Whether there are grounds for a Criminal Investigation or an ethics investigation against the president of is the United States of america. For example, Rachel Crooks is one of the 16 women that we know of who have come forward. She said that President Trump, before he was president , quote, kissed me directly on the mouth. It was so inappropriate that he thought i was so insignificant he could do that. Jo hart, said he absolutely groped me, and he just lipid his hand there touching my private parts, end quote. These are just two examples of unwelcome sexual advances. I think were he on the subway or in a restaurant would not either or both of these incident be enough to get him arrested . In your experience as the number two most important Law Enforcement officer in the United States, but before you answer that, how about these cases . Kristin anderson in an interview said, quote, the person on my right who unbeknownst to me at the time was donald trump, put their hand up my skirt. He did touch my have aina through my underwear, end quote. Cassandra said he continually groped my ass and invited me to his hotel room. End quote. These are very serious allegations of crimes committed by the president , are they not . Before you answer the question, i think its important to point out that these stories are corroborated by one of the most important witnesses of all the president himself corroborates this. He told tv host billy bush when he was miked up for an interview with interat the same time tonight i just start kissing them. Its like a magnet, and when youre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by and you know what he said. You can do anything, end quote. Samantha hovley said on National Television when he was a contestant, trump would come back unannounced to the dressing room. She tells her story and once again, we have audiotape of the president corroborating this account when he told howard stern well, quote, ill tell you the funniest is before a show, ill go backstage and everyones getting dressed and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, but im allow to do go in, because im the owner. He went on to say the chicks will be almost naked, end quote. Mr. Rosenstein, i value your opinion on this. Would it be appropriate to evaluate these investigations by the president of the United States . Congressman, i am happy to take any questions regarding oversite of the Department Of Justice. With regard to that matter or any other allegation that you think, i would invite you to
submit the evidence and the department will review it if you believe theres a federal crime. That applies to any alleged violation by any person. Thats all i have to say about that. But youre the number two top Law Enforcement officer in the nation. Let me ask you if a person on a train went and kissed a woman, is that a crime. If its a federal train, it might be a federal crime. Its am track. It wouldnt be appropriate to me to answer hypotheticals. As the number two Law Enforcement officer, you dont think its a crime for a woman to be on a train and be in a Restaurant Sitting and a stranger, Unwanted Stripinger would come up to her and grope her and kiss her, that thats not a crime. The time of the gentleman has spired. The witness may answer the question. I would have to know the facts and evaluate a law. Ive never prosecuted a case
i have ultimate respect for them. They helped me in many cases. I would like you to clarify a procedure. Tell me if im right here. Special counsel is appointed by the Attorney General, or under the circumstances by you, and thats Special Counsel reports to you. Correct. Am i correct in saying an independent counsel is appointed again by the attorney or you, but that counsel is independent and does not report to anyone in the essence of can i do a, bo. C . Is that. Under the statute that lapsed in 1999, the appointment would be made by a federal judge. So there would be no role for the department in the selection or oversite. Doj wouldnt be involved at all . Correct. Ive been in many interviews involving many cases. What ive seen handled was above board, but would you explain to the committee what a 302 is . Yes, a 302 is simply the form newspaper better for an fbi interview report. After conducting a witness interview, its a summary of the interview and we refer it to that as a form 302. An interview, whether its done by an investigators or attorney, or back in my district in pennsylvania, is there usually an Assistant Attorney present in those interviews . We should not give immunity just because somebody asks for it. Thats all i have. Thank you. I know youll keep an eye on things and keep everything aboveboard. Its a pleasure to see you again. Likewise. Thank you. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, in deutsche. Thank you for being here. Theres been a lot of dates and timelines. I would like to walk through for the benefit of my colleagues, just a short timeline from this year. In january it was concluded we asocieties Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign, the goals to undermined public faith in the democratic progress, den gait Secretary Clinton. We fur asset that the russian government developed a clear preference for donald trump. Has he given any reason to dispute that . Hired the head of the fbi called him a nut job and said, i face great pressure because of russia. Thats taken off. On may 11th the president told nbc news the russia thing is a madeup store. On june 7th we learned President Trump urged comey to drop the investigation. There was an undisclosed meeting with donald trump junior and rush sources. Five days after that, a veteran of the Russian Military we learned also attempt eed attend that meeting. On october the 5th, george pap
