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I ask unanimous consent. Part of the record. Under oath in the senate, you said as a surrogate, a time or two for the Trump Campaign you did not have communication with russians, but in march it was revealed you did. Did you have Campaign Communications with the russians . It appears you have had Campaign Communications with the russians, mr. Attorney general. That is i would like to respond to that. I thought i had the paper right here. Surely i do. Here it is. Mr. Chairman, i would like to respond. Senator franken asked me this question. Okay, cnn has just published a story and im telling you about a new story that has just been published. Im not expecting you know whether or not its true, but cnn just published a story alleging that the Intelligence Community of the United States of america, the Intelligence Community provided documents to the president elect last week that included information that, quote, russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and Financial Information about mr. Trump, closed quote. These documents allegedly say, quote, there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trumps surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government, closed quote. He goes on to say im telling you this is coming out, but if its true its obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump Campaign communicated with the russian government over the course of this campaign, what will you do . I was taken aback by this. I never heard this happen while i was testifying. I said senator franken, im not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate a time or two in the campaign and i didnt have communications with the russians and im unable to comment on it. You are not going to correct that today . My answer was responsive to his charge about a continuing do you want to correct it . The time of the gentlemen has expired. The attorney general can answer the question. I appreciate the opportunity to share it. My focus was on responding to the concern that i as a surrogate was participating in a continuing series of meetings with intermeetiaries for the russian government. I didnt mean i never met a russian in the history of my life. I didnt think it was responsive in my response was according to the way i heard the question as honestly i could give it at the time. I hope you will treat me fairly when you evaluate that. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from pennsylvania. Mr. Marino for five minutes. Thank you, chairman. Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. Im going to ask you questions because i am the chairman of the re regulatory subcommittee on judiciary. This is now surfacing more so than it ever has in the past. Justice departments role is very critical in antitrust issues to determine whether there is an antitrust violation. I understand that the Justice Departments position on the at t merger will require divestment of some assets. Behavioral conditions have been used in vertical mergers since they pose a lesser danger to competition than horizontal mergers. Is the Structural Condition in vertical mergers a policy for doj at this point . Antitrust policy is important. I never have been an expert at it. It was one subcommittee of the judiciary i never chose to be a part of. We have an experienced team in the department of justice. We do try to handle each case professionally. We have the chief of the antitrust division and im not able to announce any new policies at this time, congressman. Will there be a discussion concerning vertical and horizontal mergers when it comes to the socalled term behavioral conditions where two companies that emerge may have to divest and could there be future discussion as to when this behavioral condition would be implemented . The vertical and horizontal issue is something that has been part of the discussion. I dont think its any final decision, but im really not able at this time to comment on anything that would be part of an ongoing matter. I understand. I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to not attempt to answer that. Im going to switch to youhu trafficking. As a u. S. Attorney, we handled very heart breaking and very severe situations concerning human trafficking. I know thaw understand like i understand the challenges involved there. What can you can you tell me what doj has done in upping the prosecutions and the investigations for antitrafficking . We believe strongly that we can do even more. Its been a priority for a number of years. I was recently in the minnesota u. S. Attorneys office and they had a Major International case and i was surprised how much money was involved. Almost as much as drug dealers may make. We had a recent report of our people meeting with the child exportation group. My associate attorney General Number three, rachel brand is interested in this and i empo r empowered her to be engaged in advancing our efforts in this regard. She is enthusiastically responding to that. For i may make a suggestion as well, several years ago, we in the middle district of pennsylvania prosecuted one of the biggest sex trafficking cases on the east coast. Obviously and for the most part involving women and very young girls. We had a good conviction. People went away for 30 or 40 years. One of the areas that we have to help more with the victims is the protection side of things. Of course during investigation and during the trial, but subsequent to the convictions that these people are and these women and children are not forgotten. There are protections to keep them from anybody else attempting to do what has been done in the past. I thank you so very much for your service to us and i yield back. Thank you for your service. The gentle woman from