do th p between in a state of offense, we learned that he reached out regarding his connections that he could help arrange a meeting between trump and putin. On october 27th, former Trump Campaign chairman paul man a fort and rick gates were indicted on multiple counts including conspiracy against the United States. In november the president of the United States met with Vladimir Putin said, and i quote, he said he didnt meddle. I asked him again. You can ask only so many times. Every 250i78 he sees me he said i didnt do that, when he tells me that, he means it. The president went on to say, give me a break, talking about the National Security folks who put together that report that i quoted earlier. Give me a break, they are political hacks. On december 1st mike flynn pleaded guilty to one count in making a false statement to the fbi about conversations he with had the russian ambassador. This is a little walkthrough of what happened over the past
year. I would like to ask you, mr. Rosenste rosenstein, id like to quote some of my colleagues. One of them said the Special Counsels investigation into whether the Trump Campaign assisted in its effort to interfere in the election is an attempt to overthrow the government. Do you believe that, mr. Rosenstein . No. He said were at risk of a could y coup detat. There is an oversight. And if we allow an unaccountable person to undermine the duly elected person of the United States, is pursuing a rule of law undermining the duly elected president of the United States . No, it is not. One of my orel colleagues said weve got to clean this town up. He talked about firing mueller. One of our formers colleagues accused mueller of having a vendetta. Mr. Rosenstein, do you believe
he has a vendetta against the president . No, i do not. I would just conclude this walkthrough, this one year in american history, makes it impossible to understand how it is my colleagues on the other side continue to launch attacks not only against reporters, against the fbi, against the Special Counsel, but they do so to throw dirt on the story, to make it try to go away. They may want to bury their heads in the stand, about mr. Chairman, i want to make clear they will not bury the rule of law in the United States. I yield back. There is a lot of issue issue to talk about, the authorization is pending in congress on gun violence, the opioid, criminal justice reform. When i go home to South Carolina this weekend, true me no one will tell me about any of these issues. They will ask me what in the hell is going a with the Department Of Justice and the fbi. The reason we have Special Counsel, and you know it. The reason we have Special Counsel is because of a Conflict Of Interest. The regulation itself makes specifically reference to a Conflict Of Interest. We dont like conflicts, because it undercoat peoples confidence in the process and the result. So lets be clear why we have Special Counsel. There was either a real or perceived Conflict Of Interest that we are fearful would either impact 9 result or peoples confident in the process. Thats why we have something called Special Counsel, and that is why we have Special Counsel in this fact pattern. Then lo and behohn, those who are supposed to make sure there are no Conflict Of Interest seem
to have a few of their own. Theres a senior prosecutor who sent obsequious emails to a fact witness. She can be described as nothing other than a fact witness. They got off the collusion, she may be the most important fact witne witness. Then we have prosecutors assigned to. Then attended what he hoped to be a Victory Pattern for Hillary Clinton. We have a senior doj official with an office that used to be two doors down with yours, meeting with fusion gps, and of Course Fusion Gps was paying for russian dirt on the very person theyre supposed to be objectively investigating. Then that same senior doj officials wife, the one that met with fusion gps, his wife was on the payroll of fusion gps. Then we have a senior investigators assigned to help draft the Exoneration Letter when we changed the letter to extremely careless . Interviewed Secretary Clinton in an interview i have never seen. I doubt you have either in your career as a prosecutos interviewed mike at flynn, actively involved in the investigation into the trump
campaign before the Inspector General found his text. So this agent in the middle of almost everybody, sent proclinton texts, antitrump texts to his paramour. He said i can protect the condition at many levels. He said Hillary Clinton should win 100 million to nothing. Think about that mr. Deputy Attorney General, thats a pretty overwhelming victory. 100 million to 0. When i read that last night, what i thought was this Conflict Of Interestfree senior agent of the fbi cant think of a single Solitary American who would vote for donald trump. Thats where the zero comes in. Not a single Solitary American he can imagine would vote for donald trump. This is the conflict of
interestfree Special Agent assigned. Then he went on, if that werent enough, to bealso Trump Supporters by say he could smell them at a walmart in virginia. Then he said this. They fully deserve to go and demonstrate the absolute bigoted nonsense of trump. But He Wasnt Content to Just Disparage donald trump. He to disparage Donald Trumps family. This is what he said, mr. Deputy Attorney General. The douche bags are about to come out, talking about his first lady and children. This Conflict Of Interestfree Special Agent of the fbi. This is who we were told we needed to have an objective, impartial, fair, Conflict Of Interest free agent. Hes open i vitting a candidate
he has bias against. If thats not enough, he says trump is an fing idiot. What the f just happened to our country. This is the same man who said he would save our country. What happens when people who are supposed to cure the Conflict Of Interest have even greater conflicts of interest than those they replace . You nor i nor anyone else would ever sit piaeter strzok on a ju knowing what we know now. Why my final question to you, and i pressure the chairmans patience. How would you help me answer that question when i go back to South Carolina this weekend . Congressman, first of all, with regard to do specialty counsel, mr. Strzok was already working on the investigation when the Special Counsel
appointed. The appointment i made was to rob mueller, so i recommend you tell your constituents that rob mueller, Rod Rosenstein and chris wray are accountable, and well make sure that theres no bias within any matter of the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. When we have any evidence of inappropriate conduct, well take action. Thats what mr. Mueller did as soon as he learned about the issue. I anticipate thats the rest of our prosecute owes, our new group of u. S. Attorneys, Justice Department appointees, they understand the rules and they understand the responsibility to defend the integrity of the department congressman, that is the beassurance i can give you, but theres one other point. You should tell your constituents that we exposed this issue because were ensuring that the Inspector General conducts a thorough and effective investigation, and if
there is any evidence of broke prity, hes going to surface it and report about it publicly. Ill try. The chairman h. Thank you mr. Rosenstein. In february the Department Of Justice changed its litigation position. The texas photo i. D. Case. Did you have any involvement in the decision to reverse the that the texas voter i. D. Law was intentional and indiscriminato indiscriminatory. I did not. In uthe Department Of Justice changed its position, now defending ohios Voter Purging Law, were you involved in the decision to change this position and now side with the Voter Purging Law . I was at the department at that time, but i dont believe i have any involvement in the decision. Were you involved in the decision to file an amicus brief in the cake shows versus colorado. That decision was made by our Inspector Quenelle pardon me, our solicitor general. You described the Special Counsel as a her heroic figure served his country confirmed Eye Nan Mussily assed fbi director. I take it your judgment on mr. Pluler has not changed today. Correct. You would not have appointed mr. Mueller if you thought he was going to engage in a witchhunt, correct . Correct. So you then would disagree with the president s labeling of the Special Counsels investigation as a witchhunt, i assume . I dont know exactly what the president meant by that, congressman. The Special Counsels investigation is not a witchhunt. Youre supposed to be independent. You can answer a question contrasting the president. You disagree its a witchhunt, the president is wrong. I do not know what the president meant. I can only answer for plyself. Do you believe that the repeated
attacks on mueller threatens to undermine the credibility of the independent investigation . The independence and integrity of the investigation will not be affected by anything that anybody says. You delivered remarks on october 25th before the u. S. Chamber of commerce and i quote if we permit the rule of law to erode when it does not harm our personal interest, it may eventually consume us as well. The rule of law is not selfexecuting. If it collapses, if people lose faith, then everyone will suffer, end quote. In the context of the president s attacks, the American People are really witness i witnessing an unprecedented attack. Under way about Vladimir Putins interference on our elections, attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the free press, the one snugs, which continues to enjoy broad public more and remains key to protecting the