california ms. Bass for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair. Between 1956 and 1971 the fbi ran a Counter Intelligence program initiated by j. Edgar hoover. It is commonly understood this was an abuse of surveillance power in a manner to suppress a peaceful movement. I would like to ask mr. Chair unanimous consent to enter this report into the record. Its black identity extremist likely to target Law Enforcement officers. I believe earlier you said you were not familiar with the report . I havent read it. I know some of the alleged targeting of officers. I would like to know and i will ask you that in a minute. You are somewhat familiar with it. Who had the power in your department to order a report like this . Im not sure how that report got ordered. I dont believe i approved it or directed it. You havent necessarily read the report, but you are familiar with the term black identity extremist . I think so, yes. Can you tell me what it means to you. Do you believe there is a movement of africanamericans that identify themselves as black identity extremists and what does that movement do . It will be interesting to see the conclusions, but i am aware that there are groups that do have an extraordinary commitment to the racial identity. Some transformed themselves into violent activists. You aware of White Organizations that do this as well. Given the movements such as the neonazis, are they white . I didnt follow that question. Sorry there a term or a report on white identity extremists . You mentioned you were familiar with black people who identify with the racial identity. Yes, but its not coming to me at this moment. Not coming to you . Certainly a group such as the ku klux klan. And the skin head movement, but there is a racial identity white movements. Has the fbi done a report on white identity extremists targeted to Law Enforcement officers . Im not aware of that. Are you aware of a group called the sovereign citizens . I heard that group, yes. I believe its a White Organization that absolutely has targeted Police Officers and killed Police Officers. You are not aware of that . Im not aware of their crimes, but i know they are known to have violent tendenci s tendencies. Can you name an africanamerican organization that have committed violence against Police Officers. Can you name one today that targeted Police Officers in a violent manner . I believe i could, but i would want to confirm that and submit it to you in writing. I believe we had within the last year or so four Police Officers killed by a group that some have described as extremists. So what happened is there have been a couple of incidences in which africanamericans did kill Police Officers were not associated with a black organization. One, for example, in baton rouge was associated with sovereign citizens which is primarily a white group. There is a lot of concern in the community from organizations such as black lives matter. By the way, would you consider a black lives matter an Extremist Group . Im not able to comment on that. I have not so declared it. You should know that a lot of activists around the country are concerned that we are getting ready to repeat a very sat chd t chapter where people rightfully protesting what they perceive as ingestis as a relationship with Police Officers are being targeted and labeled as extremists and going through periods of surveillance and harassment. What is your Department Going to do to protect the rights of average citizens to protest if they have a concern about Police Officers. This department will not unlawfully target people. If thats the case then, i would ask that you review this report, black identity extremists motivated to target Law Enforcement officers because i dont believe they exist. The organizations that are referred to in this report are organizations from decades ago. I would like to know what will you do to essentially roll back what is listed in this report . Its not accurate. We will look at the report. I would be interested in reading it. They usually do an excellent job on those kinds of reports. Time of the gentle woman expired. Mr. Gowdy for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman and attorney general. I want to cover a couple of area, but i want to start with something important to me and important to all people this this country of good conscious. Irrespective of political ideation and thats the independence of the department of justice. In my judgment, 2016 and 2017 have been challenging years for the department of justice. The decision to charge someone carries with it multiple layers of review. There is a grand jury and a trial judge and post trial motions. There is Appellate Courts and courts of habeas corpus and the media and then congress. The decision not to charge someone does not carry with it the same corresponding layers of review. But in some instances its every bit as important to understand why they didnt do something and why prosecutors did not do something. Im not interested in relitig e relitigating the fbis decision not to charge secretary clinton. That decision is made and explaineded and im not interested in relitigating it. Im interested in reviewing with respect to the department of justice. There was a time when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were interested in having these questions answered as well. It wasnt a year ago that some of my democratic friends wanted jim comey investigated and prosecuted for a violation 12 months ago. That was absurd then and absurd now, but whats not absurd is when my democratic colleagues asked why did you decide to publicize one investigation, but not another. Why did you decide to appropriate a decision away from the Justice Department which is very unusual for the head of the fbi to serve as both