rule of law is the federal bureau of investigation and the department of judds. America is counting on your integrity and your commitment to protecting the independence of this Special Counsel to reaffirm our commitment. So when you said just a moment ago you dont have an opinion about a loyalty oath from the president being asked of people, it might be useful to remind you, sir, that members of the Department Of Justice take an oath to the constitution, and so a loyalty oath to the president of the United States is inappropriate for anyone to ask for and for anyone to swear it, do you agree . Nobody has asked me a loyalty oath. Thats not my question, sir. Your question you are to demonstrate the independence of your office. You are unwilling to say that an oath to the president of the United States rather than to the city is not inappropriate . That does not inspire confidence. An oath to the president rather than the constitution would be inappropriate. An oath to the president period
youre talking about a hypothetical. Its not clear what was asked or what was said. As long as you are following your oath of office, you can also be faithful to the administration. Faithful is not ill move to a new question. You said you would not respond to the question to say whether or not the president of the United States had asked you to initiate criminal prosecutions again political adversaries, you would not disclose whether or not those conversations took place. I said i would disclose if i was told to do something improper. What about if you were encouraged to do something improper, to initiate a Criminal Investigation . Thats not appropriate to do, is it . Several of your colleagues on both sides have encouraged me today, congressman, as ive explained, id make May Decisions based on the evidence and the law. But the act of a president , separate and apart what you will do, that very action is not appropriate. Youre free to make that judgment. Nurmt isnt that
inappropriate . In my but it wouldnt be inappropriate for your supervisor, the person you serve, the president of the United States to tell on you suggest or encourage you to initiate a criminal prosecution against a political adversary . Congressman, i think ive been very clear, nobody is giving me any improper orders. Ill say this, mr. Deputy Attorney General. You know, we have heard you proudly talk about the integrity of the Department Of Justice and the work of the fbi. We heard director wray say the same thing. The two agencies, the fbi and Department Of Justice are in the midst of an unprecedented attack by individuals who are trying to undermine the credibility of this independent counsels investigation. These are the same group of individuals who praised Robert Mueller when he was appointed, spectacular was praised uniformly. And now the only thing thats changed is two indictments, two pleas, might be at flick part of
the president s inner circle now, cooperating with the government. Thats the only thing thats changed. We need to hear your voice defending the integrity of the department, rule of law, the independence of this investigation, because the very future of our democracy is at state if you fail to do that. I urge you to do so. With that, i yield back. The chairman recognizes the gentleman from idaho, mr. Labrador. Thank you for being here today. I shudder at some of the questions from the other side. I want to ask you a quick question have you ever said you are the president s wingman . No, sir. Has the current Attorney General of the United States ever said that he is the president s wing man . Not to my knowledge. Yet the Attorney General under president obama said he was the president s wing man, and i never heard a single democrat object to that. So its kind of ridiculous to sit here and try to question your integrity or try to question whether somebody will
be loyal to their president or not, as you clearly indicated, you can be both loyal to the constitution and to the president of the United States as long as theres not a Conflict Of Interest, as long as youre not doing anything that is inappropriate, its okay to be the president s wing man. Its also okay to say youll be royal to the president as long as im not asking you to do anything illegal. Isnt that correct . Yes. So what was the goal of the russians when they tried to interfe interfere. The assessment of the Intelligence Community as reflected in the public report, the goal was to undermine americans confidence in democracy. So to undermine the americans im paraphrasing, congressman. I dont have it in front of me. They tried to undermine the faith in the process. I believe thats correct. I believe no one has done more to undermine the believe in the democratic process than the
democrats, and the press in some cases, when they continue to report on false allegation after allegation after allegation. In fact what you see from the democrats is they move from one allegations, thats proven to be false, they move to the next one, and to the next one and the next one, because theyre unhappy with the results of the election. Can you tell me why the independent counsel was actually appointed . Special counsel, congressman. Ive explained publicly that i appointed the Special Counsel based on the unique circumstances in order to promote public confidence. I have nothing to add to that. So why, when mr. Mueller was charged with investigating, he was charged with investigating, quote, any links and or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of donald trump. And any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, end quote. That charge is overly broad, but
theres been two prosecutions, or at least two charges so far brought by the independent counsel. Is that correct . Four individuals charged to, pleaded guilty and two will stand trial. Have any of them been charged with any linked and or coordination between the russian goismd and individuals associated with the campaign for President Trump. The charges speak for themselves. Im not going to comment beyond whats in the Charging Documents. Is there anything in the Charging Documents that there was a coordinate between the Trump Administration and the russians . Congressman im not going to comment beyond whats in the charging document. I think you can draw your own conclusion. Something i do agree with my friends on the other side, we should know the truth, we should know whether Tiffs Collusion between russia and the president of the United States. We should also know whether there was collusion between any department who tried to
interviewer with our election. So can you tell me u. Was there collusion between the doj and fusion gps to use a democraticfunded document for political and legal purposes . I dont know the answer to that, congressman. I simply appointed out the language actually used was coordination, and i believe that was the language used by director comey, when he publicly testified about an ongoing investigation. I did not use the world collusion. So that coordination was there any coordination between the doj and fusion gps to try to undermine an election of the United States . If there were, congressman, i would be very concerned about it. As you know, there are ongoing reviews. Im not in a position to comment about it. Ongoing reviews, so there could potentially be an investigation, whether the doj and members of the doj duly colluded with an enemy of a Political Party and a political
candidate to undermine the elections of the United States. If theres any evidence that warrants it, congressman, well do whats appropriate. All right. So i think, if you want to to restore the trust of the American People, i think the Department Of Justice has a duty to give us all the information we have been asking for. We need to find out who started this investigation, we need to find out what the purpose was. If you have an individual who actually had a desire to have an outcome in a political race, and they decided to use the Department Of Justice to investigate their political opponents, i think thats one of the worst crimes that as occurred in the history of the United States when it comes to politics. Do you agree with that . It would if that were what happened, congressman, it would certainly by of great concern. I hope you are truly investigating this and we get to the bottom of this. Thank you very much. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Swalwell. Express my thanks to your employees who serve our National Interests every day and do very important work at the department. Mr. Rosenstein, have been spoken with the president since you were appointed. Of course. Sup in a oneonone setting. Ive never spoken with the president in a oneonone setting. Has he called i by telephone . Yes. And what was discussed . As i said, congressman, ive told you that if i were told to do anything inappropriate, i would talk about it, but if the president is consulting me within matters of my responsibility, thats part of the way you run the government. Did he discuss the investigation. Im not going to communication with the president. How many times has he called you . Congressman, im not going to comment about my communications with the president. Theres nothing wrong with the President Consulting with his Deputy Attorney general about matters within the jurisdiction
of the Justice Department. As long its not inappropriate. I agree, except this president has demonstrated and been expressed through testimony from james comey thats not been contradicted under oath multiple times he is willing to talk to individuals at the department about ongoing investigations. Thats where the concern arises with respect to Attorney General sessions recusal. Was he involved to allow reporters to review the Text Messages that you discussed earlier . No tnot to my knowledge. Would you tell us if he was. If he learn about it, if it matters im not aware of any impropriety in what the department has done. But Attorney General sessions is recougsed from bob muellers investigation, right . Attorney general sessions is recused from the investigation, correct. And these Text Messages related to