the investigator and decision maker. Like republicans wanted to know did you reach your conclusions before the end of the investigation . Did you make decisions whether to charge or not to charge before you interviewed all of the witnesses . These are questions that to me go to the core of whether or not the department can be respected separate and aside from politics. I get that certain departments are just inherently political, but the differently justice should not be. So i tell you that up front. The chairman and i are going to be looking into the decisions made in 2016 and 2017. I think i can speak for him and know i can speak for myself. My motivation is a love for that department. A love for the concept of line justice that doesnt care whether its an even numbered year or ought. Including the decision write a public letner october of last year and follow that up with another public letter in november. Those are legitimate questions and i hope they will cooperate with respect to makes witnesses available, but what was made and not made to restore trust, whether they agreed with the decisions or not at least understand why they were made. To find out why it was appropriate for the president. The Inspector General make public their investigation. Several that involve the fbi are under full intense review by the Inspector General and perhaps they can under their rules of disclosure, perhaps you can inquire about how thats ongoing. Im not able to give the details to you at this time. Thats a serious matter in my response to the chairman of yesterday. You are right, at some point he is going to let Congress Know what they found. Thats a responsibility to also look into it. When asked whether or not it was appropriate for the president to weigh in on an Ongoing Investigation, the answer is no. It is not appropriate. Its not appropriate in 2017 and it wasnt appropriate when president obama did it and the irs targeting scandal and when president obama did it in the Ongoing Investigation into Hillary Clintons server. It is never appropriate for a president to tell a department of justice what out come they should reach. I wish my friends on the other side had the same outrage when president obama did it as now. This will be my last question to you. You are nominated by a president. You are approved by a senate and you work for a virtue and a blind folded Woman Holding a set of scales. Thats what makes our culture different. How do you restore peoples trust, republicans and democrats, confidence in a department of justice when it seems like different rules apply depending on who is in power. Thats a good and important question. We intend to do our work according to the established principals of the department of justice. We will not be infectied by politics or bias. We will make only decisions that are right and just and not going to use the department to unlawfully advance political agenda. We are going to enforce the laws of this country effectively as Congress Passed them. I am determined that when the years go by and people will say this department of justice did not crumble. It stayed firm and true to the great principals that i was taught in the 15 years i served in the department of justice. 2. 5 as an assistant and 12 as u. S. Attorney and looking up to the attorney general is somehow so far removed from me that it was beyond recognition. Now im in that position and i think i understand the gravity of it. I think i understand the importance of responding to your question. We will do our best. The gentlemen from louisiana, mr. Richmond for five minutes. Mr. General, i have the honor of serving as chair of the congestion of black caucus. You were not there and if you are not aware i am telling myself, i testified against your nomination and i did so because i was afraid we would go back to a time when discrimination was rampant and diversity was not appreciate and that the right to vote for minorities and africanamericans would be further more obstacles would be set up. I listen to your Opening Statement and listen to your remarks. You talked about voter id. The vc case which in texas ruled that the texas voter identification law had discriminatory portions against africanamericans. The District Court ruled that way. The Appellate Court confirmed that ruling and you withdraw from the case after two courts ruled that it was discriminatory. How does that mesh and argued on the side of texas. How does that mesh with the right to make sure that africanamericans had unfettered access to the voting . Congressman, the way that happened was that texas passed a voter id law that the coweurts d not approve and struck down. Election was coming up, i believe. The Court Approved a voter id procedure that they approved for that election. The Texas Legislature then repealed the previous law that had been found to be unconstitutional or improper. They passed the that the Court Approved. We felt that the voter id law has been approved. A proper voter id law is constitutional and we believe that is constitutional and thats why the position was changed. And also in judging the department of justice, in terms of nominating judges to the bench, our information tells us out of all the judges that have been nominated, i think 91 have been white males. Does that foster diversity . Im not aware of the numbers. You should look for quality candidates and diversity is a matter that has significance. The National Bar Association has recommended a number of africanamerican and other minority attorneys who are qualified. Let me ask you and if you dont know the answer, just let me know that you will get me the information. How many africanamericans are on your senior staff . I do not have senior staff member at this time thats an africanamerican. In alabama, i participate in