i dont want to argue with the congressman. Im aware of the recusal and not aware of any evidence though the Attorney General has violated his recusal. If you are overseeing an investigation and lead a team of investigators, and you learn that one of the investigators has demonstrated a perceived bias against an individual in the investigation, should you, a, keep the person on the team, or b, remove the person from the investigation. B. Know that fact pattern, what did bob mueller do with a similar fact pattern. He chose the correct option. Mr. Rosenstein, the president has said a number of things about you, the Attorney General, the fbi being in at that timers. He even compared or Intelligence Community, which your employees are a part of, to nazi germany. Considering his continued disparagement of the department and your employees, are your employees proud for work for a person who holds their High Integrity in such low regard. My employees i believe are proud to work for the Department Of Justice. Some of them support a particular president , some of the them dont. As long as they do their job appropriately, thats my concern. I agree and i hope thats the case. Mr. Rosenstein, your testimony is you believe bob mueller is a person of High Integrity. Is that right . Yes. You believe the investigation is being conducted fairly, correct . Yes. And you believe hes publicly indicted two individuals with respect to his investigation . Correct. Hes also obtained two guilty pleas . Correct. Is there good cause to Fire Bob Mueller as we hit here today . Not to my knowledge. Im concerned that my colleagues particularly in the majority have signaled quite indiscreetly today, they would probably give the president a pass if he were to fire or order you to Fire Bob Mueller. There have been a number of statements attempting to
undermine the good character of bob mueller. That concerns me, because that would certainly fly in the face of the rule of law in this country and would not be object, i believe. With the American People or the spirit he that our country was founded upon. Mr. Deputy Attorney General your investigation is a very narrow bridge. The important part i believe we need you tore fearless. We have a president who has demonstrated his willingness to be involved in investigations that involve he and his family. For the sake of our country, for the sake of rule of law, i hope that you continue to demonstrate the character that got you into this position and that has given us as a committee i think faith in your ability to carry out that mission. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Farenthal. I feel obliged on the account of the folks that i represent are always sfoop asking me about this to say, there is a real concern out there in texas, certain around the nation, that weve got a Special Counsel who is basic loire the Department Of Justice has not basically been able to confirm or deny what investigations are going on, if any, with respect to the potential misdeeds of the Clinton Campaign and be it through uranium1, various Speaking Engagements for former president clinton and the like. Again, im not asking you to break that confidentiality, but i am suggesting there are a lot
of people out there who would be sadly disappointed if there isnt an investigation, and who may actually or who do actually think there might be ought to be a Special Prosecutor or Special Counsel to look at the other side. So instead of beating that dead horse, im going to beat another one that ive been talking a thought about. Thats specifically the dojs opposition to the usa liberty act. Why is it so hard, why is a Warrant Requirement so difficult to deal with on your part, when we understand the needs to have exigent circumstances where things get look at quickly, its like the fisa court or to stop terrorists are being rolled into more normal mainstream Criminal Investigations, where
traditionally theres been a need for a warrant . Why is it so difficult to get a warrant . In many cases, you can create the necessary paperwork and cause in a matter of hours, if not minutes. There are judges on call 24 7 to look at these things, why is it such a problem . Why are you all opposed to it . I will duplicate mr. Wrays comments. I wish independence join us and see how it would work, and i think that would enhance the publics confidence. Think it would be burdensome, and i certainly respect, and i understand the concerns, congressman. I think those are serious concerns, and well do everything we can to try to reassure people about it, but i can simply tell you, and it would take me longer than the time you have to explain the
full process, but i believe director wray is correct about this, and the National Security community, i know many folks involved pre9 11 and post9 11 have spoken up about how importance we need this tool. We do not want to be in the position during 9 11 why didnt they figure out the threat before the attacks . If it were easy to do with a warrant, i would be in favor, but its not. I believe we have appropriate safeguards in place and we have people who are responsible, who are conducting these investigations and are going to avoid Infringing Americans rights. Thats our primary concerns. Attorney general sessions has made that one of his priorities to make sure there are no violationses. I do not believe the program as it exists represents a violation of anyones rights. You and i may respectfully disagree on whether it violates
folks rights. Theres a reason the Fourth Amendment was excluded in the constitution. I used to run a Computer Consulting company. Youve heard about breaches throughout the public and private sector. Can you give me an overview of what you all are doing with respect to that and what if anything that Congress Needs to do. It would hard to do it quickly, congressman. We do have a lot of resources, both the fbi and other agencies that are protecting against the threat. Its a significant threat. We face both intelligence threat from hostile foreign governments, and also a criminal threat from people who try to break into our systems to commit crimes and defraud americans. So its a very challenging issue, as you know, from your experience. Technology continue toss evolve. We need to stay a step ahead of