recommending an African American judge and had judges before. We are talking about this administration though. Of all of the u. S. Attorneys that have been nominated or confirmed, how many have been africanamerican . One in alabama that i have recommended that i knew. I believe he has been confirmed. I believe its only that one. Of all of the agencies in all of the buries, how many are africanamerican . I do not know. Will you get that for me. For a lot of people who objectively look from the back like i do and many people where i live, the question is whether we are going towards inclusion and diversity or going back. I applaud the president for his approach to the Opioid Epidemic which everyone in this room is concerned about. We are losing over 100 people a day. Your decision to reverse the smart on Crime Initiative goes back to the tough on crime and you specifically said you wanted u. S. Attorneys to charge and pursue the most provable offenses and sentences. With opioids, we are treating it as a Mental Health crisis. Is it because of who the Opioid Crisis is affecting as opposed to crack. Our answer was mandatory and minimum sentences. The question is how does an outside observer reconcile how we treated crack that led to mass incarceration which now we are losing thousands and thousands of people a year. We are treating it with hugs and kisses and treatment as opposed to tough on crime, lock them up. How do i reconcile that and not conclude that the only difference is race and income . I would say that the federal cou court focus is on serious offenders and not users. We talk about drug cartel s and Distribution Networks and gangs and ms 13. We focus aggressively on that. The psn on ninvigorated crime problem focuses more and i have been convinced of this, on leading criminals in a neighborhood. The federal government will not seek mass incarceration so much as we will be focusing on identifying the people who really are the driving force. Maybe sucking other young people into crime that would never have been brought in if not for the leadership on drive. It worked in new york and other agencies and i think it will work here. I would note that the average federal sentence in the last three or four years dropped 19 . Woe are beginning to see a spike in homicides the likes of which we havent seen since the 1960s. The gentlemen has expired and the chair recognizes the gentlemen from texas for five minutes. Thank you for being here. Before i got to congress i was a computer consultant so i sometimes dive into the nerdier end of things. Encouraging the dnc servers is back into the news recently. My question is can you tell us if anyone at the doj, fbi or any other federal Law Enforcement agency has been able to take a look and forensically determine who hacked the computer whether it was the russians or anyone else . You said the dnc . Im not able to comment on that. Its an Ongoing Investigation. I appreciate that. We talked a little bit today about the fisa court and 702 and surveillance. One of the things i dont think has been completely answered is why does the doj think its problematic to require a warrant from the fisa court or any court before accessing or disseminating the consents of communications that are not related to foreign intelligence that deal with american citizens . The way maybe i should explain this. When you have a warrant or you have a surveillance on a foreign individual that may be connected to terrorism or any foreign individual, you listen to who they talk to. If they call an american and you have a terrorist on the phone in syria, you want to know who the american is. The usa liberty act includes exceptions for more thanes and individuals who are believed to be engaged in International Terrorism or furthering their goals. Im not sure i understand. This is an exception for dealing with emergencies and people who are believed to be terrorists. Let me say this. If we get a lawful intercept from a federal judge of a mafia person in new york, he is not likely to be talking to many people not in the United States. We are listening to the conversations and the people he talks to and the american citizens. If they talk about a crime, you can use that evidence against him and you dont have to have a separate warrant to access it. I hope you will think through it with me now. You lawfully obtained this information. You can do it by hand in the old days, but now the computers do much of the work for us. You know the names of the people that may be involved in this activity. You can access those records just like bank records. In any other way you would have to get a warrant to get that. The problem with the warrant is lets say this. Lets say you have information from an airport that somebody wants to learn to fly a plane, but does not want to learn how to land the plane. As we saw one time. You would be in court in a matter of hours. That are doesnt give probable cause to tap that persons phone. I have a couple of other questions. I appreciate your answer. In the last congress, we enactioned the victims of exploitation. This legislation makes it a criminal offense to advertise for the commercial sex acts. As the doj prosecutes websites they use and if not, why not . Im not sure about that, congressman. I will have to get back to you on that. I would appreciate that. Thank you. I have a couple more here. I want to take a step back and look at the big picture. Im a lawyer and went to law school and considered the attorney general to be the peoples attorney. I feel like over the past few years under previous attorney generals, they have been more of the president s attorney rather than the peoples attorney. Can you tell me what you are doing in office to restore the confidence in the American People both in the office of the attorney