the capabilities of our adversaries and criminals. The fib does have a lot of resore devoted about that. And i think thats going to be an area where we will need increasing support from the congress to make sure that we keep up with our adversaries. I see my time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Lu, for five minutes. Thank you Deputy Attorney ross are not stein for being here. I note for the American People not only were you appointed by President Trump, you were also previously appointed by President Bush to serve as u. S. Attorney for maryland. In a protile view in the Washington Post when you were u. S. Attorney, a former Prosecutor SaysRod Rosenstein is a post are child for the fairminded prosecutor. So thank you for your service to the American People and your exemplary service. Thank you. Last week fbi director Christopher Wray told you that no one is above the law. Would you agree with that statement. Absolutely. Yes, i would. Important to our democracy is not only that concept, but also that people have to have trust in our Law Enforcement investigations. There are some of my colleagues, and some in the media who have suggested if you make political contributions, somehow you cannot be fair and impartial. So as you know, these political contributions are a matter of public record. You previously said when it comes to a Special Counsel investigation you, counsel mueller and fbi director wray will be the ones held accountable. We looked up the contributions of fib director wray. He has made over 39,000 in contributions exclusively to republicans, including 2500 twice to romney for president. 2600 twice to perdue for
president. Is,000 to comstock for congress, on and on. Do you believe fbi director Christopher Wray can remain fair and impartial . Yes, i do. Okay. Your colleague associate Attorney General rachel brand has made over 37,000 in political contributions exclusively to republicans. Do you believe she can remain fair and impartial despite her political contributions. Yes. And to shut down this silly argument tro my colleagues across the aisle that somehow they exercise their First Amendment right to make political contributions that somehow they cannot do their job. It shows a desperation that some people have about the mueller investigation, which i now want to turn to. You supervise the investigation, so you are aware, of course of their guilty pleas and indictments, and in reviewing the guilty plea of george p
papadoupolis, you believe it was and with russian officials. I believe thats correct. I dont want to comment beyond the Charging Documents. The guilty plea of michael flynn, you must have looked at those. You would agree theres a legal and Factual Basis Fort as well . Yes. He lied to fbi agents about his interactions with russian ambassador, correct . Again the documents speak for themselves. You have indictments against Paul Manafort and rick gates. You would believe theres a solid basis for those indictments. When we return an indictment we are always careful to say the defendants are presumed innocent, but im comfortable with the process that was
followed. Would agree that was a factual basis to interview the witnesses, correct . Im not aware of . Improprie impropriety. You previously testified about Robert Muellers sxemp hear record and dedication, you did mention he es a vietnam record. He also did receive a bronze star for his service in vietnam, correct . I believe two. Correct. He also received a purple heart for his service in vietnam . Yes. Okay. What do we have here . We have a Special Counsel investigation thats being supervised by mr. Rosenstein, whos been described as a fairminded prosecutor, appointed twice by republican president s, but run by Special Counsel mueller, extraordinary dedication, vietnam veteran, purple hard, bronc stars, and in
coordination with Christopher Wray, who has made over 39,000 of contributions exclusively to republicans. That is the leadership of this Special Counsel investigation, and i am okay with that. I yield back. The chair recognizes mr. Desantis for five minutes. When sally yates defied President Trump, was that appropriate what she did . I disagreed with her decision. If youre in a position where you get an order, your job is to follow the order, if you think its unconstitutional, then your response would be to resign your office, correct . My response i think would be first to talk first with the person who gave the order. Of course if i concluded it were constitutional, i would not implement it. Obviously you cant have a Department Operating where each one is a law unto themselves, or if they happen to think its bad, they dont follow the