general and agencies like the fbi which most people used to have a high respect for, but i believe that level of respect and trust has dropped dramatically in recent times. These are serious questions. I believe as you get to know the fbi director chris wray, the director, you will find him to be a man of high intelligence and great integrity and character and capability. One of the nationss great lawyers on private practice, but many years in the department of justice as a prosecutor working with the agents. Thats one thing we have got. I can tell you i have great confidence in him. My deputy, 27 years of professional that i chose to be my premier deputy and associate attorney general likewise is a woman of highest character and Academic Excellence and experience in the department. We are setting a tone of professionalism in what we do. Thats something we need to do. Matters need to be completed. Inspector general is doing an investigation of some significant and you received a copy regarding the allegations that are there. We intend to make sure no agency of the government and not just the fbi is not following the disciplines and practices they should follow. I guess i would say watch what we do. We are not going to be driven by politics and we will do the right thing and time will show that to be true. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from new york for minutes. I have a copy of the transcript of your testimony in october. You stated under oath, i dont recall in some form or fashion 29 times. Is that correct . I have no idea. I have a copy of the transcript of your testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee. You stated i dont recall in some form or fashion approximately 36 times. Is that correct . I dont know. In your familiar today, you stated i dont recall at least 20 times, is that fair to say . I have no idea. On october 4th, during an interview with lou dobbs, you criticized Hillary Clinton for saying i cant remember approximately 35 times. You also stated during that lou dobbs interview that the intentional failure to remember can constitute perjury. Mr. Attorney general, do you still believe that the intentional failure to remember can constitute a criminal act . If its an act to deceive, yes. Now you testified in january that you had no contact with russian operatives in the Trump Campaign. Earlier today you testified that your story has, quote, has never changed. That was your story, correct . I believe thats fair to say. We have added things they did not recall at the time. My statement at the time was my best recollection of the circumstances and as things are brought up i understand. You now acknowledge a meeting with the ambassador on the Republican National convention, correct . I remember i made a speech and he came up to me afterwards and i was standing in front of the speaker and did chat with him. It was just an encounter at that time. You met with the ambassador in september of 2016 as you acknowledged . Yes, for an appointment. I had two senior staffers, both full colonels in the United States army retired. You testified in june before the Senate Intelligence committee that you had not heard even a whisper about possible russian involvement in the Trump Campaign. We understand you attended this march 31st meeting with George Papadopoulos and potential communications with russian operatives and according to your filing, you hosted a Campaign Dinner meeting on june 30th, 2016 at the Capitol Hill Club and your committee paid for the meeting . I think that may be so. Carter page and George Papadopoulos attended that meeting, correct . That has been reported. Carter page told you that he was going to moscow in a few days. Is that right . Yes. Okay. Thank you. He said it was a brief meeting as he was walking out the door. I dont recall that conversation, but im not able to dispute it. Understood. With the time i have limited does that establish some sort of improper contact . I think you understand that. He is not russian. I get to ask the question and you provide the answers. You are no longer in the u. S. Senate. You voted to remove bill clinton on offices of perjury, correct . That is correct. Other charges. I voted for impeachment, yes. I understand. To remove him. Impeachment is in the house. To remove him from office, you gave this speech on february 29th, 1999. In it you acknowledged that while serving as u. S. Attorney, you once prosecuted a young Police Officer who lied in a deposition. In that speech you decided to prosecute that young Police Officer even though he corrected his testimony. You testified under oath in january. You subsequently corrected that testimony in a march 6th written submission and have been forced repeatedly to come back to the senate and now the house to clarify. When explaining your vote on the senate floor to remove bill clinton from office, you stated that you refused to hold a president accountable to a different standard than the young Police Officer who you prosecuted. Let me be clear. The attorney general of the United States of america should not be held to a different standard than the young Police Officer whose life you ruined by prosecuting him for perjury. I yield back. The gentlemen may respond. Mr. Jeffries, nobody, nobody. Not you or anyone else should be prosecuted. Not me accused of perjury for answering the question the way i did in this hearing. I have always tried to answer the questions fairly and accurately. To ask did you ever do something or meet with russians and deal with the campaign, you are saying mr. Carter page who left that meeting according to the press reports and i guess his deposition or meeting said im going to russia. I made no response and didnt acknowledge it. You are accusing me of lying about that . I say thats not fair,