orders. Is that correct . That is correct. It bothered some you have andrew wiseman, a big donor, he went to hillarys supposed victory party. When she took that action, he sends her an email, saying how hes in awe, and so proud of her, basically standing up to trump. It was seen as a very direct rebuke to the president. So your tests was are the political opinions affecting someone in that office. Isnt that an example of his strongly held antitrump opinions affecting how hes conducting himself on his official email. As i mentioned congressman, i have discussed this general issue with Director Mule are on several occasions, he understands the important of ensures thatting there no bias reflected in the conduct of the investigation. It looks bad to the public. Im telling you now. Part of it, is there an actual
bias, but there an appearance of that . This appears to be that, because clearly what she did was not something that experienced prosecutors the russia investigation, who started it . Who was the agent . Was it strzok who started it . Who opened the case . That matter is under review by the jell gens committee, but i can assure you well provide appropriate access to the Intelligence Committee for what they need to answer. Did the fbi pay for the dossier . Im not in naps to answer that question. Do you know the answer . I believe i know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee that is not true. We have oversight over your department and the fbi, and whether public funds were spent on a dossier, that is not something thats classified. With evident ever right to that information. You should provide it. If not there would probably be things. Was that info used to get surveyians over anyone associated with trump. I know its been a concern for several members of the committee. I have set aside about a half hour every day to review fisa applications, and it is not legal for me to talk about those applications. Im not able to answer one way or the other. I would like that authority. I think you can say you may not be able to talk about the sources and message of the subject, but if this was used, we need to know that. Do you agree what was the role of bruce orr . He met with Christopher Steele before the election. Was that authorized . I do not know all the details. I dont know the full story, but we have agreed to make mr. Ohm rr available for congressional interviews. You need to pursue it. Its your department, you demoted him. He wall street working with Christopher Steele, you have an antitrump dossier, his wife
works for fusion gps. This doesnt look good. Im knott suggesting that im disinterested. I get it. Let me ask you this. The role of mr. Strzok, how much of were going to leave the hearing. Well take you back there moment tear, but the president of the United States meeting at the white house with republicans from the house and the senate. The conferrees who say they have struck a deal, reached a framework, to recognize the competing house and Senate Tax Cut plans, the president meeting with them. Lets listen in. Im told were about to get the tape from the white house. The president meeting with the key republicans who theyre charged with, the conferrees we call them, to they say they have reached a deal. The 20 Corporate Tax rate would go up were told in this compromise. In exchange, top earners would get a tax cut in that plan as well. Heres the president of the United States meeting with republicans at the white house. Well, thank you very much. Well also by speaking at 3 00 today, a little more about whats happening with this incredible journey and what were doing with regard to bringing down taxes, the largest tax cut ever. But i appreciate you being here today. I want to thank the incredible members of the house and senate who have been working so hard, were close to a historic legislative victory, the likes of which rarely has this country seen. I think i did say kevin and orrin that were getting close. I know a lot of the folks that wed like to have here, we want if you have a choice, stay back, get it done. Theyre all working and negotiating some final points, but were very, very close. This bill is vital to the American People for many reasons. First of all, its going to have a tax cut the likes we havent seen for not only business, but for the Working Families of our
country. Its a tax cut based on jobs, and also very good for companies which also means jobs. The typical family of four earning 75,000 will see an Income Tax Cut of 2,000. So thats 2,000 in their pocket additional to spend on whatever they want to spend, or they could save the money also. You do have a lot of families in the old days, they saved money, but they will be saving it in many cases. Second, the bill will cut taxes for the american businesses, both big and small, so that they can grow higher and compete all around the world. Right now theyre paying 35 , and thats the highest in the industrialized world. In many cases by far, and well be bringing that down to a number that would be extremely impressive to a lot of people
well be able to compete all over the world. Thi third. So were fixing the system. Finally the plan will bring trillions back into the United States, money thats offshore well, 2. 5 has grown, and its going to be a lot more than that they have billions of dollars overseas that they want to bring back. Now theyre going to bring it back, and well be spending that money and theyll be spending it right hoar, jobs and other good things, while the media has focused on the differences, i can only tell you that we have